<
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

STEVEN AUSTIN, et al.,

Plaintiffs v.
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et ah,

No. 90-7497

Defendants

fltfi?

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiffs, Steven Austin, et al., and Joseph D. Lehman, et al., by their respective counsel and pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(e) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(i)(ii) and in accordance with the settlement agreement submitted to the Court, hereby stipulate that the above captioned action is dismissed without prejudice.

3~-¥.:
STEFAN PRESSER, ESQUIRE
DATE: December iV^, 1994

FRANCIS R. FILIPI Senior Deputy Attorney General
DATE: December 15, 1994

r.'rn:
CLERK OF COURT
Austin v. Pennsylvania DOC
PC-PA-002-008

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EA8TERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

STEVEN AUSTIN, et al.
V.
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 90-7497

O RDER

M 6 1995

AND NOW, to wit, this 5th day of January, 1995, upon consideration of the Stipulation of Dismissal Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(ii), the Proposed Settlement Agreement, as amended, Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of
Proposed Settlement Agreement, Defendants' Memorandum of Law in m
Support of the Proposed Settlement Agreement, the objections of
class members received by the Court between August 9, 1994, and the m
date of this Order,1 and all other documents to which reference^ s made in this Court's Memorandum which will be filed on or before January 17, 1995, following a hearing on December 12 and 13, i£94, at which time the Court received testimony from designated <g£ass representatives and other class members concerning the Proposed Settlement Agreement, for tne reasons summarized below arrct-'set
cr
forth in more detail in the Court's Memorandum which will

1. All written objections from class members received by the Court were docketed.

„„ „

A.us.tin v- Pennsylvania DOC

PC-PA 002-009

on or before January 17, 1995, IT IS ORDERED as follows: 1. Members of the plaintiff class were given adequate
notice of the proposed settlement, the proposed dismissal of the action without prejudice, their right to file objections, the manner of filing objections, and the hearing on the proposed settlement scheduled for December 12, 1994 and December 13, 1994, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) and Orders of the Court dated September 20, 1994, November 21, 1994 and November 29, 1994;
2. The Settlement Agreement fairly, reasonably and adequately advances and protects the interests of the plaintiff class and is APPROVED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e). The Court's review of the Settlement Agreement was conducted solely to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) and does not convert the Settlement Agreement into an order of the Court or a consent decree;
3. The Stipulation of Dismissal without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 (a)(1)(ii), except for plaintiffs' claims regarding tuberculosis control which will be covered by a subsequent order, is APPROVED in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e);
4. Any plaintiff, including those plaintiffs who filed objections or wrote letters to the Court which stated personal or individual concerns, may at any time file a new complaint raising some or all of the issues presented in this action, and any other issues justiciable in this Court. Because this Court has dismissed

the action, plaintiffs are now informed that the Court no longer has jurisdiction to consider individual objections or individual correspondence relating to the action;2
5. If within three (3) years of the date hereof the plaintiffs, by their current counsel, file a new action on any issues presented by this action, the new action will be considered a "related case" and assigned to this Court;
6. All discovery that has been provided by the parties in this action shall be deemed to be part of discovery in any new action filed in accordance with paragraph 5 above. Plaintiffs' counsel may maintain control and custody of all discovery provided to date. Plaintiffs1 counsel shall continue to comply with the provisions of all protective orders; and,
7. If any of the corrections issues that were the subject of testimony in the trial of the corrections phase of this case are raised in a new action filed pursuant to paragraph 5 above, the testimony and evidence introduced in the corrections phase of this case shall be admissible on the merits in the new action.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that (a) all pending motions of class members to intervene, some of which were filed as objections to the proposed settlement, are DENIED on the ground that there is no need for class members to intervene as all objections filed by class members were considered by the Court, (b) all pending motions
2. The parties, through counsel, have agreed to continue to investigate certain individual claims designated by the Court and to report to the Court after they have done so.

of class members for appointment of counsel, some of which were filed as objections to the proposed settlement, are DENIED on the ground that there is no basis for appointment of counsel for individual class members, the entire class being adequately represented by class counsel, (c) all pending motions of class members to enjoin the proposed settlement, some of which were filed as objections to the proposed settlement, are DENIED for the reasons set forth above and in the Court's Memorandum which will be filed on or before January 17, 1995, and (d) all other pending motions related to the proposed settlement, some of which were filed as objections to the proposed settlement, are DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that notice of the provisions of the within Order shall be provided by defendants to members of the plaintiff class and other inmates in the state correctional system who are affected by the Order by posting such notice in appropriate places in state correctional institutions.
BY THE COURT:
JAN E. DUBOIS, J.

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

STEVEN AUSTIN, ROBERT C. BORING, FRANKLIN CASTLE, EUGENE DUNSON, JOHN REGELMAN, KEVIN SANDERS, RICHARD BOOZER, FRANCIS PARKER, WILLIAM A. FINGER, JOSEPH MULCAHY, LAURENCE JOHNSON, and DEBRA SPEAKES, on behalf of themselves and all others presently incarcerated or who will in the future be incarcerated within the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections,
Plaintiffs,
v.
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; JOSEPH LEHMAN, sued in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections; JEFFREY BEARDS, sued in his official capacity as Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Camp Hill; MARTIN DRAGOVICH, sued in his official capacity as Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Cresson; JOSEPH RYAN, sued in his official capacity as Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Dallas; DONALD T. VAUGHN, sued in his official capacity as Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Graterford; FREDERICK ROSENMEYER, sued in his official capacity as Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Greensburg; THOMAS FULCOMER, sued in his official capacity as Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Huntingdon; GILBERT A. WALTERS, sued in his official capacity as Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Mercer; DENNIS R. BERHARDT, sued in his official capacity as Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Retreat; JOSEPH F. MAZURKIEWICZ, sued in his official capacity as Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Rockview; MARGARET A. MOORE, sued in her official capacity as Superintendent of State Corrections

CIVIL ACTION NO. 90-7497
Austin v. Pennsylvania DOC

PC-PA-002-018

Institution at Smithfield; CHARLES H. ZIMMERMAN, sued in his official capacity as Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Waymart; and WILLIAM J. WOLFE, sued in his official capacity as Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Waynesburg,
Defendants.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT *
Preliminary Statement 1. Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and others similarly incarcerated by the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections seek to enjoin defendants from continued maintenance of penal institutions which deprive plaintiffs and the class they seek to represent of rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution's Bill of Rights.
Jurisdiction 2. As plaintiffs seek to vindicate rights protected by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, and 42 U.S. Section 1983, this Court has jurisdiction of this civil action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 1331 and 1343 (a)(3) and (4). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 2201 and 2202, this Court has jurisdiction to declare the rights of the parties and to grant all further relief found necessary and proper.
Parties 3. Plaintiff Steven Austin is a citizen of the United States presently incarcerated at the State Corrections Institu-

tion at Camp Hill. 4. Plaintiff Robert C. Boring is a citizen of the United
States presently incarcerated at the State Corrections Institution at Cresson.
5. Plaintiff Franklin Castle is a citizen of the United States presently incarcerated at the State Corrections Institution at Dallas.
6. Plaintiff Eugene Dunson is a citizen of the United States presently incarcerated at the State Corrections Institution at Graterford.
7. Plaintiff John Regelman is a citizen of the United States presently incarcerated at the State Corrections Institution at Greensburg.
8. Plaintiff Kevin Sanders is a citizen of the United States presently incarcerated at the State Corrections Institution at Huntingdon.
9. Plaintiff Richard Boozer is a citizen of the United States presently incarcerated at the State Corrections Institution at Mercer.
10 Plaintiff Francis Parker is a citizen of the United States presently incarcerated at the State Corrections Institution at Retreat.
11. Plaintiff William A. Finger is a citizen of the United States presently incarcerated at the State Corrections Institution at Rockview.
12. Plaintiff Joseph Mulcahy is a citizen of the United States presently incarcerated at the State Corrections Institution at Smithfield.

13. Plaintiff Laurence Johnson is a citizen of the United States presently incarcerated at the State Corrections Institution at Waymart.
14. Plaintiff Debra Speakes is a citizen of the United States presently incarcerated at the State Corrections Institution at Waynesburg.
15. Defendant Pennsylvania Department of Corrections is that executive agency of the Commonwealth mandated by law to receive and detain state prisoners. The Department and its constituent corrections institutions are recipients of federal financial aid.
16. Defendant Joseph Lehman is the Commissioner of the Department of Corrections. As such, he is responsible for the administration of the Department of Corrections. He is sued in his official capacity.
17. Defendant Jeffrey Beards is Superintendent of state Corrections Institution at Camp Hill. As such, he is responsible for immediately overseeing the day to day operation of that institution. He is sued in his official capacity.
18. Defendant Martin Dragovich is Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Cresson. As such, he is responsible for immediately overseeing the day to day operation of that institution. He is sued in his official capacity.
19. Defendant Joseph Ryan is Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Dallas. As such, he is responsible for immediately overseeing the day to day operation of that institution. He is sued in his official capacity.

20. Defendant Donald T. Vaughn is Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Graterford. As such, he is responsible for immediately- overseeing the day to day operation o f that institution. He is sued in his official capacity.
21. Defendant Frederick Rosenmeyer is Superintendent ofState Corrections Institution at Greensburg. As such, he is responsible for immediately overseeing the day to day operation of that institution. He is sued in his official capacity.
22. Defendant Thomas Fulcomer is Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Huntingdon. As such, he is responsible for immediately overseeing the day to day operation of that institution. He is sued in his official capacity.
23. Defendant Gilbert A. Walters is Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Mercer. As such, he is responsible for immediately overseeing the day to day operation of that institution. He is sued in his official capacity.
24. Defendant Dennis R. Berhardt is Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Retreat. As such, he is responsible for immediately overseeing the day to day operation of that institution. He is sued in his official capacity.
25. Defendant Joseph F. Mazurkiewicz is Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Rockview. As such, he is responsible for immediately overseeing the day to day operation of that institution. He is sued in his official capacity.
26. Defendant Margaret A. Moore is Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Smithfield. As such, she is responsible for immediately overseeing the day to day operation of that

institution. She is sued in her official capacity. 27. Defendant Charles A. Zimmerman is Superintendent of
State Corrections Institution at Waymart. As such, he is responsible for immediately overseeing the day to day operation of that institution. He is sued in his official capacity.
28. Defendant William J. Wolfe is Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Waynesburg. As such, he is responsible for immediately overseeing the day to day operation of that institution. He is sued in his official capacity.
29. At all times relevant hereto and in all of the actions described herein, all defendants were acting under color of state law and pursuant to their authority as officials and/or employees of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Class Action Allegations 30. The named plaintiffs seek to maintain this action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated pursuant to Rules 23 (a) and 23 (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. They represent a class of persons who are or who may in the future be incarcerated by the Department of Corrections in any facility other than State Corrections Institution at Muncy and State Corrections Institution at Pittsburgh who, in the absence of relief, have been or will be treated in the manner set forth below. As a result of such treatment, the members of the class are or will be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment and deprived of other constitutional rights. Plaintiffs therefore seek declaratory and injunctive relief to eliminate defendants1 actions, policies, and practices which work constitutional

wrong. 31. The requirements of Rules 23 (a) and 23 (b) (2) are all
satisfied by this class action. The class consists of all persons who are or will in the future be incarcerated by the Department of Corrections.
32. The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impractical. The class presently exceeds 18,000 individuals and also includes an unknown number of individuals who will in the future be incarcerated by the Department of Corrections.
33. There are questions of law and fact common to the class, including the constitutionality of the conditions of confinement maintained by the Department of Corrections.
34. The claims of the plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the class. Plaintiffs include inmates currently incarcerated throughout the Department of Corrections.
35. The plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the class.
36. The defendants have acted and refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief with respect to the class as a whole.
Facts Giving Rise To Causes Of Action Overcrowding
37. The Pennsylvania Department of Corrections presently operates fifteen State Corrections Institutions all of which are severely overcrowded. The institutions which are the subject of this lawsuit are:
a. Camp Hill, which was opened in 1941 with a design intend-

ed to house approximately 988 individuals but as of September 30, 1990, was being used to detain 2,192 prisoners. b. Cresson, which was opened in 1987 with a design intended to house approximately 499 individuals but as of September 30, 1990, was being used to detain 948 prisoners. c. Dallas, which was opened in 1960 with a design intended to house approximately 1,457 individuals but as of September 30, 1990, was being used to detain 2,024 prisoners. d. Frackville, which was opened in 1987 with a design intended to house approximately 540 individuals but as of September 30, 1990, was being used to detain 1,036 prisoners . e. Graterford, which was opened in 1929 with a design intended to house approximately 2,734 individuals but as of September 30, 1990, was being used to detain 4,067 prisoners. f. Greensburg, which was opened, in 1969 with a design intended to house approximately 461 individuals but as of September 30, 1990, was being used to detain 761 prisoners. g. Huntingdon, which was opened in 1889 with a design in-
tended to house approximately 1,347 individuals but as of September 30, 1990, was being used to detain 2,007 prisoners. h. Mercer, which was opened in 1978 with a design intended to house 464 individuals but as of September 30, 1990,
8

was being used to detain 902 prisoners. i. Retreat, which was opened in 1988 with a design intended
to house 4S0 individuals but as of September 30, 1990, was being used to detain 842 prisoners. j. Rockview, which was opened in 1915 with a design intended to house 1,250 individuals but as of September 30, 1990, was being used to detain 2,059 prisoners. k. Smithfield, which was opened in 1988 with a design intended to house 484 individuals but as of September 30, 1990, was being used to detain 877 prisoners. 1. Waymart, which was opened in 1978 with a design intended to house 241 individuals but as of September 30, 1990, was being used to detain 515 prisoners. m. Waynesburg, which was opened in 1984 with a design intended to house 168 individuals but as of September 30, 1990, was being used to detain 270 prisoners. 38. The Department has the capacity to house approximately 13,000 individuals. As of September 30, 1990, the Department detained approximately 18,500 individuals at the above listed institutions. 39. The overcrowding has become so serious that the very fact of incarceration in these institutions now causes such physical and psychological harms and deprivations as to render incarceration of plaintiffs unconstitutional. The physical facilities cannot safely accommodate such large numbers of inmates and the services required by the Constitution cannot be provided in the prison system as currently structured.-

40. The harms caused to plaintiffs by overcrowding are exacerbated, as detailed below, by the fact that the institutions are otherwise suffering from substantial physical deterioration, environmental defects, correctional and other staff shortages, and grossly inadequate classification services and programs, thus causing plaintiffs to suffer cruel and unusual punishment.
Violence
41. As a direct result of the overcrowding, the Department of Corrections is experiencing more violence than at any other time in its history.
42. During the last six months of 1989 there were 409 assaults on guards alone. By contrast, there were only 500 such assaults throughout the Department in the twelve preceding months.
43. Between July of 1988 and June of 1989 there were 139 assaults requiring medical treatment reported at SCI Graterford alone. Of those, 86 were inmate on inmate, while the remaining 53 were inmate on staff or staff on inmate assaults.
44. The level of violence at that institution, reflecting the level of violence throughout the Department, grew unabated during the next six month period.
45. Between July 1989 and January 1990, there were 158 assaults at Graterford requiring medical treatment. Inmate on inmate assaults now rose to 107, the remaining assaults being between inmates and staff.
46. On October 23, 1989, the Department lost control of one of its housing blocks at SCI Huntingdon when approximately 25
10

prisoners refused to return to their cells. As a result, the Department put the entire institution on 24 hour lock-down for several months.
47. On October 25, 1989, the Department lost complete control of its second largest facility at Camp Hill when an inmate attack on a guard turned into a general melee.
48. Over the next several hours, prisoners seized hostages and took control of several buildings.
49. From these hostages, the prisoners were able to obtain cell block keys as well as radios which were used to begin negotiations with the Department.
50. While the Department was able to negotiate the release of the hostages along with a commitment from the prisoners to voluntarily return to their cells, the Department did nothing to secure that facility, notwithstanding its knowledge that Camp Hill's security systems had been badly damaged.
51. When the following day's negotiations proved fruitless from the inmates' perspective, prisoners simply released them'selves and proceeded for a second consecutive day to seize control of the institution. During their second melee, a large portion of Camp Hill went up in flames. For approximately a day and a half, the prisoners held at bay nearly a thousand correctional and state police.
52. The institution was only secured at the cost of large numbers of injuries to both inmates (many of whom had not participated in the riot) and state officers.
53. These injuries were directly attributable to the De-
ll

partment's general poor management of its security operations, which continues to put inmates at risk of injury.
54. As had happened after the Huntingdon riot, employees of both the Department of Corrections and the State Police Department retaliated with excessive physical force against the inmates of the prison.
55. These employees not only destroyed what little property inmates had managed to save from the preceding conflagration, but further indiscriminately beat prisoners who were now handcuffed and shackled to one another.
56. This violence was countenanced by the Department in order to insure that its employees would not abandon the Department.
57. At the time of the Camp Hill riot the Department of Corrections was housing 2600 inmates at that facility.
58. As a result of the rioting, the Department lost nearly 1,000 beds at that facility. Approximately 700 former Camp Hill inmates were sent by the Department to federal custody, where many of them remain housed throughout the United States.
59. These individuals (some of whom are being housed as far away as California) are unable to meet with counsel or family.
60. While some former Camp Hill inmates have access to federal programs, others have been held in twenty-four hour lock-down since being transferred last fall. The rest of the Camp Hill inmates are scattered throughout the Department's remaining facilities, which were already overcrowded.
61. So great is the Department's disarray that on April 30, 1990, upon having to lock-down one of Graterford's housing units,
12

the Department began transferring prisoners from Graterford to Camp Hill.
62. The Department is 550 correctional officers short of its established goal for full staffing. Inmate to correctional officer ratios have increased significantly in the past decade. . This staff shortage contributes to the overall deterioration of security and is a substantial cause of the violence now occurring in the institutions.
Excessive Force
63. There is in each institution a pattern and practice of the excessive, malicious, and unjustified use of force by correctional officers against inmates.
64. The defendants have failed to properly discipline or otherwise control the abusive actions of correctional officers. As a result, corrections officers believe they can use such force with impunity and they continue to use physical force to punish and retaliate against plaintiffs.
Classification and Programs
65. In light of the Department's desperate need for space to house its rapidly expanding population, the Department's classification schemes (traditionally used to insure that less aggressive inmates not be housed with more violent inmates) are in complete disarray. Putting a prisoner anywhere (even in infirmaries as noted below) has now become the Department's main classification goal.
13

66. According to the Final Report of the Governor's Commission at Camp Hill Corrections Institution, large numbers of the prisoners at that facility (which prior to the riot was the Department's second largest) had nothing to do throughout the day. Indeed, of the roughly twenty-six hundred persons incarcerated at Camp Hill there were never more than 850 enrolled in that facility's chemical abuse, sex offender, and/or educational programs in the ten months preceding the riot described above.
67. Upon information and belief, plaintiffs allege that the finding of the Governor's Commission concerning the limited number of inmates allowed access to programs is equally true with regard to each of the Department's other institutions.
68. Thus, for example, the number of teachers employed by the Department has remained constant since 1979, despite a 150% increase in the Department's population.
69. Further, while the Department has established a goal of having 15% of its population participate in vocational programming, staff shortages have meant that only. 8% of the inmates can be included in these programs.
70. Aside from the fact that the Department has not hired enough staff to provide sufficient programs, the Department has impeded access to these programs in a number of other ways.
71. Upon information and belief, plaintiffs allege that access to these limited programs as well as the limited number of jobs which prisoners are allowed to hold is granted along racially biased lines. This discrimination further escalates inmate tension.
72. Further, with regard to its sex offender programs, the
14

Department now requires an admission of guilt before granting access to these programs.
73. The Department's failure to increase the number of individuals who may take advantage of these programs works injury in two ways: first, by depriving inmates of the benefits theseprograms have to offer and second, because the Board of Pardons and Paroles often conditions release upon the successful completion of the very programs inmates are unable to secure.
74. The general lack of education, recreational or employment opportunities resulting in pervasive idleness contributes to the level of violence which is outlined above and which has now become endemic.
Health and Psychiatric Issues
75. The provision of medical care by the Department is in a state of crisis. The Department systematically fails to provide necessary routine and emergency medical care to its population.
76. The Department's fifteen prisons had the third highest death rate of prisons throughout the nation last year: 26.2 deaths for every 10,000 prisoners. Eighty percent of inmate deaths in 1988 were medically related. In 1989, Pennsylvania had the ninth largest inmate population, yet ranked twenty-first in daily health care expenditures per inmate.
77. Overcrowding and poor sanitation provide a breeding ground for communicable disease. Strep and fungal infections are common. A serious epidemic of tuberculosis is a real possibility.
15

78. Necessary emergency care is often denied because medical personnel are not available on a 24 hour basis. Moreover, non-medical staff often fail to identify serious medical problems on the blocks, leading to delay or denial of emergency treatment even when medical assistance is available. The Department lacks basic equipment, such as crash carts, necessary to provide emergency care.
79. There are serious deficiencies with regard to the Department's sick call procedure. Inmates with potentially serious conditions are screened by inadequately trained and/or overburdened personnel who often do not detect medical problems until serious harm occurs.
80. Inmates who need greater assistance than can be provided at sick call experience chronic delays in securing physician care. Sick inmates become sicker while waiting to see physicians, frequently suffering unnecessary pain and medical complications.
81. There are long delays in scheduling inmate appointments at outside hospitals for tests, specialist-consults, and treatment, even in cases of a serious illnesses.
82. Even when an inmate finally receives outside care, medical care is compromised by a lack of continuity of treatment and follow-up. Test results and consultation reports from outside physicians often do not reach the Department treating physician for weeks or months. Unnecessary and dangerous medical complications sometimes arise because of the Department's practice of prematurely transferring inmates receiving hospital care back to its facilities for budgetary reasons.
83. Department physicians fail to prescribe proper diet and
16

medication to prisoners who have, or develop, chronic physical conditions requiring daily special attention, such as ulcers, diabetes, hypertension, or chronic heart disease. Even when such diet or medication is ordered, the Department often fails to provide it in a consistent fashion.
84. Inmates with disabilities are often not provided proper physical therapy and/or assistance needed to participate in prison activities. The Department fails to make reasonable accommodation to the special needs of disabled prisoners.
85. Many of the deficiencies in the medical program are related to overcrowding. Thus, for example, at SCI Huntingdon, one of the Department's largest institutions, the Department has been forced to house general population inmates in space previously assigned to its infirmary.
86. In addition, the Department fails to employ a sufficient number of qualified medical personnel to treat its burgeoning population properly.
87. According to the Department's Table of Organization, the medical health care staff has 74' vacancies. The vacancies are primarily in the categories of licensed practical nurses and registered nurses. The Department also has 13 vacancies in the dental care area. There is an acute shortage of physicians, especially in the institutions situated in rural areas. Physicians staffing sick call or clinics are routinely required to see 10 or 20 or more inmates each hour and cannot devote the necessary time to properly examine, diagnose and treat their patients.
88. Finally, the manner in which the Department administers
17

health care is woefully deficient and deliberately indifferent to serious medical needs.
89. At some Department institutions, medical care is provided by one or more contractors. Because the contracts are let at a fixed rate, the contractor has a financial incentive to minimize the cost and amount of care provided. This structure has led to seriously ill inmates being denied necessary care, or being provided necessary care only after lengthy delays. This structure has resulted in pervasive, deliberate understaffing of clinics, sick calls, and intake examinations.
90. The Department and its contracted medical providers assign physicians to duties for which they are not properly trained. For example, physicians with no training or experience in internal medicine are assigned to sick call and intake examinations, tasks which require skill in the diagnosis and treatment of internal medical complaints.
91. Inadequate record keeping adversely affect the delivery of health care from diagnosis to treatment.. Insufficient staff, poor procedures, and inadequate equipment prevent appropriate follow-up of patients receiving ongoing care from Department or outside physicians. The results include interruption of medication, delays in test results or outside consultation results reaching the treating physician or outright loss of such results, and delays in diagnosis and implementation of treatment.
92. The facilities, staff and procedures in the Department's mental health care units are all seriously deficient.
93. The mental health treatment staff is currently 72 positions short of a full complement. There was need for an
18

additional 19 counselors, 22 psychologists, 5 psychiatrists, and 26 activity staff persons, according to the Audit of the Pennsylvania Budget and Finance Committee conducted in 1988. The "need is greater today because of increased population. Shortages in mental health services disrupt treatment, and increase overcrowd- . ing as parole is denied to inmates with active mental health problems.
94. As a result of this shortage of staff the mental health care is often grossly inadequate, resulting in the deterioration of inmates' mental condition.
95. The Department's psychiatric screening for inmates suffering from mental illness is seriously deficient. Due to overcrowded conditions, prisoners are not properly classified or housed. Even if they are recognized as suffering from mental illness, they are frequently housed with other inmates.
96. All these deficiencies in medical and mental health care reflect inadequate funding for medical staff, support staff, and equipment.
97. As a result of all of the foregoing, inmates unnecessarily develop serious medical conditions or suffer unnecessary pain and even death.
HIV/AIDS Health Issues
98. The Department presently admits to having fewer than 150 HIV infected inmates in its custody. Based on the prevalence of AIDS in county jails in Pennsylvania, and taking into account the high incidence of past intravenous drug use among the prison
19

population, the actual number of infected inmates is probably several times higher than the Department's estimate.
99. To date there is no cure for HIV infection. Education, counseling and voluntary testing to inform people about HIV and to foster avoidance of behaviors that transmit HIV are the only effective means of preventing the spread of the epidemic. Early identification of the infected has also become crucial, because the infected can be medically monitored and treated to delay the onset of serious AIDS symptoms and death.
100. All the problems of medical care cited above (see paragraphs 77 to 99) redound with even more deadly effect on HIV infected prisoners. Plaintiffs are being denied necessary medical care across the entire spectrum of serious medical need.
(a) Inmates receive minimal AIDS education at intake, including written material that is out of date and inaccurate. There is little or no follow-up education, and inmates are not provided with information they need to protect themselves and others from HIV transmission in prison. Inmates who are or may be infected are not informed of the benefits of early identification of their condition, including the fact that there is treatment available to delay the onset of serious illness.
(b) Inmates whose HIV infection has not been detected because they were deterred from requesting or were otherwise denied HIV testing are not evaluated for treatment they may need to prevent or delay the onset of AIDS. Inmates obviously at risk for HIV, or even showing obvious symptoms, are often not identified or offered testing by physicians at intake or sick call, either because the physician does not recognize the symptoms, or
20

because physicians are under pressure to minimize the number of HIV tests performed.
(c) Inmates who are known to be HIV infected are often not carefully monitored with periodic physical examinations and CD4+ cell testing, and so do not receive treatment they need to prevent or delay the onset of AIDS.
(d) Inmates who are known to be immunosuppressed, with CD4+ cell counts between 500 and 200 per cubic millimeter, frequently do not receive necessary prophylactic or ameliorative treatments on a timely basis or at all. In some institutions, basic recognized therapies, such as aerosolized pentamidine to prevent PCP, a form of pneumonia, have been categorically unavailable. In others, AZT is sporadically provided, or is often not dispensed in accord with current medical practice. Other medications needed to treat HIV or opportunistic infections are frequently not prescribed or unavailable.
(e) Inmates with AIDS may not be seen on a regular basis by physicians with knowledge of the proper treatment of their disease, or may not be seen by such a physician at all.
(f) Defendants fail to provide plaintiffs with sufficient information about the nature and course of their illness. As a result, class members' right to participate in their own treatment decisions is compromised. Some patients refuse necessary treatment because of inadequate, incomplete or inaccurate information.
(g) Inmates with psychological problems linked to HIV do not receive sufficient mental health care and support.
21

101. These deficiencies arise out of the same systemic failures that prevent the delivery of adequate general medical care.
102. In addition, the cost of testing for and treating HIV disease, and the impact of identifying large numbers of HIV infected inmates on the management of prison staff and inmates who are not educated about the virus, have led to a reluctance on the part of medical providers and Department officials to identify inmates with HIV infection.
103. Although the Department pays lip service to confidentiality, in practice HIV infected prisoners are routinely identified to Department staff and other inmates.
(a) The Department interprets its union contract to require that HIV infected inmates be identified to corrections staff.
(b) HIV-related information about inmates is routinely circulated among corrections staff and is often seen by prisoners, including inmate clerks who have access to the information in the course of their duties.
(c) In some Department institutions, inmate files are marked with a distinctive signal that is known to indicate HIV infection.
(d) Inmate files containing private medical information are routinely available to non-medical staff.
(e) Staff often inform prisoners of the HIV status of inmates, either directly or in statements or documents that inmates are allowed to overhear or see.
104. Although its stated policy is to segregate HIV infected inmates only if they pose a risk of sexual or needle-sharing behavior, in many Department institutions HIV infected inmates
22

are housed together in a single block or tier. Inmates known to be HIV infected are subject to arbitrary and unjustified disciplinary writeups intended to serve as a pretext for isolation. HIV infected prisoners have been kept in solitary confinement for months and years at a time.
• 105. Inmates with AIDS have been confined for long periods in infirmaries, even when their health improves and infirmary care is no longer needed.
106. HIV infected inmates in infirmaries and restricted housing units are denied participation in educational and other programs available to other inmates. The lack of such program opportunities hinders the rehabilitation efforts of HIV infected inmates and may prevent or delay their parole.
107. These programs are denied to them solely because of their handicap. For all HIV infected inmates, the Department's failure to provide adequate education and to promulgate and police serious anti-discrimination policies results directly in a climate of fear, discrimination and harassment that renders HIV infected inmates unable to fully participate in the social, educational or work life of the institution, solely because of their handicap. The climate of discrimination and fear forces people who know or suspect that they are HIV infected to keep their condition secret, depriving them as a consequence of the same opportunity as other prisoners to seek medical care for their condition.
108. HIV infected inmates are denied the opportunity to take certain prison jobs, such as food worker or barber, solely be-
23

cause of their handicap, and despite the fact that they do not pose a significant risk of infection to other inmates in such jobs.
109. The Department of Corrections has recently undertaken to audit its HIV education, testing and treatment policies in cooperation with the Department of Health. The Department of Corrections has further agreed to work with the Department of Health to make HIV testing available to prisoners upon demand, to offer inmate education, to improve staff education, and to provide uniform standards of medical treatment. To date, however, the Department of Corrections has not been able to secure significant changes in the actual delivery of care or to ameliorate the underlying conditions that lead to deficient care.
Environmental Conditions
110. Many of the Department's cells in. the system are without sufficient ventilation and have excessive noise, insect and rodent infestation, leaking walls and ceilings due to roof flooding, uneven heat, insufficient lighting, unsafe electrical wiring, and deteriorating plumbing systems.
111. Many of the shower facilities within the Department lack adequate ventilation, have mold and mildew on the walls and ceilings, ineffective temperature control, and deteriorating floor surfaces.
112. Food services facilities within the Department are unsanitary, poorly ventilated, poorly lit, poorly maintained, and rely upon outdated and poorly maintained equipment. Numerous safety hazards exist for employees and inmates alike, including
24

electrical hazards, the potential for back siphonage, improper storage methods, and improper disposal of waste materials. Food storage facilities have been found to have roach and rodent infestation, improper temperature control, and use of inadequate and outdated storage equipment.
113. Dining facilities are unsanitary and have the potential for cross-contamination. The equipment has deteriorated to a point where inmate health is threatened.
114. The Department's reporting systems are deficient. Inspectors do not have formally defined criteria or detailed inspection forms to guide their activities. Sanitation and hygiene inspections are grossly inadequate.
115. The water supplies at several institutions are below acceptable EPA standards.
116. Insufficient funding for capital improvements and ongoing maintenance is a major factor contributing to the difficulties being encountered by the Department in maintaining the environment of the physical plants and facilities.
117. The Department lacks a long-term plan for capital improvements and physical maintenance.
118. Overcrowding has further contributed to the difficulties encountered by the Department in maintaining and upgrading institutional physical plant and facilities. It has drained available financial resources away from maintenance by expanding housing capacity without a corresponding modification in support facilities.
119. Poor design of several institutions impedes the
25

Department's ability to maintain the physical structures. Many of the state correctional institutions were designed for uses other than as adult correctional facilities. For example, SCI Graterford was designed to be a prison farm; SCI Camp Hill, SCI Dallas, SCI Huntingdon and SCI Waynesburg were designed to be juvenile facilities and consist of hollow brick construction; SCI Cresson was designed as an institution for mentally retarded persons, and SCI Retreat was designed as a center for mentally ill persons; SCI Rockview was designed as a minimum security farm; and SCI Greensbur-g was designed as a short term county facility.
120. The Department fails to meet basic needs of the inmate population. There are chronic shortages of essential clothing for newly admitted inmates, blankets and pillows for all prisoners, and replacement mattresses for those that are torn, dirty, or infested with bed bugs.
121. Fire safety is a problem throughout the Department. Many of the institutions have been found t;o be in violation of the Life Safety Code, which has been adopted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania via the Pennsylvania Fire and Panic Act. Deficiencies include the lack of an automatic alarm system, an insufficient number of exits, lack of an immediate release mechanism on the cell blocks, lack of an emergency lighting system, the existence of significant barriers to evacuating the cell blocks within a reasonable amount of time because of the long distances inmates must travel from their cells to exit doors, and the absence of fire separation walls between authorized smoke compartments. Many of these deficiencies have been cited by the Penn-
26

sylvania Department of Labor and Industry inspectors.
Access to Courts
122. The Department does not provide attorneys, paralegals or professionally trained persons to assist inmates with the filing of civil rights complaints, habeas corpus petitions or similar challenges to their convictions. With limited exception, the Department has not allowed the formation of para-law clinics staffed by inmates knowledgeable in the law.
123. Most of the Department's law libraries are stocked with such limited and antiquated volumes as to make it nearly impossible for prisoners to do legal research.
124. Those inmates without legal training and those who do not have a command of the English language are seriously handicapped in their efforts to pursue legal remedies.
125. At some of the Department's institutions, inmates in administrative segregation, protective custody, or punitive segregation are not permitted to visit the main law library. Alternative provisions for such inmates are totally inadequate.
Causes of Action
126. The policies, practices, acts and omissions complained of herein taken as a whole violate plaintiffs' rights under the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, in that they deprive plaintiffs of their rights to:
a. be free from cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments;
27

b. be free from excessive and malicious physical force and violence under the Fourth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments ;
c. proper and necessary medical and psychiatric services under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments;
d. be free from deprivations of liberty and property without due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment;
e. equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment; and
f. access to counsel and the courts under the First, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
127. The policies, practices, acts, and omissions of the defendants with respect to the collection and retention of private medical information violate plaintiffs' rights under the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 in that they deprive plaintiffs of their rights to privacy and autonomy under the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
128. Defendants' actions in denying otherwise qualified HIV infected plaintiffs the benefits of participation in programs and activities available to other inmates, and exposing them to harassment and discrimination, solely on the basis of their handicap, violates Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. Section 701 et, sea.. as amended by the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987.
129. Defendants' actions in failing to make their facilities and programs accessible to otherwise qualified handicapped individuals, and to make reasonable accommodation to the special needs of such people, constitutes discrimination solely on the
28

basis of handicap, and violates section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. Section 701 e_t seq. . as amended by the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987.
Prayer for Relief
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, request that this Court:
a. Assume jurisdiction of this action; b. Issue an order certifying this action to proceed as a class pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; c. Issue a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 2201 and 2201, and Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that the policies, practices, acts and omissions complained of herein violate plaintiffs' rights to be free from cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, to due process and equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, to be free from the use of excessive force under the Fourth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, to counsel and access to the courts under the First, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments, and for handicapped members of this class to be free from discrimination as is guaranteed by the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. d. Issue preliminary and permanent injunctions sufficient to rectify the unconstitutional and unlawful acts, policies, practices and conditions complained of herein. e. Retain jurisdiction over defendants and each of
29

them until such time as the Court is satisfied that their unlawful policies, practices, acts and omissions complained of herein no longer exist and will not recur.
f. Award plaintiffs reasonable attorneys' fees, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1988, and costs of this action.
g. Award such other further relief as to this Court seems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,

Alvin J. Bronstein, Esq. Executive Director
Adjoa A. Aiyetoro, Esq. Associate Director
David C. Fathi, Esq.
The National Prison Project of the ACLU Foundation
1875 Connecticut Avenue, N.W Suite 410 Washington, DC 20009 (202) 234-4830

Stefan Presser, Esq. Legal Director
Scott Burris, Esq. American Civil Liberties Union
of Pennsylvania 125 South Ninth Street, Suite 701 Philadelphia, PA 19107 (215) 592-1513 ext. 16

cDavid Ruddvsky, E s q . V ^

Kairys & Rudovsky

\

30

924 Cherry Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19107 (215) 925-4400
si
Angus fhpve, Esq. Insti-c«rional Law Project 317 Swede Street Norristown, PA 19401 (215) 275-5400 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
31

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

STEVEN AUSTIN, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, )

et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

Civil Action No. 90-7497

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT AND ADD DEFENDANT
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND The original complaint in this case was filed on November 27,
1990. That complaint asserted that defendants had violated the rights of a class of Pennsylvania prisoners by imposing cruel and unusual punishment, by denying prisoners the equal protection of the laws, by denying prisoners meaningful access to the courts, and by denying handicapped members of the class their federallyprotected right to be free from discrimination on the basis of their handicap. Included in the Eighth Amendment challenge were claims that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to the serious medical and mental health needs of members of the class.
When the original complaint was filed, the plaintiff class included prisoners confined at all of the state prisons except the State Correctional Institution at Pittsburgh1 and the State Correctional Institution at Muncy (SCI-Muncy). At the time of the

1 SCI-Pittsburgh claims had been addressed in Tillery v.

Owens. 719 F . S U D D . 1256 (W.D. Pa. 1 9 8 9 ) , aff'd. 907 F.2d 418 (3d

Cir. 1990) .

Austin v pennSy|vania D O C

PC-PA-002-020

original filing of the complaint, plaintiffs believed that conditions of confinement issues regarding SCI-Muncy had been addressed in Beehler v. Jeffres, 83-1024 (M.D. Pa.).
Beehler was filed in July 1983 on behalf of all women incarcerated at SCI-Muncy.2 The case comprehensively challenged conditions of confinement at SCI-Muncy, including the medical and psychiatric care provided the class. In 1986, the district court in Beehler dismissed plaintiffs' medical and mental health claims, holding that these claims were precluded by I.C.U. v. Shapp, No. 70-2545, 70-3054, 71-0513, 71-1006 (E.D. Pa.). Beehler V. Jeffres. Order 6/30/86.3 A number of other conditions of confinement claims were voluntarily dismissed, without prejudice, on November 27, 1989.4
Subsequent to the filing of the complaint in this case, it has become apparent that changed circumstances require addressing medical conditions at SCI-Muncy. In particular, since this lawsuit was filed in November, 1990, a recent outbreak of tuberculosis at SCI-Muncy has underlined the urgency of the necessity to amend the complaint.
2 SCI-Muncy was at that time, and continues to be, an allfemale institution.
3 For the reasons set forth in plaintiffs' memorandum of law in opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss (6/7/91) , plaintiffs are not precluded by I.C.U. v. Shapp from challenging the current deficiencies in medical and mental health care at SCI-Muncy. See also Austin v. DOC. Order, 7/29/91.
4 On June 30, 1992, the district court dismissed the remaining claims in Beehler.
- 2-

In late May, 1992, plaintiffs1 counsel first learned of an outbreak of tuberculosis at SCI-Muncy from newspaper accounts and from communications from prisoners and their families. See Attachment 1, a newspaper report in The Philadelphia Inquirer. May 27, 1992. The report of tuberculosis at SCI-Muncy was of critical concern to plaintiffs1 counsel for several reasons. First, the initial medical inspections by plaintiffs' medical experts in this case demonstrated that there are very serious problems in tuberculosis screening and treatment within the Pennsylvania prison system. One of the staff physicians at Graterford indicated that Graterford had seen nine active cases of tuberculosis. Prisoners entering the system are not consistently receiving prompt and adequate follow-up tests for exposure to tuberculosis. The experts found that test results for exposure to tuberculosis are frequently not recorded. In addition, prisoners who had positive tests are not followed up in a systematic fashion to assure that they do not harbor active, communicable disease and that they are given appropriate prophylactic medical treatment. In particular, the chaotic medical records at SCI-Graterford ensure that a number of prisoners will be transferred to other prisons without an appropriate investigation of a positive test result. There is absolutely no system, or even attempt, to respond to prisoners who convert from a negative test result to a positive test result while in the system. Such a conversion means that the prisoner has been exposed to an active, contagious case of tuberculosis. In a highly crowded institution such as a prison, the discovery of
- 3-

cases of conversion from negative to positive test results should
lead to a systematic search for the active case of tuberculosis.
See Attachment 2, declaration of Armond Start, M.D., one of plaintiffs1 medical experts.5
Moreover, because prisoners are transferred throughout the
system, an outbreak at one institution can easily lead to outbreaks
at others. In order to protect the women at SCI-Waynesburg,
members of the class of plaintiffs in this case, there must be an appropriate tuberculosis screening and treatment program at Muncy.6
Moreover, the threat from tuberculosis, which has long been
more prevalent in prison than in the general population, has
qualitatively changed since the filing of the first complaint. In
large part because of the prevalence of AIDS and HIV infection, the number of tuberculosis cases has dramatically increased.7 Even
more ominous is the changing character of tuberculosis. Some
strains of the disease have developed resistance to many or all of
the standard drugs used to treat the infection. For those
The first declaration signed by Dr. Start has apparently been lost in the mail. Plaintiffs therefore attach an unsigned copy of the declaration which will be replaced when a signed copy of the declaration from Dr. Start is available.
6 Indeed, named plaintiff Debra Speakes was confined at Waynesburg when the complaint was originally filed, but is currently housed at SCI-Muncy, where she is exposed to the tuberculosis outbreak. Her situation illustrates the degree to which prisoners move between different facilities in the system, providing a vector to spread infectious diseases to additional facilities.
7 Persons with AIDS or HIV infection are particularly vulnerable to infection with tuberculosis. The fact that they have been infected with tuberculosis can also be much harder to detect, because their weakened immune system may not respond to the test.
- 4-

outbreaks of tuberculosis that are resistant to all current drugs, patients who develop active disease have death rates of 50%, as well as a 25% chance that the patient will become chronically infectious and therefore require isolation for the rest of his or her life. See Attachment 3, Alan Bloch, M.D., "Preventing TB Outbreaks in Your Correctional Facility," delivered at the 1991 National Conference on Correctional Health Care.
Finally, because overcrowded prisons, with large percentages of HIV-positive persons and frequently inadequate medical systems, provide ideal conditions for the outbreak of tuberculosis, it is not surprising that they have also been the site for major outbreaks of multi-drug resistant tuberculosis. Until now, the most serious outbreak of multi-drug resistant tuberculosis occurred in the neighboring State of New York, in which over a short period of time thirteen prisoners and one staff member died at two facilities from one outbreak of tuberculosis. See Attachment 4. In addition, the neighboring Maryland prison system has also experienced an outbreak of multi-drug resistant tuberculosis, infecting at least 176 prisoners and staff at the Roxbury Correctional Institution in Hagerstown, Maryland. See Attachment 5, a Washington Post news report, dated May 30, 1992.8
Under these circumstances, it is critical that plaintiffs be given an opportunity to protect the health of prisoners at SCI-
8 The Maryland institution has contract health care services provided by Correctional Medical Systems (CMS), one of the contract medical providers utilized in the Pennsylvania system. CMS uses the same infection control policies in all of its operations in this region.
- 5-

Muncy, as well as prisoners at SCI-Waynesburg, who are subject to transfer to Muncy or housing with prisoners transferred from Muncy. The prompt institution of an appropriate screening and treatment program for tuberculosis at Muncy, as well as in the rest of the system, is literally a matter of life or death.9
The problem of tuberculosis screening and treatment, of course, cannot be separated from the more general failures of the medical system. In SCI-Graterford, for example, it was apparent that the lack of a working system of screening and treatment for tuberculosis would require addressing the chaotic medical records system, the medical referral system, medications, staffing issues, and other related areas.
In turn, these issues cannot be disentangled from the overlapping issues of mental health care. Mental health care is considered part of health care in the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. (See Attachment 6 — Management Review Checklist for Correctional Health Care Services, SCI-Muncy, May 30 and 31, 1990). This is appropriate, because both "general" medical care and mental health care involve medical records, the prescription and distribution of medication, referral of patients to specialists, and the hiring and deployment of physicians, nurses, and other health care staff. Thus, a prison's health care system cannot be
9 Although plaintiffs assume that none of the cases of active tuberculosis at Muncy involve drug-resistant strains, it is only a matter of time before the prison system reports drug-resistant cases. Because of the intrinsic characteristics of a prison system in a large urban state in the Northeast, the spread of drugresistant tuberculosis into the Pennsylvania prison system is entirely predictable. See Attachment 3, supra.
"™" O ""

meaningfully challenged or evaluated without including the facility's mental health care system.10
For that reason, plaintiffs believe that the discovery of an
outbreak of tuberculosis of SCI-Muncy demonstrates the need to
address comprehensively the adequacy of health care at the
institution and thus supports allowing plaintiffs to amend the
complaint to add these claims.
Because plaintiffs' counsel learned of the outbreak of
tuberculosis at the end of May, 1992, plaintiffs' counsel have
moved expeditiously to amend the complaint once the relevant facts
were known. In addition, the plaintiffs' request will neither
delay the trial nor prejudice the defendants. Under the amended
scheduling order of April 8, 1992, plaintiffs are not required to
submit expert witness reports on the issues of medical and mental
health care until October 30, 1992. If the Court permits the
proposed amendment, the plaintiffs can meet this deadline without
requiring an extension from the Court. The defendants'
corresponding reports are not due until December 30, 1992. In view
of the fact that the parties are simply adding two related claims
at a fourteenth institution to the thirteen institutions already
10 In an extreme scenario, if general medical care were challenged in a lawsuit but mental health care were not, prison officials could simply shift staff and other resources from the latter to the former, ameliorating the challenged conditions at the expense of mental health care. Thus, it is not surprising that injunctive challenges to prison medical care virtually always include mental health care. See, e.g., Wellman v. Faulkner. 715 F.2d 269, 272-273 (7th Cir. 1983). Tillerv v. Owens. 719 F.Supp. 1256, 1284 (W.D. Pa. 1989), aff'd. 907 F.2d 418 (3d Cir. 1990); Inmates of Occoquan v. Barryf 717 F.Supp. 854, 863 (D.D.C. 1989); U.S. v. Michigan. 680 F.Supp. 928, 989 (W.D. Mich. 1987).
- 7-

under litigation on a much larger number of issues, the incremental
change in the size of the litigation is not so significant that
either party or the Court will be unable to keep to the established
trial schedule.
II. ARGUMENT " ^
Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a) sets forth the standard for determining
whether to grant a motion to allow the amendment of a pleading.
Rule 15(a) provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
[A] party may amend the party's pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party; and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires.
In Foman v. Davis. 371 U.S. 178 (1962), the Supreme Court
applied Rule 15 (a) in a case in which the plaintiff requested leave
to amend the complaint after a motion to dismiss had been granted.
The district court subsequently denied leave to amend. The court
of appeals affirmed the judgment of the district court.
The Supreme Court reversed, and set forth the classic summary
of the principles that govern motions under Rule 15:
Rule 15 (a) declares that leave to amend "shall be freely given when justice so requires"; this mandate is to be heeded. See generally, 3 Moore, Federal Practice (2d ed. 1948), 1115.08, 15.10. If the underlying facts or circumstances relied upon by a plaintiff may be a proper subject of relief, he ought to be afforded an opportunity to test his claim on the merits. In the absence of any apparent or declared reason — such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc. — the leave sought should, as the rules require, be
- 8 -

"freely given." Of course, the grant or denial of an opportunity to amend is within the discretion of the District Court, but outright refusal to grant the leave without any justifying reason appearing for the denial is not an exercise of discretion; it is merely abuse of that discretion and is inconsistent with the spirit of the Federal Rules.
Id. at 182.
For the reasons given in the previous section, none of the
possible grounds for refusing leave to amend apply to this case.
The proposed amendment is not offered to cure a deficiency in the
existing complaint. There is no dilatory motive or bad faith on
the part of plaintiffs because plaintiffs represent to the Court
that allowance of the proposed amendment will not delay trial in
this case.
Moreover, Foman speaks of "undue" delay as a possible reason
for denying leave to amend.11 The Third Circuit has made clear
that "undue" delay occurs only if the opposing party would suffer
prejudice if the amendment were allowed:
Delay alone, however, is an insufficient ground upon which to deny a motion to amend. Cornell and Co.. Inc.. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. 573 F.2d 830 (3d Cir. 1978) . Rather, the touchstone is whether the non-moving party will be prejudiced if the amendment is allowed. Jd. at 823.
Howze v. Jones & Lauahlin Steel Corp.. 750 F.2d 1208, 1212 (3d Cir.
1984) .
11 For the reasons noted in the previous section, plaintiffs have acted quite expeditiously after learning of the tuberculosis outbreak at SCI-Muncy. There is certainly no undue delay in the sense that plaintiffs failed to act promptly after discovering the need for amendment.
- 9-

In Howze. the plaintiff had filed her complaint in November, 1982. After she obtained an attorney, her attorney attempted to amend the complaint in March, 1983, but the trial court denied the motion. The court of appeals, following the entry of summary judgment against the plaintiff, held that the district court's denial of leave to amend was an abuse of discretion.
The defendants argued that the grant of leave to amend would have been improper because the amendment involved a claim that had never been presented to the EEOC, and that under the law it should not have been required to meet claims not within the scope of the EEOC investigation. The court of appeals held, however, that the new claim was within the general parameters of the original claim, so that the defendant was not prejudiced. Id.
Similarly, in this case, the delay has not resulted in prejudice to the defendants. Adding medical and mental health claims at one additional facility to the thirteen facilities already under suit on a much broader range of issues will not significantly change the size of the lawsuit. The plaintiffs intend to keep to the existing schedule; since all deadlines for defendants are at the same time as, or later than, the deadlines for plaintiffs, defendants are not hindered in their preparation for trial. They already have employed their medical and mental health experts. A number of the prisons have yet to be inspected by plaintiffs' medical experts, so granting the motion will not
require reopening the medical inspections.
- 10 -

Of course, allowing the amendment will require the defendants to meet plaintiffs1 contention that medical care at SCI-Muncy is so deficient that it violates the Eighth Amendment. But the mere fact that an amendment requires a party to meet additional claims does not constitute prejudice under the Rule. See Bechtel v. Robinson. 886 F.2d 644, 652 (3d Cir. 1989), holding that the party opposing amendment must show that it was unfairly disadvantaged or deprived of the opportunity to present evidence. In Bechtel. the court of appeals noted that the opposing party could not have been unfairly deprived of the right to present evidence because the parties were still engaged in discovery and allowing the amendment would not delay bringing the case to trial. Id. at 653.12
Moreover, the length of the time from the original complaint to the proposed amendment does not preclude the amendment. In Heyl & Patterson International. Inc. v. F.D. Rich Housing. 663 F.2d 419 (3d Cir. 1981), the court of appeals approved the district court's grant of a motion to amend to add an affirmative defense, even though the motion was made three years after the filing of the initial complaint. Moreover, the district court subsequently treated the defendants' opening statement as a further amendment of the pleadings. Id. at 424-425. Nonetheless, the court of
1 5
Plaintiffs note, however, that even if the grant of a motion for leave to amend the complaint would have the effect of requiring a continuance, that fact by itself would not require the denial of the proposed amendment. See generally Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure §1488 (1990) (discussing the allowance of amendments of pleadings at various stages of the litigation) . In any event, this issue need not be addressed in the circumstances of this case.
- 11 -

appeals, applying the principles of Rule 15(a), affirmed the district court, holding that the plaintiff had not met its burden to show that it had been deprived of a fair opportunity to meet the evidence. Id. at 426-427.13
Similarly, in Boileau v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.. 730 F.2d 929 (3d Cir. 1984), the court of appeals considered whether the district court should have granted an amendment of a 1978 complaint requested in 1982.u The district court refused to permit the amendment, and the court of appeals reversed, noting that the commentaries on Rule 15 "support not only a liberal interpretation of this rule, but specifically address the liberal use of Rule 15 to amend complaints so as to state additional causes of action." Id. at 938, citing Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure §1474 (1975) and Martin v. Virgin Islands National Bank. 455 F.2d 985 (3d Cir. 1972) (affirming the allowance of an amendment to the complaint at the close of plaintiff's evidence at trial). Finally, the court of appeals noted that "[p]articularly where the underlying claim involves the deprivation of fundamental constitutional rights, discretionary procedural measures should be
See also Riser v. General Electric Corp.. 831 F.2d 423, 427-428 (3d Cir. 1987), reversing a district court's refusal to allow the filing of an amended complaint, and stating that the party opposing the amendment has the burden of showing prejudice resulting from delay in seeking the amendment.
14 For much of the period, the federal action was stayed pending resolution of a related state court proceeding. The stay apparently existed between October, 1978 and the time the plaintiff sought leave to amend. Id. at 933-934.
- 12 -

cautiously employed when denying a litigant her day in court." Id. at 939.
The fundamental constitutional rights at stake in this matter for the prisoners at SCI-Muncy involve protection from exposure to potentially fatal communicable disease. The strong preference for decision of cases on their merits embodied in the Federal Rules, including Rule 15(a), supports granting the women at Muncy the opportunity to demonstrate to the Court the threat to their lives and health.
CONCLUSION For the above reasons, plaintiffs urge that the Court grant them leave to amend the complaint.
Respectfully submitted,

Dated:

Elizabeth Alexander The National Prison Project 1875 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Suite 410 Washington, D.C. 20009 202/234-4830

- 13 -

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

STEVEN AUSTIN, ROBERT C. BORING, FRANKLIN CASTLE, EUGENE DUNSON, JOHN REGELMAN, KEVIN SANDERS, RICHARD BOOZER, FRANCIS PARKER, WILLIAM A. FINGER, JOSEPH MULCAHY, LAURENCE JOHNSON, DEBRA SPEAKES, TROY CALHOUN, FRANKLIN D. BALTIMORE SR., LEONARD T. MORTON JR., SCOTT DOCKLER, GARY ROOS, PERCY MCCONNELL, JOHN DOE AND JOHN ROE, on behalf of themselves and all others presently incarcerated or who will in the future be incarcerated within the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections,
Plaintiffs,
V.
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; JOSEPH LEHMAN, sued in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections; JEFFREY BEARD, sued in his official capacity as superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Camp Hill; MARTIN DRAGOVICH, sued in his official capacity as Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Cresson; JOSEPH RYAN, sued in his official capacity as Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Dallas; DONALD T. VAUGHN, sued in his official capacity as Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Graterford; FREDERIC ROSEMEYER, sued in his official capacity as Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Greensburg; WILLIAM LOVE, sued in his official capacity as Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Huntingdon; GILBERT A. WALTERS, sued in his official capacity as Superintendent
of State Corrections Institution at
Mercer; DENNIS R. ERHARD, sued in his official capacity as Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Retreat; JOSEPH F. MAZURKIEWICZ,
Austin v. Pennsylvania DOC

CIVIL ACTION NO. 90-7497

•

• •!•• • • •• "

— —

PC-PA-002-024

in his official capacity as Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Rockview; MARGARET A. MOORE, sued in her official capacity as Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Smithfield; CHARLES H. ZIMMERMAN, sued in his official capacity as Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Waymart; TIMOTHY ENGLISH, sued in his official capacity as Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Waynesburg; JOSEPH CHESNEY, sued in his official capacity as Superintendant of State Corrections Institution at Frackville; and, ROBERT CASEY, sued in his official capacity as Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
Defendants.
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Preliminary Statement
1. Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and others similarly
incarcerated by the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections seek to
enjoin defendants from continued maintenance of penal institutions
which deprive plaintiffs and the class they seek to represent of
rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution's Bill of
Rights.
Jurisdiction
2. As plaintiffs seek to vindicate rights protected by the
Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution,
and 42 U.S. Section 1983, this Court has jurisdiction of this civil

action pursuant to 28 U.S.C Sections 1331 and 1343 (a) (3) and (4) . Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 2201 and 2202, this Court has jurisdiction to declare the rights of the parties and to grant all further relief found necessary and proper.
Parties 3. Plaintiff Steven Austin is a citizen of the United States who at the initiation of this action was incarcerated at the State Corrections Institution at Camp Hill, however who has since been transferred to the State Correction Institution at Huntingdon. As a result of his transfer Troy Calhoun, who is presently incarcerated at the State Corrections Institution at Camp Hill, has been added. 4. Plaintiff Robert C. Boring is a citizen of the United States presently incarcerated at the State Corrections Institution at Cresson. 5. Plaintiff Franklin Castle is a citizen of the United States presently incarcerated at the State Corrections Institution at Dallas. 6. Plaintiff Eugene Dunson is a citizen of the United States presently incarcerated at the State Corrections Institution at Graterford. 7. Plaintiff John Regelman is a citizen of the United States presently incarcerated at the State Corrections Institution at Greensburg. 8. Plaintiff Kevin Sanders is a citizen of the United States presently incarcerated at the State Corrections Institution at Huntingdon.

9. Plaintiff Richard Boozer is a citizen of the United States presently incarcerated at the State Corrections Institution at Mercer.
10. Plaintiff Francis Parker is a citizen of the United States who at the initiation of this action was incarcerated at the State Corrections Institution at Retreat. He has since been released on parole, but as a result of a technical infraction, is in the process of being returned to Retreat.
11. Plaintiff William A. Finger is a citizen of the United States presently incarcerated at the State Corrections Institution at Rockview.
12. Plaintiff Joseph Mulcahy is a citizen of the United States presently incarcerated at the State Corrections Institution at Smithfield.
13. Plaintiff Laurence Johnson is a citizen of the United States presently incarcerated at the State Corrections Institution at Waymart.
14. Plaintiff Debra Speakes is a citizen of the United States presently incarcerated at the State Corrections Institution at Waynesburg.
15. Plaintiffs Franklin D. Baltimore Sr. (presently incarcerated at the State Corrections Institution at Rockview), Leonard T. Morton Jr. (presently incarcerated at the State Corrections Institution at Frackville), and Scott Dockler (presently incarcerated at the State Corrections Institution at Cresson) have been denied access to sex offender programs offered by defendants because

of their refusal to admit guilt. 16. Plaintiffs Gary Roos (presently incarcerated at the State
Corrections Institute at Dallas) and Percy McConnell (presently incarcerated at the State Corrections Institute at Cresson) were denied adequate clothing upon their admission to defendants1 custody.
17. Plaintiff John Doe (presently incarcerated at the State Corrections Institution at Graterford), and plaintiff John Roe (presently incarcerated at the State Corrections Institution at Dallas), whose identities have been supplied to the Court in their verifications annexed to plaintiffs1 motion for leave to proceed in pseudonym and to seal records, are HIV positive and have experienced discrimination on the part of defendants as a result of their medical conditions.
18. Defendant Pennsylvania Department of Corrections is that executive agency of the Commonwealth mandated by law to receive and detain state prisoners. The Department and its constituent corrections institutions are recipients of federal financial aid.
19. Defendant Joseph Lehman is the Commissioner of the Department of Corrections. As such, he is responsible for the administration of the Department of Corrections. He is sued in his official capacity.
20. Defendant Jeffrey Beard is Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Camp Hill. As such, he is responsible for immediately overseeing the day to day operation of that institution. He is sued in his official capacity.

21. Defendant Martin Dragovich is Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Cresson. As such, he is responsible for immediately overseeing the day to day operation of that institution. He is sued in his official capacity.
22. Defendant Joseph Ryan is Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Dallas. As such, he is responsible for immediately overseeing the day to day operation of that institution. He is sued in his official capacity.
23. Defendant Donald T. Vaughn is Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Graterford. As such, he is responsible for immediately overseeing the day to day operation of that institution. He is sued in his official capacity.
24. Defendant Frederic Rosemeyer is Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Greensburg. As such, he is responsible for immediately overseeing the day to day operation of that institution. He is sued in his official capacity.
25. Defendant William Love is Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Huntingdon. As such, he is responsible for immediately overseeing the day to day operation of that institution. He is sued in his official capacity.
26. Defendant Gilbert A. Walters is Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Mercer. As such, he is responsible for immediately overseeing the day to day operation of that institution. He is sued in his official capacity.
27. Defendant Dennis R. Erhard is Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Retreat. As such, he is responsible for

immediately overseeing the day to day operation of that institution. He is sued in his official capacity.
28. Defendant Joseph F. Mazurkiewicz is Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Rockview. As such, he is responsible for immediately overseeing the day to day operation of that institution. He is sued in his official capacity.
29. Defendant Margaret A. Moore is Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Smithfield. As such, she is responsible for immediately overseeing the day to day operation of that institution. She is sued in her official capacity.
30. Defendant Charles A. Zimmerman is Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Waymart. As such, he is responsible for immediately overseeing the day to day operation of that institution. He is sued in his official capacity.
31. Defendant Timothy English is Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Waynesburg. As such, he is responsible for immediately overseeing the day to day operation of that institution. He is sued in his official capacity.
32. Defendant Joseph Chesney is Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Frackville. As such, he is responsible for immediately overseeing the day to day operation of that institution. He is sued in his official capacity.
33. Defendant Robert Casey is the Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. As such, under Article IV, Section II of the Constitution of the Commonwealth "supreme executive power" is vested in him. Further, under the Constitution and laws of the Common-

wealth he is authorized to appoint the commissioner of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections {see Article IV, paragraph 8, Pennsylvania Constitution and 71 P.S. section 67.1 (d) (1)} as well as to present to the general assembly the Department of Corrections' annual budget {see Article VIII, section 12, Pennsylvania Constitution and 71 P.S. 241}.
34. At all times relevant hereto and in all of the actions described herein, all defendants were acting under color of state law and pursuant to their authority as officials and/or employees of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Class Action Allegations
35. The named plaintiffs seek to maintain this action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated pursuant to Rules 23 (a) and 23 (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. They represent a class of persons who are or who may in the future be incarcerated by the Department of Corrections in any facility other than State Corrections Institution at Muncy and State Corrections Institution at Pittsburgh who, in the absence of relief, have been or will be treated in the manner set forth below. As a result of such treatment, the members of the class are or will be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment and deprived of other constitutional rights. Plaintiffs therefore seek declaratory and injunctive relief to eliminate defendants1 actions, policies, and practices which work constitutional wrong.
36. The requirements of Rules 23 (a) and 23 (b) (2) are all
8

satisfied by this class action. The class consists of all persons who are or will in the future be incarcerated by the Department of Corrections.
37. The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impractical. The class presently exceeds 18,000 individuals and also includes an unknown number of individuals who will in the future be incarcerated by the Department of Corrections.
38. There are questions of law and fact common to the class, including the constitutionality of the conditions of confinement maintained by the Department of Corrections.
39. The claims of the plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the class. Plaintiffs include inmates currently incarcerated throughout the Department of Corrections.
40. The plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the class.
41. The defendants have acted and refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief with respect to the class as a whole.
Facts Giving Rise To Causes Of Action Overcrowding
42. The Pennsylvania Department of Corrections presently operates fifteen State Corrections Institutions all of which are severely overcrowded. The institutions which are the subject of this lawsuit are:
a. Camp Hill, which was opened in 1941 with a design intended

to house approximately 988 individuals but as of September 30, 1990, was being used to detain 2,192 prisoners. b. Cresson, which was opened in 1987 with a design intended to house approximately 499 individuals but as of September 30, 1990, was being used to detain 948 prisoners. c. Dallas, which was opened in 1960 with a design intended to house approximately 1,4 57 individuals but as of September 30, 1990, was being used to detain 2,024 prisoners. d. Frackville, which was opened in 1987 with a design intended to house approximately 540 individuals but as of September 30, 1990, was being used to detain 1,036 prisoners. e. Graterford, which was opened in 1929 with a design intended to house approximately 2,734 individuals but as of September 30, 1990, was being used to detain 4,067 prisoners. f. Greensburg, which was opened in 1969 with a design intended to house approximately 4 61 individuals but as of September 30, 1990, was being used to detain 761 prisoners. g. Huntingdon, which was opened in 1889 with a design intended to house approximately 1,347 individuals but as of September 30, 1990, was being used to detain 2,007 prisoners, h. Mercer, which was opened in 1978 with a design intended to house 464 individuals but as of September 30, 1990, was being used to detain 902 prisoners. i. Retreat, which was opened in 1988 with a design intended to house 480 individuals but as of September 30, 1990, was being used to detain 842 prisoners.
10

j. Rockview, which was opened in 1915 with a design intended to house 1,250 individuals but as of September 30, 1990, was being used to detain 2,059 prisoners. k. Smithfield, which was opened in 1988 with a design intended to house 484 individuals but as of September 30, 1990, was being used to detain 877 prisoners. 1. Waymart, which was opened in 1978 with a design intended to house 241 individuals but as of September 30, 1990, was being used to detain 515 prisoners. m. Waynesburg, which was opened in 1984 with a design intended to house 168 individuals but as of September 30, 1990, was being used to detain 270 prisoners. 43. The Department has the capacity to house approximately 13,000 individuals. As of September 30, 1990, the Department detained approximately 18,500 individuals at the above listed institutions. 44. The overcrowding has become so serious that the very fact of incarceration in these institutions now causes such physical and psychological harms and deprivations as to render incarceration of plaintiffs unconstitutional. The physical facilities cannot safely accommodate such large numbers of inmates and the services required by the Constitution cannot be provided in the prison system as currently structured. 45. The harms caused to plaintiffs by overcrowding are exacerbated, as detailed below, by the fact that the institutions are otherwise suffering from substantial physical deterioration,
11

environmental defects, correctional and other staff shortages, and grossly inadequate classification services and programs, thus causing plaintiffs to suffer cruel and unusual punishment.
Violence
46. As a direct result of the overcrowding, the Department of Corrections is experiencing more violence than at any other time in its history.
47. During the last six months of 1989 there were 409 assaults on guards alone. By contrast, there were only 500 such assaults throughout the Department in the twelve preceding months.
48. Between July of 1988 and June of 1989 there were 139 assaults requiring medical treatment reported at SCI Graterford alone. Of those, 86 were inmate on inmate, while the remaining 53 were inmate on staff or staff on inmate assaults.
49. The level of violence at that institution, reflecting the level of violence throughout the Department, grew unabated during the next six month period.
50. Between July 1989 and January 1990, there were 158 assaults at Graterford requiring medical treatment. Inmate on inmate assaults now rose to 107, the remaining assaults being between inmates and staff.
51. On October 23, 1989, the Department lost control of one of its housing blocks at SCI Huntingdon when approximately 2 5 prisoners refused to return to their cells. As a result, the Department put the entire institution on 24 hour lock-down for
12

several months. 52. On October 25, 1989, the Department lost complete control
of its second largest facility at Camp Hill when an inmate attack on a guard turned into a general melee.
53. Over the next several hours, prisoners seized hostages and took control of several buildings.
54. From these hostages, the prisoners were able to obtain cell block keys as well as radios which were used to begin negotiations with the Department.
55. While the Department was able to negotiate the release of the hostages along with a commitment from the prisoners to voluntarily return to their cells, the Department did nothing to secure that facility, notwithstanding its knowledge that Camp Hill's security systems had been badly damaged.
56. When the following day's negotiations proved fruitless from the inmates' perspective, prisoners simply released themselves and proceeded for a second consecutive day to seize control of the institution. During their second melee, a large portion of Camp Hill went up in flames. For approximately a day and a half, the prisoners held at bay nearly a thousand correctional and state police.
57. The institution was only secured at the cost of large numbers of injuries to both inmates (many of whom had not participated in the riot) and state officers.
58. These injuries were directly attributable to the Department's general poor management of its security operations, which
13

continues to put inmates at risk of injury. 59. As had happened after the Huntingdon riot, employees of
both the Department of Corrections and the State Police Department retaliated with excessive physical force against the inmates of the prison.
60. These employees not only destroyed what little property inmates had managed to save from the preceding conflagration, but further indiscriminately beat prisoners who were now handcuffed and shackled to one another.
61. This violence was countenanced by the Department in order to insure that its employees would not abandon the Department.
62. At the time of the Camp Hill riot the Department of corrections was housing 2 600 inmates at that facility.
63. As a result of the rioting, the Department lost nearly 1,000 beds at that facility. Approximately 700 former Camp Hill inmates were sent by the Department to federal custody, where many of them remain housed throughout the United States.
64. These individuals (some of whom are being housed as far away as California) are unable to meet with counsel or family.
65. While some former Camp Hill inmates have access to federal programs, others have been held in twenty-four hour lock-down since being transferred last fall. The rest of the Camp Hill inmates are scattered throughout the Department's remaining facilities, which were already overcrowded.
66. So great is the Department's disarray that on April 30, 1990, upon having to lock-down one of Graterford's housing units,
14

the Department began transferring prisoners from Graterford to Camp Hill.
67. The Department is 550 correctional officers short of its established goal for full staffing. Inmate to correctional officer •ratios have increased significantly in the past decade. This staff shortage contributes to the overall deterioration of security and is a substantial cause of the violence now occurring in the institutions.
Excessive Force
68. There is in each institution a pattern and practice of the excessive, malicious, and unjustified use of force by correctional officers against inmates.
69. The defendants have failed to properly discipline or otherwise control the abusive actions of correctional officers. As a result, corrections officers believe they can use such force with impunity and they continue to use physical force to punish and retaliate against plaintiffs.
Classification and Programs
70. In light of the Department's desperate need for space to house its rapidly expanding population, the Department's classification schemes (traditionally used to insure that less aggressive inmates not be housed with more violent inmates) are in complete disarray. Putting a prisoner anywhere (even in infirmaries as noted below) has now become the Department's main classification goal.
15

71. According to the Final Report of the Governor's Commission at Camp Hill Corrections institution, large numbers of the prisoners at that facility (which prior to the riot was the Department's second largest) had nothing to do throughout the day. Indeed, of the roughly twenty-six hundred persons incarcerated at Camp Hill there were never more than 850 enrolled in that facility's chemical abuse, sex offender, and/or educational programs in the ten months preceding the riot described above.
72. Upon information and belief, plaintiffs allege that the finding of the Governor's Commission concerning the limited number of inmates allowed access to programs is equally true with regard to each of the Department's other institutions.
73. Thus, for example, the number of teachers employed by the Department has remained constant since 1979, despite a 150% increase in the Department's population.
74. Further, while the Department has established a goal of having 15% of its population participate in vocational programming, staff shortages have meant that only 8% of the inmates can be included in these programs.
75. Aside from the fact that the Department has not hired enough staff to provide sufficient programs, the Department has impeded access to these programs in a number of other ways.
76. Upon information and belief, plaintiffs allege that access to these limited programs as well as the limited number of jobs which prisoners are allowed to hold is granted along racially biased lines. This discrimination further escalates inmate tension.
16

77. Further, with regard to its sex offender programs, the Department now requires an admission of guilt before granting access to these programs.
78. The Department's failure to increase the number of individuals who may take advantage of these programs works injury in two ways: first, by depriving inmates of the benefits these programs have to offer and second, because the Board of Pardons and Paroles often conditions release upon the successful completion of the very programs inmates are unable to secure.
79. The general lack of education, recreational or employment opportunities resulting in pervasive idleness contributes to the level of violence which is outlined above and which has now become endemic.
Health and Psychiatric Issues
80. The provision of medical care by the Department is in a state of crisis. The Department systematically fails to provide necessary routine and emergency medical care to its population.
81. The Department's fifteen prisons had the third highest death rate of prisons throughout the nation last year: 26.2 deaths for every 10,000 prisoners. Eighty percent of inmate deaths in 1988 were medically related. In 1989, Pennsylvania had the ninth largest inmate population, yet ranked twenty-first in daily health care expenditures per inmate.
82. Overcrowding and poor sanitation provide a breeding ground for communicable disease. Strep and fungal infections are common.
17

A serious epidemic of tuberculosis is a real possibility. 83. Necessary emergency care is often denied because medical
personnel are not available on a 24 hour basis. Moreover, non-medical staff often fail to identify serious medical problems on the blocks, leading to delay or denial of emergency treatment even when medical assistance is available. The Department lacks basic equipment, such as crash carts, necessary to provide emergency care.
84. There are serious deficiencies with regard to the Department's sick call procedure. Inmates with potentially serious conditions are screened by inadequately trained and/or overburdened personnel who often do not detect medical problems until serious harm occurs.
85. Inmates who need greater assistance than can be provided at sick call experience chronic delays in securing physician care. Sick inmates become sicker while waiting to see physicians, frequently suffering unnecessary pain and medical complications.
86. There are long delays in scheduling inmate appointments at outside hospitals for tests, specialist, consults, and treatment, even in cases of a serious illnesses.
87. Even when an inmate finally receives outside care, medical care is compromised by a lack of continuity of treatment and follow-up. Test results and consultation reports from outside physicians often do not reach the Department treating physician for weeks or months. Unnecessary and dangerous medical complications sometimes arise because of the Department's practice of prematurely transferring inmates receiving hospital care back to its facilities
18

for budgetary reasons. 88. Department physicians fail to prescribe proper diet and
medication to prisoners who have, or develop, chronic physical conditions requiring daily special attention, such as ulcers, diabetes, hypertension, or chronic heart disease. Even when such diet or medication is ordered, the Department often fails to provide it in a consistent fashion.
89. Inmates with disabilities are often not provided proper physical therapy and/or assistance needed to participate in prison activities. The Department fails to make reasonable accommodation to the special needs of disabled prisoners.
90. Many of the deficiencies in the medical program are related to overcrowding. Thus, for example, at SCI Huntingdon, one of the Department's largest institutions, the Department has been forced to house general population inmates in space previously assigned to its infirmary.
91. In addition, the Department fails to employ a sufficient number of qualified medical personnel to treat its burgeoning population properly.
92. According to the Department's Table of organization, the medical health care staff has 74 vacancies. The vacancies are primarily in the categories of licensed practical nurses and registered nurses. The Department also has 18 vacancies in the dental care area. There is an acute shortage of physicians, especially in the institutions situated in rural areas. Physicians staffing sick call or clinics are routinely required to see 10 or
19

20 or more inmates each hour and cannot devote the necessary time to properly examine, diagnose and treat their patients.
93. Finally, the manner in which the Department administers health care is woefully deficient and deliberately indifferent to serious medical needs.
94. At some Department institutions, medical care is provided by one or more contractors. Because the contracts are let at a, fixed rate, the contractor has a financial incentive to minimize the cost and amount of care provided. This structure has led to seriously ill inmates being denied necessary care, or being provided necessary care only after lengthy delays. This structure has resulted in pervasive, deliberate understaffing of clinics, sick calls, and intake examinations.
95. The Department and its contracted medical providers assign physicians to duties for which they are not properly trained. For example, physicians with no training or experience in internal medicine are assigned to sick call and intake examinations, tasks which require skill in the diagnosis and treatment of internal medical complaints.
96. Inadequate record keeping adversely affect the delivery of health care from diagnosis to treatment. Insufficient staff, poor procedures, and inadequate equipment prevent appropriate follow-up of patients receiving ongoing care from Department or outside physicians. The results include interruption of medication, delays in test results or outside consultation results reaching the treating physician or outright loss of such results, and delays in
20

diagnosis and implementation of treatment. 97. The facilities, staff and procedures in the Department's
mental health care units are all seriously deficient. 98. The mental health treatment staff is currently. 72
positions short of a full complement. There was need for an additional 19 counselors, 22 psychologists, 5 psychiatrists, and 26 activity staff persons, according to the Audit of the Pennsylvania Budget and Finance Committee conducted in 1988. The need is greater today because of increased population. Shortages in mental health services disrupt treatment, and increase overcrowding as parole is denied to inmates with active mental health problems.
99. As a result of this shortage of staff the mental health care is often grossly inadequate, resulting in the deterioration of inmates, mental condition.
100. The Department's psychiatric screening for inmates suffering from mental illness is seriously deficient. Due to overcrowded conditions, prisoners are not properly classified or housed. Even if they are recognized as suffering from mental illness, they are frequently housed with other inmates.
101. All these deficiencies in medical and mental health care reflect inadequate funding for medical staff, support staff, and equipment.
102. As a result of all of the foregoing, inmates unnecessarily develop serious medical conditions or suffer unnecessary pain and even death.
21

HIV/AIDS Health Issues
103. The Department presently admits to having fewer than 150 HIV infected inmates in its custody. Based on the prevalence of AIDS in county jails in Pennsylvania, and taking into account the high incidence of past intravenous drug use among the prison population, the actual number of infected inmates is probably several times higher than the Department's estimate.
104. To date there is no cure for HIV infection. Education, counseling and voluntary testing to inform people about HIV and to foster avoidance of behaviors that transmit HIV are the only effective means of preventing the spread of the epidemic. Early identification of the infected has also become crucial, because the infected can be medically monitored and treated to delay the onset of serious AIDS symptoms and death.
105. All the problems of medical care cited above (see paragraphs 77 to 99) rebound with even more deadly effect on HIV infected prisoners. Plaintiffs are being denied necessary medical care across the entire spectrum of serious medical need.
(a) Inmates receive minimal AIDS education at intake, including written material that is out of date and inaccurate. There is little or no follow-up education, and inmates are not provided with information they need to protect themselves and others from HIV transmission in prison. Inmates who are or may be infected are not informed of the benefits of early identification of their condition, including the fact that there is treatment available to
22

delay the onset of serious illness. (b) Inmates whose HIV infection has not been detected because
they were deterred from requesting or were otherwise denied HIV testing are not evaluated for treatment they may need to prevent or delay the onset of AIDS. Inmates obviously at risk for HIV, or even showing obvious symptoms, are often not identified or offered testing by physicians at intake or sick call, either because the physician does not recognize the symptoms, or because physicians are under pressure to minimize the number of HIV tests performed.
(c) Inmates who are known to be HIV infected are often not carefully monitored with periodic physical examinations and CD4+ cell testing, and so do not receive treatment they need to prevent or delay the onset of AIDS.
(d) Inmates who are known to be immunosuppressed, with CD4+ cell counts between 500 and 200 per cubic millimeter, frequently do not receive necessary prophylactic or ameliorative treatments on a timely basis or at all. In some institutions, basic recognized therapies, such as aerosolized pentamidine to prevent PCP, a form of pneumonia, have been categorically unavailable. In others, AZT is sporadically provided, or is often not dispensed in accord with current medical practice. Other medications needed to treat HIV or opportunistic infections are frequently not prescribed or unavailable.
(e) Inmates with AIDS may not be seen on a regular basis by physicians with knowledge of the proper treatment of their disease, or may not be seen by such a physician at all.
23

(f) Defendants fail to provide plaintiffs with sufficient information about the nature and course of their illness. As a result, class members1 right to participate in their own treatment decisions is compromised. Some patients refuse necessary treatment because of inadequate, incomplete or inaccurate information.
(g) Inmates with psychological problems linked to HIV do not receive sufficient mental health care and support.
106. These deficiencies arise out of the same systemic failures that prevent the delivery of adequate general medical care.
107. In addition, the cost of testing for and treating HIV disease, and the impact of identifying large numbers of HIV infected inmates on the management of prison staff and inmates who are not educated about the virus, have led to a reluctance on the part of medical providers and Department officials to identify inmates with HIV infection.
108. Although the Department pays lip service to confidentiality, in practice HIV infected prisoners are routinely identified to Department staff and other inmates.
(a) The Department interprets its union contract to require that HIV infected inmates be identified to corrections staff.
(b) HIV-related information about inmates is routinely circulated among corrections staff and is often seen by prisoners, including inmate clerks who have access to the information in the course of their duties.
(c) In some Department institutions, inmate files are marked with a distinctive signal that is known to indicate HIV infection.
24

(d) Inmate files containing private medical information are routinely available to non-medical staff.
(e) Staff often inform prisoners of the HIV status of inmates, either directly or in statements or documents that inmates are allowed to overhear or see.
109. Although its stated policy is to segregate HIV infected inmates only if they pose a risk of sexual or needle-sharing behavior, in many Department institutions HIV infected inmates are housed together in a single block or tier. Inmates known to be HIV infected are subject to arbitrary and unjustified disciplinary writeups intended to serve as a pretext for isolation. HIV infected prisoners have been kept in solitary confinement for months and years at a time.
110. Inmates with AIDS have been confined for long periods in infirmaries, even when their health improves and infirmary care is no longer needed.
111. HIV infected inmates in infirmaries and restricted housing units are denied participation in educational and other programs available to other inmates. The lack of such program opportunities hinders the rehabilitation efforts of HIV infected inmates and may prevent or delay their parole.
112. These programs are denied to them solely because of their handicap. For all HIV infected inmates, the Department's failure to provide adequate education and to promulgate and police serious anti-discrimination policies results directly in a climate of fear, discrimination and harassment that renders HIV infected inmates
25

unable to fully participate in the social, educational or work life of the institution, solely because of their handicap. The climate of discrimination and fear forces people who know or suspect that they are HIV infected to keep their condition secret, depriving them as a consequence of the same opportunity as other prisoners to seek medical care for their condition.
113. HIV infected inmates are denied the opportunity to take certain prison jobs, such as food worker or barber, solely because of their handicap, and despite the fact that they do not pose a significant risk of infection to other inmates in such jobs.
114. The Department of Corrections has recently undertaken to audit its HIV education, testing and treatment policies in cooperation with the Department of Health. The Department of Corrections has further agreed to work with the Department of Health to make HIV testing available to prisoners upon demand, to offer inmate education, to improve staff education, and to provide uniform standards of medical treatment. To date, however, the Department of Corrections has not been able to secure significant changes in the actual delivery of care or to ameliorate the underlying conditions that lead to deficient care.
Environmental Conditions
115. Many of the Department's cells in the system are without sufficient ventilation and have excessive noise, insect and rodent infestation, leaking walls and ceilings due to roof flooding, uneven heat, insufficient lighting, unsafe electrical wiring, and deterior-
26

ating plumbing systems. 116. Many of the shower facilities within the Department lack
adequate ventilation, have mold and mildew on the walls and ceilings, ineffective temperature control, and deteriorating floor surfaces.
117. Food services facilities within the Department are unsanitary, poorly ventilated, poorly lit, poorly maintained, and rely upon outdated and poorly maintained equipment. Numerous safety hazards exist for employees and inmates alike, including electrical hazards, the potential for back siphonage, improper storage methods, and improper disposal of waste materials. Food storage facilities have been found to have roach and rodent infestation, improper temperature control, and use of inadequate and outdated storage equipment.
118. Dining facilities are unsanitary and have the potential for cross-contamination. The equipment has deteriorated to a point where inmate health is threatened.
119. The Department's reporting systems are deficient. Inspectors do not have formally defined criteria or detailed inspection forms to guide their activities. Sanitation and hygiene inspections are grossly inadequate.
120. The water supplies at several institutions are below acceptable EPA standards.
121. Insufficient funding for capital improvements and ongoing maintenance is a major factor contributing to the difficulties being encountered by the Department in maintaining the environment of the
27

physical plants and facilities. 122. The Department lacks a long-term plan for capital
improvements and physical maintenance. 123. Overcrowding has further contributed to the difficulties
encountered by the Department in maintaining and upgrading institutional physical plant and facilities. It has drained available financial resources away from maintenance by expanding housing capacity without a corresponding modification in support facilities.
124. Poor design of several institutions impedes the Department's ability to maintain the physical structures. Many of the state correctional institutions were designed for uses other than as adult correctional facilities. For example, SCI Graterford was designed to be a prison farm; SCI Camp Hill, SCI Dallas, SCI Huntingdon and SCI Waynesburg were designed to be juvenile facilities and consist of hollow brick construction; SCI Cresson was designed as an institution for mentally retarded persons, and SCI Retreat was designed as a center for mentally ill persons; SCI Rockview was designed as a minimum security farm; and SCI Greensburg was designed as a short term county facility.
125. The Department fails to meet basic needs of the inmate population. There are chronic shortages of essential clothing for newly admitted inmates, blankets and pillows for all prisoners, and replacement mattresses for those that are torn, dirty, or infested with bed bugs.
126. Fire safety is a problem throughout the Department. Many of the institutions have been found to be in violation of the Life
28

Safety Code, which has been adopted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania via the Pennsylvania Fire and Panic Act. Deficiencies include the lack of an automatic alarm system, an insufficient number of exits, lack of an immediate release mechanism on the cell blocks, lack of an emergency lighting system, the existence of significant barriers to evacuating the cell blocks within a reasonable amount of time because of the long distances inmates must travel from their cells to exit doors, and the absence of fire separation walls between authorized smoke compartments. Many of these deficiencies have been cited by the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry inspectors.
Access to Courts
127. The Department does not provide attorneys, paralegals or professionally trained persons to assist inmates with the filing of civil rights complaints, habeas corpus petitions or similar challenges to their convictions. With limited exception, the Department has not allowed the formation of para-law clinics staffed by inmates knowledgeable in the law.
128. Most of the Department's law libraries are stocked with such limited and antiquated volumes as to make it nearly impossible for prisoners to do legal research.
129. Those inmates without legal training and those who do not have a command of the English language are seriously handicapped in their efforts to pursue legal remedies.
130. At some of the Department's institutions, inmates in ad-
29

ministrative segregation, protective custody, or punitive segregation are not permitted to visit the main law library. Alternative provisions for such inmates are totally inadequate.
Causes of Action
131. The policies, practices, acts and omissions complained of herein taken as a whole constitute deliberate indifference to plaintiffs' rights under the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, thereby depriving plaintiffs of their rights to:
a. be free from cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments;
b. be free from excessive and malicious physical force and violence under the Fourth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments;
c. proper and necessary medical and psychiatric services under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments;
d. be free from deprivations of liberty and property without due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment;
e. equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment; and
f. access to counsel and the courts under the First, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
13 2. The policies, practices, acts, and omissions of the defendants constitute deliberate indifference with respect to the collection and retention of private medical information thereby violating plaintiffs' rights under the United States Constitution
30

and 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 in that they deprive plaintiffs of their rights to privacy and autonomy under the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
133. Defendants' actions in denying otherwise qualified HIV infected plaintiffs the benefits of participation in programs and activities available to other inmates, and exposing them to harassment and discrimination, solely on the basis of their handicap, violates Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. Section 701 et seq.. as amended by the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987.
134. Defendants1 actions in failing to make their facilities and programs accessible to otherwise qualified handicapped individuals, and to make reasonable accommodation to the special needs of such people, constitutes discrimination solely on the basis of handicap, and violates section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. Section 701 et sea.. as amended by the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987.
Praver for Relief
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, request that this Court:
a. Assume jurisdiction of this action; b. Issue an order certifying this action to proceed as a class pursuant to Rule 23 (a) and (b) (2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;
31

c. Issue a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 2201 and 2201, and Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that the policies, practices, acts and omissions complained of herein violate plaintiffs' rights to be free from cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, to due process and equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, to be free from the use of excessive force under the Fourth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, to counsel and access to the courts under the First, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments, and for handicapped members of this class to be free from discrimination as is guaranteed by the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
d. Issue preliminary and permanent injunctions sufficient to rectify the unconstitutional and unlawful acts, policies, practices and conditions complained of herein.
e. Retain jurisdiction over defendants and each of them until such time as the Court is satisfied that their unlawful policies, practices, acts and omissions complained of herein no longer exist and will not recur.
f. Award plaintiffs reasonable attorneys' fees, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1988, and costs of this action.
g. Award such other further relief as to this court seems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
/
: A
Alvin J. Bronstein, Esq. 32

Executive Director Adjoa A. Aiyetoro, Esq. Associate Director David C. Fathi, Esq. The National Prison Project
of the ACLU Foundation 1875 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Suite 410 Washington, DC 20009 (202) 234-4830
Stefan Presser, Esq. Bar No.( 43067 Legal Director Scott Burris, Esq. American Civil Liberties Union
of Pennsylvania 125 South Ninth Street, Suite 7 01 Philadelphia, PA 19107 (215) 592-1513 ext. 16
Da^vid Rudovsky, Esq.\ " Kairys & Rudovsky 924 Cherry Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19107 (215) 925-4400
Angi^sxLove, Esq. v Institutional Law Project 317 Swede Street Norristown, PA 19401 (215) 275-5400
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
33

 
 )
j
/
OB\TU:T!OtJ T0 I
-PR-Ol~-!J-SEJ-) (SETTU::f0E~JT

r~

I ~---1

(_)~ vJaY!b:Jn

 
 876 F.Supp. 1437 (1995)
Steven AUSTIN, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants.
Civ. A. No. 90-7497.
United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.
January 17, 1995.
14348901 *1438 *1439 *1440 *1441 Alvin J. Bronstein, Elizabeth R. Alexander, David Fathi, Washington, DC, David Rudovsky, Stefan Presser, Scott Burris, Angus R. Love and Robert W. Meek, Philadelphia, PA, for plaintiffs.
Francis R. Filipi and Linda C. Barrett, Sr. Deputy Attys. Gen., and R. Douglas Sherman, Denise A. Kuhn and Pia D. Taggart, Deputy Attys. Gen., Harrisburg, PA, for defendants.
DuBOIS, District Judge.
ORDER
AND NOW, to wit, this 5th day of January, 1995, upon consideration of the Stipulation of Dismissal Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(ii), the Proposed Settlement Agreement, as amended, Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of Proposed Settlement Agreement, Defendants' Memorandum of Law in Support of the Proposed Settlement Agreement, the objections of class members received by the Court between August 9, 1994, and the date of this Order,[1] and all other documents to which reference is made in this Court's Memorandum which will be filed on or before January 17, 1995, following a hearing on December 12 and 13, 1442 1994, at which time the Court received testimony from designated *1442 class representatives and other class members concerning the Proposed Settlement Agreement, for the reasons summarized below and set forth in more detail in the Court's Memorandum which will be filed on or before January 17, 1995, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. Members of the plaintiff class were given adequate notice of the proposed settlement, the proposed dismissal of the action without prejudice, their right to file objections, the manner of filing objections, and the hearing on the proposed settlement scheduled for December 12, 1994 and December 13, 1994, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) and Orders of the Court dated September 20, 1994, November 21, 1994 and November 29, 1994;
2. The Settlement Agreement fairly, reasonably and adequately advances and protects the interests of the plaintiff class and is APPROVED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e). The Court's review of the Settlement Agreement was conducted solely to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) and does not convert the Settlement Agreement into an order of the Court or a consent decree;
3. The Stipulation of Dismissal without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(ii), except for plaintiffs' claims regarding tuberculosis control which will be covered by a subsequent order, is APPROVED in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e);
4. Any plaintiff, including those plaintiffs who filed objections or wrote letters to the Court which stated personal or individual concerns, may at any time file a new complaint raising some or all of the issues presented in this action, and any other issues justiciable in this Court. Because this Court has dismissed the action, plaintiffs are now informed that the Court no longer has jurisdiction to consider individual objections or individual correspondence relating to the action;[2]

5. If within three (3) years of the date hereof the plaintiffs, by their current counsel, file a new action on any issues presented by this action, the new action will be considered a "related case" and assigned to this Court;
6. All discovery that has been provided by the parties in this action shall be deemed to be part of discovery in any new action filed in accordance with paragraph 5 above. Plaintiffs' counsel may maintain control and custody of all discovery provided to date. Plaintiffs' counsel shall continue to comply with the provisions of all protective orders; and,
7. If any of the corrections issues that were the subject of testimony in the trial of the corrections phase of this case are raised in a new action filed pursuant to paragraph 5 above, the testimony and evidence introduced in the corrections phase of this case shall be admissible on the merits in the new action.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that (a) all pending motions of class members to intervene, some of which were filed as objections to the proposed settlement, are DENIED on the ground that there is no need for class members to intervene as all objections filed by class members were considered by the Court, (b) all pending motions of class members for appointment of counsel, some of which were filed as objections to the proposed settlement, are DENIED on the ground that there is no basis for appointment of counsel for individual class members, the entire class being adequately represented by class counsel, (c) all pending motions of class members to enjoin the proposed settlement, some of which were filed as objections to the proposed settlement, are DENIED for the reasons set forth above and in the Court's Memorandum which will be filed on or before January 17, 1995, and (d) all other pending motions related to the proposed settlement, some of which were filed as objections to the proposed settlement, are DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that notice of the provisions of the within Order shall be provided by defendants to 1443 members of the plaintiff class and other inmates in the state *1443 correctional system who are affected by the
Order by posting such notice in appropriate places in state correctional institutions.
Table of Contents
I. BACKGROUND ............................................................ 1444 A. The Parties ........................................................ 1444 B. The Pennsylvania Correctional System ............................... 1444 C. Plaintiffs' Claims ................................................. 1444 D. Procedural History/Motions for Preliminary Injunction and Summary Judgment ......................................................... 1445
II. The Settlement Agreement .............................................. 1447 A. Summary of Negotiations ........................................... 1447 B. Enforceability/Monitoring ......................................... 1448 C. Medical Care ...................................................... 1449 1. Staffing ...................................................... 1449 2. Policies and Procedures ....................................... 1449 3. Equipment and Facilities ...................................... 1450 4. Quality Assurance ............................................. 1450 5. Monitoring .................................................... 1450 D. Mental Health Care ................................................ 1450 E. Corrections ....................................................... 1451 1. Access to the Courts ........................................... 1451 2. Excessive Force Claims ......................................... 1451 3. Jobs and Educational Opportunities ............................. 1451 4. Sex Offender Programs .......................................... 1453 5. Monitoring ..................................................... 1453 F. HIV/AIDS .......................................................... 1453 G. Environmental/Fire Safety ......................................... 1454

III.

H. Attorneys' Fees ................................................... 1454 DISCUSSION ............................................................ 1454 A. Notice to Class Members ........................................... 1455 B. Court Approval .................................................... 1456
1. Complexity, Expense and Likely Duration ........................ 1457 2. Reaction of the Class .......................................... 1458
a. Medical Care ............................................... 1458 (1) Peer Review Committee .................................. 1458 (2) Adequacy of Care ....................................... 1458 (3) Emergency Procedures ................................... 1458 (4) Staffing ............................................... 1460
b. Mental Health Care ......................................... 1460 (1) Confidentiality ........................................ 1460 (2) Special Needs Units ("SNUs") and Mental Health Units ("MHUs") ............................................. 1460
c. Corrections ................................................ 1461 (1) Access to the Courts ................................... 1461 (2) Excessive Force Claims ................................. 1462 (3) Jobs and Educational Opportunities ..................... 1463 (4) Sex Offender Programs .................................. 1464
d. HIV/AIDS ................................................... 1464 (1) Discrimination ......................................... 1464 (2) Privacy ................................................ 1466 (3) Miscellaneous Objections ............................... 1467
e. Environmental/Fire Safety .................................. 1467 f. Overcrowding ............................................... 1468 g. Enforceability ............................................. 1468 h. Attorneys' Fees ............................................ 1469 3. Stage of the Proceedings ....................................... 1470 4. Risks of Establishing Liability ................................ 1471 5. Defendants' Ability to Endure Greater Judgment ................. 1471

1444 *1444 6. Range of Reasonableness of the Settlement Fund .................... 1472 7. Recommendation of Class Counsel ................................... 1472
IV. CONCLUSION .............................................................. 1473

MEMORANDUM

DuBOIS, District Judge.
This is a class action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., as amended, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. Presently before the Court is the parties' joint request for approval of a Settlement Agreement pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e). For the following reasons, the Settlement Agreement will be approved.
I. BACKGROUND

A. The Parties

The named plaintiffs are inmates who, at the time the initial Complaint was filed, November 27, 1990, were incarcerated at thirteen state correctional institutions throughout the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.[1] On

March 5, 1992, the Court certified a class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure consisting of all persons who are now or who will in the future be confined by the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections ("DOC") in a facility other than State Correctional Institution ("SCI")-Muncy or SCI-Pittsburgh.[2]
The named defendants are Joseph Lehman, Commissioner of the DOC, the thirteen superintendents of the correctional institutions named in the initial Complaint, and Robert Casey, Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
B. The Pennsylvania Correctional System
The DOC is responsible for management and day to day operation of all correctional institutions in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. During the four years this case has been ongoing, the number of inmates committed to correctional institutions in Pennsylvania has increased from approximately 18,000 in November, 1990, to more than 27,000 in November, 1994. The number of correctional institutions at which these inmates are housed has increased from fifteen to twenty-two.[3]
Twenty institutions house male inmates only. Two institutions, SCI-Cambridge Springs and SCI-Muncy, house only female inmates. Two of the correctional institutions are designated as diagnostic and classifications centers. SCI-Camp Hill is the central diagnostic and classification center for male inmates; SCI-Muncy is the diagnostic and classification center for female inmates. At the diagnostic and classification centers, recently convicted inmates and parole violators are processed and then transferred to other correctional institutions.
C. Plaintiffs' Claims
In their Second Amended Complaint plaintiffs allege the following: (1) all of the state correctional institutions are severely overcrowded, causing such physical and psychological harm and deprivation as to render incarceration 1445 unconstitutional; (2) as a direct result of the overcrowding, violence between *1445 inmates and between inmates and staff is at a greater frequency than at any other time in the past; (3) there is a pattern and practice of excessive, malicious and unjustified use of force by correctional officers against inmates, which the defendants have failed to discipline or otherwise control; (4) the DOC's classification scheme, which insures that less aggressive inmates will not be housed with more violent inmates, is in complete disarray; (5) there are not enough staff members to conduct sufficient chemical abuse, sex offender and educational programs; (6) access to programs and job openings is granted in a racially biased manner; (7) access to the sex offender programs, upon which the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole generally conditions release, requires an admission of guilt; (8) the general lack of educational, recreational or employment opportunities results in pervasive idleness and contributes to the level of violence; (9) the DOC systematically fails to provide necessary routine and emergency medical care to its population because of a lack of medical staff, equipment and adequate training; (10) inmates with disabilities are often not provided proper physical therapy and/or assistance needed to participate in correctional institution activities; (11) the manner in which the DOC administers health care, by contracting with outside providers at a fixed rate, leads to financial incentives for the providers to deny necessary care or provide necessary care only after lengthy delays; (12) the facilities, staff and procedures in the DOC's mental health care units are all seriously deficient; (13) inmates are not provided with information they need to protect themselves and others from HIV transmission; (14) HIV-infected inmates are not informed of the benefits of early identification of their condition or provided with adequate medical treatment; (15) the DOC does not maintain the anonymity of HIV-infected inmates; (16) HIV-infected inmates are segregated from other inmates; (17) HIV-infected inmates are denied the opportunity to take certain jobs such as food worker or barber solely because of their handicap; (18) environmental, health and fire safety standards are not met; and (19) inmates' access to the courts is restricted by inadequate training, assistance and facilities.
Plaintiffs allege that these policies, practices, acts and omissions, taken as a whole, constitute deliberate indifference to plaintiffs' rights under the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, thereby depriving plaintiffs of their rights: (1) to be free from cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments; (2) to be free from excessive and malicious physical force and violence under the Fourth, Eighth

and Fourteenth Amendments; (3) to proper and necessary medical and psychiatric services under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments; (4) to be free from deprivations of liberty and property without due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment; (5) to equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment; (6) to access to counsel and the courts under the First, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments; and (7) to privacy and autonomy under the First, Fourth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Plaintiffs allege that defendants' actions also violate Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., as amended by the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987, by (1) denying otherwise qualified HIVinfected plaintiffs the benefits of participation in programs and activities available to other inmates; (2) exposing HIV-infected plaintiffs to harassment and discrimination, solely on the basis of their handicap; (3) failing to make DOC facilities and programs accessible to otherwise qualified handicapped individuals; and (4) failing to make reasonable accommodation to the special needs of such persons. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief.
D. Procedural History/Motions for Preliminary Injunction and Summary Judgment
On November 27, 1990, plaintiffs filed their initial Complaint. Before defendants filed a response, plaintiffs amended their complaint as a matter of course. Plaintiffs, with leave of court, filed a Second Amended Complaint 1446 on September 16, 1991, adding eight inmates *1446 as plaintiffs.[4] On August 6, 1992, while discovery was ongoing, plaintiffs filed a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction by which they sought to enjoin the defendants to establish an appropriate program for diagnosis, treatment and control of tuberculosis ("TB") in the thirteen institutions named in the Second Amended Complaint and SCI-Muncy.
In May of 1991, prior to plaintiffs' Preliminary Injunction Motion, the DOC initiated a review of the previous TB Policy in response to concerns raised by the Department of Health with respect to TB control in the Pennsylvania correctional system. That review led to the adoption of a new TB policy entitled Clinical and Administrative Guidelines for the Prevention and Management of Tuberculosis, effective on September 4, 1992 ("1992 TB Policy").
The 1992 TB Policy provided for: (1) TB testing of all inmates upon entry into a correctional institution and annual testing thereafter based on the inmates' date of entry; (2) preemployment and annual testing for employees; (3) segregation of new inmates pending completion of TB screening; (4) preventive therapy for inmates with inactive TB infection and monitoring for adverse reaction to therapy; (5) isolation and treatment for inmates with active TB; (6) computerized medical record keeping for purified protein derivative ("PPD") test dates, results and followup treatment; (7) automated status reports generated on a daily and monthly basis and reporting procedures for active cases of TB; (8) annual education and training in TB prevention and control for inmates and employees and documentation of such training upon completion; (9) measures to prevent the transfer of inmates without medical clearance; (10) segregation of inmates who refuse to comply with screening and testing procedures; (11) semi-annual screening of inmates known to be HIV-infected; and (12) procedures for investigating incidents of conversion from negative to positive PPD status.
A hearing on plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction was held on September 9, 10 and 11, 1992. At the hearing Dr. Armand Start, plaintiffs' expert, testified that the 1992 TB Policy was an "excellent document" that addressed all of the major elements of any TB control program. The DOC presented evidence that it had begun implementation of the 1992 policy and planned to institute a quality assurance program to ensure its effectiveness and complete implementation. Under those circumstances, the Court granted plaintiffs' Motion on September 29, 1992, enjoining defendants to implement the 1992 TB Policy and making no findings on the issue of deliberate indifference before the adoption of the new policy.
The parties engaged in extensive discovery on all aspects of the case. Based on this discovery and supported by affidavits from correctional institution officials and expert witnesses, defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on correctional and environmental issues on June 25, 1993. On July 1, 1993, plaintiffs filed a CrossMotion for Summary Judgment on two HIV-related issues 0907 whether defendants violated plaintiffs' constitutionally protected right of privacy in disseminating confidential medical information concerning inmates who are HIV-

positive and whether the defendants violated the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, by routinely denying food service, personal care and other jobs to HIV-positive inmates without justification or individualized consideration. Both motions were denied by the Court.
The Court ordered that the case be tried non-jury in four phases: corrections, environmental, medical care, and mental health. Between December 6, 1993 and January 3, 1994 the parties tried part of the corrections phase. On January 3, 1994, the Court continued the corrections phase at the joint request of the parties so as to give them additional time to conduct settlement discussions.
1447 *1447 II. The Settlement Agreement
A. Summary of Negotiations[5]
Settlement discussions began in the first week of December, 1993. Plaintiffs' counsel, under the direction of David Rudovsky, drafted a proposed Settlement Agreement that was submitted to the defendants on December 7, 1993. Defendants responded with a written counterproposal on January 15, 1994. Plaintiffs, in turn, responded to that document on January 31, 1994.
During February, 1994 the parties exchanged a series of letters regarding certain procedural matters that had to be resolved prior to any substantive agreement. Following resolution of these procedural matters, the parties decided that further negotiations should proceed separately on each substantive issue between the attorneys assigned to handle each such issue. Mr. Rudovsky took responsibility for overseeing the negotiations for the plaintiffs and for drafting and negotiating the substantive proposals in the corrections area. Mr. Rudovsky also handled plaintiffs' negotiations concerning the form of the settlement, fees, conditions for dismissal and related issues. Mr. Rudovsky spent in excess of 250 hours on these matters.
In the corrections area, Mr. Rudovsky and Stefan Presser, another attorney representing plaintiffs, worked through numerous draft proposals with defense counsel, Francis Filipi. A substantial amount of time was expended on the issue of providing access to the courts, specifically on how many paralegals would be hired and what part of the DOC's inmate population they could assist. Additionally, there were numerous telephone conferences dealing with the responsibility of the Special Investigation Office, the branch of the DOC which investigates inmates' grievances relating to abuse by corrections officers. There were also extensive negotiations over the number of additional jobs which the DOC would provide. Plaintiffs sought the guidance of their expert witness, Patrick McManus, on the latter issue.
With regard to the medical issues, on March 11, 1994, the defendants responded to the medical provisions of the plaintiffs' January 31, 1994, proposal. Subsequently, in March, 1994, the defendants provided a number of documents with information regarding medical budgets, staffing and equipment inventories at the various institutions. Following further correspondence and oral communications, plaintiffs' counsel, Elizabeth Alexander, sent defendants a revised proposal on April 15, 1994. Defendants responded on April 19, 1994. Face-to-face negotiations were conducted in Harrisburg on May 4 and 5, 1994, between Ms. Alexander and defense counsel, Linda Barrett, after which the parties reached substantial agreement on most of the medical provisions of the Agreement. A few minor issues, such as the content of certain monitoring documents, were resolved in June 1994. During the negotiations, Ms. Alexander discussed the medical proposals with plaintiffs' medical experts on at least eleven occasions. She spent a total of 103.6 hours in connection with the negotiation of the medical issues.
In the mental health area, counsel exchanged at least 20 drafts of the Settlement Agreement over the course of the negotiations. There were at least 30 telephone conferences between plaintiffs' counsel and defendants' counsel solely on mental health issues. Plaintiffs' counsel conferred with their mental health experts on at least 15 separate occasions during the negotiations.
With regard to the HIV/AIDS issues, the general outline of a settlement on the employment discrimination issues was developed by April, 1994, in a series of conversations, memoranda and letters between plaintiffs' counsel,

Scott Burris, and defendants' counsel, Francis Filipi. However, the parties reported an impasse shortly thereafter when defendants refused to eliminate the contagious disease notification policy without the agreement of its unionized employees, the corrections officers. In response, plaintiffs advised the Court that they were prepared to renew their Motion for Summary Judgment, or to proceed to trial, on that issue.
1448 *1448 In June, 1994, the Court referred the HIV/ AIDS aspect of the case to the Honorable Thomas N. O'Neill, Jr., for mediation. The parties included in the discussions with Judge O'Neill representatives of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees ("AFSCME"), the correctional officers' labor union. After two long meetings, the parties reached agreement on all such issues.[6]
Regarding the environmental aspects of the case, plaintiffs initially relied heavily on their expert reports. The proposal submitted to defendants on environmental matters took into account the changes that had already been made by defendants and documented in affidavits attached to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. These affidavits, provided by the superintendents of the named institutions, addressed the more pressing concerns raised by plaintiffs' experts, many of which were corrected promptly by defendants.
Defendants' responded to plaintiffs' initial settlement proposal on environmental issues with a counteroffer in midJanuary, 1994. Plaintiffs' counsel reviewed the proposal in its entirety with their expert team leader, Ward Duel, and continued to consult with him on a number of technical issues such as asbestos problems, flammability of mattresses, ventilation issues, sanitary fixture ratios and monitoring issues. Over the next several months numerous draft proposals were exchanged.
Given the extensive history of the negotiations set forth above and the Court's close involvement with the settlement process through the scheduling of regular status conferences by telephone, it is evident that counsel strongly represented the interests of their clients. At all times the negotiations were highly adversarial and professional. Virtually every provision of the Settlement Agreement underwent numerous changes. For all such reasons, the Court finds the Settlement Agreement was the result of vigorous arm's-length negotiations.
B. Enforceability/Monitoring
From the inception of the litigation the defendants were adamant about their unwillingness to enter into a consent decree or any form of agreement directly enforceable by the Court. The parties therefore agreed to a dismissal without prejudice combined with extensive monitoring by plaintiffs' counsel at defendants' expense. The Settlement Agreement provides that all claims except those relating to TB will be dismissed without prejudice contemporaneously with Court approval. The preliminary injunction issued September 29, 1992, regarding TB control will remain in effect until June 30, 1995, at which time the parties agreed the injunction will be vacated and the TB-related claims dismissed without prejudice provided that the DOC is in substantial compliance with the injunction.
The defendants agreed to make "all good faith efforts" to effectuate the provisions of the Settlement Agreement, see Settlement Agreement ¶ 231(a), and plaintiffs are permitted to file a new complaint raising some or all of the issues presented in this action, as well as any other issues justiciable in the Court, at any time. The agreement itself, however, states unequivocally that it is "not enforceable by the plaintiffs or plaintiff class." See id. ¶ 231. In the event the DOC fails to perform its obligations under the Settlement Agreement, plaintiffs' only remedy is to reinstitute suit.
This mutually dependent arrangement allows the parties to be reasonably confident that the Settlement Agreement will be observed and provides added flexibility because it does not involve the Court in the micromanagement of the corrections institutions. Although the members of the plaintiff class will not be able to seek the Court's assistance in enforcing the Settlement Agreement, they also will not be precluded from bringing subsequent suits for monetary or injunctive relief.
The Agreement provides for submission by plaintiffs' counsel of quarterly statements setting forth the time and 1449 costs expended in *1449 connection with monitoring defendants' compliance. Plaintiffs' counsel agreed to
discount their normal fees by 50%. The parties estimate that monitoring costs will not exceed $60,000 per year.

In the event plaintiffs' current counsel bring suit on any of the issues presented in this action within three years, the newly filed action will be considered a related case under the Local Rules of Civil Procedure and will be assigned to this Court. All discovery that has been provided to date will be deemed to be part of discovery in any new action filed as a related case, and testimony and evidence introduced in the corrections phase of this case will be admissible on the merits in any new action brought by current counsel on corrections issues.
C. Medical Care
The plaintiffs negotiated the medical care provisions of the proposed Settlement Agreement with three principles in mind: (1) an adequate number of medical staff should be provided; (2) the medical staff should provide medical care pursuant to generally accepted policies and procedures; and (3) there should be a system to monitor the implementation of the policies and procedures. Throughout the settlement negotiations, plaintiffs' counsel consulted with a seven-member medical expert team, led by Dr. Ronald Shansky. The team consisted of five physicians, a physician's assistant and a Ph. D.-level registered nurse.
1. Staffing
One of the major accomplishments of the settlement negotiations was the agreement reached on a minimum number of physicians, dentists, and registered nurses for each correctional institution. Because the current level of staffing does not meet the newly-defined minimum, the DOC has agreed to request funding for more than 150 new medical staff positions throughout the system. For every 1000 inmates at a facility the Agreement requires a minimum of forty hours per week of primary physician time and ten full-time registered nurses.[7] The physician hours do not include services provided by medical specialists or time expended in performing reception physical examinations. Although the DOC may elect to substitute physician assistant hours for up to 30% of the physician hours, each physician assistant hour will be treated as the equivalent of only 0.4 physician hours. Consistent with existing DOC policy, there will now be 24-hour on-site registered nurse coverage at all facilities.
The agreement also provides for specific staffing levels for dentists, dental hygienists, and dental assistants. When a facility experiences a significant vacancy rate in a particular position, defendants have agreed to make arrangements for staff coverage through individual contracts or short-term employment. See Settlement Agreement ¶ 15.
2. Policies and Procedures
The Settlement Agreement provides for the adoption of a wide range of medical policies and procedures. Such provisions were based, in large part, on the premise that the DOC has proven its ability to promulgate effective medical policies and procedures by formulating and implementing an excellent TB policy in 1992 after institution of this lawsuit. To date, the 1992 TB Policy has been highly successful in preventing what might otherwise have been an outbreak of active TB. With that background, the parties agreed that by June 30, 1995, the DOC will develop policies regarding, among other aspects of health care, entrance screening, medical transfer procedures, on-site and off-site referral access to health care, infirmary admissions, health education and preventive care, emergency care, dental care, specific policies for the management of chronic diseases including HIV, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, hypertension, asthma and pulmonary disorders, medical records, follow-up for abnormal laboratory results, staff credentials and appropriate limitations on scope of practice, and the establishment of a Peer Review Committee.
1450 *1450 3. Equipment and Facilities
The DOC has agreed to request funding to provide standard medical equipment at each of its facilities. A prioritized list of equipment which will be made available at all state correctional institutions is included in the Settlement Agreement. See Settlement Agreement Attachment 3. The list, in order of priority, provides for call bell systems, an oxygen concentrator, a peak flowmeter, a word processor, a computer, a pulse oximeter, crash carts

(without defibrillator), hospital beds, Hoyer lifts, two autoclaves (one for dental; one for medical), an addressograph and embossers, a locked medicine cabinet for drug delivery, geriatric chairs, shower chairs, an ultrasonic dental machine, gurneys, a paper shredder, two refrigerators, equipment for Restricted Housing Unit exam rooms and exam room areas and a motorized vehicle (such as a golf cart) for emergency use.
4. Quality Assurance
The Settlement Agreement provides that the DOC will adopt a comprehensive quality assurance program designed to ensure that the medical provisions of the Agreement are properly implemented. One of the most important components of this program is the DOC's establishment of a Peer Review Committee. This Committee, composed of physicians from outside the correctional system whose identity will not be made known to the DOC employees and contractors involved in health care, will provide oversight to the practice of medicine; review physicians' standards of practice with regard to DOC policy; and make recommendations to the Director, Bureau of Health Care Services and to the Commissioner of Corrections on the subject of physician credentialling and disciplinary actions. In addition, under the Agreement the Committee will review the new policies and procedures developed by the DOC for "consistency with contemporary standards of practice." See Settlement Agreement ¶¶ 18, 32-33. Because the members of the Peer Review Committee will remain anonymous, DOC physicians and nurses and others providing health care in the state correctional system will not be able to influence the Committee's recommendations in any way.
5. Monitoring
Defendants have agreed to provide plaintiffs' counsel with a substantial amount of information so as to enable them to monitor the DOC's compliance with the Settlement Agreement. In the area of medical care the Agreement provides that plaintiffs' counsel will receive a variety of reports and other documents on a quarterly basis: biweekly reports from the correctional health care administrators, the Regional Health Care Administrators' Quarterly Status Report, the executive monthly State Corrections Analysis Network ("SCAN") report relating to medical issues, the equipment lists for each facility reflecting the present state of equipment on site, the TB Summary of Tracking Data Report, the Inmate Deaths Database System Printout, the Facility Medical/Mental Health Staffing Report, an explanation for any vacant positions which are not filled within three months, institution population counts from the SCAN data, copies of promulgated policies, copies of the public DOC and Bureau of Health Care Budget and Rebudget documents, reports of the measurements taken in the negative air pressure rooms reflecting the number of air exchanges per hour, and reports from each facility regarding emergency equipment checks.
D. Mental Health Care
In the area of mental health care, the Settlement Agreement is intended to provide substantive improvements in the availability and types of services for inmates and to increase quality control over mental health treatment decisions. To achieve this goal, the DOC has agreed not only to increase the number of beds available for onsite, therapeutic treatment but also to establish specific treatment standards which will be reviewed by an independent peer review committee. Plaintiffs' counsel will have the right to monitor the DOC's performance to ensure compliance with the mental health provisions of the Settlement Agreement.
Inmates in need of mental health care are currently assigned to Special Needs Units ("SNUs") and Mental Health 1451 Units *1451 ("MHUs").[8] These units are intended to provide on-site therapeutic bed space for inmates who are
seriously mentally ill or who require short term commitment to a forensic facility. Placement in either unit requires the development of a treatment plan with specific criteria to address an inmate's particular mental health problem. Inmate access to the SNU is governed by DOC policy; MHUs are licensed and admission to such units is governed by state law. See 55 Pa. Code § 5200.31 et seq.

The DOC has agreed nearly to double the number of beds in SNUs from 450 to 800 and not to reduce the number of SNU beds unless the correctional institution population decreases. This expansion will alleviate the problem of placing inmates in Restricted Housing Units where treatment and other programs are far less accessible. Inmates placed on psychotropic medications will be evaluated at least once every six months for signs of tardive dyskinesia and, if such signs are detected, the inmate will receive necessary medical treatment. Individuals who refuse to take prescribed psychotropic medications will not be placed in administrative custody solely on the basis of a mental health diagnosis and refusal to be medicated with psychotropic drugs. The Agreement will also strengthen the programming provided to inmates in SNUs.
In addition to increasing the availability and types of mental health services to inmates, the Settlement Agreement establishes better quality control over mental health care. The Agreement requires the DOC to adopt and implement policies to assure appropriate mental health care to inmates through individualized treatment plans and specialized unit treatment requirements. The DOC has also agreed to continue using a tracking system to assist in determining treatment needs, both individually and systemically.
The DOC will create a new position titled "Chief of Psychiatric Services." The person in this position will have the authority and responsibility to oversee all aspects of psychiatric care and will, together with the Chief of Psychological Services, coordinate all mental health care in the state correctional system. The DOC will also establish a Peer Review Committee for quality assurance in mental health care analogous to that utilized by major hospitals.
In order to facilitate monitoring of defendants' compliance in the mental health area by plaintiffs' counsel, the DOC has agreed to provide counsel with quarterly status reports regarding implementation of the mental health provisions of the Settlement Agreement. Copies of all policy changes and new policies implemented during the course of monitoring will be included in these reports. Plaintiffs' expert, Dr. Jeffrey Metzner, will be allowed to tour specific areas in a number of correctional institutions after June 30, 1995. During these tours Dr. Metzner will be permitted to interview mental health personnel and review inmates' case files after appropriate releases are obtained.
E. Corrections
The provisions of the Settlement Agreement in the corrections area cover several discrete issues 0907 access to the courts, excessive force claims against corrections officers, jobs and educational opportunities and sex offender programs. Plaintiffs' counsel made significant advances in three of the four areas. The DOC is required to hire outside paralegals to aid inmates who, because of lack of education or their placement in a heightened security unit, have difficulty in preparing legal filings. The DOC is required to expand the functions of the office which investigates excessive force claims by inmates. And the DOC is required to increase the most desirable inmate jobs by over 50%. In the final area, sex offender programs, plaintiffs' counsel have concluded that complete relief cannot be afforded because the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole is not a party to this action. 1452 Accordingly, counsel intend to file a separate action in *1452 which the DOC and the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole are named defendants.
1. Access to the Courts
The Settlement Agreement provides that the DOC will hire paralegals (1) to provide legal assistance directly to inmates and (2) to train inmate legal reference aides who will then be permitted to assist inmates in the general population with legal matters. In allocating the paralegals' time, priority will be given to non-English speaking inmates and those inmates who cannot read at the 8th grade level. The DOC has agreed to allow private conferences between inmates and paralegals and, when necessary, to provide translation services through a non-employee translator. Conferences between inmates and inmate legal reference aides will be afforded privacy by the DOC when consistent with institutional space availability and security requirements.

The DOC has agreed to create mini-law libraries in Restricted Housing Units. In addition, on-site photocopy services will be provided at each institution at reasonable charges.
Plaintiffs' counsel considered those to be important improvements but they also concluded that a number of related provisions would, in all probability, be insufficient to provide the requisite level of services. In response, the DOC has agreed to consider suggestions from plaintiffs' counsel once the new program is in operation and data regarding access to law libraries and the courts is available. If the legal assistance provisions of the Settlement Agreement do not prove to be adequate, plaintiffs' counsel have advised the Court they will reinstitute suit on this issue. Furthermore, the same issue is currently before the Honorable Maurice B. Cohill, Jr., in the Tillery case, a class action involving inmates at SCI-Pittsburgh. A ruling in Tillery on the sufficiency of the DOC system for access to the courts is expected within the next several months.
2. Excessive Force Claims
The Settlement Agreement provides that allegations of excessive force by corrections officers will be tracked and monitored by the Special Investigations Office. That Office, located in Camp Hill, is charged with the responsibility for investigating and disciplining corrections officers who physically abuse inmates. Although it is part of the DOC, the Special Investigations Office is independent of the correctional institutions which it investigates. Under the Agreement the Special Investigations Office has authority to review the investigation in any case, order additional investigative steps or procedures or assume direct responsibility for the investigation.
Because it may be difficult in some situations for an inmate to identify a corrections officer by name, the DOC has agreed to maintain photographs of all employees to aid inmates seeking to identify an alleged assailant. The DOC will also purchase fixed cameras for, or assign dedicated camcorders to, each Restricted Housing Unit to record incidents in which force is used against inmates.
3. Jobs and Educational Opportunities
The Settlement Agreement provides for the creation of 725 additional Correctional Industries jobs by December 31, 1995. See Settlement Agreement ¶ 148. Correctional Industries jobs are primarily skilled manufacturing and service positions which pay the highest rate on the DOC pay scale. Inmates employed in the manufacturing jobs produce such items as modular and upholstered furniture, mattresses, dental prosthetics and a variety of formed metal objects. Inmates working in the service area perform data processing. In addition to these Correctional Industries positions, the DOC will offer some type of non-Correctional Industries work to eligible inmates within six months of arrival at their parent correctional institution. See id. ¶ 149.
With respect to educational programs, the DOC agreed to maintain Graduate Equivalency Degree programs and will assign inmates to these programs in such a way that the time between application and initial class will not exceed 120 days. See id. ¶ 150. Moreover, the DOC will advocate and encourage the availability of Graduate 1453 Equivalency *1453 Degree and other educational programs.[9]See id. ¶ 151.
4. Sex Offender Programs
Plaintiffs' objections to the sex offender programs are based on the fact that, for the most part, the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole requires successful completion of a program in which an inmate admits guilt as a prerequisite for parole. A number of inmates have objected to the requirement that they admit guilt on the ground that this system violates their Fifth Amendment rights if they have ongoing criminal proceedings.
The Board of Probation and Parole is a necessary party to any complete adjudication of the issues raised by plaintiffs with respect to the sex offender programs. Accordingly, that issue will be addressed in a separate lawsuit in which the Board of Probation and Parole and the DOC are named defendants.

5. Monitoring
The monitoring provisions associated with the corrections aspects of the case require the DOC to supply plaintiffs' counsel with the following information on a quarterly basis: the number of paralegal positions systemwide and whether those positions are filled or vacant, the number of hours actually worked by the paralegals, the response time for paralegal requests, the number of requests for legal assistance at each institution from inmates in restricted housing, requests that were declined by the paralegals because they were frivolous, the number of legal reference aides and requests filled by the legal reference aides, copies of all regulations, rules and directives pertaining to corrections, the number of inmates enrolled in Correctional Industries, vocational training, other work assignments, Graduate Equivalency Degree programs and other educational programs, the number of cases actually investigated by the Special Investigations Office, the method of disposition of these cases and the number of cases in which additional investigation was ordered, all investigative records regarding allegations of abuse of force received by the Special Investigations Office, access to tracking data on inmate abuse allegations, information concerning placement of inmates in protective custody, the names of inmates placed in administrative custody or transferred to another institution for the inmates' protection, access to videotapes of force used by corrections officers against inmates, and the names of the institutions which offer a non-admitter sex offender program. The Court concludes that such documents and other information will provide plaintiffs' counsel with the means to monitor defendants' compliance with the corrections provisions of the Agreement.
F. HIV/AIDS
In the area of HIV/AIDS plaintiffs' counsel had two main concerns 0907 eliminate or, at least, minimize unlawful discrimination against HIV-infected individuals and increase the protection currently afforded to information regarding inmates' HIV status. From the point of view of the plaintiff class, the parties agreed to substantial improvements on both issues.
The DOC has agreed that, as a general rule, HIV-infected individuals will be precluded from a work assignment only if the individual poses a direct medical threat to the health of others. Although negative reactions of DOC employees or other inmates generally will not be a sufficient ground to justify restrictions on the employment of HIV-positive individuals, on occasion, the DOC may reassign or transfer an HIV-positive individual for security reasons.
The DOC has agreed to keep inmates' medical information regarding HIV status confidential and to advocate a universal precautions policy in place of the current Contagious Disease Notification Policy in its forthcoming negotiations with the union representative of its custody staff. Under a policy of universal precautions, all blood 1454 and body fluids are presumed to be potentially contagious. *1454 See Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on HIV/AIDS Privacy and Discrimination, Affidavit of Albert J. Raymond, M.D. at 22. The DOC will also take the position in its forthcoming labor negotiations that inmates who have a history of serious violent behavior will be placed on a notification list for the safety of corrections officers. Serious violent behavior is defined as actual or threatened violent or assaultive behavior such as assaults, biting, scratching, or the use of blood or excrement as a weapon or means of intimidation. Finally, the DOC has agreed to enhance and update the current educational materials on HIV/AIDS and establish a review panel to oversee the educational process.
With regard to the monitoring of HIV/AIDS provisions, the DOC has agreed to provide plaintiffs' counsel with the names of HIV-positive inmates (provided the appropriate waivers are obtained) and the type of jobs they hold, any policy changes or new policies that would impact on the HIV-infected inmates' employment or would be otherwise relevant to HIV, any grievance arising from a denial of employment based on HIV status or disclosure of HIV information, a summary of disciplinary procedures against employees for a breach of confidentiality of an inmate's HIV status, contagious disease notification lists, and documentation supporting the finding that an inmate has a history of serious violent behavior. Such information will enable plaintiffs' counsel to monitor compliance in this area of the settlement.

G. Environmental/Fire Safety
The parties have agreed to a wide range of provisions regarding the maintenance of environmental and fire safety standards. These provisions include, among others, a requirement for the sanitization of mattresses, vermin control, adequate lighting and ventilation, appropriate food temperatures, regular inspections of water quality, proper use of extension cords and issuance of non-combustible wastebaskets. The DOC has agreed to use only those inmates who have been appropriately trained and certified for the asbestos abatement projects which are ongoing at several correctional institutions. With regard to the handling of material containing asbestos, the DOC has a policy, which is currently being revised, establishing safety standards. In addition to these general environmental provisions, the Settlement Agreement includes provisions which require the DOC to remedy specific problems at the original thirteen institutions involved in the suit.
In the environmental/fire safety area, the DOC is negotiating a memorandum of understanding with the Department of Environmental Resources to provide independent oversight of the DOC's compliance with respect to certain environmental provisions of the Agreement. Plaintiffs' counsel will also have the right to monitor the DOC's compliance and, to that end, will be provided with various reports and surveys. Such documents and other information will enable plaintiffs' counsel to monitor compliance in this area of the settlement.
H. Attorneys' Fees
The parties have agreed that plaintiffs' attorneys will receive $1.4 million in counsel fees and costs. This payment includes any claims for fees and costs that plaintiffs could make under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 or any other federal statute or rule of procedure for all work done and costs expended in the litigation of this matter to date.
III. DISCUSSION
Unlike the typical two-party suit, a class action is a procedural device which allows a group of individuals with common interests to join together to pursue their collective claims through representatives. One commentator has stated that the dual mission of the class action is "to reduce the units of litigation by bringing under one umbrella what might otherwise be many separate but duplicating actions [and], even at the expense of increasing litigation, to provide means of vindicating the rights of groups of people who individually would be without effective strength to bring their opponents into court at all." Benjamin Kaplan, A Prefatory Note, 10 B.C.Indus. & Commercial L.Rev. 497, 497 (1969).
1455 *1455 In traditional, two-party litigation there is a general policy in favor of encouraging settlements because such a resolution conserves judicial resources and minimizes litigation expenses. See Williams v. First National Bank, 216 U.S. 582, 595, 30 S.Ct. 441, 445, 54 L.Ed. 625 (1910) ("Compromises of disputed claims are favored by the courts."); Sherin v. Gould, 679 F.Supp. 473, 474 (E.D.Pa.1987) (same). While the same considerations apply in the class action context, the extraordinary amount of judicial and private resources consumed by massive class action litigation elevates the general policy of encouraging settlements to "an overriding public interest." Cotton v. Hinton, 559 F.2d 1326, 1331 (5th Cir.1977); see also Armstrong v. Board of School Directors, 616 F.2d 305, 313 (7th Cir.1980) ("Settlement of the complex disputes often involved in class actions minimizes the litigation expenses of both parties and also reduces the strain such litigation imposes upon already scarce judicial resources.").
Because of their representative nature, however, settlements of class actions are particularly susceptible to abuse by the named plaintiffs or their attorneys. Class representatives and their attorneys, entrusted with the responsibility and ability to settle claims on behalf of all class members, may be tempted to settle a case at more favorable terms for themselves, to the detriment of absent class members. To guard against such improper conduct, it has long been the rule that "a class action shall not be dismissed or compromised without the approval of the court, and notice of the proposed dismissal or compromise shall be given to all members of the class in such manner as the court directs." Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(e).

A. Notice to Class Members
Although Rule 23(e) states without exception that "notice of the proposed dismissal or compromise shall be given," courts have consistently held that notice to class members is required only when consistent with the rule's purpose 0907 the protection of absent class members. As an example, involuntary dismissals have been judicially exempted from the purview of the notice requirements of Rule 23(e) because there is no possibility that the named plaintiffs or their counsel could "sell out" the class for their own benefit. See 7B Charles A. Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 1797, at 345 (1986) ("Wright") ("Another exception to the mandatory notice requirement in Rule 23(e) occurs when the dismissal is not voluntary."); but see Papilsky v. Berndt, 466 F.2d 251, 257 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1077, 93 S.Ct. 689, 34 L.Ed.2d 665 (1972) (stating that when plaintiffs consent to summary judgment being entered against them, purpose of rule is implicated and notice is required).
When the dismissal or settlement of a class action is without prejudice and will not prevent any class member from bringing a subsequent action, courts have held that the notice provision of Rule 23(e) is inapplicable. See Sheinberg v. Fluor Corp., 91 F.R.D. 74, 75 (S.D.N.Y.1981) ("[N]one of the reasons which underlie the notice requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 23 and 23.1 with respect to voluntary discontinuances are operative here; no one's rights are being cut off and no potential abuses are present."); 2 Herbert B. Newberg & Alba Conte, Newberg on Class Actions § 11.66 (1992) ("Newberg") (stating that notice is not mandatory in all instances because the language of Rule 23(e) is sufficiently flexible to permit the court to determine that no class notice is required when the dismissal or compromise will not result in any prejudice to class members).
The proposed dismissal in this case is without prejudice and, if approved, none of the class members will be precluded from bringing a subsequent suit for monetary or injunctive relief. Therefore, notice to class members is not required by Rule 23(e). However, because this Court concluded that the class members' views would be useful in determining whether to approve the settlement, it directed that notice be provided.
On three separate occasions the DOC posted notices regarding the Settlement Agreement in the common areas of all institutions housing class members. The DOC posted a "Notice of Proposed Settlement Agreement" on or 1456 about August 9, 1994, a "Notice Regarding Objections to the Proposed *1456 Settlement" on or about September 20, 1994, and a "Notice of Hearing" on or about November 29, 1994. See generally Documents Evidencing Compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) Notice Provisions ("Notice Compliance Documents") (providing declarations by administrators at each institution stating the time and place notices were posted and the names of inmates who reviewed Settlement Agreement). These notices informed the class members of the prospective settlement and the location of copies of the Settlement Agreement and the way in which to file objections with the Court. Because of the extensive notice provided in this case, the Court concludes that any applicable notice requirements of Rule 23(e) have been satisfied.
B. Court Approval
Recognizing that the court approval provision of Rule 23(e) was designed to protect class members from the potential for abuse by class representatives and plaintiffs' counsel, courts evaluating Settlement Agreements have required plaintiffs' counsel to show that the agreement is "in the best interests of all those who will be affected by it," 7B Wright § 1797.1, at 378, and that "the settlement secures an adequate advantage for the class in return for the surrender of litigation rights against the defendants." 2 Newberg § 11.46, at 11-105 to 11-106. Accordingly, in deciding whether to approve a Settlement Agreement, courts have held that the central question is whether the settlement is "fair, adequate, and reasonable." Stoetzner v. U.S. Steel Corp., 897 F.2d 115, 118 (3d Cir.1990); Walsh v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 726 F.2d 956, 965 (3d Cir.1983).
The cases which apply the "fair, reasonable and adequate" test are premised on the assumption that the absent class members will be bound by the terms of the Settlement Agreement and will be precluded from further litigation of their individual claims. The Supreme Court, in a discussion of the court approval requirement of Rule 23(e), alluded to this underlying assumption:

The certification of a suit as a class action has important consequences for the unnamed members of the class. If the suit proceeds to judgment on the merits, it is contemplated that the decision will bind all persons who have been found at the time of certification to be members of the class. Once the suit is certified as a class action, it may not be settled or dismissed without the approval of the court.
Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U.S. 393, 399 n. 8, 95 S.Ct. 553, 557 n. 8, 42 L.Ed.2d 532 (1975) (citations omitted).
The settlement agreement in this case, unlike any reported decision cited by the parties or located by the Court, provides that the dismissal of this class action is without prejudice. Approval of the settlement and dismissal of the action without prejudice will not have an adverse effect on the rights of any of the class members. That is so because any class member will be able to file an individual claim or, if appropriate, a representative claim on the issues covered by the settlement after such a dismissal.
With the case in its present posture, some courts might not deem it necessary to rule on the fairness of a proposed class action settlement because the class members' rights will not be adversely affected and the primary purpose of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), the protection of absent class members, is not directly applicable. This Court believes that such an approach would be imprudent. First, the plain language of Rule 23(e) requires court approval of all dismissals or compromises of class actions. Even Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) excepts class actions from those cases which may be dismissed by a plaintiff without a court order. Second, allowing a class representative to dismiss an action without court approval if the dismissal is without prejudice would prevent the court from overseeing such class actions and create the potential for abuse by class representatives who bring meritless class actions for their settlement value. Even though the potential for abuse is not as great as when the dismissal is with prejudice because the class representatives cannot settle at the expense of the absent class members, the added leverage that a class representative has by virtue of class 1457 certification could lead to settlements without prejudice that unfairly compensate *1457 class representatives and counsel. Finally, by moving for class certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c), the class representative has voluntarily taken on a court imposed, fiduciary responsibility. See Zimmer Paper Products, Inc. v. Berger & Montaque, P.C., 758 F.2d 86, 95 (3d Cir.1985) (Weis, J., dissenting) ("The fiduciary obligation of class counsel may go beyond the notice requirements of Rule 23(e)."), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 902, 106 S.Ct. 228, 88 L.Ed.2d 227 (1985). This obligation may not simply be abandoned at will but can only be relinquished with court approval. For all such reasons, this Court concludes that Court approval of the Settlement Agreement is required even though the Agreement provides for a dismissal without prejudice. Accordingly, the Court will determine whether the provisions of the Agreement are "fair, reasonable and adequate" to members of the plaintiff class.
The proposed settlement in this case is, on balance, beneficial to all class members. It eliminates or improves a number of the conditions and practices challenged by the class on constitutional grounds. Nevertheless, because the settlement represents a negotiated resolution of disputed issues, from the point-of-view of the class members it does not provide all the relief sought by members of the class. That conclusion, however, standing alone, does not require rejection of the settlement. Rather, for the reasons set forth below, the Court concludes that the settlement advances the interests of the class, and is most certainly "fair, reasonable and adequate."
In determining whether a class action settlement is "fair, reasonable and adequate," the Third Circuit has enunciated a number of factors for consideration: (1) the complexity, expense and likely duration of the litigation; (2) the reaction of the class to the settlement; (3) the stage of the proceedings and the amount of discovery completed; (4) the risks of establishing liability; (5) the ability of the defendants to withstand a greater judgment; and (6) the range of reasonableness of the settlement fund in light of the best possible recovery and the attendant risks of litigation. See Girsh v. Jepson, 521 F.2d 153, 157 (3d Cir.1975). In addition to the Girsh factors, several courts have accorded significant weight to the view of experienced counsel who have engaged in arm'slength negotiations. See In re Unisys Corp. Retiree Medical Benefits ERISA Litig., MDL No. 969, 1994 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 17877, 1994 WL 702638 (E.D.Pa. November 3, 1994). Taking all of those factors into consideration, the Court concludes that the settlement in this case is "fair, reasonable and adequate," for the reasons which follow:

1. Complexity, Expense and Likely Duration
There can be little doubt that this class action presents extremely complex issues for resolution and would be expensive and time consuming to try to conclusion. Plaintiffs have asserted § 1983 claims based upon the First, Fourth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments as well claims of discrimination on the basis of handicapped status in violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act on behalf of more than 24,000 inmates in 20 state correctional institutions.[10] The case was initiated more than four years ago and has already consumed a considerable amount of private and public resources.
Having already conducted nearly five weeks of trial on the corrections phase of this case, the parties estimated, and the Court agreed, that an additional 16 to 22 weeks would be required to complete all trial phases. See 1458 Order, October 13, 1993. Plaintiffs' *1458 counsel estimated that they spent approximately 500 attorney hours in connection with the TB injunction hearing and trial of the corrections phase of the case. An additional 16 to 22 weeks of trial would increase this figure manyfold. In light of the extraordinary expense required to try this complex case to completion, the Court finds that this factor favors approval of the Settlement Agreement.
2. Reaction of the Class
Because class members are presumed to know what is in their best interest, the reaction of the class to the Settlement Agreement is an important factor for the court to consider. See TBK Partners, Ltd. v. Western Union Corp., 675 F.2d 456, 462-63 (2d Cir.1982). The Court should evaluate both the nature and number of objections. However, the mere fact that there is opposition, even from class representatives, does not necessitate rejection of the settlement. See Reed v. General Motors Corp., 703 F.2d 170 (5th Cir.1983) (approving settlement over objections of more than 600 of 1,469 class members and 23 of 27 named plaintiffs). While there is authority to approve Settlement Agreements over the objection of a substantial number of class members, courts have held that there is a point when the objections are so numerous that disapproval is warranted. Compare Bryan v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co., 494 F.2d 799, 803 (3d Cir.) (approving settlement over objections from 20% of class), cert. denied, Abate v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co., 419 U.S. 900, 95 S.Ct. 184, 42 L.Ed.2d 146 (1974), with Wyatt v. Horsley, 793 F.Supp. 1053 (M.D.Ala.1991) (stating that proportion of class that objects to proposed settlement may at some point become so large that settlement presumably is not in the best interest of class).
In July, 1994, the parties reached a settlement. The Settlement Agreement was submitted to the Court on July 29, 1994, and on or about August 9, 1994, copies of the Settlement Agreement and a Notice of Proposed Settlement were posted in all state correctional institutions which housed class members. The Notice of Proposed Settlement stated that objections must be mailed to the Court within 30 days.
Class members began filing objections to the Settlement Agreement on August 15, 1994. By Order dated September 20, 1994, the Court extended the time for filing objections to September 30, 1994. In the same Order, defendants were directed to post a notice in all state correctional institutions advising class members of the new cut-off date for filing objections, and that was done. See Notice Compliance Documents. By September 30, 1994, 385 objections had been received by the Court.
The Court, by Order dated November 21, 1994, stated that it would consider untimely objections and scheduled a hearing on the proposed settlement for December 12 and 13, 1994.[11] Plaintiffs' counsel chose 27 inmates from 18 institutions to represent the objectors at the hearing. The inmates were chosen because of the broad based nature of their filed objections.
By Order dated November 29, 1994, the Court directed the DOC to post a notice of the hearing on the proposed settlement at all correctional institutions except Muncy, Pittsburgh, and Quehanna. Such notices were posted. See id. The notice, which was approved by the Court, listed the representative inmates from each institution who were scheduled to testify and informed all other inmates that additional concerns could be transmitted to the representative inmates for presentation at the hearing. The notice also provided that an inmate who could not communicate with a representative inmate could present additional concerns to the Court by writing a letter to

plaintiffs' counsel and giving it to the institution grievance coordinator on or before December 8, 1994 for delivery by the grievance coordinator to class counsel via overnight mail.
At the hearing on December 12 and 13, 1994, the Court received testimony from 24 representative inmates from 1459 15 state correctional institutions. Several inmates expounded on the previous written objections they *1459
submitted to the Court; others raised new concerns both on their own behalf and on behalf of others. In addition to such testimony, the Court stated it would consider all written objections to the Settlement Agreement regardless of when filed. By January 5, 1995, the Court had received 457 written objections, representing approximately 1.9% of the class members.
An analysis of the objections received by the Court follows:
a. Medical Care[12]
(1) Peer Review Committee
A significant number of inmates claim that the Peer Review Committee will be ineffective because it will be comprised solely of doctors employed by the DOC. Those statements are incorrect. The Settlement Agreement provides for a Peer Review Committee which will be comprised of non-DOC physicians whose identity will not be revealed to the treating physicians and other health care providers at correctional institutions. See Defendants' Memorandum of Law in Support of the Proposed Settlement Agreement at Exhibit B, Declaration of Diane Marks ¶ 14 ("Marks Declaration"). Under the Settlement Agreement the Committee will evaluate physician and nursing practices in accordance with established guidelines and will review cases on a regular basis to determine the quality of care. Because the members of the Peer Review Committee will remain anonymous, DOC physicians and nurses will not be able to influence the Committee's recommendations in any way.
(2) Adequacy of Care
Objections in this category range from specific complaints that nurses are unfamiliar with basic life support techniques, see Letter 58, to general complaints requesting improvement of medical care, see Letters 128, 238, 453, to statements that medical personnel are unskilled or negligent. See Letters 74, 101, 119, 452. The Court finds the Settlement Agreement addresses the adequacy of medical care issues by providing for the establishment of medical policies and procedures and comprehensive, system-wide quality assurance.
According to the Settlement Agreement, on or before June 30, 1995, the DOC will adopt new policies and procedures regarding entrance screening and medical clearance for transfer, access to health care, including sick call and on-site and off-site specialty referrals, infirmary admission procedures, health education and preventive care, access to emergency care, access to dental care, management of chronic diseases, maintenance of medical records, follow-up testing, staff credentials and continuing education. See Settlement Agreement ¶¶ 20-29.
On September 4, 1992, the DOC adopted and implemented a TB policy which ultimately proved to be highly successful in preventing what might otherwise have been an outbreak of active TB in state correctional institutions. In light of this experience the Court concludes that the DOC has demonstrated its ability to promulgate and administer effective medical policies and procedures. These new policies and procedures combined with oversight by the Peer Review Committee should result in marked improvement in health care. However, if plaintiffs' counsel, as a result of their monitoring, do not believe sufficient progress has been made, they are permitted to reinstitute this action. Furthermore, class members who believe that the level of medical care is inadequate are permitted to bring individual actions.

(3) Emergency Procedures
Inmates have raised questions regarding the adequacy and timeliness of certain emergency procedures for medical and dental care. See Letters 332, 284, 281, 275, 216, 274. In addition to requiring emergency response 1460 times to be logged and tracked, the Settlement Agreement provides for emergency *1460 response drills, critiques, and a review of emergency treatment in 10% of all cases presented to determine the appropriateness of the care. See Settlement Agreement ¶ 36. The Court concludes the new DOC policies for access to emergency care will provide guidelines to track timeliness and adequacy of care and will enable the DOC to address the concerns expressed in this area of health care.
(4) Staffing
Some of the inmates challenge the Settlement Agreement on the ground that the proposed staffing level of health care professionals is insufficient. See Letters 63, 141, 255, 311, 338. A number of inmates identify what they believe is a particular shortfall in the number of dentists.
The Settlement Agreement requires a medical staffing level which is the result of several years of planning in conjunction with the opening of the DOC's prototypical institutions. This staffing provides for increases in the number of dentists, dental assistants and dental hygienists available system-wide and at particular institutions. Additionally, the level of physician, physician assistant and nursing coverage conforms to minimum standards established by the National Commission on Correctional Health Care. The Court concludes that the Settlement Agreement reflects a significant commitment to the improvement of the quality of medical care afforded to class members through an increase in the number of medical personnel.[13]
b. Mental Health Care
(1) Confidentiality
Some class members object to the Settlement Agreement because they believe that there are inadequate controls over mental health records to ensure confidentiality. The DOC has agreed to draft an informed consent form for inmates in connection with therapeutic and forensic interviews. This informed consent document will replace existing forms. See Settlement Agreement ¶ 53. In addition, the DOC has agreed to provide increased training to staff with access to mental health records regarding the proper circumstances for disclosure.
By the very nature of its population, a corrections institution is occupied by a large number of individuals in need of psychological and psychiatric services. In order to assist these individuals in following a treatment plan for development of coping mechanisms during incarceration, licensed mental health staff must be able to maintain and share records addressing these issues. To accomplish this objective, the DOC has implemented a centralized mental health assessment and tracking system ("Mental Health Computer Tracking System") which begins when an inmate is first incarcerated in the Pennsylvania correctional system. The Mental Health Computer Tracking System, which has also drawn some criticism, contains extensive mental health data which allows for ongoing assessment of inmate needs. The Court concludes that the provisions of the Agreement with respect to confidentiality appropriately balance confidentiality and treatment concerns and are reasonable.
(2) Special Needs Units ("SNUs") and Mental Health Units ("MHUs")
Some class members contend that the number of SNU and MHU beds the DOC has agreed to maintain is insufficient because many of the allotted spaces will be taken by individuals who do not require therapeutic services. Given the extensive requirements for admission to a SNU or MHU, this Court finds little merit in the inmates' concern that such bed space will be used for non-therapeutic purposes.

Several inmates have objected to the DOC's practice of double celling inmates with mental health problems with general population inmates. They also object to the use of a psychiatric observation room ("POR") for inmates who decompensate before admission to a forensic facility is obtained. The Court concludes that the Settlement Agreement adequately addresses these concerns.
1461 Inmates who are double celled are screened by mental health practitioners, and *1461 each placement must be documented in the inmate's mental health record. See Settlement Agreement ¶ 74. Placement in an institution's POR must also be documented and under the Settlement Agreement it is more limited than in past practice. For example, POR placement must include a well documented entry stating that the inmate's behavior is so disruptive that the inmate is a danger to himself or to others. These limitations correspond to the DOC's overall policy of placing inmates with mental health problems in an environment which is consistent with an individualized treatment plan. Moreover, a Peer Review Committee will be established to conduct periodic reviews of the implementation of these policies and to ensure that physician performance regarding mental health care is uniform and conforms to clinical standards. See Settlement Agreement ¶¶ 73, 75, 76, 77, 80.
c. Corrections
(1) Access to the Courts
A number of class members do not believe the paralegals can effectively render legal assistance to inmates because of their employment by the DOC. See Letters 31, 52, 56, 87, 102, 169, 194. Some class members are of the view that the paralegals will be reluctant to file civil rights actions against correctional officers and other DOC employees because they will be influenced by the DOC; others believe that confidential communications will be disclosed to correctional institution personnel. See Letter 153.
Plaintiffs' counsel has undertaken to monitor the work of the paralegals to determine the efficacy of the program. To that end, the Settlement Agreement provides that the plaintiffs will have access on a quarterly basis over the next three years to information concerning the response time of the paralegals to inmate requests and to detailed information concerning instances in which the paralegals decline assistance because they deem the request legally frivolous. See Settlement Agreement ¶ 176. With respect to confidentiality, the Settlement Agreement provides that inmates consulting with paralegals will be afforded privacy to confer and a non-employee translator if needed. See Settlement Agreement ¶ 127.
Another group of class members, obviously unmoved by the claimed "conflict" resulting from the paralegals' employment by the DOC, objects to the settlement because plaintiffs' attorneys have not secured enough paralegals. See Letter 173. In a similar vein, another inmate objects to the fact that only inmates who read at or below the 8th grade level will benefit from the assistance of the newly-hired paralegals. See Letter 213.
The creation of the new paralegal position is a strong feature of the Settlement Agreement. Although the criticisms that more paralegals should have been hired and that the paralegals should be authorized to assist inmates who can read above the 8th grade level are certainly well-taken, plaintiffs' counsel was constrained by what defendants would concede in negotiations. The DOC believes that the provisions for legal aid included in the Settlement Agreement are sufficient to allow complete access to the courts. It has, however, expressed its willingness to consider class counsel's suggestions in the future once the program has been established and additional data are available. See Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of Settlement Agreement at Exhibit A. Plaintiffs' counsel has stated that if the paralegal program does not provide sufficient assistance and adequate access to the courts, they will reinstitute suit on this issue under the applicable provisions of the Settlement Agreement. See id. Furthermore, even though relatively few paralegals will be hired, inmate access will ultimately increase substantially as the paralegals train inmate legal reference aides who will, in turn, be able to draft pleadings and otherwise assist inmates without regard to an inmate's reading level.
Some class members object because the Settlement Agreement does not secure additional law books for the law libraries, see Letters 8, 189, or increase the hours of operation or physical space of the law libraries. See Letters 18, 112, 133. Other class members object because the Settlement Agreement fails to provide for free

1462 photocopying of legal documents or cover the issues of photocopying *1462 turn-around time or the handling of legal correspondence.
The books available at the law libraries and the handling of legal mail in four state correctional institutions involved in this suit are the subject of a consent decree in an unrelated case.[14]See Imprisoned Citizens Union v. Shapp, 451 F.Supp. 893 (E.D.Pa. 1978). That consent decree is not vitiated by the current Settlement Agreement, and any objections to the provisions of the consent decree or the DOC's compliance by class members in those institutions are more properly addressed in the context of that case. With respect to the adequacy of legal materials and the handling of legal mail at the other state correctional institutions, class members who object are permitted to file independent actions.
As for the capacity of law libraries and their hours of operation which are set forth in paragraph 132 of the Settlement Agreement, plaintiffs' counsel conceded that they have not been able to establish that members of the class have been denied access to the courts because of the lack of access to law libraries. See Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of Proposed Settlement Agreement at 10.
With regard to photocopying legal material, the Settlement Agreement provides that each institution is required to have its own photocopy machine and to provide inmates with copies of documents at a "reasonable" fee. See Settlement Agreement ¶¶ 146, 147. This provision unequivocally benefits the inmates who previously had to wait up to a week for a response to photocopying requests because their institution had no photocopy machines and sent their documents to private companies for copying. As for the demand for free photocopies, it suffices to say that there is no case which requires the DOC to absorb this cost, and plaintiffs' attorneys were unsuccessful in obtaining this concession through negotiation.
A specific goal of the litigation was the expansion of legal assistance to inmates who need advice and assistance in addressing legal claims. Under the agreement the DOC will for the first time hire paralegals to train inmate legal reference aides and to assist inmates confined in the Restricted Housing Units, create mini-law libraries within each Restricted Housing Unit and ensure that each institution is able to photocopy inmates' legal material on-site at a reasonable charge. These concessions by the DOC are substantial and provide the class members with tangible benefits. Having considered all of the objections, the Court finds that there is nothing that calls into question the fairness of the settlement with respect to access to the courts.
(2) Excessive Force Claims
The most common objection to the provisions regarding controls on the excessive use of force is that it permits the "fox to guard the henhouse." See Letters 2, 53, 62, 117, 127, 187. In support of this objection, inmates point out that it is difficult to identify corrections officers because they do not wear nametags and the DOC fails to maintain current photographs of the officers. See Letters 11, 13. If the name of the corrections officer is known, the inmates must file their grievances with a colleague of their alleged assailant who, in the inmates' view, cannot be trusted to forward the material to appropriate personnel. See Letters 24, 52. With respect to grievances that are properly processed, a number of inmates object on the ground that the matter becomes a swearing contest which they invariably lose, see Letters 53, 117, 133, because the outcome is determined by a biased hearing examiner. See Letters 24, 58, 196. The inmates also complain about the reliance on video equipment as an impartial recorder of conflicts because the equipment is subject to manipulation by DOC personnel. See Letter 82. Finally, there are objections to the fact that the DOC does not maintain a central registry of complaints concerning verbal abuse and/or harassment similar to the registry which is required under the Settlement Agreement for physical abuse. See Letters 31, 100.
1463 *1463 The DOC has established a Special Investigations Office to investigate and adjudicate claims of excessive force. This office is located in Camp Hill and is completely independent from the administration of the individual correctional institutions. Given the uncertainty that this Court would take the unusual step of ordering an outside agency to investigate complaints of excessive force, plaintiffs' counsel understandably sought in negotiations to make the Special Investigations Office more effective and accountable.

Under the Settlement Agreement the DOC agreed to maintain a registry of all excessive force grievances through which it will be able to identify whether particular corrections officers are routinely the subject of such complaints. See Settlement Agreement ¶ 156. In addition, the DOC stated it has under consideration creation of a similar database regarding verbal abuse and harassment grievances. See id. Plaintiffs' counsel will be furnished with copies of essentially all of the records and the database of the Special Investigations Office on a quarterly basis in order to determine whether the DOC is aggressively seeking to deter excessive force by disciplining employees who are repeatedly the subject of such complaints. See id. ¶¶ 179-81.
In order to facilitate the identification of corrections officers who are alleged to have assaulted inmates, the Settlement Agreement provides that the DOC will re-photograph its employees every five years. See id. ¶ 162. As to the objection that corrections officers do not process grievances alleging excessive use of force, there is simply no evidence that this has occurred systemically.
The Settlement Agreement also attempts to address the objection that, at grievance proceedings, an inmate's word is not generally accepted if corrections officers tell a contrary story, by providing that "the fact that the complaint of an inmate is not corroborated by other persons or physical evidence does not preclude the factfinder from taking action." See id. ¶ 163. Finally, in an effort to minimize the ability of DOC personnel to manipulate the record of a particular conflict through the selective use of hand-held videocameras, the Settlement Agreement provides for the installation of fixed cameras in Restricted Housing Units and Special Management Units. See id. ¶ 169.
Protection from unwarranted force is a critical issue for the inmates in any correctional institution. Plaintiffs' expert, Patrick McManus, testified that any remedies available for grievances arising out of excessive use of force will only be effective if the DOC internalizes the responsibility for preventing excessive force by its employees. See Transcript, December 13, 1994, at 10-14. The Special Investigations Office was created by the DOC for the purpose of investigating excessive force claims and is just such a measure. The provisions of the Settlement Agreement dealing with claims of excessive force appropriately balance improvements in the operation of the Special Investigations Office without stripping it of authority and are beneficial to the class.
(3) Jobs and Educational Opportunities
The most common objection in this area is that the settlement secures only 725 new Correctional Industries positions. See Letters 2, 52, 115, 123. Others complain that it does not address the issue of whether the inmate jobs are made available in a racially discriminatory manner. See Letters 2, 117. Finally, a number of inmates serving life sentences object to the settlement's failure to address Congress' decision to eliminate inmates' eligibility to receive Pell grants, which had previously paid for certain inmates' higher education programs. See Letters 51, 53.
The 725 new Correctional Industries positions represent a 51% increase in the number currently available.[15] Because federal law prohibits the interstate sale of goods made by Correctional Industries, sales of such products are limited. See 18 U.S.C. § 1761. Given this constraint, creating new Correctional Industries positions is difficult. Indeed, plaintiffs' expert, Patrick McManus, was "very impressed" with the creation of the new 1464 Correctional Industries positions because "[t]hese are the most difficult jobs to *1464 develop." See Transcript, December 13, 1993, at 8. Even though not all inmates can be afforded a Correctional Industries position, which, according to Mr. McManus, is the most desirable from the inmates' point of view, the Settlement Agreement provides that the DOC will offer some type of regular employment to each inmate within six months after the inmate arrives at his parent institution. See Settlement Agreement ¶ 149. That provision will increase the speed with which inmates are provided work opportunities.
It is correct that the Settlement Agreement does not address racial discrimination in job placement or Congressional termination of Pell grants for higher education of qualified inmates. Plaintiffs' counsel decided not to pursue the issue of discrimination in job placement because they were not able to establish that allegation. See Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Support of Proposed Settlement Agreement at 15. However, because the Settlement Agreement contemplates a dismissal without prejudice, inmates who believe racial discrimination

exists are able to file individual cases. See Settlement Agreement ¶ 231(b). As for the objections based on the Congressional termination of Pell grants for incarcerated persons, this litigation is simply not the proper forum to address these concerns.
(4) Sex Offender Programs
The major complaint concerning the portion of the Settlement Agreement which covers the sex offender therapy programs results from its failure to alter defendants' requirement that an inmate admit guilt in order to gain access to such programs. See Letters 53, 72, 107. As a practical matter, in order to be considered for parole by the Board of Probation and Parole, a sex offender must successfully complete a sex offender program in which he admits guilt. Because a number of inmates have ongoing criminal proceedings which could be affected by their admission of guilt, they contend the DOC's policy violates the Fifth Amendment. Other inmates complain that even though the Settlement Agreement provides that every institution will have a "non-admitters" program, they are housed at an institution that does not maintain such a program. See Letters 43, 139. Moreover, even with such non-admitters programs, it appears that, generally speaking, the Board of Probation and Parole requires completion of a program in which guilt is admitted before it will consider an inmate for parole.
Plaintiffs' counsel has determined that the inmates' Fifth Amendment claims implicated by the sex offender programs have merit. However, because the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole is a necessary party to a proper adjudication of the requirements for sex-offender programs and the relationship of such programs to consideration for parole, plaintiffs' counsel have concluded that this suit is not an adequate forum for resolution of this issue. Instead, they plan to institute separate litigation on this issue, naming the DOC and the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole as defendants. See Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of Settlement Agreement at Exhibit A. As for the complaint that not all DOC institutions presently offer a non-admitters program, defendants have represented that they will hire the necessary personnel to create such programs in those institutions which do not have one. See id. at Exhibit B.
d. HIV/AIDS
(1) Discrimination
Several members of the class object to the provision of the Settlement Agreement which requires nondiscriminatory employment of HIV-infected individuals in job categories such as food service and personal service and in industrial positions. The objectors claim that there is a strong possibility that HIV-infected workers in these job categories could accidentally cut themselves, thereby transmitting HIV to others. Unfortunately, given the misconceptions about HIV and AIDS that remain common in the inmate population and the public at large, these objections are not surprising. However, there is no medical justification for such concerns. Moreover, the position the objectors expouse is most likely contrary to law.[16]
1465 *1465 Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, prohibits programs receiving federal funds from discriminating against otherwise qualified handicapped individuals solely on the basis of those handicaps. Congress' authority to regulate discriminatory behavior through the Rehabilitation Act is based on its power to attach conditions to the funding it provides. Under the Act and its implementing regulations, the sanctions for discrimination and any other non-compliance may be imposed on the recipient of federal funding.
To prevail on a discrimination claim under Section 504, a plaintiff must make a prima facie showing of four elements: (1) that he is handicapped within the definition of the Act; (2) that he is "otherwise qualified" to participate in the program or activity in question; (3) that he is being excluded solely because of his handicap; and (4) that the program or activity receives federal funds.[17]See Strathie v. Department of Transp., 716 F.2d 227, 230 (3d Cir.1983).
For purposes of the Rehabilitation Act Congress has defined a handicapped individual as "[a]ny person who (i) has a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more of such person's major life activities,

(ii) has a record of such impairment, or (iii) is regarded as having such an impairment." 29 U.S.C. § 706(7)(B). Courts and administrative agencies are virtually unanimous in holding that individuals with AIDS meet this definition and are protected by the antidiscrimination provisions of Section 504. See, e.g., Martinez v. School Board, 861 F.2d 1502 (11th Cir.1988); Chalk v. United States District Court, 840 F.2d 701 (9th Cir.1988). Several courts have also held that HIV-infected individuals qualify as "handicapped individuals" under the Rehabilitation Act even though they display no outward manifestations of disease because the HIV virus impairs multiple body systems, including the hemic, lymphatic and reproductive systems, and by its biological effects and the fear it inspires in others, clearly limits those infected in major life activities. See Glanz v. Vernick, 756 F.Supp. 632 (D.Mass.1991); Leckelt v. Board of Comm'rs, 714 F.Supp. 1377, 1385 n. 4 (E.D.La.1989), aff'd, 909 F.2d 820 (5th Cir.1990); Harris v. Thigpen, 941 F.2d 1495, 1522 (11th Cir.1991).
An analysis of whether HIV-infected individuals are "otherwise qualified" depends on whether it is unsafe for them to work in a particular job classification while infected. In School Bd. of Nassau County v. Arline, 480 U.S. 273, 107 S.Ct. 1123, 94 L.Ed.2d 307 (1987), the Supreme Court interpreted the Rehabilitation Act as reflecting a special Congressional concern about the long history of fear and mistreatment of people with contagious diseases. The Act, the Court explained, was designed to replace reflexive reactions based on fear, prejudice and ignorance with reasoned and medically sound judgments. The Court held that a person is "otherwise qualified" and therefore within the protection of the Act unless there is a "significant risk" of transmission involved in the challenged activity which cannot be eliminated through reasonable accommodation. In determining whether there is a "significant risk," the Supreme Court set forth several factors to be considered: the nature of the risk (how the disease is transmitted), the duration of the risk (how long the carrier is infectious), the severity of the risk (what is the potential harm to third parties), and the probabilities the disease will be transmitted and will cause varying degrees of harm. See id. at 288, 107 S.Ct. at 1131. The Court stressed that this assessment of risk must be based on "[findings of] fact, based on reasonable medical judgments given the state of medical knowledge."[18] Id.
1466 *1466 According to the Centers for Disease Control, there is no evidence that HIV is transmitted by workers in food service positions. See Centers for Disease Control, Recommendations for Preventing Transmission of Infection with Human T-Lymphotropic Virus Type III/Lymphadenopathy-Associated Virus in the Workplace, 34 Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 682, 693 (1985) ("All epidemiologic and laboratory evidence indicates that blood-borne and sexually transmitted infections are not transmitted during the preparation or serving of food or beverages, and no instances of HIV transmission have been documented in this setting."). Furthermore, although transmission of the HIV virus has been documented rarely in acupuncture, ear piercing and tattooing, no cases have been reported in which a client has become infected with HIV in other personal service settings. From this result, the Centers for Disease Control concludes that any risk of transmission by a personal service worker "must be extremely low." See id.
In light of the undisputed medical evidence that there is little or no risk of HIV transmission in food service and personal service positions, barring HIV-infected inmates from such positions would most likely violate the Rehabilitation Act.[19] Defendants' 1987 and 1991 AIDS Policies recognize this possibility and articulate a general prohibition against discrimination in the employment of HIV-infected individuals. See Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on HIV/AIDS Privacy and Discrimination at A-45 (1991 AIDS Policy); Id. at A-24 (1987 AIDS Policy). Both policies specifically provide that food service and personal service workers "need not be restricted from work unless they have evidence of other infections or illnesses (e.g., salmonella, giardiasis, shigellosis) for which any ... employee should also be restricted." Id. at A-57 to A-58 (1991 AIDS Policy); Id. at A-31 (1987 AIDS Policy).
To the extent that inmates are concerned about the effect of the Settlement Agreement on employment in food service positions of inmates with contagious diseases which constitute a direct threat to their health or safety, their fears are misplaced. There is no medical evidence that HIV infection is a contagious disease which creates a direct threat to the health or safety of other individuals and nothing in the Settlement Agreement permits the DOC to employ individuals with contagious diseases which are a direct threat to the health or safety of others in food service or personal service positions.

(2) Privacy
One group of inmates objects to the Settlement Agreement because they believe the provisions which ensure the anonymity of HIV-infected inmates are too stringent. These inmates want the DOC to test all inmates and notify the general population of those inmates who are HIV-positive. Such a notification procedure is unrelated to any penological interest and would most likely violate state law, see 35 P.S. §§ 7601-12 (1992), and the Constitution of the United States.[20]See Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589, 599-602, 97 S.Ct. 869, 876, 51 L.Ed.2d 64 (1977); United States v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 638 F.2d 570, 577 (3d Cir.1980); Nolley v. County of Erie, 776 F.Supp. 715, 731 (W.D.N.Y.1991); Doe v. Barrington, 729 F.Supp. 376, 384 (D.N.J.1990); Doe v. Coughlin, 697 F.Supp. 1234, 1237 (N.D.N.Y.1988); Woods v. White, 689 F.Supp. 874, 876 (W.D.Wis.1988), aff'd without op., 899 F.2d 17 (7th Cir.1990).
On the other hand, a different group of inmates objects to the Settlement Agreement because the privacy provisions are not strong enough. To be sure, plaintiffs' counsel, like this group of objectors, would have preferred 1467 *1467 a total elimination of any notification policy. There were, however, weighty reasons for accepting the settlement on this issue that, on balance, make it fair.
First, there was no assurance that this Court would order an elimination of the notification provision. Although individuals have an interest in preventing disclosure of their HIV status which is protected by state law and the Constitution, inmates' rights must necessarily yield to a certain extent to legitimate penological interests. See Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 2261-62, 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987) ("When a prison regulation impinges on inmates' constitutional rights, the regulation is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests."). The Supreme Court has announced several factors which are relevant to the determination of whether sufficient penological interests are present 0907 whether there is a valid, rational connection between the regulation and the legitimate governmental interest put forward to justify it; whether there are alternative means of exercising the right that remain open to inmates; the impact that accommodation of the asserted constitutional right will have on corrections officers and other inmates and on the allocation of resources generally; and the absence of ready alternatives. Without deciding whether legitimate penological interests sufficient to overcome the inmates' privacy rights are present in this case, the Court concludes that the plaintiffs would have difficulty challenging a limited notification policy like the one agreed to by the DOC in the Settlement Agreement.
Second, an agreement to end notification that did not consider the views of unionized employees might have engendered considerable resentment and even resistance among DOC staff which could have frustrated the purpose of any such settlement. In the long run, the protection of privacy will be most improved by changing the culture of the state correctional institutions. The staff has to accept that no system can reliably inform them of every inmate's HIV status, and that the best protection against the remote risk of workplace transmission is to rely on universal precautions and assume that any body fluid is potentially contagious. The settlement, which contemplates a negotiated change in policy with unionized employees combined with enhanced HIV education, offers the best prospect for fundamentally altering privacy practices among the correctional staff. The Court concludes that the settlement provisions with respect to this issue are reasonable.
(3) Miscellaneous Objections
One objector, noting the past practice of the DOC, called for a complete segregation of HIV-infected inmates. The DOC eliminated a system of segregating HIV-infected inmates before the filing of this lawsuit after being advised by the Department of Health and Human Services that the practice violated the Rehabilitation Act. See Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of Settlement Agreement at Exhibit E (Letter dated September 19, 1989, from Paul F. Cushing, Regional Manager, Office for Civil Rights Region III, Department of Health and Human Services, to David S. Owens, Commissioner, Re: Charge Numbers 03892002, 03892003, 03892006, 03892013).
Another objector suggested that the Agreement should include better HIV education for inmates. The short answer to that objection is that the Agreement does provide for improved HIV education. According to the

provisions of the Settlement Agreement, the DOC will ensure that every training session is conducted by educators qualified to address medical and correctional issues, training sessions will be limited to 50 inmates, as resources allow, and training materials will be updated. See Settlement Agreement ¶ 192. Furthermore, an HIV Educational Review Panel will be established to review educational materials and practices at reasonable intervals to ensure that training remains responsive to institutional policies, medical facts, social developments and the concerns of staff members. See id.
e. Environmental/Fire Safety
There are two categories of objections regarding environmental and fire safety issues: disputes as to whether the 1468 defendants are adhering to certain provisions of the Settlement Agreement and contentions that the *1468
Settlement Agreement should have addressed additional environmental aspects of the institutions. Illustrative of the issues raised by the former category of objections are inadequate water temperature, leaking pipes, inadequate ventilation, failure to sanitize mattresses, and the number of available shower heads. The latter category includes, among others, objections to non-smoking inmates being housed with inmates who smoke, the absence of guard rails or ladders on bunk beds, lack of wheelchair access to certain facilities, and excessive noise.
Because the specific complaints are so narrow and varied, the Court is unable to respond in this Memorandum in a comprehensive manner. However, the Court has reviewed all of the inmates' objections and is satisfied that the individual objections which implicate defendants' compliance with the Agreement are being addressed by the DOC and reviewed by plaintiffs' counsel. Because the Settlement Agreement provides for a dismissal without prejudice, the inmates who object because they believe plaintiffs' counsel did not adequately cover all environmental issues will not be precluded from bringing an independent action.
f. Overcrowding
A number of inmates complain that the settlement does not address overcrowding and the resultant doublecelling of inmates. See Letters 9, 21, 24, 35, 48, 59, 60, 96, 99, 109, 111, 115, 126, 143, 153, 165, 170, 175, 184, 204, 213, 214, 238, 247.
Pennsylvania's correctional institutions were overcrowded at the commencement of this litigation. According to plaintiffs' counsel, this overcrowding is the cause of many of the other ills alleged in the Second Amended Complaint. However, since the institution of this lawsuit the DOC has opened seven new correctional institutions and two more are in the planning stage. Within the next year it is anticipated that the population of the state correctional system will be very close to rated capacity. Thus, since the institution of this suit, and, at least in part, because of it, the DOC has addressed the problem of overcrowding and has done much to alleviate it. Under those circumstances plaintiffs' counsel concluded it would be difficult, if not impossible, to establish the requisite deliberate indifference to prevail on this issue.
The Settlement Agreement provides for monitoring by plaintiffs' counsel. If the inmate population increases substantially over the course of the next several years and the DOC fails to take corrective action, plaintiffs' counsel are permitted to seek further relief and have agreed to do so.
g. Enforceability
Numerous inmates object to the fact that plaintiffs' counsel has agreed to settle this matter without securing a consent decree. See Letters 2, 10, 11, 19, 39, 53, 68, 73, 78, 81, 102, 103, 105, 106, 112, 118, 121, 150, 153, 159, 161, 165, 172, 174, 175, 178, 180, 182, 184, 188, 192, 194, 198, 204, 213, 238, 279, 282, 288. These inmates believe that without the enforcement mechanism which accompanies a consent decree the Settlement Agreement will be worth little or nothing.

Because the defendants were unwilling to enter into a consent decree or any form of agreement directly enforceable by the Court, plaintiffs' counsel have structured an agreement that provides the class members with substantial benefits and procedural protections that are adequate to deal with any potential breach. First, the provisions that improve conditions of confinement will be secured significantly faster than would have been the case had plaintiffs continued the trial. Second, under the terms of the Settlement Agreement plaintiffs' counsel will monitor compliance through receipt of documents and on-site inspection, see Settlement Agreement ¶¶ 38-39, 99-103, 174-85, 195-97, 220-21, 225-27, and are authorized to reinstitute this litigation if defendants fail to meet their obligations. See id. ¶ 231(c)-(e). As a result, the defendants have a clear incentive to achieve full compliance. Third, as the case is dismissed without prejudice, not only is counsel authorized to reinstitute litigation on any issue presented by the Second Amended Complaint, but any inmate may file a lawsuit for damages or injunctive relief on any such issue.
In addition to the procedural protections of the Settlement Agreement, the DOC has already demonstrated its 1469 good faith by implementing *1469 certain provision of the Agreement relating to medical care. According to Diane
Marks, Director for the Bureau of Health Care Services for the DOC, the DOC's request for 78 additional health care positions has been approved, see Settlement Agreement ¶ 10, each institution currently provides 24-hour on-site registered nurse coverage, see id. ¶ 14, and the DOC is in the process of developing the comprehensive policies and procedures specified in the Settlement Agreement. See id. ¶¶ 18-30. Funding has been approved for the acquisition of the medical equipment specified in the Settlement Agreement, see id. ¶ 31, and an interim quality assurance program has been implemented while development of the quality assurance program provided by the terms of the Settlement Agreement is underway. See id. ¶¶ 32-36. These steps were taken despite legislative criticism and the fact that the Agreement had not been approved by the Court. The Court concludes that such action demonstrates the DOC's commitment to comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
h. Attorneys' Fees
Several inmates object to the provision of the Settlement Agreement which specifies that plaintiffs' counsel will receive $1.4 million as payment of fees and costs. Although the attorneys' fees were included as part of the Settlement Agreement and were not the subject of a separate motion under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, the Court must still determine whether plaintiffs' counsel is entitled to attorneys' fees and whether the fees are reasonable. See Foster v. Boise-Cascade, Inc., 420 F.Supp. 674 (S.D.Tex.1976), aff'd, 577 F.2d 335 (5th Cir.1978); Jones v. Amalgamated Warbasse Houses, Inc., 721 F.2d 881 (2d Cir.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 944, 104 S.Ct. 1929, 80 L.Ed.2d 474 (1984).
In any action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Court, in its discretion, may award the prevailing party a reasonable attorneys' fee. See 42 U.S.C. § 1988. In order to be considered a "prevailing party" the plaintiffs must show that they have achieved "some of the benefit sought" and that the relief obtained was causally connected to the prosecution of the complaint. Ashley v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 794 F.2d 128, 131 (3d Cir.1986). Plaintiffs need not obtain relief identical to the relief they specifically demanded, as long as the relief obtained is of the same general type. See Institutionalized Juveniles v. Secretary of Public Welfare, 758 F.2d 897 (3d Cir.1985). The Court finds that plaintiffs undoubtedly have achieved a large measure of the benefit they sought by instituting suit and are a "prevailing party" for purposes of § 1988.
The Supreme Court has announced that "`[t]he most useful starting point for determining the amount of a reasonable fee [pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988] is the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate.'" City of Riverside v. Rivera, 477 U.S. 561, 568, 106 S.Ct. 2686, 2691, 91 L.Ed.2d 466 (1986) (citing Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 1939, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983)). This figure, commonly referred to as the "lodestar," is presumed to be the reasonable fee contemplated by § 1988. Although the Supreme Court discussed other factors which might lead to an upward or downward adjustment, it stressed that "[w]here a plaintiff has obtained excellent results, his attorney should recover a fully compensatory fee," and that "the fee award should not be reduced simply because the plaintiff failed to prevail on every contention raised in the lawsuit." Hensley, 461 U.S. at 435, 103 S.Ct. at 1940.

Plaintiffs' counsel expended a substantial amount of time and resources in this litigation and obtained excellent results.[21] Overall, plaintiffs' counsel 0907 Alvin Bronstein, Elizabeth Alexander and David Fathi from the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation National Prison Project, Stefan Presser, Legal Director, Pennsylvania American Civil Liberties Foundation, David Rudovsky, private practitioner and Senior Fellow, University of Pennsylvania 1470 School of Law, Angus Love, Pennsylvania Institutional *1470 Law Project, Robert Meek, Disabilities Law Project, and Scott Burris, Professor of Law, Temple Law School 0907 expended approximately 7,850 attorney hours and 3,020 paralegal hours on this litigation. The breakdown of time and expenses is as follows:

Attorneys

National Prison Project American Civil Liberties Foundation (PA) David Rudovsky Institutional Law Project Disabilities Law Project Scott Burris

2,900 hours 1,650 hours 1,420 hours 1,050 hours
450 hours 380 hours

TOTAL ATTORNEY HOURS

7,850 hours

Paralegals

American Civil Liberties Foundation (PA) National Prison Project Institutional Law Project

1,620 hours 650 hours 750 hours

TOTAL PARALEGAL HOURS

3,020 hours

The times allocated above were spent in connection with drafting pleadings, motions and memoranda of law, discovery, expert tours of facilities, correspondence, trial preparation and trial. Approximately 500 attorney hours were spent in court (TB injunction hearing and trial on corrections issues). The Court concludes that the above listed hours were reasonably expended on the litigation.

Current billing rates for the attorneys range from $200 per hour for Attorneys Burris, Meek, Fathi and Love, to $275 per hour for Attorney Presser, to $300 per hour for Attorneys Rudovsky and Alexander, to $350 per hour for Attorney Bronstein. Paralegal billing rates are $75 per hour. The Court finds that these rates correspond to prevailing market rates in the Philadelphia area and are reasonable.[22]See Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 104 S.Ct. 1541, 79 L.Ed.2d 891 (1984) (stating that "reasonable fees" in federal civil rights action are to be calculated according to prevailing market rates in relevant community, regardless of whether plaintiff is represented by private or nonprofit counsel).

Multiplying these current billing rates by the hours expended by each attorney, the attorneys' lodestar is $2,145,750 and the paralegals' lodestar is $226,500. In addition, plaintiffs' counsel incurred out of pocket costs (not including copying, telephone and other office expenses) of $432,000 in payments to expert witnesses and $20,000 for travel and related costs.

Together, counsel fees and costs total $2,824,250. The fact that plaintiffs prevailed through settlement does not extinguish or limit their claim for attorneys' fees because "`[n]othing in the language of § 1988 conditions the District Court's power to award fees on full litigation of the issues or on a judicial determination that the plaintiff[s'] rights have been violated.'" Ashley, 794 F.2d at 132 (quoting Maher v. Gagne, 448 U.S. 122, 131, 100 S.Ct. 2570, 2575, 65 L.Ed.2d 653 (1980)). Under the circumstances of the case, applying all of the foregoing rules of law, the Court concludes that the $1.4 million attorneys' fee agreed upon by the parties, approximately 50% of the total lodestar amount, is extremely reasonable.

3. Stage of the Proceedings
At the time the parties began settlement discussions, discovery had been completed and the Court had conducted almost five weeks of trial on the first of four phases of the case. The parties estimated, and the Court concluded, that completion of the trial of the remaining phases of the case would take 16 to 22 weeks. The fact that discovery had been completed does not necessarily weigh against approving the Settlement Agreement. Although savings are greatest in cases where settlement is reached with little or no costly discovery, it appears to the Court that it was the discovery and the willingness of plaintiffs' counsel to proceed to trial that made 1471 settlement possible in this case. Looking forward, it is clear that *1471 substantial savings will be attained by settlement because, even without factoring in the effect of a possible appeal, more than four months of trial time will be avoided by a settlement. In light of the savings to the Court and to the parties in avoiding over four months of trial, the Court concludes that the stage of the proceedings favors approval of the Settlement Agreement.
4. Risks of Establishing Liability
Although the Court must weigh the relative strengths and weaknesses of each side to determine the risks of establishing liability, it should "not decide the merits of the case or resolve unsettled legal questions." Carson v. American Brands, Inc., 450 U.S. 79, 88 n. 14, 101 S.Ct. 993, 998 n. 14, 67 L.Ed.2d 59 (1981). As the Third Circuit has stated:
[A district court] need only evaluate the probable outcome of the litigation and is not required to weigh and decide each contention; further, the probable result at trial must be balanced against the probable costs, in both time and money, of continued litigation.
Bryan, 494 F.2d at 801.
At the time this action was filed, the governing standard announced by the Supreme Court for establishing an Eighth Amendment violation based on conditions of confinement was whether the conditions, alone or in combination, constitute "unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain" and offend "the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society." Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 346, 101 S.Ct. 2392, 2399, 69 L.Ed.2d 59 (1981) . Less than one year after this suit was instituted, however, the Supreme Court altered the applicable standard by noting that the Rhodes formulation only applied to the objective component of the Eighth Amendment. See Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 111 S.Ct. 2321, 115 L.Ed.2d 271 (1991). The Supreme Court held that, in addition to the Rhodes showing, an inmate challenging conditions of confinement must show that the responsible officials acted with "deliberate indifference." See id.
This change in the law undoubtedly made plaintiffs' case substantially more difficult to prove. During the pendency of this case, the DOC was able to design, construct, and staff no fewer than seven institutions, with two more institutions in the planning stage. Furthermore, after institution of suit, the DOC adopted and implemented a TB policy which was described by plaintiffs' expert as an "excellent document." These affirmative efforts by the DOC certainly would have been strong evidence to rebut plaintiffs' charges of deliberate indifference.
In addition, during the pendency of this suit, Congress passed the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, Pub.L. No. 103-322, 108 Stat. 1796 (1994). One of the provisions of this Act states that "[a] Federal court shall not hold prison or jail crowding unconstitutional under the eighth amendment except to the extent that an individual plaintiff inmate proves that the crowding causes the infliction of cruel and unusual punishment of that inmate." 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1). Relief in a case which meets this standard is limited to removal of the conditions that are causing the cruel and unusual punishment of the plaintiff inmate. See 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2). Although these provisions are not beyond constitutional challenge, this intervening change in the law creates additional problems for plaintiffs in establishing liability.
The Court concludes that, overall, plaintiffs faced formidable hurdles in establishing liability. Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of approving the Settlement Agreement.

5. Defendants' Ability to Endure Greater Judgment
Because this case sought only declaratory and injunctive relief, the defendants' ability to withstand a greater judgment is at issue only with respect to the cost of complying with the settlement. Thus, the Court must consider whether defendants could have agreed to provide additional concessions in any of the substantive areas of the Settlement Agreement.
The Court concludes that parties were able to reach agreement only after extensive arm's-length negotiations on 1472 each of the terms of the Settlement Agreement. The *1472 Settlement Agreement confers substantial benefits on
the plaintiff class and reflects a substantial commitment by the DOC. On the present state of the record, the Court cannot, and need not, determine whether the DOC could have funded additional benefits. This factor, therefore, favors approval of the Settlement Agreement.
6. Range of Reasonableness of the Settlement Fund
In order to evaluate the fairness of a Settlement Agreement based on the range of reasonableness of the settlement fund, a court must compare the settlement fund offered by defendants to the possible range of judgments. Because this action sought only declaratory and injunctive relief, such an evaluation is impossible. This factor, therefore, is inapposite to the Court's decision whether to approve the settlement.
7. Recommendation of Class Counsel
In determining the fairness of a proposed settlement, the Court should attribute significant weight to the belief of experienced counsel that settlement is in the best interests of the class. See Fisher Bros. v. Phelps Dodge Industries, Inc., 604 F.Supp. 446, 452 (E.D.Pa.1985). As one court has observed:
Notwithstanding the court's substantial involvement in the suit over the last five years, the parties' counsel are best able to weigh the relative strengths and weaknesses of their arguments. The court is not inclined to substitute its educated estimates of the complexity, expense, and likely duration of this litigation without a sound basis for concluding that the settlement is inadequate.
In re Chicken Antitrust Litig., 560 F.Supp. 943, 962 (N.D.Ga.1979).
The particular weight attributed to the recommendation of counsel depends on several factors 0907 length of involvement in the case, competence, experience in the particular type of litigation, and amount of discovery completed. See Newberg § 11.47. Usually, however, an evaluation of all the criteria leads courts to conclude that the recommendation of counsel is entitled to great weight following "arm's-length negotiations" by counsel who have "the experience and ability ... necessary [for] effective representation of the class's interests." Weinberger v. Kendrick, 698 F.2d 61, 74 (2d Cir.1982); see also Manual for Complex Litigation, Second § 30.41 ("[A] presumption of correctness is said to attach to a class settlement reached in arms-length negotiations between experienced capable counsel after meaningful discovery.").
The Court finds that plaintiffs' counsel are highly experienced litigators in prisoner rights actions. Indeed, it would be hard to imagine a team of plaintiffs' attorneys with more impressive credentials.
Alvin Bronstein has been a lawyer for 43 years and has been the Executive Director of the National Prison Project of the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation since 1972. He has written extensively on the subject of prison litigation and has been involved in many major prisoners' rights cases at the trial and appellate level during the past 23 years. Among the many cases in which he has appeared are: Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 112 S.Ct. 995, 117 L.Ed.2d 156 (1992); Block v. Rutherford, 468 U.S. 576, 104 S.Ct. 3227, 82 L.Ed.2d 438 (1984); Montanye v. Haymes, 427 U.S. 236, 96 S.Ct. 2543, 49 L.Ed.2d 466 (1976). He is considered a leading national and international expert in prison litigation. See, e.g., Plyler v. Evatt, 902 F.2d 273, 278 (4th Cir.1990).

David Rudovsky has been the plaintiffs' counsel for over 25 years in Jackson v. Hendrick, a class action challenging conditions in the Philadelphia County Prisons, and one of the first comprehensive conditions of confinement prison lawsuits. His has also litigated numerous individual § 1983 cases for inmates and has lectured on prisoners' rights. Together with Mr. Bronstein, he is co-author of The Rights of Prisoners and is the author of a leading treatise on civil rights litigation, Police Misconduct: Law and Litigation (1993).
Elizabeth Alexander graduated from law school in 1971. She is Associate Director for Litigation of the National 1473 Prison Project of the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation. She briefed and argued Farmer v. *1473
Brennan, ___ U.S. ___, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) and Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 111 S.Ct. 2321, 115 L.Ed.2d 271 (1991). Some of her significant prison cases include Casey v. Lewis, 43 F.3d 1261 (9th Cir.1994); Knop v. Johnson, 977 F.2d 996 (6th Cir.1992); and Duran v. Carruthers, 885 F.2d 1485 (10th Cir.1989). Ms. Alexander was responsible for the medical claims in this case.
Stefan Presser is the Legal Director of the American Civil Liberties Foundation of Pennsylvania. He has litigated the following cases involving prisoners rights and/or institutional reform: Medina v. O'Neill, 589 F.Supp. 1028 (S.D.Tex.1984) (forcing the closing of the nations's first for-profit prison), Quinlin v. Estella, Civil Action No. H-78-2117 (S.D.Tex.1978) (securing equal protection for women incarcerated within the Texas Department of Corrections with regard to educational and vocational opportunities), Peterkin v. Jeffes, 855 F.2d 1021 (3d Cir.1988) (improving conditions of confinement for Pennsylvania death sentenced inmates), and Arbogast v. Owens, Civil Action No. 1-CV-89-1592 (M.D.Pa.1989) (requiring the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections to unshackle two thousand prisoners in the aftermath of the Camp Hill riot).
Angus Love is the Director of the Pennsylvania Institutional Law Project, a statewide organization that litigates prisoner rights suits. He has litigated numerous prisoner rights cases including Hassine v. Jeffes, 846 F.2d 169 (3d Cir.1988).
Robert Meek is the managing attorney of the Philadelphia Office of the Disabilities Law Project and an expert in the area of mental health and mental disabilities. He has litigated several cases on the rights of patients at state mental hospitals and has presented several lectures on the rights of mental patients.
Scott Burris is an Associate Professor of Law at Temple University Law School. Previously, he was staff counsel to the American Civil Liberties Union Aids and Civil Liberties Project. He has litigated numerous AIDS related lawsuits including Scoles v. Mercy Health Corp. (rights of HIV-infected surgeon) and Starkey v. Matty (rights of HIV-infected inmates at Delaware County Prison). He is the author of AIDS Law Today: A New Guide for the Public (1993) and Prisons, Law and Public Health: The Case for a Coordinated Response to Epidemic Disease Behind Bars, 47 U.Miami L.Rev. 291 (1992).
David Fathi graduated from law school in 1988. He was a staff lawyer at the National Prison Project of the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation during this litigation. He has assisted on the briefing in a number of Supreme Court cases, including Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 112 S.Ct. 995, 117 L.Ed.2d 156 (1992) and Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 111 S.Ct. 2321, 115 L.Ed.2d 271 (1991). He was trial counsel in Casey v. Lewis, 773 F.Supp. 1365 (D.Ariz.1991).
The Settlement Agreement in this case was the result of arm's-length negotiations by highly experienced and able counsel. In light of the extensive negotiations between highly competent and qualified counsel, the Court finds that counsel's recommendation that the Settlement Agreement should be approved is entitled to great weight.
IV. CONCLUSION
The case was instituted more than four years ago with the goal of addressing conditions at state correctional institutions throughout the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. After extensive discovery and numerous proceedings in this Court, the parties began settlement negotiations which led to a settlement.

The Settlement Agreement provides substantial benefits to the plaintiff class, some of which have already been received. Because the dismissal under the Agreement is without prejudice, plaintiffs are able to reap the many benefits that will accrue as a result of the settlement and reinstitute suit at any time if they believe constitutional violations remain. On the whole, the Court concludes that the Settlement Agreement is "fair, reasonable and adequate."
The Court takes this opportunity to commend all counsel involved in the case 0907 plaintiffs' counsel, Alvin J. 1474 Bronstein, Esquire, Elizabeth R. Alexander, Esquire, and David Fathi, Esquire, American Civil Liberties Union
*1474 Foundation, The National Prison Project; David Rudovsky, Esquire; Stefan Presser, Esquire, American Civil Liberties Foundation of Pennsylvania; Scott Burris, Esquire, Angus R. Love, Esquire, Institutional Law Project; Robert W. Meek, Esquire, Disabilities Law Project; and defense counsel, Francis R. Filipi and Linda C. Barrett, Senior Deputy Attorneys General; and, R. Douglas Sherman, Denise A. Kuhn and Pia D. Taggart, Deputy Attorneys General 0907 for their singular and outstanding cooperation, dedication and wisdom in overcoming the obstacles to settlement. It is particularly noteworthy that the entire case was settled (with the exception of two matters which were reserved for possible future litigation) without the need for judicial findings on the issues of liability and remedy or a consent decree which, under most circumstances, would have involved the Court in the micromanagement of the state correctional system. That course is certainly preferable to the direct involvement of a federal court in a state executive-branch function. Such a settlement, particularly in a case as complex as this one, represents an outstanding accomplishment by counsel and is of manifest importance to all citizens of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), approves the Settlement Agreement and finds that adequate notice has been provided to all class members.
[1] All written objections from class members received by the Court were docketed.
[2] The parties, through counsel, have agreed to continue to investigate certain individual claims designated by the Court and to report to the Court after they have done so.
[1] The thirteen institutions are State Correctional Institution ("SCI")-Camp Hill, SCI-Cresson, SCI-Dallas, SCIFrackville, SCI-Graterford, SCI-Greensburg, SCI-Huntingdon, the State Regional Correctional Facility at Mercer, SCI-Retreat, SCI-Rockview, SCI-Smithfield, SCI-Waymart, and SCI-Waynesburg.
[2] SCI-Pittsburgh is involved in an ongoing case, Tillery v. Owens, 719 F.Supp. 1256 (W.D.Pa. 1989), aff'd 907 F.2d 418 (3d Cir.1990), cert. denied, Mikesell v. Morgan, 502 U.S. 927, 112 S.Ct. 343, 116 L.Ed.2d 283 (1991). SCI-Muncy is covered by the consent decree in Beehler v. Jeffes, 664 F.Supp. 931 (M.D.Pa.1986), aff'd without op., Beehler v. Lehman, 989 F.2d 486 (3d Cir.1993).
[3] The seven newly-opened institutions are SCI-Albion, SCI-Cambridge Springs, SCI-Coal Township, SCI-Green County, SCI-Mahanoy, SCI-Somerset and Quehanna Motivational Boot Camp. Two other institutions, SCIChester County and one in Clearfield County, are in the planning stage.
[4] Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint naming the Superintendent of SCI-Muncy as a defendant was denied by Order dated September 29, 1992. Similarly, by Memorandum and Order dated January 7, 1993, the Court denied plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File a Fourth Amended Complaint in order to add five medical and mental health care contractors as defendants.
[5] The parties provided a summary of their settlement negotiations in letters dated December 16, 1994 (plaintiffs), and December 19, 1994 (defendants). Copies of the letters have been docketed.
[6] The Court also referred certain issues relating to access to the courts to Judge O'Neill for mediation. After the parties overcame their impasse on the HIV/AIDS issues, however, they were able to resolve the remaining issues without further assistance from Judge O'Neill.
[7] The ratio of one registered nurse per 100 inmates is the same as that approved for SCI-Pittsburgh in Tillery, 719 F.Supp. at 1290 (approving staffing plan of eighteen registered nurses for population over 1800).

[8] SNUs are located at SCI-Camp Hill, SCI-Cresson, SCI-Dallas, SCI-Graterford, SCI-Greensburg, SCIHuntingdon, SCI-Rockview and SCI-Smithfield. The State Regional Correctional Facility at Mercer has a separate block for special needs inmates. MHUs are located at SCI-Cresson, SCI-Frackville and SCI-Graterford.
[9] Under Pennsylvania law, eligibility for and availability of educational programs is controlled by the Pennsylvania Department of Education. Educational services are provided in a cooperative manner by the DOC and the Pennsylvania Department of Education. See Settlement Agreement ¶ 151.
[10] At the commencement of the suit, the plaintiff class consisted of approximately 18,000 inmates in thirteen state correctional institutions. On November 18, 1994, the Settlement Agreement was revised to state that all provisions concerning systemwide DOC policy, practice or procedure would apply to any other institution opened since the filing of the complaint and any institution that will be opened during the monitoring phase of the Agreement. See Settlement Agreement ¶ 231(g); Glover v. Johnson, 855 F.2d 277, 281 (6th Cir.1988) (class definition at time of certification consisting of all female felons at [both existing Michigan prisons] was held applicable to prison built after certification given the court's purpose in certifying the class and facts at time of certification). Taking these seven new institutions into account, the plaintiff class now consists of more than 24,000 inmates in 20 state correctional institutions.
[11] In deciding the issues related to the settlement, the Court considered all objections filed or mailed by inmates and received by the Court prior to January 5, 1995.
[12] Several class members' objections to the Settlement Agreement were based on complaints about the medical care they received at a particular institution. Because the Second Amended Complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, an individual inmate's objections regarding his own care are not directly relevant to the Court's inquiry into the fairness of the Settlement Agreement. However, defendants have agreed to address such individual concerns and certain other individual claims raised by class members and will provide plaintiffs' counsel with responses after investigating such claims.
[13] The DOC's request for 78 new health care positions has already been approved pursuant to the Commonwealth's rebudget process. See Marks Declaration ¶ 4.
[14] The four institutions are SCI-Dallas, SCI-Graterford, SCI-Huntingdon and SCI-Rockview. Although two other institutions, SCI-Muncy and SCI-Pittsburgh, are subject to the consent decree in I.C.U., they are not included in the class definition in this case.
[15] As of January 1994, there were approximately 1,447 inmates employed in Correctional Industries by the DOC. The 725 positions will be added to that number.
[16] Because a court deciding whether to approve a settlement agreement "need only evaluate the probable outcome of the litigation and is not required to weigh and decide each contention," see Bryan 494 F.2d at 801, this Court does not hold that the inmates' position is contrary to law but rather that it is most likely contrary to law.
[17] The DOC admits that it is a program or activity receiving federal funds. See Def's Answer to Second Amended Complaint ¶ 18. Furthermore, the Rehabilitation Act applies with the same force and effect in corrections institutions as it does in other federally-funded programs. See Bonner v. Lewis, 857 F.2d 559, 562-63 (9th Cir. 1988).
[18] The Supreme Court's approach in Arline was codified in the 1988 amendments to the Act. See 29 U.S.C. § 706(8)(C). The amendments changed the definition of "individual with handicaps" to exclude, inter alia, anyone who "has a currently contagious disease or infection and who, by virtue of such disease or infection, would constitute a direct threat to the health or safety of other individuals." Id. The "direct threat" analysis is identical to the Arline "significant risk" analysis and the "terms have come to be regarded as interchangeable." Doe v. District of Columbia, 796 F.Supp. 559, 567 & n. 11 (D.D.C.1992).
[19] The Court need only decide that barring inmates infected with HIV from such positions is most likely contrary to law. See supra note 16.

[20] The Court need only decide that the proposed notification procedure is most likely contrary to law. See supra note 16.
[21] The facts set forth in this part of the Memorandum and in Part III.B.7 dealing with recommendations of class counsel are based, in part, on Plaintiffs' Statement of Fees and Costs which has been docketed.
[22] The Court takes judicial notice of prevailing market rates in the Philadelphia area based on its experience as a litigator for 30 years before appointment to the bench and its experience with § 1988 requests in previous cases. See Wojtkowski v. Cade, 725 F.2d 127, 131 (1st Cir.1984) ("The court was entitled to draw on its own knowledge of attorneys' fees in the Springfield, Massachusetts area, where it regularly sits, in arriving at reasonable hourly rates for the lodestar calculation."); Searcey v. Crim, 692 F.Supp. 1363, 1364 (N.D.Ga.1988) (judicial notice taken of affidavits relating to fees that were filed in other actions in district).
Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.

 
 Austin v. Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections, Not Reported in F.Supp. (1992)

1992 WL 277511 United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.
Steven AUSTIN, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants.
Civ. A. No. 90–7497. | Sept. 29, 1992.
Attorneys and Law Firms
David Rudovsky, Kairys & Rudovsky, Stefan Presser, Angus R. Love, Institutional Law Project, Philadelphia, Pa., Alvin J. Bronstein, Stuart H. Adams, Jr., Elizabeth Alexander, David Fathi, Kenneth L. Blackwell, National Prison Project, Washington, D.C., for plaintiffs.
Linda C. Barrett, Office of Atty. Gen., Harrisburg, Pa., Denise A. Kuhn, Office of Atty. Gen., Philadelphia, Pa., Francis R. Filipi, Office of Atty. Gen., Harrisburg, Pa., for defendants.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
DuBOIS, District Judge.
*1 This is a civil class action for declaratory and injunctive relief brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 701, et seq. Jurisdiction is based on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 of the Judicial Code.
Presently before the Court is plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction enjoining defendants to establish an appropriate program for the diagnosis, treatment, and control of tuberculosis in the thirteen State Correctional Institutions that are subject to this action and State Correctional Institution (hereinafter abbreviated “SCI”) Muncy. Upon consideration of plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction, plaintiffs’ supporting brief, defendants’ brief in opposition to plaintiffs’ motion, after a hearing on the motion and for the reasons set forth below, plaintiffs’ motion will be GRANTED.
I. BACKGROUND
A. The Parties

The named plaintiffs are inmates who are currently incarcerated at thirteen State Correctional Institutions throughout the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. This action was filed in November 1990. On March 6, 1992 the Court certified a class pursuant to Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure consisting of plaintiffs and all other persons who are or who may in the future be incarcerated by the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections in any facility other than SCI–Muncy and SCI–Pittsburgh.1
The named defendants are Joseph Lehman, Commissioner of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (the “DOC”), the thirteen prison superintendents of the correctional institutions subject to this action, and Robert Casey, Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
B. The Pennsylvania Correctional System Over 24,000 inmates are housed at fifteen correctional institutions within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.2 Management and day to day operation of correctional institutions falls within the authority of the DOC. Thirteen institutions house male inmates only. One institution, SCI–Muncy, houses only female inmates. One institution, SCI–Waynesburg, once an all female institution, no longer receives female inmates. It presently houses some female prisoners awaiting transfer to SCI–Cambridge Springs which is currently under construction. In the past, female prisoners were transferred between SCI–Muncy and SCI–Waynesburg.
Four of the correctional institutions are designated as diagnostic and classifications centers. SCI–Pittsburgh, SCI–Camp Hill and SCI–Graterford are the diagnostic and classification centers for male prisoners. SCI–Muncy is the diagnostic and classification center for female prisoners. At the diagnostic and classification centers, recently convicted prisoners and parole violators are processed and then transferred to other correctional institutions.
C. Plaintiffs’ Claims Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint alleges that defendants’ policies, practices, acts and omissions deprive them of their constitutional rights under the First, Fourth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments. Specifically, plaintiffs claim that defendants’ policies, practices, acts and omissions have resulted in the following constitutional infractions: (1) overcrowding which rises to the level of cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments; (2) excessive use of force in violation of the Fourth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments; (3) inadequate
1

Austin v. Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections, Not Reported in F.Supp. (1992)

medical and psychiatric services in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments; (4) deprivation of liberty and property without due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment; (5) lack of access to counsel and the courts in violation of the First, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments; and (6) deprivation of the right to privacy and autonomy with respect to the collection and retention of medical information in violation of the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Plaintiffs also claim discrimination on the basis of handicapped status in violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 701, et seq., as amended by the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987.
*2 The motion for preliminary injunction presently before the Court was filed on July 29, 1992. A three day hearing on the motion was held on September 9, 10, and 11, 1992. Plaintiffs claim that inmates face an imminent risk of being infected with tuberculosis and developing tuberculosis disease due to inadequate control and treatment measures and inadequate implementation. Plaintiffs allege in their supporting brief that in the absence of immediate injunctive relief an increase in the number of active tuberculosis cases can be expected. Finally, plaintiffs claim that without effective control and treatment measures, the risk of multi-drug resistant tuberculosis bacteria developing is imminent.
II. Tuberculosis Infection and Disease3 Tuberculosis (hereinafter “TB”) is an infectious disease which is caused by a bacterium called the tubercle bacillus. TB is spread through the air by airborne particles called droplet nuclei which contain TB bacterium. Droplet nuclei are generated when persons with infectious TB of the lungs or larynx sneeze, cough, or speak. Unless properly ventilated, droplet nuclei remain suspended in the air where others can inhale them and become infected. TB bacterium are destroyed by sunlight and ultraviolet light.
TB can be characterized as having two stages: an infection stage and an active stage. When air is shared with a person who has developed an active case of TB, the TB bacterium in the air are breathed into the lungs where they multiply for a time until the immune system controls their growth. This is known as the infection stage. Once the immune system takes control, the bacterium normally remain dormant. A person who is only infected by TB cannot spread the disease to others, but can develop an active case of TB later in life. Persons who are infected with TB have approximately a ten percent chance of developing an active case of TB.
Active TB disease can develop in a person who is infected with TB bacterium at almost any time after infection occurs. However, suppression of the immune system

increases the risk of developing an active stage of the disease. HIV infection, malnutrition, drug and alcohol abuse, among other factors, weaken the immune system and increase the risk of developing active TB disease. Symptoms associated with active TB disease include a chronic cough, fever, chills, night sweats, loss of appetite and weight loss. Persons with active TB disease are capable of spreading TB infection to others. Although active TB disease is most common in the lungs, it can also occur in other organs in the body.
III. CONTROL AND TREATMENT OF TUBERCULOSIS At the hearing on plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction, plaintiffs submitted documentary and testimonial evidence in support of their allegation that the TB control policy in effect at Pennsylvania correctional facilities from 1985 to September 4, 1992 was inadequate and that implementation of that policy has not been totally effective at arresting the rise in the number of active TB cases. Based on the evidence presented at the hearing on plaintiffs’ motion, the Court makes the following findings of fact.
A. Components of a Tuberculosis Control Program *3 The essential components of an effective TB control program are surveillance, containment and assessment. (Pl. Exhibit 48, Centers for Disease Control, Control of Tuberculosis in Correctional Facilities: A Guide for Health Care Workers (1992) at 5 (hereinafter “Control Guide”). In correctional facilities surveillance refers to the identification of TB infection and disease in prison inmates and staff through screening, diagnosis, case reporting and investigation. Id. Containment refers to preventing the transmission of TB through preventive therapy for persons who are infected but have not advanced to the disease stage, and isolation and treatment of diagnosed and suspected cases of active TB disease. Id. at 7–8. Assessment refers to activities aimed at producing information which assists in determining the effectiveness of a TB control program. Id. at 10.
1. Surveillance The Mantoux tuberculin skin test is the most effective method of indicating whether a person is infected with TB. The test is performed by injecting a purified protein derivative (PPD) under the skin on the forearm. Control Guide at 5. The injection area is examined within 48–72 hours for signs of reaction. Id. An induration of ten millimeters or more is considered positive for infection with TB. Id. However, where the patient is infected with HIV, the PPD test may yield a false-negative result.4 A
2

Austin v. Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections, Not Reported in F.Supp. (1992)

chest x-ray should be performed within 72 hours of a positive PPD skin test or whenever symptoms of active TB disease are diagnosed. Id. Where symptoms or screening indicate active TB disease, a sputum smear and culture must be examined for TB bacterium in order to confirm the diagnosis. Control Guide at 7.
Whenever an active case of TB disease is diagnosed additional screening must be conducted on all close contacts unless the contact has a recently documented positive PPD test. The concentric circle approach is a method which is employed to identify persons who may have been infected. Id. Under that approach, PPD testing is performed on those persons who have had close contact with the source case. If additional infections are revealed, the investigation is expanded until no additional infection is discovered.
2. Containment Isoniazid (INH) is a commonly used drug in the prevention and treatment of TB. INH drug therapy is effective in reducing the incidence of conversion from the infection stage to the active stage of TB. Id. at 9. Persons who are infected but have not developed the disease are placed on INH therapy for six months unless medical contraindications exist. Id. Individuals infected with HIV should be placed on INH for a period from nine to twelve months. Testimony of Dr. Armand Start, Hearing Transcript at 36–37 (Sept. 9, 1992) (hereinafter “Start Testimony”). Drug therapy must continue uninterrupted or relapse can occur and drug-resistant bacterium can develop. Control Guide at 10; Start Testimony, Hearing Transcript at 39 (Sept. 9, 1992). However, preventive drug therapy is not without risk. INH has been found to cause increased toxicity levels in the liver. Start Testimony, Hearing Transcript at 35 (Sept. 9, 1992). Persons over the age of thirty-five are particularly vulnerable to side effects from INH therapy and must be monitored by trained medical personnel. Control Guide at 10.
*4 Anyone who is diagnosed or has symptoms of active TB disease should be placed in isolation in a room or area under negative air pressure and ventilation to the outside. Start Testimony, Hearing Transcript at 54 (Sept. 9, 1992). Isolation rooms should be connected to a ventilation system capable of performing at least six air exchanges per hour. Id at 56. Treatment of active TB includes multi-drug therapy, including INH, and sputum smear and culture analysis until the patient converts to negative. Control Guide at 8–10.
3. Assessment Assessment involves record-keeping and monitoring in

order to track rates of infection and disease. Medical records should include among other information: the number of PPD tests administered and the date on which the tests were performed; the results of the PPD tests; medical diagnosis of PPD tests; medical diagnosis of chest x-rays, sputum smears and sputum cultures; additional treatment prescribed, if any; and the number of infections and active cases. Start Testimony, Hearing Transcript at 46, 65–66 (Sept. 9, 1992); Control Guide at 10. A quality assurance component is also necessary to ensure that policies and procedures are followed, and that the program is modified or corrected where necessary. Start Testimony, Hearing Transcript at 19 (Sept. 10, 1992).
B. Tuberculosis Among Inmates at Correctional Institutions Inmates confined at correctional institutions face a higher risk of being infected with TB than the general public due to the close proximity of inmates, the high level of dust particles on which droplet nuclei can become attached and mechanically recirculated air which has not been exposed to sunlight or ultraviolet light. Start Testimony, Hearing Transcript at 25–27 (Sept. 9, 1992). Inmates are also more likely than members of the general public to be HIV-positive. Start Testimony, Hearing Transcript at 24–25 (Sept. 9, 1992).
Individuals infected with both HIV and TB are more likely to develop active TB disease. Control Guide at 4. They are also more likely to develop active TB disease in areas of the body other than the lungs. Id. Therefore, an effective TB control program is particularly important in correctional institutions.
C. Tuberculosis Among Inmates Confined At Pennsylvania Correctional Institutions Thirty-four cases of suspected or active TB have been reported among inmates confined at Pennsylvania correctional institutions since November 1988. Hearing Transcript at 104 (Sept. 9, 1992). No multi-drug resistant strains of TB have been identified among the reported cases. Start Testimony, Hearing Transcript at 6 (Sept. 10, 1992).
D. Control and Treatment Policies at Pennsylvania Correctional Institutions The TB control program in effect at Pennsylvania correctional institutions from 1985 to September 4, 1992 was contained in two documents: (1) Clinical and Administrative Guidelines for the Prevention and Management of Tuberculosis, Admin.Manual, Vol. VII,
3

Austin v. Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections, Not Reported in F.Supp. (1992)

OM–105.03 (1985); and (2) Tuberculosis Testing and Reporting, Administrative Manual, Vol. VII, OM–105.03 (1986). (Def. Exhibits 12 and 2, respectively).5 The 1985 Policy directed DOC medical directors and health care administrators to follow the clinical guidelines established by the Pennsylvania Department of Health (hereinafter the “DOH”). Testimony of Dr. Judy Anderson, Clinical Director of the DOC, Hearing Transcript at 160 (Sept. 10, 1992) (hereinafter “Anderson Testimony”). The 1985 Policy set forth general procedures for screening, preventive therapy, treatment, monitoring and follow-up. (Def. Exhibit 12) The 1986 Policy updated the 1985 Policy by requiring preemployment screening, interpretation and recording of test results, inmate PPD testing upon their admission into the correctional institution and treatment in accordance with DOH guidelines. (Def. Exhibit 2)
*5 Plaintiffs are critical of the 1985/1986 TB Policy on a number of grounds. Plaintiffs claim, inter alia, that: (1) the policy did not require annual testing of inmates and staff; (2) medical records were inadequate; (3) important medical information was omitted from some inmate records; (4) follow-up treatment for inmates with positive PPD’s was delayed in some cases; and (5) tracking and monitoring procedures were inadequate.
In May of 1991, the DOC initiated a review of the 1985/1986 TB Policy in response to concerns raised by the DOH with respect to TB control in the Pennsylvania prison system. Testimony of Joseph Lehman, Hearing Transcript at 99 (Sept. 10, 1992) (hereinafter “Lehman Testimony”). As a result of that review, current information regarding TB control and treatment procedures was disseminated to prison superintendents, health care providers and administrative staff in order to update the 1985/1986 TB Policy. Lehman Testimony, Hearing Transcript at 100–102 (Sept. 10, 1992).
In March 1992, Dr. Anderson was directed to develop by July 1, 1992, a new TB control program that incorporated the latest medical practices. Lehman Testimony, Hearing Transcript at 92 (Sept. 10, 1992). Dr. Anderson promptly convened a committee comprised of DOC health care administrators and DOH representatives in the Spring of 1992 to assist in the development of the new policy. Anderson Testimony, Hearing Transcript at 157 (Sept. 10, 1992). Drafts of the new policy were prepared by Dr. Anderson and reviewed by DOC health care administrators and representatives of the DOH. Anderson Testimony, Hearing Transcript at 161 (Sept. 10, 1992). After further review and revision, the new policy entitled Clinical and Administrative Guidelines for the Prevention and Management of Tuberculosis (hereinafter the “1992 TB Policy”) was adopted and became effective on September 4, 1992. The 1992 TB Policy supersedes all previous TB guidelines and policies.

The 1992 TB Policy calls for: (1) TB testing of all inmates upon entry into the institution and annual testing thereafter based on the inmates’ date of entry; (2) preemployment and annual testing for employees; (3) segregation of new inmates pending completion of TB screening; (4) preventive therapy for inmates with inactive TB infection and monitoring for adverse reaction to therapy; (5) isolation and treatment for inmates with active TB; (6) computerized medical record keeping for PPD test dates, results and follow-up treatment; (7) automated status reports generated on a daily and monthly basis and reporting procedures for active cases of TB; (8) annual education and training in TB prevention and control for inmates and employees and documentation of such training upon completion; (9) measures to prevent the transfer of inmates without medical clearance; (10) segregation of inmates who refuse to comply with screening and testing procedures; (11) semi-annual screening of inmates known to be infected with HIV; and (12) procedures for investigating incidents of conversion from negative to positive PPD status. (Def. Exhibit 1)
*6 The DOC is currently in the process of implementing the September 4, 1992 TB control policy. When fully implemented, the new program will address all of the issues and concerns raised by plaintiffs in their Preliminary Injunction Brief and during the hearing on the motion. Hearing Transcript at 9 (Sept. 10, 1992). According to plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Armand Start, the 1992 TB Policy is an “excellent document” that addresses all of the major elements of any TB control program. Start Testimony, Hearing Transcript at 9 (Sept. 10, 1992).
In order to insure the implementation and effectiveness of the 1992 TB Policy, the DOC plans to institute a quality assurance program. To that end, the DOC has employed the services of an independent contractor, National Capital Systems Group, to develop such a program. Specifically, the contractor has been directed to provide a system which, inter alia, will enable the DOC to monitor the performance of contract medical service vendors which provide health care at DOC facilities, and improve medical record keeping. Lehman Testimony, Hearing Transcript at 97, 127 (Sept. 10, 1992). The quality assurance program, when finalized, will be implemented at all corrections institutions. Lehman Testimony, Hearing Transcript at 128–29 (Sept. 10, 1992). In the interim, the DOC and the DOH have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (Pl. Exhibit 59) dated September 9, 1992, under which the DOH will provide updated guidelines for TB prevention and control, annual training of health care staff in PPD testing and reading, and advice regarding control measures for case management and prevention of outbreaks of TB. Pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding, the DOC will report active and suspected cases of active TB within three working days to DOH and will provide DOH with information and access to inmate records to facilitate evaluation of the policy and specific
4

Austin v. Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections, Not Reported in F.Supp. (1992)

recommendations.
IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISCUSSION When considering whether to grant a preliminary injunction, the Court is guided by the following factors: “(1) the probability of irreparable injury to the moving party in the absence of relief; (2) the possibility of harm to the nonmoving party if relief were granted; (3) the likelihood of success on the merits; and (4) the public interest.” Alessi v. Pennsylvania Department of Welfare, 893 F.2d 1444, 1447 (3d Cir.1990) (citation omitted).
Based on the Court’s findings of fact and upon application of the guidelines set forth above, the Court concludes that: (1) there is a probability of irreparable injury to plaintiff class in the absence of relief; (2) the defendants will not be harmed by preliminary injunctive relief; (3) plaintiffs have demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits; and (4) the public will not be harmed by preliminary injunctive relief. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunctive relief will be granted.
A. Irreparable Injury *7 In order to satisfy the irreparable injury element, “plaintiff must demonstrate potential harm which cannot be redressed by a legal or an equitable remedy following trial.” Instant Air Freight Co. v. C.F. Air Freight, Inc., 882 F.2d 797, 801 (3d Cir.1989). Evidence submitted by plaintiffs at the preliminary injunction hearing verified the well documented medical view that TB is a very serious disease that can be fatal in some cases. Dr. Start, plaintiffs’ expert witness, testified that the TB bacterium is a hardy form of bacteria which is difficult to eradicate. Hearing Transcript at 27 (Sept. 9, 1992). He also pointed out that TB is at least three times more prevalent among inmates than the general public. Hearing Transcript at 24 (Sept. 9, 1992). Plaintiffs’ evidence also established the proposition that inconsistent or interrupted treatment, or non-compliance with treatment by inmates can lead to the development of multi-drug resistant TB. Hearing Transcript at 39 (Sept. 9, 1992). Finally, plaintiffs’ evidence established the importance of accurate monitoring and tracking procedures to chart TB trends and activity.
Given the increase in the number of reported cases of active TB disease between 1988 and 1992, the seriousness of active TB disease, the possibility of additional complications where the patient is infected with HIV, and the potential risk of side-effects from preventive drug therapy, the Court concludes that there is a probability of irreparable harm to plaintiff class.

B. Absence of Harm to Defendants Defendants will not be harmed by the entry of an order directing implementation of the 1992 TB Policy. The evidence establishes that the DOC is committed to the implementation of the new policy. The implementation has already begun. Moreover, the evidence shows the DOC recognizes that the new policy will benefit inmates, prison officials and staff by providing greater protection for all persons who live and work behind prison walls.
C. Likelihood of Success on the Merits In order to obtain injunctive relief, plaintiffs must produce evidence sufficient to demonstrate to the court that they have a likelihood of success on the merits, that is, reasonable probability of eventual success. Instant Air Freight, 882 F.2d at 800; ECRI v. McGraw–Hill, Inc., 809 F.2d 223, 226 (3d Cir.1987). In the Third Circuit, “[i]t is not necessary that the moving party’s right to a final decision after trial be wholly without doubt; rather the burden is on the party seeking relief to make a prima facie case showing a reasonable probability that it will prevail on the merits.” Punnett v. Carter, 621 F.2d 578, 583 (3d Cir.1980) (citing Oburn v. Shapp, 521 F.2d 142, 148 (3d Cir.1970)).
Plaintiffs’ request for preliminary injunctive relief is based upon their allegation that inmates threatened with TB infection and disease are provided a constitutionally deficient level of medical care. In order to succeed on the merits, plaintiffs are required to demonstrate deliberate indifference to the serious medical needs of inmates on the part of prison officials. Wilson v. Seiter, 111 S.Ct. 2321, 2324 (1991); Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976). Prison officials are deliberately indifferent when they know or should have known of a sufficiently serious danger to inmates and fail to respond reasonably to the danger. Young v. Quinlan, 960 F.2d 351, 360–61, 360 n. 22 (3d Cir.1992). Negligent or inadvertent failure to provide adequate medical care is not enough. DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989).
*8 In considering whether to grant or deny preliminary injunctive relief, the Court is not required to determine whether defendants’ past or present response to the need for TB control and treatment amounts to deliberate indifference, and no such finding has been made. The question of whether defendants’ TB control and treatment policies pass constitutional muster is an issue to be resolved at trial.
The Court finds that, when implemented, the 1992 TB Policy will adequately address the need for TB treatment and control in the State correctional system. The Court
5

Austin v. Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections, Not Reported in F.Supp. (1992)

further finds that DOC has begun the task of implementing the new policy. However, under the facts presented, plaintiffs have demonstrated that until the new policy is implemented, there is a likelihood of success on the merits.
D. Absence of Harm to the Public There is no evidence that any harm would befall the general public by the granting of preliminary injunctive relief. To the contrary, the public will benefit from more effective TB screening and control measures in the State correctional system. The risk of infected inmates progressing to the active stage and spreading the disease to the general public upon their release from prison will be reduced by tighter screening and more effective treatment. Furthermore, the risk of infection spreading among prison employees, their families and friends will be decreased.
IV. CONCLUSION Plaintiffs have produced sufficient evidence to convince the Court that preliminary injunctive relief is warranted. An appropriate order will be issued requiring defendants to implement the Clinical and Administrative Guidelines for the Prevention and Management of Tuberculosis dated September 4, 1992.

ORDER
AND NOW, to wit, this 29th day of September, 1992, upon consideration of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Brief In Support of the Motion (Document No. 75), Defendants’ Brief In Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion For Preliminary Injunction (Document No. 78), and after a hearing on the Motion held by this Court on September 9, 10 & 11, 1992, IT IS ORDERED that, plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, the defendants, their employees, medical contractors, agents and all other persons acting in concert with them are preliminarily enjoined to implement defendants’ Clinical and Administrative Guidelines for the Prevention and Management of Tuberculosis, dated September 4, 1992, at every State Correctional Institution subject to this action.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the injunctive relief granted by this Order shall be extended to SCI–Muncy.
Parallel Citations
3 NDLR P 158
	  

Footnotes

1

SCI–Pittsburgh is involved in an ongoing case, Tillery v. Owens, 719 F.Supp. 1256 (W.D.Pa.1989), aff’d 907 F.2d 418 (3d

Cir.1990). SCI–Muncy is covered by the Consent Decree in Imprisoned Citizens Union v. Shapp, 451 F.Supp. 893 (E.D.Pa.1978).

2

Seven additional institutions are currently under construction. Testimony of Joseph Lehman, Hearing Transcript at 88 (Sept. 10,

1992).

3

The sources of the facts set forth in this part of the Memorandum are, inter alia, Centers for Disease Control, Control of

Tuberculosis in Correctional Facilities: A Guide for Health Care Workers (1992); Testimony of Dr. Armand Start, Hearing

Transcript (Sept. 9 & 10, 1992); and Testimony of Dr. Ronald Rahman, Hearing Transcript (Sept. 11, 1992).

4

A false-negative result may also result where the PPD test is given shortly after infection occurs due to a latency period of six to

eight weeks between the time of exposure to the time a PPD test will result in a positive reaction. Testimony of Dr. Armand Start,

Hearing Transcript at 12 (Sept. 9, 1992).

5

According to Dr. Judy Anderson, the Department of Health Tuberculosis Guidelines were revised in 1988 and again in 1991.

Testimony of Dr. Judy Anderson, Hearing Transcript at 160 (Sept. 10, 1992).

	  

6

 
 Austin v. Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections, Not Reported in F.Supp. (1993)

1993 WL 9042 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.
Steven AUSTIN, et al. Plaintiffs, v.
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al. Defendants.
Civ. A. No. 90–7497. | Jan. 7, 1993.
Attorneys and Law Firms
David Rudovsky, Kairys & Rudovsky, Stefan Presser, Angus R. Love, Institutional Law Project, Philadelphia, PA, Alvin J. Bronstein, the National Prison Project, Stuart H. Adams, Jr., National Prison Project of the Amer Civil Liberties Union, Elizabeth Alexander, David Fathi, Kenneth L. Blackwell, National Prison Project, DC, for plaintiffs.
Linda C. Barrett, Office of Atty. Gen., R. Douglass Sherman, Dept. Atty. Gen., Office of Atty. Gen., Harrisburg, PA, Denise A. Kuhn, Office of Atty. Gen., Philadelphia, PA, Francis R. Filipi, Office of Atty. Gen., Harrisburg, PA, Stefan Presser, Philadelphia, PA, for defendants.
Hiram R. Johnston, Jr., pro se.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
DUBOIS, District Judge.
*1 This is a class action for declaratory and injunctive relief brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 701, et seq. Jurisdiction is based on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343.
Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File a Fourth Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs seek leave to amend in order to add five medical and mental health care contractors (hereinafter the “medical contractors”) as defendants. The medical contractors provide medical and mental health care services to prisoners at several Pennsylvania correctional institutions. Based on the discussion which follows, plaintiffs’ motion will be denied.

I. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs commenced this class action in November 1990 alleging numerous violations of prisoners’ constitutional rights at thirteen State Correctional Institutions. The named defendants are Joseph Lehman, Commissioner of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, the superintendents of the thirteen correctional institutions, and Robert Casey, Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
In February 1991, plaintiffs amended their complaint as a matter of course before defendants filed a response. Plaintiffs, with leave of court, filed a Second Amended Complaint in September 1991 adding eight inmates as plaintiffs. Plaintiffs’ Motion For Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint naming the Superintendent of SCI–Muncy as a defendant was denied by Order dated September 29, 1992.
The medical contractors plaintiffs seek to add as defendants are: (1) Comprehensive Health Care Group, Inc.; (2) Correctional Medical Systems, Inc.; (3) Corrections Physicians Service, Inc.; (4) Prison Health Services; and (5) Pennsylvania Institutional Health Service, Inc. (Pl.’s Mot. To Am.) Such contractors provide health care services at nine of the thirteen correctional institutions named as defendants.1
II. APPLICABLE LAW Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) states in relevant part: “[A] party may amend the party’s pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party; and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires. The purpose of Rule 15(a) is to afford litigants the opportunity to resolve their claims on the merits rather than have the pleadings stage of litigation become a mere exercise in technical proficiency. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S.Ct. 227, 230 (1962); Reaves v. Sielaff, 382 F.Supp. 472, 474 (E.D.Pa.1974). As its language suggests, Rule 15(a) is to be liberally construed. The decision to grant or deny leave to amend is committed to the sound discretion of the court. Gay v. Petsock, 917 F.2d 768, 772 (3d Cir.1990).
A motion for leave to amend under Rule 15(a) may be denied for the following reasons: (1) undue delay; (2) bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the moving party; (3) repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed; (4) prejudice to the non-moving party; (5) futility of amendment; and (6) failure of the amendment to raise a meritorious claim. Foman, 371 U.S. at 182, 83 S.Ct. at 230; Bechtel v. Robinson, 886 F.2d at 652; Verhein v. South Bend Lathe, Inc., 598 F.2d 1061, 1063 (7th Cir.1979). See also United Services
1

Austin v. Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections, Not Reported in F.Supp. (1993)

Automobile Ass’n v. Foster, 783 F.Supp. 916 (M.D.Pa.1992).

reflecting a failure to have sufficient staff, equipment or services to provide adequate medical care.” (Pl.’s Brief Supp. Mot. to Amend at 3)

III. DISCUSSION *2 Plaintiffs’ impetus for seeking leave to add the medical contractors as defendants stems from a colloquy which occurred during the hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction on September 9, 1992. At the hearing, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit Number 4, an affidavit of Dr. Leo Hartz dated July 28, 1992, was offered into evidence by plaintiffs to prove the existence of three active cases of tuberculosis at SCI–Muncy in 1992.2 (Hearing Transcript, Sept. 9, 1992, at pp 88–103) At the time, Dr. Hartz was employed by the medical contractor which provided medical services at SCI–Muncy. Plaintiffs argued that the affidavit was admissible either under Rule 801(d)(2)(D) as the statement of an agent, or under Rule 801(d)(2)(B) as an adoptive admission.3 (Hearing Transcript, Sept. 9, 1992, at pp 88–90) Defendants objected to the admission of the affidavit on the ground that it was hearsay. (Hearing Transcript, Sept. 9, 1992, at pp 88–89) In response, the Court stated, without ruling on the issue, that it was in general agreement with defendants’ position that the medical contractors are not agents for purposes of Rule 801(d)(2)(D) and that parties such as defendants do not automatically adopt as admissions under Rule 801(d)(2)(B) the statements of such medical contractors. (Hearing Transcript, Sept. 9, 1992, at pp 100–101)
After an extensive discussion between the Court and counsel for both parties, defendants stipulated to the number of active cases of tuberculosis referred to in the Hartz Affidavit. (Hearing Transcript, Sept. 9, 1992, at pp 94) In view of the stipulation, there was no need to admit the Hartz Affidavit into evidence and the Court did not rule on the admissibility of statements made by Dr. Hartz or any other employees of the medical contractors. (Hearing Transcript, Sept. 9, 1992, at pp 95–97)
A. Plaintiffs’ Motion For Leave To Amend Is Not Asserted For A Proper Purpose. In response to the dialogue summarized above, plaintiffs filed their motion for leave to amend in order to prevent defendants from gaining what plaintiffs’ perceive to be an evidentiary advantage at trial. (Pl.’s Brief Supp. Mot. to Amend at 2) Plaintiffs argue that admission of statements by medical contractors’ staff into evidence is necessary in order to prove deliberate indifference on the part of DOC officials. See Wilson v. Seiter, 111 S.Ct. 2321, 2324 (1991); Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976). Plaintiffs state in their supporting brief that “failure to allow plaintiffs to add the medical contractors as defendants may cast doubt on the ability of plaintiffs to gain admission for documents generated by the contractors

Plaintiffs’ motion and supporting brief are aimed at curing a potential evidentiary problem at trial rather than asserting meritorious claims for relief against the contractors. Under those circumstances, leave to amend would not be appropriate. Verhein, 598 F.2d at 1063; Foster, 783 F.Supp. 916. The Court would not order joinder of the medical contractors as defendants solely as a remedy for plaintiffs’ evidentiary concerns.
*3 Plaintiffs state in their Reply Brief that they “are indeed claiming that the [medical] contractors have violated the constitutional rights of the plaintiff class.” (Pl.’s Rep. Brief at 1) Although plaintiffs’ assertion regarding constitutional claims appears to be akin to a “second thought” when considered in juxtaposition to the colloquy which occurred at the preliminary injunction hearing, and the absence of any mention of such claims in the motion itself or the initial supporting brief, and plaintiffs repeated emphasis on curing potential evidentiary problems in all of their moving papers, the Court will nevertheless address this argument.
First, plaintiffs’ seek only declaratory and injunctive relief; no damages are claimed. As plaintiffs correctly point out in their supporting brief, regardless of a state’s arrangements with medical contractors, the state remains responsible under the Constitution for providing adequate medical care to inmates confined at correctional facilities. (Pl.’s Brief Supp.Mot. to Amend at 2); West v. Atkins, supra. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has vested responsibility for prison operations, including medical and mental health care, in the Commissioner of the Department of Corrections and the superintendents of the individual corrections facilities. Therefore, in the event plaintiffs prevail at trial on their Eighth Amendment claim for inadequate medical care against the prison officials who are named as defendants, those officials will be obligated to ensure that the medical contractors are in compliance with any declaratory or injunctive relief granted by the Court.
Second, plaintiffs appear to misconstrue Rule 801(d)(2)(B). Joinder of the medical contractors as defendants is not necessary to have statements by medical contractors’ staff admitted into evidence as adoptive admissions by defendants. What is required for admission under Rule 801(d)(2)(B), regardless of whether the statements were made by a party or a non-party, is conduct or words by which defendants manifest their adoption of or belief in the truth of the statement or statements.4 Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(B); United States v. Ordonez, 737 F.2d 793, 800–801 (9th Cir.1984). Such a determination must be made on a case by case basis.
2

Austin v. Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections, Not Reported in F.Supp. (1993)

Third, for a statement to be admissible under Rule 801(d)(2(D), the party seeking admission must make a three-part showing: (1) “[t]he party must establish the existence of the [agency] relationship independent of the declarant’s statement offered as evidence;” (2) “[t]he statement must be made during the existence of the declarant’s agency;” and (3) [t]he statement must concern a matter within the scope of [the agency relationship].” Boren v. Sable, 887 F.2d 1032, 1038 (10th Cir.1989). Common law principles of agency are used in applying Rule 801(d)(2)(D).5 Id.
The joinder of the medical contractors would add nothing to plaintiffs’ agency argument. Assuming arguendo the medical contractors were defendants, plaintiffs would presumably be able to establish an agency relationship between the medical contractors and their employees. At best for plaintiffs under those circumstances, the statements of employees of the medical contractors would be treated as admissions against the medical contractors, but not the other defendants. In order for the statements of employees of medical contractors to constitute admissions against defendants other than the medical contractors, plaintiffs would have to establish an agency relationship with such defendants. Plaintiffs can attempt to do so whether or not the medical contractors are named as defendants. The addition of the medical contractors as defendants would not affect their burden of proof on that issue.

the motion.
Plaintiffs state in their supporting brief that “[a]dding the new defendants will not delay trial because plaintiffs will not seek from the contract defendants any new discovery not previously identified.” (Pl.’s Brief Supp. Mot. to Amend at 5) Although plaintiffs may not request additional discovery from the medical contractors, plaintiffs overlook the medical contractors’ right to conduct discovery in the event they are added as defendants, and understate the delay which undoubtedly will result from the additional discovery required by the medical contractors. Moreover, the alleged presence of counsel for the medical contractors at all inspections of medical and health care facilities by plaintiffs’ medical experts, a fact disputed by defendants, does not affect the right of the medical contractors to proceed with additional discovery.6
C. Bad Faith or Dilatory Motive Defendants argue in their supporting brief that plaintiffs’ motion is not brought in good faith and suggest that the Court levy sanctions against plaintiffs pursuant to Rule 11 or under the Court’s inherent power. The Court disagrees and will not impose sanctions. There is no evidence from which the Court can conclude that plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend was filed in bad faith.

*4 As a final note in this section, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide plaintiffs with a mechanism for introducing written statements of employees of medical contractors into evidence apart from Rules 801(d)(2)(B) and (D). Plaintiffs may direct requests for production of documents to the non-party medical contractors pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(c). After the documents are obtained, plaintiffs may proceed by requests for admission directed to defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36.

D. Repeated Failure to Cure Deficiencies By Previous Amendments Plaintiffs have amended their complaint on previous occasions, but have not, until now, sought to add the medical contractors as party defendants. Plaintiffs have not offered a satisfactory explanation for failing to add the medical contractors at an earlier point in the litigation.

B. Undue Delay Plaintiffs waited more than two years before seeking to add the medical contractors as defendants and have not presented a satisfactory explanation for such delay. From the early stages of this action, plaintiffs were aware that medical and mental health care at many state correctional institutions was provided by the medical contractors. Although delay alone is generally an insufficient ground for denying leave to amend, delay combined with additional factors is sufficient to justify such denial. Quaker State Oil Refining Corp. v. Garrity Oil Co., 884 F.2d 1510, 1517 (1st Cir.1989). Accordingly, the Court concludes that plaintiffs’ delay in seeking leave to name the medical contractors as defendants, combined with other factors discussed infra and supra, justifies denial of

E. Prejudice to the Non-moving Party *5 Defendants argue that undue delay will result and additional expense will be incurred which will prejudice defendants in the event leave to amend is granted. The Court agrees.
A great deal of time, effort and expense has been expended on discovery including depositions, interrogatories, requests for documents and extensive tours of prison medical and mental health care facilities. Discovery in the case has almost reached completion. Granting plaintiffs leave to amend would require additional document production, tours of medical and mental health care facilities, depositions and interrogatories, not to mention the additional discovery disputes and motions the Court would be required to
3

Austin v. Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections, Not Reported in F.Supp. (1993)

resolve, all of which would delay the trial. Such delay, and the additional expense that would be incurred by the defendants and the medical contractors, is not warranted under the circumstances.
F. Futility of Amendment Defendants argue that adding the medical contractors as defendants would be futile and the Court agrees. As noted above, plaintiffs seek only declaratory and injunctive relief. For reasons stated in Subsection A of this Memorandum, naming the contractors as defendants would not change the scope, extent, applicability or enforceability of any such declaratory or injunctive relief that might be awarded.
An appropriate order will follow

ORDER
AND NOW, to wit, this 7th day of January, 1993, upon consideration of Plaintiffs’ Motion For Leave To Amend Complaint and Add Parties (Document No. 112), Defendants’ Brief In Opposition (Document No. 115), and Plaintiffs’ Reply Brief (Document No. 116), IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion is DENIED.
In view of the denial of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint to Add Parties, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Correct Factual Record With Respect to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint (Document No. 117) is DENIED AS MOOT.
	  

Footnotes

1

The correctional institutions served by the contractors are SCI–Greensburg, SCI–Cresson, SCI–Frackville, SCI–Graterford,

SCI–Retreat, SCI–Dallas, SCI–Smithfield, SCI–Camp Hill, and SCI–Waymart.

2

SCI–Muncy, although not one of the thirteen institutions involved in this action, was covered by this Court’s Order of September

29, 1992, granting plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction.

3

Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d) states in relevant part: “A statement is not hearsay if—(2) The statement is offered against a party

and is ... (B) a statement of which the party has manifested an adoption or belief in its truth, or ... (D) a statement by the party’s

agent or servant concerning a matter within the scope of the agency or employment, made during the existence of the

relationship.... Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(B) & (D).

4

Plaintiffs may also use statements by medical contractors’ staff when not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

Fed.R.Evid. 801(c).

5

Under Pennsylvania law, “[t]he basic elements of agency are the manifestation by the principal that the agent shall act for him, the

agent’s acceptance of the undertaking and the understanding of the parties that the principal is to be in control of the undertaking.”

Scott v. Purcell, 490 Pa. 109, 415 A.2d 56, 60 (1980) (citing Restatement (Second) of Agency § 1, Comment b (1958)). A pivotal

factor in determining whether the medical contractors are agents or independent contractors is the degree of control defendants

exercise over the means by which the medical contractor’s contractually defined duties are accomplished. Massachusetts Mutual

Life Ins. Co. v. Central Penn National Bank, 372 F.Supp. 1027, 1041 (E.D.Pa.1974), aff’d, 510 F.2d 970 (3d Cir.1975).

6

Defendants filed a Motion to Correct Factual Record With Respect To Plaintiffs’ Motion For Leave To Amend Complaint

regarding the presence of counsel for the medical contractors during inspection tours of medical facilities at correctional

institutions. In view of the Court’s conclusion on this issue, defendants’ Motion to Correct will be denied as moot.

	  

4

 
 IN THt UNITED STATES DISTRICT C O W T FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

STEVEN AUSTIN, ROBERT C. BORING, FRANKLIN CASTLE, PAUL TAYLOR, EUGENE DUNSON, JOHN REGELMAN, KEVIN SANDERS, RICHARD BOOZER, FRANCIS PARKER WILLIAM A. FINGER, JOSEPH MULCAHY LAURENCE JOHNSON, and DEBRA SPEAKES, on behalf of themselves and all others presently incarcerated or who will in the future be incarcerated within the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections,
Plaintiffs,
v.
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; JOSEPH LEHMAN, sued in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections; JEFFREY BEARDS, sued in his official capacity as Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Camp Hill; MARTIN DRAGOVICH, sued in his official capacity as Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Cresson; JOSEPH RYAN, sued in his official capacity as Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Dallas; RAYMOND E. CLYMER, sued in his official capacity as Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Frackville; DONALD T. VAUGHN, sued in his official capacity as Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Graterford; FREDERICK ROSENMEYER, sued in his official capacity as Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Greensburg; THOMAS FULCOMER, sued in his official capacity as Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Huntingdon; GILBERT A. WALTERS, sued in his official capacity as Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Mercer; DENNIS R. BERHARDT, sued in his official capacity as Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Retreat; JOSEPH F. MAZURKIEWICZ, sued in his official capacity as Superintendent of State Corrections

I
'•cS

JV). cio0

CIVIL ACTION NO.

Austin v. Pennsylvania DOC

PC-PA-002-001

Institution at Rock aw; MARGARET A. MOORE, sued in her official capacity as Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Smithfield; CHARLES H. ZIMMERMAN, sued in his official capacity as Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Waymart; and WILLIAM J. WOLFE, sued in his official capacity as Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Waynesburg,
Defendants.
COMPLAINT
Jurisdiction As plaintiffs seek to vindicate rights protected by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, and 42 U.S. Section 1983, this Court has jurisdiction of this civil action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 1331 and 1343 (a) (3) and (4). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 2201 and 2202, this Court has jurisdiction to declare the rights of the parties and to grant all further relief found necessary and proper.
Parties 1. Plaintiff Steven Austin is a citizen of the United States presently incarcerated at the State Corrections Institution at Camp Hill. 2. Plaintiff Robert C. Boring is a citizen of the United States presently incarcerated at the State Corrections Institution at Cresson. 3. Plaintiff Franklin Castle is a citizen of the United States presently incarcerated at the State Corrections Institution at Dallas.

4. Plaintiff t-aul Taylor is a citizen of uhe United States presently incarcerated at the State Corrections Institution at Frackville.
5. Plaintiff Eugene Dunson is a citizen of the United States presently incarcerated at the State Corrections Institution at Graterford.
6. Plaintiff John Regelman is a citizen of the United States presently incarcerated at the State Corrections Institution at Greensburg.
7. Plaintiff Kevin Sanders is a citizen of the United States presently incarcerated at the State Corrections Institution at Huntingdon.
8. Plaintiff Richard Boozer is a citizen of the United States presently incarcerated at the State Corrections Institution at Mercer.
9 Plaintiff Francis Parker is a citizen of the United States presently incarcerated at the State Corrections Institution at Retreat.
10. Plaintiff William A. Finger is a citizen of the United States presently incarcerated at the State Corrections Institution at Rockview.
11. Plaintiff Joseph Mulcahy is a citizen of the United States presently incarcerated at the State Corrections Institution at Smithfield.
12. Plaintiff Laurence Johnson is a citizen of the United States presently incarcerated at the State Corrections Institution at Waymart.

13. Plaintif Debra Speakes is a c i t i n of the United States presently incarcerated at the State Corrections Institution at Waynesburg.
14. Defendant Pennsylvania Department of Corrections is that executive agency of the Commonwealth mandated by law to receive and detain s t a t e prisoners. The Department and i t s constituent corrections institutions are recipients of federal financial aid.
15. Defendant Joseph Lehman is the Commissioner of the Department of Corrections. As such, he is responsible for the administration of the Department of Corrections. He is sued in his official capacity.
16. Defendant Jeffrey Beards is Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Camp Hill. As such, he is responsible for immediately overseeing the day to day operation of that institution. He is sued in his official capacity.
17. Defendant Martin Dragovich is Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Cresson. As such, he is responsible for immediately overseeing the day to day operation of that institution. He is sued in his official capacity.
18. Defendant Joseph Ryan is Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Dallas. As such, he is responsible for immediately overseeing the day to day operation of that institution. He is sued in his official capacity.
19. Defendant Raymond E. Clymer is Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Frackville. As such, he is responsible for immediately overseeing the day to day operation of that institution. He is sued in his official capacity.

20. Defendant Donald T. Vaughn is Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Graterford. As such, he is responsible for immediately overseeing the day to day operation of that institution. He is sued in his official capacity.
21. Defendant Frederick Rosenmeyer is Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Greensburg. As such, he is responsible for immediately overseeing the day to day operation of that institution. He is sued in his official capacity.
22. Defendant Thomas Fulcomer is Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Huntingdon. As such, he is responsible for immediately overseeing the day to day operation of that institution. He is sued in his official capacity.
23. Defendant Gilbert A. Walters is Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Mercer. As such, he is responsible for immediately overseeing the day to day operation of that institution. He is sued in his official capacity.
24. Defendant Dennis R. Berhardt is Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Retreat. As such, he is responsible for immediately overseeing the day to day operation of that institution. He is sued in his official capacity.
25. Defendant Joseph F. Mazurkiewicz is Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Rockview. As such, he is responsible for immediately overseeing the day to day operation of that institution. He is sued in his official capacity.
26. Defendant Margaret A. Moore is Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Smithfield. As such, she is responsible for immediately overseeing the day to day operation of that

institution. She i sued in her official capa :y. 27. Defendant Charles A. Zimmerman is Superintendent of
State Corrections Institution at Waymart. As such, he is responsible for immediately overseeing the day to day operation of that institution. He is sued in his official capacity.
28. Defendant William J. Wolfe is Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Waynesburg. As such, he is responsible for immediately overseeing the day to day operation of that institution. He is sued in his official capacity.
29. At all times relevant hereto and in all of the actions described herein, all defendants were acting under color of state law and pursuant to their authority as officials and/or employees of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Class Action Allegations 30. The named plaintiffs seek to maintain this action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated pursuant to Rules 23 (a) and 23 (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. They represent a class of persons who are or who may in the future be incarcerated by the Department of Corrections in any facility other than State Corrections Institution at Muncy and State Corrections Institution at Pittsburgh who, in the absence of relief, have been or will be treated in the manner set forth below. As a result of such treatment, the members of the class are or will be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment and deprived of other constitutional rights. Plaintiffs therefore seek declaratory and injunctive relief to eliminate defendants' actions, policies, and practices which work constitutional

wrong. 31. The requirements of Rules 23 (a) and 23 (b) (2) are all
satisfied by this class action. The class consists of all persons who are or will in the future be incarcerated by the Department of Corrections.
32. The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impractical. The class presently exceeds 18,000 individuals and also includes an unknown number of individuals who will in the future be incarcerated by the Department of Corrections.
33. There are ques-tions of law and fact common to the class, including the constitutionality of the conditions of confinement maintained by the Department of Corrections.
34. The claims of the plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the class. Plaintiffs include inmates currently incarcerated throughout the Department of Corrections.
35. The plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the class.
36. The defendants have acted and refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief with respect to the class as a whole.
Facts Giving Rise To Causes Of Action Overcrowding
37. The Pennsylvania Department of Corrections presently operates fifteen State Corrections Institutions all of which are severely overcrowded. The institutions which are the subject of this lawsuit are:
a. Camp Hill, which was opened in 1941 with a design intend-

ed to house ipproximately 988 indiv uals but as of September 30, 1990, was being used to detain 2,192 prisoners . b. Cresson, which was opened in 1987 with a design intended to house approximately 499 individuals but as of September 30, 1990, was being used to detain 948 prisoners. c. Dallas, which was opened in 1960 with a design intended to house approximately 1,457 individuals but as of September 30, 1990, was being used to detain 2,024 prisoners . d. Frackville, which was opened in 1987 with a design intended to house approximately 540 individuals but as of September 30, 1990, was being used to detain 1,036 prisoners . e. Graterford, which was opened in 1929 with a design intended to house approximately 2,734 individuals but as of September 30, 1990, was being used to detain 4,067 prisoners . f. Greensburg, which was opened in 1969 with a design intended to house approximately 461 individuals but as of September 30, 1990, was being used to detain 761 prisoners . g. Huntingdon, which was opened in 1889 with a design intended to house approximately 1,347 individuals but as of September 30, 1990, was being used to detain 2,007 prisoners. h. Mercer, which was opened in 1978 with a design intended to house 464 individuals but as of September 30, 1990,
8

was being used to detain 902 prisoners. i. Retreat, which was opened in 1988 with a design intended
to house 480 individuals but as of September 30, 1990, was being used to detain 842 prisoners. j. Rockview, which was opened in 1915 with a design intended to house 1,250 individuals but as of September 30, 1990, was being used to detain 2,059 prisoners. k. Smithfield, which was opened in 1988 with a design intended to house 484 individuals but as of September 30, 1990, was being used to detain 877 prisoners. 1. Waymart, which was opened in 1978 with a design intended to house 241 individuals but as of September 30, 1990, was being used to detain 515 prisoners. m. Waynesburg, which was opened in 1984 with a design intended to house 168 individuals but as of September 30, 1990, was being used to detain 270 prisoners. 38. The Department has the capacity to house approximately 13,000 individuals. As of September 30, 1990, the Department detained approximately 18,500 individuals at the above listed institutions. 39. The overcrowding has become so serious that the very fact of incarceration in these institutions now causes such physical and psychological harms and deprivations as to render incarceration of plaintiffs unconstitutional. The physical facilities cannot safely accommodate such large numbers of inmates and the services required by the Constitution cannot be provided in the prison system as currently structured.

40. The harm' :aused to plaintiffs by vercrowding are exacerbated, as detailed below, by the fact that the institutions are otherwise suffering from substantial physical deterioration, environmental defects, correctional and other staff shortages, and grossly inadequate classification services and programs, thus causing plaintiffs to suffer cruel and unusual punishment.
Violence
41. As a direct result of the overcrowding, the Department of Corrections is experiencing more violence than at any other time in its history.
42. During the last six months of 1989 there were 409 assaults on guards alone. By contrast, there were only 500 such assaults throughout the Department in the twelve preceding months.
43. Between July of 1988 and June of 1989 there were 139 assaults requiring medical treatment reported at SCI Graterford alone. Of those, 86 were inmate on inmate, while the remaining 53 were inmate on staff or staff on inmate assaults.
44. The level of violence at that institution, reflecting the level of violence throughout the Department, grew unabated during the next six month period.
45. Between July 1989 and January 1990, there were 158 assaults at Graterford requiring medical treatment. Inmate on inmate assaults now rose to 107, the remaining assaults being between inmates and staff.
46. On October 23, 1989, the Department lost control of one of its housing blocks at SCI Huntingdon when approximately 25
10

prisoners refused to return to their cells. A S a result, the Department put the entire institution on 24 hour lock-down for several months.
47. On October 25, 1989, the Department lost complete control of its second largest facility at Camp Hill when an inmate attack on a guard turned into a general melee.
48. Over the next several hours, prisoners seized hostages and took control of several buildings.
49. From these hostages, the prisoners were able to obtain cell block keys as well as radios which were used to begin negotiations with the Department.
50. While the Department was able to negotiate the release of the hostages along with a commitment 'from the prisoners to voluntarily return to their cells, the Department did nothing to secure that facility, notwithstanding its knowledge that Camp Hill's security systems had been badly damaged.
51. When the following day's negotiations proved fruitless from the inmates' perspective, prisoners simply released themselves and proceeded for a second consecutive day to seize control of the institution. During their second melee, a large portion of Camp Hill went up in flames. For approximately a day and a half, the prisoners held at bay nearly a thousand correctional and state police.
52. The institution was only secured at the cost of large numbers of injuries to both inmates (many of whom had not participated in the riot) and state officers.
53. These injuries were directly attributable to the De-
ll

partment's general )or management of its se rity operations, which continues to put inmates at risk of injury.
54. As had happened after the Huntingdon riot, employees of both the Department of Corrections and the State Police Department retaliated with excessive physical force against the inmates of the prison.
55. These employees not only destroyed what little property inmates had managed to save from the preceding conflagration, but further indiscriminately beat prisoners who were now handcuffed and shackled to one another.
56. This violence was countenanced by the Department in order to insure that its employees would not abandon the Department.
57. At the time of the Camp Hill riot the Department of Corrections was housing 2600 inmates at that facility.
58. As a result of the rioting, the Department lost nearly 1,000 beds at that facility. Approximately 700 former Camp Hill inmates were sent by the Department to federal custody, where many of them remain housed throughout the United States.
59. These individuals (some of whom are being housed as far away as California) are unable to meet with counsel or family.
60. While some former Camp Hill inmates have access to federal programs, others have been held in twenty-four hour lock-down since being transferred last fall. The rest of the Camp Hill inmates are scattered throughout the Department's remaining facilities, which were already overcrowded.
61. So great is the Department's disarray that on April 30, 1990, upon having to lock-down one of Graterford's housing units,
12

the Department began transferring prisoners fiom Graterford to Camp Hill.
62. The Department is 550 correctional officers short of its established goal for full staffing. Inmate to correctional officer ratios have increased significantly in the past decade. This staff shortage contributes to the overall deterioration of security and is a substantial cause of the violence now occurring in the institutions.
Excessive Force
63. There is in each institution a pattern and practice of the excessive, malicious, and unjustified use of force by correctional officers against inmates.
64. The defendants have failed to properly discipline or otherwise control the abusive actions of correctional officers. As a result, corrections officers believe they can use such force with impunity and they continue to use physical force to punish and retaliate against plaintiffs.
Classification and Programs
65. In light of the Department's desperate need for space to house its rapidly expanding population, the Department's classification schemes (traditionally used to insure that less aggressive inmates not be housed with more violent inmates) are in complete disarray. Putting a prisoner anywhere (even in infirmaries as noted below) has now become the Department's main classification goal.
13

66. According o the Final Report of the ivernor's Commission at Camp Hill Corrections Institution, large numbers of the prisoners at that facility (which prior to the riot was the Department's second largest) had nothing to do throughout the day. Indeed, of the roughly twenty-six hundred persons incarcerated at Camp Hill there were never more than 850 enrolled in that facility's chemical abuse, sex offender, and/or educational programs in the ten months preceding the riot described above.
67. Upon information and belief, plaintiffs allege that the finding of the Governor's Commission concerning the limited number of inmates allowed access to programs is equally true with regard to each of the Department's other institutions.
68. Thus, for example, the number of teachers employed by the Department has remained constant since 1979, despite a 150% increase in the Department's population.
69. Further, while the Department has established a goal of having 15% of its population participate in vocational programming, staff shortages have meant that only 8% of the inmates can be included in these programs.
70. Aside from the fact that the Department has not hired enough staff to provide sufficient programs, the Department has impeded access to these programs in a number of other ways.
71. Upon information and belief, plaintiffs allege that access to these limited programs as well as the limited number of jobs which prisoners are allowed to hold is granted along racially biased lines. This discrimination further escalates inmate tension.
72. Further, with regard to its sex offender programs, the
14

Department now requires an admission of guili_ before granting access to these programs.
73. The Department's failure to increase the number of individuals who may take advantage of these programs works injury in two ways: first, by depriving inmates of the benefits these programs have to offer and second, because the Board of Pardons and Paroles often conditions release upon the successful completion of the very programs inmates are unable to secure.
74. The general lack of education, recreational or employment opportunities resulting in pervasive idleness contributes to the level of violence which is outlined above and which has now become endemic.
Health and Psychiatric Issues
75. The provision of medical care by the Department is in a state of crisis. The Department systematically fails to provide necessary routine and emergency medical care to its population.
76. The Department's fifteen prisons had the third highest death rate of prisons throughout the nation last year; 26.2 deaths for every 10,000 prisoners. Eighty percent of inmate deaths in 1988 were medically related. In 1989, Pennsylvania had the ninth largest inmate population, yet ranked twenty-first in daily health care expenditures per inmate.
77. Overcrowding and poor sanitation provide a breeding ground for communicable disease. Strep and fungal infections are common. A serious epidemic of tuberculosis is a real possibility.
15

78. Necessary .ergency care is often de" id because medical personnel are not available on a 24 hour basis. Moreover, non-medical staff often fail to identify serious medical problems on the blocks, leading to delay or denial of emergency treatment even when medical assistance is available. The Department lacks basic equipment, such as crash carts, necessary to provide emergency care.
79. There are serious deficiencies with regard to the Department's sick call procedure. Inmates with potentially serious conditions are screened by inadequately trained and/or overburdened personnel who often do not detect medical problems until serious harm occurs.
80. Inmates who need greater assistance than can be provided at sick call experience chronic delays in securing physician care. Sick inmates become sicker while waiting to see physicians, frequently suffering unnecessary pain and medical complications.
81. There are long delays in scheduling inmate appointments at outside hospitals for tests, specialist consults, and treatment, even in cases of a serious illnesses.
82. Even when an inmate finally receives outside care, medical care is compromised by a lack of continuity of treatment and follow-up. Test results and consultation reports from outside physicians often do not reach the Department treating physician for weeks or months. Unnecessary and dangerous medical complications sometimes arise because of the Department's practice of prematurely transferring inmates receiving hospital care back to its facilities for budgetary reasons.
83. Department physicians fail to prescribe proper diet and
16

medication to prisoners who have, or develop, chronic physical conditions requiring daily special attention, such as ulcers, diabetes, hypertension, or chronic heart disease. Even when such diet or medication is ordered, the Department often fails to provide it in a consistent fashion.
84. Inmates with disabilities are often not provided proper physical therapy and/or assistance needed to participate in prison activities. The Department fails to make reasonable accommodation to the special needs of disabled prisoners.
85. Many of the deficiencies in the medical program are related to overcrowding. Thus, for example, at SCI Huntingdon, one of the Department's largest institutions, the Department has been forced to house general population inmates in space previously assigned to its infirmary.
86. In addition, the Department fails to employ a sufficient number of qualified medical personnel to treat its burgeoning population properly.
87. According to the Department's Table of Organization, the medical health care staff has 74 vacancies. The vacancies are primarily in the categories of licensed practical nurses and registered nurses. The Department also has 18 vacancies in the dental care area. There is an acute shortage of physicians, especially in the institutions situated in rural areas. Physicians staffing sick call or clinics are routinely required to see 10 or 20 or more inmates each hour and cannot devote the necessary time to properly examine, diagnose and treat their patients.
88. Finally, the manner in which the Department administers
17

nealth care is woefi y deficient and deliberat y indifferent to serious medical needs.
89. At some Department institutions, medical care is provided by one or more contractors. Because the contracts are let at a fixed rate, the contractor has a financial incentive to minimize the cost and amount of care provided. This structure has led to seriously ill inmates being denied necessary care, or being provided necessary care only after lengthy delays. This structure has resulted in pervasive, deliberate understaffing of clinics, sick calls, and intake examinations.
90. The Department and its contracted medical providers assign physicians to duties for which they are not properly trained. For example, physicians with no training or experience in internal medicine are assigned to sick call and intake examinations, tasks which require skill in the diagnosis and treatment of internal medical complaints.
91. Inadequate record keeping adversely affect the delivery of health care from diagnosis to treatment. Insufficient staff, poor procedures, and inadequate equipment prevent appropriate follow-up of patients receiving ongoing care from Department or outside physicians. The results include interruption of medication, delays in test results or outside consultation results reaching the treating physician or outright loss of such results, and delays in diagnosis and implementation of treatment.
92. The facilities, staff and procedures in the Department's mental health care units are all seriously deficient.
93. The mental health treatment staff is currently 72 positions short of a full complement. There was need for an
18

additional 19 counselors, 22 psychologists, 5 psychiatrists, and 26 activity staff persons, according to the Audit of the Pennsylvania Budget and Finance Committee conducted in 1988. The need is greater today because of increased population. Shortages in mental health services disrupt treatment, and increase overcrowding as parole is denied to inmates with active mental health problems.
94. As a result of this shortage of staff the mental health care is often grossly inadequate, resulting in the deterioration of inmates' mental condition.
95. The Department's psychiatric screening for inmates suffering from mental illness is seriously deficient. Due to overcrowded conditions, prisoners are not properly classified or housed. Even if they are recognized as suffering from mental illness, they are frequently housed with other inmates.
96. All these deficiencies in medical and mental health care reflect inadequate funding for medical staff, support staff, and equipment.
97. As a result of all of the foregoing, inmates unnecessarily develop serious medical conditions or suffer unnecessary pain and even death.
HIV/AIDS Health Issues
93. The Department presently admits to having fewer than 150 HIV infected inmates in its custody. Based on the prevalence of AIDS in county jails in Pennsylvania, and taking into account the high incidence of past intravenous drug use among the prison
19

population, the ac al number of infected ir tes is probably several times higher than the Department's estimate.
99. To date there is no cure for HIV infection. Education, counseling and voluntary testing to inform people about HIV and to foster avoidance of behaviors that transmit HIV are the only effective means of preventing the spread of the epidemic. Early identification of the infected has also become crucial, because the infected can be medically monitored and treated to delay the onset of serious AIDS symptoms and death.
100. All the problems of medical care cited above (see paragraphs 77 to 99) redound with even more deadly effect on HIV infected prisoners. Plaintiffs are being denied necessary medical care across the entire spectrum of serious medical need.
(a) Inmates receive minimal AIDS education at intake, including written material that is out of date and inaccurate. There is little or no follow-up education, and inmates are not provided with information they need to protect themselves and others from HIV transmission in prison. Inmates who are or may be infected are not informed of the benefits of early identification of their condition, including the fact that there is treatment available to delay the onset of serious illness.
(b) Inmates whose HIV infection has not been detected because they were deterred from requesting or were otherwise denied HIV testing are not evaluated for treatment they may need to prevent or delay the onset of AIDS. Inmates obviously at risk for HIV, or even showing obvious symptoms, are often not identified or offered testing by physicians at intake or sick call, either because the physician does not recognize the symptoms, or
20

because physicians are under pressure to minimize the number of HIV tests performed.
(c) Inmates who are known to be HIV infected are often not carefully monitored with periodic physical examinations and CD4+ cell testing, and so do not receive treatment they need to prevent or delay the onset of AIDS.
(d) Inmates who are known to be immunosuppressed, with CD4+ cell counts between 500 and 200 per cubic millimeter, frequently do not receive necessary prophylactic or ameliorative treatments on a timely basis or at all. In some institutions, basic recognized therapies, such as aerosolized pentamidine to prevent PCP, a form of pneumonia, have been categorically unavailable. In others, AZT is sporadically provided, or'is often not dispensed in accord w i t h c u r r e n t m e d i c a l p r a c t i c e . O t h e r m e d i c a t i o n s needed to treat HIV or opportunistic infections are frequently not prescribed or unavailable.
(e) Inmates with AIDS may not be seen on a regular basis by physicians with knowledge of the proper treatment of their disease, or may not be seen by such a physician at all.
(f) Defendants fail to provide plaintiffs with sufficient information about the nature and course of their illness. As a result, class members' right to participate in their own treatment decisions is compromised. Some patients refuse necessary treatment because of inadequate, incomplete or inaccurate information.
(g) Inmates with psychological problems linked to HIV do not receive sufficient mental health care and support.
21

101. These def Lencies arise out of the r ie systemic failures that prevent the delivery of adequate general medical care.
102. In addition, the cost of testing for and treating HIV disease, and the impact of identifying large numbers of HIV infected inmates on the management of prison staff and inmates who are not educated about the virus, have led to a reluctance on the part of medical providers and Department officials to identify inmates with HIV infection.
103. Although the Department pays lip service to confidentiality, in practice HIV infected prisoners are routinely identified to Department staff and other inmates.
(a) The Department interprets its union contract to require that HIV infected inmates be identified to corrections staff.
(b) HIV-related information about inmates is routinely circulated among corrections staff and is often seen by prisoners, including inmate clerks who have access to the information in the course of their duties.
(c) In some Department institutions, inmate files are marked with a distinctive signal that is known to indicate HIV infection.
(d) Inmate files containing private medical information are routinely available to non-medical staff.
(e) Staff often inform prisoners of the HIV status of inmates, either directly or in statements or documents that inmates are allowed to overhear or see.
104. Although its stated policy is to segregate HIV infected inmates only if they pose a risk of sexual or needle-sharing behavior, in many Department institutions HIV infected inmates
22

are housed together in a single block or tier. Inmates known to be HIV infected are subject to arbitrary and unjustified disciplinary writeups intended to serve as a pretext for isolation. HIV infected prisoners have been kept in solitary confinement for months and years at a time.
105. Inmates with AIDS have been confined for long periods in infirmaries, even when their health improves and infirmary care is no longer needed.
106. HIV infected inmates in infirmaries and restricted housing units are denied participation in educational and other programs available to other inmates. The lack of such program opportunities hinders the rehabilitation efforts of HIV infected inmates and may prevent or delay their parole.
107. These programs are denied to them solely because of their handicap. For all HIV infected inmates, the Department's failure to provide adequate education and to promulgate and police serious anti-discrimination policies results directly in a climate of fear, discrimination and harassment that renders HIV infected inmates unable to fully participate in the social, educational or work life of the institution, solely because of their handicap. The climate of discrimination and fear forces people who know or suspect that they are HIV infected to keep their condition secret, depriving them as a consequence of the same opportunity as other prisoners to seek medical care for their condition.
108. HIV infected inmates are denied the opportunity to take certain prison jobs, such as food worker or barber, solely be-
23

cause of their har cap, and despite the fac that they do not pose a significant risk of infection to other inmates in such jobs.
109. The Department of Corrections has recently undertaken to audit its HIV education, testing and treatment policies in cooperation with the Department of Health. The Department of Corrections has further agreed to work with the Department of Health to make HIV testing available to prisoners upon demand, to offer inmate education, to improve staff education, and to provide uniform standards of medical treatment. To date, however, the Department of Corrections has not been able to secure significant changes in the actual delivery of care or to ameliorate the underlying conditions that lead to deficient care.
Environmental Conditions
110. Many of the Department's cells in the system are without sufficient ventilation and have excessive noise, insect and rodent infestation, leaking walls and ceilings due to roof flooding, uneven heat, insufficient lighting, unsafe electrical wiring, and deteriorating plumbing systems.
111. Many of the shower facilities within the Department lack adequate ventilation, have mold and mildew on the walls and ceilings, ineffective temperature control, and deteriorating floor surfaces.
112. Food services facilities within the Department are unsanitary, poorly ventilated, poorly lit, poorly maintained, and rely upon outdated and poorly maintained equipment. Numerous safety hazards exist for employees and inmates alike, including
24

electrical hazards, the potential for back si^honage, improper storage methods, and improper disposal of waste materials. Food storage facilities have been found to have roach and rodent infestation, improper temperature control, and use of inadequate and outdated storage equipment.
113. Dining facilities are unsanitary and have the potential for cross-contamination. The equipment has deteriorated to a point where inmate health is threatened.
114. The Department's reporting systems are deficient. Inspectors do not have formally defined criteria or detailed inspection forms to guide their activities. Sanitation and hygiene inspections are grossly inadequate.
115. The water supplies at several institutions are below acceptable EPA standards.
116. Insufficient funding for capital improvements and ongoing maintenance is a major factor contributing to the difficulties being encountered by the Department in maintaining the environment of the physical plants and facilities.
117. The Department lacks a long-term plan for capital improvements and physical maintenance.
118. Overcrowding has further contributed to the difficulties encountered by the Department in maintaining and upgrading institutional physical plant and facilities. It has drained available financial resources away from maintenance by expanding housing capacity without a corresponding modification in support facilities.
119. Poor design of several institutions impedes the
25

Department's abilit to maintain the physical tructures. Many of the state correctional institutions were designed for uses other than as adult correctional facilities. For example, SCI Graterford was designed to be a prison farm; SCI Camp Hill, SCI Dallas, SCI Huntingdon and SCI Waynesburg were designed to be juvenile facilities and consist of hollow brick construction; SCI Cresson was designed as an institution for mentally retarded persons, and SCI Retreat was designed as a center for mentally ill persons; SCI Rockview was designed as a minimum security farm; and SCI Greensburg was designed as a short term county facility.
120. The Department fails to meet basic needs of the inmate population. There are chronic shortages of essential clothing for newly admitted inmates, blankets and pillows for all prisoners, and replacement mattresses for those that are torn, dirty, or infested with bed bugs.
121. Fire safety is a problem throughout the Department. Many of the institutions have been found to be in violation of the Life Safety Code, which has been adopted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania via the Pennsylvania Fire and Panic Act. Deficiencies include the lack of an automatic alarm system, an insufficient number of exits, lack of an immediate release mechanism on the cell blocks, lack of an emergency lighting system, the existence of significant barriers to evacuating the cell blocks within a reasonable amount of time because of the long distances inmates must travel from their cells to exit doors, and the absence of fire separation walls between authorized smoke compartments. Many of these deficiencies have been cited by the Penn-
26

sylvania Department ~>f Labor and Industry inspe~cors.
Access to Courts
122. The Department does not provide attorneys, paralegals or professionally trained persons to assist inmates with the filing of civil rights complaints, habeas corpus petitions or similar challenges to their convictions. With limited exception, the Department has not allowed the formation of para-law clinics staffed by inmates knowledgeable in the law.
123. Most of the Department's law libraries are stocked with such limited and antiquated volumes as to make it nearly impossible for prisoners to do legal research.
124. Those inmates without legal training and those who do not have a command of the English language are seriously handicapped in their efforts to pursue legal remedies.
125. At some of the Department's institutions, inmates in administrative segregation, protective custody, or punitive segregation are not permitted to visit the main law library. Alternative provisions for such inmates are totally inadequate.
Causes of Action
126. The policies, practices, acts and omissions complained of herein taken as a whole violate plaintiffs' rights under the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, in that they deprive plaintiffs of their rights to:
a. be free from cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments;
27

b. be ' ee from excessive and ir ' icious physical force and violence under the Fourth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments ;
c. proper and necessary medical and psychiatric services under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments;
d. be free from deprivations of liberty and property without due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment;
e. equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment; and
f. access to counsel and the courts under the First, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
127. The policies, practices, acts, and omissions of the defendants with respect to the collection and retention of private medical information violate plaintiffs' rights under the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 in that they deprive plaintiffs of their rights to privacy and autonomy under the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
123. Defendants' actions in denying otherwise qualified HIV infected plaintiffs the benefits of participation in programs and activities available to other inmates, and exposing them to harassment and discrimination, solely on the basis of their handicap, violates Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. Section 701 et. seq., as amended by the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987.
129. Defendants' actions in failing to make their facilities and programs accessible to otherwise qualified handicapped individuals, and to make reasonable accommodation to the special needs of such people, constitutes discrimination solely on the
28

basis of handicap, and violates section 504 of uie Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. Section 701 et seg.. as amended by the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987.
Prayer for Relief
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, request that this Court:
a. Assume jurisdiction of this action; b. Issue an order certifying this action to proceed as a class pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; c. Issue a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 2201 and 2201, and Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that the policies, practices, acts and omissions complained of herein violate plaintiffs' rights to be free from cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, to due process and equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, to be free from the use of excessive force under the Fourth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, to counsel and access to the courts under the First, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments, and for handicapped members of this class to be free from discrimination as is guaranteed by the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. d. Issue preliminary and permanent injunctions sufficient to rectify the unconstitutional and unlawful acts, policies, practices and conditions complained of herein. e. Retain jurisdiction over defendants and each of
29

them until such t. i. as the Court is satisfy that their unlawful policies, practices, acts and omissions complained of herein no longer exist and will not recur.
f. Award plaintiffs reasonable attorneys' fees, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1988, and costs of this action.
g. Award such other further relief as to this Court seems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
J)
Alvin J.Bronsxein, Esq. Executive Director Adjoa A. Aiyetoro, Esq. Associate Director David C. Fathi, Esq. The National Prison Project
of the ACLU Foundation 1875 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Suite 410 Washington, DC 20009 (202) 234-4830
Stefan \Presser, Esq. Legal director Scott Burris, Esq. American Civil Liberties Union
of Pennsylvania 125 South Ninth Street, Suite 701 Philadelphia, PA 19107 (215) 592-1513 ext. 16
David Rudovsky, Esq. Kairys & Rudovsky
30

924 Cherry Strt.x, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19107 (215) 925-4400

KUnW-,

Angus(jLove, Esq.

(j

Institutional Law Project

317 Swede Street

Norristown, PA 19401

(215) 275-5400

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

31

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

STEVEN AUSTIN, ROBERT C. BORING, FRANKLIN CASTLE, EUGENE DUNSON, JOHN REGELMAN, KEVIN SANDERS, RICHARD BOOZER, FRANCIS PARKER, WILLIAM A. FINGER, JOSEPH MULCAHY, LAURENCE JOHNSON, DEBRA SPEAKES, TROY CALHOUN, FRANKLIN D. BALTIMORE SR., LEONARD T. MORTON JR., SCOTT DOCKLER, GARY ROOS, PERCY MCCONNELL, JOHN DOE AND JOHN ROE, on behalf of themselves and all others presently incarcerated or who will in the future be incarcerated within the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections,
Plaintiffs,
V.
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; JOSEPH LEHMAN, sued in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections; JEFFREY BEARD, sued in his official capacity as superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Camp Hill; MARTIN DRAGOVICH, sued in his official capacity as Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Cresson; JOSEPH RYAN, sued in his official capacity as Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Dallas; DONALD T. VAUGHN, sued in his official capacity as Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Graterford; FREDERIC ROSEMEYER, sued in his official capacity as Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Greensburg; WILLIAM LOVE, sued in his official capacity as Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Huntingdon; GILBERT A. WALTERS, sued in his official capacity as Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Mercer; DENNIS R. ERHARD, sued in his official capacity as Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Retreat; JOSEPH F. MAZURKIEWICZ, sued

CIVIL ACTION NO. 90-7497

Austin v. Pennsylvania DOC

• i • • • • • • • • • • •«• • •
PC-PA-002-002

in his official capacity as Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Rockview; MARGARET A. MOORE, sued in her official capacity as Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Smithfield; CHARLES H. ZIMMERMAN, sued in his official capacity as Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Waymart; TIMOTHY ENGLISH, sued in his official capacity as Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Waynesburg; JOSEPH CHESNEY, sued in his official capacity as Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Frackville; MARY LEFTRIDGE BYRD, sued in her official capacity as Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Muncy; and ROBERT CASEY, sued in his official capacity as Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
Defendants.
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
Preliminary Statement
1. Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and others similarly
incarcerated by the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections seek to
enjoin defendants from continued maintenance of penal institutions
which deprive plaintiffs and the class they seek to represent of
rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution's Bill of
Rights.
Jurisdiction
2. As plaintiffs seek to vindicate rights protected by the
Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution,
2

and 42 U.S. Section 1983, this Court has jurisdiction of this civil action pursuant to 28 U.S.C Sections 1331 and 1343 (a)(3) and (4). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 2201 and 2202, this Court has jurisdiction to declare the rights of the parties and to grant all further relief found necessary and proper.
Parties 3. Plaintiff Steven Austin is a citizen of the United States who at the initiation of this action was incarcerated at the State Corrections Institution at Camp Hill, however who has since been transferred to the State Correction Institution at Huntingdon. As a result of his transfer Troy Calhoun, who is presently incarcerated at the State Corrections Institution at Camp Hill, has been added. 4. Plaintiff Robert C. Boring is a citizen of the United States presently incarcerated at the State Corrections Institution at Cresson. 5. Plaintiff Franklin Castle is a citizen of the United States presently incarcerated at the State Corrections Institution at Dallas. 6. Plaintiff Eugene Dunson is a citizen of the United States presently incarcerated at the State Corrections Institution at Graterford. 7. Plaintiff John Regelman is a citizen of the United States presently incarcerated at the State Corrections Institution at Greensburg.

8. Plaintiff Kevin Sanders is a citizen of the United States presently incarcerated at the state Corrections Institution at Huntingdon.
9. Plaintiff Richard Boozer is a citizen of the United States presently incarcerated at the State Corrections Institution at Mercer.
10. Plaintiff Francis Parker is a citizen of the United States who at the initiation of this action was incarcerated at the State Corrections Institution at Retreat. He has since been released on parole, but as a result of a technical infraction, is in the process of being returned to Retreat.
11. Plaintiff William A. Finger is a citizen of the United States presently incarcerated at the State Corrections Institution at Rockview.
12. Plaintiff Joseph Mulcahy is a citizen of the United States presently incarcerated at the State Corrections Institution at Smithfield.
13. Plaintiff Laurence Johnson is a citizen of the United States presently incarcerated at the State Corrections Institution at Waymart.
14. Plaintiff Debra Speakes is a citizen of the United States presently incarcerated at the State Corrections Institution at Muncy. She was previously incarcerated at SCI-Waynesburg.
15. Plaintiffs Franklin D. Baltimore Sr. (presently incarcerated at the State Corrections Institution at Rockview), Leonard T. Morton Jr. (presently incarcerated at the State Corrections

Institution at Frackville), and Scott Dockler (presently incarcerated at the State Corrections Institution at Cresson) have been denied access to sex offender programs offered by defendants because of their refusal to admit guilt.
16. Plaintiffs Gary Roos (presently incarcerated at the State Corrections Institute at Dallas) and Percy McConnell (presently incarcerated at the State Corrections Institute at Cresson) were denied adequate clothing upon their admission to defendants' custody.
17. Plaintiff John Doe (presently incarcerated at the State Corrections Institution at Graterford), and plaintiff John Roe (presently incarcerated at the State Corrections Institution at Dallas), whose identities have been supplied to the Court in their verifications annexed to plaintiffs' motion for leave to proceed in pseudonym and to seal records, are HIV positive and have experienced discrimination on the part of defendants as a result of their medical conditions.
18. Defendant Pennsylvania Department of Corrections is that executive agency of the Commonwealth mandated by law to receive and detain state prisoners. The Department and its constituent corrections institutions are recipients of federal financial aid.
19. Defendant Joseph Lehman is the Commissioner of the Department of Corrections. As such, he is responsible for the administration of the Department of Corrections. He is sued in his official capacity.

20. Defendant Jeffrey Beard is Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Camp Hill. As such, he is responsible for immediately overseeing the day to day operation of that institution. He is sued in his official capacity.
21. Defendant Martin Dragovich is Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Cresson. As such, he is responsible for immediately overseeing the day to day operation of that institution. He is sued in his official capacity.
22. Defendant Joseph Ryan is Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Dallas. As such, he is responsible for immediately overseeing the day to day operation of that institution. He is sued in his official capacity.
23. Defendant Donald T. Vaughn is Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Graterford. As such, he is responsible for immediately overseeing the day to day operation of that institution. He is sued in his official capacity.
24. Defendant Frederic Rosemeyer is Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Greensburg. As such, he is responsible for immediately overseeing the day to day operation of that institution. He is sued in his official capacity.
25. Defendant William Love is Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Huntingdon. As such, he is responsible for immediately overseeing the day to day operation of that institution. He is sued in his official capacity.
26. Defendant Gilbert A. Walters is Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Mercer. As such, he is responsible for

immediately overseeing the day to day operation of that institution. He is sued in his official capacity.
27. Defendant Dennis R. Erhard is Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Retreat. As such, he is responsible for immediately overseeing the day to day operation of that institution. He is sued in his official capacity.
28. Defendant Joseph F. Mazurkiewicz is Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Rockview. As such, he is responsible for immediately overseeing the day to day operation of that institution. He is sued in his official capacity.
29. Defendant Margaret A. Moore is Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Smithfield. As such, she is responsible for immediately overseeing the day to day operation of that institution. She is sued in her official capacity.
30. Defendant Charles A. Zimmerman is Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Waymart. As such, he is responsible for immediately overseeing the day to day operation of that institution. He is sued in his official capacity.
31. Defendant Timothy English is Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Waynesburg. As such, he is responsible for immediately overseeing the day to day operation of that institution. He is sued in his official capacity.
32. Defendant Joseph Chesney is Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Frackville. As such, he is responsible for immediately overseeing the day to day operation of that institution. He is sued in his official capacity.

33. Defendant Mary Leftridge Byrd is Superintendent of the State Corrections Institution at Muncy. As such, she is responsible for immediately overseeing the day to day operation of that institution. She is sued in her official capacity.
34. Defendant Robert Casey is the Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. As such, under Article IV, Section II of the Constitution of the Commonwealth "supreme executive power" is vested in him. Further, under the Constitution and laws of the Commonwealth he is authorized to appoint the commissioner of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections {see Article IV, paragraph 8, Pennsylvania Constitution and 71 P.S. section 67.1 (d) (1)} as well as to present to the general assembly the Department of Corrections' annual budget {see Article VIII, section 12, Pennsylvania Constitution and 71 P.S. 241}.
35. At all times relevant hereto and in all of the actions described herein, all defendants were acting under color of state law and pursuant to their authority as officials and/or employees of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Class Action Allegations
36. The named plaintiffs seek to maintain this action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated pursuant to Rules 23 (a) and 23 (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. They represent a class of persons who are or who may in the future be incarcerated by the Department of Corrections in any facility other than the State Corrections Institution at Pittsburgh who, in
8

the absence of relief, have been or will be treated in the manner set forth below. The class includes persons at the State Corrections Institution at Muncy solely on the medical and mental health issues listed in paragraphs 81-115, infra. As a result of such treatment, the members of the class are or will be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment and deprived of other constitutional rights. Plaintiffs therefore seek declaratory and injunctive relief to eliminate defendants1 actions, policies, and practices which work constitutional wrong.
37. The requirements of Rules 23 (a) and 23 (b) (2) are all satisfied by this class action. The class consists of all persons who are or will in the future be incarcerated by the Department of Corrections.
38. The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impractical. The class presently exceeds 18,000 individuals and also includes an unknown number of individuals who will in the future be incarcerated by the Department of Corrections.
39. There are questions of law and fact common to the class, including the constitutionality of the conditions of confinement maintained by the Department of Corrections.
40. The claims of the plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the class. Plaintiffs include inmates currently incarcerated throughout the Department of Corrections.
41. The plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the class.

42. The defendants have acted and refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief with respect to the class as a whole.
Facts Giving Rise To Causes Of Action Overcrowding
43. The Pennsylvania Department of Corrections presently operates fifteen State Corrections Institutions all of which are severely overcrowded. The institutions which are the subject of this lawsuit on this issue are:
a. Camp Hill, which was opened in 1941 with a design intended to house approximately 988 individuals but as of September 30, 1990, was being used to detain 2,192 prisoners. b. Cresson, which was opened in 1987 with a design intended to house approximately 499 individuals but as of September 30, 1990, was being used to detain 948 prisoners. c. Dallas, which was opened in 1960 with a design intended to house approximately 1,457 individuals but as of September 30, 1990, was being used to detain 2,024 prisoners. d. Frackville, which was opened in 1987 with a design intended to house approximately 540 individuals but as of September 30, 1990, was being used to detain 1,036 prisoners. e. Graterford, which was opened in 1929 with a design intended to house approximately 2,734 individuals but as of September 30, 1990, was being used to detain 4,067 prisoners.
10

f. Greensburg, which was opened in 1969 with a design intended to house approximately 461 individuals but as of September 30, 1990, was being used to detain 761 prisoners. g. Huntingdon, which was opened in 1889 with a design intended to house approximately 1,347 individuals but as of September 30, 1990, was being used to detain 2,007 prisoners, h. Mercer, which was opened in 1978 with a design intended to house 464 individuals but as of September 30, 1990, was being used to detain 902 prisoners. i. Retreat, which was opened in 1988 with a design intended to house 480 individuals but as of September 30, 1990, was being used to detain 842 prisoners.j. Rockview, which was opened in 1915 with a design intended to house 1,250 individuals but as of September 30, 1990, was being used to detain 2,059 prisoners. k. Smithfield, which was opened in 1988 with a design intended to house 484 individuals but as of September 30, 1990, was being used to detain 877 prisoners. 1. Waymart, which was opened in 1978 with a design intended to house 241 individuals but as of September 30, 1990, was being used to detain 515 prisoners. m. Waynesburg, which was opened in 1984 with a design intended to house 168 individuals but as of September 30, 1990, was being used to detain 270 prisoners. 44. The Department has the capacity to house approximately 13,000 individuals. As of September 30, 1990, the Department
11

detained approximately 18,500 individuals at the above listed institutions.
45. The overcrowding has become so serious that the very fact of incarceration in these institutions now causes such physical and psychological harms and deprivations as to render incarceration of plaintiffs unconstitutional. The physical facilities cannot safely accommodate such large numbers of inmates and the services required by the Constitution cannot be provided in the prison system as currently structured.
46. The harms caused to plaintiffs by overcrowding are exacerbated, as detailed below, by the fact that the institutions are otherwise suffering from substantial physical deterioration, environmental defects, correctional and other staff shortages, and grossly inadequate classification services and programs, thus causing plaintiffs to suffer cruel and unusual punishment.
Violence
47. As a direct result of the overcrowding, the Department of Corrections is experiencing more violence than at any other time in its history.
48. During the last six months of 1989 there were 409 assaults on guards alone. By contrast, there were only 500 such assaults throughout the Department in the twelve preceding months.
49. Between July of 1988 and June of 1989 there were 139 assaults requiring medical treatment reported at SCI Graterford
12

alone. Of those, 86 were inmate on inmate, while the remaining 53 were inmate on staff or staff on inmate assaults.
50. The level of violence at that institution, reflecting the level of violence throughout the Department, grew unabated during the next six month period.
51. Between July 1989 and January 1990, there were 158 assaults at Graterford requiring medical treatment. Inmate on inmate assaults now rose to 107, the remaining assaults being between inmates and staff.
52. On October 23, 1989, the Department lost control of one of its housing blocks at SCI Huntingdon when approximately 25 prisoners refused to return to their cells. As a result, the Department put the entire institution on 24 hour lock-down for several months.
53. On October 25, 1989, the Department lost complete control of its second largest facility at Camp Hill when an inmate attack on a guard turned into a general melee.
54. Over the next several hours, prisoners seized hostages and took control of several buildings.
55. From these hostages, the prisoners were able to obtain cell block keys as well as radios which were used to begin negotiations with the Department.
56. While the Department was able to negotiate the release of the hostages along with a commitment from the prisoners to voluntarily return to their cells, the Department did nothing to secure
13

that facility, notwithstanding its knowledge that Camp Hill's security systems had been badly damaged.
57. When the following day's negotiations proved fruitless from the inmates' perspective, prisoners simply released themselves and proceeded for a second consecutive day to seize control of the institution. During their second melee, a large portion of Camp Hill went up in flames. For approximately a day and a half, the prisoners held at bay nearly a thousand correctional and state police.
58. The institution was only secured at the cost of large numbers of injuries to both inmates (many of whom had not participated in the riot) and state officers.
59. These injuries were directly attributable to the Department's general poor management of its security operations, which continues to put inmates at risk of injury.
60. As had happened after the Huntingdon riot, employees of both the Department of Corrections and the State Police Department retaliated with excessive physical force against the inmates of the prison.
61. These employees not only destroyed what little property inmates had managed to save from the preceding conflagration, but further indiscriminately beat prisoners who were now handcuffed and shackled to one another.
62. This violence was countenanced by the Department in order to insure that its employees would not abandon the Department.
14

63. At the time of the Camp Hill riot the Department of corrections was housing 2600 inmates at that facility.
64. As a result of the rioting, the Department lost nearly 1,000 beds at that facility. Approximately 700 former Camp Hill inmates were sent by the Department to federal custody, where many of them remain housed throughout the United States.
65. These individuals (some of whom are being housed as far away as California) are unable to meet with counsel or family.
66. While some former Camp Hill inmates have access to federal programs, others have been held in twenty-four hour lock-down since being transferred last fall. The rest of the Camp Hill inmates are scattered throughout the Department's remaining facilities, which were already overcrowded.
67. So great is the Department's disarray that on April 30, 1990, upon having to lock-down one of Graterford's housing units, the Department began transferring prisoners from Graterford to Camp Hill.
68. The Department is 550 correctional officers short of its established goal for full staffing. Inmate to correctional officer *ratios have increased significantly in the past decade. This staff shortage contributes to the overall deterioration of security and is a substantial cause of the violence now occurring in the institutions.
15

Excessive Force
69. There is in each institution a pattern and practice of the excessive, malicious, and unjustified use of force by correctional officers against inmates.
70. The defendants have failed to properly discipline or otherwise control the abusive actions of correctional officers. As a result, corrections officers believe they can use such force with impunity and they continue to use physical force to punish and retaliate against plaintiffs.
Classification and Programs
71. In light of the Department's desperate need for space to house its rapidly expanding population, the Department's classification schemes (traditionally used to insure that less aggressive inmates not be housed with more violent inmates) are in complete disarray. Putting a prisoner anywhere (even in infirmaries as noted below) has now become the Department's main classification goal.
72. According to the Final Report of the Governor's Commission at Camp Hill Corrections institution, large numbers of the prisoners at that facility (which prior to the riot was the Department's second largest) had nothing to do throughout the day. Indeed, of the roughly twenty-six hundred persons incarcerated at Camp Hill there were never more than 850 enrolled in that facility's chemical abuse, sex offender, and/or educational programs in the ten months preceding the riot described above.
16

73. Upon information and belief, plaintiffs allege that the finding of the Governor's Commission concerning the limited number of inmates allowed access to programs is equally true with regard to each of the Department's other institutions.
74. Thus, for example, the number of teachers employed by the Department has remained constant since 1979, despite a 150% increase in the Department's population.
75. Further, while the Department has established a goal of having 15% of its population participate in vocational programming, staff shortages have meant that only 8% of the inmates can be included in these programs.
76. Aside from the fact that the Department has not hired enough staff to provide sufficient programs, the Department has impeded access to these programs in a number of other ways.
77. Upon information and belief, plaintiffs allege that access to these limited programs as well as the limited number of jobs which prisoners are allowed to hold is granted along racially biased lines. This discrimination further escalates inmate tension.
78. Further, with regard to its sex offender programs, the Department now requires an admission of guilt before granting access to these programs.
79. The Department's failure to increase the number of individuals who may take advantage of these programs works injury in two ways: first, by depriving inmates of the benefits these programs have to offer and second, because the Board of Pardons and
17

Paroles often conditions release upon the successful completion of the very programs inmates are unable to secure.
80. The general lack of education, recreational or employment opportunities resulting in pervasive idleness contributes to the level of violence which is outlined above and which has now become endemic.
Health and Psychiatric Issues
81. The provision of medical care by the Department is in a state of crisis. The Department systematically fails to provide necessary routine and emergency medical care to its population.
82. The Department's fifteen prisons had the third highest death rate of prisons throughout the nation last year: 2 6.2 deaths for every 10,000 prisoners. Eighty percent of inmate deaths in 1988 were medically related. In 1989, Pennsylvania had the ninth largest inmate population, yet ranked twenty-first in daily health care expenditures per inmate.
83. Overcrowding, inadequate ventilation and poor sanitation provide a breeding ground for communicable disease. Strep and fungal infections are common. There have been a number of cases of active tuberculosis in the system, creating a critical danger of communication to other prisoners of a potentially fatal disease. The Department lacks an appropriate system for diagnosis and treatment of tuberculosis.
84. Necessary emergency care is often denied because medical personnel are not available on a 24 hour basis. Moreover, non-medi-
18

cal staff often fail to identify serious medical problems on the blocks, leading to delay or denial of emergency treatment even when medical assistance is available. The Department lacks basic equipment, such as crash carts, necessary to provide emergency care.
85. There are serious deficiencies with regard to the Department's sick call procedure. Inmates with potentially serious conditions are screened by inadequately trained and/or overburdened personnel who often do not detect medical problems until serious harm occurs. •
86. Inmates who need greater assistance than can be provided at sick call experience chronic delays in securing physician care. Sick inmates become sicker while waiting to see physicians, frequently suffering unnecessary pain and medical complications.
87. There are long delays in scheduling inmate appointments at outside hospitals for tests, specialist consults, and treatment, even in cases of a serious illnesses.
88. Even when an inmate finally receives outside care, medical care is compromised by a lack of continuity of treatment and follow-up. Test results and consultation reports from outside physicians often do not reach the Department treating physician for weeks or months. Unnecessary and dangerous medical complications sometimes arise because of the Department's practice of prematurely transferring inmates receiving hospital care back to its facilities for budgetary reasons.
89. Department physicians fail to prescribe proper diet and medication to prisoners who have, or develop, chronic physical
19

conditions requiring daily special attention, such as ulcers, diabetes, hypertension, or chronic heart disease. Even when such diet or medication is ordered, the Department often fails to provide it in a consistent fashion.
90. Inmates with disabilities are often not provided proper physical therapy and/or assistance needed to participate in prison activities. The Department fails to make reasonable accommodation to the special needs of disabled prisoners.
91. Many of the deficiencies in the medical program are related to overcrowding. Thus, for example, at SCI Huntingdon, one of the Department's largest institutions, the Department has been forced to house general population inmates in space previously assigned to its infirmary.
92. In addition, the Department fails to employ a sufficient number of qualified medical personnel to treat its burgeoning population properly.
93. According to the Department's Table of organization, the medical health care staff has 74 vacancies. The vacancies are primarily in the categories of licensed practical nurses and registered nurses. The Department also has 18 vacancies in the dental care area. There is an acute shortage of physicians, especially in the institutions situated in rural areas. Physicians staffing sick call or clinics are routinely required to see 10 or 20 or more inmates each hour and cannot devote the necessary time to properly examine, diagnose and treat their patients.
20

94. Finally, the manner in which the Department administers health care is woefully deficient and deliberately indifferent to serious medical needs.
95. At some Department institutions, medical care is provided by one or more contractors. Because the contracts are let at a fixed rate, the contractor has a financial incentive to minimize the cost and amount of care provided. This structure has led to seriously ill inmates being denied necessary care, or being provided necessary care only after lengthy delays. This structure has resulted in pervasive, deliberate understaffing of clinics, sick calls, and intake examinations.
96. The Department and its contracted medical providers assign physicians to duties for which they are not properly trained. For example, physicians with no training or experience in internal medicine are assigned to sick call and intake examinations, tasks which require skill in the diagnosis and treatment of internal medical complaints.
97. Inadequate record keeping adversely affect the delivery of health care from diagnosis to treatment. Insufficient staff, poor procedures, and inadequate equipment prevent appropriate follow-up of patients receiving ongoing care from Department or outside physicians. The results include interruption of medication, delays in test results or outside consultation results reaching the treating physician or outright loss of such results, and delays in
diagnosis and implementation of treatment.
21

98. The facilities, staff and procedures in the Department's mental health care units are all seriously deficient.
99. The mental health treatment staff is currently 72 positions short of a full complement. There was need for an additional 19 counselors, 22 psychologists, 5 psychiatrists, and 26 activity staff persons, according to the Audit of the Pennsylvania Budget and Finance Committee conducted in 1988. The need is greater today because of increased population. Shortages in mental health services disrupt treatment, and increase overcrowding as parole is denied to inmates with active mental health problems.
100. As a result of this shortage of staff the mental health care is often grossly inadequate, resulting in the deterioration of inmates, mental condition.
101. The Department's psychiatric screening for inmates suffering from mental illness is seriously deficient. Due to overcrowded conditions, prisoners are not properly classified or housed. Even if they are recognized as suffering from mental illness, they are frequently housed with other inmates.
102. All these deficiencies in medical and mental health care reflect inadequate funding for medical staff, support staff, and equipment.
103. As a result of all of the foregoing, inmates unnecessarily develop serious medical conditions or suffer unnecessary pain and even death.
22

HIV/AIDS Health Issues
104. The Department presently admits to having fewer than 150 HIV infected inmates in its custody. Based on the prevalence of AIDS in county jails in Pennsylvania, and taking into account the high incidence of past intravenous drug use among the prison population, the actual number of infected inmates is probably several times higher than the Department's estimate.
105. To date there is no cure for HIV infection. Education, counseling and voluntary testing to inform people about HIV and to foster avoidance of behaviors that transmit HIV are the only effective means of preventing the spread of the epidemic. Early identification of the infected has also become crucial, because the infected can be medically monitored and treated to delay the onset of serious AIDS symptoms and death.
106. All the problems of medical care cited above (see paragraphs 77 to 99) rebound with even more deadly effect on HIV infected prisoners. Plaintiffs are being denied necessary medical care across the entire spectrum of serious medical need.
(a) Inmates receive minimal AIDS education at intake, including written material that is out of date and inaccurate. There is little or no follow-up education, and inmates are not provided with information they need to protect themselves and others from HIV transmission in prison. Inmates who are or may be infected are not informed of the benefits of early identification of their condition, including the fact that there is treatment available to delay the onset of serious illness.
23

(b) Inmates whose HIV infection has not been detected because they were deterred from requesting or were otherwise denied HIV testing are not evaluated for treatment they may need to prevent or delay the onset of AIDS. Inmates obviously at risk for HIV, or even showing obvious symptoms, are often not identified or offered testing by physicians at intake or sick call, either because the physician does not recognize the symptoms, or because physicians are under pressure to minimize the number of HIV tests performed.
(c) Inmates who are known to be HIV infected are often not carefully monitored with periodic physical examinations and CD4+ cell testing, and so do not receive treatment they need to prevent or delay the onset of AIDS.
(d) Inmates who are known to be immunosuppressed, with CD4+ cell counts between 500 and 200 per cubic millimeter, frequently do not receive necessary prophylactic or ameliorative treatments on a timely basis or at all. In some institutions, basic recognized therapies, such as aerosolized pentamidine to prevent PCP, a form of pneumonia, have been categorically unavailable. In others, AZT is sporadically provided, or is often not dispensed in accord with current medical practice. Other medications needed to treat HIV or opportunistic infections are frequently not prescribed or unavailable.
(e) Inmates with AIDS may not be seen on a regular basis by physicians with knowledge of the proper treatment of their disease, or may not be seen by such a physician at all.
24

(f) Defendants fail to provide plaintiffs with sufficient information about the nature and course of their illness. As a result, class members' right to participate in their own treatment decisions is compromised. Some patients refuse necessary treatment because of inadequate, incomplete or inaccurate information.
(g) Inmates with psychological problems linked to HIV do not receive sufficient mental health care and support.
107. These deficiencies arise out of the same systemic failures that prevent the delivery of adequate general medical care.
108. In addition, the cost of testing for and treating HIV disease, and the impact of identifying large numbers of HIV infected inmates on the management of prison staff and inmates who are not educated about the virus, have led to a reluctance on the part of medical providers and Department officials to identify inmates with HIV infection.
109. Although the Department pays lip service to confidentiality, in practice HIV infected prisoners are routinely identified to Department staff and other inmates.
(a) The Department interprets its union contract to require that HIV infected inmates be identified to corrections staff.
(b) HIV-related information about inmates is routinely circulated among corrections staff and is often seen by prisoners, including inmate clerks who have access to the information in the course of their duties.
(c) In some Department institutions, inmate files are marked with a distinctive signal that is known to indicate HIV infection.
25

(d) Inmate files containing private medical information are routinely available to non-medical staff.
(e) Staff often inform prisoners of the HIV status of inmates, either directly or in statements or documents that inmates are allowed to overhear or see.
110. Although its stated policy is to segregate HIV infected inmates only if they pose a risk of sexual or needle-sharing behavior, in many Department institutions HIV infected inmates are housed together in a single block or tier. Inmates known to be HIV infected are subject to arbitrary and unjustified disciplinary writeups intended to serve as a pretext for isolation. HIV infected prisoners have been kept in solitary confinement for months and years at a time.
111. Inmates with AIDS have been confined for long periods in infirmaries, even when their health improves and infirmary care is no longer needed.
112. HIV infected inmates in infirmaries and restricted housing units are denied participation in educational and other programs available to other inmates. The lack of such program opportunities hinders the rehabilitation efforts of HIV infected inmates and may prevent or delay their parole.
113. These programs are denied to them solely because of their handicap. For all HIV infected inmates, the Department's failure to provide adequate education and to promulgate and police serious anti-discrimination policies results directly in a climate of fear, discrimination and harassment that renders HIV infected inmates
26

unable to fully participate in the social, educational or work life of the institution, solely because of their handicap. The climate of discrimination and fear forces people who know or suspect that they are HIV infected to keep their condition secret, depriving them as a consequence of the same opportunity as other prisoners to seek medical care for their condition.
114. HIV infected inmates are denied the opportunity to take certain prison jobs, such as food worker or barber, solely because of their handicap, and despite the fact that they do not pose a significant risk of infection to other inmates in such jobs.
115. The Department of Corrections has recently undertaken to audit its HIV education, testing and treatment policies in cooperation with the Department of Health. The Department of Corrections has further agreed to work with the Department of Health to make HIV testing available to prisoners upon demand, to offer inmate education, to improve staff education, and to provide uniform standards of medical treatment. To date, however, the Department of Corrections has not been able to secure significant changes in the actual delivery of care or to ameliorate the underlying conditions that lead to deficient care.
Environmental Conditions
116. Many of the Department's cells in the system are without sufficient ventilation and have excessive noise, insect and rodent infestation, leaking walls and ceilings due to roof flooding, uneven
27

heat, insufficient lighting, unsafe electrical wiring, and deteriorating plumbing systems.
117. Many of the shower facilities within the Department lack adequate ventilation, have mold and mildew on the walls and ceilings, ineffective temperature control, and deteriorating floor surfaces.
118. Food services facilities within the Department are unsanitary, poorly ventilated, poorly lit, poorly maintained, and rely upon outdated and poorly maintained equipment. Numerous safety hazards exist for employees and inmates alike, including electrical hazards, the potential for back siphonage, improper storage methods, and improper disposal of waste materials. Food storage facilities have been found to have roach and rodent infestation, improper temperature control, and use of inadequate and outdated storage equipment.
119. Dining facilities are unsanitary and have the potential for cross-contamination. The equipment has deteriorated to a point where inmate health is threatened.
120. The Department's reporting systems are deficient. Inspectors do not have formally defined criteria or detailed inspection forms to guide their activities. Sanitation and hygiene inspections are grossly inadequate.
121. The water supplies at several institutions are below acceptable EPA standards.
122. Insufficient funding for capital improvements and ongoing maintenance is a major factor contributing to the difficulties being
28

encountered by the Department in maintaining the environment of the physical plants and facilities.
123. The Department lacks a long-term plan for capital improvements and physical maintenance.
124. Overcrowding has further contributed to the difficulties encountered by the Department in maintaining and upgrading institutional physical plant and facilities. It has drained available financial resources away from maintenance by expanding housing capacity without a corresponding modification in support facilities.
125. Poor design of several institutions impedes the Department's ability to maintain the physical structures. Many of the state correctional institutions were designed for uses other than as adult correctional facilities. For example, SCI Graterford was designed to be a prison farm; SCI Camp Hill, SCI Dallas, SCI Huntingdon and SCI Waynesburg were designed to be juvenile facilities and consist of hollow brick construction; SCI Cresson was designed as an institution for mentally retarded persons, and SCI Retreat was designed as a center for mentally ill persons; SCI Rockview was designed as a minimum security farm; and SCI Greensburg was designed as a short term county facility.
12 6. The Department fails to meet basic needs of the inmate population. There are chronic shortages of essential clothing for newly admitted inmates, blankets and pillows for all prisoners, and replacement mattresses for those that are torn, dirty, or infested with bed bugs.
29

127. Fire safety is a problem throughout the Department. Many of the institutions have been found to be in violation of the Life Safety Code, which has been adopted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania via the Pennsylvania Fire and Panic Act. Deficiencies include the lack of an automatic alarm system, an insufficient number of exits, lack of an immediate release mechanism on the cell blocks, lack of an emergency lighting system, the existence of significant barriers to evacuating the cell blocks within a reasonable amount of time because of the long distances inmates must travel from their cells to exit doors, and the absence of fire separation walls between authorized smoke compartments. Many of these deficiencies have been cited by the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry inspectors.
Access to Courts
128. The Department does not provide attorneys, paralegals or professionally trained persons to assist inmates with the filing of civil rights complaints, habeas corpus petitions or similar challenges to their convictions. With limited exception, the Department has not allowed the formation of para-law clinics staffed by inmates knowledgeable in the law.
129. Most of the Department's law libraries are stocked with such limited and antiquated volumes as to make it nearly impossible for prisoners to do legal research.
30

13 0. Those inmates without legal training and those who do not have a command of the English language are seriously handicapped in their efforts to pursue legal remedies.
131. At some of the Department's institutions, inmates in administrative segregation, protective custody, or punitive segregation are not permitted to visit the main law library. Alternative provisions for such inmates are totally inadequate.
Causes of Action
132. The policies, practices, acts and omissions complained of herein taken as a whole constitute deliberate indifference to plaintiffs' rights under the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, thereby depriving plaintiffs of their rights to:
a. be free from cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments;
b. be free from excessive and malicious physical force and violence under the Fourth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments;
c. proper and necessary medical and psychiatric services under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments;
d. be free from deprivations of liberty and property without due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment;
e. equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment; and
f. access to counsel and the courts under the First, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
31

133. The policies, practices, acts, and omissions of the defendants constitute deliberate indifference with respect to the collection and retention of private medical information thereby violating plaintiffs' rights under the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 in that they deprive plaintiffs of their rights to privacy and autonomy under the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
134. Defendants' actions in denying otherwise qualified HIV infected plaintiffs the benefits of participation in programs and activities available to other inmates, and exposing them to harassment and discrimination, solely on the basis of their handicap, violates Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. Section 701 et seq.. as amended by the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987.
135. Defendants• actions in failing to make their facilities and programs accessible to otherwise qualified handicapped individuals, and to make reasonable accommodation to the special needs of such people, constitutes discrimination solely on the basis of handicap, and violates section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. Section 701 et seq.. as amended by the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987.
Prayer for Relief
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, request that this Court:
32

a. Assume jurisdiction of this action; b. Issue an order certifying this action to proceed as a class pursuant to Rule 23 (a) and (b) (2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; c. Issue a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 2201 and 2201, and Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that the policies, practices, acts and omissions complained of herein violate plaintiffs' rights to be free from cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, to due process and equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, to be free from the use of excessive force under the Fourth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, to counsel and access to the courts under the First, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments, and for handicapped members of this class to be free from discrimination as is guaranteed by the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. d. Issue preliminary and permanent injunctions sufficient to rectify the unconstitutional and unlawful acts, policies, practices and conditions complained of herein. e. Retain jurisdiction over defendants and each of them until such time as the Court is satisfied that their unlawful policies, practices, acts and omissions complained of herein no longer exist and will not recur. f. Award plaintiffs reasonable attorneys' fees, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1988, and costs of this action.
33

g. Award such other further relief as to this court seems
just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
Alvin J. Bronstein, Esq. Elizabeth Alexander, Esq. Adjoa A. Aiyetoro, Esq. David C. Fathi, Esq.
The National Prison Project of the ACLU Foundation
1875 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Suite 410 Washington, D.C. 20009 (202)234-4830
Stefan Presser, Esq. Bar No. 43067 Legal Director Scott Burris, Esq. American Civil Liberties Union
of Pennsylvania 125 South Ninth Street, Suite 701 Philadelphia, PA 19107 (215)592-1513, ext. 16
David Rudovsky, Esq. Kairys & Rudovsky 924 Cherry Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19107 (215)925-4400
Angus Love, Esq. Instituional Law Project 317 Swede Street Norristown, PA 19401 (215)275-5400
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
34

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that the foregoing plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend complaint, supporting brief and attachments, and proposed amended complaint were served on the defendants via first class mail, postage prepaid, to the following address on the
of July, 1992:
Francis R. Filipi, Esq. Office of the Attorney General Strawberry Square, 15th Floor Third and Walnut Streets Harrisburg, PA 17120

Dated:

Elizabeth Alexander The National Prison Project 1875 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Suite 410 Washington, D.C. 20009 202/234-4830

 
 IN FOR THE

^

DISTRICT COURT

TERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

STEVEN AUSTIN, ROBERT C. BORING, FRANKLIN CASTLE, EUGENE DUNSON, JOHN REGELMAN, KEVIN SANDERS, RICHARD BOOZER, FRANCIS PARKER, WILLIAM A. FINGER, JOSEPH MULCAHY, LAURENCE JOHNSON, DEBRA SPEAKES, TROY CALHOUN, FRANKLIN D. BALTIMORE SR., LEONARD T. MORTON JR., SCOTT DOCKLER, GARY ROOS, PERCY MCCONNELL, JOHN DOE AND JOHN ROE, on behalf of themselves and all others presently incarcerated or who will in the future be incarcerated within the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections,

Plaintiffs,
V.
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; JOSEPH LEHMAN, sued in his official^ capacity as Commissioner of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections; JEFFREY BEARD, sued in his official capacity as superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Camp Hill; MARTIN DRAGOVICH, sued in his official capacity as Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Cresson; JOSEPH RYAN, sued in his official capacity as Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Dallas; DONALD T. VAUGHN, sued in his official capacity as Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Graterford; FREDERIC ROSEMEYER, sued in his official capacity as Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Greensburg; WILLIAM LOVE, sued in his official capacity as Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Huntingdon; GILBERT A. WALTERS, sued in his official capacity as Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Mercer; DENNIS R. ERHARD, sued in his official capacity as Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Retreat; JOSEPH F. MAZURKIEWICZ, sued

Austin v. Pennsylvania DOC

i

CIVIL ACTION NO. 90-7497

• •• • • • • * • • •
PC-PA-002-004

in his official capacity as Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Rockview; MARGARET A. MOORE, sued in her official capacity as Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Smithfield; CHARLES H. ZIMMERMAN, sued in his official capacity as Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Waymart; TIMOTHY ENGLISH, sued in his official capacity as Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Waynesburg; JOSEPH CHESNEY, sued in his official capacity as Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Frackville; ROBERT CASEY, sued in his official capacity as Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH CARE GROUP, INC.; CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC.; CORRECTIONS PHYSICIANS SERVICE, INC.; PRISON HEALTH SERVICES; AND PENNSYLVANIA INSTITUTIONAL HEALTH SERVICE, INC.;
Defendants.
FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT
Preliminary Statement
1. Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and others similarly
incarcerated by the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections seek to
enjoin defendants from continued maintenance of penal institutions
which deprive plaintiffs and the class they seek to represent of
rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution's Bill of
Rights.

Jurisdiction 2. As plaintiffs seek to vindicate rights protected by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, and 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, this Court has jurisdiction of this civil action pursuant to 28 U.S.C Sections 1331 and 1343 (a)(3) and (4). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 2201 and 2202, this Court has jurisdiction to declare the rights of the parties and to grant all further relief found necessary and proper.
Parties 3. Plaintiff Steven Austin is a citizen of the United States who at the initiation of this action was incarcerated at the State Corrections Institution at Camp Hill, but who has since b«en transferred to the State Correction Institution at Huntingdon. As a result of his transfer an additional plaintiff will shortly be added to act as a class representative of Camp Hill. 4. Plaintiff Robert C. Boring is a citizen of the United States presently incarcerated at the State Corrections Institution at Cresson. 5. Plaintiff Franklin Castle is a citizen of the United States presently incarcerated at the state Corrections Institution at Dallas. 6. Plaintiff Eugene Dunson is a citizen of the United States presently incarcerated at the State Corrections Institution at Graterford.

7. Plaintiff John Regelman is a citizen of the United States presently incarcerated at the State Corrections Institution at Greensburg.
8. Plaintiff Kevin Sanders is a citizen of the United States presently incarcerated at the State Corrections Institution at Huntingdon.
9. Plaintiff Richard Boozer is a citizen of the United States presently incarcerated at the State Corrections Institution at Mercer.
10. Plaintiff Francis Parker is a citizen of the United States who at the initiation of this action was incarcerated at the State Corrections Institution at Retreat. He has since been released on parole, but as a result of a technical infraction, is in the process of being returned to Retreat.
11. Plaintiff William A. Finger is a citizen of the United States presently incarcerated at the State Corrections Institution at Rockview.
12. Plaintiff Joseph Mulcahy is a citizen of the United States presently incarcerated at the State Corrections Institution at Smithfield.
13. Plaintiff Laurence Johnson is a citizen of the United States presently incarcerated at the State Corrections Institution at Waymart.
14. Plaintiff Debra Speakes is a citizen of the United States presently incarcerated at the State Corrections Institution at Waynesburg.

15. Plaintiffs Franklin D. Baltimore Sr. (presently incarcerated at the State Corrections Institution at Rockview), Leonard T. Morton Jr. (presently incarcerated at the State Corrections Institution at Frackville), and Ben Torres (presently incarcerated at the State Corrections Institution at Waymart) have been denied access to sex offender programs offered by defendants because of their refusal to admit guilt.
16. Plaintiffs Gary Roos (presently incarcerated at the State Corrections Institute at Dallas) and Percy McConnell (presently incarcerated at the State Corrections Institute at Cresson) were denied adequate clothing upon their admission to defendants* custody.
17. Plaintiff John Doe (presently incarcerated at the State Corrections Institution at Graterford), and plaintiff John Roe (presently incarcerated at the State Corrections Institution at Dallas), whose identities have been supplied to the Court in their verifications annexed to plaintiffs' motion for leave to proceed in pseudonym and to seal records, are HIV positive and have experienced discrimination on the part of defendants as a result of their medical conditions.
18. Defendant Pennsylvania Department of Corrections is that executive agency of the Commonwealth mandated by law to receive and detain state prisoners. The Department and its constituent corrections institutions are recipients of federal financial aid.
19. Defendant Joseph Lehman is the Commissioner of the Department of Corrections. As such, he is responsible for the

administration of the Department of Corrections. He is sued in his official capacity.
20. Defendant Jeffrey Beard is Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Camp Hill. As such, he is responsible for immediately overseeing the day to day operation of that institution. He is sued in his official capacity.
21. Defendant Martin Dragovich is Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Cresson. As such, he is responsible for immediately overseeing the day to day operation of that institution. He is sued in his official capacity.
22. Defendant Joseph Ryan is Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Dallas. As such, he is responsible for immediately overseeing the day to day operation of that institution. He is sued in his official capacity.
23. Defendant Donald T. Vaughn is Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Graterford. As such, he is responsible for immediately overseeing the day to day operation of that institution. He is sued in his official capacity.
24. Defendant Frederic Rosemeyer is Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Greensburg. As such, he is responsible for immediately overseeing the day to day operation of that institution. He is sued in his official capacity.
25. Defendant William Love is Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Huntingdon. As such, he is responsible for immediately overseeing the day to day operation of that institution. He is sued in his official capacity.

26. Defendant Gilbert A. Walters is Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Mercer. As such, he is responsible for immediately overseeing the day to day operation of that institution. He is sued in his official capacity.
27. Defendant Dennis R. Erhard is Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Retreat. As such, he is responsible for immediately overseeing the day to day operation of that institution. He is sued in his official capacity.
28. Defendant Joseph F. Mazurkiewicz is Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Rockview. As such, he is responsible for immediately overseeing the day to day operation of that institution. He is sued in his official capacity.
29. Defendant Margaret A. Moore is Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Smithfield. As such, she is responsible for immediately overseeing the day to day operation of that institution. She is sued in her official capacity.
30. Defendant Charles A. Zimmerman is Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Waymart. As such, he is responsible for immediately overseeing the day to day operation of that institution. He is sued in his official capacity.
31. Defendant Timothy English is Superintendent of State Correction* Institution at Waynesburg. As such, he is responsible for immediately overseeing the day to day operation of that institution. He is sued in his official capacity.
32. Defendant Joseph Chesney is Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Frackville. As such, he is responsible

for immediately overseeing the day to day operation of that institution. He is sued in his official capacity.
33. Defendant Robert Casey is the Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. As such, under Article IV, Section II of the Constitution of the Commonwealth "supreme executive power" is vested in him. Further, under the Constitution and laws of the Commonwealth he is authorized to appoint the commissioner of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections {see Article IV, paragraph 8, Pennsylvania Constitution and 71 P.S. section 67.1 (d) (l)} as well as to present to the general assembly the Department of Corrections' annual budget {see Article VIII, section 12, Pennsylvania Constitution and 71 P.S. 241}.
34. Defendant Comprehensive Health Care Group, Inc., is responsible for the provision of medical and mental health care at SCI-Greensburg pursuant to a contract with the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections.
35. Defendant Correctional Medical Systems, Inc., is responsible for the provision of medical and mental health care at SCICresson, and mental health care at SCI-Frackville and SCI-Graterford, pursuant to contracts with the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections.
36. Defendant Corrections Physicians Service, Inc., is responsible for the provision of medical care at SCI-Graterford and for medical and mental health care at SCI-Retreat pursuant to contracts with the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections.
8

37. Defendant Pennsylvania Institutional Health Service, Inc., is responsible for the provision of medical and mental health care at SCI-Dallas, SCI-Smithfield, SCI-Camp Hill, and SCI-Waymart pursuant to contracts with the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections.
38. Defendant Prison Health Services is responsible for the provision of medical care at SCI-Frackville pursuant to a contract with the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections.
39. At all times relevant hereto and in all of the actions described herein, all defendants were acting under color of state law and pursuant to their authority as officials, employees or contractors of the Commonwealth- of Pennsylvania.
Class Action Allegations
40. The named plaintiffs seek to maintain this action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated pursuant to Rules 23 (a) and 23 (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. They represent a class of persons who are or who may in the future be incarcerated by the Department of Corrections in any facility other than State Corrections Institution at Muncy and State Corrections Institution at Pittsburgh who, in the absence of relief, have been or will be treated in the manner set forth below. As a result of such treatment, the members of the class are or will be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment and deprived of other constitutional rights. Plaintiffs therefore seek declaratory and

constitutional rights. Plaintiffs therefore seek declaratory and injunctive relief to eliminate defendants' actions, policies, and practices which work constitutional wrong.
41. The requirements of Rules 23 (a) and 23 (b) (2) are all satisfied by this class action. The class consists of all persons who are or will in the future be incarcerated by the Department of Corrections.
42. The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impractical. The class presently exceeds 18,000 individuals and also includes an unknown number of individuals who will in the future be incarcerated by the Department of Corrections.
43. There are questions of law and fact common to the class, including the constitutionality of the conditions of confinement maintained by the Department of Corrections.
44. The claims of the plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the class. Plaintiffs include inmates currently incarcerated throughout the Department of Corrections.
45. The plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the class.
46. The defendants have acted and refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief with respect to the class as a whole.
10

Facts Giving Rise To Causes Of Action Overcrowding
47. The Pennsylvania Department of Corrections presently operates fifteen State Corrections Institutions all of which are severely overcrowded. The institutions which are the subject of this lawsuit on this issue are:
a. Camp Hill, which was opened in 1941 with a design intended to house approximately 988 individuals but as of September 30, 1990, was being used to detain 2,192 prisoners. b. Cresson, which was opened in 1987 with a design intended to house approximately 499 individuals but as of September 30, 1990, was being used to detain 948 prisoners. c. Dallas, which was opened in 1960 with a design intended to house approximately 1,457 individuals but as of September 30, 1990, was being used to detain 2,024 prisoners. d. Frackville, which was opened in 1987 with a design intended to house approximately 540 individuals but as of September 30, 1990, was being used to detain 1,036 prisoners. e. Grater ford, which was opened in 1929 with a design intended to house approximately 2,734 individuals but as of September 30, 1990, was being used to detain 4,067 prisoners. f. Greensburg, which was opened in 1969 with a design intended to house approximately 461 individuals but as of September 30, 1990, was being used to detain 761 prisoners.
11

g. Huntingdon, which was opened in 1889 with a design intended to house approximately 1,347 individuals but as of September 30, 1990, was being used to detain 2,007 prisoners, h. Mercer, which was opened in 1978 with a design intended to house 464 individuals but as of September 30, 1990, was being used to detain 902 prisoners. i. Retreat, which was opened in 1988 with a design intended to house 480 individuals but as of September 30, 1990, was being used to detain 842 prisoners. j. Rockview, which was opened in 1915 with a design intended to house 1,250 individuals but as of September 30, 1990, was being used to detain 2,059 prisoners. k. Smithfield, which was opened in 1988 with a design intended to house 484 individuals but as of September 30, 1990, was being used to detain 877 prisoners. 1. Waymart, which was opened in 1978 with a design intended to house 241 individuals but as of September 30, 1990, was being used to detain 515 prisoners. m. Waynesburg, which was opened in 1984 with a design intended to house 168 individuals but as of September 30, 1990, was being used to detain 270 prisoners. 48. The Department has the capacity to house approximately 13,000 individuals. As of September 30, 1990, the Department detained approximately 18,500 individuals at the above listed institutions.
12

49. The overcrowding has become so serious that the very fact of incarceration in these institutions now causes such physical and psychological harms and deprivations as to render incarceration of plaintiffs unconstitutional. The physical facilities cannot safely accommodate such large numbers of inmates and the services required by the Constitution cannot be provided in the prison system as currently structured.
50. The harms caused to plaintiffs by overcrowding are exacerbated, as detailed below, by the fact that the institutions are otherwise suffering from substantial physical deterioration, environmental defects, correctional and other staff shortages, and grossly inadequate classification services and programs, thus causing plaintiffs to suffer cruel and unusual punishment.
Violence
51. As a direct result of the overcrowding, the Department of Corrections is experiencing more violence than at any other time in its history.
52. During the last six months of 1989 there were 409 assaults on guards alone. By contrast, there were only 500 such assaults throughout the Department in the twelve preceding months.
53. Between July of 1988 and June of 1989 there were 13 9 assaults requiring medical treatment reported at SCI Graterford alone. Of those, 86 were inmate on inmate, while the remaining 53 were inmate on staff or staff on inmate assaults.
13

54. The level of violence at that institution, reflecting the level of violence throughout the Department, grew unabated during the next six month period.
55. Between July 1989 and January 1990, there were 158 assaults at Graterford requiring medical treatment. Inmate on inmate assaults now rose to 107, the remaining assaults being between inmates and staff.
56. On October 23, 1989, the Department lost control of one of its housing blocks at SCI Huntingdon when approximately 25 prisoners refused to return to their cells. As a result, the Department put the entire institution on 24 hour lock-down for several months.
57. On October 25, 1989, the Department lost complete control of its second largest facility at Camp Hill when an inmate attack on a guard turned into a general melee.
58. Over the next several hours, prisoners seized hostages and took control of several buildings.
59. From these hostages, the prisoners were able to obtain cell block keys as well as radios which were used to begin negotiations with the Department.
60. While the Department was able to negotiate the release of the hostages along with a commitment from the prisoners to voluntarily return to their cells, the Department did nothing to secure that facility, notwithstanding its knowledge that Camp Hill's security systems had been badly damaged.
14

61. When the following day's negotiations proved fruitless from the inmates' perspective, prisoners simply released themselves and proceeded for a second consecutive day to seize control of the institution. During their second melee, a large portion of Camp Hill went up in flames. For approximately a day and a half, the prisoners held at bay nearly a thousand correctional and state police.
62. The institution was only secured at the cost of large numbers of injuries to both inmates (many of whom had not participated in the riot) and state officers.
63. These injuries were directly attributable to the Department *s general poor management of its security operations, which continues to put inmates at risk of injury.
64. As had happened after the Huntingdon riot, employees of both the Department of Corrections and the State Police Department retaliated with excessive physical force against the inmates of the prison.
65. These employees not only destroyed what little property inmates had managed to save from the preceding conflagration, but further indiscriminately beat prisoners who were now handcuffed and shackled to one another.
66. This violence was countenanced by the Department in order to insure that its employees would not abandon the Department.
67. At the time of the Camp Hill riot the Department of Corrections was housing 2600 inmates at that facility.
15

68. As a result of the rioting, the Department lost nearly 1,000 beds at that facility. Approximately 700 former Camp Hill inmates were sent by the Department to federal custody, where many of them remain housed throughout the United States.
69. These individuals (some of whom are being housed as far away as California) are unable to meet with counsel or family.
70. While some former Camp Hill inmates have access to federal programs, others have been held in twenty-four hour lock-down since being transferred last fall. The rest of the Camp Hill inmates are scattered throughout the Department's remaining facilities, which were already overcrowded.
71. So great is the Department's disarray that on April 30, 1990, upon having to lock-down one of Graterford's housing units, the Department began transferring prisoners from Graterford to Camp Hill.
72. The Department is 550 correctional officers short of its established goal for full staffing. Inmate to correctional officer ratios have increased significantly in the past decade. This staff shortage contributes to the overall deterioration of security and is a substantial cause of the violence now occurring in the institutions.
Excessive Force
73. There is in each institution a pattern and practice of the excessive, malicious, and unjustified use of force by correctional officers against inmates.
16

74. The defendants have failed to properly discipline or otherwise control the abusive actions of correctional officers. As a result, corrections officers believe they can use such force with impunity and they continue to use physical force to punish and retaliate against plaintiffs.
Classification and Programs
75. In light of the Department's desperate need for space to house its rapidly expanding population, the Department's classification schemes (traditionally used to insure that less aggressive inmates not be housed with more violent inmates) are in complete disarray. Putting a prisoner anywhere (even in infirmaries as noted below) has now become the Department's main classification goal.
76. According to the Final Report of the Governor's Commission at Camp Hill Corrections institution, large numbers of the prisoners at that facility (which prior to the riot was the Department's second largest) had nothing to do throughout the day. Indeed, of the roughly twenty-six hundred persons incarcerated at Camp Hill there were never more than 850 enrolled in that facility's chemical abuse, sex offender, and/or educational programs in the ten months preceding the riot described above.
77. Upon information and belief, plaintiffs allege that the finding of the Governor's Commission concerning the limited number of inmates allowed access to programs is equally true with regard to each of the Department's other institutions.
17

78. Thus, for example, the number of teachers employed by the Department has remained constant since 1979, despite a 150% increase in the Department's population.
79. Further, while the Department has established a goal of having 15% of its population participate in vocational programming, staff shortages have meant that only 8% of the inmates can be included in these programs.
80. Aside from the fact that the Department has not hired enough staff to provide sufficient programs, the Department has impeded access to these programs in a number of other ways.
81. Upon information and belief, plaintiffs allege that access to these limited programs as well as the limited number of jobs which prisoners are allowed to hold is granted along racially biased lines. This discrimination further escalates inmate tension.
82. Further, with regard to its sex offender programs, the Department now requires an admission of guilt before granting access to these programs.
83. The Department's failure to increase the number of individuals who may take advantage of these programs works injury in two ways: first, by depriving inmates of the benefits these programs have to offer and second, because the Board of Pardons and Paroles often conditions release upon the successful completion of the very programs inmates are unable to secure.
84. The general lack of education, recreational or employment opportunities resulting in pervasive idleness contributes to the
18

level of violence which is outlined above and which has now become endemic.
Health and Psychiatric Issues
85. The provision of medical care by the Department and its contractors is in a state of crisis. The Department and its contractors systematically fail to provide necessary routine and emergency medical care to its population.
86. The Department's fifteen prisons had the third highest death rate of prisons throughout the nation last year: 26.2 deaths for every 10,000 prisoners. Eighty percent of inmate deaths in 1988 were medically, related. In 1989, Pennsylvania had the ninth largest inmate population, yet ranked twenty-first in daily health care expenditures per inmate.
87. Overcrowding and poor sanitation provide a breeding ground for communicable disease. Strep and fungal infections are common. A serious epidemic of tuberculosis is a real possibility.
88. Necessary emergency care is often denied because medical personnel are not available on a 24 hour basis. Moreover, non-medical staff often fail to identify serious medical problems on the blocks, leading to delay or denial of emergency treatment even when medical assistance is available. The Department lacks basic equipment, such as crash carts, necessary to provide emergency care.
89. There are serious deficiencies with regard to the Department's sick call procedure. Inmates with potentially serious conditions are screened by inadequately trained and/or overburdened
19

personnel who often do not detect medical problems until serious harm occurs.
90. Inmates who need greater assistance than can be provided at sick call experience chronic delays in securing physician care. Sick inmates become sicker while waiting to see physicians, frequently suffering unnecessary pain and medical complications.
91. There are long delays in scheduling inmate appointments at outside hospitals for tests, specialist consults, and treatment, even in cases of a serious illnesses.
92. Even when an inmate finally receives outside care, medical care is compromised by a lack of continuity of treatment and follow-up. Test results and consultation reports from outside physicians often do not reach the Department treating physician for weeks or months. Unnecessary and dangerous medical complications sometimes arise because of the Department's practice of prematurely transferring inmates receiving hospital care back to its facilities for budgetary reasons.
93. Department physicians fail to prescribe proper diet and medication to prisoners who have, or develop, chronic physical conditions requiring daily special attention, such as ulcers, diabetes, hypertension, or chronic heart disease. Even when such diet or medication is ordered, the Department often fails to provide it in a consistent fashion.
94. Inmates with disabilities are often not provided proper physical therapy and/or assistance needed to participate in prison
20

activities. The Department fails to make reasonable accommodation to the special needs of disabled prisoners.
95. Many of the deficiencies in the medical program are related to overcrowding. Thus, for example, at SCI Huntingdon, one of the Department's largest institutions, the Department has been forced to house general population inmates in space previously assigned to its infirmary.
96. In addition, the Department fails to employ a sufficient number of qualified medical personnel to treat its burgeoning population properly.
97. As of the time of filing the complaint according to the Department's table of organization, the medical health care staff had 74 vacancies. The vacancies were primarily in the categories of licensed practical nurses and registered nurses. The Department also had 18 vacancies in the dental care area. There is an acute shortage of physicians, especially in the institutions situated in rural areas. Physicians staffing sick call or clinics are routinely required to see 10 or 20 or more inmates each hour and cannot devote the necessary time to properly examine, diagnose and treat their patients.
98. Finally, the manner in which the Department administers health care is woefully deficient and deliberately indifferent to serious medical needs.
99. At some Department institutions, medical care is provided by one or more contractors. Because the contracts are let at a fixed rate, the contractor has a financial incentive to minimize the
21

cost and amount of care provided. This structure has led to seriously ill inmates being denied necessary care, or being provided necessary care only after lengthy delays. This structure has resulted in pervasive, deliberate understaffing of clinics, sick calls, and intake examinations.
100. The Department and its contracted medical providers assign physicians to duties for which they are not properly trained. For example, physicians with no training or experience in internal medicine are assigned to sick call and intake examinations, tasks which require skill in the diagnosis and treatment of internal medical complaints.
101. Inadequate record keeping adversely affects the delivery of health care from diagnosis to treatment. Insufficient staff, poor procedures, and inadequate equipment prevent appropriate follow-up of patients receiving ongoing care from Department or outside physicians. The results include interruption of medication, delays in test results or outside consultation results reaching the treating physician or outright loss of such results, and delays in diagnosis and implementation of treatment.
102. The facilities, staff and procedures in the Department's mental health care units are all seriously deficient.
103. The mental health treatment staff is currently 72 positions short of a full complement. There was need for an additional 19 counselors, 22 psychologists, 5 psychiatrists, and 26 activity staff persons, according to the Audit of the Pennsylvania Budget and Finance Committee conducted in 1988. The need is greater
22

today because of increased population. Shortages in mental health services disrupt treatment, and increase overcrowding as parole is denied to inmates with active mental health problems.
104. As a result of this shortage of staff the mental health care is often grossly inadequate, resulting in the deterioration of inmates' mental condition.
105. The Department's psychiatric screening for inmates suffering from mental illness is seriously deficient. Due to overcrowded conditions, prisoners are not properly classified or housed. Even if they are recognized as suffering from mental illness, they are frequently housed with other inmates.
106. All these deficiencies in medical and mental health care reflect inadequate funding for medical staff, support staff, and equipment.
107. As a result of all of the foregoing, inmates unnecessarily develop serious medical conditions or suffer unnecessary pain and even death.
HIV/AIDS Health Issues
108. The Department presently admits to having fewer than 150 HIV infected inmates in its custody. Based on the prevalence of AIDS in county jails in Pennsylvania, and taking into account the high incidence of past intravenous drug use among the prison population, the actual number of infected inmates is probably several times higher than the Department's estimate.
23

109. To date there is no cure for HIV infection. Education, counseling and voluntary testing to inform people about HIV and to foster avoidance of behaviors that transmit HIV are the only effective means of preventing the spread of the epidemic. Early identification of the infected has also become crucial, because the infected can be medically monitored and treated to delay the onset of serious AIDS symptoms and death.
110. All the problems of medical care cited above (see paragraphs 77 to 99) rebound with even more deadly effect on HIV infected prisoners. Plaintiffs are being denied necessary medical care across the entire spectrum of serious medical need.
(a) Inmates receive minimal AIDS education at intake, including written material that is out of date and inaccurate. There is little or no follow-up education, and inmates are not provided with information they need to protect themselves and others from HIV transmission in prison. Inmates who are or may be infected are not informed of the benefits of early identification of their condition, including the fact that there is treatment available to delay the onset of serious illness.
(b) Inmates whose HIV infection has not been detected because they were deterred from requesting or were otherwise denied HIV testing are not evaluated for treatment they may need to prevent or delay the onset of AIDS. Inmates obviously at risk for HIV, or even showing obvious symptoms, are often not identified or offered testing by physicians at intake or sick call, either because the
24

physician does not recognize the symptoms, or because physicians are under pressure to minimize the number of HIV tests performed.
(c) Inmates who are known to be HIV infected are often not carefully monitored with periodic physical examinations and CD4+ cell testing, and so do not receive treatment they need to prevent or delay the onset of AIDS.
(d) Inmates who are known to be immunosuppressed, with CD4+ cell counts between 500.and 200 per cubic millimeter, frequently do not receive necessary prophylactic or ameliorative treatments on a timely basis or at all. In some institutions, basic recognized therapies, such as aerosolized pentamidine to prevent PCP, a form of pneumonia, have been categorically unavailable. In others, AZT is sporadically provided, or is often not dispensed in accord with current medical practice. Other medications needed to treat HIV or opportunistic infections are frequently not prescribed or unavailable.
(e) Inmates with AIDS may not be seen on a regular basis by physicians with knowledge of the proper treatment of their disease, or may not be seen by such a physician at all.
(f) Defendants fail to provide plaintiffs with sufficient information about the nature and course of their illness. As a result, class members' right to participate in their own treatment decisions is compromised. Some patients refuse necessary treatment because of inadequate, incomplete or inaccurate information.
(g) Inmates with psychological problems linked to HIV do not receive sufficient mental health care and support.
25

111. These deficiencies arise out of the same systemic failures that prevent the delivery of adequate general medical care.
112. In addition, the cost of testing for and treating HIV disease, and the impact of identifying large numbers of HIV infected inmates on the management of prison staff and inmates who are not educated about the virus, have led to a reluctance on the part of medical providers and Department officials to identify inmates with HIV infection.
113. Although the Department pays lip service to confidentiality, in practice HIV infected prisoners are routinely identified to Department staff and other inmates.
(a) The Department interprets its union contract to require that HIV infected inmates be identified to corrections staff.
(b) HIV-related information about inmates is routinely circulated among corrections staff and is often seen by prisoners, including inmate clerks who have access to the information in the course of their duties.
(c) In some Department institutions, inmate files are marked with a distinctive signal that is known to indicate HIV infection.
(d) Inmate files containing private medical information are routinely available to non-medical staff.
(e) Staff often inform prisoners of the HIV status of inmates, either directly or in statements or documents that inmates are allowed to overhear or see.
26

114. Although its stated policy is to segregate HIV infected inmates only if they pose a risk of sexual or needle-sharing behavior, in many Department institutions HIV infected inmates are housed together in a single block or tier. Inmates known to be HIV infected are subject to arbitrary and unjustified disciplinary writeups intended to serve as a pretext for isolation. HIV infected prisoners have been kept in solitary confinement for months and years at a time.
115. Inmates with AIDS have been confined for long periods in infirmaries, even when their health improves and infirmary care is no longer needed.
116. HIV infected inmates in infirmaries and restricted housing units are denied participation in educational and other programs available to other inmates. The lack of such program opportunities hinders the rehabilitation efforts of HIV infected inmates and may prevent or delay their parole.
117. These programs are denied to them solely because of their handicap. For all HIV infected inmates, the Department's failure to provide adequate education and to promulgate and police serious anti-discrimination policies results directly in a climate of fear, discrimination and harassment that renders HIV infected inmates unable to fully participate in the social, educational or work life of the institution, solely because of their handicap. The climate of discrimination and fear forces people who know or suspect that they are HIV infected to keep their condition secret, depriving them
27

as a consequence of the same opportunity as other prisoners to seek medical care for their condition.
118. HIV infected inmates are denied the opportunity to take certain prison jobs, such as food worker or barber, solely because of their handicap, and despite the fact that they do not pose a significant risk of infection to other inmates in such jobs.
119. The Department of Corrections has recently undertaken to audit its HIV education, testing and treatment policies in cooperation with the Department of Health. The Department of Corrections has further agreed to work with the Department of Health to make HIV testing available to prisoners upon demand, to offer inmate education, to improve staff education, and to provide uniform standards of medical treatment. To date, however, the Department of Corrections has not been able to secure significant changes in the actual delivery of care or to ameliorate the underlying conditions that lead to deficient care.
Environmental Conditions
120. Many of the Department's cells in the system are without sufficient ventilation and have excessive noise, insect and rodent infestation, leaking walls and ceilings due to roof flooding, uneven heat, insufficient lighting, unsafe electrical wiring, and deteriorating plumbing systems.
121. Many of the shower facilities within the Department lack adequate ventilation, have mold and mildew on the walls and
28

ceilings, ineffective temperature control, and deteriorating floor surfaces.
122. Food services facilities within the Department are unsanitary, poorly ventilated, poorly lit, poorly maintained, and rely upon outdated and poorly maintained equipment. Numerous safety hazards exist for employees and inmates alike, including electrical hazards, the potential for back siphonage, improper storage methods, and improper disposal of waste materials. Food storage facilities have been found to have roach and rodent infestation, improper temperature control, and use of inadequate and outdated storage equipment.
123. Dining facilities are unsanitary and have the potential for cross-contamination. The equipment has deteriorated to a point where inmate health is threatened.
124. The Department's reporting systems are deficient. Inspectors do not have formally defined criteria or detailed inspection forms to guide their activities. Sanitation and hygiene inspections are grossly inadequate.
125. The water supplies at several institutions are below acceptable EPA standards.
126. Insufficient funding for capital improvements and ongoing maintenance is a major factor contributing to the difficulties being encountered by the Department in maintaining the environment of the physical plants and facilities.
127. The Department lacks a long-term plan for capital improvements and physical maintenance.
29

128. Overcrowding has further contributed to the difficulties encountered by the Department in maintaining and upgrading institutional physical plant and facilities. It has drained available financial resources away from maintenance by expanding housing capacity without a corresponding modification in support facilities.
129. Poor design of several institutions impedes the Department's ability to maintain the physical structures. Many of the state correctional institutions were designed for uses other than as adult correctional facilities. For example, SCI Graterford was designed to be a prison farm; SCI Camp Hill, SCI Dallas, SCI Huntingdon and SCI Waynesburg were designed to be juvenile facilities and consist of hollow brick construction; SCI Cresson was designed as an institution for mentally retarded persons, and SCI Retreat was designed as a center for mentally ill persons; SCI Rockview was designed as a minimum security farm; and SCI Greensburg was designed as a short term county facility.
130. The Department fails to meet basic needs of the inmate population. There are chronic shortages of essential clothing for newly admitted inmates, blankets and pillows for all prisoners, and replacement mattresses for those that are torn, dirty, or infested with bed bugs.
131. Fire safety is a problem throughout the Department. Many of the institutions have been found to be in violation of the Life Safety Code, which has been adopted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania via the Pennsylvania Fire and Panic Act. Deficiencies include the lack of an automatic alarm system, an insufficient number of
30

exits, lack of an immediate release mechanism on the cell blocks, lack of an emergency lighting system, the existence of significant barriers to evacuating the cell blocks within a reasonable amount of time because of the long distances inmates must travel from their cells to exit doors, and the absence of fire separation walls between authorized smoke compartments. Many of these deficiencies have been cited by the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry inspectors.
Access to Courts
132. The Department does not provide attorneys, paralegals or professionally trained persons to assist inmates with the filing of civil rights complaints, habeas corpus petitions or similar challenges to their convictions. With limited exception, the Department has not allowed the formation of para-law clinics staffed by inmates knowledgeable in the law.
133. Most of the Department's law libraries are stocked with such limited and antiquated volumes as to make it nearly impossible for prisoners to do legal research.
134. Those inmates without legal training and those who do not have a command of the English language are seriously handicapped in their efforts to pursue legal remedies.
135. At some of the Department's institutions, inmates in administrative segregation, protective custody, or punitive segregation are not permitted to visit the main law library. Alternative provisions for such inmates are totally inadequate.
31

Causes of Action
136. The policies, practices, acts and omissions complained of herein taken as a whole constitute deliberate indifference to plaintiffs' rights under the United states Constitution and 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, thereby depriving plaintiffs of their rights to:
a. be free from cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments;
b. be free from excessive and malicious physical force and violence under the Fourth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments;
c. proper and necessary medical and psychiatric services under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments;
d. be free from deprivations of liberty and property without due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment;
e. equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment; and
f. access to counsel and the courts under the First, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
137. The policies, practices, acts, and omissions of the defendants constitute deliberate indifference with respect to the collection and retention of private medical information thereby violating plaintiffs1 rights under the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 in that they deprive plaintiffs of their rights to privacy and autonomy under the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
32

138. Defendants' actions in denying otherwise qualified HIV infected plaintiffs the benefits of participation in programs and activities available to other inmates, and exposing them to harassment and discrimination, solely on the basis of their handicap, violates Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. Section 701 et seq.. as amended by the civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987.
139. Defendants1 actions in failing to make their facilities and programs accessible to otherwise qualified handicapped individuals, and to make reasonable accommodation to the special needs of such people, constitutes discrimination solely on the basis of handicap, and violates section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. Section 701 et sea.. as amended by the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987.
Prayer for Relief
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, request that this Court:
a. Assume jurisdiction of this action; b. Issue an order certifying this action to proceed as a class pursuant to Rule 23 (a) and (b) (2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; c. Issue a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 2201 and 2201, and Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that the policies, practices, acts and omissions
33

complained of herein violate plaintiffs' rights to be free from cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, to due process and equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, to be free from the use of excessive force under the Fourth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, to counsel and access to the courts under the First, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments, and for handicapped members of this class to be free from discrimination as is guaranteed by the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
d. Issue preliminary and permanent injunctions sufficient to rectify the unconstitutional and unlawful acts, policies, practices and conditions complained of herein.
e. Retain jurisdiction over defendants and each of them until such time as the Court is satisfied that their unlawful policies, practices, acts and omissions complained of herein no longer exist and will not recur.
f. Award plaintiffs reasonable attorneys' fees, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1988, and costs of this action.
g. Award such other further relief as to this court seems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
Alvin J. Bronstein, Esq. Elizabeth Alexander, Esq. Adjoa A. Aiyetoro, Esq. David C. Fathi, Esq.
34

The National Prison Project of the ACLU Foundation
1875 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Suite 410 Washington, DC 20009 (202) 234-4830
Stefan Presser, Esq. Bar No. 43067 Legal Director Scott Burris, Esq. American Civil Liberties Union
of Pennsylvania 125 South Ninth Street, Suite 701 Philadelphia, PA 19107 (215) 592-1513 ext. 16
David Rudovsky, Esq. Kairys & Rudovsky 924 Cherry Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19107 (215) 925-4400
Angus Love, Esq. Pennsylvania Institutional
Law Project 924 Cherry Street Suite 523 Philadelphia, PA 19107 (215) 925-2966

Dated: November

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS , 1992

35

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, the undersigned, do hereby certify that the foregoing Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint and Add Parties, Brief in Support of Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint and Add Parties and attachments, and proposed Fourth Amended Complaint were served on the defendants via first class mail, postage prepaid, to the following address on this 6th day of November, 1992:
Linda Barrett Office of the Attorney General Strawberry Square, 15th Floor Third and Walnut Streets Harrisburg, PA 17120
David cTTathi

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

STEVEN AUSTIN, et al., Plaintiffs
v.
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al..
Defendants

No. 90-7497

PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
1875 Connecticut Ave., NW Washington, DC 20009
Alvin Bronstein Elizabeth R. Alexander
Stefan Presser AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION 125 South Ninth Street Suite 701 Philadelphia, PA 19107
David Rudovsky KAIRYS, RUDOVSKY, KALMAN
& EPSTEIN 924 Cherry Street Philadelphia, PA 19107
Scott Burris, Esquire TEMPLE LAW SCHOOL 1719 North Broad Street Philadelphia, PA 19122
Angus Love, Esquire PENNSYLVANIA INSTITUTIONAL LAW
PROJECT 924 Cherry Street, Suite 523 Philadelphia, PA 19107
Robert Meek, Esquire DISABILITIES LAW PROJECT 801 Arch Street, Suite 610 Philadelphia, PA 19107
DATE: August 1, 1994

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 15th Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 Ernest D. Preate, Jr. Attorney General John G. Knorr, III Chief Deputy Attorney General Chief, Litigation Section Linda C. Barrett Senior Deputy Attorney General Francis R. Filipi Senior Deputy Attorney General R. Douglas Sherman Deputy Attorney General Pia D. Taggart Deputy Attorney General Counsel for Defendants
Austin v. Pennsylvania DOC

PC-PA-002-006

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. BACKGROUND II. JURISDICTION III. MEDICAL CARE
A. Staffing B. Policies C. Equipment and Facilities D. Quality Assurance E. Time Limits F. Monitoring IV. MENTAL HEALTH CARE A. Central Office Structure B. System Issues C. Policies D. Special Needs and Mental Health
Units E. Quality Assurance F. Individual Institutions G. Time Limits H. Monitoring and Reporting I. Definitions V. CORRECTIONS ISSUES A. Access to the Courts and Law
Libraries Legal Assistance Inmate Legal Reference Aides Non-Employee Translation Services.. Capacity and Hours of Operation....

1-2 3 4-14 4-6 6-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 15-32 15-16 16-18 18-19
19-23 24 24-27 27 27-28 28-32 33-51
33-41 33-36 36 36 36-37

_ Legal Materials for Inmates in the Special Management Unit (SMTJ) at SCI-Camp Hill and Restricted Housing Units (RHU)
Photocopying Facilities
B. Vocational Work and Educational Programs Correctional Industries Non-Correctional Industry Work Opportunities Educational Programs
C . Investigation Procedures for Allegations of Use of Force Investigation Procedures of the Special Investigations Office General Investigation Procedures... Videotaping Use of Force Situations
D. Inmate Safety: Transfers and Protective Custody
E. Restricted Housing Units and
Special Management Unit
F. Sex Offender Programs
G. Monitoring Provisions
VI. HIV/AIDS
A. Substantive Provisions
B. Monitoring
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL/FIRE SAFETY ISSUES
A. Substantive Provisions
Systemwide
Individual Institutions
B. Monitoring
VIII. FIRE SAFETY CHECKLIST
A. All Institutions

37-41 41
41-42 41 41 42
42-45
42-43 44-45 45
46
46-47 47 47-51 51-60 51-57 57-60 60-77 60-76 60-64 64-76 76-77 77-83 77-81

B_. Compliance Procedures IX. MISCELLANEOUS

82-83 83-87

I. BACKGROUND 1. This class action was filed on November 27, 1990.
The Second Amended Complaint presents constitutional challenges regarding the conditions of confinement at thirteen (13) specific institutions that are part of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. Those institutions are the State Correctional Institution ("SCI") at Camp Hill, SCI-Cresson, SCI-Dallas, SCIFrackville, SCI-Graterford, SCI-Greensburg, SCI-Huntingdon, SRCFMercer, SCI-Retreat, SCI-Rockview, SCI-Smithfield, SCI-Waymart, and SCI-Waynesburg.
2. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) the plaintiff class has been defined as consisting of all persons who are now or will in the future be confined by the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections in a facility other than SCI-Muncy or SCI-Pittsburgh, both of which are subjects of other court orders (Order dated March 5, 1992).
3. The defendants are Joseph D. Lehman, Commissioner, Jeffrey A. Beard, Superintendent, SCI-Camp Hill, Frederick K. Frank, Superintendent, SCI-Cresson, John Stepanik, Superintendent, SCI-Dallas, Joseph W. Chesney, SCI-Frackville, Donald T. Vaughn, Superintendent, SCI-Graterford, Frederic A. Rosemeyer, SCI-Greensburg, William J. Love, Superintendent, SCIHuntingdon, Gilbert R. Walters, State Regional Correctional Facility at Mercer, Dennis R. Erhard, SCI-Retreat, Joseph F. Mazurkiewicz, Superintendent, SCI-Rockview, James Morgan, Superintendent, SCI-Smithfield, Charles H. Zimmerman,

Superintendent, SCI-Waymart, and Timothy B. English, Superintendent, SCI-Waynesburg and Robert Casey, Governor.
4. The named plaintiffs and the class of inmates they represent have sought to remedy the conditions of confinement they alleged to be unconstitutional through declaratory and permanent injunctive relief.
5. The parties have engaged in extensive discovery on all aspects of the case. Based on this discovery and supported by affidavits from prison officials and expert witnesses, in 1993, the Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on correctional and environmental issues. The plaintiffs filed a Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment on the HIV issues. These motions were denied by the Court without prejudice to the reassertion of the disputed claims at trial.
6. The Court ordered that the case be tried in four phases: corrections, environmental, medical care, and mental health. Between December 6, 1993, and January 3, 1994, the parties tried the corrections issues. On January 3, 1994, the Court continued the corrections phase to allow for discussions on possible settlement of the case, prior to the completion of testimony and evidence on the corrections issues.
7. The parties have engaged in settlement negotiations on all phases of this litigation and have reached agreement as to all areas of dispute. The terms of the agreement on the substantive issues are set forth in Sections III-VIII.

II. JURISDICTION 8. Jurisdiction over the subject matter of this
litigation is conferred on this Court by 28 U.S.C. §1343(3) in that this is a civil action brought under 42 U.S.C. §1983 to redress deprivation of civil rights protected by federal law.

III. MEDICAL CARE A. Staffing 9. The Department of Corrections (hereinafter the
DOC) has developed prototypical staffing patterns for health care.
10. As a step toward implementation of the prototypical staffing patterns, the DOC has been allocated certain new health care positions in the fiscal year (hereinafter FY) 1993-1994 budget. In addition, the DOC will request additional health care positions in the FY 1994-1995 and the FY 1995-1996 budgets. Attachment 1 reflects these FY 1994-1995 new health care positions. The DOC will also request 77 additional health care positions in the FY 1995-1996 budget. By September 15, 1994, the DOC will develop a document similar to Attachment 1 which identifies the position by occupational category and facility. After this document is developed, it will be incorporated into this agreement as Attachment 2.
11. By FY 1995-1996 the DOC will provide a minimum of forty hours per week of primary physician time for each 1000 prisoners at a facility. Such primary physician hours will not include medical specialty or psychiatric services which services require additional time by qualified specialists. Such hours also do not include physician time for reception physicals at the Diagnostic and Classification Center or for coverage of specialized medical units such as dialysis units. For purposes of this paragraph, the DOC may choose to substitute one hour of

physician assistant services for 0.4 hours of physician services up to a maximum of 30% of the total physician hours.
12. By FY 1995-1996 the DOC will provide a minimum of ten (10) registered nurse (RN) positions for each 1000 prisoners at a facility.
13. By FY 1995-1996 the DOC will provide a minimum of one (1) FTE dentist for facilities with less than 1000 prisoners, two (2) FTE dentists for facilities with between 1001-2500 prisoners and three (3) FTE dentists for facilities with 25014000 prisoners. At facilities with up to 2000 prisoners or less, the DOC will provide one (1) FTE dental assistant. For facilities exceeding 2000 prisoners, the DOC will provide two (2) FTE dental assistants. Additionally, the DOC will seek funding by FY 1995-1996 to provide one (1) FTE dental hygienist for facilities with up to 2000 prisoners and two (2) FTE dental hygienists for facilities in excess of 2000 prisoners.
14. Each facility will consistently provide 24-hour on-site RN coverage.
15. When a facility experiences a significant rate of vacancies in a particular position, the facility will make arrangements for individual contracts or PRN employment to cover the position until the vacancies are filled.
16. Nothing in these provisions is intended to prevent the DOC from determining that a higher level of health care staffing is necessary at any facility or group of facilities in

order to maintain consistency with the prototypical staffing pattern or for other reasons.
17. The issue of psychiatric physician and nursing services is addressed in Section IV, Mental Health, infra.
B. Policies 18. Except as otherwise provided in paragraph 25, the
DOC will adopt, by June 30, 1995, comprehensive state-wide healthcare and medical policies modeled in scope and level of detail on the Clinical and Administrative Guidelines for the Prevention and Management of Tuberculosis policy, dated September 4, 1992. Prior to implementation, the medical policies will be reviewed by the DOC Peer Review Committee as described in UH30 and 33, infra. The medical policies will be reviewed for consistency with contemporary standards of practice. The specific medical policies to be developed are listed in paragraphs 25 and 26, infra. The healthcare policies will be reviewed by the clinical director. The specific healthcare policies to be developed are listed in paragraphs 20-24 and 2729.
19. Each such policy will be accompanied with a corresponding procedure specifically outlining how the policy and the intended outcome is to be effected.
20. The DOC will develop and implement a revised policy for entrance screening and medical clearance for transfer. The policy will include review of the appropriateness of transfer in light of the prisoner's condition. In addition, there will be

a periodicgeneral review to determine whether any facility or contractor has transferred or attempted to transfer a disproportionate number of prisoners with medical conditions precluding transfer. The policy will provide that, if such a practice is discovered, appropriate corrective action will be instituted.
21. The DOC will develop and implement a policy for access to health care, including sick call and on-site and offsite specialty referrals, as well as for access for prisoners in restricted confinement. In the absence of emergency conditions, all medication lines and sick call lines will be conducted in areas where the prisoners waiting for services are protected from the elements including cold.
22. The DOC will develop and implement a policy setting up standards for infirmary admission procedures, staffing and equipment. The policy will limit the use of the infirmary to patients who do not require a higher level of treatment, and will provide that infirmary patients are within sight or sound observation of medical staff twenty four hours per day.
23. The DOC will develop and implement a policy for health education and preventive care including periodic screening and the handling of emergencies.
24. The DOC will develop a policy for access to emergency care. The policy will require that the DOC arrange for ambulance capability staffed by personnel with advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) training available within twenty minutes of

paragraph is intended to prevent any facility from offering root canal services.
26. The DOC will develop and implement medical policies for the management of the following chronic diseases, including provisions for a baseline evaluation; regular, structured follow-up; expected elements of documentation; and physician intervention and treatment for a particular diagnosis for the following medical conditions:
a. " HIV; b. Diabetes; c. Cardiovascular disease and hypertension; d. Seizure Disorder; and e. Asthma and pulmonary disorders. 27. The DOC will develop and implement a revised policy regarding medical records and their maintenance. This policy will include the integration of all medical and mental health records insofar as such integration is not expressly prohibited by state law or court order. The policy will also provide for a problem-oriented record and will contain provisions for documentation; integration maintenance; record transfer; and medication continuity, distribution and monitoring. The parties further recognize that the DOC will undertake certain interim steps to ensure the appropriate maintenance of medical records. 28. The DOC agrees to develop and implement a policy that will contain provisions assuring that diagnostic test results are given appropriate follow up by requiring that at a

minimum a physician review and initial all abnormal values, document such in the record, and document treatment when appropriate.
29. The DOC will develop and implement a policy for staff credentialling and continuing education and for assuring that staff do not exceed their appropriate scope of practice. The policy will provide that registered nurses may not perform health care assessment and triage without special training. The policy will prohibit licensed practical nurses from performing health care assessment.
30. In conjunction with the policy for credentialling, the DOC will establish a Peer Review Committee composed of Board certified physicians and dentists as well as other health care professionals when appropriate. This Committee will make recommendations concerning the granting of physician privileges to the BHCS Director. In order for a physician to be recommended for approval by the Committee, the physician will be required to demonstrate competency through submission of documentation that he or she possesses the necessary training and experience to perform the procedures at issue.
C. Equipment and Facilities 31. The DOC agrees to request funding to provide
standardized medical equipment for its facilities and provide the facilities specified by its comprehensive health care policies. All facilities will maintain negative pressure rooms that are routinely inspected for the maintenance of air flow rates. All
10

facilities will have peak flow meters to aid in the treatment of patients with asthma or other pulmonary diseases as appropriate. All facilities will maintain and check all emergency medical equipment pursuant to a standard list of required emergency equipment. Attachment 3 consists of a standard list of equipment that is currently available at all institutions or will be available on or before June 30, 1995. Attachment 4 consists of a list of equipment identified by individual institutions in order to fulfill their equipment needs by June 30, 1995.
D. Quality 32. By June 30, 1995, the DOC will adopt a
comprehensive system-wide quality assurance program designed to assure the implementation of the policies described in paragraphs 17-29, supra as well as all other facets of health care. The quality assurance program, which will have both Central Office and local facility components, will include clinical review and peer evaluation components. There will be a review of implementation of specialists' recommendations, including the timeliness of implementation. The clinical director has the discretion to raise patient care issues with the Commissioner.
33. One component of quality assurance will be the development of a DOC Peer Review Committee (hereinafter Committee) that will provide oversight to the practice of medicine; review physician standards of practice with regard to DOC policies; and make recommendations to the Director, Bureau of
11

Health Care-Services and to the Commissioner on the subject of physician credentialling and disciplinary action.
34. The Committee will be involved in the development of physician standards of practice that are diagnostic specific. These standards will become the basis of the chronic disease policies provided for in paragraph 26, supra.
35. The quality assurance process will include on a regular basis case reviews that assess compliance and clinical competence of the practitioners.
36. The quality assurance mechanism that is adopted to examine emergency services will include semiannual medical unit emergency response drills coordinated by the Correctional Healthcare Administrator in conjunction with the medical director of the facility, who will issue written critiques; a quarterly analysis of ambulance response times and the appropriateness of vehicle selection; a quarterly review of at least 10% of all cases presented for emergency treatment to determine the appropriateness of the nursing response; and a quarterly review by the medical director of five (5) or all cases, whichever number is less, that present with a specific diagnosis or condition. The nursing supervisor will review at least two emergency records for each registered nurse and provide feedback to that nurse.
E. Time Limits 37. The medical care claims in plaintiffs' complaint
shall be dismissed without prejudice contemporaneous with the
12

Court's approval of this agreement with the exception of the plaintiffs' claims regarding tuberculosis control. The plaintiffs' claims regarding tuberculosis control will be dismissed without prejudice on June 30, 1995, provided that the DOC is in substantial compliance with the preliminary injunction of September 29, 1992, including the requirement to provide prompt x-rays for all prisoners discovered to be PPD-positive and the requirement to maintain negative pressure rooms at all facilities. A finding of substantial compliance will not be defeated by isolated, non-continuing instances of non-compliance.
F. Monitoring 38. The DOC will provide the following information on
a quarterly basis: biweekly reports from the correctional health care administrators, the Regional Health Care Administrators' Quarterly Status Report, the executive monthly SCAN report relating to medical issues, the equipment lists for each facility reflecting the present state of equipment on site, the Tuberculosis Summary of Tracking Data Report, and the Inmate Deaths Database System Printout, the Facility Medical/Mental Health Staffing Report, an explanation for any positions which are not filled within three months of the vacancy as well as efforts initiated to fill the vacancy, institution population counts from the SCAN data, copies of promulgated policies, copies of the public DOC Budget and Rebudget documents for FY 1994-1995, 1995-1996, 1996-1997 as well as the Bureau of Health Care Services Budget and Rebudget documents for the same fiscal years,
13

reports reflecting the measurements taken in the negative air pressure rooms reflecting the number of air exchanges per hour, and reports from each facility regarding emergency equipment checks.
39. In accordance with the August 15, 1991, Stipulated Protective Order and the March 26, 1992 Amendment to Stipulated Protective Order and H2 of the October 26, 1992 order in this case, the DOC will provide copies of specific medical records identified by plaintiffs' counsel.
14

IV. MENTAL HEALTH CARE A. Central Office Structure 40. The Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (DOC)
will hire a Chief of Psychiatric Services. The Chief of Psychiatric Services must be a board certified psychiatrist. This position will be allocated to the Bureau of Health Care Services (BHCS) and the Chief of Psychiatric Services will report to the Director BHCS. The DOC may elect to make the Chief of Psychiatric Services either a contract or staff position. A minimum of thirty-two (32) hours per week will be devoted to this position. Psychiatric services will be governed by the Chief of Psychiatric Services. The Chief of Psychiatric Services will be involved in peer review, clinical practice issues, assessment of competency as well as the development, revision and expansion of mental health policies and standards of practice.
41. The Chief of Psychiatric Services will guide, review, and direct the field psychiatrists as necessary. This process includes ensuring field psychiatrists comply with DOC policies and procedures as well as psychiatric standards developed by the Chief of Psychiatric Services and reviewed by the Committee described in Section III, supra.
42. DOC will seek funds for this position in its FY 94-95 Budget Request. If approved, the Chief of Psychiatric Services would be hired after July 1994.
15

43. The BHCS and the Chief of Psychiatric Services will ensure that clinical decisions related to the mental health care of the inmate population are directed by medical personnel.
44. Psychological services will remain under the supervision of the Bureau of Inmate Services. The Chief of the Psychological Services section, the Director, BHCS, and the Chief of Psychiatric Services will take administrative steps to ensure the coordination of mental health services within DOC. These steps include, but are not limited to, reviewing all audits conducted by the Department of Public Welfare, Central Office or any other agency, attending monthly meetings to ensure consistency of approach between Psychological Services and Psychiatric Services? and providing for coordinated training sessions.
B. System Issues 45. The DOC agrees to continue to contract for the
provisions of psychiatric services to inmates who are seriously mentally ill.
46. The DOC has implemented an ongoing mental health assessment process beginning at the Diagnostic and Classification (DCC) level which collects statistical information. The DOC utilizes its current Mental Health Computer Tracking System (the Tracking System) to collect these data.
47. The Mental Health Computer Tracking System identifies an inmate, his DOC number, institution, custody level, single cell status, stability score, ICD-9 (International
16

Classification of Diseases) code, GAF (Global Assessment of Functioning) score. IQ score, achievement scores (e.g. WRAT), and last completed school grade. The system is designed to include suicide attempt history, means of attempt and severity of attempt. In addition, the system is designed to display information on participation in Prescriptive Program Planning (PPP) as well as drug and alcohol treatment needs. The computerized system provides the user access to other information including patient's maximum and minimum dates, offense code, severity of criminal history, work performance, housing performance, and history of institutional violence.
48. The DOC agrees to utilize the Tracking System as a means to include pre-confinement medication history for inmates with a pre-confinement history of mental illness, either by use of the "comments" field or another more appropriate data entry field.
49. The DOC agrees to utilize the Tracking System to obtain information which would assist in the identification of system needs.
50. The DOC uses the existing Pennsylvania Additive Classification Tool (PACT) as a part of the ongoing assessment process for all inmates.
51. The DOC agrees to make its tracking system fully operational by June 30, 1994.
52. The DOC agrees that its psychological services section will continue to conduct annual audits of all psychology
17

programs and continue to participate in Department of Public Welfare - Office of Mental Health (DPW/OMH) inspections of the Mental Health Units (MHUs).
53. DOC will draft a specific informed consent document for an inmate to review and sign when therapeutic and forensic interviews occur. The Department will provide inservice training on the use of the informed consent document to psychiatric and psychological and other appropriate staff members. The training includes a component addressing a deemphasis of their roles in the parole process.
54. The Department agrees to continue to comply with applicable state law as embodied in the Mental Health Procedures Act, 50 P.S. §§7100, et seq•, other applicable state and federal statutes and applicable professional licensing regulations.
55. The institutional psychiatrist will be included as a member of the psychiatric review team.
C. Policies 56. The DOC agrees that the BHCS will utilize the Peer
Review Committee (Committee) to review psychiatric standards of practice specific to diagnosis as developed by the Chief of Psychiatric Services. Elements of these standards include, but are not limited to, documentation, physical intervention, and treatment for particular diagnoses.
57. The DOC agrees to implement a policy that requires each inmate who is placed on psychotropic medications be evaluated at least every six (6) months for signs of tardive
18

dyskinesia. If such signs are detected, the inmate will receive medical treatment in accordance with the protocol established by this policy.
58. The DOC agrees to revise its policies regarding the maintenance of the medical records system (previously embodied in OM-105.09). These revisions include maintenance of all integrated health records in an easily accessible location to all authorized treatment staff.
59. The records maintenance policy will describe how information contained within the medical and mental health sections of the inmate's chart is documented to ensure continuity of care among all health care providers.
60. If records are removed pursuant to a removal procedure which is outlined in the policy/ the fact of that removal, the reason for that removal and the person to whom the records were provided will be conspicuously noted in the chart.
61. Medical records personnel will maintain a list of the removed records in accordance with the policy and notify the health care administrator who will follow-up with appropriate management staff if the records are not timely returned.
D. Special Needs and Mental Health Units 62. Special Needs Units (SNUs) are located at the
following level 3 facilities: SCI-Smithfield, SCI-Rockview, SCICresson, SCI-Graterford, SCI-Greensburg, and SCI-Dallas. SRCFMercer has a separate block for special needs inmates. SNUs are
19

available at the following level 4 facilities: SCI-Huntingdon and SCI-Camp Hill.
63. DOC agrees to develop and implement a policy which ensures access to an SNU to any inmate identified to need such housing. The policy will establish criteria for prioritizing placement of these inmates. Among the criteria which may be considered are the length of time the inmate would benefit by placement in the SNU, the programming of the particular SNU under consideration, and the objectives of the inmate's long term treatment plan. DOC will aim for placement of inmates in need of SNU placement within thirty (30) days of this evaluation.
64. DOC agrees to draft a new Special Needs Unit Policy which will describe the operation of the unit, inmate access to the unit, the procedures for reintegration of an SNU inmate to general population wherever possible.
65. Based upon the needs of the SNU population, psychological, psychiatric and unit staff at a particular institution with a special needs unit may offer a variety of programs to SNU inmates in accordance with their treatment plan. This may include group therapy, individual psychotherapy, and the development of psycho-educational and psycho-social skills. However, other programs offered to SNU inmates may include, but are not limited to, groups focusing on activities of daily living (hygiene, money management), interpersonal relations, communication skills, vocational skills, insight oriented psychotherapy, crisis stabilization, transition and re-
20

integration back into general population, or return from an MHU, anger management, stress management, sex offender therapy, adult basic education, art therapy, recreational instruction, drug and alcohol treatment and self esteem instruction.
66. Each SNU must offer programs concentrating on medication compliance.
67. The DOC agrees to dedicate at least 800 special needs units beds statewide to house inmates determined to require housing in a SNU.
68. The DOC agrees that inmates housed in SNUs who are willing and appropriate for work will have the same access to job and educational opportunities as inmates housed in general population.
69. Each Special Needs Unit will devote at least thirty-five (35) hours per week to programming for inmates housed there. This programming may include two (2) hours each day of recreational activity. Other programming which may satisfy this requirement includes participation in employment and educational programs (both mainstream general population or SNU specific programs), the programs listed in paragraph 65 supra or other programs identified by the inmate's treatment plan.
70. The DOC agrees to establish at least 212 Mental Health Unit (MHU) beds statewide for inmates. This requirement may be fulfilled by utilizing in-house mental health unit bed space or bed space in the DPW Forensic Mental Health Unit.
21

-71. Contingent upon the availability of DPW Forensic Mental Health Unit space, the DOC agrees that it will not reduce the number of SNU beds or MHU beds systemwide below the level established by this agreement. If system planning demonstrates a greater or lesser need for SNU beds, the number of beds may be adjusted accordingly.
72. DOC will continue its present policy "Inmates Refusing to Take Prescribed Psychotropic Medications" (OM 105.04), which permits placement of non-compliant with medication inmates in administrative custody (AC) status. The placement decision may not be based solely on a mental health diagnosis and a refusal to be medicated with antipsychotic drugs. The DOC will continue to require that medication non-compliance be addressed therapeutically if noncompliance is related to the inmate's mental illness.
73. Inmates placed in AC status pursuant to this policy should be evaluated for placement in an infirmary setting, an SNU, an MHU, or other placement which would be consistent with a short term treatment plan, if the refusal to continues beyond three (3) days. The evaluation should be undertaken pursuant to the criteria in the Interinstitutional Transfer of Mental Health Commitments to DOC Mental Units (7.3.4) policy. Whenever an inmate is placed in administrative custody pursuant to this policy, an entry into the mental health chart must be written that details why placement was necessary. The entry will include
22

an explanation as to what behavior was so disruptive such that the inmate was dangerous to himself or others.
74. DOC agrees that the reasons for placement of an inmate who is seriously mentally ill in a double cell will be documented in that inmate's mental health record by the mental health practitioner.
75. The reasons for placement of an inmate in an institution's psychiatric observation room (POR) shall be documented in the mental health chart. Inmates placed in a noninfirmary POR for more than three days should be evaluated for placement in an infirmary setting, an SNU, an MHU, or other placement which would be consistent with a short term treatment plan.
76. The DOC agrees to implement a treatment plan for inmates who are seriously mentally ill. The treatment plan will be consistent with the treatment plans developed pursuant to 55 Pa. Code §5200.31 with the following exceptions:
(a) Treatment plans for inmates currently incarcerated must be developed by no later than June 30, 1995. Updated treatment plans for these inmates will be governed by subsection (c).
(b) Treatment plans for newly incarcerated inmates will be developed within thirty (30) days of intake and updated every one hundred twenty (120) days.
(c) Updated treatment plans will be developed at least every one hundred twenty (120) days.
23

E. Quality Assurance 77. By June 30, 1995, the DOC will adopt a
comprehensive system-wide quality assurance program designed to assure the implementation of the policies described in paragraphs 56-76, supra, as well as other facets of health care. The quality assurance program, which will have both Central Office and local facility components, will include clinical review and peer evaluation components. There will be a review of implementation of specialists' recommendations, including the timeliness of implementation. The chief psychiatrist has the discretion to raise patient care issues with the Commissioner.
78. One component of quality assurance will be the development of a DOC Peer Review Committee (hereinafter Committee) that will provide oversight to the practice of psychiatry review physician standards of practice with regard to DOC policies; and address staff credentialling and disciplinary action.
79. The Committee will be involved in the development of physician standards of practice that are diagnostic specific. These standards will become the basis of policies provided for in paragraphs 57, 58, 63, 76, supra.
80. The quality assurance process will include on a regular basis case reviews that assess compliance and clinical competence of the practitioners.
24

F. individual Institutions SRCF-Mercer 81. Funding for an additional full-time psychologist
will be requested in the DOC FY 94-95 budget. SCI-Huntinqdon 82. Specific treatment for the seriously mentally ill
inmate who is housed in the RHU will be coordinated pursuant to policies regarding the Administration of the RHU (6.5.1) Policy and the Delivery of Mental Health Services (7.3.1) Policy.
83. By June 30, 1994, DOC agrees to contract for the provision of at least 45 hours of psychiatric coverage per week.
84. Crisis intervention will be handled pursuant to the Interinstitutional Transfer (7.3.4) Policy.
SCI—Gireeii8bi'|r>n'
85. The institution will provide access for at least 14 hours/week to recreation facilities to inmates housed in the SNU. Fulfillment of this requirement may be satisfied by attendance in mainstream recreational facilities yard, recreational tournaments or SNU specific activities coordinated through the institution activities department.
86. The institution will comply with the Interinstitutional Transfer Policy (7.3.4).
87. By June 30, 1994, DOC agrees to contract for the provision of at least 56 hours of psychiatric coverage which is intended for out-patient care and inmates housed in the SNU.
25

as. DOC agrees to build a 30 bed MHU by March 1, 1996. SCI-Dallas 89. By June 30, 1994, DOC will contract for the provision of a minimum of 45 hours per week of psychiatric coverage for this institution. SCI-Frackville 90. Funding for a SNU will be sought in the FY 95-96 budget. SCI-Graterford 91. DOC agrees to continue to maintain a 19 bed MHU. 92. DOC agrees to establish by June 30, 1994, an 80 bed step down unit from the MHU and secure SNU in the general population with the following characteristics: weekly psychiatric rounds, special education classes, self esteem and medication compliance groups, individual counseling, and activities/recreational therapy. Admission to the step down unit will be governed by "Criteria for Referral to the Psychiatric Review Team For Lower F-Block Placement Consideration". 93. DOC agrees to provide the stepdown unit inmates who are willing and appropriate for work with the same access to job and educational opportunities as inmates in general population. 94. DOC agrees to provide out of cell time consistent with individual treatment plan needs to inmates housed in the SCI-Graterford secure SNU.
26

95. DOC will provide specialized training which focuses in clinical issues to correctional personnel assigned to the secure SNU.
G. 96. The mental health care claims in plaintiffs'
complaint shall be dismissed contemporaneous with the Court's approval of this settlement agreement.
97. Unless otherwise stated in this agreement, the DOC agrees to provide plaintiffs' counsel with quarterly status reports regarding implementation of the terms of the Settlement Agreement for a period of three (3) years after approval of the Settlement Agreement by the Court.
98. These status reports shall include copies of all policy changes and new policies implemented during the course of monitoring.
H. Monitoring and Reporting 99. The DOC agrees to permit plaintiffs' expert,
Jeffrey Metzner, M.D., to tour specific areas (e.g., SNUs, RHUs, MHUs) in 5-7 institutions (one tour per institution), designation of which institutions and areas to be in the sole discretion of plaintiffs.
100. Plaintiffs' expert shall also consult with Central Office staff, including the Chief Psychologist and Chief of Psychiatric Services in BHCS, prior to any tour. Plaintiffs will establish, prior to the tour, a list of expected documents, case files and personnel Dr. Metzner will review and interview.
27

10-1. During these tours, DOC agrees to permit the onsite review of individual inmate files upon the execution of a release by the inmate. However, where the competency level of an inmate prevents the execution of a release, DOC may permit release of such files pursuant to the dictates of the Court's prior protective orders. The release of these records will be coordinated through Austin defense counsel.
102. DOC also agrees to permit the review of a limited number of files without client releases, in accordance with the criteria established in the August 15, 1991, March 26, 1992 and October 26, 1992 protective orders. This release shall also be coordinated through Austin defense counsel. Additionally, the DOC agrees to provide, on a quarterly basis, copies of internal audits conducted by the Chief of Psychiatric Services and Chief Psychologist, a description of the Mental Health Tracking System and evaluation reports which discuss the effectiveness of the Mental Health Tracking System.
103. DOC agrees to advise plaintiffs' counsel no later than June 30, 1995 that the Department has implemented the provisions of Section IV of this agreement, at which time plaintiffs may begin to schedule tours of institutions.
I. Definitions 104. Diagnostic and Classification Unit/Facility (DOT) -
The Diagnostic and Classification Unit/Facility is a reception unit/facility for new commitments to the Department of Corrections. While in Diagnostic and classification status, the
28

new receptions are seen for a medical evaluation, psychological evaluation, and for gathering background information. At the end of the classification process, the diagnostic and classification staff formulate recommendations concerning programming needs for the inmate.
105. Diagnostic and Classification Unit/Facility Mental Health Staff - Refers to the counseling, psychological and psychiatric staff that work in a Diagnostic and Classification Unit/Facility or provide mental health services to inmates in Diagnostic and Classification status.
106. Diagnostic and Classification Unit/Facility Staff All staff in a Diagnostic and Classification Unit/Facility including but not limited to counselors, corrections officers, and ancillary staff.
107. DPW Forensic Mental Health Unit - Refers to the forensic mental health units operated by the Office of Mental Health in the Department of Welfare (DPW). The male forensic unit is located at Farview State Hospital, while female DPW forensic units are located at Norristown State Hospital and Mayview State Hospital.
108. DPW Forensic Mental Health Unit - Refers to the forensic mental health units operated by the Office of Mental Health in the Department of Public Welfare (DPW).
109. General Population Unit/Facility - A general population unit/facility is a general housing unit/facility
29

within whieh an inmate may engage in various educational, vocational and treatment programs.
110. In-House Mental Health Unit - Refers to the licensed mental health units housed within DOC correctional facilities. These units are operated by vendors under contract to the Department of Corrections.
111. Mental Health Commitment - Refers to the procedure to obtain a commitment to a mental health facility as directed by Act 143 of 1976, as amended by Act 324 of 1978, the Mental Health Procedures Act. It is the same process as is used for commitments instituted in the community.
112. Mental Health Record - This record is comprised of the psychiatrist's progress notes, psychologist's notes, orders for psychotropic medications, discharge summaries from DPW or inhouse forensic mental health units, suicide watch checklist and infirmary records. This definition does not include entries from the DC-14.
113. Preventative Mental Health Services - Those services that are designed to maintain or improve the mental health of inmates before they develop emotional problems or reach a crisis. Programs involving Anger Management, Assertiveness, General Adjustment Groups, and recreation activities are examples of these services.
114. Psychiatric Review Team - A team, chaired by the institution's Chief Psychologist or designee, and including the Consultant Psychiatrist, the Unit Manager, and such other staff
30

as may be designated by the institution's Chief Psychologist with input from the Unit Manager or the Inmate Program Manager of the facility. The Psychiatric Review Team reviews the cases of those inmates who experience adjustment or behavioral difficulties related to emotional problems and who require more in-depth evaluation, and closer monitoring and support. This team may also be referred to as the Multidisciplinary Mental Health Review Team.
115. Psychological Services Staff - Psychological Services staff refers to those individuals who hold positions as Psychological Services Associates up through and including Psychologist positions. Psychological Services staff provide a range of psychological, treatment and mental health services to the various units. Psychological Services staff may be assigned to more than one Unit. While psychological services will be centralized, Psychological staff are expected to make frequent visits to the Units and to interact with Unit staff and inmates on a regular basis.
116. Restricted Housing Unit (RHU) - The disciplinary unit within a correctional facility. Administrative custody cases, including self-confinement and protective custody cases may also be placed in this unit.
117. Seriously Mentally 111 - A substantial disorder of thought or mood which significantly impairs judgment, behavior, capacity to recognize reality or cope with the ordinary demands of life.
31

^ Special Needs Unit - The Special Needs Unit is a housing area in which inmates can receive additional or more intense treatment services and support.
119. Treatment Plan - A plan formulated for a particular person in a program appropriate to his specific needs.
120. Unit Manager - The person who is responsible for managing the staff and programs in a Unit.
121. Unit Staff - The staff who are assigned specifically to the Unit full time and who provide services and programs in a Unit under the direction of the Unit Manager. Unit staff includes (but is not limited to) corrections officers and counselors.
32

V. CORRECTIONS ISSUES
A. Access to the Courts and Law Libraries
Legal Assistance
122. The DOC agrees to implement statewide the
Comprehensive Paging System and Legal Research Program for Non-
Capital Inmates Confined in the Restricted Housing Unit as
adopted in Tillerv v. Owens. No. 87-537 (W.D. Pa. May 13, 1994).
123. The DOC agrees to implement statewide an Access to
Provided Legal Services Policy.
124. The DOC will employ paralegals at its
institutions in order to fulfill the policy set forth in
paragraph 123, supra. The services that paralegals will provide
under the above referenced policy, will include:
(a) instruction to the inmate legal reference aides who will be permitted to assist requesting prisoners with legal research and drafting documents;
(b) assistance to inmates with legal research and, where necessary, preparation of documents for submission to the courts for those inmates who satisfy the following criteria:
(i) are in restricted housing unit (whether their status is disciplinary custody, administrative custody or protective custody) or in a Special Management unit (hereinafter, together referred to as restricted housing status);
(ii) are assigned to restricted housing status for a period to exceed thirty consecutive days;
(iii) have served the first thirty days in that restricted housing status EXCEPT: the paralegal may assist an inmate who has spent less than thirty consecutive days in restricted housing status if he/she produces a court document verifying that a pending legal action exists in which a deadline for filing documents has been established by order of court or by rule of
33

- procedure which cannot reasonably be met absent such assistance OR wishes to initiate an action regarding medical care at the institution, seeks immediate court action (preliminary injunctive relief) and has exhausted this claim through the first level of the internal grievance process (that is, has received a response from the administrative review by the institution available through DC-ADM 804); and
(iv) present claims that are deemed by the paralegal to be non-frivolous. A frivolous claim is one that is patently without legal foundation or factual possibility. The paralegal will keep a record of the claims found to be frivolous, describing the claims in general terms and identifying the inmate who requested assistance on each such claim and any papers related to the request(s).
The name of the inmate requesting to initiate an action
regarding medical care at the institution will be entered on the
paralegal's list at the time of the receipt of the request for
assistance to assure that services will not be delayed
unnecessarily while the inmate's institutional grievance is being
processed. Priority will be given to those inmates who otherwise
qualify who are non-English speaking inmates and those inmates
who do not have an 8th grade reading level (ascertainable
qualifying literacy level or AQLL). The DOC will determine an
inmate's AQLL within five working days of his/her request for
paralegal assistance. The requesting inmate's name will be
entered on the paralegal's list at the time of the receipt of the
request to assure that services will not be delayed unnecessarily
while the inmate's AQLL is being established.
125. The department will employ two contract paralegals
regionally who will be dedicated to training issues (that is,
will bear primary responsibility to educate the inmate legal
34

reference aides). During the initial phase of the implementation of this program, all paralegals will assist in the training of inmate legal reference aides. The task of educating the inmate legal reference aides is expected to take approximately one (1) year from the hire of the paralegals. Under the Access policy, the number of inmate legal reference aides to be hired by the institutions will be established by using as the primary criteria: the total number of inmates in general population; historical usage of the law library; the number of hours the library is open and the space available in the law library. The paralegals will provide training to inmate legal reference aides and serve as an on-going resource for the inmate legal reference aides to assist them to provide services to the general population inmates.
126. The DOC agrees to the following allotment of paralegal hours per week per Austin institution based on its review of previously identified factors and geographical considerations:

INSTITUTION
SCI-CAMP HILL SCI-CRESSON SCI-DALLAS SCI-FRACKVILLE SCI-GRATERFORD SCI-GREENSBURG SCI-HUNTINGDON

NUMBER OF PARALEGAL HOURS PER WEEK 40 HOURS 4 HOURS 12 HOURS 8 HOURS 40 HOURS 4 HOURS
40 HOURS

INSTITUTION
SRCF-MERCER SCI-RETREAT SCI-ROCKVIEW SCI-SMITHFIELD SCI-WAYMART SCI-WAYNESBURG

NUMBER OF PARALEGAL HOURS PER WEEK 4 HOURS 4 HOURS 8 HOURS 8 HOURS 4 HOURS 4 HOURS

35

127. The DOC will afford inmates who are consulting with a paralegal privacy to confer. This opportunity for private conferences will encompass communication through a non-employee translator (as provided for in paragraph 130, below) when such services are needed to conduct effective communication.
Inmate Legal Reference Aides 128. The inmate legal reference aides will be paid by DOC and will be prohibited from charging other prisoners for such services. Violators will be punished through the inmate disciplinary procedures. 129. The DOC agrees to develop procedures which will facilitate prisoners fair access to inmate legal reference aide services. Consistent with institutional space availability and security requirements, the DOC will provide a degree of privacy for those inmates consulting with an inmate legal reference aide. Non-Emplovee Translation Services 130. The DOC will make reasonable efforts to provide translation services for non-English speaking inmates to facilitate communication between inmates and paralegals and between inmates and inmate legal reference aides at the institution. Capacity and Hours of Operation 131. The DOC will continue to provide the existing space (capacity) to its inmate population at the thirteen (13) institutions named in the complaint. 132. The DOC has established current capacity and hours of operation per week consistent with the table below.
36

INSTITUTION LAW LIBRARY CAPACITY

Camp Hill

33

Cresson

30

Dallas

36

Frackville

16

Graterford

Main Law Library 50

Graterford

New Side Library 30

Greensburg

26

Huntingdon

37

Mercer

30

Retreat

38

Rockview

44

Smithfield

21

Waymart

10

Waynesburg

25

HOURS OF OPERATION/WEEK 42 hrs . 35 min.
50 hrs •
35 hrs . 3 0 min. 27 hrs •
40 hrs •
22 hrs . 30 min. 47 hrs • 41 hrs • 28 hrs . 30 min. 43 hrs • 52 hrs . 30 min. 42 hrs . 45 min. 40 hrs • 27 hrs . 10 min.

Legal Materials for Inmates in the Special Management Unit (SMU) at SCI-Camp Hill and Restricted Housing Units fRHTn
133. DOC agrees to establish mini-law libraries for
each RHU throughout the thirteen institutions subject of this
litigation and the SMU at SCI-Camp Hill. These libraries will
contain materials consistent with the capital case mini-law
libraries.

37

1J34. The Restrictive Housing Unit mini-law libraries will be available for legal research seven (7) days a week, six (6) hours per day as needed. This will enable RHU inmates to review the legal reference books that are located in the libraries, to identify from those books any published opinions they wish to order from the institution's Main Law Library, and to Shepardize opinions they believe are pertinent to their research. Mini-law libraries will not be open unless inmates have signed up to use it as set forth below.
135. The law books that are stocked in the Restrictive Housing Unit mini-law libraries will not circulate from those rooms and will remain inside the libraries at all times. Therefore, as a matter of policy, inmates will not be allowed to remove the books from the library rooms and prison personnel will take reasonable steps to assure that books are not removed.
136. Due to the limited size of each of the mini-law libraries, two inmates at a time may be permitted to use the rooms. If, however, RHU/SMU staff determine that inmates must be separated from each other, separations will be maintained.
137. Research periods will be scheduled and assigned in time blocks of two hours each. Under this system, an inmate who is scheduled for a research period will be permitted, at his option, to engage in research for two consecutive hours or for a shorter amount of time, if he so desires. Should library space be available due to a lack of demand, an inmate who is using the library may be permitted to continue to use the library beyond
38

the assigned period, not to exceed normal mini-law library hours of operation.
138. Access to the RHU mini-law libraries will be scheduled in a fair and equitable manner. Access to the mini-law libraries will be made on an ongoing basis from sign-up sheets that will be equally available to all inmates in the restrictive housing units. Schedules for research periods will be established by institutional personnel in the order in which the names of the inmates appear on the sheets, subject to adjustment for security concerns.
139. A rotating system will be designed and implemented by the defendants to ensure that no particular inmates or group of inmates are given priority access to the sign-up sheets or to the mini-law libraries. Access to the sign-up sheets and to the mini-law libraries themselves will neither be delayed nor withdrawn from any inmate for disciplinary reasons, unless the disciplinary violation is associated with the misuse of the minilaw libraries.
140. Under the paging system established for the Restrictive Housing Unit, inmates will be allowed to order and receive a maximum of six (6) published case opinions per delivery from the prison's Main Law Library, which, at the institution's option, can be in the form of legible photocopies of opinions.
141. Deliveries of opinions under the paging system
will be made twice a week to inmates in each of the housing areas
39

covered by-this plan in accordance with an established schedule. There will be at least two days between deliveries.
142. Under this plan, the institution will have until the next delivery day to deliver copies of the requested opinions to an inmate for requests made on or before the previous delivery day.
143. Copies of opinions will be provided to inmates without charge and inmates will be permitted to retain the copies for a period of up to a month without charge. Thereafter, an inmate must either return the copies to prison personnel or he will be charged for them at the prevailing photocopying rate established by the institution for copying documents.
144. The ordering of opinions will be on request forms furnished by the institution. The forms will include space for an inmate to list the names and case citations of the opinions he wishes to order and will have a space for the officer to whom the inmate hands the request to record the date of the request. The forms will also include a place for institutional library personnel to sign his/her name and date, acknowledging receipt of the request form and a space to record the date of delivery. The original of the completed request from containing the above information (with the exception of the delivery date) will be retained by the institution to enable the request orders to be processed. A copy of the form will be given to the inmate for his records. The date of delivery will be recorded on the originals, as well as on the copies at the time of delivery.
40

145. Copies of the executed request/delivery forms will be retained by the institution for the first year of the plan's implementation to enable the parties to monitor compliance. Therefore, copies shall be retained for six (6) month periods for the same purpose.
Photocopying Facilities 146. DOC agrees to provide legal document photocopying services at all thirteen (13) institutions named in the Complaint. DOC will ensure the placement of equipment in order to provide on-site photocopying service at all thirteen (13) institutions named in the Complaint by December, 1994. 147. Inmates will be charged a reasonable fee for photocopies.
B. Vocational Woxlc and Educational Procrra'm** 1. Correctional Industries
148. Correctional Industries will expand between December 1993 and December 31, 1995 to allow for the employment (at full operation) of 725 additional inmates.
2. Non-Correctional Industry Work Opportunities 149. The DOC will offer some type of regular employment to each eligible inmate within six (6) months after the inmate arrives at his/her parent institution.
41

3. Educational Programs 150. The DOC agrees to maintain GED programs and the time between application and initial class to the existing time period range of zero (0) to one hundred and twenty (120) days. 151. The DOC will advocate and encourage the availability of GED and other educational programs. By Pennsylvania law, eligibility for and availability of educational programs is controlled by the Pennsylvania Department of Education. Educational services are provided in a cooperative manner by the DOC and the Pennsylvania Department of Education. C. Investigation Proced»T*es for Allegations of Use of Force 1. Investigation Procedures of the Special
Investigations Office 152. All allegations of abuse as that term is defined in the Inmate Abuse Allegation Monitoring Process policy (Abuse Monitoring Policy) dated November 2, 1992 will be tracked and monitored by the Special Investigations Office (SIO). 153. Employees receiving written or verbal notification from an inmate alleging an incident of abusive use of force will forward the complaint or information to the Superintendent or Security Office within 24 hours of receipt. The Superintendent or institutional Security Office will then forward this information to SIO within seventy-two (72) hours of its receipt for tracking, monitoring, or additional investigation pursuant to the Abuse Monitoring Process policy.
42

£54. All documentation relevant to the allegation including, when available, interviews, medical reports, physical evidence and reports will be forwarded to SIO in accordance with the Abuse Monitoring Process policy.
155. The DOC agrees to continue to follow the provisions of the Abuse Notification Process policy which permits SIO to review the investigations in any case, order additional investigative steps or procedures or assume direct responsibility for the investigation of a particular case.
156. Pursuant to the Abuse Monitoring Policy, the DOC shall develop a database concerning allegations of inmate abuse.
(a) The database will be maintained by SIO and shall include the name of the complainant, the name(s) of the staff against whom the complaint is made, a synopsis of the complaint and resolution inclusive of any employment action (if taken) by the DOC.
(b) Consistent with current practice and aided by the abuse notification database, administrators will continue to take appropriate action with respect to training, supervision or assignment of staff if any pattern emerges.
(c) The DOC has under consideration a computerized tracking program on an institutional level of all non-abuse grievances submitted pursuant to DC-ADM 804. This database will identify both staff and inmates involved, the location of the incident and type of grievance.
43

2. General Investigation Procedures 157. The Health Care Administrator or other medical personnel of each institution will document any abuse complaint using the medical incident/injury report form and provide a copy to the Shift Commander. This report will be forwarded before the end of the shift on which the complaint is received. This report will contain the inmate's account of the incident. 158. Any physical injuries that are reported by the inmate or otherwise observable by medical or other personnel pursuant to a claim of abuse or a suspicion of abuse will be immediately photographed and attached to the copy of the medical incident report submitted to the Shift Commander. 159. All DOC employees, medical staff and counselors are bound by the DOC Code of Ethics to report abuse complaints or incidents of abuse to the Shift Commander. 160. The DOC as a matter of policy treats reports of abuse of inmates by staff on a confidential basis where the person reporting the incident or complaint requests confidentiality. This policy will be communicated to all correctional officers and staff. 161. Where an inmate claims abuse by an unknown correctional officers or staff members the DOC agrees to make an effort to facilitate identification of the officers or staff if the inmate can provide sufficient information which would make identification possible. Such efforts can include the use of photographic array after the charging inmate provides sufficient
44

descriptive^ information which would promote making an identification possible. Witness statements and report(s) generated from the investigative process will also be used to assist in identifying unknown individuals.
162. The DOC will maintain photographs of all employees. These photographs will be updated every five (5) years.
163. Every effort shall be made to investigate fully all allegations/complaints of abuse raised via grievances before any resolution is reached. In resolving grievances, credibility determinations shall be made based on all relevant and material facts. The fact that the complaint of an inmate is not corroborated by other persons or physical evidence does not preclude the fact-finder from taking action. However, the factfinder may consider the lack of corroboration when weighing the credibility of the inmate's statements.
3. Videotaping Use of Force Situations 164. The DOC will continue its policy which provides that in instances where it is reasonably expected that physical force may have to be used, those incidents will be videotaped. Videotapes will not be used in circumstances where the wait for the video equipment will result in an unreasonable delay. Where it is reasonably anticipated that waiting for the video equipment will likely result in bodily injury or property damage, videotaping will not be required.
45

D. Inmate Safety; Transfers and Protective Custody 165. Consistent with existing policy, where the
physical separation from general population for inmates requiring protection from other inmates, for reasons that are not a result of their own behavior, is determined necessary, consistent with DC-ADM 802, the DOC will consider (among other factors) a transfer to another institution or jurisdiction (federal, ICC referral, county placement) in alleviating the need for protective custody.
166. The investigation and disposition of a protective custody request or referral shall be completed pursuant to the Administration of Restricted Housing Units and Protective Custody policy.
167. Where a transfer is not effected, protective custody shall be consistent with the provisions of the November 2, 1993 Protective Custody Policy.
168. The DOC will consider a transfer to another institution in efforts to alleviate the need for administrative custody where the need for physical separation from general population for inmates requiring protection from other inmates is for reasons which are the result of their own behavior within the institution.
E. RESTRICTED HOUSING UNITS AND SPECIAL MANAGEMENT UNIT
169. The DOC will purchase fixed cameras for or assign dedicated camcorders to each RHU/SMU. DOC will videotape the
46

intake process of all RHU and SMU inmates and all movements or other contacts with inmates in which it is reasonably anticipated that the use of force may be necessary- The routine activities of the RHUs and SMUs such as movement to showers or yard shall not be required to be videotaped under normal conditions.
170. The DOC will place a secure sitting/writing unit in SMU level 5 housing areas.
F. Sex Offender Programs 171. At present, the DOC provides a "non-admitters" or
educational component of a sex offenders program at all thirteen (13) named facilities.
172. The DOC shall summarize for the Board of Probation and Parole all program involvement, including any portion of a sex offender program an inmate completes. The "non-admitters" program is considered the educational component of the sex offender program.
173. Parole suitability is determined on staff assessment of potential harm to the community. Many factors are reviewed prior to making a parole recommendation. These factors include (but are not limited to) the nature of the crime, community sensitivity, level of community support.
G. Monitoring Provisions 174. Use and dissemination of any information produced
pursuant to the Monitoring Provisions which is marked "confidential" will be controlled by the Court's protective orders in this case.
47

-175. For a period of three (3) years from the date of the Court's approval of the Settlement Agreement, the DOC agrees to provide at three (3) month intervals a report which identifies the number of paralegal positions system wide and the status of whether those positions are filled or vacant. The DOC agrees to provide at three (3) month intervals the weekly schedule of hours actually worked by the paralegals (by hours and by institution).
176. The paralegals will maintain reports which will include the response time for paralegal responses to requests by inmates for legal assistance. For a period of three (3) years from the date of the Court's approval of the Settlement Agreement, the DOC agrees to provide at three (3) month intervals the number of requests for legal assistance at each institution from inmates in restricted housing. For a period of three (3) years from the date of the Court's approval of the Settlement Agreement, the DOC agrees to provide at three (3) month intervals all reports regarding the response times which shall include a list of requests that were not responded to by the paralegal. For a period of three (3) years from the date of the Court's approval of the Settlement Agreement, the DOC will require the paralegals to submit to the training/supervising paralegals, at three (3) month intervals, reports regarding those claims deemed frivolous. Upon written release from the inmates involved, plaintiffs' counsel will be given access to the reports pertaining to the frivolous claims.
48

The DOC will provide at three (3) month intervals, byinstitution, the number of inmate legal reference aides once they have begun employment. In addition, any documents used to track inmate requests directed to inmate legal reference aides and when those services are received will be made available to plaintiffs' counsel at three (3) month intervals.
177. For a period of three (3) years from the Court's approval of the Settlement Agreement, the DOC agrees to provide plaintiffs' counsel at three (3) month intervals copies of all regulations, other rules and directives (including amendments or other changes) pertaining to this section of the Settlement Agreement as they are published.
178. For a period of three (3) years from the date of the Court's approval of the Settlement Agreement, the DOC shall at three (3) month intervals provide to plaintiffs' counsel a report which identifies the number of inmates at each of the thirteen (13) state correctional institutions named in the complaint enrolled in correctional industries, other work or vocational programs and in education programs, to be broken down into the various categories: correctional industries, vocational training, other work assignments, GED programs, other educational programs.
179. For a period of three (3) years from the Court's approval of the Settlement Agreement, the DOC shall at three (3) month intervals provide to counsel for plaintiffs the following
49

data regarding investigations conducted pursuant to the Inmate Abuse Allegation Monitoring Process policy:
a. The number of cases actually investigated by the SIO;
b. The method of disposition of these cases by the SIO; and
c. The number of cases in which the SIO has ordered additional investigation by the SCI.
180. For a period of three (3) years from the Court's approval of the Settlement Agreement, the DOC shall at three (3) month intervals make available for review by plaintiffs' counsel all investigative records regarding allegations of abuse of force received by the SIO pursuant to the Inmate Abuse Allegation Monitoring Process policy.
181. For a period of three (3) years from the Court's approval of the Settlement Agreement, the DOC shall at three (3) month intervals provide plaintiffs' counsel access to the tracking data described in SVI(E)(1) of the Inmate Abuse Allegation Monitoring Process policy, concerning allegations of abuse of force by correctional officers and other staff.
182. During the three (3) year period following the Court's approval of the Settlement Agreement, on request of plaintiffs' counsel, defense counsel shall provide information concerning placement of inmate(s) in protective custody in accordance with paragraph 165.
183. For a period of three (3) years following the Court's approval of the Settlement Agreement, at three (3) month
50

intervals, defense counsel shall provide the following information relative to placement of inmates in administrative custody in accordance with paragraph 168:
a. By institution, the name and time of commitment in administrative custody of each inmate placed in administrative custody for reasons of protection of the inmate;
b. By institution, the names of each inmate transferred to another institution for reasons of protection of that inmate. 184. For a period of three (3) years following the
Court's approval of the Settlement Agreement, at three (3) month intervals, on the request of plaintiffs' counsel, defense counsel shall provide access to the videotapes specified in paragraph 163.
185. For a period of three (3) years following the Court's approval of the Settlement Agreement, the DOC at three (3) month intervals shall identify which facilities offer a nonadmitter sex offender program.
VI. HIV/AIDS A. Substantive Provisions
186. The DOC shares the view that discrimination against people with HIV based on the risk of transmission of HIV
51

is not justified. in this regard, the DOC agrees to the following:
a. The DOC is committed to a policy of full and equal employment opportunity for prisoners with HIV. As a general rule, individuals with HIV infection, including individuals included on any contagious disease notification list, will be precluded from a work assignment only if the individual would pose a direct medical threat to the health of others.
b. Negative reactions of DOC employees do not justify restrictions on the employment of HIV positive individuals.
c. As a general rule, negative reactions of other prisoners do not justify restrictions on the employment of HIV positive individuals.
d. DOC recognizes that unjustified fear or prejudice against people with HIV cannot be overcome without consistently firm enforcement of nondiscriminatory policies by DOC at both the central office and institutional level. The problem of negative prisoner or employee reaction will be strongly dealt with through education and a tangible commitment on the part of DOC to implement an equal employment policy.
e. On occasion, the negative reactions of other prisoners to the presence of a prisoner with HIV in a particular job may pose a significant, documented'risk that can be
52

prevented most effectively by removing the individual with HIV from the job or not placing him in that job in the first instance. On such occasions, the institution's administration may act accordingly. The security justification for such removal shall be specific and documented in the prisoners record. Reasonable efforts will be made to place the prisoner in a job with comparable pay. While a transfer may be considered, the DOC will exercise this option based on its assessment of custody and classification concerns, program and space availability. Further, the prisoner shall have a remedy under the grievance system to challenge the security justification. If it is determined that the prisoner was improperly excluded from employment the prisoner will receive the differential between the lost pay occasicned by the improper security-based denial of employment and any compensation s/he received from the DOC. The DOC, as part of its ongoing program of education and training, will attempt to reduce unjustified fear of HIV among prisoners. The DOC recognizes that the problem of negative prisoner reaction to an HIV-infected prisoner may be
i
reduced by staff scrupulously protecting the prisoner's medical privacy. At present, there are no special or distinct medical screening requirements for individuals
53

with HIV. Special or distinct medical screening requirements may be instituted for prisoners with HIV only upon a medically based determination that it is appropriate for the control of this disease. 187. The DOC agrees that the policy of universal precautions as set forth in OH 105.03 constitutes the most effective way to address infection control issues regarding HIV infection. Full implementation of OM 105.03 renders the Contagious Disease Notification Policy (CDNP) unnecessary and counterproductive as a means of infection control. 188. The DOC and the Certified Union Representative of its custody staff, AFSCME, will enter into good faith negotiations for a new contract. The DOC will bargain in good faith during the upcoming negotiations and its position will reflect the principles set forth in paragraph 187. During the course of these negotiations, the DOC will bargain for the replacement of the CDNP with a policy to address possible security concerns arising from inmate attempts to use a disease as a weapon or method of intimidation. The DOC may propose a new policy that would: (a) allow correctional staff to be notified of the
identities of inmates with contagious diseases, as presently defined in the CDNP, who have a record of serious violent behavior. "Serious violent behavior" shall mean a history of actual or threatened violent or assaultive behavior such as
54

_ assaults, biting, scratching or the use of blood or excrement as a weapon, or means of intimidation;
(b) include periodic review of the list of inmates and the removal of the name of any inmate who has demonstrated an ability to positively modify serious violent behavior; and
(c) not be framed as a medical policy, and expressly state that notification to staff is founded on security concerns and is not required or intended as a means of infection control.
Nothing in this paragraph relates to or affects the DOC's recognition of corrections officers as first responders for the purposes of Act 148 of 1990.
189. The parties anticipate and intend that a notification list as defined in paragraph 188 above would contain far fewer names than the current CDNP.
190. If the DOC and AFSCME are unable to reach an agreement reflecting the terms set forth in paragraphs 187 through 189 above, and the issue of contagious disease notification is submitted to binding arbitration, the DOC will advocate the position set forth in paragraphs 187 through 189.
191. The parties believe that acceptance by all staff of the universal precautions policy embodied in OM 105.03 is enhanced by effective HIV education.
55

192. In order to enhance the current education program, the DOC will implement the following changes:
(a) Establish the goal of limiting HIV training sessions to fifty participants, as resources allow.
(b) Ensure that every training session is conducted by an educator or educators who is or are qualified to address both correctional and medical issues. Qualification to address medical issues consists of formal nursing, medical or public health training.
(c) Replace the current training film, "Beyond Fear," with a more up-to-date production. Plaintiffs' counsel and the DOC will both attempt to identify alternatives.
(d) Establish an HIV Educational Review Panel, drawn from members selected by AFSCME and management and convened by an independent contractor or the Office of Administration, to review educational materials and practices at reasonable intervals to ensure that training remains responsive to institutional policies, medical facts, social developments and the concerns of staff.
193. The DOC will work with the Governor's Office of Administration to provide an intensive HIV training course for
56

management and AFSCME union leaders and opinion-makers from all DOC institutions. Such training shall:
(a) be completed within one year of the signing of this agreement;
(b) include both substantive HIV education as well as discussion/ evaluation of current educational programs and the educational needs of correctional staff; and
(c) identify individuals in AFSCME and management to participate in periodic future evaluations of HIV education as set forth in paragraph 192(d) above.
194. The parties note that AFSCME has agreed to ask plaintiffs to present their position on notification and universal precautions to its H-l Policy/Negotiating Committee.
B. MONITORING 195. At the intervals stated below, DOC shall compile
a list for each institution of the prisoners with HIV who have signed a written consent to disclosure form, which complies with Act 148 of 1990, for this particular purpose and are holding job(s) (including vocational education programs, such as barber school). Plaintiffs' counsel will provide the DOC with a mutually acceptable release form and a letter explaining the purpose of the release, which shall be provided to each inmate whose name is selected under this monitoring system. As to the prisoners with HIV who have not signed written consent to disclosure forms, the DOC will supply only the number of
57

prisoners working and their jobs assignments so long as that number is not reasonably likely to lead to the possible identification of the individual(s). For purposes of this agreement, whenever the total number of prisoners working at a defined type of job is less than five more than the prisoners with HIV, there will be a presumption that disclosing the number of prisoners with HIV assigned to that job will likely reveal the identity of those prisoners. The answers will be supplied to plaintiffs' counsel six months, one year, two years and three years after the approval of this agreement. At the same time, DOC will also provide copies of:
(a) any policy changes or new policies relevant to HIV or that would impact on the HIV infected prisoners' employment;
(b) any grievance (including all decisions by DOC) by a prisoner arising from a denial of prison employment based on HIV status, harassment by inmates or staff because of HIV status, or disclosure of HIV information; and
(c) a summary of every disciplinary procedure against an employee (but excluding the name and information that could reasonably lead to their identification) initiated against an employee for any breach of confidentiality owed to, or concerning discrimination against, a prisoner with HIV.
58

The involved prisoner will be requested to sign a written consent to disclosure form. Subject to the waiver, the prisoner's name will be disclosed to counsel for all parties under the protective order and its amendments.
196. At six month intervals over the three years following the approval of this agreement, DOC will provide to plaintiffs' counsel each institution's current contagious disease notification list compiled under the CDNP or subsequent policy developed pursuant to this agreement. Such list will be edited to remove identifying inmate information, but shall include the specific contagious disease(s) with which each inmate has been diagnosed, the dates of first inclusion on the list, and, with respect to any successor policy to the CDNP as discussed in this agreement, the security justification for the inmate's inclusion.
197. With respect to a policy developed pursuant to this agreement, in addition to the material described in paragraph 196 above, the DOC shall provide complete documentation supporting the finding that an inmate has a record of serious violent behavior. Such documentation shall be provided for the second and fifth inmate on each institution's list provided pursuant to paragraph 196 above. The information will be redacted to remove identifying information, unless the inmate has signed a written consent to disclosure form, subject to which the information will be disclosed to counsel for both parties. Plaintiffs' counsel will provide the DOC with a mutually acceptable release form and a letter explaining the purpose of
59

the release-, which shall be provided to each inmate whose name is selected under this monitoring system.
60

VII. ENVIR6NMENTAL/FIRE SAFETY ISSUES A. Substantive Provisions System Wide 198. The DOC has in place a policy that requires all
reused mattresses and bedding materials be sanitized before reissuance. The mattress ticking and cotton cores (otherwise known as batting) of these mattresses are made flame retardant by being boric acid treated.
199. The DOC, as is true of all departments of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, has and continues to develop five (5) year Capital Budget plans. Plaintiffs have reviewed the present five (5) year Capital Budget plan and have found it to be acceptable.
200. The DOC conducts annual inspections of all food service areas by properly trained individuals employed by the DOC but who are not employed in the institutions they inspect.
201. The Department of Environmental Resources (DER) performs routine site inspections at all DOC water and sewer treatment plants as well as inspecting those operated by municipal authorities from whom the DOC purchases such services.
202. The DOC will establish standardized preventative maintenance programs system-wide. This.will consist of a personal computer for each institution with a software package designed for this purpose. It is estimated that this will be accomplished within one year after the funds become available.
61

203. The use of temporary housing areas is in the process of being phased out as appropriate additional bed space comes on line. The DOC has no present intent to reopen those temporary housing areas. The basement cells in S Block, SCIDallas have never been considered temporary housing as they are permanent cells. Designation of multiple occupancy cells will be consistent with the prototypical standards based on security level and square footage.
204. Vermin control is addressed at all DOC institutions on an ongoing basis.
205. The DOC is committed to purchasing appropriate light fixtures that are rated to provide 20 foot candles of light at desk level and grooming area whenever required to complete new or renovation construction. In addition, hi-intensity type desk lamps may be purchased by the inmates and used in the housing units (except where prohibited such as in restricted housing units).
206. The State Correctional Institutions at Dallas, Graterford, Huntingdon and Rockview have passive thermal convection ventilation shafts located in each cell. Plaintiffs are encouraged by the plans to employ these cells as single occupancy cells. As a consequence of the Life Safety Code project completed at SCI-Rockview and the Life Safety Code
i
projects scheduled for SCI-Graterford and SCI-Huntingdon the ventilation in common areas (corridors) of the cell blocks will be enhanced. Once the Life Safety Code projects are completed at
62

all three of these institutions, conditioned supply air will be provided by air handling units which will both draw return air from the cell blocks and fresh air from outside. In each project, a portion of the cell block air is exhausted to the outside.
207. Only inmates who have been appropriately trained and certified will be used in DOC abatement projects. The DOC has in place a policy establishing safety standards for asbestos containing materials. The present policy is in the process of being revised. Abatement at some DOC institutions is an ongoing process.
208. Issues concerning food temperatures (a) The DOC is currently updating its Food
Service policies and procedures to reasonably assure that all U.S.F.D.A. recommendations are met. Satellite feeding will be reduced with the phasing out of some temporary housing areas. Satellite feeding at permanent areas (e.g., RHUs, infirmaries) is presently being evaluated to assure sanitation requirements are met.
(b) The DOC monitors all refrigeration and freezing units to assure compliance with ACA accreditation standard No. 4-4036.
(c) The DOC, as part of the revised Food Service policies, is establishing a procedure to monitor the accuracy of thermometers.
63

209. The DOC agrees that whenever a sanitary fixture is inoperable and incapable of repair within twenty-four hours that the inmate(s) assigned to that area will be provided access to sanitary facilities.
210. The water supplies for the DOC's institutions comply with DER's requirements.
Individual Institutions SCI-Cresson
211. (a) Food Service - the garbage room wall and ceiling have been renovated, The satellite kitchen dishwasher room has been closed (so that the metal rack is no longer in use) and any mold growth and peeling paint were removed as part of ongoing inspection and improvement programs. Similarly, a smoking ban in kitchen is strictly enforced, the lighting for the dishwasher area and walk-in cooler has been improved, the air gap in the pot and pan sink has been corrected, numerous holes and openings in the kitchen area have been closed and extermination efforts have been improved. The freezers and refrigerators are maintained at proper temperatures and a covering for the overhead light in the vegetable preparation room has been reinstalled.
(b) Living Conditions - E block's (also known as the RHU) temperature variance was corrected by rebalancing HVAC system.
(c) Health and Safety - The items listed (discontinuance of the outside pill line, proper storage of butane gas, proper storage and disposal of biomedical waste and
64

proper disposal of x-ray waste) have been corrected as part of ongoing inspection and improvement programs. The pill line has been moved in doors.
SCI-Dallas 212. (a) Food Service - The mold growth from the produce cooler, milk cooler ceiling and dishwasher room was removed as part of ongoing inspection and improvement programs. Similarly, light guards have been installed for all food service lights, and any peeling paint in the cooling units has been fixed. A hand washing sink has been provided in the kitchen area and all food service personnel are required to wash their hands before work. The necessary sanitation agent is provided, all food contact surfaces are sanitized and inmate food service workers are trained in appropriate sanitation practices. An air gap in the scrap sink spray nozzle has been corrected, the dishwasher is maintained at proper temperatures and previous mold growth in that area has been addressed.
(b) Space and Occupancy - The items identified in plaintiffs' expert report regarding the S Block basement area have been corrected as part of ongoing inspection and improvement programs. Sanitary fixtures are being properly maintained. K Dorm is not being used for housing as a consequence of phasing in of new prisons. A ventilation system for D-Block Annex is to be requested in the 1997/98 DOC Capital Budget Five (5) Year Plan. It is estimated that it can be completed within four years of obtaining legislative approval. Water temperature levels are
65

controlledby temperature controlled tempering valves. The DOC has had the Department of General Services assess the structural integrity of the mattress factory walls. It is the determination of the Department of General Services that the walls do not pose a threat to the inmate population because: 1. the brickwork is a facade which is separate from the cement block wall; 2. the walls are non-load bearing; and 3. inmates are kept away from the outside brickwork by fences. Roof repairs have been part of an ongoing maintenance program. Further funds will be sought in the next capital budget. The leak that caused problems in S Block basement corridor has been corrected. Replacing and repairing cell window screens are part of ongoing preventative maintenance.
(c) Health and Safety - SCI-Dallas maintains adequate supplies of mattresses, pillows, pillow cases, blankets, sheets and mattress covers. All mentally unstable inmates are housed in psychiatric observation rooms which do not have the strong hooks.
SCI-Frackville 213. (a) Food Service - Bread boxes are placed on the counter, a sanitizing agent is employed for washing the tables and the mold on the ceiling in the dishwasher room has been eliminated.
(b) Space and Occupancy (1) The ventilation imbalance in the
infirmary has been corrected.
66

—

(2) The DOC has discontinued use of the CI

dorm as a housing area consistent with existing phase-in of new

facilities.

(3) Any problems with the hot and cold water

in the Modular Unit have been corrected.

(4) Improved shower ratios will be achieved

through phasing in new facilities. SCI-Frackville provides the

opportunity to shower to all inmates according to DOC policy and

American Correctional Association recommended frequencies.

(c) Health and Safety - Biomedical waste in the

Infirmary is being properly stored.

SCI-Graterford

214. (a) Food Services - Broken, cracked or sprung

windows in the kitchen corridor are corrected as necessary as

part of the ongoing maintenance of the institution. Food service

equipment is being properly maintained, the water temperature in

the inmate wash room near the kitchen has been reduced, the air

gap in the kitchen sink has been eliminated and the dishwasher in

the O.S.U. kitchen is fully operational and maintained. Noise

levels in the dining rooms will be reduced with construction of 4

new dining rooms scheduled for completion December 1996.

(b) Living Conditions - The ventilation system in

the O.S.U. has been repaired as has the ventilation for its

showers. The shower rooms for the five (5) original cell blocks

are being improved as part of the Life Safety Code Project,

presently estimated to be completed by the end of May 1995.

67

Noise levels will be also reduced with completion of the Life Safety Code Project. The ratio of shower heads to prisoners in the five (5) original cell blocks will improve upon completion of Life Safety Code Project in May 1995. The number of shower heads will increase from 32 shower heads for approximately 400 cells to 56 shower heads for approximately 390 cells (or in other words, as these cells are considered one person cells there will be one shower head for each seven inmates). Maintaining sanitary fixtures in a clean and operational manner, providing vacuum breakers for all toilets, maintaining an adequate water supply and maintaining the RHU hot water temperatures in the proper range, are all part of ongoing maintenance. A new water line was completed by end of January 1994. A back flow preventer has been installed on the janitor's sink in the shoe shop. The O.B.U. was closed in August 1992 and has not reopened. The old windows in cell blocks A through E are in the process of being replaced. The roof leaks in the O.S.U. have been corrected. Any need for stools in the O.S.U. dining area will be obviated by new dining rooms which are part of the kitchen/dining room project. Similarly, improved sanitary fixtures in the O.S.U. are a part of ongoing maintenance. Lastly in regard to the O.S.U., the sewage leak in the rear of the O.S.U. has been corrected. Additional toilets and attorney visiting rooms in the visiting area will be addressed in next DOC Capital Budget Five (5) Year Plan. The smoking ban in the Commissary is enforced and the overhead leak has been corrected. Scraping and repainting ceiling of the
68

Commissary will be corrected upon completion of the Life Safety Code Project to be completed May 1995. Vacuum breakers have been installed on the visiting area hose and dairy hoses and screens are provided for all operable windows.
(c) Health and Safety - Insuring proper tool control practices in C.I. shops is already part of procedures. The only wiring which is in the Chemical Storage Room (which reference defendants understand to be to the C.I. flammable storage room) has been installed by the contractor working on the Life Safety Code project for the emergency lighting. The saw in the Carpenter Shop has a safety guard, the vent system made of cardboard and electrical hazards identified by plaintiffs' experts in the Electrical Shop has been removed and corrected, the polarity of the receptacle in the Welding Shop has been corrected. The receptacle with the missing cover in the D&A Unit has been corrected and the inoperable lights in the Warehouse have been corrected. The upholstered chairs in the Barber Shop are being repaired one at a time as chairs have to be sent out to SCI-Dallas. When one is returned, another is sent. It will take approximately six to eight months to complete this project.
SCI-Huntingdon 215. (a) Food Services - H Block has tables in the cells. B Block will be converted into a D&A Unit and classified a general population housing unit within two years. The smoking ban is enforced in the Kitchen and both the air gap in the
69

kitchen and "pots and pans" sinks and the proper temperatures for each cycle of the dishwasher have been corrected.
(b) Living Conditions - The "F" and "H" dorms are to be closed as new facilities are fully activated and, as mentioned above, B Block will become the D&A Unit, a general population housing unit, which resolve plaintiffs' concerns for an indoor exercise area for this unit. "H" dorm will be closed in approximately three months from the date the agreement is approved. The D&A Unit will be moved to "F" dorm as a temporary housing area for that unit until the Life Safety Code project is completed on B-Block (estimated to be completed within two years). Replacing toilets is a part of ongoing maintenance. The air bubbles observed in toilets, toilets not operating on the first flush, and an observed overhead pipe leak in the shirt and pants factory during the sanitation tour were isolated incidents which have been corrected. A vacuum breaker has been installed in the hose connection in the Carpenter Shop. The ratio of showers to inmates is being addressed by reduction in population. SCI-Huntingdon provides the opportunity to shower to all inmates according to DOC policy and at ACA recommended frequencies. The number of water closets, urinals and sinks in each C.I. shop meets or exceeds the requirements established in 34 Pa. Code, Chapter 42 (§§41.41 through 41.105).
(c) Ventilation - The ventilation system in the D Block basement area, increased ventilation for the B Block shower, the need for vents in the B Block store room and the
70

temperature- and humidity disparities observed on B Block will be addressed by the Life Safety Code Project. While there is no estimated completion date for this project, the best estimate presently available is that phase 1 of the two phase project will begin October 1994. The wood covering that was located over the pipe chase roof has been corrected. Monies to address concern for improved ventilation in the Carpenter Shop is to be addressed through the 1994/95 budget. The ventilation in the Paint Shop has been improved and an exhaust system has been installed. Hearing protection is supplied to inmates working in the C.I. Shops. The filters in the ventilation system for Modular Units # 3 & 4 are changed monthly and the air circulated by that system includes fresh air. Three exhaust fans have been installed in the print shop. The beam in the D Block shower room, the sewage pipe in the E Block basement, the leak in the Modular Unit #1 roof and the peeling paint have all been corrected. The money necessary to repair the leak in the C.I. areas (buildings #5 & 5A) have been requested in 1994/95 budget request.
(d) Health and Safety - The electrical wires and cable wires in the utility tunnel have been separated, the electrical box for the grill has been corrected, excess laundry lint buildup has been reduced, excessive storage of old machinery in the C.I. attic has been reduced, the support columns in the Modular Unit #1 have been secured, hazardous chemicals in the Print Shop are being properly disposed of and the chemicals in the Cutting Room are properly marked. Smoke detectors in the
71

inmate property room will be addressed by the Life Safety Code Project. Radiator covers for the radiators in the D&A area are to be installed by October 1994. Plaintiffs' concerns regarding the infirmary (improved control of sharps, repair of the window in the patient bathroom, assuring that the Drug Room cabinet is locked when not in use, proper storage of biomedical waste and medical equipment and routine meetings for the infection control committee) have been addressed and corrected.
SCI-Retreat 216. (a) Food Services - The kitchen floor leak is being corrected as funding has been identified. All cleaning chemicals are properly labeled, the drain line for the vegetable sink and potato peeler have been repaired, the peeling ceiling paint has been repaired and the spray nozzle for the scrap sink has had a vacuum breaker installed. Food contact surfaces are maintained in a clean condition as part of the ongoing sanitation program. The proper temperatures for the cycles of the dishwasher are maintained. The pipe leak in the basement storage area has been corrected. Inmate worker training in proper sanitation practices is an ongoing process.
(b) Living Conditions - Improved shower ratios will be achieved through phasing in new facilities. There are 12 showers per cell block (A through D). There are presently 110 cells in each of those cell blocks. SCI-Retreat provides the
72

opportunity to shower to all inmates according to DOC policy and at ACA recommended frequencies.
SCI-Rockview 217. (a) Food Service - Ventilation in the dishwasher area, hot holding carts, mold growth in the bakery, the use of plastic garbage bags for food transport and the hole in the Cannery pipe have been corrected. All utensils are being handed out by food service workers who are wearing plastic gloves. A handwashing sink has been installed in the bakery and a three bay sink is being installed in the ice cream room. Food pans are stored on a Baine-Marie and not on counter tops.
(b) Living Conditions - The need for vacuum breakers for the East Wing (and other areas if applicable), repair of the West Wing Sewer cap, maintaining proper water temperatures at all sanitary fixtures (including Modular Units 1 & 2 ) , the leaks in the B Block roof and the roofs of Modular Units 1 & 2, the volume of the East Wing and West Wing speakers, operation of the outside louvers on East Wing and Modular Unit #2, the need for a dust collection system in the Carpentry Shop, ventilation in the welding area and better balance of temperatures between top and bottom tiers have been corrected. Removal of mold, soap scum and stains on shower walls is an ongoing preventative maintenance item as is repair of fixtures. Downdraft unit heaters will be installed to reduce drafts on East Wing and West Wing. A hose to prevent possible contamination of the potable water supply in the B block shower room has been
73

installed. Improved shower ratios will be achieved through phasing in new facilities. SCI-Rockview provides the opportunity to shower to all inmates according to DOC policy and at ACA recommended frequencies.
(c) Health & Safety - There are no cells that are triple locked. The fire door in the paint shop area has been made operational. The strong hooks have been removed from all cells. Chemical waste from the dental dark room is properly disposed of. The cross connection in the janitor's closet noted by plaintiffs' expert has been corrected. The institution insures that chemical, toxic and biomedical waste from the infirmary is properly disposed of.
-Swithfield 218. (a) Living Conditions - Removing peeling paint, corrosion, water damage to ceilings, walls and floors in the showers is part of the ongoing maintenance program at the institution. The problem with the surface water leaking into the day rooms is being addressed. The institution laid the pipes necessary to tie the new spouting into the storm drains. This has resolved most of this problem. Presently, the institution is regrading the slope of the ground against the dayroom walls to cause the water to run away from building foundations. This should resolve the remaining problem. The C.I. Dorm has been closed and is now used for its original intended purpose.
(b) Health and Safety - Non-flammable storage cabinets have been installed in the Auto Shop to contain
74

flammable liquids. Plans have been developed and corrections will be implemented as resources permit to insure storage of any chemicals in a warehouse that is properly ventilated. All chemicals are properly labeled.
SCI-Wavmart 219. (a) Food Services
(1) Food Sanitation - A sanitizing agent is used to clean dining tables and food contact surfaces. The potato peeler' has been repaired and an insulated box, which is specifically designed for food transportation, is used to carry food to the Powerhouse.
(2) Food Maintenance - Flammable liquids are properly stored and the pressure gauge on the dishwasher has been replaced.
(b) Living Conditions (1) Sanitary Fixtures - All showers have
methods to control the flow of water. The repair of inoperable or leaking fixtures is a part of ongoing maintenance. Hot water is provided to all cell blocks (including C-l AND G-l Dorms). The institution has doubled the duration that shower water will flow from a single push of the button.
(2) Laundry - A centralized laundry has been installed.
(3) Space and Occupancy - Two dorms contain more than fifty occupants, beds are not placed against wall vents or fireplaces (which are not used and are sealed). If the
75

plaintiffs-insist, a minimum of five linear feet between breathing areas when prisoners on their beds will be established through compulsory assignment of direction that prisoners may lay on them.
(4) Noise - Levels have been reduced, (c) Health and Safety - Beds are not placed in close proximity to electrical boxes. Storage is properly labeled and stored for fire safety. X-ray and photo fluids and biomedical waste are properly disposed of by an outside vendor. B. Monitoring 220. The DOC is negotiating a Memorandum of Understanding with the DER to provide/ within its area of expertise, independent oversight of the DOC's compliance of the environmental aspects of this agreement as to the food service facilities at the State Correctional Institutions at Cresson, Dallas, Graterford, Huntingdon, Rockview and Waymart. This Memorandum will be in effect for a period of three (3) years from the date of the Court's approval of the Settlement Agreement and will provide for annual inspections at the six institutions listed above in this paragraph. The DER will assign individuals with appropriate credentials. In addition, the DOC will either contract with the DER or another appropriate source which is independent of the DOC (such as a university) to inspect and verify compliance with the specific assurances made in Section VII above regarding the State Correctional Institutions at
76

Cresson, Dallas, Graterford, Huntingdon, Rockview and Waymart that are not part of the inspection of food services.
221. The DOC will produce for inspection and copying (subject to the protective orders filed in this case) the following documents pertaining to the State Correctional Institutions at Cresson, Dallas, Graterford, Huntingdon, Rockview and Waymart upon request and not more frequently than once every six months, pertaining to the agreements made above: entries from block logs showing sanitizing/replacing of mattresses upon specific request; DER reports concerning water treatment and sewage treatment; reports as to the census of temporary housing areas which the DOC has stated it intends to phase out; incident reports which pertain to any instances when asbestos exposure has resulted in medical monitoring of an inmate; inspection reports for asbestos; reports pertaining to improvements to SCISmithfield to deal with ground water drainage; biennial surveys performed for the Department of General Services; annual food service inspection reports; semi-annual reports updating the status of Life Safety Code Projects at SCI-Graterford, SCIHuntingdon and SCI-Waymart; the preventative maintenance plans for SCI-Graterford and SCI-Camp Hill (once devised); extraordinary occurrence reports regarding fires or which implicate an environmental or fire safety hazard as the cause of a significant injury; and the revised asbestos policy, once it has been finalized.
77

VIII. FIRE SAFETY CHECKLIST A. All Institutions 222. The DOC provides non-combustible privacy curtains
for purchase through the commissary at institutions in which such curtains are permitted. The use of door wedges on any fire door will be discontinued as automatic releases tied into the smoke detectors are installed and all fire/smoke doors will be labeled: "Close at all times." The DOC agrees that improper use of extension cords should be avoided and agrees to enforce existing policy on this issue. Fixed wiring will not be installed in place of the proper use of extension cords. Emergency releases have been installed in all walk-in coolers. Every institution maintains a complete set of material safety data sheets for the hazardous substances located at that institution. These are available twenty-four (24) hours a day, seven (7) days a week, for review upon appropriate request. All institutions comply with the 1981 life safety code requirement in that emergency lighting is available within ten (10) seconds of a power failure.
223. The DOC will provide in each cell as part of the cell furnishings a non-combustible wastebasket within six months of the Court's approval of the terms of dismissal. The DOC will provide in each cell as part of the cell furnishings a noncombustible storage container of approximately 5.8 cubic feet for each inmate assigned to the cell. It is presently estimated that these will be phased in over the three (3) year monitoring period. In addition, each inmate may purchase either two file
78

boxes or a_footlocker. This will provide each inmate with approximately 4 cubic feet of additional storage space.
224. (a) SCI-Cresson - All housing units are capable
of being evacuated within Life Safety Code time frames. The gym exit door is not chained shut. MHU clean and dirty linens are not stored together. A fusible link has been installed in the parts washing machine. There is at least an 18 inch clearance between the sprinkler heads and any obstruction.
(b) SCI-Dallas - All housing units are capable of being evacuated within Life Safety Code time frames. The fire alarms and smoke detectors are operable/ the polarity of the receptacle in the mattress factory has been reversed, an exhaust system has been installed in the maintenance garage and the open ground in the duplex receptacle in the tailor shop has been eliminated. There is at least an 18 inch clearance between the sprinkler heads and any obstruction. The integrity of the Mattress Factory walls at SCI-Dallas has been studied as stated in paragraph 212(b). A safety catch has been installed to the hydraulic auto lift in the garage.
(c) SCI-Frackville - The accumulation of storage above the control panel for the air handling unit in Housing Unit #6 has been removed. SCI-Frackville has a maintenance contract for the fire alarm system in place. No spray painting is permitted inside any building at SCI-Frackville.
79

~~ (d) SCI-Grater ford - The emergency unlocking procedures, block compartmentalization, additional emergencylighting, the smoke detection system, the compartmentalization of the C.I. Shops from the main corridor and the smoke detection system in the former EDCC will be addressed by the Life Safety Code Project which is under way and anticipated to be completed by May 1995. Adequate clearance is maintained for sprinkler head in all storage areas and all exit lights have been repaired.
(e) SCI-Huntingdon - Proper storage facilities for chemical drums in the C.I Soap Plant and eye wash facilities in areas in which chemicals are used have been established. All open ground receptacles in the C.I. Garment Plant have been eliminated. In addition, eight new properly grounded outlets have already been installed. The improvements to the paint spray booth (exhaust system, explosion proof electrical fixtures, and compartmentalization) have been accomplished. An automatic sprinkler system is to be completed by the end of July 1995. Improvements to the locking system and a dust collection system for the Carpenter Shop will require additional funding under the Capital Projects Budget. A smoke detection system for blocks A through F, an improved emergency exit emergency lights and closing devices for the doors for the D&A Unit, further compartmentalization of D Block and a fire alarm system are the subject of the Life Safety Code Project.
(f) SCI-Retreat - There is a maintenance contract for the fire alarm system. The infirmary suction machine is
80

wired to the emergency generator. Shelves have been installed in the inmate property room for the storage of clothes and the sprinkler valve in the storage room is chained and locked in the open position.
(g) SCI-Rockview - The fire alarm panel in Modular Units 1 & 2, the smoke detectors in Modular Units 3 & 4, the dust collection system for the Carpentry Shop, the receptacles in the Refrigerator Shop, Electrical Shop and Sheet Metal Shop, guards for the metal rolling machine, a fusible link for the parts washing machine in the Auto Shop a carbon monoxide system in the Tractor Shop and protective guards for the fan in Forestry Camp Dorm 2 have been corrected or installed as appropriate. The fire alarm system is connected to a central control station.
(h) SCI-Smithfield - Combustible material HAS been removed from the stairwell leading to the main observation tower. Mattresses for the RHU are not stored in the exit area or the bathroom. The accumulation of combustibles has been removed from the abatement area inside the Recreation Storage area.
(I) SCI-Waymart - Improvements to the locking system and additional emergency lighting smoke barriers and upgraded smoke detectors will be addressed by Life Safety Code Project. The lights are now connected to the emergency generator, all exit lights have been repaired, as necessary, and the alarm system in D-l Block has been corrected.
81

B. Compliance Procedures 225. The DOC is in the process of negotiating a
memorandum of understanding with the DER or an independent entity (such as a university) to provide, within its area of expertise, independent oversight of the DOC's compliance. The Pennsylvania Department of Labor & Industry will continue to provide those services set forth in their statutory and regulatory mandate (that is, inspect buildings after construction/substantial reconstruction for the purpose of issuing Occupancy Permits and responding to complaints that a structure does not meet requirements under the Code Against Fire and Panic).
226. Reporting - For a period of three (3) years from the date of the Court's approval of the Settlement Agreement, the DOC agrees to provide at six (6) month intervals, upon request, the following reports to verify the DOC's continued compliance with its assurances concerning the Environmental/Fire Safety Issues: fire alarm maintenance contracts for SCI-Frackville and SCI-Retreat; capital budget projects and non-recurring maintenance projects. In addition, defendants will supply plaintiffs' counsel with an affidavit or declaration stating when the DOC started using boric acid treated cotton batting for institutional mattresses for general population housing areas.
227. Implementation Timetable - Unless otherwise stated above, the DOC will implement the various provisions concerning the Environmental/Fire Safety issues within two years of the Court's approval of the Settlement Agreement, provided
82

that appropriations are obtained to cover the costs these proposals will incur. IX. MISCKT.T.ANEOUS
228. This Settlement Agreement is not a consent decree nor do the parties intend it to be construed as such. It does not operate as an adjudication of the merits of the litigation.
229. The Court's approval of this Agreement is sought solely to comply with Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and not to convert this Agreement to a court order or otherwise convert this Agreement to a consent decree.
230. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to, nor shall it be construed as, an admission of liability of or by any party.
231. This Settlement Agreement is not enforceable by the plaintiffs or plaintiff class. If the Agreement is accepted -—\ by the Court, the action will be dismissed without prejudice on the following terms and conditions:
(a) The defendants shall make all good faith efforts to effectuate the provisions of Sections III-VIII of the Settlement Agreement.
(b) As the case is dismissed without prejudice, the plaintiffs may at any time file a new Complaint raising some or all of the issues presented in this action, and any other issues that are justiciable in this Court.
(c) If within three (3) years of the date of the dismissal of this action, the plaintiffs, by their current class
83

counsel, refile on any issues presented by this action, the parties agree that the case should be considered a "related case" under the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and agree it should be assigned to the Honorable Jan E. DuBois.
(d) All discovery that has been provided by the parties in this action shall be deemed to be part of discovery in any new action filed pursuant to 1f23l(c). Plaintiffs' counsel shall maintain control and custody of all discovery provided to date for a period of three years to allow for proper monitoring of this Settlement Agreement. Plaintiffs' counsel shall continue to abide by the provisions of all protective orders and/or other agreements with respect to the discovery material.
(e) If any of the corrections issues that were the subject of testimony in the trial of the corrections phase are raised in a new action filed pursuant to 1F23l(c), the testimony and evidence introduced in the corrections phase of this case shall be admissible on the merits in the new action.
(f) Notice of the Settlement Agreement shall be provided to the plaintiff class by personal notice to all class representatives. In addition, copies of the notice will be posted in all law libraries. The Court will hold whatever hearings it deems appropriate before it approves or rejects the Settlement Agreement. After Court approval of the Settlement Agreement, the case will be dismissed without prejudice immediately thereafter.
84

(g) [The issue of the application of this Agreement to institutions other than the thirteen (13) institutions named in the complaint has by agreement been left to the Court for decision. The decision of the Court on this issue will be inserted here in place of this language once a decision is made.]
(h) The parties have agreed to a $1.4 million dollar payment of counsel fees and costs to the attorneys for the plaintiff class. This agreement and payment includes any claims for fees and costs that plaintiffs could make under 42 U.S.C. §1988 or any other federal statute or rule of procedure for all work done and costs expended in the litigation of this matter, to and including the date of the approval of this Settlement Agreement. This settlement of the fees and costs specifically includes all fees and costs requested in Plaintiff's Motion for Fees and Costs for the Injunction proceedings on the tuberculosis (TB) issues. Upon payment of the agreed upon fees, plaintiffs agree to the dismissal of that Motion with prejudice.
(i). The $100,000 fee in connection with the Plaintiffs' Motion For Fees and Costs for the Injunction proceedings on the tuberculosis issues will be paid within thirty (30) days of June 30, 1995 which is the date the tuberculosis claims will be dismissed without prejudice. The remaining fees and cost agreed to in Paragraph 231(h) will be paid within thirty (30) days of the Court's approval of this Agreement and the
85

dismissal without prejudice of the corrections, other medical, mental health, HIV, fire safety and environmental claims.
232. The parties have agreed to the following fee schedule for the monitoring phase of this litigation. Plaintiffs will submit quarterly fee and costs statements setting forth the time and costs expended, based upon a 50% discount of normal fees. It is estimated that monitoring costs will not exceed $60,000 per year for the three year monitoring period which begins on the date the court approves the Settlement Agreement. The parties agree that any disputes regarding attorneys fees during the monitoring phase will be submitted to arbitration.
233. Except as otherwise provided in Section III, the DOC agrees to provide on a quarterly basis copies of the monthly executive SCAN reports to Stefan Presser.
234. All documents, reports and other information provided to plaintiffs in the monitoring phase shall be subject to the protective orders issued on August 15, 1991, March 26, 1992 and October 26, 1992.
235. The parties have agreed to certain procedures for the monitoring of this Settlement Agreement. These procedures are detailed in Sections III-VIII relative to the agreements in the respective subject matter areas.
86

DATE
Elizabeth Alexander AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION 1875 Connecticut Ave., NW Washington, D.C. 20009
DATE
Stefan Presser AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION 125 South Ninth Street Suite 701 Philadelphia, PA 19107
DATE
David Rudovsky KAIRYS, RUDOVSKY, KALMAN
& EPSTEIN 924 Cherry Street Philadelphia, PA 19107
DATE
Scott Burris, Esquire TEMPLE LAW SCHOOL 1719 North Broad Street Philadelphia, PA 19122
DATE
Angus Love, Esquire PENNSYLVANIA INSTITUTIONAL LAW
PROJECT 924 Cherry Street, Suite 523 Philadelphia, PA 19107
DATE
Robert Meek, Esquire DISABILITIES LAW PROJECT 801 Arch Street, Suite 610 Philadelphia, PA 19107

OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 15th Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120
Ernest D. Preate, Jr. Attorney General
John G. Knorr, III Chief Deputy Attorney General Chief, Litigation Section LINDA C. BARRETT Senior Deputy Attorney General
DATE
FRANCIS R. FILIPI Senior Deputy Attorney General R. Douglas Sherman Deputy Attorney General
Pia D. Taggart Deputy Attorney General
Counsel for Defendants
DATE
Joseph D. Lehman Commissioner Pa. Department of Corrections

87

(.:/ 1 V ' - l )

J p.m.

htvisfc:n - b p . m .

FISCAL YEAR 94-95 HEALTH CARE POSITIONS

llr IIAIIUY W/-.YIW K T C K A I i:i<i-
« .111- III I.I. i i;i'.:;:;i MI
I U I I I i i in .I.U
in me v

( 2 ) K N , ( 1 ) C T I I , ( 1) H N S , ( 1 ) LIJN ( i ) U N , ( I ) C T I I , ( I ) K N : ; , ( .'. ) I , I ' M ( !> ) I . i ' N (!) HM ( I ) UKN'i'Al. A b S l:.T.-.M T , ( 2 ) l . V U ( I ) KM:;, ( 1 ) K M i ..••.) , ( I ) M i l - , ( l J ) K M ( I ) KM (<JA ) , l I.I'M ( I ) I.I'M, ( I ) I T i l , ( i ) KM ( 1 ) U l i U ' A ) , ( .: ) i C M

/1 •
TOTAL

in
> ;KI- I.i
Hi-.
r 1 II :willKuii

( I ) » < N ( U A ) , ( i ) Kii

( i ) U N (V.I--) (1) RNS

, ( I )' i 1 1 ,( 1 )K N( I N F . C O N T K u l . j , ( J ) l . F N ,

( 1 ) K M( < J A ) , ( I ) K M( I N K . C O N T R O L ) , ( 1 )K M : - , ( 1 )C T i l

( I ) K M(I.'/-. ) , ( I ) K M( I M F . C O N T R O L ) , ( 1 ) K M , ( I ) D E N T I S T , ( 1) H Y l i l K N l S T , ( I ) ( I ' n
( I ) K M ( i,;/-. / I M l - . • ' ' I I T K i i l . > , ( I ) K M, ( I ) C T I I ,
( 1 ) DENTAL ASS 1 :.TANT

( I) K

I ) In.II

r,S ISTANT

I •I

I ) i.-r 1 i CKIJTWAL u l - r i C E ( ! ) KN ( M E D I C A L M / I F D E V E L O P M E N T ) TOTAL

/ 1 1 1 / •• • •

' I

] 7 8

' FACILITY MEDICAL/MENTAL HEALTH STAFFING REPORT

SCI-

FOR THR MONTH OF

,199

OCCUPATIONAL AREA
Clerical Medical Records Healthcare Administrator P.sychi ahrjsts Psychiatric Nurses Nurse Supervisor Registered Nurses Licensed Practical Nurses Medical Director Supervisory Physicians Physicians Dentists Dental Assistants Dental Hygienists 'Totals Grand Total

SALARY POSITION
Filled

SALARY POSITION
VACANT

WAGE POSITION
FILLED

WAGE POSITION VACANT

VENDOR POSITIOS
FILLED

VENDOR POSITION
VACANT

denotes positions which are not full-time explanation required for non-FTE staff, list hours per week/per physician

The following items will be available at all State

Correctional Institutions. The list is prioritized:

1.
2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19.
20. 21. 22.

Call bell systems
Oxygen Concentrator Peak flowmeter Word Processor Free standing movable file cabinets Computer Pulse oximeter Crash Carts (not defibrillator) Hospital beds Hoyer lifts Two (2) Autoclaves (1 for dental and 1 for medical) Addressograph, and embossers Locked medicine cabinet for drug delivery Geriatric chairs Shower chairs Ultrasonic dental machine Gurneys - SCIR, SCIA, SCI-Mahanoy Paper Shredder Two (2) Refrigerators (1 inpatient infirmary, 1 drug room) Equipment for RHU Exam Room and RHU Exam Room area Ice machine Motorized (golf cart) wheel vehicle

ATTACHMENT 3

The following itemized lists identify by priority each
institution needs:
FIXED ASSET LIST FOR SCI-CAMP HILL
1. Call bell systems 2. Oxygen Concentrator 3. Peak flowmeter 4. Free standing movable file system 5. Computer 6. Pulse oximeter 7. Crash Cart 8. Addressograph and embosser 9. Locked medicine cart 10. Geriatric chair 11. Dental Ultrasonic machine 12. Paper shredder 13. Refrigerator for the inpatient infirmary 14. Ice Machine
SCI-FRACKVILLE
1. Oxygen concentrator 2. Word Processor 3. Free standing movable file system 4. Pulse oximeter 5. Crash cart 6. Autoclave 7. Addressograph and embosser 8. Locked medication cart 9. Geriatric chair 10. Paper shredder 11. Refrigerator for infirmary 12. RHU equipment in exam room 13. Ice machine 14. Motorized wheel vehicle
SCI-GRATERFORD
1. Call bell system 2. Oxygen concentrator 3. Peak flowmeter 4. Free standing movable file system 5. Two computers 6. Pulse oximeter 7. Crash cart 8. Two (2) autoclaves 9. Addressograph and embosser 10. Four (4) locked medication carts 11. Shower chair
ATTACHMENT 4

12. —Ultrasonic dental machine 13. Motorized wheel vehicle
SCI-GREENSBURG
1. Call bell system 2. Peak flowmeter 3. Word Processor 4. Free standing movable file system 5. Computer 6. Pulse oximeter 7. Crash cart 8. Addressograph and embosser 9. Locked medication cabinet 10. Geriatric chair 11. Paper shredder 12. Equipment for the exam room 13. Ice machine 14. Motorized wheel vehicle
SCI-MAHANOY
1. Oxygen Concentrator 2. Peak flowmeter 3. Word Processor 4. Free standing movable file system 5. Pulse oximeter 6. Hoyer lift 7. Addressograph and embosser 8. Geriatric chair 9. Shower chair 10. Motorized wheel vehicle
SCI-MERCER
1. Oxygen concentrator 2. Word Processor 3. Free standing movable file system 4. Pulse oximeter 5. Crash cart 6. Addressograph and embosser 7. Operating room light 8. Motorized wheel vehicle
SCI-RETREAT
1. Oxygen concentrator 2. Peak flowmeter 3. Word Processor 4. Free standing movable file system 5. Pulse oximeter 6. Crash cart

7. -Addressograph and embosser 8. Geriatric chair 9• Shower chair 10. Paper shredder 11. RHU exam room and equipment 12. Ice machine 13. Motorized wheel vehicle
SCI-ROCKVIEW
1. Oxygen concentrator 2. Peak flowmeter 3. Word Processor 4. Free standing movable file system (one section to add
to the present system) 5. Computer 6. Pulse oximeter 7. Ten (10) manually operated beds 8. Addressograph and embosser 9. Geriatric chair 10. Shower chair 11. Motorized wheel vehicle
SCI-SMITHFIELD
1. Oxygen concentrator 2. Peak flowmeter 3. Word Processor 4. Free standing movable file system 5. Pulse oximeter 6. Crash cart 7. Addressograph and embosser 8. Locked medication cart 9. Geriatric chair 10. Shower chair (for over a 175 lb. person) 11. Ultrasonic dental machine 12. Paper shredder 13. Small refrigerator for inpatient infirmary 14. Exam room and equipment for the RHU 15. Ice machine 16. Motorized wheel vehicle
SCI-SOMERSET
1. Oxygen concentrator 2. Peak flowmeter 3. Word Processor
4. Free standing movable file system
5. Pulse oximeter 6. Crash cart 7. Medical autoclave 8. Addressograph and embosser

9. locked medication cart 10. Geriatric chair 11. Shower chair 12. Ultrasonic dental machine
13. Ice machine
SCI-WAYMART
1. Two (2) wheel chairs 2. Peak flowmeter 3. Word Processor 4. Free standing movable file system 5. Electric hospital bed 6. Hoyer lift 7. Addressograph and embosser 8. Paper shredder 9. Ice machine 10. Motorized wheel vehicle
SCI-WAYNESBURG
1. Call bell system 2. Oxygen concentrator 3. Peak flowmeter 4. Word Processor 5. Free standing movable file system 6. Oxygen oximeter .7. Crash cart 8. Medical autoclave 9. Addressograph and embosser 10. Geriatric chair 11. Ultrasonic dental machine 12. Small refrigerator for the inpatient unit 13. Ice machine 14. Motorized wheel vehicle

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, do hereby certify that the foregoing Memorandum of Law In Support of Proposed Settlement Agreement with Exhibits A through E was served upon the defendants by placing it in the United States mail, postage prepaid, certified, return receipt requested, this 20th day of October, 1994 to the following address:
Francis Filipi, Esq. Office of the Attorney General Strawberry Square, 15th Floor Third and Walnut Streets Harrisburg, PA 17120
Stefan Presser

 
 THOMAS w. CORBETT, Jr. ATTORNEY GENERAL

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL

J u l y 8 1996 "

Reply To:

15th Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 (717) 783-1471

Mr. Michael E. Kunz, Clerk U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania 2633 U.S. Courthouse 601 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19106
Re: Austin v. DOC, et al. No. 90-7497
Dear Mr. Kunz:
Enclosed for filing is an original and one copy of the Stipulation of Dismissal Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (e) and 41 (A) (1) (ii) . Please time stamp the copy and return it to me in the self-addressed postage prepaid envelope.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Very truly yours,

LCB:dap Enclosure cc Hon. Jan E. DuBois (w/enc.)
Elizabeth Alexander (w/enc.)t

LINDA C. BARRETT Senior Deputy Attorney General

Austin v. Pennsylvania DOC

PC-PA-002-016

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
STEVEN AUSTIN, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants.
STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO FED.R.CIV.P 23 (el AND 41 ( A H l H i i ) The plaintiffs, by and through their counsel, Elizabeth R. Alexander, and defendants, by and through their counsel, Linda C. Barrett, stipulate to the dismissal without prejudice of the remaining claims in the above-captioned action.

ELIZABETH ALEXANDER Director NATIONAL PRISON PROJECT OF THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION 1875 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20009 202/234-4830
For All Plaintiffs Counsel
DATE:

Lnaco C
ilJDA C. BARRETT Senior Deputy Attorney General OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 15th Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 717/783-1471

For All Defense Counsel

f^r DATE:

1996,

APPROVED:

HONORABLE JAN E. DuBOIS

 
 United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:90-cv-07497-JD

SEALCS

AUSTIN, et al v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPT., et al Assigned to: HONORABLE JAN E. DUBOIS Demand: $0 Case in other court: 93-01289
95-01187 Cause: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

Date Filed: 11/27/1990 Date Terminated: 01/06/1995 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff STEVEN AUSTIN

represented by ALVIN J. BRONSTEIN THE NATIONAL PRISON PROJECT 1875 CONNECTICUT AVENUE, NW STE. 410 WASHINGTON, DC 20009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

AMY FOLKOFF KRAUS NATIONAL PRISON PROJECT 1875 CONNECTICUT AVE., NW WASHINGTON, DC 20009 TERMINATED: 07/07/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY

ANGUS R. LOVE INSTITUTIONAL LAW PROJECT 718 ARCH ST., STE 304S PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106 Email: alove@pailp.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

DAVID FATHI NATIONAL PRISM PROJECT 1875 CONNECTICUT AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, DC TERMINATED: 05/24/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY

DAVID RUDOVSKY KAIRYS RUDOVSKY MESSING & FEINBERG THE CAST IRON BUILDING SUITE

1 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...
501 SOUTH 718 ARCH STREET PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106 215-925-4400 Fax: 215-925-5365 Email: drudovsky@krlawphila.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
EDWIN J. GREENLEE SHELLER, LUDWIG AND BADEY 1528 WALNUT STREET 3RD FLOOR PHILA, PA 19102 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ELIZABETH ALEXANDER NATIONAL PRISM PROJECT 1875 CONNECTICUT AVENUE, N.W. WASHINGTON, DC 20009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
KENNETH L. BLACKWELL 6034 RICHMOND HIGHWAY SUITE 911 ALEXANDRIA, VA 22303 TERMINATED: 01/29/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY
MARJORIE RIFKIN AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION-NATL PRISM PROJECT 1875 CONNECTICUT AVE., N.W. SUITE 410 WASHINGTON, DC 20009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ROBERT W. MEEK DISABILITIES LAW PROJECT 1315 WALNUT STREET SUITE 400 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107 215-238-8070 Fax: 215-772-3126 Email: rmeek@drnpa.org LEAD ATTORNEY

2 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

Plaintiff
ROBERT C. BORING TERMINATED: 03/26/1992

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
SCOTT BURRIS ACLU OF PENNSYLVANIA 1719 N. BROAD STREET TEMPLE LAW SCHOOL PHILA, PA 19122 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEFAN PRESSER AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF PENNSYLVANIA 7803 ST. MARTIN'S LANE PHILADELPHIA, 19 19107 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STUART H. ADAMS, JR. NATIONAL PRISON PROJECT OF THE AMER CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION 1875 CONNECTICUT AVE., NW WASHINGTON, DC 20036 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ALVIN J. BRONSTEIN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/26/1992 LEAD ATTORNEY
ANGUS R. LOVE (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/26/1992 LEAD ATTORNEY
DAVID RUDOVSKY (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/26/1992 LEAD ATTORNEY
STEFAN PRESSER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/26/1992 LEAD ATTORNEY
STUART H. ADAMS, JR. (See above for address)

3 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

Plaintiff FRANKLIN CASTLE

TERMINATED: 03/26/1992 LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by ALVIN J. BRONSTEIN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
AMY FOLKOFF KRAUS (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ANGUS R. LOVE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
DAVID FATHI (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/24/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY
DAVID RUDOVSKY (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ELIZABETH ALEXANDER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
KENNETH L. BLACKWELL (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/29/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY
MARJORIE RIFKIN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ROBERT W. MEEK (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

4 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

Plaintiff PAUL TAYLOR TERMINATED: 09/16/1991
Plaintiff EUGENE DUNSON

STEFAN PRESSER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STUART H. ADAMS, JR. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ALVIN J. BRONSTEIN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/16/1991 LEAD ATTORNEY
ANGUS R. LOVE (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/16/1991 LEAD ATTORNEY
DAVID RUDOVSKY (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/16/1991 LEAD ATTORNEY
STEFAN PRESSER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/16/1991 LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by ALVIN J. BRONSTEIN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
AMY FOLKOFF KRAUS (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ANGUS R. LOVE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
DAVID FATHI (See above for address)

5 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

Plaintiff JOHN REGELMAN

TERMINATED: 05/24/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY
DAVID RUDOVSKY (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ELIZABETH ALEXANDER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
KENNETH L. BLACKWELL (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/29/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY
MARJORIE RIFKIN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ROBERT W. MEEK (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEFAN PRESSER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STUART H. ADAMS, JR. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ALVIN J. BRONSTEIN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
AMY FOLKOFF KRAUS (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

6 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

Plaintiff KEVIN SANDERS

ANGUS R. LOVE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
DAVID FATHI (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/24/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY
DAVID RUDOVSKY (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ELIZABETH ALEXANDER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
KENNETH L. BLACKWELL (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/29/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY
MARJORIE RIFKIN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ROBERT W. MEEK (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEFAN PRESSER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STUART H. ADAMS, JR. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ALVIN J. BRONSTEIN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

7 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
AMY FOLKOFF KRAUS (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ANGUS R. LOVE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
DAVID FATHI (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/24/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY
DAVID RUDOVSKY (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ELIZABETH ALEXANDER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
KENNETH L. BLACKWELL (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/29/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY
MARJORIE RIFKIN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ROBERT W. MEEK (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEFAN PRESSER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STUART H. ADAMS, JR. (See above for address)

8 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

Plaintiff RICHARD BOOZER

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ALVIN J. BRONSTEIN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
AMY FOLKOFF KRAUS (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ANGUS R. LOVE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
DAVID FATHI (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/24/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY
DAVID RUDOVSKY (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ELIZABETH ALEXANDER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
KENNETH L. BLACKWELL (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/29/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY
MARJORIE RIFKIN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ROBERT W. MEEK (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

9 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

Plaintiff FRANCIS PARKER TERMINATED: 03/26/1992
Plaintiff WILLIAM A. FINGER TERMINATED: 03/26/1992

STEFAN PRESSER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STUART H. ADAMS, JR. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ALVIN J. BRONSTEIN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/26/1992 LEAD ATTORNEY
ANGUS R. LOVE (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/26/1992 LEAD ATTORNEY
DAVID RUDOVSKY (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/26/1992 LEAD ATTORNEY
STEFAN PRESSER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/26/1992 LEAD ATTORNEY
STUART H. ADAMS, JR. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/26/1992 LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by ALVIN J. BRONSTEIN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/26/1992 LEAD ATTORNEY
ANGUS R. LOVE (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/26/1992 LEAD ATTORNEY
DAVID RUDOVSKY (See above for address)

10 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

Plaintiff JOSEPH MULCAHY

TERMINATED: 03/26/1992 LEAD ATTORNEY
STEFAN PRESSER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/26/1992 LEAD ATTORNEY
STUART H. ADAMS, JR. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/26/1992 LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by ALVIN J. BRONSTEIN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
AMY FOLKOFF KRAUS (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ANGUS R. LOVE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
DAVID FATHI (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/24/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY
DAVID RUDOVSKY (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ELIZABETH ALEXANDER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
KENNETH L. BLACKWELL (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/29/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY

11 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

Plaintiff LAURENCE JOHNSON TERMINATED: 03/26/1992
Plaintiff DEBRA SPEAKES on behalf of themselves and all others

MARJORIE RIFKIN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ROBERT W. MEEK (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEFAN PRESSER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STUART H. ADAMS, JR. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ALVIN J. BRONSTEIN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/26/1992 LEAD ATTORNEY
ANGUS R. LOVE (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/26/1992 LEAD ATTORNEY
DAVID RUDOVSKY (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/26/1992 LEAD ATTORNEY
STEFAN PRESSER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/26/1992 LEAD ATTORNEY
STUART H. ADAMS, JR. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/26/1992 LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by ALVIN J. BRONSTEIN (See above for address)

12 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

presently incarcerated or who will in the future be incarcerated within the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
AMY FOLKOFF KRAUS (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ANGUS R. LOVE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
DAVID FATHI (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/24/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY
DAVID RUDOVSKY (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ELIZABETH ALEXANDER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
KENNETH L. BLACKWELL (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/29/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY
MARJORIE RIFKIN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ROBERT W. MEEK (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEFAN PRESSER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STUART H. ADAMS, JR.

13 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

Plaintiff TROY CALHOUN

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ALVIN J. BRONSTEIN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
AMY FOLKOFF KRAUS (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ANGUS R. LOVE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
DAVID FATHI (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/24/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY
DAVID RUDOVSKY (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ELIZABETH ALEXANDER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
KENNETH L. BLACKWELL (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/29/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY
MARJORIE RIFKIN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ROBERT W. MEEK (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

14 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

Plaintiff FRANKLIN D. BALTIMORE, SR.
15 of 120

STEFAN PRESSER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STUART H. ADAMS, JR. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ALVIN J. BRONSTEIN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
AMY FOLKOFF KRAUS (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ANGUS R. LOVE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
DAVID FATHI (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/24/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY
DAVID RUDOVSKY (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ELIZABETH ALEXANDER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
KENNETH L. BLACKWELL (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/29/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY
MARJORIE RIFKIN (See above for address)
10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

Plaintiff LEONARD T. MORTON, JR.

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ROBERT W. MEEK (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEFAN PRESSER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STUART H. ADAMS, JR. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ALVIN J. BRONSTEIN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
AMY FOLKOFF KRAUS (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ANGUS R. LOVE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
DAVID FATHI (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/24/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY
DAVID RUDOVSKY (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ELIZABETH ALEXANDER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

16 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

Plaintiff SCOTT DOCKLER

KENNETH L. BLACKWELL (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/29/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY
MARJORIE RIFKIN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ROBERT W. MEEK (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEFAN PRESSER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STUART H. ADAMS, JR. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ALVIN J. BRONSTEIN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
AMY FOLKOFF KRAUS (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ANGUS R. LOVE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
DAVID FATHI (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/24/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY
DAVID RUDOVSKY (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

17 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

Plaintiff GARY ROOS

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ELIZABETH ALEXANDER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
KENNETH L. BLACKWELL (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/29/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY
MARJORIE RIFKIN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ROBERT W. MEEK (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEFAN PRESSER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STUART H. ADAMS, JR. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ALVIN J. BRONSTEIN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
AMY FOLKOFF KRAUS (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ANGUS R. LOVE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
DAVID FATHI

18 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

Plaintiff PERCY MCCONNELL

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/24/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY
DAVID RUDOVSKY (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ELIZABETH ALEXANDER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
KENNETH L. BLACKWELL (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/29/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY
MARJORIE RIFKIN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ROBERT W. MEEK (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEFAN PRESSER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STUART H. ADAMS, JR. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ALVIN J. BRONSTEIN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
AMY FOLKOFF KRAUS (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

19 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

Plaintiff POLICE OFFICER JOHN DOE
20 of 120

ANGUS R. LOVE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
DAVID FATHI (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/24/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY
DAVID RUDOVSKY (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ELIZABETH ALEXANDER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
KENNETH L. BLACKWELL (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/29/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY
MARJORIE RIFKIN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ROBERT W. MEEK (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEFAN PRESSER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STUART H. ADAMS, JR. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ALVIN J. BRONSTEIN (See above for address)
10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...
LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
AMY FOLKOFF KRAUS (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ANGUS R. LOVE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
DAVID FATHI (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/24/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY
DAVID RUDOVSKY (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ELIZABETH ALEXANDER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
KENNETH L. BLACKWELL (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/29/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY
MARJORIE RIFKIN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ROBERT W. MEEK (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEFAN PRESSER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STUART H. ADAMS, JR.

21 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

Plaintiff
JOHN ROE on behalf of themselves and all others presently incarcerated or who will in the future be incarcerated within the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ALVIN J. BRONSTEIN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
AMY FOLKOFF KRAUS (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ANGUS R. LOVE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
DAVID FATHI (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/24/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY
DAVID RUDOVSKY (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ELIZABETH ALEXANDER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
KENNETH L. BLACKWELL (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/29/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY
MARJORIE RIFKIN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ROBERT W. MEEK (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

22 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

V. Defendant PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
23 of 120

STEFAN PRESSER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STUART H. ADAMS, JR. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by DENISE A. KUHN OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL 21 S. 12TH ST. 3RD FL. PHILA, PA 19107-3603 TEL 215-560-2402 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
FRANCIS R. FILIPI OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL 15TH FLOOR, STRAWBERRY SQUARE HARRISBURG, PA 17120 717-787-3874 Fax: 717-772-4526 Email: ffilipi@attorneygeneral.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LINDA C. BARRETT OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL BUREAU OF CONSUMER PROTECTION 301 CHESTNUT STREET SUITE 105 HARRISBURG, PA 17101-0031 TEL 717-772-3563 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
RICHARD DOUGLAS SHERMAN PA. GAMING CONTROL BOARD 303 WALNUT ST. STRAWBERRY SQUARE VERIZON TOWER 5TH FL
10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

Defendant JOSEPH LEHMAN sued in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections
Defendant JEFFREY BEARDS sued in his official capacity as Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Camp Hill
Defendant

HARRISBURG, PA 17101-9060 717-703-2970 Email: rsherman@state.pa.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by DENISE A. KUHN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
FRANCIS R. FILIPI (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LINDA C. BARRETT (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
RICHARD DOUGLAS SHERMAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by DENISE A. KUHN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
FRANCIS R. FILIPI (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LINDA C. BARRETT (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
RICHARD DOUGLAS SHERMAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

24 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

MARTIN DRAGOVICH sued in his official capacity as Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Cresson
Defendant JOSEPH RYAN sued in his official capacity as Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Dallas
Defendant SUPERINTENDENT RAYMOND E. CLYMER sued in his official capacity as Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Frackville TERMINATED: 02/20/1991

represented by DENISE A. KUHN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
FRANCIS R. FILIPI (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LINDA C. BARRETT (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
RICHARD DOUGLAS SHERMAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by DENISE A. KUHN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
FRANCIS R. FILIPI (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LINDA C. BARRETT (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
RICHARD DOUGLAS SHERMAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by DENISE A. KUHN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/10/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

25 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

Defendant DONALD T. VAUGHN sued in his official capacity as Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Graterford
Defendant FREDERICK ROSENMEYER sued in his official capacity as Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Greensburg
Defendant THOMAS FULCOMER sued in his official capacity as Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Huntingdon TERMINATED: 09/16/1991

represented by DENISE A. KUHN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
FRANCIS R. FILIPI (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LINDA C. BARRETT (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
RICHARD DOUGLAS SHERMAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by DENISE A. KUHN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
FRANCIS R. FILIPI (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LINDA C. BARRETT (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
RICHARD DOUGLAS SHERMAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by DENISE A. KUHN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/16/1991 LEAD ATTORNEY
FRANCIS R. FILIPI

26 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

Defendant GILBERT A. WALTERS sued in his official capacity as Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Mercer
Defendant DENNIS R. BERHARDT sued in his official capacity as Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Retreat
Defendant

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/16/1991 LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by DENISE A. KUHN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
FRANCIS R. FILIPI (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LINDA C. BARRETT (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
RICHARD DOUGLAS SHERMAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by DENISE A. KUHN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
FRANCIS R. FILIPI (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LINDA C. BARRETT (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
RICHARD DOUGLAS SHERMAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

27 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

JOSEPH F. MAZURKIEWICZ sued in his official capacity as Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Rockview
Defendant MARGARET A. MOORE sued in her official capacity as Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Smithfield
Defendant CHARLES H. ZIMMERMAN sued in his official capacity as Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Waymart

represented by DENISE A. KUHN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
FRANCIS R. FILIPI (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LINDA C. BARRETT (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
RICHARD DOUGLAS SHERMAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by DENISE A. KUHN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
FRANCIS R. FILIPI (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LINDA C. BARRETT (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
RICHARD DOUGLAS SHERMAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by DENISE A. KUHN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
FRANCIS R. FILIPI (See above for address)

28 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

Defendant WILLIAM J. WOLFE sued in his official capacity as Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Waynesburg TERMINATED: 09/16/1991
Defendant RICHARD BROWNING
Defendant GEORGE MILLER

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LINDA C. BARRETT (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
RICHARD DOUGLAS SHERMAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by DENISE A. KUHN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/16/1991 LEAD ATTORNEY
FRANCIS R. FILIPI (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/16/1991 LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by LINDA C. BARRETT (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
RICHARD DOUGLAS SHERMAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEFAN PRESSER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by LINDA C. BARRETT (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
RICHARD DOUGLAS SHERMAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

29 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

Defendant NICHOLAS BORSELLO
Defendant PAUL SOLOMAN
Movant JAILHOUSE LAWYER HIRAM R. JOHNSTON, JR. Movant

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEFAN PRESSER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by LINDA C. BARRETT (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
RICHARD DOUGLAS SHERMAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEFAN PRESSER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by LINDA C. BARRETT (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
RICHARD DOUGLAS SHERMAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEFAN PRESSER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by HIRAM R. JOHNSTON, JR. 48681 SOUTH WOODS STATE PRISON 215 BURLINGTON ROAD SOUTH BRIDGETON, NJ 19106 PRO SE

30 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

ESQ. STEFAN PRESSER
Movant JEROME SILO
Movant DERON HOLLOWAY
Movant GEORGE RAHSAAN BROOKS-BEY
Movant EDDIE GRIFFIN Movant VINCENT THOMAS Movant FRANCISCO FIGUEROA
Movant

represented by STEFAN PRESSER AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION 125 SOUTH NINTH STREET SUITE 701 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107 PRO SE
represented by JEROME SILO AF-3298 STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTE LAUREL HIGHLANDS 5706 GLADES PIKE P.O. BOX 631 SOMERSET, PA 15501-0631 PRO SE
represented by DERON HOLLOWAY AS-0227 S.C.I. FRACKVILLE 1111 ALTAMONT BLVD. FRACKVILLE, PA 17931 PRO SE
represented by GEORGE RAHSAAN BROOKS-BEY AP-4884 SCI - GREEN 640 JEFFERSON ROAD WAYNESBURG, PA 15370 PRO SE
represented by FRANCISCO FIGUEROA BX-4817 S.C.I. WAYMART P.O. BOX 256 WAYMART, PA 18472-0256 PRO SE

31 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

LEONARD BOCCHICCHIO
Movant JESSE R. ROBBINS Movant RICHARD KANE
Movant MATTHEW A. BROWN, II
Movant ALFONSO PERCY PEW
Movant BRUCE PETTIFORD
Movant DERRICK DALE FONTROY, I

represented by LEONARD BOCCHICCHIO AP-6531 STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION - DALLAS DRAWER K DALLAS, PA 18612-0286 PRO SE
represented by RICHARD KANE BF-5153 STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION P.O. BOX A CRESSON, PA 16630 PRO SE
represented by MATTHEW A. BROWN, II CB-2102 P.O. BOX 256 WAYMART, PA 18472-0256 PRO SE
represented by ALFONSO PERCY PEW BT-7263 S.C.I. CAMP HILL P.O. BOX 200 CAMP HILL, PA 17011 PRO SE
represented by BRUCE PETTIFORD SCI WAYMART P.O. BOX 256 WAYMART, PA 18472-0256 PRO SE
represented by DERRICK DALE FONTROY, I AY-7513 P.O. BOX 244 GRATERFORD, PA 19426-0244 PRO SE

32 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

Movant ERIC BURNS
Movant STEVEN A. BLACKISTON
Movant BOBBY BRIGHTWELLL
Movant JOHN NIGRO
Movant RUSSELL KRELL
Movant GENE ALLEN
Movant

represented by ERIC BURNS AY-7488 SCI-MAHANOY 301 MOREA ROAD FRACKVILLE, PA 17932 PRO SE
represented by STEVEN A. BLACKISTON #AS2977 SCI GREEN 175 PROGRESS DRIVE WAYNESBURG, PA 15370 PRO SE
represented by BOBBY BRIGHTWELLL S.C.I. CAMP HILL P.O. BOX 200 CAMP HILL, PA 17011 PRO SE
represented by JOHN NIGRO S.C.I. CAMP HILL P.O. BOX 200 CAMP HILL, PA 17011 PRO SE
represented by RUSSELL KRELL BD-1254 S.C.I. SMITHFIELD P.O. BOX 999 HUNTINGDON, PA 16652 PRO SE
represented by GENE ALLEN AJ3390 STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION 1040 EAST ROY FURMAN HIGHWAY WAYNESBURG, PA 15370-8090 PRO SE

33 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

LEROY F. GRIMES
Movant KENNETH LEROY HOCHSTINE
Defendant WILLIAM LOVE sued in his official capacity as Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Huntingdon
Defendant TIMOTHY ENGLISH sued in his official capacity as Superintendent of State Corrections Institution at Waynesburg
Defendant

represented by LEROY F. GRIMES AP-4230 SCI WAYMART P.O. BOX 256 WAYMART, PA 18472-0256 PRO SE
represented by KENNETH LEROY HOCHSTINE CW-4837 SCI HOUTZDALE STATE ROUTE 2007 P.O. BOX 1000 HOUTZDALE, PA 16698-1000 PRO SE
represented by FRANCIS R. FILIPI (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LINDA C. BARRETT (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
RICHARD DOUGLAS SHERMAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by FRANCIS R. FILIPI (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LINDA C. BARRETT (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
RICHARD DOUGLAS SHERMAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

34 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

JOSEPH CHESNEY sued in his official capacity as Superintendant of State Corrections Institution at Frackville
Defendant ROBERT CASEY sued in his official capacity as Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Movant WILMER B. GAY
Movant RICHARD HOLLIHAN
Movant ALAN B. DAVIS

represented by FRANCIS R. FILIPI (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LINDA C. BARRETT (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
RICHARD DOUGLAS SHERMAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by FRANCIS R. FILIPI (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LINDA C. BARRETT (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
RICHARD DOUGLAS SHERMAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by WILMER B. GAY #AF-2709 SCI - MAHANOY 301 MOREA ROAD FRACKVILLE, PA 17932 PRO SE
represented by RICHARD HOLLIHAN 1600 WALTERS MILL ROAD SOMERSET, PA 15510 PRO SE
represented by ALAN B. DAVIS AF-1282 SCI PITTSBURGH

35 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

Movant WILLIAM C. MUELLER
Movant RICHARD HOFFMAN
Movant JOHN W. TAYLOR

P.O. BOX 99901 PITTSBURGH, PA 15233 PRO SE
represented by WILLIAM C. MUELLER AP-6879 SCI PITTSBURGH P.O. BOX 99901 PITTSBURGH, PA 15233 PRO SE
represented by RICHARD HOFFMAN AP-4941 SCI PITTSBURGH P.O. BOX 99901 PITTSBURGH, PA 15233 PRO SE
represented by JOHN W. TAYLOR AJ-0359 DRAWER A STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION CRESSON, PA 16630-0010 PRO SE

Date Filed 11/27/1990
11/27/1990 12/06/1990 12/19/1990

#

Docket Text

1 MOTION BY PLAINTIFF STEVEN AUSTIN, PLAINTIFF ROBERT C. BORING, PLAINTIFF FRANKLIN CASTLE, PLAINTIFF PAUL TAYLOR, PLAINTIFF EUGENE DUNSON, PLAINTIFF JOHN REGELMAN, PLAINTIFF KEVIN SANDERS, PLAINTIFF RICHARD BOOZER, PLAINTIFF FRANCIS PARKER, PLAINTIFF WILLIAM A. FINGER, PLAINTIFF JOSEPH MULCAHY, PLAINTIFF LAURENCE JOHNSON, PLAINTIFF DEBRA SPEAKES TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS DECLARATIONS IN SUPPORT, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (mrs) Modified on 05/03/1991 (Entered: 11/28/1990)
Case Eligible for Arbitration (mrs) (Entered: 11/28/1990)
2 Plff's supplemental filing in support of request to proceed in Forma Pauperis, Declaration (mc) (Entered: 12/07/1990)
3 Supplemental filing by PLAINTIFF JOSEPH MULCAHY in support of [1-1] MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (lvj) (Entered:

36 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

01/08/1991 02/05/1991 02/20/1991 02/20/1991 02/20/1991
02/20/1991 02/20/1991
02/20/1991
03/18/1991

12/20/1990)
4 ORDER REASSIGNING THIS CASE FROM THE CALENDAR OF JUDGE DANIEL H. HUYETT 3rd TO THE CALENDAR OF JUDGE JAY C. WALDMAN ( SIGNED BY CLERK OF COURT MICHAEL E. KUNZ ) 01/9/91 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (jc) Modified on 04/08/1992 (Entered: 01/09/1991)
5 ORDER REASSIGNING THIS CASE FROM THE CALENDAR OF JUDGE JAY C. WALDMAN TO THE CALENDAR OF JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ( SIGNED BY CLERK OF COURT MICHAEL E. KUNZ ) 02/06/91 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (jc) Modified on 05/03/1991 (Entered: 02/06/1991)
6 ORDER GRANTING [1-1] MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 02/20/91 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (jc) (Entered: 02/21/1991)
7 ORDER THAT THE REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON BEHALF OF PLFF DEBRA SPEAKS, IS GRANTED ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 02/21/91 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (jc) (Entered: 02/21/1991)
8 ORDER THAT THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON BEHALF OF PLFFS STEVEN AUSTIN, ROBERT C. BORING, FRANKLIN CASTLE, PAUL TAYLOR, EUGENE DUNSON, JOHN REGELMAN, KEVIN SANDERS, RICHARD BOOZER, FRANCIS PARKER, WILLIAMS A. FINGER AND LAWRENCE JOHNSON IS GRANTED ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 02/21/91 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (jc) (Entered: 02/21/1991)
9 Complaint. (jc) (Entered: 02/21/1991)
10 Amended complaint by PLAINTIFF STEVEN AUSTIN, PLAINTIFF ROBERT C. BORING, PLAINTIFF FRANKLIN CASTLE, PLAINTIFF PAUL TAYLOR, PLAINTIFF EUGENE DUNSON, PLAINTIFF JOHN REGELMAN, PLAINTIFF KEVIN SANDERS, PLAINTIFF RICHARD BOOZER, PLAINTIFF FRANCIS PARKER, PLAINTIFF WILLIAM A. FINGER, PLAINTIFF JOSEPH MULCAHY, PLAINTIFF LAURENCE JOHNSON, PLAINTIFF DEBRA SPEAKES, amending [9-1] complaint (jc) Modified on 05/03/1991 (Entered: 02/21/1991)
11 MOTION BY PLAINTIFF STEVEN AUSTIN, PLAINTIFF ROBERT C. BORING, PLAINTIFF FRANKLIN CASTLE, PLAINTIFF PAUL TAYLOR, PLAINTIFF EUGENE DUNSON, PLAINTIFF JOHN REGELMAN, PLAINTIFF KEVIN SANDERS, PLAINTIFF RICHARD BOOZER, PLAINTIFF FRANCIS PARKER, PLAINTIFF WILLIAM A. FINGER, PLAINTIFF JOSEPH MULCAHY, PLAINTIFF LAURENCE JOHNSON, PLAINTIFF DEBRA SPEAKES TO CERTIFY CLASS , MEMORANDUM (jc) Modified on 05/03/1991 (Entered: 02/21/1991)
12 Summons returned with Acknowledgement of service as to DEFENDANT PENNSYLVANIA DEPT., DEFENDANT JOSEPH LEHMAN, DEFENDANT JEFFREY BEARDS, DEFENDANT MARTIN DRAGOVICH, DEFENDANT

37 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

04/04/1991 04/11/1991 04/30/1991 05/29/1991
06/07/1991

JOSEPH RYAN, DONALD T. VAUGHN, DEFENDANT FREDERICK ROSENMEYER, DEFENDANT THOMAS FULCOMER, DEFENDANT GILBERT A. WALTERS, DEFENDANT DENNIS R. BERHARDT, DEFENDANT JOSEPH F. MAZURKIEWICZ, DEFENDANT MARGARET A. MOORE, DEFENDANT CHARLES H. DEFENDANT WILLIAM J. WOLFE on 3/15/91 (jc) Modified on 05/03/1991 (Entered: 03/19/1991)
13 Stipulation extending time to answer the complaint. Answer due on 4/11/91 for WILLIAM J. WOLFE, for CHARLES H. ZIMMERMAN, for MARGARET A. MOORE, for JOSEPH F. MAZURKIEWICZ, for DENNIS R. BERHARDT, for GILBERT A. WALTERS, for THOMAS FULCOMER, for FREDERICK ROSENMEYER, for DONALD T. VAUGHN, for RAYMOND E. CLYMER, for JOSEPH RYAN, for MARTIN DRAGOVICH, for JEFFREY BEARDS, for JOSEPH LEHMAN, for PENNSYLVANIA DEPT., with Clerk's approval. (jc) Modified on 05/03/1991 (Entered: 04/05/1991)
14 MOTION BY DEFENDANT PENNSYLVANIA DEPT., DEFENDANT JOSEPH LEHMAN, DEFENDANT JEFFREY BEARDS, DEFENDANT MARTIN DRAGOVICH, DEFENDANT JOSEPH RYAN, DEFENDANT DONALD T. VAUGHN, DEFENDANT FREDERICK ROSENMEYER, DEFENDANT THOMAS FULCOMER, DEFENDANT GILBERT A. WALTERS, DEFENDANT DENNIS R. BERHARDT, DEFENDANT JOSEPH F. MAZURKIEWICZ, DEFENDANT MARGARET A. MOORE, DEFENDANT CHARLES H. ZIMMERMAN, DEFENDANT WILLIAM J. WOLFE TO DISMISS , MEMORANDUM, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE, APPENDIX (jc) Modified on 05/03/1991 (Entered: 04/12/1991)
15 STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR BOTH THE PLFFS TO FILE THEIR MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFTS' MOTION TO DISMISS AND FOR DEFTS TO RESPOND TO PLFFS' FIRST SET OF DISCOVERY REQUESTS (INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS) TO MAY 29, 1991 ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 05/01/91 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (jc) Modified on 05/03/1991 (Entered: 05/01/1991)
16 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO ENLARGE THE TIME FOR PLFFS TO FILE THEIR MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFTS' MOTION TO DISMISS TO JUNE 7, 1991 FOR DEFTS TO FILE THEIR MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLFFS' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION TO JUNE 10, 1991 AND FOR DEFTS TO RESPOND TO PLFFS' FIRST SET OF DISCOVERY REQUESTS TO JUNE 30, 1991. THE PARTIES AGREE THAT IF ALL RESPONSES TO PLFFS' FIRST SET OF DISCOVERY REQUESTS CAN NOT BE SUPPLIED AT THAT TIME SO MUCH OF THE RESPONSES AS ARE THEN COMPLETE WILL BE SENT AND THAT DEFTS WILL USE REASONABLE EFFORTS TO SUPPLY THE REMAINDER AT THE EARLIEST OPPORTUNITY ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 06/03/91 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (jc) (Entered: 06/03/1991)
17 Memorandum by PLAINTIFF STEVEN AUSTIN, PLAINTIFF ROBERT C. BORING, PLAINTIFF FRANKLIN CASTLE, PLAINTIFF PAUL TAYLOR, PLAINTIFF EUGENE DUNSON, PLAINTIFF JOHN REGELMAN, PLAINTIFF KEVIN SANDERS, PLAINTIFF RICHARD BOOZER,

38 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

06/10/1991 06/10/1991 06/12/1991 06/18/1991
07/05/1991
07/15/1991 07/26/1991
08/02/1991

PLAINTIFF FRANCIS PARKER, PLAINTIFF WILLIAM A. FINGER, PLAINTIFF JOSEPH MULCAHY, PLAINTIFF LAURENCE JOHNSON, PLAINTIFF DEBRA SPEAKES in opposition to [14-1] MOTION TO DISMISS (jc) (Entered: 06/10/1991)
18 Memorandum of law by DEFENDANTS in opposition to PLAINTIFFS' [11-1] MOTION TO CERTIFY CLASS (fe) (Entered: 06/11/1991)
19 MOTION BY TO DISMISS CERTAIN CLAIMS , MEMORANDUM, CERTIFICATE OF COUNSEL, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (fe) Modified on 04/08/1992 (Entered: 06/11/1991)
20 Praecipe by Plffs' to replace the attached Declaration of Sandra W. Stoner in the appropriate place in the document entitled Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plffs' Motion for Class Certification filed June 10, 1991 (jc) (Entered: 06/13/1991)
21 Reply by PLAINTIFF STEVEN AUSTIN, PLAINTIFF ROBERT C. BORING, PLAINTIFF FRANKLIN CASTLE, PLAINTIFF PAUL TAYLOR, PLAINTIFF EUGENE DUNSON, PLAINTIFF JOHN REGELMAN, PLAINTIFF KEVIN SANDERS, PLAINTIFF RICHARD BOOZER, PLAINTIFF FRANCIS PARKER, PLAINTIFF WILLIAM A. FINGER, PLAINTIFF JOSEPH MULCAHY, PLAINTIFF LAURENCE JOHNSON, PLAINTIFF DEBRA SPEAKES to response to [11-1] MOTION TO CERTIFY CLASS (jc) (Entered: 06/18/1991)
22 Memorandum by PLAINTIFF STEVEN AUSTIN, PLAINTIFF ROBERT C. BORING, PLAINTIFF FRANKLIN CASTLE, PLAINTIFF PAUL TAYLOR, PLAINTIFF EUGENE DUNSON, PLAINTIFF JOHN REGELMAN, PLAINTIFF KEVIN SANDERS, PLAINTIFF RICHARD BOOZER, PLAINTIFF FRANCIS PARKER, PLAINTIFF WILLIAM A. FINGER, PLAINTIFF JOSEPH MULCAHY, PLAINTIFF LAURENCE JOHNSON, PLAINTIFF DEBRA SPEAKES in opposition to Defts' Supplemental [19-1] MOTION TO DISMISS CERTAIN CLAIMS (jmp) (Entered: 07/05/1991)
23 ORDER, MOTION HEARING SET FOR 4:00 7/18/91 FOR [19-1] MOTION TO DISMISS CERTAIN CLAIMS, SET FOR 4:00 7/18/91 FOR [14-1] MOTION TO DISMISS ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 07/16/91 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (jc) (Entered: 07/16/1991)
24 ORDER GRANTING IN PART, DENYING IN PART [19-1] MOTION TO DISMISS CERTAIN CLAIMS; GRANTING IN PART, DENYING IN PART [14-1] MOTION TO DISMISS; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT PLFF SHALL FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS ORDER ON OR BEFORE AUGUST 19, 1991; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT DEFTS ARE GRANTED LEAVE TO RAISE THE ISSUES OF CLAIMS AND/OR ISSUE PRECLUSION BASED ON THE I.C.U. CONSENT DECREE AND/OR THE JUDGMENT IN HASSINE AT AN APPROPRIATE TIME BY MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR AT TRIAL ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 07/29/91 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (jc) (Entered: 07/29/1991)
Pre-trial conference SET at 3:00 9/10/91 (jc) (Entered: 08/05/1991)

39 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

08/07/1991 08/07/1991 08/14/1991
08/15/1991 08/15/1991 09/11/1991
09/11/1991 09/12/1991

25 Answer by JOSEPH LEHMAN, JEFFREY BEARDS, MARTIN DRAGOVICH, JOSEPH RYAN, DONALD T. VAUGHN, FREDERICK ROSENMEYER, THOMAS FULCOMER, GILBERT A. WALTERS, DENNIS R. BERHARDT, JOSEPH F. MAZURKIEWICZ, MARGARET A. MOORE, CHARLES H. ZIMMERMAN, WILLIAM J. WOLFE to amended complaint (jc) (Entered: 08/07/1991)
ISSUE JOINED. (jc) (Entered: 08/07/1991)
26 UNOPPPOSED MOTION by PLAINTIFF STEVEN AUSTIN, PLAINTIFF ROBERT C. BORING, PLAINTIFF FRANKLIN CASTLE, PLAINTIFF PAUL TAYLOR, PLAINTIFF EUGENE DUNSON, PLAINTIFF JOHN REGELMAN, PLAINTIFF KEVIN SANDERS, PLAINTIFF RICHARD BOOZER, PLAINTIFF FRANCIS PARKER, PLAINTIFF WILLIAM A. FINGER, PLAINTIFF JOSEPH MULCAHY, PLAINTIFF LAURENCE JOHNSON, PLAINTIFF DEBRA TO EXTEND TIME FOR FILING OF AMENDED COMPLAINT , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (jc) Modified on 04/08/1992 (Entered: 08/14/1991)
27 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER THIS ORDER SHALL GOVERN ALL DOCUMENTS MARKED CONFIDENTIAL BY EITHER PARTY, PRODUCED TO ANY PARTY OR HIS COUNSEL IN THIS ACTION AS WELL AS ALL INFORMATION DERIVED FROM SUCH DOCUMENTS AND ALL COPIES, EXCERPTS OR SUMMARIES OF SUCH DOCUMENTS ETC., ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 08/15/91 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (jc) (Entered: 08/15/1991)
28 ORDER GRANTING [26-1] MOTION TO EXTEND TIME FOR FILING OF AMENDED COMPLAINT AND FINDING IT REASONABLE IN ALL RESPECTS THIS COURT NOW EXTENDS PLFFS' TIME TO FILE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENT TO ON OR BEFORE SEPTEMBER 18,1991 ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (jc) (Entered: 08/15/1991)
29 MOTION BY PLAINTIFF STEVEN AUSTIN, PLAINTIFF ROBERT C. BORING, PLAINTIFF FRANKLIN CASTLE, PLAINTIFF PAUL TAYLOR, PLAINTIFF EUGENE DUNSON, PLAINTIFF JOHN REGELMAN, PLAINTIFF KEVIN SANDERS, PLAINTIFF RICHARD BOOZER, PLAINTIFF FRANCIS PARKER, PLAINTIFF WILLIAM A. FINGER, PLAINTIFF JOSEPH MULCAHY, PLAINTIFF LAURENCE JOHNSON, PLAINTIFF DEBRA SPEAKES FOR ALVIN J. BRONSTEIN TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE, AFFIDAVIT OF ALVIN J. BRONSTEIN (jc) Modified on 04/08/1992 (Entered: 09/12/1991)
30 ORDER GRANTING [29-1] MOTION FOR ALVIN J. BRONSTEIN TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 09/12/91 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (jc) (Entered: 09/12/1991)
31 SCHEDULING ORDER SETTING DISCOVERY CUTOFF 6/30/92; PRETRIAL CONFERENCE FOR 2:00 9/18/92; TRIAL POOL DEADLINE SET FOR 10/5/92; PRETRIAL ORDER TO BE SUBMITTED ON OR BEFORE 9/14/92; PLFFS SHALL FILE AND SERVE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT ON

40 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

09/16/1991
09/16/1991 09/16/1991 09/16/1991
09/16/1991 09/17/1991 10/03/1991 10/04/1991 10/04/1991

OR BEFORE SEPTEMBER 18, 1991 ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 09/12/91 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (jc) (Entered: 09/12/1991)
32 Second Amended complaint by PLAINTIFF STEVEN AUSTIN, PLAINTIFF ROBERT C. BORING, PLAINTIFF FRANKLIN CASTLE, PLAINTIFF PAUL TAYLOR, PLAINTIFF EUGENE DUNSON, PLAINTIFF JOHN REGELMAN, PLAINTIFF KEVIN SANDERS, PLAINTIFF RICHARD BOOZER, FRANCIS PARKER, PLAINTIFF WILLIAM A. FINGER, PLAINTIFF JOSEPH MULCAHY, PLAINTIFF LAURENCE JOHNSON, PLAINTIFF DEBRA SPEAKES , amending [10-1] amended complaint against WILLIAM LOVE, TIMOTHY ENGLISH, JOSEPH CHESNEY, ROBERT CASEY (jc) (Entered: 09/17/1991)
33 MOTION BY PLAINTIFF SCOTT DOCKLER, PLAINTIFF GARY ROOS, PLAINTIFF PERCY MCCONNELL TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS , DECLARATIONS IN SUPPORT (jc) Modified on 04/08/1992 (Entered: 09/17/1991)
34 MOTION BY PLAINTIFF JOHN DOE, PLAINTIFF JOHN ROE FOR LEAVE FOR PSEUDONYM (jc) (Entered: 09/17/1991)
35 APPLICATION by PLAINTIFF STEVEN AUSTIN, PLAINTIFF ROBERT C. BORING, PLAINTIFF FRANKLIN CASTLE, PLAINTIFF PAUL TAYLOR, PLAINTIFF EUGENE DUNSON, PLAINTIFF JOHN REGELMAN, PLAINTIFF KEVIN SANDERS, PLAINTIFF RICHARD BOOZER, PLAINTIFF FRANCIS PARKER, PLAINTIFF WILLIAM A. FINGER, PLAINTIFF JOSEPH MULCAHY, PLAINTIFF LAURENCE JOHNSON, PLAINTIFF DEBRA SPEAKES, PLAINTIFF TROY CALHOUN, PLAINTIFF FRANKLIN D. BALTIMORE SR., PLAINTIFF LEONARD T. MORTON JR., PLAINTIFF SCOTT DOCKLER, PLAINTIFF GARY ROOS, PLAINTIFF PERCY MCCONNELL, PLAINTIFF JOHN DOE, PLAINTIFF JOHN ROE FOR ORDER TO SEAL (jc) (Entered: 09/17/1991)
Summons(es) issued on amended complaint Forwarded to: counsel 09/17/91 (jc) (Entered: 09/17/1991)
36 Transcript of Civil Hearing on July 18, 1991 Before the Honorable Jan E. Du bois (jc) (Entered: 09/17/1991)
37 ORDER GRANTING [33-1] MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON BEHALF OF PLFF'S SCOTT DOCKLER, GARY S. ROOS, AND PERCY MCCONNELL ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 10/04/91 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (jc) (Entered: 10/04/1991)
38 ORDER GRANTING [34-1] MOTION FOR LEAVE FOR PSEUDONYM AND THAT EXHIBITS A AND B BE SEALED AND THAT THIS ACTION BE ALLOWED TO PROCEED IN PSEUDONYM IN REGARD TO THE INDIVIDUALS STYLED JOHN DOE AND JOHN ROE ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 10/04/91 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (jc) (Entered: 10/04/1991)
39 Exhibits by PLAINTIFF JOHN DOE, PLAINTIFF JOHN ROE filed under seal pursuant to Order of Judge Jan E. Dubois (jc) (Entered: 10/04/1991)

41 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

10/07/1991
10/15/1991 10/15/1991 10/17/1991 10/22/1991 10/28/1991
02/04/1992

40 Answer by JOSEPH LEHMAN, JEFFREY BEARDS, MARTIN DRAGOVICH, JOSEPH RYAN, DONALD T. VAUGHN, FREDERICK ROSENMEYER, GILBERT A. WALTERS, DENNIS R. BERHARDT, JOSEPH F. MAZURKIEWICZ, MARGARET A. MOORE, CHARLES H. ZIMMERMAN, WILLIAM LOVE, TIMOTHY ENGLISH, JOSEPH CHESNEY, ROBERT CASEY (Attorney FRANCIS R. FILIPI) to second amended complaint (jc) (Entered: 10/08/1991)
41 Acknowledgement of service as to DEFENDANT ROBERT CASEY 10/9/91 (jc) (Entered: 10/16/1991)
42 Acknowledgement of service as to DEFENDANT JOSEPH CHESNEY 10/9/91 (jc) (Entered: 10/16/1991)
43 MOTION BY PLAINTIFF TROY CALHOUN, PLAINTIFF FRANKLIN D. BALTIMORE SR., PLAINTIFF LEONARD T. MORTON JR., PLAINTIFF JOHN DOE, PLAINTIFF JOHN ROE TO PROCEED IN FORMA TO SEAL DECLARATIONS OF JOHN DOE AND JOHN ROE , VERIFICATION OF STEFAN PRESSER, DECLARATIONS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS. (jc) (Entered: 10/18/1991)
44 ORDER GRANTING [43-1] MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON BEHALF OF PLFFS FRANK D.BALTIMORE, TROY CALHOUN, LEONARD T. MORTON, JR., JOHN DOE AND JOHN ROE; GRANTING [43-2] MOTION TO SEAL DECLARATIONS OF JOHN DOE AND JOHN ROE. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 10/23/91 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED (jc) (Entered: 10/23/1991)
45 Response by DEFENDANT PENNSYLVANIA DEPT., DEFENDANT JOSEPH LEHMAN, DEFENDANT JEFFREY BEARDS, DEFENDANT MARTIN DRAGOVICH, DEFENDANT JOSEPH RYAN, DEFENDANT DONALD T. VAUGHN, DEFENDANT FREDERICK ROSENMEYER, DEFENDANT GILBERT A. WALTERS, DEFENDANT DENNIS R. BERHARDT, DEFENDANT JOSEPH F. MAZURKIEWICZ, DEFENDANT MARGARET A. MOORE, DEFENDANT CHARLES H. ZIMMERMAN, DEFENDANT WILLIAM LOVE, DEFENDANT TIMOTHY ENGLISH, DEFENDANT JOSEPH CHESNEY, DEFENDANT ROBERT CASEY to [34-1] MOTION FOR LEAVE FOR PSEUDONYM (jc) (Entered: 10/28/1991)
46 MOTION BY PLAINTIFF STEVEN AUSTIN, PLAINTIFF ROBERT C. BORING, PLAINTIFF FRANKLIN CASTLE, PLAINTIFF EUGENE DUNSON, PLAINTIFF JOHN REGELMAN, PLAINTIFF KEVIN SANDERS, PLAINTIFF RICHARD BOOZER, PLAINTIFF FRANCIS PARKER, PLAINTIFF WILLIAM A. FINGER, PLAINTIFF JOSEPH MULCAHY, PLAINTIFF LAURENCE JOHNSON, PLAINTIFF DEBRA SPEAKES, PLAINTIFF TROY CALHOUN, PLAINTIFF FRANKLIN D. BALTIMORE SR., PLAINTIFF LEONARD T. MORTON JR., PLAINTIFF SCOTT DOCKLER, PLAINTIFF GARY ROOS, PLAINTIFF PERCY MCCONNELL, PLAINTIFF JOHN DOE, PLAINTIFF JOHN ROE TO COMPEL DISCOVERY , MEMORANDUM, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (jc) (Entered: 02/05/1992)

42 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

02/20/1992 02/26/1992
03/02/1992
03/05/1992
03/13/1992 03/13/1992 03/18/1992

47 ORDER THAT DEFENDANTS' SHALL HAVE AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSE TO MOTION RESET TO 3/2/92 FOR [46-1] MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY (SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 02/21/92 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (jc) (Entered: 02/21/1992)
48 MOTION BY PLAINTIFF STEVEN AUSTIN, PLAINTIFF ROBERT C. BORING, PLAINTIFF FRANKLIN CASTLE, PLAINTIFF PAUL TAYLOR, PLAINTIFF EUGENE DUNSON, PLAINTIFF JOHN REGELMAN, PLAINTIFF KEVIN SANDERS, PLAINTIFF RICHARD BOOZER, PLAINTIFF FRANCIS PARKER, PLAINTIFF WILLIAM A. FINGER, PLAINTIFF JOSEPH MULCAHY, PLAINTIFF LAURENCE JOHNSON, PLAINTIFF DEBRA SPEAKES, PLAINTIFF TROY CALHOUN, PLAINTIFF FRANKLIN D. BALTIMORE SR., PLAINTIFF LEONARD T. MORTON JR., PLAINTIFF SCOTT DOCKLER, PLAINTIFF GARY ROOS, PLAINTIFF PERCY MCCONNELL, PLAINTIFF JOHN DOE, PLAINTIFF JOHN ROE TO COMPEL DISCOVERY , MEMORANDUM, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (jc) (Entered: 02/27/1992)
49 Memorandum by DEFENDANT PENNSYLVANIA DEPT., DEFENDANT JOSEPH LEHMAN, DEFENDANT JEFFREY BEARDS, DEFENDANT MARTIN DRAGOVICH, DEFENDANT JOSEPH RYAN, DEFENDANT DONALD T. VAUGHN, DEFENDANT FREDERICK ROSENMEYER, DEFENDANT GILBERT A. WALTERS, DEFENDANT DENNIS R. BERHARDT, DEFENDANT JOSEPH F. MAZURKIEWICZ, DEFENDANT MARGARET A. MOORE, DEFENDANT CHARLES H. ZIMMERMAN, DEFENDANT WILLIAM LOVE, DEFENDANT TIMOTHY ENGLISH, DEFENDANT JOSEPH CHESNEY, DEFENDANT ROBERT CASEY in opposition to [48-1] MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY, Certificate of Service (jc) (Entered: 03/03/1992)
50 ORDER GRANTING [11-1] MOTION TO CERTIFY CLASS. THE ABOVE CAPTIONED ACTION IS CERTIFIED PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AS A CLASS CONSISTING OF ALL PERSONS WHO ARE NOT OR WHO WILL IN THE FUTURE BE CONFINED BY THE PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS IN A FACILITY OTHER THAN STATE CORRECTIONS INSTITUTION AT MUNCY OR STATE CORRECTIONS INSTITUTION AT PITTSBURGH, BOTH OF WHICH ARE SUBJECTS OF OTHER COURT ORDERS. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 03/06/92 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (jc) (Entered: 03/06/1992)
51 UNNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ELIZABETH ALEXANDER AND DAVID FATHI ESQ., TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE FOR PLFFS , DECLARATION, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (dt) Modified on 03/26/1992 (Entered: 03/16/1992)
52 MOTION BY PLAINTIFFS FOR SUBSTITUTION OF CLASS RERESENTATIVE , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (dt) (Entered: 03/16/1992)
53 Appearance of STUART H. ADAMS JR. for PLAINTIFFS STEVEN AUSTIN, ET AL, cert. of service (jef) (Entered: 03/19/1992)

43 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

03/26/1992 03/26/1992 03/26/1992 03/30/1992 04/01/1992
04/07/1992

54 ORDER GRANTING [52-1] MOTION FOR SUBSTITUTION OF CLASS RERESENTATIVE. RICHARD BROWNING BE SUBSTITUTED FOR ROBERT C. BORING AT SCI-CRESSON, GEORGE MILLER BE SUBSTITUTED FOR FRANCIS PARKER AT SCI-RETREAT, NICHOLAS BORSELLO BE SUBSTITUTED FOR WILLIAM A. FINGER AT SCI-ROCKVIEW, AND PAUL SOLOMAN BE SUBSTITUTED FOR LAURENCE JOHNSON AT SCI-WAYMART ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 03/26/92 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (jc) (Entered: 03/26/1992)
55 ORDER GRANTING [51-1] MOTION ELIZABETH ALEXANDER AND DAVID FATHI ESQ., TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE FOR PLFFS ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 03/27/92 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (jc) (Entered: 03/27/1992)
56 STIPULATION AND ORDER THAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 12 AND 14 OF THE AUGUST 15, 1991, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER, IT IS AGREED BY AND AMONG THE PARTIES THAT IT WILL BE MODIFIED AND LIMITED, ETC. (SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS) 03/27/92 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (jc) (Entered: 03/27/1992)
57 Status Report of PLAINTIFF STEVEN AUSTIN, PLAINTIFF FRANKLIN CASTLE, PLAINTIFF EUGENE DUNSON, PLAINTIFF JOHN REGELMAN, PLAINTIFF KEVIN SANDERS, PLAINTIFF RICHARD BOOZER, PLAINTIFF JOSEPH MULCAHY, PLAINTIFF DEBRA SPEAKES, PLAINTIFF TROY CALHOUN, PLAINTIFF FRANKLIN D. BALTIMORE SR., PLAINTIFF LEONARD T. MORTON JR., PLAINTIFF SCOTT DOCKLER, PLAINTIFF GARY ROOS, PLAINTIFF PERCY MCCONNELL, PLAINTIFF JOHN DOE, PLAINTIFF JOHN ROE, Cert. of Service. (fe) (Entered: 03/30/1992)
58 Status Report on Discovery of DEFENDANT PENNSYLVANIA DEPT., DEFENDANT JOSEPH LEHMAN, DEFENDANT JEFFREY BEARDS, DEFENDANT MARTIN DRAGOVICH, DEFENDANT JOSEPH RYAN, DEFENDANT RAYMOND E. CLYMER, DEFENDANT DONALD T. VAUGHN, DEFENDANT FREDERICK ROSENMEYER, DEFENDANT THOMAS FULCOMER, DEFENDANT GILBERT A. WALTERS, DEFENDANT DENNIS R. BERHARDT, DEFENDANT JOSEPH F. MAZURKIEWICZ, DEFENDANT MARGARET A. MOORE, DEFENDANT H. ZIMMERMAN, DEFENDANT WILLIAM J. WOLFE, DEFENDANT WILLIAM LOVE, DEFENDANT TIMOTHY ENGLISH, DEFENDANT JOSEPH CHESNEY, DEFENDANT ROBERT CASEY, DEFENDANT RICHARD BROWNING, DEFENDANT GEORGE MILLER, DEFENDANT NICHOLAS BORSELLO, DEFENDANT PAUL SOLOMAN, certificate of service. (aa) Modified on 04/02/1992 (Entered: 04/02/1992)
59 ORDER DENYING [48-1] MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY; DENYING [46-1] MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 04/07/92 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (jc) (Entered: 04/07/1992)

44 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

04/07/1992
04/24/1992 04/30/1992
04/30/1992
04/30/1992 05/06/1992

60 AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER SETTING DEADLINE FOR FILING OF ALL MOTIONS 3/15/93; DISCOVERY CUTOFF 2/15/93; PRETRIAL CONFERENCE 4:45 5/24/93; TRIAL POOL DEADLINE SET FOR 6/7/93; PRETRIAL ORDER TO BE SUBMITTED ON OR BEFORE 5/17/93, ETC. ALL CONTRARY PROVISIONS OF THIS COURT'S SCHEDULING ORDER OF SEPTEMBER 10, 1991 ARE VACATED; ALL REMAINING PROVISIONS OF THE SEPTEMBER 10, 1991 SCHEDULING ORDER SHALL REMAIN IN EFFECT AND GOVERN ALL FURTHER PRODCEEDINGS. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 04/08/92 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (jc) (Entered: 04/08/1992)
61 ORDER THAT THE MADAMUS COMPLAINT FILED BY JOSEPH J. TAYLOR, A MEMBER OF THE PLAINTIFF CLASS, IS DISMISSED BECAUSE IT HAS NOT BEEN SIGNED BY AN ATTORNEY OF RECORD AS REQUIRED BY RULE 11 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 04/27/92 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (jc) (Entered: 04/27/1992)
62 MOTION BY PLAINTIFF STEVEN AUSTIN, PLAINTIFF FRANKLIN CASTLE, PLAINTIFF EUGENE DUNSON, PLAINTIFF JOHN REGELMAN, PLAINTIFF KEVIN SANDERS, PLAINTIFF RICHARD BOOZER, PLAINTIFF JOSEPH MULCAHY, PLAINTIFF DEBRA SPEAKES, PLAINTIFF TROY CALHOUN, PLAINTIFF FRANKLIN D. BALTIMORE SR., PLAINTIFF LEONARD T. MORTON JR., PLAINTIFF SCOTT DOCKLER, PLAINTIFF GARY ROOS, PLAINTIFF PERCY MCCONNELL, PLAINTIFF JOHN DOE, PLAINTIFF JOHN ROE TO MODIFY STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER , MEMORANDUM, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (jc) (Entered: 04/30/1992)
63 MOTION BY PLAINTIFF STEVEN AUSTIN, PLAINTIFF FRANKLIN CASTLE, PLAINTIFF EUGENE DUNSON, PLAINTIFF JOHN REGELMAN, PLAINTIFF KEVIN SANDERS, PLAINTIFF RICHARD BOOZER, PLAINTIFF JOSEPH MULCAHY, PLAINTIFF DEBRA SPEAKES, PLAINTIFF TROY CALHOUN, PLAINTIFF FRANKLIN D. BALTIMORE SR., PLAINTIFF LEONARD T. MORTON JR., PLAINTIFF SCOTT DOCKLER, PLAINTIFF GARY ROOS, PLAINTIFF PERCY MCCONNELL, PLAINTIFF JOHN DOE, PLAINTIFF JOHN ROE FOR KENNETH L. BLACKWELL TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE DECLARATION, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (fe) (Entered: 05/01/1992)
64 ORDER GRANTING [63-1] MOTION FOR KENNETH L. BLACKWELL TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 5/1/92 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (fe) (Entered: 05/01/1992)
65 ORDER NOTWITHSTANDING THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF HIV-RELATED INFORMATION ACT, THE COURT FINDS THAT THE CURRENT AUTHORIZATION FOR RELEASE OF INFORMATION FORMS ARE ADEQUATE TO PROTECT THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF HIV-RELATED INFORMATION. THE DEFENDANTS ARE ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED TO FOLLOW THE PROVISIONS OF THE AMENDMENT TO STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER FILED MARCH 26, 1992. THE DEFENDANTS ARE ALSO

45 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

05/08/1992 05/18/1992
05/21/1992
06/25/1992 06/30/1992

DIRECTED TO PROVIDE MEDICAL RECORDS OF DECEASED PRISIONERS, INCLUDING THOSE THAT DISCLOSE HIV-POSITIVE STATUS. THIS ORDER IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE PLAINTIFFS' PENDING MOTION TO MODIFY THE STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 05/06/92 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (jc) (Entered: 05/06/1992)
66 Declaration of Jeffrey L. Metzner, M.D. (jc) (Entered: 05/11/1992)
67 Memorandum by DEFENDANT PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, DEFENDANT JOSEPH LEHMAN, DEFENDANT JEFFREY BEARDS, DEFENDANT MARTIN DRAGOVICH, DEFENDANT JOSEPH RYAN, DEFENDANT DONALD T. VAUGHN, DEFENDANT FREDERICK ROSENMEYER, DEFENDANT GILBERT WALTERS, DEFENDANT DENNIS R. BERHARDT, DEFENDANT JOSEPH F. MAZURKIEWICZ, DEFENDANT MARGARET A. MOORE, DEFENDANT H. ZIMMERMAN, DEFENDANT WILLIAM LOVE, DEFENDANT TIMOTHY ENGLISH, DEFENDANT JOSEPH CHESNEY, DEFENDANT ROBERT CASEY, DEFENDANT RICHARD BROWNING, DEFENDANT GEORGE MILLER, DEFENDANT NICHOLAS BORSELLO, DEFENDANT PAUL SOLOMAN in opposition to [62-1] MOTION TO MODIFY STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER, Certificate of Service (jc) (Entered: 05/19/1992)
68 MOTION BY PLAINTIFF STEVEN AUSTIN, PLAINTIFF FRANKLIN CASTLE, PLAINTIFF EUGENE DUNSON, PLAINTIFF JOHN REGELMAN, PLAINTIFF KEVIN SANDERS, PLAINTIFF RICHARD BOOZER, PLAINTIFF JOSEPH MULCAHY, PLAINTIFF DEBRA SPEAKES, PLAINTIFF TROY CALHOUN, PLAINTIFF FRANKLIN D. BALTIMORE SR., PLAINTIFF LEONARD T. MORTON JR., PLAINTIFF SCOTT DOCKLER, PLAINTIFF GARY ROOS, PLAINTIFF PERCY MCCONNELL, PLAINTIFF JOHN DOE, PLAINTIFF JOHN ROE FOR LEAVE TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD , MEMORANDUM, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (jc) (Entered: 05/21/1992)
69 Discovery Report of PLAINTIFF STEVEN AUSTIN, PLAINTIFF FRANKLIN CASTLE, PLAINTIFF EUGENE DUNSON, PLAINTIFF JOHN REGELMAN, PLAINTIFF KEVIN SANDERS, PLAINTIFF RICHARD BOOZER, JOSEPH MULCAHY, PLAINTIFF DEBRA SPEAKES, certificate of Service . (jc) (Entered: 06/26/1992)
70 Discovery Report of DEFENDANT PENNSYLVANIA DEPT., DEFENDANT JOSEPH LEHMAN, DEFENDANT JEFFREY BEARDS, DEFENDANT MARTIN DRAGOVICH, DEFENDANT JOSEPH RYAN, DEFENDANT DONALD T. VAUGHN, DEFENDANT FREDERICK ROSENMEYER, DEFENDANT GILBERT A. WALTERS, DEFENDANT DENNIS R. BERHARDT, DEFENDANT JOSEPH F. MAZURKIEWICZ, DEFENDANT MARGARET A. MOORE, DEFENDANT CHARLES H. ZIMMERMAN, DEFENDANT WILLIAM LOVE, DEFENDANT TIMOTHY ENGLISH, DEFENDANT JOSEPH CHESNEY, DEFENDANT ROBERT CASEY . (jc) (Entered: 06/30/1992)

46 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

07/10/1992 07/10/1992 07/28/1992 07/30/1992 07/31/1992
08/06/1992

71 MOTION BY PLAINTIFF STEVEN AUSTIN, PLAINTIFF FRANKLIN CASTLE, PLAINTIFF EUGENE DUNSON, PLAINTIFF JOHN REGELMAN, PLAINTIFF KEVIN SANDERS, PLAINTIFF RICHARD BOOZER, PLAINTIFF JOSEPH MULCAHY, PLAINTIFF DEBRA SPEAKES, PLAINTIFF TROY CALHOUN, PLAINTIFF FRANKLIN D. BALTIMORE SR., PLAINTIFF LEONARD T. MORTON JR., PLAINTIFF SCOTT DOCKLER, PLAINTIFF GARY ROOS, PLAINTIFF PERCY MCCONNELL, PLAINTIFF JOHN DOE, PLAINTIFF JOHN ROE TO AMEND COMPLAINT AND ADD DEFENDANT , BRIEF, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (jc) (Entered: 07/10/1992)
72 Declaration of Armond Start, M.D. Under Pain of Perjury (jc) (Entered: 07/14/1992)
235 Documents by PLAINTIFF STEVEN AUSTIN, PLAINTIFF FRANKLIN CASTLE, PLAINTIFF EUGENE DUNSON, PLAINTIFF JOHN REGELMAN, PLAINTIFF KEVIN SANDERS, PLAINTIFF RICHARD BOOZER, PLAINTIFF JOSEPH MULCAHY, PLAINTIFF DEBRA SPEAKES in support of Plffs' memorandum of law in opposition to Defts' Motion for partial summary judgment. (redacted volume V) (lvj) (Entered: 07/29/1993)
73 MOTION BY PLAINTIFF STEVEN AUSTIN, PLAINTIFF FRANKLIN CASTLE, PLAINTIFF EUGENE DUNSON, PLAINTIFF JOHN REGELMAN, PLAINTIFF KEVIN SANDERS, PLAINTIFF RICHARD BOOZER, PLAINTIFF JOSEPH MULCAHY, PLAINTIFF DEBRA SPEAKES, PLAINTIFF TROY CALHOUN, PLAINTIFF FRANKLIN D. BALTIMORE SR., PLAINTIFF LEONARD T. MORTON JR., PLAINTIFF SCOTT DOCKLER, PLAINTIFF GARY ROOS, PLAINTIFF PERCY MCCONNELL, PLAINTIFF JOHN DOE, PLAINTIFF JOHN ROE FOR LEAVE SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD AND TO FILE SEALED DOCUMENT , MEMORANDUM, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (jc) (Entered: 07/31/1992)
74 Brief by DEFENDANT PENNSYLVANIA DEPT., DEFENDANT JOSEPH LEHMAN, DEFENDANT JEFFREY BEARDS, DEFENDANT MARTIN DRAGOVICH, DEFENDANT JOSEPH RYAN, DEFENDANT DONALD T. VAUGHN, DEFENDANT FREDERICK ROSENMEYER, DEFENDANT GILBERT A. WALTERS, DEFENDANT DENNIS R. BERHARDT, DEFENDANT JOSEPH F. MAZURKIEWICZ, DEFENDANT MARGARET A. MOORE, DEFENDANT CHARLES H. ZIMMERMAN, DEFENDANT WILLIAM LOVE, DEFENDANT TIMOTHY ENGLISH, DEFENDANT JOSEPH CHESNEY, DEFENDANT ROBERT CASEY, DEFENDANT RICHARD BROWNING, DEFENDANT GEORGE MILLER, DEFENDANT NICHOLAS BORSELLO, DEFENDANT PAUL SOLOMAN in opposition to [71-1] MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT AND ADD DEFENDANT, Certificate of Service (jc) (Entered: 08/03/1992)
75 MOTION by PLAINTIFF STEVEN AUSTIN, PLAINTIFF FRANKLIN CASTLE, PLAINTIFF EUGENE DUNSON, PLAINTIFF JOHN REGELMAN, PLAINTIFF KEVIN SANDERS, PLAINTIFF RICHARD BOOZER, PLAINTIFF JOSEPH MULCAHY, PLAINTIFF DEBRA SPEAKES, PLAINTIFF TROY CALHOUN, PLAINTIFF FRANKLIN D. BALTIMORE SR., PLAINTIFF LEONARD T. MORTON JR., PLAINTIFF SCOTT

47 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

08/10/1992
08/11/1992
08/18/1992 08/31/1992 09/01/1992 09/01/1992 09/01/1992 09/01/1992 09/01/1992

DOCKLER, PLAINTIFF GARY ROOS, PLAINTIFF PERCY MCCONNELL, PLAINTIFF JOHN DOE, PLAINTIFF JOHN ROE FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND FOR AN ORDER SHORTENING DEFENDANTS' TIME FOR RESPONSE , BRIEF CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (jc) (Entered: 08/07/1992)
76 SECOND AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER THAT MOTION HEARING SET FOR 10:00 A.M., 9/9/92 FOR [75-1] MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION , SET DISCOVERY DUE FOR 8/24/92 , RESPONSE TO MOTION RESET TO 8/18/92 FOR [75-1] MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION . PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION HEARING SHALL BE HELD IN COURTROOM 12B. ALL OTHER DISCOVERY SHALL PROCEED FORTHWITH AND BE COMPLETED BY AUGUST 26, 1992. PLAINTIFFS SHALL FILE AND SERVE, NOT LATER THAN SEPTEMBER 1, 1992, PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. DEFENDANTS SHALL FILE AND SERVE, NOT LATER THAN SEPTEMBER 4, 1992, PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, ETC. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 08/11/92 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (gm) Modified on 08/11/1992 (Entered: 08/11/1992)
77 Brief by DEFENDANT PENNSYLVANIA DEPT., DEFENDANT JOSEPH LEHMAN, DEFENDANT JEFFREY BEARDS, DEFENDANT MARTIN DRAGOVICH, DEFENDANT JOSEPH RYAN, DEFENDANT DONALD T. VAUGHN, DEFENDANT FREDERICK ROSENMEYER, DEFENDANT GILBERT A. WALTERS, DEFENDANT DENNIS R. BERHARDT, DEFENDANT JOSEPH F. MAZURKIEWICZ, DEFENDANT MARGARET A. MOORE, DEFENDANT CHARLES H. ZIMMERMAN, DEFENDANT WILLIAM LOVE, DEFENDANT TIMOTHY ENGLISH, DEFENDANT JOSEPH CHESNEY, DEFENDANT ROBERT CASEY, DEFENDANT RICHARD BROWNING, DEFENDANT GEORGE MILLER, DEFENDANT NICHOLAS BORSELLO, DEFENDANT PAUL SOLOMAN in opposition to [73-1] MOTION FOR LEAVE SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD AND TO FILE SEALED DOCUMENT, certificate of service. (fe) (Entered: 08/11/1992)
78 Memorandum by DEFTS in opposition to [75-1] MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, Certificate of Service. (mc) (Entered: 08/19/1992)
79 PETITION BY PLAINTIFF STEVEN AUSTIN, ET AL FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AD TESTIFICANDUM OF LEROY JONES, ET AL , MEMORANDUM, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (jc) (Entered: 09/01/1992)
80 Plaintiffs' Uncontested Facts (jc) (Entered: 09/02/1992)
81 Plaintiffs' Contested Facts. (jc) (Entered: 09/02/1992)
82 Plaintiffs' Proposed Conclusions of Law. (jc) (Entered: 09/02/1992)
83 Plaintiffs' Preliminary Injunction Brief (jc) (Entered: 09/02/1992)
84 Plaintiffs' Witness List for Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Certificate of Service (jc) (Entered: 09/02/1992)

48 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

09/01/1992 09/03/1992
09/04/1992 09/04/1992 09/11/1992 09/11/1992 09/11/1992 09/11/1992 09/11/1992 09/11/1992 09/15/1992
09/16/1992 09/23/1992 09/24/1992 09/24/1992 09/24/1992

85 Defendants' Statement of Undisputed Facts. (jc) (Entered: 09/02/1992)
86 ORDER WITHDRAWING PLAINTIFFS' [79-1] MOTION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AD TESTIFICANDUM OF LEROY JONES, ET AL. (SIGNED BY JUDGE E. DUBOIS) 9/4/92 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (fe) (Entered: 09/04/1992)
87 Defts. Preliminary Injunction Brief, cert. of serv. (mk) (Entered: 09/08/1992)
88 Defts. Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law, cert. of serv. (mk) (Entered: 09/08/1992)
89 Minute entry: Preliminary Injunction Hearing on 9/9/92. (jc) (Entered: 09/14/1992)
90 Minute entry: Preliminary Injunction Hearing Day Two. (jc) (Entered: 09/14/1992)
91 Proposed Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law by plaintiffs' (jc) (Entered: 09/14/1992)
92 Hearing Memorandum of PLAINTIFF STEVEN AUSTIN, ET AL on admissibility of certain plaintiffs' exhibits (jc) (Entered: 09/14/1992)
93 Exhibit list by PLAINTIFF STEVEN AUSTIN, ET AL (jc) (Entered: 09/14/1992)
94 Exhibit list by PLAINTIFF STEVEN AUSTIN, ET AL (jc) (Entered: 09/14/1992)
95 Supplemental Memorandum by PLAINTIFF STEVEN AUSTIN, PLAINTIFF FRANKLIN CASTLE, PLAINTIFF EUGENE DUNSON, PLAINTIFF JOHN REGELMAN, PLAINTIFF KEVIN SANDERS, PLAINTIFF RICHARD BOOZER, JOSEPH MULCAHY, PLAINTIFF DEBRA SPEAKES, PLAINTIFF TROY CALHOUN, PLAINTIFF FRANKLIN D. BALTIMORE SR., PLAINTIFF LEONARD T. MORTON JR., PLAINTIFF SCOTT DOCKLER, PLAINTIFF GARY ROOS, PLAINTIFF PERCY MCCONNELL, PLAINTIFF JOHN DOE, PLAINTIFF JOHN ROE in support of [62-1] MOTION TO MODIFY STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER, cert. of service. (aa) (Entered: 09/16/1992)
96 Minute entry: Prelininary Injunction Hearing day three 9/11/92 (jc) (Entered: 09/16/1992)
97 Discovery report of plaintiffs' (jc) (Entered: 09/24/1992)
98 Transcript of Preliminary Injunction Hearing on September 9, 1992 before the Honorable Jan E. Dubois (jc) (Entered: 09/25/1992)
99 Transcript of Preliminary Injunction hearing on September 10, 1992 before the Honorable Jan E. Dubois (jc) (Entered: 09/25/1992)
100 Transcript of a hearing on September 11, 1992 before the Honorable Jan E. Dubois (jc) (Entered: 09/25/1992)

49 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

09/29/1992
09/29/1992
09/29/1992 09/29/1992 09/29/1992 09/30/1992 10/01/1992

101 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE DFTS, ETC., AND ALL OTHER PERSONS ACTING IN CONCERT WITH THEM ARE PRELIMINARILY ENJOINED TO IMPLEMENT DEFTS' CLINICAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDELINES FOR THE PREVENTION AND MANAGEMENT OF TUBERCULOSIS, DATED SEPTEMBER 4, 1992, AT EVERY STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION SUBJECT TO THIS ACTION. IT IS FURTHER ORDER THAT THE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF GRANTED BY THIS ORDER SHALL BE EXTENDED TO SCI-MUNCY. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 9/30/92 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lvj) (Entered: 09/30/1992)
102 ORDER THAT ORAL ARGUMENT SHALL BE HELD ON PLFFS' MOTION TO MODIFY STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER AND PLFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS ON MONDAY, OCTOBER 19, 1992, AT 4:45 P.M., ETC., IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, UPON COMPLETION OF THE ORAL ARGUMENT, THE COURT WILL CONDUCT A DISCOVERY CONFERENCE IN AN EFFORT TO RESOLVE ANY REMAINING DISCOVERY DISPUTES, ETC., MOTION HEARING ON 4:45 10/19/92 ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 9/30/92 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lvj) (Entered: 09/30/1992)
103 ORDER DENYING [71-1] MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT AND ADD DEFENDANT, ETC. (SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 9/30/92 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (fe) (Entered: 09/30/1992)
104 ORDER THAT PLFFS' MOTION FOR LEAVE SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD AND MOTION TO FILE SEALED DOCUMENT ARE GRANTED. (SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS) 9/30/92 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (fe) (Entered: 09/30/1992)
105 ORDERED THAT PLFFS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD WITH RESPECT TO PLFFS' MOTION TO AMEND THE STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER WITH DECLARATIONS OF JEFFREY L. METZNER, M.D., DATED 5/6/92 AND 5/19/92 IS GRANTED. (SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS) 9/30/92 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (fe) (Entered: 09/30/1992)
106 Defendants' Status Report, certificate of service (jc) (Entered: 10/01/1992)
107 Appearance by R. DOUGLAS SHERMAN for DEFENDANT PENNSYLVANIA DEPT., DEFENDANT JOSEPH LEHMAN, DEFENDANT JEFFREY BEARDS, DEFENDANT MARTIN DRAGOVICH, DEFENDANT JOSEPH RYAN, DEFENDANT DONALD T. VAUGHN, DEFENDANT FREDERICK ROSENMEYER, DEFENDANT GILBERT A. WALTERS, DEFENDANT DENNIS R. BERHARDT, DEFENDANT JOSEPH F. MAZURKIEWICZ, DEFENDANT MARGARET A. MOORE, DEFENDANT CHARLES H. ZIMMERMAN, DEFENDANT WILLIAM LOVE, DEFENDANT TIMOTHY ENGLISH, DEFENDANT JOSEPH CHESNEY, DEFENDANT ROBERT CASEY (jc) (Entered: 10/02/1992)

50 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

10/26/1992 10/26/1992 10/30/1992 11/04/1992 11/09/1992
11/12/1992 11/18/1992
11/24/1992 12/02/1992

108 ORDER MODIFYING STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 10/27/92 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (jc) (Entered: 10/27/1992)
109 The Parties' Joint Response to the Court's Directive Concerning Discovery (jc) (Entered: 10/27/1992)
110 Transcript of motions hearing dated 10/19/92. (sm) (Entered: 10/30/1992)
111 ORDER THAT THE PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY IS GRANTED SUBJECT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS, ETC. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 11/05/92 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (jc) (Entered: 11/05/1992)
112 MOTION BY PLAINTIFF STEVEN AUSTIN, PLAINTIFF FRANKLIN CASTLE, PLAINTIFF EUGENE DUNSON, PLAINTIFF JOHN REGELMAN, PLAINTIFF KEVIN SANDERS, PLAINTIFF RICHARD BOOZER, PLAINTIFF JOSEPH MULCAHY, PLAINTIFF DEBRA SPEAKES, PLAINTIFF TROY CALHOUN, PLAINTIFF FRANKLIN D. BALTIMORE SR., PLAINTIFF LEONARD T. MORTON JR., PLAINTIFF SCOTT DOCKLER, PLAINTIFF GARY ROOS, PLAINTIFF PERCY MCCONNELL, PLAINTIFF JOHN DOE, PLAINTIFF JOHN ROE FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT AND ADD PARTIES , BRIEF IN SUPPORT, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (fe) (Entered: 11/10/1992)
113 MOTION BY DEFENDANTS' FOR LEAVE TO DEPOSE PLAINTIFFS , BRIEF, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (jc) (Entered: 11/13/1992)
114 ORDER THAT DEFENDANTS ARE GRANTED LEAVE TO TAKE THE DEPOSITIONS UPON ORAL EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF INMATE CLASS MEMBERS AT STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS WITHIN PENNSYLVANIA AT A TIME AND PLACE TO BE AGREED UPON BY COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF ELICITING EVIDENCE RELATIVE TO THIS ACTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. PLAINTIFFS ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 11/19/92 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (jc) (Entered: 11/19/1992)
115 DEFENDANT'S Brief in opposition to Plffs' [112-1] MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT AND ADD PARTIES (lm) (Entered: 11/25/1992)
116 MOTION BY PLAINTIFF STEVEN AUSTIN, PLAINTIFF FRANKLIN CASTLE, PLAINTIFF EUGENE DUNSON, PLAINTIFF JOHN REGELMAN, PLAINTIFF KEVIN SANDERS, PLAINTIFF RICHARD BOOZER, PLAINTIFF JOSEPH MULCAHY, PLAINTIFF DEBRA SPEAKES, PLAINTIFF TROY CALHOUN, PLAINTIFF FRANKLIN D. BALTIMORE SR., PLAINTIFF LEONARD T. MORTON JR., PLAINTIFF SCOTT DOCKLER, PLAINTIFF GARY ROOS, PLAINTIFF PERCY MCCONNELL, PLAINTIFF JOHN DOE, PLAINTIFF JOHN ROE FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT AND ADD PARTIES , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (jc) (Entered: 12/03/1992)

51 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

12/04/1992 12/07/1992 12/07/1992 12/10/1992 12/15/1992
12/21/1992 12/29/1992
12/29/1992

117 DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO CORRECT FACTUAL RECORD WITH RESPECT TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT , BRIEF, CERTIFICATES OF SERVICE. (fe) (Entered: 12/07/1992)
118 ORDER GRANTING [116-1] MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT AND ADD PARTIES ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 12/8/92 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (cd) (Entered: 12/08/1992)
119 MOTION BY PLAINTIFF STEVEN AUSTIN, ET AL TO SUBSTITUTE CLASS REPRESENTATIVES , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (jc) (Entered: 12/08/1992)
120 Plaintiffs' opposition to defts' purported motion to correct the record, certificate of service. (fe) (Entered: 12/10/1992)
121 ORDER THAT KENNETH STUMP BE SUBSTITUTED FOR NICHOLAS BORSELLO AS CLASS REPRESENTATIVE AT SCI-ROCKVIEW, THAT EUGEN MAXWELL BE SUBSTITUTED FOR JOHN REGELMAN AS CLASS REPRESENTATIVE AT SCI-GREENSBURG AND THAT DAVID PRENTICE BE SUBSTITUTED FOR GEORGE MILLER AS CLASS REPRESENTATIVE AT SCI-RETREAT. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 12/16/92 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lvj) (Entered: 12/16/1992)
122 PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO STRIKE DEFTS' DESIGNATION OF MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH EXPERTS , BRIEF, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (fe) (Entered: 12/22/1992)
123 Status Report of DEFENDANT PENNSYLVANIA DEPT., DEFENDANT JOSEPH LEHMAN, DEFENDANT JEFFREY BEARDS, DEFENDANT MARTIN DRAGOVICH, DEFENDANT JOSEPH RYAN, DEFENDANT DONALD T. VAUGHN, DEFENDANT FREDERICK ROSENMEYER, DEFENDANT GILBERT A. WALTERS, DEFENDANT DENNIS R. BERHARDT, DEFENDANT JOSEPH F. MAZURKIEWICZ, DEFENDANT MARGARET A. MOORE, DEFENDANT CHARLES H. ZIMMERMAN, DEFENDANT WILLIAM LOVE, DEFENDANT TIMOTHY ENGLISH, DEFENDANT JOSEPH CHESNEY, DEFENDANT ROBERT CASEY, DEFENDANT RICHARD BROWNING, DEFENDANT GEORGE MILLER, DEFENDANT NICHOLAS BORSELLO, DEFENDANT PAUL SOLOMAN, certificate of service. (gm) (Entered: 12/30/1992)
124 MOTION BY DEFENDANT PENNSYLVANIA DEPT., DEFENDANT JOSEPH LEHMAN, DEFENDANT JEFFREY BEARDS, DEFENDANT MARTIN DRAGOVICH, DEFENDANT JOSEPH RYAN, DEFENDANT DONALD T. VAUGHN, DEFENDANT FREDERICK ROSENMEYER, DEFENDANT GILBERT A. WALTERS, DEFENDANT DENNIS R. BERHARDT, DEFENDANT JOSEPH F. MAZURKIEWICZ, DEFENDANT MARGARET A. MOORE, DEFENDANT CHARLES H. ZIMMERMAN, DEFENDANT WILLIAM LOVE, DEFENDANT TIMOTHY ENGLISH, DEFENDANT JOSEPH CHESNEY, DEFENDANT ROBERT CASEY,

52 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

12/29/1992
12/30/1992 01/06/1993 01/07/1993 01/07/1993 01/15/1993

DEFENDANT RICHARD BROWNING, DEFENDANT GEORGE MILLER, DEFENDANT NICHOLAS BORSELLO, DEFENDANT PAUL SOLOMAN FOR AN ENLARGEMENT OF TIME IN WHICH TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS' MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH EXPERT DISCOVERY , BRIEF IN SUPPORT, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (gm) (Entered: 12/30/1992)
125 Brief by DEFENDANT PENNSYLVANIA DEPT., DEFENDANT JOSEPH LEHMAN, DEFENDANT JEFFREY BEARDS, DEFENDANT MARTIN DRAGOVICH, DEFENDANT JOSEPH RYAN, DEFENDANT DONALD T. VAUGHN, DEFENDANT FREDERICK ROSENMEYER, DEFENDANT GILBERT A. WALTERS, DEFENDANT DENNIS R. BERHARDT, DEFENDANT JOSEPH F. MAZURKIEWICZ, DEFENDANT MARGARET A. MOORE, DEFENDANT CHARLES H. ZIMMERMAN, DEFENDANT WILLIAM LOVE, DEFENDANT TIMOTHY ENGLISH, DEFENDANT JOSEPH CHESNEY, DEFENDANT ROBERT CASEY, DEFENDANT RICHARD BROWNING, DEFENDANT GEORGE MILLER, DEFENDANT NICHOLAS BORSELLO, DEFENDANT PAUL SOLOMAN [122-1], in opposition to PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFTS' DESIGNATION OF MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH EXPERTS, certificate of service. (gm) (Entered: 12/30/1992)
126 MOTION BY PLAINTIFF LEONARD T. MORTON JR. AND MOVANT HIRAM R. JOHNSTON JR. FOR PERMISSIVE JOINDER OF PARTIES , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (fe) (Entered: 12/30/1992)
127 ORDER GRANTING [124-1] MOTION FOR AN ENLARGEMENT OF TIME IN WHICH TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS' MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH EXPERT DISCOVERY ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 01/07/93 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (jc) (Entered: 01/07/1993)
128 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING [117-1] MOTION TO CORRECT FACTUAL RECORD WITH RESPECT TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT DENYING [112-1] MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT AND ADD PARTIES ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 01/08/93 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (jc) (Entered: 01/08/1993)
129 ORDER GRANTING IN PART, DENYING IN PART [122-1] MOTION TO STRIKE DEFTS' DESIGNATION OF MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH EXPERTS ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 01/08/93 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (jc) (Entered: 01/08/1993)
130 ORDERED THAT LETTER DATED 1/1/93, FROM 6 INMATES AT SCI-PITTSBURGH, SHALL BE DOCKETED AND WILL BE TREATED BY THE COURT AS A MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE; AND LETTER DATED 1/11/93, FROM 6 INMATES AT SCI-PITTSBURGH, SHALL BE DOCKETED AND WILL BE TREATED BY THE COURT AS A SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE; FURTHER ORDERED THAT ON OR BEFORE 2/1/93, PLFFS AND DEFTS SHALL FILE AND SERVE THEIR RESPONSE TO THE MOTION AND SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE , ETC. (SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E.

53 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

01/15/1993 01/15/1993
01/28/1993
01/29/1993 02/01/1993 02/01/1993 02/01/1993 02/08/1993
02/16/1993

DUBOIS) 1/19/93 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (fe) (Entered: 01/19/1993)
131 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE BY MOVANT WILMER B. GAY, MOVANT RICHARD HOLLIHAN, MOVANT ALAN B. DAVIS, MOVANT WILLIAM C. MUELLER, MOVANT RICHARD HOFFMAN, MOVANT JOHN W. TAYLOR . (fe) Modified on 01/19/1993 (Entered: 01/19/1993)
132 SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE BY MOVANT WILMER B. GAY, MOVANT RICHARD HOLLIHAN, MOVANT ALAN B. DAVIS, MOVANT WILLIAM C. MUELLER, MOVANT RICHARD HOFFMAN, MOVANT JOHN W. TAYLOR SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE BY MOVANT WILMER B. GAY, MOVANT RICHARD MOVANT ALAN B. DAVIS, MOVANT WILLIAM C. MUELLER, MOVANT RICHARD HOFFMAN, MOVANT JOHN W. TAYLOR . (fe) (Entered: 01/19/1993)
133 THIRD AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER SETTING STATUS CONFERENCE BY 10:00 7/6/93; ANY DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS SHALL BE FILED ON OR BEFORE 6/15/93; DISCOVERY CUTOFF 5/15/93; FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE SET FOR 10:00 9/9/93; THE CASE WILL BE PLACED ON THE COURT'S TRIAL LIST ON 9/13/93; PROPOSED FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER TO BE SUBMITTED ON OR BEFORE 8/16/93; ETC. (SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS) 1/29/93 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (fe) (Entered: 01/29/1993)
134 Withdrawal of appearance by KENNETH L. BLACKWELL for plaintiffs, certificate of service. (fe) (Entered: 02/01/1993)
135 Plaintiffs' response to motion of SCI-Pittsburgh prisoners to intervene, certificate of service. (fe) (Entered: 02/01/1993)
136 Defts' brief of opposition to motion and supplemental motion to intervene, certificate of service. (fe) (Entered: 02/02/1993)
137 SEALED DOCUMENT (fe) (Entered: 02/02/1993)
138 MOTION BY PLAINTIFF STEVEN AUSTIN TO STRIKE ELIZABETH ALEXANDER-NATIONAL PRISON PROJECT FILED 'PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO MOTION OF SCI-PITTSBURGH PRISONERS TO INTERVENE", AS A KNOWINGLY SUBMITTED FAUDULENT AND FICTITIOUS RECOMMENDATION FOR THE DISTRICT COURT TO CONSIDER IN THE PENDING MATTER: AND THAT SCI-PITTSBURGH PRISONERS BE GRANTED INTERVENTION AS STATISTIC CLASS , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (lvj) (Entered: 02/08/1993)
139 MOTION BY MOVANT WILMER B. GAY, MOVANT RICHARD HOLLIHAN, MOVANT ALAN B. DAVIS, MOVANT WILLIAM C. MUELLER, MOVANT RICHARD HOFFMAN, MOVANT JOHN W. TAYLOR TO STRIKE PENNSYLVANIA ATTORNEY GENERAL'S FILED "BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION AND SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION TO INTERVENE", ETC. , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (fe) (Entered: 02/16/1993)

54 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

02/22/1993 02/23/1993 02/23/1993
02/24/1993 03/02/1993 03/02/1993 03/03/1993 03/05/1993 03/08/1993 03/08/1993 03/08/1993
03/11/1993

140 UNOPPOSED MOTION BY MOVANT STEFAN PRESSER FOR AMY FOLKOFF KRAUS TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (fe) (Entered: 02/23/1993)
141 MOTION BY DEFENDANTS' TO ENLARGE THE TIME WITHIN WHICH TO RESPOND TO PLFFS' REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (fe) (Entered: 02/23/1993)
142 ORDERED THAT THE MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE ARE DENIED; FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE MOTIONS TO STRIKE PLFFS' RESPONSE AND DEFTS' BRIEF ARE DENIED ON THE GROUND THAT THEY ARE FRIVOLOUS, ETC. (SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS) 2/24/93 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (fe) (Entered: 02/24/1993)
143 Brief by DEFENDANT PENNSYLVANIA DEPT. in opposition to [139-1] MOTION TO STRIKE PENNSYLVANIA ATTORNEY GENERAL'S FILED "BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION AND SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION TO INTERVENE", ETC., Certificate of Service. (fe) (Entered: 02/25/1993)
144 ORDERED THAT AMY FOLKOFF KRAUS BE ADMITTED PRO HAC VICE. (SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 3/3/93 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (fe) (Entered: 03/03/1993)
ORDER GRANTING DEFTS' MOTION TO ENLARGE THE TIME WITHIN WHICH TO RESPOND TO PLFFS' REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS. (SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS) 3/3/93 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (See paper #141) (fe) (Entered: 03/03/1993)
145 APPLICATION BY PLAINTIFFS FOR COSTS AND ATTORNEY FEES , MEMORANDUM, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (fe) (Entered: 03/03/1993)
146 Notice of change of address by KENNETH L. BLACKWELL, Certificate of service (ph) (Entered: 03/05/1993)
147 AMENDED APPLICATION FOR COSTS AND ATTORNEY FEES BY PLAINTIFFS, AMENDED APPLICATION FOR COSTS AND ATTORNEY FEES , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (fe) (Entered: 03/08/1993)
148 MOTION BY PLAINTIFF LEONARD T. MORTON JR., MOVANT HIRAM R. JOHNSTON JR. FOR PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (fe) (Entered: 03/08/1993)
149 MOTION BY MOVANT WILMER B. GAY, MOVANT RICHARD HOLLIHAN, MOVANT ALAN B. DAVIS, MOVANT WILLIAM C. MUELLER, MOVANT RICHARD HOFFMAN, MOVANT JOHN W. TAYLOR TO VACATE JUDGMENT AS FRAUD OBTAINED BY BRIBERY BY PENNSYLVANIA ATTORNEY GENERAL AND ACLU JEWS IN RICO ACTIVITIES AND FOR DISTRICT COURT ORDER DIRECTING U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL APPEARANCE FOR PROSECUTION OF DEFTS AND THEIR CO-CONSPIRATORS THERETO , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (fe) (Entered: 03/08/1993)
150 ORDERED THAT INTERVENOR'S MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT AS FRAUD OBTAINED BY BRIBERY BY PENNSYLVANIA ATTORNEY

55 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

03/12/1993
03/19/1993 03/22/1993
03/22/1993 03/24/1993 03/24/1993

GENERAL AND ACLU JEWS IN RICO ACTIVITIES AND FOR DISTRICT COURT ORDER DIRECTING U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL APPEARANCE FOR PROSECUTION OF DEFTS AND THEIR CO-CONSPIRATORS THERETO IS DENIED. (SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS) 3/12/93 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (fe) (Entered: 03/12/1993)
151 UNCONTESTED MOTION BY DEFENDANT PENNSYLVANIA DEPT., DEFENDANT JOSEPH LEHMAN, DEFENDANT JEFFREY BEARDS, DEFENDANT MARTIN DRAGOVICH, DEFENDANT JOSEPH RYAN, DEFENDANT DONALD T. VAUGHN, DEFENDANT FREDERICK ROSENMEYER, DEFENDANT GILBERT WALTERS, DEFENDANT DENNIS R. BERHARDT, DEFENDANT JOSEPH F. MAZURKIEWICZ, DEFENDANT MARGARET A. MOORE, DEFENDANT H. ZIMMERMAN, DEFENDANT WILLIAM LOVE, DEFENDANT TIMOTHY ENGLISH, DEFENDANT JOSEPH CHESNEY, DEFENDANT ROBERT CASEY, DEFENDANT RICHARD BROWNING, DEFENDANT GEORGE MILLER, DEFENDANT NICHOLAS BORSELLO, DEFENDANT PAUL SOLOMAN TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO PLFFS APPLICATION FOR COST AND ATTORNEY'S FEES , CERTIFICATE OF COUNSEL, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (mc) (Entered: 03/15/1993)
152 STIPULATED MOTION TO WITHDRAW APPEARANCE OF KENNETH L. BLACKWELL, ESQ. , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (fe) (Entered: 03/23/1993)
153 Notice of appeal by MOVANT WILMER B. GAY, MOVANT RICHARD HOLLIHAN, MOVANT ALAN B. DAVIS, MOVANT WILLIAM C. MUELLER, MOVANT RICHARD HOFFMAN, MOVANT JOHN W. TAYLOR. Fee Status: not paid. Appeal record due on 4/21/93. Copies to JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS, Clerk USCA, Appeals Clerk, and STEFAN PRESSER, JOHN W. TAYLOR, RICHARD HOFFMAN, WILLIAM C. MUELLER, ALAN DAVIS, RICHARD HOLLIHAN, WILMER B. GAY, HIRAM R. JOHNSTON JR., R. DOUGLASS SHERMAN, LINDA C. BARRETT, STEFAN PRESSER, AMY FOLKOFF KRAUS, DAVID FATHI, ELIZABETH ALEXANDER, STUART H. ADAMS JR., ALVIN J. BRONSTEIN, ANGUS R. LOVE, DAVID RUDOVSKY, FRANCIS R. FILIPI, DENISE A. KUHN, certificate of service. (fe) (Entered: 03/23/1993)
154 Copy of Clerk's notice to USCA re: [153-1] appeal . (fe) (Entered: 03/23/1993)
155 ORDERED THAT COUNSEL AGREE TO THE WITHDRAWAL OF KENNETH L. BLACKWELL, ESQ., AS COUNSEL IN THIS MATTER; ETC. (SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS) 3/25/93 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (fe) (Entered: 03/25/1993)
156 ORDERED THAT PLFFS AND DEFTS SHALL FILE AND SERVE THEIR RESPONSE TO THE MOTION OF LEONARD T. MORTON, JR. AND HIRAM R. JOHNSTON, JR. FOR PERMISSIVE JOINDER OF PARTIES ON OR BEFORE 4/5/93 ; ETC. (SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS) 3/25/93 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (fe) (Entered: 03/25/1993)

56 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

03/24/1993 03/25/1993 03/30/1993 03/31/1993 03/31/1993 04/01/1993
04/05/1993
04/05/1993

157 ORDERED THAT THE MOTION OF LEONARD T. MORTON, JR. AND HIRAM R. JOHNSTON, JR. FOR PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE IS DENIED. (SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 3/25/93 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (fe) (Entered: 03/25/1993)
ORIGINAL RECORD TRANSMITTED TO U.S.C.A. - (Pleadings #23, 37, 62, 67, 75, 78, ll7, l20, l26, l34, l40, l4l, l46, l48, l49 and l52 not included) (mk) (Entered: 03/25/1993)
Notice of Docketing ROA from USCA Re: [153-1] appeal USCA NUMBER: 93-1289 . 3/30/93 (lvj) (Entered: 03/31/1993)
158 Discovery Report of PLAINTIFF STEVEN AUSTIN, PLAINTIFF FRANKLIN CASTLE, PLAINTIFF EUGENE DUNSON, PLAINTIFF JOHN REGELMAN, PLAINTIFF KEVIN SANDERS, PLAINTIFF RICHARD BOOZER, JOSEPH MULCAHY, PLAINTIFF DEBRA SPEAKES, Certificate of Service . (mc) (Entered: 04/01/1993)
159 Discovery Report of DEFENDANT PENNSYLVANIA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL, Certificate of Service . (mc) (Entered: 04/01/1993)
160 Response by PLAINTIFF STEVEN AUSTIN, PLAINTIFF FRANKLIN CASTLE, PLAINTIFF EUGENE DUNSON, PLAINTIFF JOHN REGELMAN, PLAINTIFF KEVIN SANDERS, PLAINTIFF RICHARD BOOZER, PLAINTIFF JOSEPH MULCAHY, PLAINTIFF DEBRA SPEAKES, PLAINTIFF TROY CALHOUN, PLAINTIFF FRANKLIN D. BALTIMORE SR., PLAINTIFF LEONARD T. MORTON JR., PLAINTIFF SCOTT DOCKLER, PLAINTIFF GARY ROOS, PLAINTIFF PERCY MCCONNELL, PLAINTIFF JOHN DOE, PLAINTIFF JOHN ROE to [126-1] MOTION FOR PERMISSIVE JOINDER OF PARTIES, certificate of service. (fe) (Entered: 04/02/1993)
161 Brief by DEFENDANT PENNSYLVANIA DEPT., DEFENDANT JOSEPH LEHMAN, DEFENDANT JEFFREY BEARDS, DEFENDANT MARTIN DRAGOVICH, DEFENDANT JOSEPH RYAN, DEFENDANT DONALD T. VAUGHN, DEFENDANT FREDERICK ROSENMEYER, DEFENDANT GILBERT A. WALTERS, DEFENDANT DENNIS R. BERHARDT, DEFENDANT JOSEPH F. MAZURKIEWICZ, DEFENDANT MARGARET A. MOORE, DEFENDANT CHARLES H. ZIMMERMAN, DEFENDANT WILLIAM LOVE, DEFENDANT TIMOTHY ENGLISH, DEFENDANT JOSEPH CHESNEY, DEFENDANT ROBERT CASEY, DEFENDANT RICHARD BROWNING, DEFENDANT GEORGE MILLER, DEFENDANT NICHOLAS BORSELLO, DEFENDANT PAUL SOLOMAN in opposition to [126-1] MOTION FOR PERMISSIVE JOINDER OF PARTIES, certificate of service. (fe) (Entered: 04/05/1993)
162 MOTION BY MOVANT WILMER B. GAY, MOVANT RICHARD HOLLIHAN, MOVANT ALAN B. DAVIS, MOVANT WILLIAM C. MUELLER, MOVANT RICHARD HOFFMAN, MOVANT JOHN W. TAYLOR TO STAY OF PROCEEDINGS BECAUSE OF MALICIOUS ABUSE OF LEGAL PROCESS BY PA ATTORNEY GENERAL ONGOING IN CONSISTENT PATTERN OF CONTINUING CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE

57 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

04/05/1993 04/05/1993 04/05/1993 04/05/1993 04/05/1993 04/05/1993 04/05/1993 04/13/1993
04/13/1993
04/14/1993

RICO RACKETEERING ACTIVITIES IN CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD (IN VICTIMIZING) THE COMMONWEALTH OF PA AND UNITED STATES AND ITS RESIDENTS AND RESIDENT TAXPAYERS IN DEFENDING CRIMINAL ACTS BY THE ILLEGAL USE OF TAXPAYERS' MONEYS , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (fe) (Entered: 04/06/1993)
163 Copy of TPO form. (fe) (Entered: 04/06/1993)
164 Statement by MOVANT RICHARD HOLLIHAN in support of request to proceed in forma pauperis. (fe) (Entered: 04/06/1993)
165 Statement by MOVANT WILMER B. GAY in support of request to proceed in forma pauperis. (fe) (Entered: 04/06/1993)
166 Statement by MOVANT WILLIAM C. MUELLER in support of request to proceed in forma pauperis. (fe) (Entered: 04/06/1993)
167 Statement by MOVANT ALAN B. DAVIS in support of request to proceed in forma pauperis. (fe) (Entered: 04/06/1993)
168 Statement by MOVANT JOHN W. TAYLOR in support of request to proceed in forma pauperis. (fe) (Entered: 04/06/1993)
169 Statement by MOVANT RICHARD HOFFMAN in support of request to proceed in forma pauperis. (fe) (Entered: 04/06/1993)
170 ORDER DENYING PETITION OF INTERVENOR PLFFS, WILMER B. GAY, WILLIAM C. MUELLER, RICHARD HOLLIHAN, ALAN B. DAVIS, JOHN W. TAYLOR AND RICHARDD HOFFMAN TO STAY OF PROCEEDINGS BECAUSE OF MALICIOUS ABUSE OF LEGAL PROCESS BY PA ATTORNEY GENERAL ONGOING IN CONSISTENT PATTERN OF CONTINUING CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE RICO RACKETEERING ACTIVITIES IN CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD (IN VICTIMIZING) THE COMMONWEALTH OF PA AND UNITED STATES AND ITS RESIDENTS AND RESIDENT TAXPAYERS IN CRIMINAL ACTS BY THE ILLEGAL USE OF TAXPAYERS' MONEYS. (SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS) 4/14/93 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (fe) (Entered: 04/14/1993)
171 ORDER THAT THE MOTIONS OF RICHARD HOLLIHAN, WILMER B. GAY, WILLIAM C. MUELLER, ALAN B. DAVIS, JOHN W. TAYLOR AND RICHARD HOFFMAN TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ARE DENIED ON THE GROUND THAT THE MOTIONS OF SAID RICHARD HOLLIHAN, WILMER B. GAY, WILLIAM C. MUELLER, ALAN B. DAVIS, JOHN W. TAYLOR AND RICHARD HOFFMAN FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE WERE DENIED BY ORDER DATED 2/22/93, ETC.; FURTHER ORDER THAT THERE IS NO PROBABLE CAUSE FOR APPEAL. (SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS) 4/14/93 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (fe) (Entered: 04/14/1993)
172 Memorandum by PLAINTIFF LAURENCE JOHNSON, PLAINTIFF LEONARD T. MORTON JR. in opposition to [161-1] opposition memorandu m, Certificate of Service. (mc) (Entered: 04/15/1993)

58 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

04/28/1993 05/20/1993 05/21/1993
05/24/1993 05/25/1993 05/25/1993

173 ORDER THAT DEFTS SHALL ON OR BEFORE 5/20/93 SUPPLEMENT THEIR ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1 OF PLFFS' 12TH SET OF INTERROGATORIES BY SETTING FORTH THE SUBJECT MATTER ON WHICH JOHN REAM AND LANCE COUTURIER ARE EXPECTED TO TESTIFY, ETC.; PLFFS ARE GRANTED LEAVE TO TAKE THE DEPOSITIONS OF JOHN REAM AND LANCE COUTURIER IN JUNE, 1993. (SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS) 4/28/93 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (fe) (Entered: 04/28/1993)
174 Appearance of EDWIN J. GREENLEE for PLAINTIFF STEVEN AUSTIN (fe) (Entered: 05/21/1993)
175 ORDER THAT ON OR BEFORE 5/26/93, DEFTS SHALL PROVIDE PLFFS WITH THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS OR OTHER INFORMATION RELATING TO THE REPORT OF THE PA INSPECTOR GENERAL ON THE DEATH OF AN INMATE IN A PSYCHIATRIC OBSERVATION CELL AT THE STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION AT CAMP HILL ON 6/30/92: ALL FACTUAL MATERIAL APPENDED TO THE REPORT, ETC.; ON OR BEFORE 5/27/93, DEFT SHALL SUBMIT TO THE COURT FOR IN CAMERA EXAMINATION, A LEGIBLE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE PA INSPECTOR GENERAL INTO THE 6/30/92 INCIDENT, AND ANY OTHER MATERIALS OBTAINED IN CONNECTION WITH THE INVESTIGATION OF THE PA INSPECTOR GENERAL INTO THE SAID INCIDENT; AT THE SAME TIME, DEFT MAY, BUT NEED NOT, RESPOND TO THE LETTER OF PLFFS' COUNSEL DATED 5/17/93; FURTHER ORDER THAT THE PARTIES SHALL PROCEED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS COURT'S GUIDELINES REGARDING DEPOSITIONS AND DOCUMENT PRODUCTION OF 2 ATTORNEYS WHO AUTHORED DECLARATIONS IN SUPPORT OF PLFFS' PENDING APPLICATION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES IN CONNECTION WITH THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION; THIS ORDER IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHT OF THE DEFTS TO SEEK ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY RELATED TO THE PENDING APPLICATION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES. (SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 5/24/93 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (fe) (Entered: 05/24/1993)
176 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO THE WITHDRAWAL OF DAVID C. FATHI AS COUNSEL FOR PLFF ; MR. FATHI IS NO LONGER EMPLOYED BY THE NATIONAL PRISON PROJECT OF THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, ONE OF THE OFFICES REPRESENTING THE PLFFS. (SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS) 5/24/93 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (fe) (Entered: 05/24/1993)
First supplemental record transmitted to USCA, paper numbers 134, 141, 146, 148, 149, 152, 155, 158, 159, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 173 included. (fe) Modified on 05/26/1993 (Entered: 05/25/1993)
177 Appearance of ROBERT W. MEEK for PLAINTIFF STEVEN AUSTIN, PLAINTIFF FRANKLIN CASTLE, PLAINTIFF EUGENE DUNSON, PLAINTIFF JOHN REGELMAN, PLAINTIFF KEVIN SANDERS, PLAINTIFF RICHARD BOOZER, PLAINTIFF JOSEPH MULCAHY, PLAINTIFF DEBRA SPEAKES, PLAINTIFF TROY CALHOUN, PLAINTIFF FRANKLIN D.

59 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

05/26/1993 05/27/1993 05/28/1993 06/07/1993 06/08/1993
06/11/1993 06/11/1993 06/16/1993 06/18/1993
06/18/1993

BALTIMORE SR., PLAINTIFF LEONARD T. MORTON JR., PLAINTIFF SCOTT DOCKLER, PLAINTIFF GARY ROOS, PLAINTIFF PERCY MCCONNELL, PLAINTIFF JOHN DOE, PLAINTIFF JOHN ROE, Cert. of Service. (fe) (Entered: 05/26/1993)
178 Plaintiffs' Discovery Report, certificate of service. (fe) (Entered: 05/27/1993)
179 Defts' memorandum of law in opposition to plffs' 5/17/93 request to release the 12/22/92 Office of Inspector General Report, certificate of service. (fe) (Entered: 05/27/1993)
180 Defendants' Status Report on discovery, certificate of service. (fe) (Entered: 06/01/1993)
181 JOINT MOTION BY ALL PARTIES TO EXTEND TIME WITHIN WHICH TO FILE DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS REGARDING HIV/AIDS HEALTH ISSUES , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (mc) (Entered: 06/07/1993)
182 ORDER THAT THE JOINT MOTION TO ENLARGE THE TIME WITHIN WHICH TO FILE DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS IS GRANTED. THE PARTIES MAY FILE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON OR BEFORE JULY 1, 1993. ( SIGNED JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 6/9/93 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (mc) (Entered: 06/09/1993)
183 EMERGENCY MOTION BY MOVANT JEROME SILO TO INTERVENE UNDER FED R. CIV. PROC. RULE 24, , PROOF OF SERVICE. (lvj) (Entered: 06/14/1993)
184 EMERGENCY MOTION OF PRISONERS 60 AND OVER BY MOVANT JEROME SILO TO INTERVENE UNER FED. R. CIV. PROC. RULE 24 AS AMENDED IN 1966 TO INCLUDE CHALLENGE OF STATE ENTITIES , PROOF OF SERVICE. (lvj) (Entered: 06/14/1993)
185 MOTION BY PLAINTIFFS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY , BRIEF, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (fe) (Entered: 06/16/1993)
186 ORDER THAT DEFTS' REQUEST IS GRANTED; DEFTS' SHALL FILE AND SERVE THEIR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO THE ISSUES OF OVERCROWDING, VIOLENCE, USE OF FORCE, ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS AND ACCESS TO COURT ON OR BEFORE 6/25/93 ; FURTHER ORDER THAT THE TIME FOR FILING PLFFS' RESPONSE TO THE MOTION WILL BE EXTENDED TO 7/30/93 ; FURTHER ORDER THAT 2 COPIES OF THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND THE RESPONSE SHALL BE SERVED ON THE COURT WHEN THE ORIGINALS ARE FILED. (SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS) 6/21/93 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (fe) (Entered: 06/21/1993)
187 EMERGENCY MOTION BY MOVANT JEROME SILO TO INTERVENE UNDER F.R.C.P. 24 AS AMENDED IN 1966 TO INCLUDE THE CHALLENGE OF THE VIOLATIVE EXCLUSION BY PA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY, INC. (PP AND A, INC.) OF PA STATE PRISONERS FROM ACCESS TO PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES TO ENSURE ENFORCEMENT OF RIGHTS UNDER P.L. 99-319 . (fe) (Entered:

60 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

06/23/1993 06/23/1993 06/23/1993 06/24/1993
06/25/1993

06/21/1993)
188 MOTION BY DEFENDANT DONALD T. VAUGHN, DEFENDANT FREDERICK ROSENMEYER, DEFENDANT GILBERT A. WALTERS, DEFENDANT DENNIS R. BERHARDT, DEFENDANT JOSEPH F. MAZURKIEWICZ, DEFENDANT MARGARET A. MOORE, DEFENDANT CHARLES H. ZIMMERMAN, DEFENDANT WILLIAM LOVE, DEFENDANT TIMOTHY ENGLISH, DEFENDANT JOSEPH CHESNEY, DEFENDANT ROBERT CASEY, DEFENDANT RICHARD BROWNING, DEFENDANT GEORGE MILLER, DEFENDANT NICHOLAS BORSELLO, DEFENDANT PAUL SOLOMAN, DEFENDANT PENNSYLVANIA DEPT., DEFENDANT JOSEPH LEHMAN, DEFENDANT JEFFREY BEARDS, DEFENDANT MARTIN DRAGOVICH, DEFENDANT JOSEPH RYAN TO FILE SEALED DOCUMENTS , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (lvj) (Entered: 06/24/1993)
189 Brief by DEFENDANT PENNSYLVANIA DEPT., DEFENDANT JOSEPH LEHMAN, DEFENDANT JEFFREY BEARDS, DEFENDANT MARTIN DRAGOVICH, DEFENDANT JOSEPH RYAN, DEFENDANT DONALD T. VAUGHN, DEFENDANT FREDERICK ROSENMEYER, DEFENDANT GILBERT A. WALTERS, DEFENDANT DENNIS R. BERHARDT, DEFENDANT JOSEPH F. MAZURKIEWICZ, DEFENDANT MARGARET A. MOORE, DEFENDANT CHARLES H. ZIMMERMAN, DEFENDANT WILLIAM LOVE, DEFENDANT TIMOTHY ENGLISH, DEFENDANT JOSEPH CHESNEY, DEFENDANT ROBERT CASEY, DEFENDANT RICHARD BROWNING, DEFENDANT GEORGE MILLER, DEFENDANT NICHOLAS BORSELLO, DEFENDANT PAUL SOLOMAN in opposition to Plffs' MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY, certificate of service. (lvj) (Entered: 06/24/1993)
191 Letter from Jerome Silo to Judge Dubois dated 6/21/93 re: submitted in camera to Judge Dubois as special subject matter (lvj) (Entered: 06/28/1993)
190 ORDER THAT RESPONSE TO MOTION reset to 7/14/93 for [187-1] MOTION TO INTERVENE UNDER F.R.C.P. 24 AS AMENDED IN 1966 TO INCLUDE THE CHALLENGE OF THE VIOLATIVE EXCLUSION BY PA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY, INC. (PP AND A, INC.) OF PA STATE PRISONERS FROM ACCESS TO PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES TO ENSURE ENFORCEMENT OF RIGHTS UNDER P.L. 99-319, reset to 7/14/93 for [184-1] MOTION TO INTERVENE UNER FED. R. CIV. PROC. RULE 24 AS AMENDED IN 1966 TO INCLUDE CHALLENGE OF STATE ENTITIES, reset to 7/14/93 for [183-1] MOTION TO INTERVENE UNDER FED R. CIV. PROC. RULE 24, . TWO COPIES OF THE RESPONSES TO THE THREE MOTIONS SHALL BE SERVED ON THE COURT WHEN THE ORIGINALS ARE FILED. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 6/25/93 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lvj) (Entered: 06/25/1993)
192 MOTION BY DEFENDANT PENNSYLVANIA DEPT., DEFENDANT JOSEPH LEHMAN, DEFENDANT JEFFREY BEARDS, DEFENDANT MARTIN DRAGOVICH, DEFENDANT JOSEPH RYAN, DEFENDANT DONALD T. VAUGHN, DEFENDANT FREDERICK ROSENMEYER,

61 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

06/25/1993
06/25/1993 06/25/1993 06/25/1993
06/25/1993

DEFENDANT GILBERT A. WALTERS, DEFENDANT DENNIS R. BERHARDT, DEFENDANT JOSEPH F. MAZURKIEWICZ, DEFENDANT MARGARET A. MOORE, DEFENDANT CHARLES H. ZIMMERMAN, DEFENDANT WILLIAM LOVE, DEFENDANT TIMOTHY ENGLISH, DEFENDANT JOSEPH CHESNEY, DEFENDANT ROBERT CASEY, DEFENDANT GEORGE MILLER, DEFENDANT NICHOLAS BORSELLO, DEFENDANT PAUL SOLOMAN FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (lvj) Modified on 06/28/1993 (Entered: 06/28/1993)
193 BRIEF BY DEFENDANT PENNSYLVANIA DEPT., DEFENDANT JOSEPH LEHMAN, DEFENDANT JEFFREY BEARDS, DEFENDANT MARTIN DRAGOVICH, DEFENDANT JOSEPH RYAN, DEFENDANT DONALD T. VAUGHN, DEFENDANT FREDERICK ROSENMEYER, DEFENDANT GILBERT A. WALTERS, DEFENDANT DENNIS R. BERHARDT, DEFENDANT JOSEPH F. MAZURKIEWICZ, DEFENDANT MARGARET A. MOORE, DEFENDANT CHARLES H. ZIMMERMAN, DEFENDANT WILLIAM LOVE, DEFENDANT TIMOTHY ENGLISH, DEFENDANT JOSEPH CHESNEY, DEFENDANT ROBERT CASEY, DEFENDANT GEORGE MILLER, DEFENDANT NICHOLAS BORSELLO, DEFENDANT PAUL SOLOMAN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (lvj) (Entered: 06/28/1993)
194 Documents in support of defts' Motion for summary judgment Declarations of DEFENDANT JEFFREY BEARDS, FREDERICK K. FRANK, JOHN STEPANIK, DEFENDANT DONALD T. VAUGHN, DEFENDANT JOSEPH CHESNEY (lvj) (Entered: 06/28/1993)
195 Documents in support of defts' Motion for summary judgment Declaration of James Austin, Judy E. Kleiman, Robert W. Powitz and George Camp. (lvj) (Entered: 06/28/1993)
196 Documents by DEFENDANT PENNSYLVANIA DEPT., DEFENDANT JOSEPH LEHMAN, DEFENDANT JEFFREY BEARDS, DEFENDANT MARTIN DRAGOVICH, DEFENDANT JOSEPH RYAN, DEFENDANT DONALD T. VAUGHN, DEFENDANT FREDERICK ROSENMEYER, DEFENDANT GILBERT A. WALTERS, DEFENDANT DENNIS R. BERHARDT, DEFENDANT JOSEPH F. MAZURKIEWICZ, DEFENDANT MARGARET A. MOORE, DEFENDANT CHARLES H. ZIMMERMAN, DEFENDANT WILLIAM LOVE, DEFENDANT TIMOTHY ENGLISH, DEFENDANT JOSEPH CHESNEY, DEFENDANT ROBERT CASEY, DEFENDANT GEORGE MILLER, DEFENDANT NICHOLAS BORSELLO, DEFENDANT PAUL SOLOMAN in support of [192-1] MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, Fire Safety Volume I (lvj) (Entered: 06/28/1993)
197 Documents by DEFENDANT PENNSYLVANIA DEPT., DEFENDANT JOSEPH LEHMAN, DEFENDANT JEFFREY BEARDS, DEFENDANT MARTIN DRAGOVICH, DEFENDANT JOSEPH RYAN, DEFENDANT DONALD T. VAUGHN, DEFENDANT FREDERICK ROSENMEYER, DEFENDANT GILBERT A. WALTERS, DEFENDANT DENNIS R. BERHARDT, DEFENDANT JOSEPH F. MAZURKIEWICZ, DEFENDANT MARGARET A. MOORE, DEFENDANT CHARLES H. ZIMMERMAN,

62 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

06/25/1993
06/25/1993
06/25/1993 06/25/1993 06/25/1993

DEFENDANT WILLIAM LOVE, DEFENDANT TIMOTHY ENGLISH, DEFENDANT JOSEPH CHESNEY, DEFENDANT ROBERT CASEY, DEFENDANT GEORGE MILLER, DEFENDANT NICHOLAS BORSELLO, DEFENDANT PAUL SOLOMAN in support of [192-1] MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, Fire Safety Volume II (lvj) (Entered: 06/28/1993)
198 Documents by DEFENDANT PENNSYLVANIA DEPT., DEFENDANT JOSEPH LEHMAN, DEFENDANT JEFFREY BEARDS, DEFENDANT MARTIN DRAGOVICH, DEFENDANT JOSEPH RYAN, DEFENDANT DONALD T. VAUGHN, DEFENDANT FREDERICK ROSENMEYER, DEFENDANT GILBERT A. WALTERS, DEFENDANT DENNIS R. BERHARDT, DEFENDANT JOSEPH F. MAZURKIEWICZ, DEFENDANT MARGARET A. MOORE, DEFENDANT CHARLES H. ZIMMERMAN, DEFENDANT WILLIAM LOVE, DEFENDANT TIMOTHY ENGLISH, DEFENDANT JOSEPH CHESNEY, DEFENDANT ROBERT CASEY, DEFENDANT GEORGE MILLER, DEFENDANT NICHOLAS BORSELLO, DEFENDANT PAUL SOLOMAN in support of [192-1] MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, Fire Safety Volume III (lvj) (Entered: 06/28/1993)
199 Certificate of service by DEFENDANT PENNSYLVANIA DEPT., DEFENDANT JOSEPH LEHMAN, DEFENDANT JEFFREY BEARDS, DEFENDANT MARTIN DRAGOVICH, DEFENDANT JOSEPH RYAN, DEFENDANT DONALD T. VAUGHN, DEFENDANT FREDERICK ROSENMEYER, DEFENDANT GILBERT A. WALTERS, DEFENDANT DENNIS R. BERHARDT, DEFENDANT JOSEPH F. MAZURKIEWICZ, DEFENDANT MARGARET A. MOORE, DEFENDANT CHARLES H. ZIMMERMAN, DEFENDANT WILLIAM LOVE, DEFENDANT TIMOTHY ENGLISH, DEFENDANT JOSEPH CHESNEY, DEFENDANT ROBERT CASEY, DEFENDANT GEORGE MILLER, DEFENDANT NICHOLAS BORSELLO, DEFENDANT PAUL SOLOMAN that document in support of defts' Motion for summary : Declaration of Joseph D. Lehman - Volume I; Declaration of Joseph D. Lehman-Volume II; Declaration of Frederic Rosemeyer, William Love, Gilbert Walters, Dennis R. Erhard, Anthony DeAngelo, James Morgan, Charles J. Zimmerman and Timothy English; Declarations of Jeffrey A. Beard, Frederick K. Frank, John Stepanik, Joseph Chesney and Donald Vaughn; Declarations of James Austin, Judy Kleiman, Robert W. Powitz and George Camp; Declaration of William Harrison; Fire Safety - Volume I; Fire Safety Volume II and Fire Safety Volume III were served. (lvj) (Entered: 06/28/1993)
200 Documents in support of defendants' [192-1] MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. (Declarations of Frederic A. Rosemeyer, William Love, Gilbert Walters, Dennis R. Erhard, Anthony DeAngelo, James Morgan, Charles H. Zimmerman and Timothy English). (fe) (Entered: 06/28/1993)
201 Documents in support of defendants' [192-1] MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Declaration of William Harrison). (fe) Modified on 06/28/1993 (Entered: 06/28/1993)
202 Documents in support of defendants' [192-1] MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Declaration of Joseph D. Lehman - Volume I. (fe) Modified on 06/28/1993 (Entered: 06/28/1993)

63 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

06/25/1993 06/28/1993 06/29/1993
06/29/1993
06/30/1993 06/30/1993 07/01/1993 07/01/1993 07/01/1993 07/01/1993 07/01/1993

203 Documents in support of defendants' [192-1] MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Declaration of Joseph D. Lehman - Volume II). (fe) (Entered: 06/28/1993)
204 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO FILE SEALED DOCUMENTS. THE CLERK IS ORDERED TO SEAL THIS DOCUMENT FROM PUBLIC DISCLOSURE. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 6/29/93 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lvj) (Entered: 06/29/1993)
205 EMERGENCY MOTION BY MOVANT JEROME SILO OF PROSPECTIVE INTERVENOR MOVANT JEROME SILO TO REQUEST IMMEDIATE EMERGENCY PROTECTIVE ORDER TO HALT DEFTS ACTS OF RETALIATION ARISING FROM SUBJECT MATTER FILED AT DOCKET ENTRY 183 , PROOF OF SERVICE. (lvj) (Entered: 06/30/1993)
206 ORDER THAT THE MOTION OF MORTON AND JOHNSTON FOR PERMISSIVE JOINDER OF PARTIES IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, ETC., FURTHER ORDER THAT THE DENIAL OF THE MOTION OF MORTON AND JOHNSTON FOR PERMISSIVE JOINDER OF PARTIES IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THEIR RIGHT TO FILE AN APPROPRIATE MOTION ASKING CHIEF JUDGE CAHN TO RECONSIDER HIS ORDER DISMISSING WITHOUT PREJUDICE THEIR CLAIMS UNDER 42 U.S.C. SECTION 1983 FOR DEPRIVATION OF ACCESS TO THE COURTS, ETC., ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 6/30/93 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lvj) (Entered: 06/30/1993)
207 Documents in support of Defts' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Declaration of George Camp - Volume I) (lvj) (Entered: 06/30/1993)
208 Documents in support of Defts' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Declaration of George Camp - Volume II) (lvj) (Entered: 06/30/1993)
209 MOTION BY PLAINTIFF STEVEN AUSTIN FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT , MEMORANDUM OF LAW, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (gm) (Entered: 07/01/1993)
210 Affidavit of Albert J. Raymond, M.D. (gm) (Entered: 07/01/1993)
211 Appendix of Exhibits by PLAINTIFF STEVEN AUSTIN (gm) (Entered: 07/01/1993)
212 MOTION BY PLAINTIFF STEVEN AUSTIN FOR LEAVE TO FILE A REPLY BRIEF REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (fe) (Entered: 07/02/1993)
213 Reply Brief by PLAINTIFF STEVEN AUSTIN, PLAINTIFF FRANKLIN CASTLE, PLAINTIFF EUGENE DUNSON, PLAINTIFF JOHN REGELMAN, PLAINTIFF KEVIN SANDERS, PLAINTIFF RICHARD BOOZER, JOSEPH MULCAHY, PLAINTIFF DEBRA SPEAKES, PLAINTIFF TROY CALHOUN, PLAINTIFF FRANKLIN D. BALTIMORE SR., PLAINTIFF LEONARD T. MORTON JR., PLAINTIFF SCOTT DOCKLER, PLAINTIFF GARY ROOS, PLAINTIFF PERCY MCCONNELL, PLAINTIFF JOHN DOE, PLAINTIFF JOHN ROE in support of [185-1] MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY. (fe) (Entered: 07/02/1993)

64 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

07/01/1993 07/01/1993 07/07/1993 07/07/1993 07/07/1993
07/07/1993
07/09/1993 07/12/1993 07/14/1993 07/14/1993

214 ORDER THAT ON OR BEFORE 7/14/93 PLFFS. & DEFTS. SHALL FILE AND SERVE RESPONSES TO SAID DOCUMENTS AUTHORED BY JEROME SILO ETC.( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 7/2/93 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (mk) (Entered: 07/02/1993)
215 Jerome Silo's Prima Facie Documented Proof of Antitrust Law Violations and Divided Loyalties and Conflict of Interests of Pennsylvania Protection and Advocacy, Inc. and the Disabilities Law Project Lawyers (Doc. No. l9l) (mk) Modified on 07/02/1993 (Entered: 07/02/1993)
216 Letter from Plaintiff to Judge Dubois dated 7/1/93 re: emergency motions to intervene at docket entries 183, 184, and 187, etc., (lvj) (Entered: 07/08/1993)
217 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO WITHDRAW AMY KRAUS AS COUNSEL FOR PLFF. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 7/8/93 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lvj) (Entered: 07/08/1993)
218 ORDER THAT RESPONSE TO MOTION DUE ON OR BEFORE 7/14/93 FOR MOTION OF PROSPECTIVE INTERVENOR MOVANT JEROME SILO TO REQUEST IMMEDIATE EMERGENCY PROTECTIVE ORDER TO HALT DEFTS ACTS OF RETALIATION ARISING FROM SUBJECT MATTER FILED AT DOCKET ENTRY 183 , ETC., ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 7/8/93 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lvj) (Entered: 07/08/1993)
219 FOURTH AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER THAT DEFTS SHALL RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON OR BEFORE 7/16/93 , ETC., PLFFS SHALL RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BY 7/30/93 , ETC., DISCOVERY DEADLINE ON 8/27/93. PRETRIAL CONFERENCE BY 11/12/93 ; TRIAL DATE SET FOR 10:00 11/29/93 . PLFF'S FOR LEAVE TO FILE A REPLY TO DEFTS' RESPONSE TO PLFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL IS GRANTED, ETC., FURTHER ORDER THAT THE PARTIES, THROUGH BRONSTEIN AND FILIPI SHALL CONTINUE TO DISCUSS A PROCEDURE FOR RESOLVING ISSUES NOT IN DISPUTE. ON OR BEFORE 7/20/93, MESSRS. BRONSTEIN AND FILIPI SHALL JOINTLY REPORT TO THE COURT IN WRITING WITH RESPECT TO WHETHER OR NOT THEY HAVE BEEN ABLE TO WORK OUT A PROCEDURE FOR RESOLVING ISSUES NOT IN DISPUTE. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 7/8/93 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lvj) Modified on 07/08/1993 (Entered: 07/08/1993)
220 Emergency Request for for lawyer at bedside to defend against discrimination on basis of disabilities by MOVANT JEROME SILO (lvj) (Entered: 07/12/1993)
221 Letter dated July 9, 1993 from Jerome Silo. (lvj) (Entered: 07/12/1993)
222 Defts' Brief in Opposition to Jerome Silo's Motion to Intervene and Supplemental Motions, Cert. of Service. (fe) (Entered: 07/14/1993)
223 Memorandum by PLAINTIFF STEVEN AUSTIN in opposition to EMERGENCY MOTIONS TO INTERVENE AND FOR OTHER RELIEF FILED BY JEROME SILO, AN INMATE AT SCI-PITTSBURGH, certificate of service. (gm) Modified on 07/15/1993 (Entered: 07/15/1993)

65 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

07/14/1993 07/14/1993 07/16/1993
07/16/1993
07/16/1993 07/16/1993
07/16/1993

224 Letter from Jerome Silo, dated July 11, 1993, to Judge DuBois. (gm) (Entered: 07/15/1993)
225 Certified copy of order from USCA. Re: 07/15/93. Motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. DISMISSING appeal. (gm) (Entered: 07/15/1993)
226 ORDER THAT FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH IN PLFF'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW AND DEFTS' BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO JEROME SILO'S MOTION TO INTERVENE AND SUPPLEMENTAL MOTIONS, ALL OF WHICH ARE INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE, THAT ALL OF JEROME SILO'S MOTIONS ARE DENIED, ETC. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, BECAUSE THE MOTIONS FILED BY JEROME SILO AND OTHER CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE COURT DISPLAY A PATTERN OF VEXATIOUS AND FRIVOLOUS CLAIMS, THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO REFUSE TO ACCEPT ANY FURTHER MOTIONS OR PETITIONS TO INTERVENE BY JEROME SILO WITH RESPECT TO THIS CASE, ETC. (SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS). 7/19/93 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (fe) (Entered: 07/19/1993)
227 Memorandum of law by DEFENDANT PENNSYLVANIA DEPT., DEFENDANT JOSEPH LEHMAN, DEFENDANT JEFFREY BEARDS, DEFENDANT MARTIN DRAGOVICH, DEFENDANT JOSEPH RYAN, DEFENDANT DONALD T. VAUGHN, DEFENDANT FREDERICK ROSENMEYER, DEFENDANT GILBERT WALTERS, DEFENDANT DENNIS R. BERHARDT, DEFENDANT JOSEPH F. MAZURKIEWICZ, DEFENDANT MARGARET A. MOORE, DEFENDANT H. ZIMMERMAN, DEFENDANT WILLIAM LOVE, DEFENDANT TIMOTHY ENGLISH, DEFENDANT JOSEPH CHESNEY, DEFENDANT ROBERT CASEY, DEFENDANT RICHARD BROWNING, DEFENDANT GEORGE MILLER, DEFENDANT NICHOLAS BORSELLO, DEFENDANT PAUL SOLOMAN in opposition to plaintiff's [209-1] MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT, certificate of service. (fe) (Entered: 07/19/1993)
228 Documents in support of defendants' memorandum of law in opposition to plaintiff's motion for partial sumary judgment, certificate of service. (fe) (Entered: 07/19/1993)
229 Response by DEFENDANT PENNSYLVANIA DEPT., DEFENDANT JOSEPH LEHMAN, DEFENDANT JEFFREY BEARDS, DEFENDANT MARTIN DRAGOVICH, DEFENDANT JOSEPH RYAN, DEFENDANT DONALD T. VAUGHN, DEFENDANT FREDERICK ROSENMEYER, DEFENDANT GILBERT A. WALTERS, DEFENDANT DENNIS R. BERHARDT, DEFENDANT JOSEPH F. MAZURKIEWICZ, DEFENDANT MARGARET A. MOORE, DEFENDANT CHARLES H. ZIMMERMAN, DEFENDANT WILLIAM LOVE, DEFENDANT TIMOTHY ENGLISH, DEFENDANT JOSEPH CHESNEY, DEFENDANT ROBERT CASEY, DEFENDANT RICHARD BROWNING, DEFENDANT GEORGE MILLER, DEFENDANT NICHOLAS BORSELLO and DEFENDANT PAUL SOLOMAN to plaintiffs' statement of undisputed facts, certificate of service. (fe) (Entered: 07/19/1993)
230 Letter from Jeromer Silo dated 7/13/93 (lvj) (Entered: 07/19/1993)

66 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

07/23/1993 07/28/1993 07/28/1993 07/28/1993 07/29/1993 08/02/1993
08/09/1993

231 Memorandum by PLAINTIFF STEVEN AUSTIN in opposition to defendants' MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT, certificate of service. (With 7 volumes of supporting documents.) (gm) (Entered: 07/23/1993)
232 MOTION BY PLAINTIFF STEVEN AUSTIN, PLAINTIFF FRANKLIN CASTLE, PLAINTIFF EUGENE DUNSON, PLAINTIFF JOHN REGELMAN, PLAINTIFF KEVIN SANDERS, PLAINTIFF RICHARD BOOZER, PLAINTIFF JOSEPH MULCAHY, PLAINTIFF DEBRA SPEAKES TO SEAL , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (lvj) (Entered: 07/29/1993)
233 Memorandum by PLAINTIFF STEVEN AUSTIN, PLAINTIFF FRANKLIN CASTLE, PLAINTIFF EUGENE DUNSON, PLAINTIFF JOHN REGELMAN, PLAINTIFF KEVIN SANDERS, PLAINTIFF RICHARD BOOZER, PLAINTIFF JOSEPH MULCAHY, PLAINTIFF DEBRA SPEAKES in opposition to Defts' MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT (lvj) (Entered: 07/29/1993)
234 Documents by PLAINTIFF STEVEN AUSTIN, PLAINTIFF FRANKLIN CASTLE, PLAINTIFF EUGENE DUNSON, PLAINTIFF JOHN REGELMAN, PLAINTIFF KEVIN SANDERS, PLAINTIFF RICHARD BOOZER, PLAINTIFF JOSEPH MULCAHY, PLAINTIFF DEBRA SPEAKES in support of Plffs' memorandum of law in opposition to Defts' Motion for Partial summary judgment. (redacted Volume IV) (lvj) Modified on 07/29/1993 (Entered: 07/29/1993)
236 Reply by PLAINTIFF STEVEN AUSTIN, PLAINTIFF FRANKLIN CASTLE, PLAINTIFF EUGENE DUNSON, PLAINTIFF JOHN REGELMAN, PLAINTIFF KEVIN SANDERS, PLAINTIFF RICHARD BOOZER, PLAINTIFF JOSEPH MULCAHY, PLAINTIFF DEBRA SPEAKES to response to [209-1] MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT, certificate of service. (lvj) (Entered: 07/30/1993)
237 ORDER THAT CLERK OF THE COURT TO SEAL THE ORIGINAL PLFFS' MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO DEFTS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ALONG WITH VOLUMES IV AND V OF THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS. IN THEIR PLACE, THE CLERK IS TO FILE AND MAKE AVAILABLE TO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THE REDACTED MEMORANDUM AND NEW REDACTED VOLUMES IV AND V FILED JULY 28, 1993. (SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 8/3/93 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lvj) (Entered: 08/03/1993)
238 Reply Brief by DEFENDANT PENNSYLVANIA DEPT., DEFENDANT JOSEPH LEHMAN, DEFENDANT JEFFREY BEARDS, DEFENDANT MARTIN DRAGOVICH, DEFENDANT JOSEPH RYAN, DEFENDANT DONALD T. VAUGHN, DEFENDANT FREDERICK ROSENMEYER, DEFENDANT GILBERT WALTERS, DEFENDANT DENNIS R. BERHARDT, DEFENDANT JOSEPH F. MAZURKIEWICZ, DEFENDANT MARGARET A. MOORE, DEFENDANT CHARLES H. ZIMMERMAN, DEFENDANT WILLIAM LOVE, DEFENDANT TIMOTHY ENGLISH, DEFENDANT JOSEPH CHESNEY, DEFENDANT ROBERT CASEY, DEFENDANT RICHARD BROWNING, DEFENDANT GEORGE MILLER, DEFENDANT NICHOLAS BORSELLO, DEFENDANT PAUL SOLOMAN in

67 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

08/18/1993
08/27/1993 10/14/1993 10/14/1993 10/14/1993 10/14/1993
10/14/1993

support of [209-1] MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT, certificate of service. (lvj) (Entered: 08/10/1993)
239 UNOPPOSED MOTION BY PLAINTIFF STEVEN AUSTIN, PLAINTIFF FRANKLIN CASTLE, PLAINTIFF EUGENE DUNSON, PLAINTIFF JOHN REGELMAN, PLAINTIFF KEVIN SANDERS, PLAINTIFF RICHARD BOOZER, JOSEPH MULCAHY, PLAINTIFF DEBRA SPEAKES, PLAINTIFF TROY CALHOUN, PLAINTIFF FRANKLIN D. BALTIMORE SR., PLAINTIFF LEONARD T. MORTON JR., PLAINTIFF SCOTT DOCKLER, PLAINTIFF GARY ROOS, PLAINTIFF PERCY MCCONNELL, PLAINTIFF JOHN DOE, PLAINTIFF JOHN ROE FOR ADMISSION OF MARJORIE RIFKIN TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE , DECLARATION, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (fe) (Entered: 08/19/1993)
240 ORDER GRANTING [239-1] MOTION FOR ADMISSION OF MARJORIE RIFKIN TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 8/27/93 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lvj) (Entered: 08/27/1993)
241 ORDER DENYING [209-1] MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO PLAINTIFFS' RIGHT TO RAISE AT TRIAL THE LEGAL ISSUES ADDRESSED IN THE MOTION. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 10/15/93 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (fe) (Entered: 10/15/1993)
242 FIFTH AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER SETTING FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE FOR 10:15 12/1/93; ON OR BEFORE 11/8/93 PLFFS SHALL ANSWER DEFTS' INTERROGATORIES; TRIAL ON THE CORRECTIONS ISSUES IS SPECIALLY LISTED FOR 12/6/93 AT 10:00 DEFTS SHALL FILE & SERVE THEIR RESPONSE TO PLFFS' ATTORNEYS FEE PETITION ON 10/19/93. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 10/15/93 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (gn) (Entered: 10/15/1993)
243 ORDER THAT PLFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY IS GRANTED, ETC. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 10/15/93 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (kw) (Entered: 10/15/1993)
244 ORDER THAT THE PARTIES SHALL PROCEED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GUIDELINES ENUNCIATED BY THE COURT DURING THE DISCOVERY CONFERENCE. ON OR BEFORE 11/01/93 THE PARTIES THROUGH COUNSEL SHALL JOINTLY REPORT TO THE COURT IN WRITING WITH RESPECT TO A RESOLUTION OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED BY PLFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND SHALL SCHEDULE A TELEPHONE CONFERENCE ON OR SHORTLY AFTER 11/01/93 IN THE EVENT THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE MOTION ARE NOT RESOLVED BEFORE NOVEMBER 1, 1993. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 10/15/93 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lvj) (Entered: 10/15/1993)
245 ORDER DENYING [192-1] MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO DEFTS' RIGHT TO RAISE AT TRIAL THE LEGAL ISSUES ADDRESSED IN THE MOTION. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN

68 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

10/14/1993
10/19/1993
10/28/1993 11/01/1993 11/03/1993 11/10/1993 11/17/1993

E. DUBOIS ) 10/15/93 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lvj) (Entered: 10/15/1993)
246 ORDER THAT THE PARTIES SHALL PROCEED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GUIDELINES ENUNCIATED BY THE COURT DURING THE DISCOVERY CONFERENCE. ON OR BEFORE NOVEMBER 1, 1993, THE PARTIES, THROUGH COUNSEL, SHALL JOINTLY REPORT TO THE COURT IN WRITING WITH RESPECT TO A RESOLUTION OFTHE ISSUES PRESENTED BY PLFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND SHALL SCHEDULE A TELEPHONE CONFERENCE ON OR SHORTLY AFTER NOVEMBER 1, 1993, IN THE EVENT THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE MOTION ARE NOT RESOLVED BEFORE NOVEMBER 1, 1993. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 10/15/93 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lvj) (Entered: 10/15/1993)
247 Brief by DEFENDANT DONALD T. VAUGHN, DEFENDANT FREDERICK ROSENMEYER, DEFENDANT GILBERT A. WALTERS, DEFENDANT DENNIS R. BERHARDT, DEFENDANT JOSEPH F. MAZURKIEWICZ, DEFENDANT MARGARET A. MOORE, DEFENDANT CHARLES H. ZIMMERMAN, DEFENDANT WILLIAM LOVE, DEFENDANT TIMOTHY ENGLISH, DEFENDANT JOSEPH CHESNEY, DEFENDANT ROBERT CASEY, DEFENDANT RICHARD BROWNING, DEFENDANT GEORGE MILLER, DEFENDANT NICHOLAS BORSELLO, DEFENDANT PAUL SOLOMAN, DEFENDANT PENNSYLVANIA DEPT., DEFENDANT JOSEPH LEHMAN, DEFENDANT JEFFREY BEARDS, DEFENDANT MARTIN DRAGOVICH, DEFENDANT JOSEPH RYAN in opposition to Plffs' interim application for costs and attorneys fees, documents in support, certificate of service. (lvj) (Entered: 10/19/1993)
248 MOTION BY PLAINTIFFS FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY BRIEF , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (reply brief attached) (mc) (Entered: 10/28/1993)
249 ORDER GRANTING [248-1] MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY BRIEF ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 11/02/93 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lvj) (Entered: 11/02/1993)
250 STIPULATION PROTECTIVE ORDER RELATING TO OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORTS: 91-C-046-CORR, 91-M-186-CORR AND 92-162-COR. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 11/4/93 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lvj) (Entered: 11/04/1993)
251 PLFFS' MOTION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AD TESTIFICANDUM , CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 20(B). (aa) (Entered: 11/12/1993)
252 REVISED WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AD TESTIFICANDUM AND ORDER THAT THE FOLLOWING INMATES UNDER CUSTODY WITHIN THE PA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, UNDER SAFE AND SECURE CONDUCT TO COURTROOM 12-B BEGINNING AT 10:00 ON 12/06/93 IN ORDER FOR THEM TO TESTIFY IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLE AND NUMBERED ACTION ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 11/18/93 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lvj) (Entered: 11/18/1993)

69 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

11/19/1993
11/19/1993 11/29/1993 12/01/1993
12/03/1993
12/03/1993
12/07/1993 12/10/1993 12/10/1993 12/10/1993

253 ORDER THAT THE MOTION OF A MEMBER OS THE PLFF CLASS, DERON HOLLOWAY, FOR LEAVE TO ENTER HIS APPEARANCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSERTING HIS CLAIM THAT THE BOOK PAGING SYSTEM AT SCI-HUNTINGDON IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, ETC., IT IS FURTHER ORDER THAT THE DENIAL OF THE MOTION OF DERON HOLLOWAY FOR LEAVE TO ENTER HIS APPEARANCE IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHT OF DERON HOLLOWAY TO FILE AN APPROPRIATE MOTION ASKING THE USDC FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PA TO RECONSIDER THE DISMISSAL OF HIS ACTION, ETC., ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 11/22/93 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lvj) (Entered: 11/23/1993)
254 MOTION BY MOVANT DERON HOLLOWAY FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE . (lvj) (Entered: 11/23/1993)
255 Joint Proposed pre-trial order concerning corrections issues received from counsel for plaintiffs and defendants, certificate of service. (fe) (Entered: 11/30/1993)
256 Environmental and Fire Safety pre-trial order received from PLAINTIFF STEVEN AUSTIN, PLAINTIFF FRANKLIN CASTLE, PLAINTIFF EUGENE DUNSON, PLAINTIFF JOHN REGELMAN, PLAINTIFF KEVIN SANDERS, PLAINTIFF RICHARD BOOZER, PLAINTIFF JOSEPH MULCAHY, PLAINTIFF DEBRA SPEAKES, PLAINTIFF TROY CALHOUN, PLAINTIFF FRANKLIN D. BALTIMORE SR., PLAINTIFF LEONARD T. MORTON JR., PLAINTIFF SCOTT DOCKLER, PLAINTIFF PERCY MCCONNELL, PLAINTIFF JOHN (lvj) (Entered: 12/01/1993)
257 MOTION BY DEFENDANTS FOR LEAVE TO AMEND THE PENNSYLVANIA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS "CLINICAL AND ADMINISTRATIEVE GUIDELINES FOR THE PREVENTION AND MANAGEMENT OF TUBERCULOSIS" POLICY DATED SEPTEMBER 4, 1993 , CERTIFICATE OF COUNSEL, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (mc) (Entered: 12/03/1993)
258 ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND THE PENNSYLVANIA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS "CLINICAL AND ADMINISTRATIEVE GUIDELINES FOR THE PREVENTION AND MANAGEMENT OF TUBERCULOSIS" POLICY DATED SEPTEMBER 4, 1993. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 12/6/93 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (aa) (Entered: 12/06/1993)
259 Minute entry dated 12/6/93 re: Chambers conference; Deft's Motion in Limine denied; witnesses called and sworn; (lvj) (Entered: 12/08/1993)
260 Minute entry dated 12/7/93 re: Non jury trial; case resumes; witnesses called and sworn. (lvj) (Entered: 12/10/1993)
261 Minute entry dated 12/8/93 re: Non jury trial; case resumes; witnesses called and sworn. (lvj) (Entered: 12/10/1993)
262 Minute entry dated 12/9/93 re: Non jury trial 12/9/93; case resumes; witnesses called and sworn. (lvj) (Entered: 12/10/1993)

70 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

12/14/1993 12/14/1993 12/14/1993 12/15/1993 12/16/1993 12/17/1993 12/20/1993 12/23/1993
12/23/1993 12/23/1993 12/23/1993 12/29/1993
01/03/1994 01/03/1994 01/04/1994

263 Minute entry non jury trial dated 12/13/93; case resumes; witnesses called and sworn; (lvj) (Entered: 12/15/1993)
264 Transcript dated 12/9/93 for excerpt of civil jury trial before the Honorable Jan E. Dubois (lvj) (Entered: 12/15/1993)
265 Transcript dated 12/10/93 for excerpt of non-jury trial before the Honorable Jan E. Dubois (lvj) (Entered: 12/15/1993)
266 Minute entry dated 12/14/93 re: Civil non jury trial; case resumes; witnesses called and sworn; (lvj) (Entered: 12/16/1993)
267 Minute entry dated 12/15/93 re: Civil non jury trial; case resumes; witnesses called and sworn; (lvj) (Entered: 12/17/1993)
268 Minute entry dated 12/16/93 re: non jury trial day nine; case resumes; witnesses called and sworn; (lvj) (Entered: 12/20/1993)
269 MOTION (REQUEST) BY MOVANT DERON HOLLOWAY FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AS TESTIFICANDUM , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (lvj) (Entered: 12/22/1993)
270 ORDER GRANTING [151-1] MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO PLFFS APPLICATION FOR COST AND ATTORNEY'S FEES. DEFTS SHALL SUBMIT THEIR RESPONSE ON OR BEFORE OCTOBER 20, 1993. PLFFS GRANTED LEAVE TO FILE REPLY MEMORANDUM ON OR BEFORE OCTOBER 29, 1993. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 12/27/93 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lvj) (Entered: 12/27/1993)
271 Minute entry: Civil Non Jury Trial held 12/17/93, (Day Ten), Defendants' case resumes. (hb) (Entered: 12/27/1993)
272 Minute entry: Civil Non Jury Trial held 12/20/93, (Day Eleven), Defendants' case resumes. (hb) (Entered: 12/27/1993)
273 Minute entry: Civil Non Jury Trial held 12/21/93, (Day Twelve), Defendants' case resumes. (hb) (Entered: 12/27/1993)
274 ORDER DENYING [269-1] MOTION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AS TESTIFICANDUM. FURTHER ORDER THAT DERON HOLLOWAY SHALL PROCEED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS COURT'S ORDER OF NOVEMBER 19, 1993 A COPY OF WHICH IS ATTACHED HERETO. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 12/30/93 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lvj) (Entered: 12/30/1993)
275 Minute entry: Civil Non-Jury Trial (Day 16); Defts' case resumes. Defts' witnesses - called and sworn. (fe) (Entered: 01/04/1994)
276 Minute entry: Civil Non-Jury Trial (Day 17) 12/29/93; Defts' case resumes. Defts' witnesses - called and sworn. (fe) (Entered: 01/04/1994)
277 ORDER THAT THE CONTINUED TRIAL WILL RESUME ON JANUARY 26, 1994 AT 9:30 A.M., ETC. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 1/5/94 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (mc) (Entered: 01/05/1994)

71 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

01/11/1994
01/11/1994
01/11/1994
01/11/1994
01/11/1994
01/11/1994
01/14/1994 01/14/1994 01/14/1994 01/14/1994 01/14/1994 01/14/1994 01/19/1994 01/19/1994 01/19/1994 01/19/1994 01/19/1994 01/19/1994 01/19/1994 01/19/1994 01/19/1994 01/19/1994 01/20/1994 01/20/1994 01/21/1994

278 Minute entry dated 12/10/93 Non jury trial; case resumes; witnesses called and sworn. (lvj) (Entered: 01/12/1994)
279 Minute entry dated 12/22/93 Non jury trial; case resumes; witnesses called and sworn; (lvj) (Entered: 01/12/1994)
280 Minute entry dated 12/23/93 non jury trial; case resumes; witnesses called and sworn; (lvj) (Entered: 01/12/1994)
281 Minute entry dated 1/3/94 Non jury trial; case resumes; witnesses called and sworn; (lvj) (Entered: 01/12/1994)
282 Minute entry dated 1/4/94 non jury trial; case resumes; witnesses called and sworn; (lvj) (Entered: 01/12/1994)
283 MOTION BY MOVANT GEORGE RAHSAAN BROOKS-BEY FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND/OR FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION , BRIEF IN SUPPORT, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (lvj) (Entered: 01/12/1994)
284 Transcript for trial dated 12/7/93 (lvj) (Entered: 01/19/1994)
285 Transcript for trial dated 12/13/94 (lvj) (Entered: 01/19/1994)
286 Transcript for trial dated 12/14/93 (lvj) (Entered: 01/19/1994)
287 Transcript for trial dated 12/16/93 (lvj) (Entered: 01/19/1994)
288 Transcript for trial dated 12/29/93 (lvj) (Entered: 01/19/1994)
289 Transcript for trial dated 12/30/93 (lvj) (Entered: 01/19/1994)
290 Transcript of trial dated 12/6/93 (lvj) (Entered: 01/20/1994)
291 Transcript for trial dated 12/8/93 (lvj) (Entered: 01/20/1994)
292 Transcript for trial dated 12/9/93 (lvj) (Entered: 01/20/1994)
293 Transcript for trial dated 12/17/93 (lvj) (Entered: 01/20/1994)
294 Transcript for trial dated 12/20/93 (lvj) (Entered: 01/20/1994)
295 Transcript for trial dated 12/21/93 (lvj) (Entered: 01/20/1994)
296 Transcript for trial dated 12/22/93 (lvj) (Entered: 01/20/1994)
297 Transcript for trial dated 12/27/93 (lvj) (Entered: 01/20/1994)
298 Transcript for trial dated 12/28/93 (lvj) (Entered: 01/20/1994)
299 Transcript for trial dated 1/3/94 (lvj) (Entered: 01/20/1994)
300 Transcript for trial dated 12/15/93 (lvj) (Entered: 01/21/1994)
301 Transcript for trial dated 12/23/93 (lvj) (Entered: 01/21/1994)
302 ORDER THAT THE APPLICATION OF JEROME SILO TO SUBMIT TESTIMONY OR A DECLARATION OF FACTS IS DENIED, ETC., ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 1/24/94 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lvj) (Entered: 01/24/1994)

72 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

01/21/1994
01/27/1994 02/18/1994 02/18/1994 02/18/1994 02/18/1994 03/29/1994 03/29/1994

303 ORDER THAT THE TRIAL OF THE REMAINING PART OF PHASE ONECORRECTIONS - OF THIS CASE IS CONTINUED FROM 1/26/94 UNTIL FURTHER ORDER OF THIS COURT. FURTHER ORDER THAT PARTIES SHALL INITIATE A TELEPHONE CONFERENCE FOR 2/17/94 AT 5:00 P.M. . FURTHER ORDER THAT IN THE EVENT THE ISSUES ADDRESSED IN PHASE ONE - CORRECTIONS - ARE NOT RESOLVED AND IT IS NECESSARY TO COMPLETE THE TESTIMONY IN THE CORRECTIONS PHASE OF THE TRIAL, THE TRIAL WILL RESUME ON 3/1/94 AT 10:00 IN COURTROOM 12-B. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 1/24/94 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lvj) (Entered: 01/24/1994)
304 ORDER THAT THE MOTION OF GEORGE RAHSAAM BROOKS-BEY FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING AND/OR FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IS DENIED AS MOOT. FURTHER ORDER THAT THE DENIAL OF THE MOTION IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO HIS RIGHT TO SEEK FURTHER RELIEF IN THE EVENT THE FACTS ARE NOT AS SET FORTH ABOVE, ETC., ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 1/28/94 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lvj) (Entered: 01/28/1994)
305 ORDER THAT DAVID L. MCCOLGIN, ESQ. OF THE DEFENDER ASSOCIATION, FEDERAL COURT DIVISION, IS APPOINTED TO REPRESENT RICHARD R. CANADY, A MEMBER OF THE PLFF CLASS, IN THIS CASE. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 2/18/94 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED (fe) (Entered: 02/18/1994)
306 ORDER THAT THE CONTINUED TRIAL OF PHASE ONE-CORRECTIONS-OF THIS CASE IS CONTINUED FROM 3/1/94 TO 4/11/94, ETC. PARTIES SHALL INITIATE A TELEPHONE CONFERENCE TO DISCUSS THE STATUS OF THE CASE ON 3/24/94 AT 5:00 P.M. (SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS) 2/18/94 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED (fe) (Entered: 02/18/1994)
307 ORDER THAT THE RELIEF SOUGHT BY THE SAID JEROME SILO IS DENIED FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH IN PRIOR ORDERS OF THIS COURT. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 2/18/94 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED (fe) (Entered: 02/18/1994)
308 Reply by MOVANT JEROME SILO to FILIPI's 2/10/94 Letter to Judge Dubois, Proof of Service. (fe) (Entered: 02/22/1994)
309 ORDER THAT THE CONTINUED TRIAL OF PHASE ONE-CORRECTIONSOF THIS CASE PRESENTLY SCHEDULED FOR APRIL 11, 1994 IS CONTINUED UNTIL FURTHER ORDER OF COURT; AND THE PARTIES SHALL INITIATE A TELEPHONE CONFERENCE FOR 5:00 4/27/94 ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 3/30/94 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lvj) (Entered: 03/30/1994)
310 ORDER THAT PLFFS' APPLICATION FOR COSTS AND ATTORNEYS FEES AND PLFFS' INTERIM APPLICATION FOR COSTS AND ATTORNEYS FEES ARE DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHT OF THE PLFFS TO REEINSTATE THE APPLICATION, ETC., ( SIGNED BY

73 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

04/04/1994
04/05/1994 04/18/1994 04/25/1994 04/25/1994 04/28/1994 05/02/1994

JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 3/30/94 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lvj) (Entered: 03/30/1994)
311 MOTION BY DEFENDANT PENNSYLVANIA DEPT., DEFENDANT JOSEPH LEHMAN, DEFENDANT JEFFREY BEARDS, DEFENDANT MARTIN DRAGOVICH, DEFENDANT JOSEPH RYAN, DEFENDANT DONALD T. VAUGHN, DEFENDANT FREDERICK ROSENMEYER, DEFENDANT GILBERT A. WALTERS, DEFENDANT DENNIS R. BERHARDT, DEFENDANT JOSEPH F. MAZURKIEWICZ, DEFENDANT MARGARET A. MOORE, DEFENDANT CHARLES H. ZIMMERMAN, DEFENDANT WILLIAM LOVE, DEFENDANT TIMOTHY ENGLISH, DEFENDANT JOSEPH CHESNEY, DEFENDANT ROBERT CASEY, DEFENDANT RICHARD BROWNING, DEFENDANT GEORGE MILLER, DEFENDANT NICHOLAS BORSELLO, DEFENDANT PAUL SOLOMAN FOR LEAVE TO DEPOSE DENNIS MCKEITHAN , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE, CERTIFICATE OF CONCURRENCE. (lvj) (Entered: 04/05/1994)
312 ORDER GRANTING [311-1] MOTION FOR LEAVE TO DEPOSE DENNIS MCKEITHAN, ETC., THIS MOTION IS UNOPPOSED. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 4/6/94 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lvj) (Entered: 04/06/1994)
313 MOTION BY DAVID L. MC COLGIN, ESQUIRE TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL FOR RICHARD R. CANADY , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (lvj) (Entered: 04/20/1994)
314 ORDER THAT DEFENDER ASSOCIATION OF PHILA IS HEREBY REMOVED AS COUNSEL FOR RICHARD R. CANADY, A MEMBER OF THE PLFF CLASS IN THIS CASE. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 4/26/94 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lvj) (Entered: 04/26/1994)
315 ORDER THAT THE HEARING PRELIMINARILY SCHEDULED BY THE COURT TO BE HEL UPON COMPLETION OF DISCOVERY IS CANCELLED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHT OF DENNIS MCKEITHAN TO ASK THE COURT TO RECONSIDER THIS ORDER IN THE EVENT HE BELIEVES THE RETALIATION ABOUT WHICH HE COMPLAINED IS CONTINUING. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 4/26/94 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lvj) (Entered: 04/26/1994)
316 ORDER THAT THE TELEPHONE STATUS CONFERENCE FOR APRIL 27, 1994 IS CONTINUED TO 5/4/94 AT 5:00 . ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 4/29/94 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lvj) (Entered: 04/29/1994)
MOTION BY PLAINTIFF STEVEN AUSTIN ON BEHALF OF CLASS MEMBER THAT ON BEHALF OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT, WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND WITHOUT OPPORTUNITY TO OPPOSE BEING LABELED BY THE DEFTS AND BEING A PERSON MENTALLY ILL, THIS COURT IS ASKED TO COMPEL THIS RESOURCE OF THE DEFTS, ETC., , FILED. . (lvj) (Entered: 05/03/1994)

74 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

05/05/1994 05/09/1994 06/03/1994 06/03/1994 06/06/1994 06/15/1994
06/22/1994 07/01/1994

317 ORDER THAT THE PARTIES SHALL SUBMIT A JOINT WRITTEN STATUS REPORT TO THE COURT ON OR BEFORE 6/3/94; AND PARTIES SHALL INITIATE A TELEPHONE CONFERENCE TO DISCUSS THE STATUS OF THE CASE ON 6/10/94 AT 4:00 . ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 5/6/94 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lvj) (Entered: 05/06/1994)
MOTION BY JEROME SILO TO REQUEST COURT TO PROVIDE (LAWYER ASSISTANCE), ETC., TO REQUEST COURT TO NOTIFY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF U.S. TO ENFORCE RIGHT TO STOP DISCRIMINATION , ETC. (SEE 70-3054 ICU V SHAPP AND 93-6239) (gm) (Entered: 05/10/1994)
318 ORDER THAT THE PARTIES SHALL INITIATE A TELEPHONE CONFERENCE TO DISCUSS THE STATUS OF THE CASE ON 7/14/94 AT 4:00 . ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 6/6/94 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lvj) (Entered: 06/06/1994)
319 MOTION BY MOVANT EDDIE GRIFFIN TO ENFORCE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION , BRIEF, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (fe) (Entered: 06/06/1994)
320 ORDER THAT THE PARTIES SHALL INITIATE A TELEPHONE CONFERENCE TO DISCUSS THE STATUS OF THE CASE ON 7/14/94 AT 4:00. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 6/7/94 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lvj) (Entered: 06/07/1994)
321 Memorandum in Response by DEFENDANT PENNSYLVANIA DEPT., DEFENDANT JOSEPH LEHMAN, DEFENDANT JEFFREY BEARDS, DEFENDANT MARTIN DRAGOVICH, DEFENDANT JOSEPH RYAN, DEFENDANT DONALD T. VAUGHN, DEFENDANT FREDERICK ROSENMEYER, DEFENDANT GILBERT WALTERS, DEFENDANT DENNIS R. BERHARDT, DEFENDANT JOSEPH F. MAZURKIEWICZ, DEFENDANT MARGARET A. MOORE, DEFENDANT H. ZIMMERMAN, DEFENDANT WILLIAM LOVE, DEFENDANT TIMOTHY ENGLISH, DEFENDANT JOSEPH CHESNEY, DEFENDANT ROBERT CASEY, DEFENDANT RICHARD BROWNING, DEFENDANT GEORGE MILLER, DEFENDANT NICHOLAS BORSELLO, DEFENDANT PAUL SOLOMAN to [319-1] MOTION TO ENFORCE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, certificate of service. (placed under seal 6/15/94) (lvj) (Entered: 06/15/1994)
322 MOTION BY MOVANT EDDIE GRIFFIN TO STRIKE , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (lvj) (Entered: 06/22/1994)
323 Response by DEFENDANT PENNSYLVANIA DEPT., DEFENDANT JOSEPH LEHMAN, DEFENDANT JEFFREY BEARDS, DEFENDANT MARTIN DRAGOVICH, DEFENDANT JOSEPH RYAN, DEFENDANT DONALD T. VAUGHN, DEFENDANT FREDERICK ROSENMEYER, DEFENDANT GILBERT A. WALTERS, DEFENDANT DENNIS R. BERHARDT, DEFENDANT JOSEPH F. MAZURKIEWICZ, DEFENDANT MARGARET A. MOORE, DEFENDANT CHARLES H. ZIMMERMAN, DEFENDANT WILLIAM LOVE, DEFENDANT TIMOTHY ENGLISH, DEFENDANT

75 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

07/15/1994 07/25/1994 07/25/1994 08/03/1994 08/03/1994 08/03/1994 08/04/1994
08/04/1994
08/08/1994

JOSEPH CHESNEY, DEFENDANT ROBERT CASEY, DEFENDANT RICHARD BROWNING, DEFENDANT GEORGE MILLER, DEFENDANT NICHOLAS BORSELLO, DEFENDANT PAUL SOLOMAN to CLASS MEMBER EDDIE GRIFFITH'S [322-1] MOTION TO STRIKE, certificate of service. (fe) (Entered: 07/01/1994)
324 PLAINTIFFS' Response to Class Member Eddie Griffin's Motion to Strike, certificate of service. (aa) (Entered: 07/15/1994)
325 Response by PLAINTIFFS STEVEN AUSTIN, ET AL to Pleading Filed by Theodore Schell, cert. of service. (jef) (Entered: 07/26/1994)
326 Response by PLAINTIFFS STEVEN AUSTIN, ET AL to EDDIE GRIFFIN'S [319-1] MOTION TO ENFORCE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, cert. of service. (jef) (Entered: 07/26/1994)
327 Defts' Counter Response to Pleading filed by Eddie Griffin, cert. of service. (jef) (Entered: 08/03/1994)
328 Defts' Evaluation of Plffs' Response to Pleading filed by Theodore Schell, cert. of service. (jef) (Entered: 08/03/1994)
329 Notice of change of address by DERON HOLLOWAY (lvj) (Entered: 08/03/1994)
330 ORDER THAT MOTION TO ENFORCE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, ETC., FURTHER ORDER THAT THE DENIAL OF EDDIE GRIFFIN'S MOTION TO ENFORCE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHT OF EDDIE GRIFFIN TO INITIATE A SEPARATE ACTION FOR DAMAGES IN AN APPROPRIATE JURISDICTION. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 8/5/94 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lvj) (Entered: 08/05/1994)
331 ORDER THAT EDDIE GRIFFIN'S MOTION TO STRIKE IS DENIED. FURTHER ORDER THAT THE ENTRY OF THIS ORDER IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE, ETC. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 8/5/94 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lvj) (Entered: 08/05/1994)
332 MOTION BY DEFENDANT PENNSYLVANIA DEPT., DEFENDANT JOSEPH LEHMAN, DEFENDANT JEFFREY BEARDS, DEFENDANT MARTIN DRAGOVICH, DEFENDANT JOSEPH RYAN, DEFENDANT DONALD T. VAUGHN, DEFENDANT FREDERICK ROSENMEYER, DEFENDANT GILBERT A. WALTERS, DEFENDANT DENNIS R. BERHARDT, DEFENDANT JOSEPH F. MAZURKIEWICZ, DEFENDANT MARGARET A. MOORE, DEFENDANT CHARLES H. ZIMMERMAN, DEFENDANT WILLIAM LOVE, DEFENDANT TIMOTHY ENGLISH, DEFENDANT JOSEPH CHESNEY, DEFENDANT ROBERT CASEY, DEFENDANT RICHARD BROWNING, DEFENDANT GEORGE MILLER, DEFENDANT NICHOLAS BORSELLO, DEFENDANT PAUL SOLOMAN FOR LEAVE TO AMEND PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS CLINICAL AND ADMINSTRATIVE GUIDELINES FOR THE PREVENTION AND MANAGEMENT OF TUBERCULOSIS POLICY DATED 9/4/93 AND SUBSTITUTE THE POLICY DATED 6/22/94 ,

76 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

08/10/1994
08/15/1994 08/15/1994 08/16/1994 08/16/1994 08/24/1994 08/25/1994 08/25/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994

CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO L.R.E.D. 20(B), CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (lvj) (Entered: 08/09/1994)
333 ORDER THAT DEFENDANTS' [332-1] MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS CLINICAL AND ADMINSTRATIVE GUIDELINES FOR THE PREVENTION AND MANAGEMENT OF TUBERCULOSIS POLICY DATED 9/4/93 AND SUBSTITUTE THE POLICY DATED 6/22/94 IS GRANTED. (SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS) 8/11/94 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (fe) (Entered: 08/11/1994)
334 Memorandum by DEFENDANTS in opposition to defining the scope of the proposed settlement agreement to include Institutions not listed in the complaint and its amendments, certificate of service. (aa) (Entered: 08/16/1994)
335 ORDER, FILED UNDER SEAL. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 8/16/94 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (aa) (Entered: 08/16/1994)
336 PLFF SCI-MAHANOY PARA LEGAL ASSITANCE REQUEST TO ATTEND HEARING ON SETTLEMENT DECREE , AFFIDAVIT, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (aa) (Entered: 08/16/1994)
Plff SCI-MAHANOY Para Legal Assistance Objections, affidavit, certificate of service. (see paper #336). (aa) (Entered: 08/16/1994)
337 Objections by MOVANT VINCENT THOMAS To the Proposed Settlement, certificate of service. (aa) (Entered: 08/24/1994)
338 Objections by DEFENDANT PAUL SOLOMAN to proposed settlement agreement and alternative proposed settlement agreement regarding the section referring to paralegals, certificate of service. (lvj) (Entered: 08/26/1994)
339 MOTION BY MOVANT FRANCISCO FIGUEROA FOR ELECTION OF EXCLUSION . (fe) (Entered: 08/26/1994)
340 Letter from Robert Belle received 8/15/94 re; settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/26/1994)
341 Letter from Sanford Bernstein dated 8/11/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/26/1994)
342 Letter from William Branch dated 8/9/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/26/1994)
343 Letter from Clarence Conner received 8/15/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/26/1994)
344 Letter from Henry Carroll dated 8/9/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/26/1994)
345 Letter from Franklin L. Castle dated 8/12/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/26/1994)
346 Letter from Kenneth B. Davenport dated 8/15/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/26/1994)

77 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994

347 Letter from Steven Heiser dated 8/10/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/26/1994)
348 Letter from Jorge Nelson dated 8/10/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/26/1994)
349 Letter from Halger M. Potter received 8/18/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/26/1994)
350 Letter from Franklyn Prillerman dated 8/10/94 re; settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/26/1994)
351 Letter from Ray Shelton dated 8/11/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/26/1994)
352 Letter from William Thomas Skinner dated 8/11/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/26/1994)
353 Letter from Harry F. Smith dated 8/12/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/26/1994)
354 Letter from Robert Spruill dated 8/11/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/26/1994)
355 Letter from Wayne O. Aultman dated 8/9/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/26/1994)
356 Letter from Clifton A. Lewis, Jr. and Johnathan Boone dated 8/13/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/26/1994)
357 Letter from Richard R. Canady received 8/16/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/26/1994)
358 Letter from Richard Carter and Sherman Crawley dated 8/12/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/26/1994)
359 Letter from Anthony Davis received 8/16/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/26/1994)
360 Letter from Frank Metzger dated 8/15/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/26/1994)
361 Letter from Nelson H. Wilson dated 8/15/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/26/1994)
362 Letter from George Feigley dated 8/13/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/29/1994)
363 Letter from Francis Hannon dated 8/11/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/29/1994)
364 Letter from Alfred Hatchett dated 8/14/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/29/1994)
365 Letter from Douglas Hollis dated 8/12/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/29/1994)

78 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994

366 Letter from John Roland Jackson dated 8/14/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/29/1994)
367 Letter from Allan Karleski dated 8/10/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/29/1994)
368 Letter from Clarence Major dated 8/12/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/29/1994)
369 Letter from Dennis Muse dated 8/12/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/29/1994)
370 Letter from Eric Rogers dated 8/12/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/29/1994)
371 Letter from Kenneth Souder dated 8/12/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/29/1994)
372 Letter from Richard Turner dated 8/12/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/29/1994)
373 Letter from Aaron Christopher Wheeler dated 8/12/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/29/1994)
374 Letter from P. Williams dated 8/14/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/29/1994)
375 Letter from Marvin Woods dated 8/11/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/29/1994)
376 Letter from Don Ray Adams Jr dated 8/12/94 re; settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/30/1994)
377 Letter from George Bradley received 8/18/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/30/1994)
378 Letter from George Butler received 8/18/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) Modified on 08/30/1994 (Entered: 08/30/1994)
379 Letter from Mark Edmonds dated 8/16/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) Modified on 08/30/1994 (Entered: 08/30/1994)
380 Letter from Hartley Goode dated 8/15/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/30/1994)
381 Letter from Richard Kane dated 8/14/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/30/1994)
382 Letter from Willie Lewis dated 8/15/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/30/1994)
383 Letter from Matthew C. McClain dated 8/11/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/30/1994)
384 Letter from Earl Paige received 8/18/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/30/1994)

79 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994

385 Letter from William R. Perkins received 8/18/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/30/1994)
386 Letter from George J. Preston dated 8/13/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/30/1994)
387 Letter from James J. Walsh dated 8/15/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/30/1994)
388 Letter from Hassin Austin dated 8/11/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/30/1994)
389 Letter from Bruce Bainbridge dated 8/17/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/30/1994)
390 Letter from Walter Beatty dated 8/20/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/30/1994)
391 Letter from Guy J. Bicking received 8/22/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/30/1994)
392 Letter from Luis Cruz dated 8/17/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/30/1994)
393 Letter from James M. Dunyan dated 8/19/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/30/1994)
394 Letter from Thomas Lee Evans received 8/22/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/30/1994)
395 Letter from Peter Gowan dated 8/18/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/30/1994)
396 Letter from Larry Hamel dated 8/17/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/30/1994)
397 Letter from Ancell Hamm dated 8/19/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/30/1994)
398 Letter from David Johnson dated 8/19/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/30/1994)
399 Letter from Eulac J. Johnson dated 8/15/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/30/1994)
400 Letter from Donald Jones received 8/22/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/30/1994)
401 Letter from Gregory LaBoon dated 8/19/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/30/1994)
402 Letter from James Lackey dated 8/19/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/30/1994)
403 Letter from Jim Pelton dated 8/18/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/30/1994)

80 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994

404 Letter from Edward Pinkney dated 8/13/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/30/1994)
405 Letter from Robin S. Rhyder dated 8/17/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/30/1994)
406 Letter from Leroy Stoltzfus received 8/22/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/30/1994)
407 Letter from Kenneth Souder dated 8/13/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/30/1994)
408 Letter from Richard Turner dated 8/15/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/30/1994)
409 Letter from Ricardo Villafane received 8/22/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/30/1994)
410 Letter from Paul Bailey dated 8/18/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/30/1994)
411 Letter from Leonard Bocchicchio received 8/23/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/30/1994)
412 Letter from Emanuel Boreland received 8/23/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/30/1994)
413 Letter from Purcell Bronson dated 8/18/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/30/1994)
414 Letter from Ronald Brown dated 8/16/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/30/1994)
415 Letter from Davant M. Bryant dated 8/16/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/30/1994)
416 Letter from Mike Bundy dated 8/16/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/30/1994)
417 Letter from Cecil A. Cook received 8/23/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/30/1994)
418 Letter from John H. Demmitt dated 8/10/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/31/1994)
419 Letter from Spencer R. Dobson dated 8/13/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/31/1994)
420 Letter from Barry Gibbs dated 8/18/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/31/1994)
421 Letter from Hermon Hawkins dated 8/20/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/31/1994)
422 Letter from Herbert Hughes dated 8/15/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/31/1994)

81 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994

423 Letter from Keith Hummel received 8/23/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/31/1994)
424 Letter from Eugene A. King dated 8/15/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/31/1994)
425 Letter from Michael McCrery dated 8/16/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/31/1994)
426 Letter from David Moore dated 8/15/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/31/1994)
427 Letter from Darryl Scott received 8/23/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/31/1994)
428 Letter from Kenneth Thomas Sible dated 8/18/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/31/1994)
429 Letter from Jerome Silo dated 8/16/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/31/1994)
430 Letter from Jerome Silo received 8/23/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/31/1994)
431 Letter from Dale Stull dated 8/17/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/31/1994)
432 Letter from James Wheeler dated 8/18/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/31/1994)
433 Letter from Timothy Wright received 8/23/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/31/1994)
434 Letter from Bryan S. Grabrin dated 8/17/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/31/1994)
435 Letter from Orlando Huertas received 8/24/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/31/1994)
436 Letter from David C. Jensen dated 8/22/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/31/1994)
437 Letter from John D. Jones dated 8/22/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/31/1994)
438 Letter from Russell Krell dated 8/21/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/31/1994)
439 Letter from Michael Lane received 8/24/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/31/1994)
440 Letter from Gerard P. McKenna dated 8/19/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/31/1994)
441 Letter from Wade Middleton dated 8/21/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/31/1994)

82 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994

442 Letter from James M. Pierce received 8/22/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/31/1994)
443 Letter from Raymond J. Stanton received 8/24/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/31/1994)
444 Letter from Moon Starcloud dated 8/21/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/31/1994)
445 Letter from Peter Treadway dated 8/18/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/31/1994)
446 Letter from Anthony John Veneri, Jr dated 8/22/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/31/1994)
447 Letter from Henry Unseld Washington dated 8/21/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 08/31/1994)
448 Letter from John Abbate dated 8/20/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/01/1994)
449 Letter from Jerald D. Albrecht dated 8/18/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/01/1994)
450 Letter from Matthew A. Brown dated 8/22/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/01/1994)
451 Letter from James Chester dated 8/14/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/01/1994)
452 Letter from Charles F. Daly received 8/25/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/01/1994)
453 Letter from Lawrence Ellison dated 8/23/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/01/1994)
454 Letter from John Frederick Nole dated 8/17/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/01/1994)
455 Letter from John Payne received 8/25/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/01/1994)
456 Letter from Kenneth E. Stump dated 8/20/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/01/1994)
457 Letter from Mark Thomas dated 8/23/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/01/1994)
458 Letter from Paul Ballod dated 8/19/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/01/1994)
459 Letter from Charles Crosby dated 8/22/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/01/1994)
460 Letter from Andre Ferguson dated 8/24/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/01/1994)

83 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994
08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994

461 Letter from Eugene Grey dated 8/23/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/01/1994)
462 Letter from John Hollawell dated 8/24/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/01/1994)
463 Letter from Timothy L. Kelley dated 8/22/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/01/1994)
464 Letter from Frank Konya, Michael Simon, William Gambill, Richard Nelson, Anthony Brzensk, Daniel Leone, Bruce Kutz, Alfred Williams, Albert Keller, William Wilbur, Dennis Short, Robert Vasiliou, Rodney Weaver, Robert Jacoby dated 8/24/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/06/1994)
465 Letter from Boyd O'Hara dated 8/19/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/06/1994)
466 Letter from Nelson Slaughter dated 8/23/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/06/1994)
467 Letter from Rodney M. Smith dated 8/23/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/06/1994)
468 Letter from Harry Twiggs dated 8/23/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/06/1994)
469 Letter from Marvin Attemose received 8/29/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/07/1994)
470 Letter from Eugene Allen dated 8/23/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/07/1994)
471 Letter from Gene Allen dated 8/26/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/07/1994)
472 Letter from Wayne Aultman dated 8/26/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/07/1994)
473 Letter from Edelmiro Colon, Jr dated 8/22/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/07/1994)
474 Letter from John W. Dunn received 8/29/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/07/1994)
475 Letter from Emerson McCauley dated 8/22/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/07/1994)
476 Letter from Leon Mann dated 8/25/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/07/1994)
477 Letter from Robert A. Merker dated 8/24/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/07/1994)
478 Letter from Roy Alleyu Muldowney dated 8/24/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/07/1994)

84 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/26/1994 08/30/1994 08/30/1994 08/30/1994 08/31/1994 08/31/1994 08/31/1994 08/31/1994 08/31/1994 08/31/1994 08/31/1994 09/01/1994

479 Letter from Steven Rigney dated 8/24/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/07/1994)
480 Letter from John M. Shumpet dated 8/23/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/07/1994)
481 Letter from Kenneth Souder dated 8/23/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/07/1994)
482 Letter from Kenneth Souder dated 8/23/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/07/1994)
483 Letter from James A. Taylor, Jr. dated 8/23/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/07/1994)
484 Letter from James M. Watson dated 8/19/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/07/1994)
485 Letter from James S. Wylin dated 8/26/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/07/1994)
486 Letter from Jon E. Yount dated 8/24/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/07/1994)
487 Letter from James H. Cunningham dated 8/25/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/07/1994)
488 Letter from Frederick Goodman dated 8/29/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/07/1994)
489 Letter from Joseph Wanner dated 8/28/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/07/1994)
490 Letter from Mark Elmstrom dated 8/29/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/07/1994)
491 Letter from Robert Friend dated 8/27/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/07/1994)
492 Letter from Richard Hollihan Jr dated 8/27/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/07/1994)
493 Letter from Richard Knawles received 8/31/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/07/1994)
494 Letter from Melvin Lewis dated 8/26/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/07/1994)
495 Letter from Michael Small dated 8/24/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/07/1994)
496 Letter from Ronald D. Weaver dated 8/25/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/07/1994)
497 Letter from Dale R. Arnold dated 8/26/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/07/1994)

85 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

09/01/1994 09/01/1994 09/01/1994 09/01/1994 09/01/1994 09/01/1994 09/01/1994 09/02/1994 09/02/1994 09/02/1994 09/02/1994 09/02/1994 09/02/1994 09/02/1994 09/02/1994 09/02/1994 09/02/1994 09/02/1994 09/06/1994 09/06/1994

498 Letter from Dennis Carroll dated 8/28/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/07/1994)
499 Letter from Dennis Carroll dated 8/15/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/07/1994)
500 Letter from Charles Diggs dated 8/30/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/07/1994)
501 Letter from Donald Granberry dated 8/29/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/07/1994)
502 Letter from Eric R. Motis dated 8/28/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/07/1994)
503 Letter from Felix Rolon dated 8/27/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/07/1994)
504 Letter from Roy D. Van Doren, Jr. dated 8/29/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/07/1994)
505 Letter from Dennis Benson dated 8/30/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/12/1994)
506 Letter from Joe Coleman dated 8/25/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/12/1994)
507 Letter from Thomas Fox re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/12/1994)
508 Letter from Curtis Gibson dated 8/30/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/12/1994)
509 Letter from Andrew Hancharik dated 8/30/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/12/1994)
510 Letter from Roger Jochen re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/12/1994)
511 Letter from Mr. Dwayne Johnson dated 8/30/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/12/1994)
512 Letter from Edward Johnson dated 8/26/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/12/1994)
513 Letter from David B. Kopac re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/12/1994)
514 Letter from Lonnie Roberts dated 8/15/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/12/1994)
515 Letter from Gary Rock dated 8/30/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/12/1994)
516 Letter from Edith Anderson received 9/6/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/13/1994)
517 Letter from Michael J. Bray received 9/6/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/13/1994)

86 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

09/06/1994 09/06/1994 09/06/1994 09/06/1994 09/06/1994 09/06/1994 09/06/1994 09/06/1994 09/06/1994 09/06/1994 09/06/1994 09/06/1994 09/06/1994 09/06/1994 09/06/1994 09/06/1994 09/06/1994 09/06/1994 09/06/1994

518 Letter from James Chester dated 8/30/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/13/1994)
519 Letter from Randall H. Chumley dated 8/31/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/13/1994)
520 Letter from Charles Dozier received 9/6/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/13/1994)
521 Letter from Paul Gilly dated 9/1/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/13/1994)
522 Letter from Sabra Graham dated 9/2/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/13/1994)
523 Letter from Elsworth Groff, Jr received 9/6/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/13/1994)
524 Letter from James M. Hancock received 9/6/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/13/1994)
525 Letter from William Hayes dated 8/29/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/13/1994)
526 Letter from Harry Heister received 9/6/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/13/1994)
527 Letter from Steven Irvin received 9/6/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/13/1994)
528 Letter from Thomas D. Jefferson dated 8/31/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/13/1994)
529 Letter from Charles Jones dated 8/27/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/13/1994)
530 Letter from Ben Lucciola dated 8/26/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/13/1994)
531 Letter from Emanuel Lybrand dated 8/31/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/13/1994)
532 Letter from Carl Mason received 9/6/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/13/1994)
533 Letter from Preston B. Pfeifly received 9/6/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/13/1994)
534 Letter from Woodrow W. Rasley, Sr. received 9/6/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/13/1994)
535 Letter from Jose' Rivera dated 8/17/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/13/1994)
536 Letter from Earl Simmons received 9/6/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/13/1994)

87 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

09/06/1994 09/06/1994 09/06/1994 09/06/1994 09/06/1994 09/06/1994 09/06/1994 09/07/1994 09/07/1994 09/07/1994 09/07/1994 09/07/1994 09/12/1994
09/12/1994
09/13/1994 09/13/1994 09/13/1994 09/13/1994

537 Letter from Kenneth W. Teater dated 8/31/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/13/1994)
538 Letter from Michael Tianao received 9/6/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/13/1994)
539 Letter from Michael Twiggs dated 8/31/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/13/1994)
540 Letter from Anthony John Veneri, Jr. dated 8/30/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/13/1994)
541 Letter from Andrew Via received 9/6/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/13/1994)
542 Letter from Jerry L. Waters received 9/6/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/13/1994)
543 Letter from Shaheed Wilson dated 8/26/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/13/1994)
544 Letter from Zebbie J. Clifton dated 9/5/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/13/1994)
545 Letter from Charles Diggs dated 9/1/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/13/1994)
546 Letter from John Ganges dated 8/29/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/13/1994)
547 Letter from Kevin S. Mines dated 9/2/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/13/1994)
548 Letter from Timothy J. O'Brien dated 9/2/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/13/1994)
549 MOTION BY MOVANT LEONARD BOCCHICCHIO FOR AN INJUNCTIVE RELIEF HEARING PURSUANT TO RULE 65(A)(Z) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE . (lvj) (Entered: 09/13/1994)
550 MOTION BY MOVANT LEONARD BOCCHICCHIO FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND/OR FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION , ATE OF SERVICE. (lvj) (Entered: 09/13/1994)
551 Letter from Barry Alexander dated 9/4/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/16/1994)
552 Letter from Keith Anderson dated 9/4/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/16/1994)
553 Letter from John Arabia dated 9/4/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/16/1994)
554 Letter from Kelly Battles dated 9/4/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/16/1994)

88 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

09/13/1994 09/13/1994 09/13/1994 09/13/1994 09/13/1994 09/13/1994 09/13/1994 09/13/1994 09/13/1994 09/13/1994 09/13/1994 09/13/1994 09/13/1994 09/13/1994 09/13/1994 09/13/1994 09/13/1994 09/13/1994 09/13/1994

555 Letter from Edward Schleigh dated 8/23/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/16/1994)
556 Letter from Earl Bostic dated 9/5/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/16/1994)
557 Letter from Dameon Brome dated 9/5/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/16/1994)
558 Letter from Roland Bryant dated 9/5/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/16/1994)
559 Letter from Roger Buehl dated 9/3/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/16/1994)
560 Letter from Junius C. Burno 3rd dated 9/4/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/16/1994)
561 Letter from Jerry Chambers dated 9/4/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/16/1994)
562 Letter from James Chester dated 9/2/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/16/1994)
563 Letter from Basir Clanton dated 9/3/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/16/1994)
564 Letter from Lucius Coward dated 9/5/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/16/1994)
565 Letter from Carl Daniels received 9/8/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/19/1994)
566 Letter from Kenneth Dorick dated 9/4/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/19/1994)
567 Letter from James Edwards dated 9/5/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/19/1994)
568 Letter from Gerald J. Enos dated 9/4/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/19/1994)
569 Letter from Lawrence Fuller dated 9/5/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/19/1994)
570 Letter from Howard J. Getz dated 9/4/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/19/1994)
571 Letter from Wayne Green dated 9/4/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/19/1994)
572 Letter from Shawn Griffin dated 9/5/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/19/1994)
573 Letter from Richard Herbert dated 9/2/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/19/1994)

89 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

09/13/1994 09/13/1994 09/13/1994 09/13/1994 09/13/1994 09/13/1994 09/13/1994 09/13/1994 09/13/1994 09/13/1994 09/13/1994 09/13/1994 09/13/1994 09/13/1994 09/13/1994 09/13/1994 09/13/1994 09/13/1994 09/13/1994

574 Letter from John D. Hudson dated 9/3/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/19/1994)
575 Letter from Nathan Izzard dated 9/4/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/19/1994)
576 Letter from Mike Jankowski dated 9/3/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/19/1994)
577 Letter from Anthony Johnson dated 9/3/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/19/1994)
578 Letter from Edward Johnson dated 9/5/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/19/1994)
579 Letter from Andre Kinard dated 9/5/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/19/1994)
580 Letter from Larry Knopsnider dated 9/4/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/19/1994)
581 Letter from Edward Lewis dated 9/4/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/19/1994)
582 Letter from Juan Lopez dated 9/5/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/19/1994)
583 Letter from Charles Turlano dated 9/4/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/19/1994)
584 Letter from Howard Martin dated 9/4/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/19/1994)
585 Letter from Larry McDaniel dated 9/4/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/19/1994)
586 Letter from Tyrone Mertz dated 9/5/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/19/1994)
587 Letter from Mark Mobley dated 9/4/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/19/1994)
588 Letter from Wayne Pon dated 9/4/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/19/1994)
589 Letter from Jerome Payton dated 9/5/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/19/1994)
590 Letter from James Quier dated 9/5/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/19/1994)
591 Letter from Kim Riddick dated 9/4/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/19/1994)
592 Letter from Keith Sawyer dated 9/5/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/19/1994)

90 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

09/13/1994 09/13/1994 09/13/1994 09/13/1994 09/13/1994 09/13/1994 09/13/1994 09/13/1994 09/13/1994 09/13/1994 09/13/1994 09/13/1994 09/13/1994 09/13/1994 09/13/1994 09/13/1994 09/13/1994 09/13/1994 09/13/1994

593 Letter from Kenneth Souder dated 9/1/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/19/1994)
594 Letter from Stanley Spriggs dated 9/6/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/19/1994)
595 Letter from Willie Terry received 9/8/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/19/1994)
596 Letter from Derrick Thomas dated 9/4/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/19/1994)
597 Letter from Robert Lathnire Thomas dated 9/5/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/19/1994)
598 Letter from Samuel Bruce Samson Wallace dated 9/1/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/19/1994)
599 Letter from Marcus Walton dated 9/5/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/19/1994)
600 Letter from V. White dated 9/5/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/19/1994)
601 Letter from V. White dated 9/5/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) Modified on 09/19/1994 (Entered: 09/19/1994)
602 Letter from Donald Witherspoon dated 9/2/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/19/1994)
603 Letter from James Woodham dated 9/4/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/19/1994)
604 Letter from Gene Allen dated 9/3/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/21/1994)
605 Letter from Grady Bishop dated 8/22/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/21/1994)
606 Letter from Michael Bibbs dated 9/4/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/21/1994)
607 Letter from Reginald Boyer dated 9/2/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/21/1994)
608 Letter from Henry Brue dated 8/23/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/21/1994)
609 Letter from Jamil W. Dobson dated 9/4/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/21/1994)
610 Letter from David W. Butler dated 9/5/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/21/1994)
611 Letter from Ed Chaparro dated 9/4/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/21/1994)

91 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

09/13/1994 09/13/1994 09/13/1994 09/13/1994 09/13/1994 09/13/1994 09/13/1994 09/13/1994 09/13/1994 09/13/1994 09/13/1994 09/13/1994 09/13/1994 09/13/1994 09/13/1994
09/13/1994 09/13/1994 09/13/1994 09/13/1994

612 Letter from John Cleland dated 9/6/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/21/1994)
613 Letter from Wayne Davis dated 9/4/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/21/1994)
614 Letter from Robert Green dated 9/6/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/21/1994)
615 Letter from Robert T. Hoetzel received 9/9/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/21/1994)
616 Letter from Daniel Konze dated 9/5/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/21/1994)
617 Letter from Charles R. Keeney Sr. dated 9/4/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/21/1994)
618 Letter from Thomas Martin dated 9/6/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/21/1994)
619 Letter from George Meza dated 9/5/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/21/1994)
620 Letter from Woodrow Mitchell dated 9/2/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/21/1994)
621 Letter from Edward Mullany dated 9/13/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/21/1994)
622 Letter from Charles Norris dated 9/6/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/21/1994)
623 Letter from Frank Phelan dated 9/5/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/21/1994)
624 Letter from James R. Prince received 9/9/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/21/1994)
625 Letter from Thomas Musca dated 8/22/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/21/1994)
626 Letter from Courtney Boyd, James Anderson, George Ross and Ahmad Abdul Jabbar-Al Samad received 9/9/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/21/1994)
627 Letter from Don Shea dated 9/6/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/21/1994)
628 Letter from Kenneth Thomas Sible dated 9/6/94 re:settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/21/1994)
629 Letter from Kempis Songster dated 9/5/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/21/1994)
630 Letter from Vincent Thomas dated 9/6/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/21/1994)

92 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

09/13/1994 09/13/1994 09/13/1994 09/13/1994 09/13/1994 09/13/1994 09/13/1994 09/13/1994 09/13/1994 09/13/1994 09/13/1994 09/13/1994 09/13/1994 09/13/1994 09/13/1994 09/13/1994 09/13/1994 09/13/1994 09/13/1994

631 Letter from Henry Washington dated 8/31/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/21/1994)
632 Letter from Rafael Villafane dated 9/4/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/21/1994)
633 Letter from Melvin Wroten dated 9/5/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/21/1994)
634 Letter from Adonis Wilson dated 9/4/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/21/1994)
635 Letter from Terryl R. Witner dated 8/23/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/21/1994)
636 Letter from David Yohn dated 9/6/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/21/1994)
637 Letter from Debbie Sims Africa and Janine Phillips Africa received 9/12/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/22/1994)
638 Letter from Lionell Austin dated 9/5/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) Modified on 09/22/1994 (Entered: 09/22/1994)
639 Letter from James Bailey dated 9/5/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/22/1994)
640 Letter from Frank Davis dated 9/7/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/22/1994)
641 Letter from Babe R. Dawson dated 9/5/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/22/1994)
642 Letter from Richard Hoggard dated 9/5/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/22/1994)
643 Letter from Johonny Hutchinson dated 9/4/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/22/1994)
644 Letter from Fred G. Koch received 9/12/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/22/1994)
645 Letter from Joseph Liska dated 9/8/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/22/1994)
646 Letter from Leo McClelland received 9/12/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/22/1994)
647 Letter from Barry McDonald dated 9/8/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/22/1994)
648 Letter from Donald Howard Montgomery dated 9/9/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/22/1994)
649 Letter from Michael Meehan dated 9/9/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/22/1994)

93 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

09/13/1994 09/13/1994 09/13/1994 09/13/1994 09/13/1994 09/13/1994 09/13/1994 09/13/1994 09/13/1994 09/16/1994 09/16/1994 09/16/1994 09/16/1994 09/16/1994 09/16/1994 09/16/1994 09/16/1994 09/16/1994 09/19/1994

650 Letter from Bruce Pettiford dated 8/26/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/22/1994)
651 Letter from Theodore Przybycszewski dated 9/2/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/22/1994)
652 Letter from Stuart G. Simon dated 9/7/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/22/1994)
653 Letter from Dennis Xethakis dated 9/9/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/22/1994)
654 Letter from Dennis Freeman dated 9/4/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/22/1994)
655 Letter from Kenny Quick dated 8/23/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/22/1994)
656 Letter from Felix Rolan dated 9/7/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/22/1994)
657 Letter from Gary Robinson dated 8/21/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/22/1994)
658 Letter from Raymond J. Amolsky dated 8/31/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/22/1994)
659 Letter from Ashby Breneman received 9/14/94 re: settlement agreement. (aa) Modified on 09/22/1994 (Entered: 09/22/1994)
660 Letter from Timothy G. Collins dated 9/8/94 re: settlement agreement. (aa) Modified on 09/22/1994 (Entered: 09/22/1994)
661 Letter from Robert Fox, Rick Marsden dated 9/1/94 re: settlement agreement. (aa) Modified on 09/22/1994 (Entered: 09/22/1994)
662 Letter from Lloyd O. Harvey dated 9/12/94 re: settlement agreement. (aa) Modified on 09/22/1994 (Entered: 09/22/1994)
663 Letter from Cameron Murray dated 9/14/94 re: settlement agreement. (aa) Modified on 09/22/1994 (Entered: 09/22/1994)
664 Letter from Jose Antonio Ramos, Darnell Hatten dated 9/2/94 re: settlement agreement. (aa) (Entered: 09/22/1994)
665 Letter from Jesse Ray Robbins dated 9/6/94 re: settlement agreement. (aa) (Entered: 09/22/1994)
666 Letter from Carl Thompson dated 9/12/94 re: settlement agreement. (aa) (Entered: 09/22/1994)
667 Letter from Scott C. Davis dated 9/9/94 re: settlement agreement. (aa) (Entered: 09/22/1994)
668 Letter from Richard Turner dated 8/26/94 re: settlement agreement. (aa) (Entered: 09/22/1994)

94 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

09/21/1994
09/22/1994 09/22/1994 09/22/1994 09/22/1994 09/22/1994 09/22/1994 09/22/1994 09/22/1994 09/22/1994 09/23/1994 09/23/1994 09/23/1994 09/23/1994 09/23/1994

669 ORDER THAT MEMBERS OF THE PLFF CLASS MAY CONTINUE TO FILE OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT UNTIL 9/30/94. DEFTS SHALL PROMPTLY POST A NOTICE IN ALL STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS ADVISING ALL MEMBERS OF THE PLFF CLASS OF THE SEPTEMBER 30, 1994, CUT-OFF DATE ON THE FILING OF OBJECTIONS; ON OR BEFORE 10/20/94 PLFFS SHALL FILE AND SERVE A MEMORANDUM, ETC. ON OR BEFORE 11/3/94 DEFTS SHALL FILE AND SERVE A RESPONSIVE MEMORANDUM ADDRESSING EACH OF THE ISSUES, ETC; AND, STATUS CONFERENCE WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT IS SCHEDULED FOR 11/18/94 AT 2:00 , ETC. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 9/22/94 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lvj) (Entered: 09/22/1994)
670 Letter from Wayne O. Aultman dated 9/14/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/26/1994)
671 Letter from Robert Steven Belle dated 9/7/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/26/1994)
672 Letter from George C. Davis dated 9/9/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/26/1994)
673 Letter from Frank S. Konya dated 8/24/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/26/1994)
674 Letter from James A. Miller dated 9/14/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/26/1994)
675 Letter from William E. Montgomery received 9/19/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/26/1994)
676 Letter from James H. Myers, Jr., dated 9/9/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/26/1994)
677 Letter from John Ruppert dated 8/26/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/26/1994)
678 Letter from Donald German dated 9/17/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/26/1994)
679 Letter from Rick Fossler dated 9/16/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/26/1994)
680 Letter from Robert Hagood dated 9/4/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/26/1994)
681 Letter from Eugene Moore dated 9/23/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/26/1994)
682 Letter from William Turner dated 9/4/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/26/1994)
683 Letter from Robert Steven Belle received 9/23/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/26/1994)

95 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

09/26/1994 09/26/1994 09/26/1994 09/26/1994 09/26/1994 09/26/1994 09/26/1994 09/26/1994 09/28/1994 09/28/1994 09/28/1994 09/28/1994 09/28/1994 09/28/1994 09/28/1994 09/28/1994 09/28/1994 09/28/1994 09/29/1994

684 Letter from Steve Alexander dated 9/4/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/27/1994)
685 Letter from Robert Bishop dated 9/4/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/27/1994)
686 Letter from Rasheed Brown dated 9/4/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/27/1994)
687 Letter from Antonio Bundy dated 9/4/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/27/1994)
688 Letter from Bernard Lee dated 9/4/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/27/1994)
689 Letter from Michael McCrery dated 9/22/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/27/1994)
690 Letter from George H.I. Smith dated 9/19/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/27/1994)
691 Letter from Derrick Walker received 9/26/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/27/1994)
692 Letter from James Aponte dated 9/23/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/29/1994)
693 Letter from Jeffrey LaVon Jenkins dated 9/24/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/29/1994)
694 Letter from Joseph Johnson Jr., dated 9/24/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/29/1994)
695 Letter from Skip Lawrence dated 9/24/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/29/1994)
696 Letter from William Magnum dated 9/24/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/29/1994)
697 Letter from Albert R. Morris dated 9/24/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/29/1994)
698 Letter from James Rivers dated 9/23/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/29/1994)
699 Letter from Wilford E. Scales received 9/28/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/29/1994)
700 Letter from Richard Simonson dated 9/23/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/29/1994)
701 Letter from John White received 9/28/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/29/1994)
702 Letter from Gene Allen dated 9/26/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/30/1994)

96 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

09/29/1994 09/29/1994 09/29/1994 09/29/1994 09/29/1994 09/29/1994 09/29/1994 10/05/1994 10/06/1994 10/07/1994 10/07/1994 10/07/1994 10/07/1994 10/07/1994 10/07/1994 10/07/1994 10/07/1994 10/07/1994 10/07/1994

703 Letter from Robert Steven Belle dated 9/21/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/30/1994)
704 Letter from Leon Garland dated 9/23/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/30/1994)
705 Letter from Proctor Nowell dated 9/26/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/30/1994)
706 Letter from Robert Shaw dated 9/22/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/30/1994)
707 Letter from Arthur Sheffey received 9/29/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/30/1994)
708 Letter from Donald X. Washington dated 9/26/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/30/1994)
709 Letter from Kenyatta Williams received 9/29/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 09/30/1994)
710 Notice of change of address by GEORGE RAHSAAN BROOKS-BEY. (fe) (Entered: 10/05/1994)
711 Written Objections by MOVANT DERON HOLLOWAY. (fe) (Entered: 10/06/1994)
712 Letter from Herbert Harris dated 9/27/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 10/11/1994)
713 Letter from Kenneth L. Allen dated 9/24/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 10/11/1994)
714 Letter from Benjamin Brown dated 9/27/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 10/11/1994)
715 Letter from Vernon Crumb dated 9/27/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 10/11/1994)
716 Letter from John M. Davis received 9/30/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 10/11/1994)
717 Letter from Dennis Foy dated 9/27/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 10/11/1994)
718 Letter from Kendal Freeman dated 9/27/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 10/11/1994)
719 Letter from Shelton Hunter dated 9/26/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 10/11/1994)
720 Letter from Carlton Lane dated 9/4/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 10/11/1994)
721 Letter from Robert Merker dated 9/27/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 10/11/1994)

97 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

10/07/1994 10/07/1994 10/07/1994 10/07/1994 10/07/1994 10/07/1994 10/07/1994 10/07/1994 10/07/1994 10/07/1994 10/07/1994 10/07/1994 10/07/1994 10/07/1994 10/07/1994 10/07/1994 10/07/1994 10/07/1994 10/07/1994

722 Letter from James Francis Sullivan dated 9/24/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 10/11/1994)
723 Letter from Richard Turner dated 9/26/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 10/11/1994)
724 Letter from John Williams received 9/30/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 10/11/1994)
725 Letter from Stephen Carr dated 9/28/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 10/11/1994)
726 Letter from Eric M. Costa dated 9/8/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 10/11/1994)
727 Letter from Donald Gay received 10/3/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 10/11/1994)
728 Letter from Jerry Harris dated 9/28/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 10/11/1994)
729 Letter from Dennis Hill received 10/3/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 10/11/1994)
730 Letter from Howard Holmes dated 9/29/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 10/11/1994)
731 Letter from William L. Hudson dated 9/28/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 10/11/1994)
732 Letter from Donald R. Hull dated 9/28/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 10/11/1994)
733 Letter from Tyrone Malone dated 9/27/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 10/11/1994)
734 Letter from Danny Merico dated 9/29/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 10/11/1994)
735 Letter from Russell S. Mitchell dated 9/26/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 10/11/1994)
736 Letter from Benjamin J. Moore dated 9/29/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 10/11/1994)
737 Letter from Gary Nelson received 10/3/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 10/11/1994)
738 Letter from James Mario Pridgen dated 9/26/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 10/11/1994)
739 Letter from John D. Reed received 10/3/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 10/11/1994)
740 Letter from Robert T. Shuford dated 9/29/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 10/11/1994)

98 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

10/07/1994 10/07/1994 10/07/1994 10/07/1994 10/07/1994 10/07/1994 10/07/1994 10/07/1994 10/07/1994 10/07/1994 10/07/1994 10/07/1994 10/07/1994 10/07/1994 10/07/1994 10/07/1994 10/18/1994 10/20/1994

741 Letter from Raymond Tanner dated 9/28/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 10/11/1994)
742 Letter from Vincent Thomas dated 9/29/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 10/11/1994)
743 Letter from Shawn Drummond received 10/4/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 10/11/1994)
744 Letter from John Fay Jr. dated 9/29/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 10/11/1994)
745 Letter from George Hopkins dated 9/29/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 10/11/1994)
746 Letter from Derrick McCowan dated 9/28/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 10/11/1994)
747 Letter from James Reuben Robinson received 10/4/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 10/11/1994)
748 Letter from Malon Howell dated 9/30/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 10/11/1994)
749 Letter from Eddie Jones dated 9/26/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 10/11/1994)
750 Letter from Jerome Silo received 10/5/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 10/11/1994)
751 Letter from Ronald Lee Smith dated 9/24/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 10/11/1994)
752 Letter from Flrence Caesar received 10/6/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 10/11/1994)
753 Letter from John Dreher 9/29/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 10/11/1994)
754 Letter from Bruce Pettiford received 10/6/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 10/11/1994)
755 Letter from Michael F. McCole dated 9/20/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 10/11/1994)
756 Letter from Leroy Neusome dated 8/23/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 10/11/1994)
757 Letter from inmate received 10/17/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 10/19/1994)
758 Memorandum of law by PLAINTIFF STEVEN AUSTIN, PLAINTIFF FRANKLIN CASTLE, PLAINTIFF EUGENE DUNSON, PLAINTIFF JOHN REGELMAN, PLAINTIFF KEVIN SANDERS, PLAINTIFF RICHARD BOOZER, PLAINTIFF JOSEPH MULCAHY, PLAINTIFF DEBRA SPEAKES, PLAINTIFF TROY CALHOUN, PLAINTIFF FRANKLIN D. BALTIMORE SR., PLAINTIFF LEONARD T. MORTON JR., PLAINTIFF SCOTT

99 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

10/25/1994 10/25/1994 10/25/1994 11/02/1994 11/02/1994 11/02/1994 11/02/1994 11/03/1994 11/07/1994 11/07/1994 11/07/1994
11/10/1994 11/10/1994 11/16/1994

DOCKLER, PLAINTIFF GARY ROOS, PLAINTIFF PERCY MCCONNELL, PLAINTIFF JOHN ROE, certificate of service. (fe) (Entered: 10/21/1994)
759 Letter from Troy Allen dated 10/07/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 10/26/1994)
760 Letter from Michael A. Blackwell dated 10/19/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 10/26/1994)
761 Letter from Troy Calhaun dated 10/18/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 10/26/1994)
762 Letter from Richard Hollihan Jr. dated 10/24/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 11/03/1994)
763 Letter from Richard Hollihan dated 10/27/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 11/03/1994)
764 Letter from Gary Steven Roos dated 10/25/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 11/03/1994)
765 Letter from Charles Zehring dated 10/29/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 11/03/1994)
766 Letter from Jeffrey Horan dated 10/31/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 11/04/1994)
767 Letter from Pettiford, Woods, Johnson, Miller, Freeman, Cottrell, Haju, Miller, Roberts and Myers re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 11/08/1994)
768 Letter from Wayne Aultman dated 10/27/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 11/08/1994)
769 Memorandum of law by DEFENDANT PENNSYLVANIA DEPT., DEFENDANT JOSEPH LEHMAN, DEFENDANT JEFFREY BEARDS, DEFENDANT MARTIN DRAGOVICH, DEFENDANT JOSEPH RYAN, DEFENDANT DONALD T. VAUGHN, DEFENDANT GILBERT A. WALTERS, DEFENDANT DENNIS R. BERHARDT, DEFENDANT JOSEPH F. MAZURKIEWICZ, DEFENDANT MARGARET A. MOORE, DEFENDANT CHARLES H. ZIMMERMAN, DEFENDANT WILLIAM LOVE, DEFENDANT TIMOTHY ENGLISH, DEFENDANT JOSEPH CHESNEY, DEFENDANT ROBERT CASEY, DEFENDANT RICHARD BROWNING, DEFENDANT GEORGE MILLER, DEFENDANT NICHOLAS BORSELLO, DEFENDANT PAUL SOLOMAN in support of the proposed settlement agreement, certificate of service. (lvj) Modified on 11/08/1994 (Entered: 11/08/1994)
770 Letter from John Hollowell dated 11/6/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 11/14/1994)
771 Letter from Joseph Surdyk dated 11/6/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 11/14/1994)
772 Letter from Richard Turner dated 11/9/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 11/17/1994)

100 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

11/17/1994 11/17/1994 11/18/1994 11/18/1994 11/18/1994 11/18/1994 11/18/1994 11/18/1994 11/18/1994 11/22/1994 11/22/1994 11/22/1994
11/22/1994 11/22/1994 11/23/1994 11/23/1994
11/29/1994

773 Letter from Craig Vanallen dated 11/8/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 11/17/1994)
774 Letter from Richard R. Canady received 11/17/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 11/17/1994)
775 Letter from Wayne O. Aultman received 10/11/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 11/18/1994)
776 Letter from Mark Durham dated 9/30/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 11/18/1994)
777 Letter from James Roberts dated 8/26/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 11/18/1994)
778 Letter from Craig VanAllen dated 9/23/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 11/18/1994)
779 Letter from Leon E. Scaglione received 10/12/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 11/18/1994)
780 Letter from James Owens received 10/13/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 11/18/1994)
781 Letter from Stefan Presser dated 10/09/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 11/18/1994)
782 Minute entry dated 11/18/94 re: conference; Parties address the court re: status of settlement (lvj) (Entered: 11/22/1994)
783 Transcript for 11/18/94-Hearing. (aa) (Entered: 11/22/1994)
784 ORDER THAT A HEARING ON THE JOINT REQUEST OF ALL PARTIES FOR COURT APPROVAL OF THE SETTLEMENT IN THIS CASE IS SCHEDULED FOR MONDAY, 12/12/94 AT 10:00 A.M. , ETC. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 11/23/94 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (aa) (Entered: 11/23/1994)
787 Letter from Peter J. Gowan dated 11/16/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 11/28/1994)
788 Letter from Harry F. Smith and Bruce Pettiford dated 11/15/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 11/28/1994)
785 Plaintiffs' Proposed Notice of Hearing, certificate of service. (rd) (Entered: 11/25/1994)
786 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AD TESTIFICANDUM , CERTIFICATE OF COUNSEL PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 20(b), CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (rd) (Entered: 11/25/1994)
789 Proposed Witness list by PENNSYLVANIA DEPT., JOSEPH LEHMAN, JEFFREY BEARDS, MARTIN DRAGOVICH, JOSEPH RYAN, DONALD T. VAUGHN, FREDERICK ROSENMEYER, GILBERT A. WALTERS, DENNIS R. BERHARDT, JOSEPH F. MAZURKIEWICZ, MARGARET A. MOORE, H. ZIMMERMAN, WILLIAM LOVE, TIMOTHY ENGLISH, JOSEPH ROBERT

101 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

11/29/1994
11/29/1994 11/30/1994 11/30/1994 12/08/1994 12/08/1994
12/09/1994 12/09/1994 12/09/1994 12/09/1994 12/09/1994 12/09/1994 12/12/1994 12/12/1994 12/12/1994

CASEY, RICHARD BROWNING, GEORGE MILLER, NICHOLAS BORSELLO, PAUL SOLOMAN, certificate of service. (lvj) (Entered: 11/29/1994)
790 ORDER THAT DEFENDANTS SHALL POST SAID NOTICE OF HEARING, AT LEAST TEN (10) DAYS BEFORE THE HEARING, IN THE GENERAL LIBRARY, THE LAW LIBRARY, ALL HOUSING UNITS, THE RHU, THE INFIRMARY, THE DINING HALL, AND OTHER COMMON AREAS DESIGNATED BY DEAPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS' PERSONNEL AT ALL STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS OTHER THAN MUNCY, PITTSBURGH AND QUEHANNA. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 11/30/94 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (fe) (Entered: 11/30/1994)
791 ORDER GRANTING [786-1] MOTION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AD TESTIFICANDUM. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 11/30/94 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (fe) (Entered: 11/30/1994)
792 MOTION BY MOVANT JEROME SILO TO OPPOSE SETTLEMENT BECAUSE OF A LONG LIST OF MAJOR CONCERNS NOT BEING ADDRESSED, ETC. , PROOF OF SERVICE. (gm) (Entered: 12/01/1994)
793 MOTION BY MOVANT DERON HOLLOWAY FOR COPY OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT . (gm) (Entered: 12/01/1994)
794 Letter from Robert Alderman re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 12/09/1994)
795 PETITION BY MOVANT WILMER B. GAY, MOVANT RICHARD HOLLIHAN, MOVANT ALAN B. DAVIS, MOVANT WILLIAM C. MUELLER, MOVANT RICHARD HOFFMAN, MOVANT JOHN W. TAYLOR TO STAY OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE ABOVE-CAPTIONED CASE UNTIL FINAL DISPOSITION OF 11TH CIR. NO. 94-8375 . (lvj) (Entered: 12/09/1994)
796 Letter from Eddie Griffin RE: settlement agreement. (aa) (Entered: 12/12/1994)
797 Letter from Spencer R. Dobson RE: settlement agreement. (aa) (Entered: 12/12/1994)
798 Letter from Cecil a. Cook RE: settlement agreement. (aa) (Entered: 12/12/1994)
799 Letter from William Gambill RE: settlement agreement. (aa) (Entered: 12/12/1994)
800 Letter from Cazie Perry RE: settlement agreement. (aa) (Entered: 12/12/1994)
801 Letter from Marvon Merritt RE: settlement agreement. (aa) (Entered: 12/12/1994)
802 Letter from James Chambers, John H. Conrad, Gene Allen, Titus Higah and Robert M. Donald dated 11/28/94 re: settlement agreement. (lvj) (Entered: 12/13/1994)
803 Letter from Dennis Muse dated 12/6/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 12/13/1994)
804 Letter from Rupert Ross dated 12/6/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 12/13/1994)

102 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

12/14/1994 12/14/1994 12/15/1994 12/16/1994 12/16/1994 12/16/1994 12/19/1994
12/20/1994 12/20/1994 12/20/1994 12/23/1994 12/27/1994 01/03/1995
01/05/1995
01/05/1995

805 Letter from Frank Prillerman RE: settlement agreement. (aa) (Entered: 12/15/1994)
806 Letter from Charles Zehring dated 12/8/94 RE: settlement agreement. (aa) (Entered: 12/15/1994)
Notice of change of address by DERON HOLLOWAY (see paper #5 in 94-7207) (lvj) (Entered: 12/16/1994)
807 Transcript for Hearing dated 12/13/94 (lvj) (Entered: 12/16/1994)
808 Minute entry dated 12/13/94 re: hearing on proposed settlement; witnesses called and sworn; (lvj) (Entered: 12/16/1994)
809 Minute entry dated 12/12/94 re: hearing on proposed settlement; witnesses called and sworn; (lvj) (Entered: 12/16/1994)
811 ORDER DENYING [795-1] MOTION TO STAY OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE ABOVE-CAPTIONED CASE UNTIL FINAL DISPOSITION OF 11TH CIR. NO. 94-8375 ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 12/20/94 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lvj) (Entered: 12/20/1994)
810 Letter from Gerard P. McKenna dated 12/13/94 re: settlement agreement (lvj) (Entered: 12/20/1994)
812 ORDER THAT THE MOTION FOR FEES AND COST IS DENIED. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 12/20/94 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lvj) (Entered: 12/20/1994)
813 Documents evidencing compliance with federal rule civil procedure 23(e) notice provisions by defts, certificate of service. (lvj) (Entered: 12/20/1994)
814 Letter from Aaron Christopher Wheeler Dated 12/15/94 RE: Settlement Agreement. (aa) (Entered: 12/27/1994)
815 MOTION BY MOVANT JESSE R. ROBBINS FOR INJUNCTION AGAINST RETALIATION , CERT. OF SERVICE. (jef) (Entered: 12/27/1994)
816 ORDER THAT THE MOTION OF DERON HOLLOWAY FOR COPY OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT IS DENIED. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 1/4/95 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lvj) (Entered: 01/04/1995)
817 ORDER THAT THE MOTION ON BEHALF OF CLASS MEMBER AND ON BEHALF ON BEHALF OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT, WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND WITHOUT OPPORTUNITY TO BEING LABELED BY THE DEFTS AND BEING A PERSON MENTALLY ILL, THIS COURT IS ASKED TO COMPEL THIS RESOURCE OF THE DEFTS, ETC., IS DENIED. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 1/6/95 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (aa) (Entered: 01/06/1995)
818 ORDER THAT THE MOTION OF JESSE R. ROBBINS FOR INJUNCTION AGAINST RETALIATION IS DENIED AS MOOT ON THE GROUND THAT MR. ROBBINS HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED TO AN ACCEPTABLE CELL,

103 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

01/05/1995 01/06/1995
01/06/1995 01/06/1995 01/17/1995 01/19/1995 01/19/1995 01/19/1995

ETC. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 1/6/95 AND COPIES MAILED. (aa) (Entered: 01/06/1995)
819 ORDER THAT THE MOTION BY JEROME SILO TO REQUEST COURT TO PROVIDE (LAWYER ASSISTANCE), ETC., TO REQUEST COURT TO NOTIFY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF U.S. TO ENFORCE RIGHT TO STOP DISCRIMINATION, ETC., IS DENIED, ETC. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 1/6/95 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (aa) (Entered: 01/06/1995)
820 ORDER THAT MEMBERS OF THE PLFF CLASS WERE GIVEN ADEQUATE NOTICE OF THE PROPSED SETTLEMENT, ETC; THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IS APPROVED PURSUANT TO FEDRAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 23(E), ETC; THE STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 41(A)(1)(II), EXCEPT FOR PLFFS' CLAIMS REGARDING TUBERCULOSIS CONTROL WHICH WILL BE COVERED BY A SUBSEQUENT ORDER IS APPROVED, ETC; IT IS FURTHER ORDER THAT ALL PENDING MOTIONS OF CLASS MEMBERS TO INTERVENE ARE DENIED ON THE GROUND THAT THERE IS NO NEED FOR CLASS MEMBERS TO INTERVENE AS ALL OBJECTIONS FILED BY CLASS MEMBERS WERE CONSIDERED BY THE COURT, ALL PENDING MOTIONS OF CLASS MEMBERS FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL SOME OF WHICH WERE FILED AS OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, ARE DENIED, ETC; ALL PENDING MOTIONS OF CLASS MEMBERS TO ENJOIN THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT ARE DENIED; ALL OTHER PENDING MOTIONS RELATED TO THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, SOME OF WHICH WERE FILED AS OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, ARE DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDER THAT NOTICE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE WITHIN ORDER SHALL BE PROVIDED BY DEFTS TO MEMBERS OF THE PLFF CLASS AND OTHER INMATES IN THE STATE CORRECTIONAL SYSTEM WHO ARE AFFECTED BY THE ORDER BY POSTING SUCH NOTICE IN APPROPRIATE PLACES IN STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 1/9/95 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lvj) (Entered: 01/09/1995)
821 Stipulation of dismissal by plffs and defts that the above captioned action is dismissed without prejudice. (lvj) (Entered: 01/09/1995)
Case closed (kv) (Entered: 01/12/1995)
822 Notice of change of address by JOHN W. TAYLOR (jef) (Entered: 01/17/1995)
823 Letter from Stefan Presser dated 12/16/94 to Judge DuBois re: response to the court's request (lvj) (Entered: 01/20/1995)
824 Letter from Linda C. Barrett dated 12/19/94 to Judge DuBois re: certain facts (lvj) (Entered: 01/20/1995)
825 Statement by PLAINTIFF FRANKLIN CASTLE, PLAINTIFF EUGENE DUNSON, PLAINTIFF JOHN REGELMAN, PLAINTIFF KEVIN SANDERS, PLAINTIFF RICHARD BOOZER, PLAINTIFF JOSEPH MULCAHY,

104 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

01/19/1995 01/20/1995 01/23/1995 01/23/1995 01/25/1995 01/27/1995
01/31/1995
02/06/1995

PLAINTIFF DEBRA SPEAKES, PLAINTIFF TROY CALHOUN, PLAINTIFF FRANKLIN D. BALTIMORE SR., PLAINTIFF LEONARD T. MORTON JR., PLAINTIFF SCOTT DOCKLER, PLAINTIFF GARY ROOS, PLAINTIFF PERCY MCCONNELL OF FEES AND COSTS. (lvj) (Entered: 01/20/1995)
826 MEMORANDUM DATED 1/17/95 RE: SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS (lvj) (Entered: 01/20/1995)
827 Notice of change of address by WILMER B. GAY (jef) (Entered: 01/20/1995)
828 MOTION BY MOVANT DERON HOLLOWAY TO ALTER OR TO AMEND OR FOR RECONSIDERATION OF [820-1] ORDER . (lvj) (Entered: 01/23/1995)
829 Notice of change of address by DERON HOLLOWAY (lvj) (Entered: 01/23/1995)
830 MOTION BY MOVANT RICHARD KANE FOR SEPARATION . (lvj) (Entered: 01/26/1995)
831 ORDER THAT PART OF THISCOURT'S ORDER OF 12/30/94 WHICH RECITES THAT THE SAID DERON HOLLOWAY HAS NOT DURING ANY RELEVANT TIME BEEN CONFINED AT AN INSTITUTION INCLUDED IN THIS CLASS ACTION IS DELETED; AND THE ORDER OF 12/30/94 IS AMENDED SO AS TO RECITE THAT DERON HOLLOWAY WAS AFFORDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT UPON HIS TRANSFER, ETC. FURTHER ORDER THAT IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS THE MOTION TO ALTER AMEND OR RECONSIDER JUDGMENT IS DENIED. FURTHER ORDER THAT, EXCEPTION ONLY WHAT IS SET FORTH IN NUMBERED PARAGRAPHS 1 AND 2 ABOVE, THIS COURT'S ORDER OF 12/30/94, REMAINS IN EFFECT. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 1/30/95 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lvj) (Entered: 01/30/1995)
832 ORDER THAT THE MOTION FOR SEPARATION IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHT OF RICHARD KANE TO FILE AN APPROPRIATE LEGAL ACTION SEEKING A TRANSFER TO ANOTHER STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION. FURTHER ORDER THAT COPIES OF THE MOTION OF RICHARD KANE FOR SEPARATION AND THIS ORDER SHALL BE SENT TO THE FOLLOWING ATTORNEYS, ETC. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 2/1/95 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lvj) (Entered: 02/01/1995)
833 Response by PLAINTIFF STEVEN AUSTIN, PLAINTIFF FRANKLIN CASTLE, PLAINTIFF EUGENE DUNSON, PLAINTIFF JOHN REGELMAN, PLAINTIFF KEVIN SANDERS, PLAINTIFF RICHARD BOOZER, PLAINTIFF JOSEPH MULCAHY, PLAINTIFF DEBRA SPEAKES, PLAINTIFF TROY CALHOUN, PLAINTIFF FRANKLIN D. BALTIMORE SR., PLAINTIFF LEONARD T. MORTON JR., PLAINTIFF SCOTT DOCKLER, PLAINTIFF GARY ROOS, PLAINTIFF PERCY MCCONNELL concerning Brian F. Ross, certificate of service. (lvj) (Entered: 02/07/1995)

105 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

02/06/1995 02/23/1995 02/24/1995
02/24/1995 03/06/1995 03/07/1995 04/03/1995 04/03/1995 04/19/1995 04/27/1995 04/28/1995 06/07/1995

834 Statement by MOVANT MATTHEW A. BROWN II re: certain facts (lvj) (Entered: 02/07/1995)
835 MOTION BY MOVANT ALFONSO PERCY PEW FOR CONTEMPT , TO ENFORCE OR FOR FURTHER RELIEF . (aa) (Entered: 02/23/1995)
836 Notice of appeal by MOVANT BRUCE . PETTIFORD . . Copies to: JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS , Clerk USCA, Appeals Clerk, and BRUCE . PETTIFORD, ALFONSO PERCY PEW, MATTHEW A. BROWN II, RICHARD KANE, JESSE R. ROBBINS, LEONARD BOCCHICCHIO, FRANCISCO FIGUEROA, GEORGE RAHSAAN BROOKS-BEY, DERON HOLLOWAY, JEROME SILO, STEFAN PRESSER, JOHN W. TAYLOR, RICHARD HOFFMAN, WILLIAM C. MUELLER, ALAN B. DAVIS, RICHARD HOLLIHAN, WILMER B. GAY, HIRAM R. JOHNSTON JR., R. DOUGLASS SHERMAN, LINDA C. BARRETT, STEFAN PRESSER, MARJORIE RIFKIN, ROBERT W. MEEK, AMY FOLKOFF KRAUS, ELIZABETH ALEXANDER, STUART H. ADAMS JR., ALVIN J. BRONSTEIN, ANGUS R. LOVE, DAVID RUDOVSKY, FRANCIS R. FILIPI, DENISE A. KUHN, SCOTT BURRIS, EDWIN J. GREENLEE (lvj) (Entered: 03/01/1995)
837 Copy of Clerk's notice to USCA re: [836-1] appeal . (lvj) (Entered: 03/01/1995)
CERTIFIED AND TRANSMITTED REQUESTED PLEADINGS #820 THROUGH 833, 836 AND 837 TO U.S. COURT OF APPEALS: [836-1] appeal (mk) (Entered: 03/06/1995)
Notice of Docketing ROA from USCA Re: [836-1] appeal USCA NUMBER: 95-1187 on 3/6/95 (jef) (Entered: 03/07/1995)
838 Certified copy of order from USCA. Re: 3/28/95 TERMINATING [836-1] appeal. Order that the above-entitled case is hereby dismissed for failure to timely prosecute. It is further order that a certified copy of this order be issued forthwith as the mandate. (lvj) (Entered: 04/04/1995)
Partial Record on appeal returned from U.S. Court of Appeals: #820 through 833, 837 & 838 only (lvj) (Entered: 04/04/1995)
First supplemental record Transmitted to USCA (pleadings #820, 821, 822, 823, 824, 825, 826, 827, 828, 829, 830, 831, 832, 833, 836, 837, 838 are included) (lvj) (Entered: 04/20/1995)
Supplemental partial record on appeal returned from U.S. Court of Appeals. (Pleadings #820 thru 833, 836 and 837) (mk) (Entered: 04/28/1995)
CERTIFIED AND TRANSMITTED RECORD ON APPEAL TO U.S. COURT OF APPEALS. (Pleadings #820 through 833, 836, 837 and 838 are included, no other pleadings are included) (mk) (Entered: 04/28/1995)
839 ORDER THAT THE REQUEST OF GEORGE BUTLER FOR CLARIFICATION OF PROPOSED AND AGREED SETTLEMENT IN THE AFORESAID CAPTIONED CIVIL ACTION BY THE COURT IS DENIED ON THE GROUND THAT COUNSEL FOR THE PLFF CLASS, ETC. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 6/7/95 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lvj) (Entered: 06/07/1995)

106 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

06/08/1995
06/12/1995
06/26/1995 06/26/1995 07/06/1995 07/06/1995 07/07/1995 07/10/1995

840 Response by PLAINTIFF STEVEN AUSTIN, PLAINTIFF FRANKLIN CASTLE, PLAINTIFF EUGENE DUNSON, PLAINTIFF JOHN REGELMAN, PLAINTIFF KEVIN SANDERS, PLAINTIFF RICHARD BOOZER, PLAINTIFF JOSEPH MULCAHY, PLAINTIFF DEBRA SPEAKES, PLAINTIFF TROY CALHOUN, PLAINTIFF FRANKLIN D. BALTIMORE SR., PLAINTIFF LEONARD T. MORTON JR., PLAINTIFF SCOTT DOCKLER, PLAINTIFF GARY ROOS, PLAINTIFF PERCY MCCONNELL, PLAINTIFF JOHN DOE, PLAINTIFF JOHN ROE to [835-1] MOTION FOR CONTEMPT, [835-2] MOTION TO ENFORCE OR FOR FURTHER RELIEF FILED BY ALFONSO PERCY PEW, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (lvj) (Entered: 06/09/1995)
841 Response by DEFENDANT DONALD T. VAUGHN, DEFENDANT FREDERICK ROSENMEYER, DEFENDANT GILBERT A. WALTERS, DEFENDANT DENNIS R. BERHARDT, DEFENDANT JOSEPH F. MAZURKIEWICZ, DEFENDANT MARGARET A. MOORE, DEFENDANT CHARLES H. ZIMMERMAN to [835-1] MOTION FOR CONTEMPT, [835-2] MOTION TO ENFORCE OR FOR FURTHER RELIEF, certificate of service. (lvj) (Entered: 06/12/1995)
842 ORDER THAT THE EMERGENCY MOTION UNDER FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 24 TO REOPEN AND REVIEW SETTLEMENT IN THIS CASE, IS DENIED. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 6/27/95 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lvj) (Entered: 06/27/1995)
843 MOTION BY JEROME SILO TO REOPEN AND REVIEW SETTLEMENT . (lvj) (Entered: 06/27/1995)
844 ORDER THAT JEROME SILO'S SUBMISSION TREATED AS A MOTION FOR RECONSDIERATION OF THIS COURT'S ORDER OF JULY 15, 1993, DENYING SEVEN MOTIONS FILED BY JEROME SILO, IS DENIED. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 7/7/95 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lvj) (Entered: 07/07/1995)
845 COPY OF SUBMISSION TREATED AS MOTION BY MOVANT JEROME SILO FOR RECONSIDERATION OF [226-1] ORDER . (lvj) (Entered: 07/07/1995)
846 SECOND MOTION BY MOVANT EDDIE GRIFFIN TO ENFORCE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND/OR FOR SANCTIONS FOR VIOLATING PRELIMINARY , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (lvj) (Entered: 07/10/1995)
847 ORDER THAT UPON RECEIPT OF A DOCUMENT FROM JEROME SILO, CAPTIONED "EMERGENCY MOTION ASKING JUDGE DUBOIS TO PROVIDE IMMEDIATE LAWYER FOR SILO, AND TO REPOPEN MOTION RELATED TO JUDGE DUBOIS' ORDER OF 7/15/95, ETC. IT IS ORDERED THAT THE MOTION SUBMITTED BY JEROME SILO IS DENIED. (THE ORIGINAL OF THE DOCUMENT SHALL BE DOCKETED. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 7/11/95 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (jef) (Entered: 07/11/1995)

107 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

07/10/1995 07/21/1995
07/27/1995 07/27/1995 07/27/1995 07/28/1995 07/28/1995

848 EMERGENCY MOTION BY JEROME SILO ASKING JUDGE DUBOIS TO PROVIDE IMMEDIATE LAWYER FOR SILO, AND TO PROBIVE IMMEDIATE DOCTOR FOR SILO, AND TO REOPEN MOTION RELATED TO JUDGE DUBOIS' ORDER OF JULY 15, 1993, ETC. (filed per Order dtd. 7/10/95) (jef) (Entered: 07/11/1995)
849 Memorandum by DEFENDANT DONALD T. VAUGHN, DEFENDANT FREDERICK ROSENMEYER, DEFENDANT GILBERT A. WALTERS, DEFENDANT DENNIS R. BERHARDT, DEFENDANT JOSEPH F. MAZURKIEWICZ, DEFENDANT MARGARET A. MOORE, DEFENDANT H. ZIMMERMAN, DEFENDANT WILLIAM LOVE, DEFENDANT TIMOTHY ENGLISH, DEFENDANT JOSEPH CHESNEY, DEFENDANT ROBERT CASEY, DEFENDANT RICHARD BROWNING, DEFENDANT GEORGE MILLER, DEFENDANT NICHOLAS BORSELLO, DEFENDANT PAUL SOLOMAN, DEFENDANT PENNSYLVANIA DEPT., DEFENDANT JOSEPH LEHMAN, DEFENDANT JEFFREY BEARDS, DEFENDANT MARTIN DRAGOVICH, DEFENDANT JOSEPH RYAN in response to SECOND [846-1] MOTION TO ENFORCE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, AND/OR [846-2] MOTION FOR SANCTIONS FOR VIOLATING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION FILED BY CLASS MEMBER EDDIE GRIFFIN, certificate of service. (lvj) (Entered: 07/24/1995)
850 Reply by MOVANT EDDIE GRIFFIN to deft's memorandum, certificate of service. (lvj) (Entered: 07/27/1995)
851 ORDER THAT THE RELIEF SOUGHT BY CHARLES D. ZEHRING, JR., IS DENIED. FURTHER ORDER THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER AND THE LETTER OF CHARLES D. ZEHRING, JR., SHALL BE SERVED ON ALL COUNSEL IN THE CASE AND CHARLES D. ZEHRING, JR. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 7/28/95 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lvj) (Entered: 07/28/1995)
852 Letter from Charles D. Zehring, Jr. dated 7/24/95 re: certain facts (lvj) (Entered: 07/28/1995)
853 ORDER THAT MOTIONS FOR CONTEMPT AND TO ENFORCE ORDER ARE DENIED. FURTHER ORDER THAT A COPY OF THE ORDER SHALL BE SERVED ON ALFONSO PERCY PEW, ETC. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 7/31/95 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lvj) (Entered: 07/31/1995)
854 ORDER THAT ON OR BEFORE AUGUST 11, 1995 LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PLFF CLASS, SHALL FILE AND SERVE A RESPONSE TO THE SECOND MOTION OF EDDIE GRIFFIN TO ENFORCE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND/OR FOR SANCTIONS FOR VIOLATING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. TWO COPIES OF THE RESPONSE SHALL BE SERVED ON THE COURT WHEN THE ORIGINAL IS FILED. FURTHER ORDER THAT IN ADDITION TO SERVICE OF THE WITHIN ORDER ON COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES, A COPY OF THE ORDER SHALL BE SERVED ON EDDIE GRIFFIN, ETC. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 7/31/95 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lvj) (Entered: 07/31/1995)

108 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

07/28/1995 07/28/1995 08/10/1995 08/10/1995 08/11/1995 08/11/1995 08/14/1995
08/22/1995
08/29/1995 08/31/1995

855 Certified copy of order from USCA. Re: 7/26/95. Motions to reopen the appeal and for leave to proceed informa pauperis are granted. However, the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the order appealed does not dismiss all claims and is not certified under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). 28 U.S.C. Section 1291. (lvj) (Entered: 07/31/1995)
Partial Record on appeal returned from U.S. Court of Appeals: (lvj) (Entered: 07/31/1995)
856 Notice of change of address by RICHARD HOLLIHAN (lvj) (Entered: 08/11/1995)
860 THIRD MOTION BY MOVANT EDDIE GRIFFIN FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND/OR FOR SANCTIONS FOR VIOLATING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (lvj) (Entered: 08/16/1995)
857 Notice of change of address by WILMER B. GAY (jef) (Entered: 08/11/1995)
858 Notice of change of address by RICHARD HOLLIHAN (lvj) (Entered: 08/14/1995)
859 Response by PLAINTIFF ROBERT C. BORING, PLAINTIFF EUGENE DUNSON, PLAINTIFF JOHN REGELMAN, PLAINTIFF KEVIN SANDERS, PLAINTIFF RICHARD BOOZER, PLAINTIFF JOSEPH MULCAHY, PLAINTIFF DEBRA SPEAKES, PLAINTIFF TROY CALHOUN, PLAINTIFF FRANKLIN D. BALTIMORE SR., PLAINTIFF LEONARD T. MORTON JR., PLAINTIFF SCOTT DOCKLER, PLAINTIFF GARY ROOS, PLAINTIFF PERCY MCCONNELL, PLAINTIFF FRANKLIN CASTLE, PLAINTIFF STEVEN AUSTIN to [846-1] MOTION TO ENFORCE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, [846-2] MOTION FOR SANCTIONS FOR VIOLATING PRELIMINARY, certificate of service. (lvj) (Entered: 08/15/1995)
861 Memorandum in Response by DEFENDANT DONALD T. VAUGHN, DEFENDANT FREDERICK ROSENMEYER, DEFENDANT GILBERT A. WALTERS, DEFENDANT DENNIS R. BERHARDT, DEFENDANT JOSEPH F. MAZURKIEWICZ, DEFENDANT MARGARET A. MOORE, DEFENDANT CHARLES H. ZIMMERMAN, WILLIAM LOVE, DEFENDANT TIMOTHY ENGLISH, DEFENDANT JOSEPH CHESNEY, DEFENDANT ROBERT CASEY, DEFENDANT RICHARD DEFENDANT GEORGE MILLER, DEFENDANT NICHOLAS BORSELLO, DEFENDANT PAUL SOLOMAN to third MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, [860-2] MOTION FOR SANCTIONS FOR VIOLATING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION filed by class member Eddie Griffin on behalf of David Harris, certificate of service. (lvj) (Entered: 08/22/1995)
862 Letter from Elizabeth Alexander to Judge Dubois dated 8/25/95 re: response to Eddie Griffin's third motion to enforce preliminary injunction, etc. (lvj) (Entered: 08/30/1995)
863 ORDER THAT THE DOCUMENT PRESENTED BY JEROME SILO ENTITLED MOTION TO REOPEN INSTANT CASE TO SUBMIT PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION FROM BEING TAKEN OVER BY, AND

109 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

09/11/1995 09/13/1995 09/13/1995 09/18/1995 09/18/1995 09/21/1995
09/21/1995 09/22/1995
09/22/1995 09/29/1995

FROM BEING OPERATED BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS IS DENIED. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 9/1/95 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lvj) (Entered: 09/01/1995)
864 Letter from Eddie Griffin to Hon: Jan E. Dubois, RE: Certain Facts, Certificate of Service. (dt) (Entered: 09/12/1995)
865 ORDER THAT THE DOCUMENT PRESENTED BY JEROME SILO, TREATED AS A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THIS COURT'S ORDER OF 8/30/95 IS DENIED. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 9/14/95 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lvj) (Entered: 09/14/1995)
866 MOTION BY MOVANT JEROME SILO FOR RECONSIDERATION OF [863-1] ORDER . (lvj) (Entered: 09/14/1995)
867 ORDER THAT THE MOTION OF JEROME SILO TO REQUEST PLFFS' COUNSEL TO FILE A PAPER TO REOPEN 90-7497 TO ADDRESS ISSUE OF TRANSFER, ETC. IS DENIED, ETC. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 9/19/95 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lvj) (Entered: 09/19/1995)
868 MOTION BY MOVANT JEROME SILO TO REQUEST PLFFS' COUNSEL TO FILE A PAPER TO REOPEN 90-7497 TO ADDRESS ISSUE OF TRANSFER OF FARVIEW STATE HOSPITAL TO DEPT OF CORRECTIONS CONTROL, ETC. (lvj) (Entered: 09/19/1995)
869 ORDER THAT THE EMERGENCY MOTION UNDER SECTION 503 PROBHIBITION AGAINST ACTS OF MURDER AND RETALIATION, ETC. IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHT OF THE SAID JEROME SILO TO INSTITUTE AN APPROPRIATE LEGAL ACTION IN A COURT IN WHICH VENUE IS PROPER. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 9/22/95 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lvj) (Entered: 09/22/1995)
870 EMERGENCY MOTION BY MOVANT JEROME SILO PROHIBITION AGAINST ACTS OF MURDER AND RETALIATION, ETC. . (lvj) (Entered: 09/22/1995)
871 ORDER THAT THE EMERGENCY MOTION TO COMPEL STOPPING SILO'S LEGAL MAIL FROM BEING OPENED BEFORE HE GET IT AND TO COMPEL THAT SILO BE PROVIDED A HAT, A COAT, ETC. IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHT O THESAID JEROME SILO TO INSTITUTE AN APPROPRIATE LEGAL ACTION IN A COURT IN WHICH VENUE IS PROPER. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 9/25/95 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lvj) (Entered: 09/25/1995)
872 MOTION BY MOVANT JEROME SILO TO COMPEL STOPPING SILO'S LEGAL MAIL FROM BEING OPENED AND TO COMPEL THAT SILO BE PROVIDED A HAT, A COAT, ETC. . (lvj) (Entered: 09/25/1995)
873 DEFTS' Supplemental Response to MOTION OF EDDIE GRIFFIN TO ENFORCE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, cert. of service. (filed under seal) (jef) (Entered: 10/02/1995)

110 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

10/20/1995 11/02/1995 11/02/1995
12/13/1995 12/21/1995
12/28/1995 01/03/1996 01/19/1996 01/23/1996
01/23/1996 02/02/1996 02/02/1996 02/26/1996
02/29/1996

874 Letter from Elizabeth Alexander dated 10/10/95 re: certain facts (lvj) (Entered: 10/23/1995)
875 Request for clearification of above captioned settlement agreement by NOTICE ONLY DERRICK DALE FONTROY I, proof of service. (lvj) (Entered: 11/03/1995)
876 ORDER DENYING [848-1] MOTION ASKING JUDGE DUBOIS TO PROVIDE IMMEDIATE LAWYER FOR SILO, AND TO PROBIVE IMMEDIATE DOCTOR FOR SILO, AND TO REOPEN MOTION RELATED TO JUDGE DUBOIS' ORDER OF JULY 15, 1993, ETC. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 11/03/95 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lvj) (Entered: 11/03/1995)
MOTION BY MOVANT ERIC BURNS FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT . (SEE PAPER #5 IN 95-7112) (lvj) (Entered: 12/14/1995)
Letter to Judge DuBois, dated 12/18/95, from Office Atty General, Filip, Esq., re: response to the Court's communication of 12/12/95 regarding the motion filed in ICU and request for classification filed in Austin by Fontroy,Blackiston,Brightwell and Nigro, etc., filed. (See 70-3054 Paper #550) (gm) (Entered: 12/21/1995)
Notice to the Court by NOTICE ONLY DERRICK DALE FONTROY I. (See 70-3054) (gm) Modified on 12/29/1995 (Entered: 12/29/1995)
877 MOTION BY MOVANT ERIC BURNS TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT . (lvj) (Entered: 01/03/1996)
878 ORDER THAT MOTION TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, ETC. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 1/19/96 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lvj) (Entered: 01/19/1996)
879 ORDER THAT JEROME SILO'S REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF FROM RETALIATION AND AN APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL ARE DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, ETC. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 1/24/96 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lvj) (Entered: 01/24/1996)
880 Request for Emergency relief from retaliation and an application for appointment of counsel by MOVANT JEROME SILO (lvj) (Entered: 01/24/1996)
881 ORDER THAT THE REQUEST OF JEROME SILO FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL IS DENIED. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 2/2/96 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lvj) (Entered: 02/02/1996)
882 Request by MOVANT JEROME SILO for appointment of counsel. (lvj) (Entered: 02/02/1996)
883 MOTION BY MOVANT DERRICK DALE FONTROY I, MOVANT STEVEN A. BLACKISTON, MOVANT BOBBY BRIGHTWELLL, MOVANT JOHN NIGRO FOR SPEEDY DISPOSITION , PROOF OF SERVICE. (lvj) (Entered: 02/26/1996)
884 ORDER THAT THE RELIEF SOUGHT BY THE SAID JEROME SILO IS DENIED ON THE GROUND THAT IT IS NOT COVERED BY ANY

111 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

02/29/1996 03/06/1996
03/06/1996 03/08/1996
03/08/1996 03/08/1996 03/08/1996 03/08/1996
03/08/1996 03/22/1996

DECREE IN 70-3054 AND 90-7497, HAS BEEN DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 3/1/96 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lvj) (Entered: 03/01/1996)
885 Request by MOVANT JEROME SILO for a scheme to thwart access to courts, etc. (lvj) (Entered: 03/01/1996)
886 ORDER THAT THE RELIEF SOUGHT BY THE SAID JEROME SILO IS DENIED ON THE GROUND THAT IT IS NOT COVERED BY ANY DECREE AND HAS BEEN DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 3/7/96 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lvj) (Entered: 03/07/1996)
887 Request by MOVANT JEROME SILO to monitor the provision of private health care services. (lvj) (Entered: 03/07/1996)
888 ORDER THAT THE MOTION OF JEROME SILO FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE BY REASON OF EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES, THE RELATED MOTION TO COMPEL DEFTS TO FILE AN EXPEDITED BRIEF, AND MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, ARE DENIED. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 3/11/96 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lvj) (Entered: 03/11/1996)
889 MOTION BY MOVANT JEROME SILO FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE BY REASON OF EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES . (lvj) (Entered: 03/11/1996)
890 MOTION BY MOVANT JEROME SILO TO COMPEL DEFTS TO FILE AN EXPEDITED BRIEF , PROOF OF SERVICE. (lvj) (Entered: 03/11/1996)
891 MOTION BY MOVANT JEROME SILO FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER ,PROOF OF SERVICE. (lvj) (Entered: 03/11/1996)
892 ORDER THAT THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THIS COURT'S ORDER OF 2/29/96 IS DENIED FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH IN THE ORDER OF FEBRUARY 29, 1996. FURTHER ORDER THAT THE REQUEST OF JEROME SILO TO FILE THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION IN CAMERA NAD NOT TO SEND COPIES TO COUNSEL FOR THE PLFF CLASS OR TO DEFENSE COUNSEL IS DENIED. THE ORIGINAL OF THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION SHALL BE FILED AND COPIES OF THE MOTION AND THE WITHIN ORDER SHALL BE SERVED ON COUNSEL OF RECORD. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 3/11/96 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lvj) (Entered: 03/11/1996)
893 Request by MOVANT JEROME SILO to file the Motion for reconsideration in camera, etc. (lvj) (Entered: 03/11/1996)
894 ORDER THAT JEROME SILO'S REQUEST ENTITLED "EMERGENCY EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFYING THAT THE PLFF MEMBERS CLASS AND/OR THOSE INMATES ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THE AUSTIN SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IS DENIED, ETC. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 3/25/96 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lvj) (Entered: 03/25/1996)

112 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

03/22/1996 03/26/1996
03/26/1996 04/01/1996 04/03/1996
04/03/1996
04/16/1996 04/16/1996 05/06/1996 07/30/1996 08/14/1996 08/14/1996
08/14/1996

895 Request by MOVANT JEROME SILO entitled "Emergency Exigent Circumstances Justifying that the plff members class and/or those inmates, etc. (lvj) (Entered: 03/25/1996)
896 ORDER THAT THE MOTION OF JEROME SILO FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THIS COURT'S ORDER ENTERED ON MARCH 11, 1996 IS DENIED. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 3/27/96 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lvj) (Entered: 03/27/1996)
897 MOTION BY MOVANT JEROME SILO FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER , PROOF OF SERVICE. (lvj) (Entered: 03/27/1996)
898 Notice of change of address by DERON HOLLOWAY (lvj) (Entered: 04/02/1996)
899 ORDER THAT THE MOTION OF JEROME SILO UNDER RULE 24 AS AMENDED IN 1966 ON HIS BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF 34,000 PA STATE PRISONERS TO REQUEST COUNSEL FOR INMATES TO REINSTITUTE THIS ACTION IS DENIED. FURTHER ORDER THAT COPIES OF THE MOTION SHALL BE SERVED BY THE CLERK OF COURT ON COUNSEL FOR THE PLFF CLASS AND DEFENSE COUNSEL FOR WHATEVER ACTION THEY DEEM APPROPRIATE. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 4/4/96 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lvj) (Entered: 04/04/1996)
900 MOTION BY MOVANT JEROME SILO UNDER RULE 24 AS AMENDED IN 1966 ON HIS BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF 34,000 PA STATE PRISONERS TO REQUEST COUNSEL FOR INMATES TO REINSTITUTE THIS ACTION . . (lvj) (Entered: 04/04/1996)
901 ORDER THAT THE RELIEF REQUESTED BY JEROME SILO IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, ETC. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 4/17/96 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lvj) (Entered: 04/17/1996)
902 Request by MOVANT JEROME SILO re: Emergency Legal action (lvj) (Entered: 04/17/1996)
903 Joint Status Report, certificate of service. (filed under seal) . (lvj) (Entered: 05/07/1996)
904 Letter from Edward P. Singletary re: certain facts (lvj) Modified on 07/31/1996 (Entered: 07/31/1996)
905 Joint Status Report by all parties. (lvj) (Entered: 08/15/1996)
906 ORDER THAT BY AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES, THE COURT HEREBY DISSLOVES THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ISSUED SEPTEMBER 29, 1992. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 8/15/96 ENTERED AND COPIES FAXED BY CHAMBERS. (lvj) (Entered: 08/15/1996)
907 STIPULATION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO FED.R.CIV.P. 23(e) AND 41(A)(1)(ii) 8/15/96 ENTERED AND COPIES FAXED BY CHAMBERS. (lvj) (Entered: 08/15/1996)

113 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

08/15/1996 09/04/1996
09/04/1996
09/13/1996
09/13/1996
10/30/1996 11/04/1996 12/27/1996 12/27/1996

908 Joint Status Report of plaintiffs and defendants, certificate of service. (jw) (Entered: 08/15/1996)
909 ORDER THAT THE SECOND MOTION TO ENFORCE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND/OR MOTION FOR SANCTIONS FOR VIOLATING PRELIMINARY IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHT OF THE SAID EDDIE GRIFFIN TO INSTITUTE AN APPROPRIATE ACTION IN A COURT WITH JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER AND THE PARTIES, AND IN WHICH VENUE IS PROPERLY LAID, IN THE EVENT HE BELIEVES HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 9/5/96 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lvj) (Entered: 09/05/1996)
910 ORDER THAT PLFFS' THIRD MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND/OR MOTION FOR SANCTIONS FOR VIOLATING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHT OF THE SAID EDDIE GRIFFIN TO INSTITUTE AN APPROPRIATE ACTION IN A COURT WITH JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER AND THE PARTIES, AND IN WHICH VENUE IS PROPERLY LAID, IN THE EVENT HE BELIEVES HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 9/5/96 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lvj) (Entered: 09/05/1996)
911 ORDER THAT THE REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF ABOVE-CAPTIONED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT FILED BY MOVANTS IS DENIED, ETC. FURTHER ORDERED THAT IN ADDITION TO SERVICE OF THE WITHIN ORDER ON COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES, A COPY OF THE ORDER SHALL BE SERVED ON FONTROY, BLACKISTON, BRIGHTWELL AND NIGRO. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 9/16/96 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lvj) (Entered: 09/16/1996)
912 ORDER THAT THE MOTION FOR SPEEDY DISPOSITION FILED BY FONTROY, BLACKISTON, BRIGHTWELL AND NIGRO IS DENIED AS MOOT, ETC. FURTHER ORDERED THAT IN ADDITION TO SERVICE OF THE WITHIN ORDER ON COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES, A COPY OF THE ORDER SHALL BE SERVED ON FONTROY, BLACKISTON, BRIGHTWELL AND NIGRO. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 9/16/96 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED . (lvj) (Entered: 09/16/1996)
913 Letter from Edward J. Nealon, Jr. to Judge DuBois re: certain facts (lvj) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
914 Letter from Wilmer B. Gay to Mr. Presser dated 11/01/96 re: certain facts (lvj) (Entered: 11/05/1996)
915 ORDER THAT JEROME SILO'S RULE 24 MOTION TO INTERVENE IN THE ABOE-CAPTIONED ACTIONS IS DENIED, ETC. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 12/30/96 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED . (lvj) (Entered: 12/30/1996)
916 MOTION BY MOVANT JEROME SILO TO INTERVENE TO REQUEST PLFFS' CONSEL TO REINSTATE 90-7497 AND 70-3054 TO COMPEL CORRECTIVE PROTECTION OF MENTAL HEALTH LIBERTY

114 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

01/16/1997 01/16/1997 01/16/1997
01/16/1997 02/03/1997 02/12/1997 02/28/1997
02/28/1997 03/12/1997 04/07/1997 04/11/1997

INTERESTS . (lvj) (Entered: 12/30/1996)
917 ORDER THAT JEROME SILO'S REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION TO IMMEDIATELY SUSPEND POLICY NO. 13.1.6 IS DENIED. (SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS) 1/17/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (fb) (Entered: 01/17/1997)
Request for a preliminary injunction needed to immediately suspend policy No. 13.1.6 by MOVANT JEROME SILO is denied. (See Doc #664 in 70-cv-3054). (fb) (Entered: 01/17/1997)
918 ORDER THAT THE MOTION OF JEROME SILO RELATING TO INTERVENTION, TREATED AS A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THIS COURT'S ORDER OF 12/27/96, DENYING JEROME SILO'S RULE 24 MOTION TO INTERVENE, IS DENIED FOR REASONS SET FORTH IN THE 12/27/96 ORDER. (SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS) 1/17/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (fb) (Entered: 01/17/1997)
MOTION BY MOVANT JEROME SILO TO INTERVENE . (See Doc. #666 in 70-cv-3054). (fb) (Entered: 01/17/1997)
919 Petition of NOTICE ONLY JAMES WHEELER to the court for relief and mercery. (lvj) (Entered: 02/04/1997)
920 ORDER THAT JAMES WHEELER'S "PETITION TO THE COURT FOR RELIEF AND MERCY" IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, ETC.. (SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS) 2/13/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (fb) (Entered: 02/13/1997)
921 ORDER THAT JEROME SILO'S RULE 24 MOTION TO INTERVENE IN CIVIL ACTION NOS. 90-7497 AND 70-3054 IS DENIED, ETC. THE ENTRY OF THIS ORDER IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHT OF JEROME SILO TO INITIATE AN APPROPRIATE LEGAL ACTION IN A COURT WHICH HAS JURISDICTION AND IN WHICH VENUE IS PROPERLY LAID IF HE BELIEVES HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 3/3/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lvj) (Entered: 03/03/1997)
922 MOTION BY MOVANT JEROME SILO TO INTERVENE IN CIVIL ACTION NOS. 90-7497 AND 70-3054 . (lvj) (Entered: 03/03/1997)
923 EMERGENCY MOTION BY MOVANT JEROME SILO TO INTERVENE UNDER RULE 24 TO NOTIFY COUNSEL, TO NOTIFY CLASS MEMBERS AND TO NOTIFY THE COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION, ETC. (lvj) (Entered: 03/13/1997)
924 Writ of assistance by MOVANT RUSSELL KRELL. (fb) (Entered: 04/08/1997)
925 ORDER THAT THE PRO SE WRIT OF ASSISTANCE OF RUSSELL KRELL IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHT OF THE SAID RUSSELL KRELL TO BRING AN APPROPRIATE LEGAL ACTION IN A COURT WITH JURISDICTION AND IN WHICH VENUE IS PROPERLY LAID IF HE BELIEVES HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED, ETC. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 4/14/97

115 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

06/24/1997
02/25/1998 03/18/1998 04/16/1998 05/20/1998 05/22/1998

ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (lvj) Modified on 04/14/1997 (Entered: 04/14/1997)
926 ORDER THAT JEROME SILO'S EMERGENCY MOTION TO INTERVENE UNDER RULE 24 TO NOTIFY COUNSEL, TO NOTIFY CLASS MEMBERS AND TO NOTIFY THE COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION IS DENIED, ETC. FURTHER ORDER THAT THIS ORDER IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE REIGHT OF JEROME SILO TO INSTITUTE AN APPROPRIATE LEGAL ACTION IN A COURT WITH JURISDICTION AND WHERE VENUE IS PROPERLY LAID IF HE BELIEVES HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 6/25/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lvj) (Entered: 06/25/1997)
927 STIPULATION AND ORDER THAT THE PARTIES AGREE TO EXTEND THE TIME LIMIT IMPOSED BY PARA. 231(c) OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT FOR AN ADDITIONAL PERIOD OF 45 DAYS, TO AND INCLUDING 4/20/98, FOR THE REFILING OF A COMPLAINT, BUT ONLY ON THE ISSUES RAISED IN PLAINTIFFS' LETTER TO THE COURT OF 11/12/97, ETC. (SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS) 2/26/98 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. COPIES FAXED ON 2/25/98. (fe) (Entered: 02/26/1998)
928 MOTION BY MOVANT JEROME SILO REQUEST ALSO THAT TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER TO POSTPONE IMPOSING THE "CO-PAY" POLICY UNTIL A FAIR AND FULL HEARING CHALLENGE OR ITS VALIDITY IS COMPLETED , PROOF OF SERVICE. (fb) (Entered: 03/19/1998)
929 STIPULATION AND ORDER: THE PARTIES AGREE TO EXTEND THE TIME IMPOSED BY PARA. 231 (c) OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT FOR AN ADDITIONAL PERIOD TO AND INCLUDING 6/19/98, FOR THE REFILING OF A COMPLAINT. THE PARTIES WILL REPORT TO THE COURT BY 6/1/98, REGARDING THE PROGRESS OF THEIR SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS ON THE ABOVE STATED ISSUES, ETC.. (SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS) 4/17/98 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (fb) (Entered: 04/17/1998)
930 RECUSAL MOTION BY MOVANT GENE ALLEN AND TRANSFERRAL REQUEST TO THE UNITED STATES WESTERN DISTRICT COURT. (lvj) (Entered: 05/20/1998)
931 ORDER THAT PLFFS' MOTION AND TRANSFERRAL REQUEST TO THE UNITED STATES WESTERN DISTRICT COURT IS DENIED, ETC. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE ENTRY OF THIS ORDER IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHT OF GENE ALLEN TO INSTITUTE AN APPROPRIATE ACTION, ETC. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT COPIES OF GENE ALLEN'S RECUSAL MOTION SHALL BE SERVED ON COUNSEL, ETC. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 5/26/98 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED (lvj) (Entered: 05/26/1998)

116 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

06/03/1998 06/03/1998 06/08/1998
07/02/1998 07/10/1998 07/10/1998

Objections by MOVANT GENE ALLEN to Judge Dubois's 5/22/98 order denying GENE ALLEN, an Incarcerated Citizen's recusal, vacate, transferral motion, Certificate of Service. (See #856 in 70-cv-3054). (fb) (Entered: 06/03/1998)
MOTION BY MOVANT GENE ALLEN FOR COPIES OF RELATIVE MEMORANDUM AND ORDERS , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (See paper #856 in 70-cv-3054). (fb) (Entered: 06/03/1998)
932 ORDER THAT THE OBJECTIONS OF THE SAID GENE ALLEN TO THIS COURT'S 5/22/98 ORDER ARE OVERRULED FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH IN THE 5/22/98 ORDER. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE ENTRY OF THIS ORDER IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHT OF GENE ALLEN TO INSTITUTE AN APPROPRIATE ACTION IN A COURT WITH JURISDICTION AND PROPER VENUE IF HE BELIEVES HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED. GENE ALLEN'S "MOTION FOR COPIES OF RELATIVE MEMORANDUM AND ORDERS" IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE "OBJECTIONS OF GENE ALLEN, TO JUDGE DU BOIS'S 5/22/98 ORDER DENYING GENE ALLEN, AN INCARCERATED CITIZENS'S RECUSAL, VACATE, TRANSFERRAL MOTION" AND "MOTION FOR COPIES OF RELATIVE ORDERS/MEMORANDUMS" SHALL BE SERVED BY THE CLERK ON COUNSEL IN CIIVL ACTION NOS. 70-3054 AND 90-7497, ETC.. (SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS) 6/9/98 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (fb) (Entered: 06/09/1998)
933 ORDER THAT THE MOTION OF PRO SE PLFF, JEROME SILO, TO "COMPEL THE COURT AND/OR COUNSEL TO NOTIFY CLASS MEMBERS TO WHAT THEY WILL DO TO SUPPORT SILO V. RIDGE NO. 468 MD 1998 ...," IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER AND THE PRO SE MOTION WITH ATTACHMENTS SHALL BE SERVED ON ALL COUNSEL IN CIVIL ACTION NOS. 90-7497 AND 70-3054, AND A COPY OF THIS ORDER SHALL BE SERVED ON JEROME SILO, ETC.. (SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS) 7/6/98 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (fb) (Entered: 07/06/1998)
934 ORDER THAT THE RELIEF SOUGHT BY JEROME SILO IN HIS SUBMISSION IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE ENTRY OF THIS ORDER IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHT OF JEROME SILO TO INITIATE AN APPROPRIATE LEGAL ACTION IN A COURT WITH JURISDICTION AND PROPER VENUE IF HE BELIEVES HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, IN ADDITION TO COUNSEL IN CIVIL ACTION NOS. 90-7497 AND 70-3054, A COPY OF THIS ORDER SHALL BE SERVED ON JEORME SILO, ETC.. (SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS) 7/13/98 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (fb) (Entered: 07/13/1998)
935 Extraordinary circumstances emergency relief requested motion to compel the Court (and Counsel's awareness) under the Austin and ICU cases to take Judicial notice, etc.. (fb) (Entered: 07/13/1998)

117 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

10/07/1998 10/08/1998
10/20/1998 10/23/1998
11/17/1998 12/08/1998 09/01/1999
09/01/1999 04/21/2000

936 INTERVENOR MOTION BY MOVANT LEROY F. GRIMES TO STAY . (fb) (Entered: 10/07/1998)
937 ORDER THAT THE INTERVENOR MOTION OF LEROY F. GRIMES FOR A STAY OF PROCEEDINGS IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT COPIES OF THE INTERVENOR MOTION SHALL BE SERVED ON COUNSEL FOR THE PLFF CLASS, STEFAN PRESSER, ESQUIRE, AND DEFENSE COUNSEL, FRANCIS R. FILIPI, SENIOR DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL, IN THE AUSTIN CASE AND ON SARAH B. VANDENBRAAK, CHIEF COUNSEL FOR THE PA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, FOR WHATEVER ACTION THEY DEEM APPROPRIATE, ETC.. (SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS) 10/9/98 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (fb) (Entered: 10/09/1998)
938 MOTION by MOVANT LEROY F. GRIMES TO RECONSIDER . (jl) (Entered: 10/21/1998)
939 ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF A DOCUMENT ENTITLED "INTERVENOR MOTION" SUBMITTED BY LEROY F. GRIMES, ETC., IT IS ORDERED , FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH IN THIS COURT'S ORDER OF OCTOBER 8, 1998, THAT THE "INTERVENOR MOTION" OF LEROY F. GRIMES, TREATED BY THE COURT AS A MOTION TO RECONSIDER THE COURT'S ORDER OF OCTOBER 8, 1998, IS DENIED. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 10/26/98 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (gm) (Entered: 10/26/1998)
940 Letter from RICHARD KANE, dated 11/9/98 in re: Certain facts, etc.. (fb) (Entered: 11/18/1998)
941 ORDER THAT THE EXTRAORDINARY AND EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES MOTION OF JEROME SILO IS DENIED. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 12/08/98 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lvj) (Entered: 12/08/1998)
942 ORDER THAT THE RELIEF SOUGHT BY JEROME SILO IN HIS SUBMISSION IS DENIED. FURTHER ORDER THAT THE ENTRY OF THIS ORDER IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHT OF JEROME SILO TO INITIATE AN APPROPRIATE LEGAL ACTION IN A COURT WITH JURISDICTION AND PROPER VENUE IF HE BELIEVES HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED. FURTHER ORDER THAT A COPY OF THIS ORDER SHALL BE SERVED ON JEROME SILO ETC. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 9/1/99 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lvj) (Entered: 09/01/1999)
943 EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES MOTION BY MOVANT JEROME SILO TO SUBMITTED DOCUMENTED EVIDENTIARY MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT AUSTIN CASE SITUATION REQUIRED EARLIER AND NOW BASIS TO REINSTATE AUSTIN . (lvj) (Entered: 09/02/1999)
MOTION BY MOVANT JEROME SILO TO PROVIDE DOCUMENT, ETC. , PROOF OF SERVICE. (lvj) (Entered: 04/21/2000)

118 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...

04/27/2000 05/31/2002 06/12/2002
09/09/2002 09/18/2002
11/17/2003 11/17/2003 01/05/2006 01/05/2006 06/04/2007 06/04/2007
08/24/2007

944 ORDER THAT MOTION OF JEROME SILO TO PROVIDE DOCUMENT, ETC. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 4/28/00 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED . (lvj) (Entered: 04/28/2000)
945 MOTION BY MOVANT KENNETH LEROY HOCHSTINE OF PERJURY . (lvj) (Entered: 06/03/2002)
946 ORDER THAT PETITIONERS' MOTION OF PERJURY IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHT OF KENNETH LEROY HOCKSTINE TO RAISE TO ISSUES ADDRESSED IN HIS MOTION OF PERJURY IN AN APPROPRIATE MANNER. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 6/13/02 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED (lvj) (Entered: 06/13/2002)
947 Brief by MOVANT KENNETH LEROY HOCHSTINE in support of defs motion for summary judgment (lvj) (Entered: 09/11/2002)
948 ORDER THAT THE BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHT OF THE SAID KENNETH LEROY HOCHSTINE TO RAISE THE ISSUES ADDRESSED IN HIS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN AN APPROPRIATE MANNER. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ) 9/19/02 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED . (lvj) (Entered: 09/19/2002)
949 ORDER THAT THE RELIEF SOUGHT BY JEROME SILO IN HIS SUBMISSION IS DENIED, ETC. . SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ON 11/17/03. 11/19/03 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED.(fb) (Entered: 11/19/2003)
950 Submissions of JEROME SILO, filed. (fb) (Entered: 11/19/2003)
951 ORDER THAT THE RELIEF SOUGHT MY JEROME SILO IN HIS SUBMISSION RECEIVED 12/27/05 IS DENIED. SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ON 1/4/06. 1/5/06 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED.(stb, ) (Entered: 01/05/2006)
952 Submisson by JEROME SILO. (stb, ) (Entered: 01/05/2006)
953 Objections to Proposed Settlement by David A. Johnson. (gs) (Entered: 06/05/2007)
954 ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF PETITIONER'S "OBJECTION TO PROPOSED SETTLEMENT" IT IS ORDERED THAT THE RELIEF REQUESTED IS DENIED. THE ENTRY OF THIS ORDER IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO PETITIONER'S RIGHT TO SEEK RELIEF WITH RESPECT TO PRISON CONDITIONS AT SCI-ROCKVIEW. SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ON 6/4/07. 6/5/07 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED.(gs) (Entered: 06/05/2007)
955 ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE PRO SE MOTION TO ENFORCE FILED BY ARCHIE TINDELL, IT IS ORDERED THAT THE MOTION IS DENIED. THE ENTRY OF THIS ORDER IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO PETITIONER'S RIGHT TO INSTITUTE A SUIT IN A

119 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket ... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?381907891844384-L_3...
COURT WITH JURISDICTION AND PROPER VENUE. SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ON 8/22/07. 8/28/07 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED.(gs, ) (Entered: 08/28/2007)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

10/03/2007 14:40:57

PACER Login: hs0328

Client Code:

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

Billable Pages: 30

Cost:

2:90-cv-07497-JD 2.40

120 of 120

10/3/2007 1:41 PM