Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/19/2002 Page 1 of 24

; ',';'.~" -' ~~ DIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA__------------------------

I MONTGOMERY DIVISION

..

FILED • <'

Lr~l1A LAUBE, 'l'ij~.~ESA BARRON,
BC~WR~}O\A~A.~~TJ:1S'MNA{.R.·&.tA<9CfuHEROENWDINRGIA,
WANDA GOODMAN, ALMA GUTIERREZ, LISA HEREFORD, LA'TOYA JONES, KATIE MOORE, TERRI NEWBY, BARBARA PELZER, APRIL RICE, KELLI WASHINGTON, and MELINDA WASHINGTON, on behalf of themselves and other persons similarly situated,

'."

..-....

u.

S.

CLERK DISTRICT

COURT

~~:.'::=' MIDDLE D1ST. OF AlA.

Plaintiffs,

v.
MICHAEL HALEY, Commissioner of the Alabama Department of Corrections,
GLADYS DEESE, Warden of Julia Tutwiler Prison for Women,

CIVIL ACTION
No. oa--T.. qS7-~
CLASS ACTION
COMPLAINT

PATRICIA HOOD, Acting Warden of Edwina Mitchell Work Release Center,

MARY CARTER, Director of Birmingham Work Release Center,

NAPHCARE,INC. Health Care Provider for Alabama Department of Corrections,

FRANCIS HENDERSON, Medical Director of NaphCare, Inc.

DON SIEGELMAN, Governor of Alabama,

in their official capacities,

Defendants.

\

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/19/2002 Page 2 of 24
I. INTRODUCTION 1. The fifteen named plaintiffs bring this suit on behalf of themselves and all other female prisoners in Alabama. Women prisoners in Alabama are at a substantial risk of serious injury and death due to the outrageously overcrowded and dangerous conditions in which they are forced to live and the denial of minimally adequate medical and mental health care at the Julia Tutwiler Prison for Women, the Edwina Mitchell Work Release Center, and the Birmingham Work Release Center. 2. Women prisoners in Alabama are packed so tightly into cells and dormitories that the extreme tension and volatility caused by lack of space results in women slashing one another with razors, fights, and other serious assaults. Security staff, vastly outnumbered by the prisoner population, do not provide security. The potential for violence is exacerbated by the lack of air circulation and unbearably hot temperatures, the dilapidated condition of the buildings, and the lack of proper mental health treatment for mentally ill women mixed in with other prisoners in open dormitories. 3. Defendants have failed to carry out their statutory and constitutional obligations to maintain and operate correctional facilities that provide for the basic safety, security, and health care of women prisoners in Alabama. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
2

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/19/2002 Page 3 of 24
pursuant'to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
II. JURISDICTION 4. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 29 U.S.C. § 794, and 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq. This Court has jurisdiction over plaintiffs' claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343, and the United States Constitution. S. This Court is authorized to grant declaratory and injunctive relief under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.
III. VENUE 6. The Middle District of Alabama is an appropriate venue for this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) (2) because a "substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim[s] occurred" in this district, and one or more of the defendants lives in this district.
IV. PARTIES 7. Plaintiffs LINDA LAUBE, THERESA BARRON, BARBARA BUSH, LACHRONDRIA CROCKETT, MARJORIE EWING, WANDA GOODMAN, ALMA GUTIERREZ, LISA HEREFORD, LA'TOYA JONES, KATIE MOORE, TERRI NEWBY, BARBARA PELZER, APRIL RICE, KELLI WASHINGTON, and MELINDA WASHINGTON are serving state sentences through confinement in Julia Tutwiler Prison for Women, the Edwina Mitchell Work Release Center, and the Birmingham Work Release Center. The named
3

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/19/2002 Page 4 of 24
plaintiffs seek to represent themselves and all other current and future women state prisoners.
8. Defendant MIKE HALEY is Commissioner of the Alabama Department of Corrections. As Commissioner, HALEY is responsible for the daily supervision of operations at the Alabama Department of Corrections. He is the highest ranking official in the Alabama Department of Corrections. Defendant HALEY is sued in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Alabama Department of Corrections.
9. Defendant GLADYS DEESE is the Warden of Julia Tutwiler Prison for Women in Wetumpka, Alabama. As warden, defendant DEESE is responsible for the day-to-day operations of the prison. Defendant DEESE is sued in her official capacity as warden of Tutwiler Prison.
10. Defendant PATRICIA HOOD, a captain at Edwina Mitchell Work Release Center, is the interim warden of Edwina Mitchell, located directly behind Tutwiler Prison in Wetumpka, Alabama. As warden, defendant HOOD is responsible for the day-to-day operations of the work release center. Defendant HOOD is sued in her official capacity as warden of Edwina Mitchell Work Release Center.
11. Defendant MARY CARTER is the warden of Birmingham Work Release Center. As warden, defendant CARTER is responsible for the day-to-day operations of the work release center. Defendant
4

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/19/2002 Page 5 of 24
CARTER is sued in her official capacity as warden of Birmingham Work Release Center.
12. Defendant DONALD SIEGELMAN is the Governor of Alabama. As chief executive of the State of Alabama, defendant Siegelman has authority to exercise ~all functions and duties of the department [of corrections] ... acting by himself or by and through such administrative divisions or such officers or employees or individuals as he may designate." Ala. Code §§ 14-1-17, 14-11.1. Defendant SIEGELMAN is sued in his official capacity as Governor of Alabama.
13. Defendant NAPHCARE, INC., is a private company under contract with the Alabama Department of Corrections to provide all necessary medical and mental health services to all persons incarcerated in the Alabama Department of Corrections.
14. Defendant DR. FRANCIS HENDERSON is the medical director of NaphCare, Inc. As medical director, defendant HENDERSON is responsible for arranging all levels of health care, ensuring the quality and accessibility of all health care services provided to inmates, and monitoring compliance with established medical policies and procedures. Defendant HENDERSON is sued in his official capacity.
15. At all times relevant to the events described herein, defendants were employed by and acted under color of law of the State of Alabama.
5

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/19/2002 Page 6 of 24
V. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
16. The plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b) (2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The class consists of all women who are now or will in the future be incarcerated in an Alabama Department of Corrections facility.
17. The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. There are approximately 1,500 women prisoners in Alabama. This population changes often as prisoners are transferred into the prison system and released.
18. There are questions of law and fact common to the class. These include the nature and constitutionality of conditions, practices, policies and treatment of women prisoners in Alabama.
19. The conditions, policies, practices and treatment challenged in this action apply with equal force to the named plaintiffs and all members of the class so that the claims of the named plaintiffs are typical of those of the class.
20. The named plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class. They possess the requisite personal interest in the subject matter of the lawsuit. They are represented by two law offices experienced in class-action litigation involving unconstitutional conditions in prisons and jails.
6

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/19/2002 Page 7 of 24
21. Defendants have acted and refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to the class as a whole.
VI. STATEMENT OF FACTS A. Fema1e State Prisoners in A1abama are Confined
in Severe1y Overcrowded, Unbearab1y Hot, Poor1y Venti1ated, and Understaffed Faci1ities. 22. The Alabama prison system is designed to hold no more than 718 women prisoners, distributed between the Julia Tutwiler Prison for Women and the Edwina Mitchell Work Release Center, located in Wetumpka, Alabama; and the Birmingham Work Release Center in Birmingham, Alabama. There are currently over 1,500 women prisoners in Alabama, who are incarcerated in dangerous, dilapidated, and severely overcrowded buildings unfit for human habitation. 23. All women sentenced to prison in Alabama are first sent to Julia Tutwiler Prison for intake and classification. In addition to serving as the intake and classification facility, Tutwiler Prison also serves as the women's diagnostic center and medical ward for both physical and mental illnesses. As a result, Tutwiler Prison houses all security levels from minimum to maximum, as well as women with a range of mild to severe medical needs. Most women are mixed in together in the prison's large open-bay dormitories.
7

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/19/2002 Page 8 of 24
24. The "intake" or "receiving" area at Tutwiler Prison is a small dormitory designed to handle approximately 20 women at a time. Due to overcrowding, the intake area consistently holds more than three times that number. Mold grows unabated on the walls. Pipes are corroded, and sinks and shower drains are encrusted with sludge. Showerheads and toilets are inadequate and often nonfunctional. Outside exercise and other activities are not available to women in intake, who spend all day locked down and idle. Women are regularly held in the intake area for 4 weeks or more, waiting for a space to open up in the prison or work release centers.
25. After they are released from intake, many women remain at Tutwiler Prison for the duration of their sentence. The prison holds over 1,000 women in a 60-year old facility designed for 364 people. The unbearably hot and poorly ventilated dormitories are intensely overcrowded, with bunk-beds pushed to within 16 inches of one another. Prisoners have extremely little space to move, limited activity, and no privacy.
26. To accommodate the excessive number of women prisoners, defendants have replaced regular beds with bunk-beds in the openbay dormitories at Tutwiler Prison, pushed bunk-beds to within inches of each other, converted areas intended for manufacturing into sleeping areas, and illegally refused to remove state prisoners from county jails.
8

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/19/2002 Page 9 of 24
27. Tutwiler Prison has ten dormitories. Dormitories 1-7 hold approximately 80 women each, in open-bay barracks designed for half that number. Dormitory 6 is known as the Mental Health dormitory, but not all the women in the dorm are mentally ill. Nor are all the mentally ill women in the prison placed in dorm 6; many mentally ill women in need of a supportive living environment are mixed into general population. Elderly women, women suffering from chronic or serious medical conditions, women who are confined to wheelchairs, and the pregnant women are concentrated in Dormitory 7. However, some elderly and chronic care patients are scattered throughout the prison. Dormitory 8 is the intake area described above. Dormitory 9 was the prison factory before it was converted into a dormitory to accommodate the overcrowding. Dormitory 9 holds approximately 238 women in an open-bay dormitory. Dormitory 10 is an L-shaped, corrugated metal structure separate from the main prison.
28. Two Medical Isolation Units (MIU) hold HIV-positive women who are strictly segregated from the rest of the population and denied equal access to programs, including work release. These women are not permitted into the yard or the dining hall. Their outside time is limited to a small patch of grass adjacent to the MIU, and their meals are brought to the unit. The forced idleness and lack of interaction with general population causes great stress, anger, and hopelessness among the HIV-positive
9

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/19/2002 Page 10 of 24
women. 29. There are approximately 25 single-person cells in the
entire prison. These 25 cells are not sufficient to accommodate all the women who are sentenced to death; those who are actively suicidal, psychotic or otherwise suffering acute mental breakdown; those in need of acute medical care; and women who must be segregated for disciplinary or safety reasons.
30. Because there are so many more prisoners than the prison was designed to handle, many toilets and showers are completely inoperable, or have inadequate drainage so they leak and leave standing water and raw sewage on the floor of the bathrooms. The available plumbing, even when fully functional, is grossly inadequate to meet the needs of the excessively large population. Women enter their names on a sign-up sheet or wait in long lines to use the toilet, sink, or shower, causing further anger and tension among the population. Their clothes are often returned from the inadequate laundry facilities still dirty or damp and mildewed.
31. After they are medically cleared, classified and processed into the Alabama Department of Corrections, some women are transferred from Tutwiler Prison to one of the two work release centers, Edwina Mitchell Work Release or Birmingham Work Release. Women who have chronic medical problems (such as HIV) are not eligible for work release, and are forced to serve all of
10

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/19/2002 Page 11 of 24
their time at Tutwiler Prison even if they are otherwise minimum custody and good candidates for work release or supervised release. Prisoners who receive disciplinary reports at the work release centers are sent back to Tutwiler Prison.
32. Edwina Mitchell currently holds approximately 260 minimum security prisoners in two corrugated metal buildings on the backside of Tutwiler Prison. Because the dormitories are filled with bunk-beds, the sight-lines are blocked and the guards cannot see what is happening from their posts. The dormitories are hot and poorly ventilated.
33. Even though Edwina Mitchell is called a work release center, over 75% of the women are in fact not on work release. These women must spend all day sitting in the alley between the two buildings. There is no shade and no grass in the alley, and women are forced to sit idly in the hot sun all day, with no work and no activities.
34. The Birmingham Work Release Center is a single building comprised of fourteen dormitories, each of which holds 22 women. The "lock-up" cellon the second floor has four beds and no air conditioning or circulation. This facility is so overcrowded and understaffed that defendants have resorted to nailing the windows shut to prevent escape. The windows have been nailed shut despite obvious danger from extreme heat, and numerous complaints by the prisoners and their families to prison officials and the
11

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/19/2002 Page 12 of 24
health department. During the early morning hours of July 28, 2002, Claudia Booker Muller died in the work release center, apparently from heat-related causes.
35. All of the prison facilities for women become unbearably hot in the summer. Because most of the facilities are not air-conditioned, defendants attempt to circulate or cool the air using large, industrial fans. The facilities have become so overcrowded that the sheer mass of bodies makes these attempts to circulate the air nearly futile. The extreme heat and stagnant air, the noise of the fans, and the failure of the fans to adequately cool living quarters intensifies the tensions and volatility caused by overcrowding.
36. The lack of space, air, and basic essential facilities like showers and toilets increase the volatility of the prison environment, increasing the risk of fights and physical assault. Women fight for an opportunity to use an operable toilet or sink, be near a fan in the heat of the summer, or obtain drinkable water or ice.
37. The extremely crowded living areas in the women's prisons in Alabama, with women sleeping only one or two feet apart, also facilitates the transmission of infectious disease, especially airborne diseases such as tuberculosis and skin infections such as staphylococcus.
12

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/19/2002 Page 13 of 24
B. Due to Severe Overcrowding, Women Prisoners in A1abama are Denied their Basic Human Needs and are at Substantial Risk of Serious Injury and Death from Physical Violence and Inadequate Health Care. 38. The potential for serious violence among prisoners who
are deprived of adequate living space, ventilation, personal safety and security, and other basic needs is exceptionally high. In the past 3 months there has been a significant increase in assaults and violent behavior at Tutwiler Prison. In May 2002 there were as many reported assaults at Tutwiler Prison as there were at all four maximum security men's prisons combined.
39. Women forced to live in impossibly crowded conditions have slashed one another with razors, stabbed, beaten, and assaulted one another in desperate attempts to establish the barest amount of personal space and to protect themselves from harm. Women throughout Tutwiler Prison suffer a substantial risk of serious physical harm from such attacks.
40. Prisoners outnumber security staff by a dangerously high number. In the past 20 years, the number of women prisoners incarcerated at Tutwiler Prison has grown from approximately 200 to 1,000, a five-fold increase. The number of security staff, by comparison, is essentially the same as it was 20 years ago. Alabama's prisoner-to-guard ratio is, by a significant margin, the worst in the country. As a result, guards are unable to provide even minimally adequate protection, and women prisoners
13

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/19/2002 Page 14 of 24
are at constant risk of being slashed and assaulted. 41. Guards are often placed in charge of 75 to 100
prisoners at a time. For most of the day, there is a single officer guarding approximately 240 prisoners in Tutwiler Prison's Dorm 9, where there have been numerous fights and assaults using razors within the past two months.
42. Due to the shortage of security staff, prison guards are forced to work 12 and 16-hour shifts, which means they are exhausted and unable to respond to threats and assaults or carry out their other duties. Security working in such a stressful environment have become disrespectful and short-tempered, contributing to the overall tension in the prison. Some guards regularly sleep during their shifts because they are working an excessive number of hours.
43. There have been numerous assaults on security staff. On July 7, 2002, an officer at Tutwiler was assaulted and seriously injured by a mentally ill prisoner in Dorm 10, where 106 prisoners are confined in a space built for 65. Prisoners had to run to the main building for help. As a result of this and similar assaults, security officers already fearful of walking into prisoner living areas have become even more reluctant to enter the open dormitories where they are impossibly outnumbered, leaving these areas largely unsupervised.
44. The insufficient number of security staff to supervise
14

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/19/2002 Page 15 of 24
and patrol the large prison population makes it nearly impossible to conduct adequate shakedowns and searches, which allows large amounts of dangerous contraband such as knives and shanks to be hidden throughout the prison facilities.
45. When inmate-on-inmate assaults occur, it is very difficult for prisoners to get the attention of a single guard, who then has to wait for back-up before attempting to intervene. Many security officers, out of fear for their own safety, choose to ignore fights and assaults altogether. Others wait until after the damage is done before stepping in to issue disciplinary warnings.
46. Prison guards turn a blind eye to the violence and fail to respond when victims report these assaults because there is no place to put those who need to be protected or to segregate those who threaten to injure others.
47. The danger created by overcrowding is further exacerbated by the fact that the vast majority of the plaintiff class are held in open bay dormitories. Known enemies, including women who have testified against one another, are housed together in general population dormitories.
48. There are not enough protective custody cells. Prisoners who require protection are often forced into general population where there is an extremely high risk that they will be repeatedly victimized.
15

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/19/2002 Page 16 of 24
49. The tension and danger caused by forcing women to live in unsupervised dormitories where bunks are stacked on top of one another and weapons are plentiful has been made even worse by the reduction and elimination of treatment, educational, and vocational programs. The lack of activities, exercise, and work for prisoners contributes to the already substantial risk of fights and assaults. For example, at Edwina Mitchell, most of the prisoners spend from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. sitting or standing in a small outdoor area where they have nothing whatsoever to do except bake in the hot sun.
50. Defendants have warned that they will place bunks in areas where women visit with their families, which threatens to eliminate or drastically reduce the amount of contact women have with their children, parents, and other loved ones. Depriving women of such a fundamental source of support and hope creates an even more volatile and dangerous environment.
51. Many women who are eligible for work release are not on work release. Similarly, women who are qualified for supervised release through the Supervised Intensive Restitution (SIR) program or similar programs remain in the prison because there are not sufficient officers for those programs. As a result, women who are qualified to participate in work or other supervised release programs remain in general population at Tutwiler Prison or sitting idle at Edwina Mitchell, needlessly
16

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/19/2002 Page 17 of 24
exacerbating the overcrowding, and hindering the progress of these women through the corrections system.
52. Prisoners, who are unable to secure their own medical care because they are incarcerated and so must rely entirely on defendants to provide basic health care, are systematically denied adequate treatment for their basic medical and mental health needs. A 55-year old woman with heart problems died in the exceedingly hot lock-up cell at Birmingham Work Release during the early morning of July 28, 2002, after screaming all night for help, and despite her brother calling the work release center insisting that she urgently needed medical treatment.
53. The medical system is chaotic and disorganized. Critical records are shoddily kept, if kept at all. Requests for medical attention are ignored for days or weeks at a time. At Tutwiler Prison, sick call screening takes place in the middle of the night. Patients who make the screening are often told their records are not present and are sent back to their dormitory. Prisoners are charged three dollars every time they request treatment or have a question about their medical condition, even if they never actually see anyone or receive any treatment. This unreasonable fee deters legitimate requests for treatment and evaluation.
54. The administration of medication to prisoners at Birmingham Work Release is haphazard and inconsistent. For
17

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/19/2002 Page 18 of 24
example, women who are required to drive the van that carries other prisoners to and from work often do not finish this duty until after "pill call" has ended, and they are then denied their medication
55. The medical care available to women prisoners in Alabama is characterized by long delays, a shortage of qualified medical personnel, and poor care. The lack of minimally adequate medical care, including mental health care, places both the person suffering from serious illness and those around her in substantial danger of harm. Mentally ill prisoners housed in general population without proper medical treatment increase the overall tension of a dormitory when symptoms of their illness include unpredictable, disruptive, or bizarre behavior.
56. Medication and treatment for prisoners with acute and chronic medical and mental health are delayed or denied because there is not enough medical or security staff or space to carry out this function.
57. There are inadequate facilities for mentally ill women who are in need of treatment and a supportive living environment. Women who are in mental health crisis or actively suicidal are placed in the "green room" at Tutwiler Prison, a unit containing 4 single-cells. Because the green room cells are barren and extremely uncomfortable, guards and medical personnel are able to discourage women from seeking necessary mental health care by
18

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/19/2002 Page 19 of 24
threatening to place them in the green room. 58. Some mental health patients are placed in Dorm 6, an
open-bay dormitory with little mental health counseling and no organized mental health programming. The prisoners in Dorm 6, a mix of both mentally ill and non-mentally ill women, are usually left alone in the dormitory, with no security officer in sight.
59. The remainder of the women suffering from mental illness remain in general population without proper mental health treatment, a situation that is dangerous to both the mentally ill prisoner and the prisoners around her. Many of the recent assaults with razors were carried out by mentally ill women forced to live in large general population open-bay dormitories without adequate mental health treatment.
60. The lack of adequate security staff affects the ability of mental health counselors to conduct their rounds in the open dormitories, and the crowded conditions make private conversations impossible. It is unlikely that any seriously mentally ill patient can receive proper mental health treatment in such conditions.
61. The inadequate medical care for mental and physical illnesses aggravates the volatile environment in which people fear for their very lives. Prisoners who are in pain, sick, and injured are even more desperate than others and less able to tolerate the miserable conditions in prison.
19

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/19/2002 Page 20 of 24
C. Defendants Have Acted and Continue to Act with Deliberate Indifference to the Substantial Risk of Serious Injury and Death to Which Plaintiffs and Other Class Members Are Exposed. 62. For many years, defendants have known about and failed
to take the necessary steps to abate the rapidly worsening conditions challenged in this lawsuit, and their deliberate indifference to these conditions has resulted in the crisis that now threatens the basic health and safety of named plaintiffs and all members of the plaintiff class. Defendants are aware of the serious harm that results from confining people in severely overcrowded facilities, but they have done little other than blame one another or their predecessors for the current disastrous situation.
63. Defendants have responded to attempts by prisoners and their families to report dangerous prison conditions by retaliating or threatening to retaliate against the prisoners for exposing the problems. For example, at Birmingham Work Release, the warden and other officials threaten to send prisoners back to Tutwiler if they contact the health department to complain about the conditions there. Likewise, the officials threaten to cut off air conditioning or to deny prisoners ice if they report problems at the facility. At Edwina Mitchell, prisoners are told that communicating with officials from the Department of Corrections will result in disciplinary action.
20

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/19/2002 Page 21 of 24
64. This Court has repeatedly found that overcrowding inevitably causes and exacerbates other impermissible prison conditions. This Court has explicitly and on multiple occasions ordered defendants to remedy the overcrowding that has been endemic in Alabama's prison system for the past 30 years.
65. Rather than take responsibility for the overcrowding, defendants and their predecessors have allowed overcrowding to worsen steadily. Most notably, defendants have intentionally allowed prisoners to languish in county jails in an attempt to shift responsibility for these prisoners' custody from the state to the counties. Defendants have failed to expand the number of work release centers available for the increasing number of women prisoners who qualify for work release. Defendants have failed to expand the SIR program to accommodate the increasing number of women prisoners eligible for SIR placements.
66. Where defendants have responded to the violence caused by overcrowding, the response has been wholly unreasonable. Aggressive intervention by Correctional Emergency Response Team guards who yell and curse at the women is untimely, ineffectual, and intended only to intimidate and terrorize. Rather than prevent further violence, the response of defendants has only heightened the tension and makes the prisons even more dangerous.
21

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/19/2002 Page 22 of 24
VI. EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES 67. There are no administrative remedies within the Alabama Department of Corrections for named plaintiffs and other members of the plaintiff class to exhaust.
VII. CAUSES OF ACTION 68. Defendants' deliberate indifference to the substantial risk of serious physical violence to which women prisoners in Alabama are exposed, as described in paragraphs 1-3, 22-51, and 62-66, violates plaintiffs' rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, as enforced through 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 69. Defendants' deliberate indifference to plaintiffs' serious medical and mental health needs, as described in paragraphs 1-3, 27-29, 34-35, 37, and 52-66, violates plaintiffs' rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, as enforced through 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 70. Defendants' deliberate indifference to the denial of plaintiffs' basic human needs of living space, ventilation, plumbing and sanitation, as described in paragraphs 1-3, 22-37, and 61-65, violates plaintiffs' rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, as enforced through 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
22

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/19/2002 Page 23 of 24
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully pray that this Court: 71. Assume jurisdiction over this action; 72. Personally conduct an unannounced inspection of Tutwiler Prison, the Edwina Mitchell Work Release Center and the Birmingham Work Release Center; 73. Schedule an evidentiary hearing on plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction to take place within 14 days; 74. Immediately grant plaintiffs limited expedited discovery to determine facts related to their request for a preliminary injunction, including an expert inspection of the prison facilities, depositions of prison officials, and access to medical and institutional records and other documents relevant to the need for a preliminary injunction; 75. Grant plaintiffs a full trial and discovery in this matter; 76. Adjudge and declare that the acts and omissions of the defendants with regard to the class members violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; 77. Order defendants to comply with the Constitution and enjoin defendants from subjecting plaintiffs to cruel and unusual punishment; 78. Award plaintiffs the costs of this lawsuit and reasonable attorney's fees; and
23

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/19/2002 Page 24 of 24

79. Order such additional relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
Respectfully submitted this ~day of August, 2002,

r JjohnAA..Ru~ssel(hl,-InI~S~sq.
202 Broad Street Aliceville, Alabama 35442 Telephone: (205) 373-8714 Facsimile: (205) 373-8894
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

jraffiara Se er, Esq. tisa Kung, Esq. Marion D. Chartoff, Esq. Stephen B. Bright, Esq. SOUTHERN CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS 83 Poplar Street, N.W. Atlanta, Georgia 30303-2122 Telephone: (404) 688-1202 Facsimile: (404) 688-9440

24

 
 Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 45 Filed 09/13/2002 Page 1 of 24

IN F¢iUC~iP'"'STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
1001 SEP I~~GOMERY DIVISION
LINDA LAUBE, TH~~.~I~~Wbtl',
BARBARA BUSH, LA~NDaI~Ci CROCKETT, MARJORIE EWING, WANDA GOODMAN, ALMA GUTIERREZ, LISA HEREFORD, LA'TOYA JONES, KATIE MOORE, TERRI NEWBY, BARBARA PELZER, APRIL RICE, KELLI WASHINGTON, and MELINDA WASHINGTON, on behalf of themselves and other persons similarly situated,

F I LED

Plaintiffs,

v.
MICHAEL HALEY, Commissioner of the Alabama Department of Corrections,
GLADYS DEESE, Warden of Julia Tutwiler Prison for Women,

CIVIL ACTION No. CV-02-T-9S7-N CLASS ACTION
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

PATRICIA HOOD, Acting Warden of Edwina Mitchell Work Release Center,

MARY CARTER, Director of Birmingham Work Release Center,

DON SIEGELMAN, Governor of Alabama,

in their official capacities,

Defendants.

I. INTRODUCTION 1. The fifteen named plaintiffs bring this suit on behalf )
of themselves and all other female prisoners in Alabama. women~'7

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 45 Filed 09/13/2002 Page 2 of 24
prisoners in Alabama are at a substantial risk of serious injury and death due to the outrageously overcrowded and dangerous conditions in which they are forced to live at the Julia Tutwiler Prison for Women, the Edwina Mitchell Work Release Center, and the Birmingham Work Release Center.
2. Women prisoners in Alabama are packed so tightly into cells and dormitories that the extreme tension and volatility caused by lack of space results in women slashing one another with razors, fights, and other serious assaults. Security staff, vastly outnumbered by the prisoner population, do not provide security. The potential for violence is exacerbated by the lack of air circulation and unbearably hot temperatures, the dilapidated condition of the buildings, and the lack of proper mental health treatment for mentally ill women mixed in with other prisoners in open dormitories.
3. Defendants have failed to carry out their statutory and constitutional obligations to maintain and operate correctional facilities that provide for the basic safety and security of women prisoners in Alabama. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
2

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 45 Filed 09/13/2002 Page 3 of 24
II. JURISDICTION 4. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 29 U.S.C. § 794, and 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq. This Court has jurisdiction over plaintiffs' claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343, and the United States Constitution. 5. This Court is authorized to grant declaratory and injunctive relief under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.
III. VENUE 6. The Middle District of Alabama is an appropriate venue for this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) (2) because a "substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim[s] occurred" in this district, and one or more of the defendants lives in this district.
IV. PARTIES 7. Plaintiffs LINDA LAUBE, THERESA BARRON, BARBARA BUSH, LACHRONDRIA CROCKETT, MARJORIE EWING, WANDA GOODMAN, ALMA GUTIERREZ, LISA HEREFORD, LA'TOYA JONES, KATIE MOORE, TERRI NEWBY, BARBARA PELZER, APRIL RICE, KELLI WASHINGTON, and MELINDA WASHINGTON are serving state sentences through confinement in Julia Tutwiler Prison for Women, the Edwina Mitchell Work Release Center, and the Birmingham Work Release Center. The named plaintiffs seek to represent themselves and all other current and future women state prisoners.
3

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 45 Filed 09/13/2002 Page 4 of 24
8. Defendant MIKE HALEY is Commissioner of the Alabama Department of Corrections. As Commissioner, HALEY is responsible for the daily supervision of operations at the Alabama Department of Corrections. He is the highest ranking official in the Alabama Department of Corrections. Defendant HALEY is sued in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Alabama Department of Corrections.
9. Defendant GLADYS DEESE is the Warden of Julia Tutwiler Prison for Women in Wetumpka, Alabama. As warden, defendant DEESE is responsible for the day-to-day operations of the prison. Defendant DEESE is sued in her official capacity as warden of Tutwiler Prison.
10. Defendant PATRICIA HOOD, a captain at Edwina Mitchell Work Release Center, is the interim warden of Edwina Mitchell, located directly behind Tutwiler Prison in Wetumpka, Alabama. As warden, defendant HOOD is responsible for the day-to-day operations of the work release center. Defendant HOOD is sued in her official capacity as warden of Edwina Mitchell Work Release Center.
11. Defendant MARY CARTER is the warden of Birmingham Work Release Center. As warden, defendant CARTER is responsible for the day-to-day operations of the work release center. Defendant CARTER is sued in her official capacity as warden of Birmingham Work Release Center.
4

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 45 Filed 09/13/2002 Page 5 of 24
12. Defendant DONALD SIEGELMAN is the Governor of Alabama. As chief executive of the State of Alabama, defendant Siegelman has authority to exercise "all functions and duties of the department [of corrections] ... acting by himself or by and through such administrative divisions or such officers or employees or individuals as he may designate." Ala. Code §§ 14-1-17, 14-11.1. Defendant SIEGELMAN is sued in his official capacity as Governor of Alabama.
13. At all times relevant to the events described herein, defendants were employed by and acted under color of law of the State of Alabama.
V. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
14. The plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b) (2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The class consists of all women who are now or will in the future be incarcerated in an Alabama Department of Corrections facility.
15. The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. There are approximately 1,500 women prisoners in Alabama. This population changes often as prisoners are transferred into the prison system and released.
16. There are questions of law and fact common to the class. These include the nature and constitutionality of condi-
5

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 45 Filed 09/13/2002 Page 6 of 24
tions, practices, policies and treatment of women prisoners in Alabama.
17. The conditions, policies, practices and treatment challenged in this action apply with equal force to the named plaintiffs and all members of the class so that the claims of the named plaintiffs are typical of those of the class.
18. The named plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class. They possess the requisite personal interest in the subject matter of the lawsuit. They are represented by two law offices experienced in class-action litigation involving unconstitutional conditions in prisons and jails.
19. Defendants have acted and refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to the class as a whole.
VI. STATEMENT OF FACTS A. Female State Prisoners in Alabama are Confined
in Severely Overcrowded, Unbearably Hot, Poorly Ventilated, and Understaffed Facilities. 20. The Alabama prison system is designed to hold no more than 718 women prisoners, distributed between the Julia Tutwiler Prison for Women and the Edwina Mitchell Work Release Center, located in Wetumpka, Alabama; and the Birmingham Work Release Center in Birmingham, Alabama. There are currently over 1,500
6

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 45 Filed 09/13/2002 Page 7 of 24
women prisoners in Alabama, who are incarcerated in dangerous, dilapidated, and severely overcrowded buildings unfit for human habitation.
21. All women sentenced to prison in Alabama are first sent to Julia Tutwiler Prison for intake and classification. In addition to serving as the intake and classification facility, Tutwiler Prison also serves as the women's diagnostic center and medical ward for both physical and mental illnesses. As a result, Tutwiler Prison houses all security levels from minimum to maximum, as well as women with a range of mild to severe medical needs. Most women are mixed in together in the prison's large open-bay dormitories.
22. The "intake" or "receiving" area at Tutwiler Prison is a small dormitory designed to handle approximately 20 women at a time. Due to overcrowding, the intake area consistently holds more than three times that number. Mold grows unabated on the walls. Pipes are corroded, and sinks and shower drains are encrusted with sludge. Showerheads and toilets are inadequate and often nonfunctional. Outside exercise and other activities are not available to women in intake, who spend all day locked down and idle. Women are regularly held in the intake area for 4 weeks or more, waiting for a space to open up in the prison or work release centers.
23. After they are released from intake, many women remain
7

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 45 Filed 09/13/2002 Page 8 of 24
at Tutwiler Prison for the duration of their sentence. The prison holds over 1,000 women in a 60-year old facility designed for 364 people. The unbearably hot and poorly ventilated dormitories are intensely overcrowded, with bunk-beds pushed to within 16 inches of one another. Prisoners have extremely little space to move, limited activity, and no privacy.
24. To accommodate the excessive number of women prisoners, defendants have replaced regular beds with bunk-beds in the openbay dormitories at Tutwiler Prison, pushed bunk-beds to within inches of each other, converted areas intended for manufacturing into sleeping areas, and illegally refused to remove state prisoners from county jails.
25. Tutwiler Prison has ten dormitories. Dormitories 1-7 hold approximately 80 women each, in open-bay barracks designed for half that number. Dormitory 6 is known as the Mental Health dormitory, but not all the women in the dorm are mentally ill. Nor are all the mentally ill women in the prison placed in dorm 6; many mentally ill women in need of a supportive living environment are mixed into general population. Elderly women, women suffering from chronic or serious medical conditions, women who are confined to wheelchairs, and the pregnant women are concentrated in Dormitory 7. However, some elderly and chronic care patients are scattered throughout the prison. Dormitory 8 is the intake area described above. Dormitory 9 was the prison
8

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 45 Filed 09/13/2002 Page 9 of 24
factory before it was converted into a dormitory to accommodate the overcrowding. Dormitory 9 holds approximately 238 women in an open-bay dormitory. Dormitory 10 is an L-shaped, corrugated metal structure separate from the main prison.
26. Two Medical Isolation Units (MIU) hold HIV-positive women who are strictly segregated from the rest of the population and denied equal access to programs, including work release. These women are not permitted into the yard or the dining hall. Their outside time is limited to a small patch of grass adjacent to the MIU, and their meals are brought to the unit. The forced idleness and lack of interaction with general population causes great stress, anger, and hopelessness among the HIV-positive women.
27. There are approximately 25 single-person cells in the entire prison. These 25 cells are not sufficient to accommodate all the women who are sentenced to death; those who are actively suicidal, psychotic or otherwise suffering acute mental breakdown; those in need of acute medical care; and women who must be segregated for disciplinary or safety reasons.
28. Because there are so many more prisoners than the prison was designed to handle, many toilets and showers are completely inoperable, or have inadequate drainage so they leak and leave standing water and raw sewage on the floor of the bathrooms. The available plumbing, even when fully functional,
9

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 45 Filed 09/13/2002 Page 10 of 24
is grossly inadequate to meet the needs of the excessively large population. Women enter their names on a sign-up sheet or wait in long lines to use the toilet, sink, or shower, causing further anger and tension among the population. Their clothes are often returned from the inadequate laundry facilities still dirty or damp and mildewed.
29. After they are medically cleared, classified and processed into the Alabama Department of Corrections, some women are transferred from Tutwiler Prison to one of the two work release centers, Edwina Mitchell Work Release or Birmingham Work Release. Women who have chronic medical problems (such as HIV) are not eligible for work release, and are forced to serve all of their time at Tutwiler Prison even if they are otherwise minimum custody and good candidates for work release or supervised release. Prisoners who receive disciplinary reports at the work release centers are sent back to Tutwiler Prison.
30. Edwina Mitchell currently holds approximately 260 minimum security prisoners in two corrugated metal buildings on the backside of Tutwiler Prison. Because the dormitories are filled with bunk-beds, the sight-lines are blocked and the guards cannot see what is happening from their posts. The dormitories are hot and poorly ventilated.
31. Even though Edwina Mitchell is called a work release center, over 75% of the women are in fact not on work release.
10

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 45 Filed 09/13/2002 Page 11 of 24
These women must spend all day sitting in the alley between the two buildings. There is no shade and no grass in the alley, and women are forced to sit idly in the hot sun all day, with no work and no activities.
32. The Birmingham Work Release Center is a single building comprised of fourteen dormitories, each of which holds 22 women. The "lock-up" cellon the second floor has four beds and no air conditioning or circulation. This facility is so overcrowded and understaffed that defendants have resorted to nailing the windows shut to prevent escape. The windows have been nailed shut despite obvious danger from extreme heat, and numerous complaints by the prisoners and their families to prison officials and the health department. During the early morning hours of July 28, 2002, Claudia Booker Muller died in the work release center, apparently from heat-related causes.
33. All of the prison facilities for women become unbearably hot in the summer. Because most of the facilities are not air-conditioned, defendants attempt to circulate or cool the air using large, industrial fans. The facilities have become so overcrowded that the sheer mass of bodies makes these attempts to circulate the air nearly futile. The extreme heat and stagnant air, the noise of the fans, and the failure of the fans to adequately cool living quarters intensifies the tensions and volatility caused by overcrowding.
11

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 45 Filed 09/13/2002 Page 12 of 24
34. The lack of space, air, and basic essential facilities like showers and toilets increase the volatility of the prison environment, increasing the risk of fights and physical assault. Women fight for an opportunity to use an operable toilet or sink, be near a fan in the heat of the summer, or obtain drinkable water or ice.
35. The extremely crowded living areas in the women's prisons in Alabama, with women sleeping only one or two feet apart, also facilitates the transmission of infectious disease, especially airborne diseases such as tuberculosis and skin infections such as staphylococcus.
B. Due to Severe Overcrowding, Women Prisoners in ~abama are Denied their Basic Human Needs for Adequate Living Space, Ventilation, and Personal Safety and Security. 36. The potential for serious violence among prisoners who
are deprived of adequate living space, ventilation, personal safety and security, and other basic needs is exceptionally high. In the past 3 months there has been a significant increase in assaults and violent behavior at Tutwiler Prison. In May 2002 there were as many reported assaults at Tutwiler Prison as there were at all four maximum security men's prisons combined.
37. Women forced to live in impossibly crowded conditions have slashed one another with razors, stabbed, beaten, and assaulted one another in desperate attempts to establish the barest amount of personal space and to protect themselves from
12

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 45 Filed 09/13/2002 Page 13 of 24
harm. Women throughout Tutwiler Prison suffer a substantial risk of serious physical harm from such attacks.
38. Prisoners outnumber security staff by a dangerously high number. In the past 20 years, the number of women prisoners incarcerated at Tutwiler Prison has grown from approximately 200 to 1,000, a five-fold increase. The number of security staff, by comparison, is essentially the same as it was 20 years ago. Alabama's prisoner-to-guard ratio is, by a significant margin, the worst in the country. As a result, guards are unable to provide even minimally adequate protection, and women prisoners are at constant risk of being slashed and assaulted.
39. Guards are often placed in charge of 75 to 100 prisoners at a time. For most of the day, there is a single officer guarding approximately 240 prisoners in Tutwiler Prison's Dorm 9, where there have been numerous fights and assaults using razors within the past two months.
40. Due to the shortage of security staff, prison guards are forced to work 12 and 16-hour shifts, which means they are exhausted and unable to respond to threats and assaults or carry out their other duties. Security working in such a stressful environment have become disrespectful and short-tempered, contributing to the overall tension in the prison. Some guards regularly sleep during their shifts because they are working an excessive number of hours.
13

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 45 Filed 09/13/2002 Page 14 of 24
41. There have been numerous assaults on security staff. On July 7, 2002, an officer at Tutwiler was assaulted and seriously injured by a mentally ill prisoner in Dorm 10, where 106 prisoners are confined in a space built for 65. Prisoners had to run to the main building for help. As a result of this and similar assaults, security officers already fearful of walking into prisoner living areas have become even more reluctant to enter the open dormitories where they are impossibly outnumbered, leaving these areas largely unsupervised.
42. The insufficient number of security staff to supervise and patrol the large prison population makes it nearly impossible to conduct adequate shakedowns and searches, which allows large amounts of dangerous contraband such as knives and shanks to be hidden throughout the prison facilities.
43. When inmate-on-inmate assaults occur, it is very difficult for prisoners to get the attention of a single guard, who then has to wait for back-up before attempting to intervene. Many security officers, out of fear for their own safety, choose to ignore fights and assaults altogether. Others wait until after the damage is done before stepping in to issue disciplinary warnings.
44. Prison guards turn a blind eye to the violence and fail to respond when victims report these assaults because there is no place to put those who need to be protected or to segregate those
14

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 45 Filed 09/13/2002 Page 15 of 24
who threaten to injure others. 45. The danger created by overcrowding is further
exacerbated by the fact that the vast majority of the plaintiff class are held in open bay dormitories. Known enemies, including women who have testified against one another, are housed together in general population dormitories.
46. There are not enough protective custody cells. Prisoners who require protection are often forced into general population where there is an extremely high risk that they will be repeatedly victimized.
47. The tension and danger caused by forcing women to live in unsupervised dormitories where bunks are stacked on top of one another and weapons are plentiful has been made even worse by the reduction and elimination of treatment, educational, and vocational programs. The lack of activities, exercise, and work for prisoners contributes to the already substantial risk of fights and assaults. For example, at Edwina Mitchell, most of the prisoners spend from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. sitting or standing in a small outdoor area where they have nothing whatsoever to do except bake in the hot sun.
48. Defendants have warned that they will place bunks in areas where women visit with their families, which threatens to eliminate or drastically reduce the amount of contact women have with their children, parents, and other loved ones. Depriving
15

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 45 Filed 09/13/2002 Page 16 of 24
women of such a fundamental source of support and hope creates an even more volatile and dangerous environment.
49. Many women who are eligible for work release are not on work release. Similarly, women who are qualified for supervised release through the Supervised Intensive Restitution (SIR) program or similar programs remain in the prison because there are not sufficient officers for those programs. As a result, women who are qualified to participate in work or other supervised release programs remain in general population at Tutwiler Prison or sitting idle at Edwina Mitchell, needlessly exacerbating the overcrowding, and hindering the progress of these women through the corrections system.
50. Prisoners, who are unable to secure their own medical care because they are incarcerated, are unable to access health care due to the overcrowding and severe understaffing at the women's facilities. A 55-year old woman with heart problems died in the exceedingly hot lock-up cell at Birmingham Work Release during the early morning of July 28, 2002, after screaming all night for help, and despite her brother calling the work release center insisting that she urgently needed medical treatment.
51. At Tutwiler Prison, sick call screening takes place in the middle of the night. This creates a security risk as prisoners of all different classification levels congregate for sick call after midnight, when few officers are on duty.
16

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 45 Filed 09/13/2002 Page 17 of 24
52. The lack of access to minimally adequate medical care, including mental health care, places both the person suffering from serious illness and those around her in substantial danger of harm. Mentally ill prisoners housed in general population without proper medical treatment increase the overall tension of a dormitory when symptoms of their illness include unpredictable, disruptive, or bizarre behavior.
53. Access to treatment for prisoners with acute and chronic medical and mental health is delayed or denied because there is not enough security staff or space.
54. There are inadequate facilities for mentally ill women who are in need of treatment and a supportive living environment. Women who are in mental health crisis or actively suicidal are placed in the "green room" at Tutwiler Prison, a unit containing 4 single-cells. Because the green room cells are barren and extremely uncomfortable, guards and medical personnel are able to discourage women from seeking necessary mental health care by threatening to place them in the green room.
55. Some mental health patients are placed in Dorm 6, an open-bay dormitory with little mental health counseling and no organized mental health programming. The prisoners in Dorm 6, a mix of both mentally ill and non-mentally ill women, are usually left alone in the dormitory, with no security officer in sight.
56. The remainder of the women suffering from mental
17

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 45 Filed 09/13/2002 Page 18 of 24
illness remain in general population without proper mental health treatment, a situation that is dangerous to both the mentally ill prisoner and the prisoners around her. Many of the recent assaults with razors were carried out by mentally ill women forced to live in large general population open-bay dormitories without adequate mental health treatment.
57. The lack of adequate security staff affects the ability of mental health counselors to conduct their rounds in the open dormitories, and the crowded conditions make private conversations impossible. It is unlikely that any seriously mentally ill patient can receive proper mental health treatment in such conditions.
C. Defendants Have Acted and Continue to Act with Deliberate Indifference to the Substantial Risk of Serious Injury and Death to Which Plaintiffs and Other Class Members Are Exposed. 58. For many years, defendants have known about and failed
to take the necessary steps to abate the rapidly worsening conditions challenged in this lawsuit, and their deliberate indifference to these conditions has resulted in the crisis that now threatens the basic health and safety of named plaintiffs and all members of the plaintiff class. Defendants are aware of the serious harm that results from confining people in severely overcrowded facilities, but they have done little other than blame one another or their predecessors for the current
18

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 45 Filed 09/13/2002 Page 19 of 24
disastrous situation. 59. Defendants have responded to attempts by prisoners and
their families to report dangerous prison conditions by retaliating or threatening to retaliate against the prisoners for exposing the problems. For example, at Birmingham Work Release, the warden and other officials threaten to send prisoners back to Tutwiler if they contact the health department to complain about the conditions there. Likewise, the officials threaten to cut off air conditioning or to deny prisoners ice if they report problems at the facility. At Edwina Mitchell, prisoners are told that communicating with officials from the Department of Corrections will result in disciplinary action.
60. This Court has repeatedly found that overcrowding inevitably causes and exacerbates other impermissible prison conditions. This Court has explicitly and on multiple occasions ordered defendants to remedy the overcrowding that has been endemic in Alabama's prison system for the past 30 years.
61. Rather than take responsibility for the overcrowding, defendants and their predecessors have allowed overcrowding to worsen steadily. Most notably, defendants have intentionally allowed prisoners to languish in county jails in an attempt to shift responsibility for these prisoners' custody from the state to the counties. Defendants have failed to expand the number of work release centers available for the increasing number of women
19

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 45 Filed 09/13/2002 Page 20 of 24
prisoners who qualify for work release. Defendants have failed to expand the SIR program to accommodate the increasing number of women prisoners eligible for SIR placements.
62. Where defendants have responded to the violence caused by overcrowding, the response has been wholly unreasonable. Aggressive intervention by Correctional Emergency Response Team guards who yell and curse at the women is untimely, ineffectual, and intended only to intimidate and terrorize. Rather than prevent further violence, the response of defendants has only heightened the tension and makes the prisons even more dangerous.
VI. EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES 63. There are no administrative remedies within the Alabama Department of Corrections for named plaintiffs and other members of the plaintiff class to exhaust.
VII. CAUSES OF ACTION 64. Defendants' deliberate indifference to the substantial risk of serious physical violence to which women prisoners in Alabama are exposed, as described in paragraphs 1-3 and 20-62, violates plaintiffs' rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, as enforced through
42 u.s.c. § 1983.
65. Defendants' deliberate indifference to the denial of plaintiffs' basic human needs, including living space,
20

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 45 Filed 09/13/2002 Page 21 of 24
ventilation, and personal safety and security, as described in paragraphs 1-3, and 20-62, violates plaintiffs' rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, as enforced through 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully pray that this Court: 66. Assume jurisdiction over this action; 67. Personally conduct an unannounced inspection of Tutwiler Prison, the Edwina Mitchell Work Release Center and the Birmingham Work Release Center; 68. Schedule an evidentiary hearing on plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction to take place within 14 days; 69. Immediately grant plaintiffs limited expedited discovery to determine facts related to their request for a preliminary injunction, including an expert inspection of the prison facilities, depositions of prison officials, and access to medical and institutional records and other documents relevant to the need for a preliminary injunction; 70. Grant plaintiffs a full trial and discovery in this matter; 71. Adjudge and declare that the acts and omissions of the defendants with regard to the class members violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; 72. Order defendants to comply with the Constitution and
21

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 45 Filed 09/13/2002 Page 22 of 24
enjoin defendants from subjecting plaintiffs to cruel and unusual punishment;
73. Award plaintiffs the costs of this lawsuit and reasonable attorney's fees; and
74. Order such additional relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
Respectfully submitted this 13~day of September, 2002,
amara Serwer, GA Bar No. 617053 Lisa Kung, GA Bar No. 430302 Marion D. Chartoff, AL Bar No.CHA074 Stephen B. Bright, GA Bar No. 082075 SOUTHERN CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS 83 Poplar Street, N.W. Atlanta, Georgia 30303-2122 Telephone: (404) 688-1202 Facsimile: (404) 688-9440
J,,4. ~ (-'r 1ItS)
John A. Russell, III, Esq. 202 Broad Street Aliceville, Alabama 35442 Telephone: (205) 373-8714 Facsimile: (205) 373-8894 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
22

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 45 Filed 09/13/2002 Page 23 of 24

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA MONTGOMERY DIVISION

LINDA LAUBE, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. MICHAEL HALEY, et al.,
Defendants

CIVIL ACTION No. CV-02-T-957-N CLASS ACTION

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Lisa Kung, do hereby certify that on this date I have caused to be served a copy of the foregoing document by first class delivery through the United States Postal Service upon defendants' counsel at the following addresses:

William Addison, Esq. Ellen Leonard, Esq. Alabama Dep't of Corrections 101 South Union Street Montgomery, Alabama 36130
Counsel for Defendants Haley, Deese, Lewis & Carter

Ted Hosp, Esq. Governor's Legal Office State Capitol Montgomery, Alabama 36130
Counsel for Defendant Siegelman

Giles G. Perkins, Esq. Michael M. Shipper, Esq. Miller, Hamilton, Snider & Odom, L.L.C. 2501 20th Place South, Suite 450 Birmingham, AL 35223
Counsel for Defendants NaphCare and Francis Henderson

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 45 Filed 09/13/2002 Page 24 of 24

Respectfully submitted this
...

I~day of September, 2002 .

Lisa Kung, GA Bar No. 430302
83 Poplar Street, N.W. Atlanta, Georgia 30303-2122 Telephone: (404) 688-1202 Facsimile: (404) 688-9440

 
 Laube v. Campbell

PC-AL-011-004

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

\r MIDDLE DISTRICT OP ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVIS^SS 29 ((M J

LINDA LAUBE, et al.,

)

Plaintiffs,

)

v.

) CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-T-957-N

DONAL CAMPBELL, et al.,

)

Defendants.

)

ORDER The plaintiffs in this case are 33 female prisoners incarcerated at two facilities in the Alabama state prison system: the Julia Tutwiler Prison for Women and the Birmingham Work Release Center.1 Defendant MHM Correctional Services, Inc., has subcontracted with the Alabama correctional system's main medical care provider, NaphCare, Inc., to provide mentalhealth care services to inmates incarcerated in the Alabama correctional system. On January 7, 2003, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint which alleged, among other things,

1. In previous opinions and orders in this case, the court has stated that this litigation involves three facilities: the Julia Tutwiler Prison for Women, the Edwina Mitchell Work Release Center, and the Birmingham Work Release Center. The parties have informed the court that Mitchell is no longer an independent facility, but rather is considered a part of Tutwiler.

EQD

w

that MHM failed to provide adequate mental-health care to inmates, violating their rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments as enforced through 42 U.S.c.A. § 1983. Jurisdiction is proper pursuant to 28 U . S . C . A . § 1331 (federal question), and 28 U.S.C.A. § 1343 (civil rights).
This cause is now before the court on MHH's motion to dismiss. For the reasons that follow below, the motion to dismiss will be denied.
I. MOTION-TO-DISMISS STANDARD In considering the defendants' motions to dismiss, the court must accept the plaintiffs1 allegations as true, Fed. R. Civ. P- 12(b); Andreu v. Sapp, 919 F.2d 637, 639 (llth Cir. 1990) , and must construe the complaint liberally in the plaintiffs' favor. See Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236, 94 S. Ct. 1683, 1686 (1974). The lawsuit may not be dismissed unless it is "beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106/ 97 S. Ct. 285, 292 (1976) (citations omitted). "The threshold of sufficiency that a complaint must meet to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is ... 'exceedingly low.1" Ancata v.
2

Prison Health Servs., Inc., 769 F.2d 700, 703 (11th Cir. 1985) (citations omitted)-

4

"*

II. DISCUSSION

MHM moves this court to dismiss all claims raised against

it on the grounds that the plaintiffs have failed to state a

§ 1983 claim against MHM. Specifically, H H M contends that the

plaintiffs' allegations are insufficient in three ways: first,

that the plaintiffs "do not allege matters for which MHM was

responsible but instead which were under the control of

NaphCare as the principal contractor or the Department of

Corrections itself"; second, that the plaintiffs have not

alleged facts ^establishing that MHM acted under color of state

law; and, third, that the plaintiffs have failed to allege any

deliberate indifference on the part of MHM.

A. Sufficiency of the plaintiffs' factual allegations

The Eighth Amendment prohibits deliberate indifference to

an inmate's serious medical needs. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104-

05, 97 S. Ct. at 291. "Failure to provide basic psychiatric

and mental-health care states a claim of deliberate

indifference to the serious medical needs of prisoners."

*

3

Rogers v. Evans. 792 F.2d 1052, 1058 (11th Cir. 1986). "Thus,
a prison inmate has the right under the Eighth Amendment to be
free from deliberate indifference to serious physical or
psychiatric needs.11 Waldrop v. Evans, 871 F.2d 1030, 1033
(11th Cir. 1989) .
MHM argues that the plaintiffs' claims are factually *
insufficient because the bulk of the plaintiffs' mental -health
claims are not within MHM's powers.2 The plaintiffs make
2. MHM asks this court to consider its contract with NaphCare in ruling on this motion. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 (c), the court may consider matters outside the pleadings, but the motion to dismiss must then be treated as a motion for summary judgment. MHM contends that the court may nevertheless consider the contract in deciding its motion to dismiss because the contract was mentioned by the plaintiffs in their complaint and because it is central to their claim. Brooks v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, Inc.. 116 F.3d 1364, 1369 (11th Cir. 1997) («rwjhere the plaintiff refers to certain documents in the complaint and those documents arti central to the plaintiff's claim, then the Court may consider the documents part of the pleadings for purposes of Rule 12(b) (6) dismissal, and the defendant's attaching such documents to the motion to dismiss will not require conversion of the motion into a motion for summary judgment-") . While the plaintiffs do refer to MIDI'S contract in their complaint, they do so only in passing and the contract is far from "central" to their claim. Thus, the court cannot properly consider M H M ' S contract with NaphCare without treating the motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment.
Even if the court were to find that the contract was central to the plaintiffs' complaint, however, consideration
of the contract would not assist the court in its inquiry. MHM
(continued.)

various mental-health claims in their complaint. Among other things, the plaintiffs claim that most mentally ill inmates who enter the system with prescription medication are denied these medications, and, instead, are prescribed less expensive/ less effective medication; they further contend that medication prescriptions are frequently allowed to lapse and inmates often go weeks or months without their medication. The plaintiffs also allege that inmates are improperly screened and referred for mental-health conditions at intake, and that mentally ill inmates are often denied access to mental-health care.
Taking all of the plaintiffs1 allegations as true, and construing the complaint liberally in. the plaintiffs1 favor, the plaintiffs have stated mental-health claims as to MHH. MHM has contracted to be the exclusive provider of mental-health care in the Alabama correctional system and the plaintiffs' claims lie within the province of MHM's powers as the exclusive provider of mental-health care.
(...continued) 4 offers the contract as proof of its limited realm of authority. However, the contract specifies that MHM shall provide mentalhealth services as detailed in other documents. These documents were not provided to the court, and, hence, even considering the contract, the court has no sense of MHM's realm of authority.

In some situations, withholding or changing an inmate's psychiatric dedication can constitute an Eighth Amendment violation. Waldrop. 871 F.2d at 1035 (finding that doctor's decision to remove inmate from his psychiatric medications presented jury issue as to whether Eighth Amendment violation had occurred); sea also Greason v. Kemp. 891 F.2d 829, 835 (11th Cir. 1990) (defendant psychiatrist's discontinuation of inmate's medication constituted issue of fact to be heard by jury). MHM does not deny its responsibility for inmates1 prescriptions and changes in prescriptions. Rather, MHM tries to characterize the plaintiffs' medication claims as mere instances of J.mproper dispensation by the prison staff or as the prison staff's failure to fill the inmates1 prescriptions. While some prescription lapses may/ in fact, have been due to the failures of the prison staff, it is also possible that some prescription lapses were due to the failure of MHM's staff. Furthermore, changes and discontinuation of prescription medications are within the realm of MHM's powers.3 Because

3. MHM also argues that the side effects inmates may

experienced from medication changes are normal medical

occurrences which do not constitute constitutional claims.

Thifi argument is of no relevance at this stage, where the plaintiffs1 harden is merely to state a claim. For purposes

•*

(continued...)

these are claims of serious medical needs within MHM'S control, the court finds that the plaintiffs have met their minimal burden of stating facts which could support relief on this claim.
The failure to properly screen an inmate's mental-health condition at intake could also constitute deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. When an inmate enters the correctional system with a well-documented and obvious mental illness, a deliberate indifference claim is conceivable should a mental-health provider ignore the inmate's condition. See, e.g., Greason, 891 F.2d at 831-35 (finding that when inmate entered prison system with well-documented history of suicidal behavior, and inmate's treating psychiatrist sent letter to prison physicians detailing the condition and urging the continuation of inmate's medication, discontinuation of medication could constitute deliberate indifference to inmate's serious medical need). Because mental-health screening and follow-up care is within the control of MHM, the court cannot
(, .continued) of a motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs need not demonstrate they will be successful on their claim. Because medication changes may constitute Eighth Amendment violations, the
magnitude or effect of these changes is of no consequence for a motion to dismiss.

say it is "beyond doubt" that the plaintiffs can prove no set of facts entitling them to relief from MHM as to mental-health screening and referrals. Estelle. 429 U.S. at 106, 97 s. Ct. at 292.
Finally, MHM maintains that the plaintiffs' claims regarding access to mental-health care do not involve MHM. MHM contends that the plaintiffs1 access claims implicate the failure of prison staff, not MHM, to respond to the plaintiffs1 requests for mental-health care. MHM notes that the plaintiffs never name MQM itself as the entity responsible for denying them access to mental-health care. Although the plaintiffs never name MHM specifically, it is clear that MHM is referred to regularly throughout the complaint, as the plaintiffs often discuss actions taken by the mental-health staff. Furthermore, construing the complaint liberally in favor of the plaintiffs, they have stated a set of facts which could support their request for relief: they were denied access to mental-health care, which is within the province of MHM. While the plaintiffs sometimes specifically refer to prison staff in
4
making these cUairas, they also mention the mental-health staff, who are employed by MHM. Moreover, even if the prison staff
relayed information to inmates that they would not receive 8

mental-health treatment, it is conceivable that this denial turned on MHM's decisions or actions. Ultimately, it may turn out that MHM was, in fact, not responsible for this denial of access. However, at this stage of the litigation, it is inappropriate for the court to participate in that kind of fact-finding. The plaintiffs have stated facts which could support relief as to MHM; thus, the court rejects MHM's contention that the plaintiffs' claims are factually insufficient.
E. State action To state <a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the Constitution, and must demonstrate that the person who committed the violation was acting under color of state law. West v. AtkinB, 487 U.S. 42, 48, 108 S. Ct. 2250, 2255 (1988). MHM argues that because it received its contract from a private company, NaphCare, it was not acting under color of state law. The Eleventh Circuit has clearly stated, however, that "where a function which is traditionally the exclusive prerogative of the State is performed by a private entity, state action is present." Ancata v. Prison Health Servs., Inc., 769 F.2d 700, 703 (11th
9

Cir. 1985); see also West. 487 U.S. at 56, 108 S. Ct. at 2259 (finding that medical doctor who contracted with the State to provide medical care was a state actor) . The mental-health treatment of female inmates is unmistakably a function that is "traditionally the exclusive prerogative of the State.™ The State delegated its medical duties to NaphCare/ NaphCare, in turn, delegated the mental-health portion of these duties to MHM. M H M "voluntarily assumed that obligation by contract." West, 487 U-S. at 56, 108 S. Ct. at 22S9.
The fact that MHM is a subcontractor, rather than an entity directly contracting with the State, is not determinative of its status as a state actor. Because a State prevents inmates' access to normal resources when they are imprisoned, the State has corresponding duties to incarcerated individuals. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104, 97 S. Ct. at 291 ("'[lit is but just that the public be required to care for the prisoner, who* cannot by reason of the deprivation of his liberty, care for himself.") (citations omitted); Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833, 114 S. Ct. 1970, 1977 (1994) ("having stripped [inmates] of virtually every means of self-protection and foreclosed their access to outside aid, the government and its officials are not free to let the state of
10

nature take its course.11). If the State delegates those duties to an outside entity, that entity is a state actor. See West.
4
487 U.S. 42, 108 S. Ct- 2250. It is clear that these duties have been delegated to MHM.
Like the inmates in West and Ancata, the inmates here must rely on the State to treat their medical needs; if the authorities fail to do so, those needs will not be met. West, 487 U.S. at 54, 108 S. Ct. at 2258. Moreover, like the physician in West, MHM is authorized and obligated to treat inmates, and mentally ill inmates' only mental-health care option is treatment by MHM physicians. Id. at 56, 108 S. Ct. at 2258-59. If MHM misuses its power by "demonstrating deliberate indifference to
4
[inmates'] serious medical needs, the resultant deprivation [is] caused, in the sense relevant for the state-action inquiry, by the State's exercise of its right to punish [inmates] by incarceration and to deny [them] a venue independent of the State to obtain needed medical care." id. Therefore, MHM is a state actor for the purposes of § 1983, regardless of its status as a subcontractor.
MHM also argues that it is not a state actor because it has limited powers in fulfilling its duties. MHM contends that, unlike Jhe doctor in Wegt, it does not have "virtually
11

unfettered discretion under a state regulation which mandate [s] that 'matters of medical health involving clinical judgment are the prison physicians1 sole province.1" West. 287 U.S. at 57 n. 15, 108 S. Ct. at 2260 n. 15. This argument is without merit. The Supreme Court's decision in West did not turn on the existence of a state regulation giving prison physicians the sole power to decide medical matters. Rather, this state regulation wafs mentioned in a footnote to demonstrate the differences between the provision of medical care in the private sector and in a correctional facility; the Court noted that, despite the fact that prison physicians were solely responsible for medical decisions by state regulation, their decisions were limited by another state regulation requiring their care to comply "with the security regulations of the facility." Id. MHM is the sole provider of mental-health care and the sole decisionmaker, whether by state regulation or agreement, in determining the mental-health care an inmate will receive. MHM*is, thus, analogous to the doctors discussed in Wesjb, and it acts under color of state law when it provides mental-health care to inmates.
12

C Deliberate Indifference MHM also contends that the plaintiffs failed to allege that MHM was deliberately indifferent to their mental-health needs, in order to state a § 1983 cause for inadequate medical care, a plaintiff must allege that the defendant has been deliberately indifferent to her serious medical needs. Bstelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. at 104, 97 S. Ct. at 291 (finding deliberate indifference to serious medical needs constitutes the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain). MHM maintains that che plaintiffs have not stated any serious mental-health needs which were untreated by MHM. As discussed above, though, an inmate' s dependence on psychiatric medication can constitute a serious medical need for Eighth Amendment purposes, Waldrop. 871 F.2d at 1035; Greason v. Kemp, 891 P.2d 829, 835 (11th Cir. 1990}, and it is also conceivable that inmates may enter the correctional system with serious mental-health needs that must be addressed and recognized at intake. Furthermore, the lack of access to basic mental-health care may also constitute a denial of a serious medical need. Therefore, the court rejects this argument. Finally, MHM contends that the plaintiffs have failed to state that MHM was deliberately indifferent to any serious
4
13

mental-health needs, as the plaintiffs have not claimed that
MHM was even aware of any such serious mental-health needs.
This argument, too, is without merit- The plaintiffs
specifically state in their complaint that:
"The medical contractors know that there is a substantial risk of serious harm to prisoners who do not receive timely medication, diagnosis, and prescribed treatment for chronic and acute illnesses; and failure to respond reasonably to those ristas on an individual or systemic basis. In addition to the obviousness of this risk of harm, especially to medical professionals, the medical contractors have been made aware of the risk of harm by the numerous formal and informal complaints and grievances about health care by prisoners, their families, and their lawyers."
MHM is one of the medical contractors named in the plaintiffs'
second amended complaint; thus, the plaintiffs have
sufficiently plead that MHM was aware of the risks posed to
inmates by their failure to address the inmates• serious
mental-health needs.

••

III, CONCLUSION

Accepting the plaintiffs' allegations as true, and

construing the complaint liberally in the plaintiffs* favor,

the court finds the lawsuit may not be dismissed against MHM

14

because it does not "appear [J to a certainty" that the plaintiffs can prove no set of facts supporting the relief requested. Ancata, 769 F.2d at 703. "The threshold of sufficiency tftat a complaint must meet to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is ... 'exceedingly low, '" id. (citations omitted), and the plaintiffs have met this threshold.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that defendant MHM Correctional Services, Inc.'s motion to dismiss, filed on March 14, 2003 (Doc. no. 168), is denied.
DONE, this the 29th day of April, 2003.

*

j; MYRON H- THOMPSON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 
 Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 99 Filed 01/07/2003 Page 1 of 70

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA MONTGOMERY DIVISION

FILED

LINDA LAUBE, THERESA BARRON, BARBARA' 'BUSH, LACHRONDRIA CROCKETT, MARJORIE EWING, WANDA GOODMAN, ALMA GUTIERREZ, LISA HEREFORD, LA'TOYA JONES, KATIE MOORE, TERRI NEWBY, BARBARA PELZER, APRIL RICE, KELLI WASHINGTON, and MELINDA WASHINGTON;

JAN 7 2003 /\ \
1
~ CLERK
U. S. DISTRICT COURT ~LE DIS! OF ALA.

LAURA BLAND, ANGELA BOND, WENDY CARMICHAEL, LESLIE FILLINGIM, SHARON FINN, BRENDA FRAIME, DEBORAH FRANKS, LAURA GILBERT, DIANE JORDAN, VANESSA KIRKSEY, VICKI LITTLES, DEBORAH LOYD, CLORESTINE MCQUEEN, JUANITA MOORE, BETTY PARKER, PATRICIA SEGREST, CAROLYN THOMAS, NINA WHITTEN, and JUDY WYLY,

CIVIL ACTION No. CV-02-T-957-N

on behalf of themselves and other persons similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,

CLASS ACTION SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

v.

MICHAEL HALEY, Commissioner of the Alabama Department of Corrections,

GLADYS DEESE, Warden of Julia Tutwiler Prison for Women,

PATRICIA HOOD, Acting Warden of Edwina Mitchell Work Release Center,

MARY CARTER, Warden of Birmingham Work Release Center,

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 99 Filed 01/07/2003 Page 2 of 70
DON SIEGELMAN, Governor of Alabama, NAPHCARE, INC., Health Care Provider for Alabama Dep't. of Corrections DR. FRANCIS M. HENDERSON, Medical Director, NaphCare, Inc. MHM CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, INC., Mental Health Care Provider for Alabama Dep't. of Corrections, in their official capacities,
Defendants.
I. INTRODUCTION 1. The thirty-three named plaintiffs bring this suit on behalf of themselves and all other female prisoners in Alabama. Women prisoners in Alabama are at a substantial risk of serious injury and death due to the outrageously overcrowded and dangerous conditions in which they are forced to live at the Julia Tutwiler Prison for Women, the Edwina Mitchell Work Release Center, and the Birmingham Work Release Center. 2. Women prisoners in Alabama are packed so tightly into cells and dormitories that the extreme tension and volatility caused by lack of space results in women slashing one another with razors, fights, and other serious assaults. Security staff, vastly outnumbered by the prisoner population, do not provide security. The potential for violence is exacerbated by the lack of air circulation and unbearably hot temperatures, the
2

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 99 Filed 01/07/2003 Page 3 of 70
dilapidated condition of the buildings, and the lack of proper mental health treatment for mentally ill women mixed in with other prisoners in open dormitories.
3. The State of Alabama, along with NaphCare, Inc., a private for-profit company that holds the contract for plaintiffs' medical care, and MHM, a private for-profit company that holds the contract for plaintiffs' mental health care, gamble with the health and lives of women prisoners. These defendants delay or deny adequate treatment for serious medical, dental and mental health conditions, and willfully ignore warning signs of serious illness in anticipation that the women will be released from prison before they die.
4. The actions and inactions of the State and its private contractors place female prisoners at risk of permanent injury and premature death and subject prisoners to prolonged illness and preventable pain and suffering.
5. Defendants have failed to carry out their statutory and constitutional obligations to maintain and operate correctional facilities that provide for the basic safety, security and health care of women prisoners in Alabama. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
3

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 99 Filed 01/07/2003 Page 4 of 70
II. JURISDICTION 6. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This Court has jurisdiction over plaintiffs' claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343, and the United States Constitution. 7. This Court is authorized to grant declaratory and injunctive relief under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.
III. VENUE 8. The Middle District of Alabama is an appropriate venue for this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) (2) because a "substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim[s] occurred" in this district, and one or more of the defendants lives in this district.
IV. PARTIES 9. Plaintiffs LINDA LAUBE, THERESA BARRON, BARBARA BUSH, LACHRONDRIA CROCKETT, MARJORIE EWING, WANDA GOODMAN, ALMA GUTIERREZ, LISA HEREFORD, LA'TOYA JONES, KATIE MOORE, TERRI NEWBY, BARBARA PELZER, APRIL RICE, KELLI WASHINGTON, and MELINDA WASHINGTON; LAURA BLAND, ANGELA BOND, WENDY CARMICHAEL, LESLIE FILLINGIM, SHARON FINN, BRENDA FRAIME, DEBORAH FRANKS, LAURA GILBERT, DIANE JORDAN, VANESSA KIRKSEY, VICKI LITTLES, DEBORAH LOYD, CLORESTINE MCQUEEN, BETTY PARKER, PATRICIA SEGREST, CAROLYN THOMAS, NINA WHITTEN, and JUDY WYLY are serving state sentences through confinement in Julia Tutwiler Prison for Women
4

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 99 Filed 01/07/2003 Page 5 of 70
("Tutwiler"), the Edwina Mitchell Work Release Center ("EMC" or "Edwina Mitchell"), and the Birmingham Work Release Center ("BWR" or "Birmingham"). The named plaintiffs seek to represent themselves and all other current and future women state prisoners.
10. Plaintiff A is currently incarcerated at Tutwiler Prison. She is 41 years old, and has been a prisoner in the Alabama Department of Corrections since 1998. Plaintiff A is approximately five feet tall and weighs around 80 pounds. She has lost approximately 20 pounds since entering prison because she has no teeth and cannot eat enough food to obtain adequate nutrition. Plaintiff A has been waiting to be provided dentures at Tutwiler for three years. She has inquired about her dentures almost every month for the past year, and the only response she has received is that they are in the mail. She has filed numerous complaints about her need for teeth because of the impact on her health of not being able to chew and digest food properly. After not receiving an adequate response to her complaints, Plaintiff A filed a grievance on December 3, 2002. She has not received any response to this grievance. At 80 pounds, she is severely underweight, lighter than 98% of American women her height.
11. Plaintiff A also suffers from severe headaches and seizures induced by a brain tumor. She requested treatment for
5

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 99 Filed 01/07/2003 Page 6 of 70
this condition on repeated occasions, but was not referred to the doctor by nurses at sick call screening. It took her having a seizure while the doctor was on duty for her condition to be brought to the doctor's attention. At the time the doctor saw Plaintiff A, he ordered that an MRI be done to assess her condition. No MRI has been done.
12. Plaintiff B is currently incarcerated at Tutwiler Prison. She is 50 years old and has been a prisoner in the Alabama Department of Corrections since 2000. Plaintiff B has three ruptured discs in her back, a torn rotator cuff, and serious problems with her knees, for which she had multiple surgeries before coming to prison. Because of these physical problems, Plaintiff B suffers chronic pain and swelling and has difficulty walking. She has filed numerous complaints about inadequate pain control and not being given a "pink slip" that excuses her from physical work due to her medical problems. She has also filed several grievances about these issues, most recently on September 15, September 20, and October 22, 2002. She is not satisfied with the resolution of these grievances. Her pain is debilitating.
13. Plaintiff C is currently incarcerated at Tutwiler Prison. She is 37 years old and has been a prisoner in the Alabama Department of Corrections since approximately 1998. For two years, Plaintiff C has suffered with serious, extremely
6

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 99 Filed 01/07/2003 Page 7 of 70
painful hemorrhoids. Despite repeated requests for treatment, the hemorrhoids were allowed to worsen for two years, causing Plaintiff C prolonged, severe pain, and making it impossible for her to sit for any period of time, or to have a bowel movement without a large dose of laxatives. She was finally taken to a specialist the first week of October 2002. The specialist informed her that the hemorrhoids had become so severe over the 2 year delay that it would require multiple surgeries to remove them. Plaintiff C underwent the first stage of the surgery during the first week of November. She has yet to be sent for her post-operative evaluation and second stage of the surgery.
14. About a week after she returned from surgery, Plaintiff C got an infection. She still experiences bleeding from her rectum. She continues to be in excruciating pain and has great difficulty with bowel movements. After an officer recently called the medical unit for help because Plaintiff C was in so much pain, a nurse accused Plaintiff C of not coming to pill call. This is not true. Plaintiff C has not missed a single pill call.
15. In November 2002, Plaintiff C filed a grievance about not being taken to a specialist for post-surgical follow-up, as the specialist had recommended. She has filed complaints and grievances about not being given laxatives or pain medication since her surgery, as prescribed by a physician. She has also
7

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 99 Filed 01/07/2003 Page 8 of 70
exhausted the grievance procedure about the excessive amount of time it took for her to receive surgery for such a painful and debilitating medical problem that the Department had known about for years. Her medical situation remains unresolved.
16. Plaintiff 0 is currently incarcerated at Tutwiler Prison. She is 39 years old and has been a prisoner in the Alabama Department of Corrections since May 2002. She suffers from numerous medical and mental health problems including diabetes, hypertension, and bipolar disorder. In June 2002, Plaintiff D's uterus prolapsed into her vagina, and she began passing large amounts of blood and experiencing severe cramping. She requested help for the bleeding beginning in June. In response, she was seen at midnight sick call by nurses, but the nurses did not refer her to a physician for evaluation and treatment. In late July 2002, Plaintiff D filed a complaint about not getting treatment for her bleeding. After not getting a response to her complaint, she filed a grievance in August, and received no response to this either. She bled every day from August to September and consequently became anemic.
17. In October, Plaintiff D was given a pelvic ultrasound at which time she was told she had cysts on her ovaries, an enlarged uterus, and a bladder problem. She has boils on her thighs and in her genital area that burst and leak malodorous pus and blood. In late November, Plaintiff D was finally seen by a
8

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 99 Filed 01/07/2003 Page 9 of 70
gynecologist at Tutwiler who told her that she had fibroid tumors on her uterus. He recommended surgery but explained that he will need to get approval from NaphCare. She has not yet heard whether her surgery has been approved.
18. Plaintiff E is currently incarcerated at Tutwiler Prison. She is 48 years old and has been a prisoner in the Alabama Department of Corrections since May 2001. She has a history of ovarian cancer and breast cancer. In November 2000, prior to coming to prison, Plaintiff E had surgery for breast cancer, and was scheduled to undergo chemotherapy, but did not receive chemotherapy because she was arrested and placed in jail. Her sentencing judge assured her she would receive chemotherapy treatment at Tutwiler, but she still has not received chemotherapy at Tutwiler during the past 18 months that she has been in prison.
19. Plaintiff E has had three mammograms since coming to prison. The mammogram in September 2001 showed there was an abnormality that needed immediate attention. Rather than order a biopsy, NaphCare chose to wait six months to perform another mammogram. In April 2002, after another mammogram, a specialist requested NaphCare's approval to obtain a sonogram and biopsy of Plaintiff E's breast because the mammogram showed changes suggestive of cancer. These were of special concern because of her personal history and family history of cancer. This request
9

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 99 Filed 01/07/2003 Page 10 of 70
was denied by NaphCare in favor of obtaining a second opinion by another physician chosen by NaphCare, who said that the abnormality might be scar tissue. She has still not had a biopsy. Plaintiff E experiences frequent pain and discharge from her breast.
20. Beginning in October 2001, Plaintiff E has filed at least five complaints about the medical staff's failure to provide proper diagnosis and follow-up of the abnormality in her breast - in particular, their refusal to biopsy her breast. When she asked in October 2001 if she could file a grievance, she was informed that there were no grievance forms and no longer a grievance procedure. This is consistent with the "Access to Health Care Services u form that she was provided during intake in May 2001, which does not make mention of any complaint or grievance procedure.
21. During her cancer surgery two years ago, all of the lymph nodes were removed from under Plaintiff E's left arm. In August 2001, the health care staff at Tutwiler ordered a pressure cuff to keep the fluid from collecting in her arm causing severe swelling and pain. The cuff has still not arrived. Plaintiff E has submitted several complaint forms about this, and the response of the medical staff, beginning in January 2002, is that NaphCare is trying to get the proper cuff and will call her into the health care unit as soon as they get it.
10

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 99 Filed 01/07/2003 Page 11 of 70
22. Since grievance forms have become more available (in September 2002), Plaintiff E has filed and exhausted two grievances. Most recently, she filed a complaint on October 31 and a grievance on about November 16, 2002 concerning the failure to biopsy her breast, the soreness and itching in her breast, and the failure to provide her with the pressure cuff that was ordered 16 months ago.
23. Plaintiff F is c~rrently incarcerated at Tutwiler Prison. She is 48 years old and has been a prisoner in the Alabama Department of Corrections since March 2001. Plaintiff F is on dialysis because she suffers from end-stage renal disease (kidney failure) . During the first year of her incarceration, Plaintiff F was taken off-site for dialysis. Beginning May 3, 2002, defendants stopped taking Plaintiff F off-site for dialysis and instead required her to perform dialysis in the dental room at Tutwiler. In August 2002, Plaintiff F's left arm became severely infected, swollen, painful, and she developed a hematoma where the needles were inserted into her arm to do dialysis. On August 3, the painful, infected wound burst open while she was in the shower and she was taken to a hospital where she required numerous stitches on her arm and a catheter was placed in her chest so that dialysis could be performed through her chest. She can no longer use her left arm for dialysis.
24. On October 7, Plaintiff F filed a grievance about the
11

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 99 Filed 01/07/2003 Page 12 of 70
fact that she could not get treatment for her severely infected arm until the infection burst open. In her October 7th grievance, she also complained that she has trouble getting back to health care for dialysis and does not get a proper renal diet. She is not satisfied with the resolution of her grievance.
25. Plaintiff G is currently incarcerated at Tutwiler Prison. She is 44 years old and has been a prisoner in the Alabama Department of Corrections since 1995. Plaintiff G was diagnosed with tumors in her uterus in approximately August 2002. Prior to her diagnosis, Plaintiff G had bled heavily over a period of two years, often for many days at a time. A doctor at Tutwiler told her several months ago that she needs a hysterectomy, and placed her on the surgical list. As far as she knows, she has not been approved to receive surgery.
26. In November 2002, Plaintiff G filed a complaint about her excessive bleeding and about not having heard anything about whether she was going to have a hysterectomy. She also complained about having signed up three times for sick call and not being seen by a doctor. Later in the month, after receiving a response to her complaint, she filed two grievances, the first of which was about not be~ng seen by a doctor despite several requests. In her second grievance, she complained about not seeing a doctor, and stated that she had been bleeding non-stop for two months and was experiencing dizziness.
12

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 99 Filed 01/07/2003 Page 13 of 70
27. Plaintiff H is currently incarcerated at Tutwiler Prison. She is 52 years old and has been a prisoner in the Alabama Department of Corrections since July 2002. Plaintiff H has emphysema, heart problems, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and throat cancer in remission. Because of her respiratory condition, Plaintiff H requires oxygen supplements 24 hours per day. She lives in one of the two hospital beds in the health care unit at Tutwiler. Plaintiff H is required to use an oxygen machine she brought from horne, but it needs to be serviced regularly. She also requires 6-8 aerosol breathing treatments every day, but at Tutwiler she receives only two. In October 2002, Plaintiff H filed a complaint about not receiving enough breathing treatments and not having her oxygen machine serviced, despite the fact that it is falling apart. The medical staff responded to her complaint by asking her whether her family could take her machine to be serviced. Plaintiff H filed a grievance the second week of October about her machine not being serviced. In response, the medical staff asked whether she had Medicare coverage and told her that they were waiting to hear back from the company that had previously serviced the machine.
28. Because of scarring from her throat surgery, Plaintiff H also needs to have her throat dilated every three months to keep her airway open. She has requested this procedure, but has not had it done during the five months she has been in prison.
13

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 99 Filed 01/07/2003 Page 14 of 70
29. Plaintiff I is currently incarcerated at Tutwiler Prison. She is 45 years old and has been a prisoner in the Alabama Department of Corrections since 1997. Plaintiff I has multiple cysts in her left breast, has an undiagnosed condition that causes her abdomen to swell, and problems with her colon. She has a family history of cancer, and fears that her abdominal condition and the multiple cysts in her breast have not been properly diagnosed or treated. Plaintiff I has filed numerous medical requests and medical complaints because on several occasions she did not receive the diagnostic tests or surgical procedures that physicians have ordered for her.
30. Plaintiff = has also complained about being charged the
medical co-pay every time she goes back to the health care unit, even though she is requesting help with a chronic problem that is not responding to treatment. On August 30, 2002, she filed a complaint about not receiving a sonogram that had been ordered for her by the prison's physician. During the week of her visit with the physician, she had returned to the health care unit four times suffering with pain, fever, and swelling in her pelvis and abdomen. After not receiving a response to this complaint, she filed grievances on September 5 and September 8. In the September 8th grievance, she complained about not having the sonogram and about the many other tests and procedures that had been ordered for her but had not been approved or performed. She
14

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 99 Filed 01/07/2003 Page 15 of 70
had previously filed requests and complaints about all of these issues without adequate resolution. For example, she asked why the hysterectomy that doctors had told her she needed (in July 2001) had not been approved. She also asked why she could not get a biopsy to help diagnose the numerous masses in her breasts. The response to her grievance stated that approval for the hysterectomy was a time-consuming process when it was not an emergency situation. Plaintiff I is not satisfied with this response and is afraid that NaphCare and the Department of Corrections are waiting until it is too late to do anything for her.
31. Plaintiff J has been at Tutwiler Prison since December 4, 2002, when she was transferred from the Birmingham Work Release Center. She is 40 years old and has been a prisoner in the Alabama Department of Corrections since February 2002. Plaintiff J suffers from major depression. In June 2002, she was coded "seriously mentally ill" by the Department of Corrections. Prior to her incarceration in the Department of Corrections, Plaintiff J took medication to treat her psychiatric condition. However, once she was transferred to Birmingham in March 2002, she was forced to wait three months without any medication. During this time, Plaintiff J requested to see the nurse at Birmingham four times to ask about her psychiatric medication, and was finally taken to a psychiatrist at Donaldson Correctional
15

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 99 Filed 01/07/2003 Page 16 of 70
Facility in June. 32. The psychiatrist at Donaldson prescribed anti-
depressants for Plaintiff J. However, as with many other prisoners at Birmingham, Plaintiff J had to wait several weeks between refills of her prescription medication. The disruptions in her medication caused Plaintiff K's mental health to deteriorate. While at Birmingham, Plaintiff J asked the warden if she could go to the mental health center for counseling. The warden referred the ~ssue to an assistant, and Plaintiff J was never permitted to go to the mental health center or have any other kind of mental health counseling. Plaintiff J asked for complaint forms and grievance forms while at Birmingham Work Release and was informed by several different staff members that there is no grievance procedure available at that facility. Prior to coming to Tutwiler on December 4, Plaintiff J's medication had lapsed for almost six weeks, and no medication was transferred with her to Tutwiler. Since her arrival at Tutwiler on December 4, Plaintiff J has received no medication.
33. Plaintiff K is currently incarcerated at Edwina Mitchell Center. She is 43 years old and has been a prisoner in the Alabama Department of Corrections since July 2001. Plaintiff K has chronic high blood pressure and a congenital defect in a blood vessel near her heart. Just before Thanksgiving of this year, Plaintiff K ran out of Atenolol, one of her heart
16

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 99 Filed 01/07/2003 Page 17 of 70
medications, and did not receive it for two weeks because neither security staff nor medical staff did what was necessary to ensure that she received her refill on time. This lapse in her medication occurred despite the fact that one and a half weeks before she ran out of medication, Plaintiff K had filled out a medical request indicating that she needed a refill. She has also been waiting since July 2001 for an appointment with a dentist.
34. On December 2, 2002, Plaintiff K attempted to file a medical complaint about severe pain in her left side and about her left knee causing her so much pain she could not sleep. She had been seen by medical staff on November 22, but had heard nothing from them. She requested a complaint form from the EMC shift office and was told by the officer there that none was available. The officer advised her to use a health services request form and write "complaint form" at the top. Plaintiff K submitted a complaint according to the officer's instructions on December 2. She did not receive a response to her complaint. On December 9, she requested a grievance form, and was told none was available, so she used a health services request form and wrote "grievance" at the top, and submitted a grievance. She received a response to her grievance on December 11th that said "wrong form" "no complaint on file," and advised her to "get new forms from Capt. Davenport." Neither Plaintiff K nor any of the other
17

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 99 Filed 01/07/2003 Page 18 of 70
prisoners at EMC can obtain forms from Captain Davenport, as he works at Tutwiler, not EMC.
35. Plaintiff L is currently incarcerated at Tutwiler Prison. She is 32 years old and has been a prisoner in the Alabama Department of Corrections since September 2002. Plaintiff L has rheumatoid arthritis and was diagnosed with a blood clotting disease called Immune Thrombocytopenia Purpura on April 22, 2002, prior to her incarceration. At the time of her diagnosis, she was very weak, was bleeding from her nose, and had blood clots and ulcers in her mouth. Her platelet count was so low that she had to have a blood transfusion and bone marrow transplant. Since she arrived at prison in September, Plaintiff L has experienced swelling and pain around her knees and legs. She has had bleeding and ulcers in her mouth and bleeding from her nose; bruising on her legs; and severe headache. She has not been approved to see a specialist for her condition, despite the fact that the prison's physician does not have any expertise in treating her disease. Plaintiff L filed a complaint on October 16 about the problems she was having with swelling in her knees and legs, which made it difficult for her to walk. She stated that she had been to health care three times and had only been given Tylenol. She also complained that the doctor had ordered x-rays, but they had not been done.
36. Plaintiff L was transferred from Tutwiler to EMC in
18

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 99 Filed 01/07/2003 Page 19 of 70
late October 2002 with a two-week supply of her medications. The medications ran out on November 5 and she then went without them for over seven days. This caused her severe anxiety. She wrote a grievance on November 8th explaining that she needed her medication, was feeling sick, very weak, and had small hemorrhages in her skin because her platelet count was dropping. She explained that she had blood clots on her legs and in her mouth. Plaintiff L did not receive a response until six days later. The response stated that her medications (which had run out on November 5) were sent to EMC on November 13, when they arrived from the pharmacy. She filed another complaint on November 24, but as of December 12th had not received a response. Plaintiff L has requested a grievance form so that she can file a grievance about the November 24th complaint, but has been told that no grievance forms are available.
37. Plaintiff M is currently incarcerated at Tutwiler Prison. She is 55 years old and has been a prisoner in the Alabama Department of Corrections since January 1998. Plaintiff N has chronic hepatitis C, hypertension, ulcers, and mental illness. She has been informed by the prison's doctor that she will never receive drug therapy for hepatitis C in prison because it is too expensive. She received tests of her liver function in October, after she spit up blood for two days and became dehydrated. Although she has requested her lab results
19

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 99 Filed 01/07/2003 Page 20 of 70
repeatedly from health care staff, these requests have been denied. Her platelet count drops very low, which Plaintiff N has been told indicates severe liver damage. She has also been told that she has cirrhosis of the liver.
38. Plaintiff M experiences depression, anxiety, and insomnia related to her hepatitis C. In June 2002, she began to request mental health treatment for these symptoms, and filed a complaint on September 11 2002, after not receiving the treatment she had requested. The response to her complaint, on September 12, was a list of dates when she was supposedly seen by mental health staff. Plaintiff M recalls that those were dates when mental health staff walked down the aisle of the mental health dorm and asked everyone how they were doing. She was also told she would be notified when she had an appointment to see the psychiatrist. On October 24, when she had still not seen anyone for her mental health problems, she filed a grievance. In November, after the grievance was filed, she finally saw a psychiatrist who put her on Elavil, an antidepressant medication to be used with caution in patients with liver disease. Although she is relieved to have finally seen a psychiatrist, the Elavil she was prescribed is causing serious side effects, such as fatigue, that make it difficult for her to take the medication.
39. Plaintiff N is currently incarcerated at Edwina Mitchell Center. She is 52 years old and has been a prisoner in
20

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 99 Filed 01/07/2003 Page 21 of 70
the Alabama Department of Corrections since 1996. She has been at EMC since April 30, 2002. Plaintiff 0 has chronic diarrhea and had an intestinal bypass many years ago. She also has hypoglycemia, hypertension, and several food allergies. Plaintiff N suffers from mental illness and arthritis. Plaintiff N often waits several weeks to have her medications refilled after they run out, despite putting in for a refill two or three weeks before her medication lapses. In early November, she notified health care by a written request that she needed refills of Elavil, her mental health medication, and Naprosen, a medication for arthritis pain. Despite her request, she ran out of her medication on about December 2, and as of December 12, had still not received them. She submitted a complaint on the day she ran out of medication, and on December 11, submitted a grievance. The same problem has occurred at least four times since she has been at EMC, and each time she has filed a complaint and grievance during the lapse in medication.
40. The officers at EMC refuse to provide complaint forms or grievance forms upon request, so Plaintiff N makes her own.
41. Plaintiff 0 is currently incarcerated at Birmingham Work Release Center. She is 41 years old and has been a prisoner in the Alabama Department of Corrections since April 2002. Plaintiff 0 has been diagnosed with major affective disorder (major depression or bipolar disorder) and has been coded by
21

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 99 Filed 01/07/2003 Page 22 of 70
defendants as "seriously mentally ill" during this incarceration. Plaintiff 0 was seen by a doctor one week after she arrived at Tutwiler in April 20C2 and placed on a very low dose of Prozac. Two weeks later, she was transferred to Birmingham Work Release with a 7-day supply of medication. When this ran out, she waited two weeks to receive her refill. Once at Birmingham, she had one to two week lapses nearly every time her prescription ran out.
42. Because she was sporadically on and off of her psychiatric medication, the medication was not effective and gave her intolerable side effects. She was taken to Donaldson Correctional Facility in October to see a psychiatrist, but the transport officer took her medical records instead of her mental health record, so the psychiatrist would not provide treatment. Plaintiff 0 has chosen to stop taking her medication because defendants will not provide it to her consistently.
43. Plaintiff 0 is trying to keep her work release job, and cannot afford to risk the side effects of receiving her psychiatric medication improperly. However, Plaintiff 0 continues to need mental health treatment. She has not been provided any mental health counseling during her eight months in prison.
44. Plaintiff P lS currently incarcerated at Birmingham Work Release Center. She is 48 years old and has been a prisoner in the Alabama Department of Corrections since October 2001.
22

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 99 Filed 01/07/2003 Page 23 of 70
Plaintiff P has Type II, non-insulin dependent diabetes. She was transferred from EMC to Birmingham on October 10, 2002. At EMC and Tutwiler, she was taking Diabeta and Glucotrol for her diabetes and Zantac for her stomach. After she arrived at Birmingham on October 10, 2002, it took 10 days to receive her medication. She went to pill call repeatedly and was told by the officers distributing medication that there was nothing for her. She finally saw the nurse who found the medication in her medical jacket that had been sent over from Tutwiler.
45. Plaintiff P also has asthma. During the first week of December, she asked the nurse at Birmingham about treatment for her asthma and the nurse said there was nothing in her medical jacket about asthma. She is not receiving any treatment or evaluation for her asthma at Birmingham.
46. Plaintiff Q is currently incarcerated at Birmingham Work Release Center. She is 39 years old and has been a prisoner in the Alabama Department of Corrections since 1997. Plaintiff Q has Type I, insulin-dependent diabetes. She self-administers insulin twice a day. The officers at Birmingham interfere with her ability to take her insulin as prescribed for her condition. For example, in October 2002, a sergeant called prisoners to get on the van to leave for work earlier than usual, and the prisoners had not yet been called for pill call. The sergeant would not allow Plaintiff Q to take her insulin before the van
23

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 99 Filed 01/07/2003 Page 24 of 70
left. 47. Birmingham Work Release frequently runs out of insulin
syringes, and has even run out of Plaintiff Q's insulin, forcing her to use a different type of insulin from what she is prescribed. Other prisoners are allowed to use her insulin, so she runs out of insulin before the prescription runs out. The Center usually waits until she runs out of insulin to order more, which is a very risky practice. There is no diabetic diet available to prisoners at Birmingham, and it is very difficult for diabetics to eat properly for their medical condition. While at Tutwiler, Plaintiff Q had eyeglasses ordered because her diabetes had caused her vision to blur. She has been waiting for a year to receive these glasses, and at this point may need surgery. While at Birmingham in February 2002, Plaintiff Q became sick at work and was sent back to Birmingham Work Release, where she was put in the lock-up cell without her insulin for 2-3 days before being sent back to Tutwiler.
48. Plaintiff Q recently was given a behavior citation for having a cup of water on her bed. Plaintiff Q has to keep a cup of water on her bed because her diabetes is not in control, which causes her to be very thirsty.
49. P1aintiff R is currently incarcerated at Tutwiler Prison. She is 39 years old and has been a prisoner in the Alabama Department of Corrections since 1992. Plaintiff R has
24

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 99 Filed 01/07/2003 Page 25 of 70
periodontal disease that has caused her severe pain since 1998. She began filing complaints about not being treated for her periodontal disease in 2000. Plaintiff R is housed in segregation for 6 months out of every year. While housed in segregation most recently, Plaintiff R was scheduled to see the dentist on several occasions, but security staff would not escort her to her appointments. While in segregation Plaintiff S filed a grievance stating, "I am in continual pain and have abscesses due to my periodontal disease. I am not being seen by the dentist and I need to have my teeth pulled." When she did not receive a timely response to this grievance, Plaintiff S asked security officers to escort her to healthcare due to her extreme pain. When the officers refused to take her, she was driven to pulling out one of her own teeth to relieve the pain. Two or three months after Plaintiff R pulled out her own tooth, the dentist extracted her eight abscessed top teeth. Plaintiff R's gums are raw and sore because she still has not received her dentures, although impressions were made in September of 2002.
50. Plaintiff S is currently incarcerated at Tutwiler Prison. She is 40 years old and has been a prisoner in the Alabama Department of Corrections since February 1999. Plaintiff T has hepatitis C, cirrhosis of the liver, and several hernias in her pelvic area. In April 2001, she began feeling sick, had difficulty with her bowels, and swelling of her abdomen, feet,
25

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 99 Filed 01/07/2003 Page 26 of 70
and legs. Medical staff told her it was from her sweat, standing on concrete, and eating too much salt. In July 2001, she developed a growth on her pelvic bone that continued to get larger. In January 2002, she saw the doctor at Tutwiler and told him that she was still swelling and not feeling well. By the time she saw the doctor in January, she had several growths on her pelvis. The doctor diagnosed the growths as hernias and sent her out for a cat scan on January 14. She filed a complaint about the lack of treatment for her hernia and the swelling in her legs and abdomen. The prison doctor informed her on January 18 that she had cirrhosis of the liver and that her small intestine was not functioning. He finally gave her something to help reduce the swelling. He also informed her that she would not get surgery for her hernias.
51. In about August 2002, Plaintiff S filed a complaint stating that if they had treated her hepatitis and hernias earlier maybe they could have done something to help her. She also asked if she could see an outside doctor to get a second opinion about whether she needed surgery to remove the hernias. The director of nursing responded to her complaint by explaining that because of her condition, she could not have surgery or she would bleed to death. The director of nursing also told her that she did not need to see a liver specialist about her hepatitis and cirrhosis because Dr. Henderson, NaphCare's medical director,
26

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 99 Filed 01/07/2003 Page 27 of 70
tells the prison doctor how to treat patients for hepatitis. Plaintiff S filed a grievance and is not satisfied with her treatment.
52. Despite the fact that she has chronic hepatitis which causes her to feel ill and fatigued, Plaintiff S is forced to sleep next to the large toilet and shower facility in Dorm 9, where it is very loud and there is constant moisture from prisoners taking showers beginning at 1:00 a.m. The large industrial fans that blow into the toilet facility stand next to her bed. Due to the constant noise, she cannot get enough sleep and has felt sick and congested for the past three months.
53. Defendant MICHAEL HALEY is Commissioner of the Alabama Department of Corrections. As Commissioner, HALEY is responsible for the daily supervision of operations at the Alabama Department of Corrections. He is the highest ranking official in the Alabama Department of Corrections. Defendant HALEY is sued in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Alabama Department of Corrections.
54. Defendant GLADYS DEESE is the Warden of Julia Tutwiler Prison for Women in Wetumpka, Alabama. As warden, defendant DEESE is responsible for the day-to-day operations of the prison. Defendant DEESE is sued in her official capacity as warden of Tutwiler Prison.
55. Defendant PATRICIA HOOD, a captain at Edwina Mitchell
27

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 99 Filed 01/07/2003 Page 28 of 70
Work Release Center, is the interim warden of Edwina Mitchell, located directly behind Tutwiler Prison in Wetumpka, Alabama. As warden, defendant HOOD is responsible for the day-to-day operations of the work release center. Defendant HOOD is sued in her official capacity as warden of Edwina Mitchell Work Release Center.
56. Defendant MARY CARTER is the warden of Birmingham Work Release Center. As warden, defendant CARTER is responsible for the day-to-day operations of the work release center. Defendant CARTER is sued in her official capacity as warden of Birmingham Work Release Center.
57. Defendant DONALD SIEGELMAN is the Governor of Alabama. As chief executive of the State of Alabama, defendant SIEGELMAN has authority to exercise "all functions and duties of the department [of corrections] ... acting by himself or by and through such administrative divisions or such officers or employees or individuals as he may designate." Ala. Code §§ 14-1-17, 14-11 . 1 . Defendant SIEGELMAN is sued in his official capacity as Governor of Alabama.
58. Defendant DR. RONALD CAVANAUGH is the treatment director for the Alabama Department of Corrections. As treatment director, defendant CAVANAUGH is responsible for plaintiffs' medical and mental health care, including monitoring and oversight of health care services that have been contracted
28

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 99 Filed 01/07/2003 Page 29 of 70
out to private providers. 59. Defendant NAPHCARE, INC., is a private for-profit
company under contract with the Alabama Department of Corrections to provide all necessary medical and mental health services to all persons incarcerated in the Alabama Department of Corrections.
60. Defendant DR. FRANCIS M. HENDERSON is the medical director of NaphCare, Inc. As medical director, defendant HENDERSON is responsible for arranging all levels of health care, ensuring the quality and accessibility of all health care services provided to inmates, and monitoring compliance with established medical policies and procedures.
61. Defendant MHM CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, INC., is a private for-profit company selected by the State of Alabama to provide mental health services to all persons incarcerated in the Alabama Department Corrections. MHM is a subcontractor of NaphCare, and is the current provider of mental health services to plaintiffs.
62. At all times relevant to the events described herein, defendants were employed by and acted under color of law of the State of Alabama.
V. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
63. The plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated pursuant to Rules 23 (a) and (b) (2) of the Federal Rules of Ci vi 1 Procedure. The
29

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 99 Filed 01/07/2003 Page 30 of 70
class consists of all women who are now or will in the future be incarcerated in an Alabama Department of Corrections facility.
64. The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. There are approximately 1,500 women prisoners in Alabama. This population changes often as prisoners are transferred into the prison system and released.
65. There are questions of law and fact common to the class. These include the nature and constitutionality of conditions, practices, policies and treatment of women prisoners in Alabama.
66. The conditions, policies, practices and treatment challenged in this action apply with equal force to the named plaintiffs and all members of the class so that the claims of the named plaintiffs are typical of those of the class.
67. The named plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class. They possess the requisite personal interest in the subject matter of the lawsuit. They are represented by two law offices experienced in class-action litigation involving unconstitutional conditions in prisons and jails.
68. Defendants have acted and refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to the class as a whole.
30

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 99 Filed 01/07/2003 Page 31 of 70
VI. STATEMENT OF FACTS A. Female State Prisoners in Alabama are Confined in
Severely Overcrowded, Unbearably Hot, Poorly Ventilated, and Understaffed Facilities. 69. The Alabama prison system is designed to hold no more than 718 women prisoners, distributed between the Julia Tutwiler Prison for Women and the Edwina Mitchell Work Release Center, located in Wetumpka, Alabama; and the Birmingham Work Release Center in Birmingham, Alabama. There are currently over 1,500 women prisoners in Alabama, who are incarcerated in dangerous, dilapidated, and severely overcrowded buildings unfi~ for human habitation. 70. All women sentenced to prison in Alabama are first sent to Julia Tutwiler Prison for intake and classification. In addition to serving as the intake and classification facility, Tutwiler Prison also serves as the women's diagnostic center and medical ward for both physical and mental illnesses. As a result, Tutwiler Prison houses all security levels from minimum to maximum, as well as women with a range of mild to severe medical needs. Most women are mixed in together in the prison's large open-bay dormitories. 71. The "intake" or "receiving" area at Tutwiler Prison is a small dormitory designed to handle approximately 20 women at a time. Due to overcrowding, the intake area consistently holds more than three times that number. Mold grows unabated on the
31

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 99 Filed 01/07/2003 Page 32 of 70
walls. Pipes are corroded, and sinks and shower drains are encrusted with sludge. Showerheads and toilets are inadequate and often nonfunctional. Outside exercise and other activities are not available to women in intake, who spend all day locked down and idle. Women are regularly held in the intake area for 4 weeks or more, waiting for a space to open up in the prison or work release centers. During the many days or weeks that they are held in intake, prisoners are exposed to any illnesses brought in by new prisoners who have not yet been medically screened.
72. After they are released from intake, many women remain at Tutwiler Prison for the duration of their sentence. The prison holds over 1,000 women in a 60-year old facility designed for 364 people. The unbearably hot and poorly ventilated dormitories are intensely overcrowded, with bunk-beds pushed to within 16 inches of one another. Prisoners have extremely little space to move, limited activity, and no privacy.
73. To accommodate the excessive number of women prisoners, defendants have replaced regular beds with bunk-beds in the openbay dormitories at Tutwiler Prison, pushed bunk-beds to within inches of each other, converted areas intended for manufacturing into sleeping areas, and illegally refused to remove state prisoners from county jails.
74. Tutwiler Prison has ten dormitories. Dormitories 1-7
32

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 99 Filed 01/07/2003 Page 33 of 70
hold approximately 80 women each, in open-bay barracks designed for half that number. Dormitory 6 is known as the Mental Health dormitory, but not all the women in the dorm are mentally ill. Nor are all the mentally ill women in the prison placed in dorm 6; many mentally ill women in need of a supportive living environment are mixed into general population. Elderly women, women suffering from chronic or serious medical conditions, women who are confined to wheelchairs, and the pregnant women are concentrated in Dormitory 7. However, some elderly and chronic care patients are scattered throughout the prison. Dormitory 8 is the intake area described above. Dormitory 9 was the prison factory before it was converted into a dormitory to accommodate the overcrowding. Dormitory 9 holds approximately 238 women in an open-bay dormitory. Dormitory 10 is an L-shaped, corrugated metal structure sepa~ate from the main prison.
75. Two Medical Isolation Units (MIU) hold HIV-positive women who are strictly segregated from the rest of the population and denied equal access to programs, including work release. These women are not permitted into the yard or the dining hall. Their outside time is limited to a small patch of grass adjacent to the MIU, and their meals are brought to the unit. The forced idleness and lack of interaction with general population causes great stress, anger, and hopelessness among the HIV-positive women.
33

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 99 Filed 01/07/2003 Page 34 of 70
76. There are approximately 25 single-person cells in the entire prison. These 25 cells are not sufficient to accommodate all the women who are sentenced to death; those who are actively suicidal, psychotic or otherwise suffering acute mental breakdown; those in need of acute medical care; and women who must be segregated for disciplinary or safety reasons.
77. Because there are so many more prisoners than the prison was designed to handle, many toilets and showers are completely inoperable, or have inadequate drainage so they leak and leave standing water and raw sewage on the floor of the bathrooms. The available plumbing, even when fully functional, is grossly inadequate to meet the needs of the excessively large population. Women enter their names on a sign-up sheet or wait in long lines to use the toilet, sink, or shower, causing further anger and tension among the population. Their clothes are often returned from the inadequate laundry facilities still dirty or damp and mildewed.
78. After they are medically cleared, classified and processed into the Alabama Department of Corrections, some women are transferred from Tutwiler Prison to one of the two work release centers, Edwina Mitchell Work Release or Birmingham Work Release. Women who have chronic medical problems (such as HIV) are not eligible for work release, and are forced to serve all of their time at Tutwiler Prison even if they are otherwise minimum
34

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 99 Filed 01/07/2003 Page 35 of 70
custody and good candidates for work release or supervised release. Prisoners who receive disciplinary reports at the work release centers are sent back to Tutwiler Prison.
79. Edwina Mitchell currently holds approximately 260 minimum security prisoners in two corrugated metal buildings on the backside of Tutwiler Prison. Because the dormitories are filled with bunk-beds, the sight-lines are blocked and the security officers cannot see what is happening from their posts. The dormitories are hot and poorly ventilated.
80. Even though Edwina Mitchell is called a work release center, over 75% of the women are in fact not on work release. These women must spend all day sitting in the alley between the two buildings. There is no shade and no grass in the alley, and women are forced to sit idly in the hot sun all day, with no work and no activities.
81. The Birmingham Work Release Center is a single building comprised of fourteen dormitories, each of which holds 22 women. The "lock-up" cellon the second floor has four beds and no air conditioning or circulation. This facility is so overcrowded and understaffed that defendants have resorted to nailing the windows shut to prevent escape. The windows have been nailed shut despite obvious danger from extreme heat, and numerous complaints by the prisoners and their families to prison officials and the health department. During the early morning hours of July 28,
35

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 99 Filed 01/07/2003 Page 36 of 70
2002, Claudia Booker Muller, a women with heart disease and mental illness, died in the suffocating lock-up cell, where the women had been denied ice or any other relief from the extreme heat.
82. All of the prison facilities for women become unbearably hot in the summer. Because most of the facilities are not air-conditioned, defendants attempt to circulate or cool the air using large, industrial fans. The facilities have become so overcrowded that the sheer mass of bodies makes these attempts to circulate the air nearly futile. The extreme heat and stagnant air, the noise of the fans, and the failure of the fans to adequately cool living quarters intensifies the tensions and volatility caused by overcrowding.
83. The lack of space, air, and basic essential facilities like showers and toilets increase the volatility of the prison environment, increasing the risk of fights and physical assault. Women fight for an opportunity to use an operable toilet or sink, be near a fan in the heat of the summer, or obtain drinkable water or ice.
B. Due to Severe Overcrowding, Women Prisoners in Alabama are Denied their Basic Human Needs of Adequate Living Space, Ventilation, and Personal Safety and Security. 84. The potential for serious violence among prisoners who
are deprived of adequate living space, ventilation, personal safety and security, and other basic needs is exceptionally high.
36

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 99 Filed 01/07/2003 Page 37 of 70
In the three months prior to the filing of the original lawsuit on August 19, 2002, there was a significant increase in assaults and violent behavior at Tutwiler Prison. In May 2002 there were as many reported assaults at Tutwiler Prison as there were at all four maximum security men's prisons combined. In the three months after the filing of the original complaint, the number of reported assaults at Tutwiler continued to exceed those at any other maximum security prison in the state.
85. Women forced to live in impossibly crowded conditions have slashed one another with razors, stabbed, beaten, and assaulted one another in desperate attempts to establish the barest amount of personal space and to protect themselves from harm. Women throughout Tutwiler Prison suffer a substantial risk of serious physical harm from such attacks.
86. Prisoners outnumber security staff by a dangerously high number. In the past 20 years, the number of women prisoners incarcerated at Tutwiler Prison has grown from approximately 200 to 1,000, a five-fold increase. The number of security staff, by comparison, is essentially the same as it was 20 years ago. Alabama's prisoner-to-officer ratio is, by a significant margin, the worst in the country. As a result, security officers are unable to provide even minimally adequate protection, and women prisoners are at constant risk of being slashed and assaulted.
87. Security officers are often placed in charge of 75 to
37

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 99 Filed 01/07/2003 Page 38 of 70
100 prisoners at a time. On occasion, a single officer at Tutwiler is responsible for over 320 prisoners at a time, with the prisoners distributed among four dormitories. For most of the day, there is a single officer guarding approximately 240 prisoners in Tutwiler Prison's Dorm 9, where there have been numerous fights and assaults using razors within the past two months.
88. Due to the shortage of security staff, prison security officers are forced to work 12 and 16-hour shifts, which means they are exhausted and unable to respond to threats and assaults or carry out their other duties. Security staff working in such a stressful environment have become disrespectful and shorttempered, contributing to the overall tension in the prison. Some security officers regularly sleep during their shifts because they are working an excessive number of hours.
89. There have been numerous assaults on security staff. On July 7, 2002, an officer at Tutwiler was assaulted and seriously injured by a mentally ill prisoner in Dorm 10, where 106 prisoners are confined in a space built for 65. Prisoners had to run to the main building for help. As a result of this and similar assaults, security officers already fearful of walking into prisoner living areas have become even more reluctant to enter the open dormitories where they are impossibly outnumbered, leaving these areas largely unsupervised.
38

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 99 Filed 01/07/2003 Page 39 of 70
90. The insufficient number of security staff to supervise and patrol the large prison population makes it nearly impossible to conduct adequate shakedowns and searches, which allows large amounts of dangerous contraband such as knives and shanks to be hidden throughout the prison facilities.
91. When inmate-on-inmate assaults occur, it is very difficult for prisoners to get the attention of a single security officer, who then has to wait for back-up before attempting to intervene. Many security officers, out of fear for their own safety, choose to ignore fights and assaults altogether. Others wait until after the damage is done before stepping in to issue disciplinary warnings.
92. Security officers turn a blind eye to the violence and fail to respond when victims report these assaults because there is no place to put those who need to be protected or to segregate those who threaten to injure others.
93. The danger created by overcrowding is further exacerbated by the fact that the vast majority of the plaintiff class are held in open bay dormitories. Known enemies, including women who have testified against one another, are housed together in general population dormitories.
94. There are not enough protective custody cells. Prisoners who require protection are often forced into general population where there is an extremely high risk that they will
39

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 99 Filed 01/07/2003 Page 40 of 70
be repeatedly victimized. 95. The tension and danger caused by forcing women to live
in unsupervised dormitories where bunks are stacked on top of one another and weapons are plentiful has been made even worse by the reduction and elimination of treatment, educational, and vocational programs. The lack of activities, exercise, and work for prisoners contributes to the already substantial risk of fights and assaults. For example, at Edwina Mitchell, most of the prisoners spend from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. sitting or standing in a small outdoor area where they have nothing whatsoever to do except bake in the hot sun.
96. The lack of access to minimally adequate medical care, including mental health care, as described in the next section of this Complaint, places both the person suffering from serious illness and those around her in substantial danger of harm. Mentally ill prisoners housed in general population without proper medical treatment increase the overall tension of a dormitory when symptoms of their illness include unpredictable, disruptive, or bizarre behavior.
97. Due to lack of space and inadequate staffing, screening of inmates who have requested medical treatment takes place in the middle of the night, between about midnight and 2:00 a.m. This creates a security risk as prisoners of all different classification levels congregate for sick call after midnight,
40

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 99 Filed 01/07/2003 Page 41 of 70
when few officers are on duty. 98. Defendants have warned that they will place bunks in
areas at Tutwiler where women visit with their families, which threatens to eliminate or drastically reduce the amount of contact women have with their children, parents, and other loved ones. Depriving women of such a fundamental source of support and hope creates an even more volatile and dangerous environment.
99. Many women who are eligible for work release are not on work release. Similarly, women who are qualified for supervised release through the Supervised Intensive Restitution (SIR) program or similar programs remain in the prison because there are not sufficient officers for those programs. As a result, women who are qualified to participate in work or other supervised release programs remain in general population at Tutwiler Prison or sitting idle at Edwina Mitchell, needlessly exacerbating the overcrowding, and hindering the progress of these women through the corrections system.
100. Prisoners at Birmingham Work Release receive arbitrary behavior citations and disciplinary reports at the whim of the warden for violating institutional rules that they did not know existed. These citations negatively affect their chances for parole and their eligibility for supervised release, thereby contributing needlessly to the overcrowding problem for women prisoners, and increasing the tension within the population.
41

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 99 Filed 01/07/2003 Page 42 of 70
Likewise, many women at Birmingham have been given major disciplinary sanctions for testing positive for alcohol in their urine, despite the fact that they had not consumed any alcohol whatsoever. These false tests seriously affect the length of the prisoners' sentence and their eligibility for supervised release or parole.
C. Women Prisoners in Alabama are at Substantial Risk of Serious Injury, Permanent Organ Damage or Loss of Physical and Mental Function, Prolonged Illness, Severe Pain, and Premature Death Due to Defendants' Failure to Provide Adequate Medical and Mental Health Care. 101. The system for providing medical and mental health
treatment to women prisoners in Alabama is grossly underfunded and completely inadequate to meet the serious medical, dental and mental health needs of these prisoners. The system is characterized by long delays in proper diagnosis and treatment, dangerous lapses in necessary medication, and a severe shortage of qualified medical personnel - particularly physicians, dentists, and psychiatrists.
102. The Alabama Department of Corrections is charged by both state and federal law with providing adequate medical and mental health care to the prisoners in the State's custody. In order to carry out this legal obligation, on March 1, 2001, the Commissioner of the Alabama Department of Corrections, with the approval of the Governor, entered into a contract with NaphCare, Inc., a private for-profit corporation, to provide "all
42

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 99 Filed 01/07/2003 Page 43 of 70
reasonable and necessary medical, dental, and mental healthcare to Inmates" in the Alabama Department of Corrections.
103. NaphCare was chosen from among four private medical vendors who had submitted bids for the contract, and was the lowest bidder. The original bids ranged from $38 million to $46 million per year. At these original bid levels, Alabama would have ranked 50th out of the 50 states in health care costs per prisoner. Yet, all of these bids were rejected because the state finance director decided that the State could not afford them. The state defendants then hired negotiators to work the cost of the contract down to $29.5 million, carving off one quarter to one-third the price of the contract based on the original competitive bid.
104. Alabama spends remarkably less per prisoner on medical care than any other state in the nation. By comparison, Georgia and North Carolina spends more than twice as much as Alabama per prisoner, and Tennessee and South Carolina spend approximately 75% more than Alabama per prisoner.
105. Because the contract for health care services is severely underfunded, decisions to provide diagnosis and treatment for serious conditions are made primarily on the basis of cost rather than the medical needs of patients. Serious medical problems are largely ignored until they present an emergency, such as uncontrolled bleeding, seizures, or strokes,
43

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 99 Filed 01/07/2003 Page 44 of 70
that defendants consider to be sufficiently life-threatening to warrant transport to a hospital. Until prisoners' medical conditions reach this level of immediate danger, the Alabama Department of Corrections' medical provider makes a calculation that it is more cost-effective to delay or deny treatment than provide it. The medical providers engage in little or no quality improvement or quality management activity. Such activity would identify systemic problems and require the development and implementation of solutions fix these problems.
106. The contract for health services incorporates the reactive, crisis management, episodic approach to treatment. For example, the contract states: "It is understood that Contractor shall not be required to treat Pre-Existing Conditions, which would not cause, in the judgment of the physician, definite harm to the Inmate's well being if the Inmate was not treated." Preexisting conditions are "those medical or dental conditions existing prior to the transfer of an Inmate to the physical custody of the DOC." By its very terms, the contract encourages the medical staff to delay treatment inappropriately.
107. To be able to turn a profit on such a severely underfunded contract, NaphCare opts for short-term, band-aid treatment to prisoners whose medical conditions require surgery or referrals to outside specialists for evaluation. This allows defendants to avoid the expense of treatment with the hope that
44

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 99 Filed 01/07/2003 Page 45 of 70
medical treatment and its cost can be delayed until after the prisoner's release. This calculated approach to medical treatment places prisoners' lives in severe danger, causes unnecessary pain and suffering, and exacerbates serious medical conditions. In many cases it places prisoners at risk of permanent injury, organ damage, and premature death.
108. Many women have experienced excessive delays obtaining necessary surgical procedures such as hysterectomies or surgeries to remove tumors. Still others cannot obtain necessary diagnostic testing because defendants will not pay for it even when a specialist has determined that such testing is medically necessary, such as to evaluate kidney function or possibly cancerous growths.
109. Women who must be seen by a specialist - and indeed who have been referred to a specialist by a physician - often have their treatment denied or delayed because of expense. Referrals are often delayed and sometimes denied completely to save the expense. Even when a prisoner finally sees a specialist, defendants often refuse to allow the specialist to provide necessary testing, evaluation or treatment. NaphCare often refuses to approve procedures for conditions that its central office does not consider immediately life-threatening, even when it is obvious that the condition is deteriorating and the patient is in distress.
45

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 99 Filed 01/07/2003 Page 46 of 70
110. In addition to this policy of strategic delay, medical defendants avoid medical costs by remaining willfully ignorant of serious medical needs.
111. The willful ignorance of defendants is made possible by a system where, at every stage, women are discouraged from seeking appropriate medical care and treatment.
112. Prisoners only obtain access to a physician through a process called sick call, where prisoners wait in line to be screened by a nurse who then determines whether referral to a higher level provider is necessary. At Tutwiler, sick call takes place in the middle of the night, usually starting around 1:00 a.m. Because the prisoners are called for breakfast at 4:00 a.m., holding sick call at this unusual hour force women in need of medical assessment to choose between medical screening by a nurse or a night of sleep. Sick call at Edwina Mitchell and Birmingham Work Release is available only twice a week.
113. Each sick call visit costs the inmate $3, regardless of whether meaningful assessment takes place or treatment is initiated. This fee deters prisoners with legitimate medical problems from seeking medical attention. For prisoners with limited funds, this fee requires prisoners to choose between necessary medical visits and other necessary items. Nurses performing sick call are poorly trained to carry out medical assessments and make proper referrals.
46

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 99 Filed 01/07/2003 Page 47 of 70
114. Prisoners are told by medical staff that they must go to nurse sick call at Tutwiler three times for the same condition before they will be referred to a physician, a "policy" designed to discourage women from seeking proper diagnosis and treatment.
115. Frequently, women sign up for sick call because they did not receive the follow-up treatment that was ordered for them during the previous time they were seen at sick call for the same condition. In such cases, the "co-pay" serves as a punishment for women who are diligent about requesting appropriate followup.
116. Defendants further maintain their willful ignorance of serious medical needs by delaying necessary tests and follow-up on abnormal test results. Prisoners are rarely informed of the results of medical tests, even when they are abnormal, so they do not know if they should seek follow-up so that they can receive appropriate care.
117. There is no system for necessary routine gynecological care. Women prisoners in Alabama do not receive annual pelvic exams or pap smears. Even women who are considered high risk for cancer do not receive timely and regular pap smears, nor are women at risk for other types of cancer properly screened and evaluated for treatment. Women with ovarian or uterine cysts and fibroids have experienced serious delays in obtaining adequate diagnosis and treatment, despite chronic bleeding, until the
47

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 99 Filed 01/07/2003 Page 48 of 70
condition is considered sufficiently "life-threatening." Yet, defendants do not determine that a condition is life-threatening until there is an emergency, because they refuse to provide timely evaluation and diagnosis.
118. Medical records are disorganized and lack critical documentation. During prisoners' sick call visits, nurses and medical providers often do not have with them the information necessary to make appropriate medical decisions because paperwork has been lost, has not been filed, or tests that were supposed to have been ordered have not been done. Orders and notes from outside medical specialists frequently are missing from medical records, so the recommendations of these specialists are not considered by the prison medical providers in making treatment decisions. Medical records that should be transferred with prisoners from one facility are sometimes lost or are missing important information. The poorly maintained medical records cause unnecessarily delays and uninformed treatment decisions.
Chronic Medical Conditions 119. Prisoners with chronic conditions such as asthma, diabetes, seizure disorders, HIV, hepatitis C, kidney disease and hypertension are not properly identified, consistently followedup and appropriately treated. Defendants' treatment of these chronic conditions falls far below the standards of care that are well established and widely accepted by the medical community for
48

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 99 Filed 01/07/2003 Page 49 of 70
the treatment of chronic illnesses. The result is that these conditions are not adequately controlled, and the prisoners are at substantial risk of serious medical incidents such as seizures, strokes, heart attacks, and death.
120. Prisoners do not receive appropriate follow-up or evaluation to identify and prevent common complications of chronic illnesses. The failure to properly identify, treat and monitor these conditions exacerbates common and often painful symptoms, and increases medical complications such as end organ damage.
121. For example, women with diabetes in the Alabama Department of Corrections are not able to check their blood sugar at appropriate intervals so that insulin doses or diet and exercise can be adjusted to achieve and maintain a safe insulin level and to prevent hypoglycemia or hyperglycemia and other complications of diabetes. Diabetics is the women's prisons also do not receive medically appropriate diabetic diets.
122. Those prisoners who are considered "chronic care" are not charged the $3 co-pay for medical visits related to their chronic conditions. Many chronically ill inmates are removed from the "chronic care" list so they can be charged each time they request to see a nurse, even for symptoms of their illness or for requesting to have their blood pressure or blood sugar taken.
49

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 99 Filed 01/07/2003 Page 50 of 70
123. Prisoners with asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and other chronic respiratory problems are not evaluated at appropriate intervals (such as by assessment of peak expiratory flow), so that their illness can be properly monitored and controlled to prevent exacerbation of symptoms. To make matters worse, many women prisoners with asthma are not permitted to keep an inhaler on their person. In the event of severe exacerbation of their asthma, these patients are usually not "treated" until long after their asthma attack has subsided.
124. Prisoners with seizure disorders are not properly monitored or treated, despite the fact that conditions in prison increase the number of seizures they experience. In some cases, this is because defendants abruptly change patients' seizure medication without evaluating the effectiveness of the new medication or whether the new medication is causing intolerable side effects.
125. Defendants do not provide women prisoners in Alabama screening, evaluation, or treatment for hepatitis C, a chronic and life-threatening disease for which there is available treatment. Women prisoners with this illness deteriorate and many of them develop cirrhosis and other permanent and serious irreversible complications without appropriate vaccines, counseling, and medical intervention.
126. Prisoners who experience loss of hearing or vision are
50

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 99 Filed 01/07/2003 Page 51 of 70
not properly evaluated. Prisoners experience significant delays obtaining hearing aids or eyeglasses even when these devices are medically necessary. The inability to see or hear in the dangerous living environment of prison is both a medical and safety problem for these women. Similarly, because the prison has only three wheelchairs, women with long-term medical conditions that require them to use wheelchairs to move within the prison must share their wheelchairs with women who need them in an emergency.
127. Defendants do not provide adequate pain management for women in chronic and acute pain.
Medication 128. Prisoners on medication, including medication for chronic illnesses like heart disease and seizures, frequently have their prescriptions disrupted or changed to a less expensive medication without proper follow-up to determine if the new medication is effective or to evaluate side effects. 129. Women prisoners frequently experience dangerous lapses in receiving their prescribed medications. Discontinuity in medication occurs both at intake and when prisoners are transferred from one facility to another. Women who are transferred among the women's facilities often wait two to three weeks before receiving their medication at the new facility. Women at Edwina Mitchell and BWR frequently wait two to six weeks
51

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 99 Filed 01/07/2003 Page 52 of 70
to receive refills of their prescriptions. These gaps in medication have serious consequences for women with serious medical conditions such as heart disease, diabetes, and seizure disorders.
130. The problem with gaps in medication affects mental health patients as well. Lapses in mental health medication have serious physical and psychological side effects for the patients and make it impossible for the patients to reach and maintain a consistent therapeutic level of the medication.
131. Prisoners at Tutwiler obtain their medication at "Pill call." Earlier this year, pill call was reduced from four times a day to three times, and then recently to only twice a day. Because patients must ingest their medication while in pill line, it has become nearly impossible for a patient who needs to take medication at prescribed intervals to do so correctly. The improper dosing that results reduces or eliminates the therapeutic effect of the medication or causes dangerous levels of the medication to accumulate in the person's body.
132. The pill call line at Tutwiler is so long that prisoners can wait up to an hour or more to receive their medication. Those who are too weak or sick to stand for that long do not receive their medication. In the medication administration records for prisoners who miss the pill line for any reason, it is noted that these prisoners "refused" their
52

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 99 Filed 01/07/2003 Page 53 of 70
medication, and nothing further is done to determine why the prisoner was not able to come to pill call.
133. Defendants fail to check blood levels of medication such as lithium and dilantin that require routine monitoring to ensure that the medication is within a safe and therapeutic range. As a result, prisoners are at risk of reaching toxic levels of such medications without detection.
Dental Care 134. Necessary dental care is substantially delayed or denied to prisoners, causing severe pain and permanent damage to people with dental problems. There is so little access to a dentist that prisoners must usually wait in line to see a dentist on five or more occasions before they are actually seen. During the weeks or months that they are waiting for dental treatment, women develop abscesses and other serious and painful conditions. 135. Some prisoners, desperate for dental care and in extreme pain have resorted to pulling out their own teeth to alleviate the pain. 136. Many prisoners for whom dentures are medically necessary are still waiting for dentures that were ordered for them months or years ago. Some of these prisoners had waited more than a year to have the dentures ordered in the first place. These women cannot eat properly, a problem that creates or exacerbates other medical problems.
53

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 99 Filed 01/07/2003 Page 54 of 70
Mental Health Care 137. The mental health staffing for women prisoners is grossly inadequate for the number of prisoners who require treatment for serious mental health conditions. 138. Prisoners at Tutwiler and EMC who seek treatment for serious mental illness experience excessively long delays before they are evaluated and treated by a psychiatrist. Some prisoners have never been seen by a psychiatrist, despite numerous requests for treatment. 139. Women are not properly screened and referred for mental health conditions at intake. Most mentally ill prisoners are taken off of the medications that they were on prior to incarceration in the Department of Corrections, and placed on less expensive and often less effective medication or are taken off medication entirely. This occurs without proper monitoring of either the side effects of the new medication or symptoms of the underlying mental illness. 140. Prisoners who engage in self-harm, such as cutting their own skin, are punished for this behavior but do not receive proper evaluation and treatment. Self-injurious behavior, including self-mutilation and suicide attempts, are treated primarily as a security rather than a medical problem, placing this vulnerable population at risk of repeated episodes of selfharm and mental decompensation.
54

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 99 Filed 01/07/2003 Page 55 of 70
141. Prisoners at Birmingham Work Release who suffer from psychiatric illness receive no mental health counseling or programs, and see a psychiatrist at Donaldson Correctional Facility once or twice a year at best.
D. Severe Overcrowding, Understaffing of Security Personnel, and Grossly Inadequate Facilities Further Compromise the Severely Deficient Medical Care Available to Women Prisoners in Alabama. 142. The physical facilities for treating women incarcerated
in the Alabama Department of Corrections are terribly inadequate to meet the medical needs of these prisoners. The physical limitations and lack of security staff make the problems with medical care described above even worse.
143. There is no patient ward for women who are sick in Alabama's prisons. What had been the patient ward at Tutwiler has been converted to a segregation unit for HIV-positive women. There are at most seven infirmary beds for the more than 1,500 female prisoners in Alabama, and this includes up to four beds in the hallway of the health care unit at Tutwiler, two beds in a room in the health care unit, and one bed in the respiratory isolation room. These few infirmary beds must accommodate both extended care and short term acute care needs of all the women prisoners in Alabama. As a result, many pregnant, sick, and frail women who require closer observation are left in large dormitories where their conditions deteriorate and it is
55

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 99 Filed 01/07/2003 Page 56 of 70
extremely difficult to access care. 144. Prisoners returning to Tutwiler from the hospital do
not receive appropriate post-surgical care because there is no place in the health care unit to put them. Most women who are recuperating from surgery must do so in the large open dormitories where they have greater exposure to infection and injury.
145. There are two dental chairs in a crowded room at Tutwiler for the dental treatment of all the women incarcerated in the Department of Corrections. One of the chairs doubles as a dialysis chair, and there is currently one dialysis patient at Tutwiler. This space is wholly insufficient to meet the dental needs of over 1,500 people. The delays to receiving dental care are so long that some women resort to pulling out their own teeth.
146. At Tutwiler there are two clinic tables for evaluating and treating over 1,200 women incarcerated at Tutwiler and Edwina Mitchell. There are no medical facilities, medical equipment, or medical staff located at Edwina Mitchell, so all care and treatment, except brief encounters twice a week with a nurse, must occur at Tutwiler.
147. There are no medical facilities, medical equipment, or medical staff located at Birmingham Work Release for the women incarcerated there. Instead, most of these prisoners are
56

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 99 Filed 01/07/2003 Page 57 of 70
dependent upon the security staff to transport them to one of the men's correctional facilities (Donaldson or St. Clair) for necessary treatment. Appointments at the men's facilities are repeatedly cancelled and necessary treatment delayed. There is no gynecologist at the men's facilities to provide necessary examination and treatment for the women incarcerated at Birmingham. Women from BWR who require more extensive evaluation or treatment are sent back to Tutwiler, despite the minimal resources or space available there.
148. Those work release prisoners at Birmingham and Edwina Mitchell with $300 or more on their books must obtain treatment off-site at their own expense. These prisoners pay the full cost of their treatment, but do not have a choice about where or when the treatment is provided, and frequently cannot afford necessary follow-up visits or diagnostic testing.
149. There is not sufficient emergency medical equipment at any of the women's facilities, and the equipment that does exist is not properly main~ained. For example, in September 2002, none of the facilities has a defribrillator. This means that an inmate who goes into sudden death will have no option, besides basic life support or CPR, until outside help arrives. This places prisoners at unnecessary risk.
150. There are inadequate facilities for mentally ill women prisoners in Alabama who are in need of treatment and a
57

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 99 Filed 01/07/2003 Page 58 of 70
supportive living environment. Women who are in mental health crisis or actively suicidal are placed in the "green room" at Tutwiler Prison, a unit containing 4 single-cells and 1 twoperson cell. One of the single-cells does not have sufficient line of sight from the hallway to serve as a crisis cell, and sometimes up to three of the "green room" cells are occupied by HIV-positive women serving time for disciplinary violations. Because the green room cells are barren and extremely uncomfortable, security officers and medical personnel are able to discourage women from seeking necessary mental health care by threatening to place them in the green room.
151. Many inmates are too mentally ill to be housed in an open dormitory. Yet, many women suffering from mental illness remain in general population at Tutwiler or Edwina Mitchell without proper mental health treatment, a situation that is dangerous to both the mentally ill prisoner and the prisoners around her. Many of the recent assaults with razors were carried out by mentally ill women forced to live in large general population open-bay dormitories without adequate mental health treatment.
152. Some mental health patients at Tutwiler Prison are placed in Dorm 6, an open-bay dormitory where mentally ill women are concentrated. Despite being labeled the "mental health dorm," Dorm 6 has little mental health counseling and very
58

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 99 Filed 01/07/2003 Page 59 of 70
limited mental health programming. The prisoners in Dorm 6, a mix of both mentally ill and non-mentally ill women, are usually left alone in the dormitory, with no security officer inside the dorm. Prisoners who are "disruptive U in Dorm 6 are often placed in other dormitories, because there is no residential mental health program where their needs can be met.
153. Due to the chronic overcrowding and understaffing at Tutwiler, medical staff do not enter living units to assess emergency situations or provide emergency treatment to prisoners. This seriously delays the response time to emergencies in the prison, as prisoners and officers attempt to carry the sick or injured prisoner to the health care unit.
154. The extremely high levels of psychological stress and chronic sleep deprivation caused by the dangerous and overcrowded conditions at the prison lower prisoners' threshold for illness and exacerbate symptoms of chronic diseases such as seizure disorders, hypertension, and mental illness.
155. Due to overcrowding, some prisoners, including those who are very ill, are forced to live in bunks within a few feet of the toilets and showers, especially in Dorm 9 at Tutwiler. The women in these bunks, including those with chronic illnesses such as hepatitis C, are exposed to incessant noise, odors, and moisture from the toilet facility.
156. The extremely crowded living areas in the women's
59

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 99 Filed 01/07/2003 Page 60 of 70
prisons in Alabama, with women sleeping only one or two feet apart, also facilitates the transmission of infectious disease, especially airborne diseases such as tuberculosis and skin infections such as staphylococcus. A significant number of prisoners at all of the women's prison facilities have suffered with painful boils on their skin, particularly on their legs and buttocks. These boils, which are approximately two inches in diameter are frequently accompanied by nausea and fever. The descriptions of these infections provided by several women are suggestive of staphylococcus and/or spider bites, but none of the women has been provided a diagnosis. Inadequate hygiene, laundry, and overcrowded conditions facilitate transmission of this and other infections. Treatment for these painful boils in many instances has been delayed or denied, and there has been little or no effort to identify and eliminate the cause of these infections.
157. At all of the women's prison facilities in Alabama, the severe shortage of security staff impedes prisoners' access to treatment for acute and chronic medical and mental health problems. For example, there are not enough security staff to provide the necessary transport for prisoners who need to be treated or receive diagnostic testing off-site, so appointments are frequently cancelled. Nor are the understaffed security personnel adequately trained to respond to medical or mental
60

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 99 Filed 01/07/2003 Page 61 of 70
health emergencies or to facilitate prisoners' access to health care when necessary.
158. Prisoners confined in the segregation units at Tutwiler are required to have at least one officer escort them to the health care unit. This is often not possible because of staffing shortages, which interferes with access of these prisoners to sick call.
159. The lack of adequate security staff also affects the ability of mental health counselors to conduct their rounds in the open dormitories at Tutwiler, and the crowded conditions make private conversations impossible. It is unlikely that any seriously mentally ill patient can receive proper mental health treatment in such conditions.
160. At Birmingham, the shortage of officers seriously interferes with prisoners' access to medical and mental health care. Officers at Birmingham hand out medication to prisoners at regularly scheduled pill calls. The pill calls are often delayed or cancelled because the officers have too many other responsibilities. Moreover, officers at Birmingham do not have medical training, nor are they qualified to dispense medication.
161. Women with less than $300 on their books at Birmingham Work Release receive their medical care at Donaldson Correctional Facility, a maximum security men's prison which is over an hour away from BWR. Appointments for women at Donaldson Correctional
61

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 99 Filed 01/07/2003 Page 62 of 70
Facility are frequently cancelled because there is not enough staff at the work release center to transport the prisoners to their appointments.
162. Officers are required to check on prisoners who are confined in the lock-up cellon the second floor of Birmingham to monitor the health and safety of the prisoners kept there. Due to understaffing at BWR, officers, overwhelmed by other tasks, do not make regular rounds to the lock-up cell, placing these women at serious risk if they have urgent medical needs. Claudia Muller, a 55-year old woman with heart problems died in the exceedingly hot lock-up cell at Birmingham Work Release during the early morning of July 28, 2002, after screaming for help for days. Defendants knew she had serious heart problems and she had been identified on June 17 as having serious mental illness, but she was not provided all of her prescribed medication while in lock-up, and not monitored properly by overworked security staff.
E. Defendants Have Acted and Continue to Act with Deliberate Indifference to the Substantial Risk of Serious Injury and Death to Which Plaintiffs and Other Class Members Are Exposed. 163. For many years, defendants have known about and failed
to take the necessary steps to abate the rapidly worsening conditions challenged in this lawsuit, and their deliberate indifference to these conditions has resulted in the crisis that now threatens the basic health and safety of named plaintiffs and
62

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 99 Filed 01/07/2003 Page 63 of 70
all members of the plaintiff class. Defendants are aware of the serious harm that results from confining people in severely overcrowded facilities, but they have done little other than blame one another or their predecessors for the current disastrous situation.
164. Defendants have responded to attempts by prisoners and their families to report dangerous prison conditions by retaliating or threatening to retaliate against the prisoners for exposing the problems. For example, at Birmingham Work Release, the warden and other officials threaten to send prisoners back to Tutwiler if they contact the health department to complain about the conditions there. Likewise, the officials threaten to cut off air conditioning or to deny prisoners ice if they report problems at the facility. At Edwina Mitchell, prisoners are told that communicating with officials from the Department of Corrections will result in disciplinary action.
165. This Court has repeatedly found that overcrowding inevitably causes and exacerbates other impermissible prison conditions. This Court has explicitly and on multiple occasions ordered defendants to remedy the overcrowding that has been endemic in Alabama's prison system for the past 30 years.
166. Rather than take responsibility for the overcrowding, defendants and their predecessors have allowed overcrowding to worsen steadily. Most notably, defendants have intentionally
63

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 99 Filed 01/07/2003 Page 64 of 70
allowed prisoners to languish in county jails in an attempt to shift responsibility for these prisoners' custody from the state to the counties. Defendants have failed to expand the number of work release centers available for the increasing number of women prisoners who qualify for work release. Defendants have failed to expand the SIR program to accommodate the increasing number of women prisoners eligible for SIR placements.
167. Where defendants have responded to the violence caused by overcrowding, the response has been wholly unreasonable. Aggressive intervention by Correctional Emergency Response Team officers who yell and curse at the women is untimely, ineffectual, and intended only to intimidate and terrorize. Rather than prevent further violence, the response of defendants has only heightened the tension and makes the prisons even more dangerous.
168. The problems with prison medical care in Alabama, including medical care for women prisoners, are long-standing and apparent to any knowledgeable observer. Alabama has tried for years to get away with spending far less than any other state in the country on medical care, and state officials have willfully ignored the inevitable consequences of their gross underfunding and lack of oversight of private contractors: a system that denies prisoners treatment for serious medical conditions and places them at substantial risk of harm. State defendants have
64

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 99 Filed 01/07/2003 Page 65 of 70
not provided adequate oversight or monitoring of the performance of their private medical contractors, as they must do to fulfill their constitutional obligation to provide adequate treatment to female prisoners in the custody of the State. State defendants have not enforced any minimum standards or expectations on their contractors nor required the contractors to actually perform adequate quality improvement or quality management to ensure that prisoners have access to necessary medical and mental health treatment.
169. When state defendants have been made aware of problems by letters and complaints from lawyers or others advocating on behalf of prisoners, or by prisoners and their families, defendants have not taken steps to fix the systemic problems that virtually guarantee inadequate treatment for prisoners. The state defendants' willful ignorance of problems, failure to provide adequate oversight of their private contractors, and refusal to address problems that do come to their attention demonstrates deliberate indifference to the serious medical needs of the plaintiff class.
170. State defendants also know that there is not enough space in the health care unit or mental health units at Tutwiler to provide minimally adequate medical, dental and mental health treatment and to provide long-term care for women who need it, and that there is not enough security staff to facilitate access
65

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 99 Filed 01/07/2003 Page 66 of 70
to adequate health care. In fact, Warden Deese has requested space for a patient ward and more clinic space at Tutwiler and these requests have not been approved.
171. The medical contractors' refusal to properly diagnose presented symptoms, failure to properly monitor and treat known illnesses, failure to engage in adequate quality management or improvement, and pattern of delaying and denying treatment that is considered too costly demonstrates deliberate indifference to the serious medical needs of women prisoners in Alabama. The medical contractors know that there is a substantial risk of serious harm to prisoners who do not receive timely medication, diagnosis, and prescribed treatment for chronic and acute illnesses; and failure to respond reasonably to those risks on an individual or systemic basis. In addition to the obviousness of this risk of harm, especially to medical professionals, the medical contractors have been made aware of the risk of harm by the numerous formal and informal complaints and grievances about health care by prisoners, their families, and their lawyers.
VI. EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES 172. There are no administrative remedies within the Alabama Department of Corrections for named plaintiffs and other members of the plaintiff class to exhaust with regard to any of the underlying problems leading to the unconstitutionally unsafe conditions at each of the women's facilities such as
66

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 99 Filed 01/07/2003 Page 67 of 70
understaffing, overcrowding, and lack of programs; or to the denial of basic human needs such as adequate ventilation and living space.
173. Plaintiffs with medical grievances have exhausted the grievance procedure provided by NaphCare, Inc., to the extent that it has been available to them.
174. The fourteen named plaintiffs added in this Second Amended Complaint who are currently confined at Tutwiler, have exhausted the grievance procedure as set forth by NaphCare, Inc. Each of them has filed a NaphCare complaint form concerning her medical concerns. Upon receiving an inadequate response or no response at all to their complaints, these prisoners have filed a grievance.
175. Three of the named plaintiffs added in this Second Amended Complaint - Carolyn Thomas, Laura Gilbert and Vanessa Kirksey - are currently confined at Birmingham Work Release, where no grievance procedure is available, as Warden Mary Carter testified in a deposition on September 12, 2002.
176. Two of the named plaintiffs added in this Second Amended Complaint - Deborah Loyd and Judy Wyly - are currently confined at the Edwina Mitchell Center, where they do not have access to complaint forms or grievance forms upon request. One prisoner who attempted to create her own form was told to obtain a proper form from Captain Davenport. Captain Davenport is an
67

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 99 Filed 01/07/2003 Page 68 of 70
officer who does not work at EMC, and to whom the prisoners at EMC do not have access.
177. Complaints that address the conduct of correctional officers who obstruct prisoners' access to medical care or that address any aspect of the space wherein medical treatment is provided are not considered by defendants to be "medical complaints" and therefore cannot be exhausted.
VII. CAUSES OF ACTION 178. Defendants' deliberate indifference to the substantial risk of serious physical violence to which women prisoners in Alabama are exposed, as described In paragraphs 1-2 and 72-86, violates plaintiffs' rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, as enforced through 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 179. Defendants' deliberate indifference to the denial of plaintiffs' basic human needs, including living space, ventilation, and personal safety and security, as described in paragraphsl-2, and 87-103, violates plaintiffs' rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, as enforced through 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 180. Defendants' deliberate indifference to the serious medical needs of women prisoners, as described in paragraphs 3-4, 8-55 and 104-174, violates plaintiffs' rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, as enforced through 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
68

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 99 Filed 01/07/2003 Page 69 of 70
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully pray that this Court: 181. Grant plaintiffs a full trial and discovery in this matter; 182. Adjudge and declare that the acts and omissions of the defendants with regard to the class members violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; 183. Order defendants to comply with the Constitution and enjoin defendants from subjecting plaintiffs to cruel and unusual punishment; 184. Award plaintiffs the costs of this lawsuit and reasonable attorney's fees; and 185. Order such additional relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
69

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 99 Filed 01/07/2003 Page 70 of 70

Respectfully submitted this 18th day of December, 2002,

GA Bar No. 617053

isa Kung,

No. 430302

Marion D. Chartoff, AL Bar No. CHA074

Stephen B. Bright, GA Bar No. 082075

SOUTHERN CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS

83 Poplar Street, N.W.

Atlanta, Georgia 30303-2122

Telephone: (404) 688-1202

Facsimile: (404) 688-9440

Aliceville, Alabama 35442 Telephone: (205) 373-8714 Facsimile: (205) 373-8894
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

70

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

MONTGOMERY DIVISION

____________________________________

)

LINDA LAUBE, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

CIVIL ACTION

v.

)

)

No. CV-02-T-957-N

DONAL CAMPBELL, et al.,

)

)

CLASS ACTION

Defendants

)

___________________________________ )

CONDITIONS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

I. INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs in this class action are all women who are now or will in the future be incarcerated in an Alabama Department of Corrections facility. This action was filed seeking declaratory and injunctive relief for violations of their Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

2. Defendants. Defendants in this case are Donal Campbell, Commissioner of the Alabama Department of Corrections (“ADOC”); Bob Riley, Governor of Alabama; Gladys Deese, warden of Julia Tutwiler Prison for Women; and Mary Carter, warden of Birmingham Work Release. All Defendants are sued in their official capacity. The Plaintiff class and all Defendants are parties to this Final Settlement Agreement. The term “Defendants” refers to all these Defendants and their successors, agents, and assigns.

3. Scope. This Conditions Settlement Agreement is submitted and entered into as a settlement of claims for declaratory and injunctive relief as set forth in Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint, filed on December 18, 2002, as well as a settlement of all attorneys' fees and costs. The parties hereby agree to the following terms.

II. LIVING CONDITIONS.

4. Population flow. The ADOC shall provide access to and cooperate with representatives from community corrections programs to identify women who are qualified for community corrections placements. Caseload officers shall receive up-dated information about community corrections, including identification of women appropriate for supervised release programs. Classification reviews for all women (including those at Birmingham Work Release) shall be conducted at least every 6 months. Plaintiffs' counsel, paralegals, consultants, and experts shall be permitted on a semi-annual basis to review institutional records and other documents relevant

to classification for the purpose of identifying mistakes and working cooperatively with the ADOC and its representatives to correct such mistakes.
5. Heat. Dormitories housing special populations (mental health, aged and infirm, or HIVpositive) shall be kept at ambient temperatures between 65 and 85 degrees Fahrenheit. The ADOC shall purchase and maintain five additional commercial ice machines (or enough ice machines to increase current ice production by 50%) suitable for use in correctional facilities, and shall make ice freely available to women at Tutwiler Prison at all times. Women shall have the option of wearing shorts starting at 3:30 p.m. Additional showers shall be permitted when temperatures reach 85 degrees Fahrenheit or higher in the dormitories. The ADOC shall conduct temperature readings twice daily in each living unit, install thermometers in each dormitory, and calibrate temperature guns as necessary. Neither fans nor air conditioning shall be turned off for punitive purposes.
6. Shade. The ADOC shall provide shaded outdoor enclosures attached to each dormitory at the main Tutwiler facility. The ADOC need not provide such enclosures to Dorm 5 (formerly the chapel) and Dorm 10 (the freestanding structure at the north side of the prison) so long as women housed in those dorms are provided regular programming that incorporates outdoor exercise time on weekdays.
7. Outdoor exercise. For every woman housed in the dormitories, defendants shall provide an opportunity for outdoor recreation in the large recreation yard at least one hour per day, five days per week. Defendants shall make best efforts to maximize the amount of time permitted outdoors during the weekends. For women housed in the mental health unit, receiving unit, or HIV+ unit, the ADOC may conduct exercise time in the smaller yards attached to those units.
8. Segregation exercise. For women in segregation, Defendants shall provide an opportunity for outdoor recreation at least 45 minutes a day, seven days a week.
9. Visitation. All women shall be allowed at least two visits with family and loved ones each month.
10. Physical plant. The ADOC shall alter the windows in the Tutwiler facility so that the top row of windows that can be safely opened to at least 45 degrees, and the bottom row of windows can be fully opened for air circulation.
11. Facility maintenance. The ADOC shall develop a preventative maintenance schedule and policy for upkeep of critical facility functions, including but not limited to locks, plumbing, electrical systems, roof structures, drop ceilings, windows, floors, HVAC systems and window air conditioning units used in living spaces, laundry systems, dishwashing equipment, cooking equipment, and refrigeration units. The maintenance schedule shall provide for review and upkeep of all covered areas at least quarterly. A log, containing updated reports of the status of all facility maintenance, will be kept on site. Heating, air conditioning units, and ice machines
2

that malfunction shall be repaired promptly. When on-site maintenance staff or ADOC engineering staff are not able to make the repair within 24 hours, the ADOC shall secure a qualified person to make the repair. Ice machines that malfunction shall be repaired within 7 days, unless a necessary replacement part is not available during that time. The ADOC shall secure sufficient ice from other machines or outside sources when one or more ice machines are broken.
12. Toilets and showers. The ADOC shall continue to make daily checks Monday through Friday of each toilet and shower area for maintenance needs. Such checks, the problems noted during such checks, and the steps taken to remedy those problems shall be documented.
13. Environmental safety. The ADOC shall thoroughly and safely disinfect and clean each living area at least once a month, and shall ensure that each living area receives monthly pest control services for spiders, roaches, and other vermin. Women shall be permitted sufficient, supervised access to cleaning supplies and equipment, including a disinfectant such as bleach, to keep all living and bathing areas clean. Bathroom and bathing areas, as well as living areas, shall be regularly cleaned to control mold and staphylococcus in a medically sound manner.
14. Laundry. For every 250 women for whom the Tutwiler laundry facility is doing laundry, there shall be available and functional at least one 125 pound capacity washer, one 125 pound capacity dryer, and one presser.
15. Ventilation. The ADOC shall install and maintain an exhaust fan in each of Dormitories 1-8 that are not temperature controlled. The ADOC shall install 2 exhaust fans in Dormitory 9. In the segregation unit, at least one wall-mounted rotating fan shall be installed and maintained for every 3 cells.
16. Recreational opportunities. Recreational equipment (such as softball, volleyball, and basketball equipment) shall be available during the time that the recreation yard is open. Women shall be permitted and encouraged to organize exercise classes, subject to reasonable limitation on the number and frequency of such classes according to the availability of correctional officers to supervise the women participating in such classes. Notice of the availability of exercise equipment and exercise classes shall be included in the daily institutional newsletter at least once a month and at orientation. Defendants shall cooperate with community, civic and nonprofit groups, and dormitory representatives to continually improve and increase recreational activities for women.
17. Drug treatment. The ADOC shall provide adequate and appropriate drug treatment programs to accommodate all women who are sentenced to complete such programs. Where the completion of a drug treatment program is a condition of release, including in split sentences, and the prisoner can be released upon completion of a drug treatment program, such a woman shall be placed in the next available drug treatment program.
3

18. Programming. The ADOC shall provide adequate and appropriate vocational, educational, industrial, therapeutic, or other appropriate programming to accommodate at least 60% of the total female inmate population. The ADOC shall continue to cooperate with community, civic and nonprofit groups to continually improve and increase programming opportunities to women.
III. SAFETY AND SECURITY.
19. Staffing. Security officers shall be on post in sufficient numbers so that each officer is supervising no more than 50 women each in the dormitories. The ADOC shall document the overall vacancy rate among staff positions authorized for working directly with inmates. This vacancy rate shall not exceed 10 percent for any 18-month period. Security officers with duties that include direct inmate supervision shall not work more than 16 hours at a stretch, and must have at least 8 hours off between shifts.
20. Lines of sight. The ADOC shall make best efforts to ensure that there are no blocked lines of sight from any security post throughout the area that post is intended to secure. Doors where inmates regularly enter or exit a room shall not obstruct the line of sight. Doors may be made entirely or partially of grilled bars, or shall have large windows at eye level to permit continuous lines of sight between areas separated by the door.
21. Drug testing. The ADOC shall develop a drug testing policy containing comprehensive safeguards for drug testing accuracy at Birmingham Work Release. Plaintiffs' counsel shall be permitted to review and comment on the policy prior to its final adoption. At a minimum, the policy shall correct the current failure to consider medication usage in drug testing and shall ensure there is a mechanism for identifying and investigating unusual results.
22. Punishment. The ADOC shall not punish women in their care through deprivation of minimally nutritious meals, or forcing them to remain in the same position for any predetermined period of time. Women at Birmingham Work Release shall not be punished when they are unable to do their jobs due to physical limitations or sexual harassment on the jobsite. Women at Birmingham Work Release shall not be denied visitation for dorm failures as a matter of course.
23. Single cells. The ADOC shall maintain or have available sufficient segregation cells to house at least 4% of the total female population.
24. Classification. The ADOC shall maintain a classification system that specifies at least three levels of custodial control and inmates should be assigned to the least restrictive custody level necessary. The ADOC shall maintain sufficient bedspace to implement such a system. Any delays or revisions of housing placements that are caused at least in part by lack of immediately available bedspace shall be contemporaneously documented. The ADOC shall summarize and analyze such data and remedy any space deficiencies identified through such an internal audit.
4

The ADOC shall develop and implement a written policy to provide for identification of special needs women, including but not limited to women who are emotionally disturbed or suspected of being mentally ill, the mentally retarded, and those who pose high risk or require protective custody. Such a policy shall include and encourage multiple avenues of identifying such special needs women, permitting security staff, other prisoners, medical and other non-custodial staff, and others to make appropriate referrals. The identification of special needs women shall not be limited to the moment of intake.
IV. ENFORCEMENT AND DISMISSAL.
25. Reporting. Defendants shall provide to Plaintiffs' counsel monthly reports on average daily population and progress in construction of a residential treatment unit for the first 2 years of this Agreement. If the population at the main Tutwiler building remains at 700 or below, and the annex at 250 or below, Defendants may thereafter make quarterly reports. Upon inquiry, plainitffs' counsel shall be provided the population count on any day.
26. Monitoring. Plaintiffs' counsel shall have reasonable access to prison records and the prison facility, including escorted walk-through visits of the prison facilities on a quarterly basis during the first year following the entry of this Agreement, and twice a year thereafter. Paralegals working directly with Plaintiffs' counsel shall have reasonable access to inmates and will be accompanied by an attorney during any walk-through of the prison. Plaintiffs may bring experts at their own expense on such walk-through visits.
27. Notice. The Commissioner of the ADOC and his representatives shall provide a copy of or explain the terms of this Agreement to all of their agents, representatives, and employees in any way connected with the custody of class members, in order to ensure their understanding of the scope and substance of this agreement. Women entering Tutwiler shall be provided an information sheet, mutually approved by all parties, informing them of the existence and material terms of this Agreement. In addition, at least 3 copies of this entire Agreement shall be maintained in the Tutwiler library.
28. Enforcement. If the ADOC, its agents or contractors, fail to comply with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, Plaintiffs’ counsel may apply to the Court for a finding of contempt or other appropriate relief. Prior to approaching the Court for such relief, Plaintiffs’ counsel will bring, in writing, any deficiencies to the attention of the Defendants and will make reasonable attempts to resolve the issues informally. Issues that cannot be resolved informally between the parties shall be brought to the attention of the Magistrate Judge, who will attempt to mediate a resolution, before Plaintiffs' counsel will move the Court for an Order for Defendants to show cause why they should not be held in contempt.
29. PLRA findings. The parties agree, and the Court hereby finds at this time, and after an independent review, that the prospective relief set forth in this Agreement is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violations of federal rights set forth in paragraphs
5

69-100 and 142-171 in Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct these violations. The parties agree, and the Court hereby finds after an independent review, that this Agreement will not have an adverse impact on public safety or the operation of the criminal justice system. Acccordingly, the parties agree, and the Court hereby finds, that this Agreement complies in all respects with the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a). This Agreement is not intended to operate as a population cap or a prisoner release order. This Agreement is not intended to have any preclusive effect except as between the parties in this action. Should the issue of the preclusive effect of this Agreement be raised in any proceeding other than this action, the parties agree to certify that this Agreement was intended to have no such preclusive effect. This Agreement does not resolve, adjudicate, or bar the damages claims of any former, present, or future class members.
30. Narrowly drawn relief. For the purpose of ensuring that ongoing relief remains a narrowly drawn remedy, paragraphs 14, 19, and 23 of this Agreement shall be suspended when the population at the main Tutwiler facility is maintained at 700 or below and the population at the Tutwiler annex is maintained at less than 250 for 60 or more continuous days. Paragraphs 14, 19, and 23 shall not take effect until November 1, 2004, or until such time as the population at the main Tutwiler facility is maintained at 700 or below and the population at the Tutwiler annex is maintained at less than 250 for 60 or more continuous days. So long as the population at the main Tutwiler facility remains at 700 or below and the population at the Tutwiler annex is maintained at less than 250, paragraphs 14, 19, and 23 shall remain suspended and without force or effect. Should the population at the main Tutilwer facility thereafter increase to more than 700 or the population at the Tutwiler annex increase to 250 or more for 15 or more days in any 30 day period, all paragraphs of this Agreement shall return to full force and effect.
31. Attorneys fees. In the event the parties are unable to hereafter resolve by agreement issues relating to Plaintiffs' claim for attorneys' fees, Plaintiffs may petition the Court within thirty days of the date on which the Court enters its Order granting the parties' Joint Motion to Adopt Settlement Agreement, for a resolution thereof.
32. Class members. Parties stipulate to the certification of the class of all women who are now or will in the future be incarcerated in an Alabama Department of Corrections facility.
33. Modification. Any party may seek modification of any part of this Agreement for good cause shown. Construction of a new prison for women constitutes good cause for modification. The ADOC shall continue to implement in a timely manner all parts of this Agreement pending decision of the Court on any motion for modification.
34. Term of Agreement. This agreement shall be in effect for four years from the date the Agreement is approved by the Court. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to preclude Defendants from moving to terminate the Order in the manner permitted by the Prison Litigation Reform Act.
6

_________________________________ Lisa Kung, GA Bar No. 430302 Tamara Serwer, GA Bar No. 617053 Stephen Bright, GA Bar No. 082075 SOUTHERN CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS 83 Poplar Street, N.W. Atlanta, Georgia 30303-2122 Telephone: (404) 688-1202 Facsimile: (404) 688-9440
John A. Russell, III, Esq. Bar No. ASB-0933-U83J 202 Broad Street Aliceville, Alabama 35442 Telephone: (205) 373-8714 Facsimile: (205) 373-8894
_________________________________ Gretchen Rohr, GA Bar No. 613518 Holland & Knight LLP 1201 West Peachtree St. NE, Suite 2000 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 898-8177 Facsimile: (404) 881-8470
George E. Schulz, Jr., FL Bar No.169507 Holland & Knight LLP 50 N. Laura Street, Suite 3900 Jacksonville, FL 32202 Telephone: (904) 798-5462 Facsimile: (904) 358-1872
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

_________________________________ William F. Addison, AL Bar No. ADD002 Alabama Department of Corrections Legal Division 101 South Union Street Montgomery, Alabama 36130 Telephone: (334) 353-3890 Facsimile: (334) 353-3891
Ellen Leonard, AL Bar No. LEO008 Charles Campbell, Bar No. ASB-6423-C52C Office of the Attorney General State of Alabama 11 South Union Street Montgomery, Alabama 36130 Telephone: (334) 353-8699 Facsimile: (334) 242-2433
Attorneys for Defendants
_________________________________ Bob Riley Governor, State of Alabama
_________________________________ Troy King Attorney General, State of Alabama
_________________________________ Donal Campbell Commissioner, Dept. of Corrections

7

8

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

MONTGOMERY DIVISION

____________________________________

)

LINDA LAUBE, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

CIVIL ACTION

v.

)

)

No. CV-02-T-957-N

DONAL CAMPBELL, et al.,

)

)

CLASS ACTION

Defendants

)

____________________________________)

MEDICAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs in this class action are all women who are now or will in the future be incarcerated in an Alabama Department of Corrections facility. This action was filed seeking declaratory and injunctive relief for violations of their Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. In their complaint, Plaintiffs allege that women with serious medical needs1 receive constitutionally inadequate medical care.
B. Defendants. Defendants in this case are Donal Campbell, Commissioner of the Alabama Department of Corrections (“ADOC”); Bob Riley, Governor of Alabama; Gladys Deese, warden of Julia Tutwiler Prison for Women; and Mary Carter, warden of Birmingham Work Release. All Defendants are sued in their official capacity. The Plaintiff class and all Defendants are parties to this Final Medical Settlement Agreement “Medical Agreement”). The term “Defendants” refers to all these Defendants and their successors, agents, and assigns.
C. Scope. This Medical Settlement Agreement is submitted and entered into as a settlement of claims for declaratory and injunctive relief regarding medical care as set forth in paragraphs 101-162, 168-171, and 180 in Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint, filed on December 18, 2002. The United State District Court for the Middle District of Alabama shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this Medical Settlement Agreement and shall preside over any further proceedings, as necessary. The parties hereby agree to the following terms.

1 For purposes of this Settlement Agreement, “medical” shall refer to physical, mental and dental health care and treatment.

II. ACCESS TO CARE
A. Necessary medical services. Women incarcerated in an ADOC facility are entitled to all medically necessary services in a timely manner. Medical necessity includes control of pain, prevention of disease, prevention of deterioration of function, and reduction of mortality.
B. Daily sick call. Sick call will be available every week day, excluding medical contractor holidays, to prisoners in all areas of the population at all women’s facilities, including general population, segregation units or “lock-up cells”, isolation units, and special management units. Within 24 hours of being placed in a lock-box, sick-call slips will be reviewed by a nurse, or higher level practitioner according to appropriate written triage protocols. At least one primary care physician (or psychiatrist, for mental health triage) must be involved in developing these protocols and in reviewing and updating them at least every two years. Each physician involved in this process shall sign and date the protocols (including each update) upon his or her review and approval.
A prisoner requesting medical care shall be seen by a nurse trained in physical assessment (and supervised by a Registered Nurse) or a higher level practitioner within 48 hours after her request has been received by health care staff. Any prisoner who is seen by a nurse two consecutive times for the same symptoms will be referred to a higher level practitioner. This does not require two sick calls before a patient can be referred to a higher level practitioner; a registered nurse may make such a referral after a single sick call in accordance with appropriate triage protocols. Prisoners presenting symptoms requiring emergency or infirmary care shall be given immediate medical care. Sick call shall not be conducted between midnight and 6:00 a.m.
C. Access to medical care at work release programs. Women housed in ADOC work release programs shall be provided necessary and timely medical care, including care for chronic conditions, as described in this Agreement. Women housed in work release may affirmatively opt out and seek medical care from providers other than the ADOC if the prisoner pays for this care herself.
D. Segregation. Medical staff shall be notified promptly when a prisoner is placed in any type of isolation or segregation cell. If a woman is placed in the "lock-up" cell in Birmingham Work Release at a time when no medical staff are on site, medical staff shall be notified of the placement as soon as medical staff return to Birmingham Work Release Center. Upon notification, medical staff shall review the prisoner’s medical record to determine whether her existing medical needs make placement in such a cell inappropriate or require that the prisoner receive extra observation, accommodation, or medical attention during her placement in the cell. Medical staff shall document their review and recommendations in the prisoner’s medical record and promptly forward a copy to the supervising correctional officer for appropriate action. Prisoners placed in an isolation or segregation cell at Tutwiler Prison must be monitored daily by health care staff. Women placed in the "lock-up" cell in Birmingham Work Release shall have access to a working
2

intercom system, or shall be monitored by video. Security staff shall conduct visual inspections of the "lock-up" cell at least every 30 minutes, and shall notify medical staff promptly if they suspect that a prisoner in the cell is experiencing a medical problem. Medical monitoring activities must be documented in each prisoner’s medical record.
III. INTAKE
A. Intake. All prisoners entering Tutwiler Prison will be medically screened by a nurse or higher level practitioner within 12 hours of admission. The results of this screening shall be documented in each prisoner’s medical record. The minimum components of the screening shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following: documented inquiry into current illness, communicable diseases, symptoms of tuberculosis, alcohol/chemical use/abuse history, allergies, current medications, dental status and screening, mental health problems, obstetrical history, current or past mental health treatment, and chronic health problems; observation of state of consciousness, mental status, appearance, conduct, bodily deformities and ease of movement, signs of trauma, signs of rashes and infections; documented explanation of the procedures for access to medical, mental health and dental services. In addition to explaining the procedures for accessing care, ADOC representatives shall provide all prisoners at intake a written description these procedures that the prisoners may keep. A suicide risk assessment using nationally accepted tools shall be conducted at the initial intake screening. Prisoners who are determined to pose a suicide risk at intake or at any other time during their incarceration shall be referred immediately to a qualified mental health provider for further assessment and treatment and shall be placed under an appropriate watch to prevent suicide.
B. Tuberculosis testing. Tuberculin skin test screening shall be performed in accordance with Alabama Department of Public Health regulations and policies, and said test shall be read by a qualified medical provider within 48-72 hours of administration.
C. Initial Physical Exam. The first physical examination must be completed by a physician, physician assistance or nurse practitioner within seven days of intake. For all women, the initial physical exam shall include a pap test, cervical screening for chlamydia and gonorrhea, serum testing for syphilis, and urine screening for pregnancy. Where possible, the intake history and physical exam should be performed by the same individual.
IV. CONTINUITY OF CARE
A. Continuity of care. To ensure continuity of care and prevent lapses in medication, the ADOC, through its agents or contractors, shall develop a written policy and implement a procedure that will ensure that upon admission to Tutwiler Prison, there is no disruption in the continuity of medication for persons with a chronic or acute illness. If a woman can identify her medication at intake at Tutwiler, then the medication shall be continued if the prescription for such medication can be verified by a physician or pharmacist. Where such verification is not obtained within 24 hours of intake, the woman must be seen by a physician or physician's assistant within 48 hours of admission who will prescribe
3

necessary medication. Continuity and availability of medication and treatment will be maintained when prisoners are transferred between ADOC facilities, between ADOC and hospital facilities, or between ADOC and local detention centers. The ADOC is not responsible for medical care provided at local detention centers.
B. Discharge planning. For women who are in need of further medical care after discharge from the facility, the ADOC, through its agents and contractors, shall develop and implement a program for discharge planning that includes scheduled follow-up appointments and appropriate referrals to community medical and mental health services. Prisoners on prescribed medication shall be given at least a 10-day supply of their medication upon discharge. For prisoners on medication for serious mental illnesses as defined by ADOC Administrative Regulation 455, the ADOC, through its agents and contractors, shall make best efforts to secure an appointment with the community mental health provider for within 10 days of the prisoner's release. If an appropriate appointment cannot be made for within 10 days of the prisoner's release, the prisoner shall be provided an additional 20 days of her prescribed medication, so long as the prisoner signs a written acknowledgement that the packages containing their medications are not child proof. Prisoners taking HIV medications shall be given at least a 30-day supply of medication on release of HIV medications.
The ADOC, or its agents and contractors, shall collaborate with the local office of the Social Security Administration (SSA) to identify and assist prisoners who may be eligible for federal benefits upon release. Collaboration shall include (1) inviting SSA representatives to provide on-site training regarding their pre-release program, (2) notifying prisoners of the pre-release program (including eligibility requirements) and coordinating with volunteers to help women complete applications, (3) identifying potential pre-release applicants and notifying the local SSA office the names, social security numbers, dates of birth, and anticipated discharge date of these women, and (4) providing relevant medical records.
V. MEDICAL SERVICES
A. Periodic health assessments and examinations. The ADOC, through its agents or contractors, shall provide periodic health assessments for women prisoners in accordance with NCCHC standards and protocols promulgated by nationally recognized professional organizations. Women prisoners shall receive annual pap smears unless more frequent pap smears are medically ordered. Women prisoners shall also receive periodic mammograms as recommended by the American Cancer Society. Prisoners with abnormal pap smears or mammograms will be informed about the results of their tests and receive appropriate and timely follow-up testing and treatment based on recommendations of the American Cancer Society or ACOG. Women prisoners shall receive a tuberculin skin test annually or more frequently if exposure to tuberculosis is suspected.
B. Emergency medical services. Emergency medical services, including emergency transport service to community hospitals, will be available twenty-four hours a day, seven
4

days a week through an on-call physician service and/or on-site health care staff.
C. Dental services. All dentists must be currently licensed. Women requiring treatment for relief of acute oral and maxillofacial conditions characterized by trauma, infection, pain, swelling or bleeding which are likely to remain acute or worsen without intervention, must be provided appropriate dental care (including effective infection and pain control) promptly. Women requiring treatment for the control of extensive subacute dental or oral pathology, must be provided dental care within 30 days. This care shall not be limited to extractions or temporary fillings, but also includes restoring carious teeth, extractions, long-term management of peridontal disease, and endontic and prosthodontic procedures needed to retain or restore essential masticatory function. Women requiring ongoing treatment for chronic dental or oral pathology and for the restoration of essential function must be seen within 60 days. For women who are prescribed dental prosthetics such as dentures, impressions for such prosthetics shall be made as soon as it is medically appropriate to make such impressions. The dental prosthetic shall be available within 60 days of impression. All prisoners will have the opportunity to have their teeth cleaned at least once every 24 months. Individuals at risk of periodontal diseases because of age, tobacco use, rate of accumulation of deposits, medication, or medical conditions such as diabetes or HIV infection, may need to be cleaned more often, in accordance with the standard of care for their conditions.
D. Infection control. An infection control program that includes airborne and blood-borne pathogen control plans conforming to Centers for Disease Control (“CDC”) regulations, guidelines and recommendations shall be developed and implemented. The program must include appropriate training for correctional and health care staff consistent with these recommendations and guidelines. The airborne and bloodborne pathogen plans must be reviewed and updated every two years or sooner if appropriate.
E. Tuberculosis prevention and treatment. The ADOC, through its agents or contractors, shall promptly diagnose, and treat any individual with a reasonable suspicion of contagious tuberculosis as directed by the Alabama Department of Public Health. Any individual who reports or exhibits symptoms of tuberculosis, including HIV-positive persons, shall be isolated immediately in a properly functioning negative pressure room and have a chest xray as soon as possible but in no event later than 96 hours from the reporting of the symptoms. Follow-up treatment and testing shall be conducted according to the recommendations and guidelines of the CDC. Persons with a positive tuberculin skin test result shall be provided a chest x-ray as soon as possible but in no event later than 96 hours of identification of the positive skin test result. Prisoners with chest x-rays that show possible active tuberculosis infection will receive prompt follow-up evaluation and treatment and will be placed in respiratory isolation until active tuberculosis has been ruled out. Preventive treatment for tuberculosis shall be offered to any prisoner with a positive PPD skin test whose anticipated length of stay is greater than two months. Prisoners who receive positive skin tests or suspicious chest x-rays will be counseled about the meaning of these test results. In the event that an active case of TB is identified in the facility, an appropriate contact investigation as directed by the Alabama Department of Public Health
5

will be conducted and all potentially exposed individuals will be provided detailed and thorough educational materials about tuberculosis infection. The Alabama Department of Corrections shall maintain appropriate facilities and/or make appropriate referral outside prison facility for respiratory isolation that are consistent with the recommendations of the CDC.
F. Chronic illnesses. The ADOC, through its agents or contractors, shall implement policies and procedures to ensure that the overall standard of care for women with serious chronic medical conditions is consistent with clinical guidelines adopted by the NCCHC as detailed in the Standards for Health Services in Prisons and the current clinical guidelines posted on their web-site. For chronic conditions where NCCHC clinical guidelines are not yet available, the ADOC through its agents and contractors, shall provide treatment consistent with nationally accepted clinical guidelines.
For each individual identified with a chronic illness requiring ongoing medical care, a health care treatment plan shall be developed that includes, at a minimum, the following: a written initial evaluation containing short and long range treatment goals by a licensed physician; regular check-ups at least once every 3 months by the chronic care director or higher level practitioner, unless a different period is ordered by a physician; and baseline and quarterly laboratory work and other diagnostics appropriate for the disease. The treatment plan’s short and long range goals must be reviewed and updated at least annually in a face-to-face assessment by the attending physician or more frequently as determined by the physician or chronic care director. For patients requiring chronic care, co-payments shall not be assessed for regularly scheduled chronic care clinics.
G. Hepatitis A, B, and C. The ADOC, through its agents and contractors, shall make best efforts to secure grant money to ensure that women are counseled, evaluated and vaccinated for hepatitis A and B by October 2005. All women prisoners who are HIVpositive will be vaccinated for hepatitis B.
H. Prosthesis. Women requiring a prosthesis will be fitted for such a device within 60 days of prescription. If a prosthesis no longer fits a prisoner, she will be re-fitted for a revised or new prosthesis within 90 days. Prisoners requiring a prosthesis shall be considered chronic care patients for the period necessary to adjust a new, replacement, or refitted prosthesis, and women will receive follow-up care during this adjustment period as medically ordered.
I. Women’s health care. Women prisoners must be provided treatment for osteoporosis, menstrual abnormalities, ovarian and cervical abnormalities and menopause in accordance with the guidelines of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists . Preventive screening shall be provided in accordance with the American Cancer Society.
J. Pregnancy. Pregnant prisoners shall be monitored regularly by a medical doctor or physician assistant with obstetric specialty, in accordance with American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (“ACOG”) guidelines for prenatal care. Pregnant women shall be provided an appropriate diet and supplemental vitamins, and given the opportunity to
6

request and receive educational information regarding pregnancy. Gestational diabetics shall be treated according to ACOG guidelines. All high-risk pregnancies, as well as women near term, shall be closely monitored and treated. Upon return from the hospital post-delivery, women prisoners will be allowed appropriate bed rest and time for recovery.
K. Specialty care. Patients requiring necessary medical services that cannot be provided in the facility in a timely manner shall be provided timely access to an outside specialist for diagnostic services or medical care. Where approval by the state medical director is required for specialty care, such approval or denial shall be documented. The ADOC, through its agents and contractors, shall make best efforts to ensure that the outside specialist’s diagnoses and test results in addition to the specialist’s orders for further testing, treatment and diagnostic services are documented in the patient’s prison medical record. Orders shall be carried out in the manner prescribed by the specialist, unless a deviation or override is ordered by the attending physician at the facility. Such a deviation or override must be affirmatively medically justified and documented in the medical record of the prisoner. Necessary off-site care shall include follow-care and monitoring prescribed by the off-site specialist.
L. End of life care and care for the elderly. Elderly patients and those in the terminal stages of a disease shall be provided appropriate care and treatment, including pain control, adequate nutrition, accommodations for mental and physical deterioration, and other appropriate palliative care.
M. Patient education. Patient education shall include one-on-one counseling by medical staff at the time care is provided. The ADOC medical provider shall inform patients of the results of any medical tests and assessments within 10 days of receipt of these results in a manner that protects the privacy of the patient, and shall provide appropriate post-test counseling. Prisoners shall not be charged a co-pay for receiving this information. The ADOC, through its agents and contractors, shall also implement a program to make available to patients up-to-date written information in the areas of infectious and communicable disease, and chronic illnesses. Clinical staff knowledgeable about HIV/AIDS shall provide HIV education for all new prisoners. Prisoners who are HIVpositive shall be provided on-going education and confidential counseling about HIV. This education and counseling may be provided in a structured peer education and support program. The ADOC and its medical provider shall cooperate with health organizations, or community organizations working in conjunction with health organizations, to provide prisoners educational materials and services regarding medical conditions, treatment, and related social services.
N. HIV/AIDS. Prisoners who learn they are HIV+ in prison shall be informed of their test results and receive appropriate post-test counseling in a confidential setting. Treatment of HIV/AIDS shall be consistent with Department of Health and Human Services guidelines and recommendations.
7

O. Staphylococcus aureus. The Alabama Department of Corrections, through its agents and contractors, shall continue to develop and implement a program based on FBOP guidelines to treat and to minimize the spread of staphylococcus aureus, including methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), and shall work with the Correctional Healthcare Monitor to continually update and improve this program.
P. Therapeutic medical diets. Diabetics, as well as patients requiring low salt, renal, low cholesterol, high calorie, or other special diet, shall be provided a medically appropriate diet as approved by a registered dietician. Special medical diets may be ordered by mid- or higher-level medical providers.
Q. Mental health care. Defendants' mental health consultant Jane Haddad has conducted onsite audits and reviews of the women's prison facilities to determine mental health housing and treatment space needs, as well as training, programming, reporting, treatment, and staffing needs. Defendants have implemented and shall continue to implement all of Dr. Haddad's recommendations as set forth in her report of her January 15-16, 2004, audit. Within 6 months of final approval of this Agreement, Defendants shall begin renovations of Dormitory 2 at Tutwiler Prison to provide for a group room, dayroom, two offices spaces, and a reduction of beds to no more than forty beds. Defendants further agree to use their best efforts to add a nursing station, and six single cells for crisis intervention and intensive psychiatric stabilization, within 3 years of final approval of this Agreement. Until these renovations are completed, the ADOC, through its agents and contractors, may but shall not be required to provide 24/7 mental health nursing coverage in the mental health unit. Until these renovations are completed, the ADOC, through its agents and contractors, shall work with Dr. Haddad to determine and implement the measures necessary to ensure that individuals needing intensive psychiatric stabilization and residential treatment levels of treatment receive adequate mental health care.
R. Mental health auditor. Dr. Haddad, or another mental health consultant mutually agreed upon by the parties, shall continue in her current capacity as Defendants' mental health consultant, with on-site inspections at least 3 times a year, for the duration of this Agreement or 3 months past the date the Residential Treatment Unit becomes fully operational, whichever period is shorter. The mental health consultant shall be paid by the Defendants and be reimbursed for reasonable expenses for the first 2 years, and by counsel for Plaintiffs for the remainder for her tenure. If Dr. Haddad is no longer able to act as mental health consultant, and parties are unable to agree on a mental health consultant within 30 days of her departure, parties will each submit to the Magistrate Judge the names of three suggested consultants, and the Magistrate Judge will select the mental health consultant.
S. Chronic Mental Illnesses. The ADOC, through its agents and contractors, shall implement policies and procedures to ensure that the overall standard of care of women with serious chronic mental health conditions is consistent with clinical guidelines adopted by the American Psychiatric Association.
8

T. Suicide Prevention and Treatment Program. ADOC, its agents, and contractors, shall continue to implement an effective and comprehensive suicide prevention and treatment program.
U. Self-Injurious Behavior. Prisoners who engage in self-injurious behavior must receive appropriate and timely mental health intervention including treatment and counseling. Such a prisoner shall also be evaluated by a qualified mental health professional. Only if that professional determines that the behavior was engaged in solely for the purpose of secondary gain may disciplinary action be considered.
V. Crisis Intervention and Follow-Up Care. Together with the mental health auditor, Defendants will write and implement policies and procedures to ensure that mental health crises and urgent requests for mental health intervention are addressed by qualified mental health staff immediately. Following a mental health crisis such as a psychotic episode or suicide attempt, prisoners shall receive appropriate treatment, counseling, and observation as ordered by the treating psychiatrist.
W. Depression and Abuse. Counseling must be available to women prisoners to address depression and to resolve issues associated with victimization from sexual and physical abuse.
X. Vulnerable Populations. The ADOC, working with its mental health provider, shall develop and implement a policy to protect vulnerable prisoners (particularly mentally ill and/or mentally retarded women) from intimidation, harassment, and abuse.
VI. STAFFING
A. General. ADOC, through its agents and contractors, shall create and fill a sufficient number of qualified permanent medical, nursing, and ancillary health care staff positions (i.e. medical records clerks, lab tech, etc.) to carry out all aspects of this Medical Settlement Agreement.
B. Licensure and credentials. ADOC, through its agents and contractors, shall make best efforts to hire primary care physicians who hold a current valid, unrestricted license to practice medicine in Alabama. In the event Defendants cannot find a primary care physician with an unrestricted license, Defendants will seek approval of a Magistrate Judge to hire a physician with a restricted license in order to avoid a lapse in medical coverage. Such a hire shall be temporary, though Defendants may seek re-approval of a Magistrate Judge in extraordinary circumstances. Parties consent to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge, and Plaintiffs will not seek fees, for disposition of this issue.
Nurses must hold current applicable licenses. All other ancillary personnel must meet applicable state regulatory requirements and training standards. Personnel working under a license or certification who are subject to restrictions or conditions imposed by the licensing agency, or who have formal complaints filed against them, must immediately
9

report such restrictions, conditions, or complaints to the Medical Director. Nurses shall not make nursing assessments or decisions outside the scope of their license and training.
C. Orientation and training. Medical and nursing staff must be currently certified in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (“CPR”). All medical and nursing staff who provide sick call shall receive regular training to maintain competence in current methods for diagnosing and treating medical complications associated with acute and chronic illness, including the ability to recognize when referral to a physician, mental health provider, or specialist is necessary. Medical and nursing staff shall also be trained to recognize the signs and symptoms of mental illness, including potential suicide risk and how to react appropriately to such symptoms and risks. All medical and nursing staff shall be provided a copy of this Agreement.
D. Security staff. All correctional security staff shall receive regular training regarding HIV, hepatitis and tuberculosis infection, including modes of transmission and universal precautions. All security staff shall have current training in CPR and in Basic First Aid. Security staff shall also be trained to recognize the signs and symptoms of mental illness, including potential suicide risk and how to react appropriately to such symptoms and risks. Security staff will not interfere with the provision of necessary medical care. Security staff shall follow medically ordered restrictions on inmate activity such as bedrest, lifting or work restrictions, bunk profiles and needs for special shoes or clothing.
VII. PHARMACEUTICALS
A. Formulary. The drug formulary must contain modern pharmaceuticals for diagnoses prevalent in the correctional setting, updated at least every 6 months by a team of providers that includes a primary care physician and psychiatrist. The formulary must include drugs in the following classes, among others: (1) atypical anti-psychotics, (2) proton pump inhibitors, (3) angiotensin receptor blockers, (4) selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, (5) statins, and (6) antiretrovirals.
B. Off-formulary medications. A formulary waiver process that does not inhibit the timely delivery of medications prescribed for medically necessary conditions shall be implemented.
C. Administration. The ADOC, through its agents and contractors, shall develop and implement a system to provide medications in a timely manner and to track and correct problems with the dispensing and administration of medications. Medication normally stocked in the pharmacy must be made available for the administration of the first dose within 24 hours of intake, and within 24 hours of prescription by the physician. Other medications must be available within 48 hours of prescription. Medication shall be administered at times and in a manner (with food, for example) consistent with prescribing guidelines defined by the Food and Drug Administration or as prescribed by a physician. Prisoners refusing medication must be provided counseling regarding the consequences of incomplete adherence; both the refusal and the counseling must be documented and in-
10

person. Nothing in this paragraph precludes the forced administration of medication, so long as such forced medication is administered according to current written policy. If medication is not administered to a prisoner, the reason must be documented and signed by the health care staff responsible for medication administration. Correctional staff shall not administer dose by dose medication to prisoners, except at Birmingham Work Release.
There must be general pill call at least three times a day. Management of pharmaceuticals must be in accordance with state and federal law.
D. Keep on person medications. The ADOC, through its agents and contractors, shall develop and implement reasonable criteria, policies, and procedures for prisoners to be issued appropriate medications to keep on their persons.
E. Continuity of medication. The ADOC, through its agents and contractors, shall develop and implement written protocols designed to ensure that there are no lapses in medication.
VIII. RECORDS AND REPORTS
A. Prisoner health care records. Medical care, including dental and mental health treatment, provided to prisoners shall be accurately documented in each prisoner’s medical record. Medical records and health record policies and procedures shall comply with current NCCHC Standards. The records must include all reports received from outside hospitals and emergency rooms, current treatment plans, requests for medical attention, and responses by medical staff. Individual medical records shall be maintained on a current basis, with no more than a 7-day lag for filing new paperwork (except for current MAR’s, which must be promptly filed at the end of each month). Patients’ health care records shall be available to and used by all healthcare workers in each clinical encounter with the patient.
B. Prison health care logs. The ADOC, through its agents and contractors, shall maintain current and ongoing logs tracking health care requests, all clinical encounters, complaints, grievances, and chronic care clinics, conforming with NCCHC Standards.
IX. PHYSICAL PLANT
A. Infirmary. The quality improvement committee (see below) shall review the capacity of the Tutwiler infirmary (including the “green rooms” or “psychiatric stabilization units”) and provide written guidelines as to types of services appropriate for infirmary care. The infirmary unit shall conform with NCCHC standards including the requirement that all infirmary patients must be within sight or sound of nursing or medical staff at all times. Physician rounds shall be conducted 5 days a week, and an RN or higher level medical provider shall be present at the infirmary each day.
B. Medical isolation. Negative pressure in the medical isolation unit shall be documented daily when in use and monthly when not in use. If there is not a working room or not
11

enough rooms at the prison facility, the ADOC shall make appropriate referral outside prison facility for respiratory isolation.
C. Heat and shade. Defendants shall develop and implement a heat plan that includes policies and procedures ensuring sufficient means of cooling and hydration for heat-sensitive individuals to prevent dehydration, heat exhaustion, heat stroke, and other adverse consequences of heat.
D. Sanitation. All areas housing or temporarily holding prisoners with illnesses, or where prisoners receive medical care or testing, shall be thoroughly cleaned on at least a daily basis or more often if necessary, shall be disinfected between placements, and shall be kept in good physical condition.
E. Medical examination rooms. An adequate number of clinical examination rooms shall be provided, containing an examination table and hand washing facilities to ensure private examinations.
F. Equipment. The ADOC shall provide at Tutwiler prison appropriate and operative equipment, such as automatic defribrillators, to respond to medical emergencies. Staff shall be properly trained to use such equipment. If dialysis is conducted on-site, staff shall be trained in proper methods, and appropriate equipment and space shall be available to perform dialysis. Prisoners who enter prison with respiratory or other medical equipment that is necessary to enable their functioning shall be allowed to use their own equipment or shall be provided appropriate equipment. The ADOC shall ensure that any such equipment receives necessary and timely servicing and replacement. Each facility shall also have a sufficient number of wheelchairs and handicap-accessible bathroom facilities (including toilets, sinks and showers).
X. QUALITY ASSURANCE
A. Ongoing quality management. A quality management program consistent with nationally accepted standards shall be implemented. A monthly administrative committee shall meet to review audits designed to improve quality of health care. A quality improvement committee that includes a representative of the correctional staff will perform at least quarterly reviews of major components of healthcare at each women’s facility, including at least the following: access to healthcare, medication management, nursing services, physician services, access to specialty care, mental health services, pharmacy services, dental services, subcontractor services, infection control procedures, healthcare records, sick call services, intake screening and evaluations, chronic disease services, infirmary care, diagnostic services, discharge planning, and adverse patient occurrences including all deaths. The quality management program must review each of these areas, identify any deficiencies in services to prisoners as well as any staff training needs, and produce corrective plans to address the deficiencies and recommend improvements.
12

Performance in these areas shall be quantified on a quarterly basis, trended, and analyzed for opportunities for improvement. Remedies shall be implemented expeditiously, followed by re-measurement to assess the results of the interventions. The quality management program shall include ongoing assessment of the effectiveness of corrective plans and actions. The staffing of the women’s facilities shall be reviewed by Defendants at least every six months and adjustments made to ensure adequate staffing at all times.
B. Mortality reviews. A mortality review of all deaths must be completed within 30 days of each death. The review is to be conducted by a team that includes an independent physician (one who is not the primary care provider at the institution where the death occurred). This review shall consider any and all aspects of custody and health care that may have contributed to the death. The results of this review shall be documented and used to develop interventions to prevent future adverse consequences.
C. Correctional Healthcare Monitor. Parties have agreed on Dr. Michael Puissis as the Correctional Healthcare Monitor (“Monitor”) to monitor compliance with this Medical Settlement Agreement. The Healthcare Monitor shall be a neutral monitor responsible to the Court. The Monitor shall be paid by the Defendants and be reimbursed for reasonable expenses to a maximum amount agreed to by counsel for parties. The Monitor shall have access to women prisoners and their medical records, to members of the medical and security staff, and to any other information or documents he or she deems necessary to determine compliance with this Medical Settlement Agreement. The Monitor shall conduct an initial assessment within 60 days of the Court’s approval of this Medical Settlement Agreement and make written recommendations regarding deficiencies that prevent compliance with this Agreement. The Monitor shall make quarterly on-site inspections of Tutwiler and BWR per year. If the ADOC, its contractors and agents are determined to be in substantial compliance of the Agreement for three consecutive inspections in the second year, the Monitor shall make only two on-site inspections per year for the remainder of the Agreement. The Monitor may bring additional medical experts as needed to properly evaluate the health services provided to Plaintiffs. The Monitor shall prepare audit reports following each inspection, and items for improvement shall be addressed in a subsequent corrective plan by the institution’s quality improvement committee. The Monitor shall provide copies of his or her reports to the Court, Defendants', and Plaintiffs’ counsel.
XI. IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT
A. Notice. The Commissioner of the ADOC and his representatives shall provide a copy of or explain the terms of this Medical Settlement Agreement to all of their agents, representatives, and employees in any way connected with medical care of class members, in order to ensure their understanding of the scope and substance of this Agreement. Women entering Tutwiler shall be provided an information sheet, mutually approved by all parties, informing them of the existence and material terms of this Medical Settlement Agreement. In addition, at least 3 copies of this entire Medical Settlement Agreement shall be maintained in the Tutwiler library.
13

B. Enforcement. If the ADOC, its agents or contractors, fail to comply with the terms and conditions of this Medical Settlement Agreement, Plaintiffs’ counsel may apply to the Court for a finding of contempt or other appropriate relief. Prior to approaching the Court for such relief, Plaintiffs’ counsel will bring, in writing, any deficiencies to the attention of the Defendants and the Healthcare Monitor or Mental Health Auditor, as appropriate, and will make reasonable attempts to resolve the issues informally. Issues that cannot be resolved informally between the parties shall be brought to the attention of the Magistrate Judge, who will attempt to mediate a resolution, before Plaintiffs' counsel will move the Court for an Order for Defendants to show cause why they should not be held in contempt.
C. PLRA findings. The parties agree, and the Court hereby finds at this time, and an after independent review, that the prospective relief set forth in this Medical Settlement Agreement is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violations of federal rights set forth in paragraphs 101-162, 168-171, and 180 in Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct these violations. The parties agree, and the Court after an independent review hereby finds after an independent review of the Medical Settlement Agreement, that this Agreement will not have an adverse impact on public safety or the operation of the criminal justice system. Acccordingly, the parties agree, and the Court hereby finds, that this Medical Settlement Agreement complies in all respects with the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a). This Medical Settlement Agreement is not intended to have any preclusive effect except as between the parties in this action. Should the issue of the preclusive effect of this Medical Settlement Agreement be raised in any proceeding other than this action, the parties agree to certify that this Medical Settlement Agreement was intended to have no such preclusive effect. This Medical Settlement Agreement does not resolve, adjudicate, or bar the damages claims of any former, present, or future class members.
E. Attorneys fees. In the event the parties are unable to hereafter resolve by agreement issues relating to Plaintiff's claim for attorneys' fees, Plaintiffs may petition the Court within thirty days of the date on which the Court enters its Order granting the parties' Joint Motion to Adopt Settlement Agreement, for a resolution thereof.
F. Class members. Parties stipulate to the certification of the class of all women who are now or will in the future be incarcerated in an Alabama Department of Corrections facility.
G. Modification. Any party may seek modification of any part of this Medical Settlement Agreement for good cause shown. The ADOC, through its agents and contractors, shall continue to implement in a timely manner all parts of this Agreement pending the decision of the Court on any motion for modification.
H. Term of Agreement. This Medical Settlement Agreement shall be in effect for four years from the date the Agreement is approved by the Court. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to preclude Defendants from moving to terminate the Order in the manner permitted by the Prison Litigation Reform Act.
14

_________________________________ Lisa Kung, GA Bar No. 430302 Tamara Serwer, GA Bar No. 617053 Stephen Bright, GA Bar No. 082075 SOUTHERN CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS 83 Poplar Street, N.W. Atlanta, Georgia 30303-2122 Telephone: (404) 688-1202 Facsimile: (404) 688-9440
John A. Russell, III, Esq. Bar No. ASB-0933-U83J 202 Broad Street Aliceville, Alabama 35442 Telephone: (205) 373-8714 Facsimile: (205) 373-8894
_________________________________ Gretchen Rohr, GA Bar No. 613518 Holland & Knight LLP 1201 West Peachtree St. NE, Suite 2000 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 898-8177 Facsimile: (404) 881-8470
George E. Schulz, Jr., FL Bar No.169507 Holland & Knight LLP 50 N. Laura Street, Suite 3900 Jacksonville, FL 32202 Telephone: (904) 798-5462 Facsimile: (904) 358-1872
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

_________________________________ William F. Addison, AL Bar No. ADD002 Alabama Department of Corrections Legal Division 101 South Union Street Montgomery, Alabama 36130 Telephone: (334) 353-3890 Facsimile: (334) 353-3891
Ellen Leonard, AL Bar No. LEO008 Charles Campbell, Bar No. ASB-6423-C52C Office of the Attorney General State of Alabama 11 South Union Street Montgomery, Alabama 36130 Telephone: (334) 353-8699 Facsimile: (334) 242-2433
Attorneys for Defendants
_________________________________ Bob Riley Governor, State of Alabama
_________________________________ Troy King Attorney General, State of Alabama
_________________________________ Donal Campbell Commissioner, Dept. of Corrections

15

 
 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN

,
/

LINDA LAUBE, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
MICHAEL HALEY, et al., Defendants.

)

CLERK

) )

U. S. DISTRICT C

MIDDLE DIST. MONTGOMERY.

OAF LA.

)

) CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-T-957-N

)

)

)

)

ORDER In light of the amended complaint filed on September 13, 2002 (Doc. no. 45), and by agreement of counsel for all parties, it is ORDERED that defendants NaphCare, Inc. and Francis Henderson are dismissed without prejudice. It is further ORDERED that the motion to stay and alternative motion to dismiss, filed by defendant NaphCare, Inc. on August 26, 2002 (Doc. no. 18), are denied as moot. DONE, this the \~~day of September, 2002.

MYRON H. THOMP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUD E

CIVIL APPEALS CHECKLIST

1.

Appealable Otdm: Courts of AppfiIIs hotft jurisdiction conferred and strictly limited by statute:

AI!pdIs hom final Orders Punuanl to 28 V.s.e. "291: Only final judpnents for orders of district courts (or fiiW orders of

bankruptcy COCIrts which have been affirmed by it district court under 28 U.s.c. S158) usully are appealable. A -final'" order is

one which ends the litiption on its merits and loYeS nothins for the district court to do but execute the Judsment. Amqistrate's

report and recommendation is not usually final until jucf&ment thereon is entered by itdistrict court ludle. Compare Fed.IApp.P.

5.1,28 U.s.c. t 636(c).

In CBes invo/vinc multiple parties or multiple claims, a judpnent as to fewer than all parties or all ~ims is not a final. appulable decision. hd.R.CiY.P. 5401) does pennit the district court to expressly direct entry of tile judgment as fewer than all of the claims
or parties. See Pitney Bowes. 'nco v. Msstrs. 701 F.2d 1365, 1369 (11th Cir. 1983), mi.!Imim 464 V.s. 893 (1983). Certain
matters, such as attorney's fees and costs, are collateral and do not affect the time for appeali,. from the judI'Mnt on the rnuits.
Buchanan v. Stphip!, Inc., 495 V.s. 265, 108 S.Ct. 113D, 99 LEd 2d 289 (1988); Budinich Y. Bmon. 48S U.s. 196, 108 S.Ct. 1717, 100 LEd 2d 17. (1988).

AppNIs Purynt to 28 U.s.c. S 1292tb) and FRAP 5: The certificate specified in 28 V.s.c. ! 1292(b) must be obtained before an application for leave to appal Is filed in the Court of Appeals. Denial or refusal by the district court to issue the certificate is not itself appealable.

Appeals Pursuant to 28 U.S.c. , 1929(a): Pursuant to this st.tute, appeals are permiHed from orders -,ranting, continuing, modifyi.... refuli..ord'lSSOIwinc injunctions or refusil1l to dissolve or modify injamctions ••• " This statutedoes not pe11'Iit appeals from temporary mtralninc orders.

Appeals pu!SUl!!t to ludicially Created Exceptions to the finality Rule: These limited exceptions are discussed in many cases,

includi,. (but not nmited to): Cohen v. BenefICial Indust".1 Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221,93 LEd 2d 1528 (1949);

s.m. ,. Forpy v. Conr.1d. 6 How. (47 U.s.) 201 (1848); Gillespie v. United States St~l Corp•• 379 U.S. 148, 152,855.0.308,311,13

LEd 2d 199 (1964); Atlantic F!deql

Loan Assn. Qf Ft. lauderdale Y. BMhe Eastman Paine Webber. Inc., 890 F.2d 371

(11th Or. 1989). Compare Coopus and Lybrand v. Livesay. 437 U.s. 463, 98 S.Ct. 2454, 57 LEd 2d 351 (1978); Gulfstream

aerospace Corp. y. Mayacarnas Corp.. 485 U.s. 271, 108 S.Ct. 1133,99 LEd 2d 296 (1988)

2.

Time for FiIiS To be effective a notice of appeill must be timely filed. Timely fili,. is jurisdictional. In civil cases FRAP 4(ll) and

4(e) set the followins time limits:

FlAP 4(.Xl}: The notice of appeal required by flAP 3 "must be filed with the clerk of the district court within 30 dOlYS Ollter the date of entry of the judsment or order appe.tled from; but if the United States or an offICer or aseney thereof Is a party, the notice of appeal may be filed by !!n R!!1X within 60 days alter such entry ••• " (Emphasis added> To be effective, the notice of appeal senerally must be filed in the district court clerk's office within the time permitted. If a notice of appeal is mailed, it must be timely received and filed by the district court to be effective. FlAP 4(c) establishes special filin, provisions for notices of appeal
filed by an inlNte confined in an institution, .15 discussed below.

nm flAP 4(a)(3): "If OM party timely files a notice of appeal, any other party may file a notice of appeal within 14 days after the date
when the ftOlicewas med, or within the time otherwise prescribed by this Rule 4(a), whichever period last expires." (Emphasis
added)

FlAP 4!aX» and FlAP 4(11(6): The 2!!l!:i51 court has power to extend the time to file a notice of appeal. Vnder fRAP 4(a)(S) the
time may be extended ifOIl motion for extension iffiled within 30 dOIIys after expiration ofthe time otherwise permitted to file notice
of appeaL Vnder FlAP 4(1)«6)thetime may be extended ifthe district court finds upon motion that aparty has not received notice of entry of the judpnent or order and that no party would be prejudiced by an extension.

RAP Mel: Mif an inmate confsned in an institution files a notice of appeal in either a civil case or a criminal case, the notice of appeal is timely If It Is deposited in the institution's internal mail system on or before the fast day for fili,.. TImely fiJine may be shown by .. noI.Irizied GtemeRt or be a cleclaration (in compliance with 28 U.s.c. , 1146) setting forth the date of deposit and
stali.. that first-dass posIap has been prepaid.

3.

format of Notice of Appel': Form 1, FlAP Appendix of fonns, is a suitable format. &!!!!2 flAP 3(c).

A sinsle notice of appeal may be filed from a (si,.ie) jucfsment or order by two or more persons whose -interests ilre such as to

malce joinder prac:tiable • • •• (flAP ](b»

4.

Effect of Notice of AppuI: Adistrict court loses jurisdiction (authority) to act after the filins of a timely notice of appul, except

for actions in aid of ilppellate jurisdiction (us Fed.LCW.'. 60) or to rule on a timely motion of the type specified in FlAP 4(a)(4)

 
 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

I 1. E: [) MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISI~

J

LINDA LAUBE, et al. , Plaintiffs, v.
MICHAEL HALEY, et al., Defendants.

)

~ DEC 22002

!

;--- CU-':RK

)

U. S. DISTRICf couW .

)

MIDDL-':: D'ST cr- t..L.A

)

) CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-T-9S7-N

)

)

)

)

ORDER

It is ORDERED that the motions to dismiss, filed by

defendants on September 6 and 9, 2002 (doc. nos. 27 & 31), are

denied.

DONE, this the 2nd day of December, 2002.

 
 FILED

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

LINDA LAUBE, et at.,

NORTHERN DIVISION )

CLERK U. S. DISTRICT C RT
MIDDLE DIS! OF ALA.

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

) CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-T-957-N

)

MICHAEL HALEY, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

ORDER

Now pending before the court is the March 6,2003, motion to compel (doc. # 151)

and request for entry upon land for inspection and other purposes (doc. # 152) filed by the

plaintiffs. The plaintiffs seek to require the defendants to permit their expert "[t]o inspect,

examine, and copy logs, records, policies, and other documents relating to the provision of

medical care to members of the proposed class." Pis' Req. for Entry upon Land for

Inspection & Other Purposes, ~ 2. Citing privacy and confidentiality concerns, the

defendants object to the plaintiffs' expert having access to random inmate medical files

without release from the inmates.

Oral argument was held on March 13, 2003. During oral argument, the parties

notified the court that they had reached a partial agreement regarding the request for entry

upon land and on a protective order to be entered by the court. The agreement and protective

order do not resolve the dispute regarding the defendants' objection to the release of"random

medical files" without a signed release from an inmate.

During oral argument, the defendants represented to the court that part of their

opposition to the plaintiffs' motion for class certification would address the lack oftypicality

and commonality between the proposed class members. In light of that representation, the

plaintiffs' request for random medical records is due to be granted.

Accordingly, upon consideration of the motion to compel and for reasons as stated in

open court, it is

ORDERED that the motion to compel (doc. # 151) and request for entry upon land

for inspection and other purposes (doc. # 152) be and are hereby GRANTED. It is further

ORDERED that the persons who review medical information ofany inmate pursuant

to the authority granted in this order shall not disclose the information to any person except

counsel for the parties and their employees and then only to the extent necessary for the

proper

conduct

of this litigation. <t"""~-----

-------

---

Done this I d day of March, 2003.

--

RLE . COODY STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

 
 FILED

._ ,'. ,- l' I r: I')
~. f_..,·':,! t._lIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

IOU) p,~R \ 3 P 1..\: 21

NORTHERN DIVISION

MAR 17 2~V'

)

J CLERK
U. S. DISTRICT COURT

)

MIDDLE DIST. OF ALA.

)

)

v.

)

Civil Action No. 02-T-9S7-N

)

MICHAEL HALEY, et aI.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

CONSENT PROTECTIVE ORDER

The Court and the Plaintiffs, Correctional Defendants (including Governor Riley,

Commissioner Campbell, Warden Deese and Warden Carter), NaphCare, Inc. Defendants (including

NaphCare and Dr. Francis Henderson), and MHM Correctional Services, parties to the above-

captioned litigation, recognize that the disclosure of certain medical documents, contracts, and

information relevant to this lawsuit affects substantial privacy interests and other interests under the

Constitutions and laws of the United States and the State of Alabama. The Court and the above-

named parties recognize the legitimate interests of all parties and non-parties to limit access to

documents and information that will be exchanged during discovery and to prevent unnecessary

disclosure of such data. The Court directs the parties to produce records relating to the named

Plaintiffs, all inmates for which signed releases have been obtained, and any other inmate covered

by a subsequent Court Order as the Court finds that the release of such information is necessary and

proper.

Therefore, the Plaintiffs, Correctional Defendants, NaphCare Inc. Defendants, and MHM

Correctional Services consent to a protective order requiring them to abide by the following terms

Page 1 of

and conditions to protect the documents and other forms of information that are produced and

discovered in the above-captioned case, even if such were produced prior to the entry of this order:

1. All documents which disclose the name of an individual receiving medical or mental

health treatment, diagnosis, or counseling, shall, without the necessity of further designation, be

treated as confidential during the pendency of this action. Confidential documents shall be used by

the parties solely for the purpose of this litigation and not for any other purpose; however, nothing

in this Order shall limit such use as may be permitted by a release executed by an inmate.

2. All documents concerning any contract for the provision of healthcare services and

any pricing information associated with the provision of healthcare services shall be, without the

necessity of future designation, treated as confidential in perpetuity. Confidential documents shall

be used by the parties solely for the purpose of this litigation and not for any other purpose.

3. Additional documents may be designated as confidential during the course of

production in this matter. Such designation will be made either by stamping the documents as

confidential or by including a cover letter with the documents that indicates which specific

documents are to be treated as confidential. To the extent that either party disputes a confidential

designation, that party must notify the designating party ofthe dispute within ten (10) days. If the

parties are unable to resolve the designation dispute, then the matter will be taken to the Court for

resolution.

4.

No party shall disclose confidential documents or information derived from such

documents to any person except as provided in this order. Confidential documents and information

derived from those documents may be inspected and disclosed only to the following persons and

only for the purpose of conducting this litigation:

Page 2 of

(a) counsel representing any party in this litigation; (b) any person retained by counsel to assist in the preparation and trial of this
litigation including experts and paralegal; and (c) the Court and court monitor 5. Each person to whom confidential information is disclosed shall be shown a copy of this order and shall execute an acknowledgment in writing that he or she has received a copy of this order, is familiar with the provisions, and agrees to be bound by the terms of the order. 6. Any time individual inmates or former inmates are referenced in any public document, they shall be referred to by their initials only. In the event that a party wishes to file with the clerk any confidential documents containing the full name of the individual inmate or former inmate, the party seeking submission of such documents shall apply for a protective order from the Court requesting that the documents be placed under seal. 7. In the event disclosure is desired during the trial or other proceedings in open court, the party seeking disclosure shall, before disclosure, make reference to the confidential nature of the matter to be disclosed, whereupon the parties may request that the Court afford confidential treatment with respect to such matter. 8. At the conclusion of this litigation, all documents which have been designated as confidential either by operation of this order or by marking, as detailed above, shall be returned to the party which produced the documents or the party to whom the documents were given shall certify that the destruction of said documents has been completed. 9. Documents that are public record will not be encompassed by the operation ofthis Order.
Page 3 of

m SO ORDERED this )'~ day of u---cL ,2003.

Submitted, attested to, and certified by

U ted States District Court Mi dIe District of Alabama

~SaKUng,E~
amara Sewer, Esq. Stephen Bright, Esq. Southern Center for Human Rights 83 Poplar Street, NW Atlanta, Georgia 30303-2122
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

ames A. Patton, Jr. James E. Murrill, Jr. Miller, Hamilton, Snider & adorn, LLC 2501 20TH Place South Suite 450 Birmingham, Alabama 35223
Attorneys for NaphCare, Inc. Defendants

Lee Calligaro, Esq. Epstein, Becker & Green 1227 25 th Street, NW, Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20037
Page 4 of

Attorney for MHM Correctional Services
~&L~
Ellen Leonard7Esq. Office of the Attorney General 11 South Union Street Montgomery, Alabama 36130 Attorney for State Defendants
WIlliam F. Addison, Esq. Alabama Department of Corrections 101 South Union Street Montgomery, Alabama 36130 Attorney for Correctional Defendants
. ,Esq. Govern s Legal Office State Capitol Montgomery, Alabama 36130 Attorney for Governor Bob Riley
Page 5 of

 
 FI LED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION

LINDA LAUBE, et aI., Plaintiffs,
v.
DONAL CAMPBELL, et aI., Defendants.

OCT
Cl~
U. S. DISTRICT COURT
Civil Actio~~~'1f2~~s9-£NALA.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO STIPULATION Upon the stipulation of plaintiffs and defendant MHM Correctional Services, Inc., through their respective counsel, the Court being fully advised in the premises, it is this tlKday
of~t#l~2003,
ORDERED, this case shall be and hereby is dismissed solely as to defendant MHM Correctional Services, Inc., without prejudice and without costs.

-
Judge, United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama
j, I L c> '-00 'S.

DC:233125v I

 
 V E0 (, ,~: f'. C I ~ / ! ., i IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

ZOO~ MAR 2q P ~: 40 MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

L

MONTGOMERY DIVISION

FILED
MAR 3 1 2

CLERK U. S. DISTRICT COU'PfT

MIDDLE mST. OF ALA.

Plaintiffs,
v.
DONAL CAMPBELL, et al., Defendants

CIVIL ACTION No. CV-02-T-957-N CLASS ACTION

CONSENT PROTECTIVE ORDER 1. All PHS medical guidelines, policies, procedures, clinical protocols, logs, schedules, charts, and other proprietary materials created by or on behalf of PHS and not otherwise subject to mandatory public access shall not be furnished, shown, disclosed, or divulged to any person except the Court, appropriate governmental agencies, the parties to this action, counsel for any party to this action, their employees or agents and/or any experts consulted by either party to this action. 2. Counsel shall inform all such persons who receive or review the aforesaid documents that they are bound by the terms of this Order. 3. Such documents, information or materials may be presented for any use under the Federal Rules of Civil

1 C'\
o~'

Procedure, or presented as evidence at any trial or hearing of the captioned case, subject to any privilege that may be asserted by PHS.
4. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as an admission that any prior request for discovery, formal or informal, is reasonable or necessary. Entry of this Order does not prevent plaintiffs from applying to the Court at a later date for relief from this Order, nor does it prevent any party or PHS from moving for further protective orders as may be deemed appropriate.
5. Plaintiffs shall return or destroy all documents listed in this Order when all appeals have been completed or time for appeal has expired, or upon termination of any settlement agreement or consent order that is entered in the case.
SO ORDERED, this Sl;~ day of March, 2004,
The undersigned consent to the entry of the above Order,
Lisa Kung, GA Bar No. 430iQiTamara Serwer Caldas, GA Bar No. 617053 Stephen B. Bright, GA Bar No. 082075 SOUTHERN CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS 83 Poplar Street, N.W. Atlanta, Georgia 30303-2122

•
Telephone: Facsimile:

(404) 688-1202 (404) 688-9440

John A. Russell, III, Esq. 202 Broad Street Aliceville, Alabama 35442 Telephone: (205) 373-8714 Facsimile: (205) 373-8894

Attorneys for Plaintiffs
~
Prison Health Services, Inc. 105 Westpark Drive, Suite 200 Brentwood, TN 37027 Telephone: (615) 376 0664 Fac simi1e : (615 ) 37 6 1191

Attorney for PHS, Inc.

 
 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

LINDA LAUBE, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
DONAL CAMPBELL, et al., Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. ) 2:02cv957-T ) ) )

ORDER This matter i s now before the court on the renewed

motion for class certification, filed by plaintiffs on May

15, 2003 (doc. no. 218). Based on the parties' stipulations

contained in the conditions settlement agreement, ¶ 32, and

medical settlement agreement, ¶ XI.F, and

after an

independent review of the record, the court finds that the

requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(2) are

satisfied.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the renewed motion for

class certification, filed by plaintiffs on May 15, 2003

(doc. no. 218), is granted to the extent that the class of

all women who are now or will in the future be incarcerated

in an Alabama Department of Corrections facility is

certified, with th e class represented by plaintiffs Linda

Laube, Theresa Barron, Barbara Bush, Lachrondria Crockett,

Marjorie Ewing, Wanda Goodman, Alma Gutierrez, Lisa

Hereford, La'Toya Jones, Katie Moore, Terri Newby, Barbara

Pelzer, April Rice, Kelli Washington, Melinda Washington,

Laura Bland, Angela Bond, Wendy Carmichael, Lesli

e

Fillingim, Sharon Finn, Brenda Fraime, Deborah Franks, Laura

Gilbert, Diane Jordan, Vanessa Kirksey, Vicki Littles,

Deborah Loyd, Clorestine McQueen, Juanita Moore, Betty

Parker, Patricia Segrest, Carolyn Thomas, Nina Whitten, and

Judy Wyly.

It is further ORDERED that if, for whatever reason, the

settlement agreements between the parties in this matter are

not finally approved, the court wil l de-certify the class

with leave to the plaintiffs to renew their motion for class

certification. DONE, this the 1st day of July, 2004.

/s/ Myron H. Thompson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 
 Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 1 of 107
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

LINDA LAUBE, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

RICHARD F. ALLEN, et al., )

)

Defendants.

)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:02cv957-MHT (WO)

OPINION AND ORDER This is a class-action lawsuit in which the plaintiffs, women incarcerated by the Alabama Department of Corrections, claimed that prison conditions violated their rights under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The defendants are the Commissioner and Treatment Director of the Alabama Department of Corrections, the wardens of the state prison facilities that house female inmates, and the Governor of Alabama. This court approved two four-year settlement agreements that resolved all the plaintiffs’ claims. Now before the court are the plaintiffs’ two motions for attorney’s fees

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 2 of 107
seeking $ 562,753.70 in fees and $ 62,892.50 in expenses on their first motion and $ 240,843.10 in fees and $ 16,063.08 in expenses on their second motion, for a total sum of $ 882,552.38. For the reasons that follow, the motions will be granted to the extent that the plaintiffs are entitled to recover $ 420,369.73 in fees and $ 51,496.02 in expenses on their first motion and $ 64,036.62 in fees and $ 2,275.77 in expenses on their second motion, for a total sum of $ 538,178.14.

I. BACKGROUND

The plaintiffs originally filed this lawsuit in

August 2002.

Broadly speaking, the court has

characterized their allegations as follows: that, because

of conditions at the three state prison facilities that

house all female inmates (Julia Tutwiler Prison for

Women, the Edwina Mitchell Work Release Center, now known

as the Tutwiler Annex, and the Birmingham Work Release

Center), female inmates were being denied their basic

2

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 3 of 107
human needs of adequate living space, ventilation, and personal safety and security; that, because of the defendants’ failure to provide adequate medical and mental-health care, female inmates were at a real and substantial risk of injury, prolonged illness, and premature death; and that the defendants acted with deliberate indifference to the existence of these conditions. Laube v. Campbell (Laube IV), 333 F.Supp.2d 1234, 1237 (M.D. Ala. 2004) (Thompson, J.).
In December 2002, this court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction: the court held that they were entitled to preliminary-injunctive relief on their claim that they were subject to substantial risk of serious harm caused by Tutwiler’s overcrowded and understaffed open dorms, but that they were not entitled to preliminary-injunctive relief on their other claims regarding Tutwiler or on any of their claims regarding the Mitchell and Birmingham facilities. Laube v. Haley (Laube I), 234 F.Supp.2d
3

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 4 of 107
1227, 1252 (M.D. Ala. 2002) (Thompson, J.). Concerned that the unconstitutional conditions at Tutwiler were “so severe and widespread” that they were “essentially a time bomb ready to explode facility-wide at any unexpected moment in the near future,” id., the court ordered the defendants to take immediate affirmative steps to redress the unconstitutional conditions and to submit a plan to the court for approval, id. at 1253.
The next 18 months brought a combination of litigation and negotiation. The defendants submitted a plan, but the court rejected it as inadequate. Laube v. Haley (Laube II), 242 F.Supp.2d 1150 (M.D. Ala. 2003) (Thompson, J.). The defendants submitted a second plan, but the preliminary injunction expired before the court ruled on it. Laube v. Campbell (Laube III), 255 F.Supp.2d 1301 (M.D. Ala. 2003) (Thompson, J.). The plaintiffs filed a second motion for preliminary injunction but withdrew it after a hearing. In early 2004, counsel for all parties met informally to discuss
4

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 5 of 107

settlement, and, in April 2004, formal mediation under

the guidance of a United States Magistrate Judge began.

In June 2004, the parties reached final agreement on

two four-year settlements: a ‘conditions settlement

agreement’ and a ‘medical settlement agreement.’ Laube

IV, 333 F.Supp.2d at 1248-65. The agreements covered not

only the claims on which the court had granted

preliminary-injunctive relief, but all the claims brought

by the plaintiffs in their complaint as amended. Id. at

1248, 1253. The court provisionally approved the two

settlement agreements and ordered that they take

immediate effect pending final-court approval. The court

then granted class certification, approved notice to the

class, held a fairness hearing, and undertook an

independent review of the proposed agreements. Under the

Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA), the

agreements qualified as “consent decrees” because the

court intended to enter them as injunctive relief and

retain jurisdiction to enforce them.

18 U.S.C.

5

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 6 of 107
§ 3626(g)(1) & (g)(6). The court therefore could not approve the agreements unless they were narrowly drawn, extended no further than necessary to correct the violation of a federal right, and were the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of a federal right. Id. § 3626(a)(1)(A). Agreeing with the parties that the settlement agreements met those requirements, the court gave final approval to the agreements on August 23, 2004, and entered a permanent injunction approving the agreements, incorporating their terms into the court’s order, permanently enjoining the defendants from failing to carry them out, and retaining jurisdiction to enforce them. Laube IV, 333 F.Supp.2d at 1247.
On one subsequent occasion, the court was called upon to enforce its judgment, though the parties privately settled their dispute before the court ruled. On May 10, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion to hold the defendants in contempt for failure to comply with the
6

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 7 of 107
medical-settlement agreement. The contempt motion was based largely on the reports of the independent health monitor, whose role under the agreement was to audit the defendants’ compliance and report his findings. The healthcare monitor issued reports of non-compliance over a period of approximately 15 months, beginning in December 2004. During the period preceding the contempt motion, the plaintiffs communicated their concerns to the defendants, specifically in written letters dated October 28, 2004, April 22, 2005, September 23, 2005, and March 14, 2006. Additionally, as required by the consent decree, the parties engaged in mediation before the magistrate judge on November 18, 2005. On May 10, 2006, after the correspondence and mediation described above did not resolve matters to the plaintiffs’ satisfaction, they filed their motion to hold the defendants in contempt. The court scheduled an evidentiary hearing for June 21, 2006, which was postponed upon notice by the parties that a private settlement was in the making. On
7

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 8 of 107
August 3, 2006, the parties announced to the court that they had arrived at a private settlement agreement. Consequently, the court entered an order denying as moot the plaintiffs’ motion to hold the defendants in contempt.
The consent decrees, while contemplating that the parties would attempt to resolve privately the issue of attorney’s fees, provided that the plaintiffs could petition the court if an agreement on that issue could not be reached. The parties could not reach an agreement on fees, and, on September 22, 2004, the plaintiffs timely filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs incurred through August 23, 2004, the date that the settlement agreements were approved and made final. On August 24, 2006, they filed a second motion for attorney’s fees; the second motion addressed fees and expenses incurred litigating the fees issue and monitoring and enforcing the decrees during the two-year
8

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 9 of 107

period following the entry of final judgment. opinion addresses both motions.

This

II. LEGAL STANDARD FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES In federal civil-rights litigation, “the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs.” 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b); see also Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598 (2001) (statutory fee-shifting provisions from different statutes have been interpreted consistently). “Determining a plaintiff’s entitlement to attorney fees entails a three-step process. First, a court asks if the plaintiff has ‘prevailed’ in the statutory sense. Second, the court calculates the ‘lodestar,’ which is the number of hours (tempered by billing judgment) spent in the legal work on the case, multiplied by a reasonable market rate in the local area. Finally, the court has the opportunity to
9

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 10 of 107
adjust the lodestar to account for other considerations that have not yet figured in the computation, the most important being the relation of the results obtained to the work done.” Dillard v. City of Greensboro, 213 F.3d 1347, 1353 (11th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted).
The fee applicant bears the burden of “establishing entitlement and documenting the appropriate hours and hourly rates.” Norman v. Hous. Auth. of Montgomery, 836 F.2d 1292, 1303 (11th Cir. 1988). This burden includes supplying the court with specific and detailed evidence from which it can determine the reasonable hourly rate, maintaining records to show the time spent on the different claims, and setting out with sufficient particularity the general subject matter of the time expenditures so that the district court can assess the time claimed for each activity. ACLU v. Barnes, 168 F.3d 423, 427 (11th Cir. 1999).
A fee applicant should also exercise “‘billing judgment.’” Id. at 428 (quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart,
10

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 11 of 107
461 U.S. 424, 434 (1983)). That is, the applicant should “exclude from his fee applications ‘excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary [hours],’ which are hours ‘that would be unreasonable to bill to a client and therefore to one’s adversary irrespective of the skill, reputation, or experience of counsel.’” Id. (quoting Norman, 836 F.2d at 1301) (citation omitted).
“Those opposing fee applications have obligations, too. In order for [district] courts to carry out their duties in this area, ‘objections and proof from fee opponents’ concerning hours that should be excluded must be specific and ‘reasonably precise.’” Id. (quoting Norman, 836 F.2d at 1301).
In making the above determinations, the court is guided by the twelve factors set out in Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714, 717-19 (5th Cir. 1974), and approved in Blanchard v. Bergeron, 489 U.S. 87, 91-92 (1989). These factors are: (1) the time and labor required; (2) the novelty and difficulty of the
11

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 12 of 107
questions; (3) the skill required to perform the legal
services properly; (4) the preclusion of other employment
by the attorney due to acceptance of the case; (5) the
customary fee in the community; (6) whether the fee is
fixed or contingent; (7) time limitations imposed by the
client or circumstances; (8) the amount involved and the
results obtained; (9) the experience, reputation, and
ability of the attorneys; (10) the “undesirability” of
the case; (11) the nature and length of the professional
relationship with the client; and (12) awards in similar
cases.
In prisoner litigation, attorney’s fees awards are
modified by the PLRA, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e:
“In any action brought by a prisoner who is confined to any jail, prison, or other correctional facility, in which attorney’s fees are authorized under section 1988 of this title, such fees shall not be awarded, except to the extent that--
(A) the fee was directly and reasonably incurred in proving an actual violation of the plaintiff’s rights protected by a statute
12

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 13 of 107
pursuant to which a fee may be awarded under section 1988 of this title; and (B)(i) the amount of the fee is proportionately related to the court ordered relief for the violation; or (ii) the fee was directly and reasonably incurred in enforcing the relief ordered for the violation.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(d)(1). Subsections (d)(1)(A) and (d)(1)(B)(i) cover attorney’s fees for pre-judgment work, while subsection (d)(1)(B)(ii) covers fees for postjudgment enforcement. Furthermore, the PLRA provides that all such fees shall not be “based on an hourly rate greater than 150 percent of the hourly rate established under section 3006A of Title 18 for payment of courtappointed counsel.” Id. § 1997e(d)(3).
13

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 14 of 107
III. DISCUSSION A. First Motion for Attorney’s Fees The plaintiffs have submitted itemized billing statements in support of their first motion for attorney’s fees. In response to the defendants’ objections, they have made certain adjustments. Their current fee request can be broken down as follows:

Attorney Caldas
Attorney Kung
Attorney Rohr
Attorney Schulz
Paralegal Filley
Paralegal Siemon

Hours

Rate

765.25 $ 169.50 / hr

1,070.85 $ 169.50 / hr

493.30 $ 169.50 / hr

257.90 $ 169.50 / hr

908.60 $ 120.00 / hr

200.20 $ 110.00 / hr

Subtotal $ 129,709.90 $ 181,509.10
$ 83,614.35 $ 43,714.05 $ 109,032.00 $ 22,033.00

14

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 15 of 107

Paralegal Rohr1
TOTAL HOURS

227.60 $ 100.00 / hr 3,923.8

$ 22,760.00 $ 592,372.40

5 % Reduction (Inadequate Billing Detail) $ 562,753.70

Expenses

$ 62,892.50

TOTAL FEES

$ 625,646.20

1. Prevailing Party The first inquiry in determining a party’s entitlement to attorney’s fees is whether the party has ‘prevailed’ in the statutory sense. Dillard, 213 F.3d at 1353. The prevailing party inquiry is governed by Buckhannon, 532 U.S. 598, and the circuit law that implements it. “It is now established that in order to be considered a prevailing party under § 1988(b), there must be a court-ordered material alteration of the legal relationship of the parties necessary to permit an award of attorney’s fees. In other words, there must be: (1) a
1. In light of the fact that attorney Rohr was not admitted to the bar when she began work on this case, the plaintiffs request that her pre-admission hours be billed as paralegal hours. The court discusses this issue in Subsection III.A.3.b, infra.
15

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 16 of 107
situation where a party has been awarded by the court at least some relief on the merits of his claim or (2) a judicial imprimatur on the change in the legal relationship between the parties.” Smalbein v. City of Daytona Beach, 353 F.3d 901, 904-05 (11th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks, ellipses, and citations omitted). This second option, the “judicial imprimatur,” requires a settlement agreement the court has approved, either by incorporating the terms of the settlement into the final judgment or by explicitly retaining jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement. Id. at 905 (citing Am. Disability Ass’n v. Chmielarz, 289 F.3d 1315, 1320 (11th Cir. 2002)).
Here, there has been a court-ordered material alteration in the legal relationship between the plaintiffs and defendants in the form of two comprehensive settlement agreements approved by this court, both because the court incorporated the terms of the agreements into the final judgment and because the
16

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 17 of 107
court explicitly retained jurisdiction to enforce them. Therefore, the plaintiffs are prevailing parties within the meaning of § 1988(b).
2. Number of Hours The court will next address the number of hours billed by the plaintiffs’ litigation team for its work on this case. There are many issues in dispute in this area, which the court divides into four general categories. First, the parties disagree on the meaning of the PLRA’s requirement that the fee be “directly and reasonably incurred in proving an actual violation of the plaintiff’s rights.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(d)(1)(A). Second, the parties disagree on the extent to which the plaintiffs’ recovery should be reduced for their failure to set out with sufficient particularity the tasks undertaken and the amount of time spent on each task. Third, the defendants argue that this case was overstaffed and that the hours billed should be reduced
17

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 18 of 107
accordingly, whereas the plaintiffs vigorously contest that characterization. Fourth, the defendants’ line-byline analysis of the plaintiffs’ billing statements challenges numerous entries as unnecessary, clerical tasks, not related to this case, or non-compensable for some other reason. Several of the 12 Johnson factors are subsumed in these four categories, and to the extent they are not the court has considered all the Johnson factors in reaching a final determination as to the number of hours that should be awarded.
a. PLRA Ordinarily, the number of hours used for the lodestar figure is “‘the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation.’” ACLU v. Barnes, 168 F.3d at 427 (quoting Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 888 (1984)). See also Dillard, 213 F.3d at 1353 (“the number of hours (tempered by billing judgment) spent in the legal work on the case”). In Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424
18

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 19 of 107
(1983), the Supreme Court held that “[w]here a lawsuit consists of related claims, a plaintiff who has won substantial relief should not have his attorney’s fee reduced simply because the district court did not adopt each contention raised.” 461 U.S. at 440. It appears, however, that the PLRA has somewhat redefined this approach in prisoner litigation. Under the PLRA, the fee must be “directly and reasonably incurred in proving an actual violation of the plaintiff’s rights” and “proportionately related to the court ordered relief for the violation.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(d)(1).
Unfortunately, that provision of the PLRA is “‘not a paragon of clarity,’” Cody v. Hillard, 304 F.3d 767, 776 (8th Cir. 2002) (quoting Inmates of Suffolk County Jail v. Rouse, 129 F.3d 649, 654 (1st Cir. 1997)), particularly in the context of relatively complex litigation, such as this one, that consists of multiple motions, hearings, adversarial contests, and finally two court-approved and -enforced settlement agreements. In
19

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 20 of 107
fact, the PLRA raises questions regarding two broad areas of this case. First, does the PLRA permit attorney’s fees for any time spent on a case that is settled without a judgment of liability against the defendants? Second, if the PLRA does permit fees in such a case, should the compensable hours be reduced on account of the plaintiffs’ limited success in various stages of the litigation prior to settlement?
Whether a fee is “directly and reasonably incurred in proving an actual violation of the plaintiff’s rights” is inevitably a matter of some interpretation--both statutory interpretation and an interpretation of what occurred in the litigation. The court must do its best to award attorney’s fees consistent with the language of the statute and the intent of Congress in enacting the PLRA, given the complexity of this litigation.
20

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 21 of 107
i. Consent Decrees The court first addresses whether the PLRA allows attorney’s fees in a case, such as this one, that did not proceed to trial but was resolved with two comprehensive court-approved settlement agreements. The defendants concede, in general, the plaintiffs’ entitlement to some attorney’s fees in this case, even for work done after the preliminary injunction. In fact, although the defendants argue that the plaintiffs sent too many lawyers to mediation, they never contend that the plaintiffs are not entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees for work done in reaching the settlements. However, because the defendants challenge so many other aspects of the plaintiffs’ fee request, the court thinks it wise to establish the contours of the plaintiffs’ right to fees for time spent on a case that does not result in judgment on the merits. But the court emphasizes that its reason for doing so is to lay a rational foundation for its rulings on the defendants’ specific objections, not to
21

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 22 of 107
reach a holding on the question, not raised by the parties, of whether the PLRA allows attorney’s fees for cases settled by consent decree.
At first blush, the text of the PLRA is not clear on what to do about attorney’s fees in a case so settled. In directing that the fee be “directly and reasonably incurred in proving an actual violation of the plaintiff’s rights,” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(d)(1)(A), Congress did not clarify what it means to incur fees “in proving” such a violation in the context of a case such as this one. Arguably, a consent decree does not suggest that the plaintiffs have proved anything, because the object of settlement is to resolve claims without additional litigation. On the other hand, plaintiffs with highly meritorious claims would be strongly discouraged from settling if they could not obtain attorney’s fees unless they dragged defendants and courts through the expensive and time-consuming process of a full-blown trial. It is
22

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 23 of 107
difficult to believe that Congress intended to discourage
efficient settlements of meritorious claims.
When interpreting a statute, and especially where the
plain text is unclear, the court looks to the language
and design of the statute as a whole for context and
clarification. Lowery v. Alabama Power Co., 483 F.3d
1184, 1204 (11th Cir. 2007); United States v. McLemore,
28 F.3d 1160, 1162 (11th Cir. 1994). Here, the court
refers to another section of the PLRA, 18 U.S.C. § 3626,
which governs court-ordered prospective relief.
According to the statute:
“Prospective relief in any civil action with respect to prison conditions shall extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a particular plaintiff or plaintiffs. The court shall not grant or approve any prospective relief unless the court finds that such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.”
23

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 24 of 107
18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A). The statute also expressly provides that these prospective-relief requirements apply to cases (such as this one) in which the parties enter into a judicially-enforceable consent decree, as opposed to a private settlement. Id. § 3626(c) & (g). It therefore appears that Congress intended to encourage judicially-enforceable settlement, but only to the extent that it meets the three-part ‘need-narrownessintrusiveness’ test described above. By reading the PLRA’s attorney’s-fees provision, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(d), in the context of the PLRA’s prospective-relief provision, 18 U.S.C. § 3626, the court infers that Congress was motivated by the same interest in crafting both parts of the statute: ensuring that courts award prisoners relief, either in the form of an injunction or accompanying attorney’s fees, only when there is arguably an actual violation of their rights, albeit without a requirement that such a violation be conclusively established by admission or adjudication on the merits.
24

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 25 of 107
Therefore, when a court approves a consent decree and finds that it meets the ‘need-narrowness-intrusiveness’ test, which the court did in this case, Laube IV, 333 F.Supp.2d at 1239, it can also award attorney’s fees without in any way undermining the PLRA’s requirement that such fees be “incurred in proving an actual violation of the plaintiff’s rights.” The ‘neednarrowness-intrusiveness’ test directs the court to ensure that the scope of the settlement is limited to addressing federal rights, while the PLRA’s attorney’sfee provision restricts fees to those incurred in securing a settlement agreement so limited.
Additionally, the court thinks it significant that the PLRA’s attorney’s-fee language does not require that the fee be incurred in having proved an actual violation of the plaintiff’s rights, only that the fee be incurred in proving a violation. “Proving,” as used in the statute, is a present participle, which denotes action that is continuing or progressing, as distinct from
25

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 26 of 107

“having proved,” a perfect participle that denotes

completion. John B. Opdycke, Harper’s English Grammar

141 (rev. ed. 1966). By employing the present participle

rather than the perfect participle, Congress left room

for prevailing plaintiffs to recover attorney’s fees for

work recognized to be part of the process of proving an

actual violation even if that process ends in a court-

approved consent decree rather than a judgment of

liability.

If Congress had wanted to eliminate

altogether attorney’s fees for prevailing parties when

the case ends in consent decree rather than a judgment on

the merits, it could have easily required that such fees

be directly and reasonably incurred in having proved,

rather than in proving, an actual violation of the

plaintiff’s rights.

Consequently, as to each fee item the defendants

challenge in this case, the principal inquiry this court

will perform is whether it was directly and reasonably

incurred in securing the prospective relief--that is, the

26

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 27 of 107

settlement agreements--ordered by this court. 42 U.S.C.

§ 1997e(d)(1)(A). The court will also ensure that all

fees recovered are “proportionately related” to the

relief ordered under the consent decrees.

Id.

§ 1997e(d)(1)(B)(i). In doing so, the court is confident

that such fee awards comply with the PLRA. The court

adds that the defendants’ response to the plaintiffs’ fee

application is generally consistent with this

interpretation.

ii. Fees Incurred During Various Stages of the Litigation
The court next addresses whether the plaintiffs can recover attorney’s fees for time spent on various tasks before settlement. The defendants have challenged the plaintiffs’ fee request for work relating to: (a) the preliminary injunction; (b) objections to the defendants’ second remedial plan; (c) the plaintiffs’ motion to compel; (d) non-state defendants; and (e) experts who did not testify.
27

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 28 of 107
(a) Preliminary Injunction Regarding the work leading up to the court’s preliminary injunction, the defendants argue that the plaintiffs cannot recover fees for all these hours because they did not prevail on significant portions of their preliminary-injunction motion. The court agrees to some extent. In requiring that fees be “directly and reasonably incurred in proving an actual violation of the plaintiff’s rights” and “proportionately related to the court ordered relief for the violation,” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(d)(1), Congress intended that plaintiffs should be compensated for time spent obtaining preliminaryinjunctive relief but should not be fully compensated when such relief is granted only in part. However, when work done before the preliminary injunction is also work that directly contributes to obtaining permanentinjunctive relief, such work should not go uncompensated
28

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 29 of 107
simply because a motion for preliminary injunction was granted only in part. For example, time spent drafting a complaint should be fully compensated when plaintiffs obtain permanent-injunctive relief on all claims, even if preliminary-injunctive relief is denied on some claims. However, time spent drafting the motion for preliminary injunction and preparing for an evidentiary hearing on that motion should be compensated only in proportion to the plaintiffs’ success in obtaining preliminaryinjunctive relief. Tasks such as client interviews, investigation, and discovery fall somewhere in between: they should be compensated to the extent that they contribute to the permanent injunction, but not to the extent that they were useful only in seeking preliminaryinjunctive relief on claims that were unsuccessful at that stage of the litigation.
In this case, the plaintiffs obtained preliminaryinjunctive relief on some but not all of their claims regarding Tutwiler and did not obtain preliminary-
29

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 30 of 107
injunctive relief on any of the claims regarding the Mitchell and Birmingham facilities. Therefore, the court should award fees for time spent on the unsuccessful claims only to the extent that the work on those claims contributed to the final consent decrees. As for time spent on tasks that were useful only for the preliminaryinjunction phase of the case (such as drafting and arguing the motion), the court should reduce the fees so as to be proportionately related to the injunctive relief obtained.
Given that this fee application is voluminous, as well as the complexity of this case and the lack of detail in some of the line items, the court has determined that a line-by-line excision of hours is not appropriate for this task. See Loranger v. Stierheim, 10 F.3d 776, 783 (11th Cir. 1994). Instead, the court will make an across-the-board percentage cut to the number of hours billed through October 10, 2002, the date of oral arguments on the motion for preliminary injunction and
30

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 31 of 107
the date on which the billing statement reads “END OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION TIME.” See id. In applying an across-the-board percentage cut, the court aims to simulate the effect of a line-by-line analysis while avoiding the waste of judicial resources that such an impractical approach would entail where billing records are voluminous. Id. To that end, the court has reviewed the billing records in an attempt to estimate how many hours the plaintiffs would have spent prior to the motion for preliminary injunction had they sought preliminaryinjunctive relief only on their claim that they were subject to substantial risk of serious harm caused by Tutwiler’s overcrowded and understaffed open dorms. The court concludes that the number of hours billed through October 10, 2002, should be cut in half and accordingly subtracts 131.325 hours from attorney Caldas, 162.3 hours from attorney Kung, and 117.6 hours from paralegal Filley.
31

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 32 of 107

(b) The Second Remedial Plan

Next, the defendants argue that the plaintiffs cannot

recover attorney’s fees for time spent challenging the

defendants’ second remedial plan.

In granting

preliminary-injunctive relief on December 2, 2002, the

court ordered the defendants to file a plan that

redressed immediately and fully the unconstitutional

conditions at Tutwiler. On January 29, 2003, the court

rejected the defendants’ plan and ordered them to submit

a new one. The defendants did so on February 21, and the

court took the matter under consideration, including the

plaintiffs’ argument that the second plan, too, was

inadequate. On March 28, however, the court concluded

that it could neither accept nor reject the proposed plan

because the preliminary injunction had expired under the

PLRA’s 90-day limitation on preliminary-injunctive

relief. Laube III, 255 F.Supp.2d 1301.

The court agrees with the defendants that, under the

PLRA, time spent challenging the defendants’ second

32

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 33 of 107
remedial plan is non-compensable. Two considerations animate the court’s conclusion in this regard. First, these are not fees directly and reasonably incurred in securing any form of court-ordered relief. Second, reading the PLRA as a whole, it is clear that Congress intended to limit litigation over preliminary-injunctive relief to the 90-day expiration period. If Congress intended to so limit preliminary injunctions, and also provided that attorney’s fees be directly and reasonably incurred in proving the violation of a federal right, it stands to reason that Congress did not intend for plaintiffs to recover attorney’s fees for time spent litigating preliminary-injunction issues beyond the statutory 90-day expiration period for preliminary injunctions.
The court will therefore subtract from the plaintiffs’ billing statements those hours identified as relating to the defendants’ second remedial plan. The court subtracts 13.4 hours from attorney Caldas, 42.1
33

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 34 of 107
hours from attorney Kung, and 1.2 hours from paralegal Filley.
(c) Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel The defendants also argue that the plaintiffs cannot recover attorney’s fees for time spent on an unsuccessful motion to compel. Several discovery disputes arose during the course of this litigation. On June 24, 2003, the plaintiffs filed a motion to compel the production of certain documents relating to housing female prisoners in out-of-state facilities. The magistrate judge ordered briefing, heard oral arguments, and, on November 20, 2003, entered an order denying the plaintiffs’ motion. The court agrees with the defendants that the plaintiffs cannot recover fees for time spent on this unsuccessful motion to compel. These are not fees directly and reasonably incurred in proving any rights violation or in securing any form of court-ordered relief.
34

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 35 of 107
The court will therefore subtract from the plaintiffs’ billing statements those hours identified as relating to the plaintiffs’ June 24, 2003 motion to compel. The court subtracts 6.8 hours from attorney Caldas, 2.2 hours from attorney Kung, and 5.4 hours from attorney Rohr.
(d) Non-State Defendants Next, the defendants argue that the plaintiffs cannot recover fees for time spent on issues relating to non-state defendants. In the plaintiffs’ initial complaint, they named NaphCare, Inc. and its medical director, Francis Henderson, as defendants. In an amended complaint, they dropped all claims against NaphCare and Henderson. In a second amended complaint, NaphCare and Henderson were named again, along with MHM Correctional Services, Inc., another private company under state contract to provide mental-health care to prisoners. The non-state defendants filed motions to
35

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 36 of 107
dismiss, but these were denied by the court. Subsequently, however, the plaintiffs stipulated to the dismissal without prejudice of all three non-state defendants: MHM was dismissed without prejudice on October 1, 2003, and NaphCare and Henderson were dismissed without prejudice on December 16, 2003.
The court agrees to some extent with the defendants as to the non-compensability of certain matters relating to NaphCare, Henderson, and MHM. Where a fee is not directly and reasonably incurred in securing any form of relief, it is non-compensable. Furthermore, because the non-state defendants were dismissed from this case, fees relating to discovery disputes between the plaintiffs and the non-state defendants are not compensable from the state defendants that remained parties to this litigation. Examples of non-compensable matters include: the amended and second amended complaints; the non-state defendants’ motions to dismiss; the non-state defendants’
36

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 37 of 107
motion for a more definite statement; and the plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery by the non-state defendants.
However, to the extent that the plaintiffs billed time in obtaining medical records and other information directly relevant to health-care conditions at the prisons, those fees were directly and reasonably incurred in obtaining the court-ordered relief contained within the medical-settlement agreement. As the plaintiffs note, the ultimate responsibility for constitutional prison conditions is the State’s, regardless of whether certain prison services have been privatized. Therefore, the state defendants cannot avoid paying attorney’s fees for all line items containing the word “medical.” Fees directly related to medical conditions in the prisons, as opposed to fees incurred while litigating procedural matters, are compensable. Examples of compensable matters include: reviewing and obtaining, through a cooperative discovery process, medical and mental-health documents; depositions relating to medical and mental-
37

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 38 of 107
health services; and staff meetings regarding the plaintiffs’ medical claims and medical conditions at the prisons.
The court has reviewed the billing statements, lineby-line, in accordance with the above principles. The court subtracts 39.2 hours from attorney Caldas, 43.4 hours from attorney Kung, 0.2 hours from attorney Rohr, and two hours from paralegal Filley.
(e) Experts The defendants argue that the plaintiffs cannot recover attorney’s fees for time spent consulting with experts who did not testify. In support of this argument, the defendants cite case law that prohibits the recovery of expert fees for experts who do not testify. Webster Greenthumb Co. v. Fulton County, 112 F.Supp.2d 1339, 1382-83 (N.D. Ga. 2000) (Thrash, J.). Here, however, the plaintiffs do not seek compensation for the
38

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 39 of 107
experts themselves; rather, they seek fees for the attorneys’ time consulting with the experts.
The court rejects the defendants’ objection to compensating the plaintiffs for this time. Although it is true that these experts did not testify, the reason for that fact is obvious: the plaintiffs’ claims were resolved without need for a trial. The question, then, is whether attorney’s fees for time spent consulting with experts were directly and reasonably incurred in obtaining the court-ordered relief that made a trial unnecessary.
The court answers that question in the affirmative. As previously discussed, the PLRA does not permit court-ordered relief unless it is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary, and is least intrusive. 18 U.S.C. 3626(a)(1)(A). Given these constraints, combined with the wide-ranging scope of the plaintiffs’ complaint, consultation with experts was arguably necessary in order to fashion a comprehensive remedy that met the
39

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 40 of 107
requirements of the PLRA and afforded the plaintiffs the relief they needed to be free of unconstitutional prison conditions. The court will therefore award attorney’s fees for the time requested relating to experts.
b. Lack of Detail in Billing Statements As previously stated, a party seeking attorney’s fees must provide a billing statement that sets out with sufficient particularity the general subject matter of the time expenditures so that the district court can assess the time claimed for each activity. ACLU v. Barnes, 168 F.3d at 427. In addition, the fee-seeker may not “lump together all the tasks performed by an attorney on a given day without breaking out the time spent on each task.” Id. at 429. The plaintiffs acknowledge that their billing statements do not always contain sufficient particularity to pass muster. Instead of making line-by-line cuts to the billing statement, they suggest that the court
40

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 41 of 107
compensate the defendants for this problem by making an across-the-board fee reduction of 5 %. See Loranger, 10 F.3d at 783. The defendants agree that an across-theboard reduction, rather than a line-by-line analysis, is appropriate. However, they argue that 5 % is not enough; they urge the court to cut 25-30 %, if not more.
As previously discussed, in applying an across-theboard percentage cut, the court aims to simulate the effect of a line-by-line analysis while avoiding the waste of judicial resources that such an impractical approach would entail where billing records are voluminous. Id. To that end, the court has reviewed the billing records in an attempt to estimate how many hours would be subtracted from the plaintiffs’ fee request on account of a lack of detail in their billing statements. In addition to the “lumping” problem acknowledged by the plaintiffs, the court has considered the defendants’ complaint that certain descriptions are not detailed
41

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 42 of 107
enough to determine whether the matter is compensable or not.
Rather than apply an across-the-board cut to the entire fee request, the court prefers to examine each timekeeper’s billing statement to assess whether it has been prepared in accordance with the Barnes requirements. The billing statements of attorneys Kung and Caldas and paralegal Filley contain enough detail; the court will not reduce their hours. The billing statements of attorneys Rohr and Schulz, however, do suffer from some of the problems identified by the defendants, and the court will apply a 15 % reduction to their hours. Moreover, the billing statement of paralegal Siemon is sorely lacking in the detail the court would require in order to determine how many of her billed hours are compensable; it appears she has “lump[ed] together all the tasks performed ... on a given day without breaking out the time spent on each task.” Barnes, 168 F.3d at 429. This is exacerbated by the fact that some of her
42

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 43 of 107
tasks are non-compensable clerical tasks. The court therefore applies a 50 % reduction to her hours.
c. Overstaffing Next, the defendants challenge the number of hours billed on the grounds that the plaintiffs overstaffed this case. The defendants challenge, in particular, the plaintiffs’ decision to devote four attorneys to the mediation process, arguing that two attorneys (Kung and Caldas) could have accomplished this task. The court must reject the defendants’ overstaffing challenge. “The retaining of multiple attorneys in a significant, lengthy ... case such as this one is understandable and not a ground for reducing the hours claimed. The use in involved litigation of a team of attorneys who divide up the work is common today for both plaintiff and defense work.... An award for time spent by two or more attorneys is proper as long as it reflects the distinct contribution of each lawyer to the case and
43

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 44 of 107
the customary practice of multiple-lawyer litigation.” Johnson v. University College, 706 F.2d 1205, 1208 (11th Cir. 1983). The court has reviewed the affidavits of attorneys Rohr and Schulz, who explain the reasons why they were both present, in addition to attorneys Kung and Caldas, at mediation. The court finds those explanations enlightening and satisfactory.
Equally important, judicial policy favors settlement of class-action cases, Laube IV, 333 F.Supp.2d at 1238 (citing Cotton v. Hinton, 559 F.2d 1326, 1331 (5th Cir. 1977),2 and the defendants’ overstaffing challenge is focused largely on the hours billed in the weeks leading up to a negotiated settlement. The court is highly impressed with the comprehensive settlement agreements the parties were able to reach in this case, especially in light of the controversial nature of the lawsuit, the
2. In Bonner v. Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals adopted as binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981.
44

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 45 of 107
complexity and wide-ranging scope of the claims, and the pressures both sides were under to achieve their desired outcomes. Given this background, the court finds that the plaintiffs did not overbill for mediation or staff the case with too many attorneys. No time will be deducted on account of overstaffing.
d. Other Line-by-Line Challenges The court will now review the defendants’ other lineby-line challenges to the plaintiffs’ billing statements. The court begins with clerical tasks. Tasks not traditionally done by an attorney should be included in the “routine office overhead normally absorbed by the practicing attorney.” Dowdell v. City of Apopka, 698 F.2d 1181, 1192 (11th Cir. 1983). See Black v. M.G.A., Inc., 51 F.Supp.2d 1315, 1324 (M.D. Ala. 1999) (Thompson, J.); Reynolds v. Ala. Dep’t of Transp., 926 F. Supp. 1448, 1456 (M.D. Ala. 1995) (Thompson, J.). Having received the defendants’ objections, the plaintiffs have
45

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 46 of 107

deleted certain hours from their fee request for attorney

Rohr and paralegal Siemon. They have also provided more

detailed explanation as to the fee request for paralegal

Siemon; the court finds that Siemon’s computerized

management of discovery matters is compensable, though,

as previously stated, her hours will be cut by 50 % for

an inadequately detailed billing statement. The court

furthermore agrees with the defendants that certain hours

remain in the plaintiffs’ fee application that are

clerical in nature and therefore non-compensable, though

the court is not in agreement with the defendants as to

all the hours they labeled clerical. Having undertaken

a line-by-line review, the court subtracts an additional

3.5 hours from attorney Caldas, one hour from attorney

Kung, and 57.3 hours from paralegal Filley.

Next, the court considers the defendants’ challenge

to hours they deem “unnecessary.”

Although the

defendants have labeled certain billing entries as

unnecessary, they have not explained their objections in

46

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 47 of 107
any greater detail. The court has reviewed the billing statements and agrees that only a few of these entries should not be billed. The court subtracts 0.6 hours from attorney Caldas and 0.7 hours from attorney Kung.
Next, the court considers the entries challenged by the defendants as not providing enough information for them to decide whether the time is compensable. For attorneys Rohr and Schulz and paralegal Siemon, this concern is incorporated by the across-the-board cuts previously announced. For attorneys Caldas and Kung and paralegal Filley, the court employs a line-by-line approach. The court subtracts 4.4 hours from attorney Caldas, 8 hours from attorney Kung, and 3.9 hours from paralegal Filley.
Lastly, the court addresses the items defendants challenge as not related to this case--that is, alleged billing errors. It would have been helpful had the plaintiffs responded and either acknowledged that these hours were billed to the wrong account or provided a
47

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 48 of 107
fuller explanation of why they were properly billed in this case. Absent any such response from the plaintiffs, the court has undertaken its own review of the challenged hours and has determined which hours should be subtracted. Although the court does not delete all the challenged entries, it agrees that some of the challenged entries are either billing errors or not descriptive enough to entitle the plaintiffs to fees. The court subtracts 2.85 hours from attorney Caldas, 4.5 hours from attorney Kung, 8.1 hours from attorney Rohr, and three hours from paralegal Filley.

e. Summary In sum, the court will allow the plaintiffs to recover fees on the following hours:

Caldas Kung Rohr Schulz

Hours 563.175 806.650 707.200 257.900

Reduction
15 % 15 %

Subtotal 563.175 806.650 601.120 219.215

48

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 49 of 107

Filley Siemon TOTAL

723.600 200.200

50 %

723.600 100.100 3,013.860

3. Hourly Rates The court will next address the hourly rates it will use in computing the lodestar figure. The parties have two disagreements in this area. First, they disagree on the statutory cap on hourly rates under the PLRA. Second, they disagree on what constitutes a reasonable rate, within the PLRA’s limits, for several members of the plaintiffs’ litigation team. Again, the court has considered the Johnson factors in reaching a final determination on the hourly rates awarded.

a. PLRA Ordinarily, “A reasonable hourly rate is the prevailing market rate in the relevant legal community for similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skills, experience, and reputation.” Norman, 836 F.2d at
49

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 50 of 107
1299. In prisoner litigation, however, the PLRA limits the hourly rate to no “greater than 150 percent of the hourly rate established under section 3006A of Title 18 for payment of court-appointed counsel.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(d)(3).
The parties are in disagreement as to what the “established” hourly rate under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A is. According to the plaintiffs, the Judicial Conference approved funding under that statute at a rate of $ 113 per hour, so the maximum hourly rate under the PLRA is 150 % of $ 113, or $ 169.50. The defendants argue that although the Judicial Conference has requested funding from Congress at a rate of $ 113 per hour, congressional appropriations permit funding in this district at a rate of only $ 90 per hour. Therefore, the defendants argue, the maximum hourly rate under the PLRA is 150 % of $ 90, or $ 135.
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has not addressed this issue, and the circuits that have are
50

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 51 of 107

divided.3 The first appellate court to take a position was the Third Circuit, which adopted the defendants’ approach and held that the PLRA limits attorney’s fees to the hourly rate as actually implemented under budgetary constraints, not the rate set by the Judicial Conference. Hernandez v. Kalinowski, 146 F.3d 196, 201 (3d Cir. 1998). Subsequently, however, the Ninth Circuit held the opposite: the PLRA limit is pegged to the Judicial Conference’s rate, not the rate actually paid to courtappointed attorneys. Webb v. Ada County, 285 F.3d 829, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2002). More recently, the Sixth Circuit joined the Ninth in holding that the Judicial Conference’s rate, not the rate actually paid, was the maximum under the PLRA. Hadix v. Johnson, 398 F.3d 863 (6th Cir. 2005).
The Hernandez and Webb courts provide only brief explanations for their holdings, and this court finds

3. Some federal district courts in other circuits

have addressed this issue as well.

E.g., Skinner v.

Uphoff, 324 F.Supp.2d 1278, 1282 (D. Wyo. 2004) (Brimmer,

J.) (siding with the defendants’ position).

51

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 52 of 107
those two decisions to be of little assistance in
determining which rate to adopt. This court is
persuaded, however, by the detailed and cogent analysis
provided by the Sixth Circuit in Hadix. The Hadix court
begins with the plain language of the PLRA, which caps
the hourly rate for attorney’s fees at 150 % of the
hourly rate “established under section 3006A of Title 18
for payment of court-appointed counsel.” 42 U.S.C.
§ 1997e(d)(3). Then, the Hadix court turns to § 3006A to
find the hourly rate “established” under that statute.
According to that statute, “the Judicial Conference is
authorized to raise the maximum hourly rates specified in
this paragraph.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(d)(1). As the Hadix
court observes,
“The statute contains no reference to congressional appropriations or to rates of compensation that are actually paid to court-appointed counsel. While congressional appropriations may place a practical limitation on the amount actually paid to court-appointed counsel, there is no language in § 3006A that expressly limits the Judicial Conference’s discretion to set rates
52

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 53 of 107
based on budgetary constraints. If Congress had wanted attorney fees under the PLRA to be based on the amount of money budgeted for payment of courtappointed counsel, it could easily have used such language rather than crossreferencing § 3006A.” 398 F.3d at 867. This court agrees with Hadix’s interpretation of the PLRA and § 3006A. Where the PLRA refers to the hourly rate “established” by § 3006A, that section’s unambiguous delegation of authority to the Judicial Conference to raise that rate, without any reservation by Congress of the obligation to approve it, means that the Judicial Conference’s rate is controlling in PLRA cases. This court also agrees with the Hadix court’s additional observation that because attorney’s fees under the PLRA are not paid with federal funds, Congress’s budgetary appropriations for court-appointed attorneys under § 3006A do not express its policy determination that attorney’s fees under the PLRA should be limited to the same extent as federal compensation for court-
53

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 54 of 107
appointed attorneys. “There is no logical reason to limit fee awards in [prisoner] cases to the amount of money set aside to fund [§ 3006A].” Id.
Accordingly, this court joins the Sixth and Ninth Circuits in holding that the maximum rate available to the plaintiffs pursuant to the PLRA is 150 % of the Judicial Conference’s rate of $ 113, or $ 169.50 per hour.
b. Reasonable Rates The court must now ensure that the maximum PLRA rate satisfies the general requirement under the lodestar approach that the hourly rate not be unreasonably high. “A reasonable hourly rate is the prevailing market rate in the relevant legal community for similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skills, experience, and reputation.” Norman, 836 F.2d at 1299. The relevant legal community is Montgomery, Alabama. Hall v. Lowder Realty Co., 263 F.Supp.2d 1352, 1366 (M.D. Ala. 2003)
54

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 55 of 107
(Thompson, J.). Here, the plaintiffs seek fees for the services of four attorneys and two paralegals.
i. Attorneys The court begins with attorneys Caldas, Kung, and Schulz. Having reviewed the evidence submitted by plaintiffs in support of their application for attorney’s fees, the court is satisfied that a reasonable hourly rate for these three attorneys exceeds $ 169.50. Therefore, pursuant to PLRA’s statutory rate cap, the court approves an hourly rate of $ 169.50 for attorneys Caldas, Kung, and Schulz. The hourly rate for attorney Rohr represents a slightly more difficult issue. First, the defendants point out that Rohr sought fees at an attorney’s rate for work she did on this case before being admitted to the bar on November 12, 2003. Plaintiffs acknowledge this oversight and propose that Rohr’s hours prior to being admitted to the bar be billed at a paralegal rate. The
55

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 56 of 107
court agrees that this is a workable solution and will consider her hourly paralegal rate below.
Second, the plaintiffs have not demonstrated that an attorney with Rohr’s skills, experience, and reputation would command a rate of $ 169.50 in Montgomery, Alabama. According to the plaintiffs, their law firm’s billing rate in Atlanta, Georgia for first-year lawyers such as Rohr is $ 170 per hour. The plaintiffs also submitted an affidavit by H. Thomas Wells, Jr., an Alabama lawyer who states that first-year associates at his firm, whether they practice in Montgomery or Birmingham, bill at a rate of $ 160 per hour. It is reasonable to conclude that billing rates for first-year associates are slightly less in Montgomery than in Atlanta. Therefore, instead of approving the maximum rate allowed under the PLRA for attorney Rohr, the court will allow the plaintiffs to bill $ 160 per hour for the services she performed after she was admitted to the bar.
56

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 57 of 107
ii. Paralegals The court next addresses the billing rate for paralegals. Paralegal work may be separately billed for fee awards under § 1988. Missouri v. Jenkins, 491 U.S. 274, 288 (1989). The plaintiffs seek paralegal fees at a rate of $ 120 per hour for paralegal Filley, $ 110 per hour for paralegal Siemon, and $ 100 per hour for Rohr’s work on this case before she was admitted to the bar. According to the Wells affidavit, his firm bills paralegal services at a rate of $ 90 to $ 125 per hour. The defendants object to the plaintiffs’ paralegal rates on two grounds. First, they argue that these rates are too high because the standard billing rate for paralegals in Montgomery is no more than $ 80 per hour. In support of this argument they submit an affidavit by attorney Ellen Leonard, who states that an informal survey of four Montgomery law firms reveals that the standard billing rate for paralegals is $ 60 to $ 80 per hour. In addition, this court has previously stated that
57

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 58 of 107

$ 75 per hour is “the rate commonly awarded paralegals by

this court.” Hall, 263 F.Supp.2d at 1369. Second, the

defendants argue that although the PLRA is silent on the

issue of billing rates for paralegals, the court should

reduce their hourly rate consistent with Congress’s

intent to limit fee-shifting in prisoner cases and to

avoid a scenario in which prevailing plaintiffs recover

paralegal fees at a rate almost as high as the rate for

attorney’s fees. See Ilick v. Miller, 68 F.Supp.2d 1169,

1179 (D. Nev. 1999) (Hagen, J.).

The court does not interpret the PLRA to provide a

cap on paralegal rates different from the cap on attorney

rates.

Prevailing parties generally may recover

paralegal fees along with attorney’s fees, and the PLRA

is absolutely silent on the issue of paralegal support.

Regarding hourly rates, the PLRA states: “No award of

attorney’s fees ... shall be based on an hourly rate

greater than 150 percent of the hourly rate established

under section 3006A of title 18 for payment of

58

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 59 of 107
court-appointed counsel.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(d)(3). Therefore, this court reads the PLRA to prohibit paralegal rates in excess of $ 169.50 but to permit whatever lesser rate would be considered reasonable under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b).
Although the court does not read the PLRA to compel a reduction in the plaintiffs’ paralegal rates, it does think their proposed paralegal rates are too high. Instead, the court will allow $ 75 per hour for Siemon and $ 85 per hour for Filley and Rohr. The court has determined that these rates are reasonable after considering affidavits from the parties and this court’s previous practices. The court awards Filley a rate slightly higher than its normal paralegal rate of $ 75 based on the sworn statement by attorney Stephen Bright that Filley was “[a]rguably the most important member of Plaintiffs’ legal team,” and Rohr is awarded a slightly higher rate because of her superior credentials during
59

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 60 of 107
the period of time she was not yet licensed to practice law.

c. Summary In sum, the court will allow plaintiffs to recover fees at the following rates:

Name Attorney Caldas Attorney Kung Attorney Schulz Attorney Rohr Paralegal Filley Paralegal Siemon Paralegal Rohr

Rate $ 169.50 / hr. $ 169.50 / hr. $ 169.50 / hr. $ 160.00 / hr. $ 85.00 / hr. $ 75.00 / hr. $ 85.00 / hr.

4. Adjustments to the Lodestar The parties do not suggest any upward or downward adjustments to the lodestar, and this court does not think any adjustments are warranted.

60

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 61 of 107
5. Expenses The plaintiffs claim compensable litigation expenses in the amount of $ 62,892.50. The defendants agree to pay expenses but have challenged certain expenses as unnecessary or non-compensable. The court proceeds to address the defendants’ objections. First, the defendants argue that they should pay only some of the expenses associated with the plaintiffs’ first motion for preliminary injunction because the court granted preliminary injunctive relief only in part. For the reasons previously stated in this court’s discussion of the number of hours claimed, supra Subsection III.A.2.a.i, the court agrees with the defendants that these expenses should be reduced. The court subtracts $ 3,932.11. Next, the defendants argue that they should not have to pay any expenses associated with the plaintiffs’ objections to the defendants’ second remedial plan, which the court neither approved nor disapproved. For the
61

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 62 of 107
reasons previously stated in this court’s discussion of the number of hours claimed, supra Subsection III.A.2.a.iii(a), the court agrees with the defendants that these expenses are non-compensable. The court subtracts $ 390.00.
Next, the court challenges expenses associated with the plaintiffs’ second motion for preliminary injunction. The plaintiffs acknowledge that they mistakenly included some of those expenses in their fee request. However, there remains a $ 160.00 discrepancy between the expenses the plaintiffs agreed to deduct and the expenses challenged by the defendants. The court views this as a probable oversight by the plaintiffs and subtracts $ 160.00.
Next, the defendants challenge expenses associated with the plaintiffs’ motion to compel on which they did not prevail. For the reasons previously stated in this court’s discussion of the number of hours claimed, supra Subsection III.A.2.a.iii(b), the court agrees with the
62

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 63 of 107

defendants that these expenses are non-compensable. The

court subtracts $ 140.00.

Next, the defendants challenge all expenses

associated with litigation against the non-state

defendants. In accordance with the principles previously

articulated in this court’s discussion of the number of

hours claims, supra Subsection III.A.2.a.iii(c), the

court concludes that the attorneys’ travel expenses

associated with the plaintiffs’ medical and mental-health

claims are compensable, but that other litigation

expenses associated with the litigation against the non-

state defendants are not.

The court subtracts

$ 1,326.00.

Next, the defendants argue that they should not have

to pay expenses related to experts who did not testify.

For the reasons previously stated in this court’s

discussion of the number of hours claimed, supra

Subsection III.A.2.a.iii(d), the court finds that the

attorneys’ travel expenses associated with consulting

63

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 64 of 107
with experts are compensable. However, fees for the experts themselves are not recoverable in cases brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Webster Greenthumb, 112 F.Supp.2d at 1380 (“Since the Supreme Court’s 1991 decision in [West Virginia University Hospital v. Casey, 499 U.S. 83, 102 (1991)] and the amendment to Section 1988 explicitly allowing expert fees in only Section 1981 and 1981a cases, federal courts consistently have held that prevailing parties in Section 1983 cases cannot recover expert witness fees.”). The court also finds that the plaintiffs’ descriptions of certain other expenses related to the experts are too vague to be compensable, regardless of the statutory rules on expert fees. The court subtracts $ 1,752.52.
Next, the defendants object to the amount of expenses claimed on grounds that the plaintiffs overstaffed the case. For the reasons previously stated in this court’s discussion of the number of hours claims, supra Subsection III.A.2.c, the court rejects the defendants’
64

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 65 of 107
overstaffing argument and therefore finds that the reasonable expenses of all the attorneys who worked on this case are compensable. However, the court also finds that attorney Schulz’s travel expenses and attorney Rohr’s hotel bills are excessive and should be reduced. The court subtracts $ 3,364.68.
Next, the defendants challenge certain other expenses either as unnecessary or as lacking enough description to be compensable without additional information. The court has reviewed these entries and agrees with some of the defendants’ objections. The court subtracts $ 331.17.
In total, the court subtracts $ 11,396.48, which means that the plaintiffs shall recover $ 51,496.02 in expenses.
6. Summary The court having determined that the plaintiffs are prevailing parties, having calculated the lodestar, and having determined that no adjustments to the lodestar are
65

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 66 of 107

warranted, the final award under the plaintiffs’ first motion for attorney’s fees is as follows:

Attorney Caldas
Attorney Kung
Attorney Rohr
Attorney Schulz
Paralegal Filley
Paralegal Siemon
Paralegal Rohr
TOTAL HOURS

Hours 563.175 806.650 412.250 219.215 723.600 100.100 188.870 3,013.860

Rate $ 169.50 / hr $ 169.50 / hr $ 160.00 / hr $ 169.50 / hr $ 85.00 / hr $ 75.00 / hr $ 85.00 / hr

Subtotal $ 95,458.16 $ 136,727.18 $ 65,960.00 $ 37,156.94 $ 61,506.00
$ 7507.50 $ 16,053.95 $ 420,369.73

Expenses TOTAL FEES

$ 51,496.02 $ 471,865.75

7. Interest The plaintiffs request interest on the attorney’s fees and expenses awarded with their first motion. They are correct that they are entitled to interest on this
66

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 67 of 107
award. Gates v. Coller, 616 F.2d 1268, 1272-79 (5th Cir. 1980), modified on reh’g, 636 F.2d 942 (5th Cir. 1981). They are also correct that the interest runs from the date of the judgment establishing their entitlement to the award, which in this case was August 23, 2004. Id. at 1270 n.2. & 1279; Georgia Ass’n of Retarded Citizens v. McDaniel, 855 F.2d 794, 799 (11th Cir. 1988); see also Jenkins v. Missouri, 931 F.2d 1273 (8th Cir. 1991); Copper Liquor, Inc. v. Adolph Coors Co., 701 F.2d 542 (5th Cir. 1983); but see Fleming v. County of Kane, 898 F.2d 553, 565 (7th Cir. 1990). The $ 474,698.80 award on the plaintiffs’ first motion is exclusive of interest, and the defendants must therefore calculate the interest to be added to that amount when they deliver payment to the plaintiffs. The proper calculation of interest is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1961.
67

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 68 of 107

B. Second Motion for Attorney’s Fees In the plaintiffs’ second motion, they seek attorney’s fees and costs incurred in litigating the fees issue and monitoring and enforcing the consent decrees during the two-year period following the entry of final judgment. Their current fee request can be broken down as follows:

Attorney Felder
Attorney Hanlon
Attorney Kung
Attorney Rohr
Attorney Schulz
Paralegal Doctoroff
Paralegal Patterson
Paralegal Shareiko
Paralegal Siemon

Hours

Rate

60.9 $ 169.50 / hr

133.9 $ 169.50 / hr

161.3 $ 169.50 / hr

716.2 $ 169.50 / hr

124.5 $ 169.50 / hr

272.4 $ 120.00 / hr

10.7 $ 120.00 / hr

15.5 $ 45.00 / hr

26.5 $ 120.00 / hr

Subtotal $ 10,332.55 $ 22,696.05 $ 27,340.35 $ 121,395.90 $ 21,102.75 $ 32,688.00
$ 1,284.00 $ 697.50
$ 3,180.00

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 69 of 107

Paralegal Smith TOTAL HOURS
Expenses TOTAL FEES

1.8 $ 70.00 / hr 1,523.7

$ 126.00 $ 240,843.10 $ 16,063.08 $ 256,906.18

The plaintiffs’ second motion essentially presents the court with three general areas of inquiry: first, attorney’s fees for time spent litigating attorney’s fees (also known as ‘fees on fees’); second, attorney’s fees for monitoring compliance with the consent decrees; and third, attorney’s fees for enforcing the consent decrees.

1. Fees on Fees The PLRA does not change the rule that an entitlement to attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 includes an entitlement to fees on fees. Jackson v. State Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, 331 F.3d 790, 798-99 (11th Cir. 2003); accord Volk v. Gonzalez, 262 F.3d 528, 536 (5th Cir. 2001); Hernandez v. Kalinowski, 146 F.3d 196, 200-01 (3d
69

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 70 of 107

Cir. 1998). Indeed, the defendants agree that the

plaintiffs are entitled to reasonable fees for litigating

the issue of attorney’s fees.

The defendants do not agree, however, with the

plaintiffs’ application for all the fees they incurred

litigating the fees issue. They argue instead that a

reasonable fees-on-fees award should be determined based

on the extent to which the plaintiffs prevail in their

first motion for attorney’s fees.

Although the

defendants have requested an opportunity to provide the

court with further briefing once the first motion for

attorney’s fees has been resolved, under the

circumstances the court thinks it better simply to

resolve the fees-on-fees issue at this time. “Putting an

end to attorney fees issues as soon as possible is, to

borrow a phrase from Holmes, a ‘concession to the

shortness of life.’” Barnes, 168 F.3d at 432 (quoting

Reeve v. Dennett, 11 N.E. 938, 944 (Mass. 1887) (Holmes,

J.)).

70

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 71 of 107
As the defendants imply, the plaintiffs’ recovery of fees-on-fees should be “proportionately related to the court ordered relief” on their first motion for attorney’s fees. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(d)(1)(B)(i). The court will endeavor to make this relatively simple. The plaintiffs initially requested a total fee award of $ 722,063.65, before making some adjustments to their request based on the objections of the defendants. Today, this court is granting the plaintiff’s first motion for attorney’s fees to the extent that they may recover $ 471,865.75, which is 65.35 % of $ 722,063.65. A proportional fees-on-fees award, therefore, is 65.35 % of the fees the plaintiffs incurred in obtaining their fee award on the first motion.
The court has reviewed the plaintiffs’ billing statements and finds that the following hours are properly attributable to fees-on-fees recovery: 60.9 hours for attorney Felder, 108.3 hours for attorney Hanlon, 17.8 hours for attorney Kung, 107.6 hours for
71

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 72 of 107
attorney Rohr, and 62.7 hours for attorney Schulz. Before applying the across-the-board proportionality cut, the court must also consider the defendants’ line-by-line objections to the plaintiffs’ fees-on-fees billing entries. The court agrees with the defendants that some of these challenged hours are not compensable but finds that the majority of them are properly billed. The court subtracts 9.1 hours from attorney Rohr, 0.8 hours from attorney Schulz, and three hours from attorney Felder. Now, applying an across-the-board proportionality cut, the court finds that the plaintiffs should recover fees-on-fees for the following number of hours: 37.84 hours for attorney Felder, 70.77 hours for attorney Hanlon, 11.63 hours for attorney Kung, 64.37 hours for attorney Rohr, and 40.45 hours for attorney Schulz. The total number of fees-on-fees hours, then, is 225.06.
The court has reviewed the affidavits and exhibits submitted by the plaintiffs and is satisfied that a reasonable hourly rate for all five of the above-listed
72

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 73 of 107
attorneys exceeds the PLRA statutory cap of $ 169.50 per hour. Therefore, the lodestar amount for fees on fees is $ 169.50 multiplied by 225.06, or $ 38,147.67. The court finds that no adjustments to the lodestar amount are appropriate and that $ 38,147.67 represents the final fees-on-fees award.

2. Post-Judgment Monitoring Fees

The next question is whether post-judgment monitoring

fees are recoverable.

The plaintiffs’ attorneys

unquestionably spent a great deal of time and money

monitoring the defendants’ compliance with the consent

decrees. But the defendants argue that the consent

decrees do not provide for post-judgment monitoring fees

and that the plaintiffs are not otherwise entitled to

such fees as a result of the PLRA’s provisions for fee

awards under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

73

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 74 of 107
a. Consent Decrees The court begins by reviewing the consent decrees themselves to determine whether the parties, in reaching a settlement, either agreed to the post-judgment monitoring fees the plaintiffs now seek or agreed that such fees would not be recovered. Once a consent decree is approved, its terms are interpreted according to principles of contract law. Reynolds v. Roberts, 202 F.3d 1303, 1312-13 (11th Cir. 2000). A review of the two agreements indicates that they are completely silent on the question of whether the defendants are to pay the plaintiffs post-judgment monitoring fees. The conditions agreement expressly permits the plaintiffs’ attorneys to monitor compliance with that agreement but is silent as to whether they will be compensated by the defendants for their monitoring activities. Laube IV, 333 F.Supp.2d at 1251. The medical agreement expressly assigns to a neutral monitor the task of monitoring compliance with that agreement,
74

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 75 of 107
requires the defendants to pay the monitor’s fees and expenses, and requires the monitor to provide copies of his or her reports to the parties, id. at 1263-64; but the agreement is silent as to whether the healthcare monitor’s role is exclusive (that is, whether plaintiffs’ attorneys may engage in monitoring as well) and whether the plaintiffs’ attorneys can recover fees from the defendants for reviewing the monitor’s reports or for their own activity monitoring compliance with the medical agreement.
It is theoretically possible that canons of construction could be employed in an effort to discern the parties’ intent regarding post-judgment monitoring fees. Several plausible arguments emerge. For instance, one could argue that because the medical agreement expressly requires the defendants to pay the fees and expenses of the neutral healthcare monitor, the conditions agreement’s silence as to the fees and costs of the plaintiffs’ counsel’s monitoring activities
75

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 76 of 107
implies that the plaintiffs must bear their own monitoring costs. On the other hand, one could also argue that because the conditions agreement expressly states that the plaintiffs shall bear the costs of any experts it brings to the facilities for monitoring, its silence regarding the fees and expenses of the attorneys and paralegals themselves implies that those fees and expenses are to be borne by the defendants. See Cody v. Hillard, 304 F.3d 767, 778 (8th Cir. 2002) (interpreting attorney-fee silence in prison-conditions consent decree); cf. Ex parte Haponski, 395 So.2d 971, 972 (Ala. 1981) (familiar canon of statutory construction expressio unius est exclusio alterius is equally applicable in construction of contract language).
To be candid, however, those interpretations strike the court as implausible under the circumstances. The more reasonable conclusion to draw from the agreements’ silence regarding the post-judgment monitoring fees is that the parties reached no agreement one way or the
76

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 77 of 107

other as to whether post-judgment monitoring would be

compensable. When a settlement agreement is silent on

the issue of attorney’s fees, such silence is not

normally considered a waiver of such fees. 5 Alba Conte

& Herbert W. Newberg, Newberg on Class Actions § 15:35

(4th ed. 2002); Taylor Group, Inc. v. Johnson, 919

F.Supp. 1545, 1548-51 (M.D. Ala. 1996) (DeMent, J.). The

court concludes that the consent decrees’ silence on

post-judgment monitoring fees should be read as just

that: silence.

The consent decrees, in and of

themselves, neither require nor preclude attorney’s fees

for monitoring.

b. Section 1988 and the PLRA Because the consent decrees are silent as to postjudgment monitoring fees and such silence is not interpreted as a waiver, the court must now determine whether § 1988 as modified by the PLRA allows attorney’s fees awards for post-judgment monitoring. Reasonable
77

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 78 of 107
post-judgment monitoring fees are recoverable under 42
U.S.C. § 1988 in cases not covered by the PLRA.
Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens’ Council for
Clean Air, 478 U.S. 546, 559 (1986); Mills v. Freeman,
118 F.3d 727, 734 (11th Cir. 1997); Norman, 836 F.2d at
1305; but see Alliance to End Repression v. City of
Chicago, 356 F.3d 767, 771, 772 (7th Cir. 2004) (casting
doubt on availability of monitoring fees after the
Supreme Court’s decision in Buckhannon Board & Care Home,
Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health & Human
Resources, 532 U.S. 598 (2001)). The PLRA, however,
states:
“In any action brought by a prisoner who is confined to any jail, prison, or other correctional facility, in which attorney’s fees are authorized under section 1988 of this title, such fees shall not be awarded, except to the extent that--
(A) the fee was directly and reasonably incurred in proving an actual violation of the plaintiff’s rights protected by a statute pursuant to which a fee may be
78

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 79 of 107
awarded under section 1988 of this title; and (B)(i) the amount of the fee is proportionately related to the court ordered relief for the violation; or (ii) the fee was directly and reasonably incurred in enforcing the relief ordered for the violation.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(d)(1) (emphasis added). Earlier in this opinion, the court interpreted subsection (d)(1)(A) of the statute to allow for attorney’s fees directly and reasonably incurred in securing a consent decree that met the strict requirements of the PLRA under 18 U.S.C. § 3626, and the defendants’ response to the plaintiffs’ first motion for attorney’s fees is generally consistent with that interpretation. Now the question presented is whether the statute can be interpreted to allow for attorney’s fees incurred by the prevailing party in monitoring compliance with a consent decree after a final judgment incorporating its terms is entered.
79

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 80 of 107
Several courts have taken note of the peculiar “and” connecting subsections (d)(1)(A) and (d)(1)(B). Cody, 304 F.3d at 776; Webb, 285 F.3d at 834. “Read in isolation, subsection (A) might be thought to forbid any fees for legal work done to enforce previously established relief. One would not ordinarily say that a lawyer performing such work is ‘proving’ a violation.” Cody, 304 F.3d at 776. But surely it cannot be the case that enforcement work is non-compensable unless it simultaneously proves the violation that led to the court-ordered relief being enforced.
This court makes sense of the statutory language as follows. The statute states that it applies to “any action brought by a prisoner,” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(d)(1) (emphasis added), not ‘any motion’ or ‘any fee request.’ This court therefore reads the term “the fee” in subsections (d)(1)(A) and (d)(1)(B)(ii) to describe all attorney’s fees awarded over the lifetime of a single case. That way, it is possible for the ‘same’ fee, writ large, to be incurred both in proving an actual violation
80

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 81 of 107
and in enforcing the court-ordered relief. Consequently, where a prisoner seeks attorney’s fees for post-judgment enforcement work, such fees can be awarded if the prisoner is also (or was previously) awarded fees for pre-judgment work in the same case. The court thinks this reading of the PLRA gives meaning to all the words in the statute and gives effect to Congress’s probable intent that prisoners recover fees incurred in enforcing court-ordered relief when they have also recovered fees “incurred in proving an actual violation of the plaintiff’s rights.” Id.
In this case, the plaintiffs meet the threshold requirement of having been awarded fees directly and reasonably incurred in proving a violation. Therefore, they are also entitled to fees directly and reasonably incurred in enforcing the court-ordered relief.4
4. The court need not decide in this case whether the converse is also true: that prisoners who are not awarded attorney’s fees for pre-judgment work can never obtain fees for post-judgment enforcement.
81

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 82 of 107
Unfortunately for the plaintiffs, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(d)(1)(B)(ii) does not say ‘directly and reasonably incurred in monitoring compliance with the court-ordered relief,’ or even ‘directly and reasonably incurred in realizing the benefits of the court-ordered relief.’ Rather, it says “directly and reasonably incurred in enforcing the relief.” Parties enforce relief when they ask the court to adjudicate noncompliance with its judgment, not when they monitor compliance without the court’s involvement. Cf. Roland v. Celluci, 151 F.Supp.2d 145, 153-54 (D. Mass. 2003) (Neiman, M.J.) (distinguishing between monitoring and enforcement). The plaintiffs in this case argue that “[e]nforcement necessarily includes monitoring.” Pl. Br. (doc. no. 408) at 4. But this is true only in the sense that most enforcement is preceded by monitoring; not all monitoring, however, is followed by enforcement. And while extensive monitoring can put pressure on a defendant to comply with court-ordered relief, thereby
82

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 83 of 107
obtaining the benefits of such compliance without further resort to litigation, the costs of such monitoring are not directly and reasonably incurred in enforcing the relief ordered when no related enforcement litigation ever takes place.
Surprisingly, the court finds little discussion of this issue in the published case law. In one treatise on § 1983 litigation, the authors state that the implication of the PLRA is that “only services calculated to enforce, by noncompliance or contempt motion, for example, the judgment and not merely to monitor the defendants’ compliance with it, may be compensable under § 1988.” 2 Martin A. Schwartz & John E. Kirklin, Section 1983 Litigation § 2.7, at 39 (3d ed. 1997) (second emphasis added). The Eighth Circuit, in dicta, agrees with the Schwartz & Kirklin interpretation. Cody, 304 F.3d at 777.5
5. The Cody court notes that other litigation procedures, such as defending a consent decree against a motion to vacate, could be considered “enforcement”
(continued...) 83

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 84 of 107
The court acknowledges one recent district court decision outside this circuit, Ginest v. Board of County Commissioners, 423 F.Supp.2d 1237, 1240-41 (D. Wyo. 2006) (Johnson, J.), which holds that the PLRA does not preclude an award of attorney’s fees for post-judgment monitoring. In Ginest, however, the court relies exclusively on precedent that does not support its position in any way. First, the Ginest court cites Cody, 304 F.3d 767. But Cody awarded post-judgment monitoring fees because the monitoring took place before the PLRA was enacted; and, as stated, Cody dicta actually rejects post-judgment monitoring fees in PLRA cases. 304 F.3d at 777. Next, Ginest cites Webb, 285 F.3d 829. But in Webb, the plaintiffs were awarded fees for post-judgment litigation--that is to say, enforcement--not monitoring. The Ginest court also cites Plyler v. Evatt, 902 F.2d 273 (4th Cir. 1990) and MacLaird v. Werger, 723 F.Supp. 617
5. (...continued) actions entitled to attorney’s fees under § 1988 as modified by the PLRA. Cody, 304 F.3d at 777.
84

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 85 of 107
(D. Wyo. 1989). Both these cases that were decided before the PLRA was enacted; § 1988 allows post-judgment monitoring fees, so pre-PLRA case law on this issue is relatively unhelpful. Furthermore, Plyler, unlike this case, involved a consent decree that expressly provided for attorney’s fees for post-judgment monitoring. 902 F.2d at 276. And in MacLaird the plaintiffs sought attorney’s fees for filing a contempt motion, 723 F.Supp. at 617-18, which, as in Webb, places that case more in the realm of ‘enforcement’ than ‘monitoring.’ In sum, the court is unconvinced by Ginest’s interpretation of the PLRA and related case law on this issue.
The court is sympathetic to the plaintiffs’ position because intensive monitoring is an important and often vital component of ensuring compliance with court-ordered prospective relief. However, fee-shifting is a creature of statute, and “[w]hat Congress giveth ... it can also taketh away.” Burks v. American River Transp. Co., 679 F.2d 69, 76 (5th Cir. 1982). Although the court
85

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 86 of 107
encourages plaintiffs, especially in class action cases, to monitor compliance with court-ordered injunctive relief, it cannot conclude that such monitoring, by itself and without any related post-judgment litigation, constitutes “enforcing” the court-ordered relief.
Nevertheless, because the PLRA allows the court to award fees directly and reasonably incurred in enforcing court-ordered relief, monitoring fees are recoverable when they directly and reasonably lead to enforcement activity. That is, the court reads the PLRA to disallow awards of post-judgment monitoring fees not directly and reasonably incurred in enforcing the judgment through litigation; but if the court finds that some of the plaintiffs’ enforcement activities are compensable, then the plaintiffs’ monitoring activities directly and reasonably related to those enforcement activities will be compensable as well.
Because the court concludes that post-judgment monitoring is compensable only when it directly and
86

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 87 of 107
reasonably leads to enforcing the judgment, the compensability of the hours the plaintiffs classified as “monitoring” depends on whether the plaintiffs incurred any compensable fees in enforcing the consent decrees. In the following subsection of this opinion, the court turns to post-judgment enforcement fees. If the court finds that the plaintiffs directly and reasonably incurred fees in enforcing the judgment, the court will also award monitoring fees directly and reasonably incurred as part of the plaintiffs’ enforcement activity.
3. Post-Judgment Enforcement Fees The last question is whether post-judgment enforcement fees are compensable. As stated, there is a difference between monitoring and enforcement: monitoring entails observing and verifying defendants’ compliance with an injunction, whereas enforcement consists of plaintiffs’ efforts, via post-judgment litigation, to adjudicate a claim that the defendants are not complying
87

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 88 of 107
with the court’s judgment. In this case, the plaintiffs filed a post-judgment contempt motion (alleging that the defendants failed to comply with the medical agreement) that was eventually settled out of court. Similarly to their argument against post-judgment monitoring fees, the defendants argue that they should not have to pay attorney’s fees for the plaintiffs’ enforcement efforts because the consent decrees do not provide for enforcement fees and because such fees would be available under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 only if the plaintiffs were to prevail on a motion to hold the defendants in contempt.
a. Consent Decree Once again, the court begins by reviewing the medical consent decree itself to determine whether the parties reached an agreement regarding post-judgment enforcement. The medical agreement does contain a provision regarding enforcement:
“If the [Alabama Department of Corrections,] its agents or contractors,
88

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 89 of 107
fail to comply with the terms and conditions of this Medical Settlement Agreement, Plaintiffs’ counsel may apply to the Court for a finding of contempt or other appropriate relief. Prior to approaching the Court for such relief, Plaintiffs’ counsel will bring, in writing, any deficiencies to the attention of the Defendants and the Healthcare Monitor or Mental Health Auditor, as appropriate, and will make reasonable attempts to resolve the issues informally. Issues that cannot be resolved informally between the parties shall be brought to the attention of the Magistrate Judge, who will attempt to mediate a resolution, before Plaintiffs’ counsel will move the Court for an Order for Defendants to show cause why they should not be held in contempt.”
Laube IV, 333 F.Supp.2d at 1264. The agreement thus
defines the contours of enforcement actions and spells
out the preconditions to obtaining additional court-
ordered relief.
As with the monitoring provisions, however, the
consent decree is silent as to the issue of attorney’s
fees for enforcement. As before, the court will not
interpret such silence as a waiver of fees. Rather, the
89

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 90 of 107
court concludes that the consent decree neither requires nor prohibits attorney’s fees for enforcement.
b. Section 1988 and the PLRA Because the medical consent decree is silent as to post-judgment enforcement fees and such silence is not interpreted as a waiver, the court must now determine whether 42 U.S.C. § 1988 as modified by the PLRA allows fee awards for post-judgment enforcement. There is nothing in the PLRA itself that prohibits, as a general matter, attorney’s fees for enforcement. Indeed, the statute specifically envisions fees “directly and reasonably incurred in enforcing the relief ordered for the violation.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(d)(1)(B)(ii). Rather, the court must address a question that applies to all § 1988 cases: whether enforcement fees are recoverable when a contempt motion or other enforcement action does not lead to additional court-ordered relief.
90

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 91 of 107
In Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health & Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598 (2001), the Supreme Court held that a plaintiff seeking attorney’s fees under a fee-shifting statute such as 42 U.S.C. § 1988 is a “prevailing party” entitled to fees only if she has achieved a sought-after “judicially sanctioned change in the legal relationship of the parties.” 532 U.S. at 600.6 A judgment on the merits, a court-ordered consent decree, or a settlement agreement the court explicitly retains jurisdiction to enforce all qualify as judicial imprimaturs on the change in the legal relationship between the parties. Smalbein v. City of Daytona Beach, 353 F.3d 901, 904-05 (11th Cir. 2003); American Disability Ass’n v. Chmielarz, 289 F.3d 1315,
6. Although in Buckhannon the plaintiffs sought attorney’s fees under the fee-shifting provisions of 42 U.S.C. §§ 3613 and 12205, the holding of Buckhannon applies to § 1988 as well. 532 U.S. at 602-03 & n.4 (“We have interpreted these fee-shifting provisions consistently and so approach the nearly identical provisions at issue here.” (citation omitted)); Smalbein v. City of Daytona Beach, 353 F.3d 901, 904-05 (11th Cir. 2003); Dillard v. Colbert County Comm’n, 494 F.Supp.2d 1297, 1300 n.2 (M.D. Ala. 2007) (Thompson, J.).
91

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 92 of 107
1320 (11th Cir. 2002). A completely private settlement agreement, however, is not enough. Buckhannon, 532 U.S. at 604 n.7; see also T.D. v. LaGrange Sch. Dist. No. 102, 349 F.3d 469, 478-79 (7th Cir. 2003); Christina A. v. Bloomberg, 315 F.3d 990, 993 (8th Cir. 2003); Oil, Chem. & Atomic Workers Int’l Union v. Dep’t of Energy, 288 F.3d 452, 458-59 (D.C. Cir. 2002); Smyth v. Rivero, 282 F.3d 268, 281 n.10 (4th Cir. 2002). Therefore, if a civilrights plaintiff brings suit and reaches a settlement agreement with the defendant, the plaintiff cannot later petition the court for an award of attorney’s fees unless the terms of the settlement agreement are incorporated into a court order or the court explicitly retains jurisdiction to enforce the agreement.
As previously discussed, the plaintiffs meet the “prevailing party” requirement for purposes of their first motion for attorney’s fees because they obtained judicially sanctioned relief in the form of the two settlement agreements approved and adopted by this court
92

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 93 of 107
in 2004. The question now is whether they must again meet the “prevailing party” requirement in order to qualify for attorney’s fees on their contempt motion. That is, when a civil-rights plaintiff has already achieved prevailing-party status on account of a consent decree but then pursues post-judgment enforcement of that decree, must there be another judicially sanctioned change in the legal relationship between the parties in order for the plaintiff to recover attorney’s fees on the enforcement action? Or, if the parties resolve a contempt motion through a private settlement agreement the court does not incorporate into an order or retain jurisdiction to enforce, may the plaintiff seek such fees notwithstanding Buckhannon?
The Eleventh Circuit has yet to address the question of whether the Buckhannon principle should be extended to post-judgment enforcement actions. Prior to Buckhannon, circuit law unquestionably allowed prevailing parties to obtain post-judgment enforcement fees even when the
93

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 94 of 107
enforcement activity did not yield additional courtordered relief. Miller v. Carson, 628 F.2d 346, 348-49 (5th Cir. 1980). In this circuit, an intervening decision of the Supreme Court can overrule the decision of a prior appellate panel only if clearly on point. Garrett v. University of Alabama, 344 F.3d 1288, 1292 (11th Cir. 2003). When binding circuit law closely on point “has been only weakened, rather than directly overruled, by the Supreme Court,” neither a district court nor an appellate panel may disregard it. Florida League of Professional Lobbyists, Inc. v. Meggs, 87 F.3d 457, 462 (11th Cir. 1996). This court concludes that Buckhannon did not overrule, nor is it clearly contrary to, Miller v. Carson; at most, Buckhannon weakened Miller. Therefore, the court concludes, consistent with both Miller and Buckhannon, that although a prevailing plaintiff’s post-judgment enforcement efforts do not automatically entitle the plaintiff to recover fees, it is not a statutory requirement that those enforcement
94

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 95 of 107
efforts result in another judicially sanctioned change in
the legal relationship between the partes.7
Furthermore, even if the Buckhannon principle could
be viewed to apply to post-judgment enforcement
situations under § 1988 generally, the language of the
PLRA strongly suggests that it does not apply to prisoner
cases in particular. Recall that this court previously
noted the PLRA’s use of the present participle in
allowing fees “directly and reasonably incurred in
7. On this particular question, authorities outside the Eleventh Circuit are split. In Alliance to End Repression v. City of Chicago, 356 F.3d 767 (7th Cir. 2004), the Seventh Circuit held that plaintiffs were not entitled to attorney’s fees for completely unsuccessful post-decree contempt motions. See also Rolland v. Cellucci, 151 F.Supp.2d 145, 154-55 (D. Mass. 2001) (Neiman, M.J.) (post-judgment enforcement efforts compensable only if successful). However, in Cody v. Hillard, 304 F.3d 767 (8th Cir. 2002), the Eighth Circuit held that once the plaintiffs become prevailing parties in securing the underlying court-ordered relief, whether they are successful in post-judgment enforcement actions is only one factor to consider in determining whether they are entitled to attorney’s fees. 304 F.3d at 77375. See also Johnson v. City of Tulsa, 489 F.3d 1089, 1108 (10th Cir. 2007) (rejecting Alliance); Blackman v. District of Columbia, 328 F.Supp.2d 36, 43-44 (D.D.C. 2004) (Friedman, J.) (following Cody).
95

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 96 of 107

proving an actual violation of the plaintiff’s rights,”

42 U.S.C. § 1997e(d)(1)(A) (emphasis added), interpreting

that language to cover fees incurred in the process of

proving an actual rights violation even if the merits of

the case are not adjudicated. In addressing attorney’s

fees for post-judgment enforcement litigation, the PLRA

employs parallel language: to be recoverable, such fees

must be “directly and reasonably incurred in enforcing

the relief ordered for the violation.”

Id.

§ 1997e(d)(1)(B)(ii). Again, by using the present

participle, Congress left room for prevailing plaintiffs

to recover attorney’s fees for work recognized to be part

of the process of enforcing the relief even if that

process ends in a settlement rather than a court order of

contempt.

If Congress had wanted to eliminate

enforcement fees except to the extent the court itself

enforced its judgment, it could have easily required that

such fees be directly and reasonably incurred in having

96

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 97 of 107
obtained enforcement of, rather than enforcing, the relief ordered for the violation.
Accordingly, just as the PLRA’s “incurred in proving” language does not require the plaintiff to obtain a judgment of liability, its “incurred in enforcing” language does not require the plaintiff who seeks to enforce court-ordered relief to obtain an order of contempt. Rather, so long as prevailing plaintiffs go to court and seek enforcement, § 1988 and the PLRA leave enforcement-fee awards to the sound discretion of the district court. The Eighth Circuit has suggested some factors the court should take into account in determining whether enforcement fees should be awarded and in what amount: “the degree of a plaintiff’s success in the case as a whole”; whether the enforcement issues were “‘inextricably intertwined with those on which the plaintiff prevailed in the underlying suit’”; and whether the post-judgment litigation was “reasonable in degree.” Cody, 304 F.3d at 773 (quoting Jenkins v. Missouri, 127
97

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 98 of 107
F.3d 709, 717 (8th Cir. 1997)). This court agrees that those factors are important and adds that, to the extent the 12 Johnson factors are not subsumed in those categories, they will also be considered.
c. Compensable Enforcement Activity Here, the focus of the plaintiffs’ post-judgment enforcement activity is their motion to hold the defendants in contempt for non-compliance with the medical-settlement agreement. As previously discussed, the plaintiffs filed the contempt motion after the healthcare monitor had completed five consecutive reports indicating non-compliance and after mediation and informal correspondence did not resolve the issue. Before the court heard evidence on the contempt motion, the parties announced they had reached a private settlement agreement. The court consequently denied the contempt motion as moot.
98

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 99 of 107
Although the contempt-motion settlement overall did not require (nor did it receive) the court’s approval, one provision of the settlement was that the neutral healthcare monitor would be replaced. That change required the court to modify the medical consent decree, which it did on August 10, 2006. The remainder of the settlement agreement, which this court did not retain jurisdiction to enforce, provided that medical audits would continue under the new healthcare monitor beyond the life of the consent decree. See Settlement Agreement (doc. no. 390-2) at ¶ 1. The settlement specifically stated, however, that the defendants did not admit any of the allegations contained in the plaintiffs’ contempt motion. Id. at ¶ 12.
Applying these facts to the Johnson factors for attorney’s fees generally and the Cody factors for postjudgment enforcement fees, the court thinks that a partial award of enforcement fees is appropriate. First, the court considers the degree of the plaintiffs’ success
99

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 100 of 107
in this case as a whole, which is substantial. Second, the court considers the results obtained from the contempt motion, which are moderate: the extension of the medical audits beyond the life of the decree is a material alteration in the legal relationship between the parties which, though relatively minor in proportion to the serious allegations brought by the plaintiffs in their contempt motion, addresses the plaintiffs’ serious concerns regarding the defendants’ compliance with the medical consent decree. Third, the court considers the connection between the issues in the contempt motion and the issues in the underlying court-ordered relief, which is a close one: the plaintiffs’ contempt-motion allegations directly implicate the constitutional rights addressed by the medical consent decree. Fourth, the court considers whether the plaintiffs overlitigated and concludes that they did not: the healthcare monitor’s reports of non-compliance unquestionably provided the plaintiffs with a reasonable basis to believe that the
100

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 101 of 107

medical consent decree, as well as the underlying

constitutional rights addressed therein, were being

violated, and it also appears that the plaintiffs

undertook a good-faith effort to remedy the situation

informally and through mediation before filing their

contempt motion.

Based on these considerations, the court concludes

that it would be appropriate to credit the plaintiffs for

half the time they billed in connection with their

enforcement of the medical agreement. The court also

thinks it is important to recognize all of the

plaintiffs’ enforcement work, and this includes all

monitoring fees directly and reasonably incurred in

enforcing the decree.

Because the plaintiffs’

enforcement action was a direct outgrowth of auditing,

non-compliance reports, correspondence, and mediation

related to the medical agreement, the court finds that

the plaintiffs’ medical-monitoring fees are compensable

along with their medical-enforcement fees.

101

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 102 of 107
Having reviewed the plaintiffs’ billing statements as well as the defendants’ line-by-line objections, the court finds that the following hours are properly attributable to enforcing the medical agreement and the medical-monitoring work directly leading to the enforcement action: 12.1 hours for attorney Hanlon, 63.8 hours for attorney Kung, 190.3 hours for attorney Rohr, 31 hours for attorney Schulz, and 18.7 hours for paralegal Doctoroff. Now, applying the 50 % reduction, the court finds that the plaintiffs should recover enforcement fees for the following number of hours: 6.05 hours for attorney Hanlon, 31.9 hours for attorney Kung, 95.15 hours for attorney Rohr, 15.5 hours for attorney Schulz, and 9.35 hours for paralegal Doctoroff.
As previously stated, a reasonable hourly rate for all four of the above-listed attorneys exceeds the PLRA statutory cap of $ 169.50 per hour. Regarding paralegal support, however, the plaintiffs have not submitted any documentation to support their position that paralegal
102

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 103 of 107
Doctoroff’s reasonable rate is $ 120 per hour. This court has previously stated that $ 75 per hour is “the rate commonly awarded paralegals by this court.” Hall, 263 F.Supp.2d at 1369. Therefore, the lodestar amount for enforcement fees is $ 25,888.95: $ 169.50 multiplied by 148.6 hours for attorneys, plus $ 75 multiplied by 9.35 hours for paralegal Doctoroff. The court finds that no adjustments to the lodestar amount are appropriate and that $ 25,888.95 represents the enforcement fee recoverable at this time.
4. Expenses The plaintiffs claim compensable litigation expenses in the amount of $ 16,063.08. There are three reasons they cannot recover nearly that amount. First, as previously discussed, the plaintiffs cannot recover monitoring expenses except those directly and reasonably related to their enforcement expenses. Second, their compensable expenses will be reduced in the same
103

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 104 of 107
proportions that their compensable attorney’s fees were reduced: they should recover 65.35 % of their expenses incurred in litigating the issue of attorney’s fees, and 50 % of their expenses incurred in enforcing the medical consent decree. Third, their billing statements for expenses are so poorly documented in terms of descriptions and dates that the court can award recovery only on those items clearly and reasonably compensable in the above categories.
Having reviewed the plaintiffs’ billing statements as well as the defendants’ line-by-line objections, the court finds that the plaintiffs incurred $ 2,047.55 in expenses on the issue of attorney’s fees. Because the court has decided that the plaintiffs should recover attorney’s fees on this issue in proportion to their success in litigating it, supra Subsection III.B.1, the same proportional reduction will be applied to their expenses. Plaintiffs may recover 65.35 % of their expenses in this category, for a total of $ 1,338.07.
104

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 105 of 107
The court also finds that the plaintiffs incurred $ 1,875.40 in expenses enforcing the medical consent decree. Because the court has decided to allow recovery on only half the hours they properly billed in this category, supra Subsection III.B.3.c, the same reduction will be applied to their expenses. Plaintiffs may recover half their expenses in this category, for a total of $ 937.70.
In total, the plaintiffs shall recover the sum of $ 1,338.07 plus $ 937.70 in expenses on their second motion, or $ 2,275.77.
5. Summary The court having determined that the plaintiffs should recover attorney’s fees and expenses incurred in litigating the fees issue and enforcing the medical consent decree, the final award under the plaintiffs’ second motion for attorney’s fees is as follows:
105

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 106 of 107

Attorney Felder
Attorney Hanlon
Attorney Kung
Attorney Rohr
Attorney Schulz
Paralegal Doctoroff
TOTAL HOURS

Hours

Rate

37.84 $ 169.50 / hr

76.82 $ 169.50 / hr

43.53 $ 169.50 / hr

159.52 $ 169.50 / hr

55.95 $ 169.50 / hr

9.35 $ 75.00 / hr

383.01

Subtotal $ 6,413.88 $ 13,020.99 $ 7,378.34 $ 27,038.64 $ 9,483.53
$ 701.25 $ 64,036.62

Expenses TOTAL FEES

$ 2,275.77 $ 66,312.39

The court adds that the above does not necessarily represent the final enforcement fee. The court’s denial of the remainder of the plaintiffs’ monitoring-andenforcement fee request (including expenses) is without prejudice. Should the plaintiffs later seek to enforce the conditions- and medical-settlement agreements, including renewing their contempt motion regarding the medical-settlement agreement, they may be entitled to
106

Case 2:02-cv-00957-MHT-CSC Document 418 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 107 of 107
additional monitoring fees directly and reasonably incurred in enforcing those settlements. That might include hours and expenses that the plaintiffs included in their second motion which the court finds not to be allowable at this time.
* * * Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the plaintiffs’ motions for attorney’s fees and expenses (doc. nos. 344 & 394) are granted to the following extent: (1) On their first motion, the plaintiffs shall have and recover from the defendants $ 420,369.73 in fees and $ 51,496.02 in expenses, plus interest running from August 23, 2004. (2) On their second motion, the plaintiffs shall have and recover from the defendants $ 64,036.62 in fees and $ 2,275.77 in expenses, plus interest running from this date. DONE, this the 31st day of August, 2007.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION

LINDA LAUBE, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. RICHARD F. ALLEN, et al.,
Defendants.

)

)

)

)

) Civil Action No. CV-02-T-957-N

)

(WO)

)

)

)

)

FINAL JUDGMENT

THIS MATTER is bef ore the Court on the Joint Motion f or Entry of Final Judgment

(doc. no. 435) filed by Plaintiffs Linda Laube a nd all women who are now or will in the future

be incarcerated in an Alabam a Department of Corrections facility (collectively, the “Plaintif fs”)

and Defendants’ RICHARD ALLEN, Commissioner of the Alabama Department of Corrections,

BOB RILEY, Governor, RONALD CAVANAUGH, Dir ector of Tre atment for the Alabam a

Department of Corrections, FRANK ALBRIGHT, W arden at Tutwiler Prison f or Women,

WARDEN EDWARD ELLINGTON, Warden of Birm ingham Work Release (collectively, the

“Defendants,” or with Plaintiffs, the “Parties”). Pursuant to the telephonic status conference

held before the Court on December 17, 2009, and the Joint Motion filed by the Parties, the Court

finds as follows:

1. Good, adequate and sufficient cause has b een shown to justify entry of this FINAL

JUDGMENT.

2. On August 19, 2002, Plaintif fs filed a Com plaint (Doc. 1) seeking declaratory and

injunctive relief for alleged violations of their Eighth a nd Fourteenth Am endment rights and

alleging that wom en with serious m edical needs receive constitutional ly inadequate m edical

care.

3. On Decem ber 2, 2002, the Court entered an Order and Prelim inary Injunction (Doc. 77) declaring that the unconstitutionally unsa fe conditions, resulting from overcrowded and understaffed open dorms at Julia T utwiler Prison for Women violate the E ighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and prelim inarily enjoining and restraining Def endants from failing to take im mediate, affirmative steps to redress the unconstitutionally unsafe conditions. The Clerk of Court also entered a Writ of Injunction (Doc. 80) on December 2, 2002.
4. On August 23, 2004, the Court entered a Judgm ent and Permanent Injunction (Doc. 341) adopting the conditions settlement agreement and the medical settlement agreement entered into by the Parties, thereby settling Plaintiffs’ claims for declaratory and injunctive relief (the “Consent Decree”). The Clerk of Cour t also entered a Writ of Injunction (Doc. 342) on August 23, 2004.
5. On May 10, 2006, Plaintiffs filed a Moti on to Order Defendants to Show Cause W hy They Should Not Be Held in Contempt (Doc. 371) and supporting Memorandum (Doc. 372) due to a dispute as to whether Defendants were in com pliance with the term s and conditions of the Consent Decree. Thereaf ter, the Parties entere d into a Settlem ent Agreement in Resolution of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Orde r Defendants to Show Cause W hy They Should Not Be Held in Contempt, which was attached to the partie s’ Joint Motion to Modif y Medical Settlem ent Agreement (Doc. 390). The Court entered an Order (Doc. 393) granting the Joint Moti on to Modify Settlement Agreement and subsequently entered an Order (Doc. 395) finding Plaintiffs’ Show Cause Motion as moot.
6. On December 17, 2009, the C ourt held a telephonic status conf erence, at which time the Parties notified the Court of the Defendants’ performance and satisfaction of all of the ter ms
2

and conditions imposed upon them during the course of this action, thereby warranting entry of Final Judgment and dissolution of the Preliminary Injunction.
IT IS THEREF ORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the Parties’ Joint Motion for Entry of Final Judgm ent (doc. no. 435) is granted. The Judgm ent and Permanent Injunction (Doc. 341), and W rit of Injunction (Doc . 342) and Order granting Joint Motion to Modify the Medical Settlem ent Agreement (Doc. 393) are di ssolved, and any and all claims asserted in this action as well as any claim s arising from or any obligations set forth in any agreement between the Parties are dismissed with prejudice.
The clerk of the court is DIRECTED to enter this document on the civil docket as a f inal judgment pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
DONE and ORDERED this the 25th day of January, 2010. /s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3

 
 234 F.Supp.2d 1227 (2002)
Linda LAUBE, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
Michael HALEY, et al., Defendants.
No. CIV.A.02-T-957-N.
United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division.
December 2, 2002.
12289 *1228 *1229 Stephen B. Bright, Tamara H. Serwer, Marion D. Chartoff, Lisa Kung, Southern Center for Human Rights, Atlanta, GA, John A. Russell, III, Aliceville, AL, for Plaintiffs.
Ellen Ruth Leonard, Office of the Attorney General, Montgomery, AL, William F. Addison, Andrew W. Redd, Alabama Department of Corrections, Montgomery, AL, for Defendants.
1230 *1230 OPINION
MYRON H. THOMPSON, District Judge.
The complaint in this lawsuit charges that conditions for female inmates in the Alabama State Prison System violate the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The plaintiffs are 15 female prisoners incarcerated in the following three facilities: the Julia Tutwiler Prison for Women (Tutwiler), located in Wetumpka, Alabama; the Edwina Mitchell Work Release Center (Mitchell), also located in Wetumpka, only a few hundred feet away from Tutwiler; and the Birmingham Work Release Center (Birmingham), located in Birmingham, Alabama. The defendants are Governor Don Siegelman, Department of Corrections Commissioner Michael Haley, Tutwiler Warden Gladys Deese, Mitchell Acting Warden Patricia Hood, and Birmingham Director Mary Carter. The plaintiffs have brought suit on behalf of themselves and all other female state prisoners in Alabama.
The plaintiffs make various claims that the defendants operate the three facilities in an unsafe manner and do not provide the facilities' inmates with their basic human needs, all in violation of the Eighth Amendment, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment and enforced through 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983. In support of their claims, the plaintiffs assert that the following conditions exist at Tutwiler: overcrowding, inadequate supervision in open dorms, improper or inadequate inmate classification, inmate violence, the availability of weapons, the small number of segregation cells, inadequate living space, inadequate ventilation and extreme heat during the summer. They assert that the following conditions exist at Mitchell: overcrowding, inadequate supervision in open dorms, inadequate living space, and inadequate ventilation. And they assert that the following conditions exist at Birmingham: inadequate supervision of the segregation unit and overall inadequate ventilation in the facility. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants have been deliberately indifferent to these conditions and the serious risk these conditions pose to inmates. Jurisdiction is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1331 (federal question) and 28 U.S.C.A. § 1343 (civil rights).
Now before the court is the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. Based on the evidence presented at a hearing held on September 23 through 27 and on October 10, 2002 (as well as an earlier on-site court visit to both Tutwiler and Mitchell) and other submissions, the court concludes that the motion should be granted to the extent that some of the conditions at Tutwiler (most particularly, significant understaffing of security officers in greatly overcrowded inmate dorms) have resulted in an impermissibly unsafe environment for inmates. The motion will be denied as to Mitchell and Birmingham, and as to Tutwiler in all other respects.

I. STANDARD FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Whether to issue a preliminary injunction lies within the sound discretion of the district court. Frio Ice, S.A. v. Sunfruit, Inc., 918 F.2d 154, 159 (11th Cir.1990). The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has established a fourprong test for the district court to apply when determining whether a preliminary injunction should issue. Under this test, the movant must demonstrate: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a substantial threat of irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted; (3) the threatened harm to the plaintiff outweighs any 1231 harm that the injunction may cause the defendant; and (4) the public interest will not be disserved *1231 by the grant of a preliminary injunction. Id. After first making preliminary findings of fact, the court will explain why, based on the application of the above four-prong test, preliminary relief is warranted on some of the plaintiffs' claims.
II. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS OF FACT
A. Tutwiler
1. General Description of the Facility
Tutwiler began housing inmates in 1942 and was originally designed to hold 364 inmates. Tutwiler now houses approximately 1,017 inmates of all security levels. Over the years, modifications have been made to the facility's infrastructure0907sewage system, kitchen, and laundry to 0907 expand its capacity. Even with design modifications, however, the facility was never meant to house as many as 1,017 inmates. The inmates are housed in ten dorms, two "Medical Isolation Units" (MIUs), several segregation units and two death row units. Each of the ten dorms is designated to hold a specific type of inmate population. The housing designations are as follows:

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

HOUSING

TYPE OF INMATE

NUMBER OF

UNIT

POPULATION

INMATES[1]

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

Dorm One General population

82

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

Dorm Two

Faith dorm0907for inmates with good behavior who want to

participate in religious programs available in the dorm

80

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

Dorm Three Honor dorm0907for inmates with good behavior

80

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

Dorm Four General population

82

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

Dorm Five Drug treatment

60

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

Dorm Six Mental health

76

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

Dorm Seven Aged, infirm, and pregnant

82

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

Dorm Eight Intake and receiving0907where inmates are placed upon

arrival

63

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

Dorm Nine General population

238

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

Dorm Ten Drug treatment

106

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

MIU 1

HIV-positive

20

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

MIU 2

HIV-positive

20

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

Segregation Inmates with disciplinary infractions, maximum- and

closed-security inmates,[2] inmates sentenced to life without

parole, and inmates in protective custody

21

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

Death Row Inmates sentenced to death

4

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

Tutwiler has a total security staff of 92 officers; when the facility is fully staffed, 23 of these officers are on duty at any one time.

2. Conditions at the Facility

The plaintiffs contend that a multitude of conditions and factors at Tutwiler, alone or in combination, are 1232 unconstitutional. *1232 These conditions and factors include overcrowding, open dorms, inadequate supervision,
the classification system, the presence of make-shift weapons and contraband, inmate violence, the small number of segregation cells, poor ventilation, and heat. The court will discuss each of these in turn.
a. Overcrowding: All parties acknowledge that Tutwiler, now housing approximately 1,017 inmates, is far beyond its original design capacity of 364 inmates. Over the years, the facility's infrastructure has been modified and additional beds and dorms have been added as the inmate population has grown. In the last few years, beds have been placed in every available space in every dorm; the only reason that more beds have not been added to the dorm facilities is that, simply put, not one more bed will fit. The facility, according to Warden Deese, is at its absolute capacity. Commissioner Haley stated this meant two things: (1) the facility cannot accommodate more beds in its existing dorms; and (2) although there is other space in the facility where beds could conceivably be placed (the visiting area, classrooms, and treatment areas), doing so would cause significant problems for both management and the inmate population. For example, Warden Deese testified that adding more beds would mean converting the visitation area to a dormitory and eliminating some programs and all visitation to inmates, which could result in considerable disruption in the inmate population. Further, Commissioner Haley testified that adding more beds would seriously tax the facility's infrastructure. He emphasized that the prison currently uses Wetumpka's sewage system and cannot contribute any more waste to the system; its kitchen and laundry are being used at their maximum capacity; and it has used all available land. In short, Haley and Deese stated that Tutwiler's population has reached its absolute limit, it has maximized its infrastructure, and its population cannot be safely increased.
Some examples illustrate Tutwiler's overcrowding more clearly. Each dorm has a similar layout: bunk beds are laid in rows and arranged head to toe, within inches of one another. In some dorms, inmates can lie on their beds, reach out their arms, and touch other inmates. In dorm ten, some inmates have difficulty climbing to their top bunks because the proximity of other beds limits access to the ladders at the heads of their beds; inmates who sleep in top bunks often wedge their way between the bunks and then work their way to the top bunk. The health-care unit is so short on space that three beds have been placed in the hall to house inmates who are waiting for or returning from an operation; these inmates share the hallway with everyone entering and leaving the health care unit.
Living space at Tutwiler is further restricted by the fact that many inmates spend the majority of their time confined to the small area of their bunks, sitting on their beds. Some inmates spend upwards of 80% of their time on their bunks in order to stay out of trouble; some elect to stay on their bed for fear of becoming engaged in an altercation.

While Tutwiler's infrastructure has been modified in the past to handle more inmates, it is now so overcrowded that each inmate's living space is severely limited, and adding even one more bed would create an unacceptable burden.
b. Open Dorms: Unlike some prisons, in which one, two, or three inmates are housed in one cell, Tutwiler employs the dorm system of housing in which 60 to 238 inmates are housed in a single, cavernous room. This 1233 type of housing, while acceptable, *1233 still raises significant safety issues that must be addressed.
To begin, the dorm system creates visibility problems for officers. It is difficult for officers to observe activity in the dorms because the rows of bunk beds, stacked from the front of the dorms to the back, block sight lines within the dorms. The bunk beds also make it difficult for an officer standing or walking at floor level to observe activity taking place on both the bottom and top bunks. While bunk beds might not pose a problem to visibility in smaller cells, the rows of bunk beds within the dorms prevent officers from clearly observing inmate activity.
More importantly, the sheer number of inmates housed in open dorms pose a significant security problem. Idleness is less of a safety concern when each inmate is confined to her own cell or shares a cell with just a few other inmates. In dormitories, however, idleness heightens the potential for disruptive behavior because each potentially aggressive idle inmate now has other inmates whom she may target, as well as other potentially aggressive inmates with whom she may congregate. Dorms at Tutwiler hold 60 to 228 inmates, and some of these inmates sit idly during the day. While the evidence submitted does not reveal the extent to which inmates are idle at Tutwiler, even limited periods of idleness can engender safety problems. Open dorms are particularly dangerous when a facility is also plagued by, among other things, inadequate supervision, increased violence, and inmate access to weapons, as discussed below.
c. Supervision: In an overcrowded open dorm, where weapons are readily available and inmates are misclassified, as discussed below, adequate staffing is an absolutely necessity; the evidence shows, however, that Tutwiler is severely understaffed. In 1979, Tutwiler housed 169 inmates and had a total security staff of 87; the facility now houses approximately 1,017 inmates with a total security staff of 92. Thus, the addition of 884 inmates, or a six-fold inmate increase, has been accompanied by the addition of only five officers. Warden Deese has requested 58 additional correctional officers to staff the facility, a number she stated is not "fluffed up," but necessary to satisfy the facility's basic security needs. In the meantime, officers working overtime help to compensate for the shortage of correctional officers.
In her deposition, Warden Deese stated that there were currently 23 security posts at Tutwiler prison; she said that, of these 23 posts, 20 were "priority" posts that should be staffed at all times in order to ensure inmate safety. When she testified at the preliminary-injunction hearing on this matter, however, Warden Deese changed her calculation and classified only 16 posts as "priority." The shift logs for July 2002 show that, by either standard, Tutwiler is severely understaffed.
The July 2002 shift logs for the second shift reveal acute understaffing at Tutwiler. Second shift runs from 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. and is the most active shift, requiring the most security. In July, an average of 12 officers were on duty for the second shift; this is four fewer than the minimum necessary to run the prison safely. At most, there were 16 officers on duty, seven fewer than the 23 that should actually be present at the facility, and this occurred on only two occasions. On one day, second shift was staffed by just nine correctional officers, almost half the minimum number necessary to ensure inmate safety. Furthermore, a large percentage of officers working second shift were working overtime. An average of 37% of each day's second shift staff was made up of officers working 1234 overtime and, at times, 100% of the officers on duty were working *1234 overtime. The July figures reveal that overtime plays a large, but incomplete, part in compensating for Tutwiler's unmet security needs.
Because Tutwiler is understaffed, dorms are regularly left unattended. For instance, dorms one through four are normally guarded by only two officers. One officer is to rove between dorms two and three (80 inmates each for a total of 160 inmates), while another officer is to rove between dorms one and four (82 inmates each for a total of 164 inmates). While an officer roves one of the two dorms assigned to her, the other dorm is left unsupervised. Therefore, at any one time, when the prison is fully staffed, at least two dorms are left unattended. When the prison is not fully staffed, one officer is often assigned to guard all four dorms; in short, one officer must ensure

the safety of 324 inmates located in four different dorms, all of which have obstructed sight lines. Clearly, this limits the amount of attention and oversight one officer can give to any one dorm or inmate.
Understaffing poses a special danger in the intake dorm, dorm eight, because it has both a unique physical structure and an unclassified inmate population. Dorms one through four and dorms six and seven each have a large open wall, facing the main hallway, closed off by metal bars. Officers in the hallway can see inside each of these dorms (albeit only to the extent that sight lines are not obstructed by bunk beds) without opening a door. Instead of an open grating, dorm eight has four solid walls and a metal door leading to the main hallway. While dorm eight is officially a security post, at which an officer should be stationed, it regularly has no officer assigned to guard it. In fact, it is the norm for one officer to cover both dorms six and eight. If the officer is in dorm six and something happens in dorm eight, inmates in dorm eight cannot run to a grate facing the hallway to get help, as inmates in other dorms can do. Instead, inmates in dorm eight must pound on and shake the door, shouting for an officer to come assist them; dorm eight has no alarm and no easy way to get an officer's attention. Even worse, about once a week, one officer is assigned to guard dorms six, seven, and eight at once, a total of 221 prisoners. Not only does this pose a danger to inmates in dorms six and seven, but it is especially dangerous for inmates in dorm eight who are less capable of attracting officer attention and who are an unclassified population in which mentally ill, passive, and aggressive inmates are mixed together.
Dorm nine, known as "the zoo," poses perhaps the biggest danger to inmates; it houses 228 inmates in one room. One inmate described living in dorm nine as the "scariest experience of her life." Warden Deese stated in her affidavit that, as of July 11, dorm nine was staffed by only one officer 80% of the time, even though three officers are needed to properly oversee dorm nine due to the large number of inmates and the poor visibility within it. It takes an officer a full hour to rove the entire dormitory. An inmate testified that she had to crawl on the top bunk to locate an officer when a fight occurred.
Problems from understaffing also plague dorm ten; it has an L-shaped design, making it impossible for an officer to observe inmates located around the corner. It was in this dorm that an officer, guarding 106 inmates on her own, was attacked by a mentally ill inmate. While the officer was being beaten, inmates tried to radio other officers for help, but the officer's radio was not functioning. By happenstance, the door to dorm ten was open for dinner, and inmates were able to run into the main prison building and secure help for this officer. Otherwise, this 1235 officer, without *1235 back-up or radio communication, would have remained unaided.
d. Classification: Upon arrival, an inmate is housed in dorm eight until she is classified by a specialist and placed in the appropriate dorm or work-release center. An inmate is classified according to her criminal, medical, and behavioral history. Classification is an important part of ensuring inmate safety, because it involves separating aggressive inmates from passive ones and mentally ill inmates from the general population. Not only is it important to classify inmates correctly at intake, it is also necessary to constantly update and keep each inmate's status current. This minimizes the danger posed by violent inmates to non-violent inmates.
Work-release eligible inmates are sent to Mitchell or Birmingham; those remaining at Tutwiler may be classified into a drug-treatment dorm, the mental-health dorm, the honor dorm, the faith dorm, the dorm for the aged, infirm, and pregnant, or a general-population dorm. Inmates placed in the general-population dorms are not further separated based on their potential for violence, history of committing violent crime or their lack thereof. Maximum and closed-security inmates are placed in single cells in segregation.
Some inmates at Tutwiler are "overclassified," meaning they are eligible for work release or do not pose a threat to other inmates, yet are housed with inmates who might pose such a threat. Overclassification is a safety risk to overclassified inmates because they are housed with inmates who are more dangerous than themselves; overclassification has the further ramification of taking up much needed bed space in higher security dorms. Updating inmates' classifications periodically would improve both safety and overcrowding.
The proper classification of mentally ill inmates is especially important. Mentally ill inmates at Tutwiler are classified according to the severity and history of their illness. However, if at the time of classification, a mentally ill inmate is not deemed to pose a threat to others or is not experiencing mental-health problems, she is placed in the general population regardless of the severity of her illness. This system leads to various problems because, although not exhibiting symptoms, some of the mentally ill inmates who have been classified as fit for the general

population remain a threat to other inmates; conversely, some mentally ill inmates are vulnerable to control and attack at the hands of aggressive inmates.
For example, one inmate, T.R., who suffers from bipolar disorder, was unable to take her prescribed medication while in receiving. Consequently, her behavior became erratic and she was involved in a fight. T.R. was moved to Mitchell, despite the fact that she had already engaged in violent behavior. T.R. was later involved in two more fights, yet she was never properly medicated, placed in the mental-health dorm, nor classified as dangerous to others.
Perhaps most serious of all is an incident which occurred in the summer of 2002, involving T.B., a mentally ill inmate who was released from mental-health segregation. T.B. was classified into dorm six, the mental-health dorm, but dorm six had no available beds and T.B. was instead placed in dorm ten, a drug-treatment dorm, with further arrangements to be made later. Before those arrangements could be made, however, T.B. attacked and severely injured the lone officer guarding dorm ten, which housed 106 inmates.
These incidents demonstrate that, regardless of the current classification system and the medical needs of 1236 mentally ill *1236 inmates, they are often placed in the general population although they are unfit for such
placement and can cause considerable harm.
e. Contraband and Potential Weapons: At Tutwiler, many unsecured, potentially dangerous objects are readily available to inmates, without restriction, and are used as weapons. In the dorms, handles from openly available brooms and mops can be removed and used as weapons; combination locks, given to inmates to secure their property, can be placed in socks and used as weapons; inmates are allowed to own safety razors for shaving, and these razors can be stepped on and crushed, yielding two thin razors that may be used as weapons. In May and June alone, two inmates were cut with disassembled razors. Another inmate was threatened with broken mop and broom handles and locks placed into socks.
There is some additional, though limited, danger from contraband. Prison officials have testified that most contraband seized by officers is not dangerous in nature, mainly consisting of extra clothing or make-up. In July, the only potential weapons found during daily, random "shakedowns"0907searches of individual inmates or entire dorms for contraband0907 were two pairs of plastic safety scissors, the type commonly used by elementary school students. On July 10, 2002, the Corrections Emergency Response Team came to Tutwiler for a complete shakedown of dorm nine. The team found one disassembled razor (outside dorm nine), one six-inch piece of flat metal, two pieces of broken plexiglass, and six six-inch pieces of wire hidden in the dorm's ceiling panels. From the testimony given regarding shakedowns and potential weapons, it appears that the real danger lies not in contraband kept against prison rules, but rather in everyday objects that can be easily used as weapons against other inmates.
f. Violence: The large number of inmates in Tutwiler has increased the risks to inmate safety. Overcrowding has increased the risks to inmate safety in three ways: (1) inmates cannot retreat from conflicts; (2) inmates fight to access limited resources; and (3) fights and tension have increased.
Inmates have no personal space and no time away from other inmates. Moreover, if involved in a dispute with another inmate, an inmate has no place to which she may retreat. This lack of personal space at Tutwiler, in combination with other factors such as improper medication or classification, has had a direct role in inmate attacks on other inmates.
Inmates' lack of access to limited resources has also caused conflicts at Tutwiler. For example, during the summer, all inmates want relief from the unrelenting heat, putting fans and ice at a premium. Although fans are to be rotated every four hours according to a schedule, this does not always happen; aggressive inmates sometimes refuse to turn the fan according to schedule, leading to fights and violence. Officers are technically in charge of fan rotation, but fights still occur as officers are not always available to supervise and monitor the fans. Similarly, the desire for ice can also lead to fights. "Ice call" is twice a day, and some inmates push their way to the front of the line.[3] Most inmates choose to leave these aggressive inmates alone, letting them move to the 1237 head of the line; those who do not acquiesce, *1237 however, face physical retaliation and violence for their refusal.

Aside from the lack of space and limited resources, overcrowding has led to a general increase in fights. For a 90-day period in the spring and summer of 2002, there were five assaults on personnel, seven assaults on inmates, and 17 fights between inmates; in dorm nine alone, two inmates were assaulted and cut with razors. In fact, in May 2002, Tutwiler had the highest inmate assault rate of all institutions in Alabama, including male facilities. Fights are prevalent within Tutwiler, and for the most part go unreported. The court believes that the situation is worse than the cited figures indicate, as these figures only represent reported fights.
Incidents involving physical violence are often quite serious. For example, two inmates were attacked in their sleep. One inmate's neck was cut from her ear to her chin by a mentally ill inmate wielding a disassembled razor. On May 14, 2002, another inmate was cut with a razor. Finally, as discussed above, an officer was severely beaten by an inmate in July 2002. At the time of the preliminary injunction hearing, the officer had yet to return to work.
g. Segregation Cells: Segregation cells are important in securing inmate safety and are necessary to maintain order; the prison must have a place to secure inmates who have violated a disciplinary rule. The use of segregation cells demonstrates to inmates that violations will be punished, and it isolates dangerous inmates from the general population. Having adequate separation space is an important management tool for a correctional facility.
Tutwiler, however, has inadequate segregation space. Under the American Correctional Association (ACA) guidelines, a prison should have enough segregation cells available to house 10% of its population. Currently, Tutwiler has only 21 segregation cells, enough to house roughly 2% of its population; under ACA guidelines, Tutwiler should have 101 segregation cells. The 21 available cells are used to house inmates for administrative and punitive reasons, inmates in protective custody, inmates who have been sentenced to life without parole, and inmates who have been classified as maximum or closed security. There are currently 12 to 13 inmates sentenced to life without parole, leaving approximately eight cells for all other uses.
The dearth of segregation cells has caused prison officials to establish a waiting list for segregation cells. As of July 11, 2002, 39 inmates had violated the rules and were waiting to serve time in segregation. The lack of segregation space has also led officials to release inmates early when a cell is needed to place a violent inmate in segregation immediately. These two facts0907the prison's inability to place inmates in segregation immediately upon a rule violation and the inability to keep them in segregation for their full punishment 0907seriously compromise discipline and inmate safety at Tutwiler.
h. Ventilation and Heat: Tutwiler is extremely hot in the summer and lacks needed ventilation, creating a stuffy, stagnant climate; it has no air handlers to provide for the exchange of stale air and fresh air. Only dorm ten has exhaust fans which circulate stagnant air out of the dorm and new air into the dorm. Warden Deese has attempted to cope with this situation by opening dorm windows, placing large floor fans in the dorm aisles, and affixing fans to the walls. The little effect, if any, of the floor and wall fans is to move hot air around. Moreover, the small relief provided by these fans is limited by the fact that there are so few of them. Therefore, fans are rotated 1238 every four hours to ensure that each area has a fan for some *1238 time during the day. As noted above, aggressive inmates sometimes prevent other inmates from moving the fans according to schedule, resulting in fights or simple acquiescence by those inmates who do not wish to fight.
Other measures provide little relief from the heat. Each dorm has ice call twice a day, once in the morning and once around 8:30 in the evening. Ice is sometimes not available at mid-day, however, when the heat is at its height. Facility protocol requires increased ice calls, additional opportunities to shower, and increased access to drinking water when the temperature rises above 90~. Tutwiler, however, is not equipped with any instruments to monitor the heat. As a result, there is no way for officials to determine when the temperature is above 90~ and protocol should be followed.
The lack of ventilation manifests itself differently throughout Tutwiler. Inmates in dorm eight, because they have little opportunity to leave the dorm, suffer more from poor ventilation than their counterparts in the general population. Dorm eight inmates are in "intake," they are not allowed access to the general exercise yard; instead, they must use a separate, smaller yard twice a day.[4] Because opportunities to go outside are limited, smoking

(though prohibited) is common in the dorm. Therefore, dorm eight inmates spend most of the day inside a hot, smoky room. Dorm nine houses 228 people and is called the "hot zone." It is "terribly hot" because floor and wall fans do a poor job of circulating air within the dorm. The same is true for the climate in segregation, which is "like a desert." Inmates in disciplinary segregation may shower only every other day and must wear thick jumpsuits all day.[5] Five fans are available for the 17 cells in segregation and hence, air does not circulate to every inmate. These inmates are left to hope for rain, which provides some air through the windows of their cells. Other parts of the facility are alleged to have poor ventilation as well, but there is no specific evidence before the court regarding these other areas.
B. Mitchell and Birmingham
1. General Description of the Facilities
If an inmate is classified as eligible for work release, she will be sent to either Mitchell or Birmingham. These facilities are smaller and less crowded, and have lower security. At the time of the hearing, Mitchell housed 242 inmates in two dorms and had a capacity to house 260 inmates; Birmingham housed 285 inmates in 14 dorms and had a capacity of 312 inmates. At the time of the preliminary injunction hearing, therefore, Mitchell and Birmingham were not at full capacity.
2. Conditions at the Facilities
a. Open Dorms: Mitchell dormitories are configured much the same as those in Tutwiler. Mitchell has two dorms of 121 inmates each. The inmates range in classifications from "community custody" (these inmates may go into 1239 the outside community, earn salaries, and have the privilege of wearing street clothing) to *1239 "minimum out" (these inmates may go into the outside community and work, but may not earn salaries and are still required to wear "whites," the prison uniform).[6] Each of Mitchell's two dorms is equipped with an elevated-officer post, from which officers have unobstructed views of the top bunks, but cannot see all of the lower bunks. Two officers are assigned to supervise each dorm. Warden Hood has requested more officers to staff her facility. At this time, the court has not heard any evidence of serious safety problems at Mitchell.
Inmates in Birmingham are housed in 14 dorms which hold between 22 and 26 inmates each. These inmates are classified as "community custody." As a result, these inmates require little security, and the whole facility is supervised by only two officers. There are no allegations that these conditions are overcrowded or unsafe.
b. Birmingham's Segregation Cell: Birmingham's segregation cell, the "holding cell," is located on the second floor and can hold up to four inmates who may remain there anywhere from 24 hours to a week. The holding cell was not initially designed to be used as a segregation unit; it is a storage room that has been converted to hold inmates. Two kinds of danger are posed to inmates secured within the holding cell.
First, the cell is very hot. It has no window and, although the holding cell has a vent, there is no moving air in the cell and only a fan outside the cell. The cell can get so hot that, on occasion, inmates have removed their shirts in order to gain some relief from the heat. Inmates in the holding cell are given one pitcher of ice every eight hours to cool themselves.
The second danger posed to inmates secured in the holding cell is lack of supervision. Two officers are assigned to guard the facility each shift. One officer is assigned to "rove" Birmingham, and the rover's duties include checking on the inmates in the holding cell every half hour. The rover has many other duties as well, including checking all areas of the facility, both inside and out, giving inmates their medication, and assigning details. If any inmate in the entire facility falls ill and requires medical treatment, or if something happens with an inmate at an employment site, this officer might have to leave the facility. At these times, a sergeant or the Warden herself might fill in as the rover.

The rover has too many duties to check on the holding cell every half hour, and actual checks are infrequent. When inmate G.G. was in the holding cell for three days, officers came to the cell only nine times a day. They came at each of the three shift changes, each meal, and each pill call. Due to the infrequency of checks, inmates are alone for the majority of the day without any means of acquiring assistance in times of need.
Inmates in the holding cell have no way of communicating with officers in case of an emergency, and their communications with the Birmingham staff are limited to the periodic checks made by the rover. The cell is equipped with a video camera and a one-way intercom, monitored by the officer stationed at the central desk. The officer at the central desk can view inmates or speak to them through the intercom, but inmates have no way of responding to this officer, or of drawing her attention, other than waving their arms at the camera. In an 1240 emergency, there is *1240 no alarm button or other means of calling for help.
These deficiencies became all too clear on July 27, 2002, when C.M., an inmate in the holding cell, died. Up until her death, C.M. had been acting strangely, constantly "hollering" to herself and asking for her medication. At some point during the early morning hours of July 27, 2002, she became non-responsive. Upon being alerted to this fact, officers took a full 36 minutes to call 911. By the time paramedics arrived, C.M. was already dead from causes unknown at this time. The holding cell log indicates that no checks were made on the inmate from 3:00 a.m. to 4:30 a.m. Warden Carter stated in her deposition that the absence of checks concerned her because it indicated that "maybe an officer didn't do what she has in her log, saying that she did." No report was written following the incident until August 24, 2002, a full month later.
c. Ventilation and Heat: The conditions within Mitchell are essentially the same as those at Tutwiler. Inmates are housed in large open dorms; unlike inmates at Tutwiler, however, these inmates are free to move in and out of the dorms to get fresh air when they desire it. Mitchell is not equipped with air handlers, and there is no way to monitor temperature or humidity.
Each dorm at Birmingham has its own air handler and the facility is equipped with central air conditioning; therefore, ventilation should pose no problem at this jail. However, in July 2002, conditions at Birmingham were sufficiently uncomfortable to prompt inmates to make anonymous complaints to the Health Department. As a result of these complaints, the department inspected the facility and cited it for failing to ventilate the facility as required and for having an ambient air temperature between 91~ and 92~. The Department of Health instructed Warden Carter to correct these conditions because they posed a health hazard to inmates.
In response to the complaints and the Health Department's citation, Warden Carter turned off the air conditioning and instead relied on fans to circulate air and cool the facility. This situation ended when Deputy Commissioner Glenn Newton circulated a memo, telling inmates that Warden Carter had agreed to turn on the air conditioning, with the thermostat to be set at 78~; the memo further warned, however, that should any more complaints be made to the Health Department, the air conditioning would be turned off, and the fans would once again be the only means of cooling the facility. Like Tutwiler and Mitchell, Birmingham is not equipped to monitor temperature and humidity. The defendants do not dispute that setting the thermostat at 78~ does not necessarily result in an ambient air temperature of 78~.
C. Institutional Measures and Other Litigation
The defendants in this case have attempted to implement multiple measures to deal with the various problems at Tutwiler, Mitchell, and Birmingham. Warden Deese has made yearly budget requests, asking for more staff, more holding cells, and additional facilities, but the increased-funding part of her requests has been rejected because of lack of money. She has increased the number of programs available to inmates, concentrating on those programs that might reduce conflict; these classes include anger and stress management and healthy relationship courses. In addition, Warden Deese has made herself available to the inmate population, by regularly walking around Tutwiler, meeting with inmates and reading the requests that they submit to her, and meeting with 1241 dorm representatives who bring inmate concerns to her attention. Warden Deese has also *1241 addressed the increase in conflicts at Tutwiler by encouraging officers to mediate inmate conflicts through counseling. Officers discuss with inmates whether they can continue to live together; if they can, inmates sign a "peace agreement,"

agreeing to leave one another alone and obviating the need to segregate the inmates. Finally, Warden Deese has placed an additional post in dorm nine and asked officers to work overtime to ensure that there are sufficient officers on duty to maintain security at Tutwiler.
In reaction to complaints about the heat, Warden Carter turned off the air conditioning in Birmingham and relied on fans for air circulation. She later agreed to turn on the air conditioning again, provided that inmates no longer made complaints to the Health Department. In reaction to the inmate's death in the holding cell, Warden Carter called for an investigation of the incident. At the time of this hearing, the investigation is still pending, and no disciplinary action has been taken.
Commissioner Haley has requested an increase in funding for the Department of Corrections every year that he has acted as commissioner; he has not, however, received an increase sufficient to address the overcrowding and understaffing at Tutwiler and Mitchell. He has also instituted non-custodial correctional measures to prevent more inmates from entering the Department of Corrections custodial facilities. These measures include workrelease programs, expanded community-corrections programs, and increased reviews of inmates in the system to determine those eligible for community-corrections programs. Commissioner Haley is also involved in other litigation against the Department of Corrections, Barbour County v. Haley, civil action nos. 92-388-SH & 92-399SH (Circuit Court Montgomery, Alabama), a state-court case in which county jails have sued state corrections officials for failing to transfer state prisoners housed in county jails to the appropriate state facility. In that suit, Commissioner Haley has submitted a plan that will benefit inmates in this suit as well. Those provisions that will benefit female inmates include an increase in community-corrections programs and a staff increase for the Alabama Board of Pardons and Parole. The ten new officers assigned to the board will allow more cases to be heard each week, allowing, in turn, inmates to be released on parole.
III. DISCUSSION
A. Substantial Likelihood that the Plaintiffs Will Ultimately Prevail on the Merits
1. Standard for Cruel and Unusual Punishment
The Eighth Amendment applies to the States through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and prohibits the infliction of "cruel and unusual punishments." Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 296-97, 111 S.Ct. 2321, 2323, 115 L.Ed.2d 271 (1991). The Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishments applies to the "treatment a prisoner receives in prison and the conditions under which he is confined." Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 1976, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) (citations omitted). There is both an objective and a subjective component to a court's Eighth Amendment inquiry into the constitutionality of a punishment. Wilson, 501 U.S. at 298, 111 S.Ct. at 2324.
The objective component requires the court to determine whether the challenged deprivations are "sufficiently serious" to rise to the level of being unconstitutional. Id. To satisfy this component for their first claim, that they 1242 have been deprived *1242 of a basic human need, the plaintiffs must show that they have been denied the "minimal civilized measure of life's necessities." Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347, 101 S.Ct. 2392, 2399, 69 L.Ed.2d 59 (1981). To state a "sufficiently serious" claim that a prison has failed to protect inmates from harm, the plaintiffs must show that the challenged conditions pose a "substantial risk of serious harm" to them. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834, 114 S.Ct. at 1977.
If the plaintiffs satisfy the objective component of the court's inquiry, they then must satisfy the subjective component by showing that the defendants acted with "deliberate indifference" to the alleged violation. Id. at 834, 114 S.Ct. at 1977. For injunctive relief, the plaintiffs must show that the defendants were, at the time of the suit, "knowingly and unreasonably disregarding an objectively intolerable risk of harm and that they will continue to do so." Id. at 846, 114 S.Ct. at 1983. However, "prison officials who actually knew of a substantial risk to inmate

health or safety may be found free from liability if they responded reasonably to the risk, even if the harm ultimately was not averted." Id. at 844, 114 S.Ct. at 1982-83.
2. The Objective Component of the Court's Eighth Amendment Inquiry
The plaintiffs divide their claim that the defendants have violated their Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment into two parts: (1) the plaintiffs claim that the defendants are deliberately indifferent to the denial of the plaintiffs' basic human needs of adequate ventilation at all three facilities and living space at Tutwiler and Mitchell; and (2) they claim that the defendants are deliberately indifferent to the substantial risk of serious harm posed to the plaintiffs by the conditions at Tutwiler and by Birmingham's segregation unit.
a. The Plaintiffs' Eighth Amendment Right to Basic Human Needs: The Supreme Court has held that depriving an inmate of "the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities" could constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347, 101 S.Ct. 2392, 2399, 69 L.Ed.2d 59 (1981). The deprivation must be of a "single, identifiable human need." Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 304, 111 S.Ct. 2321, 2327, 115 L.Ed.2d 271 (1991). "Nothing so amorphous as `overall conditions' can rise to the level of cruel and unusual punishment when no specific deprivation of a single human need exists." Id. at 305, 111 S.Ct. at 2327.
i. Ventilation: Various courts have found that inadequate ventilation in prison can amount to an Eighth Amendment violation. See, e.g., Ramos v. Lamm, 639 F.2d 559, 569 (10th Cir.1980) ("[i]nadequate ventilation ... results in excessive odors, heat, and humidity with the effect of creating stagnant air as well as excessive mold and fungus growth, thereby facilitating personal discomfort along with health and sanitation problems"), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1041, 101 S.Ct. 1759 (1981); Hoptowit v. Spellman, 753 F.2d 779, 784 (9th Cir. 1985) ("lack of adequate ventilation and air flow undermines the health of inmates and the sanitation of the penitentiary ... violat [ing] the minimum requirements of the Eighth Amendment") (citations omitted); McKinney v. Anderson, 924 F.2d 1500, 1507 (9th Cir.1991) (constant exposure to high levels of cigarette smoke violated an inmate's Eighth Amendment rights), vacated by, 502 U.S. 903, 112 S.Ct. 291, 116 L.Ed.2d 236 (1991) (vacated and remanded for further consideration in light of Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 111 S.Ct. 2321, 115 L.Ed.2d 271 (1991)), aff'd, 1243 509 U.S. 25, 113 S.Ct. 2475, 125 L.Ed.2d 22 (1993) (affirming *1243 original holding). The plaintiffs claim that the poor ventilation in all three facilities, in tandem with the heat, rises to the level of a constitutional violation. In determining the adequacy of ventilation, the court may consider temperature, specifically, the heat inmates must endure and the defendants' responses to the heat. Chandler v. Baird, 926 F.2d 1057, 1064-66 (11th Cir.1991) (cold temperatures causing "extreme discomfort" could constitute an Eighth Amendment violation).
The court rejects this claim as the plaintiffs have not presented enough evidence for the court to find that the ventilation and heat problems are "sufficiently serious" to establish a constitutional violation. The plaintiffs have shown that the lack of air conditioning and ventilation during the hot Alabama summer, combined with a large inmate population, creates hot, humid, and uncomfortable conditions at Tutwiler and Mitchell. The testimony of inmates suggests that the fans and air conditioning do little to circulate air, and it appears that the defendants may not be adhering to facility protocol by providing adequate ice, water, and extra showers to inmates when temperatures rise above 90~. In addition, the court is concerned about the hot conditions in the segregation cells at Tutwiler, in which inmates wear heavier clothing and have less access to relief such as ice and fans. Extreme heat also seems to be an issue at Birmingham with recorded temperatures of 91° at the one facility with air conditioning.
While the lack of ventilation and heat are serious issues at Tutwiler, and possibly Mitchell and Birmingham, there is insufficient evidence in the record to find that the plaintiffs have shown a substantial likelihood of proving these issues rise to the level of a constitutional violation. In Benjamin v. Fraser, 161 F.Supp.2d 151, 160-165 (S.D.N.Y.2001), aff'd, 264 F.3d 175 (2d Cir.2001), the court granted prospective relief for a number of prisons' failures to provide adequate ventilation. It based its holding on the extensive testimony of an environmental health expert and other objective evidence, including observations, smoke tests, and air flow readings taken with a velometer at each facility. In order to assess properly the plaintiffs' ventilation claim, the court needs more technical information akin to the evidence in Benjamin regarding what constitutes an "adequate air exchange" and what specific conditions exist at each facility, including temperature, humidity, and the opportunities available

to inmates to gain relief from these conditions. Until the plaintiffs provide such information, the court cannot find a substantial likelihood exists that they will meet the objective portion of its Eighth Amendment inquiry, and therefore, it will not grant preliminary injunctive relief at this time. If the plaintiffs desire, they may renew their motion for such relief when they can provide additional information to the court.
ii. Living space: The Eleventh Circuit has also recognized that prisons are required by the Eighth Amendment to provide inmates with "reasonably adequate ... living space." Hamm v. DeKalb County, 774 F.2d 1567, 1574 (11th Cir. 1985) (although prisoners must have adequate living space, the lower court was not clearly erroneous in finding that prison officials had not violated an inmate's Eighth Amendment rights when he was occasionally forced to sleep on a table or on a mattress on the floor), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1096, 106 S.Ct. 1492, 89 L.Ed.2d 894 (1986). In Moore v. Morgan, the Eleventh Circuit upheld the lower court's finding that inmates' Eighth Amendment rights had been violated when they had "less than 15 square feet of living space after the size of the 1244 bunks [was] taken into *1244 account." 922 F.2d 1553, 1555 n. 1 (11th Cir.1991). The lower court found that these conditions were "cruelly exacerbated by the fact that the inmates ... were not allowed outside of their cells for any activity." Id. Similarly, in Mobile County Jail Inmates v. Purvis, the Eleventh Circuit upheld a district court's finding of contempt when a county failed to correct unconstitutional conditions of overcrowding. 551 F.Supp. 92, 94 (S.D.Ala.1982), aff'd, 703 F.2d 580 (11th Cir.1983) (table). Inmates in the Mobile County Jail had an average of 27 square feet of space or less. Id. at 94 n. 1. Some inmates had only 23 square feet of space. Id. Finally, in Maynor v. Morgan County, the district court made a preliminary finding that conditions in a county jail violated the Eighth Amendment when inmates were forced to sleep on the floor under bunks, on the floor between bunks, on tables, and between tables. 147 F.Supp.2d 1185, 1186-87 (S.D.Ala.2001)
The plaintiffs argue that conditions at Tutwiler and Mitchell do not meet the minimum amounts of living space as suggested by the American Correctional Association (ACA), and have provided evidence regarding the lack of space between bunks. They have also offered inmate testimony stating that some inmates spend most of their time within the small confines of their beds. By all accounts, Tutwiler is greatly overcrowded and at its absolute maximum capacity. The court, again, is gravely concerned with these conditions.
Despite its concerns, the court is unable to find that the plaintiffs are substantially likely to succeed on the merits of this claim. The ACA standards are a guide and not determinative in assessing the constitutionality of the conditions in a prison. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 543 n. 27, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 1876 n. 27, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979) (although recommendations from groups such as the ACA "may be instructive in certain cases, they simply do not establish the constitutional minima"). At this time, there is no evidence on the record specifying the amount of space each inmate is allotted. The court cannot ascertain how far below ACA standards the conditions at Tutwiler fall. The record is also bereft of evidence pertaining to the amount of time inmates remain in their dorms. See Moore v. Morgan, 922 F.2d 1553, 1555 n. 1 (11th Cir.1991) (upholding the lower court finding that overcrowding was exacerbated by the lack of opportunities for inmates to leave their cells). Though the evidence shows that some inmates have jobs, that some inmates attend school, and that all inmates have an opportunity to go to the exercise yard, there is no clear picture of either how many inmates sit idly on their beds or for how long. In addition, it appears that many inmates choose to remain on their beds out of fear of becoming involved in potentially violent disputes with other inmates. Part of the problem, therefore, may be relieved by improvements in security. Without knowing the amount of space each inmate has and the amount of time each inmate must spend within that space, the court cannot make an adequate assessment of this claim. Therefore, the court cannot find that the plaintiffs are substantially likely to prevail on this issue, particularly because these conditions may change with safety improvements.
b. The Plaintiffs' Eighth Amendment Right to be Free from Substantial Risk of Serious Harm: Inmates have "a constitutional right to be protected from the constant threat of violence and from physical assault by other inmates." Zatler v. Wainwright, 802 F.2d 397, 400 (11th Cir.1986). "[H]aving stripped [inmates] of virtually every 1245 means of selfprotection *1245 and foreclosed their access to outside aid, the government and its officials are not free to let the state of nature take its course." Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 1977, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994). In order to succeed on a "failure to protect" claim and meet the objective component of the court's inquiry, "the inmate must show that he is incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial risk of serious harm." Id. Furthermore, "[s]ome conditions of confinement may establish an Eighth Amendment violation `in combination' when each would not do so alone, but only when they have a mutually enforcing effect that

produces the deprivation of a single, identifiable human need." Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 304, 111 S.Ct. 2321, 2327, 115 L.Ed.2d 271 (1991).
i. Safety at Tutwiler: The court agrees with the defendants that the plaintiffs' allegations regarding overcrowding, open dorms, inadequate supervision, improper or inadequate classification, inmate violence, the availability of weapons, and the small number of segregation cells are not sufficiently serious on the current record, when considered separately and alone, to support a finding of unconstitutionality. For example, there is nothing necessarily unconstitutional with overcrowding itself; inconvenience does not violate the Eighth Amendment. Similarly, there is nothing inherently wrong with having only a few staff members supervise inmates; in a prison with single or double cells, a handful of officers may be able to guard hundreds of inmates appropriately. Furthermore, open dorms themselves are not unconstitutional, and officials may house inmates as they deem fit. The same can be said for classification; inmates are not entitled to a certain classification. Cf. Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 485, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 2301, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995) (finding that due process does not protect an inmate's liberty interest in not being placed in segregation because segregation does not "impose[] atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life").
The court does not hold that any one of the above circumstances, standing alone, necessarily violates the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Rather, the court holds today that it is the combination of substantial overcrowding and significantly inadequate supervision in open dorms that deprives inmates of their "right to be protected from the constant threat of violence." Zatler, 802 F.2d at 400. In addition, other circumstances, such as improper classification, access to weapons, and the lack of adequate segregation units exacerbate the problem, as do the problems with the prison's ventilation and heat.
Most of the safety problem at Tutwiler is attributable to the failure of officials to guard the overcrowded open dorms properly. The Eleventh Circuit has found that failing to provide adequate security in dorms creates a substantial risk of serious harm to inmates. In LaMarca, the court upheld a grant of injunctive relief because the prison had failed to implement protective policies, such as regularly patrolling dorms. 995 F.2d at 1534, 1542. The Eleventh Circuit upheld the part of an injunction requiring the prison to patrol dorms and confinement areas regularly, ensure that patrols have clear views of the relevant areas, use and maintain metal detectors, conduct regular shakedowns, and discipline prisoners found in possession of contraband. Id. at 1543.
As previously noted, the open dorms in Tutwiler are severely overcrowded and undersecured. They are often 1246 filled with idle prisoners and bunk beds that obscure visibility. *1246 Tutwiler is rarely staffed with the 16 officers
considered necessary to ensure the safety of inmates, much less the full 23 officers needed to staff every post in Tutwiler. On a regular basis, a single officer is left to guard 221 inmates, 228 inmates, or 324 inmates. For these officers to rove a dorm, it is necessary that they leave other dorms empty and unguarded. Dorm eight is consistently left unguarded, though inmates are not yet classified and have no means of calling for help other than banging on the door. Inmates in dorm nine must climb on to a top bunk in order to visually locate an officer in times of distress. The 324 inmates in dorms one through four often rely on a single officer to secure their safety.
Jim Aiken, the plaintiffs' expert on correctional security, testified that in an environment like Tutwiler's, staff cannot protect against random and systematic violence and that understaffing allows inmates to prey on others without detection. The testimony of inmates bears out this contention. Inmates repeatedly testified that fights are constant and regularly go unreported. Inmates who do not want to become enmeshed in fighting or disputes spend most of their time on their beds to avoid trouble.
The defendants tried to refute the allegations that security is inadequate at Tutwiler. For instance, the defendants testified that officers were in the dorm, roving, at the time an inmate, B.P., was cut from her ear to her chin. This does not, however, demonstrate that the dorms are adequately staffed and that inmate violence at these levels is an inevitable occurrence; rather, it strengthens the position that officers charged with supervising such large open populations are unable to maintain order. The evidence shows that Tutwiler's rate of assault is extremely high, beyond levels considered normal in the harsh environment of a prison. The evidence further demonstrates that sometimes as many as three dorms, containing a total of up to 244 inmates, are left unattended. There is overwhelming evidence that the 228 inmates of dorm nine are supervised by a single officer the majority of the time and that locating that single officer in times of distress is difficult for inmates. That two officers were roving

dorm nine when B.P. was cut demonstrates merely that circumstances were not as bad as they could have been, not that Tutwiler is properly staffed. Security at Tutwiler is clearly and significantly inadequate, as the greatly overcrowded open dorms require more than a single officer to supervise inmates properly.
The failure to classify inmates properly also contributes to this unacceptably dangerous environment. "The degree of overcrowding in the particular facilities ... contributes to the breakdown of a rational classification system ... necessary in that facility in order to provide any semblance of protection from violence." Mobile County Jail Inmates v. Purvis, 551 F.Supp. 92, 94 (S.D.Ala.1982), aff'd, 703 F.2d 580 (11th Cir.1983) (table). As in Purvis, overcrowding has led to a breakdown of Tutwiler's classification system. In a seriously overcrowded environment such as this, inmates are placed wherever an empty bed is available, regardless of their classifications. This problem was one of the underlying causes leading to the incident involving T.B., the mentally ill inmate who, due to lack of space, was housed in dorm ten rather than the mental-health dorm, severely beat an officer.
Inadequate classification also leads to problems with weapons and contraband. While the defendants noted that most of the contraband at Tutwiler consisted of extra clothing and make-up, the most dangerous items at Tutwiler 1247 are not defined *1247 as contraband. Aggressive inmates have access to dangerous, everyday items. Inmates have been cut with disassembled safety razors and threatened with locks encased in socks and mop and broom handles, none of which are considered to be contraband. The availability of make-shift weapons, in the absence of proper classification and combined with overcrowding, adds to the risk to inmate safety.
Another problem at Tutwiler is the alarmingly high rate of assault. Tutwiler had the highest assault rate of all correctional facilities in Alabama in May 2002. In these crowded conditions, inmates have no space to retreat from conflicts and often fight for limited resources. Aiken testified that, in his experience, female institutions do not normally have higher rates of assault than male institutions. He stressed that this was an abnormality which indicates a serious breakdown of correctional management. Aiken further testified that prisoner-on-prisoner assault causes prisoners to focus on self-protection rather than their return to the community. The problem is compounded if a staff member is assaulted, as at Tutwiler. Inmates are left to believe that, if officers cannot protect themselves, they will certainly be unable to protect inmates. A "kill or be killed" mentality develops, where inmates ask themselves if they should attack other inmates so as to preempt potential attackers. Overcrowding at Tutwiler has led to a significant increase in assaults and an atmosphere in which inmates legitimately fear for their safety.
Finally, the small number of segregation cells contributes to the substantial risk of serious harm posed to inmates. Disruptive inmates who violate the rules are on a waiting list to go into isolation. Conversely, some inmates are released from segregation prematurely, without completing their sentence. Consequently, officers have no effective means of disciplining inmates. Though officers may write up inmates for disciplinary infractions, there is a delay between the act and the punishment. Inmates observe this situation and learn that, in effect, there is no penalty for breaking the rules.
Due to the combination of the above factors, the court finds that the plaintiffs have satisfied the objective component of the court's Eighth Amendment inquiry. The plaintiffs have shown to a substantial likelihood that they will be able to prove that conditions at Tutwiler, in particular, the substantial overcrowding in open dorms in conjunction with significantly inadequate supervision, pose a substantial risk of serious harm to inmates.
ii. Safety at Mitchell: The conclusion that the conditions at Tutwiler are unsafe does not apply to Mitchell. While Mitchell has an open-dorm population and while there are fewer supervisory officials than are needed, other circumstances warrant a different conclusion for this facility. The officers at Mitchell may survey the dorms from an elevated security post in each dorm, and, most importantly, Mitchell inmates are classified as either "community custody" or "minimum out." Thus, as would be expected, the court heard no evidence of serious safety problems at Mitchell.
iii. Safety in Birmingham's Holding Cell: The court cannot find a substantial likelihood that the plaintiffs will prevail on the merits of this claim. The death of one inmate in the holding cell is cause for serious concern. Evidence indicates that the holding cell was never meant to hold inmates, is inadequately monitored, and does not provide inmates with a means to alert officers to adverse events in the cell. See, e.g., LaMarca v. Turner, 995 F.2d 1526, 1248 1534, 1542 (11th Cir.1993) (holding that inadequate guarding *1248 may support a finding of unconstitutional

conditions). There is also evidence that officers checked on the cell only nine times a day, rather than the facilityrequired 48 times. Nevertheless, this evidence does not support an Eighth Amendment violation. To be sure, the more a cell is checked, the safer the inmate is; but the court has no evidence that checking a segregation cell only nine times a day falls so far below accepted penalogical practice as to constitute deliberate indifference. Moreover, even assuming this failing constituted such, the court has no evidence before it that this limited cell oversight has been a direct cause of harm to the plaintiffs, nor does it have any evidence that it contributed to the C.M.'s death. The cause of C.M.'s death is still unknown. Because there is insufficient evidence on the record to establish that the conditions in Birmingham's holding cell rise to the level of unconstitutionality, the court cannot find that the plaintiffs have met the objective component of their claim.[7]
3. The Subjective Component of the Court's Inquiry
The plaintiffs having satisfied the Eighth Amendment's objective component on their claim that certain conditions at Tutwiler are unsafe, the court now turns to the subjective component. The plaintiffs may prove the defendants were deliberately indifferent by demonstrating that they knowingly and unreasonably disregarded the risk of harm to inmates and will continue to do so. The defendants have not acted with deliberate indifference, though, if they have taken reasonable measures to alleviate the harm, even if the measures ultimately fail. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 844, 114 S.Ct. at 1982-83.
The defendants acknowledge that they knew of the conditions at Tutwiler. There is also a substantial evidence that Warden Deese knew that these conditions posed a risk of serious harm to inmates. Deese stated in her affidavit that "Julia Tutwiler Prison for Women is over-crowded and under-staffed which is seriously jeopardizing the public's safety." She also stated in a budget request for fiscal year 2001-2002 that "the current facility is cramped and too small for proper care and security of inmates" and has stated on multiple budget requests that "security will be seriously compromised" without more officers. In addition, Commissioner Haley acknowledged in the hearing that Tutwiler's staff-to-inmate ratio created potential safety problems. Because the defendants knew of the serious risk of harm posed to inmates housed at Tutwiler, the court's only remaining inquiry is whether the defendants' responses to that risk were reasonable.
When prison officials are sued solely in their official capacities, the lack of funds available to them is not an adequate defense to a finding of a constitution violation on their part. Official-capacity law-suits are, "in all respects other than name, ... treated as a suit against the entity." Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 166, 105 S.Ct. 3099, 3105, 87 L.Ed.2d 114 (1985); see also LaMarca, 995 F.2d at 1542 (An official-capacity suit should "be treated as a suit against the entity. It is not a suit against the official personally, for the real party in interest is the entity.") (emphasis in original) (citations omitted). The action is "against an entity of which an officer is an 1249 agent," and, hence, *1249 the official's personal powers are not a consideration. Id. Therefore, the relevant issue to the court's subjective inquiry is the deliberate indifference of the responsible entity with respect to its powers; restraints on the actions of individual officials are not determinative. For example, in LaMarca, a prison superintendent was sued in both his individual and official capacities for failing to protect an inmate from violence at the hands of other inmates. Id. In reviewing the injunctive relief granted by the lower court, the Eleventh Circuit found that the individual superintendent's deliberate indifference was not at issue; rather, the court focused on the historical deliberate indifference of the responsible entity. Id. at 1542. While the court did consider financial limitations in assessing the superintendent's individual liability, it did not do so in relation to injunctive relief. Id.
The state officials are sued here in their official capacities; therefore, the real parties in interest are the responsible entities: the Department of Corrections and, ultimately, the State of Alabama. The court's analysis of deliberate indifference is properly focused on the reasonableness of the State of Alabama's responses as limited by the State's powers.
Given that an official's individual actions as limited by budgetary concerns are not a defense to a constitutional violation, the court now looks at whether budgetary concerns are an adequate defense to a State's failure to redress a constitutional violation for which it is responsible; they are not. It is well-established that funding is not an excuse for constitutional violations. In Harris v. Thigpen, the Eleventh Circuit specifically stated that "a lack [of funds] ... will not excuse the failure of correctional systems to maintain a certain minimum level of medical

service." 941 F.2d 1495, 1509 (11th Cir.1991). The court further commented that it did "not agree that `financial considerations must be considered in determining the reasonableness' of inmates' medical care" and rejected the idea that the lack of funds could be used by "`poor states' to deny a prisoner the minimally adequate care to which he or she is entitled." Id. Furthermore, in Moore v. Morgan, the Eleventh Circuit held that "the lack of funds for facilities does not justify the maintenance of unconstitutional jail conditions," rejecting any cost arguments out of hand. 922 F.2d 1553, 1557 n. 4 (11th Cir.1991). Finally, in Ensley Branch, NAACP v. City of Birmingham, the appellate court, quoting Judge Frank M. Johnson, Jr., explained that "`[t]he Constitution does not put a price on constitutional rights, in terms either of time or money. The rights guaranteed by the Constitution are to be made effective in the present.'" 31 F.3d 1548, 1574 (11th Cir.1994) (quoting from Jack Bass, Taming the Storm 398 (1993)).
Here, the defendants urge the court to consider the reasonableness of each official's response with respect to his or her ability to act within budgetary constraints. In other words, the defendants ask the court to consider whether each official's response was reasonable given the lack of funds available to him or her. The lack-of-funds defense is common in prison suits, and precedent clearly establishes that this defense is available to officials only when they are sued in their individual capacities. For example, when evaluating the superintendent's personal liability for money damages in LaMarca, the Eleventh Circuit specifically considered whether "lack of funds contributed to the [challenged] condition." Id. at 1537; see also Hale v. Tallapoosa County, 50 F.3d 1579, 1584 (11th Cir.1995) 1250 (considering whether monetary restraints frustrated the defendant's good faith efforts to address violence in *1250 the county jail when assessing his individual liability).
The defendants attempt to circumvent well-established circuit precedent by citing Wilson v. Blankenship, 163 F.3d 1284 (11th Cir.1998), and Hale v. Tallapoosa County, 50 F.3d 1579 (11th Cir.1995), for the proposition that financial restraints on the actions of individual officials are appropriately considered in official-capacity suits. These cases do not support this proposition. First, Wilson v. Blankenship involved a claim for damages against prison officials in their individual capacities. 163 F.3d at 1288 n. 5. The court, in noting that the defendants had no control over funding, was addressing whether they had qualified immunity from the suit, not the constitutionality of the defendants' inaction in their official capacities. Id. at 1289. Consequently, Wilson v. Blankenship is not relevant to the case at hand.
Hale, too, does not apply here. The court in Hale dealt with both the official and the individual liability of a sheriff in one discussion, rather than addressing these issues separately. In doing so, the court stated that the financial defense raised by the sheriff was an appropriate question for the jury. Hale, 50 F.3d at 1584 (citing LaMarca, 995 F.2d at 1536, 1538). Although the Eleventh Circuit discussed the sheriff's official and individual capacities at the same time, it does not follow that the financial defense applies in both situations. As discussed above, LaMarca clearly addresses financial considerations in the context of individual-capacity suits, not official-capacity suits. Furthermore, the Eleventh Circuit plainly held in Thigpen and Moore that the availability of funds was not an appropriate consideration in examining alleged violations of the Eighth Amendment by institutions. Clearly established circuit precedent cannot be overturned by a later three-judge circuit panel. United States v. Smith, 122 F.3d 1355, 1359 (11th Cir.1997) ("Under the prior panel precedent rule, we are bound by earlier panel holdings ... unless and until they are overruled en banc or by the Supreme Court."), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1021, 118 S.Ct. 614, 139 L.Ed.2d 500 (1997). Therefore, this court will not take the discussion in Hale to mean that financial concerns are a defense to constitutional violations in official-capacity suits. Instead, the court will rely on clearly stated circuit precedent that financial considerations are not a defense when identifying a constitutional violation.
Warden Deese and Commissioner Haley testified as to the various measures implemented in response to the conditions at Tutwiler. These measures include increased community-corrections programs, increased programs within Tutwiler, overtime worked by officers, inmate counseling, and requests for more officers. The court applauds the efforts taken by the defendants thus far; these are necessary components to rectifying the unsafe conditions at Tutwiler.
The defendants' efforts are comparable to those of the defendant in LaMarca. There, the district court found that Lambdin, the new superintendent of the prison in question, was a "dedicated public servant who is trying very hard to make GCI an efficient and effective correctional institute." LaMarca, 995 F.2d at 1542 (citation omitted).

Lambdin was a new supervisor and not responsible for any of the unconstitutional conditions at the prison; furthermore, he had remedied these conditions to the point that inmates had "constitutionally adequate, protection from violence." Id. Nevertheless, the Eleventh Circuit rejected Lambdin's argument that, because he 1251 had acted responsibly during his time as superintendent, the court could *1251 not find deliberate indifference. The court upheld parts of the injunction entered against the prison on the grounds that Lambdin had not taken sufficient steps to ensure that the prisons' past wrongs would not be repeated. Id.
Like the superintendent in LaMarca, the defendants in this case are dedicated public servants who have acted to address problems at Tutwiler. Nonetheless, the court must still find deliberate indifference because the defendants' efforts simply do not go far enough; the measures they have taken have had negligible impact on the massive danger posed to inmates. Counseling and anger management have a limited reach in their effectiveness, as do overtime and prisoner release programs. As the court stated above, several factors together create the unconstitutional conditions at Tutwiler. The defendants' measures are superficial and only address some of the factors creating Tutwiler's dangerous environment.
While requests for more officers are a necessity in staffing Tutwiler adequately, the most obvious necessity is honoring those requests. The State of Alabama has plainly failed to provide Tutwiler with the staff it needs to ensure inmate safety. In the month of July, there were only two days in which 16 officers, the minimum number needed to protect inmates, were on duty. Filling staffing voids through the use of overtime can only do so much; officers working overtime tire and, ultimately, cannot compensate for the severe dearth of officers at Tutwiler. The defendants' response to this situation has been patently inadequate; if Tutwiler continues to run at its current inmate capacity, nothing short of additional staffing is a reasonable response to the facility's dire need for officers. In short, the measures taken by the defendants are a laudable step in the right direction, but they are fundamentally inadequate, unreasonable responses to the dangers posed by poorly guarded, overcrowded open dorms. Therefore, the court finds that the defendants were, and continue to be, deliberately indifferent to the substantial risk of serious harm posed to the plaintiffs and that the plaintiffs are substantially likely to succeed on this claim.
B. Substantial Threat of Irreparable Harm
Based on the facts alleged by the plaintiffs, the court concludes that a substantial threat of irreparable harm to women prisoners in the Alabama state prison system exists and will continue to exist if an injunction is not entered now. "The existence of a continuing constitutional violation constitutes proof of an irreparable harm, and its remedy certainly would serve the public interest." Preston v. Thompson, 589 F.2d 300, 303 n. 3 (7th Cir.1978); see also Maynor v. Morgan County, 147 F.Supp.2d 1185, 1189 (N.D.Ala.2001) ("[Plaintiffs] will suffer irreparable harm by virtue of Defendants' ongoing serious violations of their federal constitutional rights."); Lee v. McManus, 543 F.Supp. 386, 392 (D.Kan.1982) (same).
Here, the plaintiffs have made a preliminary showing that the defendants have failed to protect the plaintiffs and other women prisoners from a substantial risk of serious harm. Inmates are living in overcrowded and understaffed open dorms, where weapons are easily accessible and where weak prisoners are not separated from aggressive prisoners. The potential physical harm resulting from this situation would obviously be irreparable. Moreover, the risk of harm to inmates is not only a potentiality, but a reality. Inmates (and officers) have already been injured at these facilities. The second prong of the preliminary-injunction test is therefore satisfied.
1252 *1252 C. Threatened Harm to the Plaintiffs Outweighs Harm to the Defendants
The threat of harm to the plaintiffs clearly outweighs any harm that the preliminary injunction may cause the defendants. The plaintiffs are suffering and will continue to suffer as a result of the defendants' ongoing failure to protect them from the substantial risk of serious harm posed to them by conditions in Tutwiler. In contrast, the defendants will suffer no harm from providing sufficient staff and adequate facilities to reduce the risk of assault

and harm to women prisoners. In fact, officers employed by the defendants face an extremely dangerous situation, and they, too, will benefit from injunctive relief.
The threat of harm to the plaintiffs cannot be outweighed by the risk of financial burden or administrative inconvenience to the defendants. See Ancata v. Prison Health Servs., Inc., 769 F.2d 700, 705 (11th Cir.1985) ("Lack of funds for facilities cannot justify an unconstitutional lack of competent medical care and treatment for inmates.") (citations omitted). As discussed above, courts have repeatedly made clear that cost is not a defense to constitutional violations. "It should not need repeating that compliance with constitutional standards may not be frustrated by legislative inaction or failure to provide the necessary funds." Newman v. Alabama, 559 F.2d 283, 286 (5th Cir.1977)[8] (citations omitted), rev'd in part on other grounds sub nom Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 98 S.Ct. 3057, 57 L.Ed.2d 1114 (1978).
D. Service to the Public Interest By Entry of a Preliminary Injunction
The public interest is in no way served by the defendants' current policy, practice, and custom of incarcerating inmates in dangerous conditions. Rather, there is a strong public interest in requiring that the plaintiffs' constitutional rights no longer be violated, as well as in prevention of the foreseeable violence that will occur if present conditions persist. See Preston v. Thompson, 589 F.2d 300, 303 n. 3 (7th Cir.1978) ("The existence of a continuing constitutional violation constitutes proof of an irreparable harm, and its remedy certainly would serve the public interest."). Not only prisoners, but the safety of prison guards and the general public will be protected by a preliminary injunction. As Warden Deese stated in her affidavit, the prison is "overcrowded and under-staffed ... seriously jeopardizing the public's safety." The fourth element of the test for preliminary injunctive relief is therefore satisfied.
IV. CONCLUSION
In sum, the court holds that the plaintiffs are entitled to preliminary-injunctive relief on their claim that they are subject to a substantial risk of serious harm caused by Tutwiler's greatly overcrowded and significantly understaffed open dorms. Indeed, the court is not only convinced that these unsafe conditions have resulted in harm, and the threat of harm, to individual inmates in the immediate past, it is also convinced that they are so severe and widespread today that they are essentially a time bomb ready to explode facility-wide at any unexpected moment in the near future. The plaintiffs are not entitled to preliminary-injunctive relief as to Mitchell and Birmingham, nor are they entitled to such relief as to Tutwiler in any other respect.
1253 *1253 The court, however, recognizes that prison officials "should be accorded wideranging deference in the adoption and execution of policies and practices that in their judgment are needed to preserve internal order and discipline and to maintain institutional security." Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 547-48, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 1878-79, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979). At this time, therefore, the court will give the defendants the latitude to fashion appropriate injunctive relief. The defendants may want to adopt the simple and direct measure of immediately and significantly increasing the number of security officers for Tutwiler's dorms or to find some way to reduce immediately the dorm populations or to pursue some other immediately effective measure unknown to the court at this time or to adopt some combination of these measures. The defendants are to submit, within four weeks, a plan that redresses immediately and fully the unconstitutionally unsafe conditions caused by overcrowding and understaffing in open dorms at Tutwiler.
An appropriate order and injunction will be issued.
ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
In accordance with the memorandum opinion entered this date, it is the ORDER, JUDGMENT, and DECREE of the court as follows:

(1) The motion for preliminary injunction, filed by plaintiffs Linda Laube, Theresa Barron, Barbara Bush, Lachrondria Crockett, Marjorie Ewing, Wanda Goodman, Alma Gutierrez, Lisa Hereford, La'toya Jones, Katie Moore, Terri Newby, Barbara Pelzer, April Rice, Kelli Washington, and Melinda Washington on August 19, 2002 (Doc. no. 5), is granted as to the unconstitutionally unsafe conditions at Julia Tutwiler Prison for Women, as described in the companion memorandum opinion entered today, and the motion is denied as to Edwina Mitchell Work Release Center and Birmingham Work Release Center, and as to Julia Tutwiler Prison for Women in all other respects.
(2) It is PRELIMINARILY DECLARED that the unconstitutionally unsafe conditions, resulting from overcrowded and understaffed open dorms, at Julia Tutwiler Prison for Women violate the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
(3) Defendants Don Siegelman, Michael Haley, and Gladys Deese are PRELIMINARILY ENJOINED and RESTRAINED from failing to take immediate affirmative steps to redress the unconstitutionally unsafe conditions at Julia Tutwiler Prison for Women.
(4) The defendants are to submit to the court, by December, 30, 2002, a plan that redresses immediately and fully the unconstitutional conditions at Julia Tutwiler Prison for Women.
The clerk of the court is DIRECTED to issue a writ of injunction.
[1] Figures for the number of inmates housed in each unit are approximations and are based on representations the defendants made on a map of Tutwiler. The defendants did not note the capacity of the MIUs on this map, but stated in testimony that each MIU held around 20 inmates. The defendants have labeled dorm nine as holding 228 inmates; Warden Deese has stated at other times that dorm nine holds 238 inmates.
[2] "Closed" security is a higher security classification than "maximum." Inmates classified as "closed" are considered violent and must be kept separate from other inmates.
[3] Tutwiler has seven ice machines. During the summer, ice from these machines is distributed to inmates at "ice call." Dorm ten has its own ice machine and, therefore, does not have an "ice call."
[4] This yard is quite small and is not been able to accommodate all 63 residents of dorm eight at one time. It is unclear whether all inmates are actually able to access the yard twice a day.
[5] Disciplinary segregation is different from other types of segregation. Inmates may be housed in segregation for a variety of reasons; for example, they are in protective custody, are on death row, or their security classification calls for constant segregation. Inmates in disciplinary segregation are housed in segregation for disciplinary infractions and, it appears from the hearing testimony, are subject to harsher conditions than are other inmates in segregation.
[6] Mitchell will soon have the capacity to house "minimum in" inmates as well; these inmates are minimum custody, but do not have the privilege of leaving the facility.
[7] This is not to say the defendants' actions were not negligent; but negligence does not establish a constitutional violation. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 835, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811, (1994) ("[D]eliberate indifference describes a state of mind more blameworthy than negligence.").
[8] In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir.1981) (en banc), the Eleventh Circuit adopted as binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981.
Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.

 
 242 F.Supp.2d 1150 (2003)
Linda LAUBE, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
Michael HALEY, et al., Defendants.
No. CIV.A. 02-T-957-N.
United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division.
January 29, 2003.
1151 *1151 Stephen B. Bright, Tamara H. Serwer, Marion D. Chartoff, Lisa Kung, Southern Center for Human Rights, Atlanta, GA, John A. Russell, III, Aliceville, AL, for plaintiffs.
Ellen Ruth Leonard, Office of Atty. Gen., Montgomery, AL, William F. Addison, Andrew W. Redd, Ala. Dept. of Corrections, Legal Div., Montgomery, AL, for Michael Haley, Gladys Deese, Patricia Hood, Mary Carter, defendant.
Michael M. Shipper, Miller, Hamilton, Snider & Odom, Mobile, AL, Hugh C. Nickson, III, Miller, Hamilton, Snider & Odom, Montgomery, AL, Gile G. Perkins, Miller Hamilton Snider & Odom, LLC, Birmingham, AL, for NaphCare, Inc., Francis Henderson, defendants.
Edward A. Hosp, James V. Doyle, Jr., Office of Governor, Montgomery, AL, for Don Siegelman, defendant.
ORDER
MYRON H. THOMPSON, District Judge.
The complaint in this lawsuit charges that conditions for female inmates in the Alabama State Prison System violate the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The plaintiffs are female inmates incarcerated in three state prison facilities; the defendants are various officials of the State of Alabama and its Department of Corrections. On December 2, 2002, this court preliminarily enjoined the defendants from continuing to operate Julia Tutwiler Prison for Women in an unconstitutionally unsafe manner. Laube v. Haley, 234 F.Supp.2d 1227, 1253 (M.D.Ala. 2002). The defendants were ordered to file a plan that redressed immediately and fully the unconstitutional conditions at Tutwiler. Id. The defendants filed a proposed plan on December 30, 2002, and the 1152 plaintiffs responded on January 15, 2003.[1] The court heard oral arguments on the defendants' *1152 proposed plan on January 21, 2003. For the reasons that follow, the court concludes that the defendants' plan is inadequate.
The defendants' plan is inadequate in two substantial respects. First, the defendants have requested relief that the court has no authority to grant. They have requested, as part of their plan to reduce overcrowding, that this court temporarily restrain or prohibit the transfer of female inmates from county jails to Tutwiler. As the plaintiffs have correctly noted, this relief is beyond the authority of this single-judge court. Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, only a three-judge panel may issue "prisoner release orders" and only in certain circumstances. 18 U.S.C.A. § 3626(a)(3). Because a "prisoner release order" is "any order ... that directs the release from or nonadmission of prisoners to a prison," 18 U.S.C.A. § 3626(g)(4), the relief the defendants seek constitutes a "prisoner release order" as defined by the statute. Therefore, this single-judge court may not enter the order sought by the defendants.
Furthermore, the defendants themselves do not otherwise have the power to restrain the transfer of female inmates from county jails to Tutwiler. The defendants in this case are involved in state-court litigation concerning the backlog of state inmates housed in county jails across the State. In an action styled Barbour County v. Haley, CV-92-388-S, now pending in the Circuit Court of Montgomery County, Alabama, a class of Alabama counties has sued Corrections Department officials to have state prisoners removed from county jails. The state court in

Barbour has ordered these officials to accept state-ready inmates sent from various county jails in Alabama. The actions and efforts of Corrections Department officials to block the transfer of state-ready female inmates from county jails to Tutwiler, as has been suggested in this federal litigation, would be in direct contradiction to the state-court order.
Therefore, neither this court, nor the defendants on their own initiative, may restrain the transfer of female inmates to Tutwiler. Because this part of the defendants' plan was a key element, and because it is not viable, the defendants should modify and adjust their plan with new and substantial measures to achieve the same ultimate goal of redressing the unconstitutional conditions at Tutwiler, albeit now by different means.
The defendants' proposed plan is also inadequate because they indicated at the January 2003 oral argument that their proposed remedial measures are constrained by the fact that they lack adequate funds. In the words of their counsel, "the problem is, we've run out of money, pure and simple." As this court stated in its companion opinion to the preliminary injunction, "budgetary concerns are not a defense to constitutional violations." Laube, 234 F.Supp.2d at 1249. Because the lack of funds is the main factor determining the relief outlined in the defendants' plan, the plan must be modified. The defendants should submit a new plan which assumes that the funds necessary to address the unconstitutionally unsafe conditions at Tutwiler will be made available.
1153 As discussed above, two central premises of the proposed plan are not valid and *1153 necessitate its modification. Moreover, ordering the plan to be modified has an added benefit: the new Governor of Alabama, Bob Riley, will now have an opportunity to participate in the drafting of a revised plan. The defendants' proposed plan was drafted by only the Department of Corrections defendants; neither the Governor of Alabama at the time of the plan (Don Siegelman) nor the new Governor (Riley) participated in the plan's drafting. At the January 2003 oral argument, Governor Riley requested an opportunity to have input into the plan; he and his staff will now have the chance to participate, and the resulting plan will be a product of the efforts of all defendants. This, too, is a more desirable result.[2] As this court has stated before, the defendants should be given considerable deference in determining an appropriate remedy for the constitutional violations involved. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 547-48, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 1878-79, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979) (prison officials "should be accorded wide-ranging deference in the adoption and execution of policies and practices that in their judgment are needed to preserve internal order and discipline and to maintain institutional security.").
Therefore, it is ORDERED that the defendants submit by February 7, 2003, a new plan that compensates for the deficiencies identified in this order.
[1] The defendants note in their plan that, in its December 2002 opinion, the court incorrectly characterized the second shift at Tutwiler as taking place between 6:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. Laube, 234 F.Supp.2d at 1233-34. The second shift actually takes place between 2:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. With this order, the court modifies the opinion to reflect this change and this change only. This inaccuracy does not affect the substance of the opinion.
[2] In addition, if the revised plan includes essentially the same measures to address understaffing as does the current plan, the defendants' revised plan should explain how staffing Tutwiler's 16 priority posts at all times, as suggested in the current plan, will not result in Tutwiler being in a constant state of lockdown.
Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.

 
 255 F.Supp.2d 1301 (2003)
Linda LAUBE, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
Donal CAMPBELL, et al., Defendants.
No. CIV.A. 02-T-957-N.
United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division.
March 28, 2003.
1302 *1302 Stephen B. Bright, Tamara H. Serwer, Marion D. Chartoff, Lisa Kung, Southern Center for Human Rights, Atlanta, GA, John A. Russell, III, Aliceville, for Linda Laube, Theresa Barron, Barbara Bush, Lachrondria Crockett, Marjorie Ewing, Wanda Goodman, Alma Gutierrez, Lisa Hereford, La'Toya Jones, Katie Moore, Terri Newby, Barbara Pelzer, April Rice, Kelli Washington, plaintiffs.
Ellen Ruth Leonard, Office of the Attorney General, Montgomery, AL, William F. Addison, Andrew W. Redd, Alabama Department of Corrections, Legal Division, Montgomery, AL, for Donal Campball, Gladys Deese, Patricia Hood, Mary Carter.
Michael M. Shipper, Miller, Hamilton, Snider & Odom, Mobile, AL, Hugh C. Nickson, III, Miller, Hamilton, Snider & Odom, Montgomery, AL, Giles G. Perkins, Miller Hamilton Snider & Odom, LLC, Birmingham, AL, for NaphCare, Inc., Francis Henderso
NaphCare, Inc, Birmingham, AL, pro se.
Edward A. Hosp, James V. Doyle, Jr., Office of the Governor, Montgomery, AL, for Bob Riley.
MHM Correctional Services, Inc., pro se.
ORDER
MRYON H. THOMPSON, District Judge.
The issue now before the court is whether it should approve the initial and supplemental remedial plans the defendants have submitted to redress the unconstitutionally overcrowded and unsafe conditions at the Julia Tutwiler Prison for Women in Wetumpka, Alabama. For the reasons that follow, the court holds that it no longer has a legal basis to consider the proposed plans.
The complaint in this lawsuit charges that conditions for female inmates in the Alabama State Prison System violate the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The plaintiffs are female inmates incarcerated in three state prison facilities; the defendants are various officials of the State of Alabama and its Department of Corrections. On December 2, 2002, this court preliminarily enjoined the defendants from continuing to operate Tutwiler in an unconstitutionally overcrowded and unsafe manner. Laube v. Haley, 234 F.Supp.2d 1227, 1253, (M.D.Ala.2002). The defendants were ordered to file a plan that redressed immediately and fully the unconstitutional conditions at Tutwiler. Id.
On December 30, 2002, the defendants filed a proposed remedial plan, and, on January 15, 2003, the plaintiffs 1303 responded. *1303 On January 21, the court heard oral arguments on the defendants' proposed plan. On January
29, the court ordered the defendants to submit, by February 7, a new plan that addressed deficiencies noted by the court, including the fact that the defendants selected their proposed measures largely on the basis of cost. Laube v. Haley, 242 F.Supp.2d 1150 (M.D.Ala.2003). In order to obtain the participation of the new governor, Bob Riley, the court granted the defendants' motion to extend the court's deadline to February 21. On February 21, the defendants submitted a supplemental proposed plan which suggested measures to be taken in addition to

those previously proposed. On March 3, the plaintiffs responded, and, on March 6, the court heard oral arguments.
Following the March 6 hearing, the court researched limits on the preliminary injunction as set forth in the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"), 18 U.S.C.A. § 3626. Among the limits imposed is the automatic expiration of a preliminary injunction 90 days after its entry, unless the court makes specific statutory findings "for the entry of prospective relief and makes the order final before the expiration of the 90-day period." § 3626(a)(2). Because more than 90 days had passed since the court had issued the preliminary injunction, the court sua sponte raised the issue of its expiration under § 3626(a)(2), and held a conference call with all parties on March 10.
During the March 10 conference call, the defendants assured the court that they intended to go forward with their initial and supplemental remedial plans, regardless of the status of the preliminary injunction. The plaintiffs argued that the 90day period mandated by the PLRA had not yet begun to run because the preliminary injunction entered on December 2 did not contain any specific measures and was, therefore, not the kind of relief contemplated by the PLRA. In the alternative, the plaintiffs argued that, while the court's December 2 order may have constituted a preliminary injunction, its subsequent order on January 29, requiring the defendants to submit a new plan, constituted a renewal of the preliminary injunction. Under these circumstances, the plaintiffs argued, the 90-day period had not yet expired.
The court rejects both of the plaintiffs' arguments. First, while the PLRA does mandate that "[preliminary injunctive relief must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the harm the court finds requires preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary to correct the harm," 18 U.S.C.A. § 3626 (a)(2), the statute also plainly states that "[preliminary injunctive relief shall automatically expire on the date that is 90 days after its entry." § 3626(a)(2). The statute does not limit the 90-day period to only those preliminary injunctions setting forth detailed measures of relief; the statute does not distinguish between preliminaryinjunctive relief that is detailed and that that is not. Indeed, to limit the PLRA's 90-day period to only detailed preliminary injunctions would be nonsensical, for there is just as much interest in assuring that non-detailed preliminary-injunctive relief is needed after 90 days as there is in assuring that detailed preliminary-injunctive relief is; both detailed and non-detailed preliminary-injunctive relief can be overly intrusive, depending on the circumstances.
1304 In any event, the court clearly entered "preliminary injunctive relief," *1304 § 3626(a)(2), on December 2, 2002, when it "preliminarily enjoined and restrained" the defendants "from failing to take immediate affirmative steps to redress the unconstitutionally unsafe conditions at Julia Tutwiler Prison for women." Laube, 234 F.Supp.2d at 1253. The fact that the court deferred to the defendants in determining the specific remedial measures necessary to effect the injunction does not detract from the fact that preliminary-injunctive relief was entered by the court on December 2. The problem is that the court and the parties later failed to meet the PLRA's requirement for extending preliminary injunctions, 18 U.S.C.A. § 3626(a)(2), and the plaintiffs cannot now get around this requirement by pretending that the December 2 order was not what it was: preliminary-injunctive relief. In the future, both the court and the parties will have to be more attentive to the PLRA's requirements.
Next, the plaintiffs contend that the court renewed the preliminary injunction on January 29, when it ordered the defendants to submit a new plan to comply with the preliminary injunction. The court cannot agree. At no point did the court make any findings or use any language in its order demonstrating that it was renewing, modifying, or reissuing the preliminary injunction. Rather, the court's order simply stated that the defendants' proposed plan was unsatisfactory and required them to submit another plan. This order in no way constituted a renewal of the preliminary injunction. Furthermore, the language of the PLRA indicates that the only way to extend a preliminary injunction beyond the mandated 90-day period is for the court to make the necessary findings for prospective relief under the statute and to make the injunction final. 18 U.S.C.A. § 3626(a)(2). The court has not made any such findings, nor has it made the preliminary injunction final.
Based on the fact that more than 90 days have now passed since the court entered the preliminary injunction in this case, the court must conclude, under the terms of 18 U.S.C.A. § 3626(a)(2), that the December 2 preliminary injunction has expired. Consequently, the court now has no basis to approve or disapprove of the defendants' initial and supplemental proposed remedial plans. This is not to say, however, that the plaintiffs may not move for another preliminary injunction if they so desire. Mayweathers v. Newland, 258 F.3d 930, 936 (9th Cir.2001)

(finding that the district court did not violate the PLRA by entering a second injunction after the first one had expired). On these grounds, it is ORDERED as follows: (1) The preliminary injunction issued on December 2, 2002 (Doc. no. 77), has expired. (2) The court has no basis to consider the initial and supplemental plans submitted by the defendants to effect the preliminary injunction.
Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.

 
 333 F.Supp.2d 1234 (2004)
Linda LAUBE, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
Donal CAMPBELL, et al., Defendants.
No. 2:02cv957-T.
United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division.
August 23, 2004.
12356 *1235 *1236 George E. Schulz, Jr., Holland & Knight, Jacksonville, FL, Gretchen Naomi Rohr, Holland & Knight, Atlanta, GA, John A. Russell, III, Aliceville, AL, Lisa Kung, Stephen B. Bright, Atlanta, GA, Tamara S. Caldas, Southern Center for Human Rights, Atlanta, GA, Marion D. Chartoff, Montgomery, AL, for Plaintiffs.
Andrew Weldon Redd, William F. Addison, Alabama Department of Corrections, Legal Division, Ellen Ruth Leonard, Alice Miller Maples, Charles B. Campbell, Montgomery, AL, Giles G. Perkins, James Edward Murrill, Jr., James Arthur Patton, Jr., Miller, Hamilton, Snider & Odom, LLC, Birmingham, AL, Hugh C. Nickson, III, Miller, Hamilton, Snider & Odom, Montgomery, AL, Michael M. Shipper, Miller Hamilton Snider & Odom, Mobile, AL, Edward Andrew Hosp, Maynard, Cooper & Gale, PC, Montgomery, AL, James Victor Doyle, Jr., K. Stephen Jackson PC, Birmingham, AL, Lee Calligaro, Epstein, Becker & Green PC, Washington, DC, Paul Anthony Clark, Balch & Bingham, Montgomery, AL, for Defendants.
OPINION
MYRON H. THOMPSON, District Judge.
In this class-action lawsuit, the plaintiffs (on behalf of themselves and all other women incarcerated by the Alabama Department of Corrections) claim that the defendants (who are various state officials) are deliberately indifferent to the denial of female prisoners' basic human needs, to the denial of their serious medical needs, and to their substantial risk of serious physical violence; the plaintiffs charge the defendants with violations of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment and enforced through 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983. Jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1331 and 1343.
1237 *1237 This case is now before the court on the parties' joint motion to approve two four-year settlement agreements that will resolve all the claims in the case: the Conditions Settlement Agreement and the Medical Settlement Agreement. Based on a careful consideration of the parties' motion, the proposed settlement agreements and the objections to them, and the representations by counsel, and after a first-hand review of the current conditions of one of the state facilities that house the plaintiffs, the court will approve the proposed settlement agreements and enter a judgment, with the agreements attached.
I. BACKGROUND
The plaintiffs originally filed this lawsuit in August 2002. Broadly speaking, the court would characterize their allegations as follows: that because of conditions at the three state prison facilities that house all female inmates (Julia Tutwiler Prison for Women, the Edwina Mitchell Work Release Center (now known as the Tutwiler Annex), and the Birmingham Work Release Center), female inmates are being denied their basic human needs of adequate living space, ventilation, and personal safety and security; that because of the defendants' failure to provide adequate medical and mental health care, female inmates are at a real and substantial risk of injury, prolonged illness, and premature death; and that the defendants have acted with deliberate indifference to the existence of these conditions. The procedural history of this litigation and a vivid description of the conditions at

Tutwiler, the Tutwiler Annex, and the Birmingham facility at the time this case was filed can be found in this court's earlier reported decisions. Laube v. Campbell, 255 F.Supp.2d 1301 (M.D.Ala.2003) (Thompson, J.); Laube v. Haley, 242 F.Supp.2d 1150 (M.D.Ala.2003) (Thompson, J.); Laube v. Haley, 234 F.Supp.2d 1227 (M.D.Ala.2002) (Thompson, J.).
In early 2004, counsel for all parties met informally to discuss settlement, and, in April 2004, formal mediation under the guidance of Chief Magistrate Judge Charles S. Coody began. In June 2004, counsel reached final agreement on all provisions of the proposed agreements, and, on June 25, filed a joint motion asking the court to adopt the agreements, both of which are signed by the following: plaintiffs' counsel; defendants' counsel; and defendants Donal Campbell (Commissioner of the Alabama Department of Corrections), Troy King (Attorney General of Alabama), and Bob Riley (Governor of Alabama). The agreements are intended to settle all the claims contained in the plaintiffs' second amended complaint; they expire in four years.
On July 1, 2004, the court provisionally approved the two settlement agreements and, with the approval of all parties and because of the urgent need for relief, also provisionally enjoined the defendants from failing immediately to carry out their provisions, that is, pending their final court approval. The court further ordered that, "[i]f the settlements are not ultimately approved by the court, then this order shall be vacated," and that "[t]he settlements shall expire, in accordance with their terms, four years from July 1, 2004, the date the agreements were provisionally enforced."
The court further approved the parties' plan for notifying class members of the proposed settlements and for soliciting and receiving class members' feedback. Based on the parties' representations contained in the two agreements, the court also granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
On July 21, 2004, the court held a fairness hearing at Tutwiler Prison on the proposed settlements, during which 1238 the court heard testimony from seven class *1238 members and Tutwiler Warden Gladys Deese. After the
hearing, the court toured the facility as it had done at the outset of this litigation almost two years ago.
II. DISCUSSION
Judicial policy favors voluntary settlement of class-action cases. Cotton v. Hinton, 559 F.2d 1326, 1331 (5th Cir.1977).[1] However, "the settlement process is more susceptible than the adversarial process to certain types of abuse and, as a result, a court has a heavy, independent duty to ensure that the settlement is `fair, adequate, and reasonable.' "Paradise v. Wells, 686 F.Supp. 1442, 1444 (M.D.Ala.1988) (Thompson, J.); accord Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(e)(1)(C) ("The court may approve a settlement, voluntary dismissal, or compromise that would bind class members only after a hearing and on finding that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate."). Court review is "essential to assure adequate representation of class members who have not participated in shaping the settlement." Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(e) advisory committee's note. In addition to analyzing the fairness of the proposed settlement, the court must assure that it is not illegal or against public policy. Piambino v. Bailey, 757 F.2d 1112, 1119 (11th Cir.1985); Paradise, 686 F.Supp. at 1448. The court must also determine whether notice to the class was adequate, Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(e), and must examine the class members' comments and objections, Paradise, 686 F.Supp. at 1444, and the judgment of counsel, id. at 1446. Because this case involves a challenge to prison conditions, the court must also determine whether the settlement is subject to the requirements of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 18 U.S.C.A. § 3626, and, if so, whether those requirements have been met.
A. PLRA
"The PLRA strictly limits the prospective relief a federal court may order in cases concerning prison conditions." Gaddis v. Campbell, 301 F.Supp.2d 1310, 1313 (M.D.Ala.2004) (Thompson, J.). Although "private settlement agreements" are not subject to the statute's limitations, see, e.g., id. at 1313-14, the agreements in this case are subject to judicial enforcement and are thus within the scope of the statute, 18 U.S.C.A. § 3626(c)(2) & (g)(6).
The PLRA provides that a "court shall not grant or approve any prospective relief unless the court finds that such relief [(1)] is narrowly drawn, [(2)] extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right,

and [(3)] is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right." 18 U.S.C.A. § 3626 (a)(1)(A). The court must also "give substantial weight to any adverse impact on public safety or the operation of a criminal justice system caused by the relief." 18 U.S.C.A. § 3626(a)(1)(B).
In most cases, the court must "engage in a specific, provision-by-provision examination of [a] consent decree[ ], measuring each requirement against the statutory criteria." Cason v. Seckinger, 231 F.3d 777 (11th Cir.2000). However, it is not the case that "the district court must conduct an evidentiary hearing about or enter particularized findings concerning any facts or factors about which there is not dispute." Id. at 785 n. 8. "The parties are free to make any concessions or enter into stipulations they deem appropriate." Id.
1239 *1239 Here, all parties concur that the PLRA's requirements are met. The parties agree that the proposed settlement agreements satisfy the statute's three-part "need-narrowness-intrusiveness' requirements. The court finds that the two proposed agreements, in particular the remedial provisions to which the parties have agreed, are based on an informed assessment of the facts and the law and represent the parties" considered judgment as to what is necessary, narrow, and least intrusive with respect to the specific problems presented in this case, with which the parties are intimately familiar. The parties also agree that the two agreements "will not have an adverse impact on public safety or the operation of the criminal justice system." 18 U.S.C.A. § 3626(a)(1)(B).
At the fairness hearing, the court expressed some concern that the provision of the Medical Settlement Agreement creating the healthcare monitor position could implicate the PLRA's requirements with respect to special masters. See 18 U.S.C.A. § 3626(f).[2] As described below, an independent healthcare monitor is charged with conducting regular audits to monitor implementation. The healthcare monitor will have access to prisoners and their medical records, to members of the medical and security staff, and to any other source of information he deems necessary to determine compliance with the agreement. The healthcare monitor will also prepare reports following regular on-site inspections, and the institution's quality-improvement committee will address any areas requiring improvement. The monitor must provide copies of his or her reports to counsel for the plaintiffs and the defendants as well as file copies with the court. The court is satisfied, for the reasons articulated by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Benjamin v. Fraser, 343 F.3d 35, 44-46 (2d Cir.2003), that the healthcare monitor is not a special master for purposes of the statute.
In Benjamin, the Second Circuit held that the Office of Compliance Consultants (OCC), which had been 1240 appointed to monitor compliance with the consent decrees in a prison-conditions case, was not subject to *1240
the PLRA's provisions governing special masters. The court explained that:
"The term `special master' is defined by the PLRA as `any person appointed by a Federal court pursuant to Rule 53 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or pursuant to any inherent power of the court to exercise the powers of a master, regardless of the title or description given by the court.'" 18 U.S.C. § 3626(g)(8)....
"The powers of special masters, who are quasi-judicial officers, are set forth generally in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53. They include the ability to convene and to regulate hearings, to rule on the admissibility of evidence, to subpoena and swear witnesses, and to hold non-cooperating witnesses in contempt. Fed.R.Civ.P. 53(c)-(d). The master's responsibilities typically culminate in a report. If the report includes findings of fact, they are binding in non-jury actions unless clearly erroneous." Fed.R.Civ.P. 53(e)(2).
"The OCC's functions are quite different from those of a Rule 53 special master. The OCC was not appointed to hold hearings, subpoena witnesses, take testimony, or rule upon evidence. It does not prepare reports to assist in the court's determination of discrete issues of law or fact, and its factual findings are not legally entitled to deference. The OCC's reports, which are neither formally filed in the court's docket nor adopted, modified, or rejected by the court, serve a different function from the typical report of a special master. Besides informing the court of ongoing compliance efforts, these reports facilitate the City's awareness of its compliance with remedial directives. In other words, the OCC serves a monitoring function; it does not exercise quasi-judicial power."
Benjamin, 343 F.3d at 45-46 (citations omitted). In addition, the Second Circuit explained that, "Nothing in the text of § 3626(f) expressly reveals Congress's intent either to treat all court-appointed agents as special masters or to prohibit a court from appointing agents to perform functions that differ from the quasi-judicial activities of special masters." Id.

For the same reasons that the Second Circuit found that the OCC was not a special master under the PLRA, the healthcare monitor here is not a special master for purposes of that statute. The healthcare monitor "serves a monitoring function; it does not exercise quasi-judicial power." Id.
Finally, the PLRA provides that "[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions ... until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted." 42 U.S.C.A. § 1997e(a). The Eleventh Circuit recently suggested that the district courts must independently determine whether the plaintiffs have complied with § 1997e. Chandler v. Crosby, 379 F.3d 1278, 1286-88 (11th Cir.2004). Section 1997e's exhaustion requirement is inapplicable in this case because, as all parties agree, no administrative remedies were available to the plaintiffs.
In sum, the court is satisfied that it is in full compliance with the PLRA in approving the settlement agreements.
B. Notice
The court must ensure that all class members are informed of the agreements and have the opportunity to voice their objections. Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(e); Austin v. Hopper, 28 F.Supp.2d 1231, 1236 (M.D.Ala.1998) (Thompson, J.). In this case, class members were provided ample information regarding the terms of the settlement agreements and plenty of opportunities to comment on the agreements. In June 2004, plaintiffs' counsel visited the three 1241 facilities, including death row and *1241 each individual segregation cell, and talked to class members directly about specific provisions of the agreements and the relative merits of settlement versus trial. Plaintiffs' counsel encouraged class members to take advantage of the opportunity to file objections or concerns.
Starting in July 2004, at each of the three facilities, the defendants posted a court-approved notice of the agreements, provided at least one hundred copies of a court-approved comment form, and provided drop boxes for the comment forms. Prison officials made additional comment forms available after it became clear that the forms were missing from the drop box location at Tutwiler for a few days during the week of July 12. To further ensure that class members were not discouraged from submitting comments by the lack of forms, plaintiffs' counsel visited both the Tutwiler and Birmingham facilities and spoke to 25 women, strongly encouraging them to submit comments and to inform others that anyone with a comment or objection should submit a written response.
Prison officials also made an announcement over the intercom system in the main building at Tutwiler on the morning of July 16, reminding the women that comment forms were due at noon that day.
Class members submitted a total of 81 responses to the agreements. Based on the extensive communication by plaintiffs' counsel with class members regarding the agreements, the substantial number of written responses filed, and the fact that the court received comments from every dormitory and the segregation unit, it is apparent that class members were well aware of 0907 and, indeed, took advantage of 0907 the opportunity to voice their concerns about the proposed agreements. The court concludes that these measures were sufficient to satisfy the notice requirement of Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
C. Objections and Comments
To determine whether a proposed settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable, the "first place a court should look is to the views of the class itself." Paradise, 686 F.Supp. at 1444. Even though only 81 of the approximately 1,250 class members filed a written comment regarding the settlement, the court does not assume that silence from the remaining class members indicates support for the settlement agreements. Particularly in prison litigation, where members of the class may have lower literacy levels or may not feel entirely free to submit objections, "the court must look beyond the numbers to the total reality of the circumstances presented and from those circumstances attempt to extrapolate some picture of the true support for the [settlement]." Reynolds v. King, 790 F.Supp. 1101, 1109 (M.D.Ala.1990) (Thompson, J.).
Seven of the 81 comments include an explicit statement opposing, or objecting to, the settlement agreements. Two class members object to the agreements because they believe the Alabama Department of Corrections will

fail to comply with them. Two women at Tutwiler object to the agreements because of the continuing problem of housing mental-health inmates in segregation and on death row. A resident of Dorm 9 at Tutwiler objects because nothing in the agreements redresses the hot exhaust pushed into that dorm by an adjacent staff office's airconditioning unit. A resident of Dorm 3 at Tutwiler objects because no provision addresses abuse or harassment by correctional officers. One woman submitted a detailed list of the portions of the settlement agreements to which she objects, with reasons for each of her objections.
1242 *1242 Twenty-one of the 81 submissions include explicit statements in support of the settlement. Many within this group express their support for the agreements but also voice concerns similar to the comments of those who wrote in opposition. For example, two women who wrote in support of the agreements include the caveat that they are in support so long as the Corrections Department will actually implement the agreements and the court will enforce them. The majority of those women who explicitly support the agreements have either witnessed some change or are hopeful they will see improvements once the settlement agreements are finally approved.
The remaining comments neither explicitly object to nor explicitly support the agreements. Rather, most of these comments can be characterized as concerns about the conditions of confinement. Nearly all the women who submitted a response wrote about more than one area of concern. Within the 81 comment forms and letters received, class members made approximately 350 discrete comments. These comments can be grouped into eight categories: (1) heat and ventilation; (2) living space; (3) safety and security; (4) medical care; (5) mental health; (6) implementation, monitoring, and enforcement; (7) conditions in segregation; and (8) other concerns.
1. Heat and Ventilation
Thirty-seven women wrote a total of 117 comments related to the heat and ventilation at Tutwiler. While some class members wrote generally that the prison is too hot, most pointed to specific areas where, they allege, the defendants have failed to comply with the court's order provisionally enforcing the settlement agreements. Some class members wrote that there are not enough fans in their dorms or that the fans just blow hot air around the room. Others are concerned about whether and how often officers will take the temperature in the dorms. Testimony at the fairness hearing echoed these written complaints.
In general, class members' concerns regarding the heat and lack of ventilation at Tutwiler are addressed by sections five (heat), six (shade), ten (physical plant), eleven (facility maintenance), 15 (ventilation), 16 (recreational opportunities), and 18 (programming) of the Conditions Settlement Agreement. So long as these sections are all implemented consistently, the agreement will provide some relief to class members. It may be that other steps could provide more relief or that these provisions would not be sufficient under other circumstances. Nonetheless, the particular remedial provisions to which the parties agreed represent what is necessary, narrow, and least intrusive with respect to the specific heat and ventilation problems presented in this case.
The court was very encouraged to see that, on the day of the fairness hearing, some of the complaints registered by women during the notice period had already been addressed. For example, the windows that had been barred shut earlier in the summer were open, and prison officials had secured sufficient ice to make it freely available, as agreed to in the settlements. Officials were also in the process of implementing the Conditions Settlement Agreement's provisions regarding permission to wear shorts after 3:30 p.m., permission to take additional showers, installation of exhaust fans in the dormitories, and the addition of shade structures for most of the dormitories.
In sum, the court is satisfied that, so long as all ameliorative measures agreed upon by parties are consistently 1243 and fully implemented, the agreements fairly and adequately address the concerns raised by *1243 class
members regarding heat and ventilation.

2. Living Space
Twenty women submitted a total of 24 comments related to living space or overcrowding. Several wrote generally that the prison is overcrowded. Others wrote that the lack of space means that women are sleeping, washing, and using the restroom with no more than a few inches separating them. Twelve women have particular concerns about problems with classification that, if remedied, could help reduce the population.
The parties have agreed upon a set of measures that, taken together, are narrowly tailored to ameliorate the problems associated with the limited living space available to class members. Sections seven (outdoor exercise), nine (visitation), 16 (recreational opportunities), 17 (drug treatment), and 18 (programming) of the Conditions Settlement Agreement, in concert and fully implemented, will reduce the total amount of time each inmate must spend within the limited available living space. Sections 12 (toilets and showers), 13 (environmental safety), and 14 (laundry) will ensure that what space is available is livable. Finally, section four (population flow) specifies that the Alabama Department of Corrections will work cooperatively with plaintiffs' counsel to minimize unnecessary delays in the review and reduction of inmate classification levels. Taken together, these provisions of the settlements adequately address class members' concerns.
3. Safety and Security
Twenty women submitted a total of 25 comments related to safety and security. These included concerns that Corrections Department facilities are not safe due to idleness, lack of access to recreation, and officer misconduct and verbal intimidation. Some of the women simply note that the lack of out-of-dorm activities increases tension or that high stress levels lead to violence. Others include suggestions about increasing constructive activities and work opportunities. Some women note that many officers are working overtime shifts that make them tired and short-tempered. Ten women wrote comments about officer misconduct, favoritism, prejudice, verbal abuse, and intimidation.
Rather than simply increase the total number of officers, for example, or replace open dorms with single cells, the parties have agreed upon a combination of measures that will, so long as all measures are fully implemented, remedy the safety problems in a manner that is necessary, narrowly tailored, and the least intrusive. These measures are contained in sections 19-24, as well as seven, nine, and 16-18 of the Conditions Settlement Agreement. The court is satisfied that these provisions, taken together, fairly and adequately address the safety and security concerns raised by class members.
4. Medical Care
Two class members at the fairness hearing expressed concerns about medical care at Tutwiler, and 27 others submitted written comments about various aspects of medical care. The comments include concerns about the training of nurses, officers making medical decisions, access to timely specialty care, medication delays, lapses in medication, having to pay for follow-up care, sick-call procedures, lack of response by medical staff to serious medical needs, and lack of information about illnesses and medications. Many wrote about a general concern that the defendants would simply fail to carry out the terms of the agreements, or would comply with certain parts and ignore others. The Medical Settlement Agreement provides for extensive and detailed improvements in medical access and care and adequately addresses the concerns articulated during the notice process.
1244 *1244 5. Mental Health
Ten women wrote comments about mental-health issues. Three women expressed concern that women with serious mental illnesses are housed in segregation or on death row because of a lack of space elsewhere. Others offered more general comments about the lack of specialized housing for women with serious mental

disabilities. Still others submitted concerns about the teasing and intimidation of mentally ill women who are comingled with the general population.
Sections V.Q-V.X of the Medical Settlement Agreement addresses these concerns. Specifically, the objection to housing severely mentally ill women in segregation or on death row is addressed by the defendants' agreement to create a mental-health residential treatment unit for the most seriously mentally ill women at Tutwiler.
6. Implementation, Monitoring, and Enforcement
Eleven women submitted comments expressing concerns about implementation, monitoring, and enforcement, and witnesses at the fairness hearing testified to similar concerns. Some women are specifically concerned about officers' attitudes towards the settlement agreements, as reflected in comments and actions indicating a reluctance to implement the required changes. Other women are more generally concerned about the defendants' willingness or ability to implement the changes contained in the agreements.
The agreements are designed to ensure full implementation of their provisions. Transparency is the keystone to monitoring the agreements, and the agreements provide a number of provisions to this end. Plaintiffs' counsel will have reasonable access to prison records and prison facilities, including regular walk-through visits, and will maintain intensive client contact.
As stated above, the Medical Settlement Agreement provides for an independent healthcare monitor charged with conducting regular audits to monitor implementation. The healthcare monitor will have access to prisoners and their medical records, to members of the medical and security staff, and to any other source of information he deems necessary to determine compliance with the agreement; the healthcare monitor will also prepare reports following regular on-site inspections, and the institution's quality-improvement committee will address any areas requiring improvement.
As required under section 27 of the Conditions Settlement Agreement, and as testified to by Warden Deese at the fairness hearing, the defendants are responsible for ensuring that agents, representatives, and employees of the Corrections Department 0907 including line officers 0907 understand the scope and importance of the settlement agreements. Finally, anticipating disputes and lapses in implementation, section XI.B of the Medical Settlement Agreement and section 28 of the Conditions Settlement Agreement specify processes for resolving deficiencies. Taken together, these provisions sufficiently address class members' concern that the settlement agreements be implemented.
7. Conditions in Segregation
Seven women wrote about conditions in the segregation unit, including heat and lack of ventilation, restriction to two meals a day, lack of access to medical care, exposure to bugs and spiders, and the use of shackles during exercise. This number is notable, representing nearly a third of the total number of women in segregation. In addition, a class member held in the segregation unit testified at the fairness hearing that the conditions in 1245 segregation are substantially different from 0907 and worse *1245 than 0907 the conditions in the rest of the prison.
The court is satisfied that these concerns are adequately met by the settlement agreements. Section 15 of the Conditions Settlement Agreement mandates additional fans in the segregation unit, and other sections of the agreement governing pest control and heat and ventilation apply equally to the segregation unit. The defendants indicated at the fairness hearing that the exterminator will be directed to make additional efforts in the segregation unit and take necessary steps to address the problem.
An objection was raised about the use of shackles on women while they are in the small exercise pen; the concern was that this practice might defeat the provision in the agreements that prisoners in the segregation unit will be provided an opportunity for outdoor recreation for at least 45 minutes every day. Since the fairness hearing, the parties have advised the court that this issue has been resolved. The Corrections Department's standard operating procedures will be amended to provide that women in segregation will not be handcuffed as a matter of course but will only be handcuffed if security needs so dictate. Further, the Corrections Department will

document its reasons for the use of restraints. The court is satisfied that this resolution adequately addresses the objection.
8. Other Concerns
Thirty-seven women wrote 45 comments about other issues, including maintenance, unfair disciplinary procedures and excessive punishment, a lack of privacy, poor food and improper nutrition, visitation, mail, and a lack of personal hygiene products.
Some of these concerns are addressed, at least partially, by the Conditions Settlement Agreement. In section eleven, the defendants have agreed to develop a preventive-maintenance schedule and policy for upkeep of critical facility functions. The agreement also specifies how the most critical machines 0907 heating and airconditioning units and ice machines 0907 will be fixed. Under section 13, the defendants will provide prisoners access to cleaning supplies, thoroughly and safely disinfect and clean each living area at least once a month, and provide monthly pest control services. Section five of the Conditions Settlement Agreement specifies that fans are not to be turned off for punitive purposes, and the Corrections Department Commissioner has pledged to insure that line officers at the prisons understand that this is part of the agreement.
Other areas of concern raised by class members, such as interference with mail and problems with disciplinary procedures, were not part of this litigation. As such, the proposed settlement agreements cannot be inadequate for remaining silent on these issues.
After reviewing the written objections and testimony of class members and after a close examination of the proposed settlement agreements, the court finds the overwhelming majority of class objections will be resolved through full implementation of the agreements. The remaining objections must be balanced against the substantial benefits the plaintiffs will derive with certainty from the settlement agreements, and, in striking that balance, the proposed settlements are fair, adequate, and reasonable. See Paradise, 686 F.Supp. at 1446 ("[a] settlement is in large measure a reasoned choice of a certainty over a gamble, the certainty being the settlement and the gamble being the risk that comes with going to trial").
D. View of Class Counsel
In addition to considering the views of class members, the court should also consider the judgment of class 1246 counsel. Pettway *1246 v. American Cast Iron Pipe Co., 576 F.2d 1157, 1215 (5th Cir.1978); Gaddis v. Campbell,
301 F.Supp.2d 1310, 1315 (M.D.Ala.2004) (Thompson, J.). After two years of litigation, extensive discovery, and a focused period of negotiation with defendants' counsel, plaintiffs' counsel believe the settlement agreements are, on balance, in the best interest of the women incarcerated by the State of Alabama.
There is a sound basis for this belief. Plaintiffs' counsel started investigating the conditions of confinement at the women's prisons in Alabama in the summer of 2001. Since that time, they have conducted over 1,000 interviews with women at the Tutwiler facility, the Tutwiler Annex, and the Birmingham facility. Plaintiffs' counsel solicited and incorporated the preferences of class members into the settlement process. Class counsel has also continually relied on correctional experts regarding medical care, security, classification, and heat and ventilation, and now rely on the opinions of these experts in concluding that the settlements are fair, adequate, and reasonable so long as they are implemented in their entirety.
The settlement negotiations between the parties were at arms' length, and there is no suggestion of any collusion between the parties. In addition to being intimately familiar with the facts of this case, plaintiffs' attorneys are experienced in prison litigation and the limitations imposed by the PLRA. The court takes seriously the view of plaintiffs' attorneys that the settlements are fair, adequate and reasonable.

E. Court's Assessment of the Settlement Agreements
"Finally, with the above considerations in mind, the court should itself assess whether the settlement ... is fair, adequate, and reasonable." Gaddis, 301 F.Supp.2d at 1316 (quoting Paradise, 686 F.Supp. at 1446). Relevant factors include the stage in the proceedings; the plaintiffs' likelihood of success at trial; the complexity, expense, and likely duration of the lawsuit; and the range of possible recovery. Austin v. Hopper, 28 F.Supp.2d 1231, 1238 (M.D.Ala.1998) (Thompson, J.).
These factors line up in favor of approving the settlement. The issues involved in this case are complex, and it would have taken an extensive and prolonged 0907 not to mention contentious 0907 trial to resolve them. A full trial of the issues would also have as much as doubled the costs already incurred in this litigation, and prolonging the litigation would have postponed, if not outright denied, some of the relief offered to class members by the settlement agreements. The court is also satisfied that the settlement complies with state and federal law, and does not violate public policy. Piambino v. Bailey, 757 F.2d 1112, 1119 (11th Cir.1985).
The court has independently and carefully reviewed the proposed settlement agreements and is satisfied that they are a fair, adequate, and reasonable resolution to this litigation. The settlements will not make the Alabama Department of Corrections' womens's facilities comfortable or pleasant places, but it will afford class members the basic necessities mandated by the United States Constitution.
III. CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the court wishes to offer three acknowledgments. First, to the class members who actively participated in this litigation: As one of plaintiffs' lawyers commented at the fairness hearing, it would have been very easy for the named plaintiffs to sit by, let others do the work, and then reap the reward if the lawsuit succeeded. Those class members who got involved, and, in particular, those whose names appeared on court 1247 filings and who testified at hearings, put themselves *1247 out to improve conditions not just for themselves but for all their fellow inmates.
Second, to Chief United States Magistrate Judge Charles S. Coody, who worked long days over several months to help the parties come to a fair negotiated settlement: As counsel for the plaintiffs and the defendants jointly acknowledged at the fairness hearing, these settlement agreements and the improvement in conditions for Alabama's women prisoners that will result from them would not have been possible without Judge Coody's masterful work. Moreover, the court cannot overlook the millions in tax dollars that will be saved by avoiding litigation 0907 money that can, of course, now be spent directly on redressing state prison conditions to the extent needed. Thus, not only the named parties and the plaintiff class members but all citizens of the State of Alabama owe Judge Coody a deep debt of gratitude.
Finally, to Warden Gladys Deese, who, working with extraordinarily limited resources, has already made substantial improvements in the conditions at Tutwiler: In December 2002, this court wrote that the conditions at Tutwiler were "essentially a time bomb ready to explode facility-wide at any unexpected moment." Laube v. Haley, 234 F.Supp.2d 1227, 1252 (M.D.Ala.2002) (Thompson, J.). In July 2004, at the time of the fairness hearing, the court observed substantial improvements in the conditions at Tutwiler. These improvements are testimony to the work of Warden Deese, and the court has full confidence that, in accordance with the provisions of the settlement agreements, she will build on her notable success.
An appropriate judgment will be entered.
JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION
In accordance with the memorandum opinion entered on this date, it is the ORDER, JUDGMENT, AND DECREE of the court as follows:

(1) The objections to the proposed settlements, filed by plaintiff class members in response to the notice to the class, are overruled;
(2) The joint motion to adopt the conditions settlement agreement and the medical settlement agreement, filed by the parties on June 25, 2004 (doc. no. 313), is granted;
(3) The terms of the conditions settlement agreement and the medical settlement agreement, both of which are attached as appendices to this judgment, are incorporated as the order of this court;
(4) In accordance with the terms of both settlement agreements, the court retains jurisdiction to enforce the agreements during their terms;
(5) Defendants Donal Campbell, Gladys Deese, Mary Carter, Ronald Cavanaugh, and Robert Riley in their official capacities, their officers, agents, servants, and employees, and those persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of this judgment and injunction by personal service or otherwise, are each ENJOINED and RESTRAINED from failing to comply immediately with the terms of the settlements agreements; and
(6) The settlement agreements shall expire, in accordance with their terms, four years from July 1, 2004, the date of the interim order in which they were provisionally enforced.
In order to provide plaintiff class members with notice of the final disposition of this lawsuit, it is further ORDERED that, within 14 days from the date of this judgment, defendant Campbell shall cause to be provided to plaintiff class members notice of the final disposition of this lawsuit, by posting, in accordance with the notification 1248 *1248 process previously approved by the court in section three of its order entered July 1, 2004 (doc. no. 321), this judgment and the accompanying memorandum opinion issued this date.
The clerk of the court is DIRECTED to enter this document on the civil docket as a final judgment pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The clerk of the court shall issue a writ of injunction.
APPENDIX A
CONDITIONS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
I. INTRODUCTION
1. Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs in this class action are all women who are now or will in the future be incarcerated in an Alabama Department of Corrections facility. This action was filed seeking declaratory and injunctive relief for violations of their Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
2. Defendants. Defendants in this case are Donal Campbell, Commissioner of the Alabama Department of Corrections ("ADOC"); Bob Riley, Governor of Alabama; Gladys Deese, warden of Julia Tutwiler Prison for Women; and Mary Carter, warden of Birmingham Work Release. All Defendants are sued in their official capacity. The Plaintiff class and all Defendants are parties to this Final Settlement Agreement. The term "Defendants" refers to all these Defendants and their successors, agents, and assigns.
3. Scope. This Conditions Settlement Agreement is submitted and entered into as a settlement of claims for declaratory and injunctive relief as set forth in Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, filed on December 18, 2002, as well as a settlement of all attorneys' fees and costs. The parties hereby agree to the following terms.

II. LIVING CONDITIONS.
4. Population flow. The ADOC shall provide access to and cooperate with representatives from community corrections programs to identify women who are qualified for community corrections placements. Caseload officers shall receive up-dated information about community corrections, including identification of women appropriate for supervised release programs. Classification reviews for all women (including those at Birmingham Work Release) shall be conducted at least every 6 months. Plaintiffs' counsel, paralegals, consultants, and experts shall be permitted on a semi-annual basis to review institutional records and other documents relevant to classification for the purpose of identifying mistakes and working cooperatively with the ADOC and its representatives to correct such mistakes.
5. Heat. Dormitories housing special populations (mental health, aged and infirm, or HIV-positive) shall be kept at ambient temperatures between 65 and 85 degrees Fahrenheit. The ADOC shall purchase and maintain five additional commercial ice machines (or enough ice machines to increase current ice production by 50%) suitable for use in correctional facilities, and shall make ice freely available to women at Tutwiler Prison at all times. Women shall have the option of wearing shorts starting at 3:30 p.m. Additional showers shall be permitted when temperatures reach 85 degrees Fahrenheit or higher in the dormitories. The ADOC shall conduct temperature readings twice daily in each living unit, install thermometers in each dormitory, and calibrate temperature guns as necessary. Neither fans nor air conditioning shall be turned off for punitive purposes.
6. Shade. The ADOC shall provide shaded outdoor enclosures attached to each dormitory at the main Tutwiler 1249 facility. *1249 The ADOC need not provide such enclosures to Dorm 5 (formerly the chapel) and Dorm 10 (the
freestanding structure at the north side of the prison) so long as women housed in those dorms are provided regular programming that incorporates outdoor exercise time on weekdays.
7. Outdoor exercise. For every woman housed in the dormitories, defendants shall provide an opportunity for outdoor recreation in the large recreation yard at least one hour per day, five days per week. Defendants shall make best efforts to maximize the amount of time permitted outdoors during the weekends. For women housed in the mental health unit, receiving unit, or HIV+ unit, the ADOC may conduct exercise time in the smaller yards attached to those units.
8. Segregation exercise. For women in segregation, Defendants shall provide an opportunity for outdoor recreation at least 45 minutes a day, seven days a week.
9. Visitation. All women shall be allowed at least two visits with family and loved ones each month.
10. Physical plant. The ADOC shall alter the windows in the Tutwiler facility so that the top row of windows that can be safely opened to at least 45 degrees, and the bottom row of windows can be fully opened for air circulation.
11. Facility maintenance. The ADOC shall develop a preventative maintenance schedule and policy for upkeep of critical facility functions, including but not limited to locks, plumbing, electrical systems, roof structures, drop ceilings, windows, floors, HVAC systems and window air conditioning units used in living spaces, laundry systems, dishwashing equipment, cooking equipment, and refrigeration units. The maintenance schedule shall provide for review and upkeep of all covered areas at least quarterly. A log, containing updated reports of the status of all facility maintenance, will be kept on site. Heating, air conditioning units, and ice machines that malfunction shall be repaired promptly. When on-site maintenance staff or ADOC engineering staff are not able to make the repair within 24 hours, the ADOC shall secure a qualified person to make the repair. Ice machines that malfunction shall be repaired within 7 days, unless a necessary replacement part is not available during that time. The ADOC shall secure sufficient ice from other machines or outside sources when one or more ice machines are broken.
12. Toilets and showers. The ADOC shall continue to make daily checks Monday through Friday of each toilet and shower area for maintenance needs. Such checks, the problems noted during such checks, and the steps taken to remedy those problems shall be documented.

13. Environmental safety. The ADOC shall thoroughly and safely disinfect and clean each living area at least once a month, and shall ensure that each living area receives monthly pest control services for spiders, roaches, and other vermin. Women shall be permitted sufficient, supervised access to cleaning supplies and equipment, including a disinfectant such as bleach, to keep all living and bathing areas clean. Bathroom and bathing areas, as well as living areas, shall be regularly cleaned to control mold and staphylococcus in a medically sound manner.
14. Laundry. For every 250 women for whom the Tutwiler laundry facility is doing laundry, there shall be available and functional at least one 125 pound capacity washer, one 125 pound capacity dryer, and one presser.
15. Ventilation. The ADOC shall install and maintain an exhaust fan in each of Dormitories 1-8 that are not 1250 temperature *1250 controlled. The ADOC shall install 2 exhaust fans in Dormitory 9. In the segregation unit, at
least one wall-mounted rotating fan shall be installed and maintained for every 3 cells.
16. Recreational opportunities. Recreational equipment (such as softball, volleyball, and basketball equipment) shall be available during the time that the recreation yard is open. Women shall be permitted and encouraged to organize exercise classes, subject to reasonable limitation on the number and frequency of such classes according to the availability of correctional officers to supervise the women participating in such classes. Notice of the availability of exercise equipment and exercise classes shall be included in the daily institutional newsletter at least once a month and at orientation. Defendants shall cooperate with community, civic and nonprofit groups, and dormitory representatives to continually improve and increase recreational activities for women.
17. Drug treatment. The ADOC shall provide adequate and appropriate drug treatment programs to accommodate all women who are sentenced to complete such programs. Where the completion of a drug treatment program is a condition of release, including in split sentences, and the prisoner can be released upon completion of a drug treatment program, such a woman shall be placed in the next available drug treatment program.
18. Programming. The ADOC shall provide adequate and appropriate vocational, educational, industrial, therapeutic, or other appropriate programming to accommodate at least 60% of the total female inmate population. The ADOC shall continue to cooperate with community, civic and nonprofit groups to continually improve and increase programming opportunities to women.
III. SAFETY AND SECURITY.
19. Staffing. Security officers shall be on post in sufficient numbers so that each officer is supervising no more than 50 women each in the dormitories. The ADOC shall document the overall vacancy rate among staff positions authorized for working directly with inmates. This vacancy rate shall not exceed 10 percent for any 18month period. Security officers with duties that include direct inmate supervision shall not work more than 16 hours at a stretch, and must have at least 8 hours off between shifts.
20. Lines of sight. The ADOC shall make best efforts to ensure that there are no blocked lines of sight from any security post throughout the area that post is intended to secure. Doors where inmates regularly enter or exit a room shall not obstruct the line of sight. Doors may be made entirely or partially of grilled bars, or shall have large windows at eye level to permit continuous lines of sight between areas separated by the door.
21. Drug testing. The ADOC shall develop a drug testing policy containing comprehensive safeguards for drug testing accuracy at Birmingham Work Release. Plaintiffs' counsel shall be permitted to review and comment on the policy prior to its final adoption. At a minimum, the policy shall correct the current failure to consider medication usage in drug testing and shall ensure there is a mechanism for identifying and investigating unusual results.
22. Punishment. The ADOC shall not punish women in their care through deprivation of minimally nutritious meals, or forcing them to remain in the same position for any pre-determined period of time. Women at Birmingham Work Release shall not be punished when they are unable to do their jobs due to physical limitations

1251 or sexual harassment on the jobsite. *1251 Women at Birmingham Work Release shall not be denied visitation for dorm failures as a matter of course.
23. Single cells. The ADOC shall maintain or have available sufficient segregation cells to house at least 4% of the total female population.
24. Classification. The ADOC shall maintain a classification system that specifies at least three levels of custodial control and inmates should be assigned to the least restrictive custody level necessary. The ADOC shall maintain sufficient bedspace to implement such a system. Any delays or revisions of housing placements that are caused at least in part by lack of immediately available bedspace shall be contemporaneously documented. The ADOC shall summarize and analyze such data and remedy any space deficiencies identified through such an internal audit. The ADOC shall develop and implement a written policy to provide for identification of special needs women, including but not limited to women who are emotionally disturbed or suspected of being mentally ill, the mentally retarded, and those who pose high risk or require protective custody. Such a policy shall include and encourage multiple avenues of identifying such special needs women, permitting security staff, other prisoners, medical and other non-custodial staff, and others to make appropriate referrals. The identification of special needs women shall not be limited to the moment of intake.
IV. ENFORCEMENT AND DISMISSAL.
25. Reporting. Defendants shall provide to Plaintiffs' counsel monthly reports on average daily population and progress in construction of a residential treatment unit for the first 2 years of this Agreement. If the population at the main Tutwiler building remains at 700 or below, and the annex at 250 or below, Defendants may thereafter make quarterly reports. Upon inquiry, plaintiffs' counsel shall be provided the population count on any day.
26. Monitoring. Plaintiffs' counsel shall have reasonable access to prison records and the prison facility, including escorted walk-through visits of the prison facilities on a quarterly basis during the first year following the entry of this Agreement, and twice a year thereafter. Paralegals working directly with Plaintiffs' counsel shall have reasonable access to inmates and will be accompanied by an attorney during any walk-through of the prison. Plaintiffs may bring experts at their own expense on such walk-through visits.
27. Notice. The Commissioner of the ADOC and his representatives shall provide a copy of or explain the terms of this Agreement to all of their agents, representatives, and employees in any way connected with the custody of class members, in order to ensure their understanding of the scope and substance of this agreement. Women entering Tutwiler shall be provided an information sheet, mutually approved by all parties, informing them of the existence and material terms of this Agreement. In addition, at least 3 copies of this entire Agreement shall be maintained in the Tutwiler library.
28. Enforcement. If the ADOC, its agents or contractors, fail to comply with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, Plaintiffs' counsel may apply to the Court for a finding of contempt or other appropriate relief. Prior to approaching the Court for such relief, Plaintiffs' counsel will bring, in writing, any deficiencies to the attention of the Defendants and will make reasonable attempts to resolve the issues informally. Issues that cannot be 1252 resolved informally between the parties shall be brought to the attention of the *1252 Magistrate Judge, who will attempt to mediate a resolution, before Plaintiffs' counsel will move the Court for an Order for Defendants to show cause why they should not be held in contempt.
29. PLRA findings. The parties agree, and the Court hereby finds at this time, and after an independent review, that the prospective relief set forth in this Agreement is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violations of federal rights set forth in paragraphs 69-100 and 142-171 in Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct these violations. The parties agree, and the Court hereby finds after an independent review, that this Agreement will not have an adverse impact on public safety or the operation of the criminal justice system. Accordingly, the parties agree, and the Court hereby finds, that this Agreement complies in all respects with the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a). This Agreement is not intended to operate as a population cap or a prisoner release order. This Agreement is not intended to have any preclusive effect except as between the parties in this action. Should the issue of the preclusive effect of this

Agreement be raised in any proceeding other than this action, the parties agree to certify that this Agreement was intended to have no such preclusive effect. This Agreement does not resolve, adjudicate, or bar the damages claims of any former, present, or future class members.
30. Narrowly drawn relief. For the purpose of ensuring that ongoing relief remains a narrowly drawn remedy, paragraphs 14, 19, and 23 of this Agreement shall be suspended when the population at the main Tutwiler facility is maintained at 700 or below and the population at the Tutwiler annex is maintained at less than 250 for 60 or more continuous days. Paragraphs 14, 19, and 23 shall not take effect until November 1, 2004, or until such time as the population at the main Tutwiler facility is maintained at 700 or below and the population at the Tutwiler annex is maintained at less than 250 for 60 or more continuous days. So long as the population at the main Tutwiler facility remains at 700 or below and the population at the Tutwiler annex is maintained at less than 250, paragraphs 14, 19, and 23 shall remain suspended and without force or effect. Should the population at the main Tutwiler facility thereafter increase to more than 700 or the population at the Tutwiler annex increase to 250 or more for 15 or more days in any 30 day period, all paragraphs of this Agreement shall return to full force and effect.
31. Attorneys fees. In the event the parties are unable to hereafter resolve by agreement issues relating to Plaintiffs' claim for attorneys' fees, Plaintiffs may petition the Court within thirty days of the date on which the Court enters its Order granting the parties' Joint Motion to Adopt Settlement Agreement, for a resolution thereof.
32. Class members. Parties stipulate to the certification of the class of all women who are now or will in the future be incarcerated in an Alabama Department of Corrections facility.
33. Modification. Any party may seek modification of any part of this Agreement for good cause shown. Construction of a new prison for women constitutes good cause for modification. The ADOC shall continue to implement in a timely manner all parts of this Agreement pending decision of the Court on any motion for modification.
34. Term of Agreement. This agreement shall be in effect for four years from the date the Agreement is approved 1253 by the Court. Nothing in this Agreement is intended *1253 to preclude Defendants from moving to terminate the
Order in the manner permitted by the Prison Litigation Reform Act.
APPENDIX B
MEDICAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs in this class action are all women who are now or will in the future be incarcerated in an Alabama Department of Corrections facility. This action was filed seeking declaratory and injunctive relief for violations of their Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. In their complaint, Plaintiffs allege that women with serious medical needs[1] receive constitutionally inadequate medical care.
B. Defendants. Defendants in this case are Donal Campbell, Commissioner of the Alabama Department of Corrections ("ADOC"); Bob Riley, Governor of Alabama; Gladys Deese, warden of Julia Tutwiler Prison for Women; and Mary Carter, warden of Birmingham Work Release. All Defendants are sued in their official capacity. The Plaintiff class and all Defendants are parties to this Final Medical Settlement Agreement "Medical Agreement ". The term "Defendants" refers to all these Defendants and their successors, agents, and assigns.
C. Scope. This Medical Settlement Agreement is submitted and entered into as a settlement of claims for declaratory and injunctive relief regarding medical care as set forth in paragraphs 101-162, 168-171, and 180 in Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, filed on December 18, 2002. The United State District Court for the Middle District of Alabama shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this Medical Settlement Agreement and shall preside over any further proceedings, as necessary. The parties hereby agree to the following terms.

II. ACCESS TO CARE
A. Necessary medical services. Women incarcerated in an ADOC facility are entitled to all medically necessary services in a timely manner. Medical necessity includes control of pain, prevention of disease, prevention of deterioration of function, and reduction of mortality.
B. Daily sick call. Sick call will be available every week day, excluding medical contractor holidays, to prisoners in all areas of the population at all women's facilities, including general population, segregation units or "lock-up cells", isolation units, and special management units. Within 24 hours of being placed in a lock-box, sick-call slips will be reviewed by a nurse, or higher level practitioner according to appropriate written triage protocols. At least one primary care physician (or psychiatrist, for mental health triage) must be involved in developing these protocols and in reviewing and updating them at least every two years. Each physician involved in this process shall sign and date the protocols (including each update) upon his or her review and approval.
A prisoner requesting medical care shall be seen by a nurse trained in physical assessment (and supervised by a Registered Nurse) or a higher level practitioner within 48 hours after her request has been received by health care staff. Any prisoner who is seen by a nurse two consecutive times for the same symptoms will be referred to 1254 a higher level *1254 practitioner. This does not require two sick calls before a patient can be referred to a higher level practitioner; a registered nurse may make such a referral after a single sick call in accordance with appropriate triage protocols. Prisoners presenting symptoms requiring emergency or infirmary care shall be given immediate medical care. Sick call shall not be conducted between midnight and 6:00 a.m.
C. Access to medical care at work release programs. Women housed in ADOC work release programs shall be provided necessary and timely medical care, including care for chronic conditions, as described in this Agreement. Women housed in work release may affirmatively opt out and seek medical care from providers other than the ADOC if the prisoner pays for this care herself.
D. Segregation. Medical staff shall be notified promptly when a prisoner is placed in any type of isolation or segregation cell. If a woman is placed in the "lock-up" cell in Birmingham Work Release at a time when no medical staff are on site, medical staff shall be notified of the placement as soon as medical staff return to Birmingham Work Release Center. Upon notification, medical staff shall review the prisoner's medical record to determine whether her existing medical needs make placement in such a cell inappropriate or require that the prisoner receive extra observation, accommodation, or medical attention during her placement in the cell. Medical staff shall document their review and recommendations in the prisoner's medical record and promptly forward a copy to the supervising correctional officer for appropriate action. Prisoners placed in an isolation or segregation cell at Tutwiler Prison must be monitored daily by health care staff. Women placed in the "lock-up" cell in Birmingham Work Release shall have access to a working intercom system, or shall be monitored by video. Security staff shall conduct visual inspections of the "lock-up" cell at least every 30 minutes, and shall notify medical staff promptly if they suspect that a prisoner in the cell is experiencing a medical problem. Medical monitoring activities must be documented in each prisoner's medical record.
III. INTAKE
A. Intake. All prisoners entering Tutwiler Prison will be medically screened by a nurse or higher level practitioner within 12 hours of admission. The results of this screening shall be documented in each prisoner's medical record. The minimum components of the screening shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following: documented inquiry into current illness, communicable diseases, symptoms of tuberculosis, alcohol/chemical use/abuse history, allergies, current medications, dental status and screening, mental health problems, obstetrical history, current or past mental health treatment, and chronic health problems; observation of state of consciousness, mental status, appearance, conduct, bodily deformities and ease of movement, signs of trauma, signs of rashes and infections; documented explanation of the procedures for access to medical, mental health and dental services. In addition to explaining the procedures for accessing care, ADOC representatives shall provide all prisoners at intake a written description these procedures that the prisoners may keep. A suicide risk

assessment using nationally accepted tools shall be conducted at the initial intake screening. Prisoners who are determined to pose a suicide risk at intake or at any other time during their incarceration shall be referred 1255 immediately to a qualified mental health provider for further assessment and treatment *1255 and shall be placed under an appropriate watch to prevent suicide.
B. Tuberculosis testing. Tuberculin skin test screening shall be performed in accordance with Alabama Department of Public Health regulations and policies, and said test shall be read by a qualified medical provider within 48-72 hours of administration.
C. Initial Physical Exam. The first physical examination must be completed by a physician, physician assistance or nurse practitioner within seven days of intake. For all women, the initial physical exam shall include a pap test, cervical screening for chlamydia and gonorrhea, serum testing for syphilis, and urine screening for pregnancy. Where possible, the intake history and physical exam should be performed by the same individual.
IV. CONTINUITY OF CARE
A. Continuity of care. To ensure continuity of care and prevent lapses in medication, the ADOC, through its agents or contractors, shall develop a written policy and implement a procedure that will ensure that upon admission to Tutwiler Prison, there is no disruption in the continuity of medication for persons with a chronic or acute illness. If a woman can identify her medication at intake at Tutwiler, then the medication shall be continued if the prescription for such medication can be verified by a physician or pharmacist. Where such verification is not obtained within 24 hours of intake, the woman must be seen by a physician or physician's assistant within 48 hours of admission who will prescribe necessary medication. Continuity and availability of medication and treatment will be maintained when prisoners are transferred between ADOC facilities, between ADOC and hospital facilities, or between ADOC and local detention centers. The ADOC is not responsible for medical care provided at local detention centers.
B. Discharge planning. For women who are in need of further medical care after discharge from the facility, the ADOC, through its agents and contractors, shall develop and implement a program for discharge planning that includes scheduled follow-up appointments and appropriate referrals to community medical and mental health services. Prisoners on prescribed medication shall be given at least a 10-day supply of their medication upon discharge. For prisoners on medication for serious mental illnesses as defined by ADOC Administrative Regulation 455, the ADOC, through its agents and contractors, shall make best efforts to secure an appointment with the community mental health provider for within 10 days of the prisoner's release. If an appropriate appointment cannot be made for within 10 days of the prisoner's release, the prisoner shall be provided an additional 20 days of her prescribed medication, so long as the prisoner signs a written acknowledgement that the packages containing their medications are not child proof. Prisoners taking HIV medications shall be given at least a 30-day supply of medication on release of HIV medications.
The ADOC, or its agents and contractors, shall collaborate with the local office of the Social Security Administration (SSA) to identify and assist prisoners who may be eligible for federal benefits upon release. Collaboration shall include (1) inviting SSA representatives to provide on-site training regarding their pre-release program, (2) notifying prisoners of the pre-release program (including eligibility requirements) and coordinating 1256 with volunteers to help women complete applications, (3) identifying potential *1256 pre-release applicants and notifying the local SSA office the names, social security numbers, dates of birth, and anticipated discharge date of these women, and (4) providing relevant medical records.
V. MEDICAL SERVICES
A. Periodic health assessments and examinations. The ADOC, through its agents or contractors, shall provide periodic health assessments for women prisoners in accordance with NCCHC standards and protocols promulgated by nationally recognized professional organizations. Women prisoners shall receive annual pap smears unless more frequent pap smears are medically ordered. Women prisoners shall also receive periodic mammograms as recommended by the American Cancer Society. Prisoners with abnormal pap smears or

mammograms will be informed about the results of their tests and receive appropriate and timely follow-up testing and treatment based on recommendations of the American Cancer Society or ACOG. Women prisoners shall receive a tuberculin skin test annually or more frequently if exposure to tuberculosis is suspected.
B. Emergency medical services. Emergency medical services, including emergency transport service to community hospitals, will be available twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week through an on-call physician service and/or on-site health care staff.
C. Dental services. All dentists must be currently licensed. Women requiring treatment for relief of acute oral and maxillofacial conditions characterized by trauma, infection, pain, swelling or bleeding which are likely to remain acute or worsen without intervention, must be provided appropriate dental care (including effective infection and pain control) promptly. Women requiring treatment for the control of extensive subacute dental or oral pathology, must be provided dental care within 30 days. This care shall not be limited to extractions or temporary fillings, but also includes restoring carious teeth, extractions, long-term management of peridontal disease, and endontic and prosthodontic procedures needed to retain or restore essential masticatory function. Women requiring ongoing treatment for chronic dental or oral pathology and for the restoration of essential function must be seen within 60 days. For women who are prescribed dental prosthetics such as dentures, impressions for such prosthetics shall be made as soon as it is medically appropriate to make such impressions. The dental prosthetic shall be available within 60 days of impression. All prisoners will have the opportunity to have their teeth cleaned at least once every 24 months. Individuals at risk of peridontal diseases because of age, tobacco use, rate of accumulation of deposits, medication, or medical conditions such as diabetes or HIV infection, may need to be cleaned more often, in accordance with the standard of care for their conditions.
D. Infection control. An infection control program that includes airborne and blood-borne pathogen control plans conforming to Centers for Disease Control ("CDC") regulations, guidelines and recommendations shall be developed and implemented. The program must include appropriate training for correctional and health care staff consistent with these recommendations and guidelines. The airborne and bloodborne pathogen plans must be reviewed and updated every two years or sooner if appropriate.
E. Tuberculosis prevention and treatment. The ADOC, through its agents or contractors, shall promptly diagnose, 1257 and treat any individual with a reasonable suspicion of contagious tuberculosis as directed *1257 by the Alabama
Department of Public Health. Any individual who reports or exhibits symptoms of tuberculosis, including HIVpositive persons, shall be isolated immediately in a properly functioning negative pressure room and have a chest x-ray as soon as possible but in no event later than 96 hours from the reporting of the symptoms. Follow-up treatment and testing shall be conducted according to the recommendations and guidelines of the CDC. Persons with a positive tuberculin skin test result shall be provided a chest x-ray as soon as possible but in no event later than 96 hours of identification of the positive skin test result. Prisoners with chest x-rays that show possible active tuberculosis infection will receive prompt follow-up evaluation and treatment and will be placed in respiratory isolation until active tuberculosis has been ruled out. Preventive treatment for tuberculosis shall be offered to any prisoner with a positive PPD skin test whose anticipated length of stay is greater than two months. Prisoners who receive positive skin tests or suspicious chest x-rays will be counseled about the meaning of these test results. In the event that an active case of TB is identified in the facility, an appropriate contact investigation as directed by the Alabama Department of Public Health will be conducted and all potentially exposed individuals will be provided detailed and thorough educational materials about tuberculosis infection. The Alabama Department of Corrections shall maintain appropriate facilities and/or make appropriate referral outside prison facility for respiratory isolation that are consistent with the recommendations of the CDC.
F. Chronic illnesses. The ADOC, through its agents or contractors, shall implement policies and procedures to ensure that the overall standard of care for women with serious chronic medical conditions is consistent with clinical guidelines adopted by the NCCHC as detailed in the Standards for Health Services in Prisons and the current clinical guidelines posted on their web-site. For chronic conditions where NCCHC clinical guidelines are not yet available, the ADOC through its agents and contractors, shall provide treatment consistent with nationally accepted clinical guidelines.
For each individual identified with a chronic illness requiring ongoing medical care, a health care treatment plan shall be developed that includes, at a minimum, the following: a written initial evaluation containing short and long

range treatment goals by a licensed physician; regular check-ups at least once every 3 months by the chronic care director or higher level practitioner, unless a different period is ordered by a physician; and baseline and quarterly laboratory work and other diagnostics appropriate for the disease. The treatment plan's short and long range goals must be reviewed and updated at least annually in a face-to-face assessment by the attending physician or more frequently as determined by the physician or chronic care director. For patients requiring chronic care, co-payments shall not be assessed for regularly scheduled chronic care clinics.
G. Hepatitis A, B, and C. The ADOC, through its agents and contractors, shall make best efforts to secure grant money to ensure that women are counseled, evaluated and vaccinated for hepatitis A and B by October 2005. All women prisoners who are HIV-positive will be vaccinated for hepatitis B.
H. Prosthesis. Women requiring a prosthesis will be fitted for such a device within 60 days of prescription. If a 1258 prosthesis no longer fits a prisoner, she will be *1258 re-fitted for a revised or new prosthesis within 90 days.
Prisoners requiring a prosthesis shall be considered chronic care patients for the period necessary to adjust a new, replacement, or refitted prosthesis, and women will receive follow-up care during this adjustment period as medically ordered.
I. Women's health care. Women prisoners must be provided treatment for osteoporosis, menstrual abnormalities, ovarian and cervical abnormalities and menopause in accordance with the guidelines of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Preventive screening shall be provided in accordance with the American Cancer Society.
J. Pregnancy. Pregnant prisoners shall be monitored regularly by a medical doctor or physician assistant with obstetric specialty, in accordance with American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology ("ACOG") guidelines for prenatal care. Pregnant women shall be provided an appropriate diet and supplemental vitamins, and given the opportunity to request and receive educational information regarding pregnancy. Gestational diabetics shall be treated according to ACOG guidelines. All high-risk pregnancies, as well as women near term, shall be closely monitored and treated. Upon return from the hospital post-delivery, women prisoners will be allowed appropriate bed rest and time for recovery.
K. Specialty care. Patients requiring necessary medical services that cannot be provided in the facility in a timely manner shall be provided timely access to an outside specialist for diagnostic services or medical care. Where approval by the state medical director is required for specialty care, such approval or denial shall be documented. The ADOC, through its agents and contractors, shall make best efforts to ensure that the outside specialist's diagnoses and test results in addition to the specialist's orders for further testing, treatment and diagnostic services are documented in the patient's prison medical record. Orders shall be carried out in the manner prescribed by the specialist, unless a deviation or override is ordered by the attending physician at the facility. Such a deviation or override must be affirmatively medically justified and documented in the medical record of the prisoner. Necessary off-site care shall include follow-care and monitoring prescribed by the off-site specialist.
L. End of life care and care for the elderly. Elderly patients and those in the terminal stages of a disease shall be provided appropriate care and treatment, including pain control, adequate nutrition, accommodations for mental and physical deterioration, and other appropriate palliative care.
M. Patient education. Patient education shall include one-on-one counseling by medical staff at the time care is provided. The ADOC medical provider shall inform patients of the results of any medical tests and assessments within 10 days of receipt of these results in a manner that protects the privacy of the patient, and shall provide appropriate post-test counseling. Prisoners shall not be charged a co-pay for receiving this information. The ADOC, through its agents and contractors, shall also implement a program to make available to patients up-todate written information in the areas of infectious and communicable disease, and chronic illnesses. Clinical staff knowledgeable about HIV/AIDS shall provide HIV education for all new prisoners. Prisoners who are HIV-positive shall be provided on-going education and confidential counseling about HIV. This education and counseling may 1259 be provided in a structured peer education and support program. The ADOC *1259 and its medical provider shall cooperate with health organizations, or community organizations working in conjunction with health organizations, to provide prisoners educational materials and services regarding medical conditions, treatment, and related social services.

N. HIV/AIDS. Prisoners who learn they are HIV+ in prison shall be informed of their test results and receive appropriate post-test counseling in a confidential setting. Treatment of HIV/AIDS shall be consistent with Department of Health and Human Services guidelines and recommendations.
O. Staphylococcus aureus. The Alabama Department of Corrections, through its agents and contractors, shall continue to develop and implement a program based on FBOP guidelines to treat and to minimize the spread of staphylococcus aureus, including methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), and shall work with the Correctional Healthcare Monitor to continually update and improve this program.
P. Therapeutic medical diets. Diabetics, as well as patients requiring low salt, renal, low cholesterol, high calorie, or other special diet, shall be provided a medically appropriate diet as approved by a registered dietician. Special medical diets may be ordered by mid- or higher-level medical providers.
Q. Mental health care. Defendants' mental health consultant Jane Haddad has conducted on-site audits and reviews of the women's prison facilities to determine mental health housing and treatment space needs, as well as training, programming, reporting, treatment, and staffing needs. Defendants have implemented and shall continue to implement all of Dr. Haddad's recommendations as set forth in her report of her January 15-16, 2004, audit. Within 6 months of final approval of this Agreement, Defendants shall begin renovations of Dormitory 2 at Tutwiler Prison to provide for a group room, dayroom, two offices spaces, and a reduction of beds to no more than forty beds. Defendants further agree to use their best efforts to add a nursing station, and six single cells for crisis intervention and intensive psychiatric stabilization, within 3 years of final approval of this Agreement. Until these renovations are completed, the ADOC, through its agents and contractors, may but shall not be required to provide 24/7 mental health nursing coverage in the mental health unit. Until these renovations are completed, the ADOC, through its agents and contractors, shall work with Dr. Haddad to determine and implement the measures necessary to ensure that individuals needing intensive psychiatric stabilization and residential treatment levels of treatment receive adequate mental health care.
R. Mental health auditor. Dr. Haddad, or another mental health consultant mutually agreed upon by the parties, shall continue in her current capacity as Defendants' mental health consultant, with on-site inspections at least 3 times a year, for the duration of this Agreement or 3 months past the date the Residential Treatment Unit becomes fully operational, whichever period is shorter. The mental health consultant shall be paid by the Defendants and be reimbursed for reasonable expenses for the first 2 years, and by counsel for Plaintiffs for the remainder for her tenure. If Dr. Haddad is no longer able to act as mental health consultant, and parties are unable to agree on a mental health consultant within 30 days of her departure, parties will each submit to the Magistrate Judge the names of three suggested consultants, and the Magistrate Judge will select the mental health consultant.
1260 *1260 S. Chronic Mental Illnesses. The ADOC, through its agents and contractors, shall implement policies and procedures to ensure that the overall standard of care of women with serious chronic mental health conditions is consistent with clinical guidelines adopted by the American Psychiatric Association.
T. Suicide Prevention and Treatment Program. ADOC, its agents, and contractors, shall continue to implement an effective and comprehensive suicide prevention and treatment program.
U. Self-Injurious Behavior. Prisoners who engage in self-injurious behavior must receive appropriate and timely mental health intervention including treatment and counseling. Such a prisoner shall also be evaluated by a qualified mental health professional. Only if that professional determines that the behavior was engaged in solely for the purpose of secondary gain may disciplinary action be considered.
V. Crisis Intervention and Follow-Up Care. Together with the mental health auditor, Defendants will write and implement policies and procedures to ensure that mental health crises and urgent requests for mental health intervention are addressed by qualified mental health staff immediately. Following a mental health crisis such as a psychotic episode or suicide attempt, prisoners shall receive appropriate treatment, counseling, and observation as ordered by the treating psychiatrist.

W. Depression and Abuse. Counseling must be available to women prisoners to address depression and to resolve issues associated with victimization from sexual and physical abuse.
X. Vulnerable Populations. The ADOC, working with its mental health provider, shall develop and implement a policy to protect vulnerable prisoners (particularly mentally ill and/or mentally retarded women) from intimidation, harassment, and abuse.
VI. STAFFING
A. General. ADOC, through its agents and contractors, shall create and fill a sufficient number of qualified permanent medical, nursing, and ancillary health care staff positions (i.e. medical records clerks, lab tech, etc.) to carry out all aspects of this Medical Settlement Agreement.
B. Licensure and credentials. ADOC, through its agents and contractors, shall make best efforts to hire primary care physicians who hold a current valid, unrestricted license to practice medicine in Alabama. In the event Defendants cannot find a primary care physician with an unrestricted license, Defendants will seek approval of a Magistrate Judge to hire a physician with a restricted license in order to avoid a lapse in medical coverage. Such a hire shall be temporary, though Defendants may seek re-approval of a Magistrate Judge in extraordinary circumstances. Parties consent to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge, and Plaintiffs will not seek fees, for disposition of this issue.
Nurses must hold current applicable licenses. All other ancillary personnel must meet applicable state regulatory requirements and training standards. Personnel working under a license or certification who are subject to restrictions or conditions imposed by the licensing agency, or who have formal complaints filed against them, must immediately report such restrictions, conditions, or complaints to the Medical Director. Nurses shall not make nursing assessments or decisions outside the scope of their license and training.
1261 C. Orientation and training. Medical and nursing staff must be currently certified *1261 in cardiopulmonary resuscitation ("CPR"). All medical and nursing staff who provide sick call shall receive regular training to maintain competence in current methods for diagnosing and treating medical complications associated with acute and chronic illness, including the ability to recognize when referral to a physician, mental health provider, or specialist is necessary. Medical and nursing staff shall also be trained to recognize the signs and symptoms of mental illness, including potential suicide risk and how to react appropriately to such symptoms and risks. All medical and nursing staff shall be provided a copy of this Agreement.
D. Security staff. All correctional security staff shall receive regular training regarding HIV, hepatitis and tuberculosis infection, including modes of transmission and universal precautions. All security staff shall have current training in CPR and in Basic First Aid. Security staff shall also be trained to recognize the signs and symptoms of mental illness, including potential suicide risk and how to react appropriately to such symptoms and risks. Security staff will not interfere with the provision of necessary medical care. Security staff shall follow medically ordered restrictions on inmate activity such as bedrest, lifting or work restrictions, bunk profiles and needs for special shoes or clothing.
VII. PHARMACEUTICALS
A. Formulary. The drug formulary must contain modern pharmaceuticals for diagnoses prevalent in the correctional setting, updated at least every 6 months by a team of providers that includes a primary care physician and psychiatrist. The formulary must include drugs in the following classes, among others: (1) atypical anti-psychotics, (2) proton pump inhibitors, (3) angiotensin receptor blockers, (4) selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, (5) statins, and (6) antiretrovirals.
B. Off-formulary medications. A formulary waiver process that does not inhibit the timely delivery of medications prescribed for medically necessary conditions shall be implemented.

C. Administration. The ADOC, through its agents and contractors, shall develop and implement a system to provide medications in a timely manner and to track and correct problems with the dispensing and administration of medications. Medication normally stocked in the pharmacy must be made available for the administration of the first dose within 24 hours of intake, and within 24 hours of prescription by the physician. Other medications must be available within 48 hours of prescription. Medication shall be administered at times and in a manner (with food, for example) consistent with prescribing guidelines defined by the Food and Drug Administration or as prescribed by a physician. Prisoners refusing medication must be provided counseling regarding the consequences of incomplete adherence; both the refusal and the counseling must be documented and in-person. Nothing in this paragraph precludes the forced administration of medication, so long as such forced medication is administered according to current written policy. If medication is not administered to a prisoner, the reason must be documented and signed by the health care staff responsible for medication administration. Correctional staff shall not administer dose by dose medication to prisoners, except at Birmingham Work Release.
There must be general pill call at least three times a day. Management of pharmaceuticals must be in accordance with state and federal law.
1262 D. Keep on person medications. The ADOC, through its agents and contractors, *1262 shall develop and implement reasonable criteria, policies, and procedures for prisoners to be issued appropriate medications to keep on their persons.
E. Continuity of medication. The ADOC, through its agents and contractors, shall develop and implement written protocols designed to ensure that there are no lapses in medication.
VIII. RECORDS AND REPORTS
A. Prisoner health care records. Medical care, including dental and mental health treatment, provided to prisoners shall be accurately documented in each prisoner's medical record. Medical records and health record policies and procedures shall comply with current NCCHC Standards. The records must include all reports received from outside hospitals and emergency rooms, current treatment plans, requests for medical attention, and responses by medical staff. Individual medical records shall be maintained on a current basis, with no more than a 7-day lag for filing new paperwork (except for current MAR's, which must be promptly filed at the end of each month). Patients' health care records shall be available to and used by all healthcare workers in each clinical encounter with the patient.
B. Prison health care logs. The ADOC, through its agents and contractors, shall maintain current and ongoing logs tracking health care requests, all clinical encounters, complaints, grievances, and chronic care clinics, conforming with NCCHC Standards.
IX. PHYSICAL PLANT
A. Infirmary. The quality improvement committee (see below) shall review the capacity of the Tutwiler infirmary (including the "green rooms" or "psychiatric stabilization units") and provide written guidelines as to types of services appropriate for infirmary care. The infirmary unit shall conform with NCCHC standards including the requirement that all infirmary patients must be within sight or sound of nursing or medical staff at all times. Physician rounds shall be conducted 5 days a week, and an RN or higher level medical provider shall be present at the infirmary each day.
B. Medical isolation. Negative pressure in the medical isolation unit shall be documented daily when in use and monthly when not in use. If there is not a working room or not enough rooms at the prison facility, the ADOC shall make appropriate referral outside prison facility for respiratory isolation.
C. Heat and shade. Defendants shall develop and implement a heat plan that includes policies and procedures ensuring sufficient means of cooling and hydration for heat-sensitive individuals to prevent dehydration, heat exhaustion, heat stroke, and other adverse consequences of heat.

D. Sanitation. All areas housing or temporarily holding prisoners with illnesses, or where prisoners receive medical care or testing, shall be thoroughly cleaned on at least a daily basis or more often if necessary, shall be disinfected between placements, and shall be kept in good physical condition.
E. Medical examination rooms. An adequate number of clinical examination rooms shall be provided, containing an examination table and hand washing facilities to ensure private examinations.
F. Equipment. The ADOC shall provide at Tutwiler prison appropriate and operative equipment, such as automatic defibrillators, to respond to medical emergencies. Staff shall be properly trained to use such 1263 equipment. If dialysis is conducted on-site, staff shall be trained in proper methods, and appropriate equipment *1263 and space shall be available to perform dialysis. Prisoners who enter prison with respiratory or other medical equipment that is necessary to enable their functioning shall be allowed to use their own equipment or shall be provided appropriate equipment. The ADOC shall ensure that any such equipment receives necessary and timely servicing and replacement. Each facility shall also have a sufficient number of wheelchairs and handicap-accessible bathroom facilities (including toilets, sinks and showers).
X. QUALITY ASSURANCE
A. Ongoing quality management. A quality management program consistent with nationally accepted standards shall be implemented. A monthly administrative committee shall meet to review audits designed to improve quality of health care. A quality improvement committee that includes a representative of the correctional staff will perform at least quarterly reviews of major components of healthcare at each women's facility, including at least the following: access to healthcare, medication management, nursing services, physician services, access to specialty care, mental health services, pharmacy services, dental services, subcontractor services, infection control procedures, healthcare records, sick call services, intake screening and evaluations, chronic disease services, infirmary care, diagnostic services, discharge planning, and adverse patient occurrences including all deaths. The quality management program must review each of these areas, identify any deficiencies in services to prisoners as well as any staff training needs, and produce corrective plans to address the deficiencies and recommend improvements.
Performance in these areas shall be quantified on a quarterly basis, trended, and analyzed for opportunities for improvement. Remedies shall be implemented expeditiously, followed by re-measurement to assess the results of the interventions. The quality management program shall include ongoing assessment of the effectiveness of corrective plans and actions. The staffing of the women's facilities shall be reviewed by Defendants at least every six months and adjustments made to ensure adequate staffing at all times.
B. Mortality reviews. A mortality review of all deaths must be completed within 30 days of each death. The review is to be conducted by a team that includes an independent physician (one who is not the primary care provider at the institution where the death occurred). This review shall consider any and all aspects of custody and health care that may have contributed to the death. The results of this review shall be documented and used to develop interventions to prevent future adverse consequences.
C. Correctional Healthcare Monitor. Parties have agreed on Dr. Michael Puissis as the Correctional Healthcare Monitor ("Monitor") to monitor compliance with this Medical Settlement Agreement. The Healthcare Monitor shall be a neutral monitor responsible to the Court. The Monitor shall be paid by the Defendants and be reimbursed for reasonable expenses to a maximum amount agreed to by counsel for parties. The Monitor shall have access to women prisoners and their medical records, to members of the medical and security staff, and to any other information or documents he or she deems necessary to determine compliance with this Medical Settlement Agreement. The Monitor shall conduct an initial assessment within 60 days of the Court's approval of this Medical 1264 Settlement Agreement and make written recommendations regarding deficiencies that prevent compliance with *1264 this Agreement. The Monitor shall make quarterly on-site inspections of Tutwiler and BWR per year. If the ADOC, its contractors and agents are determined to be in substantial compliance of the Agreement for three consecutive inspections in the second year, the Monitor shall make only two on-site inspections per year for the remainder of the Agreement. The Monitor may bring additional medical experts as needed to properly evaluate

the health services provided to Plaintiffs. The Monitor shall prepare audit reports following each inspection, and items for improvement shall be addressed in a subsequent corrective plan by the institution's quality improvement committee. The Monitor shall provide copies of his or her reports to the Court, Defendants', and Plaintiffs' counsel.
XI. IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT
A. Notice. The Commissioner of the ADOC and his representatives shall provide a copy of or explain the terms of this Medical Settlement Agreement to all of their agents, representatives, and employees in any way connected with medical care of class members, in order to ensure their understanding of the scope and substance of this Agreement. Women entering Tutwiler shall be provided an information sheet, mutually approved by all parties, informing them of the existence and material terms of this Medical Settlement Agreement. In addition, at least 3 copies of this entire Medical Settlement Agreement shall be maintained in the Tutwiler library.
B. Enforcement. If the ADOC, its agents or contractors, fail to comply with the terms and conditions of this Medical Settlement Agreement, Plaintiffs' counsel may apply to the Court for a finding of contempt or other appropriate relief. Prior to approaching the Court for such relief, Plaintiffs' counsel will bring, in writing, any deficiencies to the attention of the Defendants and the Healthcare Monitor or Mental Health Auditor, as appropriate, and will make reasonable attempts to resolve the issues informally. Issues that cannot be resolved informally between the parties shall be brought to the attention of the Magistrate Judge, who will attempt to mediate a resolution, before Plaintiffs' counsel will move the Court for an Order for Defendants to show cause why they should not be held in contempt.
C. PLRA findings. The parties agree, and the Court hereby finds at this time, and an after independent review, that the prospective relief set forth in this Medical Settlement Agreement is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violations of federal rights set forth in paragraphs 101-162, 168-171, and 180 in Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct these violations. The parties agree, and the Court after an independent review hereby finds after an independent review of the Medical Settlement Agreement, that this Agreement will not have an adverse impact on public safety or the operation of the criminal justice system. Accordingly, the parties agree, and the Court hereby finds, that this Medical Settlement Agreement complies in all respects with the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a). This Medical Settlement Agreement is not intended to have any preclusive effect except as between the parties in this action. Should the issue of the preclusive effect of this Medical Settlement Agreement be raised in any proceeding other than this action, the parties agree to certify that this Medical Settlement Agreement was intended to have no such 1265 preclusive effect. This Medical Settlement Agreement does not resolve, adjudicate, *1265 or bar the damages claims of any former, present, or future class members.
E. Attorneys fees. In the event the parties are unable to hereafter resolve by agreement issues relating to Plaintiff's claim for attorneys' fees, Plaintiffs may petition the Court within thirty days of the date on which the Court enters its Order granting the parties' Joint Motion to Adopt Settlement Agreement, for a resolution thereof.
F. Class members. Parties stipulate to the certification of the class of all women who are now or will in the future be incarcerated in an Alabama Department of Corrections facility.
G. Modification. Any party may seek modification of any part of this Medical Settlement Agreement for good cause shown. The ADOC, through its agents and contractors, shall continue to implement in a timely manner all parts of this Agreement pending the decision of the Court on any motion for modification.
H. Term of Agreement. This Medical Settlement Agreement shall be in effect for four years from the date the Agreement is approved by the Court. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to preclude Defendants from moving to terminate the Order in the manner permitted by the Prison Litigation Reform Act.
[1] In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir.1981) (en banc), the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals adopted as binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981.

[2] Section 3626 provides in part: "(f) Special Master. 0907 (1) In general. 0907 ... (B) The court shall appoint a special master under this subsection during the remedial phase of the action only upon a finding that the remedial phase will be sufficiently complex to warrant the appointment. ... (5) Regular review of appointment. 0907 In any civil action with respect to prison conditions in which a special master is appointed under this subsection, the court shall review the appointment of the special master every 6 months to determine whether the services of the special master continue to be required under paragraph (1). In no event shall the appointment of a special master extend beyond the termination of the relief. (6) Limitations on powers and duties. 0907 A special master appointed under this subsection 0907 (A) may be authorized by a court to conduct hearings and prepare proposed findings of fact, which shall be made on the record; (B) shall not make any findings or communications ex parte; (C) may be authorized by a court to assist in the development of remedial plans; and (D) may be removed at any time, but shall be relieved of the appointment upon the termination of relief. "(g) Definitions. 0907 As used in this section 0907 ... (8) the term "special master" means any person appointed by a Federal court pursuant to Rule 53 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or pursuant to any inherent power of the court to exercise the powers of a master, regardless of the title or description given by the court...." [1] For purposes of this Settlement Agreement, "medical" shall refer to physical, mental and dental health care and treatment.
Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.

 
 Laube v. Campbell, 215 F.R.D. 655 (2003)
215 F.R.D. 655 United States District Court,
M.D. Alabama, Northern Division.
Linda LAUBE, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
Donal CAMPBELL, et al., Defendants.
No. CIV.A. 02–T–957–N. | March 27, 2003.
Attorneys and Law Firms
*656 Stephen B. Bright, Tamara H. Serwer, Marion D. Chartoff, Lisa Kung, Southern Center for Human Rights, Atlanta, GA, John A. Russell, III, Aliceville, AL, for plaintiffs.
Ellen Ruth Leonard, Office of the Attorney General, Alabama State House, William F. Addison, Andrew W. Redd, Alabama Department of Corrections, Legal Division, Montgomery, AL, Michael M. Shipper, Miller, Hamilton, Snider & Odom, Mobile, AL, Hugh C. Nickson, III, Miller, Hamilton, Snider & Odom, Montgomery, AL, Giles G. Perkins, Miller, Hamilton, Snider & Odom, LLC, Edward A. Hosp, James V. Doyle, Jr., Office of the Governor, Montgomery, AL, James A. Patton, Jr., for defendants.
Opinion
ORDER
MYRON H. THOMPSON, District Judge.
On December 2, 2002, this court preliminarily found that the Julia Tutwiler Prison for Women in Wetumpka, Alabama was operated in an unconstitutionally overcrowded and unsafe manner. Laube v. Haley, 234 F.Supp.2d 1227, 1253 (M.D.Ala.2002). This lawsuit is again before the court, this time on a motion to intervene filed by several Tutwiler correctional officers. For the reasons that follow, the intervention motion will be denied.
A.
The correctional officers seek to intervene as a matter of right and, alternatively, as a matter of discretion, based on Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Under

subsection (a)(2) to Rule 24, a party seeking to intervene as a matter of right must meet the following requirements: (1) the application must be timely; (2) the applicant must have an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action; (3) the application must be so situated that disposition of the action, as a practical matter, may impede or impair his ability to protect that interest; and (4) the applicant must demonstrate that his interest is represented *657 inadequately by the existing parties to the suit. Chiles v. Thornburgh, 865 F.2d 1197, 1213 (11th Cir.1989). In this case, the first requirement, the timeliness of the correctional officers’ motion, is not contested.
[1] [2] An interest satisfying the other requirements of Rule 24(a)(2) must be a “direct, substantial, legally protectable interest in the proceeding.... [The proposed intervenors] must be at least ... real part[ies] in interest in the transaction which is the subject of the proceeding.” Chiles, 865 F.2d at 1213–14 (citations omitted). The “focus ... of a Rule 24 inquiry is whether the intervenor has a legally protectable interest in the litigation.” Chiles, 865 F.2d at 1212. Interests that are contingent upon some future events and which are “purely a matter of speculation” are not “the kind of protectable interest ... necessary to support intervention as of right.” ManaSota– 88, Inc. v. Tidwell, 896 F.2d 1318, 1322 (11th Cir.1990) (proposed intervenors’ interest was “purely a matter of speculation” at the time of their motion and though proposed intervenors claimed that the outcome of the case would have a profound impact upon its members, “such a generalized grievance” did not state an interest sufficient to grant intervention as of right); see also Washington Elec. Coop. v. Massachusetts Mun. Wholesale Elec. Co., 922 F.2d 92, 97 (2d Cir.1990) (“An interest ... that is contingent upon the occurrence of a sequence of events before it becomes colorable, will not satisfy the rule.”); Standard Heating and Air Conditioning Co. v. City of Minneapolis, 137 F.3d 567, 571 (8th Cir.1998) (because “a sequence of events would have to occur for the interests of the associations to be impacted,” appellants had not stated the interest necessary for intervention as of right).
The correctional officers contend that they should be allowed intervention as a matter of right for two reasons. First, they maintain that the current conditions at Tutwiler prevent them from performing duties which are necessary to avoid civil liability and criminal penalties. They argue that they “bear the risk” of civil liability because conditions are so bad at Tutwiler that they may, at times, have to take drastic measures to maintain order and that these drastic measures may cause an inmate to file a lawsuit against them. These measures, according to them, may be so drastic that a court might consider them outside the scope of their employment and, hence, beyond the protection of qualified immunity. The correctional
1

Laube v. Campbell, 215 F.R.D. 655 (2003)
officers could, therefore, according them, be exposed to civil liability because of the current conditions at Tutwiler.
[3] This stated interest does not satisfy the requirements of Rule 24(a)(2), for it is dependent on the occurrence of a long sequence of events before it could become colorable. Washington, 922 F.2d at 97. At this point in time, the interest is “purely a matter of speculation” and insufficient to serve as a basis for granting intervention as of right to the correctional officers. ManaSota–88, 896 F.2d at 1322; Washington Elec. Coop., 922 F.2d at 97; Standard Heating, 137 F.3d at 571.
Furthermore, albeit in other contexts, interests similar to that articulated by the correctional officers here have been rejected by other courts. For example, in Acceptance Indemnity Ins. Co. v. Southeastern Forge, Inc., 209 F.R.D. 697, 700–01 (M.D.Ga.2002), the court found that the proposed intervenor’s “only interest in this litigation arises from the possibility that [the defendant] may seek indemnification from [the proposed intervenor] ... in a later suit.... [T]he possibility that [the proposed intervenor] may be subject to a future claim for indemnification does not satisfy Rule 24(a)’s requirements that an intervenor of right must demonstrate a legally protectable interest in the proceedings.” (Emphasis in original).
Similarly, in Purcell v. BankAtlantic Financial Corp., 85 F.3d 1508, 1513 (11th Cir.1996), the proposed intervenor was involved in a separate case with the defendants, and the proposed settlement agreement in Purcell would cause the proposed intervenor’s summary-judgment motion in the separate case to be denied; hence, the proposed intervenor moved to intervene as of right. The Eleventh Circuit rejected the proposed intervenor’s stated interest in the collateral-estoppel effect of the jury’s verdict in the case as “too collateral, indirect, and insubstantial to *658 support intervention as of right,” though it would have had direct bearing on the proposed intervenor’s civil liability. Id. Moreover, the proposed intervenor’s interest in Purcell was significantly stronger than that of the correctional officers here. The correctional officers, unlike the proposed intervenor’s in Purcell, are not involved in ongoing litigation and cannot state for certain that the proceedings in this case will ever impact any future civil litigation against them.
[4] These same reasons weigh in favor of rejecting the correctional officers’ second claimed interest, avoiding criminal liability. The correctional officers contend that they could be exposed to criminal penalties under Alabama state law for failing to discharge their duty to guard inmates in compliance with state law. They point to 1975 Alabama Code § 14–11–4, which allows criminal penalties for “[a]ny guard ... having the charge, management or control of any convict who fails to

discharge any of the duties imposed upon him by law,” and 1975 Alabama Code § 14–3–16, which states that “[a]ny person who violates any provision of this chapter shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor” and refers to laws regulating the treatment of inmates. The correctional officers argue that, because they are unable to comply with the Eighth Amendment due to substandard conditions at Tutwiler, they could be criminally liable under Alabama state law.
Once again, the correctional officers’ stated interest is too attenuated to support intervention as a matter of right. At this point in time, the court has only preliminarily found that the conditions at Tutwiler are unconstitutionally unsafe. In order for the officers to be criminally liable for these conditions, however, a number of events must occur. This court must first find that the conditions at Tutwiler violate the Eighth Amendment (as it has done preliminarily), then the State would have to continue to operate the prison in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and, finally, the State would then have to take the additional step of criminally prosecuting its own correctional officers. This sequence of events is not only speculative, it is improbable. Because any criminal liability on the part of the correctional officers is highly speculative and contingent upon the occurrence of a series of events (one or more of which are improbable), the court finds that this interest is insufficient to grant intervention as of right.
[5] Finally, the correctional officers argue that they have an “interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action,” Chiles v. Thornburgh, 865 F.2d at 1213, because they have a property interest in their employment, and their employment may be affected by actions taken in this case. The correctional officers’ employment, however, is not the “subject matter” of this litigation. The plaintiff inmates brought this suit based on the conditions of their confinement; while the circumstances of the employment of the correctional officers may have contributed to these conditions, it is not the correctional officers’ employment itself which the plaintiff inmates contest.
Howard v. McLucas, 782 F.2d 956 (11th Cir.1986), does not warrant a different outcome. There, a consent decree provided that the defendants would promote plaintiff class members to 240 positions. 782 F.2d at 958. A group of non-class members moved to intervene based on their interests in the promotions and the fact that this interest would be seriously compromised by the consent decree. Id. at 959. The Eleventh Circuit found that this interest was sufficient to support intervention as of right. Id. Howard is distinguishable from the case at hand, however, because there is no agreement or plan affecting the correctional officers’ employment. While the correctional officers believe that their property rights in their employment are jeopardized because a remedy might
2

Laube v. Campbell, 215 F.R.D. 655 (2003)
include the elimination of their jobs, neither of the defendants’ two proposed remedial plans appears to affect the correctional officers’ employment or indicate that their employment is in jeopardy. To the contrary, both the defendants and the plaintiffs in this suit have repeatedly indicated that the correctional officers are highly valued and all parties have indicated a hope to increase, not decrease, their numbers. Because there are no plans adversely affecting the correctional officers’ employment and because it is highly speculative that their employment will ever *659 be threatened, the court finds that the correctional officers have not asserted an interest in the property which is the subject matter of this action such as would entitle them to intervene as of right.
[6] Similarly, the court cannot credit the correctional officers’ assertion that they might be discharged because current conditions at Tutwiler prevent them from upholding the United States Constitution and their oaths of office. The correctional officers are essential to the proper operation of Tutwiler, and the parties have indicated every desire to retain them. Therefore, because it is again “purely a matter of speculation” that the correctional officers’ employment is a subject matter of this litigation, the correctional officers have not stated an interest sufficient to intervene as a matter of right.
B.
Under Rule 24(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to permissively intervene, the correctional officers must show that: (1) their application to intervene is timely; and (2) their claim or defense and the main action have a question of law or fact in common. Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(b)(2); Chiles, 865 F.2d at 1213. Even upon making this showing, however, the court “has the discretion to deny intervention.” Id. As with the correctional officers’ argument that they are entitled to intervene as of right, timeliness is not in issue.
The correctional officers raise claims regarding “the same overcrowded conditions, staff shortages, unsafe conditions, and violence that were addressed factually by the plaintiffs.” Specifically, they claim that, because these conditions pose a serious danger to them as well as the inmate plaintiffs in this case, they should be allowed permissive intervention.
[7] [8] [9] In requiring that a proposed intervenor state “a claim or defense” which shares a question of law or fact in common with the main action, “[t]he words ‘claim or defense’ manifestly refer to the kinds of claims or defenses that can be raised in courts of law as part of an actual or impending lawsuit.” Diamond v. Charles, 476 U.S. 54, 77, 106 S.Ct. 1697, 1711, 90 L.Ed.2d 48 (1986)

(O’Connor, J., concurring). Thus, permissive intervention “require[s] an interest sufficient to support a legal claim or defense.” Id. The correctional officers have not stated a claim on which this court could grant relief. In other words, though the conditions of the prison may be of great concern to them, they have not stated a legal basis on which to bring this concern before this federal court in their motion or their pleading. The Eighth Amendment, which is the legal basis for the Tutwiler inmates’ litigation, does not confer any protection on the correctional officers who guard the inmates. Consequently, the correctional officers have not demonstrated a “claim” which shares a “question of law or fact in common” with the main action, and their request for permissive intervention must be rejected as to this asserted interest.
This is not to say that the correctional officers do not have some protection under state law; Alabama may or may not have laws that protect them from the harm they fear. But if the State does, the correctional officers must pursue those state-law claims in state court. Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 121, 104 S.Ct. 900, 919, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (the Eleventh Amendment jurisdictional bar extends to claims brought not only under federal law, but those brought under state law, because “neither [supplemental] jurisdiction nor any other basis of jurisdiction may override the Eleventh Amendment”).
[10] In their proposed complaint-in-intervention, the correctional officers also asked this court to declare the two Alabama state laws discussed previously, 1975 Alabama Code §§ 14–3–16 and 14–11–4, unconstitutional. They contend that these laws impose a duty upon them to follow the orders of the Department of Corrections, but that, because the court has preliminarily found that the department is operating Tutwiler in violation of the Eighth Amendment, these departmental orders would require that they violate the Eighth Amendment or be exposed to criminal penalties. Consequently, they challenge these provisions as unconstitutional, though they do not state which provision of the Constitution they believe has *660 been violated. It is not clear from the pleading whether the correctional officers asserted these constitutional claims as bases for permissive intervention or if these claims were merely additional relief sought by the correctional officers. If the correctional officers are indeed asserting these claims as bases for permissive intervention, the court must exercise its discretion and deny permissive intervention based on these claims. Allowing intervention based on these claims would add a completely new issue to the suit, the constitutionality of two Alabama state laws, and cause undue delay. See Chiles, 865 F.2d at 1215 (denial of permissive intervention due to undue delay was not an abuse of discretion); ManaSota–88, 896 F.2d at 1323 (same). Denying intervention will in no way prejudice the
3

Laube v. Campbell, 215 F.R.D. 655 (2003)
proposed intervenors from bringing these claims in a separate lawsuit if they so desire, and the outcome of this lawsuit will have no impact on their claims.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the motion to intervene, filed by George Eldridge, et al., on February

18, 2003 (doc. no. 131), is denied without prejudice to the right of these correctional officers to bring a separate lawsuit of their own.
	  

4

 
 Case: 2:02-cv-957 As of: 08/13/2013 11:17 AM CDT 1 of 73
CLOSED,INMATE,MHT−ClerkB,MULLIKIN
U.S. District Court Alabama Middle District (Montgomery) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:02−cv−00957−MHT−CSC

Laube, et al v. Allen, et al (INMATE 2) Assigned to: Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson Referred to: Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody Demand: $0 Cause: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 08/19/2002 Date Terminated: 08/23/2004 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 555 Habeas Corpus (Prison Condition) Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Linda Laube on behalf of herself and other persons similarly situated

represented by George E. Schulz , Jr., Holland &Knight 50 North Laura Street Suite 3900 Jacksonville, FL 32202 904−798−5462 Fax: 904−358−1872 Email: buddy.schulz@hklaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gretchen Naomi Rohr Holland &Knight One Atlantic Center, Suite 2000 1201 West Peachtree Street NE Atlanta, GA 30309 404−817−8500 Fax: 404−881−0470 Email: gretchen.rohr@hklaw.com TERMINATED: 07/18/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John A. Russell , III PO Box 333 Aliceville, AL 35442 205−373−8714 Fax: 205−373−8894 Email: bacochrane@nctv.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lisa Kung , Southern Center for Human Rights 83 Poplar Street, NW

Atlanta, GA 30303 404−688−1202 Fax: 404−688−9440 Email: lkung@schr.org LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marion Dawn Chartoff Southern Poverty Law Center 400 Washington Ave. Montgomery, AL 36104 334−956−8200

Case: 2:02-cv-957 As of: 08/13/2013 11:17 AM CDT 2 of 73

Fax: 334−956−8481 Email: marion.chartoff@splcenter.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen B. Bright Southern Center for Human Rights 83 Poplar Street, NW Atlanta, GA 30303−2122 404−688−1202 Fax: 688−9440 Email: sbright@schr.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen F Hanlon Holland &Knight 2099 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 100 Washington, DC 20006−6801 202−828−1871 Fax: 202−955−5564 Email: stephen.hanlon@hklaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tamara S. Caldas Southern Center for Human Rights 83 Poplar Street, NW Atlanta, GA 30303−2122 404−688−1202 Fax: 688−9440 TERMINATED: 06/21/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Theresa Barron on behalf of herself and other persons similarly situated

represented by George E. Schulz , Jr., (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gretchen Naomi Rohr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/18/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John A. Russell , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lisa Kung , (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marion Dawn Chartoff (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:02-cv-957 As of: 08/13/2013 11:17 AM CDT 3 of 73

Stephen B. Bright (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen F Hanlon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tamara S. Caldas (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/21/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Barbara Bush on behalf of herself and other persons similarly situated

represented by George E. Schulz , Jr., (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gretchen Naomi Rohr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/18/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John A. Russell , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lisa Kung , (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marion Dawn Chartoff (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen B. Bright (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen F Hanlon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tamara S. Caldas (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/21/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Lachrondria Crockett on behalf of herself and other persons similarly situated

represented by George E. Schulz , Jr., (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:02-cv-957 As of: 08/13/2013 11:17 AM CDT 4 of 73

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gretchen Naomi Rohr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/18/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John A. Russell , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lisa Kung , (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marion Dawn Chartoff (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen B. Bright (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen F Hanlon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tamara S. Caldas (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/21/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Marjorie Ewing on behalf of herself and other persons similarly situated

represented by George E. Schulz , Jr., (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gretchen Naomi Rohr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/18/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John A. Russell , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lisa Kung , (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marion Dawn Chartoff

Case: 2:02-cv-957 As of: 08/13/2013 11:17 AM CDT 5 of 73

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen B. Bright (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen F Hanlon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tamara S. Caldas (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/21/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Wanda Goodman on behalf of herself and other persons similarly situated

represented by George E. Schulz , Jr., (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gretchen Naomi Rohr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/18/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John A. Russell , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lisa Kung , (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marion Dawn Chartoff (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen B. Bright (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen F Hanlon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tamara S. Caldas (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/21/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:02-cv-957 As of: 08/13/2013 11:17 AM CDT 6 of 73

Plaintiff
Alma Gutierrez on behalf of herself and other persons similarly situated

represented by George E. Schulz , Jr., (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gretchen Naomi Rohr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/18/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John A. Russell , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lisa Kung , (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marion Dawn Chartoff (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen B. Bright (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen F Hanlon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tamara S. Caldas (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/21/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Lisa Hereford on behalf of herself and other persons similarly situated

represented by George E. Schulz , Jr., (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gretchen Naomi Rohr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/18/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John A. Russell , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lisa Kung , (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:02-cv-957 As of: 08/13/2013 11:17 AM CDT 7 of 73

PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marion Dawn Chartoff (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen B. Bright (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen F Hanlon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tamara S. Caldas (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/21/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
La'Toya Jones on behalf of herself and other persons similarly situated

represented by George E. Schulz , Jr., (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gretchen Naomi Rohr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/18/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John A. Russell , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lisa Kung , (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marion Dawn Chartoff (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen B. Bright (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen F Hanlon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tamara S. Caldas (See above for address)

Case: 2:02-cv-957 As of: 08/13/2013 11:17 AM CDT 8 of 73

TERMINATED: 06/21/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Katie Moore on behalf of herself and other persons similarly situated

represented by George E. Schulz , Jr., (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gretchen Naomi Rohr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/18/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John A. Russell , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lisa Kung , (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marion Dawn Chartoff (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen B. Bright (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen F Hanlon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tamara S. Caldas (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/21/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Terri Newby on behalf of herself and other persons similarly situated

represented by George E. Schulz , Jr., (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gretchen Naomi Rohr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/18/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John A. Russell , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:02-cv-957 As of: 08/13/2013 11:17 AM CDT 9 of 73

Plaintiff
Barbara Pelzer on behalf of herself and other persons similarly situated

Lisa Kung , (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marion Dawn Chartoff (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen B. Bright (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen F Hanlon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tamara S. Caldas (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/21/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by George E. Schulz , Jr., (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gretchen Naomi Rohr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/18/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John A. Russell , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa Kung , (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marion Dawn Chartoff (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen B. Bright (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen F Hanlon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:02-cv-957 As of: 08/13/2013 11:17 AM CDT 10 of 73

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tamara S. Caldas (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/21/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
April Rice on behalf of herself and other persons similarly situated

represented by George E. Schulz , Jr., (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gretchen Naomi Rohr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/18/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John A. Russell , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lisa Kung , (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marion Dawn Chartoff (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen B. Bright (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen F Hanlon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tamara S. Caldas (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/21/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Kelli Washington on behalf of herself and other persons similarly situated

represented by George E. Schulz , Jr., (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gretchen Naomi Rohr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/18/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:02-cv-957 As of: 08/13/2013 11:17 AM CDT 11 of 73

John A. Russell , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lisa Kung , (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marion Dawn Chartoff (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen B. Bright (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen F Hanlon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tamara S. Caldas (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/21/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Melinda Washington on behalf of herself and other persons similarly situated

represented by George E. Schulz , Jr., (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gretchen Naomi Rohr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/18/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John A. Russell , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lisa Kung , (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marion Dawn Chartoff (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen B. Bright (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:02-cv-957 As of: 08/13/2013 11:17 AM CDT 12 of 73

Plaintiff Laura Bland
Plaintiff Angela Bond

Stephen F Hanlon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tamara S. Caldas (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/21/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by George E. Schulz , Jr., (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gretchen Naomi Rohr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/18/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John A. Russell , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa Kung , (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marion Dawn Chartoff (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen B. Bright (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen F Hanlon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tamara S. Caldas (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/21/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by George E. Schulz , Jr., (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gretchen Naomi Rohr (See above for address)

Case: 2:02-cv-957 As of: 08/13/2013 11:17 AM CDT 13 of 73

TERMINATED: 07/18/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John A. Russell , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lisa Kung , (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marion Dawn Chartoff (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen B. Bright (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen F Hanlon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tamara S. Caldas (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/21/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Wendy Carmichael

represented by George E. Schulz , Jr., (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gretchen Naomi Rohr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/18/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John A. Russell , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lisa Kung , (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marion Dawn Chartoff (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:02-cv-957 As of: 08/13/2013 11:17 AM CDT 14 of 73

Stephen B. Bright (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen F Hanlon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tamara S. Caldas (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/21/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Leslie M. Fillingim

represented by George E. Schulz , Jr., (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gretchen Naomi Rohr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/18/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John A. Russell , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lisa Kung , (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marion Dawn Chartoff (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen B. Bright (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen F Hanlon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tamara S. Caldas (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/21/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Sharon Finn

represented by George E. Schulz , Jr., (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:02-cv-957 As of: 08/13/2013 11:17 AM CDT 15 of 73

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gretchen Naomi Rohr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/18/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John A. Russell , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lisa Kung , (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marion Dawn Chartoff (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen B. Bright (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen F Hanlon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tamara S. Caldas (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/21/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Brenda Fraime

represented by George E. Schulz , Jr., (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gretchen Naomi Rohr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/18/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John A. Russell , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lisa Kung , (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marion Dawn Chartoff

Case: 2:02-cv-957 As of: 08/13/2013 11:17 AM CDT 16 of 73

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen B. Bright (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen F Hanlon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tamara S. Caldas (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/21/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Deborah Franks

represented by George E. Schulz , Jr., (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gretchen Naomi Rohr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/18/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John A. Russell , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lisa Kung , (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marion Dawn Chartoff (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen B. Bright (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen F Hanlon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tamara S. Caldas (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/21/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:02-cv-957 As of: 08/13/2013 11:17 AM CDT 17 of 73

Plaintiff Laura Gilbert

represented by George E. Schulz , Jr., (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gretchen Naomi Rohr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/18/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John A. Russell , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lisa Kung , (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marion Dawn Chartoff (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen B. Bright (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen F Hanlon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tamara S. Caldas (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/21/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Diane Jordan

represented by George E. Schulz , Jr., (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gretchen Naomi Rohr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/18/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John A. Russell , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lisa Kung , (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:02-cv-957 As of: 08/13/2013 11:17 AM CDT 18 of 73

PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marion Dawn Chartoff (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen B. Bright (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen F Hanlon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tamara S. Caldas (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/21/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Vanessa Kirksey

represented by George E. Schulz , Jr., (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gretchen Naomi Rohr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/18/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John A. Russell , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lisa Kung , (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marion Dawn Chartoff (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen B. Bright (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen F Hanlon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tamara S. Caldas (See above for address)

Case: 2:02-cv-957 As of: 08/13/2013 11:17 AM CDT 19 of 73

TERMINATED: 06/21/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Vicki Littles

represented by George E. Schulz , Jr., (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gretchen Naomi Rohr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/18/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John A. Russell , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lisa Kung , (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marion Dawn Chartoff (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen B. Bright (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen F Hanlon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tamara S. Caldas (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/21/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Deborah Loyd

represented by George E. Schulz , Jr., (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gretchen Naomi Rohr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/18/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John A. Russell , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:02-cv-957 As of: 08/13/2013 11:17 AM CDT 20 of 73

Plaintiff Clorestine McQueen

Lisa Kung , (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marion Dawn Chartoff (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen B. Bright (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen F Hanlon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tamara S. Caldas (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/21/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by George E. Schulz , Jr., (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gretchen Naomi Rohr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/18/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John A. Russell , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa Kung , (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marion Dawn Chartoff (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen B. Bright (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen F Hanlon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:02-cv-957 As of: 08/13/2013 11:17 AM CDT 21 of 73

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tamara S. Caldas (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/21/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Juanita Moore

represented by George E. Schulz , Jr., (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gretchen Naomi Rohr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/18/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John A. Russell , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lisa Kung , (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marion Dawn Chartoff (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen B. Bright (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen F Hanlon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tamara S. Caldas (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/21/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Betty Parker

represented by George E. Schulz , Jr., (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gretchen Naomi Rohr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/18/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:02-cv-957 As of: 08/13/2013 11:17 AM CDT 22 of 73

Lisa Kung , (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marion Dawn Chartoff (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen B. Bright (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen F Hanlon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tamara S. Caldas (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/21/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Patricia Segrest

represented by George E. Schulz , Jr., (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gretchen Naomi Rohr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/18/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John A. Russell , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lisa Kung , (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marion Dawn Chartoff (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen B. Bright (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen F Hanlon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:02-cv-957 As of: 08/13/2013 11:17 AM CDT 23 of 73

Plaintiff Carolyn Thomas
Plaintiff Nina Whitlow

Tamara S. Caldas (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/21/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by George E. Schulz , Jr., (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gretchen Naomi Rohr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/18/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John A. Russell , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa Kung , (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marion Dawn Chartoff (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen B. Bright (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen F Hanlon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tamara S. Caldas (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/21/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by George E. Schulz , Jr., (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gretchen Naomi Rohr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/18/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John A. Russell , III

Case: 2:02-cv-957 As of: 08/13/2013 11:17 AM CDT 24 of 73

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lisa Kung , (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marion Dawn Chartoff (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen B. Bright (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen F Hanlon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tamara S. Caldas (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/21/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Judy Wyly

represented by George E. Schulz , Jr., (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gretchen Naomi Rohr (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/18/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John A. Russell , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lisa Kung , (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marion Dawn Chartoff (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen F Hanlon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:02-cv-957 As of: 08/13/2013 11:17 AM CDT 25 of 73
Tamara S. Caldas (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/21/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Michael Haley Commissioner of the Alabama Department of Corrections, in his official capacity TERMINATED: 02/11/2003
Defendant Gladys Deese Warden of Julia Tutwiler Prison for Women, in her official capacity

represented by Andrew Weldon Redd Alabama Department of Transportation Legal Bureau, Room K101 1409 Coliseum Boulevard Montgomery, AL 36110 334−242−6965 Fax: 334−264−4359 Email: redda@dot.state.al.us TERMINATED: 02/11/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ellen Ruth Leonard Office of the Attorney General Alabama State House 501 Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36130 334−353−8811 Fax: 334−242−2433 Email: Eleonard@ago.state.al.us TERMINATED: 02/11/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William Floyd Addison Alabama Board of Medical Examiners Office of General Counsel PO Box 946 Montgomery, AL 36101−0946 334−242−4116 Fax: 334−242−4155 Email: baddison@albme.org (Inactive) TERMINATED: 02/11/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alice Maples Henley Alabama Board of Nursing Post Office Box 303900 Montgomery, AL 36130−3900 334−242−4341 Fax: 334−353−8454 Email: alice.maples@abn.state.al.us TERMINATED: 08/09/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew Weldon Redd (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Charles Brinsfield Campbell

Case: 2:02-cv-957 As of: 08/13/2013 11:17 AM CDT 26 of 73

Faulkner University Jones School of Law 5345 Atlanta Highway Montgomery, AL 36109−3390 334−386−7528 Fax: 334−386−7505 Email: ccampbell@faulkner.edu LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ellen Ruth Leonard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/01/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kim Tobias Thomas Alabama Department of Corrections Legal Division 301 South Ripley Street PO Box 301501 Montgomery, AL 36130−1501 334−353−3884 Fax: 334−353−3891 Email: kim.thomas@doc.alabama.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tara Smelley Knee Alabama State Personnel Department Legal Division 64 N. Union Street Montgomery, AL 36130 334−353−0046 Fax: 334−353−4481 Email: Tara.Knee@personnel.alabama.gov TERMINATED: 09/26/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William Floyd Addison (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Patricia Hood Acting Warden of Edwina Mitchell Work Release Center, in her official capacity TERMINATED: 02/13/2003

represented by Andrew Weldon Redd (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/13/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Brinsfield Campbell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/13/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ellen Ruth Leonard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/13/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:02-cv-957 As of: 08/13/2013 11:17 AM CDT 27 of 73

William Floyd Addison (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/13/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Mary Carter Director of Birmingham Work Release Center, in her official capacity

represented by Alice Maples Henley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/09/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrew Weldon Redd (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Brinsfield Campbell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ellen Ruth Leonard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/01/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kim Tobias Thomas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tara Smelley Knee (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/26/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William Floyd Addison (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
NaphCare, Inc. Health Care Provider for Alabama Department of Corrections, in its official capacity TERMINATED: 09/18/2002

represented by Giles Gilpin Perkins The Perkins Group, LLC 104 23rd Street South, Suite 100 Birmingham, AL 35233 205−327−8188 Fax: 205−327−8153 Email: gperkins@perkinsgroup.net TERMINATED: 09/18/2002 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Hugh C. Nickson , III Miller, Hamilton, Snider &Odom P. O. Box 19 Montgomery, AL 36101−0019 (334) 834−5550 Fax: 265−4533 Email: hcn@mhsolaw.com

Case: 2:02-cv-957 As of: 08/13/2013 11:17 AM CDT 28 of 73

TERMINATED: 09/18/2002 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael Morris Shipper Miller Hamilton Snider &Odom − Mobile PO Box 46 Mobile, AL 36601−0046 251−439−7530 Fax: 251−439−7541 Email: MikeShipper@mhsolaw.com TERMINATED: 09/18/2002 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Francis Henderson Medical Director of NaphCare, Inc., in his official capacity TERMINATED: 09/18/2002

represented by Giles Gilpin Perkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/18/2002 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Hugh C. Nickson , III (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/18/2002 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael Morris Shipper (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/18/2002 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Hon. Don Siegelman Governor of Alabama, in his official capacity TERMINATED: 02/19/2003

represented by Edward Andrew Hosp Maynard Cooper &Gale, PC 1901 Sixth Avenue North Suite 2400 Birmingham, AL 35203 205−254−1077 Fax: 205−254−1999 Email: thosp@maynardcooper.com TERMINATED: 02/19/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Victor Doyle , Jr. Doyle Law Firm, PC P.O. Box 36445 Birmingham, AL 35236 205−533−9500 Fax: 205−332−1362 Email: jimmy@doylefirm.com TERMINATED: 02/19/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
NaphCare, Inc. TERMINATED: 12/16/2003

represented by Giles Gilpin Perkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/16/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:02-cv-957 As of: 08/13/2013 11:17 AM CDT 29 of 73

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Edward Murrill , Jr. Riley &Jackson, P.C. 3530 Independence Drive Birmingham, AL 35209 205−879−5000 Fax: 205−879−5901 Email: jay@rileyjacksonlaw.com TERMINATED: 12/16/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Arthur Patton , Jr. Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak &Stewart, PC 420 20th Street N., Ste 1900 Birmingham, AL 35203−3212 205−328−1900 Fax: 205−328−6000 Email: jay.patton@ogletreedeakins.com TERMINATED: 12/16/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Francis Henderson TERMINATED: 12/16/2003

represented by Giles Gilpin Perkins (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/16/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Edward Murrill , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/16/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Arthur Patton , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/16/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
MHM Correctional Services, Inc. Mental Health Care Provider for Alabama Dep't. of Corrections, in their official capacities TERMINATED: 10/01/2003

represented by Lee Calligaro Epstein Becker &Green PC 1227 25th Street NW Suite 700 Washington, DC 20037 202−955−7188 Fax: 955−7192 TERMINATED: 10/01/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY

Paul Anthony Clark Adams Umbach Davidson &White 165 East Magnolia Avenue, Suite 203 Auburn, AL 36830 334−501−2985 Fax: 334−501−7656 Email: pclark@audwlaw.com TERMINATED: 10/01/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:02-cv-957 As of: 08/13/2013 11:17 AM CDT 30 of 73

Defendant Ronald Cavanaugh Treatment Director, ADOC
Defendant Richard F. Allen
Movant

represented by Alice Maples Henley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/09/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kim Tobias Thomas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tara Smelley Knee (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/26/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ellen Ruth Leonard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/01/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Charles Brinsfield Campbell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alice Maples Henley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/09/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Charles Brinsfield Campbell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ellen Ruth Leonard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/01/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kim Tobias Thomas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tara Smelley Knee (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/26/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William Floyd Addison (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:02-cv-957 As of: 08/13/2013 11:17 AM CDT 31 of 73

Joan Connie Block TERMINATED: 11/19/2003

Defendant
Donal Campbell Commissioner TERMINATED: 05/12/2006

represented by Alice Maples Henley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/12/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Brinsfield Campbell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/12/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kim Tobias Thomas (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/12/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tara Smelley Knee (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/12/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William Floyd Addison (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/12/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ellen Ruth Leonard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/12/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant
George Eldridge Correctional Officer I TERMINATED: 03/27/2003

represented by Denise Arden Simmons Susan James &Associates 600 South McDonough Street Montgomery, AL 36104 334−269−3330 Fax: 334−263−4888 Email: Dsimlaw@aol.com TERMINATED: 03/27/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Norbert H. Williams Alabama State Employees Association 110 North Jackson Street Montgomery, AL 36104 334−834−6965 Fax: 334−832−1074 Email: norbert_williams@asea.org TERMINATED: 03/27/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Susan Graham James Susan G. James &Associates

Case: 2:02-cv-957 As of: 08/13/2013 11:17 AM CDT 32 of 73

600 S. McDonough Street Montgomery, AL 36104 334−269−3330 Fax: 334−263−4888 Email: sgjamesandassoc@aol.com TERMINATED: 03/27/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant
Mary C. Smith Correctional Officer I TERMINATED: 03/27/2003

represented by Denise Arden Simmons (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/27/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Norbert H. Williams (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/27/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Susan Graham James (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/27/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant
Glenda Lucy Correctional Officer I TERMINATED: 03/27/2003

represented by Denise Arden Simmons (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/27/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Norbert H. Williams (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/27/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Susan Graham James (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/27/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant
Clerk Typist I Jacqueline D. McGhee Correctional Officer I TERMINATED: 03/27/2003

represented by Denise Arden Simmons (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/27/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Norbert H. Williams (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/27/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Susan Graham James (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/27/2003

Case: 2:02-cv-957 As of: 08/13/2013 11:17 AM CDT 33 of 73

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant
Barbara Walton Correctional Officer I TERMINATED: 03/27/2003

represented by Denise Arden Simmons (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/27/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Norbert H. Williams (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/27/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Susan Graham James (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/27/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant
Priscilla Harper Correctional Officer I TERMINATED: 03/27/2003

represented by Denise Arden Simmons (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/27/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Norbert H. Williams (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/27/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Susan Graham James (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/27/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant
Rachel Sanders Correctional Officer I TERMINATED: 03/27/2003

represented by Denise Arden Simmons (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/27/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Norbert H. Williams (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/27/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Susan Graham James (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/27/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant

represented by

Case: 2:02-cv-957 As of: 08/13/2013 11:17 AM CDT 34 of 73

Bobbie McCoo Correctional Officer I TERMINATED: 03/27/2003

Denise Arden Simmons (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/27/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Norbert H. Williams (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/27/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Susan Graham James (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/27/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Bob Riley Governor of Alabama, in his official capacity

represented by Alice Maples Henley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/09/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Brinsfield Campbell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kenneth Dallon Wallis , II Office of the Governor State Capitol 600 Dexter Avenue, Suite NB−05 Montgomery, AL 36104 334−242−7120 Fax: 334−242−2335 Email: ken.wallis@governor.alabama.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kim Tobias Thomas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tara Smelley Knee (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/26/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Troy Robin King The Law Offices of Troy King 7065 Fain Park Drive Suite 203 Montgomery, AL 36117 334−215−4440 Fax: 334−215−4438 Email: troy@troykinglaw.com TERMINATED: 04/06/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:02-cv-957 As of: 08/13/2013 11:17 AM CDT 35 of 73
William Daniel Dill Attorney General's Office Alabama State House 11 South Union Street Montgomery, AL 36130 334−242−7366 Fax: 334−242−2433 Email: docketroom@ago.state.al.us TERMINATED: 04/06/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ellen Ruth Leonard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/01/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Movant
C. Brad Ward TERMINATED: 03/27/2003
Movant
Dwight W. Love On behalf of all inmates at Elmore and all inmates of the Dept. of Corrections, AL TERMINATED: 03/27/2003
Movant
Douglas L. Crouch TERMINATED: 03/27/2003
Movant
Asume Biambe Ausir Imhotep
Movant
Johnny Davis, Jr. TERMINATED: 07/08/2003

Date Filed 08/19/2002 08/19/2002
08/19/2002
08/19/2002

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT Filing Fee $ 150.00 Receipt # 93565 (djy) (Entered: 08/20/2002)
1 MOTION by Linda Laube, Theresa Barron, Barbara Bush, Lachrondria Crockett, Marjorie Ewing, Wanda Goodman, Alma Gutierrez, Lisa Hereford, La'Toya Jones, Katie Moore, Terri Newby, Barbara Pelzer, April Rice, Kelli Washington, Melinda Washington for Evidentiary Hearing referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (djy) (Entered: 08/20/2002)
2 MOTION (certificate of good standing attached) by Linda Laube, Theresa Barron, Barbara Bush, Lachrondria Crockett, Marjorie Ewing, Wanda Goodman, Alma Gutierrez, Lisa Hereford, La'Toya Jones, Katie Moore, Terri Newby, Barbara Pelzer, April Rice, Kelli Washington, Melinda Washington for Stephen B. Bright to Appear Pro Hac Vice FILING FEE $ 20.00 RECEIPT # 93565 referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (djy) Modified on 08/20/2002 (Entered: 08/20/2002)
3 MOTION (certificate of good standing attached) by Linda Laube, Theresa Barron, Barbara Bush, Lachrondria Crockett, Marjorie Ewing, Wanda Goodman, Alma Gutierrez, Lisa Hereford, La'Toya Jones, Katie Moore, Terri Newby, Barbara Pelzer, April Rice, Kelli Washington, Melinda Washington for Lisa Kung to Appear Pro Hac Vice FILING FEE $ 20.00 RECEIPT # 93565 referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (djy) (Entered: 08/20/2002)

Case: 2:02-cv-957 As of: 08/13/2013 11:17 AM CDT 36 of 73

08/19/2002
08/19/2002
08/19/2002
08/19/2002
08/19/2002
08/19/2002 08/19/2002 08/19/2002 08/19/2002 08/19/2002 08/19/2002 08/19/2002 08/19/2002 08/19/2002 08/20/2002 08/21/2002
08/21/2002

4 MOTION (certificate of good standing attached) by Linda Laube, Theresa Barron, Barbara Bush, Lachrondria Crockett, Marjorie Ewing, Wanda Goodman, Alma Gutierrez, Lisa Hereford, La'Toya Jones, Katie Moore, Terri Newby, Barbara Pelzer, April Rice, Kelli Washington, Melinda Washington for Tamara Serwer to Appear Pro Hac Vice FILING FEE $ 20.00 RECEIPT # 93565 referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (djy) (Entered: 08/20/2002)
5 MOTION by Linda Laube, Theresa Barron, Barbara Bush, Lachrondria Crockett, Marjorie Ewing, Wanda Goodman, Alma Gutierrez, Lisa Hereford, La'Toya Jones, Katie Moore, Terri Newby, Barbara Pelzer, April Rice, Kelli Washington, Melinda Washington for Preliminary Injunction referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (djy) (Entered: 08/20/2002)
6 MEMORANDUM (w/attachments 1 thru 10) by Linda Laube, Theresa Barron, Barbara Bush, Lachrondria Crockett, Marjorie Ewing, Wanda Goodman, Alma Gutierrez, Lisa Hereford, La'Toya Jones, Katie Moore, Terri Newby, Barbara Pelzer, April Rice, Kelli Washington, Melinda Washington in support of [5−1] motion for Preliminary Injunction by plaintiffs. Referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (djy) (Entered: 08/20/2002)
7 MOTION by Linda Laube, Theresa Barron, Barbara Bush, Lachrondria Crockett, Marjorie Ewing, Wanda Goodman, Alma Gutierrez, Lisa Hereford, La'Toya Jones, Katie Moore, Terri Newby, Barbara Pelzer, April Rice, Kelli Washington, Melinda Washington for class certification referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (djy) (Entered: 08/20/2002)
8 MEMORANDUM by Linda Laube, Theresa Barron, Barbara Bush, Lachrondria Crockett, Marjorie Ewing, Wanda Goodman, Alma Gutierrez, Lisa Hereford, La'Toya Jones, Katie Moore, Terri Newby, Barbara Pelzer, April Rice, Kelli Washington, Melinda Washington in support of [7−1] motion for class certification by plaintiffs. Referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (djy) (Entered: 08/20/2002)
9 SUMMONS issued for Don Siegelman and returned to counsel for personal service on defendant. (djy) (Entered: 08/20/2002)
10 SUMMONS issued for Francis Henderson and returned to counsel for personal service on defendant. (djy) (Entered: 08/20/2002)
11 SUMMONS issued for NaphCare, Inc. and returned to counsel for personal service on defendant. (djy) (Entered: 08/20/2002)
12 SUMMONS issued for Mary Carter and returned to counsel for personal service on defendant. (djy) (Entered: 08/20/2002)
13 SUMMONS issued for Patricia Hood and returned to counsel for personal service on defendant. (djy) (Entered: 08/20/2002)
14 SUMMONS issued for Gladys Deese and returned to counsel for personal service on defendant. (djy) (Entered: 08/20/2002)
15 SUMMONS issued for Michael Haley and returned to counsel for personal service on defendant. (djy) (Entered: 08/20/2002)
Staff Attorney Assigned: Anderson (ajr) (Entered: 04/15/2003)
Staff Attorney Assigned: Mullikin (wcl) (Entered: 11/05/2003)
File referred to Judge Thompson. (djy) (Entered: 08/20/2002)
16 ORDER granting [2−1] motion for Stephen B. Bright to Appear Pro Hac Vice FILING FEE $ 20.00 RECEIPT # 93565, granting [3−1] motion for Lisa Kung to Appear Pro Hac Vice FILING FEE $ 20.00 RECEIPT # 93565, granting [4−1] motion for Tamara Serwer to Appear Pro Hac Vice FILING FEE $ 20.00 RECEIPT # 93565 ( signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson ) , copies provided; furnished to SC. (ydw) (Entered: 08/21/2002)
Tele−conference held before Judge Myron H. Thompson on 8/21/02 (ydw) (Entered: 08/21/2002)

Case: 2:02-cv-957 As of: 08/13/2013 11:17 AM CDT 37 of 73

08/21/2002 08/21/2002 08/26/2002 08/27/2002
08/30/2002
09/04/2002 09/05/2002 09/05/2002 09/05/2002 09/05/2002 09/06/2002 09/06/2002 09/06/2002 09/06/2002 09/06/2002 09/09/2002

17 Courtroom Deputy's MINUTES of proceedings: Telephone Conference held 8/21/02 before Judge Myron H. Thompson, Mitchell Reisner, Ct. Rptr. (ydw) (Entered: 08/21/2002)
Tele−conference held before Judge Myron H. Thompson on 8/21/02 (ydw) (Entered: 08/27/2002)
18 MOTION containing request for oral argument by NaphCare, Inc. to Stay , or in the alternative, to Dismiss ; referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (ydw) (Entered: 08/27/2002)
19 ORDER setting Motion for Preliminary Injunction for an Evidentiary Hearing for 10:00 9/23/02 before Judge Myron H. Thompson, in Courtroom 2E , setting Brief deadline 9/18/02 ; Counsel for the pltfs. are allowed to conduct limited expedited discovery to determine facts related to their request for a preliminary injunction; If the parties still want the court to visit the facilities, they should submit a joint proposal by 9/6/02; ( signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson ) , copies provided to pltf. and counsel, C. Atchison; furnished to SC, YG, MD and US Marshal. (ydw) (Entered: 08/27/2002)
20 ORDER setting [18−1] motion to Stay by NaphCare, Inc. , and [18−2] motion to Dismiss by NaphCare, Inc. for submission on 9/13/02; directing defendant to file its brief and evidentiary materials; setting Brief deadline to 9/5/02 for defendant ; directing plaintiffs to file their brief and evidentiary materials; setting Brief deadline to 9/13/02 for plaintiffs ( signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson ) , copies provided to counsel. (mfm) (Entered: 08/30/2002)
** Renoticed document [20−3] order−system problems (djy) (Entered: 09/04/2002)
21 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance for Francis Henderson by Giles G. Perkins, Michael M. Shipper (djy) (Entered: 09/06/2002)
22 LEGAL MEMORANDUM (Exhibits A thru C attached) by NaphCare, Inc., Francis Henderson in support of [18−1] motion to Stay, transfer or [18−2] motion to Dismiss by NaphCare, Inc. Referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (djy) (Entered: 09/06/2002)
23 NOTICE OF FILING EVIDENTIARY MATERIALS (Exhibit A attached) by NaphCare, Inc., Francis Henderson in support of [18−2] motion to Dismiss, [18−1] motion to Stay referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody . (djy) (Entered: 09/06/2002)
24 MOTION by NaphCare, Inc., Francis Henderson for Leave to File reply brief in support of their motion to stay or dismiss referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (djy) (Entered: 09/06/2002)
25 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance for Francis Henderson by Hugh C. Nickson III (djy) (Entered: 09/09/2002)
26 MOTION by NaphCare, Inc., Francis Henderson to permit filing of reply brief in support of their motion to stay or dismiss referred to Mag. Judge Charles Coody (djy) Modified on 09/09/2002 (Entered: 09/09/2002)
27 MOTION by Michael Haley, Gladys Deese, Patricia Hood, Mary Carter to Dismiss referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (djy) (Entered: 09/09/2002)
28 MEMORANDUM (Exhibits A thru D attached) by Michael Haley, Gladys Deese, Patricia Hood, Mary Carter in support of [27−1] motion to Dismiss by Mary Carter, Patricia Hood, Gladys Deese, Michael Haley referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (djy) (Entered: 09/09/2002)
29 Parties Joint Proposal/RESPONSE by Michael Haley, Gladys Deese, Patricia Hood, Mary Carter to [19−3] order entered 8/27/02. Referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (djy) (Entered: 09/09/2002)
ORAL ARGUMENT held before Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody on 9/9/02 − oral request for expedited discovery (ajr) (Entered: 09/09/2002)

Case: 2:02-cv-957 As of: 08/13/2013 11:17 AM CDT 38 of 73

09/09/2002
09/09/2002 09/09/2002 09/11/2002 09/11/2002 09/11/2002
09/12/2002 09/12/2002 09/12/2002 09/13/2002 09/13/2002
09/13/2002
09/16/2002
09/16/2002 09/16/2002

30 ORDER that plaintiffs shall be permitted to take depositions as further set out; to the extent that plaintiffs discovery requests about classification issues are denied; further ordering that plaintiffs shall ensure that defendants are in receipt of the plaintiffs' experts' preliminary reports no later than 9/16/02; (signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody), copies provided to counsel, plaintiff. (ajr) (Entered: 09/09/2002)
31 MOTION by Don Siegelman to Dismiss referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (ajr) (Entered: 09/10/2002)
32 MOTION by Michael Haley, Gladys Deese, Patricia Hood, Mary Carter for More Definite Statement referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (ajr) (Entered: 09/10/2002)
33 ORDER directing that the [32−1] motion for More Definite Statement is referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody for appropriate action ( signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson ) , copies provided to counsel. (djy) (Entered: 09/11/2002)
34 ORDER granting [24−1] and [26−1] motion to permit filing of reply brief in support of their motions to stay or dismiss ( signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson ) , copies provided to counsel. (djy) (Entered: 09/11/2002)
35 ORDER directing that the [27−1] motion to Dismiss by Mary Carter, Patricia Hood, Gladys Deese, Michael Haley and [31−1] motion to Dismiss by Don Siegelman be set for submission on 9/16/02, without oral argument, with all briefs and evidentiary materials due by said date ( signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson ). Copies provided to counsel (djy) (Entered: 09/11/2002)
36 ORDER upon consideration of the dfts' motion for more definite statement; resetting Oral Argument for 8:30 9/18/02 before Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody, in Courtroom 4B ; ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies provided; furnished to CA, YG, MD. (ydw) (Entered: 09/12/2002)
Tele−conference held before Judge Myron H. Thompson on 9/12/02 (ydw) (Entered: 09/12/2002)
37 Courtroom Deputy's MINUTES of proceedings: Telephone Conference held 9/12/02, before Judge Myron H. Thompson, Mitchell Reisner, Ct Rptr. (ydw) (Entered: 09/12/2002)
38 Defendants' Requested Designated Areas of Inspection; referred to Judge Thompson (ydw) Modified on 09/16/2002 (Entered: 09/16/2002)
42 RESPONSE by Linda Laube, Theresa Barron, Barbara Bush, Lachrondria Crockett, Marjorie Ewing, Wanda Goodman, Alma Gutierrez, Lisa Hereford, La'Toya Jones, Katie Moore, Terri Newby, Barbara Pelzer, April Rice, Kelli Washington, Melinda Washington to [18−1] motion to Stay by NaphCare, Inc., [18−2] motion to Dismiss by NaphCare, Inc.; referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (ydw) (Entered: 09/17/2002)
45 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT by Linda Laube, Theresa Barron, Barbara Bush, Lachrondria Crockett, Marjorie Ewing, Wanda Goodman, Alma Gutierrez, Lisa Hereford, La'Toya Jones, Katie Moore, Terri Newby, Barbara Pelzer, April Rice, Kelli Washington, Melinda Washington amending [1−1] complaint; Class Action (djy) (Entered: 09/18/2002)
39 ORDER [31−1] motion to Dismiss by Don Siegelman reset for submission on 9/18/02, [27−1] motion to Dismiss by Mary Carter, Patricia Hood, Gladys Deese, Michael Haley reset for submission on 9/18/02 resetting Brief deadline to 9/18/02; (signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson), copies provided to counsel, SC. (ajr) (Entered: 09/16/2002)
40 Pltfs' Proposal for the Courts' Inspection of Prison Facilities; referred to Judge Thompson. (ydw) (Entered: 09/16/2002)
41 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance for Michael Haley, Gladys Deese, Patricia Hood, Mary Carter by Ellen Leonard. (ydw) (Entered: 09/16/2002)

Case: 2:02-cv-957 As of: 08/13/2013 11:17 AM CDT 39 of 73

09/18/2002 09/18/2002 09/18/2002
09/18/2002
09/18/2002 09/18/2002 09/19/2002 09/19/2002 09/19/2002 09/19/2002
09/19/2002 09/20/2002 09/20/2002 09/20/2002 09/20/2002

ORAL ARGUMENT held before Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody on 9/18/02 (djy) (Entered: 09/18/2002)
43 Courtroom Deputy's MINUTES of proceedings re: oral argument held 9/18/02 before Mag Judge Coody. (djy) (Entered: 09/18/2002)
44 ORDER denying as moot [32−1] motion for More Definite Statement; further ORDERING that the Clerk is directed, on or before 9/23/02, to prepare a transcript of the oral argument proceeding held on 9/18/02 ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies provided to counsel; furnished to court report−Dickens &YG. (djy) (Entered: 09/18/2002)
46 ORDER, in light of the amended complaint filed 9/13/02 and by agreement of counsel for all parties; it is ORDERED that defs NaphCare, Inc. and Francis Henderson are dismissed without prejudice; further ORDERING that the [18−1] motion to Stay, and alternative [18−2] motion to Dismiss, filed 8/26/02, are denied as moot ( signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson ) , copies provided to counsel. (djy) (Entered: 09/18/2002)
47 BRIEF by Michael Haley, Gladys Deese, Patricia Hood, Mary Carter in opposition to [5−1] motion for Preliminary Injunction. Referred to Judge Myron Thompson. (sl) Modified on 09/19/2002 (Entered: 09/19/2002)
Court reporter's TRANSCRIPT filed for dates of 9/18/02. Court Reporter: James R. Dickens (sl) (Entered: 09/19/2002)
48 BRIEF by Linda Laube, et al. in support of [5−1] motion for Preliminary Injunction (w/attachments 1 &2) referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (djy) (Entered: 09/20/2002)
49 RESPONSE by Linda Laube, et al. to [27−1] motion to Dismiss by Mary Carter, Patricia Hood, Gladys Deese, Michael Haley (Exhibits 1 thru 3 attached) Referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (djy) (Entered: 09/20/2002)
50 APPLICATION/MOTION by Linda Laube, et al. for Writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (djy) (Entered: 09/20/2002)
51 AMENDED APPLICATION/MOTION (proposed writ attached) by Linda Laube, et al. for Writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum amending: [50−1] motion for Writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum by plaintiffs. Referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (djy) (Entered: 09/20/2002)
52 OBJECTIONS by Michael Haley, Gladys Deese, Patricia Hood, Mary Carter to [50−1] motion for Writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum by plaintiffs. Referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (djy) (Entered: 09/20/2002)
53 MOTION by Linda Laube, et al. to Amend [50−1] application for Writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum by plaintiffs (proposed second amended application attached) referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (djy) (Entered: 09/20/2002)
54 SECOND AMENDED APPLICATION/MOTION by Linda Laube, et al. for Writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (djy) (Entered: 09/20/2002)
54 Applications for writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum treated as REQUESTS for Production of prisoners by Linda Laube, et al. per order of 9−20−02 (djy) (Entered: 09/20/2002)
55 ORDER directing as follows: (1) granting [53−1] motion to Amend [50−1] application for Writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum by plaintiffs; (2) that the applications for writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum be and are hereby treated as requests for the production of prisoners; (3) that with respect to the [54−1] requests for the production of prisoners relating to HIV positive inmates, the request is DENIED, as further set out in order; (4) that with respect to the remaining aspects of the [54−1] requests for the production of prisoners, the requests as last amended are GRANTED< and the ADOC shall produce the prisoners on 9/23/02 at the US Courthouse, One Church Street, Montgomery, Al ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ) , copies provided to counsel and transfer agent for the ADOC by fax; furnished to USM. (djy) (Entered: 09/20/2002)

Case: 2:02-cv-957 As of: 08/13/2013 11:17 AM CDT 40 of 73

09/20/2002 09/23/2002 09/26/2002
09/27/2002
10/01/2002 10/03/2002 10/03/2002 10/04/2002 10/04/2002 10/09/2002
10/10/2002

56 RESPONSE by Linda Laube, Theresa Barron, Barbara Bush, Lachrondria Crockett, Marjorie Ewing, Wanda Goodman, Alma Gutierrez, Lisa Hereford, La'Toya Jones, Katie Moore, Terri Newby, Barbara Pelzer, April Rice, Kelli Washington, Melinda Washington to [52−1] objection by Mary Carter, Patricia Hood, Gladys Deese, Michael Haley; referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (ydw) (Entered: 09/23/2002)
Motion hearing held re: [5−1] motion for Preliminary Injunction by plaintiffs before Judge Thompson. (djy) (Entered: 09/30/2002)
58 Courtroom Deputy's MINUTES of proceedings re: preliminary injunction hearing held 9/23/02 thru 9/26/02 before Judge Thompson; Defs' ORAL MOTION to seal plaintiff's Exh 1; ORAL ORDER granting motion to seal; defs' ORAL REQUEST to seal any exhibit that depicts a diagram of a correctional facility, including all photographs; COURT directs that proposed protective order be submitted−RULING RESERVED; DOC defs' ORAL MOTION for judgment as a matter of law; def Siegelman's ORAL MOTION for judgment as a matter of law − RULINGS RESERVED; Defs' RENEWED ORAL MOTION for judgment as a matter of law; ORAL ORDER denying motions for judgment as a matter of law; Witness List; Plaintiffs' exhibit list; Defendants' exhibit list (Exhibits in (3) expansion folders with case file; (1) expansion folder SEALED exhibits in lock cabinet) (djy) (Entered: 09/30/2002)
57 ORDER that parties have until 10/4/02 to submit supplemental evidence in the form of video depositions; that plaintiffs are to submit a supplemental brief on the issue of "intent" by 9/30/02; defendants are to do the same by 10/2/02; setting Brief deadline to 9/30/02 ,; that plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction is set for oral argument on 10/10/02 at 9:00; setting Oral Argument for 9:00 10/10/02 before Judge Myron H. Thompson in Courtroom 2E [5−1] motion for Preliminary Injunction by plaintiffs set for submission on 9:00 10/10/02 after oral argument; (signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson), copies provided to counsel, SC, MD, YG. (ajr) (Entered: 09/27/2002)
59 POST−HEARING BRIEF CONSERNING EIGHTH AMENDMENT INTENT REQUIREMENT by Linda Laube, Theresa Barron, Barbara Bush, Lachrondria Crockett, Marjorie Ewing, Wanda Goodman, Alma Gutierrez, Lisa Hereford, La'Toya Jones, Katie Moore, Terri Newby, Barbara Pelzer, April Rice, Kelli Washington, Washington; referred to Judge Thompson. (ydw) (Entered: 10/01/2002)
60 POST−HEARING BRIEF concerning eighth amendment intent requirment by Don Siegelman; referred to Thompson. (ydw) (Entered: 10/04/2002)
61 SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF by Michael Haley, Gladys Deese, Patricia Hood, Mary Carter Addressing Subjective Intent Under the Eighth Amendment; referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (ydw) (Entered: 10/04/2002)
62 MOTION by Linda Laube, Theresa Barron, Barbara Bush, Lachrondria Crockett, Marjorie Ewing, Wanda Goodman, Alma Gutierrez, Lisa Hereford, La'Toya Jones, Katie Moore, Terri Newby, Barbara Pelzer, April Rice, Kelli Washington, Melinda Washington for admission of supplemental exhibit (w/Attachment); referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (ydw) (Entered: 10/04/2002)
63 SUPPLEMENTAL Exhibit list by Michael Haley, Gladys Deese, Patricia Hood (w/Attachments); referred to Judge Thompson. (ydw) (Entered: 10/07/2002)
64 RESPONSE by Linda Laube, Theresa Barron, Barbara Bush, Lachrondria Crockett, Marjorie Ewing, Wanda Goodman, Alma Gutierrez, Lisa Hereford, La'Toya Jones, Katie Moore, Terri Newby, Barbara Pelzer, April Rice, Kelli Washington, Melinda Washington to [61−1] supplemental brief addressing subjective intent under the eight amendment by Mary Carter, Patricia Hood, Gladys Deese, Michael Haley; referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (ydw) (Entered: 10/10/2002)
ORAL ARGUMENT (Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injuction) held before Judge Myron H. Thompson on 10/10/02, Mitchell Reisner, Ct. Rptr. (ydw) (Entered: 10/10/2002)

Case: 2:02-cv-957 As of: 08/13/2013 11:17 AM CDT 41 of 73

10/10/2002
10/10/2002 10/10/2002 10/17/2002 10/17/2002 10/17/2002 10/21/2002
10/24/2002
10/30/2002
10/30/2002 10/31/2002 10/31/2002

65 Courtroom Deputy's MINUTES of proceedings: ORAL ARGUMENT (PLTFS' MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION); held 10/10/02 before Judge Myron H. Thompson, Mitchell Reisner, CT Rptr.; Court Convened; Defts' ORAL MOTION TO RENUMBER D43 (filed by dfts' as a supplemental exhibits on 10/4/02 as D46 because of duplication of numbers; ORAL ORDER GRANTING oral motion to renumber; Hearing adjourned (w/Pltfs Exhibits, Dfts Exhibits attached and EXHIBITS LOCATED IN EXPANSION FOLDER WITH CASE FILE) (ydw) (Entered: 10/10/2002)
66 MOTION by Michael Haley, Gladys Deese, Patricia Hood to Place Photographs Under Seal ; referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (ydw) (Entered: 10/11/2002)
67 MOTION by Michael Haley, Gladys Deese, Patricia Hood for Protective Order ; referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (ydw) (Entered: 10/11/2002)
68 ORDER that the motion to place photographs under seal and motion for protective order, are referred to United States Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody for appropriate consideration and action; ( signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson ) , copies provided; furnished to SC. (ydw) (Entered: 10/17/2002)
Motion(s) referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody : [66−1] motion to Place Photographs Under Seal referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody, [67−1] motion for Protective Order; referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (ydw) (Entered: 10/17/2002)
File referred to Mag. Judge Coody (ydw) (Entered: 10/17/2002)
69 RESPONSE by Linda Laube, Theresa Barron, Barbara Bush, Lachrondria Crockett, Marjorie Ewing, Wanda Goodman, Alma Gutierrez, Lisa Hereford, La'Toya Jones, Katie Moore, Terri Newby, Barbara Pelzer, April Rice, Kelli Washington, Melinda Washington to [66−1] motion to Place Photographs Under Seal by Patricia Hood, Gladys Deese, Michael Haley; referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (ydw) (Entered: 10/22/2002)
70 ORDER motion hearing set for 9:00 10/31/02 before Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody, in Courtroom 4B, for [66−1] motion to Place Photographs Under Seal, motion hearing set for 9:00 before Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody for [67−1] motion for Protective Order ; that pending the hearing and argument, the pltfs. shall not release or make public any photograph taken of any prison facility; that if any party desires to present evidence on 10/31/02, the party shall notify the court and opposing parties on 10/29/02, of the name and addresses of any witnesses and shall provide the opposing parties with the opportunity to review and make copies of any documents; ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody , copies provided. (ydw) (Entered: 10/24/2002)
71 RESPONSE by Linda Laube, Theresa Barron, Barbara Bush, Lachrondria Crockett, Marjorie Ewing, Wanda Goodman, Alma Gutierrez, Lisa Hereford, La'Toya Jones, Katie Moore, Terri Newby, Barbara Pelzer, April Rice, Kelli Washington, Melinda Washington to [67−1] motion for Protective Order by Patricia Hood, Gladys Deese, Michael Haley. Referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (djy) (Entered: 10/31/2002)
72 NOTIFICATION of evidence to be presented at 10−31−02 hearing by Linda Laube, Theresa Barron, Barbara Bush, Lachrondria Crockett, Marjorie Ewing, Wanda Goodman, Alma Gutierrez, Lisa Hereford, La'Toya Jones, Katie Moore, Terri Newby, Barbara Pelzer, April Rice, Kelli Washington, Melinda Washington. Referred to Mag Judge Coody. (djy) (Entered: 10/31/2002)
Motion hearing held re: [66−1] motion to Place Photographs Under Seal by Patricia Hood, Gladys Deese, Michael Haley, [67−1] motion for Protective Order by Patricia Hood, Gladys Deese, Michael Haley before Mag. Judge Coody. (Tape No 3718S @ 1 thru 2374) (djy) (Entered: 10/31/2002)
73 Courtroom Deputy's MINUTES of proceedings re: motion hearing held 10−31−02 before Mag Judge Coody; defs' exhibit list (exhibits maintained in envelope attached to minutes) (Tape 3718S @ 1 thru 2374) (djy) (Entered: 10/31/2002)

Case: 2:02-cv-957 As of: 08/13/2013 11:17 AM CDT 42 of 73

12/02/2002 12/02/2002 12/02/2002 12/02/2002
12/02/2002 12/02/2002 12/02/2002 12/02/2002 12/05/2002 12/18/2002
12/20/2002 12/30/2002 12/30/2002

74 ORDER granting [62−1] motion for admission of supplemental exhibit ( signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson ) , copies provided; furnished to SC. (ydw) (Entered: 12/02/2002)
75 ORDER that the Rule 26(f) report containing the discovery plan shall be filed as soon as practicable; Planning Meeting report due on 12/30/02 ( signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson ) , copies provided; furnished to SC. (ydw) (Entered: 12/02/2002)
76 OPINION ( signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson ), copies provided; furnished to SC (ydw) (Entered: 12/02/2002)
77 ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (1) granting [5−1] motion for Preliminary Injunction, as to the unconstitutionally unsafe conditions at Julia Tutwiler Prison for Women, as described in the companion memorandum opinion entered today, and the motion is denied as to Edwina Mitchell Work Releae Center and Birmingham Work Release Center, and as to Julia Tutwiler Prison for Women in all other respects; (2.) It is PRELIMINARILY DECLARED that the unconstitutionally unsafe conditions, resulting from overcrowded and understaffed open dorms, at Julia Tutwiler Prison for Women violate the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution; (3) Dfts. Don siegelman, Michael Haley, and Gladys Dees are PRELIMINARILY ENJOINED and RESTRAINED from failing to take immediate affirmative steps to redress the unconstitutionall unsafe conditions at Jurlia Tutwiler Prison for Women, (4) The dfts. are to submit to the court, by 12.30/02, a plan that redresses immediately and fully the unconstitutional conditions at Julia Tutwiler Prison for Women; the clerk of the court is DIRECTED to issue a writ of injunction; ( signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson ) , copies provided; PLRA Notice Mailed to pltf.; furnished to SC. (ydw) Modified on 12/02/2002 (Entered: 12/02/2002)
78 ORDER denying [27−1] motion to Dismiss, denying [31−1] motion to Dismiss ( signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson ) , copies provided; furnished to SC. (ydw) (Entered: 12/02/2002)
file referred to Judge Coody (vmc) (Entered: 12/02/2002)
79 ORDER [7−1] motion for class certification by plaintiffs set for submission on 1/17/03 setting Discovery deadline to 12/30/02 , parties are to jointly develop and submit to the court a record of evidence; setting Brief deadline to 1/10/03 for plaintiff , setting Brief deadline to 1/17/03 for defendants (signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson), copies provided to counsel, SC. (ajr) (Entered: 12/02/2002)
80 WRIT of of Injunction issued per Order and Preliminary Injunction (doc. #77) entered 12/2/02; copies mailed to counsel; copies mailed CMRRR to Don Siegelman, Michael Haley, and Gladys Deese. (ydw) (Entered: 12/03/2002)
81 RETURN RECEIPT CARD showing service of writ of injunction on P. LaHatte on 12/3/02 for Don Siegelman, on Kay P. Hope for Michael Haley . Answer due on 1/13/03 for Don Siegelman, for Michael Haley (ydw) (Entered: 12/05/2002)
83 MEMORANDUM by Linda Laube, Theresa Barron, Barbara Bush, Lachrondria Crockett, Marjorie Ewing, Wanda Goodman, Alma Gutierrez, Lisa Hereford, La'Toya Jones, Katie Moore, Terri Newby, Barbara Pelzer, April Rice, Kelli Washington, Melinda Washington in support of [82−1] motion to Amend [1−1] complaint by plaintiffs; referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (ydw) (Entered: 12/19/2002)
84 ORDER [82−1] motion to Amend [1−1] complaint by plaintiffs set for submission on 1/3/03 setting Brief deadline to 1/3/03 ( signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson ) , copies provided; furnished to SC. (ydw) (Entered: 12/20/2002)
85 REPORT of Parties' Planning Meeting. Referred to Judge Thompson (djy) (Entered: 12/30/2002)
86 Defendants' proposed plan in RESPONSE by Michael Haley, Gladys Deese, Patricia Hood, Mary Carter to [77−1] order (Exhibits 1 thru 12 attached) Referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (djy) (Entered: 12/30/2002)

Case: 2:02-cv-957 As of: 08/13/2013 11:17 AM CDT 43 of 73

12/30/2002 01/02/2003
01/03/2003 01/03/2003
01/03/2003
01/03/2003 01/03/2003 01/06/2003
01/06/2003 01/06/2003 01/07/2003 01/07/2003

87 ORDER base on the proposed plan filed by the dfts. on 12/30/02 it is ORDERED as follow: 1. the pltfs. are to file a response by 1/15/03; the dfts' proposed plan and the pltfs' response setting Oral Argument for 8:15 1/21/03 in Courtroom 2B before Judge Myron H. Thompson ( signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson ) , copies provided; furnished to SC, YG, HC. (ydw) (Entered: 12/30/2002)
88 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Michael Haley, Don Siegelman, Gladys Deese, Patricia Hood, Mary Carter to the United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit from the "Order and Preliminary Injunction", "Writ of Injunction", "Opinion" and "Order" denying Dfts Motions to Dismiss entered in this action on December 2, 2002. FILING FEE $ 105.00 RECEIPT # 95472 Copies Provided (kcg) (Entered: 01/03/2003)
Notice of Appeal and certified copy of docket to USCA: [88−1] appeal by Mary Carter, Patricia Hood, Gladys Deese, Don Siegelman, Michael Haley (kcg) (Entered: 01/03/2003)
89 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE as to why sanctions should not be imposed for the parties' failure to submit a joint discovery plan in compliance with the court's order: Response to Order to Show Cause due on 4:00 1/7/03 for Don Siegelman, for Mary Carter, for Hood, for Gladys Deese, for Michael Haley, for Melinda Washington, for Kelli Washington, for April Rice, for Barbara Pelzer, for Terri Newby, for Katie Moore, for La'Toya Jones, for Lisa Hereford, for Alma Gutierrez, for Wanda Goodman, for Marjorie Ewing, for Lachrondria for Barbara Bush, for Theresa Barron, for Linda Laube ( signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson ) , copies provided; furnished to SC (ydw) Modified on 01/03/2003 (Entered: 01/03/2003)
90 JOINT MOTION by Linda Laube, Theresa Barron, Barbara Bush, Lachrondria Crockett, Marjorie Ewing, Wanda Goodman, Alma Gutierrez, Lisa Hereford, La'Toya Jones, Katie Moore, Terri Newby, Barbara Pelzer, April Rice, Kelli Washington, Melinda Washington, Michael Haley, Gladys Deese, Patricia Hood, Mary Carter for Extension of Time for filing class certification briefs ; referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (ydw) (Entered: 01/03/2003)
91 MOTION by Michael Haley, Mary Carter to Dismiss , and/or Sever Mental Health Claims (w/Attachments); referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (ydw) (Entered: 01/06/2003)
92 MOTION by NaphCare, Inc., Francis Henderson for Leave to File A Lagal Memorandum in opposition to pltf's motion to amend their complaint (w/memorandum in opposition to pltf's motion to amend their complaint); referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (ydw) (Entered: 01/06/2003)
93 CONSENT ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR FILING CLASS CERTIFICATION BRIEFS [7−1] motion for class certification by plaintiffs set for submission on 1/31/03 setting Discovery deadline to 1/13/03 , by 1/20/03, the parties are jointly to develop and submit to the court a record of the evidence−depositions, stipulationsm, affidavits, etc. − that they intend the court to rely upon; setting Pltfs. Brief deadline to 1/24/03 , setting dfts. Brief deadline to 1/31/03 ; this order supercedes the 12/2/02 Class Certification Scheduling Order; ( signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson ) , copies provided; furnished to SC. (ydw) Modified on 01/22/2003 (Entered: 01/06/2003)
94 Text not available. (Entered: 01/07/2003)
95 REPORT of Parties' F.R.C.P. 26(f) Planning Meeting; referred to Judge Thompson. (ydw) Modified on 01/07/2003 (Entered: 01/07/2003)
96 ORDER granting [92−1] motion for Leave to File A Lagal Memorandum in opposition to pltf's motion to amend their complaint ( signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson ) , copies provided; furnished to SC. (ydw) (Entered: 01/07/2003)
97 ORDER granting [82−1] motion to Amend [1−1] complaint; this order does not reach the defenses and issues raised by an appropriate motion to dismiss or transfer; ( signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson ) , copies provided; furnished to SC. (ydw) (Entered: 01/07/2003)

Case: 2:02-cv-957 As of: 08/13/2013 11:17 AM CDT 44 of 73

01/07/2003 01/07/2003 01/07/2003 01/07/2003
01/10/2003 01/10/2003 01/13/2003 01/13/2003 01/15/2003
01/15/2003
01/15/2003 01/16/2003 01/21/2003

98 MEMORANDUM by NaphCare, Inc., Francis Henderson in opposition to [82−1] motion to Amend [1−1] complaint by plaintiffs (w/Exhibit 1, A−E attached); referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (ydw) (Entered: 01/08/2003)
99 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT by Linda Laube, Theresa Barron, Barbara Bush, Lachrondria Crockett, Marjorie Ewing, Wanda Goodman, Alma Gutierrez, Lisa Hereford, La'Toya Jones, Katie Moore, Terri Newby, Barbara Pelzer, April Rice, Kelli Washington, Melinda Washingtonagainst MHM Correctional amending [1−1] complaint (ydw) (Entered: 01/08/2003)
100 MOTION containing request for oral argument by NaphCare, Inc., Francis Henderson to Dismiss , to Stay , to Transfer Claim against NaphCare to the Northern District of Alabama for consolidation with Spears ; referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson [EDIT 2/20/03 TO CORRECT YEAR IN FILED DATE−QC/DJY] (ydw) Modified on 02/20/2003 (Entered: 01/08/2003)
101 Response (Submission of Cause for failure to submit Joint Discovery Plan) by Linda Laube, Theresa Barron, Barbara Bush, Lachrondria Crockett, Marjorie Ewing, Wanda Goodman, Alma Gutierrez, Lisa Hereford, La'Toya Jones, Katie Moore, Terri Newby, Barbara Pelzer, April Rice, Kelli Washington, Washington to [89−1] Order to Show Cause (w/Attachments); referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (ydw) (Entered: 01/08/2003)
USCA Case Number Re: [88−1] appeal by Mary Carter, Patricia Hood, Gladys Deese, Don Siegelman, Michael Haley USCA NUMBER: 03−10100−F (kcg) (Entered: 01/13/2003)
102 SUMMONS issued for MHM Correctional, NaphCare, Inc.; summons and Second Amended Complaint return for person services. (ydw) (Entered: 01/13/2003)
Received transcript order information sheet from Ellen Leonard with the following notation "Trial of 9/23−26 and Oral Arg. of 10/10". (kcg) (Entered: 01/13/2003)
103 SUMMONS issued for Francis Henderson; summons, amended complaint mailed CMRRR to dft. (ydw) (Entered: 01/13/2003)
104 ORDER [91−1] motion to Dismiss by Mary Carter, Michael Haley set for submission on 1/31/03, [91−2] motion Sever Mental Health Claims by Mary Carter, Michael Haley set for submission on 1/31/03, [100−1] motion to Dismiss by Francis Henderson, NaphCare, Inc. set for submission on 1/31/03, [100−2] motion to Stay by Francis Henderson, NaphCare, Inc. set for submission on 1/31/03, [100−3] motion to Transfer Claim against NaphCare to the Northern District of Alabama for consolidation with Spears by Francis Henderson, NaphCare, Inc. set for submission on 1/31/03 setting Brief and evidentiary materials deadline to 1/31/03 ( signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson ) , copies provided; furnished to SC. (ydw) (Entered: 01/15/2003)
105 SCHEDULING ORDER setting Pretrial Conference for 10/16/03 before Judge Myron H. Thompson; Non−jury trial set for 12/8/03 before Judge Myron H. Thompson ; Motion Filing deadline on 7/18/03; Mediation Notice deadline on 8/13/03; set amended pleading deadline for 5/15/03; Discovery cutoff 10/2/03 ; ( signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson ) , copies provided; furnished to SC, YG, HC. (ydw) (Entered: 01/15/2003)
106 RESPONSE by Linda Laube, Theresa Barron, Barbara Bush, Lachrondria Crockett, Marjorie Ewing, Wanda Goodman, Alma Gutierrez, Lisa Hereford, La'Toya Jones, Katie Moore, Terri Newby, Barbara Pelzer, April Rice, Kelli Washington, Melinda Washington to [87−2] order (w/Attachments); referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (ydw) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
Received copy of Notice of Jurisdictional Question from USCA, whether the district court's December 2, 2002: (1) Order denying the dfts motion to dismiss, and (2) Order and Preliminary Injunction, are immediately appealable? (kcg) (Entered: 01/22/2003)
107 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance for Governor Bob Riley by by Troy King (ydw) (Entered: 01/22/2003)

Case: 2:02-cv-957 As of: 08/13/2013 11:17 AM CDT 45 of 73

01/21/2003 01/21/2003 01/21/2003 01/21/2003
01/24/2003 01/29/2003 01/31/2003
01/31/2003
01/31/2003 01/31/2003 01/31/2003
02/04/2003 02/04/2003

ORAL ARGUMENT held before Judge Myron H. Thompson on 1/21/03 (ydw) (Entered: 01/22/2003)
108 Courtroom Deputy's MINUTES of proceedings: ORAL ARGUMENT held 1/21/03 before Judge Myron H. Thompson, Mitchell Reisner, Court Reporter. (ydw) (Entered: 01/22/2003)
109 RETURN RECEIPT CARD showing service of summons, amended complaint on SR Orendorff on 1/15/03 for Francis Henderson . (ydw) (Entered: 01/22/2003)
110 STIPULATIONS OF Pltfs. and Correctionals dfts Linda Laube, Theresa Barron, Barbara Bush, Lachrondria Crockett, Marjorie Ewing, Wanda Goodman, Alma Gutierrez, Lisa Hereford, La'Toya Jones, Katie Moore, Terri Newby, Barbara Pelzer, April Rice, Kelli Washington, Washington, Michael Haley, Gladys Deese, Patricia Hood, Carter Regarding Plts' motion for Class Certification (w/MAINTAINED IN SEPARATE BINDER); referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (ydw) Modified on 01/22/2003 (Entered: 01/22/2003)
111 BRIEF by Linda Laube, Theresa Barron, Barbara Bush, Lachrondria Crockett, Marjorie Ewing, Wanda Goodman, Alma Gutierrez, Lisa Hereford, La'Toya Jones, Katie Moore, Terri Newby, Barbara Pelzer, April Rice, Kelli Washington, Melinda Washington in support of [7−1] motion for class certification; referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (ydw) (Entered: 01/27/2003)
112 ORDER directing the defendants that on or before 2/7/03 to submit a new plan that makes up for the deficiencies identified in this order ( signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson ) , copies provided to counsel &CSC. (cc) (Entered: 01/29/2003)
113 RESPONSE by Linda Laube, Theresa Barron, Barbara Bush, Lachrondria Crockett, Marjorie Ewing, Wanda Goodman, Alma Gutierrez, Lisa Hereford, La'Toya Jones, Katie Moore, Terri Newby, Barbara Pelzer, April Rice, Kelli Washington, Melinda Washington to [91−1] motion to Dismiss by Mary Carter, Michael Haley, [91−2] motion Sever Mental Health Claims by Mary Carter, Michael Haley (w/Attachments); referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (ydw) (Entered: 02/03/2003)
114 LEGAL MEMORANDUM by NaphCare, Inc., Francis Henderson in support of [100−1] motion to Dismiss by Francis Henderson, Inc., [100−2] motion to Stay by Francis Henderson, Inc., [100−3] motion to Transfer Claim against NaphCare to the Northern District of Alabama for consolidation with Spears by Francis Henderson, NaphCare, Inc. (w/Exhibit A−C attached); referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (ydw) (Entered: 02/03/2003)
115 RESPONSE by NaphCare, Inc. to [7−1] motion for class certification by plaintiffs (w/Exhibit A−C attached); referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (ydw) (Entered: 02/03/2003)
116 MEMORANDUM OF LAW by Bob Riley, Gladys Deese, Patricia Hood, Mary Carter in opposition to [7−1] motion for class certification by plaintiffs; referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (ydw) (Entered: 02/03/2003)
117 RESPONSE by Linda Laube, Theresa Barron, Barbara Bush, Lachrondria Crockett, Marjorie Ewing, Wanda Goodman, Alma Gutierrez, Lisa Hereford, La'Toya Jones, Katie Moore, Terri Newby, Barbara Pelzer, April Rice, Kelli Washington, Melinda Washington to [100−1] motion to Dismiss by Francis Henderson, NaphCare, Inc., [100−2] motion to Stay by Francis Henderson, NaphCare, Inc., [100−3] motion to Transfer Claim against NaphCare to the Northern District of Alabama for consolidation with Spears by Francis Henderson, NaphCare, Inc. (w/Attachment); referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (ydw) (Entered: 02/03/2003)
118 MOTION by Bob Riley, Gladys Deese, Patricia Hood, Mary Carter for Extension of Time to submit a revised plan referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (ydw) (Entered: 02/04/2003)
119 AMENDMENT TO STIPULATIONS OF PARTIES filed by plaintiffs and correctional defendants Linda Laube, Theresa Barron, Barbara Bush, Lachrondria Crockett, Marjorie Ewing, Wanda Goodman, Alma Gutierrez, Lisa Hereford,

Case: 2:02-cv-957 As of: 08/13/2013 11:17 AM CDT 46 of 73

02/05/2003 02/06/2003 02/06/2003 02/07/2003
02/07/2003 02/07/2003 02/11/2003 02/11/2003 02/12/2003
02/13/2003 02/13/2003 02/14/2003 02/18/2003 02/18/2003 02/18/2003

La'Toya Jones, Katie Moore, Terri Newby, Barbara Pelzer, April Rice, Kelli Washington, Melinda Washington, Michael Haley, Gladys Deese, Patricia Hood, Mary Carter to amend [110−1] Stipulations pursuant to [93−4] order (w/attachment); referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (cc) (Entered: 02/05/2003)
120 ORDER granting [118−1] motion for Extension of Time to submit a revised plan; defendants should submit their revised plan by 2/21/03; (signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson), copies provided to counsel. (ajr) (Entered: 02/05/2003)
Tele−conference held before Judge Myron H. Thompson on 2/6/03 − re: class certification (ajr) (Entered: 02/06/2003)
121 Courtroom Deputy's MINUTES of proceedings: Telephone Conference − re: class certification − court reporter, Mitchell Reisner (ajr) (Entered: 02/06/2003)
122 New Class Certification Scheduling ORDER: 1. [7−1] motion for class certification by plaintiffs set for submission on 4/18/03 2. parties are allowed until 3/21/03 to complete additional discovery; 3. that parties are to jointly develop and submit to the court a record of the evidence by 3/29/03; 4. that plaintiffs are to file their supplemental brief by 4/3/03; 5. the NaphCare defendants are to file their brief by 4/18/03; other defendants may also file a supplemental brief by 4/18/03; 6. when parties refer to evidence in their briefs, they must cite the specific document and page number when the evidence can be found; resetting Discovery deadline to 3/21/03 , setting Brief deadline to 4/4/03 (signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson) copies provided to counsel, SC. (ajr) (Entered: 02/07/2003)
123 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance for Bob Riley by William D. Dill (ajr) (Entered: 02/10/2003)
124 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance for NaphCare, Inc. by James E. Murrill, Jr. (ajr) (Entered: 02/10/2003)
125 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance for Gladys Deese, Patricia Hood, Mary Carter, Bob Riley, Donal Campbell by Charles B. Campbell (ajr) (Entered: 02/12/2003)
126 MOTION by NaphCare, Inc. to expedite responses to written discovery referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (ajr) (Entered: 02/12/2003)
127 JOINT MOTION by Linda Laube, Theresa Barron, Barbara Bush, Lachrondria Crockett, Marjorie Ewing, Wanda Goodman, Alma Gutierrez, Lisa Hereford, La'Toya Jones, Katie Moore, Terri Newby, Barbara Pelzer, April Rice, Kelli Washington, Melinda Washington, Gladys Deese, Patricia Hood, Mary Carter, Don Siegelman, NaphCare, Inc., Francis Henderson, MHM Correctional, Bob Riley, Donal Campbell to Dismis Patricia Hood as a defendant referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (ajr) (Entered: 02/12/2003)
128 ORDER granting [127−1] joint motion to Dismis Patricia Hood as a defendant (signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson), copies provided to counsel. (ajr) (Entered: 02/13/2003)
File referred to Judge Coody (ajr) (Entered: 02/13/2003)
130 ANSWER to Complaint by Gladys Deese, Mary Carter, Bob Riley, Donal Campbell, Ronald Cavanaugh; referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (ajr) (Entered: 02/18/2003)
129 MOTION by Gladys Deese, Mary Carter, Bob Riley, Donal Campbell, Ronald Cavanaugh to Substitute party Bob Riley, Donal Campbell, Warden Deese, Warden Carter and Ron Cavanaugh referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (ajr) (Entered: 02/18/2003)
131 MOTION to Intervene by George Eldridge, Mary C. Smith, Glenda Lucy, Jacqueline McGhee, Barbara Walton, Priscilla Harper, Rachel Sanders, Bobbie McCoo referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (ajr) (Entered: 02/19/2003)
132 MEMORANDUM by George Eldridge, Mary C. Smith, Glenda Lucy, Jacqueline D. McGhee, Barbara Walton, Priscilla Harper, Rachel Sanders, Bobbie McCoo in support of [131−1] motion to Intervene by George Eldridge, Mary C. Smith, Glenda Lucy, Jacqueline McGhee, Barbara Walton, Priscilla Harper, Rachel

Case: 2:02-cv-957 As of: 08/13/2013 11:17 AM CDT 47 of 73

02/18/2003 02/18/2003 02/18/2003 02/18/2003 02/18/2003 02/18/2003
02/19/2003 02/20/2003
02/20/2003 02/21/2003 02/21/2003
02/21/2003 02/24/2003

Sanders, Bobbie McCoo referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (ajr) (Entered: 02/19/2003)
133 MOTION by George Eldridge, Mary C. Smith, Glenda Lucy, Jacqueline D. McGhee, Barbara Walton, Priscilla Harper, Rachel Sanders, Bobbie McCoo for temporary restraining order (exhibits A−C attached); referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (ajr) Modified on 02/19/2003 (Entered: 02/19/2003)
134 MOTION by George Eldridge, Mary C. Smith, Glenda Lucy, Jacqueline D. McGhee, Barbara Walton, Priscilla Harper, Rachel Sanders, Bobbie McCoo to Certify Class referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (ajr) (Entered: 02/19/2003)
135 MEMORANDUM by George Eldridge, Mary C. Smith, Glenda Lucy, Jacqueline D. McGhee, Barbara Walton, Priscilla Harper, Rachel Sanders, Bobbie McCoo in support of [134−1] motion to Certify Class by movants referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (ajr) (Entered: 02/19/2003)
136 MOTION by George Eldridge, Mary C. Smith, Glenda Lucy, Jacqueline D. McGhee, Barbara Walton, Priscilla Harper, Rachel Sanders, Bobbie McCoo for Protective Order referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (ajr) (Entered: 02/19/2003)
137 MOTION by George Eldridge, Mary C. Smith, Glenda Lucy, Jacqueline D. McGhee, Barbara Walton, Priscilla Harper, Rachel Sanders, Bobbie McCoo in support of Finding Counsel Are Qualified to Proceed with a Class−Action Lawsuit referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (ajr) (Entered: 02/19/2003)
137 MEMORANDUM by George Eldridge, Mary C. Smith, Glenda Lucy, Jacqueline D. McGhee, Barbara Walton, Priscilla Harper, Rachel Sanders, Bobbie McCoo in support of [137−1] motion in support of Finding Counsel Are Qualified to Proceed with a Class−Action Lawsuit by movants referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (ajr) (Entered: 02/19/2003)
138 ORDER granting [129−1] motion to Substitute party Bob Riley, Donal Campbell, terminated Don Siegelman, Michael Haley. ( signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson ) , copies provided to counsel. (ajr) (Entered: 02/19/2003)
139 ORDER [131−1] motion to Intervene by George Eldridge, Mary C. Smith, Glenda Lucy, Jacqueline McGhee, Barbara Walton, Priscilla Harper, Rachel Sanders, Bobbie McCoo set for submission on 3/7/03 setting Brief deadline to 3/7/03 ; that the proposed intervenors submit a pleading that states a significantly protectable interest which is sufficient to support a legal claim that would permit them to sue the defendants; (signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson), copies provided to counsel, SC. (ajr) (Entered: 02/20/2003)
140 ORDER denying without prejudice [133−1] motion for temporary restraining order (signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson), copies provided to counsel. (ajr) (Entered: 02/20/2003)
141 ORDER directing that the [136−1] motion for Protective Order by movants be set for submission on 3/7/03, withou oral argument with all briefs due by said date, as further set out ( signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson ) , copies provided to counsel. (djy) (Entered: 02/21/2003)
142 ORDER denying proposed intervenors' [134−1] motion to Certify Class and [137−1] motion in support of Finding Counsel Are Qualified to Proceed with a Class−Action Lawsuit without prejudice allowing them to renew these motions should they be allowed to intervene ( signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson ) , copies provided to counsel. (djy) (Entered: 02/21/2003)
143 Defendants' Supplemental Proposed Plan (exhibit 1 attached); referred to Judge Thompson (ajr) (Entered: 02/24/2003)
144 ORDER denying [126−1] motion to expedite responses to written discovery; directing counsel to hold not later than 20 days from the date of this order, the required good faith conference; (signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson), copies provided to counsel. (ajr) (Entered: 02/24/2003)

Case: 2:02-cv-957 As of: 08/13/2013 11:17 AM CDT 48 of 73

02/24/2003
02/26/2003 02/28/2003 03/03/2003 03/03/2003 03/03/2003 03/03/2003 03/03/2003 03/03/2003
03/05/2003 03/06/2003 03/06/2003 03/07/2003
03/07/2003
03/07/2003
03/07/2003 03/07/2003

145 ORDER plaintiffs are to file a response to the supplemental proposed plan by 3/3/03; setting Oral Argument for supplemental proposed plan and plaintiffs' response for 10:00 3/6/03 in Courtroom 2E before Judge Myron H. Thompson (signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson), copies provided to counsel, SC, HC, YG. (ajr) (Entered: 02/24/2003)
146 ORDER granting oral motion to continue submission of proposed intervenors' complaint until 2/27/03; (signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson), copies provided to counsel. (ajr) (Entered: 02/26/2003)
Proposed Intervenor Correctional Staff's Complaint; referred to Judge Thompson (ajr) (Entered: 02/28/2003)
Court reporter's TRANSCRIPT filed for dates of 9/23/02 − 9/26/02; nonjury trial held before Judge Thompson VOLUME 1 (ajr) (Entered: 03/03/2003)
Court reporter's TRANSCRIPT filed for date of 9/24/03 − nonjury trial held before Judge Thompson − VOLUME 2 (ajr) Modified on 03/03/2003 (Entered: 03/03/2003)
Court reporter's TRANSCRIPT filed for date of 9/25/03 − nonjury trial held before Judge Thompson − VOLUME 3 (ajr) (Entered: 03/03/2003)
Court reporter's TRANSCRIPT filed for date of 9/26/03 − nonjury trial held before Judge Thompson VOLUME 4 (ajr) (Entered: 03/03/2003)
Court reporter's TRANSCRIPT filed for dates of 10/10/02 − closing arguments held before Judge Thompson (ajr) (Entered: 03/03/2003)
147 RESPONSE by Linda Laube, Theresa Barron, Barbara Bush, Lachrondria Crockett, Marjorie Ewing, Wanda Goodman, Alma Gutierrez, Lisa Hereford, La'Toya Jones, Katie Moore, Terri Newby, Barbara Pelzer, April Rice, Kelli Washington, Melinda Washington in opposition to [143−1] remark referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (ajr) (Entered: 03/04/2003)
148 MOTION by NaphCare, Inc., Francis Henderson for More Definite Statement (exhibit A attached); referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (ajr) (Entered: 03/06/2003)
ORAL ARGUMENT held before Judge Myron H. Thompson on 3/6/03 − re: defendants' proposed plan (ajr) (Entered: 03/07/2003)
149 Courtroom Deputy's MINUTES of proceedings: Oral argument held 3/6/03 before Judge Thompson − re: defendants' proposed plan (exhibit 1 attached) (ajr) (Entered: 03/07/2003)
150 ORDER [148−1] motion for More Definite Statement by Francis Henderson, NaphCare, Inc. set for submission on 3/21/03 setting Brief deadline to 3/21/03 (signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson), copies provided to counsel, SC. (ajr) (Entered: 03/07/2003)
151 MOTION by Linda Laube, Theresa Barron, Barbara Bush, Lachrondria Crockett, Marjorie Ewing, Wanda Goodman, Alma Gutierrez, Lisa Hereford, La'Toya Jones, Katie Moore, Terri Newby, Barbara Pelzer, April Rice, Kelli Washington, Melinda Washington to Compel discovery referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (ajr) (Entered: 03/10/2003)
152 MOTION by Linda Laube, Theresa Barron, Barbara Bush, Lachrondria Crockett, Marjorie Ewing, Wanda Goodman, Alma Gutierrez, Lisa Hereford, La'Toya Jones, Katie Moore, Terri Newby, Barbara Pelzer, April Rice, Kelli Washington, Melinda Washington for request for entry upon land for inspection and other purposes referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (ajr) (Entered: 03/10/2003)
153 RESPONSE by NaphCare, Inc., Francis Henderson in opposition to [151−1] motion to Compel discovery by plaintiffs (exhibit A attached); referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (ajr) (Entered: 03/10/2003)
154 MEMORANDUM OF LAW by Gladys Deese, Mary Carter, Bob Riley, Donal Campbell, Ronald Cavanaugh, Michael Haley in opposition to [131−1] motion to

Case: 2:02-cv-957 As of: 08/13/2013 11:17 AM CDT 49 of 73

03/07/2003 03/10/2003 03/10/2003 03/10/2003 03/11/2003 03/12/2003 03/12/2003 03/12/2003 03/12/2003 03/12/2003
03/12/2003
03/13/2003
03/13/2003 03/13/2003

Intervene by George Eldridge, Mary C. Smith, Glenda Lucy, Jacqueline McGhee, Barbara Walton, Priscilla Harper, Rachel Sanders, Bobbie McCoo referred Judge Myron H. Thompson (ajr) (Entered: 03/10/2003)
155 MEMORANDUM OF LAW by Gladys Deese, Mary Carter, Donal Campbell in opposition to [136−1] motion for Protective Order to Judge Myron H. Thompson (ajr) (Entered: 03/10/2003)
Tele−conference held before Judge Myron H. Thompson on 3/10/03 − re: How the Court and the parties should proceed on defendants' supplemental plan (ajr) (Entered: 03/11/2003)
156 Courtroom Deputy's MINUTES of proceedings: Telephone conference held this date − how the court and parties should proceed on defendants' supplemental plan (ajr) (Entered: 03/11/2003)
157 MOTION to Intervene by C. Brad Ward referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (ajr) (Entered: 03/11/2003)
158 MOTION to Intervene by Dwight W. Love referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (ajr) (Entered: 03/11/2003)
159 MOTION to Intervene by Douglas L. Crouch referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (ajr) (Entered: 03/12/2003)
160 MOTION by Douglas L. Crouch for Appointment of Counsel referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (ajr) (Entered: 03/12/2003)
161 MOTION by Douglas L. Crouch to Certify Class referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (ajr) (Entered: 03/12/2003)
162 MOTION by Douglas L. Crouch to Proceed in Forma Pauperis referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (ajr) (Entered: 03/12/2003)
163 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE why motions to intervene filed by C. Brad Ward on 3/10/03 and Dwight W. Love filed 3/11/03 should not be granted; Response to Order to Show Cause due on 3/26/03 for Ronald Cavanaugh, for Donal Campbell, for Bob Riley, for MHM Correctional, for Francis Henderson, for NaphCare, Inc., for Mary Carter, for Gladys Deese, for Melinda Washington, for Kelli Washington, for April Rice, for Barbara Pelzer, for Terri Newby, for Katie Moore, for La'Toya Jones, for Lisa Hereford, for Alma Gutierrez, for Wanda Goodman, for Marjorie Ewing, for Lachrondria Crockett, for Barbara Bush, for Theresa Barron, for Linda Laube ( signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson), copies provided to counsel, parties (ajr) Modified on 03/12/2003 (Entered: 03/12/2003)
164 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE why motion to intervene filed 3/12/03 by Douglas Crouch should not be granted; Response to Order to Show Cause due on 3/26/03 for Ronald Cavanaugh, for Donal Campbell, for Bob Riley, for MHM Correctional, for Francis Henderson, for NaphCare, Inc., for Mary Carter, for Gladys Deese, for Melinda Washington, for Kelli Washington, for April Rice, for Barbara Pelzer, for Terri Newby, for Katie Moore, for La'Toya Jones, for Lisa Hereford, for Alma Gutierrez, for Wanda Goodman, for Marjorie Ewing, for Lachrondria for Barbara Bush, for Theresa Barron, for Linda Laube (signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson), copies provided to counsel, parties. (ajr) (Entered: 03/12/2003)
165 ORDER granting [152−1] motion for request for entry upon land for inspection and other purposes, granting [151−1] motion to Compel discovery; that person who review medical information of any inmate pursuant to the authority granted in this order shall not disclose the information to any person except counsel for parties and their employees and then only to the extent necessary for the proper conduct of this litigation; (signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody), copies provided to counsel, parties. (ajr) (Entered: 03/13/2003)
ORAL ARGUMENT held before Mag. Judge Charles s. Coody on 3/13/03 (ajr) Modified on 04/02/2003 (Entered: 03/13/2003)
166 Courtroom Deputy's MINUTES of proceedings: Oral Argument held 3/13/03 before Mag. Judge Coody (ajr) Modified on 04/02/2003 (Entered: 03/13/2003)

Case: 2:02-cv-957 As of: 08/13/2013 11:17 AM CDT 50 of 73

03/13/2003 03/14/2003 03/14/2003 03/14/2003 03/14/2003 03/17/2003 03/17/2003
03/18/2003 03/19/2003 03/20/2003
03/20/2003
03/21/2003
03/21/2003

167 Agreement Between Counsel For Plaintiffs and Counsel For Defendants Regarding Medical Plaintiffs' Request For Entry Upon Land For Inspection and Other Purposes; (Consent Protective Order attached); referred to Judge Thompson (ajr) (Entered: 03/14/2003)
168 MOTION by MHM Correctional to Dismiss referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (ajr) (Entered: 03/17/2003)
169 MEMORANDUM by MHM Correctional in support of [168−1] motion to Dismiss by MHM Correctional referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (ajr) (Entered: 03/17/2003)
170 REPLY by George Eldridge, Mary C. Smith, Glenda Lucy, Jacqueline D. McGhee, Barbara Walton, Priscilla Harper, Rachel Sanders, Bobbie McCoo to response to [131−1] motion to Intervene by George Eldridge, Mary C. Smith, Glenda Lucy, Jacqueline McGhee, Barbara Walton, Priscilla Harper, Rachel Sanders, Bobbie McCoo referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (ajr) (Entered: 03/17/2003)
173 MOTION by MHM Correctional for Lee Calligaro to Appear Pro Hac Vice FILING FEE $20.00 RECEIPT #96506 referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (ajr) (Entered: 03/18/2003)
171 Protective ORDER (signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson), copies provided to counsel. (ajr) (Entered: 03/17/2003)
172 ORDER granting [67−1] motion for Protective Order with respect to photographs not introduced into evidence at the preliminary injunction hearing; with respect to the photographs contained in Plaintiffs' exhibits as further set out; denying [66−1] motion to Place Photographs Under Seal with respect to the photographs contained in plaintiffs' exhibit as further set out; (signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson), copies provided to counsel. (ajr) (Entered: 03/17/2003)
174 ORDER [168−1] motion to Dismiss by MHM Correctional set for submission on 3/31/03 setting Brief deadline to 3/31/03 (signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson), copies provided to counsel, SC. (ajr) (Entered: 03/18/2003)
175 ORDER granting [173−1] motion for Lee Calligaro to Appear Pro Hac Vice FILING FEE $20.00 RECEIPT #96506 (signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson), copies provided to counsel. (ajr) (Entered: 03/19/2003)
176 JOINT MOTION by Linda Laube, Theresa Barron, Barbara Bush, Lachrondria Crockett, Marjorie Ewing, Wanda Goodman, Alma Gutierrez, Lisa Hereford, La'Toya Jones, Katie Moore, Terri Newby, Barbara Pelzer, April Rice, Kelli Washington, Melinda Washington, NaphCare, Inc., Francis Henderson to Extend Time to conduct class certification discovery referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (ajr) (Entered: 03/20/2003)
177 ORDER of the United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, that this appeal may PROCEED in part and is DISMISSED is part. The appeal may proceed from the district court's December 2, 2002, opinion, "Order and Preliminary Injunction," and "Writ of Injunction." The appeal is dismissed from the December 2, 2002, order denying the appellants' motions to dismiss, since that order is neither final nor immediately appealable. Before: CARNES and WILSON, Circuit Judges (kcg) (Entered: 03/21/2003)
178 ORDER granting [176−1] joint motion to Extend Time to conduct class certification to the extent that 1. plaintiff's motion for class certification is denied with leave to refile after the completion of class−certification discovery; denying [7−1] motion for class certification setting Discovery deadline to 4/11/03 , setting Motion Filing deadline to 5/15/03 to renew class−certification motion ; (signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson), copies provided to counsel. (ajr) (Entered: 03/21/2003)
179 RESPONSE by Linda Laube, Theresa Barron, Barbara Bush, Lachrondria Crockett, Marjorie Ewing, Wanda Goodman, Alma Gutierrez, Lisa Hereford, La'Toya Jones, Katie Moore, Terri Newby, Barbara Pelzer, April Rice, Kelli Washington, Melinda Washington to [148−1] motion for More Definite Statement by Francis Henderson, NaphCare, Inc. Referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson

Case: 2:02-cv-957 As of: 08/13/2013 11:17 AM CDT 51 of 73

03/26/2003
03/26/2003
03/26/2003
03/26/2003 03/26/2003 03/26/2003 03/27/2003 03/27/2003 03/27/2003 03/27/2003 03/27/2003 03/28/2003 03/28/2003

(djy) (Entered: 03/24/2003)
180 SECOND MOTION by Linda Laube, Theresa Barron, Barbara Bush, Lachrondria Crockett, Marjorie Ewing, Wanda Goodman, Alma Gutierrez, Lisa Hereford, La'Toya Jones, Katie Moore, Terri Newby, Barbara Pelzer, April Rice, Kelli Washington, Melinda Washington for Preliminary Injunction referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson WITHDRAWN PER ORDER OF 5/30/03 (vmc) Modified on 05/30/2003 (Entered: 03/26/2003)
181 MEMORANDUM by Linda Laube, Theresa Barron, Barbara Bush, Lachrondria Crockett, Marjorie Ewing, Wanda Goodman, Alma Gutierrez, Lisa Hereford, La'Toya Jones, Katie Moore, Terri Newby, Barbara Pelzer, April Rice, Kelli Washington, Melinda Washington in support of [180−1] motion for Preliminary Injunction by plaintiffssssssssssssss referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (vmc) (Entered: 03/26/2003)
182 Submission of Cause regarding motions to intervene by C. Brad Ward, Dwight W. Love, and Douglas L. Crouch by Linda Laube, Theresa Barron, Barbara Bush, Lachrondria Crockett, Marjorie Ewing, Wanda Goodman, Alma Gutierrez, Lisa Hereford, La'Toya Jones, Katie Moore, Terri Newby, Barbara Pelzer, April Rice, Kelli Washington, Melinda Washington to [164−1], [163−1] Order to Show Cause referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (vmc) (Entered: 03/26/2003)
183 Opposition by Francis Henderson, NaphCare, Inc. to [158−1] motion to Intervene by Dwight W. Love; (w/attachments) referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (vmc) (Entered: 03/27/2003)
184 Opposition by Francis Henderson, NaphCare, Inc. to [159−1] motion to Intervene by Douglas L. Crouch; (/w/attachments) referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (vmc) (Entered: 03/27/2003)
185 Opposition by Francis Henderson, NaphCare, Inc. to [157−1] motion to Intervene by C. Brad Ward; (w/attachments) referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (vmc) (Entered: 03/27/2003)
186 ORDER denying [131−1] motion to Intervene by George Eldridge, Mary C. Smith, Glenda Lucy, Jacqueline McGhee, Barbara Walton, Priscilla Harper, Rachel Sanders, Bobbie McCoo ( signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson ) , copies provided to counsel; furn: sc. (vmc) (Entered: 03/27/2003)
187 ORDER denying [160−1] motion for Appointment of Counsel denying [161−1] motion to Certify Class denying [162−1] motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis ( signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson ) , copies provided to counsel; furn: sc. (vmc) (Entered: 03/27/2003)
188 ORDER denying [157−1] motion to Intervene by C. Brad Ward denying [158−1] motion to Intervene by Dwight W. Love denying [159−1] motion to Intervene by Douglas L. Crouch ( signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson ) , copies provided to counsel; furn: sc. (vmc) (Entered: 03/27/2003)
189 ORDER denying [136−1] motion for Protective Order ( signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson ) , copies provided to counsel; furn: sc. (vmc) (Entered: 03/27/2003)
190 Response by Bob Riley, Donal Campbell, Gladys Deese, Mary Carter, Ronald Cavanaugh to [164−1], [163−1] Order to Show Cause referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (vmc) (Entered: 03/28/2003)
191 ORDER motion hearing set for 10:00 4/17/03 before Judge Myron H. Thompson for [180−1] motion for Preliminary Injunction the dfts are tofile a written response to the motion by 4/9/03 ( signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson ) , copies provided to counsel; furn: yg hc sc . (vmc) (Entered: 03/28/2003)
192 ORDER as follows: 1) The [77−1] preliminary injunction issued on 12/2/02 has expired; 2) The court has no basis to consider the initial and supplemental plan submitted by the dfts to effect the preliminary injunction ( signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson ) , copies provided to counsel; furn: sc. (vmc) (Entered: 03/28/2003)

Case: 2:02-cv-957 As of: 08/13/2013 11:17 AM CDT 52 of 73

03/31/2003
04/01/2003
04/01/2003 04/04/2003 04/08/2003 04/08/2003 04/08/2003 04/09/2003 04/09/2003 04/10/2003 04/10/2003
04/10/2003
04/10/2003
04/11/2003

193 MOTION by Linda Laube, Theresa Barron, Barbara Bush, Lachrondria Crockett, Marjorie Ewing, Wanda Goodman, Alma Gutierrez, Lisa Hereford, La'Toya Jones, Katie Moore, Terri Newby, Barbara Pelzer, April Rice, Kelli Washington, Melinda Washington to Extend Time to respond to MHM Correctional Services, Inc.'s motion to dismiss referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (ajr) (Entered: 04/01/2003)
194 ORDER granting [193−1] motion to Extend Time to respond to MHM Correctional Services, Inc.'s motion to dismiss [168−1] motion to Dismiss by MHM Correctional reset for submission on 4/9/03 setting Brief deadline to 4/9/03 (signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson), copies provided to counsel, SC. (ajr) (Entered: 04/01/2003)
195 ORDER denying [148−1] motion for More Definite Statement ( signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson), copies provided to counsel. (ajr) (Entered: 04/01/2003)
196 MOTION by Gladys Deese, Mary Carter, Bob Riley to Clarify relief sought in [180−1] motion for Preliminary Injunction by plaintiffs referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (ajr) (Entered: 04/07/2003)
197 ORDER granting [196−1] motion to Clarify relief sought in [180−1] motion for Preliminary Injunction by plaintiffs to the extent that plaintiffs shall file a statement making the requested clarification by 4:00 pm on 4/10/03; (signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson), copies provided to counsel. (ajr) (Entered: 04/08/2003)
198 ORDER denying [100−1] motion to Dismiss, denying [100−2] motion to Stay, denying [100−3] motion to Transfer Claim against NaphCare to the Northern District of Alabama for consolidation with Spears (signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson), copies provided to counsel. (ajr) (Entered: 04/08/2003)
199 MOTION by Gladys Deese, Mary Carter, Bob Riley, Donal Campbell, Ronald Cavanaugh to Extend Time to file a response to motion for second preliminary injunction referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (ajr) (Entered: 04/09/2003)
200 ORDER denying [91−1] motion to Dismiss, denying [91−2] motion Sever Mental Health Claims (signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson), copies provided to counsel. (ajr) (Entered: 04/09/2003)
201 Response of Defendants Riley, Campbell, Deese and Carter to Plaintiffs' request for admissions; referred to Judge Coody (ajr) (Entered: 04/10/2003)
202 ORDER granting [199−1] motion to Extend Time to file a response to motion for second preliminary injunction Response to Motion reset to 4/14/03 for [180−1] motion for Preliminary Injunction (signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson ), copies provided to counsel. (ajr) (Entered: 04/10/2003)
203 RESPONSE by Linda Laube, Theresa Barron, Barbara Bush, Lachrondria Crockett, Marjorie Ewing, Wanda Goodman, Alma Gutierrez, Lisa Hereford, La'Toya Jones, Katie Moore, Terri Newby, Barbara Pelzer, April Rice, Kelli Washington, Melinda Washington to [196−1] motion to Clarify relief sought in [180−1] motion for Preliminary Injunction by plaintiffs by Bob Riley, Mary Carter, Gladys Deese referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (ajr) (Entered: 04/11/2003)
204 RESPONSE by Linda Laube, Theresa Barron, Barbara Bush, Lachrondria Crockett, Marjorie Ewing, Wanda Goodman, Alma Gutierrez, Lisa Hereford, La'Toya Jones, Katie Moore, Terri Newby, Barbara Pelzer, April Rice, Kelli Washington, Melinda Washington to [168−1] motion to Dismiss by MHM Correctional referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (ajr) (Entered: 04/11/2003)
205 MOTION by Linda Laube, Theresa Barron, Barbara Bush, Lachrondria Crockett, Marjorie Ewing, Wanda Goodman, Alma Gutierrez, Lisa Hereford, La'Toya Jones, Katie Moore, Terri Newby, Barbara Pelzer, April Rice, Kelli Washington, Melinda Washington for procurement of witnesses referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (ajr) (Entered: 04/11/2003)
206 ORDER granting [205−1] motion for procurement of witnesses; that the State of Alabama shall produce inmates Lauro Cowley, AIS #147203, Karla Dykes, AIS #193281, Donna Jones, AIS #147508, Juanita Lynch, AIS #171495, Sheila

Case: 2:02-cv-957 As of: 08/13/2013 11:17 AM CDT 53 of 73

04/14/2003 04/16/2003 04/17/2003 04/17/2003 04/21/2003 04/21/2003
04/22/2003
04/23/2003 04/24/2003 04/29/2003 04/29/2003
05/06/2003 05/15/2003
05/15/2003

Vickery, AIS #164898, Tutwiler Prison for Women, Wetumpka, AL; ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody), copies provided to counsel, Gladys Deese, Linda Miller, USM (ajr) (Entered: 04/11/2003)
207 RESPONSE by Gladys Deese, Bob Riley, Donal Campbell to [180−1] motion for Preliminary Injunction by plaintiffs referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (ajr) (Entered: 04/15/2003)
208 ORDER that the State of Alabama produce inmates Lauro Cowley AIS #147203, Donna Jones AIS #147508 and Sheila Vickery AIS #164898 from Tutwiler Prison for Women; ( signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody), copies provided to counsel, Gladys Deese, Linda Miller, USM. (ajr) (Entered: 04/16/2003)
Motion hearing held re: [180−1] motion for Preliminary Injunction by plaintiffs (ajr) (Entered: 04/18/2003)
209 Courtroom Deputy's MINUTES of proceedings: Motion Hearing held 4/17/03 before Judge Thompson − Re: 2nd Motion for Preliminary Injunction (witness and exhibit list attached; exhibits maintained in separate binder with file) (ajr) Modified on 04/18/2003 (Entered: 04/18/2003)
210 NOTICE by MHM Correctional of filing subcontract between Naphcare, Inc. and MHM in support of MHM's motion to dismiss (contract attached as exhibit 1); referred to Judge Thompson (ajr) (Entered: 04/22/2003)
214 Entry of Dismissal of Appeal is issued as the mandate Re: pursuant to dismissing [88−1] appeal , terminated, pursuant to the appellants' motion for voluntary dismissal, Fed.R.App.P. 42 and 11th Cir.R. 42−1(a), the above−referenced appeal was duly entered dismissed this 16th day of April, 2003. (ydw) (Entered: 04/28/2003)
211 MOTION by Linda Laube, Theresa Barron, Barbara Bush, Lachrondria Crockett, Marjorie Ewing, Wanda Goodman, Alma Gutierrez, Lisa Hereford, La'Toya Jones, Katie Moore, Terri Newby, Barbara Pelzer, April Rice, Kelli Washington, Melinda Washington for Leave to File post−hearing brief referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (ajr) (Entered: 04/23/2003)
212 ORDER granting [211−1] motion for Leave to File post−hearing brief to the effect that plaintiffs are allowed until 4/29/03 to submit a supplemental brief and defendants are allowed until 5/6/03 to respond; (signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson), copies provided to counsel. (ajr) (Entered: 04/23/2003)
213 REPLY by MHM Correctional to response to [168−1] motion to Dismiss by MHM Correctional referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (ajr) (Entered: 04/25/2003)
215 ORDER denying [168−1] motion to Dismiss (signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson), copies provided to counsel. (ajr) (Entered: 04/29/2003)
216 Post−Hearing BRIEF by Linda Laube, Theresa Barron, Barbara Bush, Lachrondria Crockett, Marjorie Ewing, Wanda Goodman, Alma Gutierrez, Lisa Hereford, La'Toya Jones, Katie Moore, Terri Newby, Barbara Pelzer, April Rice, Kelli Washington, Washington; referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (ajr) (Entered: 04/30/2003)
217 RESPONSE by Bob Riley, Donal Campbell, Gladys Deese in to [216−1] post hearing brief for a second preliminary injunction by plaintiffs. Referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (djy) (Entered: 05/07/2003)
218 Renewed MOTION by Linda Laube, Theresa Barron, Barbara Bush, Lachrondria Crockett, Marjorie Ewing, Wanda Goodman, Alma Gutierrez, Lisa Hereford, La'Toya Jones, Katie Moore, Terri Newby, Barbara Pelzer, April Rice, Kelli Washington, Melinda Washington to Certify Class referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (ajr) (Entered: 05/16/2003)
219 MEMORANDUM by Linda Laube, Theresa Barron, Barbara Bush, Lachrondria Crockett, Marjorie Ewing, Wanda Goodman, Alma Gutierrez, Lisa Hereford, La'Toya Jones, Katie Moore, Terri Newby, Barbara Pelzer, April Rice, Kelli Washington, Melinda Washington in support of [218−1] renewed motion to Certify

Case: 2:02-cv-957 As of: 08/13/2013 11:17 AM CDT 54 of 73

05/20/2003 05/22/2003 05/22/2003
05/28/2003 05/30/2003 05/30/2003 06/02/2003
06/03/2003 06/05/2003 06/06/2003 06/06/2003
06/10/2003

Class by plaintiffs referred to Judge Myron H. (ajr) (Entered: 05/16/2003)
220 MOTION by Linda Laube, Theresa Barron, Barbara Bush, Lachrondria Crockett, Marjorie Ewing, Wanda Goodman, Alma Gutierrez, Lisa Hereford, La'Toya Jones, Katie Moore, Terri Newby, Barbara Pelzer, April Rice, Kelli Washington, Melinda Washington to Withdraw [180−1] motion for Preliminary Injunction by plaintiffs referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (ajr) (Entered: 05/21/2003)
221 ORDER directing defendants to Show Cause in writing by 05/28/03 why [220−1] motion to Withdraw [180−1] motion for Preliminary Injunction by plaintiffs should not be granted ( signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson ) , copies provided to counsel. (mfm) (Entered: 05/22/2003)
222 CLASS CERTIFICATION SHCEDULING ORDER setting [218−1] renewed motion to Certify Class by plaintiffs for submission on 7/7/03; directing parties by 06/06/03 are jointly to develop and submit to court a record of evidence that intend the court to rely upon; setting Brief deadline to 6/20/03 for plaintiffs ; setting Brief deadline to 7/7/03 for defendants ( signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson ) , copies provided to counsel. (mfm) (Entered: 05/22/2003)
223 RESPONSE by Gladys Deese, Donal Campbell to [220−1] motion to Withdraw [180−1] motion for Preliminary Injunction by plaintiffs referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (ajr) (Entered: 05/29/2003)
224 ORDER granting [220−1] motion to Withdraw [180−1] motion for Preliminary Injunction by plaintiffs (signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson), copies provided to counsel. (ajr) (Entered: 05/30/2003)
225 MOTION by Linda Laube, Theresa Barron, Barbara Bush, Lachrondria Crockett, Marjorie Ewing, Wanda Goodman, Alma Gutierrez, Lisa Hereford, La'Toya Jones, Katie Moore, Terri Newby, Barbara Pelzer, April Rice, Kelli Washington, Melinda Washington to Extend deadline for submission of expert reports referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (ajr) (Entered: 06/02/2003)
226 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE why motion to extend deadline for submission of expert reports should not be granted; Response to Order to Show Cause due on 6/9/03 for Ronald Cavanaugh, for Donal Campbell, for Bob Riley, for MHM Correctional, for Francis Henderson, for NaphCare, Inc., for Mary Carter, for Patricia Hood, for Gladys Deese ( signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson), copies provided to counsel. (ajr) (Entered: 06/02/2003)
227 MOTION by NaphCare, Inc. to Stay all proceedings against NaphCare referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (ajr) (Entered: 06/04/2003)
228 ORDER [227−1] motion to Stay all proceedings against NaphCare by NaphCare, Inc. set for submission on 6/12/03 setting Brief deadline to 6/12/03 (signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson), copies provided to counsel, SC. (ajr) (Entered: 06/05/2003)
229 Plaintiffs and State Defendants' Joint Record of Evidence Regarding Class Certification/RESPONSE to [222−3] order referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (vmc) (Entered: 06/09/2003)
230 JOINT MOTION by Linda Laube, Theresa Barron, Barbara Bush, Lachrondria Crockett, Marjorie Ewing, Wanda Goodman, Alma Gutierrez, Lisa Hereford, La'Toya Jones, Katie Moore, Terri Newby, Barbara Pelzer, April Rice, Kelli Washington, Melinda Washington, Gladys Deese, Mary Carter, NaphCare, Inc., Francis Henderson, MHM Correctional, Bob Riley, Donal Campbell for Stipulated Postponements ; (w/proposed order attached) referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (vmc) (Entered: 06/09/2003)
231 ORDER directing that all current deadlines in the case as to the non−government defendants, all proceedings and deadlines relating to class certification, and the the for submission of plaintiffs' expert report, hereby are posponed, sine die, subject to further stipulation of the parties and/or order of the court, as further set out in order ( signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson ) , copies provided to counsel. (djy) (Entered: 06/10/2003)

Case: 2:02-cv-957 As of: 08/13/2013 11:17 AM CDT 55 of 73

06/12/2003
06/13/2003 06/16/2003 06/16/2003 06/16/2003 06/16/2003 06/16/2003 06/16/2003
06/16/2003
06/17/2003 06/18/2003 06/20/2003 06/24/2003
06/24/2003

232 RESPONSE by Linda Laube, Theresa Barron, Barbara Bush, Lachrondria Crockett, Marjorie Ewing, Wanda Goodman, Alma Gutierrez, Lisa Hereford, La'Toya Jones, Katie Moore, Terri Newby, Barbara Pelzer, April Rice, Kelli Washington, Melinda Washington to [227−1] motion to Stay all proceedings against NaphCare by NaphCare, Inc. referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (ajr) (Entered: 06/13/2003)
Court reporter's TRANSCRIPT filed for dates of 4/17/03 for Plaintiff's 2nd Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ajr) (Entered: 06/16/2003)
233 ORDER granting [225−1] motion to Extend deadline for submission of expert reports granting [227−1] motion to all proceedings against NaphCare as further set out; ( signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson), copies provided to counsel. (ajr) (Entered: 06/16/2003)
234 MOTION to Intervene by Asume Biambe Ausir Imhotep referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (ajr) (Entered: 06/17/2003)
235 OBJECTION by Asume Biambe Ausir Imhotep to proposed plan referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (ajr) (Entered: 06/17/2003)
Tele−conference held before Judge Myron H. Thompson on 6/16/03 − Motion to Certify Class, Motion to Extend Deadline for Submission of Experts Reports and NaphCare's Motion to Stay (ajr) (Entered: 06/17/2003)
236 Courtroom Deputy's MINUTES of proceedings: − Telephone Conference held 6/16/03 before Judge Thompson (ajr) (Entered: 06/17/2003)
237 MOTION by Linda Laube, Theresa Barron, Barbara Bush, Lachrondria Crockett, Marjorie Ewing, Wanda Goodman, Alma Gutierrez, Lisa Hereford, La'Toya Jones, Katie Moore, Terri Newby, Barbara Pelzer, April Rice, Kelli Washington, Melinda Washington to Compel discovery referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (ajr) (Entered: 06/17/2003)
238 MEMORANDUM by Linda Laube, Theresa Barron, Barbara Bush, Lachrondria Crockett, Marjorie Ewing, Wanda Goodman, Alma Gutierrez, Lisa Hereford, La'Toya Jones, Katie Moore, Terri Newby, Barbara Pelzer, April Rice, Kelli Washington, Melinda Washington in support of [237−1] motion to Compel discovery by plaintiffssssssssssssss referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (ajr) (Entered: 06/17/2003)
239 ORDER denying [234−1] motion to Intervene by Asume Biambe Ausir Imhotep; overruling [235−1] objection by Asume Biambe Ausir Imhotep; (signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson), copies provided to counsel, Asume Imhotep. (ajr) (Entered: 06/17/2003)
240 ORDER denying [237−1] motion to Compel discovery; directing counsel to hold required good faith conference within 20 days; (signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody), copies provided to counsel. (ajr) (Entered: 06/18/2003)
Copy of order of 6/17/03 mailed to plaintiff, returned with notation − not here (ajr) (Entered: 06/23/2003)
241 RENEWED MOTION by Linda Laube, Theresa Barron, Barbara Bush, Lachrondria Crockett, Marjorie Ewing, Wanda Goodman, Alma Gutierrez, Lisa Hereford, La'Toya Jones, Katie Moore, Terri Newby, Barbara Pelzer, April Rice, Kelli Washington, Melinda Washington to Compel discovery (certification of good faith attached) referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (djy) (Entered: 06/24/2003)
242 MEMORANDUM by Linda Laube, Theresa Barron, Barbara Bush, Lachrondria Crockett, Marjorie Ewing, Wanda Goodman, Alma Gutierrez, Lisa Hereford, La'Toya Jones, Katie Moore, Terri Newby, Barbara Pelzer, April Rice, Kelli Washington, Melinda Washington in support of [241−1] renewed motion to Compel discovery by plaintiffs. Referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (djy) (Entered: 06/24/2003)

Case: 2:02-cv-957 As of: 08/13/2013 11:17 AM CDT 56 of 73

06/30/2003 06/30/2003 07/07/2003
07/08/2003 07/18/2003 07/18/2003 07/22/2003 07/22/2003 07/23/2003 07/23/2003
07/29/2003 08/05/2003
08/14/2003
08/26/2003 09/02/2003

243 MOTION to Intervene by Johnny Davis Jr. referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (ajr) (Entered: 07/01/2003)
244 OBJECTION by Johnny Davis Jr. to being sent outer state to another prison referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (ajr) (Entered: 07/01/2003)
245 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE why motion to compel Response should not be granted to Order to Show Cause due on 7/18/03 for Ronald Cavanaugh, for Donal Campbell, for Bob Riley, for MHM Correctional, for Francis Henderson, for NaphCare, Inc., for Mary Carter, for Gladys Deese, for Melinda Washington, for Kelli Washington, for April Rice, for Barbara Pelzer (signed by Mag. Judge Charles S.), copies provided to counsel. (ajr) (Entered: 07/07/2003)
246 ORDER denying [243−1] motion to Intervene by Johnny Davis Jr. overruling [244−1] objection (signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson), copies provided to counsel. (ajr) (Entered: 07/08/2003)
247 NOTICE to the Court by Gladys Deese, Patricia Hood, Mary Carter (ajr) (Entered: 07/21/2003)
248 Response by Gladys Deese, Mary Carter, Bob Riley, Donal Campbell, Ronald Cavanaugh to [245−1] Order to Show Cause referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (ajr) (Entered: 07/21/2003)
Tele−conference held before Judge Myron H. Thompson on 7/22/03 (ajr) (Entered: 07/23/2003)
249 Courtroom Deputy's MINUTES of proceedings: Telephone conference held before Judge Thompson (ajr) (Entered: 07/23/2003)
250 ORDER [218−1] motion to Certify Class by plaintiffs reset for submission on 7/29/03 (signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson), copies provided to counsel, SC. (ajr) (Entered: 07/23/2003)
251 ORDER amending 1/15/03 Scheduling Order: resetting Scheduling Order Deadlines: Pretrial Conference for 4/22/04 before Judge Myron H. Thompson ; Non−jury trial set for 6/7/04 before Judge Myron H. Thompson ; amending section 8 to reflect that plaintiffs shall disclose their expert witnesses by 3/7/03 and defendants by 4/7/03 with parties having leave to supplement expert reports as soon as additional information is available; canceling the 8/21/03 status conference; (signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson), provided to counsel, SC, WAR, YG, HC. (ajr) (Entered: 07/23/2003)
252 RESPONSE by MHM Correctional in opposition to [218−1] motion to Certify Class by plaintiffs referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (ajr) (Entered: 07/30/2003)
253 NOTICE that plfs' motion for class certification is ready for submission to the court by Linda Laube, Theresa Barron, Barbara Bush, Lachrondria Crockett, Marjorie Ewing, Wanda Goodman, Alma Gutierrez, Lisa Hereford, La'Toya Jones, Katie Moore, Terri Newby, Barbara Pelzer, April Rice, Kelli Washington, Melinda Washington. Referred to Judge Thompson. (djy) (Entered: 08/06/2003)
254 ORDER setting Settlement Conference for 10:00 9/17/03 ; that attorneys who will try this case shall appear as further set out; on or before 9/11/03 parties shall deliver directly to the judge a Confidential Settlement Conference Statement as further set out; setting Telephone Conference for 10:00 9/15/03 before Mag Judge Vanzetta P. McPherson ( signed by Mag Judge P. McPherson), copies provided to counsel, DK, HC, YG. (ajr) (Entered: 08/14/2003)
255 ORDER motion hearing/oral argument set for 10:00 9/23/03 before Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody in courtroom 4B for [241−1] motion to Compel discovery (signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody), copies provided to counsel, WS, HC, YG. (ajr) (Entered: 08/26/2003)
256 MOTION by NaphCare, Inc., Francis Henderson for permission to be excused from settlement mediation referred to Mag Judge Vanzetta P. McPherson (ajr) (Entered: 09/03/2003)

Case: 2:02-cv-957 As of: 08/13/2013 11:17 AM CDT 57 of 73

09/05/2003
09/08/2003 09/11/2003 09/15/2003 09/23/2003 09/23/2003 09/23/2003 09/23/2003
09/29/2003 10/01/2003 10/23/2003
11/07/2003 11/11/2003
11/13/2003
11/18/2003 11/19/2003

257 RESPONSE by Linda Laube, Theresa Barron, Barbara Bush, Lachrondria Crockett, Marjorie Ewing, Wanda Goodman, Alma Gutierrez, Lisa Hereford, La'Toya Jones, Katie Moore, Terri Newby, Barbara Pelzer, April Rice, Kelli Washington, Melinda Washington to [256−1] motion for permission to be excused from settlement mediation by Francis Henderson, NaphCare, Inc. referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (ajr) (Entered: 09/08/2003)
258 MOTION by Michael Haley, Gladys Deese, Mary Carter, Donal Campbell, Ronald Cavanaugh to withdraw from mediation referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (ajr) (Entered: 09/09/2003)
259 ORDER granting [256−1] motion for permission to be excused from settlement mediation (signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson), copies provided to counsel. (ajr) (Entered: 09/11/2003)
260 ORDER granting [258−1] motion to withdraw from mediation ( signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson), copies provided to counsel. (ajr) (Entered: 09/15/2003)
Motion hearing held re: [241−1] motion to Compel discovery by plaintiffs (ajr) (Entered: 09/24/2003)
261 Courtroom Deputy's MINUTES of proceedings: 9/23/03 hearing on 6/24/03 motion to compel held before Mag. Judge Coody (ajr) (Entered: 09/24/2003)
262 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance for Gladys Deese, Mary Carter, Bob Riley, Donal Campbell by Alice Miller Maples (ajr) (Entered: 09/24/2003)
263 NOTICE of Filing of Expert Report of Time Roche by Linda Laube, Theresa Barron, Barbara Bush, Lachrondria Crockett, Marjorie Ewing, Wanda Goodman, Alma Gutierrez, Lisa Hereford, La'Toya Jones, Katie Moore, Terri Newby, Barbara Pelzer, April Rice, Kelli Washington, Washington (report attached); referred to Judge Thompson (ajr) (Entered: 09/24/2003)
264 STIPULATION of dismissal of defendant MHM Correctional Services; referred to Judge Thompson (ajr) (Entered: 09/30/2003)
265 ORDER dismissing this case solely as to defendant MHM Correctional Services without prejudice and without costs; (signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson), copies provided to counsel. (ajr) (Entered: 10/01/2003)
266 MOTION by Linda Laube, Theresa Barron, Barbara Bush, Lachrondria Crockett, Marjorie Ewing, Wanda Goodman, Alma Gutierrez, Lisa Hereford, La'Toya Jones, Katie Moore, Terri Newby, Barbara Pelzer, April Rice, Kelli Washington, Melinda Washington to Compel discovery (attachments); referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (ajr) (Entered: 10/24/2003)
269 MOTION by Joan Connie Block for diabetic memu at Julia Tutwiler Prison referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (ajr) (Entered: 11/17/2003)
267 MOTION by Linda Laube, Theresa Barron, Barbara Bush, Lachrondria Crockett, Marjorie Ewing, Wanda Goodman, Alma Gutierrez, Lisa Hereford, La'Toya Jones, Katie Moore, Terri Newby, Barbara Pelzer, April Rice, Kelli Washington, Melinda Washington for expedited Hearing on motion to compel referred to Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (ajr) (Entered: 11/12/2003)
268 ORDER motion hearing (oral argument) set for 9:00 11/18/03 before Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody for [267−1] motion for expedited Hearing on motion to compel, motion hearing (oral argument) set for 9:00 11/18/03 before Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody Courtroom 4B for [266−1] motion to Compel discovery (signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody), copies provided to counsel, WS, HC, YG. (ajr) (Entered: 11/13/2003)
271 Courtroom Deputy's MINUTES of proceedings: Oral Argument/Motion Hearing For Expedited Hrg. on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (attachments) (ajr) (Entered: 11/20/2003)
270 ORDER dismissing [269−1] motion for diabetic memu at Julia Tutwiler Prison filed by Joan Constance Block 1. Block is not a plaintiff in this litigation 2. Block's claim is premature at best; 3. the issue of diabetic menus is already being address;

Case: 2:02-cv-957 As of: 08/13/2013 11:17 AM CDT 58 of 73

11/19/2003 11/20/2003
11/20/2003 12/12/2003
12/16/2003 01/06/2004 01/16/2004 01/21/2004 01/28/2004 02/02/2004 02/02/2004 02/02/2004 02/05/2004 02/05/2004 02/09/2004

(signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson) , copies provided to counsel, parties. (ajr) (Entered: 11/19/2003)
Oral Arguments/Motion hearing held re: [267−1] motion for expedited Hearing on motion to compel by plaintiffs (ajr) (Entered: 11/20/2003)
272 ORDER granting in part, denying in part [266−1] motion to Compel discovery; denied with respect to request for production of documents #1; granted with respect to request for production #2; granted as to request for production #3; granted as to production #6; denyed as moot with request to production #'s 4,5,7,8 and 9; denying as moot [267−1] motion for expedited Hearing on motion to compel ( signed by Judge Charles S. Coody, copies provided to counsel. (ajr) Modified on 11/20/2003 (Entered: 11/20/2003)
273 ORDER denying [241−1] motion to Compel discovery (signed by Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody), copies provided to counsel . (ajr) (Entered: 11/20/2003)
274 JOINT MOTION by Linda Laube, Theresa Barron, Barbara Bush, Lachrondria Crockett, Marjorie Ewing, Wanda Goodman, Alma Gutierrez, Lisa Hereford, La'Toya Jones, Katie Moore, Terri Newby, Barbara Pelzer, April Rice, Kelli Washington, Melinda Washington, NaphCare, Inc., Francis Henderson to Dismiss all claims against defendants Naphcare and Frances Henderson, M.D. referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (ajr) (Entered: 12/15/2003)
275 ORDER granting [274−1] joint motion to Dismiss all claims against defendants Naphcare and Frances Henderson, M.D.; dismissing without prejudice all claims against defendants NaphCare, Inc. and Francis Henderson (signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson), copies provided to counsel. (ajr) (Entered: 12/16/2003)
276 ORDER resetting Scheduling Order Deadlines: Non−jury trial set for 6/14/04 before Judge Myron H. Thompson (signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson), copies provided to counsel, SC, HC, YG. (ajr) (Entered: 01/06/2004)
277 MOTION by Gladys Deese, Mary Carter, Bob Riley, Donal Campbell, Ronald Cavanaugh to Extend Time to file dispositive motion and brief in support referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (ajr) (Entered: 01/20/2004)
278 ORDER granting [277−1] motion to Extend Time to file dispositive motion and brief in support resetting Motion Filing deadline to 2/2/04 (signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson), copies provided to counsel. (ajr) (Entered: 01/21/2004)
279 ORDER setting Mediation Status Conference for 9:00 2/6/04 by telephone before Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody (signed by Mag. Judge S. Coody), copies provided to counsel, WS, HC, YG. (ajr) (Entered: 01/28/2004)
280 MOTION by Gladys Deese, Mary Carter, Bob Riley, Donal Campbell, Ronald Cavanaugh for Summary Judgment (exhibits a−4 attached); referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (ajr) (Entered: 02/03/2004)
281 BRIEF by Gladys Deese, Mary Carter, Bob Riley, Donal Campbell, Ronald Cavanaugh in support of [280−1] motion for Summary Judgment referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (ajr) (Entered: 02/03/2004)
282 MOTION by Gladys Deese, Mary Carter, Bob Riley, Donal Campbell, Ronald Cavanaugh, George Eldridge to place exhibit 1−A under Seal (attached); referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (ajr) (Entered: 02/03/2004)
283 ORDER [280−1] motion for Summary Judgment by defendants set for submission on 2/20/04 setting Brief deadline to 2/20/04 (signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson), copies provided to counsel, SC. (ajr) (Entered: 02/05/2004)
284 ORDER granting [282−1] motion to place exhibit 1−A under Seal (signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson), copies provided to counsel. (ajr) (Entered: 02/05/2004)
285 JOINT MOTION by Linda Laube, Theresa Barron, Barbara Bush, Lachrondria Crockett, Marjorie Ewing, Wanda Goodman, Alma Gutierrez, Lisa Hereford, La'Toya Jones, Katie Moore, Terri Newby, Barbara Pelzer, April Rice, Kelli Washington, Melinda Washington, Gladys Deese, Mary Carter, Bob Riley, Donal

Case: 2:02-cv-957 As of: 08/13/2013 11:17 AM CDT 59 of 73

02/18/2004 02/20/2004
02/27/2004 02/27/2004 03/05/2004
03/09/2004
03/17/2004 03/18/2004 03/29/2004
03/31/2004 04/01/2004 04/01/2004 04/01/2004 04/06/2004

Campbell, Ronald Cavanaugh for postponement of expert reports referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (ajr) (Entered: 02/10/2004)
286 ORDER granting [285−1] joint motion for postponement of expert reports to the extent requested ( signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson ) , copies provided to counsel. (mfm) (Entered: 02/18/2004)
287 RESPONSE by Linda Laube, Theresa Barron, Barbara Bush, Lachrondria Crockett, Marjorie Ewing, Wanda Goodman, Alma Gutierrez, Lisa Hereford, La'Toya Jones, Katie Moore, Terri Newby, Barbara Pelzer, April Rice, Kelli Washington, Melinda Washington to [280−1] motion for Summary Judgment by defendants; (w/attachments) referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (vmc) (Entered: 02/23/2004)
Tele−conference held before Judge Myron H. Thompson on 2/27/04 (vmc) (Entered: 03/02/2004)
288 Courtroom Deputy's MINUTES of proceedings: (Court Reporter − Mitchell Reisner) Telephone conf. held before the Hon. Myron H. Thompson on 2/27/04 (vmc) (Entered: 03/02/2004)
289 ORDER set Mediation Conference for 10:00 4/21/04 in Courtroom 4B, USC, Montgomery, AL before Mag. Judge Charles S. Coody ; ORDERED that on or before the close of business on 04/16/04, each party shall provide the undersigned judge with a confidential mediation conference statement; the statement should NOT be filed with the clerk's office and should not be served on the other parties; the parties may transmit the statement to chambers by facsimile ( signed by Mag. Judge S. Coody ); copies provided to counsel; furnished to YG, HC, WS (dmn) (Entered: 03/05/2004)
290 ORDER resetting Scheduling Order Deadlines: Pretrial Conference for 9:00 8/6/04 before Judge Myron H. Thompson ; Proposed Pretrial Order due 8/3/04; Non−jury trial set for 9:00 9/13/04 before Judge Myron H. Thompson (signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson), copies provided to counsel, SC, HC, YG. (ajr) (Entered: 03/09/2004)
Court reporter's TRANSCRIPT filed for dates of 11/18/03 for Motion to Compel held before Mag. Judge Coody (ajr) (Entered: 03/18/2004)
291 Joint Submission of Parties Concerning New Pretrial and Discovery Deadlines; referred to Judge Thompson (ajr) (Entered: 03/19/2004)
292 JOINT MOTION by Linda Laube, Theresa Barron, Barbara Bush, Lachrondria Crockett, Marjorie Ewing, Wanda Goodman, Alma Gutierrez, Lisa Hereford, La'Toya Jones, Katie Moore, Terri Newby, Barbara Pelzer, April Rice, Kelli Washington, Melinda Washington, Michael Haley, Gladys Deese, Patricia Hood, Mary Carter, NaphCare, Inc., Francis Henderson, Don Siegelman, NaphCare, Inc., Francis Henderson, MHM Correctional, Bob Riley, Donal Campbell, Ronald Cavanaugh, George Eldridge, Mary C. Smith, Glenda Lucy, Jacqueline D. McGhee, Barbara Walton, Priscilla Harper, Rachel Sanders, Bobbie McCoo, C. Brad Ward, Dwight W. Love, Douglas L. Crouch, Asume Biambe Ausir Imhotep, Johnny Davis Jr., Joan Connie Block for Protective Order referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (ajr) (Entered: 03/30/2004)
293 Protective ORDER (signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson), copies provided to counsel. (ajr) (Entered: 03/31/2004)
294 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance for Bob Riley by Kenneth D. Wallis II (ajr) (Entered: 04/02/2004)
295 MOTION by Bob Riley for William Dill to Withdraw as Attorney referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (ajr) (Entered: 04/02/2004)
296 MOTION by Bob Riley for Troy King to Withdraw as Attorney referred to Judge Myron H. Thompson (ajr) (Entered: 04/02/2004)
297 ORDER granting 296 Motion for Troy King to Withdraw as Attorney for Bob Riley . Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 04/05/04. (ajr, ) Additional

Case: 2:02-cv-957 As of: 08/13/2013 11:17 AM CDT 60 of 73

04/06/2004 04/06/2004 04/06/2004 04/06/2004 04/09/2004
04/09/2004
04/09/2004 04/09/2004
04/09/2004
04/13/2004
04/13/2004 04/13/2004 04/14/2004 04/22/2004 04/23/2004 06/16/2004

attachment(s) added on 4/6/2004 (ajr, ). (Entered: 04/06/2004)
*** Attorney Troy R. King terminated per order of 4/5/04 doc. #297 (ajr, ) (Entered: 04/06/2004)
298 NOTICE of Correction re 297 Order on Motion to Withdraw as Attorney to attach correct document to docket entry due to docketing error. (ajr, ) (Entered: 04/06/2004)
299 ORDER granting 295 Motion for William Dill to Withdraw as Attorney . Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 04/05/04. (ajr, ) (Entered: 04/06/2004)
*** Attorney William D. Dill terminated per order of 4/6/04. (ajr, ) (Entered: 04/19/2004)
300 MOTION for Order to Show Cause by Theresa Barron, Barbara Bush, Lachrondria Crockett, Marjorie Ewing, Wanda Goodman, Alma Gutierrez, Lisa Hereford, La'Toya Jones, Linda Laube, Katie Moore, Terri Newby, Barbara Pelzer, April Rice, Kelli Washington, Melinda Washington why defendants should not be held in contempt. (ajr, ) (Entered: 04/12/2004)
BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support (contained within pleading 300) re 300 MOTION for Order to Show Cause filed by Theresa Barron, Barbara Bush, Lachrondria Crockett, Marjorie Ewing, Wanda Goodman, Alma Gutierrez, Lisa Hereford, La'Toya Jones, Linda Laube, Katie Moore, Terri Newby, Barbara Pelzer, April Rice, Kelli Washington, Melinda Washington (contained within Motion for Order to Show Cause filed this date). (ajr, ) Modified on 4/14/2004 (djy, ). (Entered: 04/12/2004)
301 NOTICE of Appearance by Gretchen N. Rohr on behalf of all plaintiffs (ajr, ) (Entered: 04/12/2004)
302 Motion for Gretchen Rohr to Appear Pro Hac Vice ( Filing fee $ 20.00 receipt number 101774.) by Theresa Barron, Barbara Bush, Lachrondria Crockett, Marjorie Ewing, Wanda Goodman, Alma Gutierrez, Lisa Hereford, La'Toya Jones, Linda Laube, Katie Moore, Terri Newby, Barbara Pelzer, April Rice, Kelli Washington, Melinda Washington. (ajr, ) (Entered: 04/12/2004)
305 Motion for George E.Schultz to Appear Pro Hac Vice ( Filing fee $ 20.00 receipt number 101807.) by Theresa Barron, Barbara Bush, Lachrondria Crockett, Marjorie Ewing, Wanda Goodman, Alma Gutierrez, Lisa Hereford, La'Toya Jones, Linda Laube, Katie Moore, Terri Newby, Barbara Pelzer, April Rice, Kelli Washington, Melinda Washington. (ajr, ) (Entered: 04/14/2004)
303 ORDER directing parties to show cause why the 300 MOTION for Order to Show Cause Show Cause should not be granted; Response due by 4/23/2004. Oral Argument set for 4/29/2004 10:00 AM in Courtroom 4B before Honorable Charles S. Coody.. Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 4/13/04. (ajr, ) (Entered: 04/13/2004)
304 ORDER granting 302 Motion for Gretchen Rohr Appear Pro Hac Vice . Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 4/13/04. (ajr, ) (Entered: 04/13/2004)
307 NOTICE of Appearance by George E. Schulz on behalf of all plaintiffs (ajr, ) (Entered: 04/15/2004)
306 ORDER granting 305 Motion for George E. Schulz to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 4/14/04. (ajr, ) (Entered: 04/14/2004)
308 ORDER continuing oral argument set for 4/29/04; Mediation Conference set for 4/29/2004 10:00 AM in Courtroom 4A before Honorable Charles S. Coody. Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 4/22/04. (ajr, ) (Entered: 04/22/2004)
309 RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Donal Campbell, Mary Carter, Ronald Cavanaugh, Gladys Deese, Bob Riley. (ajr, ) (Entered: 04/26/2004)
310 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Experts' Reports and Request for a Rule 16 Pretrial Conference and Memorandum at Law in Support Thereof by Linda Laube. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 of 3# 2 # 3 Exhibit 2 of 3# 4 Exhibit 3 of 3)(Schulz,

Case: 2:02-cv-957 As of: 08/13/2013 11:17 AM CDT 61 of 73

06/21/2004 06/24/2004 06/25/2004
06/25/2004 06/28/2004 06/29/2004 06/30/2004 06/30/2004
06/30/2004 07/01/2004
07/01/2004

George) (Entered: 06/16/2004)
311 ORDER granting 310 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Experts' Reports and Request for a Rule 16 Pretrial Conference and Memorandum of Law in Support Thereof filed by Linda Laube Telephone Conference set for 6/24/2004 09:00 AM before Honorable Myron H. Thompson. Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 6/21/04. (ajr, ) (Entered: 06/21/2004)
312 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Myron H. Thompson : Telephone Conference held on 6/24/2004 regarding settlement (Court Reporter Mitchell Reisner.) (ajr, ) (Entered: 06/24/2004)
313 MOTION to adopt conditions settlement agreement and medical settlement agreement by Theresa Barron, Barbara Bush, Donal Campbell, Mary Carter, Lachrondria Crockett, Gladys Deese, Marjorie Ewing, Wanda Goodman, Alma Gutierrez, Lisa Hereford, La'Toya Jones, Linda Laube, Katie Moore, Terri Newby, Barbara Pelzer, April Rice, Bob Riley, Kelli Washington, Melinda Washington. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed conditions settlement agreement; # 2 proposed medical settlement agreement; # 3 proposed order)(djy, ) (Entered: 06/28/2004)
314 JOINT MOTION for Status Conference by Theresa Barron, Barbara Bush, Donal Campbell, Mary Carter, Lachrondria Crockett, Gladys Deese, Marjorie Ewing, Wanda Goodman, Alma Gutierrez, Lisa Hereford, La'Toya Jones, Linda Laube, Katie Moore, Terri Newby, Barbara Pelzer, April Rice, Bob Riley, Kelli Washington, Melinda Washington. (djy, ) (Entered: 06/28/2004)
316 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Myron H. Thompson : Telephone Conference held on 6/28/2004 (Court Reporter Mitchell Reisner.) (ajr, ) (Entered: 06/30/2004)
315 ORDER granting 314 Motion for Hearing to the extent that the clerk of court is to arrange for a status conference to be conducted by telephone as soon as possible. Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 6/29/04. (ajr, ) (Entered: 06/29/2004)
317 ORDER finding as moot 280 Motion for Summary Judgment . Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 6/30/04. (ajr, ) (Entered: 06/30/2004)
318 Joint MOTION to provide notice of class action settlement re 313 MOTION to adopt conditions settlement agreement and medical settlement agreement by Donal Campbell, Mary Carter, Ronald Cavanaugh, Gladys Deese, Bob Riley. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order granting joint motion# 2 Proposed Text of Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement# 3 Proposed Text of Comment Form Regarding Proposed Settlement of Class Action)(Campbell, Charles) (Entered: 06/30/2004)
319 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support re 318 Joint MOTION to provide notice of class action settlement re 313 MOTION to adopt conditions settlement agreement and medical settlement agreement filed by Donal Campbell, Mary Carter, Ronald Cavanaugh, Gladys Deese, Bob Riley. (Campbell, Charles) (Entered: 06/30/2004)
320 ORDER granting 218 Motion to Certify Class to the extent that the class of all women who are now or will in the future be incarcerated in an Alabama Department of Corrections facility is certified, with the class represented by plaintiffs as further set out in order; that if the settlement agreements between the parties in this matter are not finally approved, the court will de−certify the class with leave to the plaintiffs to renew their motion for class certification. Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 7/1/04. (ajr, ) (Entered: 07/01/2004)
321 ORDER 1: re 313 MOTION to adopt conditions settlement agreement and medical settlement agreement filed by Mary Carter, Gladys Deese, Linda Laube, Theresa Barron, Barbara Bush, Lachrondria Crockett, Marjorie Ewing, Wanda Goodman, Alma Gutierrez, Lisa Hereford, La'Toya Jones, Katie Moore, Terri Newby, Barbara Pelzer, April Rice, Kelli Washington, Melinda Washington, Bob Riley, Donal Campbell set for fairness hearing at Tutwiler Prison for Women in Wetumpka, AL; Hearing set for 7/21/2004 09:00 AM before Honorable Myron H. Thompson' 2: granting parties' joint motion to provide notice of class action settlement 3: that defendants shall provide notice of the hearing to members of the class as further set

Case: 2:02-cv-957 As of: 08/13/2013 11:17 AM CDT 62 of 73

07/01/2004
07/01/2004 07/02/2004 07/03/2004 07/06/2004 07/09/2004 07/13/2004
07/16/2004 07/20/2004
07/20/2004

out 4: that any member of the class who objects to the settlement shall make such objection in writing by completing the attached comment form as further set out; 5: defendants shall place drop boxes at Tutwiler Prison, Tutwiler Annex and the Birmingham Work Release Center; 6: Defendants shall ensure that at least one hundred copies of the comment form will be available at each drop box location; 7: defendants shall submit class members' comment forms to the United States District Clerk and plaintiffs' counsel by the close of business on 7/16/04; 8: prior to fairness hearing, counsel for all parties shall review all objections and on or before noon on 7/20/04, shall file, either jointly or separately, a summary of the objections and a statement explaining why, if at all, the objections should be overruled; Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 7/1/04. (Attachments: # 1 Notice Of Proposed Class Action Settlement# 2 Comment orm)(ajr, ) (Entered: 07/01/2004)
322 ORDER AND INTERIM INJUNCTION 1: that the joint motion to adopt the conditions settlement agreement and medical settlement agreement is provisionally granted, pending the court's approval or rejection of the settlements after the 7/21/04 fairness hearing; 2: incorporating the terms of the settlements as the order of this court; 3: enjoining and restraining defendants Donal Campbell, Gladys Deese, Mary Carter, Ronald Cavanaugh and Robert Riley in their official capacities, and those persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the order by personal service or otherwise, from failing to comply immediately with the terms of the settlement; 4: the court retains jurisdiction to enforce the settlements 5: if the settlements are not ultimately approved by the court, then this order shall be vacated; 6: the settlements shall expire, in accordance with their terms, four years from the date of this order; directing the clerk of court to issue a writ of injunction; Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 7/1/04.. Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 7/1/04. (ajr, ) Modified on 7/2/2004 (ajr, ). (Entered: 07/01/2004)
323 ORDER denying as moot 300 Motion for Order to Show Cause . Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 7/1/04. (ajr, ) (Entered: 07/01/2004)
324 Return Receipt Card showing service of writ of injunction signed by Pam Byer for Bob Riley served on 7/2/2004(ajr, ) (Entered: 07/09/2004)
326 Return Receipt Card showing service of writ of injunction signed by Angela Miree for Mary Carter (ajr, ) (Entered: 07/09/2004)
325 Return Receipt Card showing service of writ of injunction signed by Shakuntala Dumas for Gladys Deese (ajr, ) (Entered: 07/09/2004)
327 Returnm Receipt Cards showing service of writ of injunction on Repie M. Brislan on 7/7/04 for Ronald Cavanaugh and on Kay P. Hope (undated) for Donal Campbell. (cc, ) (Entered: 07/12/2004)
328 NOTICE by Donal Campbell, Mary Carter, Ronald Cavanaugh, Gladys Deese, Bob Riley re 313 MOTION to adopt conditions settlement agreement and medical settlement agreement Notice of Filing of Comment/Objection Forms (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, Comment/Objection Form of Beverly Jo Jones# 2 Exhibit 2, Comment/Objection Form of Ch'Knita S. Fletcher# 3 Exhibit 3, Comment/Objection Form of Rosie Lee Murphy# 4 Exhibit 4, Comment/Objection Form of Regina Smith)(Campbell, Charles) (Entered: 07/13/2004)
329 NOTICE by Donal Campbell, Mary Carter, Ronald Cavanaugh, Gladys Deese, Bob Riley of Filing of Objections/Comments (Leonard, Ellen) (Entered: 07/16/2004)
330 JOINT SUMMARY &RESPONSE to objections filed pursuant to court's order 321 re 318 Joint MOTION to provide notice of class action settlement re 313 MOTION to adopt conditions settlement agreement and medical settlement agreement filed by Linda Laube, et al &defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Attachment 1 of 1)(Schulz, George) Modified on 7/20/2004 to correct filing text to reflect actual style of pleading and reflect the pleading as filed in response to court's order (QC/djy, ). (Entered: 07/20/2004)
331 [DOCKETING ERROR −− DUPLICATE ENTRY OF DOCKET ENTRY #330 −− DISREGARD THIS ENTRY SEE #330] MOTION to Enforce Judgment Joint Summary of and Response to Objections by Linda Laube. (Attachments: # 1

Case: 2:02-cv-957 As of: 08/13/2013 11:17 AM CDT 63 of 73

07/20/2004
07/20/2004 07/20/2004
07/21/2004 07/27/2004
07/28/2004 07/29/2004 08/03/2004 08/20/2004 08/23/2004 08/23/2004

Exhibit Attachment 1: Objections/Comments)(Schulz, George) Modified on 7/20/2004 to indicate error in filing (QC/djy, ). (Entered: 07/20/2004)
332 [DOCKETING ERROR −− DUPLICATE ENTRY OF DOCKET ENTRY #333 −− DISREGARD THIS ENTRY SEE #333] MOTION to Modify re 331 MOTION to Enforce Judgment Joint Summary of and Response to Objections Plaintiffs' Supplement to Joint Summary of and Response to Objections by Linda Laube. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Curriculum)(Schulz, George) Modified on 7/20/2004 to indicate error in filing , (QC/djy, ). (Entered: 07/20/2004)
333 SUPPLEMENT TO 330 JOINT SUMMARY OF AND RESPONSE TO OBJECTIONS filed by Linda Laube, et al. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Curriculum)(Schulz, George) Modified on 7/20/2004 to correct filing text to reflect actual style of pleading and reflect the pleading as filed in response to court's order and to supplement Docket Entry # 330 (QC/djy, ). (Entered: 07/20/2004)
NOTICE of Docket Text Correction re 333 Supplement to Joint summary of and response to objections &330 Joint summary and response to objections to notify of correction to the filing docket text to reflect actual style of pleading and reflect the pleading as filed in response to court's order; Secondary NOTICE of Docket Text Correction re 331 MOTION to Enforce Judgment and 332 MOTION to Modify to reflect that 331 &332 are erroneous filings docketed in error and should be disregarded.(QC/djy, ) (Entered: 07/20/2004)
334 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Myron H. Thompson : Fairness Hearing held on 7/21/2004 (witness and exhibit list attached − additional exhibits filed in conventional format and maintained in clerk's office)(Court Reporter Mitchell Reisner.) (ajr, ) (Entered: 07/22/2004)
335 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support re 322 Order,,,, on the Application of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3626 (f) and (g) to the Medical Settlment Agreement filed by Theresa Barron, Laura Bland, Angela Bond, Barbara Bush, Wendy Carmichael, Lachrondria Crockett, Marjorie Ewing, Leslie M. Fillingim, Sharon Finn, Brenda Fraime, Deborah Franks, Laura Gilbert, Wanda Goodman, Alma Gutierrez, Lisa Hereford, La'Toya Jones, Diane Jordan, Vanessa Kirksey, Linda Laube, Vicki Littles, Deborah Loyd, Clorestine McQueen, Juanita Moore, Katie Moore, Terri Newby, Betty Parker, Barbara Pelzer, April Rice, Patricia Segrest, Carolyn Thomas, Kelli Washington, Melinda Washington, Nina Whitlow, Judy Wyly. (Schulz, George) (Entered: 07/27/2004)
336 NOTICE of Deficiency re 335 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support − electronic pleading not signed (ajr, ) (Entered: 07/28/2004)
337 ORDER directing the clerk of court to file the attached letter from inmate Rosie Lee Murphy; that the court leaves it to counsel in this case to investigate the claims and to take whatever action, if any, is necessary to address the issue presented by Murphy. Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 7/29/04. (ajr, ) (Entered: 07/29/2004)
338 NOTICE of Correction re 335 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support filed 7/27/04 without electronic signature (ajr, ) (Entered: 08/03/2004)
339 NOTICE TO THE COURT regarding the use of body restraints for segregation inmates on the exercise yard at Tutwiler Prision by Donal Campbell, Mary Carter, Ronald Cavanaugh, Gladys Deese, Bob Riley (djy, ) (Entered: 08/20/2004)
340 OPINION . Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 8/23/04. (ajr, ) (Entered: 08/23/2004)
341 JUDGMENT and PERMANENT INJUNCTION overruling the objections to the proposed settlements; granting 313 joint motion to adopt the conditions settlement agreement and the medical settlement agreement; incorporating as the order of this court the terms of the agreements; that the court retains jurisdiction to enforce the agreements in accordance with the terms of both settlement agreements; enjoining and restraining defendants from failing to comply immediately with the terms of the settlement agreements; that the settlement agreements shall expire four years from July 1, 2004; that within 14 days from the date of this judgment, defendant

Case: 2:02-cv-957 As of: 08/13/2013 11:17 AM CDT 64 of 73

08/23/2004 08/23/2004
09/22/2004 09/23/2004 10/12/2004 10/12/2004 10/12/2004
10/13/2004 10/13/2004 10/19/2004 01/13/2005 02/11/2005 02/28/2005

Campbell shall cause to be provided to plaintiff class members notice of the final disposition of this lawsuit by posting this judgment and the accompanying memorandum opinion issued this date; directing clerk to issue a writ of injunction; Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 8/23/04. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix 1 − Condition Settlement Agreement# 2 Appendix 2 − Medical Settlement Agreement# was modified pursuant to 393 Order to replace Dr. Michael Puisis with Dr. Robert Greifinger as the correctional healthcare monitor.(3) Civil Appeals Checklist)(ajr, ) Modified on 8/10/2006 to modify the Medical Settlement Agreement pursuant to order entered on 8/10/2006 (cb, ). (Entered: 08/23/2004)
342 WRIT of Injunction issued in accordance with the Judgment and Permanent Injunction entered this date (ajr, ) (Entered: 08/23/2004)
343 ORDER that the last sentence of section x.c of the conditions settlement agreement, appendix A to this court's judgment entered 8/23/04 is modified to delete the requirement that the correctional healthcare monitor shall provide his or her quarterly reports to the court. Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 8/23/04. (ajr, ) (Entered: 08/23/2004)
344 MOTION for Attorney Fees and costs by Linda Laube. (Schulz, George) (Entered: 09/22/2004)
345 ORDER re 344 MOTION for Attorney Fees and costs filed by Linda Laube Status Conference set for 10/13/2004 09:30 AM by telephone before Honorable Myron H. Thompson. Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 9/23/04. (ajr, ) (Entered: 09/23/2004)
348 (STRICKEN AS A DUPLICATE DOCKET ENTRY OF #349) Motion for Stephen F. Hanlon to Appear Pro Hac Vice ( Filing fee $ 20.00 receipt number 103917.) by Linda Laube. (ajr, ) Modified on 9/30/2005 (ajr, ). (Entered: 10/18/2004)
349 Motion for Stephen F. Hanlon to Appear Pro Hac Vice ( Filing fee $ 20.00 receipt number 103917.) by Linda Laube. (ajr, ) (Entered: 10/18/2004)
350 NOTICE of Appearance by Stephen P. Hanlon on behalf of Theresa Barron, Laura Bland, Angela Bond, Barbara Bush, Wendy Carmichael, Lachrondria Crockett, Marjorie Ewing, Leslie M. Fillingim, Sharon Finn, Brenda Fraime, Deborah Franks, Laura Gilbert, Wanda Goodman, Alma Gutierrez, Lisa Hereford, La'Toya Jones, Diane Jordan, Vanessa Kirksey, Linda Laube, Vicki Littles, Deborah Loyd, Clorestine McQueen, Juanita Moore, Katie Moore, Terri Newby, Betty Parker, Barbara Pelzer, April Rice, Patricia Segrest, Carolyn Thomas, Kelli Washington, Melinda Washington, Nina Whitlow, Judy Wyly (ajr, ) (Entered: 10/18/2004)
346 ORDER REFERRING MOTION: 344 MOTION for Attorney Fees and costs filed by Linda Laube. Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 10/13/04. (ajr, ) (Entered: 10/13/2004)
347 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Myron H. Thompson : Telephone Status Conference held on 10/13/2004. (Court Reporter Mitchell Reisner.) (ajr, ) (Entered: 10/15/2004)
351 ORDER granting 349 Motion for Stephen F. Hanlon to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 10/19/04. (ajr, ) (Entered: 10/19/2004)
TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 7/21/04 of Fairness Hearing before Judge Myron H. Thompson. Court Reporter: Mitchell Reisner. (ajr, ) (Entered: 01/14/2005)
352 ORDER setting Status Conference for 2/28/2005 01:30 PM by telephone conference, arranged by the plf, before Honorable Charles S. Coody. Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 2/11/05. Furnished to YG, HC &WS(djy, ) (Entered: 02/11/2005)
353 ORDER Mediation Conference set for 4/22/2005 09:00 AM in Courtroom 4B before Honorable Charles S. Coody; that counsel and the partries or a representative with full authority to settle the case shall appear at this conference; that on or before the close of business on 4/15/05 each party shall provide the

Case: 2:02-cv-957 As of: 08/13/2013 11:17 AM CDT 65 of 73

02/28/2005 04/04/2005 04/06/2005 04/22/2005 05/16/2005 05/20/2005
06/17/2005 06/20/2005
06/21/2005 06/21/2005 06/21/2005 06/24/2005
07/01/2005
09/28/2005 10/04/2005 10/21/2005

undersigned judge with a confidential mediation conference statement as further set out in order; furnished to WS, YG, HC. Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 2/28/05. (ajr, ) (Entered: 02/28/2005)
354 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Charles S. Coody : Status Conference held on 2/28/2005. (Recording Time 1:28 to 1:45.) (ajr, ) (Entered: 03/03/2005)
355 NOTICE by Jane Haddad, Psy. D. of inability to continue as mental health auditor. (ajr, ) (Entered: 04/05/2005)
356 NOTICE of Appearance by Kim Tobias Thomas on behalf of Gladys Deese, Mary Carter, Donal Campbell, Ronald Cavanaugh (Thomas, Kim) (Entered: 04/06/2005)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Charles S. Coody : Mediation Conference held on 4/22/2005. (NO PDF ATTACHED) (ws ) (Entered: 05/12/2005)
357 MEMORANDUM in Support re 344 MOTION for Attorney Fees and costs filed by plaintiffs; (exhibits 1−12 maintained in separate binder with file in clerk's office)(ajr, ) (Entered: 05/17/2005)
358 ORDER setting Motion Submission Deadline for 7/1/2005 re 344 MOTION for Attorney Fees and costs, without oral argument; plfs' Brief in Support due by 6/3/2005; defendants' Brief due by 6/24/2005; plaintiffs' Reply Brief due by 7/1/2005, as further set out in order. Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 5/20/05. (djy, ) (Entered: 05/20/2005)
359 MOTION for Order to Pay Fees and Expenses of the Healthcare Court Monitor by Gladys Deese, Mary Carter, Bob Riley, Donal Campbell, Ronald Cavanaugh. (Leonard, Ellen) (Entered: 06/17/2005)
360 ORDER granting 359 Motion for Payment; that defendants pay to Dr. Michael Puisis the sum of $30,005.02 for fees and expenses for monitoring the medical settlement agreement; Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 6/20/05. (ajr, ) (Entered: 06/20/2005)
361 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Tamara Serwer Caldas As Class Counsel by Theresa Barron. (Schulz, George) (Entered: 06/21/2005)
362 ORDER granting 361 Motion for Tamara Caldas to Withdraw as Attorney. Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 6/21/05. (ajr, ) (Entered: 06/21/2005)
*** Attorney Tamara S. Caldas terminated per order this date. (ajr, ) (Entered: 06/21/2005)
363 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 357 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support, 344 MOTION for Attorney Fees and costs of $722,063.65 filed by Gladys Deese, Mary Carter, Bob Riley, Donal Campbell, Ronald Cavanaugh. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D# 5 Exhibit E# 6 Exhibit F# 7 Exhibit G# 8 Exhibit H)(Campbell, Charles) (Entered: 06/24/2005)
364 REPLY to Response to Motion re 344 MOTION for Attorney Fees and costs :Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Response to Defendants' Brief in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys Fees and Litigation Expenses filed by Linda Laube. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Gretchen Rohr# 2 Exhibit Exhibits 1−4, Declaration of Gretchen Rohr# 3 Affidavit Declaration of George E. Schulz, Jr.)(Rohr, Gretchen) (Entered: 07/01/2005)
365 ORDER Telephone Conference set for 10/4/2005 09:00 AM by telephone before Honorable Charles S. Coody; furnished to WS, YG, HC. Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 9/28/05. (ajr, ) (Entered: 09/28/2005)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Charles S. Coody : Settlement Conference held on 10/4/2005. (NO PDF ATTACHED) (ws, ) (Entered: 11/09/2005)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Charles S. Coody : Settlement Conference held on 10/21/2005. (NO PDF ATTACHED) (ws, ) (Entered:

Case: 2:02-cv-957 As of: 08/13/2013 11:17 AM CDT 66 of 73

10/26/2005
11/18/2005 11/18/2005 12/13/2005 01/06/2006 01/12/2006 01/12/2006 04/25/2006 04/25/2006 05/10/2006 05/10/2006
05/12/2006
05/12/2006 05/18/2006 05/19/2006

11/09/2005)
366 ORDER Mediation Conference set for 11/18/2005 10:00 AM in Courtroom 4B before Honorable Charles S. Coody; that on or before 11/16/05 parties shall provide a confidential mediation conference statement as further set out; furnished to WS, YG, HC Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 10/26/05. (ajr, ) (Entered: 10/26/2005)
367 ORDER Status Conference set for 12/13/2005 04:00 PM in by telephone before Honorable Charles S. Coody; furnished to WS, YG, HC. Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 11/18/05. (ajr, ) (Entered: 11/18/2005)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Charles S. Coody : Settlement Conference held on 11/18/2005. NO PDF ATTACHED (ws, ) (Entered: 12/08/2005)
368 ORDER Status Conference set for 12/13/05 is RESET for 1/6/2006 11:00 AM by telephone before Honorable Charles S. Coody; furnished to WS, YG, HC. Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 12/13/05. (ajr, ) (Entered: 12/13/2005)
369 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Charles S. Coody : Telephone Status Conference held on 1/6/2006. (Recording Time FTR: 11:06 − 11:14.) (ws, ) (Entered: 01/06/2006)
370 NOTICE of Appearance by Tara S. Knee on behalf of Gladys Deese, Mary Carter, Bob Riley, Donal Campbell, Ronald Cavanaugh (Knee, Tara) (Entered: 01/12/2006)
***Attorney Tara S. Knee for defendants. (ajr, ) (Entered: 01/13/2006)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Charles S. Coody : Telephone Conference held on 4/25/2006. NO PDF ATTACHED (ws, ) (Entered: 05/09/2006)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Charles S. Coody : Telephone Conference held on 4/25/2006. NO PDF ATTACHED (ws, ) (Entered: 05/09/2006)
371 MOTION for Order to Show Cause Why Defendants Should Not Be Held in Contempt by Linda Laube. (Rohr, Gretchen) (Entered: 05/10/2006)
372 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support re 371 MOTION for Order to Show Cause Why Defendants Should Not Be Held in Contempt filed by Linda Laube. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Index# 2 Exhibit A# 3 Exhibit B# 4 Exhibit C# 5 Exhibit D# 6 Exhibit E# 7 Exhibit F# 8 Exhibit G# 9 Exhibit H# 10 Exhibit I# 11 Exhibit J# 12 Exhibit K# 13 Exhibit L# 14 Exhibit M)(Rohr, Gretchen) (Entered: 05/10/2006)
373 ORDER that plaintiffs' 371 Motion for Order to Show Cause is set for an on−the−record scheduling conference on May 18, 2006 at 8:30 AM. Counsel fordefendants are to arrange for the conference to be conducted by telephone; that the style of this case shall reflect the fact that Richard F. Allen has replaced Donal Campbell as Commissioner of the Alabama Department of Corrections, and as a defendant in this action. Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 5/12/2006. (cb, ) (Entered: 05/12/2006)
*** Attorney Tara S. Knee; Ellen Ruth Leonard; Alice Miller Maples; Kim Tobias Thomas; William F. Addison and Charles B. Campbell terminated pursuant to 373 Order. (cb, ) (Entered: 05/12/2006)
374 Minute Entry for Scheduling Conference by telephone held on 5/18/2006 Judge Myron H. Thompson . (Court Reporter Mitchell Reisner.) (ag, ) (Entered: 05/19/2006)
375 ORDER granting 371 Motion for Order to Show Cause to the extent that defendants are to show cause, in writing by May 26, 2006, as to why they should not be held in contempt. Setting Hearing on whether defendants should be held in contempt for 6/21/2006 10:00 AM in Courtroom 2FMJ before Honorable Myron H. Thompson. Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 5/19/2006. (cb, ) (Entered: 05/19/2006)

Case: 2:02-cv-957 As of: 08/13/2013 11:17 AM CDT 67 of 73

05/19/2006 05/23/2006
05/23/2006 05/23/2006 05/24/2006
05/24/2006 05/24/2006 05/25/2006 05/30/2006 06/02/2006 06/05/2006 06/06/2006 06/06/2006
06/07/2006 06/13/2006 06/14/2006 06/19/2006

Set Show Cause Response deadline due by 5/26/2006 pursuant to 375 . (cb, ) (Entered: 05/19/2006)
376 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Motion to Show Cause by Richard F. Allen, Gladys Deese, Mary Carter, Bob Riley, Ronald Cavanaugh. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Email from Dr. Puisis# 2 Exhibit 2 − Letter to Plaintiffs' Counsel# 3 Exhibit 3 − Email from Tara Knee# 4 Exhibit 4 − Email from Gretchen Rohr# 5 Exhibit 5 − Emails from counsel &Dr. Puisis)(Leonard, Ellen) (Entered: 05/23/2006)
***Attorney Kim Tobias Thomas for Bob Riley added pursuant to 376 Motion to Dismiss. (cb, ) (Entered: 05/24/2006)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Charles S. Coody : Settlement Conference held on 5/23/2006. NO PDF ATTACHED (ws, ) (Entered: 06/06/2006)
377 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 371 MOTION for Order to Show Cause Why Defendants Should Not Be Held in Contempt by Richard F. Allen, Gladys Deese, Mary Carter, Bob Riley, Ronald Cavanaugh. (Knee, Tara) (Entered: 05/24/2006)
378 ORDER that defendants' 376 Motion to Dismiss is referred to United States MagistrateJudge Charles S. Coody for report or recommendation. Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 5/24/2006. (cb, ) (Entered: 05/24/2006)
MOTION 376 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Motion to Show Cause REFERRED to Judge Judge Charles S. Coody. (cb, ) (Entered: 05/24/2006)
379 ORDER granting 377 Motion for Extension of Time . Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 5/25/2006. (cb, ) (Entered: 05/25/2006)
380 RESPONSE in Opposition re 376 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Motion to Show Cause filed by Linda Laube. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D# 5 Exhibit E)(Rohr, Gretchen) (Entered: 05/30/2006)
381 Reply to response to order to show cause filed by Richard F. Allen, Gladys Deese, Mary Carter, Bob Riley, Ronald Cavanaugh. (Knee, Tara) (Entered: 06/02/2006)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Charles S. Coody : Mediation Conference held on 6/5/2006. NO PDF ATTACHED (ws) (Entered: 07/10/2006)
382 ORDER that the hearing, now set for 6/21/06, shall remain as set. Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 6/6/06. (cb, ) (Entered: 06/06/2006)
383 [STRICKEN FROM RECORD PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 5.1 NON−FILING OF CIVIL DISCOVERY] NOTICE by Richard F. Allen, Gladys Deese, Mary Carter, Bob Riley, Ronald Cavanaugh of Deposition (Knee, Tara) Modified on 6/14/2006 to strike pleading from record(cb, ). (Entered: 06/06/2006)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Charles S. Coody : Mediation Conference held on 6/7/2006. NO PDF ATTACHED (ws ) Modified on 7/10/2006 (ws, ). (Entered: 07/10/2006)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Charles S. Coody : Mediation Conference held on 6/13/2006. NO PDF ATTACHED (ws, ) Modified on 7/10/2006 (ws, ). (Entered: 07/10/2006)
384 NOTICE of Non−Compliance re 383 Notice of Deposition pursuant to Local Rule 5.1 NON−FILING OF CIVIL DISCOVERY. (cb, ) (Entered: 06/14/2006)
385 Joint MOTION to Continue Show Cause Hearing by Katie Moore, Terri Newby, Barbara Pelzer, April Rice, Laura Bland, Angela Bond, Wendy Carmichael, Leslie M. Fillingim, Sharon Finn, Brenda Fraime, Deborah Franks, Laura Gilbert, Diane Jordan, Vanessa Kirksey, Vicki Littles, Deborah Loyd, Clorestine McQueen, Juanita Moore, Betty Parker, Patricia Segrest, Carolyn Thomas, Nina Whitlow, Judy Wyly, Richard F. Allen, Kelli Washington, Melinda Washington, Gladys Deese, Mary Carter, Linda Laube, Bob Riley, Ronald Cavanaugh, Theresa Barron, Barbara Bush, Lachrondria Crockett, Marjorie Ewing, Wanda Goodman, Alma Gutierrez, Lisa Hereford, La'Toya Jones. (Knee, Tara) (Entered: 06/19/2006)

Case: 2:02-cv-957 As of: 08/13/2013 11:17 AM CDT 68 of 73

06/19/2006
06/28/2006 07/06/2006 07/06/2006 07/14/2006 07/18/2006 07/18/2006 08/03/2006
08/07/2006
08/10/2006 08/10/2006
08/24/2006 09/12/2006 09/12/2006 09/14/2006 09/15/2006

386 ORDER granting 385 Joint MOTION to Continue. A hearing on whether the defendnats should be held in contempt is reset from 6/21/2006 to 9/5/2006, at 10:00 a.m. in the Frank M. Johnson, Jr. United States Courthouse Complex, Courtroom 2FMJ before Honorable Myron H. Thompson. Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 6/19/2006. (cb, ) (Entered: 06/19/2006)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Charles S. Coody : Mediation Conference held on 6/28/2006. NO PDF ATTACHED (ws, ) (Entered: 07/10/2006)
387 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER Governing the Disclosure of Mortality Reviews by Non−Party Prison Health Services, Inc. as further set out in order. Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 7/6/06. (cb, ) (Entered: 07/06/2006)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Charles S. Coody : Settlement Conference held on 7/6/2006. NO PDF ATTACHED (ws, ) (Entered: 08/09/2006)
388 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney for Class by Linda Laube. (Rohr, Gretchen) (Entered: 07/14/2006)
389 ORDER granting 388 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. . Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 7/18/06. (cb, ) (Entered: 07/18/2006)
*** Attorney Gretchen Naomi Rohr terminated pursuant to 389 Order. (cb, ) (Entered: 07/18/2006)
390 Joint MOTION to Modify Medical Settlement Agreement by Katie Moore, Terri Newby, Barbara Pelzer, April Rice, Laura Bland, Angela Bond, Wendy Carmichael, Leslie M. Fillingim, Sharon Finn, Brenda Fraime, Deborah Franks, Laura Gilbert, Diane Jordan, Vanessa Kirksey, Vicki Littles, Deborah Loyd, Clorestine McQueen, Juanita Moore, Betty Parker, Patricia Segrest, Carolyn Thomas, Nina Whitlow, Judy Wyly, Richard F. Allen, Kelli Washington, Melinda Washington, Gladys Deese, Mary Carter, Linda Laube, Bob Riley, Ronald Cavanaugh, Theresa Barron, Barbara Bush, Lachrondria Crockett, Marjorie Ewing, Wanda Goodman, Alma Gutierrez, Lisa Hereford, La'Toya Jones. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−Settlement Agreement)(Leonard, Ellen) (Entered: 08/03/2006)
391 ORDER that the 390 Joint MOTION to Modify the Medical Settlement Agreement is set for a Scheduling Conference on 8/10/2006 08:30 AM. The defendants are to arrange for the conference to be conducted by telephone before Honorable Myron H. Thompson. Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 8/7/2006. (cb, ) (Entered: 08/07/2006)
392 Minute Entry for Scheduling Conference by telephone held before Judge Myron H. Thompson on 8/10/2006. (Court Reporter Mitchell Reisner.) (ag, ) (Entered: 08/10/2006)
393 ORDER granting 390 Joint Motion to Modify the Medical Settlement Agreement, and that Section X, paragraph C of the 341 medical settlement agreement is modified to replace Dr. Michael Puisis with Dr. Robert Greifinger as the correctional healthcare monitor. Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 8/10/2006. (cb, ) (Entered: 08/10/2006)
394 Second MOTION for Attorney Fees by Linda Laube. (Hanlon, Stephen) (Entered: 08/24/2006)
395 ORDER denying as moot 371 Motion for Order to Show Cause, denying as moot 376 Motion to Dismiss . Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 9/12/06. (vma, ) (Entered: 09/12/2006)
396 ORDER re 394 Second MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Linda Laube, Motion Submission Deadline set for 9/25/2006, with all briefs and evidentiary materials due by said date. Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 9/12/06. (vma, ) (Entered: 09/12/2006)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Charles S. Coody : Settlement Conference held on 9/14/2006. NO PDF ATTACHED (ws ) (Entered: 10/11/2006)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Charles S. Coody : Settlement Conference held on 9/15/2006. NO PDF ATTACHED (ws, ) (Entered: 10/11/2006)

Case: 2:02-cv-957 As of: 08/13/2013 11:17 AM CDT 69 of 73

09/19/2006 09/21/2006 09/21/2006
09/26/2006 09/28/2006 10/06/2006 10/06/2006 10/06/2006
10/10/2006 10/11/2006
10/12/2006 10/13/2006 10/17/2006 10/24/2006

397 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response re 394 Motion for Attorney Fees by Richard F. Allen, Gladys Deese, Mary Carter, Bob Riley, Ronald Cavanaugh. (Leonard, Ellen) Modified on 9/20/2006 to create a linke to Motion (cb, ). (Entered: 09/19/2006)
398 Amended MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply by Richard F. Allen, Gladys Deese, Mary Carter, Bob Riley, Ronald Cavanaugh. (Leonard, Ellen) (Entered: 09/21/2006)
399 ORDER as follows: (1) The 397 Motion for Enlargement of Time is granted; (2) The 39 Second Motion for Attorneys' fees and Litigation Expenses is reset for submission, without oral argument, on October 9, 2006, with all briefs and evidentiary materials due by said date. Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 9/21/2006. (cb, ) (Entered: 09/21/2006)
400 ORDER denying as moot 398 Motion for Enlargement of Time . Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 9/26/2006. (cc, ) (Entered: 09/26/2006)
401 ORDER that 394 Second MOTION for Attorney Fees and Litigation Expenses is reset for submission, without oral argument, on 10/10/06, with all briefs and evidentiary materials due by said date. Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 9/28/2006. (cb, ) (Entered: 09/28/2006)
402 Second MOTION for Attorney Fees (Supplemental Declarations and Detailed Billing Statements) by Linda Laube. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Hanlon, Stephen) (Entered: 10/06/2006)
403 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply by Richard F. Allen, Gladys Deese, Mary Carter, Bob Riley, Ronald Cavanaugh. (Leonard, Ellen) (Entered: 10/06/2006)
Supplement to 394 Second Motion and Memorandum for Attorneys' Fees and Litigation Expenses by Katie Moore, Terri Newby, Barbara Pelzer, April Rice, Angela Bond, Wendy Carmichael, Leslie M. Fillingim, Sharon Finn, Brenda Fraime, Laura Gilbert, Diane Jordan, Vanessa Kirksey, Vicki Littles, Deborah Loyd, Clorestine McQueen, Juanita Moore, Betty Parker, Carolyn Thomas, Nina Whitlow, Judy Wyly, Kelli Washington, Theresa Barron, Barbara Bush, Wanda Goodman, Alma Gutierrez. No pdf attached to this document. See 402 pdf. for attachment. (cb, ) (Entered: 10/10/2006)
404 RESPONSE in Opposition re 394 Second MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Richard F. Allen, Gladys Deese, Mary Carter, Bob Riley, Ronald Cavanaugh. (Leonard, Ellen) (Entered: 10/10/2006)
405 ORDER as follows: (1) The 403 Amended Motion for Enlargement of Time is granted; (2) The Second Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Litigation Expenses is reet for submission, without oral argument, on October 24, 2006, with all briefs and evidentiary materials due by said date. Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 10/11/2006. (cb, ) (Entered: 10/11/2006)
406 MOTION for Leave to File A Reply Memorandum by Linda Laube. (Hanlon, Stephen) (Entered: 10/12/2006)
407 ORDER granting 406 Motion for Leave to File Reply Memorandum. Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 10/13/2006. (cb, ) (Entered: 10/13/2006)
408 REPLY to 404 Response to 394 Second MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Linda Laube. (Hanlon, Stephen) Modified on 10/18/2006 to create a link to Response(cb, ). (Entered: 10/17/2006)
409 REPLY BRIEF (Supplemental) to Plaintiff's Supplement to their Second Motion and Memorandum for Attorney Fees &Litigation Expenses filed by Richard F. Allen, Gladys Deese, Mary Carter, Bob Riley, Ronald Cavanaugh. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Holland &Knight Fees Statement# 2 Exhibit 2 − Holland &Knight Expenses Statement# 3 Exhibit 3 − SCHR Fees Statement# 4 Exhibit 4 − SCHR Expenses Statement)(Leonard, Ellen) (Entered: 10/24/2006)

Case: 2:02-cv-957 As of: 08/13/2013 11:17 AM CDT 70 of 73

11/01/2006 12/13/2006 02/01/2007 02/02/2007 02/12/2007 04/30/2007 05/01/2007 05/01/2007 08/07/2007 08/09/2007 08/09/2007 08/31/2007
01/08/2008 04/08/2008 07/28/2008
07/28/2008
07/29/2008

410 STIPULATION Regarding 402 Second Motion and Memorandum for Attorneys' Fees and Litigation Expenses by Linda Laube. (Hanlon, Stephen) Modified on 11/2/2006 to create a link to motion (cb, ). (Entered: 11/01/2006)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Charles S. Coody : Settlement Conference held on 12/13/2006. (NO PDF ATTACHED) (ws, ) (Entered: 01/11/2007)
411 Plaintiffs' Supplement to First and Second Motions for Attorneys' Fees and Litigation Expenses by Linda Laube(Hanlon, Stephen). (Entered: 02/01/2007)
412 ORDER that the defendants have until 2/14/07, to file a response re 411 Plaintiffs' Supplement to their 344 first and 394 second motions for attorneys' fees . Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 2/2/2007. (cb, ) (Entered: 02/02/2007)
413 RESPONSE to Plaintiffs' 411 Supplement to First and Second Motions for Attorneys' Fees and Litigation Expenses by Richard F. Allen, Gladys Deese, Mary Carter, Bob Riley, Ronald Cavanaugh. (Knee, Tara) (Entered: 02/12/2007)
414 MOTION to Withdraw by Richard F. Allen, Gladys Deese, Mary Carter, Bob Riley, Ronald Cavanaugh. (Leonard, Ellen) (Entered: 04/30/2007)
415 ORDER granting 414 Motion to Withdraw. Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 5/1/2007. (wcl, ) (Entered: 05/01/2007)
***Attorney Ellen Ruth Leonard terminated as counsel pursuant to 415 Order. (NO PDF ATTACHED) (wcl, ) (Entered: 05/01/2007)
416 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Richard F. Allen, Gladys Deese, Mary Carter, Bob Riley, Ronald Cavanaugh. (Maples, Alice) (Entered: 08/07/2007)
417 ORDER granting 416 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 8/9/2007. (wcl, ) (Entered: 08/09/2007)
***Attorney Alice Miller Maples terminated pursuant to 417 Order. (NO PDF ATTACHED) (wcl, ) (Entered: 08/09/2007)
418 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER that the plaintiffs' 344 and 394 motions for attorney's fees and expenses are granted to the following extent: (1) on their first motion, the plaintiffs shall have and recover from the defendants $420,369.73 in fees and $51,496.02 in expenses, plus interest running from 8/23/04; (2) on their second motion, the plaintiffs shall have and recover from the defendants $64,036.62 in fees and $2,275.77 in expenses, plus interest running from this date. Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 8/31/07. (sl, ) (Entered: 08/31/2007)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Charles S. Coody : Mediation/Settlement Conference held on 1/8/2008 ( NO PDF ATTACHED). (ws ) (Entered: 02/06/2008)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Honorable Charles S. Coody: Mediation/Settlement Conference held on 4/8/2008 ( NO PDF Attached). (ws) (Entered: 05/06/2008)
419 MOTION for Leave to Appear Court Monitor Dr. Robert Greifinger by Linda Laube. (Kung, Lisa) (Additional attachment(s) added on 7/28/2008 to attach a corrected PDF document to include a certificate of service page, electronic signatures, correct division and correct case number format: # 1 main document) (wcl, ). (Entered: 07/28/2008)
420 NOTICE of Correction re 419 MOTION for Leave to Appear Court Monitor Dr. Robert Greifinger, to attach a corrected PDF document to include a certificate of service page, electronic signatures, correct division and correct case number format. (Attachments: # 1 Corrected Main Document to Docket Entry 419 )(wcl, ) (Entered: 07/28/2008)
421 ORDER granting 419 Motion for Appearance of Court Monitor and that the medical monitor, Dr. Robert Greifinger, appear during the week of 9/22/2008, at Tutwiler Prison for Women in Wetumpka, Alabama, at Montgomery Women's

Case: 2:02-cv-957 As of: 08/13/2013 11:17 AM CDT 71 of 73

09/25/2008
09/26/2008 09/26/2008 10/09/2008 10/09/2008 07/15/2009
07/15/2009
08/18/2009 11/13/2009 11/18/2009 12/15/2009
12/16/2009
12/17/2009 01/07/2010
01/08/2010
01/20/2010

Facility in Montgomery, Alabama, and at any other location necessary for Dr. Greifinger to conduct a full and fair audit to ensure compliance with the medical settlement agreement in the above−styled case. Signed by Honorable Charles S. Coody on 7/29/2008. (wcl, ) (Entered: 07/29/2008)
422 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Richard F. Allen, Michael Haley, Gladys Deese, Patricia Hood, Mary Carter, Francis Henderson(Medical Director of NaphCare, Inc., in his official capacity), Don Siegelman, Francis Henderson, MHM Correctional Services, Inc., Bob Riley, Donal Campbell, Ronald Cavanaugh. (Knee, Tara) (Entered: 09/25/2008)
423 ORDER granting 422 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Signed by Honorable Myron H. Thompson on 9/26/08. (vma, ) (Entered: 09/26/2008)
*** Attorney Tara Smelley Knee terminated − per order of 9/26/08 − doc. 423 . (No PDF attached) (vma, ) (Entered: 09/26/2008)
424 STATEMENT by Non−Party Melissa S. Price (cb, ) (Entered: 10/09/2008)
425 STATEMENT by Non−Party Melissa S. Price. (cb, ) (Entered: 10/09/2008)
426 ORDERED that the Defendants shall pay to Dr. Robert Greifinger the sum of $10,000 for fees and expenses in performing the Post−Decree Monitoring in the above styledcase. Signed by Honorable Charles S. Coody on 7/15/2009. (cb, ) (Entered: 07/15/2009)
427 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER GOVERNING THE DISCLOSURE OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED DURING THE COURSE OF POST−DECREE AUDITING as further set out in order. Signed by Honorable Charles S. Coody on 7/15/2009. (cb, ) (Entered: 07/15/2009)
428 NOTICE by Richard F. Allen, Gladys Deese, Mary Carter, Bob Riley, Ronald Cavanaugh TO THE COURT OF EXIT CONFERENCE (Thomas, Kim) (Entered: 08/18/2009)
429 Objection to Settlement/Consent Order. (cb, ) (Entered: 11/16/2009)
430 ORDERED that 429 Objection is overruled. Signed by Honorable Myron H. Thompson on 11/18/2009. (cb, ) (Entered: 11/18/2009)
431 MOTION to Set Aside 429 Objection (Motion to Set Aside Order to "Overrule"/Motion to Hold In Contempt/Petiton for Writ of Habeas Corpus)filed by NON−Party Beverly Jo Jones. (cb, ) Modified on 12/16/2009 to name the filer(cb, ). (Entered: 12/16/2009)
432 ORDER denying 431 Motion to Set Aside and for habeas relief is DENIED. Signed by Honorable Myron H. Thompson on 12/16/2009. (cb, ) Modified on 12/16/2009 to notate that a copy of the order was mailed to Beverly Jo Jones (cb, ). (Entered: 12/16/2009)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Honorable Charles S. Coody: Mediation/Settlement Conference held on 12/17/2009 (NO PDF attached). (ws, ) (Entered: 01/07/2010)
433 MOTION for Order to Pay Fees and Expenses of the Healthcare Court Monitor by Richard F. Allen, Gladys Deese, Mary Carter, Ronald Cavanaugh. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Order to Pay Monitor)(Thomas, Kim) (Entered: 01/07/2010)
434 ORDER granting 433 Motion for an Order to Pay Fees and Expenses of the Correctional Healthcare Monitor is GRANTED and that the defendants shall pay to Dr. Robert Greifinger the sum of $10,0000 for fees and expenses in performing the Post−Decree Monitoring in this case. Signed by Honorable Charles S. Coody on 1/8/2010. (cb, ) (Entered: 01/08/2010)
435 Joint MOTION for Order for Entry of Final Judgment by Richard F. Allen, Gladys Deese, Mary Carter, Bob Riley, Ronald Cavanaugh. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Attachment − Proposed Final Judgment)(Thomas, Kim) (Entered: 01/20/2010)

Case: 2:02-cv-957 As of: 08/13/2013 11:17 AM CDT 72 of 73

01/25/2010
05/12/2010 05/14/2010 06/02/2010 06/02/2010 06/02/2010 06/03/2010
06/07/2010 06/10/2010
06/23/2010 06/28/2010
09/20/2010 11/10/2010

436 FINAL JUDGMENT that Parties' 435 Joint Motion for Entry of Final Judgment is granted. The 341 Judgment and Permanent Injunction, and 342 Writ of Injunction and Order granted 393 Motion to Modify the Medical Settlement Agreement are dissolved, and and any and all claims asserted in this action as well as any claims arising from or any obligations set forth in any agreement between the Parties are dismissed with prejudice. The clerk of the court is DIRECTED to enter this document on the civil docket as a final judgment pursuant to Rule 58 of the FRCP. Signed by Honorable Myron H. Thompson on 1/25/2010. (cb, ) (Entered: 01/25/2010)
437 MOTION for Reconsideration re 430 Order and 432 Order by Non−Party Beverly Jo Jones. (cb, ) Modified on 5/17/2010 list the name of the filer (cb, ). (Entered: 05/13/2010)
438 ORDER denying 437 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Honorable Myron H. Thompson on 5/14/2010. (cb, ) (Entered: 05/14/2010)
439 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Non−Party Beverly Jo Jones as to 438 Order denying Motion for Reconsideration entered on 05/14/2010. (ydw, ) (Entered: 06/02/2010)
Transmission of Notice of Appeal, 430 Order, 432 Order on Motion to Set Aside, 438 Order denying 437 Motion for Reconsideration and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re 439 Notice of Appeal. (ydw, ) (Entered: 06/02/2010)
439 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Non−Party Beverly Jo Jones which the court is treating as a MOTION for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis.. (ydw, ) (Entered: 06/03/2010)
440 ORDER that this cause is now before the court on non−party Beverly Jo Jones notice of appeal (doc. no. 439), which the court is treating as a motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis; denying Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis, and that the appeal in this cause be and it is herebycertified, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), as not taken in good faith. Signed by Honorable Myron H. Thompson on 06/03/10. Copy of Order mailed to non−party Beverly Jo Jones @ Julia Tutwiler Prison For Women (ydw, ) (Entered: 06/03/2010)
441 TRANSCRIPT INFORMATION FORM by Non−Party Beverly Jo Jones "No hearing" (ydw, ) (Entered: 06/09/2010)
442 Appeal Remark re 439 Notice of Appeal, 11th Circuit Appeal No. 10−12559−A: USCA letter to non−party Beverly Jo Jones regarding NOTICE TO INCARCERATED APPELLANT OF THE $455.00 FEE REQUIREMENT UNDER THE PRISON LITIGATION REFORM ACT. (ydw, ) (Entered: 06/10/2010)
Pursuant to F.R.A.P. 11(c), the Clerk of the District Court for the Middle District of Alabama certifies that the record is complete for purposes of this appeal re: 439 Notice of Appeal, Appeal No. 10−12559−A. The entire record on appeal is available electronically. (ydw, ) (Entered: 06/23/2010)
443 Appeal Remark re 439 Notice of Appeal, 11th Circuit Appeal No. 10−12559−A: USCA letter to Tutwiler Prison Warden, Inmate Trust Fund Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the Act), 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (as amended), enclosed is a CONSENT FORM executed by a prisoner in your institution which authorizes payment of the required $455.00 appellate filing fee from his or her prison account to the district court named below. Signed Consent Form attached. Copy to Intake and Finance. (ydw, ) (Entered: 06/29/2010)
444 NOTICE of Change of Address by Beverly Jo Jones. (dmn) (Entered: 09/21/2010)
445 ORDER issued as the MANDATE 11/10/10 of USCA as to 439 Notice of Appeal, 11th Circuit Appeal No. 10−12559−A; Beverly Jones, an Alabama prisoner, has filed a notice of appeal of regarding the district court's denial of her "Motion to Set Aside Order to 'Overrule'/Motion to Hold In Contempt/Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus," and a motion to appeal in forma pauperis (IFP).The district court denied IFP status, certifying that the appeal was frivolous and not taken in good faith. The district court, however, did not assess a $455.00 appellate filing fee, as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (April 26, 1996); see 28 U.S.C. § 1915

Case: 2:02-cv-957 As of: 08/13/2013 11:17 AM CDT 73 of 73
(as amended). Jones has consented to pay the $455.00 filing fee and any additional costs assessed, usingthe partial payment plan described under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (as amended). Thus, the only remaining question is whether the appeal is frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). This Court now finds that the appeal is frivolous, DENIES leave to proceed, and DISMISSES the appeal. Jones's "application for release" is DENIED. Before: TJOFLAT, BLACK and WILSON, Circuit Judges. BY THE COURT: (ydw, ) (Entered: 11/10/2010)

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES cou!ii ~fl~~s

FILED~
MAR 20 2003

LINDA LAUBE, THERESA BARRON, et aI.,
versus

THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK
Plaintiffs-Appellees,

MICHAEL HALEY, Commissioner of the Alabama Dep't of Corrections, in his official capacity, GLADYS DEESE, Warden of Julia Tutwiler Prison for Women, in her official capacity, et aI.,

Defendants-Appellants, NAPHCARE, INC., Health Care Provider for Alabama Department of Corrections, in its official capacity, et aI.,

BOB RILEY, Governor of Alabama, in his official capacity,

Defendants, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama

Before CARNES and WILSON, Circuit Judges. BY THE COURT:
This appeal may PROCEED in part and is DISMISSED in part. The appeal may proceed from the district court's December 2, 2002, opinion, "Order and Preliminary Injunction," and "Writ ofInjunction." See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, 1292; United States v. State of Alabama, 828 F.2d 1532, 1537,1538 n.16 (lIth Cir. 1987); McDougald v. Jenson, 786 F.2d 1465, 1472 (11th Cir. 1986);

17'i

Fernandez-Roque v. Smith, 671 F.2d 426,429 (11 th Cir. 1982). The appeal is dismissed from the December 2, 2002, order denying the appellants' motions to dismiss, since that order is neither final nor immediately appealable. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Mestre, 701 F.2d 1365, 1368 (11 th Cir. 1983); see also Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541,546,69 S.Ct. 1221,1225-26,93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949).

A True eterk, U.

sC.oePoYu•rt.Atotfe~ It8d~.

Eleventn C\t'CuiY- \)

~~~~
Byl~uty Clerk.

Atlanta, Geo£g\a

2