UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
X LUCY AMADOR, STACIE CALLOWAY, TONIE COGGIN, NATASHA DOCKERY, TANYA JONES, BOBBIE KIDD, BETTE JEAN MCDONALD, KRISTINA MUEHLEISEN, JEANETTE PEREZ, LAURA PULLEN, CORILYNN ROCK, DENISE SAFFIOTI, SHENYELL, SMITH, HOPE SUSOH, and NAKIA THOMPSON, nn hehalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,

ANSWER TO CLASS ACTION FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
01 CV 0650 (KTD) (GWG)

-against-

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES

("DOCS")

SUPERINTENDENTS

ANGINELL

ANDREWS, ROBERTA COWARD, DENNIS

CROWLEY, ALEXANDREENA DIXON, ELAINE LORD,

RONALD MOSCICKI and MELVIN WILLIAMS; DOCS

DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT DONAL WOLFE; DOCS

DIRECTOR OF PERSONNEL TERRY BAXTER; DOCS

INSPECTOR GENERAL RICHARD ROY; DOCS

DIRECTOR OF THE SEX CRIMES UNIT OF THE

INSPECTOR GENERAL'S OFFICE BARBARA D,

LEONE, DOCS DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF

LABOR RELATIONS PETER BROWN; DOCS

COMMISSIONER GLENN S. GOORD, OFFICE OF

MENTAL HEALTH COMMISSIONER JAMES STONE,

DOCS CORRECTION OFFICERS CLARENCE DAVIS

M. EVANS, SERGEANT MICHAEL GALBREATH,

OFFICERS JOHN E. GILBERT III, LARIE. RICO

MEYERS, MICHAEL PINQUE, JEFFREY SHAVER,

ROBERT SMITH, DELROY THORE, and PETE

ZAWIISLAK,

Defendants.
X Defendant, RICK LARUE, by and throtlgh his 8ttorncys, Cronin & Byczek, LLP, herehy

answer Plaintiffs' Complaint as follmvs:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Denies, except admit that plaintiff, purport to bring this action for injunctive and declaratory

relief, and for money damages, to redress alleged violations of their rights under the First, Fourth,

Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1.

Denies each and every allegation in pm'~gr~ph "1" ofComplaint except admits that

plaimiffs purport to bring this action as detailed.

PARTIES
2. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allega tions set forth in paragraph "2" of the Complaint.
3. Denico knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph "3" of the Complaint.
4. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph "$" of the Complaint.

CORRECTIONAL STAFF DEFENDANTS

5. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "5" of the Complaint except admits that C.O. Rick LaRue was an

employee of DOCS and acting under color of state law at aU relevant times.

a

Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "Sa" of the Complaint.

h. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "5b" of the Complaint.

c

Denies knowledge or information sufficient tll {()rIn ,1 belief as to the tnIth of the

allegations set forth in par"graph "5e" of the Complaint.

2

d

Denie!:> knowledge or information sufficient to form a helief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "Sd" of the Complaint.

e.

Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "5e" of the Complaint.

f.

Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "Sf' of the Complaint.

g. Denies each and every allegation set forth in paragraph "5g" of the Complaint.

h. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a helief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "5h" of the Complaint.

Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a helief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "-'5i" of the Compbint.

J.

Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a helief as to the truth of the

rrllegations set forth in paragraph "5j" of the Complaint.

k.

Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "Sk" of the Complaint.

I.

Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a helief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "51" of the Complaint.

m. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "5m" of the Complaint.

11. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

alleg,nions set forth in paragraph "5n" of the Complaint.

o. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "50" of the Complaint.

3

SUPERVISORY DEFENDANTS

6. Denies knowledge or information sufflcient to form a helief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "6" of the Complaint.

7. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "7" of the Complaint.

8. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a helief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "8" of the Complaint.

9.

Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form Cl belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "9" of the Complaint.

10. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form rt helief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph" 10" of the Complaint.

11. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in pmagraph "11" of the Complaint.

12. Denies knuwledge or informfltion sufficient to form Cl helicf as to the truth of the

al1cgCltions set forth in paragrapll "12" of the Compbint.

13. Denies knowledge or infurmation sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "1)" of the Complaint.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

SUPERVISORY DEFENDANTS KNOW THAT WOMEN PRISONERS ARE AT SUBSTANTIAL RISK OF SEXUAL MISCONDUCT BY DOCS STAFF BUT FAIL TO
TAKE NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE ACTION.

14. Denies each and eyery flllegation set forth in paragraph" 14" of the Complaint. 15. Denies each and every allegation set forth in paragraph" IS" of the Complaint.

4

16, Denies each and every allegation set forth in paragraph "16" of the Complaint,
17, Denies each ami every allegation set forth in paragraph" 1T' of the Complaint.
DEFENDANT REFERS ALL QUESTIONS OF LAW TO THIS TRIAL COURT SUPERVISORY DEFENDANTS KNOW THAT WOMEN PRISONERS ARE AT
SUBSTANTIAL RISK OF SEXUAL MISCONDUCT BY DOCS STAFF 18, Denies each and every allegation set forth in paragraph "18" of the l.-omplaint 19, Denies each and evely "llegation set [(,rth in paragraph "19" of the Complaint a, Denies each and every allegation set forth in paragraph "19a" of the Complaint h. Denies each and every allegation set forth in paragraph "19h" of the Complaint
20, Denies each and every allel,(3tion set forth in paragraph "20" of the Complaint 21, Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form II belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph "21" of the Complaint SUPERVISORY DEFENDANTS FAll APPROPRIATELY TO SCREEN, ASSIGN,
TRAIN, AND SUPERVISE STAFF
22. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph "22" of the Complaint,
2.3, Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph "23" of the Complaint
d, Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations oct forth in paragraph "23,," of the Complaint
b. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a helief as to the truth of the
allegations set forth in paragraph "23h" of the Complaint c. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a he lief as to the truth of the
allegatiOns set forth in paragraph "23\;" of the Complaint
5

d. Denies knowledge or information sufflcient to form '<1 belief as to the truth of the

allegmions set forth in paragraph "23d" of the Complaint

24. Denies knowledge or infofnution sufficient to form a helief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "24 of the Complaint

a.

Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "24~1" of the Complaint

h. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a helief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "24h" of the Complaint

25. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "25" of the Complaint

a.

Denies knowledgc or information sufficient to form a helief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragmph "2 Sa" nf the Complaint

h.

Denies knowledge or inform(ltion ~ufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "25h" of the Complaint

c.

Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of thc

allegations set forth in paragraph "2 5c" of the Cnmplaim

d. Denies knuwleuge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations sct forth in paragraph "25d" of the Compl(lint

e.

Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a helief (IS to the truth of the

allcgations set forth in paragraph "2Se" of the Complaint

SUPERVISORY DEFENDANTS' SYSTEM FOR REPORTING AND INVESTIGATING COMPLAINTS OF SEXUAL MISCONDUCT IS GROSSLY INADEOUATE

26. Denics knowlcuge or information sufficient to form a helief as to the truth of the
6

allegation;; set forth in paragraph "26" of the Complaint

27. Denies knowledge or infonnatiol1 sufficient to form a bdief as to the truth of the

alleg,)(iol1S set forth in paragraph "27" of the Complaint

fl.

Denies each and every allegation set forth in paragraph H27,)" of the Complaint

1->.

Denies each and every allegation set forth in paragraph "27h of the Complaint.

c

Denies each and every allegation set forth in paragraph "27c" of the Complaint.

28. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a hehef as to the truth of the

allegatiom set forth in para!,'faph "28" of the Complaint

29. Denies knowledge or information sufficiem to form a helief as to the truth of the

allegations st:t forth in paragraph "29" of the Complaint

a.

Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a I->clief as [(] each and every

allegatIon set forth in paragraph "29a" of the Complaint

b.

Denies knowledge or informCltion sufficient to form a belief as to each and every

allegation set forth in paragraph "2% of the Complaint.

c

Denies each am.! every allegation set forth in paragraph "29(" of the Complaint.

30. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "30" of the Complaint

.3 L Demes knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "J I" of the Complclint

32. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a helief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "32" of the Complaint

33. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a helief ;15 to the truth of the allcg~tions ,et forth in paragraph "33" of the Complaint

7

34. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a helief ~s to the truth of the

allegations set forth in para~>raph "34" of the Complaint

15. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "35" of the Complaint

a.

Denies knowledge or informntion sufficient to form a belief as to the mah of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "35a of the Complaint

h. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "35b of the Complaint

c.

Denies knowledge or mfmmation sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "l'5c of the Complaint

36. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to tc)rm a belief as to the trutb of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "36" of the Compi<lint

<l.

Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in pmagraph "36a" of the Complaint

b. Dcnies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "36h" of the Complaint

37. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to fmm H b~lief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "37" of the Complaint

")8. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations fict forth in paragraph "38" of the Complaint

39. Denies knowledge or infonmltion sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "39" of the Complaint

8

SUPERVISORY DEFENDANTS FAIL TO PROVIDE NECESSARY OR ADEQUATE MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT TO WOMEN WHO COMPLAIN OF SEXUAL MISCONDUCT BY DOCS STAFF

40. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "40" of the Complaint

a. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to f0I111 a helief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "40a" of the Compl~lnt

h. Denies knowblgc or information sufficient to form a helief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "40h" of the Complaint

c.

Denies each and every allegation set forth in paragraph "40c" of the Complaint

d. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form" helief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "40d" of the Complaint

c. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a helief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "40e" of the COlllpl~int

THE NAMED PLAINTIFFS HAVE SUFFERED REPEATED AND UNNECESSARY SEXUAL ABUSE

41. Denies knowledge or information ;,ufficient to fl)rm a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph "41" of the Comph,int a. Denies knowledge or inform:ltioll sllflicient to form a helief a.s to the truth of the allegations set forth 111 paragraph "41 a" of the Complnint b. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a helief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph "41b" of the Complaint c. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to fmlll a belief as to the truth of the

9

all~gations oet forth in paragraph "41c" of the Complaint

d. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the tru th of the

allegations scr forth in paragraph "41d" of the Complaint

e,

Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "41e" of the Complaint

f.

Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a helief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "4 [f' of the Compbint

g.

Denies knowledge or information sufficknt to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "41g" of the Complaint

h, Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a helief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in pnagraph "41h" of the Complaint

1.

Denies knowledge or inforlllCltion sutlicicnt to form a helief ~s to the truth of the

allegations set forth 11l paragraph "41 i" of the Complaint

J.

Denies knowledge or information StIfficient to form a [-dief as to the truth of the

illlegatiol1S set forth in paragraph "41 j" of the Complaint

k. Denies knowledge or information slIfficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "41k" of the ComplClint

L

Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a helief as to rhe truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "411" of the Complaint

m. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 8$ to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "4! m" of the Complaint

n, Denies knowledge or information sufftcicnr to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "4ln" of the Complaint

10

o. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form" belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "410" of the Complaint.

p.. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to rhe tt\lth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "41 p" of the Complaint.

q. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the trllth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "41q" of the Complaint.

r.

Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a behef as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "41r" of the Complaint.

s.

Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form ,1 be1id as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "41s" of the Complaint.

L

Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

illlega tions set forth in p,uagraph "41 t" of the Complaint.

u.

Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "41u" of the Complaint.

v. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form 3 belief as to the truth of the

allcg8tions set forth in paragraph"41v" of the Complaint.

w. Denies knowledge Of information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations st:t forth in paragraph "41 w" of the Complaint.

42. Denies knowicdge or information suffkient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "42" of the Complaint.

a.

Denies each <lnd every allegation set forth in pamgmph "42,1" of the Compl<lillt

b.

Denies each ,md every allegation set forth in paragraph "42h" of th~ Complaint.

c.

Denies knowledge or inform<ltion sufficient to form C\ hclicf as to the truth of the

11

allegations set forth in p~ragraph "42c" of the Compl"int.

d. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a helief as to the tru th of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "42d" of the Complaint.

e.

Denies knowledge or int()[m3tion sufficient to form ;1 helief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "42e" of the Complaint

f.

Denies knowledge or infonmtion sufficient to form" belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "42f' of the Complaint

g. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a helief as to the truth of the

,,!legations set forth in paragraph "42g" of the Complaint

h. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "42h" of the Complaint.

L

Denies knowledge or inftmnation sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "42i" of the Complaint.

J.

Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph"42J" of the Comph1int.

k. Dcnit:s knowletlge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "42k" of the Complaint.

l.

Denies knowledge or informatum s"ffICient to fmm a helief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph"421" of the Complaim.

43. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragmph "43" of the Complaint.

a. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a helief as to the truth of the

c111egations set forth in paragraph "43a" of the Complaint.

12

b. Denies knowledge or inforlmition sufficient to form a helief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "43h" of the Complaint.

c.

Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a helief as to [he truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "43c" of the Complaint.

d. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a helief as to the tfllth of the

c11kgations set forth in paragraph "43d" of the Complaint.

e.

Denies knowledge or information sufficient to (01111 a helief as to the truth of the

allegation, set forth in paragraph "4,c" of the Complall1t.

f.

Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form ~ helicf as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragmph "43f' of the Complaint.

g.

Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a helief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "43g" of the Complaint.

h. Denies knowledge or information oufficient to form a helief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "43h" of the Complaint.

!.

Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a hclief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "43i" of the Complaint.

j.

Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a helief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "43j" of the Complaint.

k. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "43k" of the Comphlim.

1.

Denies knowledge or informmion sufficient to form a helief as to the tfilth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "431" of the Compbint.

Ill. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a helief as to the truth of the

13

allegations set forth in paragraph "41m" of the Complaint.

1.

Denies knowledge or information suftlcicm to form" belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "43mi" of the Complaint.

ii. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the trllth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "41I11ii" of the Complaint.

lll. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "43mHi" of the Complaint.

44. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set jimh in paragraph "44" of the Complaint.

a. Denies knowledge or inj()rmation sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "44,," of the Complaint.

b. Denies knowledge or infmlllatiol1 sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "44h" of the Complaint.

c. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "44c" of the Complaint.

d. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "44d" of the Compl"lllt.

e. Denies knowledge or intclflnation sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "44c" of the Complaint.

f.

Denies knowledge or inf<.mnation sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "44f' of the Complaint.

g. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief ,\S to the truth of the

14

allegations set forth in paragraph "44g" of the Complaint.

45. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to r,mn a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "45" of the Complaint.

".

Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "4~a" of the Complaint.

b. Denies knowledge or information sufficicnt to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "45b" of the Complaint.

c.

Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "45c" of the Complaint.

d.

Denies knowledge or information .,ufficicnt to form a helief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "45d" of the Complaint.

c.

Denies knowledge or information "ufficient to form a hehef as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "45c" of the Complaint.

f.

Denies knowledge or inform~ti()n wfficient to form a helief as to the truth of the

allegCltions set forth in paragraph "45f' of the Complaint.

g.

Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a helief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "4SgH of the Complaint.

h.

Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a helief as to the truth of the

allegatiom set forth in paragraph "45h" of the Complaint.

l.

Denies knowledge or infonnation sufficient to form a helief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "45i" of the Complaint.

j.

Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

alleg,nions set forth in paragraph "45j" of the Complaint.

15

k.

Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form rt belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "45k" of the Complaint.

1.

Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in pamgraph "451" of the Complaint.

46. Denies knowleclge or information suffkient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "46" of the Complaint.

a.

Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "46a" of the Compbint.

h. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "46b" of the Complaint.

c.

Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief ns to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph"46c" of the Complaint.

d. Denie, knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "46d" of the Complaint.

e.

Denies knowledge or information suffiCient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "46c" of the Compbint.

f.

Denies knowledge or informntion sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "46f' of the Complaint.

g.

Denies knowledge or infnnm1tion sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "46g" of the Complaint.

h. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a bclid as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "46h" of the Complaint.

i.

Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

16

allegations set forth in paragraph "46i" uf the Complaint.

47. Denies knowledge or in/ormation sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in p<uagraph "47" of rhe Complaint.

a.

Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a helief <15 to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "47,," of the Complaint.

b. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a helief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "47h" of the Complaint.

c.

Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a hclicf as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "47c" of the Complaim.

d. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "47d" of the Complaint.

e.

Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a helief as to the truth of the

"llegations set forth in pmagraph "47e" of the Complaint.

f.

Denies knowledge or information suffiCient to !(mn a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "47f' of the Complaint.

g. Denies knowledge or information sufficiem to forlll a belief a6 to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "47g" of the Complaint.

h. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a helief as to [he trllLh of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "47hH of the Complaint.

1.

Denies knowledge or information slIfficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "471" of the Complaint.

Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a helief as to the truth of the

allegation;, set forth in paragrctph "47j" of the Complaint.

17

k, Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to tbe truth of the
al1cg3tiom set tcmh in paragraph "47k" of the Complaint,

L

Denies knowledge or information sufficicnt to form a belief as ro the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "471" of the Complaint,

48, Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a helief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "48" of the Complaint,

fl,

Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegmions set forth in paragraph "48a" of the Complaint.

b, Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a helief as to the truth of the

allegations sd forth in p<lragraph "4Bb" of the Complaint,

c. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "4Rc" of the Complaint.

d, Denies knowledge or inic)rmation SlIffidcnt to form a helief ilS to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "48J" of the Complaint,

e. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a helief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "48c" of the Complaint,

£.

Denies knowledge or information sufficicnt to form a helief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "4Bf' of the Complaint.

g, Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "4RgH of the Complaint.

h. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a helief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "48h" of the Complaint,

I.

Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief <1S to the truth of the

18

allegations sct forth in paragraph "4Si" of the Complaint.

J.

Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "48]" of the Complaint.

k. Denies knowledge or inform,nion sufficient to form a helief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "48k" of the Complaint.

l.

Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a helief as m the trtlth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "481" of the Complaint.

m. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a helief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "48m" of the Complaint.

n. Denies knowledge or infonnation sufficient to form a helief as to the truth of the

allegations set fi)rth in parclgraph "48n" of the Compbint.

o.

Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a bdjd Cl, to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "480" of the Compl~int.

p. Denies knowledge or information sufficicnt to form a helief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "4Sp" of the Complaint.

q. Denies knowledge or information sufCicient to form a helief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "48q" of the Complaint.

r.

Denies knowledge or information sufflcient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "48r" of the Complaint.

s.

Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a bdief as to the truth of the

allegnrions set forth in paragraph "48s" of the Complaint.

t.

Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a helief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "48t" of the Omlplmm.

19

u. Denies knowledge or information sufikient to form a belief as to the trmh of the

a!legations set forth in paragraph "48\1" of the Complaint.

v. Denies knowlcJgc or information sufficient to f(xm a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "48v" of the Complaint.

49. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to f'Jrm a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "49" of the Compbint.

a.

Denies knowledge or infornution sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "49a" of the Complaint.

b. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a behcf as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "49b" of the Complaint.

c.

Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "49c" of the Complaint.

d. Denies knowledge or information ,ufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

nllcgations tiet forth in paragraph "49d" of the Complaint.

Co

Denies knowledge or infotnlHtion sufficient to form ,) helief a, to the truth of the

allegations set forth in para~,'raph "4ge" of the Complaint.

f

Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 8S to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "49f' of the Complaint.

g. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form" belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "49g" of the Complaint.

h. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a hdid as co the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "49h" of the Complaint.

1.

Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

20

allegations set forth in pmagraph "49i" of the Complaint.

j.

Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in p,uagraph "49j" of the Complaint.

k.

Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form ~ helief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "49k" of the Complaint.

l.

Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a helief as to the truth of the

nllegmions set forth in paragraph "491" of the Complaint.

50. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a helief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "50" of the Complaint.

a.

Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a helief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "50a" of the Complaint.

h.

Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a helief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "50h" of the Complaint.

c.

Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a helief as to the truth of the

~llcg8tions set forth in paragraph "50c" of the Complaint.

d. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a helief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "5-d" of the Complaint.

c.

Denies knowledge or infom18tion sufficient to form a helief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "50e" of the Complaint.

£.

Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a helief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "50f" of the Complaint.

g.

Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a helief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "SOg" of the Complaint.

21

h. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a helief ~s to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "SOh" of the Complaint.

1.

Denies knowledge or mformation sufficient to form a helief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "50i" of the Complaint.

j.

Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "SOj" of the Complaint.

k. Denies knowledge or informatioll sufficient to form a helief as [(l the truth of the

aUegmions set forth in paragraph "50k" of the Complaint.

L Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a helief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "501" of the Complaint.

m. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a helief flS to the trllth of the

nllcgatiol1S set forth in paragraph "SOm" of the Complaint.

S!. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to t(lml a belief as to the rruth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "51" of the Complaint.

a. Denies knowledge or information sufficient m form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph" 51 a" of the Complaint.

b. Denies each and every allegation set forth in paragraph "Sib" of the Complaint.

c. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a helief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "51 e" uf the Complaint.

d. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "SId" of the Complaint.

c

Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "51c" of the Complaint.

22

f

Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegatlons set forth in paragraph "1 If' of the Complaint.

g

Denies knowledge or inform~tinn sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "5114" of the Complaint.

h

Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "51h" of the Complaint except admits that Officer LaRue

continues to be employed at Alhion.

i.

Denies knowledge or information suftkient to fonn a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "Sli" of the Complaint.

Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "51( of the Ccmpl;Jint.

'i2. Denies knowledge or infomlatlon sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "52" of the Complaint.

3. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "'j2a" of the Complaint.

b

Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph ".12b" of the Complaint.

c. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to /Z1fl11 a bclief ~'s to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "52c" of the Complaint.

d. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth m paragraph "S2d" of the Complaint.

c. Denies knowledge or information sufficient [() form a helief ,lS to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "52c" of the Complaint

23

f.

Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "SU' of the Complaint.

g. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "5214" of the Complaint.

h. Denies knowledge or information suffiCIent to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "52h" of the Complaint.

i.

Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a helief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "521" of the Complaint.

j.

Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a helief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "S2j" of the Complaint.

k. Dcnieo knowledge or information sufficient to form a helief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "S2k" of the Complaint.

Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "521" of the Complaint.

m. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "52m" of the Compbint.

n

Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations $ct forth in paragraph "'52n" of the Complaint.

()

Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a helief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "520" of the Complaint.

p

Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "SZp" of the Complaint.

q

Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

24

allegations set forth in paragraph "52q" of the Complaint.

53. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "53" of the Complaint.

a. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a helief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "53a" of the Complaint.

b. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to t(lrm a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "53b" of the Complaint.

c.

Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief ~s to the truth of the

allegatIOns set forth in paragr,lph "5.3c" of the Complaint.

d. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allcgations set forth in paragraph "53d" of the Compi<lillr.

c.

Denies knowledge or infonnotiOll sufficient to form ~ belief ~s to the truth of the

alieg~tions set forth in paragraph "53e" of the Complaint.

f.

Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form n belief flS to the truth of the

allegatioWi set forth in paragraph "53f' of the Complaint.

g. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "53g" of the Complaint.

h. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a helief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "5.3h" of the Complaint.

L

Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "53i" of the Complaint.

J.

Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "53j" of the Complaint.

25

k. Denies knowledge or ini{)rmation sufficicnt to form a belief a~ to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "53k" of the Complaim.

54. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form" belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "54" of the Complaint.

,1. Denies knowledge or information sufficicnt to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "54a" of the Complaint.

h. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "54h" of the Complaint.

c. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a helief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "54c" of the Complaint.

d. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a bdief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "54d" of the Complaint.

e. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a helief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "54e" of the Complaint.

f.

Denies knowledge or information sufficiclll to form a helief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "54f' of the Complaint.

g. Denies knowledge or inform2tion sufficient to form a helief CIS to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "54g" of the Complaint.

h. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the tntth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "54h" Df rhe Complaint.

55. Denies knowledge or information sufficlcnt to form a helief as to the truth of the

allcgations set forth m paragraph "55" of the Complaint.

a. Denies knowledge or informacion sufficient to form a hehef as to the truth of the

26

allcgarions set forth in par~graph "55a" of the Complaint.

b. Denies knowledge or informmion sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

~lleg~tions set forth in paragraph "55b" of the Complaint.

c.

Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "SSe" Df the Complaint.

J.

Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "55d" of the Complaint.

i. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "S5t of the Complaint.

ii. Denies knowledge or information sufficiem to form a helief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "5511" of the Complaint,

iii. Denies knowledge or infoonation sufficient to {oon a belief as to the truth of the

allegatlOl1s :,et forth in paragraph "5 Siii" of the Complaint.

e.

Denies knowledge or information slIfficient to form a helief >ts to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "SSe" of the Complaint.

f.

Denies knowledge or inf()rmation sufficient to f()rm a belief as to the truth of the

allegatIons set forth in paragraph "5Sf' of the Complaint.

g.

Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a helief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "SSg" of the Complaint.

h. Denies knowledge or information sufficicm to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "55il" of the Complaint.

1.

Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

rrllcgations set forth in paragraph "55i" of the Complamt.

27

j.

Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations ,et forth in paragraph ")Sr of the Complaint.

k.

Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form ~ belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "55k" of the Complaint.

L

Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allq:ations set forth in paragraph "551" of the Complaint.

m. Denies knowledge or infonmltion sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "SSm" of the Complaint.

n. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form 11 belief as to the truth of the

"Uegations bet forth in p<1ragn.ph "55n" of the Complaint.

o. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "550" of rhe Complaint.

56. Denies knowledge or inform~tion sufficient to form a behef as to the truth of the

allegations bet forth in paragraph "56" of the Complaint.

a. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "';63" of the Complaint.

h. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations bet forth in paragraph "56b" of the CumplClint.

c. Denies knowledge or information Sllffidenr to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "56c" of the Complaint.

d. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to fmm a belief as to the truth of the

,111cg'utions sct forth in paragraph "56d" of the Complaint.

e. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

28

allegations set forth in paragraph "56e" of tbe Complaint. f. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form H helief as to the truth of the
allegations set forth in panlgrHph "5tif' of the Complaint. g. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a helief as to the truth of the
allegations set forth in paragraph "56g" of the Complaint. h. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations set forth in paragraph "56h" of the Complaint.
L Denies knowledge or information sufficient to f(lrIn a belief as to the truth of the "llegations set forth in paragraph "56i" of the Complaint.
). Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations set forth in paragraph "S6r' of the Complaint. k. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations set forth in paragraph "56k" of the Complmnt.
\. Denies knowledge or infonnation sufficient to lonn a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragnlph "561" of the Complaint.
57. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph "57" of the Complaint.
<\. Denies knowledge or mformatiol1 sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations set forth in paragraph "57a" of the Complaint.
h. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 3S to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph "57b" of the Complaint.
L Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph "57c" of the Complaint.
29

d. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in p<Iragraph "57d" of the Complaint.
e. Demes knowledge or information sufficient to form a helief as to the truth of the allegatiom set forth in paragraph "57c" of the Complaint.
f. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form" belief as to the truth of the allegariom set forth in paragraph "57f' of the Complaint.
g. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a he lief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph "57g" of the Complaint.
h. Denies knowledge or informacion sufficient to form a helief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in pl'ragraph "57h" of the Complaint.
i. D",nics knowledge or information sufficient to form a helief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in par<lgmph ".57i" of the Complaint.
j. Denies knowledge or informatlon sufficient to form ,) belief as to the trllth of [he allegations set brth in paragraph "57j" of the Complaint.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
58. Denies (<Jeh and every allegation set forth in paragraph "58" of the Complaint except admit that plaintiffs purport to hrit1g this action on hehalf of all women prisoners in DOCS custody.
a. Denies each amI every allegation set forth in par<1gr<1ph '''iRa'' of the Complaint b. Denies each and every allegation set forth in paragraph "58b" of the Complaint. c. Denies each and every allegation set forth in paragraph "58e" of the Compbint. d. Denies each and every allegation set forth in paragraph "S8d" of the Complaint. c. Denies knowledge or information suffkient to form a belief as to the truth of the
30

allegations set forth in paragraph "SSe" of the Compbinr.

f.

Denies e,1(h and every allegation set forth in paragraph "S8f' of the Complaint.

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

CLAIMS ON BEHALF OF THE P PLAINTIFF CLASS

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

Cruel and Unusual Punishment

59. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "59" of the Complaint.

60. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a helief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "60" of the Complamt.

61. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a helief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "61" of the Complaint.

62. Demcs knowledge or information sufficient to form a helief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "62" of the Complaint.

63. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations set forth in paragraph "63" of the Complaint.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

Violations of the Right to Bec Free From Sexual Abuse and Harassment and of the Right to Bodily Integrity and Privacy Without Duc Process of Law

64. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a helief as to the truth of the
allegations set forth in paragraph "64" of the Complaint. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
Violations of the Right to Freedom Speech
31

65. Denie, knowledge or infonmuion sufficient to form a belief ,1$ to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph "65" of the Complaint.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION Violations of the Right to Equal Protection of the Laws 66. Denies knowlcdl~C or information sufficient to form a he lief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph "66" of the Complaint.
NAMED PLAINTIFFS' INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES 67. Denies knowledge or infmlllation sufficient to form a helief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph "67" of the Complaint. 68. Denies knowledge or infonllation sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph "68" of the Complaint. 69. Denies knowledge or infornmtion sufficient to form a helief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph "69" of the Complaint. 70. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph "70" of the Complaint. 71. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a helief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph "71" of the Complaint.
n. Denies each and every allegation set forth in paragraph "72" of the Complaint.
73. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to rhe truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph "73" of the Complaint. 74. Denies knowledge or info Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph "74" of the Complaint.
32

75. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a helief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in parngraph "71" of the Complaint. 76. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph "76" of the Complaint. 77. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph "77" of the Complaint. 78. Denies knowledge or informarirm sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph "78" of the Complaint. 79. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragnlph "79" of the Comphlim. 80. Denies knowledge or infol1l1ation sufficient to form a behef as to the truth of the ~lIcgations set forth in pamgmph "80" of the Complaint. 81. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph "81" of the Complaint. 82. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph "82" of the Complaint. lB. Denies each ami every allegation set forth in paragraph "83" of the Complaint 84. Denies each and every allegation set forth in p,1ragraph "84" of the Complaint 85. Denies each and every allegation set forth in paragraph "85" of the Complaint 86. Denies each and every allegation set !cltth in paragraph "86" of the Complaint
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
1. Denies each a11(1 every allegation set forth in panlgraph "1" of the Complaint
Z. Denies each and every allegation set forth In paragraph ''2'' of the Complaint
33

3. Denies each and evefY allegation set forth in paragraph "3" of the Complaint

4.

Denies each and every allegation set forth in pm-agraph "4" of the Complaint

5. Denies each and every allegation set forth in paragraph "5" of the Complaint

6. Denies each and every alleg,1tion set forth in paragraph "6" of the Complaint

AS AND FOR A FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

1. Defendant LARUE did not violate any rights, privileges or amenities guaranteed to

Plaintiffs by the Constitution or laws of the United States Of of the State of New York, nor has

he violated any act of Congress provided fOf the protection of civil rights.

AS AND FOR A SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

2. Plaintiffs Complaint faib to state a claim upon which relief can be granted as

against Defendant LARUE in his official capacity and/or in his personal capacity.

AS AND FOR A THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

3. That the injuries that the Plaintiffs nllcgc that they suffered were caused <111 or in part by

their own culpable conduct.

AS AND FOR A FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

4.

Probable cause existed for all actions taken by Defendm1t LARUE.

AS AND FOR A FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

5. That the individual Defendant LARUE acted reasonably and in good faith in discharging

his official duties and his n:sponsibilitics, and as such. is entitled to qualified immunity.

AS AND FOR A SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

6. DefendantLARUE did not violate any rights of the Plaintiffs of which a

reasonable person would have known <Jilli thus i, entitled to q!mlifled nnmunity.

34

AS AND FOR A SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
7, This Court has not acquired jurisdiction over Ddemhlllt LARUE in his individual or official capacity, due to lack of personal jurisdiction ,md improper service, and failure to proceed against Defendant LARUE within the Statute of Limitations,
AS AND FOR A EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
8, The Defendant LARUE acted rco"onahly and in good faith in discharging his official duties and rcsponsibilities,
AS AND FOR A NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
9, Any and all contact by defendant LARUE with plaintiffs was with consent.
AS AND FOR A TENTH AFFlRMATIVE DEFENSE 10, If Ddendant LARUE had any contact with plaintiffs, he did not know of anv facts
and/or conditions which may make plaintiffs incap,lblc to consent.
AS AND FOR A FIRST CROSS,CLAIM AGAINST DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES ("DOCS")
11, If plaintiffs were camed dmllages as alleged in plaintiff;; colllplaint due to any culpable conduct, then such damages were suhsequently due to the culpahlc conduct, negligent acts or omissions or commiosions of all other defendants, 12, All of the actiono of the answering defendant, P,O, LaRue, were performed within the scope of his duties and within tbe scope of his employment and any liahility to plaintiff lllust be assumed by his employer pursuant to the principle of respondent superior. [3, Pursuant to this principle ofbw, co-defendant, DOCS ,should represent and/or pay tbe judgment and any defense costs for their employee, Police Officer LaRue,
35

AS AND FOR A SECOND CROSS,CLAIM OF RICK LARUE, POLlCE OFFICER,
AGAINST DEFENDANT DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES ("DOCS")

14 If plaintiffs were causcll dam,lgeS as alleged in plaintiff COlnplaint due to any culpable

conduct, then sllcb dmnages were suh,cqllcntiy due to the culpable conduct, negligent acts or

omissions or commissions of all other llcfcndants.

15 All of the actions of the answering defendant, P.O. Rick LaRue were performed within

the scope of his official duties and within the scope of his employment and any liability to

pbintiffs must be assumed by his employer, pursuant to the principle of respondent superior.

16. Pursuant to this principle "flaw, if the plaintiff receives jm.lgmcnt against the answering

dcfcnchmt s,lid plaintiffs me entitled to recover the amount of slIch judgment from co-defendant

employer, Department of Correctional Services and New York State.

WHEREFORE, the answering Dcfcnd,11lts, demand judgment;

A. Dismissing the Complaint against Defendant LaRue in all respects;

B. Awarding Defendant LaRue the costs and disbursements of lhis action, including

reasonable attorneys fees.

Dated; Lake Success, New York March 31, 2005

Yours, etc.

CRONIN BYCZEK, LLP

Attorneys for Defendant,

RICK LARUE

n . (~-.

,,j.::,J'

'..1\

~,~-(I.,..~ (.'__ L 0 ~_~_~ ? _~, " ,I. "-

By: Chrisrin<t A. Leonard (CL 5020)
1981 MarClls Avenue
Suite 227
Lnke Success, New York 11042,1016
516358-1700

36

TO, DORl A. LEWIS (9862) USA FREEMAN
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
The Legal Aid Society The Prisol1ers'Rights Project One Battery Park Plaza, 27'" Floor Nc\v York, New York 10004 212-577 3530 Joseph M. Latona, Esq. Attorney for Defendant Chtrcnce Davis 716 Brisbane Rl1ilding Buffalo, New York 1420.3 State of New York Office of the Attorney General Attention: Richard W. Brewster, Deputy Bureau Chief Attorneys for Defendants DOCS 120 Broadway New York, New York 10271-0332
37

SERVICE LIST
Raymond L. Colon Attorney and Counselor at Law Attorney for Defendant, Hudson 2J3 Broadway, Y" Floor New York, New York 10279
Dennis B. Schlenker, Esq. Attorney for Christopher Sterling 174 Washington Avenue Albany, New York 12210
DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON 919 Third Avenue New York, New York 10022
DOR! A. LEWIS LISA FREEMAN The Legal Aid Society The Prisoners' Rights Project 199 Water Street, 6'1> Floor New York, New York 10038
RICHARD BREWSTER Deputy Bureau Chief Law Enforcement Litigation 120 Broadway New York, New York 10271
DIANE R. TIVERTON Hogan & Willig, PLLC One John James Audubon Parkway, Suite 2LO Amherst, New York 14228-1169
JOHN J. WALSH Boeggeman, George, Hodges & Corde, P.e. 11 Martine Avenue, Suite 920 White Plains, New York 10606

GEORGE V.c. MUSCATO Muscato, Di Millo & Vona, LLP. 107 East Avenue Lockport, New York 14094
JOSEPH M. LATONA 403 Main Street 716 Brisbane Building Buffalo, New York 14203
CORRECTIONS OFFICER RICK LARUE Albion Correction Facility 3595 State School Road Albion, New York 14411
LAWRENCE H. SCHAEFER, ESQ. Hinman Straub PC 121 State Street Albany, New York 12207-1693
MR. MICHAEL R. GALBREATH 518 Linn Street - Apt. #2 Itbaca, New York 14850
PETER ZAWISLAK 01-A-6632
Collins Correctional Facility
P.O. Box 340 Collins, New York 14034-0490
LIEUTENANT SMITH
Arthur Kill Correctional Facility
2911 Artbur Kill Road Staten Island. New York 10309-1197

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

X - - - - - - - - - - - . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

LUCY AMADOR, et al., on behalf of

themselves and all others similarly :

situated,

Plaintiffs,

03 Civ. 0650

(KTD)(GWG)

-a-qainst-

: OPINION & ORDER

ANGINELL ANDREWS, et al.,

Defendants. X - - - - . - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . . -

KEVIN THOMAS DUFFY, U.S.D.J.

Plaintiff Shantelle Smith ("Smith")moves for an order granting

summary judgment as to liability on her claim against Defendant

James Hudson ("Officer Hudson") pursuant to Rule 56(c) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Officer Hudson did not oppose

Smith's motion for summary judgment. For the following reasons,

I grant Smith's motion for summary judgment.

I. BACKGROUND

Smith was incarcerated at Bayview Correctional Facility

("Bayview") from July 26, 2001 through June 13, 2003. Between

July 2002 and June 2003, Smith was housed on the eighth floor in

a one-person cell. From the late 1980s until August 2003, the

New York State Department of Correctional Services ("DOCS")

employed Officer Hudson as a Correction Officer at Bayview.

From approximately 1997 through August 2003, Officer Hudson was

assigned to the eighth floor of Bayview. In the spring of 2003,

Officer Hudson was the only officer assigned to the eighth floor of Bayview during the 3:OOpm to 1l:OOpm shift.
Smith alleges that in April 2003 Officer Hudson sodomized her by forcing her to perform oral sex on him in a stairwell, accessible from the eighth floor, the doors to which were kept locked and could only be unlocked by the correction officer on duty. Further, Smith alleges that Officer Hudson sodomized her on May 30, 2003, by forcing her to perform oral sex on him in her cell while the other inmates housed in the unit watched a movie in the recreation room. Officer Hudson threatened that if Smith reported the incident, he would make her life during incarceration more difficult.
On June 11, 2003, Smith confided in a counselor, and the next day, Smith informed other DOCS officials that Officer Hudson forcibly sodomized her. DOCS investigators collected the shirt Smith wore on May 30, 2003 and sent it to the New York City police, who then forwarded it to the New York City's Medical Examiner for testing. Testing confirmed that Officer Hudson's semen was on the shirt and that the semen was mixed with Smith's saliva.
On March 26, 2007, Officer Hudson pled guilty in state court to sodomy in the third degree in violation of New York Penal Law § 130.40 and was convicted of that crime. During his allocution, Officer Hudson admitted under oath to engaging in

"deviate sexual intercourse" with Smith, based on sexual contact between his penis and her mouth during the assault in May 2003.
At his October 31, 2007 deposition in this action, Officer Hudson testified that he sodomized Smith; that he pled guilty to sodomy in the third degree; and that he was, in fact, guilty of that crime. At his deposition, however, Officer Hudson refused, on the basis of the Fifth Amendment privilege against selfincrimination, to answer any other questions regarding details of the May 2003 incident and the earlier incident in April 2003. 11. Legal Standard for Summary Judgment
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 provides that summary judgment is proper when "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." FED. R. CIV. P. 56ic); Beard v-. Banks, 548 U.S. 521, 529 (2006) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986)).
If the moving party meets its initial burden of demonstrating that no genuine issue of material fact exists for trial, the non-movant 'must come forth with evidence sufficient to allow a reasonable jury to find in her favor." Brown v. Henderson, 257 F.2d 246, 251 (2d Cir. 2001) (citation omitted) The nonmoving party "may not rely merely on allegations or

denials in its own pleadings;" bald assertions unsupported by evidence are insufficient to overcome a motion for summary judgment. FED. R. CSV. P. 56 ( e )(2); - see - Carey v . Crescenz- i, 923
F.2d 18, 21 (2d Cir. 1991).
Rule 56(e)(2) further provides that: "If the opposing party does not [ ] respond, summary judgment should, if appropriate, be entered against that party." FED. R. CIV. P. 56(e)(2). While the non-moving party's burden to respond arises only if a summary judgment motion is "appropriate," meaning the moving party has met its burden of production to show the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, a court will proceed, if there is no opposition by the non-movant, to grant summary judgment if the moving party has met its initial burden. - See Amaker v. Foley, 274 F.3d 677, 681 (2d Cir. 2001). "[Iln determining
whether the moving party has met this burden . . . . , the
district court may not rely solely on the statement of undisputed facts contained in the moving party's Rule 56.1 statement. It must be satisfied that the citation to evidence in the record supports the assertion." Vt. Teddy Bear Co. v. 1800 BEARGRAM Co., 373 F.3d 241, 244 (2d Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). 111. DISCUSSION
Despite the decision of Officer Hudson not to oppose the motion for summary judgment, I must determine if Smith has met

her initial burden of demonstrating that no material issue of fact regarding the April 2003 and May 2003 incidents remains for trial. See Amaker, 274 F.3d at 681. If Smith meets this burden, I must grant summary judgment as to liability against Officer Hudson.
Smith cited to the following evidence in the record to support her assertion that Officer Hudson violated her Eighth Amendment rights when he forcibly sodomized her: (1) unrebutted testimony from Smith's deposition describing the April 2003 and May 2003 incidents; (2) Officer Hudson's guilty plea to sodomy in the third degree based on the May 2003 incident; (3) Smith's inmate grievance complaint; (4) various laboratory reports confirming that the short worn by Smith during the May 2003 incident contained semen from Officer Hudson and that the semen was mixed with Smith's saliva; and (5) Officer Hudson's refusal to answer virtually all questions at his deposition regarding the allegations of forcible sodomy and his assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege.
It is well settled that a court may draw "a negative inference . . . against the non-moving party if the non-moving party asserts the Fifth Amendment privilege aqainst self incrimination in response to probative evidence by the moving party." JSC Foreign Econ. Ass'n Technostroyexport v. Int'l Dev't & Trade Servs., Inc., 386 F. Supp. 2d 461, 464 (S.D.N.Y

2005) (citing LiButti v. United States, 107 F.3d 110, 121 (2d Cir. 1997); United States v. Certain Real Property and Premises Known as 4003-4005 5th Ave., 55 F.3d 78, 82-83 (2d Cir. 1995); Adelphia Communications Corp. v. Rigas, 317 B.R. 612, 623-24 (Bkrtcy. S.D.N.Y.2004)). Because Officer Hudson asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege and refused to answer questions about his sexual misconduct, I must draw an adverse inference against him pertaining to his involvement in the April 2003 and May 2003 incidents.
Therefore, after reviewing all the evidence, Smith has established that there is no genuine issue of material fact precluding the entry of summary judgment as to liability against Officer Hudson for violating Smith's Eighth Amendment rights when he forcibly sodomized her on two separate occasions. Officer Hudson had the opportunity to offer evidence contesting Smith's allegations, but chose not to do so.

VII. Conclusion For the reasons set forth above, Smith has demonstrated
that she is entitled to summary judgment as to liability against Officer Hudson. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. I order discovery on the limited issue of punitive damages for a 60-day period from the date of this order and an inquest on damages thereafter. SO ORDERED. Dated: New York, N.Y.
June 12, 2010
KEVIN THOMAS UWFY /C/

 
 Case 1:03-cv-00650-KTD-GWG Document 352 Filed 07/26/12 Page 1 of 11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------------ )(
LUCY AMADOR, et al., on behalf of themselves : and all others similarly situated,
03 Civ. 0650 (KTD) (GWG) Plaintiffs, - againstANGINELL ANDREWS, et aL, Defendants.
------------------------------------------------------------ )(
STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL
WHEREAS, plaintiff, Shenyell Smith, along with fourteen other women, filed a Complaint ("Federal Action") dated January 28, 2003, in the Southern District of New York, challenging the policies and procedures set by high-ranking officials of the New York Department of Corrections and Community Supervision ("DOCCS," formerly known as the Department of Correctional Services or "DOCS") alleging that the policies enabled the sexual abuse of women prisoners by male correctional staff;
WHEREAS plaintiff individually sought compensatory and punitive damages in the Federal Action from Officer defendant Delroy Thorpe for sexually abusing her in violation of her Constitutional rights while housed at Bedford Hills Correctional Facility;
WHEREAS on October 10, 2003, defendant Delroy Thorpe moved pursuant to

Case 1:03-cv-00650-KTD-GWG Document 352 Filed 07/26/12 Page 2 of 11
Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b) to sever the claims asserted against him from all other claims in the Federal Action;
WHEREAS the Honorable Kevin T. Duffy granted defendant Delroy Thorpe's motion for severance in the Federal Action on December 6, 20 I0;
WHEREAS on October 14, 2003, plaintiff along with sixteen other women, filed a First Amended Complaint in the Federal Action;
WHEREAS defendant Delroy Thorpe answered the First Amended Complaint in the Federal Action on November 18,2003, and denied all allegations that his conduct violated plaintiffs Constitutional rights;
WHEREAS on December 3, 2007 the Court dismissed plaintiffs claims for injunctive and declaratory relief against the Supervisory Defendants as moot because she had been released from prison;
WHEREAS plaintiff appealed the dismissal of her claims for injunctive and declaratory relief to the Second Circuit, and on August 19,2011 the Second Circuit issued an opinion remanding the issue of whether plaintiff, despite the fact her individual claims were moot, could nonetheless act as a class representative in this case;
WHEREAS plaintiff, Shenyell Smith, filed a Claim on January 21,2003, in the State of New York Court of Claims ("Court of Claims Action") alleging that defendant State ofNew York was negligent in its hiring, training, retention, and supervision of Delroy Thorpe, who engaged in improper sexual contact with plaintiff while housed at
2 


Case 1:03-cv-00650-KTD-GWG Document 352 Filed 07/26/12 Page 3 of 11
Bedford Hills Correctional Facility; WHEREAS the parties wish to resolve the issues alleged in the First Amended
Complaint by Shenyell Smith in the above-captioned Federal Action and against defendant State of New York in the Court of Claims Action, and have negotiated in good faith for that purpose; and
WHEREAS the parties to the Federal Action wish to discontinue litigation solely as to the claims asserted by plaintiff Shenyell Smith without the need for further proceedings and without admitting any wrongdoing on the part of any defendant; and the parties to the Court of Claims Action wish to discontinue litigation without the need for further proceedings and without admitting any wrongdoing on the part of defendants.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the undersigned parties and counsel as follows:
1. This Agreement will resolve all plaintiff Shenyell Smith's claims in Amador et al. v. Andrews et al., 03 Civ. 0650, pending before the Honorable Kevin T. Duffy in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ("Federal Action"), and for monetary damages in Shenye/l S. v. The State ofNew York, Claim No. 107224, pending before the Honorable Thomas H. Scuccimarra in the New York Court of Claims ("Court of Claims Action").
2. The parties hereby agree that all plaintiffs claims in the Federal Action are dismissed with prejudice, and all plaintiffs claims in the Court of Claims Action shall be dismissed as provided in paragr&ph 5 below.
3 


Case 1:03-cv-00650-KTD-GWG Document 352 Filed 07/26/12 Page 4 of 11
3. Defendants shall pay to plaintiff the sum of$10,000 in full satisfaction of all plainti:trs claims in the Federal Action and all of plaintiff's claims in the Court of Claims Action; shall pay to plaintiff's attorneys Dori Lewis and Veronica Vela of The Legal Aid Society the sum of $5,000 in full satisfaction of any claims for attorneys' fees, costs, and disbursements arising out of plaintiff's individual monetary damages claims in the Federal Action; and shall pay to plaintiff's attorney Rebecca Houlding the sum of $5,000 in full satisfaction of any claims for attorneys' fees, costs, and disbursements arising out of plaintiffs claims in the Court of Claims Action. The amount of fees being paid to plaintiffs counsel, The Legal Aid Society, in the Federal Action may not be referred to as a precedent in any future proceedings in the Federal Action or as a precedent in any future actions. Plaintiff's co-counsel in the Federal Action, Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, hereby waives any claim to an award of attorneys' fees, costs, and disbursements under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 arising out of plaintiffs individual claims for damages in the Federal Action, without waiver of or prejudice to its right to seek an award of attorneys' fees, costs, and disbursements under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 for its work in connection with any other claims in the Federal Action. Debevoise & Plimpton's waiver of attorneys' fees, costs and disbursements may not be referred to as a precedent in the Federal Action or as a precedent in any future actions.
4. Payments shall be made in three checks. The first check, in the amount of $10,000, shall be made payable to plaintiff and mailed in care of plaintiff's attorney Rebecca Houlding, 163 Washington Avenue, 13A, Brooklyn, NY 11205. The second
4 


Case 1:03-cv-00650-KTD-GWG Document 352 Filed 07/26/12 Page 5 of 11
check, in the amount of $5,000, shall be made payable to The Legal Aid Society Prisoners' Rights Project and mailed to plaintiff's attorney Dori Lewis, Legal Aid Society Prisoners' Rights Project, 199 Water Street, New York, NY 10038. The third check, in the amount of $5,000, shall be made payable to Rebecca Houlding and mailed to 163 Washington Avenue, 13A, Brooklyn, NY 11205, or to any other address specified by Ms. Houlding in writing, in advance of mailing. Plaintiffs attorney shall forward the check to plaintiff at her then current facility of incarceration for deposit in her inmate facility account. If Plaintiff is no longer incarcerated, Ms Houlding will make arrangements to forward the check to Plaintiff.
5. As an express condition precedent of the defendants' obligation to make payments as set forth in paragraphs 3 and 4, plaintiff shall file a Stipulation of Discontinuance (with prejudice) in the New York State Court of Claims in the case Smith vs State of New Yor~ Claim No. 107224. In the event Defendants fail to make the payments set forth in Paragraphs 3 and 4, except as may be provided in Chapter 62 of the Laws of2001, and 180 days have passed since counsel for Defendants received the "so ordered" settlement stipulation from the federal court, plaintiff may move on 30 days written notice for reinstatement of the instant federal action.
6. In consideration of the payment of the smus recited in paragraphs #3 and #4 above, the plaintiff, Shenyell Smith, hereby releases and discharges each of the defendants and any and all current or former employees or agents of New York State or
5 


Case 1:03-cv-00650-KTD-GWG Document 352 Filed 07/26/12 Page 6 of 11
the New York State Department of Correctional Services, in their individual and official capacities, and their heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, and the State ofNew York and its agencies, including, without limitation, the New York State Department of Correctional Services, from any and all claims, liabilities and causes of action asserted in, or which could have been asserted in, this Action, or which relate to or arise out of this Action or any ofthe incidents alleged in the complaint herein which plaintiffor plaintiffs representatives, heirs or assigns ever had, now has or hereafter shall or may have for, upon, or by reason of any matter, cause or thing whatsoever from the beginning of the world to the date of this stipulation and order. In further consideration of the payment of the sums recited in paragraphs #3 and #4 above, the plaintiff, Shenyell Smith, hereby releases and discharges defendant State ofNew York and its agencies, including the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, from any and all claims for monetary damage, including compensatory and punitive damages, which plaintiff or plaintiffs representatives, heirs or assigns ever had, now has, or hereafter shall or may have, arising out of the facts giving rise to the Court of Claims Action. Nothing in this agreement shall be construed as a release or discharge of any claims asserted by any other plaintiff in the federal action, or a release or discharge of any claims ofthe purported class for injunctive and declaratory relief asserted in the Federal Action against any defendant.
7. Nothing in this Stipulation of Settlement shall be construed as an admission or acknowledgement of liability by any defendants or by the New York State
6 


Case 1:03-cv-00650-KTD-GWG Document 352 Filed 07/26/12 Page 7 of 11
Department of Corrections and Community Supervision or by the State of New York regarding any allegations in the Federal Action or made by the plaintiff in the Court of Claims Action.
8. Payment of the amounts recited in paragraphs #3 and #4 above is subject to the approval of all appropriate New York State officials in accordance with the provisions for indemnification under Section 17 of the New York Public Officers Law. Except for the payments to be made to plaintiff's attorneys in satisfaction of any claims for attorneys' fees, costs, and disbursements, payments by defendants hereunder are subject to the provisions of Chapter 62 of the Laws of 200 1.
9. Subject to the provisions of the foregoing paragraphs, the State shall make payments of the amounts recited in paragraphs #3 and #4 above within ninety (90) days after the receipt by defendants' counsel, from plaintiff, of a copy of the fully executed so­
ordered Stipulation of Settlement as entered by the Court in the Federal Action. In the
event that the aforesaid payments are not made within the ninety (90) day period, interest shall accrue on the outstanding principal balance at the rate set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1961 beginning on the ninety-first day after receipt by defendants' counsel of a copy of the fully executed so-ordered Stipulation of Settlement.
10. This Stipulation of Settlement and Order of Dismissal embodies the entire agreement of the parties in this matter and no oral agreement entered into at any time nor any written agreement entered into prior to the execution of this Stipulation and Order
7 


Case 1:03-cv-00650-KTD-GWG Document 352 Filed 07/26/12 Page 8 of 11

regarding the subject matter of the instant proceedings, shall bind the parties hereto, or vary the tenus and conditions contained herein.

Dated: New York, New York _ _ _ _ _,2012

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of the State of New York Attorney for the Supervisory Defendants
By: _____________________ Daniel Schulze Special Litigation Counsel 120 Broadway New York, New York 10271 (212) 416-6557 (telephone)

Dated: White Plains, New York _ _ _ _ _" 2012

BOEGGEMAN, GEORGE & CORDE, P.C. Attorneys for Defendant Delroy Thorpe

Dated: New York, New York
M G\ ''1-)." ~, 2012

By: --------------------­
Cynthia Dolan Boeggeman, George & Corde, P.C. 1 Water Street, Suite 425 White Plains, New York 10601 (914) 761-2252 (telephone)
DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON LLP Attorneys for Plaintiff
BY:~;[iIfoL~~
Svetlana M. Eisenberg Debevoise & Plimpton LLP 919 Third Avenue New York, New York 10022 (212) 909-6000 (telephone) (212) 909-6836 (fax)

8 


Case 1:03-cv-00650-KTD-GWG Document 352 Filed 07/26/12 Page 9 of 11

regarding the subject matter of the instant proceedings. shall bind the parties hereto. or vary the terms and conditions contained herein.

Dated: New York, New York

,

S /zl t 2012

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of the State of New York Attorney for the SuperviBory Defendants
By: tYr~~"'-----Daniel Schulze z>>" Special Litigation Counsel 120 Broadway New York. New York 10271 (212) 416-6551 (telephone)

Dated:

BOEGGEMAN, GEORGE & CORDE. P.C. Attorneys for Defendant Delroy Thorpe

B' n ia Dolan
Q eman, George & Corcic, P.C. ater Street, Suite 425
White Plains, New York 10601
(914) 761-2252 (telephone)

36 Dated: New York, New York

/)0 ..t

,2012

DEBEVOISE & PUMPTON LLP Attorneys for Plaintiff
B' 2Yr~ p ;_ : /~~

Portia Pedro

Svetlana M. Eisenberg

Debevoise & Plimpton LLP

919 Third Avenue

New York. New York 10022

=="':::;;-.=.. -=' =...=.... 909·6000 (telephone) -==:....c== ~='.='=--='''-::':''';;,.:'.'''''':''-:'-=''=-='-::;:..;"

'..c..:'.:'..::.;".:...•:.•;;

(212)
:.c.;.':';;;"';;;,;..,--="-;;c.'=··-";;':;:::...::f212-19l)9;-6~6~(taJRl1.x"'J};;.;..··.:..;·..~-"-'-.;..;;;;.;;;;::......;;.:;:.--:;.;..,..;:;.;.-"-.":::;:;.

8

Case 1:03-cv-00650-KTD-GWG Document 352 Filed 07/26/12 Page 10 of 11
~~~~ ..
··'Irie~~~e1~
. ·n~~"'f~;fh¢\pcrsm.J.~
... ',,. >''t- -.o_t..h-~.:i- it..'-s' h,.c" .-t--X" ~­

Case 1:03-cv-00650-KTD-GWG Document 352 Filed 07/26/12 Page 11 of 11

SO ORDERED.

'Qjk, Dated: Ne"Z

New York

J Vb /.,./' ,2012

/1

/-r-Z . ", /L., a~ \" l
Honorable Kevin T. uf'fY United States District Judge I )

10 


 
 Case 1:03-cv-00650-KTD-GWG Document 355 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------------------------------)C LUCY AMADOR, et aI.,
Plaintiffs.
-v-
SUPERINTENDENTS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES ("DOCS") 
 ANGINELL ANDREWS, et. ai., 

Defendants.
----------------------------------------------------------------)C

03 Civ. 0650 (KTD) (GWG)
VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF CLAIMS WITH PREJUDICE; STIPULATION; PROPOSED ORDER 


WHEREAS, plaintiff: Shantelle Smith, the Supervisory Defendants, the State of New York, and defendant James Hudson reached an amicable settlement that encompasses all claims that Shantelle Smith asserts in this action and all claims she asserted against the State of New York in the New York Court of Claims, Claim No. 110268;
WHEREAS, the terms of the agreed settlement are set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement and Discontinuance that was filed on March 27, 2012 and So Ordered by Judge Scuccimarra in the New York Court of Claims, Claim No. 110268;
WHEREAS, one condition of the agreed settlement and the payment of money to plaintiff thereunder is that plaintiff Shantelle Smith dismiss all claims she asserts in the present action with prejudice; and,
WHEREAS, no party has asserted any counterclaim or cross-claim against plaintiff Shantelle Smith in this action.

1 


Case 1:03-cv-00650-KTD-GWG Document 355 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 3

NOW, THEREFORE, plaintiff Shantelle Smith respectfully requests that this Court enter an Order pursuant to FRCP 41(a) dismissing all claims she asserts in this action with prejudice.

Dated: New York, New York
~ " \ '9 2 \. ,2012
o \.: \ '-' Dated: New York, New York L.k,2012 t
SO STIPULATED. 

truty '1 Dated: New York, New York 
 ,2012

DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON LLP 
 Attorneys for Plaintiff Shantelle Smith 

By: "J~'4..)-£CLi-/~ LV h~~k~~.L!­
Portia Pedro Svetlana M. Eisenberg Debevoise & Plimpton LLP 919 Third Avenue New York, New York 10022 (212) 909-6000 (telephone) (212) 909-6836 (fax)
THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY PRISONERS' RIGHTS PROJECT Attorneys for Plaintiff Shantelle Smith
By: QG'2-l -,.'
Dori Lewis 
 Veronica Vela 
 199 Water Street 
 New York, New York 10038 
 (212) 577-3530 (telephone)
ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of the State of New York Attorney for the Supervisory Defendants
~ D~-'h-ul-z-e------------­

Special Litigation Counsel 
 Barbara D. Maddox 
 Special Litigation Counsel 
 120 Broadway - 24th Floor 
 New York, New York 10271 
 (212) 416-6557/8627
2

Case 1:03-cv-00650-KTD-GWG Document 355 Filed 09/13/12 Page 3 of 3

SO ORDERED. ALL CLAIMS ASSERTED BY PLAINTIFF SHANTELLE SMITH 


ARE HEREBY DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 


Dated: --+4"""~HV---, 2012

r

'.

/

. rrf'CC'~(~·~:T ""='CC='·U

, ~

;
.

; t

3 


 
 Amador v. Superintendents of Dept. of Correctional Services, Not Reported in...

2005 WL 2234050 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, S.D. New York.
Lucy AMADOR, Stacie Calloway, Tonie Coggins, Stephanie Dawson, Latasha Dockery, Tanya Jones,
Bobbie Kidd, Bette Jean Mcdonald, Kristina Muehleisen, Jeanette Perez, Laura Pullen, Corilynn Rock, Denise Saffioti, Shantelle Smith, Shenyell Smith, Hope Susoh a/k/a Hope Susoh Brevard, and Nakia Thompson, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v.
SUPERINTENDENTS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES (“Docs”) Anginell Andrews, Roberta Coward, Dennis Crowley, Alexandreena Dixon, Elaine Lord,
Ronald Moscicki and Melvin Williams; Docs Deputy Superintendent Donald Wolff; Docs
Director of Personnel Terry Baxter; Docs Inspector General Richard Roy; Docs Director of
the Sex Crimes Unit of the Inspector General’s Office Barbara D. Leon; Docs Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations Peter Brown; Docs Commissioner Glenn S. Goord; Office of Mental
Health Commissioner James Stone; Docs Correction Officers Frederick Brenyah, Charles
Davis, Michael Evans, Sergeant Michael Galbreath, Officers John E. Gilbert III, Hudson, Rick Larue, Rico Meyers, Mario Pique, Jeffrey Shawver, Robert Smith, Sergeant Smith, Officers
Sterling, Delroy Thorpe, and Pete Zawislak, Defendants
No. 03 Civ. 0650KTDGWG. | Sept. 13, 2005.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
DUFFY, J.
*1 Plaintiffs are seventeen current and former female inmates of the New York State Department of Correctional Services (“DOCS”). Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiffs have brought suit against two sets of defendants: (1) line officers employed at certain New York state prisons (“Line Officer Defendants”) who allegedly sexually abused and/or harassed Plaintiffs; and (2) supervisors of certain New York State prisons and other DOCS officials (“Supervisory Defendants”) who

allegedly were aware of this abuse yet failed to take the appropriate measures to stop it. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages from the Line Officer Defendants and declaratory and injunctive relief against the Supervisory Defendants .1
Both sets of defendants have filed motions to dismiss or for summary judgment and Plaintiffs have filed a motion for class certification and for entry of default judgment.
I. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs allege that DOCS correctional staff have subjected female prisoners to repeated acts of sexual abuse and harassment.2 These acts range in severity from verbal harassment to unwanted touching to “coerced” sexual intercourse to forcible rape. Plaintiffs allege that the DOCS Inspector General’s Office receives approximately 200 complaints of sexual misconduct per year. Plaintiffs also contend that, between 1996 and 2002, DOCS referred thirty-four case for criminal prosecution. Of these cases, twenty-four officers have been convicted. Since 2002, male members of the correctional staff from Albion, Bayview, and Lakeview Correctional Facilities have been convicted of crimes of sexual misconduct of prisoners. Since late 2003, male members of the correctional staff from Albion, Bedford Hills, Taconic, and Bayview Correctional Facilities have been charged with sexual misconduct.
Against this backdrop, Plaintiffs set forth a litany of allegations of abuse they claim to have suffered at the following DOCS facilities: Albion, Bayview, Bedford Hills, and Taconic, as well as the Willard Drug Treatment Center. The Line Officer Defendants who allegedly committed these acts of sexual misconduct are: • Officer Frederick Brenyah: allegedly sexually harassed and abused Plaintiff Stephanie Dawson at Taconic Correctional Facility. (Am.Compl.¶ 5(a).)
• Officer Charles Davis: allegedly sexually harassed and abused Plaintiff Tonie Coggins at Albion Correctional Facility. (Am.Compl.¶ 5(b).)
• Officer Michael Evans: allegedly sexually harassed and abused Plaintiff Latasha Dockery at Bedford Hills Correctional Facility. (Am.Compl.¶ 5(c).)
• Sergeant Michael Galbreath: allegedly sexually harassed and abused Plaintiff Lucy Amador at Albion Correctional Facility. (Am.Compl.¶ 5(d).)
• Officer John E. Gilbert III: allegedly sexually harassed and abused Plaintiff Kristina Muehleisen at Albion Correctional Facility; allegedly sexually harassed and
1

Amador v. Superintendents of Dept. of Correctional Services, Not Reported in...

abused Plaintiff Bette Jean McDonald at Albion Correctional Facility; and allegedly sexually abused Plaintiff Corilynn Beth Rock at Albion Correctional Facility. (Am.Compl.¶ 5(e).)
*2 • Officer James Hudson: allegedly sexually harassed and abused Plaintiff Shantelle Smith at Bayview Correctional Facility. (Am.Compl.¶ 5(f).)
• Officer Rick LaRue: allegedly sexually harassed and abused Plaintiff Laura Pullen at Albion Correctional Facility. (Am.Compl.¶ 5(g).)
• Officer Rico Meyers: allegedly sexually harassed and abused Plaintiff Latasha Dockery at Bedford Hills Correctional Facility; allegedly sexually harassed and abused Plaintiff Nakia Thompson at Bedford Hills Correctional Facility. (Am.Compl.¶ 5(h).)
• Officer Mario Pigue: allegedly sexually harassed and abused Plaintiff Bette Jean McDonald at Taconic Correctional Facility. (Am.Compl.¶ 5(i).)
• Officer Jeffrey Shawver: allegedly sexually harassed and abused Plaintiff Stacie Calloway at Albion Correctional Facility; allegedly sexually harassed and abused Plaintiff Tanya Jones at Albion Correctional Facility; allegedly sexually harassed and abused Plaintiff Hope Susoh at Albion Correctional Facility. (Am.Compl.¶ 5(j).)
• Officer Robert Smith: allegedly sexually harassed and abused Plaintiff Lucy Amador at Albion Correctional Facility. (Am.Compl.¶ 5(k).)
• Sergeant Smith: allegedly “facilitated” the sexual harassment and abuse of Plaintiff Jeanette Perez at Bayview Correctional Facility. (Am.Compl.¶ 5(l).)
• Officer Chris Sterling: allegedly “facilitated” the sexual harassment and abuse of Plaintiff Jeanette Perez at Bayview Correctional Facility. (Am.Compl.¶ 5(m).)
• Officer Delroy Thorpe: allegedly sexually harassed and abused Plaintiff Shenyell Smith at Bedford Hills Correctional Facility. (Am.Compl.¶ 5(n).)
• Officer Pete Zawislak: allegedly sexually harassed and abused Plaintiff Jeanette Perez at Bayview Correctional Facility. (Am.Compl.¶ 5(o).)
Plaintiffs seek monetary damages from each of these Line Officer Defendants.
Plaintiffs further contend that the Supervisory Defendants are aware of this rampant abuse, yet are deliberately indifferent to it and have failed to take appropriate protective measures. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that the

Supervisory Defendants: (1) fail to properly screen, assign, train, and supervise their staff; (2) employ an inadequate system for reporting and investigating complaints of sexual misconduct; and (3) fail to provide necessary or adequate mental health treatment to female prisoners who claim they were subject to sexual misconduct by DOCS staff. The Supervisory Defendants include: • Superintendents of: Albion, Bayview, Beacon, Bedford Hills, Lakeview, and Taconic Correctional Facilities, and the Willard Drug Treatment Center. They are sued in their official capacity for “their failure to protect women prisoners from sexual harassment and abuse.” (Am.Compl.¶ 7.)
• Deputy Superintendent Donald Wolff: Wolff was Deputy Superintendent for Security at Albion Correctional Facility. He allegedly received multiple complaints about Line Officer Defendants Gilbert and Shawver but did not take sufficient action. This failure purportedly resulted in those Line Officer Defendants abusing Plaintiffs Calloway, Jones, McDonald, Rock, and Susoh. Wolff is sued in his individual capacity for compensatory and punitive damages for “his failure to protect these plaintiffs.” (Am.Compl.¶ 6.)
*3 • Director of Personnel for DOCS (Terry Baxter): Baxter is sued in his official capacity for the “failure to screen, assign and re-assign staff appropriately to prevent the sexual harassment and abuse of women prisoners.” (Am.Compl.¶ 8.)
• Inspector General of the New York State Department of Correctional Services (Richard Roy) and Director of the Sex Crimes Unit of the DOCS Inspector General’s Office (Barbara D. Leon): Both are sued in their official capacity for “failure appropriately to investigate, refer for discipline and, in conjunction with the Superintendents and other DOCS supervisory defendants, take action in response to complaints of sexual harassment and abuse.” (Am.Com pl.¶¶ 9-10.)
• Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations of DOCS (Peter Brown): Brown is sued in his official capacity for the “failure to investigate and discipline staff so as to prevent the sexual harassment and abuse of women prisoners.” (Am.Compl.¶ 11.)
• Commissioner of DOCS (Glenn S. Goord): Goord is sued in his official capacity for “his failure to protect women prisoners from sexual harassment and abuse.” (Am.Compl.¶ 12.)
• Commissioner of the New York State Office of Mental Health (James J. Stone): Stone is sued in his official capacity for his “failure to provide appropriate and minimally adequate mental health treatment to women prisoners who have complained of sexual harassment and
2

Amador v. Superintendents of Dept. of Correctional Services, Not Reported in...

abuse.” (Am.Compl.¶ 13.)3
Plaintiffs seek the following relief against the Supervisory Defendants: (1) a declaratory judgment that the policies, practices, actions, and omissions of the Supervisory Defendants violate Plaintiffs’ First, Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights; and (2) an injunction enjoining the Supervisory Defendants from subjecting women to sexual abuse and ordering them to formulate a plan to end it.
II. JOINDER AND SEVERANCE Before addressing the various pending motions, I note my doubts concerning whether each Plaintiff’s individual claim for damages against specific Line Officer Defendants is properly joined: (1) with Plaintiffs’ purported class claims against the Supervisory Defendants for injunctive relief; and (2) with other Plaintiffs’ individual claims for damages. Even assuming that these claims are properly joined under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 20, allowing them to proceed on a consolidated basis, among other things, risks seriously prejudicing the Line Officer Defendants at trial and requiring them to incur additional, unnecessary expenses until such a trial occurs. Accordingly, I would like both parties to address: (1) whether I should sever Plaintiffs’ individual damages claims, pursuant to Rules 20(b), 21, and/or 42; and (2) if severance is granted, whether any additional relief is necessary.4 Both sets of Defendants may file briefs in support of (or in opposition to) severance within twenty days of the date of this order. Plaintiffs will then have fifteen days to file a response. I will allow the Defendants an additional seven days to file a reply.
*4 Because I may order additional relief if severance is granted, I reserve ruling on any motions concerning Plaintiffs’ claims for damages (including claims for damages against any Supervisory Defendant).
III. SUPERVISORY DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS Turning to the Supervisory Defendants’ motions, they move to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims for injunctive relief on the following grounds: (1) lack of standing; (2) improper venue; (3) failure to exhaust; and (4) failure to state a claim. As set forth below, Defendants’ motions are granted in part, and denied in part.5

behalf of a class, the named Plaintiffs must still establish that they each have standing to seek injunctive relief. See Simon v. Eastern Ky. Welfare Rights Organization, 426 U.S. 26, 40 n. 20 (1976) (“That a suit may be a class action ... adds nothing to the question of standing, for even named plaintiffs who represent a class must allege and show that they personally have been injured, not that injury has been suffered by other, unidentified members of the class to which they belong and which they purport to represent.”).
To establish standing, “a plaintiff must demonstrate an injury in fact, causation of that injury, and a likelihood that the requested relief will redress that injury.” Maneely v. City of Newburgh, 208 F.R.D. 69, 72 (S.D.N.Y.2002). Where, as here, a plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, he must also “show a likelihood that he or she will be injured in the future.” Deshawn E. v. Safir, 156 F.3d 340, 344 (2d Cir.1998). This likelihood must be “real and immediate,” not merely “[a]bstract,” “conjectural” or “hypothetical.” O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 494 (1974) (citation and internal quotation omitted).
Thus, in the seminal case of City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 105-06 (1983), the Supreme Court held that a plaintiff who had once been placed in a chokehold by the Los Angeles police lacked standing to seek injunctive relief against the police department. The Court reasoned that the plaintiff “would have had not only to allege that he would have another encounter with the police but also to make the incredible assertion that either ... all police officers ... always choke any citizen ... [or] that the City ordered or authorized police officers to act in such manner .” Relying on Lyons and its progeny, Supervisory Defendants challenge the standing of those Plaintiffs who either: (1) were released from DOCS’ custody before the Amended Complaint was filed; or (2) were transferred (before the Amended Complaint was filed) to a different facility than the one where their alleged abuse occurred .6
i. Standing Of Plaintiffs Who Were Released From Prison At The Time the Amended Complaint Was Filed Applying the logic of Lyons, I agree that a plaintiff who has been released from prison lacks standing to bring a subsequent suit against that prison for injunctive relief. See Hallett v. New York State Dept. of Correctional Services, 109 F.Supp.2d 190, 196 (S.D.N.Y.2000). Accordingly, since Plaintiffs Amador, McDonald, Perez, Pullen, and Rock were released from prison before joining the Amended Complaint (see Am Compl. ¶ 4), they lack standing to pursue the class claims for declaratory and injunctive relief.

A. Standing Of Named Plaintiffs While the Amended Complaint purports to be filed on

ii. Standing Of Plaintiffs Who Were Transferred To 3

Amador v. Superintendents of Dept. of Correctional Services, Not Reported in...

Different Prisons At The Time The Amended Complaint Was Filed *5 Supervisory Defendants also point out that certain of the remaining Plaintiffs were, before the filing of the Amended Complaint, transferred from the facility at which their alleged abuse occurred.7 Supervisory Defendants argue that these Plaintiff lack standing to seek injunctive relief against the supervisors of the prisons at which these Plaintiffs were first incarcerated (as those claims are moot) and where they were incarcerated at the time of the Amended Complaint (since they presumably have not suffered any injury there).
Generally speaking, once a prisoner is transferred from a prison, his claims relating to conditions at that prison will become moot. See Nelson v. Heiss, 271 F.3d 891, 897 (9th Cir.2001). In this case, however, Plaintiffs’ claims are not limited to the conditions of a specific prison. Rather, Plaintiffs claim that, as a whole, DOCS failed to take appropriate corrective measures in response to rampant sexual abuse of female prisoners. Plaintiffs contend that they were transferred to prisons that employed the same policies and practices that caused their earlier abuse. I believe that these allegations are sufficient, at the pleading stage of this case, to spell out standing for these Plaintiffs’ claims against the relevant superintendents. Cf. Lehn v. Holmes, 364 F.3d 862, 871-72 (7th Cir.2004) (allowing plaintiff to proceed with claim challenging statewide prisons’ smoking policy, despite his transfer from prison where he initially suffered injury); Osterback v. Moore, No. 4:01 CV 76-WS, 2001 WL 1770092, at *2 (N.D.Fla. Nov. 6, 2001) (noting that plaintiff challenging state prison policies “can expect to be affected by these rules and policies at any institution where he may be housed as the rules are apparently applied on a state-wide basis”).8
I do not believe, however, that any Plaintiff has standing to sue the Superintendents of the Beacon or Lakeview facilities for injunctive relief. No Plaintiff claims to have suffered sexual abuse at either facility and no Plaintiff was incarcerated there at the time the Amended Complaint was filed. Accordingly, the claims against Defendants Crowley and Mosciki (Superintendents of the Beacon and Lakeview facilities) are dismissed from this action.
iii. Standing Of Remaining Plaintiffs The Supervisory Defendants recently informed me by letter that seven additional Plaintiffs were released from prison after the Amended Complaint was filed. The Supervisory Defendants argue that these Plaintiffs therefore now lack standing to sue for injunctive relief. I offer the Supervisory Defendants the opportunity to further brief this issue in conjunction with their submission relating to joinder. In addition, I would like

the Supervisory Defendants to address whether the “relation back” doctrine, see Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U.S. 393 (1975) and its progeny, allows the recently released Plaintiffs to continue as potential class representatives, even if their individual claims for injunctive relief are technically moot. Plaintiffs may file a response in accordance with the schedule outlined above in the context of joinder.
B. Venue *6 Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3), Supervisory Defendants move for dismissal of the claims of the remaining Plaintiffs Calloway, Coggins, Jones, Muehleisen, Saffioti, and Susoh. The Defendants note that these Plaintiffs alleged they were abused at the Albion Correctional Facility or at the Willard Drug Treatment Facility-both of which are located in the Western District of New York (the “Western District”). Accordingly, the Defendants argue their claims are improperly venued.
Where, as here, a case is not founded solely on diversity, it is properly venued in: (1) a district where any defendant resides if all defendants reside in the same state; (2) a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim took place; or (3) a district where any defendant may be found, if there is no other district where the case may be brought. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Plaintiffs maintain that they have established venue under both subsections (1) and (2). I agree.
For venue purposes, “state officials against whom actions are brought for their official acts reside in the district where they perform their official duties.” Baker v. Coughlin, No. 93 Civ. 1084(RWS), 1993 WL 356852, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 9, 1993). All of the defendants in this case are current or former New York state officials or agents, who are sued for actions taken in the course of their employment. Thus, for venue purposes, these defendants are deemed to reside in New York state. See id. at *2 (noting that “for purposes of venue, the Correctional Officer Defendants reside in the Western District of New York [where they work], while the Official Defendants, whose headquarters are in Albany, New York, reside in the Northern District of New York”); see also Sharif v. Goord, No. 03 Civ. 7664(DAB), 2005 WL 2087840, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2005); Bailey v. Hardy, No. 94 Civ. 2805(LMM), 1994 WL 440929, at *1 (Aug. 11, 1994). Since all defendants reside in the same state and since some reside in this District, venue in this District is appropriate.
Plaintiffs have also established venue with respect to the Supervisory Defendants under subsection (2). This subsection is satisfied because approximately one half of the alleged sexual abuse occurred in correctional facilities located in the Southern District of New York and because
4

Amador v. Superintendents of Dept. of Correctional Services, Not Reported in...

Plaintiffs purport to challenge uniform DOCS policies and practices that are enforced statewide. See Leucadia Nat. Corp. v. FPL Group Capital, Inc., No. 93 Civ. 2908(LAP), 1993 WL 464691, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 9, 1993) (noting that, with respect to comparable venue provision, “[t]his standard does not require venue in the district with the most substantial contacts to the dispute; rather it is sufficient that a substantial part of the events occurred there, even if a greater part of the events occurred elsewhere.”) (emphasis in original). Accordingly, Supervisory Defendants’ motion to dismiss for improper venue is denied.
*7 I reserve ruling, however, on Supervisory Defendants’ alternate motion to transfer venue, pending my consideration of joinder and related issues.
C. Failure To Exhaust: The Supervisory Defendants also move to dismiss the Amended Complaint on the grounds that Plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies. The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) provides that “[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 ... or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until ... administrative remedies as available are exhausted.” (emphasis added).
Exhaustion is an affirmative defense, rather than a jurisdictional requirement. See Richardson v. Goord, 347 F.3d 431, 434 (2d. Cir.2003). Thus, a complaint may only be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to exhaust “if nonexhaustion is clear from the face of the complaint.” McCoy v. Goord, 255 F.Supp.2d 233, 251 (S.D.N.Y.2003). If not, “a defendant’s motion to dismiss should be converted to one for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 12(b) for the narrow purpose of determining whether the plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies.” Page v. Breslin, No. 02-CV-6030 (SJF) (LB), 2004 WL 2713266, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 29, 2004).
In arguing for dismissal, the Supervisory Defendants rely on materials outside the Amended Complaint. Most notable of these documents is a declaration from Thomas Coughlin (Director of the New York Statement of Correctional Services), to which are purportedly attached copies of all grievances made by Plaintiffs before January 28, 2003 (the date of the original Complaint). The Supervisory Defendants contend that each of these grievances addresses only isolated instances of sexual misconduct committed by correctional officers. The Supervisory Defendants maintain that no Plaintiff filed or made grievances with respect to any of their claims for injunctive relief.

Plaintiffs characterize this argument as imposing “a novel hurdle to the exhaustion requirement.” (Pl. Mem. in Opp’n. at 10.) Specifically, Plaintiffs take issue with the notion that “before filing a lawsuit seeking institutional reform, the plaintiffs must grieve not only individual sexual abuse, but also the policies and procedures regarding prison officials’ response to sexual abuse.” (Id.) Plaintiffs appear to argue that merely grieving individual instances of sexual abuse automatically exhausts any complaints concerning any policies or practices that might somehow contribute to that abuse. Plaintiffs also contend that any possible non-exhaustion should be excused on a variety of grounds, including estoppel and special circumstances.
The Second Circuit has emphasized that “inmates must provide enough information about the conduct of which they complain to allow prison officials to take appropriate responsive measures.” Johnson v. Testaman, 380 F.3d 691, 697 (2d Cir.2004). Drawing off this principle, cours have denied prisoners’ claims where their administrative grievances failed to put prison officials on sufficient notice of their subsequent claims. See, e.g., Degrafinreid v. Ricks, No. 03 Civ. 6645(RWS), 2004 WL 2793168, at *13 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 6, 2004) (dismissing claim because plaintiff’s “[g]rievance did not give notice of the alleged conduct underlying his assault and emotional distress claims, among other claims in the complaint”). Accordingly, “the mere fact that plaintiff filed some grievance, and fully appealed all the decisions on that grievance, does not automatically mean that he can now sue anyone who was in any way connected with the events giving rise to that grievance.” Turner v. Goord, 376 F.Supp.2d 321, 324 (W.D.N.Y.2005) (emphasis in original). Rather, a court must consider whether a plaintiff’s grievance put a defendant on sufficient notice of the plaintiff’s subsequent civil claim.
*8 I therefore believe that it would be inappropriate to decide the Supervisory Defendants’ motion to dismiss without considering the content of Plaintiffs’ grievances and Plaintiffs’ proffered excuses. See Turner, 376 F.Supp.2d at 324. Such an inquiry is appropriate on a motion for summary judgment, rather than on a motion to dismiss. See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b)(6) (stating that if matters outside the pleadings are referred to on a motion to dismiss then “the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided in Rule 56, and all parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such a motion by Rule 56”).
Accordingly, I convert the Supervisory Defendants’ motion to dismiss to one for summary judgment, on the limited issue of whether Plaintiffs’ claims for injunctive and declaratory relief are barred by failure to exhaust their administrative remedies before filing suit. See Scott v. Gardner, 287 F.Supp.2d 477, 485 (S.D.N.Y.2003). As the
5

Amador v. Superintendents of Dept. of Correctional Services, Not Reported in...

parties have now had ample time for discovery, and keeping in mind that in converting such motions “all parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such a motion by Rule 56,” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), the Supervisory Defendants have twenty days (from the date of this order) to supplement the record on this narrow issue. Plaintiffs will then have fifteen days to respond. The Supervisory Defendants will have an additional seven days within which to reply.9
D. Failure To State A Claim: The Supervisory Defendants also argue that Plaintiffs’ following claims should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6): (1) medical indifference claim; (2) Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims; (3) First Amendment claim; and (4) Equal Protection claim. These motions may become moot after I decide the exhaustion issue. Accordingly, I reserve ruling on them.
IV. PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS: Plaintiffs have moved for class certification of their claims against the Supervisory Defendants and for default judgment against Line Officer Defendant Rick LaRue
A. Motion For Class Certification: Plaintiffs move for class certification of their claims for injunctive relief against the Supervisory Defendants. To be certified as a class action, Plaintiffs must show that:
(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class, (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class, and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.

176, 180 (2d Cir.1990). This stems from the “danger that absent class members will suffer if their representative is preoccupied with defenses unique to it.” Id. Thus, in analogous situations, courts have denied class certification where the named plaintiffs were subject to exhaustion defenses. See, e.g., Scott v. New York City Dist. Council of Carpenters Pension Plan, 224 F.R.D. 353, 355 (S.D.N.Y.2004) (“[D]etermining whether Scott has exhausted his administrative remedies would require an individualized assessment of the facts and circumstances surrounding his claim for benefits. Such an assessment constitutes a defense unique to Scott that threatens to become the focus of the litigation .”); Carlstrom v. Decisionone Corp., 217 F.R.D. 514, 516 (D.Mont.2003) (“[F]ailure to exhaust raises a defense unique to [plaintiff], which also defeats the typicality requirement.”).
*9 Although these cases did not involve prisoner litigation, I find the holdings persuasive. As indicated supra, administrative exhaustion has already become the focus of this litigation. Resolving this issue will entail an individualized inquiry into the content of Plaintiffs’ specific grievances. Also, allowing Plaintiffs’ claim to proceed as a class, at this time, could prejudice those class members who did in fact exhaust their administrative remedies.10
Accordingly, I reserve ruling on Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification until I determine whether any of the Plaintiffs have exhausted any, or all, of their claims for injunctive relief. See Doe v. Cook County, No. 99 C 3945, 1999 WL 1069244, at *5 (N.D.Ill. Nov. 22, 1999) (noting that “if the exhaustion hurdle is not cleared, the class certification issue is moot”).
B. Application For Default Judgment: Pursuant to Rule 55 plaintiffs apply for an entry of default against Line Officer Defendant Rick LaRue. For reasons discussed supra, in the context of joinder, I reserve ruling on this application until the joinder issue is resolved.

Rule 23(a)(1)-(4). Plaintiffs bear the burden of proving these factors. See Caridad v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad, 191 F .3d 283, 291 (2d Cir.1999).
The Supervisory Defendants challenge Plaintiffs’ motion on a variety of grounds, including that Plaintiffs are subject to the “unique defense” of administrative exhaustion. It is well settled that “class certification is inappropriate where a putative class representative is subject to unique defenses which threaten to become the focus of the litigation.” Gary Pastic Packaging Corp. v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 903 F.2d

V. CONCLUSION: As set forth in greater detail above, both parties are instructed to address whether Plaintiffs’ individual claims for damages are properly joined with one another and with their class claims for injunctive relief. Accordingly, I reserve ruling on any pending motions pertaining to Plaintiffs’ individual claims for damages.
Regarding Plaintiffs’ claims for injunctive relief, I grant in part and deny in part the Supervisory Defendants’ motion to dismiss based on Plaintiffs’ lack of standing. I deny the Supervisory Defendants’ motion to dismiss for
6

Amador v. Superintendents of Dept. of Correctional Services, Not Reported in...

improper venue and reserve ruling on their motion to transfer venue. I convert Supervisory Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims for injunctive relief on exhaustion grounds to one for summary judgment. I reserve ruling on the Supervisory Defendants’ motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim. I also reserve ruling on

Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. SO ORDERED
	  

Footnotes

1

The Complaint in this action was filed on January 28, 2003. With the consent of the Supervisory Defendants, Plaintiffs filed an

Amended Complaint on or about October 14, 2003. The Amended Complaint added: (1) Plaintiffs Dawson and Shantelle Smith;

(2) a retaliation claim by Plaintiff Coggins; (3) four defendants; (4) an Equal Protection Claim; and (5) additional factual

allegations relating to sexual abuse and exhaustion.

2

For purposes of these motions, Plaintiffs’ allegations are accepted as true.

3

I have been informed that Stone has been replaced since the filing of the Amended Complaint. Accordingly, I hereby substitute the

current Commissioner of the New York State Office of Mental Health as a defendant in this action.

4

I note that three Line Officer Defendants have already made a motion to sever, to which Plaintiffs briefly responded. I offer both

parties the opportunity to supplement the record.

5

Before undertaking this analysis I dismiss from this action the claims of Plaintiff Kidd, who was allegedly raped by Officer D.A.

Schmidt (Am.Compl.¶ 47.) Because Plaintiff Kidd filed a separate action against Officer Schmidt in the Western District of New

York, she did not include him as a defendant in this action. Plaintiffs’ counsel has informed me that Judge Larimer of the Western

District enjoined Plaintiff Kidd from participating in this action, pursuant to the “first filed rule.” See Motion Picture Lab.

Technicians Loc. 780 v. McGregor & Werner, Inc., 804 F.2d 16, 19 (2d Cir.1986) (“Where there are two competing lawsuits, the

first suit should have priority, absent the showing of balance of convenience ... or ... special circumstances ... giving priority to the

second.”) (internal quotation omitted). Accordingly, I dismiss all of Plaintiff Kidd’s claims from this action.

6

As discussed infra, the Supervisory Defendants also recently informed me by letter that seven additional Plaintiffs were released

from prison after the Amended Complaint was filed.

7

These Plaintiffs include Tonie Coggins, Stephanie Dawson, Tanya Jones, Denise Saffioti, and Shantelle Smith.

8

Importantly, “[a]t the pleading stage, general factual allegations of injury resulting from the defendant’s conduct may suffice, for

on a motion to dismiss we presum[e] that general allegations embrace those specific facts that are necessary to support the claim.”

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992) (citation and internal quotation omitted).

“In response to a summary judgment motion, however, the plaintiff can no longer rest on such mere allegations, but must set forth

by affidavit or other evidence specific facts, which for purposes of the summary judgment motion will be taken to be true. And at

the final stage, those facts (if controverted) must be supported adequately by the evidence adduced at trial.” Id. at 561.

9

The Supervisory Defendants emphasize that the claims of Plaintiffs Dawson and Shantelle Smith and the retaliation claim of

Plaintiff Coggins can automatically be dismissed since they arose after the filing of the original Complaint and could not have been

exhausted beforehand. I disagree. Plaintiffs Dawson and Smith did not join the original Complaint because their sexual abuse

occurred after it was filed. These Plaintiffs subsequently exhausted their administrative remedies and, without objection from the

Supervisory Defendants, joined the Amended Complaint. Accordingly, I do not believe the PLRA mandates their dismissal. Cf.

Rahim v. Sheahan, No. 99 C 0395, 2001 WL 1263493, at *6 (N.D.Ill. Oct. 19, 2001) (“Since [certain plaintiffs] were not

‘prisoners’ at the time they joined the Fourth Amended Complaint, the exhaustion requirement does not apply to them.”) (emphasis

added). While Plaintiff Coggins joined the original Complaint, her retaliation claim also arose after it was filed. In fact, she

contends that she was retaliated against for filing the original Complaint. She also purports to have exhausted her available

remedies before joining the Amended Complaint. I believe these facts distinguish this case from the one relied on by the

Supervisory Defendants, Neal v. Goord, 267 F.3d 116, 121 (2d Cir.2001), overruled in part on other grounds by Porter v. Nussle,

534 U.S. 516 (2001). Both parties should thus address these Plaintiffs’ grievances on summary judgment.

10

Plaintiffs’ counsel have provided me with no information concerning whether other putative class members not named as class

representatives exhausted their administrative remedies. As Plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing class certification, this further

weighs against their claim for typicality. Cf. Walker v. Asea Brown Boveri, Inc., 214 F.R.D. 58, 66 (D.Conn.2003) (denying motion

for class certification because, inter alia, “the court is unaware of how many of the putative class members signed releases or

whether they differed from the releases signed by the named plaintiffs”).

7

Amador v. Superintendents of Dept. of Correctional Services, Not Reported in...
	  
8

 
 Amador v. Superintendents of Dept. of Correctional Services, Not Reported in...

KeyCite Red Flag - Severe Negative Treatment Vacated in Part, Appeal Dismissed in Part by Amador v. Andrews, 2nd Cir.(N.Y.), August 19, 2011
2007 WL 4326747 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, S.D. New York.
Lucy AMADOR, Stacie Calloway, Tonie Coggins, Stephanie Dawson, Latasha Dockery, Tanya Jones,
Bobbie Kidd, Bette Jean McDonald, Kristina Muehleisen, Jeanette Perez, Laura Pullen,
Corilynn Rock, Denise Saffioti, Shantelle Smith, Shenyell Smith, Hope Susoh a/k/a Hope Susoh
Brevard, and Nakia Thompson, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v.
SUPERINTENDENTS OF the DEPARTMENT of CORRECTIONAL SERVICES (“DOCS”) Anginell
Andrews, Roberta Coward, Dennis Crowley, Alexandreena Dixon, Elaine Lord, Ronald Moscicki and Melvin Williams; DOCS Deputy Superintendent Donald Wolff; DOCS Director of Personnel Terry Baxter; DOCS Inspector General Richard Roy; DOCS Director of the Sex Crimes Unit of the Inspector General’s Office Barbara D. Leon; DOCS Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations Peter Brown; DOCS Commissioner Glenn S. Goord; Office of Mental Health Commissioner James Stone; DOCS Correction Officers Frederick Brenyah, Charles Davis, Michael Evans, Sergeant Michael Galbreath, Officers John E. Gilbert III, Hudson, Rick Larue, Rico Meyers, Mario Pique, Jeffrey Shawver, Robert Smith, Sergeant Smith, Officers Sterling, Delroy Thorpe, and Pete Zawislak, Defendants.
No. 03 Civ. 0650(KTD)(GWG). | Dec. 4, 2007.
Opinion
OPINION & ORDER
KEVIN THOMAS DUFFY, District Judge.
I. Background *1 Plaintiffs in this case are seventeen current and former female inmates of the New York State Department of Correctional Services (“DOCS”). On October 14, 2003, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint against

several line officers employed at seven New York state prisons (“Line Officer Defendants”) and various supervisors of certain New York state prisons and other DOCS officials (“Supervisory Defendants”).1 Plaintiffs alleged that they were sexually abused and harassed by the Line Officer Defendants and that the Supervisory Defendants contributed to this abuse and harassment through the maintenance of inadequate policies and practices. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiffs seek monetary damages as well as declaratory and injunctive relief. Both groups of defendants have filed various motions to dismiss and Plaintiffs have filed a motion for class certification.
On September 13, 2005, I issued an Order addressing the parties’ motions. I dismissed, for lack of standing, the claims for injunctive relief and declaratory judgment of Plaintiffs who had been released from DOCS custody prior to the filing of the Amended Complaint.2 I also dismissed one plaintiff who had already filed a separate action elsewhere.3 After denying the Supervisory Defendants’ motion to dismiss for improper venue, I reserved ruling on the Supervisory Defendants’ motion to transfer venue pending my consideration of the joinder and related issues. I also converted the Supervisory Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ injunctive claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies into a motion for summary judgment, and invited the parties to supplement the record on this narrow issue. Because they may have become moot after my resolution of the exhaustion issue, I further reserved ruling on the Supervisory Defendants’ motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Finally, I reserved ruling on Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification until I determined whether any of the Plaintiffs have exhausted any, or all, of their claims for injunctive relief. Thereafter, Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the September 13, 2005 Order, which I denied by Order on November 10, 2005.
In the September 13, 2005 Order, I requested the parties submit supplemental briefs on the issues of: (1) mootness of the claims of the Plaintiffs who were released from prison after the Amended Complaint was filed; (2) exhaustion of administrative remedies; (3) joinder and severance of each Plaintiff’s individual claim for damages against the specific Line Officer Defendants with the purported class claims against the Supervisory Defendants for injunctive relief; and (4) joinder and severance of each Plaintiff’s individual claim for damages against the specific Line Officer Defendants with the other Plaintiffs’ individual claims. As the parties have had ample time to supplement the record, I now rule on the mootness of two Plaintiff’s claims and on the issue of exhaustion of the remaining Plaintiffs’ claims.
1

Amador v. Superintendents of Dept. of Correctional Services, Not Reported in...

II. Mootness of Released Plaintiffs’ Claims *2 Before addressing the sufficiency of Plaintiffs’ exhaustion, I address the mootness of the claims of Plaintiffs Stephanie Dawson and Shantelle Smith. Dawson and Smith have been released from their respective correctional facilities. In my prior Order, I declined to dismiss their claims as moot because they had merely been transferred to other facilities which they alleged employed the same policies and practices as where their abuse occurred. However, as they have both since been released, their claims for injunctive and declaratory relief have become moot and are hereby dismissed.4
III. Legal Standard for Summary Judgment In deciding this motion for summary judgment, I must construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs, as the non-moving parties, and draw all reasonable inferences in their favor. Wray v. City of New York, 490 F.3d 189 (2d Cir.2007). Summary judgment is appropriate “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Hellstrom v. Pep’t. of Veterans Affairs, 201 F.3d 94, 97 (2d Cir.2000). For the reasons below, I must grant the Supervisory Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to the issue of exhaustion.
IV. New York’s Inmate Grievance Program Formal exhaustion in New York generally requires compliance with the DOCS’s three-step grievance and appeal procedure outlined in the Inmate Grievance Program. See N.Y. Com.Codes R. & Regs. tit. 7 (“7 N.Y.C.R.R.”), § 701.5. The first step requires an inmate to file a complaint with the Inmate Grievance Resolution Committee (“IGRC”) within twenty-one calendar days of the alleged occurrence for an attempt at informal resolution. 7 N.Y.C.R.R. § 701.5(a) and (b). The IGRC is comprised of inmates and DOCS employees. Next, after receiving a response from the IGRC, the inmate may appeal to the superintendent of the facility by completing and signing the appeal section of the IGRC response form and submitting it within seven days of receipt. Id. at § 701.5(c). Finally, after receiving a response from the Superintendent, the inmate may seek further review from the Central Office Review Committee (“CORC”) by appealing the superintendent’s decision within seven days of receipt. Id. at § 701.5(d). Generally, “a prisoner has not exhausted his administrative remedies until he goes through all three levels of the grievance procedure.” Lunney v. Brureton, No. 04-CV-2438, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38660 at *20 (S.D.N.Y. May 25, 2007) (internal

citation omitted). Moreover, if the inmate does not receive a timely response, she may still appeal to the next level, and a failure to do so constitutes a failure to exhaust her administrative remedies. Tackman v. Goord, 2005 WL 2347111 at *17 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2005).
*3 The DOCS also provides for an expedited procedure for the review of grievances alleging harassment5 by DOCS employees as follows:
(a) An inmate who wishes to file a grievance complaint that alleges employee harassment shall follow the procedures set forth in section 701.5(a) of this Part.
Note: An inmate who feels that he/she has been the victim of harassment should report such occurrences to the immediate supervisor of that employee. However, this is not a prerequisite for filing a grievance with the IGP.
(b) A grievance alleging harassment shall be given a grievance calendar number and recorded in sequence with all other grievances on the grievance clerk’s log (form # 2136). All documents submitted with the allegation must be forwarded to the superintendent by close of business that day.
(c) The superintendent or his/her designee shall promptly determine whether the grievance, if true, would represent a bona fide case of harassment as defined in section 701.2 of this Part. If not, then it shall be returned to the IGRC for normal processing.
(d) If it is determined that the grievance is a bona fide harassment issue, the superintendent shall:
(1) initiate an in-house investigation by higher ranking supervisory personnel into the allegations contained in the grievance;
(2) request an investigation by the inspector general’s office; or
(3) if the superintendent determines that criminal activity may be involved, request an investigation by the New York State Police, Bureau of Criminal Investigation.
(e) Once a grievance has been referred to the superintendent and determined to be an allegation of harassment, that grievance cannot be withdrawn. The superintendent must address the grievant’s allegations.
(f) Within 25 calendar days of receipt of the grievance, the superintendent will render a decision on the grievance and transmit said decision, with reasons stated to the grievant, the grievance clerk,
2

Amador v. Superintendents of Dept. of Correctional Services, Not Reported in...

and any direct party of interest. Time limit extensions may be requested, but such extensions may be granted only with the consent of the grievant.
(g) If the superintendent fails to respond within the required 25 calendar day time limit the grievant may appeal his/her grievance to CORC. This is done by filing a notice of decision to appeal (form # 2133) with the inmate grievance clerk.
(h) If the grievant wishes to appeal the superintendent’s response to CORC, he/she must file a notice of decision to appeal (form # 2133) with the inmate grievance clerk within seven calendar days of receipt of that response.
(i) Unless otherwise stipulated in this section, all procedures, rights, and duties pertaining to the processing of any other grievance as set forth in section 701.5 of this Part shall be followed.
7 N.Y.C.R.R. § 701.8.
V. Exhaustion Requirement of the Prison Litigation Reform Act As amended by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) of 1995, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) provides that a prisoner must exhaust all administrative remedies before pursuing a federal claim in federal court:
*4 “[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 ... or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.”
42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (emphasis added). Since the filing of the Amended Complaint in this case, several developments in the area of administrative exhaustion have been made by the Supreme Court and the Second Circuit. Therefore, it is necessary to review the present exhaustion requirement under the PLRA.
The PLRA was enacted “to reduce the quantity and improve the quality of prisoner suits” by “afford[ing] corrections officials time and opportunity to address complaints internally before allowing the initiation of a federal case.” Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524-25 (2002). Thus, exhaustion serves two major purposes. First, it protects administrative agency authority by giving an agency “an opportunity to correct its own mistakes with respect to the programs it administers before it is haled into federal court, and it discourages disregard of the agency’s procedures.” Woodford v. Ngo, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 2385 (2006). Second, exhaustion promotes efficiency as claims are generally settled faster and more

economically in proceedings before an agency than in federal court. Id. Through exhaustion of administrative procedures, federal courts are provided a “useful record” for cases that proceed beyond the administrative level. Id.
The PLRA’s exhaustion requirement is an affirmative defense for which the defendants bear the burden of proof. Rivera v. Goord, 253 F.Supp.2d 735, 745 (S.D.N.Y.2003). Exhaustion “applies to all inmate suits about prison life, whether they involve general circumstances or particular episodes, and whether they allege excessive force or some other wrong.” Porter, 534 U.S. at 532. Exhaustion is required even when a prisoner seeks a remedy that cannot be awarded through administrative avenues. Booth v. Turner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001).
Exhaustion must be complete and in proper accordance with the prison’s administrative procedures, Woodford, 126 S.Ct. at 2382, and cannot be achieved during the pendency of the federal case, Baez v. Kahanowicz, 469 F.Supp.2d 171, 179 (S.D.N.Y.2007). Complete exhaustion requires pursuing administrative remedies through the highest level for each claim. Veloz v. New York, 330 F.Supp.2d 505, 514 (S.D.N.Y.2004), affirmed, 178 Fed. Appx. 39 (2d Cir.2004). Proper exhaustion demands compliance with all of the agency’s deadlines and other critical procedural rules. Woodford, 126 S.Ct. at 2386. Additionally, there is no “total exhaustion,”-that is, failing to exhaust one claim does not necessarily affect any other claim that has been completely and properly exhausted. Jones v. Bock, 127 S.Ct. 910, 924 (2007). Moreover, the Second Circuit has held that exhaustion requires the prisoner’s grievance to be sufficient on its face to alert the prison of his complaint. Brownell v. Krom, 446 F.3d 305, 310-11 (2d Cir.2006).
*5 Although the Second Circuit has recognized that exhaustion is mandatory, it has also stated that “certain caveats apply.” Giano v. Goord, 380 F.3d 670, 677 (2d Cir.2004). More specifically, the Second Circuit has recognized that “in some circumstances, the behavior of the defendants may render administrative remedies unavailable.” Hemphill v. New York, 380 F.3d 680, 686 (2d Cir.2004). Therefore, the Second Circuit has constructed a three-part inquiry in cases where a prisoner plaintiff seeks to counter a defendant’s contention that the prisoner has failed to exhaust all available administrative remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).6 See id. First, the court must determine whether the administrative remedies were in fact “available” to the prisoners.7 Id. “To the extent that the plaintiff lacked ‘available’ remedies, the PLRA’s exhaustion requirement is inapplicable.” Id. Second, the court must determine which defendants, if any, are estopped from raising the affirmative defense of non-exhaustion because of their own actions inhibiting the prisoners’ complete and proper exhaustion. Id. Finally, if administrative remedies were “available” to the
3

Amador v. Superintendents of Dept. of Correctional Services, Not Reported in...

prisoners and the defendants are not estopped, but Plaintiffs nevertheless did not exhaust available remedies, the court must consider whether “special circumstances” have been plausibly alleged to justify the prisoners’ failure to comply with administrative procedural requirements. Id.
Regarding the issue of whether remedies were available, the Second Circuit has recognized that a defendant’s threats of retaliation may cause a remedy to be “effectively unavailable” for exhaustion purposes. Id. at 687-88; Ortiz v. McBride, 380 F .3d 649, 654 (2d Cir.2004). The test for deciding whether the ordinary grievance procedures were available is an objective one: whether a “similarly situated individual of ordinary firmness” would have deemed them available. Hemphill, 380 F.3d at 688. If the remedies were “unavailable” because of defendants’ threats, the PLRA requirements would be considered automatically satisfied as to all defendants. Id. at 690 n. 8. However, in the context of estoppel, a prisoner may be excused from exhaustion only as to those defendants who made such threats, depending on the facts pertaining to each defendant. Id. at 689.
Finally, the Second Circuit has stated that there are “special circumstances” in which prisoners’ failure to exhaust is justified despite the existence of available remedies and the nonexistence of estoppel. Justification is determined by “looking at the circumstances which might understandably lead usually uncounselled prisoners to fail to grieve in the normally required way.” Giano, 380 F.3d at 678. For example, a prisoner’s reasonable interpretation of ambiguous DOCS regulations may justify his failure to exhaust if, based on his interpretation, he reasonably believed the remedies were unavailable to him. Id.
*6 After the Supreme Court’s decision in Woodford, the viability of Hemphill ‘s three-part inquiry has been called into question. See Ruggiero v. County of Orange, 467 F.3d 170, 176 (2d Cir.2006) (“[w]e need not determine what effect Woodford has on our case law”); Collins v. Goord, 438 F. Supp 2d 399, 411 n. 13 (S.D .N.Y.2006) (“it is open to doubt whether Woodford is compatible with the results reached in some of the cases in this Circuit applying Hemphill, and part of the Hemphill inquiry may be in tension with Woodford” ).8
Recently, the Second Circuit decided Macias v. Zenk, No. 04-6131, 2007 WL 2127722 (2d Cir. July 26, 2007), which addresses some of Woodford ‘s effects on the law in this Circuit. In Macias, the prisoner-plaintiff, Macias, filed two administrative tort claims and made informal complaints to prison officials before filing his complaint in federal court. Macias, 2007 WL 2127722 at *5. Macias argued that under Johnson v. Testman, 380 F.3d 691 (2d Cir.2004), these tort claims and informal requests for medical attention excused his failure to exhaust because, although he did not use the formal administrative remedy

system, his actions “provided enough information about the conduct of which he complained to allow prison officials to take appropriate responsive measures.” Macias, 2007 WL 2127722 at *5 (quoting Johnson, 380 F.3d at 697). Johnson ‘s holding, however, was that that a prisoner satisfied the PLRA’s requirement if he both (1) substantively exhausted his remedies by providing correction officials an opportunity to address complaints internally; and (2) procedurally exhausted his remedies because the prison’s remedial system was so confusing that he reasonably believed he had exhausted all available remedies. Id. Macias only alleged that he should be excused from exhaustion because his informal complaints put the prison on notice of his grievance. Id. Therefore, the Second Circuit held that Macias failed to procedurally exhaust his administrative remedies. Because Macias did not allege that the remedial system was so confusing that he reasonably believed he had exhausted all available remedies, the Second Circuit did not decide what effect Woodford has on Hemphill ‘s holding that a reasonable misinterpretation of the internal remedial scheme is a “special circumstance” justifying an inmate’s failure to follow procedural rules to the letter. Id. at *6 n. 1.9
Macias also alleged that the defendant threatened him, and argued that these threats rendered his administrative remedies unavailable, or alternatively, estopped the defendant from raising non-exhaustion as an affirmative defense. Id. at *7. The court remanded to the district court to determine whether Macias’s remedies were rendered unavailable by the defendant’s allegedly threatening behavior, using the “ordinary firmness” test from Hemphill, and, “depending on the facts pertaining to each defendant,” whether defendant should be estopped from raising non-exhaustion because of the alleged threats. Id. at *8 (quoting Hemphill, 380 F.3d at 688).
*7 The first two parts of the Hemphill analysis-regarding effectively unavailable remedies and estoppel-appear to remain viable after Woodford. Therefore, these concepts will be applied here.
VI. Analysis of Plaintiffs’ Exhaustion Attempts The Supervisory Defendants moved to dismiss the entire Amended Complaint on the basis of nonexhaustion. I previously converted their motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment and now rule in favor of the Supervisory Defendants as to Plaintiffs’ injunctive and declaratory claims.10
Plaintiffs argue that they exhausted their administrative remedies by complying with one or more of the “alternative avenues” for grieving described in the prison orientation documents, thereby providing sufficient notice of their claims. Each Plaintiff alleges that she complained to the Inspector General about her sexual abuse. Several
4

Amador v. Superintendents of Dept. of Correctional Services, Not Reported in...

Plaintiffs also complained to the immediate supervisor of the alleged abuser.11 A few other Plaintiffs also complained to a DOCS official that they felt comfortable approaching.12 Three Plaintiffs utilized the formal procedure by filing grievances and appealing them to the CORC.13 Plaintiffs also argue that the Supervisory Defendants are estopped from raising nonexhaustion and that “special circumstances” justify their nonuse of the formal grievance procedure because the DOCS caused Plaintiffs to believe it was sufficient to report the abuses to the Inspector General or any staff member, and because the DOCS provided misleading instructions concerning the mechanism for complaining. Finally, Plaintiffs alternatively argue that administrative remedies were made “unavailable” by virtue of threats towards them. Plaintiffs’ arguments are unavailing.
Generally, failure to pursue all of an inmate’s available remedies precludes that inmate’s lawsuit. See Porter, 534 U.S. at 524; Braswell v. Johnson, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25294 at *14 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 5, 2002); see also Boddie v. Bradley, 2007 U.S.App. LEXIS 3759 at *4-5 (2d Cir. Feb 16, 2007) (holding that simply sending informal letters directly to DOCS officials instead of submitting a complaint on an inmate grievance form, as required by DOCS regulations, does not satisfy the exhaustion requirement). Moreover, as Macias states, inmates must follow the formal grievance procedures to achieve proper procedural exhaustion, as mere notice is not sufficient. 2007 WL 2127722 at *6. Pursuant to Macias, plaintiffs do not procedurally exhaust all of their remedies where they fail to argue that because of a confusing or misleading administrative remedial system, they justifiably believed that informal complaints were their “only available remedies.” 2007 WL 2127722 at *6 (emphasis added). Thus, unless Plaintiffs allege that the DOCS remedial system was so confusing that it made them think their informal complaints and letters were the only available means of grieving, their estoppel argument must fail.
*8 As Plaintiffs argue that the DOCS three-step grievance procedure is just one of the many perceived available avenues for grieving a complaint, they fail to demonstrate that they believed their informal complaints and letters were the “only available remedies.” Also, even if Plaintiffs misconstrued the grievance instructions, it would have been unreasonable to conclude that the three-step grievance procedure was foreclosed to them. See Giano, 380 F.3d at 678; Tackman, 2005 WL 2347111 at *28. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ estoppel and special circumstances arguments must fail.
Plaintiffs further argue that administrative remedies were rendered “unavailable” by virtue of threats made against them. In support, Plaintiffs assert the blanket proposition that the three-step grievance procedure is not available to victims of sexual abuse simply because it requires inmates to self-initiate the process, which sexual abuse victims

have a difficult time doing. This argument is unavailing for several reasons. First, the fact that three of the Plaintiffs filed formal grievances directly cuts against Plaintiffs’ argument that the process is unavailable to victims of sexual abuse. Moreover, every Plaintiff complained in some way or another about the abuse they allegedly received as inmates, whether by complaining to the Inspector General, supervisors, or other DOCS officials. See Hemphill, 380 F.3d at 687 (stating it is unlikely that a plaintiff would claim administrative remedies were “unavailable” because of threats where that plaintiff did in fact write a grievance letter to the Superintendent). The evidence does not demonstrate that Plaintiffs’ efforts at grieving properly were thwarted, but rather shows that they merely selected to pursue informal avenues instead of the formal grievance procedure. As such, Plaintiffs’ argument that administrative remedies were “unavailable” fails.
One cannot exhaust all administrative remedies by merely pursuing an informal avenue over the formal grievance procedure. Thus, because Plaintiffs Stacie Calloway, Tonie Coggins, Latasha Dockery, Tanya Jones, Kristina Muehleisen, Denise Saffioti, Hope Susoh, and Nakia Thompson did not complete the three-step grievance procedure, they have not properly exhausted all of their administrative remedies.14 See Porter, 534 U.S. at 524. Therefore, I grant the Supervisory Defendants summary judgment as to the issue of exhaustion and these Plaintiffs’ claims for injunctive and declaratory relief are hereby dismissed without prejudice.15
Plaintiff Shenyell Smith is the only remaining Plaintiff who utilized the formal three-step procedure for grieving. Her grievance, however, raises a separate concern with regard to exhaustion. “[T]he mere fact that plaintiff filed some grievance, and fully appealed all the decisions on that grievance, does not automatically mean that [s]he can now sue anyone who was in any way connected with the events giving rise to that grievance.” Collins, 438 F.Supp.2d at 412-13 (emphasis in original) (citing Turner v. Goord, 376 F.Supp.2d 321, 325 (W.D.N.Y.2005)). If a grievance alleges nothing more than maltreatment at the hands of a particular defendant, that grievance is not sufficient to exhaust all administrative remedies as against other defendants later claimed to have been aware of the systematic problems and who failed to correct them. Id.; See also Strong v. Edwards, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23187 at *6-10 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 7, 2005) (holding that plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies as to a Superintendent where the original grievances did not name the Superintendent nor explain how he was connected to the alleged incidents of maltreatment).
*9 In this case, Plaintiff Shenyell Smith only complained of one particular defendant, identified as “CO Thorpe,” in her grievance.16 In this grievance, she states that CO Thorpe opened her shower door while she was disrobing
5

Amador v. Superintendents of Dept. of Correctional Services, Not Reported in...

and had sexually assaulted and harassed her. She did not mention any other Supervisory Defendant or state how they were connected to CO Thorpe’s alleged improper conduct. As such, her claims for injunctive and declaratory relief against the Supervisory Defendants have not been adequately exhausted at the administrative level and are hereby dismissed.

dismissed for the reasons stated above and in the previous Order of September 13, 2005. Therefore, there is no need to grant Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, which is hereby denied. Summary judgment dismissing the complaint will be entered for all Supervisory Defendants and for all defendants with the exception of the claims of Shenyell Smith against Delroy Thorpe.

VII. Conclusion All of Plaintiffs’ claims for injunctive and declaratory relief against the Supervisory Defendants have now been

SO ORDERED.
	  

Footnotes

1

The Supervisory Defendants are Anginell Andrews, Terry Baxter, Peter Brown, Roberta Coward, Alexandreena Dixon, Glenn S.

Goord, Barbara D. Leon, Elaine Lord, Richard Roy, James Stone, Melvin Williams, and Donald Wolff. This group also included

Dennis Crowley and Ronald Moscicki who were dismissed by my previous Order of September 13, 2005.

2

These plaintiffs include Lucy Amador, Bette Jean McDonald, Jeannette Perez, Laura Pullen, and Corilynn Beth Rock.

3

Bobbie Kidd was dismissed pursuant to the “first filed” rule, having been enjoined by the Western District of New York from

participating in this action.

4

Contrary to Plaintiffs’ contention, this court may dismiss these claims as moot. To avoid mootness of their claims, Plaintiffs

Dawson and Smith would have to show that they were still in custody at the time the class was certified. See Gerstein v. Pugh, 420

U.S. 103, 110 n. 11 (1975). As I have yet to certify Plaintiffs as a class, such a showing is not possible. Moreover, this case does

not present an exception to that rule, unlike in Gerstein where there was no way of ascertaining the length of pretrial custody at the

outset of the case and such custody could end at any time in various ways. Id. In any event, the “relation back” doctrine serves to

preserve the viability of class claims and not claims of individual plaintiffs. As I have my doubts as to the propriety of class

certification in this case, I believe the doctrine would be inapplicable here.

5

“Harassment” includes “employee misconduct meant to ... harm an inmate.” 7 N.Y.C.R.R. § 701.2(e). Such conduct includes

assault. See Larry v. Byno, No. 9:01-CV-1574, 2006 WL 1313344 at *3 (N.D.N.Y. May 11, 2006) (“There is also an expedited

grievance procedure for prisoners who, as in the present case, allege that they have been harassed or assaulted by correctional

officers.”).

6

In Hemphill, the Second Circuit “read together” the holdings of a series of five Second Circuit cases to formulate the three-part

inquiry. See Hemphill v. New York, 380 F.3d 680 (2d Cir.2004); (citing Giano v. Goord, 380 F.3d 670 (2d Cir.2004), Abney v.

McGinnis, 380 F.3d 663 (2d Cir.2004), Johnson v. Testman, 380 F.3d 691 (2d Cir.2004), Ortiz v. McBride, 380 F.3d 649 (2d

Cir.2004), and Ziemba v. Wezner, 366 F.3d 161 (2d Cir.2004)).

7

It is unclear whether factual disputes regarding the exhaustion defense should ultimately be decided by the court or by a jury. There

is case law suggesting that a jury should determine if a remedy was “available” or not. This line of cases seem to support the idea

that, like a statute of limitations, exhaustion is an affirmative defense with disputed issues of fact that generally should be

submitted to a jury. Katz v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 737 F.2d 238, 243 n. 2 (2d Cir.1984). However, there is also case law,

which in my view is more persuasive and on point, supporting the view that exhaustion should be determined by the court and not

a jury. See Lunney, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38660 at *35 n. 4 (citing Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119-20 (9th Cir.2003)

(court may decide disputed issues of fact in motion to dismiss for nonexhaustion); Priester v. Rich, 457 F.Supp.2d 1369, 1377

(S.D.Ga.2006) (same); Dukes v. Doe, No. 03-CV4639, 2006 WL 1628487 at *6 (S.D.N.Y. June 12, 2006) (ordering an evidentiary

hearing on question of exhaustion)). I find it proper that this issue be decided by the court.

8

In Collins v. Goord, the district court noted that Justice Breyer, concurring in Woodford, cited with approval the Second Circuit’s

holding in Giano v. Goord, 380 F.3d 670, 677 (2d Cir.2004), that the exhaustion requirement is not absolute and encouraged

district courts to consider whether prisoner plaintiffs’ cases fall into a “traditional exception that the [PLRA] implicitly

incorporates.” 438 F.Supp.2d 399, 411 n. 13 (S.D.N.Y.2006) (citing Woodford, 126 S.Ct. at 2393 (Breyer, J., concurring)). The

district court also stated that although parts of Hemphill may be in tension with Woodford, it did “not read Woodford to foreclose

an exception to the PLRA’s exhaustion requirement where prison authorities actively obstruct an inmate’s ability to ‘properly’ file

a prison grievance.” Collins, 438 F.Supp.2d at 415.

9

The court did, however, rule that as far as its decision in Braham v. Clancy, 425 F.3d 177, 183 (2d Cir.2005), might provide

6

Amador v. Superintendents of Dept. of Correctional Services, Not Reported in...

support for Macias’s argument that he procedurally exhausted his remedies by providing sufficient notice of his grievance, Braham is overruled by Woodford. Braham expanded Johnson by permitting prisoners to procedurally exhaust claims by taking enough informal steps to put prison officials on notice of their concerns, regardless of whether they used the prison’s formal grievance procedures. Macias, 2007 WL 2127722 at *6. The court held that, after Woodford, notice alone is insufficient as it does not satisfy Woodford’s requirement of “proper exhaustion.” Id.

10

At the outset, I reject the Supervisory Defendants’ argument that the entire action must be dismissed for failure to exhaust as the

Supreme Court has ruled that there is no “total exhaustion” rule and only non-exhausted claims need be dismissed. See Jones v..

Bock, 127 S.Ct. 910, 924 (2007).

11

These Plaintiffs include Tonie Coggins, Stephanie Dawson, and Kristina Muehleisen.

12

These Plaintiffs include Stephanie Dawson, Tanya Jones, Denise Saffioti, and Shenyell Smith.

13

Stephanie Dawson filed a formal DOCS grievance on February 25, 2003. The Superintendent responded that the Inspector

General’s Office was undergoing an investigation. Finally, the Central Office denied her grievance and upheld the

Superintendent’s decision. Shantelle Smith filed a formal grievance on June 27, 2003. The Superintendent denied the grievance as

the complaint was referred to the Inspector General for investigation. The Amended Complaint alleges that Ms. Smith appealed

this decision to the Central Office. Finally, Shenyell Smith filed a formal grievance on January 3, 2002, which was denied by the

Superintendent and the Central Office after appeal based on the referral of her complaint to the Inspector General for investigation.

14

While Plaintiff Coggins filed a formal grievance on July 17, 2003, she had not appealed it through all levels of the grievance

procedure by the time of the Amended Complaint, and an inmate’s attempt at exhaustion during the pendency of a federal case

does not satisfy the PLRA. See Baez, 469 F.Supp.2d at 179.

15

See Braswell, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25294 at *16 (holding that where an inmate fails to exhaust, “the appropriate disposition is ...

to dismiss the complaint without prejudice to refiling once the plaintiff has pursued to exhaustion all currently available procedures

under the state prison grievance program”).

16

“CO Thorpe” refers to Defendant Delroy Thorpe.

	  

7

 
 Case 1:03-cv-00650-KTD-GWG Document 418 Filed 12/11/14 Page 1 of 31

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

--------------------------------------X

LUCY AMADOR, ET AL.,

:

:

Plaintiffs,

:

:

-against-

:

:

SUPERINTENDENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF :

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES

:

ANGINELL ANDREWS, ET AL.,

:

:

Defendants.

:

--------------------------------------X

03 Civ. 0650 (KTD)(GWG)
MEMORANDUM & ORDER

KEVIN THOMAS DUFFY, U.S.D.J.:

Plaintiff Stephanie Dawson brings this suit on behalf of

herself and all others similarly situated1 (“Plaintiffs”) against

New York Department of Corrections and Community Supervision

(“DOCCS”) Acting Commissioner Anthony Annucci; DOCCS Inspector

General Vernon Fonda; DOCCS Director of the Sex Crimes Unit of

the Inspector General’s Office Robert Adams; DOCCS Director of

the Bureau of Labor Relations John Shipley; DOCCS Director of

Personnel Daniel Martuscello; and Office of Mental Health Acting

Commissioner Ann Marie Sullivan (“Supervisory Defendants”).2 Ms.

1 Lucy Amador and Bette Jean McDonald’s claims were transferred to the Western District of New York. The other originally named plaintiffs in this action have either settled their claims or had their claims dismissed. Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification has not yet been decided.
2 Supervisory Defendants Annucci, Shipley, and Sullivan are named here per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d).
- 1 -

Case 1:03-cv-00650-KTD-GWG Document 418 Filed 12/11/14 Page 2 of 31
Dawson also brings individual damages claims against DOCCS Correction Officer Frederick Brenyah (Supervisory Defendants and Defendant Brenyah referred to collectively as “Defendants”). Plaintiffs allege under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that Supervisory Defendants violated their First, Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights by adopting and maintaining policies and practices that resulted and continue to result in DOCCS officers sexually assaulting and harassing DOCCS inmates.
Before me are Plaintiffs’ motions to join as plaintiffs Frances Perez (Docket Entry 337), Ebony Hayes and Danielle Rogers (Docket Entry 369), LeeAnn Wimmers (Docket Entry 396), and Jasmine Valentin (Docket Entry 409) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 20. Plaintiffs also move to add Ms. Perez, Ms. Hayes and Ms. Rogers, Ms. Wimmers, and Ms. Valentin as plaintiffs under Rule 21, and request leave to amend and supplement the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) under Rule 15. (Docket Entries 369, 396, and 409.) Ms. Perez, Ms. Hayes and Ms. Rogers, Ms. Wimmers, and Ms. Valentin (“Intervenors”) separately move to intervene as plaintiffs under Rule 24. (Docket Entries 336, 370, 397, and 408.) Defendants oppose Plaintiffs’ and Intervenors’ motions and Supervisory Defendants cross-move to dismiss Plaintiffs’ action. (Docket Entry 343.) For the reasons that follow, I deny in-part and grant-in-part
- 2 -

Case 1:03-cv-00650-KTD-GWG Document 418 Filed 12/11/14 Page 3 of 31
Supervisory Defendants’ motion to dismiss and deny Plaintiffs’
Rule 15 and Rule 20 motions and Intervenors’ Rule 24 motions.
I. BACKGROUND3
A. Parties, Movants, and Allegations
Plaintiff Dawson was an inmate in DOCCS custody and
confined at the Taconic Correctional Facility. (FAC ¶ 44a.)
Ms. Dawson alleges that Defendant Brenyah, the sole corrections
officer assigned to her housing area, raped her on February 25,
3 The following facts are drawn from the FAC (Docket Entry 72), any written instrument attached thereto or documents incorporated therein by reference, and matters of which judicial notice may be taken. See FED. R. CIV. P. 10(c); ATSI Commc’ns, Inc. v. Shaar Fund, Ltd., 493 F.3d 87, 98 (2d Cir. 2007). The Court also considers the Declaration of Portia Pedro dated January 31, 2012; the Declaration of Daniel Schulze dated April 2, 2012 (“Schulze Decl.”); the Reply Declaration of Daniel Schulze dated May 31, 2012 (“Schulze Reply Decl.”); Plaintiffs’ brief in support of Ms. Perez’s and Plaintiffs’ motions (“Pls.’ Br.”); Supervisory Defendants’ brief in opposition to Ms. Perez’s and Plaintiffs’ motions and in support of Supervisory Defendants’ cross-motion to dismiss (“Defs.’ Br.”); Defendant Brenyah’s brief in opposition to Ms. Perez’s and Plaintiffs’ motions; Plaintiffs’ reply brief in support of Ms. Perez’s and Plaintiffs’ motions (Pls.’ Reply Br.”); Plaintiffs’ brief in opposition to Supervisory Defendants’ cross-motion to dismiss; Supervisory Defendants’ reply brief in support of their crossmotion to dismiss (“Defs.’ Reply Br.”); Plaintiffs’ brief in support of Ms. Hayes’s, Ms. Rogers’s, and Plaintiffs’ motions (“Hayes & Rogers Br.”) and the supporting declarations of Svetlana Eisenberg dated November 1, 2012 and November 12, 2012; Plaintiffs’ brief in support of Ms. Wimmers’ and Plaintiffs’ motions (“Wimmers Br.”) and the supporting declaration of Terra L. Gearhart-Serna dated June 6, 2014; and Plaintiffs’ brief in support of Ms. Valentin’s and Plaintiffs’ motions (“Valentin Br.”) and the supporting declaration of Terra L. Gearhart-Serna dated November 17, 2014 (“Gearhart-Serna Decl. II”).
- 3 -

Case 1:03-cv-00650-KTD-GWG Document 418 Filed 12/11/14 Page 4 of 31
2003. (Id.) Ms. Dawson was released from DOCCS custody on November 29, 2004. (Pls.’ Br. 5. n.7.)
Plaintiffs allege that Supervisory Defendants’ policies and practices fail to prevent DOCCS officers from sexually abusing female inmates in DOCCS custody. (FAC ¶ 21.) Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that Supervisory Defendants are “aware of the substantial risk of sexual misconduct by male staff upon women prisoners,” (FAC ¶ 20), yet (1) “fail to screen [male] staff . . . for psychological tendencies to abuse women,” (id. ¶ 22); (2) “allow male correctional staff to bid for (choose) their own assignments, without regard to the history or severity of allegations of sexual misconduct received against them,” (id. ¶ 23d); (3) “permit officers and staff virtually unfettered access to private, unmonitored areas,” (id. ¶ 25d); (4) “fail to increase the supervision of correctional staff about whom they have received complaints of sexual misconduct by women prisoners,” (id. ¶ 25e); (5) fail to prevent incidents of sexual assault with the use of “lie detectors, surveillance cameras, electronic recording devices, exit interviews of prisoners on transfer and release, random interviews of staff, and frequent and unannounced rounds by supervisory officials,” (id. ¶ 34); and (6) otherwise fail to “inform women prisoners of the
- 4 -

Case 1:03-cv-00650-KTD-GWG Document 418 Filed 12/11/14 Page 5 of 31
procedures for reporting sexual misconduct,” (id. ¶ 29), or properly investigate reported sexual misconduct, (id. ¶ 35–39).
With respect to Intervenors’ proposed claims, Ms. Perez states that she is an inmate currently in DOCCS custody4 at the Bedford Hills Correctional Facility. (Pls.’ Br. 9.) She asserts that Defendant Brenyah sexually assaulted her while she was incarcerated at the Taconic Correctional Facility on September 19, 2010.5 (Id.)
Ms. Hayes and Ms. Rogers both state that they are inmates currently in DOCCS custody.6 (Hayes & Rogers Br. 5–6.) Ms. Hayes asserts that, while incarcerated at the Bedford Hills Correctional Facility on February 19, 2010, she was sexually abused by Officer Rock. (Id. at 5.) Ms. Rogers states that she was also sexually assaulted while incarcerated at the Bedford Hills Correctional Facility; her assault involved Officer K. Fields and occurred on September 27, 2011. (Id. at 6.)
4 Plaintiffs’ recent filings indicate that Ms. Perez was granted parole in October 2014, so she may no longer be in DOCCS custody. 5 Defendant Brenyah was prosecuted for his conduct involving Ms. Perez and convicted of Attempted Rape in the Third Degree (NY PL 110-130.25(01)), Criminal Sexual Act in the Third Degree (NY PL 130.40(01)), and Official Misconduct (NY PL 195.00(01)). (Hayes & Rogers Br. 5). 6 Plaintiffs’ recent filings indicate that Ms. Rogers is no longer in DOCCS custody, but that Ms. Hayes remains incarcerated.
- 5 -

Case 1:03-cv-00650-KTD-GWG Document 418 Filed 12/11/14 Page 6 of 31
Ms. Wimmers states that she is an inmate currently in DOCCS custody. (Wimmers Br. 4.) Ms. Wimmers asserts that, while incarcerated at the Albion Correctional Facility in 2012 and 2013, she was sexually abused over a period of months by DOCCS Officer Patrick Ray. (Id. at 1, 4.)
Ms. Valentin states that she is an inmate currently in DOCCS custody. Ms. Valentin asserts that she was sexually abused – and raped - from September 2012 to December 2013 by multiple DOCCS officers at Bedford Hills Correctional Facility. (Valentin Br. 5.)
Intervenors seek to challenge the constitutionality of Supervisory Defendants’ policies and practices. According to their submissions, they assert the same claims and seek the same relief as Plaintiffs. (Pls.’ Br. 12; Hayes & Rogers Br. 6.; Wimmers Br. 2; Valentin Br. 2)
B. Prison Rape Elimination Act During the pendency of Plaintiffs’ claims, Congress enacted
the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (“PREA”), 42 U.S.C. § 15601, et. seq., to “establish a zero-tolerance standard for the incidence of prison rape in prisons in the United States,” and to “develop and implement national standards for the detection, prevention, reduction, and punishment of prison rape.” Id. § 15602(1), (3). PREA mandated the creation of a National Prison
- 6 -

Case 1:03-cv-00650-KTD-GWG Document 418 Filed 12/11/14 Page 7 of 31
Rape Elimination Commission (the “Commission”) and tasked it with recommending national standards within a two-year period. Id. § 15606(d)(3)(A). The Commission provided its recommendations to the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) in 2009. (See Schulze Decl. Exhibit A., Nat’l Prison Rape Elimination Comm’n Report (June 2009))
PREA also required DOJ to publish final rules within one year of receiving the Commission’s report. 42 U.S.C. § 15607. DOJ approved the Final Prison Rape Elimination Act Rules on May 15, 2012 (“Final Rules”). See 28 C.F.R. Part 115 (2012); see also National Standards to Prevent, Detect, and Respond to Prison Rape, Department of Justice (2012), available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/programs/pdfs/prea_final_rule.pdf.
C. Procedural History Due to the complexity of this case’s decade-long procedural
history, I recount only those events bearing on the motions before me.
With respect to the origins of this action, Plaintiffs filed a complaint on January 28, 2003. On July 17, 2003, Magistrate Judge Gorenstein entered a scheduling order pursuant to Rule 16. On October 14, 2003, Plaintiffs filed a FAC as of right pursuant to Rule 15. On October 31, 2003, Supervisory Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the FAC, which I converted
- 7 -

Case 1:03-cv-00650-KTD-GWG Document 418 Filed 12/11/14 Page 8 of 31
into a motion for summary judgment. Briefing continued into 2006. On December 4, 2007, I dismissed certain claims on a motion for summary judgment and dismissed the remaining claims as moot. Plaintiffs appealed the summary judgment order on April 23, 2008, and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part. Specifically, the Court of Appeals held that Plaintiffs’ class claims were excepted from Article III mootness as capable of repetition, yet evading review. See Amador v. Andrews, 655 F.3d 89, 93 (2d Cir. 2011). On September 26, 2011, the appeals court remanded jurisdiction back to this Court.
On December 20, 2011, Judge Gorenstein set the briefing schedule for the instant motions before me. On January 31, 2012, Plaintiffs moved to join Ms. Perez as a potential class representative under Rules 20 and 21, and moved under Rule 15 for leave to amend the FAC. Ms. Perez also moved to intervene under Rule 24. On April 2, 2012, Supervisory Defendants submitted briefing opposing Ms. Perez’s and Plaintiffs’ motions, and cross-moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims. On April 5, 2012, Defendant Brenyah also submitted opposition to Ms. Perez’s and Plaintiffs’ motions.
On May 11, 2012, Plaintiffs separately filed a reply in further support of their and Ms. Perez’s January 31, 2012
- 8 -

Case 1:03-cv-00650-KTD-GWG Document 418 Filed 12/11/14 Page 9 of 31
motions and a brief in opposition to Supervisory Defendants’ cross-motion to dismiss. On June 1, 2012, Supervisory Defendants filed a reply memorandum in support of their crossmotion to dismiss. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a sur-reply to Supervisory Defendants’ motion to dismiss dated June 13, 2012, to which Supervisory Defendants responded by filing a sur-reply dated July 3, 2012.
On October 31, 2012, Plaintiffs moved to join Ms. Hayes and Ms. Rogers as Plaintiffs under Rules 20 and 21, and again moved for leave to amend and supplement the FAC under Rule 15. The October 31, 2012 motion to amend the FAC superseded their original January 31, 2012 motion. Ms. Hayes and Ms. Rogers also moved to intervene under Rule 24.
On June 6, 2014, Plaintiffs moved to join Ms. Wimmers as a Plaintiff under Rules 20 and 21, and again moved for leave to amend and supplement the FAC under Rule 15. This June 6, 2014 motion to amend the FAC superseded their original January 31, 2012 motion and the subsequent October 31, 2012 motion. Ms. Wimmers also moved to intervene under Rule 24.
On November 17, 2014, Plaintiffs moved to join Ms. Valentin as a Plaintiff under Rules 20 and 21, and again moved for leave to amend and supplement the FAC under Rule 15. This November 17, 2014 motion to amend the FAC superseded their original
- 9 -

Case 1:03-cv-00650-KTD-GWG Document 418 Filed 12/11/14 Page 10 of 31
January 31, 2012 motion and the subsequent October 31, 2012 and June 6, 2014 motions. Ms. Valentin also moved to intervene under Rule 24.
II. DISCUSSION I will address the pending motions as follows: (1) Intervenors’ Rule 24 motions; (2) Plaintiffs’ motions to join Ms. Perez, Ms. Hayes and Ms. Rogers, Ms. Wimmers, and Ms. Valentin under Rule 20 and 21; (3) Plaintiffs’ motions to amend and supplement the FAC under Rule 15(a) and (d); and (4) Supervisory Defendants’ Cross-Motion to Dismiss. A. Intervenors’ Rule 24 Motions for Permissive Intervention I deny each Intervenor’s motion for intervention under Rule 24. Rule 24(b)(3) cautions that “[i]n exercising its discretion [to permit intervention], the court must consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the original parties' rights.” FED. R. CIV. P 24(b)(3). Here, Plaintiffs assert that additional discovery and burden on the Supervisory Defendants will necessarily be limited since Intervenors assert the same claims and seek the same relief as Plaintiffs. But the amount of discovery required on these claims is not necessarily limited by the fact that Intervenors seek the same relief. Significant additional discovery may be required because while the relief sought and type of claims
- 10 -

Case 1:03-cv-00650-KTD-GWG Document 418 Filed 12/11/14 Page 11 of 31
asserted may be similar, the circumstances regarding each Intervernors’ claims are specific to each individual, requiring discovery as to each by Plaintiffs and Defendants.
Furthermore, Ms. Dawson’s claims are nearly ready to be tried and if her suit is successful, whatever declaratory and injunctive relief that may be granted will most likely affect Intervenors through changes to DOCCS’ policies and practices, so amendment to include Intervenors’ claims would be unproductive. In the interests of fairness to Defendants and Plaintiffs who deserve to have their claims and defenses heard, to avoid undue prejudice to Defendants by re-opening discovery in order to join Intervenors claims over eleven years after the case was filed, and to facilitate the expeditious resolution of this case after over eleven years of litigation, I deny Intervenors’ motions.
B. Plaintiffs’ Rule 20 and 21 Motions to Join Additional Plaintiffs I deny Plaintiffs’ Rule 20 and 21 motions to join
Intervenors for the same reasons I deny Intervenors’ Rule 24 motions. According to the parties, over one-hundred depositions have already been taken in this matter. Adding parties that seek the same declaratory and injunctive relief against Supervisory Defendants will serve to extend discovery for these new Plaintiffs and further delay trial and disposition in this
- 11 -

Case 1:03-cv-00650-KTD-GWG Document 418 Filed 12/11/14 Page 12 of 31
matter. Despite Plaintiffs’ assurances that additional discovery would be limited if Intervenors were added to the case, to so rule would “open[] up a ‘Pandora’s box’ of discovery, further protracting an already unduly distended case” because Intervenors’ allegations of abuse occurred at different times, in different places, by different DOCCS employees.7 See Barr Rubber Prods. Co. v. Sun Rubber Co., 425 F.2d 1114, 1127 (2d Cir. 1970).
C. Plaintiffs’ Motions to Amend and Supplement the First Amended Complaint Under Rule 15 As an initial matter, the parties dispute whether
Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend and supplement the FAC is governed by the lenient Rule 15 standard or the “good cause” standard under Rule 16. Compare Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), with Parker v. Columbia Pictures Indus., 204 F.3d 326, 339–40 (2d Cir. 2000). Plaintiffs argue that Judge Gorenstein’s order of December 11, 2011, establishing the schedule for Plaintiffs’ motion to amend, shows that the motion was filed within the court-ordered deadline, and therefore should be reviewed under the more deferential Rule 15 standard. (Pls.’ Reply Br. 2.) Supervisory Defendants urge me to apply the “good cause”
7 I note the exception of Ms. Perez vis-a-vis Defendant Brenyah. See supra n.4.
- 12 -

Case 1:03-cv-00650-KTD-GWG Document 418 Filed 12/11/14 Page 13 of 31
standard under Rule 16 on the basis that Judge Gorenstein’s original scheduling order of July 17, 2003 controls. (Defs.’ Br. 22.)
Irrespective of the parties’ dispute, the Second Circuit in “Parker did not mandate that the [Rule 16] ‘good cause’ standard automatically apply in every case, but rather, upheld a trial court’s discretion to deny a late application for failing to meet the ‘good cause’ requirement.” Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Universal Music Grp., Inc., 248 F.R.D. 408, 412 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (quoting Calabro v. Stone, No. CV 2003-4522, 2005 WL 327547, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 27, 2005)). Even assuming the more lenient Rule 15 standard applies here, I deny Plaintiffs’ motion to amend.
Under Rule 15(a), a plaintiff who has exhausted her right to amend a pleading may request leave of the court to amend, which “[t]he court should freely give . . . when justice so requires.” FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a)(2). Similarly, Rule 15(d) permits the court, upon motion of a party, to allow the filing of a supplemental pleading “setting out any transaction, occurrence, or event that happened after the date of the pleading to be supplemented.” FED. R. CIV. P. 15(d). In evaluating a motion to amend, the court should carefully consider whether the non-moving party will be prejudiced by such
- 13 -

Case 1:03-cv-00650-KTD-GWG Document 418 Filed 12/11/14 Page 14 of 31
amendment. According to the Second Circuit, a court must consider “whether the assertion of the new claim would: (i) require the opponent to expend significant additional resources to conduct discovery and prepare for trial; (ii) significantly delay the resolution of the dispute; or (iii) prevent the plaintiff from bringing a timely action in another jurisdiction.” Block v. First Blood Assocs., 988 F.2d 344, 350 (2d Cir. 1993) (citations omitted).
Plaintiffs seek to amend and supplement allegations in the FAC to (1) include “information they did not know when they filed it but subsequently learned through depositions and other discovery,” (Pls.’ Br. 3); (2) incorporate facts concerning Intervenors’ sexual assaults and reflect Intervenors’ status as proposed class representatives, (Portia Decl. ¶ 10; Hayes & Rogers Br. 3; Wimmers Br. 2; Valentin Br. 2); and (3) “omit previously asserted claims under the First Amendment, of the right to privacy under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, and of the right to equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment,” (Portia Decl. ¶ 10).
Even though some discovery for class certification is pending, and Plaintiffs’ pending discovery requests stand regardless of the Court’s ruling on Plaintiffs’ Rule 15 motions, adding to the burden of discovery will only further delay this
- 14 -

Case 1:03-cv-00650-KTD-GWG Document 418 Filed 12/11/14 Page 15 of 31
case. Additional plaintiffs will surely require a dedication of additional resources toward discovery, and as Defendants point out, would serve to restart the litigation from scratch many years after the case was originally filed.
Plaintiffs’ proposed amendments and supplemental allegations will significantly delay resolution of the dispute. While Plaintiffs do not seek to add new claims, the discovery required to litigate on behalf of the proposed Intervenors can only result in further delays to the case. Given that the parties have not been able to resolve the injunctive and declaratory claims over the eleven-year pendency of this case, further delay will only serve to prejudice the litigation of the individual claims and defenses of the original parties to this suit. Plaintiffs point out that intervention is one way to avoid mootness in inherently transitory class action claims. The Second Circuit’s instruction to apply the “relation-back” doctrine, preserving class claims that would otherwise be moot as individual claims means that allowing intervention and amendment would unproductively delay the litigation of longpending class claims that can otherwise be litigated by Ms. Dawson if I certify the class.
- 15 -

Case 1:03-cv-00650-KTD-GWG Document 418 Filed 12/11/14 Page 16 of 31
Because amending and supplementing the FAC will unduly prejudice Defendants and delay resolution of this case, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ Rule 15 motion.
D. Supervisory Defendants’ Cross-Motion to Dismiss Supervisory Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims
as moot under Article III and the doctrine of prudential mootness. Alternatively, Supervisory Defendants argue that the Court should decline to exercise its jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims for declaratory relief and that Plaintiffs’ claims alleging inadequate mental health care are not viable.
1. Article III Mootness Plaintiffs’ claims are not moot because the Final Rules are not binding on states and there is no indication of when, if ever, DOCCS will provide Plaintiffs with the effective relief they seek. Article III limits the jurisdiction of federal courts to live cases or controversies. See U.S. CONST. art. III. “[A] case is moot if ‘the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome’ of the case.” In re Zarnel, 619 F.3d 156, 162 (2d Cir. 2010) (quoting Fox v. Bd. of Trustees of State Univ. of N.Y., 42 F.3d 135, 140 (2d Cir. 1994)). In other words, “courts’ subject matter jurisdiction ceases when ‘an event occurs during the course of the proceedings or on appeal that
- 16 -

Case 1:03-cv-00650-KTD-GWG Document 418 Filed 12/11/14 Page 17 of 31
makes it impossible for the court to grant any effectual relief whatever to a prevailing party.’” Cnty. of Suffolk v. Sebelius, 605 F.3d 135, 140 (2d Cir. 2010) (quoting United States v. Quattrone, 402 F.3d 304, 308 (2d Cir. 2005)). “[Defendants’] burden of demonstrating mootness ‘is a heavy one.’” See Cnty. of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625, 631 (1979) (quoting United States v. W. T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629, 633 (1953)).
Supervisory Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ claims became moot when DOJ released the Final Rules because (a) “[t]he challenged DOCCS policies will be replaced or subsumed by the Final Rules,” (Defs.’ Br. 8); (b) the Final Rules “will prevent DOCCS from readopting the challenged policies,” (id. at 13); (c) the Final Rules “effectively give [P]laintiffs the equitable relief they seek,” (id. at 14); and (d) “Plaintiffs lack standing to challenge the PREA Rules themselves, or DOCCS’[s] implementation of them,” (id.).
The Final Rules adopt national standards to prevent, detect, and respond to prison rape, pursuant to PREA. 42 U.S.C. § 15602(3). The Final Rules were immediately binding on the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Id. § 15607(b). States are not mandated to adopt the Final Rules; however, a state whose governor does not certify full compliance with the standards is subject to the loss of five percent of any DOJ grant program
- 17 -

Case 1:03-cv-00650-KTD-GWG Document 418 Filed 12/11/14 Page 18 of 31
that it would otherwise receive for prison purposes. Id. § 15607(e)(2). A state avoids penalty if its governor submits an assurance that such five percent will be used only for the purpose of enabling the state to achieve and certify full compliance with the Final Rules “in future years.” Id. While section 15607 did not supply a date upon which a governor must submit certification or a statement of assurance, the five percent penalty is assessed on States whose governor failed to take such action beginning October 1, 2013. See id. § 15607(e)(7)(A).
Supervisory Defendants fail to meet their heavy burden of showing the absence of a “live case or controversy.” First, the Final Rules are not binding on States, and Supervisory Defendants offer no proof suggesting that the governor of New York will certify full compliance with the Final Rules at any point in the future. Even if the governor of New York provided the written assurance required to protect New York’s full allotment of DOJ grant funds, a State is only obligated to allocate five percent of those funds toward adopting and achieving full compliance. The statute does not indicate a time frame within which a State must achieve full compliance, but envisions only that a State will work toward certification “in future years.” 42 U.S.C. § 15607(e)(2)(B).
- 18 -

Case 1:03-cv-00650-KTD-GWG Document 418 Filed 12/11/14 Page 19 of 31
Second, Supervisory Defendants insufficiently support their claim that the Final Rules will replace or subsume the DOCCS practices and policies challenged here. The only proof Supervisory Defendants offer is the declaration of a DOCCS Associate Counsel and state-wide PREA Coordinator. (Schulze Reply Decl., Ex. F.) The declaration states that “DOCCS is undertaking an extensive review of the final PREA Standards with a goal of identifying exactly what steps it must take to achieve compliance with the National Standards to Prevent, Detect, and Respond to Prison Rape, and it is continuing to modify its policies in an effort to comply with the PREA Standards.” (Id. ¶ 8.) While this statement acknowledges that DOCCS is aware of the Final Rules, it does not substantiate a finding of when, if ever, New York will comply with them, or if DOCCS compliance with the Final Rules would otherwise remedy the constitutional deficiencies that Plaintiffs’ allege in the FAC.
Finally, Supervisory Defendants’ remaining arguments are without merit because the Final Rules cannot prevent DOCCS from readopting the allegedly constitutionally deficient policies currently in place, and Plaintiffs do not challenge the Final Rules here.
- 19 -

Case 1:03-cv-00650-KTD-GWG Document 418 Filed 12/11/14 Page 20 of 31
Based on the facts before me, it is not “impossible for the court to grant any effectual relief whatever to a prevailing party.’” Sebelius, 605 F.3d at 140.8
2. Prudential Mootness Supervisory Defendants’ prudential mootness argument fails because ambiguity surrounding New York State’s adoption and compliance with the Final Rules counsels against dismissal. Supervisory Defendants cite a host of out-of-circuit cases in support of their argument that the Court should dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims as moot because DOCCS policies and practices are undergoing significant modification in response to the Final Rules’ release. This jurisprudence recognizes that a case may be dismissed as moot, even when it has technically satisfied the Article III case or controversy requirement if “a controversy . . . is so attenuated that considerations of prudence and comity for coordinate branches of government counsel the court to stay its hand, and to withhold relief it has the power to grant.” Chamber of Commerce, 627 F.2d at 291; see also Marcavage v. Nat’l Park Serv., 666 F.3d 856, 862 n.1 (3d Cir. 2012); S. Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Smith, 110 F.3d 724, 727 (10th Cir. 1997).
8 Because I find sufficient ground for denying-in-part the motion to dismiss at this stage in the litigation, I do not consider whether New York’s certification would effectively provide Plaintiffs with the relief they seek.
- 20 -

Case 1:03-cv-00650-KTD-GWG Document 418 Filed 12/11/14 Page 21 of 31
The Supreme Court discussed federal courts’ discretion to exercise jurisdiction over matters where there is “no reasonable expectation that the wrong will be repeated” in United States v. W. T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629, 633 (1953), and A. L. Mechling Barge Lines, Inc. v. United States, 368 U.S. 324, 329-32 (1961).
In W. T. Grant, the Supreme Court considered whether a Clayton Act challenge to an individual’s service as a director on several corporations’ boards of directors was mooted when that individual resigned his directorships. W. T. Grant, 345 U.S. at 633. In affirming that the claim was moot, the Supreme Court noted that voluntary cessation of allegedly illegal conduct alone was not sufficient to moot a claim, id. at 632, but recognized the district court’s broad discretion to consider the defendant’s “expressed intent to comply, the effectiveness of the discontinuance and, in some cases, the character of the past violations,” id. at 633.
The Supreme Court also addressed mootness as applied to voluntary cessation in A. L. Mechling Barge Lines. There, plaintiffs challenged an order that the Interstate Commerce Commission (“ICC”) issued without findings or a hearing, and sought a declaration that the ICC’s practice was unconstitutional. A. L. Mechling, 368 U.S. at 326–27. The district court had dismissed the claim as moot because the ICC
- 21 -

Case 1:03-cv-00650-KTD-GWG Document 418 Filed 12/11/14 Page 22 of 31
withdrew the challenged order and the actions sanctioned by the order had ceased. Id. at 330-31. On appeal, the ICC conceded that it was required to make findings in support of its orders and that it had amended its practices accordingly. Id. at 330. The Supreme Court upheld dismissal on the ground that “sound discretion withholds the remedy where it appears that a challenged ‘continuing practice’ is, at the moment adjudication is sought, undergoing significant modification so that its ultimate form cannot be confidently predicted.” Id. at 331.
While the ultimate form of DOCCS’s policies and practices are uncertain at this time, the facts presented in W. T. Grant and A. L. Mechling Barge Lines involve defendants who had effectively provided the remedy sought by plaintiffs. Here, despite the countless submissions, declarations, and exhibits offered by Supervisory Defendants, there is no reasonable basis for me to infer when, if ever, New York will adopt the policies and procedures that would presumptively provide Plaintiffs with the relief they seek. Further, in the cases relied upon by Supervisory Defendants, the defendants’ compliance with the challenged conduct could be easily determined—i.e., Grant’s service as a director on the boards of interlocking corporations, and the ICC’s issuance of orders without findings. The challenged policies and practices in this case concern
- 22 -

Case 1:03-cv-00650-KTD-GWG Document 418 Filed 12/11/14 Page 23 of 31
substantial modifications to policies and protocol governing the hiring, training, investigation, and supervision of correctional officers at every state-operated prison facility for women in the State of New York. Furthermore, the Second Circuit expressly held that the class claims alleged here were of a kind capable of repetition, yet evading review. Amador v. Andrews, 655 F.3d 89, 93 (2d Cir. 2011).
I cannot decline jurisdiction over this case based solely on Supervisory Defendants’ assurance that its policies and practices are no longer enabling the sexual assault of female inmates at DOCCS facilities. (Cf. Defs.’ Br. 12–13; Defs.’ Reply Br. 4.) Because there “exists some cognizable danger of recurrent violation, something more than the mere possibility which serves to keep the case alive,” W. T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. at 633, dismissal on mootness grounds is not proper.
3. Declaratory Relief Plaintiffs’ claims for declaratory relief survive this motion to dismiss for the same reasons articulated with respect to Supervisory Defendants’ mootness arguments—namely, that Supervisory Defendants fail to show that the relief Plaintiffs seek has effectively been granted.
- 23 -

Case 1:03-cv-00650-KTD-GWG Document 418 Filed 12/11/14 Page 24 of 31
While courts have broad discretion to exercise jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action, 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a) (2012), five factors should be considered before doing so:
(i) whether the judgment will serve a useful purpose in clarifying or settling the legal issues involved; (ii) whether a judgment would finalize the controversy and offer relief from uncertainty; (iii) whether the proposed remedy is being used merely for ‘procedural fencing’ or a ‘race to res judicata’; (iv) whether the use of a declaratory judgment would increase friction between sovereign legal systems or improperly encroach on the domain of a state or foreign court; and (v) whether there is a better or more effective remedy. N.Y. Times Co. v. Gonzales, 459 F.3d 160, 167 (2d Cir. 2006) (quoting Dow Jones & Co., Inc. v. Harrods Ltd., 346 F.3d 357, 359–60 (2d Cir. 2003)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Plaintiffs allege constitutional and statutory violations resulting from specific policies and practices maintained by Supervisory Defendants. Supervisory Defendants offer no proof that they have eliminated and replaced the challenged policies and practices with the Final Rules, or of when they will accomplish such action. Additionally, there is no proof that DOCCS’ adoption of policies and practices that comply with the Final Rules would remedy the constitutional violations that Plaintiffs allege. Given the uncertainty surrounding New York’s adoption of practices and policies effectively granting the relief Plaintiffs seek, declaratory relief from the alleged injuries would prove useful in settling the relevant legal
- 24 -

Case 1:03-cv-00650-KTD-GWG Document 418 Filed 12/11/14 Page 25 of 31
issues and finalizing the present controversy. Supervisory Defendants do not argue that Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief for the purpose of “procedural fencing,” nor do they assert how a declaratory judgment will encroach on state courts. Further, while Supervisory Defendants state that a “better” remedy available to Plaintiffs is a direct action for damages, (Defs.’ Br. 20), Plaintiffs seek to prevent future constitutional violations. A remedy at law is no substitute for the equitable relief Plaintiffs seek here.
Based on the forgoing considerations, I maintain jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ declaratory judgment action.
4. Inadequate Mental Health Care Supervisory Defendants also move to dismiss the portion of Plaintiffs’ Eighth Amendment claim concerning Supervisory Defendants’ failure to offer and provide adequate mental health treatment to women who report sexual harassment, abuse and trauma, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), because Plaintiffs have not alleged sufficient facts to support a claim for medical indifference to Plaintiffs’ mental health needs following complaints of sexual abuse. In order to survive a motion to dismiss, . . . a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content
- 25 -

Case 1:03-cv-00650-KTD-GWG Document 418 Filed 12/11/14 Page 26 of 31
that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal citations
and quotation marks omitted).
The plausibility standard is not akin to a probability
requirement, but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that
a defendant has acted unlawfully. Id.
A prisoner’s medical indifference claim must meet two
requirements: (1) the deprivation of treatment must be
sufficiently serious, and (2) the charged official must act with
a sufficiently culpable state of mind. Salahuddin v. Goord, 467
F.3d 263, 279-280 (2d Cir. 2006)(quotations and internal
citations omitted). The “sufficiently serious” inquiry is an
objective one that hinges on: (a) whether or not the inmate was
actually deprived of adequate treatment (reasonable care
satisfies the prison official’s duty), and (b) whether the
alleged inadequacy was serious. Id.
In medical-treatment cases not arising from emergency situations, the official’s state of mind need not reach the level of knowing and purposeful infliction of harm; it suffices if the plaintiff proves that the official acted with deliberate indifference to inmate health. Deliberate indifference is a mental state equivalent to subjective recklessness, as the term is used in criminal law. This mental state requires that the charged official act or fail to act while actually aware of a substantial risk that serious inmate harm will result.
- 26 -

Case 1:03-cv-00650-KTD-GWG Document 418 Filed 12/11/14 Page 27 of 31
Id., at 280 (internal citations omitted). In order for Plaintiffs to prevail, they must show that “the risk of harm [was] substantial,” and that Supervisory Defendants’ actions were “more than merely negligent.” Id. (citing Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 827, 835–37 (1994).
Even though I deny Plaintiffs’ Rule 15 request for leave to amend the FAC, I address Supervisory Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion in the context of both the FAC and the Proposed Second Amended Complaint (“PSAC”), because both parties’ arguments are based on the claims included in the PSAC dated January 31, 2012.9
a. Assuming Facts in the FAC The FAC does not allege any facts to support mental health treatment inadequacies with regard to Ms. Dawson. (FAC ¶ 44.) It does not allege that Ms. Dawson requested mental health treatment and was denied such treatment. The FAC does not allege facts to support a claim that Supervisory Defendants were aware or should have been aware of a medical need for mental
9 To the extent that Plaintiffs’ PSAC is relevant to the disposition of this motion to dissmiss discussed below, I refer to the PSAC dated November 17, 2014, attached (in redacted form) as Exhibit 1 to Gearhart-Serna Decl. II and filed under seal at Docket Entry 410. The PSAC dated November 17, 2014 replaced and superseded the PSAC dated January 31, 2012. (Gearhart-Serna Decl. II, at 2.)
- 27 -

Case 1:03-cv-00650-KTD-GWG Document 418 Filed 12/11/14 Page 28 of 31
health treatment and consciously disregarded such a need on the part of Ms. Dawson. Because the FAC does not allege even the bare elements of a medical indifference claim with regard to Ms. Dawson, much less any facts to support such a claim, I grant Supervisory Defendants’ motion to dismiss the claim under the FAC.
b. Assuming Facts in the PSAC Plaintiffs’ PSAC alleges that DOCCS provided inadequate mental health treatment to Ms. Dawson following her rape by Defendant Brenyah. Ms. Dawson does not allege any facts to support a claim that Supervisory Defendants were aware of her mental health needs and risks resulting from her rape and affirmatively disregarded those risks in denying her adequate mental health treatment. While I accept Ms. Dawson’s allegations as true, and draw any necessary inferences in her favor regarding the insufficiency of her treatment for the purposes of deciding this motion, there are no facts alleged to support the claim that Supervisory Defendants’ were made aware or should have inferred a substantial risk, and disregarded that risk to Ms. Dawson’s mental health. Many of Ms. Dawson’s statements regarding the adequacy of her treatment are conclusory. Ms. Dawson alleges
- 28 -

Case 1:03-cv-00650-KTD-GWG Document 418 Filed 12/11/14 Page 29 of 31
that she received treatment but that it inadequately addressed her needs because it was not “trauma-focused treatment by mental health professionals with expertise in the treatment of trauma.” (PSAC ¶¶ 52x–z.) Ms. Dawson was entitled to reasonably adequate care. But failure to provide the best treatment available does not amount to an Eighth Amendment claim. Barnes v. Ross, 926 F. Supp. 2d 499 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). Ms. Dawson does not allege that Supervisory Defendants were aware that her treatment was unreasonable or that Supervisory Defendants should have otherwise been aware that her mental health needs required additional treatment. The FAC and PSAC both state that Supervisory Defendants provide Plaintiffs access to “some degree of mental health services.” (FAC ¶ 41c, PSAC ¶ 51d.) While not dispositive, the fact that Ms. Dawson received treatment for a period of time after she requested treatment does not support an inference that Ms. Dawson’s needs were consciously disregarded. A prisoner’s burden is heavy when alleging a constitutional violation stemming from medical treatment. “An inmate’s disagreement with [her] treatment or a difference of opinion over the type or course of treatment do not support a claim of cruel and unusual punishment.” Alston v. Bendheim, 672 F. Supp. 2d 378, 385 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (citing Chance v. Armstrong, 143 F.3d 698, 703 (2d Cir. 1998)). Ms. Dawson has failed to
- 29 -

Case 1:03-cv-00650-KTD-GWG Document 418 Filed 12/11/14 Page 30 of 31
plausibly allege that she received less than reasonable mental
health care and that even if it was less than reasonable, that
Supervisory Defendants were deliberately indifferent; the
allegations amount to a claim that she did not receive the best
available treatment. While the claim might meet the burden for
medical malpractice, a constitutional claim requires more.
Chance, 143 F.3d at 703 (citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97,
105-06 (1976)). Even if I had granted Plaintiffs’ Rule 15
motion to supplement the FAC, it would have been futile for the
purposes of saving the mental health claims at issue here. 10
10 This rationale would extend to the claims asserted by Intervenors if the motions to join, intervene, and amend the complaint had been granted. To the extent that each Intervenor makes claims in the PSAC about the mental health treatment rendered by DOCCS, none has alleged facts that support deliberate indifference by the Supervisory Defendants. Ms. Perez alleges that she did not receive satisfactory treatment until four years after her rape, (PSAC ¶ 53j), but this does not support the string of inferences required for a claim of indifference. Ms. Hayes alleges that she was not offered mental health services immediately following her rape, (PSAC ¶ 54h), but there are no further facts to support a claim of indifference. Ms. Rogers’ claim, (PSAC ¶ 55q), and Ms. Wimmers’ claim, (PSAC ¶ 56l), are each similarly unsupported. Proposed Intervenor Ms. Valentin alleges the most detailed facts regarding serious mental health needs (PSAC ¶¶ 57q–r, v), but does not plausibly allege that her mental health treatment was unreasonable, or that her needs went otherwise undiagnosed or untreated as a result of deliberate indifference.
- 30 -

Case 1:03-cv-00650-KTD-GWG Document 418 Filed 12/11/14 Page 31 of 31

For these reasons, I grant Supervisory Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' mental health claims.
III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, I grant-in-part and deny-in-part Supervisory Defendants' cross-motion to dismiss, and deny Intervenors' Rule 24 motions and Plaintiffs' Rules 20, 21, and 15 motions to join new plaintiffs and supplement the FAC. Supervisory Defendants' letter motions at Docket Entry 403 and 417 are moot in light of decisions on the other motions. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motions located at Docket Entries 336, 337, 343, 369, 370, 396, 397, 403, 408, 409, 417.

SO ORDERED:

Dated:

New York, N.Y. December 11, 2014

- 31 -

 
 Case 1:03-cv-00650-KTD-GWG Document 440 Filed 07/06/15 Page 1 of 15 Case 1:03-cv-00650-KTD-GWG Document 439-1 Filed 07/01/15 Page 1of15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------------------- x

LUCY AMADOR, et al., on behalf of themselves and

all others similarly situated,

03 Civ. 0650 (KTD) (GWG)

Plaintiffs,
- against -
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION ("DOCCS") SUPERINTENDENT ANGINELL ANDREWS, et al.,

STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT, GENERAL RELEASE, AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Defendants.
-------------------------------------------------------------------- x

This SETTLEMENT STIPULATION, GENERAL RELEASE, AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL ("Settlement Stipulation") is made by and between Plaintiff Stephanie Dawson ("Plaintiff') and Defendants as of July _I_, 2015:
WHEREAS, fifteen women filed a complaint in this Action ("the Action") on January 28, 2003, in the Southern District of New York, challenging the policies and procedures set by highranking officials ("Supervisory Defendants") of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision ("DOCCS") alleging that these policies and procedures enabled the sexual abuse of women prisoners by male correctional staff;
WHEREAS, Plaintiff was joined in the Action as a plaintiff in the First Amended Complaint filed on October 14, 2003;
WHEREAS, Plaintiff individually sought compensatory and punitive damages in the Action from Defendant C.O. Frederick Brenyah ("Defendant Brcnyah"), alleging that he had sexually abused her in violation of her constitutional rights while she was housed at Taconic Correctional Facility;

Case 1:03-cv-00650-KTD-GWG Document 440 Filed 07/06/15 Page 2 of 15 Case 1:03-cv-00650-KTD-GWG Document 439-1 Filed 07/01/15 Page 2 of 15
WHEREAS, Defendant Brenyah answered the Action on October 3 I, 2003, and denied all Plaintiffs allegations;
WHEREAS, on December 3, 2007, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs claims for i1tjunctive and declaratory relief against the Supervisory Defendants;
WIIEREAS, Plaintiff appealed the dismissal of her claims for injunctive and declaratory relief to the Second Circuit, and on August 19, 2011, the Second Circuit issued an opinion remanding the case to the District Court;
WHEREAS, Supervisory Defendants, whether in their individual or official capacities, expressly deny that their challenged policies and procedures are constitutionally deficient;
WHEREAS, Plaintiff and Defendants wish to fully resolve the claims alleged in the Action, and any and all other disputes that were or could have been the subject of any claim by Plaintiff in the Action, without further litigation or proceedings and without admission of fault or liability, and have negotiated in good faith for that purpose;
WHEREAS, none of the parties to the Action is an infant or incompetent person; and WHEREAS, Plaintiff represents and warrants that, other than the Action, she has no action or proceeding pending in any court, state or federal, arising out of or relating to the subject matter of this lawsuit. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises, covenants, representations, and other consideration contained in this Settlement Stipulation, Plaintiff and Defendants hereby agree as follows: 1. Dismissal of the Action With Prejudice This Settlement Stipulation will resolve all of Plaintiffs claims in the above-captioned Action, which is currently pending before the Honorable Kevin T. Duffy in the United States
2

Case 1:03-cv-00650-KTD-GWG Document 440 Filed 07/06/15 Page 3 of 15 Case 1:03-cv-00650-KTD-GWG Document 439-1 Filed 07/01/15 Page 3 of 15
District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Action and all claims a::;serted therein by Plaintiff are discontinued with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(l)(A)(ii) and without payments, attorneys' fees, costs, disbursements, or expenses in excess of the amount specified in Paragraph 2 below.
2. Payment to Plaintiff Tn full consideration of Plaintiffs execution of this Settlement Stipulation, her agreement to be bound by its terms, and her undertakings as set forth herein including, but not limited to, the dismissal of the Action with prejudice and other good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Defendants shall pay the gross amount of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000), in full satisfaction of any and all claims, allegations or actions, direct or indirect, known or unknown, that Plaintiff had, has, or may have against Defendants, whether in their individual or official capacities, arising out of conduct, acts, or omissions prior to, up to and including the date of this Settlement Stipulation, including but not limited to those asserted by Plaintiff in the Action, including any attorneys' fees, costs, disbursements, and expenses incurred by Plaintiff for any and all counsel who have assisted Plaintiff or at any time represented Plaintiff in the Action or in connection with any other proceeding, administrative, judicial, or otherwise, and any other claim or action by Plaintiff alleging any of the acts, transactions, occurrences, or omissions asserted in the Action. Since the State of New York, on behalf of DctCndants, shall make the payment to Plaintiff in the sum of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000), an I.R.S. Form 1099 shall be issued. This payment is in full and complete satisfaction of: 1) any and all claims for damages incurred by Plaintiff that were or could have been the subject of any claim by Plaintiff in the Action, as well as in connection with any other proceeding, administrative, judicial, or otherwise, including,
3

Case 1:03-cv-00650-KTD-GWG Document 440 Filed 07/06/15 Page 4 of 15 Case 1:03-cv-00650-KTD-GWG Document 439-1 Filed 07/01/15 Page 4 of 15
but not limited to, any other claim or action alleging any of the acts, transactions, occurrences, or
omissions asserted or purportedly asserted by Plaintiff in the Action; and 2) any and all claims, purported claims, allegations, or causes of action for attorneys' fees, costs, disbursements, and expenses incurred by Plaintiff for any and all legal counsel who have at any time represented Plaintiff in the Action or in connection with any other proceeding, administrative, judicial or otherwise, or any other claim or action by Plaintiff arising from, based upon, or alleging any of the acts, transactions, occurrences, or omissions asserted or purportedly asserted by Plaintiff in the Action. The foregoing payment shall be made in a single check payable to Stephanie Dawson and mailed to her counsel Terra L. Gearhart-Serna at Debevoisc & Plimpton LLP, 919 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022.
Plaintiffs co-counsel in the Action, The Legal Aid Society and Debcvoise & Plimpton LLP, hereby waive any claim to an award of attorneys' fees, costs, and disbursements under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 or otherwise arising out of Plaintiffs claims. The Legal Aid Society's and Dcbcvoisc & Plimpton's waiver of attorneys' fees, costs and disbursements may not be referred to as a precedent in any future actions.
3. State Approval of Payments Payment of the settlement amount specified in Paragraph 2 of this Settlement Stipulation 1s subject to the approval of all appropriate State officials in accordance with N.Y. Public Officers Law § 17. Plaintiff and Plaintiff's attorneys agree to execute and deliver all necessary and appropriate vouchers and other documentation requested with respect to obtaining such
approval and effectuating payment. Tn the event such approval is not obtained, this Settlement Stipulation shall be null, void, and of no further force and effect.
4

Case 1:03-cv-00650-KTD-GWG Document 440 Filed 07/06/15 Page 5 of 15 Case 1:03-cv-00650-KTD-GWG Document 439-1 Filed 07/01/15 Page 5 of 15
4. Accrual of Interest In the event that payment of the settlement amount specified in Paragraph 2 of this Settlement Stipulation has not been made by the one hundred twentieth (120th) day after receipt by the Office of the Attorney General ("OAG") of a "So Ordered" copy of this Settlement Stipulation, entered into the record by the Clerk of Court, together with all other documentation required under Paragraphs 3 and 7 of this Settlement Stipulation, interest on any part of the settlement amount not paid by the one hundred twentieth (120th) day following receipt of the above-named documents shall accrue at the statutory rate prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 1961, commencing on the one hundred twenty-first (121 st) day. If applicable, the provisions referenced in Chapter 62 of the Laws of 2001, as amended (commonly known as "the Son of Sam Law" relating to crime victims, funds of convicted persons and the New York State Office of Victims Services), including, but not limited to, Section 632"a of the New York Executive Law and Section 8(12-g) of the New York State Finance Law, may be applicable to payments by Defendants hereunder. 5. Liabilitv of Plaintiff for Taxes It is understood and agreed that any taxes, or interest or penalties on taxes, on the settlement amount specified in Paragraph 2 of this Settlement Stipulation, shall be the sole and complete responsibility of Plaintiff, and that Plaintiff shall have no claim, right or cause of action against Defendants, DOCCS, the State of New York (including, but not limited to, any and all agencies, departments, and subdivisions thereof), and any or their officials, employees or agents, whether in their individual or official capacities, on account of such taxes, interest or penalties. Plaintiff agrees that she will defend, indemnify, and hold harmless Defendants, the State of New York (including, but not limited to, any and all agencies, departments, and subdivisions thereof),
5

Case 1:03-cv-00650-KTD-GWG Document 440 Filed 07/06/15 Page 6 of 15 Case 1:03-cv-00650-KTD-GWG Document 439-1 Filed 07/01/15 Page 6 of 15
and any of their officials, employees, or agents, whether in their individual or official capacities, for the satisfaction of any such taxes, or interest or penalties on taxes.
6. Liability of Plaintiff and Plaintifrs Attorneys for Liens
Plaintiff and Plaintiffs attorneys agree that neither Defendants, the State of New York (including, but not limited to, any and all agencies, departments, and subdivisions thereof), nor any of their officials, employees or agents, whether in their individual or official capacities, shall be responsible for any liens of any kind (including, but not limited to, any and all workers' compensation, tax, or child support liens) which may attach to the settlement amount specified in Paragraph 2 of this Settlement Stipulation. Plaintiff and Plaintiffs attorneys shall have no claim, right, or cause of action against Defendants, the State of New York (including, but not limited to, any and all agencies, departments, and subdivisions thereof), or any of their officials, employees, or agents, whether in their individual or official capacities, on account of such liens, and agree that they will defend, indemnify, and hold harn1less Defendants, the State of New York (including, but not limited to, any and all agencies, departments, and subdivisions thereof), and any of their officials, employees, or agents, whether in their individual or official capacities, for the satisfaction of any such liens.
7. Medicare Certification Plaintiff acknowledges and understands that Section 111 of the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007 ("MMSE/\"), 42 U.S.C. § 1395y(b), mandates that the State of New York and the Office of the Attorney General ("OAG") report information to Medicare regarding settlements, judgments, awards or payments of any kind for the purpose of coordinating benefits for Medicare beneficiaries, and agrees to deliver an executed and notarized Affidavit of Medicare Eligibility Status, in the form annexed hereto as Exhibit A, to the OAG.
6

Case 1:03-cv-00650-KTD-GWG Document 440 Filed 07/06/15 Page 7 of 15 Case 1:03-cv-00650-KTD-GWG Document 439-1 Filed 07/01/15 Page 7 of 15
Plaintiff and Plaintiff's attorneys acknowledge and understand that the submission of this Affidavit, and any and all requested supporting documentation, to the OAG is a prerequisite to payment of the settlement amount specified in Paragraph 2 of this Settlement Stipulation, and falls within the category of "other documentation" described in Paragraphs 3 and 4 of this Settlement Stipulation.
8. Liability of Plaintiff for Any Medicare Payments and/or Liens Plaintiff agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless Defendants, the State of New York (including, but not limited to, any and all agencies, departments, and subdivisions thereof), and any of their officials, employees, or agents, whether in their official or individual capacities, regarding any liens or past and/or future Medicare payments presently known or unknown in connection with the Action. If conditional and/or future anticipated Medicare payments have not been satisfied, the Stale of New York and/or DOCCS and/or the OAG reserve the right to issue a multi-party check naming Medicare as a payee or to issue a check to Medicare directly based on the Medicare Final Demand Letter with respect to the amount specified in Paragraph 2 of this Agreement. Upon receipt of all required documentation under Paragraphs 3 and 7, payment of the Settlement Amount specified in Paragraph 2 shall be made in accordance with the terms set forth herein. 9. General Release In consideration of the payment of the sum recited in Paragraph 2 above, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself, her heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns (collectively, "the Releasing Parties"), hereby releases and forever discharges each of the Defendants, the State of New York, and DOCCS (including, but not limited to, any and all agencies, departments, and subdivisions thereof), and all of their
7

Case 1:03-cv-00650-KTD-GWG Document 440 Filed 07/06/15 Page 8 of 15 Case 1:03-cv-00650-KTD-GWG Document 439-1 Filed 07/01/15 Page 8 of 15
present and former principals, officers, officials, directors, members, affiliates, employees, agents, attorneys, insurers, subdivisions, subsidiaries, heirs, administrators, and assigns, whether
in their individual or official capacities (collectively, "the Released Parties"), from all manner of
actions, injuries, proceedings, causes of action, grievances, suits, debts, obligations, dues, sums of money, accounts, contracts, controversies, agreements, promises, damages, judgments, claims, and demands whatsoever, direct or indirect, known or unknown, discovered or undiscovered, that the Releasing Parties ever had, now have, or shall or may have in the future against some, any, or all of the Released Parties, for or by reason of any act, transaction, occurrence, omission, cause, matter, or thing whatsoever that was or could have been the subject of any claim by Plaintiff in the Action up to and including the date of this Settlement Stipulation, including but not limited to: (a) any and all claims regarding or arising out of the causes of action, acts, transactions, occurrences, or omissions which are described, alleged, or contained in the Action; (b) any and all claims regarding or arising directly or indirectly from either Plaintifrs association with any of the Released Parties or the terms and conditions of her association with any of the Released Parties, including but not limited to, her incarceration in the DOCCS system; (c) any and all other claims, whether for damages (including but not limited to, claims for equitable relief, compensatory, punitive, or other damages), breach of contract, negligence, estoppcl, defamation, infliction of emotional distress, violation of public policy, or any other tort, or any claim for costs, fees, or other expenses including attorneys' fees, or any other claims under federal, state, or local law relating to Plaintiffs incarceration in the DOCCS system. Plaintiff also waives and releases any and all claims against the State of New York, its agencies, departments, and officials in the New York Court of Claims or any other forum, administrative or otherwise, related to or
8

Case 1:03-cv-00650-KTD-GWG Document 440 Filed 07/06/15 Page 9 of 15 Case 1:03-cv-00650-KTD-GWG Document 439-1 Filed 07/01/15 Page 9 of 15
arising from any transactions, acts, omissions, or occurrences up to and including the date of this Settlement Stipulation that were or could have been the subject of this Action.
10. No Other Action or Proceeding Commenced Other than the Action, Plaintiff represents and warrants that she has not commenced, maintained, or prosecuted any action, charge, complaint, grievance, or proceeding of any kind against Defendants, the State of New York (including, but not limited to, any agencies, departments, and subdivisions thereof), and/or any of their officials, employees, or agents, whether in their individual or official capacities, on her own behalf and/or on behalf of any other person and/or on behalf of or as a member of any alleged class of persons, that none of the foregoing is currently pending in any court or before any administrative or investigative body or agency, and acknowledges that this representation constitutes a material inducement for Defendants to enter into this Settlement Stipulation. 11. No Other Attorney The undersigned attorneys for Plaintiff represent and warrant that there arc no other attorneys having a lien for services rendered to Plaintiff pursuant to the provisions of N. Y. Judiciary Law § 475 or otherwise in the Action, or in any other action or proceeding alleging any of the acts, transactions, occurrences, or omissions asserted or purportedly asserted by Plain ti ff in the /\ction. The undersigned attorneys for Plaintiff agree to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless Defendants, the State of New York (including, but not limited to, any and all agencies, departments, and subdivisions thereof), and any of their officials, employees, or agents, whether in their individual or official capacities, from any liability or claims for attorneys' fees, costs, disbursements, or expenses incurred by Plaintiff in the Action or in connection with any other proceeding, administrative, judicial or otherwise, and any other claim or action alleging any of
9

Case 1:03-cv-00650-KTD-GWG Document 440 Filed 07/06/15 Page 10 of 15 Case 1:03-cv-00650-KTD-GWG Document 439-1 Filed 07/01/15 Page 10 of 15
the acts, transactions, occurrences, or omissions asserted or purportedly asserted by Plaintiff in the Action.
12. No Prevailing Party Neither Plaintiff nor Defendants shall be deemed a "prevailing party" for any purpose including, but not limited to, any statutory or contractual claim based upon "prevailing party" status with respect to the Action. 13. Successors and Assigns The terms and conditions of this Settlement Stipulation shall inure to the benefit of, and be binding upon, the successors and assigns of each party hereto. 14. Authority Each signatory to this Settlement Stipulation hereby represents and warrants that he, she, or it has the requisite authority to enter into this Settlement Stipulation and has not previously assigned or transferred any rights or interests with respect to the matters covered by this Settlement Stipulation. 15. Voluntary Agreement The parties hereto execute and deliver this Settlement Stipulation voluntarily after being fully informed of its terms, contents and effect, and acknowledge that she, he or it understands its terms, contents and effect. The parties hereto acknowledge that he, she or it is aware, and is advised, of his, her or its right to seek the advice of an attorney and that he, she or it has been represented by counsel of his, her or its own choosing before agreeing to any settlement or release, and no compromise or representation of any kind, other than as set forth or referred to herein, has been made to any party hereto or any one acting on behalf of such party.
10

Case 1:03-cv-00650-KTD-GWG Document 440 Filed 07/06/15 Page 11 of 15 Case 1:03-cv-00650-KTD-GWG Document 439-1 Filed 07/01/15 Page 11of15
16. No Admission of Liability It is understood and agreed that any actions taken or payment made pursuant to this Settlement Stipulation are made solely to avoid the burdens and expense of protracted litigation, and that this Settlement Stipulation and the actions taken or payment made pursuant hereto are not to be construed as constituting any determination on the merits of any claims, whether asserted or purportedly asserted by Plaintiff in the Action. Nothing contained in this Settlement Stipulation shall be deemed to constitute a policy, practice, or custom of DOCCS, the State of New York (including, but not limited to, any and all agencies, departments, and subdivisions thereof), or any of their officials, employees, or agents, whether in their individual or official capacities. 17. No Precedential Value This Settlement Stipulation shall not in any manner be construed as determinative of the issues or claims, whether raised or purportedly raised by Plaintiff, in the Action or any other proceeding, and shall have no prccedcntial value. In addition, notwithstanding the provisions of any paragraph herein, this Settlement Stipulation shall not bind or collaterally estop Defendants, the State of New York (including, but not limited to, any and all agencies, departments, and subdivisions thereof), or any of their officials, employees, or agents, whether in their individual or official capacities, in any pending or future actions or proceedings in which the same or similar issues arc raised, from defending any and all issues raised in said actions or proceedings, or from advancing any and all available defcnscs. 18. Entire Agreement This Settlement Stipulation constitutes the entire agreement between the parties hereto pertaining to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes and embodies, merges and integrates all
11

Case 1:03-cv-00650-KTD-GWG Document 440 Filed 07/06/15 Page 12 of 15 Case 1:03-cv-00650-KTD-GWG Document 439-1 Filed 07/01/15 Page 12 of 15
prior and current agreements and understandings of the parties hereto, whether written or oral, with respect to the subject matter of this Settlement Stipulation, and may not be clarified, modified, changed, or amended except in a writing duly executed by the parties hereto or an authorized representative of the parties hereto.
19. Governing Law The terms of this Settlement Stipulation shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of the State of New York applicable to contracts to be performed wholly within the State of New York, except to the extent that federal law may apply to Plaintifrs release and waiver of federal claims or purported claims pursuant to Paragraph 9 of this Settlement Stipulation. 20. Severability If any provision of this Settlement Stipulation shall be held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void, or unenforceable in whole or in part, such decision shall not invalidate the remaining portion or affect its validity. 21. Headings The headings contained in this Settlement Stipulation are for convenience of reference only and arc not a material part of this Settlement Stipulation. 22. Execution This Settlement Stipulation may be executed in any number of counterparts, all of which taken together shall constitute one Settlement Stipulation, and may be executed by facsimile signature and facsimile notary seal.
12

Case 1:03-cv-00650-KTD-GWG Document 440 Filed 07/06/15 Page 13 of 15 Case 1:03-cv-00650-KTD-GWG Document 439-1 Filed 07/01/15 Page 13 of 15

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto acknowledge that they have read lhis

Settlement Stipulation and accept and agree to the provisions contained herein, and have each

executed this Settlement Stipulation to be effective on the day and date indicated below.

THIS SETTLEMENT STIPULATION INCLUDES A RELEASE

OF ALL KNOWN AND UNKNOWN CLAIMS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS

STATED HEREIN.

Dated: New York, New York
J·vlv J , 2015
I

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of lhe State of New York Atto~r Supervisory De ndants
~ By: ~--;::.__
Daniel Schulze
Barbara D. Maddox Special Litigation Counsels 120 Broadway New York, New York 10271 (212) 416-6557 (telephone)

Dated: White Plains, New York

<:J,7_/v I

-, 201s

KAMfNSKY & RICH Attorneys for Defendant Frederick Brenyah

By: ~~fi-L

Walter Rich

/

Kaminsky & Rich 399 Knollwood Rd., Suite# 220 White Plains, New York 10603 (914) 682-8180 (telephone)

13

Case 1:03-cv-00650-KTD-GWG Document 440 Filed 07/06/15 Page 14 of 15 Case 1:03-cv-00650-KTD-GWG Document 439-1 Filed 07/01/15 Page 14 of 15

Dated: New York, New York

J~) I

,2015

DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON LLP, Attorneys for Plaintiff

Maeve O'Connor
Terra L. Gearhart-Serna
Debevoise & Plimpton LLP 919 Third Avenue New York, New York 10022 (212) 909-6000 (telephone) (212) 909-6836 (fax)

Dated: New York, New York

~v~Ql , I

, 2015

THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY PRISONERS' RIGHTS PROJECT Attorneys for Plaintiff
By~-~~/)\$JQ l-<Dori T~ewis \ Veronica Vela 199 Water Street, 3rd Floor New York, New York 10038 (212) 577-3530 (telephone)

r:-7 Dated: New York. New York I . . 201s

c'!\
PL/\tt"f'.~f
By: .J ·.. · ,\. \ C .
Stepha 1ic Dawson

- ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
On the _J_ day of ..JU Il/ . , 20 I5, before me came Stephanie Dawson, known to me
or who proved to me on the basis~tisfactory evidence to be the person whose name is
subscribed on the within instrument, and who acknowledged to me that she executed the same.

SO ORDERED. 14

Case 1:03-cv-00650-KTD-GWG Document 440 Filed 07/06/15 Page 15 of 15 Case 1:03-cv-00650-KTD-GWG Document 439-1 Filed 07/01/15 Page 15 of 15

Dated: New York, New York
_"J/\'f (o . 20 I5
Tl1e Cl 0ove - n:fcrcnU'tl ClCf\0Y1
l c, c\ I Sm I ss.ed. Tne Cit'r~
(') cl iH'. ch:-ct to cloS e.
l lA.e. Ca.. ':I{ So Oi2-t)G2£l) ·

United States District Judge

15

 
 Case: 1:03-cv-650 As of: 01/30/2016 03:01 PM EST 1 of 62
CLOSED,ECF
U.S. District Court Southern District of New York (Foley Square) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:03−cv−00650−KTD−GWG

Amador, et al v. Andrews, et al Assigned to: Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy Referred to: Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein Demand: $0 Cause: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 01/28/2003 Date Terminated: 07/06/2015 Jury Demand: Defendant Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner: Civil Rights Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Lucy Amador

represented by Maeve L. O'Connor Debevoise &Plimpton, LLP (NYC) 919 Third Avenue,31st Floor New York, NY 10022 (212)−909−6315 Fax: (212)−521−7715 Email: moconnor@debevoise.com LEAD ATTORNEY

Claudio Damian Salas−Aguilar Debevoise &Plimpton, LLP (NYC) 919 Third Avenue,31st Floor New York, NY 10022 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dori A. Lewis The Legal Aid Society, Civil Division 199 Water Street New York, NY 10038 212−577−3530 Fax: (212) 509−8433 Email: dlewis@legal−aid.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Justin P. Smith Debevoise &Plimpton, LLP (NYC) 919 Third Avenue,31st Floor New York, NY 10022 (212) 909−6000 Fax: (212)−909−6836

Lisa Freeman The Legal Aid Society 199 Water Street New York, NY 10038 212 577 7982 Fax: 646 616 4982 Email: lafreeman@legal−aid.org

Terra Linden Gearhart Debevoise &Plimpton LLP(919 Third Ave) 919 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 (212)−909−6673 Fax: (212)−521−8724 Email: tlgearha@debevoise.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Veronica Vela Legal Aid Society

Case: 1:03-cv-650 As of: 01/30/2016 03:01 PM EST 2 of 62

199 Water Street, 3rd Floor New York, NY 10038 (212)−577−3530 Fax: (212)−509−8433 Email: vvela@legal−aid.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Stacie Calloway

represented by Camille Gear Debevoise &Plimpton 919 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 (212) 909−6000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Maeve L. O'Connor (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Scott Ruskay−Kidd Kramer Levin Naftalis &Frankel, LLP 1177 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 (212)715−9323 Fax: (212)715−8000 Email: sruskaykidd@kramerlevin.com TERMINATED: 06/06/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY

Dori A. Lewis (See above for address)

Justin P. Smith (See above for address)

Lisa Freeman (See above for address)

Terra Linden Gearhart (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Tonie Coggins

represented by Camille Gear (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Maeve L. O'Connor (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Scott Ruskay−Kidd (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/06/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY

Dori A. Lewis (See above for address)

Justin P. Smith (See above for address)

Lisa Freeman (See above for address)

Case: 1:03-cv-650 As of: 01/30/2016 03:01 PM EST 3 of 62

Plaintiff Latasha Dockery
Plaintiff Tanya Jones
Plaintiff Bobbie Kidd

Terra Linden Gearhart (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Camille Gear (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Maeve L. O'Connor (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Scott Ruskay−Kidd (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/06/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY
Dori A. Lewis (See above for address)
Justin P. Smith (See above for address)
Lisa Freeman (See above for address)
Terra Linden Gearhart (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Camille Gear (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Maeve L. O'Connor (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Scott Ruskay−Kidd (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/06/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY
Dori A. Lewis (See above for address)
Justin P. Smith (See above for address)
Lisa Freeman (See above for address)
Terra Linden Gearhart (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Scott Ruskay−Kidd (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/06/2008

Case: 1:03-cv-650 As of: 01/30/2016 03:01 PM EST 4 of 62

LEAD ATTORNEY

Dori A. Lewis (See above for address)

Lisa Freeman (See above for address)

Terra Linden Gearhart (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Bette Jean McDonald

represented by Maeve L. O'Connor (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Scott Ruskay−Kidd (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/06/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY

Dori A. Lewis (See above for address)

Justin P. Smith (See above for address)

Lisa Freeman (See above for address)

Terra Linden Gearhart (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Kristina Muehleisen

represented by Camille Gear (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Maeve L. O'Connor (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Scott Ruskay−Kidd (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/06/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY

Dori A. Lewis (See above for address)

Justin P. Smith (See above for address)

Lisa Freeman (See above for address)

Terra Linden Gearhart (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

Case: 1:03-cv-650 As of: 01/30/2016 03:01 PM EST 5 of 62

Jeanette Perez TERMINATED: 04/23/2009

represented by Maeve L. O'Connor (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Scott Ruskay−Kidd (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/06/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY

Dori A. Lewis (See above for address)

Justin P. Smith (See above for address)

Lisa Freeman (See above for address)

Terra Linden Gearhart (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Laura Pullen

represented by Maeve L. O'Connor (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Scott Ruskay−Kidd (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/06/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY

Dori A. Lewis (See above for address)

Justin P. Smith (See above for address)

Lisa Freeman (See above for address)

Terra Linden Gearhart (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Corilynn Rock

represented by Maeve L. O'Connor (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Scott Ruskay−Kidd (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/06/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY

Dori A. Lewis (See above for address)

Justin P. Smith (See above for address)

Lisa Freeman (See above for address)

Case: 1:03-cv-650 As of: 01/30/2016 03:01 PM EST 6 of 62

Terra Linden Gearhart (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Denise Saffioti

represented by Maeve L. O'Connor (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Dori A. Lewis (See above for address)

Justin P. Smith (See above for address)

Lisa Freeman (See above for address)

Terra Linden Gearhart (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Shenyell Smith TERMINATED: 07/26/2012

represented by Camille Gear (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Maeve L. O'Connor (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Scott Ruskay−Kidd (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/06/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY

Dori A. Lewis (See above for address)

Justin P. Smith (See above for address)

Lisa Freeman (See above for address)

Terra Linden Gearhart (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Hope Susoh

represented by Camille Gear (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Maeve L. O'Connor (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Scott Ruskay−Kidd (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/06/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:03-cv-650 As of: 01/30/2016 03:01 PM EST 7 of 62

Dori A. Lewis (See above for address)

Justin P. Smith (See above for address)

Lisa Freeman (See above for address)

Terra Linden Gearhart (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Nakia Thompson

represented by Camille Gear (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Maeve L. O'Connor (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Scott Ruskay−Kidd (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/06/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY

Dori A. Lewis (See above for address)

Justin P. Smith (See above for address)

Lisa Freeman (See above for address)

Terra Linden Gearhart (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
Anginell Andrews Superintendent

represented by Rebecca Ann Durden New York State Department of Law Litigation 120 Broadway, 24th Floor New York, NY 10271 (212) 416−8610 Fax: (212) 416−6075 Email: Rebecca.Durden@ag.ny.gov LEAD ATTORNEY
Barbara P. Demchuk State of New York Office of the Attorney General 120 Broadway New York, NY 10271−0332 (212) 416−8632 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel A. Schulze Attorney General of the State of New York

Case: 1:03-cv-650 As of: 01/30/2016 03:01 PM EST 8 of 62

120 Broadway New York, NY 10271 (212)−416−6557 Fax: (212)−416−6009 Email: daniel.schulze@ag.ny.gov

David William Novak Hinman Straub, P.C. 121 State Street Albany, NY 12207 (518)−689−7263 ? Fax: (518)−436−4751 Email: davidn@hspm.com

Defendant Superintendent Roberta Coward

represented by Rebecca Ann Durden (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Barbara P. Demchuk (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel A. Schulze (See above for address)

David William Novak (See above for address)

Defendant Superintendent Dennis Crowley

represented by Rebecca Ann Durden (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Barbara P. Demchuk (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel A. Schulze (See above for address)

David William Novak (See above for address)

Defendant Superintendent Alexandreena Dixon

represented by Rebecca Ann Durden (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Barbara P. Demchuk (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel A. Schulze (See above for address)

David William Novak (See above for address)

Defendant
Eliane Lord Superintendent

represented by Rebecca Ann Durden (See above for address)

Case: 1:03-cv-650 As of: 01/30/2016 03:01 PM EST 9 of 62

LEAD ATTORNEY

Barbara P. Demchuk (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel A. Schulze (See above for address)

David William Novak (See above for address)

Defendant
Ronald Moscicki Superintendent

represented by Rebecca Ann Durden (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Barbara P. Demchuk (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel A. Schulze (See above for address)

David William Novak (See above for address)

Defendant
Melvin Williams Superintendent

represented by Rebecca Ann Durden (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Barbara P. Demchuk (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel A. Schulze (See above for address)

David William Novak (See above for address)

Defendant
Donald Wolfe DOCS Deputy superintedent TERMINATED: 07/22/2010

represented by Rebecca Ann Durden (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Daniel A. Schulze (See above for address)

David William Novak (See above for address)

Defendant
Terry Baxter DOCS Director of Personnel

represented by Rebecca Ann Durden (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Barbara P. Demchuk (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:03-cv-650 As of: 01/30/2016 03:01 PM EST 10 of 62

Daniel A. Schulze (See above for address)

David William Novak (See above for address)

Defendant
Richard Roy DOCS Inspector General

represented by Rebecca Ann Durden (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Barbara P. Demchuk (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel A. Schulze (See above for address)

David William Novak (See above for address)

Defendant
Barbara D. Leone DOCS Director of the Sex Crimes Unit of the Inspector General's Office

represented by Rebecca Ann Durden (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Barbara P. Demchuk (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel A. Schulze (See above for address)

David William Novak (See above for address)

Defendant
Peter Brown DOCS Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations

represented by Rebecca Ann Durden (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Barbara P. Demchuk (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel A. Schulze (See above for address)

David William Novak (See above for address)

Defendant
Glenn Goord DOCS Commissioner

represented by Rebecca Ann Durden (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Daniel A. Schulze (See above for address)

David William Novak (See above for address)

Case: 1:03-cv-650 As of: 01/30/2016 03:01 PM EST 11 of 62

Defendant
Commissioner James Stone Office of Mental Health

represented by Rebecca Ann Durden (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Barbara P. Demchuk (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel A. Schulze (See above for address)

David William Novak (See above for address)

Defendant
Clarence Davis DOCS Correctional Officer

represented by Joseph M. La Tona Joseph M. La Tona, Esq. 403 Main Street Buffalo, NY 14203 (716) 842−0416 LEAD ATTORNEY

Barbara P. Demchuk (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David William Novak (See above for address)

Defendant
M. Evans DOCS Correction Officer

represented by Christopher T. Kennedy Hinman Straub, P.C. 121 State Street Albany, NY 12207 (518) 436−0751 Fax: (518) 436−4751 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lawrence Henry Schaefer Sheehan Greene Carraway Golderman &Jacques, LLP 54 State Street Albany, NY 12207 (518) 462−0110 Fax: (518) 462−5260 Email: lschaefer@sgcgjlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY

Barbara P. Demchuk (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David William Novak (See above for address)

James T. Potter Hinman Straub, P.C. 121 State Street Albany, NY 12207 (518)−436−0751 ?

Case: 1:03-cv-650 As of: 01/30/2016 03:01 PM EST 12 of 62

Fax: (518)−436−4751 Email: jpotter@hinmanstraub.com

Defendant
Michael Galbreath Sergeant

represented by Michael R. Galbreath 518 Linn Street Apartment # 2 Ithaca, NY 14850 LEAD ATTORNEY

Barbara P. Demchuk (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David William Novak (See above for address)

Defendant
John E. Gilbert, III Officer

represented by Diane R. Tiveron Hogan &Willig, PLLC One John James Audubon Parkway Suite 210 Amherst, NY 14228 (716) 636−7600 LEAD ATTORNEY

Barbara P. Demchuk (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David William Novak (See above for address)

Defendant
Mario Pique TERMINATED: 07/22/2010

represented by David William Novak (See above for address)

Defendant Officer Jeffrey Shawver

represented by Christopher T. Kennedy (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lawrence Henry Schaefer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Barbara P. Demchuk (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David William Novak (See above for address)

James T. Potter (See above for address)

Defendant Officer Robert Smith

represented by George V.C. Muscato Muscato, Di Millo &Vona, L.L.P. 107 East Avenue

Case: 1:03-cv-650 As of: 01/30/2016 03:01 PM EST 13 of 62

Lockport, NY 14094 (716) 434−9177 LEAD ATTORNEY

Thomas M. DiMillo Muscato, DiMillo &Vona, L.L.P. 107 East Avenue Lockport, NY 14094 (716) 434−9177 LEAD ATTORNEY

Barbara P. Demchuk (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel A. Schulze (See above for address)

David William Novak (See above for address)

Defendant Officer Delroy Thorpe

represented by John J. Walsh , II Hodges Walsh &Messemer, LLP 55 Church Street, Suite 211 White Plains, NY 10601 914−385−6000 Fax: 914−385−6060 Email: jwalsh@hwm−law.com LEAD ATTORNEY

Barbara P. Demchuk (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David William Novak (See above for address)

Defendant Officer Pete Zawislak

represented by David William Novak (See above for address)

Defendant Rick Laure

represented by Barbara P. Demchuk (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christina Leonard Cronin &Byczek, LLP 1983 Marcus Avenue Suite C−120 Lake Success, NY 11042 (516)−358−1700 Fax: (516)−358−1730 Email: leonard@cblawyers.net

David William Novak (See above for address)

Defendant Officer Rico Meyers

represented by Rocco G Avallone Cronin &Byczek, LLP

Case: 1:03-cv-650 As of: 01/30/2016 03:01 PM EST 14 of 62

1983 Marcus Avenue Suite C−120 Lake Success, NY 11042 (516)−358−1700 Fax: (516)−358−1730 Email: ravallone@cblawyers.net LEAD ATTORNEY

Barbara P. Demchuk (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David William Novak (See above for address)

Defendant Frederick Brenyah

represented by Harvey A. Kaminsky Kaminsky &Rich 399 Knollwood Road White Plains, NY 10601 (914) 682−8180 LEAD ATTORNEY

Barbara P. Demchuk (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David William Novak (See above for address)

Walter L. Rich Kaminsky &Rich 399 Knollwood Road White Plains, NY 10603 (914)−682−8180 Fax: (914)−682−2296 Email: kresqs@aol.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Chris Sterling

represented by Dennis B. Schlenker 174 Washington Avenue Albany, NY 12210 (518) 463−4473 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Barbara P. Demchuk (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David William Novak (See above for address)

Intervenor Plaintiff Ebony Hayes

represented by Dori A. Lewis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Pedro Lourenco De Oliveira Debevoise &Plimpton LLP(919 Third Ave) 919 Third Avenue

Case: 1:03-cv-650 As of: 01/30/2016 03:01 PM EST 15 of 62

New York, NY 10022 (212) 909−6645 Fax: (212) 521−8745 Email: pedro.deoliveira@yahoo.com TERMINATED: 04/24/2014

Svetlana Malahova Eisenberg Debevoise &Plimpton, LLP (NYC) 919 Third Avenue,31st Floor New York, NY 10022 (212)−909−6927 Fax: (212)−909−6836 Email: smeisenberg@hotmail.com TERMINATED: 07/30/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Terra Linden Gearhart (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Veronica Vela (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff Danielle Rogers

represented by Dori A. Lewis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Pedro Lourenco De Oliveira (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/24/2014

Svetlana Malahova Eisenberg (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/30/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Terra Linden Gearhart (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Veronica Vela (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff Frances Perez

represented by Terra Linden Gearhart (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff LeeAnn Wimmers

represented by Maeve L. O'Connor (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dori A. Lewis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Terra Linden Gearhart (See above for address)

Case: 1:03-cv-650 As of: 01/30/2016 03:01 PM EST 16 of 62

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Veronica Vela (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff Jasmine Valentin

represented by Maeve L. O'Connor (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dori A. Lewis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Terra Linden Gearhart (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Veronica Vela (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Counter Claimant John E. Gilbert, III

represented by Diane R. Tiveron (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

V. Counter Defendant Lucy Amador
Counter Defendant Stacie Calloway
Counter Defendant Tonie Coggins
Counter Defendant Latasha Dockery

represented by Dori A. Lewis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa Freeman (See above for address)
Veronica Vela (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Dori A. Lewis (See above for address)
Lisa Freeman (See above for address)
represented by Dori A. Lewis (See above for address)
Lisa Freeman (See above for address)
represented by Dori A. Lewis (See above for address)

Case: 1:03-cv-650 As of: 01/30/2016 03:01 PM EST 17 of 62

Lisa Freeman (See above for address)

Counter Defendant Tanya Jones

represented by Dori A. Lewis (See above for address)

Lisa Freeman (See above for address)

Counter Defendant Bobbie Kidd

represented by Dori A. Lewis (See above for address)

Lisa Freeman (See above for address)

Counter Defendant Bette Jean McDonald

represented by Dori A. Lewis (See above for address)

Lisa Freeman (See above for address)

Counter Defendant Kristina Muehleisen

represented by Dori A. Lewis (See above for address)

Lisa Freeman (See above for address)

Counter Defendant
Jeanette Perez TERMINATED: 04/23/2009

represented by Dori A. Lewis (See above for address)

Lisa Freeman (See above for address)

Counter Defendant Laura Pullen

represented by Dori A. Lewis (See above for address)

Lisa Freeman (See above for address)

Counter Defendant Corilynn Rock

represented by Dori A. Lewis (See above for address)

Lisa Freeman (See above for address)

Counter Defendant Denise Saffioti

represented by Dori A. Lewis (See above for address)

Lisa Freeman (See above for address)

Counter Defendant

Case: 1:03-cv-650 As of: 01/30/2016 03:01 PM EST 18 of 62

Shenyell Smith TERMINATED: 07/26/2012

represented by Dori A. Lewis (See above for address)

Lisa Freeman (See above for address)

Counter Defendant Hope Susoh

represented by Dori A. Lewis (See above for address)

Lisa Freeman (See above for address)

Counter Defendant Nakia Thompson

represented by Dori A. Lewis (See above for address)

Lisa Freeman (See above for address)

Plaintiff Stephanie Dawson

represented by Maeve L. O'Connor (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Svetlana Malahova Eisenberg (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/30/2013 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dori A. Lewis (See above for address)

Justin P. Smith (See above for address)

Lisa Freeman (See above for address)

Terra Linden Gearhart (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Zheng Wang Debevoise &Plimpton LLP 919 Third Ave. New York, NY 10022 (212)−909−6991 Fax: (212)−521−7952 Email: zwang@debevoise.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Shantelle Smith TERMINATED: 09/13/2012

represented by Maeve L. O'Connor (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Alison Maie Mikkor Debevoise &Plimpton, LLP (NYC) 919 Third Avenue,31st Floor New York, NY 10022

Case: 1:03-cv-650 As of: 01/30/2016 03:01 PM EST 19 of 62

Email: amikkor@debevoise.com

Dori A. Lewis (See above for address)

Jennifer Lea Smith Beranbaum Menken Ben− Asher &Bierman LLP 80 Pine Street− 32nd Floor New York, NY 10005 (212)−509−1616 Fax: (212)−509−8088 Email: jsmith@nyemployeelaw.com

Justin P. Smith (See above for address)

Lisa Freeman (See above for address)

Svetlana Malahova Eisenberg (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/30/2013

Terra Linden Gearhart (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cross Claimant James Hudson

represented by Raymond L Colon Law Offices of Raymond L. Colon 233 Broadway, 5th Floor New York, NY 10279 212−964−8030 Fax: 212−964−2575 Email: rlcolonesq@aol.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Cross Defendant Officer Pete Zawislak
Cross Defendant Ms. Thorpe
Cross Defendant Officer Delroy
Cross Defendant Officer Sterling
Cross Defendant Smith Sergeant TERMINATED: 11/08/2007
Cross Defendant

represented by David William Novak (See above for address)

Case: 1:03-cv-650 As of: 01/30/2016 03:01 PM EST 20 of 62

Robert Smith Officer

represented by George V.C. Muscato (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cross Defendant Officer Jeffrey Shawver

represented by Christopher T. Kennedy (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James T. Potter (See above for address)

Cross Defendant
Mario Pique Officer TERMINATED: 07/22/2010

Cross Defendant
Officer Rico Meyers Officer

Cross Defendant
Rick Larue Officer

Cross Defendant
John E. Gilbert, III Officer

represented by Diane R. Tiveron (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Cross Defendant
Michael Galbreath Sergeant

Cross Defendant
Michael Evans DOCS Correction Officer

represented by Christopher T. Kennedy (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James T. Potter (See above for address)

Cross Defendant
Charles Davis DOCS Correction Officer

Cross Defendant
Frederick Brenyah DOCS Correction Officer

Cross Defendant
Dr. James Stone Office of Mental Health Commissioner

Cross Defendant

Case: 1:03-cv-650 As of: 01/30/2016 03:01 PM EST 21 of 62

Glen S. Goord DOCS Commissioner

Cross Defendant
Peter Brown DOCS Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations

Cross Defendant
Barbara D. Leon DOCS Director of the Sex Crimes Unit of the Inspector General's Office

Cross Defendant Richard Roy

Cross Defendant Terry Baxter

Cross Defendant
Deputy Supt. Donald Wolff TERMINATED: 07/22/2010

Cross Defendant Melvin Williams

Cross Defendant Superintendent Ronald Moscicki

Cross Defendant Superintendent Elaine Lord

Cross Defendant Supt. of D.O.C.S. Alexanreena Dixon

Cross Defendant Dennis Crowley

Cross Defendant Superintendent Roberta Coward

Cross Defendant Superintendent Anginell Andrews

Cross Claimant Rick Laure

represented by Christina Leonard (See above for address)

V. Cross Defendant Department of Correctional Services

Date Filed # Docket Text

Case: 1:03-cv-650 As of: 01/30/2016 03:01 PM EST 22 of 62

01/28/2003 01/28/2003 02/10/2003 02/10/2003 02/10/2003 02/19/2003 02/21/2003
03/31/2003
04/16/2003 05/07/2003 05/15/2003 05/15/2003
05/15/2003
05/16/2003 05/20/2003 06/05/2003

1 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT filed. Summons issued and Notice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c). FILING FEE $ 150.00 RECEIPT # 463616. (gf) (Entered: 01/29/2003)
CASE REFERRED TO Judge Denny Chin as possibly related to 1:00cv8166. (gf) (Entered: 01/29/2003)
Case referred as related to 1:00cv8166 and declined by Judge Denny Chin and returned to wheel for assignment. (jol) (Entered: 02/11/2003)
2 Notice of Case Assignment to Judge Allen G. Schwartz . Copy of notice and judge's rules mailed to Attorney(s) of record: Lisa Freeman, Dori . Lewis . (jol) (Entered: 02/11/2003)
Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein is so designated. (jol) (Entered: 02/11/2003)
3 Order that case be referred to the Clerk of Court for assignment to a Magistrate Judge for general pretrial/including initial case management conference. Referred to Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein. ( signed by Judge Allen G. Schwartz ) (kw) (Entered: 02/19/2003)
4 Memo−Endorsement on letter addressed to Judge Schwartz from Richard W. Brewster, dated 2/19/03. Re:, answer due for 4/1/03 for Pete Zawislak, for Delroy Thorpe, for Robert Smith, for Jeffrey Shawver, for Michael Pinque, for Larue Rico Meyer, for John E. Gilbert III, for Michael Galbreath, for M. Evans, for Clarence Davis, for James Stone, for Glenn Goord, for Peter Brown, for Barbara D. Leone, for Richard Roy, for Terry Baxter, for Donald Wolfe, for Melvin Williams, for Ronald Moscicki, for Eliane Lord, for Alexandreena Dixon, for Dennis Crowley, for Roberta Coward, for Anginell Andrews, for Dept. of Corr. Application granted . ( signed by Judge Allen G. Schwartz ); (jco) Modified on 02/26/2003 (Entered: 02/25/2003)
5 ORDER; answer due to complaint for 5/15/03 for Pete Zawislak, for Delroy Thorpe, for Robert Smith, for Jeffrey Shawver, for Michael Pinque, for Larue Rico Meyer, for John E. Gilbert III, for Michael Galbreath, for M. Evans, for Clarence Davis, for James Stone, for Glenn Goord, for Peter Brown, for Barbara D. Leone, for Richard Roy, for Terry Baxter, Donald Wolfe, for Melvin Williams, for Ronald Moscicki, for Eliane Lord, for Alexandreena Dixon, for Dennis Crowley, Roberta Coward, for Anginell Andrews, for Dept. of Corr. ( signed by Chief Judge Michael B. Mukasey ); (jco) (Entered: 04/01/2003)
6 Notice of Case reassignment to Judge Kevin T. Duffy . Copy of notice and judge's rules mailed to Attorney(s) of record: Lisa Freeman, Dori . Lewis . (laq) (Entered: 04/21/2003)
7 ANSWER to Complaint by Delroy Thorpe (Attorney John J. Walsh from the Firm: Boeggeman George Hodges); jury demand. (sb) (Entered: 05/09/2003)
8 ANSWER to Complaint by Clarence Davis (Attorney John J. Walsh, Joseph M. La Tona from the Firm: Joseph M. La Tona, Esq.); jury demand. (gmo) (Entered: 05/16/2003)
9 ANSWER to Complaint by Anginell Andrews, Roberta Coward, Dennis Crowley, Alexandreena Dixon, Eliane Lord, Ronald Moscicki, Melvin Williams, Donald Wolfe, Terry Baxter, Richard Roy, Barbara D. Leone, Peter Brown, Glenn Goord, James Stone (Attorney John J. Walsh, Joseph M. La Tona, Rebecca Ann Durden from the Attorney General) . (gmo) (Entered: 05/16/2003)
12 CLASS ACTION ANSWER to Complaint and COUNTERCLAIM by John E. Gilbert III(Attorney Diane R. Tiveron) against Lucy Amador, Stacie Calloway, Tonie Coggins, Latasha Dockery, Tanya Jones, Bobbie Kidd, Bette Jean McDonald, Kristina Muehleisen, Jeanette Perez, Laura Pullen, Corilynn Rock, Denise Saffioti, Shenyell Smith, Hope Susoh, Nakia Thompson Firm of: Hogan &Willig by attorney Diane R. Tiveron for defendant John E. Gilbert III. (pl) (Entered: 06/09/2003)
10 ANSWER to Complaint by Rico Meyers (Attorney Rocco G. Avallone from the Firm: Cronin Byczek, LLP) . (moc) (Entered: 05/20/2003)
11 NOTICE OF MOTION by Robert Smith; for an Order permitting George V.C. Muscato to appear pro hac vice . Return Date not indicated. (jco) (Entered: 05/27/2003)
13 ORDER, set case management conference for 10:30 a.m. on 7/15/03 in ctrm 228, US Courthouse, 40 Centre Street, New York, New York . ( signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein ); Copies forwarded by chambers. (kw) (Entered: 06/09/2003)

Case: 1:03-cv-650 As of: 01/30/2016 03:01 PM EST 23 of 62

06/06/2003 06/06/2003 06/11/2003 06/12/2003 06/16/2003 06/18/2003
06/19/2003 07/02/2003 07/14/2003 07/15/2003
07/15/2003
07/15/2003 07/15/2003

Memo endorsed on dft Smith's motion; granting [11−1] motion for an Order permitting George V.C. Muscato and Thomas M. DiMillo to appear pro hac vice on behalf of dft Robert Smith. ( signed by Judge Kevin T. Duffy ); (dle) (Entered: 06/09/2003)
14 ANSWER by Anginell Andrews, Roberta Coward, Dennis Crowley, Alexandreena Dixon, Eliane Lord, Ronald Moscicki, Melvin Williams, Donald Wolfe, Terry Baxter, Richard Roy, Barbara D. Leone, Peter Brown, Glenn Goord, James Stone to Cross claims of Rico Meyers; by attorney Rebecca Ann Durden. (moc) (Entered: 06/12/2003)
CASHIER'S OFFICE REMARK on [11−1] motion for an Order permitting George V.C. Muscato to appear pro hac vice in the amount of $50.00 paid on 6/11/03 Receipt # 476154. (jco) (Entered: 06/12/2003)
17 NOTICE OF MOTION by M. Evans, Jeffrey Shawver for an order, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the FRCP, dismissing the complaint as against dft's Jeffrey Shawver and Michael Evans . Return Date 7/29/03 at 9:30. (laq) (Entered: 06/23/2003)
15 ANSWER to Complaint by Robert Smith (Attorney George V.C. Muscato ). (jco) (Entered: 06/17/2003)
16 REPLY by Lucy Amador, Stacie Calloway, Tonie Coggins, Latasha Dockery, Tanya Jones, Bobbie Kidd, Bette Jean McDonald, Kristina Muehleisen, Jeanette Perez, Laura Pullen, Corilynn Rock, Denise Saffioti, Shenyell Smith, Hope Susoh, Nakia Thompson to [12−2] counter claim ; Firm of: The Legal Aid Society, The Prisoners' Right Project by attorney Lisa Freeman for counter−defendant Nakia Thompson, Dori A. Lewis for counter−defendant Nakia Thompson (db) (Entered: 06/19/2003)
18 MEMORANDUM OF LAW by M. Evans, Jeffrey Shawver in support of [17−1] motion for an order, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the FRCP, dismissing the complaint as against dft's Jeffrey Shawver and Michael Evans. (laq) (Entered: 06/23/2003)
19 ORDER; that Lawrence H. Schaefer to appear pro hac vice on behalf of dft's Michael Evans and Jeffrey Shawver . signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein ); forwarded this document to Attorney Admissions Clerk. (pl) (Entered: 07/03/2003)
20 NOTICE of attorney appearance for Stacie Calloway, Tonie Coggins, Latasha Dockery, Tanya Jones, Kristina Muehleisen, Shenyell Smith, Hope Susoh, Nakia Thompson by Scott Ruskay−Kidd, Camille Gear, Justin Smith. (dle) (Entered: 07/15/2003)
21 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SERVICE of summons and complaint as to Anginell Andrews, Roberta Coward, Dennis Crowley, Alexandreena Dixon, Eliane Lord, Ronald Moscicki, Melvin Williams, Donald Wolfe, Terry Baxter, Richard Roy, Barbara D. Leone, Peter Brown, Glenn Goord, James Stone, Clarence Davis, M. Evans, Michael Galbreath, John E. Gilbert III, Michael Pinque, Jeffrey Shawver, Robert Smith, Delroy Thorpe, Pete Zawislak, Laure, Rico Meyers by acknowledgmemt of receipt by m on 4/21/03 . Answer due on 5/12/03 for Anginell Andrews, for Roberta Coward, for Dennis Crowley, for Alexandreena Dixon, for Eliane Lord, for Ronald Moscicki, for Melvin Williams, for Donald Wolfe, for Terry Baxter, for Richard Roy, for Barbara D. Leone, for Peter Brown, for Glenn Goord, for James Stone, for Clarence Davis, for M. Evans, for Michael Galbreath, for John E. Gilbert III, for Michael Pinque, for Jeffrey Shawver, for Robert Smith, for Delroy Thorpe, for Pete Zawislak, for Laure, for Rico Meyers. (sb) (Entered: 07/16/2003)
22 Memo endorsed on copy of defendant Shawer and Evans' motion; Per the discussion at today's conference, withdrawing without jurisdiction to renewal [17−1] motion for an order, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the FRCP, dismissing complaint as against dft's Jeffrey Shawver and Michael Evans; Counsel shall file an answer on these de fendants' behal within 30 days ; ( signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein ); (djc) (Entered: 07/16/2003)
23 Memo endorsed on COPY motion; granting deft's Delroy Thorpe motion to amend answer, without opposition, as stated at the 7/15/03 conference. ( signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein ); (sac) (Entered: 07/16/2003)
24 NOTICE OF MOTION (filed on service date) by Lucy Amador, Stacie Calloway, Tonie Coggins, Latasha Dockery, Tanya Jones, Bobbie Kidd, Bette Jean McDonald, Kristina Muehleisen, Jeanette Perez, Laura Pullen, Corilynn Rock, Denise Saffioti, Shenyell Smith, Hope Susoh, Nakia Thompson for an order purs. to Rule 23(a), (b)(1) and (b)(2) of

Case: 1:03-cv-650 As of: 01/30/2016 03:01 PM EST 24 of 62

07/15/2003
07/15/2003
07/17/2003
07/21/2003 07/29/2003 07/29/2003 07/29/2003 07/29/2003 08/11/2003 08/12/2003 08/14/2003

the FRCP, certifying this action as a class action, and ordering that notice of this class action be distributed to the class . No Return Date. (sb) Modified on 07/16/2003 (Entered: 07/16/2003)
25 MEMORANDUM OF LAW by Lucy Amador, Stacie Calloway, Tonie Coggins, Latasha Dockery, Tanya Jones, Bobbie Kidd, Bette Jean McDonald, Kristina Muehleisen, Jeanette Perez, Laura Pullen, Corilynn Rock, Denise Saffioti, Shenyell Smith, Hope Susoh, Nakia Thompson in support of [24−1] motion for an order purs. to Rule 23(a), (b)(1) and (b)(2) of the FRCP, certifying this action as a class action, and ordering that notice of this class action be distributed to the class . (sb) (Entered: 07/16/2003)
26 DECLARATION of Lisa Freeman by Lucy Amador, Stacie Calloway, Tonie Coggins, Latasha Dockery, Tanya Jones, Bobbie Kidd, Bette Jean McDonald, Kristina Muehleisen, Jeanette Perez, Laura Pullen, Corilynn Rock, Denise Saffioti, Shenyell Smith, Hope Susoh, Nakia Thompson in support of [24−1] motion for an order purs. to Rule 23(a), (b)(1) and (b)(2) of the FRCP, certifying this action as a class action, and ordering that notice of this class action be distributed to the class . (sb) (Entered: 07/16/2003)
27 ORDER, after consultation with the parties attending the conference on July 16, 2003, the following scheduling order is adopted by the Court purs to Rule 16 of the FRCP ; reset scheduling order deadlines: all non−expert discovery shall be completed by 12/15/04; see document for further discovery deadlines; Defendants shall inform the parties by letter on or before 06/17/05 whether any of them intend to move for summary judgment. Any such motion shall be served on or before 08/17/05; If no motion for summary judgment is contemplated, the joint pretrial order and any motions in limine shall be submitted on or before 07/18/05; the parties shall submit a confidentiality agreement to the Court by 08/29/03; Plaintiffs request Septemer 6, 2005 as the trial date. The Supervisory Defendants request February 1, 2006 as the trial date; Plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall be served by 07/15/03; Defendants' oppositon thereto, if nay, shall be served by 08/29/03; plaintiffs' reply, if any, shall be served by 09/19/03; Defendants' motions to dismiss shall be served by 09/19/03; Plaintiffs' opposition thereto, if any shall be served by 10/31/03; Defendants' reply, if any, shall be served by by 11/14/03 ; ( signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel Gorenstein ); (djc) (Entered: 07/17/2003)
28 NOTICE of attorney appearance for Defendant Mario Pique; (not named as a party to action) (djc) (Entered: 07/24/2003)
29 NOTICE of to defendant Pete Zawislak to respond to complaint by Lucy Amador, Stacie Calloway, Tonie Coggins, Latasha Dockery, Tanya Jones, Bobbie Kidd, Bette Jean McDonald, Kristina Muehleisen, Jeanette Perez, Laura Pullen, Corilynn Rock, Denise Saffioti, Shenyell Smith, Hope Susoh, Nakia Thompson. (jco) (Entered: 07/31/2003)
30 NOTICE to defendant Rick Larue to respond to complaint by Lucy Amador, Stacie Calloway, Tonie Coggins, Latasha Dockery, Tanya Jones, Bobbie Kidd, Bette Jean McDonald, Kristina Muehleisen, Jeanette Perez, Laura Pullen, Corilynn Rock, Denise Saffioti, Shenyell Smith, Hope Susoh, Nakia Thompson . (jco) (Entered: 07/31/2003)
31 NOTICE to Defendants Michael R. Galbreath to respond to complaint of by Lucy Amador, Stacie Calloway, Tonie Coggins, Latasha Dockery, Tanya Jones, Bobbie Kidd, Bette Jean McDonald, Kristina Muehleisen, Jeanette Perez, Laura Pullen, Corilynn Rock, Denise Saffioti, Shenyell Smith, Hope Susoh, Nakia Thompson . (jco) (Entered: 07/31/2003)
32 ANSWER to Complaint by Michael Pinque (Attorney Rocco G. Avallone from the Firm: Cronin Byczek) . (cd) (Entered: 08/01/2003)
33 Transcript of record of proceedings before Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein for the date(s) of 7/15/03. (cd) Modified on 10/20/2003 (Entered: 08/13/2003)
34 AMENDED ANSWER to Complaint by Delroy Thorpe : amends [7−1] answer; jury demand (moc) (Entered: 08/18/2003)
35 Memo−Endorsement on letter addressed to Mag. Judge Gorenstein from Peter Zawislak, dated 8/11/03. Re: dft. Pete Zawislak writes to the court and response to the complaint; this document shall be deemed the answer of this defendant . ( signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein ); (pl) (Entered: 08/19/2003)

Case: 1:03-cv-650 As of: 01/30/2016 03:01 PM EST 25 of 62

08/20/2003 09/04/2003 09/04/2003 09/05/2003 09/15/2003
09/15/2003
09/15/2003 09/25/2003 10/07/2003 10/07/2003 10/08/2003 10/14/2003 10/14/2003
10/15/2003 10/20/2003 10/22/2003

36 NOTICE of attorney appearance for Bette Jean McDonald, Jeanette Perez, Corilynn Rock by Scott Ruskay−Kidd. (sb) (Entered: 08/22/2003)
37 Memo−Endorsement on letter addressed to Judge Gorenstein from Rebecca Ann Durden, dated 08/28/03; Supervisory defendants' time to submit a proposed confidentiality agreement is extended to and including October 17, 2003 ; ( signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein ); (djc) (Entered: 09/05/2003)
39 Transcript of record of proceedings before Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein for the date(s) of 9/3/03. (yv) (Entered: 09/11/2003)
38 ANSWER to Complaint by Michael Galbreath (Attorney Michael R. Galbreath). (moc) (Entered: 09/09/2003)
40 NOTICE OF MOTION by Lucy Amador, Stacie Calloway, Tonie Coggins, Latasha Dockery, Tanya Jones, Bobbie Kidd, Bette Jean McDonald, Kristina Muehleisen, Jeanette Perez, Laura Pullen, Corilynn Rock, Denise Saffioti, Shenyell Smith, Hope Susoh, Nakia Thompson; for an Order for leave to file a First Amended Class Action Complaint in this action . Return Date not indicated. (jco) (Entered: 09/19/2003)
41 MEMORANDUM OF LAW by Lucy Amador, Stacie Calloway, Tonie Coggins, Latasha Dockery, Tanya Jones, Bobbie Kidd, Bette Jean McDonald, Kristina Muehleisen, Jeanette Perez, Laura Pullen, Corilynn Rock, Denise Saffioti, Shenyell Smith, Hope Susoh, Nakia Thompson in support of [40−1] motion for an Order for leave to file a First Amended Class Action Complaint in this action. (jco) (Entered: 09/19/2003)
42 DECLARATION of Dori A. Lewis in support [40−1] motion for an Order for leave to file a First Amended Class Action Complaint in this action. (jco) (Entered: 09/19/2003)
43 REQUEST for Production of Documents by Robert Smith (djc) (Entered: 09/29/2003)
48 ANSWER to Complaint by Jeffrey Shawver (Attorney Lawrence H. Schaefer from the Firm: Hinman Straub P.C.) . (yv) (Entered: 10/27/2003)
49 ANSWER to Complaint by M. Evans (Attorney Lawrence H. Schaefer from the Firm: Hinman Straub, P.C.) . (yv) (Entered: 10/27/2003)
Memo endorsed on motion; No opposition having been received, the [40−1] motion for an Order for leave to file a First Amended Class Action Complaint in this action is granted. ( signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein ); (dle) (Entered: 10/10/2003)
44 Supervisory Defendants' DECLARATION of Daniel Schulze in opposition to Motion for Class Certification. (djc) (Entered: 10/16/2003)
72 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT by Lucy Amador, Stacie Calloway, Tonie Coggins, Latasha Dockery, Bobbie Kidd, Bette Jean McDonald, Kristina Muehleisen, Jeanette Perez, Laura Pullen, Corilynn Rock, Denise Saffioti, Shenyell Smith, Hope Susoh, Nakia Thompson (Answer due 10/24/03 for Anginell Andrews, for Roberta Coward, for Dennis Crowley, for Alexandreena Dixon, for Eliane Lord, for Ronald Moscicki, for Melvin Williams, for Donald Wolfe, for Terry Baxter, for Richard Roy, for Barbara D. Leone, for Peter Brown, for Glenn Goord, for James Stone, for Clarence Davis, for M. Evans, for Michael Galbreath, for John E. Gilbert III, for Jeffrey Shawver, Robert Smith, for Rico Meyers, for Delroy Thorpe, for Pete Zawislak, for Rick Laure, for Mario Pique ) amending [1−1] complaint ; Summons issued. Jury Trial Demanded. (ae) Modified on 11/19/2003 (Entered: 11/19/2003)
45 MEMORANDUM OF LAW by M. Evans, Jeffrey Shawver in support of motion to sever and transfer and in opposition to plaintiff's motion for class certification. (moc) (Entered: 10/20/2003)
46 DECLARATION of Thomas G. Eagen by defendants in opposition Re: [24−1] motion for an order purs. to Rule 23(a), (b)(1) and (b)(2) of the FRCP, certifying this action as a class action, and ordering that notice of this class action be distributed to the class . (kw) Modified on 10/20/2003 (Entered: 10/20/2003)
47 Memo−Endorsement on letter addressed to Judge Gorenstein from Richard W. Brewster, dated 10/8/03. counsel requests that the Court approve the previously agreed deadline for response to initial document requests. In light of plaintiffs' 10/7/03 letter, the Court is

Case: 1:03-cv-650 As of: 01/30/2016 03:01 PM EST 26 of 62

10/29/2003 10/30/2003 10/30/2003 10/30/2003 10/30/2003 10/30/2003 10/31/2003 10/31/2003
10/31/2003
10/31/2003
10/31/2003
10/31/2003

troubled that the Supervisory defendants did not fully disclose the plaintiffs' position as to their request (including plaintiffs' apparent offer of a 2−week extension). Nonetheless, in light of the sudden departure of lead counsel − for whom the Attorney General must promptly arrange coverage − the Court Will grant an extension to 11/3/03. The parties are warned that in the future, they must strictly adhere to the requirements of this Court's Individual Practices including paragraph 2A . ( signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein ); (yv) (Entered: 10/24/2003)
50 INITIAL RULE 26 DISCLOSURE by Michael Pinque . (moc) (Entered: 10/30/2003)
51 Letter filed by Pete Zawislak addressed to Judge Gorenstein from Peter Zawislak, dated 10/27/03, re: as an answer to the complaint. (moc) (Entered: 10/31/2003)
52 NOTICE of attorney appearance for Bobbie Kidd, Laura Pullen by Scott Ruskay−Kidd. (sb) (Entered: 10/31/2003)
53 NOTICE OF MOTION (filed on service date) of Defendant Charles Davis, for dismissal of the amended complaint as to the defendant, Charles Davis under Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ; Joinder in co−defendants' arguments for dismissal ; Return Date not indicated; (djc) (Entered: 11/03/2003)
59 ANSWER to Complaint by Robert Smith (Attorney George V.C. Muscato from the Firm: Muscato, DiMillo &Vona) . (dle) (Entered: 11/04/2003)
Motion Not Referred: re: 53 Motion to DismissMotion for JoinderMotion for Joinder. (dw, ) (Entered: 06/29/2004)
54 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in support of [53−1] motion for dismissal of the amended complaint as to the defendant, Charles Davis under Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, [53−2] motion Joinder in co−defendants' arguments for dismissal. (djc) (Entered: 11/03/2003)
55 NOTICE OF MOTION by Rico Meyers and Mario Pique pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1)(6) and Rule 56 of the FRCP, dismissing this action on the grounds that plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies, the amended complaint fails to state a claim against the defendant upon which relief may be granted and that this Court lacks jurisdiction . Return Date not indicated. Declaration of Rocco G. Avallone in support attached. (yv) Modified on 11/04/2003 (Entered: 11/04/2003)
56 MEMORANDUM OF LAW by Rico Meyers and Mario Pique in support of [55−1] motion pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1)(6) and Rule 56 of the FRCP, dismissing this action on the grounds that plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies, the amended complaint fails to state a claim against the defendant upon which relief may be granted and that this Court lacks jurisdiction . (yv) (Entered: 11/04/2003)
57 MEMORANDUM OF LAW by Lucy Amador, Stacie Calloway, Tonie Coggins, Latasha Dockery, Tanya Jones, Bobbie Kidd, Bette Jean McDonald, Kristina Muehleisen, Jeanette Perez, Laura Pullen, Corilynn Rock, Denise Saffioti, Shenyell Smith, Hope Susoh, Nakia Thompson, Stephanie Dawson, Shantelle Smith in support of [24−1] motion for an order purs. to Rule 23(a), (b)(1) and (b)(2) of the FRCP, certifying this action as a class action, and ordering that notice of this class action be distributed to the class and in opposition to defendants Shawver and Evans's motion to sever and transfer and defendant Thorpe's motion to sever. (yv) (Entered: 11/04/2003)
58 DECLARATION of Scott Ruskay−Kidd by Lucy Amador, Stacie Calloway, Tonie Coggins, Latasha Dockery, Tanya Jones, Bobbie Kidd, Bette Jean McDonald, Kristina Muehleisen, Jeanette Perez, Laura Pullen, Corilynn Rock, Denise Saffioti, Shenyell Smith, Hope Susoh, Nakia Thompson, Stephanie Dawson, Shantelle Smith in support Re: [24−1] motion for an order purs. to Rule 23(a), (b)(1) and (b)(2) of the FRCP, certifying this action as a class action, and ordering that notice of this class action be distributed to the class and in opposition to defendants Shawver and Evans's motion to sever and transfer and defendant Thorpe's motion to sever. (yv) (Entered: 11/04/2003)
61 NOTICE OF MOTION (filed on service date) by John E. Gilbert III for an order dismissing complaint purs to Rule 12(b)(6) of the FRCP ; Return Date not indicated; (djc) (Entered: 11/05/2003)

Case: 1:03-cv-650 As of: 01/30/2016 03:01 PM EST 27 of 62

10/31/2003
10/31/2003 10/31/2003
11/03/2003 11/03/2003 11/03/2003 11/03/2003 11/03/2003
11/03/2003 11/03/2003 11/03/2003 11/03/2003 11/03/2003 11/04/2003 11/05/2003 11/12/2003

64 NOTICE OF MOTION (FILED ON SERVICE DATE) by "Supervisory Dfts" Anginell Andrews, Roberta Coward, Dennis Crowley, Alexandreena Dixon, Eliane Lord, Ronald Moscicki, Melvin Williams, Donald Wolfe, Terry Baxter, Richard Roy, Barbara D. Leone, Peter Brown, Glenn Goord, James Stone for an order pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), 12(b)(3) and 12(b)(6), 28 USC 1391, 1404 and 42 USC 1997e(a) dismissing all claims asserted against them in this action . No Return Date indicated. (db) (Entered: 11/05/2003)
Motion Not Referred: re: 55 Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction filed by Rico Meyers. (dw, ) (Entered: 06/29/2004)
Motion Not Referred: re: 61 Motion to Dismiss filed by John E. Gilbert, 64 Motion to Dismiss filed by Glenn Goord, Anginell Andrews, Alexandreena Dixon, James Stone, Ronald Moscicki, Richard Roy, Peter Brown, Roberta Coward, Dennis Crowley, Eliane Lord, Melvin Williams, Donald Wolfe, Terry Baxter, Barbara D. Leone. (dw, ) (Entered: 06/29/2004)
PRETRIAL CONFERENCE held before Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein at 4:00 p.m. (kw) (Entered: 11/04/2003)
60 Memorandum to Docket Clerk: PRETRIAL CONFERENCE held before Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein at 4:00 p.m. (kw) (Entered: 11/04/2003)
62 MEMORANDUM OF LAW by John E. Gilbert IIIin support of [61−1] motion for an order dismissing complaint purs to Rule 12(b)(6) of the FRCP . (djc) (Entered: 11/05/2003)
63 Attorney AFFIDAVIT of Diane R. Tiveron, Esq. by John E. Gilbert III in support of [61−1] motion for an order dismissing complaint purs to Rule 12(b)(6) of the FRCP . (djc) (Entered: 11/05/2003)
65 MEMORANDUM OF LAW by "Supervisory Dfts" Anginell Andrews, Roberta Coward, Dennis Crowley, Alexandreena Dixon, Eliane Lord, Ronald Moscicki, Melvin Williams, Donald Wolfe, Terry Baxter, Richard Roy, Barbara D. Leone, Peter Brown, Glenn Goord, James Stone in support of [64−1] motion for an order pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), 12(b)(3) and 12(b)(6), 28 USC 1391, 1404 and 42 USC 1997e(a) dismissing all claims asserted against them in this action. (db) (Entered: 11/05/2003)
67 NOTICE OF MOTION by Jeffrey Shawver, M. Evans; for an order, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the FRCP, dismissing the Amended Complaint as against defendants Jeffrey Shawver and Michael Evans ; Return Date not indicated. Affidavit of Lawrence H. Schaefer attached. (sac) (Entered: 11/07/2003)
68 MEMORANDUM OF LAW by Jeffrey Shawver, M. Evans in support of [67−1] motion for an order, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the FRCP, dismissing the Amended Complaint as against defendants Jeffrey Shawver and Michael Evans. (sac) (Entered: 11/07/2003)
69 NOTICE OF MOTION by Robert Smith: for an order, pursuant to Rule 56(c), of the Federal Rules of Federal Procedure, granting summary judgment to Defendant Robert Smith and against Lucy Amador ; Return Date not indicated. Affidavit of George V. C. Muscato attached. (sac) (Entered: 11/07/2003)
70 MEMORANDUM OF LAW by Robert Smith in support of [69−1] motion for an order, pursuant to Rule 56(c), of the Federal Rules of Federal Procedure, granting summary judgment to Defendant Robert Smith and against Lucy Amador. (sac) (Entered: 11/07/2003)
Motion Not Referred: re: 69 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Robert Smith, 67 Motion to Dismiss filed by M. Evans, Jeffrey Shawver. (dw, ) (Entered: 06/29/2004)
66 CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER; regarding the procedures that will govern the handling of confidential information . ( signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein ); (pl) (Entered: 11/06/2003)
73 MEMORANDUM OF LAW by Michael Galbreath in support of Motion to Dismiss Purs oFRCP 12(B)(6); (djc) (Entered: 11/19/2003)
71 Transcript of record of proceedings before Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein for the dates of 11/3/03. (sb) (Entered: 11/14/2003)

Case: 1:03-cv-650 As of: 01/30/2016 03:01 PM EST 28 of 62

11/18/2003 11/21/2003
12/01/2003 12/01/2003 12/01/2003 12/05/2003 01/09/2004 01/09/2004
01/09/2004
01/12/2004 01/13/2004 01/13/2004 01/16/2004 01/26/2004 01/27/2004 01/29/2004

74 ANSWER to Complaint by Delroy Thorpe (Attorney John J. Walsh from the Firm: Boeggeman, George, et. al.); jury demand. (moc) (Entered: 11/20/2003)
75 ANSWER to Amended Complaint. Document filed by Jeffrey Shawver. Related document: 72 Amended Complaint,,, filed by Jeanette Perez, Lucy Amador, Stacie Calloway, Tonie Coggins, Latasha Dockery, Bobbie Kidd, Bette Jean McDonald, Kristina Muehleisen, Laura Pullen, Corilynn Rock, Denise Saffioti, Shenyell Smith, Hope Susoh, Nakia Thompson.(yv, ) (Entered: 12/02/2003)
Motion Not Referred: re: 24 Motion to Certify Class filed by Jeanette Perez, Lucy Amador, Stacie Calloway, Tonie Coggins, Latasha Dockery, Tanya Jones, Bobbie Kidd, Bette Jean McDonald, Kristina Muehleisen, Laura Pullen, Corilynn Rock, Denise Saffioti, Shenyell Smith, Hope Susoh, Nakia Thompson. (rag, ) (Entered: 12/01/2003)
Motion Not Referred: re: 24 Motion to Certify Class filed by Jeanette Perez, Lucy Amador, Stacie Calloway, Tonie Coggins, Latasha Dockery, Tanya Jones, Bobbie Kidd, Bette Jean McDonald, Kristina Muehleisen, Laura Pullen, Corilynn Rock, Denise Saffioti, Shenyell Smith, Hope Susoh, Nakia Thompson. (rag, ) (Entered: 12/01/2003)
76 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings held on 11/3/03 before Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein.(cd, ) (Entered: 12/10/2003)
77 ADMISSION OF SERVICE. The Class Action First Amended Complaint was served on 12/1/03. Document filed by Lieutenant David Smith. (sb, ) (Entered: 12/16/2003)
78 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings held on 11/3/03 before Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein.(pr, ) (Entered: 01/09/2004)
81 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition to 61 Motion to Dismiss, 55 Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction, 64 Motion to Dismiss, 69 Motion for Summary Judgment, 53 Motion to Dismiss Motion for Joinder, 67 Motion to Dismiss. Document filed by Lucy Amador, Stacie Calloway, Tonie Coggins, Stephanie Dawson, Latasha Dockery, Tanya Jones, Bobbie Kidd, Bette Jean McDonald, Kristina Muehleisen, Jeanette Perez, Laura Pullen, Corilynn Rock, Denise Saffioti, Shantelle Smith, Shenyell Smith, Hope Susoh, Nakia Thompson. (sb, ) (Entered: 01/21/2004)
82 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support of 64 Motion to Dismiss. Document filed by Anginell Andrews, Terry Baxter, Peter Brown, Roberta Coward, Dennis Crowley, Alexandreena Dixon, Glenn Goord, Barbara D. Leone, Eliane Lord, Ronald Moscicki, Richard Roy, James Stone, Melvin Williams, Donald Wolfe. (sb, ) (Entered: 01/21/2004)
80 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 61 Motion to Dismiss. Document filed by John E. Gilbert III. (sac, ) (Entered: 01/14/2004)
79 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings held on 11/3/03 before Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein. (ml, ) Modified on 2/19/2004 (kw, ). (Entered: 01/13/2004)
83 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 67 Motion to Dismiss. Document filed by M. Evans, Jeffrey Shawver. (dle, ) (Entered: 01/22/2004)
84 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 55 Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction. Document filed by Rico Meyers, Mario Pique. (jco, ) (Entered: 01/27/2004)
85 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Magistrate Judge Gorenstein from Harvey A. Kaminsky dated 1/20/04 re: granting defendant Brenyah's request for extension of time until 3/1/04 to answer the complaint. (Signed by Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 1/23/04) (tp, ) (Entered: 02/02/2004)
88 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Magistrate Judge Gorenstein from Camille Rich dated 1/26/04 re: that DOCS shall disclose the address in accordance with this letter. Time for service on this defendant is extended to 2/27/04. (Signed by Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 1/26/04) (tp, ) (Entered: 02/04/2004)
96 NOTICE OF MOTION (FILED ON SERVICE DATE) to Dismiss all claims against deft any opposing affdvts and ansering memo must be served by 2/17/04 (nite dep. box). Document filed by Robert Smith. (pa, ) (Entered: 03/01/2004)

Case: 1:03-cv-650 As of: 01/30/2016 03:01 PM EST 29 of 62

01/30/2004
01/30/2004
02/02/2004 02/03/2004
02/04/2004
02/26/2004 02/26/2004 02/26/2004
02/27/2004 02/27/2004 02/27/2004 03/12/2004

86 Admission OF SERVICE. Frederick Brenyah served on 1/20/2004, answer due 2/9/2004. Service was accepted by Harvey Kaminsky. Document filed by Lucy Amador ; Stacie Calloway ; Tonie Coggins ; Stephanie Dawson ; Latasha Dockery ; Tanya Jones ; Bobbie Kidd ; Bette Jean McDonald ; Kristina Muehleisen ; Jeanette Perez ; Laura Pullen ; Corilynn Rock ; Denise Saffioti ; Shantelle Smith ; Shenyell Smith ; Hope Susoh ; Nakia Thompson. (kw, ) (Entered: 02/03/2004)
87 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE of Summons and Amended Complaint. Chris Sterling served on 1/20/2004, answer due 2/9/2004. Service was accepted by unidentified co−worker. Also service was made by mail. Document filed by Lucy Amador ; Stacie Calloway ; Tonie Coggins ; Stephanie Dawson ; Latasha Dockery ; Tanya Jones ; Bobbie Kidd ; Bette Jean McDonald ; Kristina Muehleisen ; Jeanette Perez ; Laura Pullen ; Corilynn Rock ; Denise Saffioti ; Shantelle Smith ; Shenyell Smith ; Hope Susoh ; Nakia Thompson. (kw, ) (Entered: 02/03/2004)
Motion Not Referred: re: 24 Motion to Certify Class filed by Jeanette Perez, Lucy Amador, Stacie Calloway, Tonie Coggins, Latasha Dockery, Tanya Jones, Bobbie Kidd, Bette Jean McDonald, Kristina Muehleisen, Laura Pullen, Corilynn Rock, Denise Saffioti, Shenyell Smith, Hope Susoh, Nakia Thompson. (rag, ) (Entered: 02/02/2004)
89 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein from Richard W. Brewster dated 2/2/2004; granting counsel's request to set 3/1/2004 as a control date for defendants Hudson and Sterling to move, answer or otherwise respond to the amended complaint after service and the necessary representational determinations. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 2/2/2004) (kkc, ) (Entered: 02/06/2004)
90 ORDER. The exhibits attached to the declarations of Thomas G. Eagen and Daniel A. Schulze in opposition to plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and designated as either confidential of highly confidential pursuant to the Court's Confidentiality Order issued on 11/3/03, shall be filed under seal. The envelope containing these documents shall not be opened nor the contents displayed or revealed, other than to the Court, except by Order of the Court. (Signed by Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 2/4/04) Document forwarded to Records Management. (yv, ) Modified on 2/10/2004 (yv, ). (Entered: 02/10/2004)
93 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein from Camille Gear Rich dated 2/24/2004; counsel writes to request that the Court orders DOCS to provide the current address information for pro se defendant Pete Zawislak to plaintiffs' counsel. Granted without opposition. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 2/25/2004) (kkc, ) (Entered: 02/27/2004)
94 ANSWER to Classs Action Amended Complaint. Document filed by Frederick Brenyah.(tp, ) (Entered: 02/27/2004)
98 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE of Supplemental Summons and First Amended Complaint. Service was accepted by James Hudson, C.O.. Document filed by Lucy Amador, Stacie Calloway, Tonie Coggins, Stephanie Dawson, Latasha Dockery, Tanya Jones, Bobbie Kidd, Bette Jean McDonald, Kristina Muehleisen, Jeanette Perez, Laura Pullen, Corilynn Rock, Denise Saffioti, Shantelle Smith, Shenyell Smith, Hope Susoh, Nakia Thompson. (djc, ) (Entered: 03/02/2004)
95 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein from Dennis B. Schlenker dated 2/26/04 re: counsel for defendant Christopher Sterling request an extension of time to answer or file a responsive pleading to and including 4/1/04. Application GRANTED. (Signed by Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 2/26/04) (db, ) Modified on 3/1/2004 (db, ). (Entered: 03/01/2004)
Set Answer Due Date purs. to 95 Endorsed Letter, as to Chris Sterling answer due on 4/1/2004. (db, ) (Entered: 03/01/2004)
97 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 96 MOTION (FILED ON SERVICE DATE) to Dismiss. (nite dep. box). Document filed by Robert Smith. (pa, ) (Entered: 03/01/2004)
102 MOTION (FILED ON SERVICE DATE) for an Order pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the FRCP, dismissing the Amended Complaint. Document filed by Chris Sterling. Affidavit of Dennis B. Schlenker is attached along with Exhibits. (tp,). (Entered: 04/19/2004)

Case: 1:03-cv-650 As of: 01/30/2016 03:01 PM EST 30 of 62

03/25/2004
04/01/2004
04/08/2004 04/09/2004 04/09/2004 05/04/2004 05/05/2004 05/10/2004 05/10/2004 05/12/2004 05/14/2004 05/18/2004
05/18/2004 05/24/2004

99 NOTICE of Change of Address by Lisa Freeman, Dori A. Lewis on behalf of Stephanie Dawson, Latasha Dockery, Tanya Jones, Bobbie Kidd, Bette Jean McDonald, Kristina Muehleisen, Jeanette Perez, Laura Pullen, Corilynn Rock, Denise Saffioti, Shantelle Smith, Shenyell Smith, Hope Susoh, Nakia Thompson. New Address: The Prisoners' Rights Project, The Legal Aid Society, 199 Water Street, 6th floor, New York, NY, 10038, 212−577−3530. (djc, ) (Entered: 03/31/2004)
100 ANSWER to Amended Complaint with Jury Demand., CROSSCLAIM against Pete Zawislak, Thorpe, Delroy, Sterling, Smith, Robert Smith, Jeffrey Shawver, Mario Pique, Rico Meyers, Rick Larue, John E. Gilbert III, Michael Galbreath, Michael Evans, Charles Davis, Frederick Brenyah, James Stone, Glen S. Goord, Peter Brown, Barbara D. Leon, Richard Roy, Terry Baxter, Donald Wolff, Melvin Williams, Ronald Moscicki, Elaine Lord, Alexanreena Dixon, Dennis Crowley, Roberta Coward, Anginell Andrews. Document filed by James Hudson. Related document: 72 Amended Complaint,,, filed by Jeanette Perez, Lucy Amador, Stacie Calloway, Tonie Coggins, Latasha Dockery, Bobbie Kidd, Bette Jean McDonald, Kristina Muehleisen, Laura Pullen, Corilynn Rock, Denise Saffioti, Shenyell Smith, Hope Susoh, Nakia Thompson.(dle, ) (Entered: 04/06/2004)
101 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition to defendant Sterling's motion to dismiss. Document filed by Jeanette Perez. (kw, ) (Entered: 04/09/2004)
103 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 102 MOTION (FILED ON SERVICE DATE) to Dismiss. Document filed by Chris Sterling. (tp, ) (Entered: 04/19/2004)
104 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 102 MOTION (FILED ON SERVICE DATE) to Dismiss. Document filed by Jeanette Perez. (tp, ) (Entered: 04/19/2004)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein : Oral Argument held on 5/4/2004 (pl, ) (Entered: 05/06/2004)
105 MEMORANDUM TO THE DOCKET CLERK: that oral argument was held in this matter on 5/4/04, @3:00 p.m. before Mag. Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein. (pl, ) (Entered: 05/06/2004)
106 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein from Daniel Schulze dated 5/6/04 re: counsel for defendants request the following schedule motion due 5/25/04; response due 6/8/04 and reply due 6/15/04. Application GRANTED. Oral argument adjourned to 7/1/04 at 10:00 a.m. (Signed by Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 5/7/04) (db, ) (Entered: 05/11/2004)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Motions due by 5/25/2004. Replies due by 6/15/2004. Responses due by 6/8/2004 Oral Argument set for 7/1/2004 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein. (db, ) (Entered: 05/11/2004)
107 ORDER. Plaintiffs are free to seek entry of a default from the Clerk pursuant to FRCP 55 and thereafter to move for a default judgment. Plaintiffs are directed to serve a copy of this Order upon all counsel and unrepresented parties (Signed by Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 5/11/04) (yv, ) (Entered: 05/13/2004)
108 ORDER; regarding procedures that shall govern the release the handling of Medical and Mental Health Records; (Signed by Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 05/13/04) (djc, ) (Entered: 05/17/2004)
109 MOTION (FILED ON SERVICE DATE) to Dismiss the cross−claims asserted against them by co−defendant James Hudson in his "Verified Answer to First Amended Complaint" dated 3/31/04. Document filed by Anginell Andrews, Terry Baxter, Peter Brown, Roberta Coward, Alexandreena Dixon, Glenn Goord, Barbara D. Leone, Eliane Lord, Ronald Moscicki, Richard Roy, Robert Smith, James Stone, Melvin Williams, Donald Wolfe. (kw, ) (Entered: 05/20/2004)
110 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 109 MOTION (FILED ON SERVICE DATE) to Dismiss. Document filed by Anginell Andrews, Terry Baxter, Peter Brown, Dennis Crowley, Alexandreena Dixon, Glenn Goord, Barbara D. Leone, Eliane Lord, Ronald Moscicki, Richard Roy, Robert Smith, James Stone, Melvin Williams, Donald Wolfe. (kw, ) (Entered: 05/20/2004)
111 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Magistrate Judge Gorenstein from Daniel Schulze dated 5/21/2004 re: granting counsels request for the briefing schedule as follows:

Case: 1:03-cv-650 As of: 01/30/2016 03:01 PM EST 31 of 62

05/28/2004
05/28/2004
05/28/2004 06/15/2004 06/25/2004
06/25/2004
06/25/2004
06/25/2004 07/01/2004 07/01/2004 07/02/2004 07/08/2004 07/14/2004 07/30/2004

Motions due by 5/28/2004. Responses due by 6/15/2004 Replies due by 6/22/2004. (Signed by Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 5/24/2004) (jp, ) (Entered: 05/25/2004)
112 MOTION (FILED ON SERVICE DATE) for Protective Order. Document filed by Anginell Andrews, Terry Baxter, Peter Brown, Roberta Coward, Dennis Crowley, Alexandreena Dixon, Glenn Goord, Barbara D. Leone, Eliane Lord, Ronald Moscicki, Richard Roy, James Stone, Melvin Williams, Donald Wolfe. (jmi, ) (Entered: 06/01/2004)
113 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 112 MOTION (FILED ON SERVICE DATE) for Protective Order.. Document filed by Anginell Andrews, Terry Baxter, Peter Brown, Roberta Coward, Dennis Crowley, Alexandreena Dixon, Glenn Goord, Rick Laure, Barbara D. Leone, Eliane Lord, Ronald Moscicki, Richard Roy, James Stone. (jmi, ) (Entered: 06/01/2004)
114 DECLARATION of Daniel Schulze in Support re: 112 MOTION (FILED ON SERVICE DATE) for Protective Order.. Document filed by James Stone. (jmi, ) (Entered: 06/01/2004)
115 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings held on 5/4/04 before Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein.(pa, ) (Entered: 06/17/2004)
117 (REDACTED) MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 112 MOTION (FILED ON SERVICE DATE) for Protective Order. Document filed by Lucy Amador, Stacie Calloway, Tonie Coggins, Stephanie Dawson, Latasha Dockery, Tanya Jones, Bobbie Kidd, Bette Jean McDonald, Kristina Muehleisen, Jeanette Perez, Laura Pullen, Corilynn Rock, Denise Saffioti, Shantelle Smith, Shenyell Smith, Hope Susoh, Nakia Thompson. (sac, ) (Entered: 06/30/2004)
118 (REDACTED) DECLARATION of Alison Mikkor in Opposition re: 112 MOTION (FILED ON SERVICE DATE) for Protective Order. Document filed by Lucy Amador, Stacie Calloway, Tonie Coggins, Stephanie Dawson, Latasha Dockery, Tanya Jones, Bobbie Kidd, Bette Jean McDonald, Kristina Muehleisen, Jeanette Perez, Laura Pullen, Corilynn Rock, Denise Saffioti, Shantelle Smith, Shenyell Smith, Hope Susoh, Nakia Thompson. (sac, ) (Entered: 06/30/2004)
119 SUPERVISORY REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Further Support re: 112 MOTION (FILED ON SERVICE DATE) for Protective Order. Document filed by Anginell Andrews, Terry Baxter, Frederick Brenyah, Peter Brown, Roberta Coward, Dennis Crowley, Clarence Davis, Alexandreena Dixon, M. Evans, Michael Galbreath, John E. Gilbert III, Glenn Goord, Rick Laure, Barbara D. Leone, Eliane Lord, Rico Meyers, Ronald Moscicki, Mario Pique, Richard Roy, Robert Smith, Chris Sterling, James Stone, Delroy Thorpe, Melvin Williams, Donald Wolfe, Pete Zawislak. (sac, ) (Entered: 06/30/2004)
120 REPLY DECLARATION of Daniel Schulze in Support re: 112 MOTION (FILED ON SERVICE DATE) for Protective Order. Document filed by Anginell Andrews, Terry Baxter, Frederick Brenyah, Peter Brown. (sac, ) (Entered: 06/30/2004)
124 MEMORANDUM TO THE DOCKET CLERK: that a Pre−trial conference was held on 7/1/04. (pl, ) (Entered: 07/28/2004)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein : Interim Pretrial Conference held on 7/1/2004. (pl, ) (Entered: 07/28/2004)
121 ORDER; for the reasons set forth on this Order, objections to the production of documents due 8/2/2004; pltffs response due 8/23/2004; reply (if any) due 9/9/2004. (Signed by Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 7/1/2004) (jp, ) (Entered: 07/07/2004)
122 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings held on 7/1/2004 before Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein.(mbe, ) (Entered: 07/13/2004)
123 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings held on 7/1/04 before Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein.(pa, ) (Entered: 07/14/2004)
125 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Gorenstein from Daniel Schulze dated 07/29/04 re: the date for producing or logging documents (as stated in this letter) are extended from August 2, 2004 to August 16, 2004; (Signed by Judge Gabriel W.

Case: 1:03-cv-650 As of: 01/30/2016 03:01 PM EST 32 of 62

09/10/2004
09/13/2004 09/14/2004 10/14/2004
10/25/2004 12/14/2004
12/15/2004 01/18/2005 03/21/2005 04/04/2005
04/05/2005 04/08/2005

Gorenstein on 7/30/04) (djc, ) (Entered: 08/03/2004)
129 LETTER addressed to Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein from Scott Ruskay−Kidd dated 8/23/04 re: in support for disclosure of personnel and other records relating to officers of the N.Y. State Dept. of Correctional Services. Document filed by Stacie Calloway, Tonie Coggins, Stephanie Dawson, Latasha Dockery, Tanya Jones, Bette Jean McDonald, Kristina Muehleisen, Jeanette Perez, Laura Pullen, Corilynn Rock, Denise Saffioti, Shantelle Smith, Shenyell Smith, Hope Susoh, Nakia Thompson.(pl, ) (Entered: 09/17/2004)
128 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein from Daniel Schulze dated 9/10/04. Granting Supervisory defendants' request for an extension until 9/15/04 to submit documents in camera review in connection with plaintiff's motion to compel production. (Signed by Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 9/10/04) (kw, ) (Entered: 09/16/2004)
127 LETTER addressed to Judge Kevin T. Duffy from Scott Ruskay−Kidd, Esq., Camille Angelique Rich, Esq. dated 9/2/04 re: Five Consolidated Appeals that were recently decided by the Second Circuit...For the foregoing reasons and those previously described by plaintiffs, the Court should deny defendants' motions to dismiss based on non−exhustion of administrative remedies. (rag, ) (Entered: 09/14/2004)
130 ORDER that the court has concluded that the only practical way to address plaintiffs' request and dfts' objections is to make a ruling on which of the items called for in request no. 73 are relevant pursuant to FRCP 26(a). For each such ruling, the court directes the supervisory dfts to produce the documents that fall within that category; the court addresses the various subcategories in request no. 73 as further set forth in this order. (Signed by Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 10/14/04) (dle, ) (Entered: 10/19/2004)
131 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein from Daniel Schulze dated 10/22/04 re: this letter accurately states the import of the Court's ruling. (Signed by Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 10/20/04) (sac, ) (Entered: 10/27/2004)
133 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein from Scott Ruskay−Kidd dated 12/8/04 re: counsel for plaintiffs request that the court compel the supervisory dfts to produce the random sample of the 25 most recently closed investigations. The court has reviewed the transcript and the dfts' 12/13/04 letter. The plaintiffs' interpretation of the court's ruling (as limited by the footnote below) is correct. (Signed by Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 12/14/04) (dle, ) (Entered: 12/21/2004)
132 PROPOSED SCHEDULING ORDER: Motions due by 5/17/2006. Discovery due by 9/15/2005. Rule 26 Meeting Report due by 2/17/2006. Pretrial Order due by 4/17/2006. Ready for Trial by 6/5/2006. (Signed by Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 12/13/2004) (jsa, ) (Entered: 12/16/2004)
134 Application for entry of default against Rick Larue. Document filed by Laura Pullen, Corilynn Rock, Denise Saffioti, Shenyell Smith, Hope Susoh, Nakia Thompson, Lucy Amador, Stacie Calloway, Tonie Coggins, Latasha Dockery, Stephanie Dawson, Tanya Jones, Shantelle Smith, Bobbie Kidd, Bette Jean McDonald, Kristina Muehleisen, Jeanette Perez. (dle, ) (Entered: 01/24/2005)
135 ORDER regarding procedures to be followed that shall govern the handling of "confidential information". (Signed by Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 3/21/05) (jco, ) (Entered: 03/23/2005)
136 ANSWER to Amended Complaint., CROSSCLAIM against Department of Correctional Services. Document filed by Rick Laure. Related document: 72 Amended Complaint,,, filed by Jeanette Perez,, Lucy Amador,, Stacie Calloway,, Tonie Coggins,, Latasha Dockery,, Bobbie Kidd,, Bette Jean McDonald,, Kristina Muehleisen,, Laura Pullen,, Corilynn Rock,, Denise Saffioti,, Shenyell Smith,, Hope Susoh,, Nakia Thompson,.(Leonard, Christina) (Entered: 04/04/2005)
137 ANSWER to Class Action First Amended Complaint. Document filed by Rick Laure.(jmi, ) (Entered: 04/07/2005)
138 MOTION (FILED ON SERVICE DATE) for Diane R. Tiveron to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Document filed by John E. Gilbert, III, John E. Gilbert, III, John E. Gilbert, III. (db, ) (Entered: 04/19/2005)

Case: 1:03-cv-650 As of: 01/30/2016 03:01 PM EST 33 of 62

04/19/2005 04/19/2005 04/28/2005 05/09/2005
05/25/2005 05/25/2005 05/25/2005 06/08/2005 06/30/2005
07/01/2005 07/20/2005
07/20/2005
09/13/2005

139 ORDER granting 138 Motion for Diane R. Tiveron to Appear Pro Hac Vice for deft Gilbert. (Signed by Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy on 4/8/05) (cd, ) (Entered: 04/20/2005)
Transmission to Attorney Admissions Clerk. Transmitted re: 139 Order on Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice, to the Attorney Admissions Clerk for updating of Attorney Information. (cd, ) (Entered: 04/20/2005)
CASHIERS OFFICE REMARK on 139 Order on Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice in the amount of $25.00, paid on 4/26/05, Receipt Number 541650. (mlo, ) (Entered: 04/28/2005)
140 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein from Christina A. Leonard dated 5/6/05 re: Counsel for defendant writes in response to plaintiff's attorney's letter dated 5/2/05. Counsel shall file, on or before 5/25/05, with an application to be relieved (or notice to Mr. LaRue) or papers in opposition to the motion for entry of default. (Signed by Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 5/6/05) (jco, ) (Entered: 05/10/2005)
141 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 134 MOTION (FILED ON SERVICE DATE) for Default Judgment as to.. Document filed by Rick Laure. (cd, ) (Entered: 05/26/2005)
142 AFFIDAVIT of Rick Larue in Opposition re: 134 MOTION (FILED ON SERVICE DATE) for Default Judgment as to.. Document filed by Rick Laure. (cd, ) (Entered: 05/26/2005)
143 AFFIDAVIT of Christina Leonard in Opposition re: 134 MOTION (FILED ON SERVICE DATE) for Default Judgment as to.. Document filed by Rick Laure. (cd, ) (Entered: 05/26/2005)
144 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in further support of application for default. Document filed by Lucy Amador, Tonie Coggins, Latasha Dockery, Stephanie Dawson. (dle, ) (Entered: 06/14/2005)
145 ORDER; that a conference shall be held regarding discovery disputes on 7/18/05 @3:30 p.m. in Courtroom 219, 40 Centre Street, N.Y.C. Only parties with an interest in the disputes raised in the 6/28 Letter need attend this conference. Plaintiff's counsels are directed to provide a copy of this Order to all parties. (Signed by Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 6/30/05) (pl, ) (Entered: 07/05/2005)
146 ORDER that the application contained in the 6/28/05 letter is denied without prejudice; in addition the order issued earlier today of even date is vacated ond the 7/18/05. In addition (Signed by Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 6/30/05) (dle, ) (Entered: 07/06/2005)
147 ORDER: the court is in receipt of a letter dated 7/18/05, from plaintiffs' counsel pertaining to certain discovery disputes. A conference shall be held regarding these disputes on 8/16/05 at 4:00 p.m. in ctrm 219, 40 Centre Street, NY, NY, 10007. Only parties with an interest in the disputes raised in the 7/18/05 letter need attend this conference. (Signed by Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 7/19/05) (kw, ) (Entered: 07/21/2005)
148 ORDER; the Court is in receipt of a letter dated 7/18/05, from plaintiffs' counsel pertaining to certain discovery disputes. A conference shall be held regarding these disputes on 9/7/05 at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 219, 40 Centre Street. Only parties with an interest in the disputes raised in the 7/18/ letter need attend this conference. (Signed by Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 7/19/05) (sac, ) (Entered: 07/22/2005)
149 MEMORANDUM &ORDER (Duplicate Original) As set forth in greater detail above, both parties are instructed to address whether Plaintiffs' individual claims for damages are properly joined with one another and with their class claims for injunctive relief. Accordingly, I reserve ruling on any pending motions pertaining to Plaintiffs' individual claims for damages. Regarding Plaintiffs' claims for injunctive relief, I grant in part and deny in part the Supervisory Defendants' motion to dismiss based on Plaintiffs' lack of standing. I deny the Supervisory Defendants' motion to dismiss for improper venue and reserve ruling on their motion to transfer venue. I convert Supervisory Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims for injunctive relief on exhaustion grounds to one for summary judgment. I reserve ruling on the Supervisory Defendants' motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim. I also reserve ruling on Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. (Signed by Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy on 9/13/05) (rag, ). (Entered:

Case: 1:03-cv-650 As of: 01/30/2016 03:01 PM EST 34 of 62

09/19/2005 09/19/2005 09/27/2005 09/27/2005
09/27/2005
10/14/2005
10/18/2005 10/18/2005 10/20/2005 10/20/2005 11/04/2005 11/04/2005 11/07/2005 11/07/2005

09/13/2005)
150 FILING ERROR − ELECTRONIC FILING FOR NON−ECF CASE − NOTICE of Appearance by James T. Potter on behalf of M. Evans, Jeffrey Shawver (Potter, James) Modified on 10/18/2005 (gf, ). (Entered: 09/19/2005)
151 FILING ERROR − ELECTRONIC FILING FOR NON−ECF CASE − NOTICE of Appearance by David William Novak on behalf of M. Evans, Jeffrey Shawver (Novak, David) Modified on 10/18/2005 (gf, ). (Entered: 09/19/2005)
152 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings held on 9/7/05 before Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein. (pl, ) (Entered: 09/28/2005)
153 MOTION (FILED ON SERVICE DATE) to Amend/Correct, MOTION (FILED ON SERVICE DATE) for Reconsideration pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.P. (59(e) and Local Rule 6.3. Document filed by Laura Pullen, Corilynn Rock, Denise Saffioti, Shenyell Smith, Hope Susoh, Nakia Thompson, Lucy Amador, Stacie Calloway, Tonie Coggins, Latasha Dockery, Stephanie Dawson, Tanya Jones, Shantelle Smith, Bette Jean McDonald, Kristina Muehleisen, Jeanette Perez. (jmi, ) (Entered: 09/30/2005)
154 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 153 MOTION (FILED ON SERVICE DATE) to Amend/Correct. MOTION (FILED ON SERVICE DATE) for Reconsideration. MOTION (FILED ON SERVICE DATE) for Reconsideration.. Document filed by Laura Pullen, Corilynn Rock, Denise Saffioti, Shenyell Smith, Hope Susoh, Nakia Thompson, Lucy Amador, Stacie Calloway, Tonie Coggins, Latasha Dockery, Stephanie Dawson, Tanya Jones, Shantelle Smith, Bobbie Kidd, Bette Jean McDonald, Kristina Muehleisen, Jeanette Perez. (jmi, ) (Entered: 09/30/2005)
155 SUPERVISORY DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 153 MOTION (FILED ON SERVICE DATE) to Amend/Correct. MOTION (FILED ON SERVICE DATE) for Reconsideration. MOTION (FILED ON SERVICE DATE) for Reconsideration.. Document filed by Anginell Andrews, Roberta Coward, Dennis Crowley, Alexandreena Dixon, Eliane Lord, Ronald Moscicki, Melvin Williams, Donald Wolfe, Terry Baxter, Richard Roy, Barbara D. Leone, Peter Brown, Glenn Goord, James Stone, Clarence Davis, M. Evans, Michael Galbreath, John E. Gilbert, III, Mario Pique, Jeffrey Shawver, Robert Smith, Delroy Thorpe, Pete Zawislak, Rick Laure, Rico Meyers, Frederick Brenyah, Chris Sterling. (jmi, ) (Entered: 10/17/2005)
***NOTE TO ATTORNEY TO RE−FILE DOCUMENT − NON−ECF CASE ERROR. Note to Attorney James Potter to MANUALLY RE−FILE Document Notice of Appearance, Document No. 150. This case is not ECF. (gf, ) (Entered: 10/18/2005)
***NOTE TO ATTORNEY TO RE−FILE DOCUMENT − NON−ECF CASE ERROR. Note to Attorney David Novak to MANUALLY RE−FILE Document Notice of Appearance, Document No. 151. This case is not ECF. (gf, ) (Entered: 10/18/2005)
156 NOTICE of Appearance by David William Novak on behalf of Jeffrey Shawver and Michael Evans. (jco, ) Modified on 10/21/2005 (jco, ). (Entered: 10/21/2005)
157 NOTICE of Appearance by James T. Potter on behalf of M. Evans, Jeffrey Shawver, Jeffrey Shawver, Michael Evans. (jco, ) (Entered: 10/21/2005)
158 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support of the motion of defendants Jeffrey Shawyer and Michael Evans to sever all claims. Document filed by M. Evans, Jeffrey Shawver. (jco, ) (Entered: 11/08/2005)
159 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support of Severance. Document filed by Charles Davis. (jco, ) (Entered: 11/08/2005)
160 CROSS−MOTION (FILED ON SERVICE DATE) to Sever claims against him pursuant to FRCP 42(b). Document filed by Robert Smith, Robert Smith. (db, ) Modified on 11/9/2005 (db, ). (Entered: 11/09/2005)
161 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 160 MOTION (FILED ON SERVICE DATE) to Sever. Document filed by Robert Smith, Robert Smith. (db, ) (Entered: 11/09/2005)

Case: 1:03-cv-650 As of: 01/30/2016 03:01 PM EST 35 of 62

11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/14/2005 11/14/2005 11/16/2005
12/22/2005
01/04/2006
01/04/2006 01/04/2006
02/10/2006
02/22/2006 02/23/2006
02/23/2006

162 ORDER: denying 153 Motion to Amend/Correct, denying 153 Motion for Reconsideration . (Signed by Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy on 11/10/2005) (lb, ) (Entered: 11/14/2005)
163 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Kevin T. Duffy from Camille Gear Rich and Dori A. Lewis dated 10/31/05 re: leave to submit a 40 page response brief. ENDORSEMENT: OK. (Signed by Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy on 11/10/05) (kco, ) (Entered: 11/14/2005)
166 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support of motion for severance. Document filed by Mario Pique, Rick Laure, Rico Meyers. (jco, ) (Entered: 11/16/2005)
164 MOTION (FILED ON SERVICE DATE) to Serve. Document filed by John E. Gilbert, III. (jmi, ) (Entered: 11/15/2005)
165 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 164 MOTION (FILED ON SERVICE DATE) to Serve.. Document filed by John E. Gilbert, III. (jmi, ) (Entered: 11/15/2005)
167 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy from Daniel Schulze dated 11/3/05 re: granting requests for a modification of the supplemental briefing schedule and submissions. Motions due by 11/11/2005. Responses due by 12/23/2005 Replies due by 1/9/2006. (Signed by Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy on 11/3/05) (pl, ) (Entered: 11/17/2005)
168 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Maeve L. O'Connor on behalf of Laura Pullen, Corilynn Rock, Denise Saffioti, Shenyell Smith, Hope Susoh, Nakia Thompson, Lucy Amador, Stacie Calloway, Tonie Coggins, Latasha Dockery, Stephanie Dawson, Tanya Jones, Shantelle Smith, Bette Jean McDonald, Kristina Muehleisen, Jeanette Perez (jmi, ) (Entered: 12/27/2005)
169 ORDER; defendant's motion to extend the briefing schedule for their supplemental memo in further support of their motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. Defendant's reply is now due on 2/23/2006. Defendant's motion for permission to file a reply brief to the brief proposed to be filed by amicus curie Center for Constitutional Rights, et al is DENIED. Plaintiff's motion to file a surreply to defendant's reply is DENIED. (Signed by Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy on 1/3/2006) (kco, ) (Entered: 01/04/2006)
Set Deadlines: Replies due by 2/23/2006. (kco, ) (Entered: 01/04/2006)
170 ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE CNETER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, ET AL.., IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. The Clerk is directed to file the amicus memorandum received. So Ordered. (Signed by Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy on 1/3/06) (jco, ) (Entered: 01/04/2006)
171 SEALING ORDER; the declarations of plaintiffs Lucy Amador, Stacie Calloway, Tonie Coggins, Stephanie Dawson, Latasha Dockery, Tanya Jones, Bette Jean McDonald, Kristina Muehleisen, Jeanette Perez, Laura Pullen, Corilynn Rock, Shantelle Smith, Shenyell Smith, Hope Susoh and Nakia Thompson dated 12/23/05 shall be filed under seal, pursuant to the confidentiality order of 11/3/2003. (Signed by Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy on 2/7/06) (kco, ) (Entered: 02/10/2006)
173 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW re: 64 Motion to Dismiss. Document filed by Charles Davis. (jmi, ) (Entered: 02/24/2006)
172 DECLARATION of Alison Mikkor in Opposition to re: 64 Motion to Dismiss. Document filed by Laura Pullen, Corilynn Rock, Denise Saffioti, Shenyell Smith, Hope Susoh, Nakia Thompson, Lucy Amador, Stacie Calloway, Tonie Coggins, Latasha Dockery, Stephanie Dawson, Tanya Jones, Shantelle Smith, Bobbie Kidd, Bette Jean McDonald, Kristina Muehleisen, Jeanette Perez. (jmi, ) (Entered: 02/24/2006)
183 SUPERVISORY DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL REPLY in further support of re: 64 Motion to Dismiss, 69 Motion for Summary Judgment. Document filed by Anginell Andrews, Roberta Coward, Dennis Crowley, Alexandreena Dixon, Eliane Lord, Ronald Moscicki, Melvin Williams, Donald Wolfe, Terry Baxter, Richard Roy, Barbara D. Leone, Peter Brown, Glenn Goord, James Stone, Clarence Davis, M. Evans, Michael Galbreath, John E. Gilbert, III, Mario Pique, Jeffrey Shawver, Robert Smith, Delroy Thorpe, Pete Zawislak, Rick Laure, Rico Meyers, Frederick Brenyah, Chris Sterling.

Case: 1:03-cv-650 As of: 01/30/2016 03:01 PM EST 36 of 62

02/23/2006 02/23/2006
02/23/2006 06/21/2006 06/21/2006 11/13/2006 06/12/2007 06/12/2007 06/29/2007 11/08/2007

(jmi, ) (Entered: 02/24/2006)
184 SUPERVISORY DEFENDANTS' RULE 56.1 STATEMENT. Document filed by Anginell Andrews, Roberta Coward, Dennis Crowley, Alexandreena Dixon, Eliane Lord, Ronald Moscicki, Terry Baxter, Richard Roy, Barbara D. Leone, Peter Brown, Glenn Goord, James Stone, Clarence Davis, M. Evans, Michael Galbreath, John E. Gilbert, III, Mario Pique, Jeffrey Shawver, Robert Smith, Rick Laure, Rico Meyers, Frederick Brenyah, Chris Sterling. (jmi, ) (Entered: 02/24/2006)
185 SUPERVISORY DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 64 Motion to Dismiss, 67 Motion to Dismiss. Document filed by Anginell Andrews, Roberta Coward, Dennis Crowley, Alexandreena Dixon, Eliane Lord, Ronald Moscicki, Melvin Williams, Donald Wolfe, Terry Baxter, Richard Roy, Barbara D. Leone, Peter Brown, Glenn Goord, James Stone, Clarence Davis, M. Evans, Michael Galbreath, John E. Gilbert, III, Mario Pique, Jeffrey Shawver, Robert Smith, Delroy Thorpe, Pete Zawislak, Rick Laure, Rico Meyers, Frederick Brenyah, Chris Sterling. (jmi, ) (Entered: 02/24/2006)
186 DECLARATION of Daniel Schelze in Support of SUPERVISORY DEFENDANTS' re: 64 Motion to Dismiss. Document filed by Roberta Coward, Dennis Crowley, Alexandreena Dixon, Eliane Lord, Ronald Moscicki, Terry Baxter, Richard Roy, Barbara D. Leone, Peter Brown, Glenn Goord, James Stone, Clarence Davis, M. Evans, Michael Galbreath, John E. Gilbert, III, Mario Pique, Jeffrey Shawver, Robert Smith, Rick Laure, Rico Meyers, Frederick Brenyah, Chris Sterling. (jmi, ) (Entered: 02/24/2006)
187 ORDER AUTHORIZING DEPOSITION OF INCARCERATED INDIVIDUAL: It is hereby ordered that defendants in this action is granted leave to take deposition on oral questions of plaintiff Bette Jean McDonald, DIN # 00−G−0114, beginning at 9:00 a.m. on 7/18/2006, or such other date hereafter agreed to be the parties, at a Correctional Facility in which she is confined. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 6/20/2006) (lb, ) (Entered: 06/21/2006)
188 ORDER AUTHORIZING DEPOSITION OF INCARCERATED INDIVIDUAL: It is hereby ordered that defendants in this action are granted leave to take deposition on oral questions of plaintiff Shenyell Smith, DIN # 99−G−0824, beginning at 9:00 a.m. on 6/28/2006, or such other date hereafter agreed to be the parties, at a Correctional Facility in which she is confined. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 6/20/2006)(lb, ) (Entered: 06/21/2006)
189 ORDER AUTHORIZING DEPOSITION OF INCARCERATED INDIVIDUAL; the defendants are granted leave to take the deposition on oral questions of plaintiff Nakia Thompson beginning at 9:30 a.m. on 11/20/06 at the Correctional Facility in which she is confined. (Signed by Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 11/7/06) (kco, ) (Entered: 11/15/2006)
190 ORDER AUTHORIZING DEPOSITION OF INCARCERATED INDIVIDUAL that defts are granted leave to take the deposition on oral questions of plaintiff Corilynn Rock beginning at 10:00 am on 6/13/07, or such other date hereafter agreed to by the parties, at a Correctional Facility in which she is confined. (Signed by Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 6/8/07) (cd) (Entered: 06/13/2007)
191 ORDER AUTHORIZING DEPOSITION OF INCARCERATED INDIVIDUAL: Pursuant to FRCP 30(a)(2), it is ordered that defts in the above captioned action are granted leave to take the deposition on oral questions of plt Kristina Muehleisen beginning at 9:30 a.m. on 6/25/2007 or such other date hereafter agree to the parties, at a Correctional Facility in which she is confined. (Signed by Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 6/8/2007) (jar) (Entered: 06/13/2007)
192 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein from Alison Mikkor and Daniel Schulze dated 6/27/2007 re: The parties propose to update the Court on the progress of deposition discovery either after Judge Duffy's ruling or, should Judge Duffy not yet have ruled, within eight months. ENDORSEMENT: SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 6/28/2007) (jar) (Entered: 07/03/2007)
193 STIPULATION OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT DAVID SMITH. The claims of plaintiff Perez against defendant Smith shall be dismissed with prejudice, each party shall bear its own costs. (Signed by Judge

Case: 1:03-cv-650 As of: 01/30/2016 03:01 PM EST 37 of 62

12/04/2007
01/22/2008 01/23/2008 01/23/2008 01/23/2008 01/23/2008 01/23/2008 01/23/2008 01/28/2008 02/11/2008 02/11/2008
04/09/2008 04/23/2008
04/24/2008 04/24/2008

Kevin Thomas Duffy on 9/24/2007) (jar) (Entered: 11/08/2007)
194 MEMORANDUM AND OPINION # 95488. All of Plaintiffs' claims for injunctive and declaratory relief against the Supervisory Defendant have now been dismissed for the reasons stated above and in the previous Order of 9/13/2005. Therefore, there is no need to grant Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, which is hereby denied. Summary Judgment dismissing the complaint will be entered for all Supervisory Defendants and for all defendants with the exception of the claims of Shenyell Smith against Delroy Thorpe. (Signed by Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy on 12/3/2007) (jar) (Entered: 12/05/2007)
196 MEMORANDUM IN REPLY to Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration. Document filed by Charles Davis. (jar) (Entered: 01/25/2008)
197 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration and Certification. Document filed by John E. Gilbert, III. (djc) (Entered: 01/25/2008)
198 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for leave to submit the declaration of Alison Mikkor, Esq. Document filed by John E. Gilbert, III. (djc) (Entered: 01/25/2008)
199 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 153 MOTION for Reconsideration. Document filed by M. Evans, Jeffrey Shawver, Michael Evans. (jar) (Entered: 01/30/2008)
200 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Motion for Reconsideration served on (parties listed, see Certificate) on 1/22/2008. Service was made by fax and first class mail. Document filed by M. Evans, Jeffrey Shawver, Michael Evans. (jar) (Entered: 01/30/2008)
202 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 153 MOTION for Reconsideration. Document filed by Mario Pique, Rick Laure, Rico Meyers. (jar) (Entered: 01/30/2008)
203 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition to re Motion for Leave to Submit the Declaration of Allison Mikkor in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration and Certification. Document filed by Mario Pique, Rick Laure, Rico Meyers. (jar) (Entered: 01/30/2008)
201 MEMORANDUM OF LAW on Behalf of Defendant Officer Sterling in Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration and Certification. Document filed by Chris Sterling. (djc) (Entered: 01/30/2008)
204 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Further Support of Motion for Reconsideration and for Certification. Document filed by Lucy Amador. (djc) (Entered: 02/14/2008)
205 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration. Document filed by Anginell Andrews, Roberta Coward, Dennis Crowley, Alexandreena Dixon, Ronald Moscicki, Melvin Williams, Donald Wolfe, Terry Baxter, Richard Roy, Barbara D. Leone, Glenn Goord, James Stone, Robert Smith, Delroy Thorpe, Rick Laure. (djc) (Entered: 02/19/2008)
206 ORDER; that the Opinion and Order dated 12/4/07 is AMENDED as set forth in this Order. (Signed by Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy on 3/27/08) (ae) (Entered: 04/09/2008)
207 NOTICE OF APPEAL from 206 Order, 194 Memorandum &Opinion. Document filed by Laura Pullen, Corilynn Rock, Denise Saffioti, Shenyell Smith, Hope Susoh, Nakia Thompson, Stacie Calloway, Tonie Coggins, Latasha Dockery, Stephanie Dawson, Tanya Jones, Shantelle Smith, Kristina Muehleisen. Filing fee $ 455.00, receipt number E 649037. Copies mailed to attorney(s) of record: Cronin &Byczek, LLP; Department of Law, Litigation Bureau State of New York; Raymond L. Colon, Esq.; Michael R. Galbreath; Kaminsky &Rich; Joseph M. LaTona, Esq.; Muscato, DiMillo &Vona, LLP.; Hinman Straub P.C.; Dennis B. Schlenker, Esq.; Hogan &Willig, PLLC.; Boeggeman, George &Corde, P.C.; and Peter Zawislak. (tp) (Entered: 04/24/2008)
Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Certified Copy of Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re: 207 Notice of Appeal.(tp) (Entered: 04/24/2008)
Transmission of Notice of Appeal to the District Judge re: 207 Notice of Appeal.(tp) (Entered: 04/24/2008)

Case: 1:03-cv-650 As of: 01/30/2016 03:01 PM EST 38 of 62

05/08/2008 05/21/2008 05/29/2008 05/29/2008 07/22/2008 07/31/2008
09/11/2008 09/24/2008 11/21/2008 12/10/2008

208 Appeal Record Sent to USCA (Index). Notice that the Original index to the record on Appeal for 207 Notice of Appeal, filed by Shantelle Smith, Stephanie Dawson, Latasha Dockery, Denise Saffioti, Nakia Thompson, Tanya Jones, Hope Susoh, Kristina Muehleisen, Laura Pullen, Tonie Coggins, Shenyell Smith, Corilynn Rock, Stacie Calloway USCA Case Number 08−2079, 3 Copies of the index, Certified Clerk Certificate and Certified Docket Sheet were transmitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals. (tp) (dt). (Entered: 05/08/2008)
Appeal Record Sent to USCA (File). Indexed record on Appeal Files for 207 Notice of Appeal, filed by Shantelle Smith, Stephanie Dawson, Latasha Dockery, Denise Saffioti, Nakia Thompson, Tanya Jones, Hope Susoh, Kristina Muehleisen, Laura Pullen, Tonie Coggins, Shenyell Smith, Corilynn Rock, Stacie Calloway USCA Case Number 08−1956, were transmitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals. (tp) (Entered: 05/21/2008)
209 First Supplemental ROA Sent to USCA (Index). Notice that the Supplemental Index to the record on Appeal for 207 Notice of Appeal, filed by Shantelle Smith, Stephanie Dawson, Latasha Dockery, Denise Saffioti, Nakia Thompson, Tanya Jones, Hope Susoh, Kristina Muehleisen, Laura Pullen, Tonie Coggins, Shenyell Smith, Corilynn Rock, Stacie Calloway USCA Case Number 08−2079, 3 Copies of the index, Certified Supplemental Clerk Certificate and Certified Docket Sheet were transmitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals. (tp) (dt). (Entered: 05/29/2008)
First Supplemental ROA Sent to USCA (File)(2 VOL.). Supplemental Indexed record on Appeal Files for 207 Notice of Appeal, filed by Shantelle Smith, Stephanie Dawson, Latasha Dockery, Denise Saffioti, Nakia Thompson, Tanya Jones, Hope Susoh, Kristina Muehleisen, Laura Pullen, Tonie Coggins, Shenyell Smith, Corilynn Rock, Stacie Calloway USCA Case Number 08−2079, were transmitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals. (tp) (Entered: 05/29/2008)
210 MANDATE of USCA (Certified Copy) USCA Case Number 08−1956−mp. Petitioners, through counsel, move pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f), for permission to appeal the district court`s order denying petitioners` motion for class certification. Upon due consideration, it is hereby ordered that the petition is denied. See Sumitomo Copper Litig. v. Credit Lyonnais Rouse, Ltd., 262 F. 3d 134, 139−40 (2d Cir. 2001) Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk USCA. Issued As Mandate: 7/22/2008. (nd) (Entered: 07/22/2008)
211 ORDER: All non−expert discovery shall be commenced in time to be completed by 12/31/2008. Any depositions of experts shall be completed by 2/17/2009. The parties shall inform each other in writing by 2/17/2009, whether either intends to file a dispositive motion. Any dispositive pretrial motions shall be filed by 4/20/2009. The pretrial order shall be filed within 15 days after plaintiffs supply defendants with pretrial materials. All discovery must be initiated in time to be concluded by the deadline for all discovery. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 7/31/2008) (tve) (Entered: 07/31/2008)
Appeal Record Returned. Indexed record on Appeal Files for 208 Appeal Record Sent to USCA − Index, Appeal Record Sent to USCA − File, USCA Case Number 08−2079, returned from the U.S. Court of Appeals. (Total of 7 volumes of Records Returned). (nd) (Entered: 09/24/2008)
First Supplemental ROA Returned. Supplemental Indexed record on Appeal Files for 207 Notice of Appeal,, filed by Shantelle Smith, Stephanie Dawson, Latasha Dockery, Denise Saffioti, Nakia Thompson, Tanya Jones, Hope Susoh, Kristina Muehleisen, Laura Pullen, Tonie Coggins, Shenyell Smith, Corilynn Rock, Stacie Calloway USCA Case Number 08−2079−pr, returned from the U.S. Court of Appeals. (nd) (Entered: 01/07/2009)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein: Telephone Conference held on 11/21/2008. (mro) (Entered: 11/24/2008)
212 SCHEDULING ORDER: All non−expert discovery concerning the Pending Damages Claims shall be commenced in time to be completed by December 31, 2008, with the exception of the depositions of plaintiff Lucy Amador, plaintiff Better Jean McDonald (to the extent that it is required), defendant Michael Gaibreath, defendant Donald Wolff, and any person identified on plaintiffs Supplemental Rule 26(a) statements, dated November 21, 2008, which shall be commended in time to be completed by February 2, 2009. Disclosure of the identities and reports of experts concerning the Pending Damages

Case: 1:03-cv-650 As of: 01/30/2016 03:01 PM EST 39 of 62

12/12/2008 12/30/2008
12/31/2008 01/07/2009 01/07/2009 01/08/2009
01/08/2009 01/12/2009

Claims, if any, as required by Rule 26(a)(2)(A) and (B) shall be made by February 13, 2009; The disclosure of identities and reports of any expert intended by an opposing party solely to rebut such previously−disclosed expert evidence shall be made by March 6, 2009; Any depositions of experts concerning the Pending Damages Claims shall be completed by March 19, 2009; The parties shall inform each other in writing by March 19, 2009, whether either intends to file a dispositive motion concerning the Pending Damages Claims; Any dispositive pretrial motions concerning the Pending Dan1ages Claims shall be filed by April 24, 2009. The motion shall be returnable before Judge Duffy and comply with his individual practices. The parties may apply to Judge Duffy with respect to any proposed briefing schedule on this motion; If no party states its intention to file a dispositive pre−trial motion concerning the Pending Damages Claims, plaintiffs will supply pretrial order materials to defendants in accordance with Judge Duffy's individual practices on or before April 17, 2009. The pre−trial order shall be filed "Within 15 days thereafter. If, however, a dispositive motion is served on or before the date in the previous paragraph, the due date of the plaintiff's portion of the pretrial order materials shall be extended to 30 days following decision on the dispositive motion and the pretrial order shall be filed within 15 days thereafter. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 12/9/08) (mme) Modified on 1/17/2009 (mme). (Entered: 12/10/2008)
213 MOTION for Christopher Kennedy to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Document filed by M. Evans, Jeffrey Shawver, Michael Evans.(dle) (Entered: 12/17/2008)
214 ORDER; the Court is in receipt of a letter dated December 22, 2008 from counsel for Delroy Thorpe regarding certain discovery disputes and a responsive letter from counsel for plaintiffs dated December 23, 2008. Thorpe's letter does not comply with paragraph 2. A of its Individual Practices. Additionally, it is clear from plaintiffs' letter that an effort to confer regarding the disputes may well bear fruit. Accordingly, the application is denied without prejudice. Finally, the Court notes that with respect to requests made to extend deadlines, parties must comply with paragraph I. E of this Court's Individual Practices and thus it is insufficient to consult only with plaintiffs with respect to such a request. Counsel for Thorpe is directed to distribute a copy of this Order to all other parties. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 12/29/08) (pl) (Entered: 12/30/2008)
215 ORDER A conference to discuss the discovery disputes raised in the letters from defendants Pinque, Meyers, LaRue, Brenyah and Gilbert is scheduled for January 12,2009 at 9:15 a.m. in Courtroom 17−A, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York. ( Status Conference set for 1/12/2009 at 09:15 AM in Courtroom 17A, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 12/31/2008) (jmi) (Entered: 01/05/2009)
216 ORDER FOR ADMISSION OF CHRISTOPHER T. KENNEDY PRO HAC VICE ON WRITTEN MOTION: granting 213 Motion for Christopher Kennedy to Appear Pro Hac Vice. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 1/7/2008) (jfe) (Entered: 01/07/2009)
Transmission to Attorney Admissions Clerk. Transmitted re: 216 Order on Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice, to the Attorney Admissions Clerk for updating of Attorney Information. (jfe) (Entered: 01/07/2009)
217 MEMO ENDORSEMENT DEFENDANTS'MOTION TO ADMIT CHRISTOPHER T. KENNEDY AS COUNSEL PRO HAC VICE, Pursuant to Rule 1.3(c) of the Local Rules of the Llnited States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, I, David W. Novak, a member in good standing of the bar of this Court, hereby move for an Order allowing the admission pro hac vice of: Christopher T. Kennedy, of Hinman Straub P.C., 121 State Street, Albany, New York 12207, (518) 436−0751. ENDORSEMENT: application granted. So Ordered. (Signed by Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy on 1/8/09) (pl) (Entered: 01/08/2009)
Transmission to Attorney Admissions Clerk. Transmitted re: 216 Order on Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice, to the Attorney Admissions Clerk for updating of Attorney Information. (pl) (Entered: 01/08/2009)
CASHIERS OFFICE REMARK on 213 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice in the amount of $25.00, paid on 12/15/2008, Receipt Number 672338. (jd) (Entered: 01/12/2009)

Case: 1:03-cv-650 As of: 01/30/2016 03:01 PM EST 40 of 62

01/12/2009 01/21/2009
02/17/2009
02/19/2009 02/19/2009 02/19/2009 02/27/2009
03/10/2009 04/23/2009 06/09/2009

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein: Discovery Hearing held on 1/12/2009. Orders issued. See transcript. (mro) (Entered: 01/13/2009)
218 STIPULATION AND ORDER; 1. Mr. Galbreath can be shown or provided with documents marked "Highly Confidential" that relateeither to either Lucy Amador or the investigation of Mr. Galbreath reflected in IG File SCU 21/02.2. Mr. Galbreath shall use these documents only in connection with this litigation, and treat them as "Highly Confidential" under the November 3, 2003 Confidentiality Order. 3. Mr. Galbreath shall obtain permission from the New York Attorney General's Office before showing any document marked "Highly Confidential" to any person other than an attorney advising him in connection with this litigation who has agreed in writing to be bound by the terms of the November 3, 2003 Confidentiality Order. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 1/20/2009) (tve) (Entered: 01/21/2009)
219 ORDER The Supervisory Defendants shall provide to plaintiffs' counsel in this case the last known addresses in the possession of the New York State Department of Correctional Services for the third−party former inmates whom plaintiffs' counsel states in their December 23, 2008 disclosure were sexually abused by one or more of the named defendants in this action; Any counsel in this action may receive this same information from the Supervisory Defendants upon request; and, All counsel who receive this information pursuant to this Order shall use the information only for purposes of this case, and treat the information as "Highly Confidential" under the Protective Orders governing this case. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 2/17/09) (mme) Modified on 3/2/2009 (mme). (Entered: 02/17/2009)
220 ORDER the Court is in receipt of a letter−−apparently sent ex parte to the Court−that purports to be from plaintiff Jeanette Perez and that states she seeks to withdraw as plaintiff in this matter. The Court is providing a copy to plaintiffs' counsel. Plaintiffs' counsel should inform the Court within 14 days as to what action it has taken and/or seeks to take with respect to this letter. Plaintiff's counsel is directed to transmit a copy of this Order to all parties. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 2/19/09) (cd) (cd). (Entered: 02/19/2009)
221 TRANSCRIPT of Civil Cause for Status Conference held on January 12, 2009 before Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein. (mro) (Entered: 02/24/2009)
222 TRANSCRIPT of Civil Cause for Status Conference held on November 21, 2008 before Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein. (mro) (Entered: 02/24/2009)
223 ORDER: In light of the letter from plaintiffs' counsel dated February 27, 2009, it is the Court's intention to enter an order (1) dismissing Jeanette Perez as a plaintiff and (2) dismissing any claims she has made in this action with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). Any party who wishes to object to this disposition should send a letter to (or file an affidavit with) the Court on or before March 20, 2009 giving the reasons therefor. Plaintiffs' counsel is directed to transmit a copy of this Order to all parties and to Ms.Perez. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 2/27/09) (js) (Entered: 02/27/2009)
224 LETTER: addressed to Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein from Jeanette Perez dated 2/27/09 re: Plaintiff Jeanette Perez has decided to withdraw as plaintiff in the case Amador v. Andrews which means she will not be pursuing a lawsuit of money damages against defendants Peter Zawislak and Christopher Sterling. She made her decision freely and understands that once the lawsuit is ended that she will not be able to change her mind. Her attorneys have been informed of her decision. Document filed by Jeanette Perez.(js) (Entered: 03/10/2009)
225 ORDER: At the request of Jeanette Perez, and without objection from any party, all claims by Jeanette Perez in this action against any defendant are hereby dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4l(a)(2). Plaintiffs' counsel is directed to transmit a copy of this Order to all parties and to Ms.Perez. So Ordered (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 4/23/09) (js) (Entered: 04/23/2009)
226 Appeal Record Sent to USCA (Index). Notice that the Original index to the record on Appeal for 207 Notice of Appeal,, filed by Shantelle Smith, Stephanie Dawson, Latasha Dockery, Denise Saffioti, Nakia Thompson, Tanya Jones, Hope Susoh, Kristina Muehleisen, Laura Pullen, Tonie Coggins, Shenyell Smith, Corilynn Rock, Stacie

Case: 1:03-cv-650 As of: 01/30/2016 03:01 PM EST 41 of 62

06/09/2009 06/22/2009
07/15/2009 07/22/2009 08/05/2009

Calloway USCA Case Number 08−2079, 3 Copies of the index, Certified Clerk Certificate and Certified Docket Sheet were transmitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals. (nd) (nd). (Entered: 06/09/2009)
Appeal Record Sent to USCA (File). Indexed record on Appeal Files for 207 Notice of Appeal,, filed by Shantelle Smith, Stephanie Dawson, Latasha Dockery, Denise Saffioti, Nakia Thompson, Tanya Jones, Hope Susoh, Kristina Muehleisen, Laura Pullen, Tonie Coggins, Shenyell Smith, Corilynn Rock, Stacie Calloway USCA Case Number 08−2079, were transmitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals. [9 volumes of record sent to USCA to the attention of V. Mathias]. (nd) (Entered: 06/09/2009)
227 SCHEDULING ORDER: Any dispositive pre−trial motions due by 1/12/2010. Any deposition due by 11/12/2009. All applications to the Court must comply with this Court's Individual Practices, which are available through the Clerk's Office or at: http:\www.1.nysd.uscourts.gov\judge_info.php?id=67. Discovery applications − that is, any application or motion pursuant to Rules 26 through 37 or 45 − not only must comply with paragraph 2.A of the Court's Individual Practices, but also must be made promptly after the cause for such an application arises. In addition, absent extraordinary circumstances, no such application will be considered if made later than 30 days prior to the close of discovery. Untimely application will be denied. To the extent there are any disputes with respect to discovery related to nonparty victims any other matter, these disputes may be brought to the Court's attention in accordance with paragraph 2.A of this Court's Individual Practices and the terms of this order. Plaintiff's counsel is directed to provide a copy of this Scheduling Order to all parties forthwith. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 6/22/09) (ae) (Entered: 06/22/2009)
228 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein from Claudio Salas dated 7/14/2009 re: Counsel for plaintiff writes to request a pre−motion conference in connection with Defendant Delroy Thorpe's ongoing unavailability for the continuation of his deposition. Plaintiffs intend to file a motion for default judgment under Rule 37(d) of the F.R.C.P. ENDORSEMENT: The pre−motion requirement is waived. The motion may be filed at any time up until the date motions for summary judgment are due. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 7/14/2009) (tve) (Entered: 07/15/2009)
229 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein from Claudio Salas and Alison Mikkor dated 7/14/09 re: counsel for plaintiffs request the following amendment to the Scheduling Order: In accordance with the court's ruling of 1/12/09, all open non−expert discovery concerning the pending damage claims shall be commenced in time to be completed by 9/15/09. This shall not include discovery concerning the assets of defendants relevant to an assessment of punitive damages, as such discovery shall be deferred until the filing and disposition of dispositive motions, if any. The scope and nature of punitive damages discovery has not yet been determined. ENDORSEMENT: The scheduling order is deemed to be So Amended. Punitive damages discovery may proceed as to Mr. Thorpe. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 7/22/09) (dle) Modified on 7/27/2009 (dle). (Entered: 07/22/2009)
230 ORDER: The Court is in receipt of a letter dated August 3,2009 from plaintiffs objecting to the designation by defendants of certain confidential material pursuant to the Confidentiality Order entered in this matter. The pre−motion conference requirement is waived. Inasmuch as the burden is on the party seeking a protective order pursuant to FRCP 26(c) to justify its claim forprotection, defendants are directed to file a motion for a protective order with respect to all documents identified by plaintiffs as improperly designated. The Court notes that claims that documents should be subject to a protective order typically rely on factual contentions not contained in the documents themselves, and that any such factual contentions must in the form of sworn testimony. The Court assumes that the parties can agree on a briefing schedule, in accordance with paragraph 2.B of this Court's individual practices; but application may be made to the Court by letter if this is not the case. If the motion papers, or responses thereto, contain confidential information, such papers may be filed under seal. The Court will docket under seal the attachments to plaintiffs August 3, 2009 letter. Accordingly, the parties need not refile these materials. Plaintiffs' counsel is directed to transmit a copy of this Order to all parties. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 8/5/09) (db) (Entered: 08/05/2009)

Case: 1:03-cv-650 As of: 01/30/2016 03:01 PM EST 42 of 62

08/07/2009
08/07/2009 08/24/2009 08/31/2009 09/15/2009 09/15/2009 09/15/2009
10/02/2009 10/02/2009
10/02/2009 10/05/2009 10/05/2009 10/05/2009 10/06/2009 10/06/2009

231 ORDER. This Order addresses two issues. Correction to August 6 Order. References in the Order dated August 5, 2009 (Docket #230) to a letter dated "August 3, 2009" are corrected to read "August 4, 2009." Mr. Hudson shall appear in Court on August 31, 2009 at 9:45 a.m. in courtroom 17−A, 500 Pearl Street, NY, NY to explain his failure to respond to his attorney's efforts to reach him. He is warned that if he fails to appear on this date or any adjourned, date, a default judgment may be entered against him pursuant to FRCP 16(f)(1)(A). Plaintiffs' counsel is directed to transmit a copy of this Order to all parties. Mr. Colon is directed to make every effort, including making investigation of any possible telephone number for Mr. Hudson, to inform Mr. Hudson of the contents of this order and of the date of the hearing. Mr. Colon shall file an affidavit on or before August 26, 2009 describing all efforts he has made to comply with this Order. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 8/7/09) (djc) (Entered: 08/07/2009)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Status Conference set for 8/31/2009 at 09:45 AM in Courtroom 17A, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein. (djc) (Entered: 08/14/2009)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein: Telephone Conference held on 8/24/2009. (mro) (Entered: 08/25/2009)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein: Pretrial Conference held on 8/31/2009. (mro) (Entered: 09/01/2009)
232 SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault.(jri) (Entered: 09/15/2009)
233 MOTION for Default Judgment as to Defendant Delroy Thorpe. Document filed by Lucy Amador.(djc) (Entered: 09/15/2009)
234 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 233 MOTION for Default Judgment as to. Document filed by Laura Pullen, Corilynn Rock, Denise Saffioti, Shenyell Smith, Hope Susoh, Lucy Amador, Stacie Calloway, Tonie Coggins, Latasha Dockery, Stephanie Dawson, Tanya Jones, Shantelle Smith, Bobbie Kidd, Bette Jean McDonald, Kristina Muehleisen. (djc) (Entered: 09/16/2009)
235 SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault.(jri) (Entered: 10/05/2009)
236 MOTION for an order requiring the documents submitted in camera as Exhibit E. to Plaintiffs' letter of August 3, 2009 to be treated as "Highly confidential" pursuant to the terms of the November 3, 2003 Confidentiality Order in this action; (2)requiring the transcripts of the depositions of IG Investigators Leon, Watson, Carrington, Ceballos and Annarino to be treated as "Highly Confidential" pursuant to the terms of the November 3, 2003 Confidentiality order in this action, or, in the alternative, requ8iring the portions of the transcripts of the depositions of IG Investigators Leon, Watson, Carrington, Ceballos and Annarino specified in ten appended Exhibit A. to be so treated; (3) requiring the portions of the transcripts of the depositions of former Superintendent Lord and former Deputy Superintendent Wolff specified in the appended Exhibit B to be treated as "Highly Confidential" pursuant to the terms of the November 3, 2009 Confidentiality Order in this action. Document filed by Melvin Williams, Donald Wolfe, Richard Roy, Barbara D. Leone, Peter Brown.(djc) (Entered: 10/06/2009)
237 SUPERVISORY DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER. (djc) (Entered: 10/06/2009)
238 MOTION for Protective Order. Document filed by Mario Pique, Rick LaRue, Rico Meyers.(mbe) (Entered: 10/06/2009)
239 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 238 MOTION for Protective Order. Document filed by Mario Pique, Rick Laure, Rico Meyers. (mbe) (Entered: 10/06/2009)
240 DECLARATION of Linda M. Cronin in Support re: 238 MOTION for Protective Order. Document filed by Mario Pique, Rick Laure, Rico Meyers. (mbe) (Entered: 10/06/2009)
241 MOTION for Protective Order. Document filed by M. Evans, Jeffrey Shawver.(mbe) (Entered: 10/06/2009)
242 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 241 MOTION for Protective Order. Document filed by M. Evans, Jeffrey Shawver. (mbe) (Entered: 10/06/2009)

Case: 1:03-cv-650 As of: 01/30/2016 03:01 PM EST 43 of 62

10/06/2009
10/23/2009 10/28/2009 11/09/2009 11/09/2009
11/12/2009 11/12/2009 11/12/2009

243 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Notice of Motion for a Protective Order, Affidavit of James T. Potter, and Memorandum of Law on behalf of defendants Michael Evans and Jeffrey Shawver served on Alison Mikor, Svetlana Eisenberg, Dori A. Lewis, Daniel Schulze, Barbara Maddox, Diane R. Tiveron, Amanda Gresens, John J. Walsh, Cynthia Dolan, George V.C. Muscato, Joseph M. Latona, Linda Cronin, Walter Rich, Raymond L. Colon, Mr. Michael R. Galbreath and Peter Zawislak on 10/2/2009. Service was made by via Facsimile and First Class Mail. Document filed by M. Evans, Jeffrey Shawver. (mbe) (Entered: 10/06/2009)
244 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 233 MOTION for Default Judgment as to Defendant Thorpe. Document filed by Laura Pullen, Corilynn Rock, Denise Saffioti, Shenyell Smith, Hope Susoh, Lucy Amador, Stacie Calloway, Tonie Coggins, Latasha Dockery, Stephanie Dawson, Tanya Jones, Shantelle Smith, Bobbie Kidd, Bette Jean McDonald, Kristina Muehleisen. (mbe) (Entered: 10/26/2009)
245 SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault.(nm) (Entered: 10/29/2009)
246 SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault.(nm) (Entered: 11/10/2009)
249 STIPULATION AND ORDER; that on October 31, 2007, at his deposition in this action (the "Deposition"), defendant James Hudson testified that he had a stroke in 2003 and that he suffered from memory loss as a result of the stroke. At the Deposition, Mr. Hudson had certain documents in his hands and testified that they were medical documents pertaining to his stroke, but failed to produce the documents or otherwise disclose them to Plaintiffs' counsel. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and among the undersigned attorneys for the Plaintiffs and Mr. Hudson that: 1. To the extent there are documents that are responsive to the Request and that Mr. Hudson has not produced, Mr. Hudson will not: (a) use such responsive unproduced documents as exhibits at trial; (b) rely on such. documents in connection with motions for summary judgment; (c) testify about such documents at trial; or (d) use or rely on such documents in this litigation in any other manner. 2. To the extent there are medical providers who are likely to have information responsive to the Request or who have provided evaluation or treatment to Mr. Hudson in any capacity since January 1, 2003 but whose names Mr. Hudson has not identified to the Plaintiffs, Mr. Hudson will not: (a) call such unidentified medical providers as witnesses at trial; (b) submit affidavits from such medical providers in connection with motions for summary judgment; or (c) use or rely on such medical providers in this litigation in any other manner. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 11/12/09) (pl) (Entered: 11/12/2009)
247 TRANSCRIPT of Status Conference proceedings held on August 31, 2009 before Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein. (mro) (Entered: 11/12/2009)
248 TRANSCRIPT of Status Conference proceedings held on August 24, 2009 before Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein. (mro) (Entered: 11/12/2009)
250 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein from Walter L. Rich dated 11/10/090 re: counsel Frederick Brenyah writes that Counsel have met and conferred this afternoon and on consent propose the following: Plaintiffs' counsel have agreed to produce Ms. McDonald and Ms. Dawson at the offices of Debevoise &Plimpton for a ninety minute examination by defendants' expert, Dr. James Lynch. To accommodate both plaintiffs and Dr. Lynch, the parties have agreed that the examination of Ms. McDonald will occur on November 11, 2009 and of Ms. Dawson on November 18, 2009. Dr. Lynch has agreed to render his expert reports in a timely fashion such that they can be forwarded to plaintiffs' counsel by December 2, 2009. Defendants' counsel have also agreed that two of plaintiffs' counsel will be permitted to attend the examination of Bette Jean McDonald, conducted by Dr. Lynch for the purpose of protecting her Fifth Amendment interests. Dr. Lynch's deposition will take place on either December 9 or December 16, 2009, and, in any event, will be completed by December 18, 2009. Counsel do not anticipate that the extension to accommodate completion of this discovery will impact any other dates in the Scheduling Order, including without limitation the November 12, 2009 deadline for the parties informing each other of an intent to file dispositive motions. Accordingly, Defendants request that the Scheduling Order be amended to encompass the extensions set forth above. ENDORSEMENT: Granted. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 11/10/09) (pl) (Entered: 11/12/2009)

Case: 1:03-cv-650 As of: 01/30/2016 03:01 PM EST 44 of 62

11/18/2009
11/19/2009
11/19/2009 11/20/2009
12/11/2009 12/18/2009 12/18/2009 12/18/2009 12/21/2009 12/21/2009

251 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein from Cynthia Dolan dated 11/10/2009 re: Counsel requests a pre−motion conference for permission to submit a motion to withdraw as counsel for the defendant Thorpe. Counsel also respectfully request that their application to withdraw as counsel be granted. ENDORSEMENT: In order to have a complete record, counsel is directed to submit an affidavit (or declaration) detailing all efforts to locate Mr. Thorpe, including all addresses and telephone numbers previously existing for Mr. Thorpe. Counsel may redact such personal information from the publicly filed version of this affidavit, as long as the original affidavit containing such information is filed under seal with the Court. Courtesy copies of both documents shall be sent the Chambers of theundersigned. The Court will then rule on the motion to withdraw. So Ordered. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 11/12/2009) (jfe) (Entered: 11/18/2009)
252 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein from Jennifer L. Smith dated 11/18/2009 re: Requesting that the Court permit the limited disclosure of the deposition transcripts of Smith and other individuals who gave testimony in the class action lawsuit on matters relevant to the Court of Claims case. ENDORSEMENT: Construing this letter as a request for a pre−motion conference with respect to the motion for modification of the confidentiality order, the pre−motion conference requirement is waived. Any motion shall comply with paragraphs 2.B through 2.F of this Court's Individual practices and all applicable local rules. Motion papers shall be served on all parties or their counsel − not merely the individuals copied on this letter. (A list of all counsel and unrepresented parties may be obtained from plaintiff's counsel.) Ms. Smith is directed to serve a copy of this memorandum endorsement on all parties or their counsel. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 11/18/2009) (jpo) (Entered: 11/19/2009)
253 OPINION &ORDER # 98268. Defendant is ORDERED to appear for deposition within thirty (30) days of the date of this order. If he again fails to appear for deposition within that period of time, I will enter default against him. (Signed by Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy on 11/18/09) (rjm) Modified on 11/24/2009 (eef). (Entered: 11/19/2009)
254 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein from Daniel Schulze dated 11/19/09 re: counsel requests that paragraph 6 of the June 22, 2009 Scheduling Order be modified to stated: 6. Any dispositive pretrial motions concerning the Pending Damages Claims shall be served by February 8, 2010. The motion shall be returnable before Jude Duffy and comply with his individual practices. The parties may apply to Judge Duffy with respect to any proposed briefing schedule on this motion. ENDORSEMENT: Granted. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 11/19/09) (djc) Modified on 12/1/2009 (djc). (Entered: 11/20/2009)
255 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein from John B. Licata dated 12/11/2009 re: Requesting an amendment of the scheduling order to set January 29, 2010 as the date by which expert discovery is to be completed. ENDORSEMENT: Granted. Mr. Licata to provide a copy of this order to all parties. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 12/11/2009) (jpo) (Entered: 12/11/2009)
256 FILING ERROR − ELECTRONIC FILING IN NON−ECF CASE − NOTICE of Motion. Document filed by Shantelle Smith. (Smith, Jennifer) Modified on 12/21/2009 (KA). (Entered: 12/18/2009)
257 FILING ERROR − ELECTRONIC FILING IN NON−ECF CASE − MOTION Modification of Protective Order. Document filed by Shantelle Smith.(Smith, Jennifer) Modified on 12/21/2009 (KA). Modified on 12/21/2009 (KA). (Entered: 12/18/2009)
258 FILING ERROR − ELECTRONIC FILING IN NON−ECF CASE − MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 257 MOTION Modification of Protective Order.. Document filed by Shantelle Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A)(Smith, Jennifer) Modified on 12/21/2009 (KA). (Entered: 12/18/2009)
***NOTE TO ATTORNEY TO RE−FILE DOCUMENT − NON−ECF CASE ERROR. Note to Attorney Jennifer Lea Smith to MANUALLY RE−FILE Document Notice of Motion, Document No. 256. This case is not ECF. (KA) (Entered: 12/21/2009)
***NOTE TO ATTORNEY TO RE−FILE DOCUMENT − NON−ECF CASE ERROR. Note to Attorney Jennifer Lea Smith to MANUALLY RE−FILE Document Motion for

Case: 1:03-cv-650 As of: 01/30/2016 03:01 PM EST 45 of 62

12/21/2009 01/04/2010 02/01/2010
02/04/2010 02/24/2010
04/28/2010 05/06/2010 05/17/2010 05/17/2010 05/17/2010

Modification of Protective Order, Document No. 257. This case is not ECF. (KA) (Entered: 12/21/2009)
***NOTE TO ATTORNEY TO RE−FILE DOCUMENT − NON−ECF CASE ERROR. Note to Attorney Jennifer Lea Smith to MANUALLY RE−FILE Document Memorandum of Law, Document No. 258. This case is not ECF. (KA) (Entered: 12/21/2009)
259 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Kevin T. Duffy from Cynthia Dolan dated 12/18/2009 re: Defendant respectfully request a 30 day extension of time to produce Mr. Thrope for his further deposition. ENDORSEMENT: Granted. Mr. Dolan shall transmit this Order to all parties. So Ordered. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 1/4/2010) (jfe) (Entered: 01/04/2010)
260 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Magistrate Judge Gabrial W. Gorenstein from John S. Craig dated 1/26/2010 re: The parties agreed that Dr. Capstick would be deposed for two hours concerning the CAPS Test and her communications about the test with plaintiffs mental health expert, Dr. Denise Hien. The parties also agreed that this depositions and defendants request for yet another extension of the expert discovery deadline will not delay the summary judgment briefing schedule. Assuming that the terms agreed to by counsel are acceptable to the Court, we join in Ms. Cronins application for an extension of the deadline for expert discovery until February 19, 2010. ENDORSEMENT: Granted. Plaintiff to transmit this order to all parties. SO ORDERED. ( Discovery due by 2/19/2010.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 1/29/2010) (jmi) (Entered: 02/01/2010)
261 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein from Linda K. Cronin dated 2/4/2010 re: Counsel for Defendant Pinque request that paragraph 6 of the 6/22/2009 Scheduling Order be modified again to state: "Any dispositive pretrial motions concerning the Pending Damages Claims shall be served by 3/1/2010...." ENDORSEMENT: Granted. Ms Cronin to transmit this order to all parties. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 2/4/2010) (tro) (Entered: 02/04/2010)
262 ORDER: Any dispositivc pretrial motion relating to any or thc Pending DamagesClaims shall be timely if it and any supporting menlorandurn of law areserved on opposing counsel by March 1, 2010. Any opposition to a timely dispositive pretrial motion relating to a Pending Damages Claim shall be served by April 26, 2010. Any reply in further in further support of a timely dispositive pretrial motion relating to a Pending Damages Claim shall be served by May 17, 2010. Consistent with my Individual Practices, all memorandum of law in support of or in opposition to a timely dispositive pretrial motion relating to a Pending Damages Claim shall be filed on May 17, 2010. (Signed by Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy on 2/24/2010) (jpo) (Entered: 02/24/2010)
263 ORDER: The Court will hold oral argument on the pending motion for a protective order on Thursday, May 20, 2010 at 2:30 p.m. in Courtroom 17A, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York. So Ordered (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 4/28/2010) (js) (Entered: 04/28/2010)
264 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein from Lisa Freeman dated 5/6/2010 re: Counsel writes in reference to this Court's Order of April 28, 2010, indicating that the Court will hold Oral argument on the pending motion for a protective Order on Thursday, May 20, 2010. ENDORSEMENT: Conference adjourned to June 17, 2010 at 2:30 p.m. So Ordered. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 5/5/2010) (jfe) Modified on 5/17/2010 (jfe). (Entered: 05/06/2010)
265 SEALING ORDER: It is hereby ordered that the following documents, which include and attach information designated as either Confidential or Highly Confidential, shall be filed under seal pursuant to Paragraph 15 of the Confidentiality Order issued by the Court on November 3, 2003, as set forth in this Sealing Order. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 5/17/2010) (jpo) (Entered: 05/17/2010)
266 SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault.(cb) (Entered: 05/18/2010)
267 MOTION for Summary Judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the FRCP. Document filed by Donald Wolfe. (Received in the night deposit box on 5/17/10 at 10:24pm)(mro) (Entered: 05/18/2010)

Case: 1:03-cv-650 As of: 01/30/2016 03:01 PM EST 46 of 62

05/17/2010 05/17/2010 05/17/2010 05/17/2010 05/17/2010 05/17/2010 05/17/2010 05/17/2010
05/17/2010 05/17/2010 05/17/2010 05/19/2010
05/19/2010 05/19/2010 06/04/2010
06/04/2010

268 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 267 MOTION for Summary Judgment. Document filed by Donald Wolfe. (Received in the night deposit box on 5/17/10 at 10:24pm) (mro) (Entered: 05/18/2010)
269 DECLARATION of Daniel Schulze in Support re: 267 MOTION for Summary Judgment. Document filed by Donald Wolfe. (Received in the night deposit box on 5/17/10 at 10:24pm) (mro) (Entered: 05/18/2010)
270 RULE 56.1 STATEMENT. Document filed by Donald Wolfe. (Received in the night deposit box on 5/17/10 at 10:24pm) (mro) (Entered: 05/18/2010)
271 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Further Support re: 267 MOTION for Summary Judgment. Document filed by Donald Wolfe. (Received in the night deposit box on 5/17/10 at 10:24pm) (mro) (Entered: 05/18/2010)
272 REPLY DECLARATION of Daniel Schulze in Further Support re: 267 MOTION for Summary Judgment. Document filed by Donald Wolfe. (Received in the night deposit box on 5/17/10 at 10:24pm) (mro) (Entered: 05/18/2010)
273 MOTION for Summary Judgment against defendant James Hudson pursuant to Rule 56.1(a) of the FRCP. Document filed by Shantelle Smith. (Received in the night deposit box on 5/17/10 at 5:41pm)(mro) (Entered: 05/18/2010)
274 DECLARATION of Stephanie Brannen in Support re: 273 MOTION for Summary Judgment. Document filed by Shantelle Smith. (Received in the night deposit box on 5/17/10 at 5:41pm) (mro) (Entered: 05/18/2010)
275 DECLARATION of Jennae R. Swiergula in Opposition re: 267 Defendant Donald Wolff's MOTION for Summary Judgment. Document filed by plaintiffs. (Received in the night deposit box on 5/17/10 at 5:42pm) (mro) Modified on 5/18/2010 (mro). (Entered: 05/18/2010)
276 DECLARATION of Katherine W. Kern in Opposition to defendant Mario Pinque's Motion for Summary Judgment. (Received in the night deposit box on 5/17/10 at 5:42pm) (mro) (Entered: 05/18/2010)
277 DECLARATION of Sarah H. Wolf in Support of plaintiff Lucy Tasama's opposition to defendant Robert Smith's Motion for Summary Judgment. (Received in the night deposit box on 5/17/10 at 5:42pm) (mro) (Entered: 05/18/2010)
278 SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault.(cb) (Entered: 05/18/2010)
279 SEALING ORDER: It is hereby ordered that the following documents, which include and attach information designated as either Confidential or Highly Confidential, shall be filed under seal pursuant to Paragraph 15 of the Confidentiality Order issued by the Court on November 3, 2003, as set forth in this Sealing Order. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 5/18/2010) (jpo) (Entered: 05/19/2010)
Transmission to Sealed Records Clerk. Transmitted re: 279 Order, 265 Order,, to the Sealed Records Clerk for the sealing or unsealing of document or case. (jpo) (Entered: 05/19/2010)
280 SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault.(cb) (Entered: 05/19/2010)
292 FOIL EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER (VOLUME ONE). Document filed by Laura Pullen, Corilynn Rock, Denise Saffioti, Shenyell Smith, Hope Susoh, Nakia Thompson, Lucy Amador, Stacie Calloway, Tonie Coggins, Latasha Dockery, Stephanie Dawson, Tanya Jones, Shantelle Smith, Bobbie Kidd, Bette Jean McDonald, Kristina Muehleisen. ***Accepted for filing by the Honorable Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 7/14/10.(mro) (Entered: 07/19/2010)
293 FOIL EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER (VOLUME TWO). Document filed by Laura Pullen, Corilynn Rock, Denise Saffioti, Shenyell Smith, Hope Susoh, Nakia Thompson, Lucy Amador, Stacie Calloway, Tonie Coggins, Latasha Dockery, Stephanie Dawson, Tanya Jones, Shantelle Smith, Bobbie Kidd, Bette Jean McDonald, Kristina Muehleisen. ***Accepted for filing by the Honorable Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 7/14/10.(mro) (Entered: 07/19/2010)

Case: 1:03-cv-650 As of: 01/30/2016 03:01 PM EST 47 of 62

06/04/2010
06/10/2010
06/17/2010 06/23/2010 06/23/2010 06/23/2010 06/25/2010 06/25/2010 07/02/2010
07/09/2010 07/14/2010 07/15/2010
07/16/2010
07/21/2010 07/21/2010 07/21/2010

294 FOIL EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER (VOLUME THREE). Document filed by Laura Pullen, Corilynn Rock, Denise Saffioti, Shenyell Smith, Hope Susoh, Nakia Thompson, Lucy Amador, Stacie Calloway, Tonie Coggins, Latasha Dockery, Stephanie Dawson, Tanya Jones, Shantelle Smith, Bobbie Kidd, Bette Jean McDonald, Kristina Muehleisen. ***Accepted for filing by the Honorable Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 7/14/10. (mro) (Entered: 07/19/2010)
281 OPINION &ORDER granting re: #99037 273 MOTION for Summary Judgment, filed by Shantelle Smith. I order discovery on the limited issue of punitive damages for a 60−day period from the date of this order and an inquest on damages thereafter. (Signed by Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy on 6/10/10) (cd) Modified on 6/11/2010 (jab). (Entered: 06/10/2010)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein: Telephone Conference held on 6/17/2010. (tro) (Entered: 06/18/2010)
282 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings held on 6/17/10 before Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein. (pl) Modified on 6/24/2010 (pl). (Entered: 06/24/2010)
283 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings held on June 17, 2010 before Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein. (mro) (Entered: 06/24/2010)
286 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings held on June 14, 2010 at 2:45 pm before Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein. (eef) (Entered: 07/01/2010)
284 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings held on 6/14/2010 before Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein. (tro) (Entered: 06/25/2010)
285 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings held on 6/17/2010 before Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein. (tro) (Entered: 06/25/2010)
287 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF LAW in further Support of Supervisory Defendants' Motion for a Protective Order. Document filed by Anginell Andrews, Roberta Coward, Dennis Crowley, Alexandreena Dixon, Eliane Lord, Ronald Moscicki, Melvin Williams, Donald Wolfe, Terry Baxter, Richard Roy, Barbara D. Leone, Peter Brown, Glenn Goord, James Stone, Clarence Davis, M. Evans, Michael Galbreath, John E. Gilbert, III, Mario Pique, Jeffrey Shawver, Robert Smith, Delroy Thorpe, Pete Zawislak, Rick Laure, Rico Meyers, Frederick Brenyah, Chris Sterling. (mbe) (Entered: 07/06/2010)
288 PLAINTIFFS' REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition to Supervisory Defendants' Supplemental Memorandum of Law in Support of a Protective Order. Document filed by plaintiffs. (mro) (Entered: 07/12/2010)
289 ORDER: Defendant Robert Smith's Motion for Summary Judgment against Plaintiff Lucy Tasama on the issue of damages was never filed with this court. Therefore, Smith's Motion for Summary Judgment in all respects is DENIED as abandoned. (Signed by Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy on 7/13/2010) (tro) (Entered: 07/14/2010)
290 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 236 Motion; granting in part and denying in part 238 Motion for Protective Order; granting in part and denying in part 241 Motion for Protective Order. Plaintiffs' counsel is directed to provide a copy of this Order to all counsel and/or parties. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 7/14/10) (cd) (Entered: 07/15/2010)
291 LETTER addressed to Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein from Lisa Freeman and Dori Lewis dated 6/4/10 re: Pursuant to your order of April 28, 2010, enclosed please find the documents we received pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law that are referenced in paragraph 9 of the declaration of Lisa Freeman dated October 23, 2009. Document filed by the plaintiffs.(mro) (Entered: 07/19/2010)
295 SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault.(nm) (Entered: 07/21/2010)
296 SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault.(nm) (Entered: 07/21/2010)
297 SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault.(nm) (Entered: 07/21/2010)

Case: 1:03-cv-650 As of: 01/30/2016 03:01 PM EST 48 of 62

07/23/2010
07/27/2010 07/28/2010 07/30/2010 08/03/2010 08/04/2010 08/18/2010
09/24/2010
10/15/2010 10/20/2010

298 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein from Alison Mikkor dated July 22, 2010 re: As Mr. Colon will be away for the month of August and the current discovery deadline is August 9, we respectfully request that the pre−motion hearing be scheduled for next week, the week of July 26. ENDORSEMENT: In light of Mr. Colon's letter of July 22, 2010, the discovery period on damages with respect to Mr. Hudson is extended through September 30, 2010. Mr. Colon is directed to confer with plaintiffs' counsel on August 10, 2010. In the future, apart from the period when he will be in Puerto Rico, Mr. Colon is to return any telephone call of opposing counsel within one business day absent an emergency. Plaintiffs may write to the Court, in accordance with paragraph 2.A of this Court's Individual Practices, in the event this discovery dispute is not resolved. Plaintiffs shall provide a copy of this Memorandum Endorsement to all parties. SO ORDERED. ( Discovery due by 9/30/2010.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 7/22/2010) (jmi) (Entered: 07/23/2010)
300 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings held on July 14, 2010 before Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein. (mro) (Entered: 07/29/2010)
299 SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault.(cb) (Entered: 07/29/2010)
301 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings held on July 14, 2010 2:40 p.m. before Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein. (ajc) (Entered: 07/30/2010)
302 ORDER; Plaintiffs move for reconsideration of the Court's July 14, 2010 ruling on defendants' motion for a protective order. Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration is denied. Plaintiffs' counsel is directed to provide a copy of this Order to all counsel and/or parties. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 8/3/10) (pl) (Entered: 08/03/2010)
303 SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault.(cb) (Entered: 08/04/2010)
304 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein from Alison Mikkor dated 8/17/2010 re: Requesting that the Court amend the Scheduling Order as follows: Plaintiffs will supply pretrial order materials to defendants in accordance with Judge Duffy's individual practices on or before October 19, 2010. Thereafter, defendants will supply pretrial order materials to plaintiffs in accordance with Judge Duffy's individual practices on or before November 11, 2010. The pretrial order shall be filed by November 23, 2010. ENDORSEMENT: Granted. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 8/18/2010) (jpo) (Entered: 08/18/2010)
305 ORDER: The request to withdraw will be adjudicated first. The pre−motion conference requirement is waived. The motion to withdraw shall be filed on or before October 5, 2010. The motion shall include an affidavit that states all efforts Mr. Colon has made to make contact with his client. It shall be accompanied by an affidavit of service that reflects that the motion papers and a copy of this Order were served on the last known address or addresses of Mr. Hudson by both certified mail and regular mail. Mr. Colon shall thereafter attempt to confirm by telephone that the motion papers and the copy of this Order were received by his client and shall send a letter to the Court by October 19, 2010 informing the Court of the results of his efforts. Mr. Hudson is warned that if he fails to telephone or write the Court as required by this Order, a default judgment may be entered against him. Plaintiffs' counsel is directed to send a copy of this Order to all parties. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 9/23/2010) (jpo) (Entered: 09/24/2010)
306 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein from Alison Mikkor dated 10/14/2010 re: Plaintiffs request that the Court amend the Scheduling Order in this action to provide the information as set forth in this letter. ENDORSEMENT: Granted. Plaintiff's counsel to supply copies of this Order to all parties. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 10/15/2010) (ae) (Entered: 10/15/2010)
307 ORDER A hearing on the motion to withdraw will be held in Courtroom 17−A, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York on November 1, 2010 at 9:45 a.m. Mr. Hudson has requested of the Clerk that he be permitted to appear at this hearing by telephone because of medical issues. Mr. Hudson's request is granted. Mr. Hudson is warned, however, that if on the date of the conference he fails to respond to a telephone call at the number he has provided to the Court, a default judgment may be entered against him. SO ORDERED. ( Motion Hearing set for 11/1/2010 at 09:45 AM in Courtroom 17A, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein.)

Case: 1:03-cv-650 As of: 01/30/2016 03:01 PM EST 49 of 62

10/20/2010 10/25/2010 11/05/2010
11/08/2010
11/12/2010
11/16/2010 11/16/2010 11/17/2010
11/19/2010

(Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 10/19/2010) (jmi) (Entered: 10/20/2010)
308 MOTION for Raymond L. Colon to Withdraw as Attorney. Document filed by James Hudson.(mbe) (Entered: 10/20/2010)
309 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Magistate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein from Raymond Colon dated 10/24/10 re: Request to reschedule the 11/11/10 hearing on motion to withdraw to 11/16/10 at 2:15 pm. ENDORSEMENT: Granted. Set Deadlines/Hearing as to 308 MOTION for Raymond L. Colon to Withdraw as Attorney. (Motion Hearing set for 11/16/2010 at 02:15 PM before Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 10/22/10) (cd) (Entered: 10/25/2010)
310 ORDER: The Court will hold a conference on November 16, 2010 at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 17A, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York, to discuss whether the Court should hold settlement conferences in this matter and, if so, what procedures should be used for such conferences. No client need attend this conference. Counsel for all parties (including the Attorney General's Office) shall attend, however, regardless of whether their client wishes to participate in such a conference. Plaintiffs' counsel is directed to send a copy of this Order to all parties. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 11/5/2010) (jpo) (Entered: 11/05/2010)
311 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein from Walter L. Rich dated 11/8/10 re: Counsel requests that the conference be re−scheduled to an afternoon after November 21. ENDORSEMENT: Please follow paragraph 1.F for any application to adjourn the conference. If no agreement on adjournment can be reached, the Court will schedule a separate conference with plaintiffs and Mr. Rich only. In the meantime, the conference remains scheduled for November 16, 2010 at 2:00 p.m. Mr. Rich is directed to fax or email this order immediately to all parties. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 11/8/10) (djc) (Entered: 11/08/2010)
312 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein from Alison Mikkor dated 11/11/2010, re: We write concerning the rescheduling of the conference to discuss whether the Court should hold settlement conferences in an effort to resolve the pending damages claims in this action. For the reasons set forth, we respectfully suggest that the conference be rescheduled for November 23, 2010 at 2:30 p.m., which is the only time at which all of the defendants against whom there are pending damages claims, plaintiffs' counsel, and the Attorney General's Office are all available. ENDORSEMENT: Granted. Ms. Mikkor to inform all parties of the change and to transmit a copy of this order. SO ORDERED. (Status Conference set for 11/23/2010 at 02:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 11/12/2010) (lnl) Modified on 11/22/2010 (lnl). (Entered: 11/12/2010)
313 ORDER: For the reasons stated today on the record, the application of Raymond L. Colon to withdraw as counsel (Docket # 308) is denied without prejudice. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 11/16/2010) (jfe) (Entered: 11/16/2010)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein: Initial Pretrial Conference held on 11/16/2010. (mbe) (Entered: 11/18/2010)
314 ORDER: At the conference regarding settlement scheduled for November 23, 2010, at 2:30 p.m., the Attorney General shall arrange for the presence of an individual from the Department of Correctional Services with personal knowledge regarding the procedures that have been followed by the Department of Correctional Services with respect to requests to indemnify pursuant to Public Officers Law § 17(3) in the context of settlement. To the extent the procedures differ with respect to individuals represented by private counsel (as opposed to those represented by the Attorney General's Office), such person should be familiar with such procedures specifically. If such individual wishes to attend by telephone, he or should inform plaintiff's counsel, in accordance with footnote 1 of the November 5, 2010 Order. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 11/17/2010) (jpo) (Entered: 11/17/2010)
315 MEMO ENDORSEMENT on 308 NOTICE OF MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT JAMES HUDSON. ENDORSEMENT: Motion granted. So ordered. (Signed by Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy on 11/15/2010) (lnl) (Entered: 11/19/2010)

Case: 1:03-cv-650 As of: 01/30/2016 03:01 PM EST 50 of 62

11/22/2010
11/24/2010 12/06/2010 12/06/2010 12/06/2010 12/06/2010 12/09/2010 01/11/2011 01/20/2011
02/03/2011
02/22/2011 02/22/2011
04/08/2011

316 ORDER; that my decision dated November 15, 2010 permitting Raymond L. Colon to withdraw as counsel for defendant James Hudson is withdrawn. I did not know that Magistrate Judge Gorenstein had denied the motion or that the motion was opposed. Having considered Judge Gorenstein's decision and the opposition to the motion, my decision is withdrawn. (Signed by Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy on 11/22/10) (pl) (Entered: 11/22/2010)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein: Initial Pretrial Conference held on 11/24/2010. (mbe) (Entered: 11/30/2010)
317 ORDER Defendant Thorpe's motion for severance is granted. Defendants Smith and Gilbert's motion for severance to transfer the case to the Western District of New York is granted. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy on 12/2/2010) (jmi) (Entered: 12/06/2010)
Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk. Transmitted re: 317 Order, to the Docket Assistant Clerk for case processing. (jmi) (Entered: 12/07/2010)
CASE (PARTIALLY)TRANSFERRED OUT ELECTRONICALLY from the U.S.D.C. Southern District of New York to the United States District Court − Western District of New York on 12/14/10. FEDEX# 870510726686. (laq) Modified on 1/20/2011 (ad). (Entered: 12/14/2010)
Transmission to Sealed Records Clerk. Transmitted re: 317 Order, to the Sealed Records Clerk for the transmission of any sealed documents filed by the three parties transferred in this action. (ad) (Entered: 01/07/2011)
318 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings held on 11/16/2010 before Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein. (mbe) (Entered: 12/09/2010)
Received a letter from the United States District Court − Western District of New York acknowledging receipt of the entire file and assigned Case Number: 10cv6702. (jab) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
319 Received a letter from the United States District Court − Western District of New York acknowledging receipt of sealed document nos. 91,92,116,126,174,175,176,177,178,179,180,181,182,195,232,235,245,246,266,280,295, 296,297,299 and 303, assigned Case Number: 10−cv−6702. (cb) Modified on 1/21/2011 (cb). (Entered: 01/21/2011)
320 ORDER: A telephone conference to discuss settlement procedures in this matter will be held on Monday, February 14, 2010 at 4:00 p.m. All counsel (other than counsel for cases transferred out of this district), including the Attorney General's Office, must participate. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 2/3/2011) (jpo) (Entered: 02/03/2011)
321 ORDER: Plaintiff Lucy Tasama's (formerly Lucy Amador), claims against Defendant Michael Galbreath are transferred to the Western District of New York. (Signed by Judge P. Kevin Castel, for Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy on 2/16/11) (db) (Entered: 02/22/2011)
PARTY TRANSFERRED OUT pertaining to Michael Galbreath only, from the U.S.D.C. Southern District of New York to the United States District Court − Western District of New York. Sent Document #'s 4−5, 21, 31, 38, 72, 100, 119, 155, 183−186 and 321, certified copy of docket entries and transfer order. Mailed via Federal Express AIRBILL # 8705 1072 7432 on 2/24/11. (db) Modified on 2/24/2011 (db). (Entered: 02/22/2011)
322 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein from Walter L. Rich dated 4/6/11 re: I represent line officer defendant Frederick Brenyah in the above−referenced matter. Reference is made to the letter to you from plaintiffs' counsel dated April 5, 2011 concerning the scheduling of settlement conferences. Although I was once again terribly late in submitting a request for indemnification of Mr. Brenyah to the Attorney General and the Department of Correctional Services, such submission has been made and both the General and DOCS received my submission yesterday. Notwithstanding the delay in my submission, I would request that the Attorney General and DOCS be given time to evaluate the request before Your Honor schedules a conference with respect to Mr. Brenyah. ENDORSEMENT: The Attorney General shall report to the Court when it has completed its review of this request. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 4/7/11) (djc) (Entered: 04/08/2011)

Case: 1:03-cv-650 As of: 01/30/2016 03:01 PM EST 51 of 62

04/08/2011
04/19/2011
04/25/2011 05/10/2011 09/26/2011
09/26/2011 11/04/2011
12/07/2011 12/21/2011

323 ORDER SCHEDULING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE. A settlement conference in this matter with respect to the defendant Delroy Thorpe is scheduled for April 26, 2011, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 17−A, United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York. The parties should be sure to arrive a few minutes early so that the conference may begin promptly. The parties should also note that paragraph 3 of the Standing Order requires certain written submissions which must be received by the Court and all other parties no later than 12:00 noon three business days before the conference: that is, April 21, 2011. (Settlement Conference set for 4/26/2011 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 17A, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 4/7/11) (djc) Modified on 4/8/2011 (djc). (Entered: 04/08/2011)
324 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein from Daniel Schulze dated 4/18/11 re: counsel for defendant respectfully request that, if the Court still wishes DOCS to be available, at least by phone, to participate in this settlement conference, that the conference be reset for a date after April 27, 2011 (the date the referenced public hearing will be completed) that is convenient for the Court. ENDORSEMENT: Settlement conference with Delroy Thorpe is adjourned to May 10, 2011 at 2:30 pm. Please follow paragraph 8 of the Standing Order if any additional adjournment is required. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 4/18/11) (pl) (Entered: 04/19/2011)
325 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Barbara P. Demchuk on behalf of Anginell Andrews, Terry Baxter, Frederick Brenyah, Peter Brown, Roberta Coward, Dennis Crowley, Clarence Davis, Alexandreena Dixon, M. Evans, Michael Galbreath, John E. Gilbert, III, Rick Laure, Barbara D. Leone, Eliane Lord, Rico Meyers, Ronald Moscicki, Richard Roy, Jeffrey Shawver, Robert Smith, Chris Sterling, James Stone, Delroy Thorpe, Melvin Williams (mbe) (Entered: 04/26/2011)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein: Settlement Conference held on 5/10/2011. (ab) (Entered: 05/11/2011)
326 MANDATE of USCA (Certified Copy) as to 207 Notice of Appeal,, filed by Shantelle Smith, Stephanie Dawson, Latasha Dockery, Denise Saffioti, Nakia Thompson, Tanya Jones, Hope Susoh, Kristina Muehleisen, Laura Pullen, Tonie Coggins, Shenyell Smith, Corilynn Rock, Stacie Calloway USCA Case Number 08−2079. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is DISMISSED in part and VACATED in part and the case is REMANDED for further proceeding consistent with the opinion of this Court. Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk USCA for the Second Circuit. Issued As Mandate: 09/23/2011. (nd) (Entered: 09/26/2011)
Transmission of USCA Mandate/Order to the District Judge re: 326 USCA Mandate,,. (nd) (Entered: 09/26/2011)
327 ORDER: The parties are directed to consult with each other with a view to making a joint proposal to the Court, by November 30, 2011, as to the disposition of this case. The proposal should include reference to the need for−and any schedule for−any further pre−trial or pre−summary judgment proceedings. The letter should also indicate the parties' views on whether the Court should hold any further settlement conferences. Parties should attempt to agree wherever possible. In the absence of agreement, the parties may send their respective proposals by letter on or before November 30, 2011. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 11/4/2011) (rdz) (Entered: 11/04/2011)
328 ORDER: A conference to discuss the status of this matter− including but not limited to any issues relating to discovery or requests to re−open discovery will be held on Tuesday, December 20, 2011 at 4:30 p.m. in Courtroom 17−A, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York. Counsel for plaintiffs is directed to ensure that all parties are aware of this Order. ( Status Conference set for 12/20/2011 at 04:30 PM in Courtroom 17A, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 12/7/2011) (js) Modified on 12/7/2011 (js). (Entered: 12/07/2011)
329 ORDER:The deadline for the parties to submit the pre−trial order materials to Judge Duffy with respect to plaintiff Stephanie Dawson's claims against defendant Frederick Brenyah is May 18, 2012. The deadline for plaintiff Shantelle Smith to make submissions

Case: 1:03-cv-650 As of: 01/30/2016 03:01 PM EST 52 of 62

12/21/2011 12/21/2011 12/30/2011
12/30/2011
04/09/2012 05/18/2012
05/18/2012 05/18/2012 06/01/2012 06/01/2012 06/01/2012 06/01/2012

with respect to the inquest on damages for defendant James Hudson is May 18, 2012. The schedule for plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint, returnable before Judge Duffy, is as follows: Plaintiffs' papers due January 31, 2012. Defendant's response due: April 2, 2012. Plaintiffs' reply due: May 20, 2012. Plaintiffs shall make any discovery requests to defendants on the issue of class certification on or before January 31, 2012. The Court will set a schedule for plaintiffs' planned motion for class certification, also returnable before Judge Duffy, following disposition of the motion to amend. Counsel for plaintiffs is directed to provide copies of this Order to all parties. Motions due by 1/31/2012. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 12/20/2011) (rdz) Modified on 12/27/2011 (rdz). (Entered: 12/21/2011)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Motions due by 1/31/2012. Responses due by 4/2/2012 Replies due by May 20, 2012. (rdz) Modified on 12/27/2011 (rdz). (Entered: 12/27/2011)
Appeal Record Returned. [9 vols.] Indexed record on Appeal Files for Appeal Record Sent to USCA − File, USCA Case Number 08−2079, returned from the U.S. Court of Appeals. (nd) (Entered: 12/29/2011)
330 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: status conference held on 12/20/2011 before Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Shari Riemer, (518) 581−8973. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 1/23/2012. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 2/2/2012. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/2/2012.(tro) (Entered: 12/30/2011)
331 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT Notice is hereby given that an official transcript of a status conference proceeding held on 12/20/2011 has been filed by the court reporter/transcriber in the above−captioned matter. The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days...(tro) (Entered: 12/30/2011)
***NOTE TO ATTORNEY TO E−MAIL PDF. Note to Attorney Maeve L. O'Connor TO E−MAIL the PDF for Document 72 AND 1 to: caseopenings@nysd.uscourts.gov. All pdfs must include the case number and the corresponding document number. (laq) (Entered: 04/09/2012)
332 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein from Portia Pedro dated 5/17/2012 re: Request for a brief extension of the May 18, 2012 deadline ordered by Your Honor in the Court's December 20, 2011 Scheduling Order. ENDORSEMENT: Granted. So ordered. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 5/18/2012) (rjm) (Entered: 05/18/2012)
333 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition to: The Motion by Frances Perez to Intervene in the Action ; By Plaintiffs to Join Frances Perez as a Plaintiff in this Action; and by Plaintiffs for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint. Document filed by Frederick Brenyah. (lmb) (Entered: 05/23/2012)
334 DECLARATION of Walter L. Rich. Document filed by Frederick Brenyah. (lmb) (Entered: 05/23/2012)
335 SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault.(nm) (Entered: 06/01/2012)
336 FRANCES PEREZ'S F. R. CIV. P. 25(b)(1) MOTION TO INTERVENE AS PLAINTIFF. Document filed by plaintiffs and proposed Intervenor Plaintiff Frances Perez. (mro) (Entered: 06/04/2012)
337 PLAINTIFFS' F. R. CIV. P. 20 MOTION to Join Ms. Perez in their claims for Declaratory and Injunctive relief; and (II) Plaintiffs' F.R.Civ.P. 15 (a) and 15(d) Motion for Leave to Amend the First Amended Complaint. Document filed by plaintiffs and proposed Intervenor Plaintiff Frances Perez. (mro) (Entered: 06/04/2012)
338 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 337 FRANCES PEREZ'S F. R. CIV. P. 25(b)(1) MOTION TO INTERVENE AS PLAINTIFF. and 337 PLAINTIFFS' F. R. CIV. P. 20 MOTION to Join Ms. Perez in their claims for Declaratory and Injunctive relief; and (II) Plaintiffs' F.R.Civ.P. 15 (a) and 15(d) Motion for Leave to Amend the First

Case: 1:03-cv-650 As of: 01/30/2016 03:01 PM EST 53 of 62

06/01/2012
06/01/2012
06/01/2012
06/01/2012 06/01/2012 06/01/2012 06/01/2012
06/01/2012 06/01/2012
06/01/2012 06/21/2012 07/05/2012

Amended Complaint. Document filed by plaintiff s and proposed Intervenor Plaintiff Frances Perez. (mro) (Entered: 06/04/2012)
339 PLAINTIFFS' REPLY in further support of FRANCES PEREZ'S F. R. CIV. P. 25(b)(1) MOTION TO INTERVENE AS PLAINTIFF and 337 PLAINTIFFS' F. R. CIV. P. 20 MOTION to Join Ms. Perez in their claims for Declaratory and Injunctive relief; and (II) Plaintiffs' F.R.Civ.P. 15 (a) and 15(d) Motion for Leave to Amend the First Amended Complaint. Document filed by plaintiffs and proposed Intervenor Plaintiff Frances Perez. (mro) (Entered: 06/04/2012)
340 DECLARATION of Portia Pedro in Support of PLAINTIFFS' REPLY in further support of FRANCES PEREZ'S F. R. CIV. P. 25(b)(1) MOTION TO INTERVENE AS PLAINTIFF and 337 PLAINTIFFS' F. R. CIV. P. 20 MOTION to Join Ms. Perez in their claims for Declaratory and Injunctive relief; and (II) Plaintiffs' F.R.Civ.P. 15 (a) and 15(d) Motion for Leave to Amend the First Amended Complaint. Document filed by plaintiffs and proposed Intervenor Plaintiff Frances Perez. (mro) (Entered: 06/04/2012)
341 DECLARATION of Portia Pedro in Support of FRANCES PEREZ'S F. R. CIV. P. 25(b)(1) MOTION TO INTERVENE AS PLAINTIFF and 337 PLAINTIFFS' F. R. CIV. P. 20 MOTION to Join Ms. Perez in their claims for Declaratory and Injunctive relief; and (II) Plaintiffs' F.R.Civ.P. 15 (a) and 15(d) Motion for Leave to Amend the First Amended Complaint. Document filed by plaintiffs and proposed Intervenor Plaintiff Frances Perez. (mro) (Entered: 06/04/2012)
342 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition to Supervisory Defendants' Cross−Motion to Dismiss. Document filed by the plaintiffs. (mro) (Entered: 06/04/2012)
343 CROSS−MOTION to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint or Second Amended, if plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a Second Amended is granted. Document filed by the Supervisory Defendants.(mro) (Entered: 06/04/2012)
344 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Further Support re: 343 CROSS−MOTION to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint or Second Amended, if plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a Second Amended is granted. Document filed by the Supervisory Defendants. (mro) (Entered: 06/04/2012)
345 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to file a Second Amended Complaint; Plaintiffs' Motion to Join a Party Plaintiff; Proposed Plaintiff Perez's Motion to Intervene and in Support re: 343 CROSS−MOTION to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint or Second Amended, if plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a Second Amended is granted. Document filed by the Supervisory Defendants. (mro) (Entered: 06/04/2012)
346 REPLY DECLARATION of Daniel Schulze in Support re: 343 CROSS−MOTION to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint or Second Amended, if plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a Second Amended is granted. Document filed by the Supervisory Defendants. (mro) (Entered: 06/04/2012)
347 DECLARATION of Daniel Schulze in Opposition re: 337 FRANCES PEREZ'S F. R. CIV. P. 25(b)(1) MOTION TO INTERVENE AS PLAINTIFF; 337 PLAINTIFFS' F. R. CIV. P. 20 MOTION to Join Ms. Perez in their claims for Declaratory and Injunctive relief; and (II) Plaintiffs' F.R.Civ.P. 15 (a) and 15(d) Motion for Leave to Amend the First Amended Complaint. Document filed by the Supervisory Defendants. (mro) (Entered: 06/04/2012)
348 SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault.(mps) (Entered: 06/04/2012)
349 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Kevin T. Duffy from Portia Pedro dated 6/20/2012 re: We write respectfully to request permission to file immediately with the Court a five−page Sur−Reply to Supervisory Defendants' ("Defendants") Cross−Motion to Dismiss filed with this Court on June 1, 2012. ENDORSEMENT: SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy on 6/21/2012) (ama) (Entered: 06/21/2012)
351 SURREPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' SURREPLY AND IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF SUPERVISORY DEFENDANTS CROSS−MOTION TO DISMISS. Document filed by Lucy Amador, Stacie Calloway, Tonie Coggins, Stephanie Dawson, Latasha Dockery, Tanya Jones, Bobbie Kidd, Bette Jean McDonald, Kristina Muehleisen, Laura Pullen, Corilynn Rock, Denise Saffioti,

Case: 1:03-cv-650 As of: 01/30/2016 03:01 PM EST 54 of 62

07/06/2012 07/26/2012
08/01/2012 09/13/2012 09/14/2012 09/21/2012

Shantelle Smith, Shenyell Smith, Hope Susoh, Nakia Thompson. (pl) (ft). (Entered: 07/10/2012)
350 SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault.(mps) (Entered: 07/06/2012)
352 STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL: NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the undersigned parties and counsel as follows: This Agreement will resolve all plaintiff Shenyell Smith's claims in Amador et al. v. Andrews et al., 03 Civ. 0650, pending before the Honorable Kevin T. Duffy in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ("Federal Action"), and for monetary damages in Shenyell S. v. The State of New York, Claim No. 107224, pending before the Honorable Thomas H. Scuccimarra in the New York Court of Claims ("Court of Claims Action"). The parties hereby agree that all plaintiffs claims in the Federal Action are dismissed with prejudice, and all plaintiffs claims in the Court of Claims Action shall be dismissed as provided in paragraph 5. Defendants shall pay to plaintiff the sum of $10,000 in full satisfaction of all plaintiff's claims in the Federal Action and all of plaintiff's claims in the Court of Claims Action; shall pay to plaintiff's attorneys Dori Lewis and Veronica Vela of The Legal Aid Society the sum of $5,000 in full satisfaction of any claims for attorneys' fees, costs, and disbursements arising out of plaintiff's individual monetary damages claims in the Federal Action; and shall pay to plaintiff's attorney Rebecca Houlding the sum of $5,000 in full satisfaction of any claims for attorneys' fees, costs, and disbursements arising out of plaintiffs claims in the Court of Claims Action. The amount of fees being paid to plaintiffs counsel, The Legal Aid Society, in the Federal Action may not be referred to as a precedent in any future proceedings in the Federal Action or as a precedent in any future actions. Plaintiff's co−counsel in the Federal Action, Debevoise &Plimpton LLP, hereby waives any claim to an award of attorneys' fees, costs, and disbursements under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 arising out of plaintiffs individual claims for damages in the Federal Action, without waiver of or prejudice to its right to seek an award of attorneys' fees, costs, and disbursements under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 for its work in connection with any other claims in the Federal Action. Debevoise &Plimpton's waiver of attorneys' fees, costs and disbursements may not be referred to as a precedent in the Federal Action or as a precedent in any future actions. As an express condition precedent of the defendants' obligation to make payments as set forth in paragraphs 3 and 4, plaintiff shall file a Stipulation of Discontinuance (with prejudice) in the New York State Court of Claims in the case Smith vs State of New York Claim No. 107224. In the event Defendants fail to make the payments set forth in Paragraphs 3 and 4, except as may be provided in Chapter 62 of the Laws of 2001, and 180 days have passed since counsel for Defendants received the "so ordered" settlement stipulation from the federal court, plaintiff may move on 30 days written notice for reinstatement of the instant federal action. (Signed by Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy on 7/25/2012) (jfe) (Entered: 07/26/2012)
353 PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUR−REPLY TO SUPERVISORY DEFENDANTS' CROSS−MOTION TO DISMISS. Document filed by Lucy Amador, Stacie Calloway, Tonie Coggins, Stephanie Dawson, Latasha Dockery, Tanya Jones, Bobbie Kidd, Bette Jean McDonald, Kristina Muehleisen, Laura Pullen, Corilynn Rock, Denise Saffioti, Shantelle Smith, Hope Susoh, Nakia Thompson. (mro) (Entered: 08/02/2012)
355 VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF CLAIMS WITH PREJUDICE: STIPULATION; PROPOSED ORDER: that plaintiff Shantelle Smith respectfully requests that this Court enter an Order pursuant to FRCP 41(a) dismissing all claims she asserts in this action with prejudice. (Signed by Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy on 9/11/2012) (pl) (Entered: 09/14/2012)
354 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy from Svetlana M. Eisenberg dated 8/31/2012 re: Counsel for plaintiffs ask that the Court grant our request to convert the matter to ECF because it will greatly increase the efficiency of parties filing documents, especially in light of the upcoming Dawson v. Brenyah trial, which will involve a fair amount of court filings beginning on Friday, September 7. ENDORSEMENT: Application granted. (Signed by Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy on 9/11/2012) (pl) (Entered: 09/14/2012)
356 PROPOSED VOIR DIRE QUESTIONS. Document filed by Frederick Brenyah.(Rich, Walter) (Entered: 09/21/2012)

Case: 1:03-cv-650 As of: 01/30/2016 03:01 PM EST 55 of 62

09/21/2012 09/21/2012
09/21/2012
09/21/2012 09/21/2012 09/21/2012 09/21/2012 09/21/2012
09/21/2012 10/17/2012 10/17/2012 10/17/2012 11/01/2012

357 MOTION in Limine to Admit Evidence Under Rules 415 and 404(b)(2) of the Defendant Frederick Brenyah's Abuse of and Misconduct Toward Two Other Women Prisoners Under His Care, Custody, and Supervision. Document filed by Stephanie Dawson.(Eisenberg, Svetlana) (Entered: 09/21/2012)
358 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 357 MOTION in Limine to Admit Evidence Under Rules 415 and 404(b)(2) of the Defendant Frederick Brenyah's Abuse of and Misconduct Toward Two Other Women Prisoners Under His Care, Custody, and Supervision. MOTION in Limine to Admit Evidence Under Rules 415 and 404(b)(2) of the Defendant Frederick Brenyah's Abuse of and Misconduct Toward Two Other Women Prisoners Under His Care, Custody, and Supervision.. Document filed by Stephanie Dawson. (Eisenberg, Svetlana) (Entered: 09/21/2012)
359 DECLARATION of Svetlana M. Eisenberg in Support re: 357 MOTION in Limine to Admit Evidence Under Rules 415 and 404(b)(2) of the Defendant Frederick Brenyah's Abuse of and Misconduct Toward Two Other Women Prisoners Under His Care, Custody, and Supervision. MOTION in Limine to Admit Evidence Under Rules 415 and 404(b)(2) of the Defendant Frederick Brenyah's Abuse of and Misconduct Toward Two Other Women Prisoners Under His Care, Custody, and Supervision.. Document filed by Stephanie Dawson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Eisenberg, Svetlana) (Entered: 09/21/2012)
360 PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS. Document filed by Stephanie Dawson.(Eisenberg, Svetlana) (Entered: 09/21/2012)
361 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Zheng Wang on behalf of Stephanie Dawson (Wang, Zheng) (Entered: 09/21/2012)
362 MOTION in Limine / Plaintiff Stephanie Dawson's Notice of Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Defendant's Expert Witness Dr. James Lynch. Document filed by Stephanie Dawson.(Wang, Zheng) (Entered: 09/21/2012)
363 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 362 MOTION in Limine / Plaintiff Stephanie Dawson's Notice of Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Defendant's Expert Witness Dr. James Lynch. Redacted.. Document filed by Stephanie Dawson. (Wang, Zheng) (Entered: 09/21/2012)
364 DECLARATION of Zheng Wang in Support re: 362 MOTION in Limine / Plaintiff Stephanie Dawson's Notice of Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Defendant's Expert Witness Dr. James Lynch.. Document filed by Stephanie Dawson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Wang, Zheng) (Entered: 09/21/2012)
365 PROPOSED VOIR DIRE QUESTIONS. Document filed by Stephanie Dawson.(Eisenberg, Svetlana) (Entered: 09/21/2012)
366 MOTION in Limine to Exclude the Testimony of Defendant Frederick Brenyah's Expert Witness Dr. James Lynch. Document filed by Stephanie Dawson. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Wang, Zheng) (Entered: 10/17/2012)
367 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 366 MOTION in Limine to Exclude the Testimony of Defendant Frederick Brenyah's Expert Witness Dr. James Lynch.. Document filed by Stephanie Dawson. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Wang, Zheng) (Entered: 10/17/2012)
368 DECLARATION of Zheng Wang in Support re: 366 MOTION in Limine to Exclude the Testimony of Defendant Frederick Brenyah's Expert Witness Dr. James Lynch.. Document filed by Stephanie Dawson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Certificate of Service)(Wang, Zheng) (Entered: 10/17/2012)
369 MOTION to Amend/Correct /Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint., MOTION for Joinder /Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion to Join Ebony Hayes and Danielle Rogers in their Claims for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. Document filed by Lucy Amador, Stacie Calloway, Tonie Coggins, Stephanie Dawson, Latasha Dockery, Tanya Jones, Bobbie Kidd, Bette Jean McDonald, Kristina Muehleisen, Laura Pullen, Corilynn Rock, Denise Saffioti, Shenyell Smith, Hope Susoh, Nakia Thompson.(Eisenberg, Svetlana) (Entered: 11/01/2012)

Case: 1:03-cv-650 As of: 01/30/2016 03:01 PM EST 56 of 62

11/01/2012 11/01/2012
11/01/2012
11/12/2012
11/13/2012 11/13/2012 01/15/2013 01/15/2013 01/15/2013 01/15/2013 07/30/2013

370 MOTION to Intervene /Notice of Ebony Hayes' and Danielle Rogers' Motion to Intervene as Plaintiffs. Document filed by Ebony Hayes, Danielle Rogers.(Eisenberg, Svetlana) (Entered: 11/01/2012)
371 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 370 MOTION to Intervene /Notice of Ebony Hayes' and Danielle Rogers' Motion to Intervene as Plaintiffs., 369 MOTION to Amend/Correct /Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint. MOTION for Joinder /Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion to Join Ebony Hayes and Danielle Rogers in their Claims for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief.. Document filed by Lucy Amador, Stacie Calloway, Tonie Coggins, Stephanie Dawson, Latasha Dockery, Ebony Hayes, Tanya Jones, Bobbie Kidd, Bette Jean McDonald, Kristina Muehleisen, Laura Pullen, Corilynn Rock, Danielle Rogers, Denise Saffioti, Shenyell Smith, Hope Susoh, Nakia Thompson. (Eisenberg, Svetlana) (Entered: 11/01/2012)
372 DECLARATION of Svetlana M. Eisenberg in Support re: 370 MOTION to Intervene /Notice of Ebony Hayes' and Danielle Rogers' Motion to Intervene as Plaintiffs., 369 MOTION to Amend/Correct /Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint. MOTION for Joinder /Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion to Join Ebony Hayes and Danielle Rogers in their Claims for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief.. Document filed by Lucy Amador, Stacie Calloway, Tonie Coggins, Stephanie Dawson, Latasha Dockery, Ebony Hayes, Tanya Jones, Bobbie Kidd, Bette Jean McDonald, Kristina Muehleisen, Laura Pullen, Corilynn Rock, Danielle Rogers, Denise Saffioti, Shenyell Smith, Hope Susoh, Nakia Thompson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 (Part I of II), # 2 Exhibit 1 (Part II of II), # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3)(Eisenberg, Svetlana) (Entered: 11/01/2012)
373 DECLARATION of Svetlana M. Eisenberg in Support re: 370 MOTION to Intervene /Notice of Ebony Hayes' and Danielle Rogers' Motion to Intervene as Plaintiffs.. Document filed by Lucy Amador, Stacie Calloway, Tonie Coggins, Stephanie Dawson, Latasha Dockery, Ebony Hayes, Tanya Jones, Bobbie Kidd, Bette Jean McDonald, Kristina Muehleisen, Laura Pullen, Corilynn Rock, Danielle Rogers, Denise Saffioti, Shenyell Smith, Hope Susoh, Nakia Thompson. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A: Redacted Exhibit 2 to Docket Item 372, # 2 Attachment B: Redacted Exhibit 3 to Docket Item 372)(Eisenberg, Svetlana) (Entered: 11/12/2012)
374 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy from Svetana M. Eisenberg dated 11/8/12 re: Counsel writes to request that the Court formally seal two documents (Docket Nos. 372−3 and 372−4), which were filed last week on behalf of the plaintiffs and the proposed intervenors. ENDORSEMENT: So ordered. (Signed by Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy on 11/13/2012) (mro) (Entered: 11/13/2012)
Transmission to Sealed Records Clerk. Transmitted re: 374 Endorsed Letter to the Sealed Records Clerk for the sealing or unsealing of document or case. (mro) (Entered: 11/13/2012)
375 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 362 MOTION in Limine / Plaintiff Stephanie Dawson's Notice of Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Defendant's Expert Witness Dr. James Lynch.. Document filed by Frederick Brenyah. (Rich, Walter) (Entered: 01/15/2013)
376 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 362 MOTION in Limine / Plaintiff Stephanie Dawson's Notice of Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Defendant's Expert Witness Dr. James Lynch.. Document filed by Stephanie Dawson. (Wang, Zheng) (Entered: 01/15/2013)
377 DECLARATION of Zheng Wang in Support re: 362 MOTION in Limine / Plaintiff Stephanie Dawson's Notice of Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Defendant's Expert Witness Dr. James Lynch.. Document filed by Stephanie Dawson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Wang, Zheng) (Entered: 01/15/2013)
378 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Plaintiff Stephanie Dawson's Reply Memorandum of Law in Further Support of Her Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Defendant's Expert Witness Dr. James Lynch (including a declaration and an exhibit in support of the reply) served on Frederick Brenyah and the Supervisory Defendants on 1/15/13. Document filed by Stephanie Dawson. (Wang, Zheng) (Entered: 01/15/2013)
379 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein from Svetlana M. Eisenberg dated 7/25/2013 re: I write to inform Your Honor that effective July 25, 2013, I will no longer be employed by the firm of Debevoise &Plimpton LLP,

Case: 1:03-cv-650 As of: 01/30/2016 03:01 PM EST 57 of 62

08/02/2013 08/02/2013 08/02/2013 08/02/2013 08/02/2013 08/15/2013 08/15/2013 01/17/2014
04/16/2014
04/17/2014 04/18/2014
04/22/2014
04/23/2014 04/24/2014
06/06/2014 06/06/2014

co−counsel for plaintiffs in Amador v. Andrews. I respectfully request Your Honor's permission to withdraw as counsel−of−record in this matter, to have my former email address (smeisenb@debevoise.com) removed from ECF notifications, and to have this letter memo−endorsed. Plaintiffs and proposed plaintiffs are aware of this change in my employment status and that Mr. De Oliveira, Ms. Lewis, and Ms. Vela will continue to represent them. ENDORSEMENT: Granted. SO ORDERED. Attorney Svetlana Malahova Eisenberg terminated. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 7/30/2013) (rsh) (Entered: 07/30/2013)
380 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Veronica Vela on behalf of Lucy Amador. (Vela, Veronica) (Entered: 08/02/2013)
381 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Dori A. Lewis on behalf of Lucy Amador. (Lewis, Dori) (Entered: 08/02/2013)
382 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Dori A. Lewis on behalf of Ebony Hayes. (Lewis, Dori) (Entered: 08/02/2013)
383 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Dori A. Lewis on behalf of Danielle Rogers. (Lewis, Dori) (Entered: 08/02/2013)
384 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Pedro Lourenco De Oliveira on behalf of Ebony Hayes, Danielle Rogers. (De Oliveira, Pedro) (Entered: 08/02/2013)
385 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Veronica Vela on behalf of Ebony Hayes. (Vela, Veronica) (Entered: 08/15/2013)
386 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Veronica Vela on behalf of Danielle Rogers. (Vela, Veronica) (Entered: 08/15/2013)
387 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Terra Linden Gearhart on behalf of Lucy Amador, Stacie Calloway, Stephanie Dawson, Latasha Dockery, Tanya Jones, Bobbie Kidd, Bette Jean McDonald, Kristina Muehleisen, Jeanette Perez, Laura Pullen, Corilynn Rock, Denise Saffioti, Hope Susoh. (Gearhart, Terra) (Entered: 01/17/2014)
388 LETTER addressed to Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy from Terra L. Gearhart−Serna dated 4/16/2014 re: supplemental authority. Document filed by Lucy Amador, Stacie Calloway, Tonie Coggins, Stephanie Dawson, Latasha Dockery, Tanya Jones, Bobbie Kidd, Bette Jean McDonald, Kristina Muehleisen, Laura Pullen, Corilynn Rock, Danielle Rogers, Denise Saffioti, Hope Susoh, Nakia Thompson.(Gearhart, Terra) (Entered: 04/16/2014)
389 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Terra Linden Gearhart on behalf of Ebony Hayes, Danielle Rogers, Frances Perez. (Gearhart, Terra) (Entered: 04/17/2014)
390 NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS by Dori A. Lewis on behalf of All Plaintiffs. New Address: Legal Aid Society, Prisoners' Rights Project, 199 Water Street, 3rd floor, New York, New York, United States 10038, 2125773530. (Lewis, Dori) (Entered: 04/18/2014)
391 LETTER addressed to Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy from Daniel Schulze dated April 22, 2014 re: Response to Plaintiffs' April 16, 2014 Surreply Letter. Document filed by Anginell Andrews, Terry Baxter, Peter Brown, Dennis Crowley, Alexandreena Dixon, Glenn Goord, Barbara D. Leone, Eliane Lord, Richard Roy, James Stone.(Schulze, Daniel) (Entered: 04/22/2014)
392 LETTER addressed to Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein from Pedro De Oliveira, Esq. dated April 23, 2014 re: Request withdrawal from case. Document filed by Ebony Hayes, Danielle Rogers.(De Oliveira, Pedro) (Entered: 04/23/2014)
393 MEMO ENDORSEMENT on re: 392 Letter filed by Ebony Hayes, Danielle Rogers. ENDORSEMENT: Granted. SO ORDERED. Attorney Pedro Lourenco De Oliveira terminated. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 4/24/2014) (ajs) (Entered: 04/24/2014)
394 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Terra Linden Gearhart on behalf of LeeAnn Wimmers. (Gearhart, Terra) (Entered: 06/06/2014)
395 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Maeve L. O'Connor on behalf of LeeAnn Wimmers. (O'Connor, Maeve) (Entered: 06/06/2014)

Case: 1:03-cv-650 As of: 01/30/2016 03:01 PM EST 58 of 62

06/06/2014 06/06/2014 06/06/2014
06/06/2014 06/06/2014
06/06/2014 06/06/2014 06/18/2014
06/26/2014

396 MOTION to Amend/Correct Notice of (I) Plaintiffs' F.R.Civ.P.20 Motion to Join LeeAnn Wimmers in Their Claims for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief; and (II) Plaintiffs' F.R.Civ.P.15(a), 15(d), and 21 Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint. Document filed by Lucy Amador, Stacie Calloway, Tonie Coggins, Latasha Dockery, Ebony Hayes, Tanya Jones, Bobbie Kidd, Bette Jean McDonald, Kristina Muehleisen, Frances Perez, Jeanette Perez, Laura Pullen, Corilynn Rock, Denise Saffioti, Shantelle Smith, Shenyell Smith, Hope Susoh, Nakia Thompson, LeeAnn Wimmers.(Gearhart, Terra) (Entered: 06/06/2014)
397 MOTION to Intervene as Plaintiff. Document filed by LeeAnn Wimmers.(Gearhart, Terra) (Entered: 06/06/2014)
398 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 397 MOTION to Intervene as Plaintiff., 396 MOTION to Amend/Correct Notice of (I) Plaintiffs' F.R.Civ.P.20 Motion to Join LeeAnn Wimmers in Their Claims for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief; and (II) Plaintiffs' F.R.Civ.P.15(a), 15(d), and 21 Motion for Leave to Amend the Compl //Memorandum of Law in Support of LeeAnn Wimmers' Motion to Intervene and Plaintiffs' Contemporaneous Motions to Join Ms. Wimmers in Their Claims for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and to Amend the Complaint Accordingly. Document filed by Lucy Amador, Stacie Calloway, Tonie Coggins, Stephanie Dawson, Latasha Dockery, Ebony Hayes, Bobbie Kidd, Bette Jean McDonald, Kristina Muehleisen, Frances Perez, Jeanette Perez, Laura Pullen, Corilynn Rock, Danielle Rogers, Denise Saffioti, Shantelle Smith, Shenyell Smith, Hope Susoh, Nakia Thompson, LeeAnn Wimmers. (Gearhart, Terra) (Entered: 06/06/2014)
399 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Dori A. Lewis on behalf of LeeAnn Wimmers. (Lewis, Dori) (Entered: 06/06/2014)
400 DECLARATION of Terra L. Gearhart−Serna in Support re: 397 MOTION to Intervene as Plaintiff., 396 MOTION to Amend/Correct Notice of (I) Plaintiffs' F.R.Civ.P.20 Motion to Join LeeAnn Wimmers in Their Claims for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief; and (II) Plaintiffs' F.R.Civ.P.15(a), 15(d), and 21 Motion for Leave to Amend the Compl. Document filed by Lucy Amador, Stacie Calloway, Tonie Coggins, Stephanie Dawson, Latasha Dockery, Ebony Hayes, Tanya Jones, Bobbie Kidd, Bette Jean McDonald, Kristina Muehleisen, Frances Perez, Jeanette Perez, Laura Pullen, Corilynn Rock, Danielle Rogers, Denise Saffioti, Shantelle Smith, Shenyell Smith, Hope Susoh, Nakia Thompson, LeeAnn Wimmers. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit (1) First Amended Complaint filed October 14, 2003, # 2 Exhibit (2) Supplemental Second Amended Complaint submitted November 12, 2012, # 3 Exhibit (3) Proposed Supplemental Amended Complaint submitted June 6, 2014 (Redacted))(Gearhart, Terra) (Entered: 06/06/2014)
401 LETTER addressed to Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy from Terra L. Gearhart−Serna dated June 6, 2014 re: response to Supervisory Defendants' correspondence dated April 22, 2014. Document filed by Lucy Amador, Stacie Calloway, Tonie Coggins, Stephanie Dawson, Latasha Dockery, Ebony Hayes, Tanya Jones, Bobbie Kidd, Bette Jean McDonald, Kristina Muehleisen, Frances Perez, Laura Pullen, Corilynn Rock, Danielle Rogers, Denise Saffioti, Hope Susoh, Nakia Thompson, LeeAnn Wimmers.(Gearhart, Terra) (Entered: 06/06/2014)
402 SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault.(nm) (Entered: 06/09/2014)
403 LETTER MOTION for Conference re: 397 MOTION to Intervene as Plaintiff., 396 MOTION to Amend/Correct Notice of (I) Plaintiffs' F.R.Civ.P.20 Motion to Join LeeAnn Wimmers in Their Claims for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief; and (II) Plaintiffs' F.R.Civ.P.15(a), 15(d), and 21 Motion for Leave to Amend the Compl addressed to Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy from Daniel Schulze dated June 18, 2014., LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time addressed to Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy from Daniel Schulze dated June 18, 2014. Document filed by Anginell Andrews, Terry Baxter, Peter Brown, Dennis Crowley, Alexandreena Dixon, Glenn Goord, Barbara D. Leone, Eliane Lord, Richard Roy, James Stone. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Schulze, Daniel) (Entered: 06/18/2014)
404 LETTER addressed to Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy from Terra L. Gearhart−Serna of Debevoise &Plimpton LLP dated 6/26/14 re: response to Supervisory Defendants' letter motion dated June 18, 2014 (Dkt. #403). Document filed by Lucy Amador, Stacie Calloway, Tonie Coggins, Stephanie Dawson, Latasha Dockery, Ebony Hayes, Tanya Jones, Bobbie Kidd, Bette Jean McDonald, Kristina Muehleisen, Frances Perez, Laura Pullen, Corilynn Rock, Danielle Rogers, Denise Saffioti, Hope Susoh, Nakia Thompson,

Case: 1:03-cv-650 As of: 01/30/2016 03:01 PM EST 59 of 62

10/22/2014 11/17/2014 11/17/2014 11/17/2014 11/17/2014
11/17/2014 11/17/2014
11/17/2014
11/17/2014 11/18/2014 11/18/2014 11/18/2014 11/19/2014
11/20/2014 12/11/2014

LeeAnn Wimmers.(Gearhart, Terra) (Entered: 06/26/2014)
405 ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that parties appear for a status conference at 10:30 a.m. on November 20, 2014. ( Status Conference set for 11/20/2014 at 10:30 AM before Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy.) (Signed by Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy on 10/22/2014) (mro) (Entered: 10/22/2014)
406 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF PRO BONO COUNSEL by Maeve L. O'Connor on behalf of Jasmine Valentin (O'Connor, Maeve) (Entered: 11/17/2014)
407 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF PRO BONO COUNSEL by Terra Linden Gearhart on behalf of Jasmine Valentin (Gearhart, Terra) (Entered: 11/17/2014)
408 MOTION to Intervene . Document filed by Jasmine Valentin.(Gearhart, Terra) (Entered: 11/17/2014)
409 MOTION for Joinder ., MOTION for Leave to File second amended complaint . Document filed by Stacie Calloway, Tonie Coggins, Stephanie Dawson, Latasha Dockery, Ebony Hayes, Tanya Jones, Bette Jean McDonald, Kristina Muehleisen, Frances Perez, Laura Pullen, Corilynn Rock, Danielle Rogers, Hope Susoh, Nakia Thompson, LeeAnn Wimmers.(Gearhart, Terra) (Entered: 11/17/2014)
410 SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault.(mps) (Entered: 11/17/2014)
411 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 409 MOTION for Joinder . MOTION for Leave to File second amended complaint ., 408 MOTION to Intervene . (REDACTED VERSION). Document filed by Stacie Calloway, Tonie Coggins, Stephanie Dawson, Latasha Dockery, Ebony Hayes, Tanya Jones, Bette Jean McDonald, Kristina Muehleisen, Laura Pullen, Corilynn Rock, Danielle Rogers, Hope Susoh, Nakia Thompson, Jasmine Valentin, LeeAnn Wimmers. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit /Certificate of Service)(Gearhart, Terra) (Entered: 11/17/2014)
412 DECLARATION of Terra L. Gearhart−Serna in Support re: 409 MOTION for Joinder . MOTION for Leave to File second amended complaint ., 408 MOTION to Intervene .. Document filed by Stacie Calloway, Tonie Coggins, Stephanie Dawson, Latasha Dockery, Ebony Hayes, Tanya Jones, Bette Jean McDonald, Kristina Muehleisen, Frances Perez, Laura Pullen, Corilynn Rock, Danielle Rogers, Hope Susoh, Nakia Thompson, Jasmine Valentin, LeeAnn Wimmers. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit second amended complaint, # 2 Affidavit /Certificate of Service)(Gearhart, Terra) (Entered: 11/17/2014)
413 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Dori A. Lewis on behalf of Jasmine Valentin. (Lewis, Dori) (Entered: 11/17/2014)
414 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Walter L. Rich on behalf of Frederick Brenyah. (Rich, Walter) (Entered: 11/18/2014)
415 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Veronica Vela on behalf of Jasmine Valentin. (Vela, Veronica) (Entered: 11/18/2014)
416 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Veronica Vela on behalf of LeeAnn Wimmers. (Vela, Veronica) (Entered: 11/18/2014)
417 LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time Requesting To Hold Plaintiffs' Fourth Motion To Amend in Abeyance Pending Resolution of Defendants' Pending Cross−Motion To Dismiss addressed to Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy from Daniel Schulze dated November 19, 2014. Document filed by Anginell Andrews, Terry Baxter, Peter Brown, Dennis Crowley, Alexandreena Dixon, Glenn Goord, Barbara D. Leone, Eliane Lord, Richard Roy, James Stone.(Schulze, Daniel) (Entered: 11/19/2014)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy: Scheduling Conference was held on 11/20/2014. ( Jury Trial is set for 4/20/2015 at 09:45 AM before Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy.). (sc) (Entered: 11/21/2014)
418 MEMORANDUM &ORDER denying 369 Motion to Amend/Correct; denying 369 Motion for Joinder; denying 370 Motion to Intervene; denying 396 Motion to Amend/Correct; denying 397 Motion to Intervene; terminating 403 Motion for Conference; terminating 403 Motion for Extension of Time; denying 408 Motion to Intervene; denying 409 Motion for Joinder; denying 409 Motion for Leave to File

Case: 1:03-cv-650 As of: 01/30/2016 03:01 PM EST 60 of 62

12/11/2014 12/23/2014 12/23/2014 12/23/2014 12/29/2014
01/05/2015 01/15/2015 01/16/2015 01/16/2015
01/23/2015 02/20/2015

Document; terminating 417 Motion for Extension of Time. For the foregoing reasons, I grant−in−part and deny−in−part Supervisory Defendants' cross−motion to dismiss, and deny Intervenors' Rule 24 motions and Plaintiffs' Rules 20, 21, and 15 motions to join new plaintiffs and supplement the FAC. Supervisory Defendants' letter motions at Docket Entry 403 and 417 are moot in light of decisions on the other motions. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motions located at Docket Entries 336, 337, 343, 369, 370, 396, 397, 403, 408, 409, 417. (Signed by Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy on 12/11/2014) (mro) (Entered: 12/11/2014)
441 INTERNET CITATION NOTE: Material from decision with Internet citation re: 418 MEMORANDUM &ORDER. (lnl) (Entered: 12/29/2015)
419 SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault.(rz) (Entered: 12/23/2014)
420 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 418 Order on Motion to Amend/Correct, Order on Motion for Joinder, Order on Motion to Intervene,,, Order on Motion for Conference, Order on Motion for Extension of Time,,, Order on Motion for Leave to File Document,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, . Document filed by Stephanie Dawson. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Gearhart, Terra) (Entered: 12/23/2014)
421 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 420 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 418 Order on Motion to Amend/Correct, Order on Motion for Joinder, Order on Motion to Intervene,,, Order on Motion for Conference, Order on Motion for Extension of Time,,, Order on Motion for Leave to File Document . Document filed by Stephanie Dawson. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Gearhart, Terra) (Entered: 12/23/2014)
422 LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 420 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 418 Order on Motion to Amend/Correct, Order on Motion for Joinder, Order on Motion to Intervene,,, Order on Motion for Conference, Order on Motion for Extension of Time,,, Order on Motion for Leave to File Document addressed to Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy from Daniel Schulze dated December 29, 2014. Document filed by Anginell Andrews, Terry Baxter, Peter Brown, Dennis Crowley, Alexandreena Dixon, Glenn Goord, Barbara D. Leone, Eliane Lord, Richard Roy, James Stone.(Schulze, Daniel) (Entered: 12/29/2014)
423 ORDER granting 422 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Application granted. Response due January 16, 2015. SO ORDERED. Responses due by 1/16/2015. (Signed by Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy on 1/5/2015) (mro) (Entered: 01/05/2015)
424 LETTER addressed to Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy from Terra L. Gearhart−Serna dated January 15, 2015 re: Disclosure of Expert Evidence. Document filed by Stephanie Dawson.(Gearhart, Terra) (Entered: 01/15/2015)
425 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 420 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 418 Order on Motion to Amend/Correct, Order on Motion for Joinder, Order on Motion to Intervene,,, Order on Motion for Conference, Order on Motion for Extension of Time,,, Order on Motion for Leave to File Document . Document filed by Anginell Andrews. (Brewster, Richard) (Entered: 01/16/2015)
426 DECLARATION of Daniel Schulze in Opposition re: 420 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 418 Order on Motion to Amend/Correct, Order on Motion for Joinder, Order on Motion to Intervene,,, Order on Motion for Conference, Order on Motion for Extension of Time,,, Order on Motion for Leave to File Document. Document filed by Anginell Andrews. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A to Schulze Declaration, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B to Schulze Declaration)(Brewster, Richard) (Entered: 01/16/2015)
427 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 420 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 418 Order on Motion to Amend/Correct, Order on Motion for Joinder, Order on Motion to Intervene,,, Order on Motion for Conference, Order on Motion for Extension of Time,,, Order on Motion for Leave to File Document . Document filed by Stephanie Dawson. (Gearhart, Terra) (Entered: 01/23/2015)
428 ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that trial date in this matter, set for April 20, 2015, is vacated and that the parties appear for a conference at 10:30 a.m. on Monday, April 13, 2015. ( Status Conference set for 4/13/2015 at 10:30 AM before Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy.) (Signed by Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy on 2/20/2015) (mro) (Entered: 02/20/2015)

Case: 1:03-cv-650 As of: 01/30/2016 03:01 PM EST 61 of 62

03/20/2015 03/20/2015
03/23/2015 03/26/2015 03/27/2015 04/02/2015 04/07/2015
04/07/2015
04/09/2015 04/10/2015 04/13/2015

429 LETTER MOTION for Conference regarding discovery addressed to Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein from Terra L. Gearhart−Serna dated March 20, 2015. Document filed by Stephanie Dawson. (Attachments: # 1 Annex A, # 2 Annex B)(Gearhart, Terra) (Entered: 03/20/2015)
430 LETTER RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion addressed to Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein from Daniel Schulze dated March 20, 2015 re: 429 LETTER MOTION for Conference regarding discovery addressed to Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein from Terra L. Gearhart−Serna dated March 20, 2015. . Document filed by Anginell Andrews, Terry Baxter, Peter Brown, Dennis Crowley, Alexandreena Dixon, Glenn Goord, Barbara D. Leone, Eliane Lord, Richard Roy. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Schulze, Daniel) (Entered: 03/20/2015)
431 LETTER addressed to Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein from Terra L. Gearhart−Serna dated March 23, 2015 re: response to Supervisory Defendants' 3/20/15 letter (Dkt. #430). Document filed by Stephanie Dawson.(Gearhart, Terra) (Entered: 03/23/2015)
432 ORDER. The Court will hold a conference to discuss the status of discovery on March 31, 2015 at 9:45 a.m. in Courtroom 6−B, United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York, and as further set forth. (Discovery Hearing set for 3/31/2015 at 09:45 AM in Courtroom 6B, U.S. Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 3/26/2015) (rjm) (Entered: 03/26/2015)
433 ORDER. The conference to discuss the status of discovery is adjourned from March 31 to Thursday, April 2, 2015, at 9:45 a.m. in Courtroom 6−B, United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York, and as further set forth. (Discovery Hearing set for 4/2/2015 at 09:45 AM in Courtroom 6B, U.S. Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 3/27/2015) (rjm) (Entered: 03/27/2015)
Minute Order. Proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein: Hearing regarding discovery held on 4/2/2015. The Court gave directives to the parties as recorded in the transcript. (Gorenstein, Hon. Gabriel W.) (Entered: 04/02/2015)
434 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: Discovery Hearing held on 4/2/2015 before Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Shari Riemer, (518) 581−8973. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 5/1/2015. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 5/11/2015. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/9/2015.(ca) (Entered: 04/07/2015)
435 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT Notice is hereby given that an official transcript of a Discovery Hearing proceeding held on 04/02/2015 has been filed by the court reporter/transcriber in the above−captioned matter. The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days...(ca) (Entered: 04/07/2015)
436 LETTER addressed to Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy from Terra L. Gearhart−Serna dated 4/9/2015 re: settlement agreement. Document filed by Stephanie Dawson.(Gearhart, Terra) (Entered: 04/09/2015)
437 MEMO ENDORSEMENT on re: 436 Letter filed by Stephanie Dawson.ENDORSEMENT: Application GRANTED. (Signed by Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy on 4/10/2015) (mro) (Entered: 04/10/2015)
438 ORDER: The court, having been informed by counsel for Plaintiff Stephanie Dawson that an agreement−in−principle has been reached to settle all remaining claims in this case (Docket Entry 436), ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court close the above−captioned case ninety (90) days from the date of this order. Either party may inform the court by letter (filed by ECF) that the case should not be closed if the parties are unable to agree on settlement terms. (Signed by Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy on 4/13/2015) (kl) (Entered: 04/13/2015)

Case: 1:03-cv-650 As of: 01/30/2016 03:01 PM EST 62 of 62

07/01/2015 07/06/2015
07/06/2015

439 LETTER addressed to Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy from Daniel Schulze dated July 1, 2015 re: Stipulation of Settlement and Proposed Order of Dismissal. Document filed by Glenn Goord. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Schulze, Daniel) (Entered: 07/01/2015)
440 STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT, GENERAL RELEASE, AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL: NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises, covenants, representations, and other consideration contained in this Settlement Stipulation, Plaintiff and Defendants hereby agree as follows: This Settlement Stipulation will resolve all of Plaintiff's claims in the above−captioned Action, which is currently pending before the Honorable Kevin T. Duffy in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Action and all claims asserted therein by Plaintiff are discontinued with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and without payments, attorneys' fees, costs, disbursements, or expenses in excess of the amount specified in Paragraph 2 below. Tn full consideration of Plaintiff's execution of this Settlement Stipulation, her agreement to be bound by its terms, and her undertakings as set forth herein including, but not limited to, the dismissal of the Action with prejudice and other good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Defendants shall pay the gross amount of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000), in full satisfaction of any and all claims, allegations or actions, direct or indirect, known or unknown, that Plaintiff had, has, or may have against Defendants, whether in their individual or official capacities, arising out of conduct, acts, or omissions prior to, up to and including the date of this Settlement Stipulation, including but not limited to those asserted by Plaintiff in the Action, including any attorneys' fees, costs, disbursements, and expenses incurred by Plaintiff for any and all counsel who have assisted Plaintiff or at any time represented Plaintiff in the Action or in connection with any other proceeding, administrative, judicial, or otherwise, and any other claim or action by Plaintiff alleging any of the acts, transactions, occurrences, or omissions asserted in the Action. The above−referenced action is dismissed. The Clerk is directed to close the case. SO ORDERED. (As further set forth in this Stipulation of Settlement.) (Signed by Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy on 7/6/2015) (mro) (Entered: 07/06/2015)
Terminate Transcript Deadlines (mro) (Entered: 07/06/2015)

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------------- x LUCY AM., STACIE CA., TONIE CO., STEPHANIE DA., LATASHA DO., TANYA JO., BOBBIE KI., BETTE JEAN MCD., KRISTINA MU., JEANETTE PE., LAURA PU., CORILYNN RO., DENISE SA., SHANTELLE SM., SHENYELL SM., HOPE SU. a/k/a/ HOPE SU. BR., and NAKIA TH., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,
-against-
SUPERINTENDENTS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES (“DOCS”) ANGINELL ANDREWS, ROBERTA COWARD, DENNIS CROWLEY, ALEXANDREENA DIXON, ELAINE LORD, RONALD MOSCICKI and MELVIN WILLIAMS; DOCS DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT DONALD WOLFF; DOCS DIRECTOR OF PERSONNEL TERRY BAXTER; DOCS INSPECTOR GENERAL RICHARD ROY; DOCS DIRECTOR OF THE SEX CRIMES UNIT OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL’S OFFICE BARBARA D. LEON, DOCS DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS PETER BROWN; DOCS COMMISSIONER GLENN S. GOORD, OFFICE OF MENTAL HEALTH COMMISSIONER JAMES STONE, DOCS CORRECTION OFFICERS FREDERICK BR., CHARLES DA., MICHAEL EV., SERGEANT MICHAEL GA., OFFICERS JOHN E. GI. III, HU., RICK LA., RICO ME., MARIO PI., JEFFREY SH., ROBERT SM., SERGEANT SM., OFFICERS ST., DELROY TH., and PETE ZA.,

CLASS ACTION FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
03 Civ. 0650 (KTD) (GWG)

Defendants. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- x

21578717v1

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Plaintiffs are women presently or previously confined in the custody of the New York State Department of Correctional Services (“DOCS”). Defendants include line officers who have engaged in the sexual assault, abuse and harassment of women prisoners, including forcible rape, sexual intercourse, anal intercourse, oral sexual acts, sexual touching, voyeurism, invasion of personal privacy, demeaning sexual comments, and intimidation to deter women prisoners from reporting such sexual misconduct. Defendants also include supervisors in these facilities and at the highest levels of DOCS (“supervisory defendants”) who maintain policies and practices which enable male staff to engage in the sexual assault, abuse, and harassment of women prisoners, despite the known and obvious risks associated with assigning male staff to female prisons and in the face of historical and continued evidence of sexual misconduct by their male staff. Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for injunctive and declaratory relief, and for money damages, to redress defendants’ violations of their rights under the First, Fourth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Each paragraph in this complaint incorporates, repeats and realleges every other paragraph in this complaint.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. This court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(a). Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
2
21578717v1

PARTIES PLAINTIFFS
2. Plaintiffs Stacie Ca., Tonie Co., Stephanie Da., Latasha Do., Tanya Jo., Bobbie Ki., Kristina Mu., Shantelle Sm., Shenyell Sm., Hope Su., and Nakia Th. are prisoners in DOCS custody and were so at all times referred to in this complaint.
3. Plaintiff Denise Sa. was released from custody, and, upon information and belief, has been returned to DOCS custody after being found in violation of her parole. She was a prisoner in DOCS custody at the times of the incidents of sexual abuse referred to in this complaint.
4. Plaintiffs Lucy Am., Bette Jean McD., Jeanette Pe., Laura Pu. and Corilynn Ro., who are now released from custody, were prisoners in DOCS custody at the times of the incidents of sexual abuse referred to in this complaint. CORRECTIONAL STAFF DEFENDANTS
5. The defendants listed below were at all times referred to in this complaint correctional officers or sergeants employed by the Department of Correctional Services, assigned to DOCS-operated women’s prisons, and acting under color of state law. These defendants are sued in their individual capacities for compensatory and punitive damages:
a. Officer Frederick Br., while employed at Taconic Correctional Facility, sexually harassed and abused Stephanie Da., as described in ¶ 44.
b. Officer Charles Da., while employed at Albion Correctional Facility, sexually harassed and abused Tonie Co., as described in ¶ 43.
3
21578717v1

c. Officer Michael Ev., while employed at Bedford Hills Correctional

Facility, sexually harassed and abused Latasha Do., as described in ¶ 45.

d. Sergeant Michael Ga., while employed at Albion Correctional

Facility, sexually harassed and abused Lucy Am., as described in ¶ 41.

e. Officer John E. Gi. III, while employed at Albion Correctional

Facility, sexually harassed and abused Kristina Mu., as described in ¶ 49; Bette

Jean McD., as described in ¶ 48; and Corilynn Beth Ro., as described in ¶ 52.

f. Officer Hu., while employed at Bayview Correctional Facility,

sexually harassed and abused Shantelle Sm., as described in ¶ 54.

g. Officer Rick La., while employed at Albion Correctional Facility,

sexually harassed and abused Laura Pu., as described in ¶ 51.

h. Officer Rico Me., while employed at Bedford Hills Correctional

Facility, sexually harassed and abused Latasha Do., as described in ¶ 45; and

Nakia Th., as described in ¶ 57.

i. Officer Mario Pi., while employed at Taconic Correctional

Facility, sexually harassed and abused Bette Jean McD., as described in ¶ 48.

j.

Officer Jeffrey Sh., while employed at Albion Correctional

Facility, sexually harassed and abused Stacie Ca., as described in ¶ 42; Tanya Jo.,

as described in ¶ 46; and Hope Su., as described in ¶ 56.

k. Officer Robert Sm., while employed at Albion Correctional

Facility, sexually harassed and abused Lucy Am., as described in ¶ 41.

4
21578717v1

l. Sergeant Sm., while employed at Bayview Correctional Facility, facilitated the sexual harassment and abuse of Jeanette Pe., as described in ¶ 50.
m. Officer St., while employed at Bayview Correctional Facility, facilitated the sexual harassment and abuse of Jeanette Pe., as described in ¶ 50.
n. Officer Delroy Th., while employed at Bedford Hills Correctional Facility, sexually harassed and abused Shenyell Sm., as described in ¶ 55.
o. Officer Pete Za., while employed at Bayview Correctional Facility, sexually harassed and abused Jeanette Pe., as described in ¶ 50. SUPERVISORY DEFENDANTS 6. Defendant Donald Wolff was Deputy Superintendent for Security at Albion Correctional Facility until sometime in calendar year 2000. As Deputy Superintendent for Security, he was responsible for the supervision of staff and inmates to ensure a safe environment, including the enforcement of DOCS rules and regulations; the investigation of many complaints of sexual misconduct by staff, including the decision whether to forward complaints to higher-ranking DOCS officials and to the Inspector General’s office; the investigation of and response to complaints of misconduct against staff, in conjunction with the Inspector General’s Office; and for decisions concerning the assignment of staff, including whether to remove staff from contact with women prisoners. Despite receiving complaints of sexual misconduct against Officers Gi. and Sh., he failed to take action appropriate to address the situation, leaving plaintiffs McD. and Ro. to be abused by Officer Gi. as described in ¶¶ 48 and 52, below, and leaving plaintiffs Ca., Jo. and Su. to be abused by Officer Sh., as described in ¶¶ 42, 46,
5
21578717v1

and 56, below. Deputy Superintendent Wolff is sued in his individual capacity for compensatory and punitive damages for his failure to protect these plaintiffs, as set forth in ¶¶ 14-39.
7. Defendants Anginell Andrews, Roberta Coward, Dennis Crowley, Elaine Lord, Ronald Moscicki and Alexandreena Dixon are Superintendents of Albion, Bayview, Beacon, Bedford Hills, Lakeview, and Taconic Correctional Facilities, respectively. Defendant Melvin Williams is the Superintendent of the Willard Drug Treatment Center, a prison for parole violators operated by the Department of Correctional Services. They are responsible at their respective facilities for the assignment and removal of staff; the training of staff; the supervision of staff and inmates to ensure a safe environment, including the enforcement of DOCS rules and regulations; the review of decisions to place women prisoners in punitive or administrative segregation; the investigation of many complaints of sexual misconduct by staff, including the decision whether to forward complaints to higher-ranking DOCS officials and to the Inspector General’s office; the investigation of and response to complaints of misconduct against staff, in conjunction with the Inspector General’s Office; and the failure to ensure that women prisoners who complain of sexual abuse receive adequate and appropriate mental health treatment. These defendants are sued in their official capacities, for prospective injunctive and declaratory relief for their failure to protect women prisoners from sexual harassment and abuse, as set forth in ¶¶ 14-40.
8. Defendant Terry Baxter is the Director of Personnel for DOCS. He is responsible for the recruitment, retention, movement, and promotion of all correctional
6
21578717v1

staff and, as to probationary employees, their termination. He is sued in his official capacity for prospective injunctive and declaratory relief for the failure to screen, assign and re-assign staff appropriately to prevent the sexual harassment and abuse of women prisoners, as set forth in ¶¶ 14-23.
9. Defendant Richard Roy is the Inspector General of the New York State Department of Correctional Services. He is responsible for the investigation of complaints of criminal misconduct or violation of Departmental rules by DOCS employees, including complaints of sexual harassment and abuse; for determining the standards by which such complaints are assessed; for reviewing all investigations of such complaints; for determining whether such complaints are substantiated; and for recommending whether or not action be taken, including referrals to the Bureau of Labor Relations for disciplinary action against staff and referrals of allegations of criminal misconduct to law enforcement officials. He is sued in his official capacity for prospective injunctive and declaratory relief for the failure appropriately to investigate, refer for discipline and, in conjunction with the Superintendents and other DOCS supervisory defendants, take action in response to complaints of sexual harassment and abuse, as set forth in ¶¶ 14-21, 26-39.
10. Defendant Barbara D. Leon is the director of the Sex Crimes Unit of the DOCS Inspector General’s Office. She is responsible for the investigation of complaints of criminal or Departmental misconduct by DOCS employees, including complaints of sexual harassment and abuse; for determining the standards by which such complaints are assessed; for reviewing all investigations of such complaints; for determining whether
7
21578717v1

such complaints are substantiated; and for recommending whether or not action be taken, including referrals to the Bureau of Labor Relations for disciplinary action against staff and referrals of allegations of criminal misconduct to law enforcement officials. She is sued in her official capacity for prospective injunctive and declaratory relief for the failure appropriately to investigate, refer for discipline and, in conjunction with the Superintendents and other DOCS supervisory defendants, take action in response to complaints of sexual harassment and abuse, as set forth in ¶¶ 14-21, 26-39.
11. Defendant Peter Brown is the Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations of DOCS. He is responsible for deciding whether to pursue disciplinary actions against Departmental staff who are alleged to have violated Departmental rules and regulations, including the commission of acts of sexual misconduct. He is sued in his official capacity for prospective injunctive and declaratory relief for the failure to investigate and discipline staff so as to prevent the sexual harassment and abuse of women prisoners, as set forth in ¶¶ 14-21, 39.
12. Defendant Glenn S. Goord is the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Correctional Services. He is responsible for the care, custody and control of all inmates housed in DOCS facilities. He is the chief executive officer of DOCS, responsible, consistent with the legal mandates governing DOCS, for the management and control of all state prisons, and for all matters relating to the selection, training, assignment, placement, promotion, and discipline of the uniformed staff of the prisons where women prisoners are confined. He is responsible, along with the Inspector General, for the system of complaint and investigation of staff misconduct, including
8
21578717v1

sexual harassment and abuse, and for setting the standards by which such complaints are reviewed to determine the actions, if any, to be taken against staff. He is responsible for the policies and practices as set forth below that have resulted in the deprivation of plaintiffs’ rights under federal law and has failed to take necessary and appropriate actions to prevent such deprivations. Along with the Commissioner of the Office of Mental Health, named below, defendant Goord is responsible for the provision of mental health services to inmates in his custody. Defendant Goord is sued in his official capacity, for prospective injunctive and declaratory relief for his failure to protect women prisoners from sexual harassment and abuse, as set forth in ¶¶ 14-40.
13. Defendant James J. Stone is the Commissioner of the New York State Office of Mental Health. He is responsible for the operation and administration of programs for the treatment of mentally ill prisoners confined in New York State prisons. He is sued in his official capacity for prospective and injunctive relief for the failure to provide appropriate and minimally adequate mental health treatment to women prisoners who have complained of sexual harassment and abuse, as set forth in ¶¶ 14-21, 40.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS SUPERVISORY DEFENDANTS KNOW THAT WOMEN PRISONERS ARE AT SUBSTANTIAL RISK OF SEXUAL MISCONDUCT BY DOCS STAFF BUT FAIL
TO TAKE NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE ACTION. 14. Due to the coercive nature of a prison setting, women prisoners cannot consent to sexual activity with correctional staff. This incapacity to consent is recognized by New York State law. N.Y. Penal Law § 130.05(e).
9
21578717v1

15. DOCS correctional staff subject women prisoners to recurrent and ongoing acts of sexual misconduct. These include forcible rape, sexual intercourse, anal intercourse, oral sexual acts, sexual touching, voyeurism, invasion of personal privacy, demeaning sexual comments, and intimidation to deter women prisoners from reporting such sexual misconduct.
16. Supervisory defendants are responsible for the care, custody and control of women prisoners, and, through their acts and omissions, supervisory defendants perpetuate the sexual harassment and abuse of women prisoners.
17. Supervisory defendants know that by assigning male staff to female prisons they place women prisoners at substantial risk of experiencing sexual misconduct; that sexual misconduct by staff is ongoing and recurrent; that victims of sexual abuse or harassment in a correctional setting are unlikely to come forward with complaints of such misconduct; and that defendants’ policies and practices are grossly inadequate to prevent and remedy sexual misconduct. Despite the obvious nature of these risks and despite the recurrent incidence of sexual abuse and harassment by male staff of women prisoners, supervisory defendants have failed to take reasonable, necessary and appropriate steps to prevent and remedy such misconduct. SUPERVISORY DEFENDANTS KNOW THAT WOMEN PRISONERS ARE AT
SUBSTANTIAL RISK OF SEXUAL MISCONDUCT BY DOCS STAFF. 18. As many as 60-80% of women prisoners were sexually or physically
abused prior to their incarceration. These women are at a heightened risk for the
10
21578717v1

recurrence of such abuse and, when subjected to such abuse, they are more vulnerable to its consequences.
19. Supervisory defendants are aware that assigning male staff to guard female prisoners creates obvious risks of sexual activity and that the absolute disparity in power between male staff and women prisoners renders sexual activity between male staff and female prisoners inherently coercive.
a. Awareness of the risk and incidence of sexual abuse in a prison setting has led to the promulgation of international standards prohibiting the assignment of male correctional staff to guard women prisoners. United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, Rule 53, adopted Aug. 30, 1955.
b. Awareness of the risk and incidence of sexual abuse in a prison setting led New York State to enact a statute criminalizing any sexual contact between prisoners and correctional staff. See N.Y. Penal Law § 130.05(e). In enacting this statute, New York State recognized that correctional staff wield almost absolute power over all aspects of the daily lives of women prisoners so that women frequently believe that they cannot refuse demands for sexual activity. 20. Supervisory defendants are aware of the substantial risk of sexual misconduct by male staff upon women prisoners given DOCS’ actual experience. On information and belief, the Sex Crimes Unit of the DOCS Inspector General’s Office each year receives more than 200 complaints of sexual misconduct. From 1996 to 2002
11
21578717v1

DOCS referred for criminal prosecution 34 cases of sexual misconduct by staff; 24 officers have been convicted. Male correctional staff from Albion, Bayview, and Lakeview Correctional Facilities have been convicted of crimes of sexual misconduct within approximately the past year and a half; male staff from Albion, Bedford Hills, Taconic and Bayview Correctional Facilities are currently criminally charged with sexual misconduct of women prisoners. DOCS had received complaints of sexual misconduct about several of these officers prior to the incidents leading to their arrest. Women prisoners are impregnated by male staff in DOCS prisons with regularity, including three of the plaintiffs named in this complaint.
21. Despite these known risks and incidence of sexual misconduct by staff, supervisory defendants, through their policies and practices, have recklessly disregarded these risks, and have failed to protect the women prisoners in their custody from harm.
SUPERVISORY DEFENDANTS FAIL APPROPRIATELY TO SCREEN, ASSIGN, TRAIN, AND SUPERVISE STAFF.
22. Supervisory defendants fail to screen staff for employment so as to prevent sexual misconduct by staff. On information and belief, despite the availability of screening tools that are available to identify male staff for psychological tendencies to abuse women, supervisory defendants fail to use such tools either during the initial hiring phase or at any time before or after assigning male staff to work in a women’s prison.
23. Supervisory defendants assign male correctional staff to guard women prisoners without adequate safeguards to prevent sexual harassment and abuse.
12
21578717v1

a. The majority of officers assigned to female prisons are male. Supervisory defendants have made insufficient efforts to hire female staff, to limit the number of male staff assigned to female prisons, or to assign female staff to female prisons.
b. Supervisory defendants have designated virtually no assignments within DOCS women’s prisons as female-only posts.
c. Supervisory defendants assign male staff to posts in which they have the opportunity for unmonitored contact with women prisoners. This includes, for example, the assignment of male staff to housing areas by themselves, even during the nighttime hours.
d. Almost without exception, supervisory defendants allow male correctional staff to bid for (choose) their own assignments, without regard to the history or severity of allegations of sexual misconduct received against them. 24. Supervisory defendants fail to ensure the training of staff so as to prevent sexual misconduct by staff.
a. Upon information and belief, the training of staff about issues of sexual misconduct is perfunctory and fails to focus on the special issues of women prisoners, including that a significant proportion are unlikely to report sexual misconduct, are at a heightened risk to experience sexual harassment and abuse, and are particularly vulnerable to its consequences. See ¶¶ 18, 27.
b. Upon information and belief, the training of staff fails to emphasize the importance of recognizing signs of sexual misconduct between
13
21578717v1

staff and women prisoners and the importance of reporting such signs to supervisory officials. Staff have not been trained adequately to report such misconduct either when such conduct is observed or when they have reason to believe it has occurred, such as male officers and female inmates observed together in locations where they are not permitted or engaging in behavior suggestive of an inappropriate relationship. 25. Supervisory defendants fail to implement and enforce appropriate supervision by and of its staff so as to prevent and remedy staff sexual misconduct.
a. Upon information and belief, supervisory defendants have failed to enact adequate rules and policies to protect women prisoners from sexual innuendoes, vulgarity, degrading sexual comments, and propositioning and to enforce those rules and policies that exist. For example, male staff are not disciplined for violating these rules. As a result, such behavior by staff is commonplace, resulting in a hostile and sexualized atmosphere in which sexual harassment and abuse of women prisoners is more likely to occur.
b. Upon information and belief, supervisory defendants have failed to enact appropriate rules and policies to protect the privacy of women prisoners and to enforce those rules and policies that exist, resulting in violations of their privacy. For example, at times male officers watch women in showers and bathroom areas and watch women dress and undress. In addition, even when male staff are supposed to announce their presence in female prisoners’ housing
14
21578717v1

areas prior to their entry, they often fail to do so and are not disciplined or reprimanded for such misconduct.
c. Officers engaging in sexual misconduct leave their assigned posts, allow inmates into areas where inmates are not permitted, and engage in obvious behavior that is suggestive of inappropriate relationships. Supervisory defendants have failed to take sufficient action when such activities are observed or to enforce policies intended to identify, address and prohibit these activities.
d. Supervisory defendants often permit officers and staff virtually unfettered access to private, unmonitored areas such as kitchen store rooms, storage closets, slop sink areas, and laundry areas where sexual abuse of women prisoners is more easily accomplished.
e. Supervisory defendants fail to increase the supervision of correctional staff about whom they have received complaints of sexual misconduct by women prisoners. Such staff are still permitted unmonitored contact with women prisoners, often still with virtually unfettered access to private unmonitored areas and without additional staff being assigned to observe their actions.
SUPERVISORY DEFENDANTS’ SYSTEM FOR REPORTING AND INVESTIGATING COMPLAINTS OF SEXUAL MISCONDUCT
IS GROSSLY INADEQUATE. 26. Supervisory defendants’ system for the reporting and investigation of sexual misconduct is grossly inadequate to prevent and remedy ongoing sexual misconduct because it relies almost completely upon women prisoners to come forward
15
21578717v1

and report the misconduct; it deters women prisoners from reporting sexual misconduct; it fails to utilize reasonable and available investigative tools; it is biased; and it fails to take appropriate action against perpetrators if and when women do come forward. The effect of this system is to allow sexual misconduct by staff to continue virtually unabated.
27. Supervisory defendants know that women prisoners are unlikely to come forward with complaints of sexual abuse by staff.
a. Victims of sexual abuse, in general, are unlikely to come forward with complaints of such misconduct, due to embarrassment and humiliation and a fear that such complaints will be greeted with skepticism.
b. These concerns are exacerbated in a correctional setting, where the persons to whom such complaints are to be made are colleagues of the perpetrator(s) of the abuse, putting the victim at risk of retaliation; where complaints of such abuse are not maintained in a confidential fashion; and where there is a well-founded belief by women prisoners that such complaints will be greeted with skepticism, and will not result in any action against the perpetrator.
c. Women prisoners who were subjected to physical or sexual abuse prior to their incarceration, particularly those who complained to no avail, may face difficult psychological and emotional obstacles in complaining of sexual misconduct while in prison. These women are unlikely to come forward with such complaints while in prison. 28. Supervisory defendants know that, given this reluctance, having a complaint and investigative system that relies primarily on women prisoners to come
16
21578717v1

forward with complaints of sexual abuse is insufficient to prevent and remedy this misconduct. Nonetheless, supervisory defendants rely on such a system and fail to utilize other means to root out sexual misconduct, as set forth at ¶ 34.
29. Supervisory defendants do not adequately inform women prisoners of the procedures for reporting sexual misconduct by staff, and indeed provide ambiguous information.
a. On arrival into DOCS custody, all women prisoners in DOCS custody receive an orientation to DOCS policies and practices at Bedford Hills Correctional Facility. DOCS policy and practice is to provide each woman prisoner with an orientation manual suggesting that they can complain about sexual misconduct to any official they feel comfortable approaching, including staff of the Inspector General’s office. A copy of the orientation manual is annexed to this complaint as Exhibit 1.
b. Women prisoners have been told that they can complain about sexual misconduct not only by writing the Inspector General’s office, but also by informing any DOCS employee, orally or in writing. E.g., Exhibit 2.
c. Women prisoners have been given ambiguous, incomplete and/or insufficient information concerning the time in which they must complain about sexual misconduct, and if or how they may respond to findings or a lack of findings. 30. The Inspector General’s Office is the administrative mechanism supervisory defendants have established to attempt to remedy complaints by women
17
21578717v1

prisoners of sexual misconduct by staff. Supervisory defendants refer all complaints of sexual misconduct to the Inspector General’s Office, Sex Crimes Unit for investigation, regardless of how such complaints are initiated, including through the filing of a formal grievance. E.g., Exhibits 1, 2, 3 and 4. Supervisory defendants have questioned whether they should even accept grievances about sexual misconduct since they are forwarded to the Inspector General’s Office for investigation, rather than handled through the grievance process. E.g., Exhibit 5.
31. Pursuant to supervisory defendants’ policies and/or practices, complaints concerning sexual misconduct by staff are not maintained confidentially, deterring women prisoners from coming forward with complaints. If the grievance system is used, other inmates can immediately become aware of the details of the complaint. Because staff do not conduct investigations into complaints of sexual misconduct in a confidential manner, the perpetrators of misconduct or their colleagues learn of the investigations and inflict harassment or retaliation upon women prisoners. When staff promise confidentiality to women prisoners, they often violate their commitment.
32. Supervisory defendants fail to take steps sufficient to protect women prisoners who complain of experiencing sexual misconduct by staff from retaliation or intimidation. These women often remain in the same prison and can even remain in the same housing area as the perpetrator of the misconduct.
33. Pursuant to supervisory defendants’ policies and/or practices, women prisoners who complain of sexual misconduct by staff or who are questioned in the
18
21578717v1

course of an investigation are often questioned in a hostile, demeaning and threatening manner.
34. Supervisory defendants fail to employ obvious measures to reduce the risk of sexual misconduct between staff and women prisoners, such as heightened monitoring of situations indicative of ongoing sexual misconduct or inappropriate relationships, lie detectors, surveillance cameras, electronic recording devices, exit interviews of prisoners on transfer and release, random interviews of staff, and frequent and unannounced rounds by supervisory officials.
35. Supervisory defendants’ policies and/or practices treat complaints by women prisoners of sexual misconduct by staff in a systematically biased fashion. An allegation of sexual misconduct based exclusively or primarily on the statement of a woman prisoner will not be given credence, will not be found to be substantiated, and will not result in any action being taken against the staff person, even if credible and even if supported by other witnesses.
a. Supervisory defendants’ investigations do not give adequate weight to indicia of sexual misconduct short of physical evidence. Such indicia include staff persons being seen out of place; staff persons allowing inmates into areas where inmates are not permitted; staff persons engaging in behavior suggestive of an inappropriate relationship; and staff giving contradictory statements to investigators.
b. Supervisory defendants’ investigations fail to give adequate weight to similar prior complaints of sexual misconduct against the same staff member.
19
21578717v1

Such patterns may include allegations that a staff member has used the same language in propositioning more than one woman prisoner; allegations that an officer has taken more than one woman prisoner to the same location, such as a slop sink area, to engage in sexual abuse; or allegations that an officer has avoided witnesses to the misconduct by engaging in the abuse during the count, when other inmates would be locked into their cells and so could not observe it. Defendants do not maintain records in a manner so as to make such information readily available, and ignore or dismiss it even when it becomes available to them.
c. Supervisory defendants’ investigations fail to give adequate weight to the credibility of witnesses. Upon information and belief, the investigator assigned to a complaint of sexual misconduct does not even record an assessment of the credibility of the person making the complaint, of the alleged perpetrator or of witnesses. 36. Supervisory defendants’ policies and/or practices result in the dismissal of women prisoners’ complaints of sexual misconduct as being without basis, despite other indicia of reliability, unless the woman has physical proof of sexual contact, e.g., semen or proof of pregnancy.
a. Supervisory defendants’ policies and/or practices cause DOCS investigators to advise women prisoners that if they wish any action to be taken against the perpetrator, they must submit to further, and often more degrading, sexual abuse in order to obtain physical proof. These women are told that they
20
21578717v1

must do this on their own; they are not offered any protection or assistance from any DOCS staff member so as to ensure their personal safety.
b. Supervisory defendants’ policies and/or practices allow staff to engage in sexual misconduct virtually without fear of repercussions so long as no physical evidence can be discovered. As a result of these policies and/or practices, staff against whom credible complaints of sexual misconduct have been lodged are not moved away from contact with women prisoners; rather, they are left in a position where they can continue to sexually harass and abuse other women prisoners, exposing other women prisoners to an unnecessarily high risk of sexual misconduct. 37. Under the policies and practices of supervisory defendants, women may be subject to punishment for reporting sexual harassment by staff, which chills and deters them from reporting, and thereby perpetuates staff misconduct. Women may be charged with disciplinary offenses for having sexual relations with staff, despite the fact that sexual acts by prisoners with staff are involuntary as a matter of state law. Women may also be charged with other disciplinary offenses, such as being out of place, inappropriate conduct with an officer, or making false statements if they are not believed. The result may be placement in disciplinary segregation under harsh, isolating and punitive conditions, including being locked in their cells 23 hours a day and being deprived of their personal property and most prison privileges. Alternatively, they may be placed in administrative segregation under similarly harsh and restrictive conditions. Either placement means the loss of participation in all program and job assignments, as well as
21
21578717v1

drug and alcohol treatment. Alternatively, they may be placed in protective custody, with severe restrictions on both out-of-cell time, movement within the prison, and programming options. Women who make such complaints are often transferred to different prisons, while the perpetrator is permitted to continue working in the same assignment. These transfers may disrupt contact with children and family, and participation in program and job assignments. Because disciplinary history, placement in administrative segregation, and program and job assignments are considered by the merit board and the parole board, a woman who complains about sexual misconduct risks lengthening her incarceration.
38. Supervisory defendants do not consistently conduct investigations into claims of sexual harassment and abuse in a prompt manner, potentially subjecting both the woman who has complained and other women prisoners to continued abuse. Once a woman prisoner notifies defendants that she has been subjected to abuse, weeks can pass before an investigation is begun. Once it is begun, even when unambiguous proof of misconduct is offered, action may not be promptly taken against staff.
39. Upon information and belief, supervisory defendants have structured the investigative system so that a dearth of options are available to protect women prisoners from sexual harassment and abuse. Supervisory defendants have structured the complaint and investigative system so that complaints of sexual misconduct by staff either result in a referral to law enforcement to pursue a criminal charge, based on physical proof of the misconduct such as semen or proof of pregnancy, or, in virtually all other cases, result in no action being taken against the staff member. Staff are not removed from unmonitored
22
21578717v1

contact with women prisoners unless a disciplinary action is brought and sustained. Such actions are almost never initiated in response to complaints of sexual misconduct in the absence of physical evidence. As a result, staff are not removed from contact with women prisoners even when credible complaints of sexual misconduct have been lodged against them.
SUPERVISORY DEFENDANTS FAIL TO PROVIDE NECESSARY OR ADEQUATE MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT TO WOMEN WHO COMPLAIN OF SEXUAL MISCONDUCT BY DOCS STAFF. 40. DOCS has failed to provide minimally adequate mental health care to
women who come forward to complain about sexual misconduct by staff. a. Women prisoners who are subjected to sexual harassment or abuse
by male staff experience harmful consequences and require appropriate mental health care. Women with a history of prior sexual or physical abuse, the majority of women prisoners, are at particular risk of severe emotional injury and distress from sexual harassment and abuse by male staff and have a heightened need for appropriate mental health care.
b. When women prisoners come forward to report sexual misconduct by staff in DOCS employ, no mental health treatment is routinely offered.
c. Women prisoners who experience sexual abuse, including those who suffer from post traumatic stress disorder, may require specialized mental health treatment. Although supervisory defendants provide some degree of mental health services to prisoners in DOCS custody, they fail to provide
23
21578717v1

minimally adequate treatment by mental health professionals trained in the treatment of women who have suffered sexual abuse.
d. Although mental health services should be provided in a confidential manner, supervisory defendants do not ensure such privacy. When women prisoners advise mental health staff of sexual abuse and harassment, their complaints are not always maintained confidentially. Mental health staff have notified DOCS officials about the misconduct without providing supportive treatment surrounding the reporting of the abuse.
e. To the extent mental health treatment is provided, supervisory defendants deter women prisoners from seeking it by attaching to it deleterious consequences. A woman prisoner who seeks mental health treatment may be required to be confined in a more secure facility, despite otherwise being classified as a lower security risk. Women who are receiving mental health treatment can, as a result, be denied access to programs, reducing the likelihood of release on parole. In addition, the fact that a woman prisoner has received mental health treatment is made known to the Division of Parole and can be considered by them in determining whether to grant release to a woman prisoner.
THE NAMED PLAINTIFFS HAVE SUFFERED REPEATED AND UNNECESSARY SEXUAL ABUSE.
41. LUCY AM. was an inmate in the custody of the Department of Correctional Services and was released from custody on May 17, 2002.
24
21578717v1

a. Ms. Am. was confined at Albion Correctional Facility from approximately October 1999 through January 21, 2002.
b. Ms. Am. was assigned to work in C block basement. She also participated voluntarily in programs that were conducted there.
c. Starting in approximately December 2000, defendant Officer Robert Sm. propositioned Ms. Am. sexually, including suggesting that Ms. Am. perform oral sex on him. On various occasions, he sexually assaulted Ms. Am., including squeezing her breasts, touching her buttocks, and kissing her. Then, in May or early June, 2001, he exposed his penis to her.
d. Ms. Am. complained by letter to the Commissioner about Officer Sm.’s sexual conduct. By letter dated June 19, 2001, Deputy Commissioner Lucien J. Leclaire, Jr. advised Ms. Am. that complaints about staff misconduct are handled at the facility level, and forwarded Ms. Am.’s complaint to Superintendent Andrews at Albion. When she was interrogated by Lt. Scalise on June 27, 2001, Ms. Am. complained about Officer Sm.’s abuse. On June 29, 2001, Superintendent Andrews advised Ms. Am. that her complaint had been forwarded to the Inspector General’s office. Ms. Am. was then interviewed by staff of the Inspector General’s office in August 2001. She complained to them about Officer Sm.’s sexual abuse. The Inspector General’s office informed her that without physical evidence it would be very difficult for any action to be taken against Officer Sm..
25
21578717v1

e. Shortly after this interview, Officer Sm. was assigned to work in C

block basement, despite Ms. Am.’s complaint. He then threatened Ms. Am. and

terminated her from her work assignment there. She was no longer called for any

of the programs she had been voluntarily participating in C Block basement. She

complained to supervisory staff at Albion and then to the Inspector General’s

office about this.

f. Upon information and belief, supervisory defendants at Albion and

staff from the Inspector General’s office had received complaints of sexual

misconduct by Officer Sm. prior to the experiences suffered by Ms. Am., but took

no effective action in response.

g. After complaining about the loss of her job and programs, Ms.

Am. was reinstated in her programs, but did not get her job back. Officer Sm.’s

assignment was not changed.

h. After Ms. Am. complained about Officer Sm.’s sexual misconduct,

he was assigned on one occasion to her housing area.

i.

Upon information and belief, Officer Sm. received no disciplinary

action as a result of Ms. Am.’s complaint, and continues to work as a correctional

officer at Albion in positions where he has unmonitored contact with women

prisoners.

j.

As a result of the abuse by Officer Sm., Ms. Am. suffered severe

psychological and emotional distress including depression and fearfulness of male

officers.

26
21578717v1

k. In early December 2001, defendant Sergeant Michael Ga. was

assigned as area supervisor for the area including K-2, Ms. Am.’s housing unit.

l.

Sgt. Ga. began spending two to three hours several days each

week in K-2, often seeking to watch Ms. Am.. Housing area officers made

comments to Ms. Am. noting Sgt. Ga.’s unusual behavior. Despite this,

supervisory defendants took no effective action to investigate or end his

misconduct.

m. At one point during this period, Sgt. Ga. sexually assaulted Ms.

Am. by groping her buttocks.

n. In late December 2001, under the guise of investigating a fight,

Sgt. Ga. called Ms. Am. to the Administration Building, took her to a room in the

basement and demanded to pat frisk her. He then sexually assaulted her by

touching her breasts and vaginal area, pressing his body against hers from behind,

and forcing her to participate in oral sexual acts. He then forced her to clean, so

as to ensure that he had not left any physical evidence.

o. Upon returning to her unit, Ms. Am. discovered some semen on

her shirt and kept the shirt as evidence. She had a friend transmit a complaint to

the Inspector General’s office.

p. In January 2002, Ms. Am. was called to speak with the Inspector

General about “closing” her complaint about Officer Sm., presumably due to the

lack of physical evidence. At that interview, Ms. Am. complained about the

sexual abuse by Sgt. Ga. and provided her shirt with Sgt. Ga.’s semen on it. On

27
21578717v1

information and belief, additional DNA evidence was then discovered in the

basement where this abuse occurred.

q. Ms. Am. was then placed in protective custody, without any of her

belongings, and then transferred to Taconic Correctional Facility where she was

also placed in protective custody.

r. DOCS officials had received complaints of sexual misconduct

about Sgt. Ga. prior to the abuse experienced by Ms. Am. but took no effective

action in response.

s. Sgt. Ga. has been convicted of criminal charges for his sexual

misconduct and is no longer in the employ of DOCS.

t.

Ms. Am. was not offered mental health treatment after she

complained to the Inspector General about Sgt. Ga..

u. At Taconic, Ms. Am. repeatedly requested mental health care. She

was suicidal and threatened to kill herself. While in protective custody, she was

seen for a few moments a day during rounds by a mental health worker through

her cell door. During the next two months, she repeatedly asked to see a

psychiatrist. Ms. Am. was never seen by a psychiatrist, and was seen by a

psychologist on only two occasions for about five minutes.

v. Ms. Am. was sexually abused as a child and an adult and was

physically abused as an adult prior to her incarceration.

28
21578717v1

w. As a result of the abuse by Sgt. Ga., Ms. Am. has suffered severe psychological and emotional distress including depression, difficulty sleeping and eating, and bouts of crying. 42. STACIE CA. is an inmate presently confined at Albion Correctional Facility.
a. From approximately May until December 1999, while confined at Bedford Hills Correctional Facility, Ms. Ca. was subjected to intercourse, oral sexual acts and other acts of sexual abuse by an officer employed by DOCS. Months after her complaint he was removed from DOCS employ. Ms. Ca. was never informed by the staff of the Inspector General’s office or by other DOCS staff as to what actions, if any, were taken against this officer in response to her complaints.
b. Ms. Ca. was not offered mental health counseling after this incident.
c. In February 2001, Ms. Ca., while confined at Albion Correctional Facility, was assigned to work in the mess hall, where defendant Officer Jeffrey Sh. was assigned.
d. Officer Sh. repeatedly propositioned Ms. Ca. sexually, and in May 2001, took her into a room in the back of the mess hall and subjected her to oral sex by him. In response to his subsequent demand that she perform oral sex upon him, Ms. Ca. massaged his penis with her hand.
29
21578717v1

e. In June 2001, following this abuse, Ms. Ca. asked the program

committee of Albion to change her program away from the mess hall but she

remained assigned there.

f. Approximately at the end of July 2001, Ms. Ca. complained to

staff of the Inspector General’s office that Officer Sh. had sexually abused her.

She described the room where the misconduct took place, a room to which

inmates were not authorized to have access. The Inspector General’s office failed

to inform Ms. Ca. about what, if any, action was taken with respect to her

allegations.

g. Upon information and belief, Officer Sh. remains assigned to the

mess hall at Albion where he has unmonitored contact with women prisoners.

h. Upon information and belief, defendant Deputy Superintendent

Wolff had received complaints of sexual misconduct by Officer Sh. prior to the

experience suffered by Ms. Ca., but took no effective action in response.

i.

Upon information and belief, officials at Albion and staff of the

Inspector General’s office had received complaints of sexual misconduct by

Officer Sh. prior to the experience suffered by Ms. Ca., including the complaint of

Ms. Jo., described at ¶ 46, but took no effective action in response.

j.

Following the abuse she suffered from Officer Sh., Ms. Ca.

requested mental health treatment. She was seen once a month by mental health

staff and prescribed sleeping medication, anti-psychotic and anti-depressant

30
21578717v1

medications but received no counseling or additional treatment appropriate to address her sexual abuse.
k. Ms. Ca. was sexually and physically abused as a child and as an adult prior to her incarceration.
l. As a result of the abuse by Officer Sh., Ms. Ca. has suffered severe psychological and emotional distress. She has experienced depression, been distrustful, fearful, and disconnected from other people, and has had flashbacks of prior abuse. She also has experienced physical symptoms, including difficulty sleeping and overeating. 43. TONIE CO. is an inmate presently confined at Bedford Hills Correctional Facility.
a. Ms. Co. arrived at Albion in January 2000. She was transferred to M block, a reception housing area. Defendant Officer Charles Da. was assigned to this housing area.
b. On February 14, 2000, Officer Da. ordered Ms. Co. into an isolated room where he sexually assaulted her, forcibly grabbing her, kissing her, fondling her, and, over her clothing, placing his hands on her breasts, buttocks and genital area, and placing his hands inside her pants and touching her vaginal area. Later that day, Officer Da. ordered her to remove her clothing and then watched her in a state of undress. On the next day, in an isolated room, Officer Da. sexually assaulted Ms. Co. by forcibly kissing her and touching her breasts, buttocks, and
31
21578717v1

vaginal area under her clothing. Officer Da. also threatened to rape Ms. Co. when he next returned to the facility in several days.
c. Before Officer Da. returned to the facility, Ms. Co. complained to Albion officials, including Sgt. Watson, who was assigned to her housing area, about the abuse.
d. Ms. Co. was moved from this housing area following her complaint to staff and placed in administrative segregation for approximately three days. She then complained to staff from the Inspector General’s office that Officer Da. had sexually abused her. She was then moved to another general population housing area. The Inspector General’s office failed to inform Ms. Co. about what, if any, action was taken with respect to her allegations. She later heard, through word-of-mouth from prison staff, that her allegations had been found “unsubstantiated.”
e. Officer Da. remains employed as a correctional officer at Albion in assignments where he has unmonitored contact with women prisoners. No disciplinary action was taken against him and Ms. Co.’ complaint was found to be “unsubstantiated.”
f. Since Ms. Co. reported this misconduct, Officer Da. has been assigned to her housing area.
g. On several occasions when Ms. Co. has seen Officer Da. since reporting the misconduct, Officer Da. has threatened her and accused her of lying.
32
21578717v1

h. While confined at Albion in disciplinary segregation, Ms. Co. has been offered cigarettes if she would expose herself.
i. In March 2002, Ms. Co. was moved back to M-block where the abuse occurred, causing her to experience flashbacks of the incident. Officer Da. was assigned to that unit on at least one occasion, came to the unit on others, and threatened her. Despite repeated requests by Ms. Co. to be moved from that unit, Albion officials refused to move her.
j. Upon information and belief, officials at Albion and staff from the Inspector General’s Office had received complaints of sexual misconduct about Officer Da. prior to his abuse of Ms. Co., but took no effective action in response.
k. Ms. Co. was physically abused as an adult prior to her incarceration.
l. As a result of the abuse of Officer Da., Ms. Co. suffered severe psychological and emotional distress. She has experienced depression, has been afraid to sleep and has experienced nightmares.
m. After the complaint in this suit was filed on January 28, 2003, Officer Da. engaged in numerous acts of retaliation against Ms. Co. for her participation in this suit, including, but not limited to, the following:
i. In February 2003, Officer Da. verbally harassed Ms. Co. concerning her allegations in the complaint.
ii. From May to June 2003, on several occasions, Officer Da. verbally harassed, and made sexually degrading comments to Ms. Co.. He
33
21578717v1

threatened to place his hands upon her and to “lock” her. On multiple occasions, Officer Da. ordered her to leave the prison yard without justification well before her allotted recreation time was up. During this time, Defendant Superintendent Anginell Andrews was informed of this illegal conduct by Officer Da..
iii. Thereafter, on or about June 29, 2003, as Ms. Co. approached the prison yard for her scheduled recreation module, Officer Da. swore at her without provocation and refused to allow her to enter. After Ms. Co. requested to speak to a sergeant, Officer Da. wrote an unfounded disciplinary infraction against Ms. Co.. Although charged with a Tier II disciplinary infraction, Ms. Co. inappropriately received 45 days in disciplinary segregation. Ms. Co. raised claims of retaliation in her disciplinary hearing, appealed the result, filed a separate grievance about the retaliation, and upon information and belief appealed this separate grievance. 44. STEPHANIE DA. is an inmate presently confined at Bayview Correctional Facility. a. While confined at Taconic Correctional Facility in D gallery, in the early morning hours of February 25, 2003, defendant Officer Frederick Br. raped Ms. Da.. Officer Br. was the sole officer assigned to Ms. Da.’s housing area during the nighttime.
34
21578717v1

b. Sometime after midnight on February 25, 2003, Officer Br. ordered Ms. Da. to leave her cell and accompany him, first to the officer’s station and then to the officer’s bathroom, where he sexually assaulted her by forcibly inserting his finger into her vagina, placing her hand on his penis, and then forcibly performing vaginal intercourse. Officer Br. attempted to pull out before ejaculation. Following the act of intercourse, Officer Br. attempted to clean all semen from himself and from Ms. Da. and threatened her not to tell anyone what had happened.
c. During the daytime hours of February 25, 2003, Ms. Da. told a religious advisor and a sergeant about Officer Br.’s sexual abuse. She also complained that same day to staff from the Inspector General’s office and the State Police about the same incidents of sexual abuse by Officer Br..
d. Ms. Da. filed on February 25, 2003 a formal DOCS grievance about the forcible rape she experienced. The Superintendent responded on March 14, 2003 that “an investigation by the DOCS Inspector General’s Office is in progress.” Central Office denied the grievance on May 7, 2003, upholding the decision of the Superintendent, noting the “complaint has been forwarded to the appropriate Department personnel for investigation. Any action deemed necessary will be taken as a result of the investigation.”
e. For weeks after the abuse, Ms. Da. was not told the results of the rape kit or whether any action would be taken against defendant Officer Br..
f. Officer Br. is being prosecuted for the sexual abuse of Ms. Da..
35
21578717v1

g. Prior to the abuse by Officer Br. of Ms. Da., in approximately October 2002, on E gallery, another officer at Taconic Correctional Facility exposed his penis and asked her to perform oral sex upon him. 45. LATASHA DO. is an inmate presently confined at Bedford Hills Correctional Facility.
a. Defendant Officer Michael Ev. was assigned to Ms. Do.’s housing area on the 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. tour. Beginning in the summer of 2000, Officer Ev. subjected Ms. Do. to repeated oral sexual acts, sexual touching, and vaginal intercourse. In December 2001, Officer Ev. assaulted Ms. Do., requiring her to seek medical attention for abrasions and bruising.
b. In October 2001, Ms. Do. complained to the Inspector General’s office that she was at risk from Officer Ev.. Several months later, Ms. Do. complained to staff from the Inspector General’s office about Officer Ev.’ sexual abuse. She informed them of the location of an unauthorized gift he had provided to her. The Inspector General’s office failed to inform Ms. Do. about the outcome of its investigation.
c. Upon information and belief, Officer Ev. remains employed at Bedford Hills, assigned to a post in which he has limited contact with prisoners.
d. Ms. Do. was confined on West Wing at Bedford Hills Correctional Facility. From approximately May to July 2001, when Officer Me. was assigned to that housing area, he repeatedly propositioned Ms. Do. sexually; frequently
36
21578717v1

attempted to pull back the shower curtain while she was showering; and frequently attempted to view Ms. Do. while she changed her clothes.
e. On approximately June 29, 2002, Officer Me. was assigned as a recreation officer. While Ms. Do. was returning to the yard from the lobby drinking fountain, Officer Me. blocked her path and forcibly grabbed her breasts with both hands.
f. Ms. Do. filed a grievance on June 29, 2002 about Officer Me.’ sexual abuse. She received a response from the Superintendent neither granting nor denying her grievance but stating in full that her “Grievance has been forwarded to the Inspector General’s Office for investigation. The facility is following procedure.”
g. On November 18, 2002, staff from the Inspector General’s office subsequently met with her in a setting where other correctional staff could observe and overhear the interview. Because Officer Me. had threatened her and because her interview with staff from the Inspector General’s office was not confidential, Ms. Do. did not inform the Inspector General of the abuse.
h. Upon information and belief, no action was taken against Officer Me., who continued to be assigned to posts where he had access to Ms. Do. and where he harassed Ms. Do., expressing anger at her for grieving his conduct.
i. Upon information and belief, officials from Bedford Hills had received complaints of sexual misconduct by Officer Me. prior to his abuse of Ms. Do. but took no effective action in response.
37
21578717v1

j. Upon information and belief, based on allegations of sexual misconduct by other female inmates following the incidents of his abuse of Ms. Do., Officer Me. has been suspended with pay from DOCS.
k. Ms. Do. was sexually abused as a child. l. As a result of the abuse by Officers Ev. and Me., Ms. Do. experienced severe psychological and emotional distress. 46. TANYA JO. is an inmate presently confined at Bayview Correctional Facility. a. Ms. Jo. was confined at Albion Correctional Facility. While there, she worked in the mess hall from December 1999 to early July 2000 and from October 2000 to February 2001. In the mess hall, defendant Officer Jeffrey Sh. subjected her to verbal harassment, sexual propositioning, and unlawful physical contact including kissing and the performance of oral sexual acts. b. In early 2001, Ms. Jo. was being seen by a mental health professional to whom she described the sexual abuse she was experiencing. At the same time that the mental health worker told Ms. Jo. that she was closing her case so that Ms. Jo. would receive no further treatment, the mental health worker reported Ms. Jo.’ complaints concerning Officer Sh.’s misconduct to Albion officials. c. In February 2001, Ms. Jo. then complained to Albion officials and to staff from the Inspector General’s office about Officer Sh.’s sexual misconduct.
38
21578717v1

The Inspector General’s office failed to inform Ms. Jo. about what, if any, action was taken with respect to her allegations.
d. Officer Sh. remains assigned to the mess hall at Albion where he continues to have unmonitored contact with women prisoners.
e. Ms. Jo. was threatened and harassed by staff at Albion for months after reporting Officer Sh.’s misconduct to Albion officials and staff from the Inspector General’s office.
f. Upon information and belief, officials at Albion, including Deputy Superintendent Wolff, and staff of the Inspector General’s office had received complaints of sexual misconduct against Officer Sh. prior to the experiences suffered by Ms. Jo., but took no effective action in response.
g. Despite her repeated requests for mental health care, Ms. Jo. did not again receive mental health services until she was transferred to Bayview Correctional Facility, in February 2002, almost a year after she suffered the abuse by Officer Sh..
h. Ms. Jo. was physically abused as a child and as an adult prior to her incarceration.
i. As a result of the abuse by Officer Sh., Ms. Jo. has experienced severe psychological and emotional distress. She has experienced depression and extreme anxiety, and has experienced difficulties sleeping. 47. BOBBIE KI. is an inmate presently confined at Taconic Correctional Facility.
39
21578717v1

a. While confined at Albion Correctional Facility defendant Officer D.A. Schmidt subjected Ms. Ki. to sexual comments and propositioned her to engage in sexual activities.
b. On or about August 9, 2001, Officer Schmidt sexually assaulted Ms. Ki., subjecting her to forcible vaginal and anal intercourse.
c. Officer Schmidt threatened Ms. Ki. and told her no one would believe her if she reported the sexual assault.
d. Ms. Ki. became pregnant as a result of this incident, and suffered from vomiting and severe bleeding during bowel movements.
e. Prior to this incident, Officer Schmidt had subjected Ms. Ki. to sexual comments and had propositioned her to engage in sexual activities.
f. Ms. Ki. notified a nurse at the prison that she had been raped. Ms. Ki. then complained in approximately late August or early September 2001 to staff from the Inspector General’s office about Officer Schmidt’s rape.
g. Officer Schmidt has been convicted of rape as a result of this incident and is no longer employed by DOCS.
h. DOCS officials had received complaints of sexual misconduct against Officer Schmidt prior to the experiences suffered by Ms. Ki. but took no effective action in response.
i. After she spoke to the Superintendent, Ms. Ki., over her objection, was transferred from Albion to Taconic Correctional Facility. She was kept at
40
21578717v1

Taconic even after Officer Schmidt’s removal from Albion. As a result, it is very difficult for her to visit with her children, who live in Rochester.
j. Ms. Ki. aborted her pregnancy in September 2001, after her transfer to Taconic.
k. Ms. Ki. was sexually abused as a child. l. As a result of the abuse by Officer Schmidt, Ms. Ki. suffered severe physical injuries, humiliation and severe psychological and emotional distress. 48. BETTE JEAN MCD. was an inmate in the custody of the Department of Correctional Services and was released from custody on May 1, 2002. a. While Ms. McD. was confined at Albion during NovemberDecember 2000, defendant Officer John E. Gi., III repeatedly propositioned her sexually and, through coercion, kissed her and touched her vaginal area over her clothes. He also exposed his genitalia to her. b. Officer Gi. was assigned to Ms. McD.’s housing area on C-block when this sexual misconduct occurred. c. Officer Gi.’s misconduct was glaring and obvious; he was frequently away from his assigned positions; he came into the dormitory area and watched Ms. McD. undress; he sat on Ms. McD.’s bed; and he took her to places that were not authorized for inmates, including the correctional staff office. Yet supervisory defendants took no effective action to investigate or end his misconduct.
41
21578717v1

d. In early February 2001, Ms. McD. reported Officer Gi.’s sexual misconduct to staff from the Inspector General’s office.
e. Ms. McD. was told that her statement to the Inspector General would be confidential. Instead, Officer Gi. and other Albion staff were made aware of Ms. McD.’s complaint, leading to her being threatened and harassed by staff. The Inspector General’s office failed to inform Ms. McD. about the outcome of its investigation.
f. On May 8, 2001, Ms. McD. was given a tier III misbehavior report, the most serious level of disciplinary charges, alleging that she made a false statement about these encounters. This misbehavior report was written by staff from the Inspector General’s office and co-signed by defendant Barbara Leon.
g. On May 8, 2001, Ms. McD. attempted to file a formal DOCS grievance about the sexual abuse she experienced and the disciplinary infraction she received. It was rejected on May 9, 2001 because “misbehavior reports are not grievable.”
h. On May 24, 2001, Ms. McD. was found not guilty of these disciplinary charges. That day, she was transferred to Taconic Correctional Facility, despite severe medical problems that made the eight-hour bus ride extremely arduous and uncomfortable.
42
21578717v1

i. Officer Gi. was permitted to continue his employment as a correctional officer in a housing unit at Albion following Ms. McD.’s report of his sexual misconduct.
j. Upon information and belief, officials at Albion including Deputy Superintendent Wolff and staff from the Inspector General’s office had received complaints of sexual misconduct against Officer Gi. prior to the experiences suffered by Ms. McD., including the complaint of sexual misconduct by Ms. Mu., described in ¶ 49, but took no effective action in response.
k. Ms. McD. was not offered mental health treatment following this abuse.
l. Ms. McD. was confined at Taconic Correctional Facility in the A Block from April 2001 till May 2002.
m. Defendant Officer Mario Pi. was assigned to Ms. McD.’s housing unit several times. Even when not assigned there, on numerous occasions, he came to visit her and speak with her. During these conversations, Officer Pi. repeatedly propositioned her for sexual intercourse, told her he knew her address upon her release, and told her he knew how to get to her house when she was released.
n. In January 2002, on a day when Officer Pi. was not assigned to A Block, he saw Ms. McD. and told her he missed her and would come back to see her.
43
21578717v1

o. A day or two later, when Officer Pi. was not assigned to A Block, he obtained keys to Ms. McD.’s cell, unlocked it and entered it with no legitimate basis during the nighttime. Ms. McD. was asleep. Officer Pi. then forcibly kissed her.
p. Ms. McD. complained to Taconic staff in February 2002, including the sergeant assigned to her housing area, and to representatives of the Inspector General’s office about Officer Pi.’s sexual misconduct. During an interview with a captain, he asked Ms. McD. how far Officer Pi.’s tongue was down her throat and if she believed she could have misconstrued Officer Pi.’s actions. The Inspector General’s office failed to inform Ms. McD. about what, if any, action was taken with respect to her allegations.
q. Upon information and belief, other inmates in approximately February or March 2002 also advised staff from Taconic and the Inspector General’s office about Officer Pi.’s unauthorized entry into Ms. McD.’s cell. Officer Pi.’s unauthorized presence on the unit was also confirmed by DOCS staff.
r. After Officer Pi.’s unauthorized entry into Ms. McD.’s cell and sexual touching of her, he was assigned to her housing area on several occasions and continued to visit her housing area even when not assigned there. During these encounters, Officer Pi. touched Ms. McD.’s buttocks and touched her breasts, offered to rent her an apartment upon her release, told her that he would pay her additional money when they had sexual relations, and told her that he
44
21578717v1

would rape her. Officer Pi. also threatened her, telling her, for example, that she had “better play along” with him when she was questioned by the Inspector General or other staff about her complaint.
s. Despite the substantial corroboration of Officer Pi.’s misconduct, supervisory defendants failed to take effective action. On information and belief, he remains assigned to housing areas at Taconic where he continues to have unmonitored contact with women prisoners.
t. Ms. McD. was not offered mental health treatment after the abuse by Officer Pi..
u. Ms. McD. was sexually abused as a child. v. As a result of the abuse by Officers Gi. and Pi., Ms. McD. suffered severe psychological and emotional distress. She experienced severe anxiety, an enhanced fear of men, distrustfulness, embarrassment, humiliation and a feeling of belittlement. After the incident in mid-January 2002, when Ms. McD. woke to find Officer Pi. in her cell, she experienced severe nightmares of Officer Pi., and/or the person who molested her during her youth, raping her. She has often awakened screaming and in cold sweats. 49. KRISTINA MU. is an inmate presently confined at Albion Correctional Facility. a. Ms. Mu. was confined at Albion in C Block from December 1999 to July 2000. Defendant Officer John E. Gi. III was often assigned as her housing area officer.
45
21578717v1

b. During late January and early February 2000, Ms. Mu. was approached on several occasions by Officer Gi. in her housing area when she was getting undressed. Officer Gi. repeatedly made sexually provocative comments to her and propositioned her, repeatedly asking her to go to the basement with him, and telling her that he would like to have her perform oral sex on him.
c. On two occasions within approximately a week, in late January and early February 2000, Officer Gi. directed Ms. Mu. to the C-block basement at around 9:30 to 10:30 p.m, times when the basement is usually closed. On one occasion, he touched her shoulder, unlocked a closet, and motioned for her to enter. She saw a mattress on the floor inside. She ran back upstairs. On the other occasion Officer Gi. gave Ms. Mu. a direct order to go with him down to the basement. He took her to a room in the basement where he tried to force her to perform oral sex upon him. Ms. Mu. ran away.
d. After these incidents, Ms. Mu. in early February 2002 wrote Sgt. Bailey and defendant Deputy Superintendent for Security Wolff, regarding Officer Gi.’s actions and regarding the closet in the basement. The day after Ms. Mu. wrote to him, Deputy Superintendent Wolff discovered a mattress and other items in the closet. Later that week, Deputy Superintendent Wolff met with Ms. Mu. and told her to keep note of any inappropriate conduct by Officer Gi..
e. After Ms. Mu.’s complaint and the discovery of these items in the basement, Officer Gi. continued to be assigned to C Block and to have unmonitored contact with women prisoners.
46
21578717v1

f. In early April 2000, Ms. Mu. was called to meet with staff from the Inspector General’s office. Officer Gi. approached her and threatened her, telling her that she should tell them nothing happened, if she did not want to get hurt.
g. Despite the threat from Officer Gi., Ms. Mu. complained to the staff from the Inspector General’s Office about Officer Gi.’s sexual abuse. The Inspector General’s office, however, failed to inform Ms. Mu. about what, if any, action was taken with respect to her allegations.
h. Ms. Mu. remained in C-block under Officer Gi.’s supervision until July 2000.
i. Officer Gi. continues to work as a correctional officer assigned to women’s housing areas at Albion.
j. Ms. Mu. was not offered any mental health care as a result of these experiences.
k. Ms. Mu. was sexually abused both as a child and as an adult prior to her incarceration.
l. As a result of Officer Gi.’s abuse, Ms. Mu. suffered severe psychological and emotional distress. She has experienced difficulty sleeping and is extremely fearful, particularly when an unknown male officer is assigned to her housing area. 50. JEANETTE PE. was an inmate in DOCS custody and was released from custody on November 22, 2002.
47
21578717v1

a. While she was confined at Bayview Correctional Facility, during the years 1999-2001, defendant Officer Pete Za. subjected Ms. Pe. to sexual abuse, including repeated acts of sexual intercourse and oral sexual acts.
b. Other correction officers and sergeants facilitated this sexual relationship by allowing Officer Za. onto her housing area and into her room when he was not assigned there. Yet despite the glaring and obvious nature of this relationship, supervisory defendants took no effective action to investigate and end this misconduct.
c. Sergeant Sm. knowingly facilitated Ms. Pe.’s glaring and obvious sexual abuse by providing Officer Za. with unauthorized and exclusive access to locked areas in the prison, including stairwells, where Officer Za. subjected Ms. Pe. to sexual abuse.
d. Officer St. knowingly facilitated Ms. Pe.’s sexual abuse by sending Officer Za.’s messages to Ms. Pe., instructing Ms. Pe. where she should meet Officer Za. for these sexual encounters, and by providing Officer Za. with information about Ms. Pe.’s whereabouts, all the while knowing of the sexual contact between Ms. Pe. and Officer Za..
e. Ms. Pe. sought to end the relationship with Officer Za., but he prevented her from doing so through threats and violent acts, including grabbing her around the neck and hitting her with a pool cue.
f. Ms. Pe. became pregnant and has had a child by Officer Za..
48
21578717v1

g. Ms. Pe. advised DOCS officials about the abuse she had experienced from Officer Za. after she was transferred to Beacon Correctional Facility at the end of April 2001.
h. Ms. Pe. received a tier III disciplinary infraction for a “sex offense,” and was sentenced to 24 months in disciplinary segregation and 12 months loss of good time for Officer Za.’s sexual misconduct. Ms. Pe. was told that if she came forward with the name of the officer with whom she had been involved, she would be released from disciplinary confinement and allowed to keep her baby in the facility nursery. She complied, reporting Officer Za.’s sexual misconduct to staff from the Inspector Generals office, and was moved to the Regional Medical Unit, where she was kept in keeplock status for approximately two additional weeks.
i. Although Ms. Pe.’ pregnancy had been confirmed and although she gave the officer’s name to staff from the Inspector General’s office in May, 2001, Officer Za. was allowed to continue his employment, including unmonitored contact with women inmates, at Bayview through the end of July, 2001. Upon information and belief he was permitted to continue his employment until this date so that he would be eligible to receive his pension.
j. Criminal charges were lodged against Officer Za. and he has been convicted of a felony for his sexual misconduct. He is no longer employed by DOCS.
49
21578717v1

k. Although she was offered mental health treatment, Ms. Pe. was afraid to admit a need for such services due to the potential repercussions on her ability to remain in the nursery.
l. Ms. Pe. was sexually and physically abused as a child. m. As a result of the abuse by Officer Za., Ms. Pe. has suffered severe psychological and emotional distress. She has experienced depression, nightmares, difficulty sleeping, extreme nervousness and an enhanced fear of men. 51. LAURA PU. was an inmate confined in DOCS custody and was released from custody on January 31, 2003. a. From approximately March 2001 through the fall of 2002, Ms. Pu. was held in keeplock status in B Block in Albion Correctional Facility. Defendant Officer Rick La. was regularly assigned to this area. b. Beginning during the summer of 2001 and continuing over the course of approximately one year, Officer La. repeatedly coerced Ms. Pu. to engage in sexual acts. He repeatedly observed Ms. Pu. in a state of undress, repeatedly touched her breasts and vaginal area, and repeatedly directed that Ms. Pu. expose her body and perform naked for himself and for other officers. Officer La. also threatened Ms. Pu. with additional time in keeplock if she did not comply with his orders that she expose her body for him and other officers. c. Ms. Pu. wrote to the Inspector General regarding Officer La.’s misconduct, but received no response. Several months later Ms. Pu. again
50
21578717v1

contacted the Inspector General’s office, and subsequently met with staff from the Inspector General’s Office and complained about Officer La.’s sexual misconduct.
d. On April 29, 2002, Ms. Pu. also advised Deputy Superintendent Morris, who was the hearing officer conducting a disciplinary hearing regarding institutional charges, that the reason disciplinary infractions had been lodged against her were due to her unwillingness to allow the sexual abuse to continue.
e. Ms. Pu. also advised her mental health professional about the abuse she was experiencing from Officer La.. Her mental health worker informed Ms. Pu. that Ms. Pu. was required to report the misconduct to the Inspector General’s Office.
f. Ms. Pu. remained under Officer La.’s supervision for months following her complaints to DOCS staff concerning Officer La.’s sexual misconduct.
g. Upon information and belief, including statements made to Ms. Pu. by staff from the Inspector General’s office, the Inspector General’s office had received complaints of sexual misconduct by Officer La. prior to the abuse Ms. Pu. experienced, but took no effective action in response.
h. Officer La. continues to be employed at Albion, and continues to have unmonitored contact with women prisoners.
i. Ms. Pu. was sexually and physically abused as a child.
51
21578717v1

j. As a result of the abuse by Officer La., Ms. Pu. suffered severe psychological and emotional distress. She has experienced depression, feelings of humiliation and fear of retaliation. 52. CORILYNN BETH RO. was an inmate in DOCS custody. She was released from custody on June 19, 2001, then violated her parole and returned to DOCS custody, and was again released from custody on February 4, 2003.
a. Ms. Ro. was confined in C-block at Albion Correctional Facility from January to May 2001.
b. During this time, defendant Officer John E. Gi. III was assigned to her housing area.
c. From approximately January 29, 2001 to May 30, 2001, defendant Officer John Gi. subjected Ms. Ro. to sexual abuse, including coerced sexual intercourse.
d. Officer Gi. impregnated Ms. Ro.. On August 17, 2001, Ms. Ro. experienced a miscarriage.
e. Officer Gi. was routinely away from his assigned duties and took Ms. Ro. to areas, such as the staff bathroom, where inmates are not ordinarily allowed. Despite such glaring and obvious misconduct, supervisory defendants failed to take steps to investigate and end this abuse.
f. An investigation was conducted by Albion officials and staff of the Inspector General’s office into allegations of misconduct by Officer Gi..
52
21578717v1

g. During this investigation into Officer Gi.’s misconduct by Albion officials and by staff of the Inspector General’s office, Ms. Ro. was subjected to demeaning statements, including comments about her supposed sexual activities prior to her incarceration. She was threatened, including a threat that her parole date would be delayed. She was subjected to an intrusive strip frisk of her entire body and photographs were taken of her in her bra and panties. Several staff persons made comments to her about the investigation.
h. After her initial questioning by Albion staff about Officer Gi.’s misconduct, Ms. Ro. received on approximately May 30, 2001 a disciplinary infraction for being out of place while talking to Officer Gi. and was placed in punitive segregation for approximately three days. Ms. Ro. was then placed in administrative segregation for three weeks, until her release from DOCS custody on June 19, 2001.
i. Ms. Ro. was told by staff of the Inspector General’s office that she was placed in administrative segregation so that Officer Gi., or his friends, could not harm her.
j. Ms. Ro. complained about Officer Gi.’s sexual misconduct to staff from the Inspector General’s office and to Albion staff while she was incarcerated, and upon release she again complained to staff at the Inspector General’s office. Additionally, Ms. Ro. attempted to file a formal DOCS grievance about Officer Gi.’s sexual misconduct. It was rejected due to her release from DOCS custody. Thomas Eagen, Director of the Inmate Grievance
53
21578717v1

Program, wrote on August 13, 2001, “Please be advised that the Inmate Grievance Program was established to resolve grievances of inmates within correctional institutions. There is no provision for the program to be accessed by former inmates. However, I am taking the liberty of forwarding your letter to the Office of the Inspector General for whatever action deemed appropriate.”
k. Upon information and belief, Albion officials and staff of the Inspector General’s office had received complaints of sexual misconduct by Officer Gi. prior to the misconduct experienced by Ms. Ro., including the complaints of sexual misconduct by Ms. McD. and Ms. Mu., described in ¶¶ 48 and 49, above, but took no effective action in response.
l. Upon information and belief, defendant Deputy Superintendent Wolff had received complaints of sexual misconduct against Officer Gi. prior to the experiences suffered by Ms. Ro., including the complaint by Ms. Mu. described in ¶ 49, above, but took no effective action in response.
m. Ms. Ro. was told by staff of the Inspector General’s office that they had received statements by other officers that Officer Gi. and Ms. Ro. were seen in places where inmates and staff are not allowed to be together.
n. Ms. Ro. was told that despite this corroborating evidence of Officer Gi.’s misconduct, no disciplinary action would be taken by the Inspector General’s office against Officer Gi. without physical evidence, i.e., semen or DNA. Without it, according to statements made by staff of the Inspector
54
21578717v1

General’s office to Ms. Ro., there was “insufficient proof” for action to be taken against him.
o. Officer Gi. is currently working as a correctional officer at Albion, assigned to housing areas where he continues to have unmonitored contact with women prisoners.
p. Ms. Ro. was physically abused as a child and as an adult prior to her incarceration.
q. As a result of the abuse by Officer Gi., Ms. Ro. experienced severe psychological and emotional distress. She felt humiliated and she experienced an enhanced fearfulness of men. 53. DENISE SA. was released from DOCS custody on May 9, 2003, then, upon information and belief, was found to be in violation of her parole on or about August 28, 2003 and was sentenced to 12 months in DOCS custody.
a. In April 2002, while Ms. Sa. was confined at the Willard Drug Treatment Center, she was subjected to sexual propositioning, verbal harassment and sexual assaults on several occasions by defendant Drill Instructor Officer Andrew Bembry.
b. In early April 2002, Officer Bembry propositioned Ms. Sa. for sex. Ms. Sa. filed a complaint with the Willard administration about this verbal harassment. Ms. Sa. did not receive a response to this complaint.
c. Thereafter, Officer Bembry, although not assigned to her unit, came to Ms. Sa.’s cell on several occasions. On information and belief, he was
55
21578717v1

observed by staff in her cell, including on one occasion when she was in her pajamas. On one of these occasions, Officer Bembry entered Ms. Sa.’s cell, and sexually assaulted her by forcibly placing his hand under her pajama pants and inserting his finger into her vagina.
d. On April 30, 2002, Officer Bembry ordered Ms. Sa. to accompany him on a smoke break from her program assignment. Officer Bembry then took Ms. Sa. to the basement of the school building, an area in which inmates were not authorized. There, Officer Bembry grabbed Ms. Sa.’s hair and pulled her down onto his penis, forcing her to perform oral sex upon him. Ms. Sa. and Officer Bembry were observed by a sergeant leaving this unauthorized area. That evening Ms. Sa. wrote a letter to the Superintendent reporting that she had been forced to perform oral sex upon Officer Bembry.
e. The next day, May 1, 2002, Ms. Sa. was called to the Superintendent’s office. She described the abuse she had experienced to the Superintendent.
f. Two days later, Ms. Sa. was told by her counselor that the Superintendent had overridden a decision to continue her placement at Willard. As placement at Willard was a condition of her parole, Ms. Sa.’s removal from Willard resulted in her being violated on parole and facing a parole revocation hearing where she risked being sentenced to her maximum term of incarceration.
g. Ms. Sa. was then transferred to Taconic, and Ms. Sa. complained to staff from the Inspector General’s office about Officer Bembry’s sexual abuse.
56
21578717v1

The Inspector General’s office failed to inform Ms. Sa. about what, if any, action

was taken with respect to her allegations.

h. Despite Ms. Sa.’s complaint and the other corroborating

observations described above, supervisory defendants took no effective action to

investigate and end the misconduct engaged in by Officer Bembry. Upon

information and belief, Officer Bembry is still employed by DOCS at the Willard

Drug Treatment Center where he continues to have unmonitored contact with

women prisoners.

i. Upon information and belief, including statements made to Ms. Sa.

by staff of the Inspector General’s office, officials in DOCS had received

complaints of sexual misconduct committed by Officer Bembry prior to the abuse

experienced by Ms. Sa., but had taken no effective action in response.

j.

After reporting Officer Bembry’s sexual assault, Ms. Sa. was not

offered mental health treatment.

k. As a result of the abuse by Officer Bembry, Ms. Sa. has

experienced severe psychological and emotional distress, humiliation and

embarrassment as well as physical distress.

54. SHANTELLE SM. is an inmate presently confined at Taconic

Correctional Facility.

a. Ms. Sm. was confined at Bayview Correctional Facility from

approximately July 2002 through June 2003.

57
21578717v1

b. While confined at Bayview, Defendant Officer Hu. was regularly assigned to her housing unit, usually as the only officer assigned to the area. Starting during the fall of 2002, Officer Hu. repeatedly verbally harassed Ms. Sm., indicating that he found her attractive. He repeatedly observed her in the shower and in a state of undress. One time, he lunged towards her in her cell, trying to kiss her.
c. On the afternoon of May 28, 2003, Ms. Sm. awoke from a nap in her cell to find Officer Hu. standing over her with his penis exposed. She asked him not to do this. Officer Hu. then placed his hand over her mouth and threatened her. Officer Hu. then forced Ms. Sm. to perform oral sex upon him. After Officer Hu. ejaculated and left, Ms. Sm. spit the ejaculate onto her shirt.
d. Approximately two weeks later, she told her counselor about the sexual assault by Officer Hu.. Her counselor had her speak to Dr. Me., to whom she provided a piece of her shirt. Dr. Me. then arranged for her to speak with staff from the Inspector General’s office later that day. Ms. Sm. complained to staff from the Inspector General’s office about Officer Hu.’s sexual abuse.
e. Ms. Sm. was transferred to Taconic Correctional Facility, where she filed a formal DOCS grievance on June 27, 2003 about the sexual abuse by Officer Hu., sending it to Bayview Correctional Facility. The Superintendent of Bayview denied this grievance based on the referral of Ms. Sm.’s complaint of sexual abuse to the Inspector General’s Office for investigation. Ms. Sm. was told by the law library officer at Taconic that she did not need to appeal this
58
21578717v1

decision, because according to the grievance decision an investigation was being conducted into her complaint. Despite this, upon information and belief, Ms. Sm. has appealed this decision to DOCS Central Office.
f. Ms. Sm. has been informed that the Manhattan District Attorney’s office is prosecuting Officer Hu..
g. Ms. Sm. was physically abused as an adult prior to her incarceration. As a result of this abuse, she has previously been diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.
h. As a result of the abuse of Officer Hu., Ms. Sm. has suffered severe psychological and emotional distress. She has experienced depression, has been afraid to sleep without barricading her door closed, and has experienced nightmares. 55. SHENYELL SM. is an inmate in DOCS custody currently confined at Bedford Hills Correctional Facility.
a. In November 2000, Ms. Sm. was moved to the honor block at Bedford Hills, a housing area for prisoners with excellent disciplinary records, the residents of which are allowed privileges not available to the rest of the prison population.
b. Within weeks of her confinement there, defendant Officer Delroy Th. began asking her personal questions and making comments about her appearance. These comments continued intermittently for months. At the same time, Officer Th. threatened and intimidated Ms. Sm., telling her that the honor
59
21578717v1

block was “his” unit, that he was the “man in control,” and that if she didn’t comply with his requests, she would end up in trouble.
c. In September 2001, Officer Th. asked Ms. Sm. how she would feel about becoming involved with an officer. Although Ms. Sm. rejected his advances, Officer Th. advised Ms. Sm. that no inmate “tells him no.”
d. During September-November 2001, Officer Th. sexually assaulted Ms. Sm. on numerous occasions, including as follows:
i. In the beginning of October 2001, Officer Th. felt her breasts through her clothes, telling her how “soft” her body was.
ii. At the end of October 2001, while Ms. Sm. was cleaning the kitchen area during the count, Officer Th. forcibly raped and sodomized Ms. Sm., making her perform oral sexual acts upon him, and subjecting her to forcible anal and vaginal intercourse.
iii. On November 12, 2001, Officer Th. ordered Ms. Sm. to return to honor block during the count. Thereafter, he forcibly put his hand underneath Ms. Sm.’s underwear and touched her vagina. Despite repeated requests by Ms. Sm. that he stop, he refused to do so, stopping only when other staff came onto the unit. e. Officer Th. threatened Ms. Sm. with punishment and with removal from the honor floor if she rejected his advances. He assured her that no one would believe her complaints against his denials.
60
21578717v1

f. Within a day or two of the rape, on approximately October 31, 2001, Ms. Sm. advised the medical department at Bedford Hills that her vaginal and rectal areas were in pain.
g. Officer Th. told Ms. Sm. that he had been told that she had been seen crying in the mess hall. He threatened Ms. Sm. and ordered her not to tell anyone about his sexual misconduct. Officer Th. began harassing Ms. Sm. including locking her into her cell and refusing to let her out.
h. On November 29, 2001, Ms. Sm. wrote the Superintendent and her counselor at the Family Violence Program that she had been sexually harassed and assaulted by Officer Th.. Ms. Sm. received no response from Superintendent Lord. On December 6, 2001, she again wrote the Superintendent, describing the rape she had suffered. On December 7, 2001, Ms. Sm. met with her family violence counselor and described the sexual assault and harassment she had experienced from Officer Th.. In early December 2001, Ms. Sm. also advised a captain at Bedford Hills about the sexual assault and harassment she had experienced from Officer Th..
i. On approximately December 7 or 8, 2001, Ms. Sm. complained to staff from the Inspector General’s office about Officer Th.’s sexual assault and harassment. The Inspector General’s office failed to inform Ms. Sm. about the outcome of its investigation.
j. Ms. Sm. filed a formal DOCS grievance on January 3, 2002 complaining about Officer Th.’s sexual abuse. It was denied by the
61
21578717v1

Superintendent on January 23, 2002 and, after appeal, by DOCS Central Office on February 20, 2002 based on the referral of her complaint to the Inspector General’s office for investigation.
k. Ms. Sm. remained on the honor block under Officer Th.’s supervision for almost a month after she complained to staff of the Inspector General’s office about his abuse.
l. Upon information and belief, including statements made by staff of the Inspector General’s office, supervisory defendants had received complaints of sexual misconduct by Officer Th. prior to the abuse experienced by Ms. Sm. but took no effective action in response.
m. Upon information and belief, Officer Th. continues to be assigned to the honor block at Bedford Hills and continues to have unmonitored contact with women prisoners.
n. Since experiencing the sexual abuse by Officer Th., Ms. Sm. has suffered severe psychological and emotional distress. She has felt “dirty,” humiliated and embarrassed. She has experienced anxiety, including periods of uncontrolled shaking and depression, and thoughts of suicide. She has had difficulty sleeping, experiencing nightmares and flashbacks.
o. Ms. Sm. was physically abused as a child and as an adult prior to her incarceration. 56. HOPE SU. a/k/a HOPE SU. BR. is an inmate currently confined at Albion Correctional Facility.
62
21578717v1

a. Ms. Su. was confined at Albion and assigned to work in the mess hall from the summer of 2000 to the spring of 2001.
b. Defendant Officer Jeffrey Sh. was assigned to the mess hall and supervised Ms. Su. in her work.
c. Officer Sh. made sexual and degrading comments to Ms. Su. and propositioned her to engage in sexual activities.
d. On three occasions between approximately November 2000 and January 2001, Officer Sh. coerced Ms. Su. into submitting to oral sex by him.
e. Officer Sh. threatened Ms. Su. with disciplinary infractions and loss of programming if she reported the sexual abuse.
f. In May 2001, Ms. Su. wrote to the Inspector General’s office in Albany complaining about the sexual abuse she had experienced from Officer Sh.. She never received a response to this letter.
g. Upon information and belief, officials at Albion and staff from the Inspector General’s office had received complaints of sexual misconduct by Officer Sh., including the complaint by Ms. Jo. described at ¶ 46, above, prior to the misconduct experienced by Ms. Su. but took no effective action in response.
h. Upon information and belief, defendant Deputy Superintendent Wolff had received complaints of sexual misconduct by Officer Sh. prior to the misconduct experienced by Ms. Su. but took no effective action in response.
i. Officer Sh. remains employed as an officer assigned to the mess hall at Albion where he has unmonitored contact with women prisoners.
63
21578717v1

j. Ms. Su. was not offered mental health treatment after her experiences with Officer Sh..
k. Ms. Su. was physically and sexually abused as an adult prior to her incarceration.
l. As a result of the abuse by Officer Sh., Ms. Su. experienced severe emotional and psychological distress. She felt ashamed and violated and began to exhibit symptoms of an eating disorder. 57. NAKIA TH. is an inmate presently confined at Bedford Hills Correctional Facility.
a. Defendant Officer Rico Me. was assigned to the 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. shift in the West Wing, where Ms. Th. was housed.
b. From approximately January until May 2002 Officer Me. coerced Ms. Th. to engage in anal, oral, and vaginal intercourse on numerous occasions, including through the threat of physical force. These encounters took place in the officer’s station at the end of Ms. Th.’s cell block during the count.
c. Upon information and belief, other correction officers were aware of Officer Me.’ ongoing sexual misconduct with Ms. Th., having observed her cell door open during the count in violation of facility policy. Upon information and belief, other prisoners complained to DOCS staff about Officer Me.’ treatment of Ms. Th.. Supervisory defendants failed to take effective action in response.
64
21578717v1

d. Officer Me. was subsequently assigned to other locations at Bedford Hills. He continued to sexually abuse Ms. Th. in these other locations, kissing and touching her. He ordered Ms. Th. to meet him and threatened her, in order to gain her cooperation with his sexual advances.
e. In late June or early July 2002, Ms. Th. wrote to the Inspector General complaining about Officer Me.’ continuing sexual misconduct. Weeks later, Ms. Th. met with staff of the Inspector General’s office, reported Officer Meyer’s sexual misconduct, and provided evidence including a money order and ring given to her by Officer Me.. She also reported that one of her family member’s telephone number could be found in Officer Me.’ address book. The Inspector General’s office failed to inform Ms. Th. about the outcome of its investigation despite her repeated inquiries.
f. Upon information and belief, Ms. Th.’s information regarding the telephone number was confirmed and Officer Me. was suspended with pay.
g. Since reporting Officer Me.’ misconduct, Ms. Th. has been subjected to verbal abuse, threats and false disciplinary charges by other staff at Bedford Hills.
h. Despite repeated requests by Ms. Th. and her family to have her moved from Bedford Hills to avoid this continued abuse, Ms. Th. remains held at Bedford Hills.
i. Upon information and belief, officials at Bedford Hills and staff from the Inspector General’s office had received complaints of sexual misconduct
65
21578717v1

by Officer Me. prior to the abuse of Ms. Th. but took no effective action in response.
j. As a result of the abuse by Officer Me., Ms. Th. has suffered severe emotional and psychological distress. She has experienced nightmares, has had difficulty sleeping, and has experienced depression and fear of retaliation.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 58. Plaintiffs Lucy Am., Stacie Ca., Tonie Co., Stephanie Da., Latasha Do., Tanya Jo., Bobbie Ki., Bette Jean McD., Kristina Mu., Jeanette Pe., Laura Pu., Corilynn Ro., Denise Sa., Shantelle Sm., Shenyell Sm., Hope Su., and Nakia Th. bring this action on behalf of all present and future women prisoners in DOCS custody. This action is brought pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules 23(a), (b)(1), and (b)(2). The class meets the requirements of Rule 23 as follows:
a. There are approximately 3000 women prisoners at any one time confined in DOCS women’s prisons, Albion, Bayview, Bedford Hills, Camp Beacon, Lakeview and Taconic Correctional Facilities and the Willard Drug Treatment Center, who are subject to the risk of sexual abuse or harassment. The membership of the class continually changes, rendering joinder of all members impracticable. On information and belief, hundreds of complaints of sexual harassment and abuse are filed each year. Many more incidents go unreported.
b. The questions of law and fact presented by the named plaintiffs are common to all members of the class, and include whether supervisory defendants’ policies and practices subject women prisoners in DOCS custody to a substantial
66
21578717v1

and unreasonable risk and experience of sexual harassment, abuse and assault by male staff. These policies and practices include whether the assignment of male officers to guard women prisoners, at times as the only officers assigned and particularly in women prisoners’ housing areas and during the nighttime hours, creates an unreasonable risk of sexual misconduct and leads to recurrent and ongoing invasions of privacy; whether appropriate screening is conducted to avoid assignment to women’s prisons of those male staff persons likely to abuse women prisoners; whether appropriate training of staff is provided concerning sexual misconduct and staff’s responsibility to report it when observed or when they have reason to believe it has occurred; whether staff is supervised adequately in DOCS facilities to prevent sexual misconduct; whether an available, consistent and confidential complaint mechanism for complaints of sexual misconduct is provided which allows women prisoners to come forward with complaints of sexual misconduct safely and without fear of retaliation; whether complaints of sexual misconduct by staff are adequately investigated; whether appropriate action is taken against staff about whom complaints of sexual misconduct have been lodged, including by removing them from the opportunity to have unsupervised contact with women prisoners; and whether appropriate and adequate mental health treatment by professionals trained in sexual abuse and trauma is offered and provided to women prisoners who have been subjected to such misconduct. As a result every woman confined in these institutions risks
67
21578717v1

being subjected to these unlawful practices. The claims and practices alleged in this complaint are common to all members of the class.
c. The violations suffered by the named plaintiffs are typical of those suffered by the class. The entire plaintiff class will benefit from the injunctive and declaratory relief sought.
d. Plaintiffs Stacie Ca., Tonie Co., Stephanie Da., Latasha Do., Tanya Jo., Bobbie Ki., Kristina Mu., Denise Sa., Shantelle Sm., Shenyell Sm., Hope Su., and Nakia Th. are presently incarcerated within institutions operated by DOCS. These named plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.
e. Debevoise & Plimpton is a national law firm experienced in class action litigation. The Legal Aid Society, Prisoners’ Rights Project, is a legal services organization experienced in prisoners’ civil rights litigation. Through prior litigation, the Prisoners’ Rights Project has secured court-ordered institutional reform within several prisons operated by the Department of Correctional Services, as well as within the New York City jails. See, e.g., Todaro v. Coughlin, 74 Civ. 4581, Stipulation and Order: Second Modified Judgment, (S.D.N.Y. October, 1993) (medical order involving Bedford Hills, DOCS maximum security female prison); Milburn v. Coughlin, 79 Civ. 5077, Stipulation for Entry of Modified Final Judgment by Consent (S.D.N.Y. September, 1991) (medical order involving DOCS Green Haven Correctional Facility); Santiago v. Miles, 774 F. Supp. 775 (W.D.N.Y. 1991) (race discrimination found in jobs, housing and discipline at DOCS Elmira Correctional
68
21578717v1

Facility); Benjamin v. Fraser, 264 F.3d 175 (2d. Cir. 2001) (affirming injunctions reforming restraint and counsel visiting practices in New York City jails); Handberry v. Th., 92 F. Supp. 2d. 244 (S.D.N.Y. 2000), 219 F. Supp. 2d 525 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (requiring educational services in New York City jails); Sheppard v. Phoenix, 210 F. Supp. 2d 450 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (finding that injunction had eliminated excessive force in New York City jails).
f. The defendants have acted, or failed to act, on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate injunctive relief with respect to the class as a whole.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF CLAIMS ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF CLASS
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Cruel and Unusual Punishment 59. Supervisory defendants, through their policies, practices, acts and omissions, exhibit deliberate indifference to the sexual harassment and abuse of the plaintiff class of women prisoners, in violation of the right of these women to be free from cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 60. Supervisory defendants, through their policies, practices, acts and omissions, subject the plaintiff class of women prisoners to the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain, and emotional and physical injury in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
69
21578717v1

61. With deliberate indifference to the substantial risk of serious harm to the plaintiff class, supervisory defendants fail appropriately to train, assign, and supervise staff, subjecting the plaintiff class to sexual abuse and harassment by staff, to retaliation for reporting staff sexual misconduct, to verbal abuse, and to violations of privacy in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
62. With deliberate indifference to the substantial risk of serious harm to the plaintiff class, supervisory defendants fail appropriately to investigate and act upon complaints of sexual misconduct, subjecting the plaintiff class to sexual abuse and harassment by staff, to retaliation for reporting staff sexual misconduct, to verbal abuse, and to violations of privacy in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
63. With deliberate indifference to the substantial risk of serious harm to the plaintiff class, supervisory defendants fail to offer and provide adequate mental health treatment to women who report sexual harassment, abuse and trauma, subjecting the plaintiff class to serious emotional and mental injury in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Violations of the Right to Be Free From Sexual Abuse and Harassment and of the
Right to Bodily Integrity and Privacy Without Due Process of Law 64. By their policies, practices, acts and omissions, supervisory defendants deprive the plaintiff class of their right to be free from sexual abuse and harassment and
70
21578717v1

of their rights to bodily integrity and privacy, without due process of law, in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION Violations of the Right to Freedom of Speech 65. Supervisory defendants, through their policies, practices, acts and omissions, subject the plaintiff class to retaliation for reporting staff sexual misconduct, in violation of their rights to freedom of speech and to seek the redress of grievances under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION Violations of the Right to Equal Protection of the Laws 66. Supervisory defendants, through their policies, practices, acts and omissions are deliberately indifferent to the sexual abuse and harassment of women prisoners by the male officers under their supervision, and supervisory defendants thus subject the plaintiff class to harassment and abuse because of their gender in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. NAMED PLAINTIFFS’ INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES 67. For violation of her right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, sexual abuse, unwanted touching, verbal abuse, threats, and for violations of her right to privacy and bodily integrity, and equal protection of the laws, as set forth in ¶ 41, above, plaintiff Lucy Am. seeks compensatory and punitive damages against defendant Sergeant Michael Ga. in amounts to be determined.
71
21578717v1

68. For violation of her right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, sexual abuse, unwanted touching, verbal abuse, threats, and for violations of her right to privacy and bodily integrity, and equal protection of the laws, as set forth in ¶ 41, above, plaintiff Lucy Am. seeks compensatory and punitive damages against defendant Officer Robert Sm. in amounts to be determined.
69. For violation of her right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, sexual abuse, unwanted touching, verbal abuse, and for violations of her right to privacy and bodily integrity, and equal protection of the laws, as set forth in ¶ 42, above, plaintiff Stacie Ca. seeks compensatory and punitive damages against defendants Officer Jeffrey Sh. and Deputy Superintendent Wolff in amounts to be determined.
70. For violation of her right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, sexual abuse, unwanted touching, verbal abuse, threats, and for violations of her right to privacy and bodily integrity, participation in a lawsuit, and equal protection of the laws, as set forth in ¶ 43, above, plaintiff Tonie Co. seeks compensatory and punitive damages against defendant Officer Charles Da. in amounts to be determined.
71. For violation of her right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, sexual abuse, unwanted touching, verbal abuse, threats, and for violations of her right to privacy and bodily integrity, and equal protection of the laws, as set forth in ¶ 44, above, plaintiff Stephanie Da. seeks compensatory and punitive damages against defendant Officer Frederick Br. in amounts to be determined.
72. For violation of her right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, sexual abuse, unwanted touching, verbal abuse, threats, excessive force, and for
72
21578717v1

violations of her right to privacy and bodily integrity, and equal protection of the laws, as set forth in ¶ 45, above, plaintiff Latasha Do. seeks compensatory and punitive damages against defendant Officer Michael Ev. in amounts to be determined.
73. For violation of her right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, sexual abuse, unwanted touching, verbal abuse, threats, and for violations of her right to privacy and bodily integrity, and equal protection of the laws, as set forth in ¶ 45, above, plaintiff Latasha Do. seeks compensatory and punitive damages against defendant Officer Rico Me. in amounts to be determined.
74. For violation of her right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, sexual abuse, unwanted touching, verbal abuse, and for violations of her right to privacy and bodily integrity, and equal protection of the laws, as set forth in ¶ 46, above, plaintiff Tanya Jo. seeks compensatory and punitive damages against defendants Officer Jeffrey Sh. and Deputy Superintendent Wolff in amounts to be determined.
75. For violation of her right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, sexual abuse, unwanted touching, verbal abuse, false disciplinary charges, and for violations of her right to privacy and bodily integrity, and equal protection of the laws, as set forth in ¶ 48, above, plaintiff Bette Jean McD. seeks compensatory and punitive damages against defendants Officer John Gi. III and Deputy Superintendent Wolff in amounts to be determined.
76. For violation of her right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, sexual abuse, unwanted touching, verbal abuse, threats, and for violations of her right to privacy and bodily integrity, and equal protection of the laws, as set forth in ¶ 48, above,
73
21578717v1

plaintiff Bette Jean McD. seeks compensatory and punitive damages against defendant Officer Mario Pi. in amounts to be determined.
77. For violation of her right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, sexual abuse, unwanted touching, verbal abuse, threats, and for violations of her right to privacy and bodily integrity, and equal protection of the laws, as set forth in ¶ 49, above, plaintiff Kristina Mu. seeks compensatory and punitive damages against defendants Officer John Gi. III in amounts to be determined.
78. For violation of her right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, sexual abuse, unwanted touching, verbal abuse, threats, excessive force, and for violations of her right to privacy and bodily integrity, and equal protection of the laws, as set forth in ¶ 50, above, plaintiff Jeanette Pe. seeks compensatory and punitive damages against defendant Officer Pete Za. in amounts to be determined.
79. For facilitating the violation of her right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, sexual abuse, unwanted touching, verbal abuse, threats, and for violations of her rights to privacy and bodily integrity, and equal protection of the laws, as set forth in ¶ 50 above, plaintiff Jeanette Pe. seeks compensatory and punitive damages against Sergeant Sm..
80. For facilitating the violation of her right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, sexual abuse, unwanted touching, verbal abuse, threats, and for violations of her rights to privacy and bodily integrity, and equal protection of the laws, as set forth in ¶ 50 above, plaintiff Jeanette Pe. seeks compensatory and punitive damages against Officer St..
74
21578717v1

81. For violation of her right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, sexual abuse, unwanted touching, verbal abuse, threats, and for violations of her right to privacy and bodily integrity, and equal protection of the laws, as set forth in ¶ 51, above, plaintiff Laura Pu. seeks compensatory and punitive damages against defendant Officer Rick La. in amounts to be determined.
82. For violation of her right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, sexual abuse, unwanted touching, verbal abuse, threats, confinement in administrative segregation and for violations of her right to privacy and bodily integrity, and equal protection of the laws, as set forth in ¶ 52, above, plaintiff Corilynn Beth Ro. seeks compensatory and punitive damages against defendants Officer John Gi. III and Deputy Superintendent Wolff in amounts to be determined.
83. For violation of her right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, sexual abuse, unwanted touching, verbal abuse, threats, and for violations of her right to privacy and bodily integrity, and equal protection of the laws, as set forth in ¶ 54, above, plaintiff Shantelle Sm. seeks compensatory and punitive damages against defendant Officer Hu. in amounts to be determined.
84. For violation of her right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, sexual abuse, unwanted touching, verbal abuse, threats, and for violations of her right to privacy and bodily integrity, and equal protection of the laws, as set forth in ¶ 55, above, plaintiff Shenyell Sm. seeks compensatory and punitive damages against defendant Officer Delroy Th. in amounts to be determined.
75
21578717v1

85. For violation of her right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, sexual abuse, unwanted touching, verbal abuse, threats, and for violations of her right to privacy and bodily integrity, and equal protection of the laws, as set forth in ¶ 56, above, plaintiff Hope Su. seeks compensatory and punitive damages against defendants Officer Jeffrey Sh. and Deputy Superintendent Wolff in amounts to be determined.
86. For violation of her right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, sexual abuse, unwanted touching, verbal abuse, threats, and for violations of her right to privacy and bodily integrity, and equal protection of the laws, as set forth in ¶ 57, above, plaintiff Nakia Th. seeks compensatory and punitive damages against defendant Officer Rico Me. in amounts to be determined.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF As a result of defendants’ policies, practices and acts, plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable injury, including sexual assault, abuse and harassment, pain, shame, humiliation, degradation, emotional distress, embarrassment and psychological distress. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully request this court as follows: 1. Declare that the continuing policies, practices, actions and omissions of the supervisory defendants, as described above, violate the rights of the plaintiff class under the First, Fourth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. 2. Enjoin supervisory defendants and their successors, agents, servants, employees, and those in active concert or participation with them from subjecting women
76
21578717v1

prisoners in the custody of DOCS to verbal and physical sexual abuse and the threat of sexual abuse, and require these defendants to formulate a remedy to end the pattern of sexual misconduct in all women’s prisons operated by DOCS. Such a remedy should include measures which would address continuing deficiencies in the assignment, selection, training and supervision of uniformed staff; in the Department’s complaint and investigatory practices; and in the provision of mental health treatment to women who have suffered sexual trauma as described earlier in this complaint.
3. Award plaintiffs Lucy Am., Stacie Ca., Tonie Co., Stephanie Da., Latasha Do., Tanya Jo., Bette Jean McD., Kristina Mu., Jeanette Pe., Laura Pu., Corilynn Beth Ro., Shantelle Sm., Shenyell Sm., Hope Su. and Nakia Th. compensatory and punitive damages in an amount to be determined against defendants Deputy Superintendent Donald Wolff, Sergeants Michael Ga. and Sm., and Officers Frederick Br., Charles Da., Michael Ev., John Gi. III, Hu., Rick La., Rico Me., Mario Pi., Jeffrey Sh., Robert Sm., St., Delroy Th., and Pete Za. in their individual capacities on their federal causes of action as set forth in ¶¶ 67-86, above.
4. Retain jurisdiction in this case until the unlawful conditions, practices, policies, acts and omissions complained of herein no longer exist and this court is satisfied that they will not recur.
5. Award plaintiffs the costs of this action, including reasonable attorneys’ fees; and
6. Grant such other and further relief as this court deems just and proper. Dated: September 5, 2003
77
21578717v1

New York, N.Y.

DORI A. LEWIS (DL 9862) LISA FREEMAN (LF 6234) The Legal Aid Society The Prisoners’ Rights Project One Battery Park Plaza, 27th floor New York, N.Y. 10004 212-577-3530
Attorneys for plaintiffs
SCOTT RUSKAY-KI. (SRK 5857) CAMILLE GEAR RICH Debevoise & Plimpton 919 Third Avenue New York, N.Y. 10022 212 909-6000
Attorneys for plaintiffs Stacie Ca., Tonie Co., Stephanie Da., Latasha Do., Tanya Jo., Bette Jean McD., Kristina Mu., Jeanette Pe., Corilynn Ro., Shantelle Sm., Shenyell Sm., Hope Su. and Nakia Th.

78
21578717v1

 
 Amador v. Andrews, 655 F.3d 89 (2011)

655 F.3d 89 United States Court of Appeals,
Second Circuit. Lucy AMADOR, Bobbie Kidd, Bette Jean
McDonald, Jeanette Perez, Plaintiffs–Counter–Defendants, Stacie Calloway, Tonie Coggins, Latasha Dockery, Tanya Jones, Kristina Muehleisen, Laura Pullen, Corilynn Rock, Denise Saffioti, Shenyell Smith, Hope Susoh, Nakia Thompson, Plaintiffs–Counter–Defendants–Appellants, Stephanie Dawson, Shantelle Smith,
Plaintiffs–Appellants, v.
Anginell ANDREWS, Superintendent, Roberta Coward, Dennis Crowley, Alexandreena Dixon, Elaine Lord, Superintendent, Ronald Moscicki, Superintendent, Melvin Williams, Superintendent, Donald Wolff, DOCS Deputy Superintendent,
Terry Baxter, DOCS Director of Personnel, Richard Roy, DOCS Inspector General, Barbara D.
Leone, DOCS Director of the Sex Crimes Unit of the Inspector General’s Office, Peter Brown, DOCS Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations, Glenn S. Goord, DOCS Commissioner, James Stone, Office of Mental Health Commissioner, Michael Evans,
DOCS Correction Officer, Michael Galbreath, Sergeant Smith, Mario Pique, Jeffrey Shawver, Robert Smith, Officer Sterling, Delroy Thorpe, Pete Zawislak, Rick Larue, Rico Meyers, Frederick
Brenyah, Charles Davis, Defendant–Cross–Defendants–Appellees, Clarence Davis, DOCS Correctional Officer,
Defendant–Appellee, John E. Gilbert III, Officer, Defendant–Counter–Claimant–Cross–Defendant
–Appellee, Chris Sterling, Defendant–Counter–Defendant–Appellee, James Hudson, Cross–Claimant, Delroy Thorpe, Department of Correctional Services, Cross–Defendant.*

*

The Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the caption

as set forth above.

Docket No. 08–2079–pr. | Argued: June 15, 2009. | Decided: Aug. 19, 2011.

Synopsis Background: Current and former female inmates filed a class action § 1983 suit against several line officers employed at seven state prisons and various supervisors and other corrections officials, claiming that they were sexually abused and harassed by the line officers and that the supervisory defendants contributed to this abuse and harassment through the maintenance of inadequate policies and practices. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, 2007 WL 4326747, dismissed, and inmates appealed.
Holdings: The Court of Appeals, Winter, Circuit Judge, held that:
[1] court lacked pendent appellate jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders dismissing damages claims;
[2] class claims for injunctive and declaratory relief by inmates who were currently free but were in custody when they brought suit were not moot;
[3] inmates who made internal complaints, investigated by an Inspector General (IG), that sought redress only for the alleged actions of a particular corrections officer and did not seek a change in policies or procedures, failed to exhaust their internal remedies;
[4] inmate’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies was not excused on grounds of estoppel or special circumstances; and
[5] claim of a failure to protect was sufficient exhaustion with regard to systemic relief.
Dismissed in part, and vacated and remanded in part
Attorneys and Law Firms
*92 Dori Lewis (Lisa A. Freeman, on the brief), Prisoners’ Rights Project Legal Aid Society, New York, NY, and Alison M. Mikkor (Maeve O’Connor, John S. Craig, Donna Krouzman, Lauren Sypek on the brief), Debevoise & Plimpton, LLP, New York, NY, for Appellants.
1

Amador v. Andrews, 655 F.3d 89 (2011)
Richard O. Jackson (Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, Barbara D. Underwood, Solicitor General, Benjamin N. Gutman, Deputy Solicitor General, on the brief), Office of the Attorney General, New York, NY, for Supervisory Appellees.
Joseph M. Latona, Buffalo, NY, for Appellee Charles Davis.
Christopher Kennedy (David W. Novak, on the brief), Hinman Straub, P.C., Albany, NY, for Appellees Michael Evans and Jeffrey Shawver.
Linda M. Cronin (Rocco G. Avallone, on the brief), Cronin & Byczek LLP, Lake Success, NY, for Appellees Rick Larue and Rico Meyers.
Hogan Willig and Diane R. Tiveron, of Counsel, Amherst, NY, for Appellee John E. Gilbert III.
Rachel Meeropol, Center for Constitutional Rights, New York, NY, and Giavanna Shay, Springfield, MA, for Amici Curiae The National Prison Project of the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, National Prison Rape Elimination Commissioner, Professor of Law Brenda V. Smith, Stop Prisoner Rape, and Legal Momentum, in support of Appellants.
Joel Landau, James Bogin, Karen Murtagh–Monks, for Amicus Curiae Prisoners’ Legal Services of New York, Albany, NY, in support of Appellants.
Before: WINTER, CABRANES, and HALL, Circuit Judges.
Opinion
WINTER, Circuit Judge:
Thirteen present and former female inmates of various New York state prisons appeal from Judge Duffy’s dismissal of their class action complaint. The complaint, brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, sought declaratory and injunctive relief compelling the Department of Correctional Services (“DOCS”) to alter its practices and procedures so as to enhance the protection of the class from sexual assault, abuse, and harassment. The complaint also asserted individual claims for damages. The dismissal was based on the grounds that some of the claims of named plaintiffs were moot and that the remaining named plaintiffs had failed to exhaust available remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act

of 1995 (“PLRA”). Appellees are individual line officers (“line officer appellees”), various *93 superintendents and supervisors of certain New York State prisons, and DOCS officials (“supervisory appellees”).1

1

The supervisory appellees include DOCS

Superintendents Anginell Andrews, Roberta Coward,

Dennis Crowley, Alexandreena Dixon, Elaine Lord,

Ronald Moscicki and Melvin Williams; DOCS Deputy

Superintendent Donald Wolff; DOCS Director of

Personnel Terry Baxter; DOCS Inspector General

Richard Roy; DOCS Director of the Sex Crimes Unit of

the Inspector General’s Office Barbara D. Leone;

DOCS Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations Peter

Brown; Office of Mental Health Commissioner James

Stone; and DOCS Commissioner Glenn S. Goord.

Deputy Superintendent Donald Wolff has been sued

only for damages. Several of these individuals may no

longer be holding the named positions, but their

successors are automatically substituted under Federal

Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2). The line officer

appellees include Charles Davis, Michael Evans, John

E. Gilbert III, Rick Larue, Rico Meyers, and Jeffrey

Shawver. The line officer appellees respond to damages

claims by appellants Corilynn Rock, Kristina

Muehleisen, Laura Pullen, Nakia Thompson, Tanya

Jones, Stacie Calloway, Hope Susoh, Latasha Dockery,

and Tonie Coggins.

We do not address appellants’ arguments with

respect to its claims against the Commissioner of the

Office of Mental Health (“OMH”). The supervisory

appellees state, without contradiction, that the district

court’s decision could not have addressed the

appellants’ claims against the OMH as neither their

motion to dismiss nor their opposition to appellants’

motion to reconsider purported to address appellants’

claims against the OMH. Accordingly, our

disposition of this appeal does not encompass this

claim and is rendered without prejudice to either

parties’ arguments with respect to that claim on

remand.

A prior panel held that we have appellate jurisdiction over the claims for injunctive and declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). Amador v. Superintendents of Dep’t Corr. Servs., No. 08–2079–pr (2d Cir. June 25, 2008). We hold that we lack pendent appellate jurisdiction over the damages claims. We also hold that the claims for injunctive and declaratory relief by appellants who are now free but were in DOCS custody when they brought suit are not moot. Applying a relation-back theory, we hold that appellants’ class claims are capable of repetition, yet evading review. We conclude that three appellants have exhausted applicable
2

Amador v. Andrews, 655 F.3d 89 (2011)
internal prison grievance proceedings while the remaining ten have not. We vacate the judgment in part and remand for further proceedings.

BACKGROUND

a) The Complaint Appellants’ complaint seeks redress as individuals and as a class for alleged sexual abuse and harassment in violation of rights secured by the First, Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The class is described as “all present and future women prisoners in DOCS custody.” Compl. at 67, Amador v. Superintendents of Dep’t of Corr. Servs., No. 03 Civ. 0650(KTD)(GWG) (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 14, 2003). It alleges that the approximately 3000 women prisoners in DOCS custody are at any time subject to a substantial and unreasonable risk of sexual abuse or harassment as a result of DOCS policies and procedures. These policies and practices, alleged to present common issues of law and fact, include the adequacy of DOCS’: (i) screening, assigning, training, and supervising male staff, and the staff at large, regarding sexual misconduct; (ii) reporting and investigatory mechanisms for sexual misconduct; and (iii) investigating and responding to complaints of sexual misconduct. On behalf of the class, the complaint sought injunctive and declaratory relief from the supervisory appellees, who were alleged to have been aware of the abuse and to have failed to take appropriate preventive measures. Appellants also asserted *94 individual claims for damages with respect to certain line officers and one DOCS superintendent for their roles in alleged sexual assault, abuse, and harassment of several appellants while they were in DOCS custody. The conduct alleged ranges from unwelcome touching and invasions of privacy to assault and rape.2 More details of the allegations are provided as relevant infra.

2

Women entrusted to the custody of DOCS are deemed

incapable of consent to sexual advances. See N.Y.

Penal Law § 130.05(3)(e).

b) Procedural History Each of the appellants was in DOCS custody when the complaint was filed on January 28, 2003. A motion for

class certification was filed six months later, followed by an amended complaint adding the claims of two new inmates, Stephanie Dawson and Shantelle Smith. Shortly thereafter, appellees filed various motions to dismiss.
On September 13, 2005, the district court granted the motions in part, dismissing five plaintiffs’ injunctive claims on the ground that they lacked standing because they had been released from prison before joining the amended complaint. Two of these plaintiffs, Corilynn Rock and Laura Pullen, now appeal. The district court also converted defendants’ motion to dismiss to one for summary judgment on the limited issue of exhaustion and reserved judgment on the motion for class certification. See Amador v. Superintendents of Dep’t of Corr. Servs., No. 03 Civ. 0650(KTD)(GWG), 2005 WL 2234050 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 13, 2005).
On December 4, 2007, the district court granted the motion for summary judgment. See Amador v. Superintendents of Dep’t of Corr. Servs., No. 03 Civ. 0650(KTD)(GWG), 2007 WL 4326747 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 4, 2007). It dismissed as moot the injunctive claims of Stephanie Dawson and Shantelle Smith because they had been released from prison while the motion for class certification was pending. The district court then dismissed for failure to exhaust, the claims of Stacie Calloway, Tonie Coggins, Latasha Dockery, Tanya Jones, Kristina Muehleisen, Denise Saffioti, Hope Susoh, and Nakia Thompson. Finally, the district court dismissed the injunctive claims of Shenyell Smith against the supervisory appellees on the ground that she failed to identify any defendant other than the officer who was alleged to have sexually assaulted her. Having dismissed all the claims against the supervisory appellees for mootness or failure to exhaust, the district court concluded that class certification was not warranted. The district court dismissed all claims for damages save those of Shenyell Smith against Officer Delroy Thorpe. Id.
On plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration, the district court amended its order without explanation, to, among other things, reinstate the claims for damages by certain plaintiffs: Lucy Amador against Michael Galbreath and Robert Smith; Bette Jean McDonald against John E. Gilbert III, Mario Pinque and Donald Wolff; Jeanette Perez against Sergeant Smith, Chris Sterling, and Pete Zawislak; Stephanie Dawson against Federick Brenyah; and Shantelle Smith against James Hudson.
This appeal followed.
3

Amador v. Andrews, 655 F.3d 89 (2011)
DISCUSSION
[1] [2] [3] We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Brownell v. Krom, 446 F.3d 305, 310 (2d Cir.2006). Whether *95 a plaintiff has exhausted administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), is also a question reviewed de novo, see Johnson v. Rowley, 569 F.3d 40, 44 (2d Cir.2009), as are questions of mootness. White River Amusement Pub., Inc. v. Town of Hartford, 481 F.3d 163, 167 (2d Cir.2007); Comer v. Cisneros, 37 F.3d 775, 787 (2d Cir.1994).
a) Jurisdiction Over The Damages Claims [4] We have appellate jurisdiction over non-final orders of the district courts’ “granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or dissolving injunctions, or refusing to dissolve or modify injunctions.” 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). A prior panel concluded that appellate jurisdiction should be exercised over appellants’ injunctive claims because the district court’s denial of that relief “might have serious, perhaps irreparable consequence” and “can be effectually challenged only by direct appeal” prior to the entry of final judgment. See Amador, No. 08–2079–pr (2d Cir. June 25, 2008) (quoting Sahu v. Union Carbide Corp., 475 F.3d 465, 467 (2d Cir.2007)).
Appellants ask that we exercise pendent jurisdiction to review the interlocutory orders dismissing some of their individual claims for damages. They argue that our review of the district court decision dismissing the injunctive claims entails resolution of the same issue as the dismissed damages claims: whether appellants satisfied the PLRA’s exhaustion requirements. See, e.g., Lamar Adver. of Pa., LLC v. Town of Orchard Park, 356 F.3d 365, 371–72 (2d Cir.2004); Stolt–Nielsen SA v. Celanese AG, 430 F.3d 567, 576 (2d Cir.2005).
[5] “[W]here our jurisdiction is properly founded upon the district court’s ruling on a preliminary injunction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), our review extends to all matters inextricably bound up with the preliminary injunction.” Lamar Adver. of Pa., LLC, 356 F.3d at 371 (internal quotations omitted and modifications incorporated). Section 1292(a)(1), however, provides only a “narrowly tailored exception” to the final judgment rule and its

“policy against piecemeal appellate review.” Cuomo v. Barr, 7 F.3d 17, 19 (2d Cir.1993). To be “inextricably intertwined” requires, for example, that review of “the otherwise unappealable issue is necessary to ensure meaningful review of the appealable one.” Britt v. Garcia, 457 F.3d 264, 273 (2d Cir.2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). No such necessity exists here. Although prisoners seeking injunctive relief and those seeking damages are each required by the PLRA to exhaust internal grievance procedures, see generally Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 121 S.Ct. 1819, 149 L.Ed.2d 958 (2001), the overlap in legal issues is at a very high level of generality. A resolution of the dispute over exhaustion of the damages claims would not necessarily overlap with the resolution concerning exhaustion with regard to injunctive relief. There is, therefore, an insufficient basis for us to justify the application of an exception to an exception, i.e., the exercise of jurisdiction over claims pendent to a claim reviewable only as an exception to the final order rule. Under these circumstances, a measure of self-restraint is desirable, particularly because appellants’ proffered justification for pendent jurisdiction does not distinguish them from most litigants seeking both injunctive relief and damages.
b) Exhaustion and the Grievance Procedure The PLRA provides in pertinent part:
No action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of this title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative *96 remedies as are available are exhausted.
42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).
[6] [7] The purpose of the PLRA is “to reduce the quantity and improve the quality of prisoner suits ... [and to afford] corrections officials time and opportunity to address complaints internally before allowing the initiation of a federal case.” Abney v. McGinnis, 380 F.3d 663, 667 (2d Cir.2004) (quoting Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524–25, 122 S.Ct. 983, 152 L.Ed.2d 12 (2002)) (modifications in original). Section 1997e(a) requires “proper exhaustion”—that is, “using all steps that the agency holds out, and doing so properly.” Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368
4

Amador v. Andrews, 655 F.3d 89 (2011)

(2006) (quoting Pozo v. McCaughtry, 286 F.3d 1022, 1024 (7th Cir.2002)) (emphasis omitted). This entails both “complet[ing] the administrative review process in accordance with the applicable procedural rules,” Woodford, 548 U.S. at 88, 126 S.Ct. 2378, and providing the “level of detail necessary in a grievance to comply with the grievance procedures.” Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 218, 127 S.Ct. 910, 166 L.Ed.2d 798 (2007); see also Espinal v. Goord, 558 F.3d 119, 124 (2d Cir.2009). Exhaustion is mandatory—unexhausted claims may not be pursued in federal court. See Johnson, 569 F.3d at 45 (citing Jones, 549 U.S. at 211, 127 S.Ct. 910).
We turn now to the various written materials concerning New York’s Inmate Grievance Procedure3 (“IGP”) and to various practices that have developed under it. We discuss the application of the procedure and practices to appellants infra. The IGP defines a grievance as “a complaint about the substance or application of any written or unwritten policy, regulation, procedure or rule of the [DOCS] or any of its program units, or the lack of a policy, regulation, procedure or rule.” N.Y.C.R.R. § 701.2(a) (1994); cf. N.Y.C.R.R. § 701.2(a) (2006) (“[A] complaint, filed with an IGP clerk, about the substance or application of any written or unwritten policy, regulation, procedure or rule ... or the lack [thereof]”). The pertinent IGP provides a three step process for the handling of such complaints.

3

First established in 1976 pursuant to New York

Corrections Law § 139, the Inmate Grievance Program

(“IGP”) has undergone a series of revisions and

modifications. See Espinal v. Goord, 558 F.3d 119, 125

(2d Cir.2009) (noting minor revisions in 2006);

Hemphill v. New York, 380 F.3d 680, 685–86 (2d

Cir.2004) (noting minor revisions in 2004); Patterson

v. Smith, 53 N.Y.2d 98, 101–02, 440 N.Y.S.2d 600, 423

N.E.2d 23 (1981). DOCS’ policies and procedures for

the IGP are set forth in Part 7 of Title 7 of the New

York Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations,

and are mirrored with minor refinements in DOCS

Policy and Procedure Manual Directive Number 4040.

See N.Y. Comp.Codes R. & Regs. tit. 7,

(“N.Y.C.R.R.”) § 701.1 et seq; New York Department

of Correctional Services Directive No. 4040 (1998)

(“Directive No. 4040”). The complaint described

incidents that occurred between 1999 and 2003.

Accordingly, the relevant regulations are those that

were in effect before the 2004 and 2006 revisions. See

Espinal, 558 F.3d at 125 (noting that the relevant

regulations were those in effect when the prisoner filed

the grievances at issue).

To initiate the process, an inmate must file a written complaint with the Inmate Grievance Resolution Committee (“IGRC”), a facility committee composed of inmates and appointed staff members. See N.Y.C.R.R. § 701.4–.5. The complaint must “contain a concise, specific description of the problem and the action requested.” N.Y.C.R.R. § 701.7(a)(1)(i) (1998) (now codified as amended at N.Y.C.R.R. § 701.5(a)(2) (2007)). Second, the inmate can appeal an unfavorable IGRC determination to the superintendent of the facility. See N.Y.C.R.R. § 701.7(b) (1998) (now codified as amended and renumbered at *97 N.Y.C.R.R. § 701.5(c) (2007)). Finally, an inmate can appeal an unfavorable superintendent’s determination to the Central Office Review Committee (“CORC”). See N.Y.C.R.R. § 701.7(c) (1998) (now codified as amended and renumbered at N.Y.C.R.R. § 701.5(d) (2007)); Directive No. 4040.
This scheme specifically contemplates challenges to DOCS policies and procedures. For example, when a grievance involves “changes in policy,” the IGRC is required to submit a recommendation to the superintendent, which, if accepted, can be appealed. N.Y.C.R.R. § 701.7(a)(4)(vi) (1998) (now codified as amended and renumbered at N.Y.C.R.R. § 701.5(b)(3)(ii) (2007)). Of particular importance to the proceeding before us is the provision that only those inmates who are affected by a policy or procedure, or lack thereof, may bring such a challenge. (“An inmate must be personally affected by the policy or issue he/she is grieving, or must show that he/she will be personally affected by that policy or issue unless some relief is granted or changes made. All grievances must be filed in an individual capacity.”)
In addition, grievances alleging employee harassment, that is “employee misconduct meant to annoy, intimidate or harm an inmate,” see N.Y.C.R.R. § 701.11(a) (1994) (now codified and renumbered at N.Y.C.R.R. § 701.2(e) (2006)), can be processed through an expedited procedure created for the review of such grievances. N.Y.C.R.R. § 701.11(b) (1994) (now codified at N.Y.C.R.R. § 701.8(b)–(h) (2006)); Directive No. 4040, VIII. Pursuant to this expedited procedure, an inmate can report an alleged incident of harassment to the employee’s supervisor. Such a report does not, however, “preclude submission of a formal grievance.” N.Y.C.R.R. § 701.11(b)(1) (1994) (now codified as amended and renumbered at N.Y.C.R.R. § 701.8(a) (2006)); Directive No. 4040, VIII(A). Any allegation of employee misconduct or harassment is to be given a grievance number, recorded with all other grievances in the
5

Amador v. Andrews, 655 F.3d 89 (2011)
grievance log and forwarded to the superintendent for his consideration. N.Y.C.R.R. § 701.11(b)(2) (1994) (now codified as amended and renumbered at N.Y.C.R.R. § 701.8(b) (2006)); Directive No. 4040, VIII(B). If the superintendent (or his or her designee) concludes that the grievance is not a “bona fide case of harassment,” the superintendent returns the grievance to the ordinary procedure. N.Y.C.R.R. § 701.11(b)(3) (1994) (now codified as amended and renumbered at N.Y.C.R.R. § 701.8(c) (2006)); Directive No. 4040, VIII(C). If the grievance presents a “bona fide harassment issue,” the superintendent can elect to: (i) initiate an in-house investigation, (ii) request an investigation by the Inspector General’s Office; or (iii) in the event of criminal activity, request an investigation by the New York State Police. N.Y.C.R.R. § 701.11(b)(4) (now codified as amended and renumbered at N.Y.C.R.R. § 701.8(d) (2006)) Directive No. 4040, VIII(D). An inmate can then appeal the superintendent’s determination to the CORC, provided she does so within four days. See N.Y.C.R.R. § 701.11(b)(6)–(7) (1994) (now codified as amended at N.Y.C.R.R. § 701.8(g)–(h) (2006) (now providing an inmate with seven days to appeal to the CORC)); see also Directive No. 4040, VIII(E)–(G).
The class action complaint contains allegations about the actual practices followed under the IGP. Upon arrival at DOCS, it is alleged, female prisoners receive an orientation to DOCS policies and practices. The orientation encourages inmates to lodge sexual misconduct complaints with any official, including the Inspector General (“IG”), as well as DOCS supervisory staff and employees, whether orally or in writing. The IG’s Office, and in particular, its Sex Crimes Unit, is alleged by the *98 complaint to be the alternative administrative mechanism DOCS established to handle complaints of staff abuse. The Sex Crimes Unit receives more than 200 complaints of sexual misconduct every year. According to the complaint, it is DOCS’ standard practice to refer such complaints to the IG for investigation, whether initiated by formal grievance or informal complaint. DOCS’ ensuing response is also alleged to be inadequate by failing to initiate an investigation in a timely manner, failing to adequately investigate and credit inmate complaints, failing to maintain confidentiality, and failing to address any substantiated allegations meaningfully.
According to appellants, inmates at DOCS facilities are provided with various materials regarding DOCS policies and procedures with respect to sexual abuse complaints.4 For example, at Bedford Hills, the intake facility for all

female inmates, see DOCS Directive No. 0046, the Orientation Manual urges female inmates to “report [sexual abuse] ... to a supervisor immediately, go to grievance and make a record of the allegation, and write to the Superintendent or any official that you are comfortable approaching. Write to the Inspector General ... if you feel more comfortable going directly outside the facility.” Bedford Hills Correctional Facility Inmate Orientation Manual 3 (1999); see also Bedford Hills Correctional Facility Inmate Orientation Manual 3 (2000)(same); Bedford Hills Correctional Facility Inmate Orientation Manual 4 (2003) (“[R]eport [sexual misconduct] to any member of [Bedford Hill’s] Executive Team or to Inmate Grievance”). The record demonstrates that the policies conveyed by the inmate orientation manuals to female inmates are reinforced through memoranda and postings at the various prison facilities. Staff consistently testified that it was DOCS policy to allow women with complaints regarding sexual abuse to report such incidents to a variety of DOCS staff and officials.

4

Not all inmate orientation manuals expressly address

sexual misconduct; some simply explicate the IGP. See

Albion Correctional Facility Orientation Manual 9–10

(2002); Taconic Correctional Facility Inmate

Orientation Manual 62–64 (2000).

The Bedford Hills Orientation Manual also describes the IGP, explaining that a “grievance is a complaint about the substance or application of any written or unwritten policy, regulation, procedure, or rule of the facility or department, or the lack of a policy or procedure.” Bedford Hills Correctional Facility Inmate Orientation Manual 36 (1999); see also Bedford Hills Correctional Facility Inmate Orientation Manual 41 (2000); Bedford Hills Correctional Facility Inmate Orientation Manual 4 (2003).
On this record, it is clear that, under DOCS policies and procedures, an IG investigation of alleged acts of sexual abuse is an integral part of the internal grievance procedure. The record contains testimony and email correspondence indicating that DOCS instructs its staff not to conduct any investigation into sexual abuse and that the grievance procedure operates only as a pass-through to the Sex Crimes Unit. Indeed, women prisoners who did pursue relief through the IGP were told that their complaints had been forwarded to the IG for investigation and appropriate action. All thirteen appellants had their allegations of sexual misconduct
6

Amador v. Andrews, 655 F.3d 89 (2011)

investigated by the IG, no matter how initiated.5

5

The district court stated that “[e]ach Plaintiff alleges

that she complained to the Inspector General about her

sexual abuse.” The court found that Tonie Coggins,

Stephanie Dawson, and Kristina Muehleisen

complained to the immediate supervisor of the alleged

abuser. The court also found that Stephanie Dawson,

Tanya Jones, Laura Pullen, Corilynn Rock, Denise

Saffioti, and Shenyell Smith all grieved to a DOCS

official that “they felt comfortable approaching.”

*99 It is clear, therefore, that the first step in the grievance procedure for an inmate alleging sexual abuse is an IG investigation, whether or not a request for policy/procedure reform is included. Such allegations, when presented to a superintendent, were routinely referred to the IG. Moreover, an IG determination about abuse of an inmate can be appealed to CORC when the determination is reported to and accepted by the superintendent.
The grievance procedures are further complicated when challenges to DOCS policies concerning sexual misconduct are made. As noted, the regulations governing the IGP specifically contemplate its use to pursue challenges to existing policies as well as challenges that a policy should be created where one does not exist. See N.Y.C.R.R. § 701.2(a) (defining grievance as “a complaint about the substance or application of any written or unwritten policy ... or the lack of a policy”). As noted, appellants’ complaint asserts just such a challenge.
However, an inmate may not challenge a policy, or lack thereof, without a showing of concrete injury, N.Y.C.R.R. § 701.3(b), in this case an act of sexual abuse. Three appellants filed such grievances and appealed through all levels of the IGP procedure: Shenyell Smith, Stephanie Dawson, and Shantelle Smith. All three had their grievances investigated by the IG. When the allegation of an act of abuse is combined with a claim for reform of policies and the abuse determination is unfavorable to the inmate, both claims can be pursued on appeal from the IG or superintendent to CORC. But, it appears on this record that CORC does not entertain the claim for policy change unless the allegation of an act(s) of sexual abuse is upheld. In these three cases, the allegations of acts of sexual abuse were denied. In none of the three cases did any correctional official or tribunal ever mention the grievances’ challenge to policies and procedures.

c) Mootness of the Injunctive Claims [8] Of course, a class action cannot be sustained without a named plaintiff who has standing. Kendall v. Emps. Ret. Plan of Avon Prods., 561 F.3d 112, 118 (2d Cir.2009) (“In a class action, once standing is established for a named plaintiff, standing is established for the entire class.”) The district court held that the claims of those appellants who have been released are moot and that the relation-back doctrine does not preserve those claims for judicial review. Because the claims of all plaintiffs were then dismissed for either mootness or a failure to exhaust, the district court stated “[t]here is no need to grant Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, which is hereby denied.” Amador, 2007 WL 4326747 at *9.
We conclude that the relation-back doctrine applies to the claims of the plaintiffs who have been released and preserves their claims for adjudication for purposes of a class action.
[9] [10] The standing requirement winnows out disputes that would be inappropriate for judicial resolution for lack of three constitutionally required elements: (i) an injury in fact (ii) that is fairly traceable to the defendant and (iii) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–61, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992); McCormick ex rel. McCormick v. School Dist. of Mamaroneck, 370 F.3d 275, 284 (2d Cir.2004). Similarly, the mootness doctrine ensures that the occasion for judicial resolution established by standing persists throughout the life of a lawsuit. See Comer, 37 F.3d at 798. Consequently, in the usual case, if the basis for the claim has been rectified or if the plaintiff is no longer *100 subject to the challenged conduct, the claim is moot. See Armstrong v. Ward, 529 F.2d 1132, 1135 (2d Cir.1976).
[11] The relation-back doctrine, however, has unique application in the class action context, preserving the claims of some named plaintiffs for class certification purposes that might well be moot if asserted only as individual claims. For example, in Gerstein v. Pugh, a class challenged Florida’s practice of pre-trial detention without a probable cause hearing. 420 U.S. 103, 95 S.Ct. 854, 43 L.Ed.2d 54 (1975). Although the named class representatives had been convicted after the district court’s certification of the class and before the court was able to pass on the claims, the Court held the case was not moot because it fell within “a narrow class of cases in which the termination of a class representative’s claim
7

Amador v. Andrews, 655 F.3d 89 (2011)
does not moot the claims of the unnamed members of the class.” 420 U.S. at 110 n. 11, 95 S.Ct. 854 (citing Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U.S. 393, 95 S.Ct. 553, 42 L.Ed.2d 532 (1975)). The Court reasoned that the issue was unlikely to be resolved before a plaintiff was convicted or released. Id. An individual could, therefore, suffer repeated deprivations under the challenged practice, and it was certain that a continuing class of similarly situated persons would suffer the constitutional harm alleged. Id.
In both Sosna and Gerstein, the mootness of the named representative’s claim arose after certification of a class. Each decision noted that the usual case required a live controversy at the time of the filing of the complaint and the class certification. Sosna, 419 U.S. at 398, 402, 95 S.Ct. 553; Gerstein, 420 U.S. at 110 n. 11, 95 S.Ct. 854. Sosna, however, recognized that in certain cases, the claims of the named plaintiffs might become moot before the district court had ruled on a certification motion: “In such instances, whether the certification can be said to ‘relate back’ to the filing of the complaint may depend upon the circumstances of the particular case and especially the reality of the claim that otherwise the issue would evade review.” 419 U.S. at 402 n. 11, 95 S.Ct. 553.
We have applied the relation-back theory to recipients of public assistance alleging that action on their applications for public assistance was unlawfully delayed by the state. See Robidoux v. Celani, 987 F.2d 931 (2d Cir.1993). In that decision, we concluded that because the state would almost always process a delayed application before relief could be obtained through litigation and some of the appellants alleged that they expected to need public assistance in the future, the claims were not mooted by their receipt of benefits after the filing of the complaint. Id. at 938–39.
We have also applied the relation-back doctrine to class claims of racial discrimination and segregation in public housing in New York by low-income minority individuals. Comer, 37 F.3d at 797–801. We held that, because of the particular combination of a highly fluid public housing population, whose claims were “acutely susceptible to mootness,” and a two-year delay before the district court denied class certification, the class certification, which was granted on appeal, related back to the complaint. Id.
[12] Whether claims are inherently transitory is an inquiry that must be made with reference to the claims of the class as a whole as opposed to any one individual claim for relief. See U.S. Parole Comm’n v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388, 399–400, 100 S.Ct. 1202, 63 L.Ed.2d 479 (1980);

Gerstein, 420 U.S. at 110 n. 11, 95 S.Ct. 854. According to the supervisory appellees, there is nothing inherently transitory about appellants’ claims because inmates serve a range of terms of imprisonment. Thus, they argue, while some inmates may *101 be released before their claims can be adjudicated, others will remain incarcerated long enough for courts to adjudicate their claims. We disagree.
We have previously observed that “a significant characteristic” of claims subject to the “capable of repetition, yet evading review” exception is that the mootness resulted from “a factor closely related to the essence of the claim.” Swan v. Stoneman, 635 F.2d 97, 102 n. 6 (2d Cir.1980). As such, these claims “involve[ ] issues that [are] likely to evade review, no matter who prosecute[s] them.” Id. Although a close issue, we conclude that this exception applies.
This action is brought on behalf of all women inmates in DOCS custody, alleging constitutionally defective policies and procedures in failing to protect female inmates from sexual harassment, abuse, and assault by male staff. While the entire class may be exposed to the risks caused by the constitutionally defective policies and procedures alleged, as noted, the grievance procedure may be triggered only by an inmate who has been a victim of sexual misconduct. Because the number of inmates subjected to acts of misconduct can be a small fraction of the total inmates at risk, the odds of an inmate being able to complete the grievance procedure and litigate a class action while still incarcerated are rather small. All thirteen appellants were in DOCS custody when they commenced the action; only four remained incarcerated when the district court rendered its September 13, 2005 decision.6 Four appellants have been released and subsequently reincarcerated during the course of these proceedings,7 and of these, only two, remained in custody following the filing of the notice of appeal.8

6

Stacie Calloway, Kristina Muehleisen, Nakia

Thompson and Shenyell Smith were incarcerated at that

time.

7

The four appellants are Corilynn Rock, Stacie

Calloway, Tanya Jones and Denise Saffioti.

8

The two appellants are Corilynn Rock and Denise

8

Amador v. Andrews, 655 F.3d 89 (2011)

Saffioti.
Accordingly, we conclude that it was error for the district court to dismiss as moot the claims of the individual plaintiffs who had been released from prison after the filing of the amended complaint. See Wilkerson v. Bowen, 828 F.2d 117, 121 (3d Cir.1987) (“It would seem to us that the principle espoused in Geraghty is applicable whether the particular claim of the proposed class plaintiff is resolved while a class certification motion is pending in the district court (as in the present case) or while an appeal from denial of a class certification motion is pending in the court of appeals (as in Geraghty). In neither event is the plaintiff automatically disqualified from being a class representative....”); Wade v. Kirkland, 118 F.3d 667, 670 (9th Cir.1997) (holding that, in light of the potential for a prisoner’s claim to be “inherently transitory,” the action could qualify for an exception to mootness, and if so found on remand, the district court could validly certify a class, “since the ‘relation back’ doctrine will relate to [plaintiff’s] standing at the outset of the case”).

d) Exhaustion by Appellants Having held that the relation-back theory applies, we now address whether any of the individual plaintiffs have properly exhausted internal prison remedies.
[13] Of the thirteen appellants, nine made internal complaints, investigated by the IG, that sought redress only for the alleged actions of the particular officer and *102 did not seek a change in policies or procedures.9 These nine have, therefore, not exhausted their internal remedies with regard to the complaint in the present action.

9

The nine individuals are Nakia Thompson, Hope

Susoh, Denise Saffioti, Corilynn Rock, Laura Pullen,

Kristina Muehleisen, Latasha Dockery, and Tonie

Coggins.

[14] Another appellant, Stacie Calloway, complained about a sexual assault. However, her affidavit also states that she informed the IG that sexual abuse was a problem affecting other inmates and that no one kept track of what the officers were doing. We believe that this complaint sufficiently raises systemic issues relating to policies and

procedures regarding the prevention of sexual abuse. To be sure, she did not ask for the precise relief sought in this action, but she adequately alerted the authorities as to her claim of systemic issues. However, Calloway did not appeal to CORC, which is the final step in the grievance procedure for raising issues regarding DOCS polices. The issue, then, is whether her failure to exhaust should be excused.
[15] In Hemphill v. New York, we established a three-part inquiry to guide the analysis of whether a plaintiff has met the requirements of Section 1997e(a) of the PLRA. 380 F.3d at 686. The first part, which is not an issue here, is a determination that administrative remedies were in fact available to the prisoner. Id. at 686–88. The second part considers whether defendants forfeited the affirmative defense of non-exhaustion by failing to raise or preserve it, or whether defendants’ own actions inhibiting the inmate’s exhaustion of remedies estops one or more of the defendants from raising the exhaustion defense. Id. at 686, 688–89. The third part requires consideration of whether, if the requirements of step two were not met, special circumstances excuse the plaintiff’s failure to pursue or exhaust administrative remedies. Id. at 686, 689–91. If any of the three parts is satisfied, the prisoner is deemed to have exhausted internal procedures for purposes of the PLRA.
Subsequent decisions have questioned the continued viability of this framework following the Supreme Court’s decision in Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006). In Woodford the Court addressed whether “a prisoner can satisfy the [PLRA’s] exhaustion requirement by filing an untimely or otherwise procedurally defective administrative grievance or appeal.” Id. at 83–84, 126 S.Ct. 2378. The Court resolved the question in the negative, explaining that PLRA requires “proper exhaustion,” that is “using all steps that the agency holds out, and doing so properly (so that the agency addresses the issues on the merits).” Id. at 90, 126 S.Ct. 2378 (emphasis omitted). We have questioned whether, in light of Woodford, the doctrines of estoppel and special circumstances survived. See Macias v. Zenk, 495 F.3d 37, 43 n. 1 (2d Cir.2007) (“[W]e need not decide what effect Woodford has on Hemphill’s holding where administrative procedures are confusing a reasonable interpretation of prison grievance regulations may justify an inmate’s failure to follow procedural rules to the letter.”) (internal quotations omitted); Ruggiero v. County of Orange, 467 F.3d 170, 176 (2d Cir.2006) (noting that “[w]e need not determine what effect Woodford has on our case law in this area” because the
9

Amador v. Andrews, 655 F.3d 89 (2011)
prisoner’s estoppel and special circumstances arguments nonetheless failed).
We too decline to reach the issue, concluding that, even under pre-Woodford caselaw, Calloway has failed to establish that defendants are estopped from raising exhaustion as a defense or that special *103 circumstances excuse her failure to exhaust.
[16] A prisoner may invoke the doctrine of estoppel when “defendants took affirmative action to prevent him from availing himself of grievance procedures.” Ruggiero, 467 F.3d at 178. Prior cases have held that verbal and physical threats of retaliation, physical assault, denial of grievance forms or writing implements, and transfers constitute such affirmative action. See, e.g., Hemphill, 380 F.3d at 688; Ziemba v. Wezner, 366 F.3d 161, 162 (2d Cir.2004). No such conduct prevented Calloway from appealing to CORC. Nor were there special circumstances relieving Calloway of the obligation to exhaust the IGP procedures. It is clear that challenges to DOCS policies or lack thereof, the subject matter of this lawsuit—where coupled with a claim of sexual abuse—must be pursued through the CORC level. While this is a somewhat complex scheme, it hardly constitutes special circumstances. Calloway’s grievance was thus not exhausted.
[17] Two other appellants, whose complaints were dismissed as moot but to which we have applied the relation-back doctrine, Shantelle Smith and Shenyell Smith, alleged both assaults and a failure to protect and completed the grievance procedure.
Shenyell Smith wrote a letter addressed “To Whom It May Concern” that was logged as a grievance on January 3, 2002. The letter alleged that she had been harassed for a period of three months, retaliated against, and sexually assaulted by an officer. With respect to the relief sought, she stated, “This officer is still working on this unit and its not right. I feel that [the officer] should seek counseling [and be] removed ..., fired and any other [precaution] that is there.” The superintendent responded that “[a] significant portion of this complaint has to do with issues turned over to the Inspector General’s Office for investigation in accordance with Departmental procedures. Grievance denied in that no basis was found for your allegations.” She appealed the grievance. On February 20, 2002, CORC denied it, stating, “Upon full hearing of the facts and circumstances in the instant case, the action requested herein is hereby denied. CORC upholds the determination of the Superintendent for the reasons stated.”

Shantelle Smith filed a grievance with the IGRC on July 10, 2003, alleging a sexual assault by an officer. With respect to corrective action, she stated, “I am seeking monetary damages for the reason that the State had a duty to protect me and failed to do so, thus rendering their misactions as a ‘Failure to Protect’, a most serious dereliction of their duty to provide for my care, custody and control.” On July 11, 2003, the superintendent responded, neither granting nor denying the grievance, stating only, “Your grievance has been forwarded to the Inspector General’s office for further investigation.” Shantelle appealed, and on September 10, 2003, CORC denied the grievance, stating, “CORC upholds the determination of the Superintendent for the reasons stated. CORC notes that the grievant’s allegation of sexual misconduct ... has been forwarded to the appropriate Central Office personnel for investigation. Any action deemed necessary and appropriate will be taken as a result of that investigation.” That disposition states that any final action would be taken by the IG. No favorable action was taken by the IG, and we deem the grievance procedure exhausted.10

10

CORC’s response to Shenyell Smith’s and Shantelle

Smith’s appeals was identical to its response to

Stephanie Dawson’s appeal, discussed infra. Appellees

agree that Dawson exhausted the grievance procedure.

*104 Each of these inmates completed the IGP procedure. The issue is whether a claim of a failure to protect is sufficient exhaustion with regard to litigation seeking systemic relief. The issue, in our view, is whether a reasonable corrections official would recognize a complaint alleging a failure to protect a female inmate from a sexual assault by a male officer as raising issues regarding DOCS policies and procedures. We believe that it would. To be sure, a “grievance may not be so vague as to preclude prison officials from taking appropriate measures to resolve the complaint internally.” Brownell, 446 F.3d at 310. However, a failure to protect involves conduct by officials superior to the officer accused of the misconduct and suggests the need for policy and procedural reform. While the complaint asks for a result—protection—rather than specifying the means used to reach that result, the need for the result is clearly articulated and the appropriate means are far more within the expertise of DOCS than the individual prisoner.
A fourth appellant, Stephanie Dawson, clearly alleged an
10

Amador v. Andrews, 655 F.3d 89 (2011)
act of sexual misconduct, clearly sought systemic reform along the lines of the class action complaint, and clearly exhausted the IGP procedure. Her claim was dismissed as moot by the district court but is now revived by application of the relation-back doctrine.
Dawson filed her grievance with the IGRC on February 25, 2003. She alleged that she was raped by an officer at the prison where she was incarcerated. In describing her grievance, she stated, “Taconic didn’t provide protection from Correctional Officer sexual assault on me.” Dawson requested various relief including: (i) “For DOCS to train and assign and supervise staff so that [she would] not again [be] subjected to this kind of abuse”; (ii) “For DOCS to conduct a full and complete investigation”; (iii) “That [the officer] should be disciplined”; and (iv) “That [she] continue to receive mental health counseling.” In response, the superintendent concluded that “an investigation by the DOCS Inspector General’s Office is in progress.” When Dawson sought to appeal, she was advised that an appeal would be “redundant.” Dawson nonetheless pressed her appeal, and CORC upheld the superintendent’s decision. CORC noted that “the complaint has been forwarded to the appropriate Department personnel for investigation. Any action deemed necessary will be taken as a result of the investigation.”
The parties agree that Dawson’s grievance was both procedurally and substantively exhausted. Because Dawson’s role as plaintiff is not mooted by her release for reasons stated supra, she is entitled to pursue a role as

class representative.
Our conclusion that the district court erred when it failed to relate those claims it deemed moot back to the filing of the complaint does not automatically establish that the three appellants affected, Stephanie Dawson, Shantelle Smith, and Shenyell Smith, are entitled to litigate the interests of the class they seek to represent. See Sosna, 419 U.S. at 403, 95 S.Ct. 553 (“This conclusion does not automatically establish that appellant is entitled to litigate the interests of the class she seeks to represent, but it does shift the focus of examination from the elements of justiciability to the ability of the named representative to ‘fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.’ ” (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a))). In a separate proceeding, a previous panel of this court denied appellants’ application for leave to appeal the denial of class certification by the district court. Accordingly, the propriety of class certification is not before us.
*105 CONCLUSION
We dismiss the damages claims for lack of jurisdiction. We vacate the judgment of the district court with respect to the claims designated in this opinion, and remand for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

11