U.S. District Court Northern District of Mississippi (Greenville Division) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV

Alerts not yet Supported for this Docket

Amos et al v. Hall et al Assigned to: District Judge Debra M. Brown Referred to: Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden Cause: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

Date Filed: 01/14/2020 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 555 Prison Condition Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff Michael Amos

represented by Carson H. Thurman Carroll Bufkin, PLLC 1076 Highland Colony Parkway 600 Concourse, Suite 125 Ridgeland, MS 39211 601-812-6630 Email: cthurman@carrollbufkin.com TERMINATED: 12/02/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jessica L. Rice MARON MARVEL BRADLEY ANDERSON AND TARDY 200 South Lamar Street Suite 550N Jackson, MS 39201 601-812-6630 Email: jessica@mj-legal.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lawrence S. Blackmon THE BLACKMON FIRM, PLLC 907 W. Peace St. Canton, MS 39046 601-942-3621 Email: lawblackmon@yahoo.com TERMINATED: 02/10/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Pitrell Brister

Marcy Bryan Croft Maron Marvel Bradley Anderson & Tardy P.O. Box 22803 Jackson, MS 39225-2803 Email: mcroft@maronmarvel.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Gerry Bufkin CARROLL BUFKIN, PLLC 140 Township Avenue, Suite 222 Ridgeland, MS 39157 601-982-5011 Email: tgb@carrollbufkin.com TERMINATED: 12/02/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Carson H. Thurman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/02/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica L. Rice (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lawrence S. Blackmon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/10/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marcy Bryan Croft (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Gerry Bufkin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/02/2020

Plaintiff Antonio Davis
Plaintiff Willie Friend

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Carson H. Thurman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/02/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica L. Rice (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lawrence S. Blackmon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/10/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marcy Bryan Croft (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Gerry Bufkin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/02/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Carson H. Thurman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/02/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica L. Rice (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lawrence S. Blackmon

Plaintiff Charles Gayles
Plaintiff

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/10/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marcy Bryan Croft (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Gerry Bufkin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/02/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Carson H. Thurman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/02/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica L. Rice (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lawrence S. Blackmon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/10/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marcy Bryan Croft (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Gerry Bufkin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/02/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Guthrie
Plaintiff Jonathan J. Ham

represented by Carson H. Thurman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/02/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica L. Rice (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lawrence S. Blackmon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/10/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marcy Bryan Croft (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Gerry Bufkin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/02/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Carson H. Thurman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/02/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica L. Rice (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lawrence S. Blackmon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/10/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Desmond Hardy
Plaintiff Billy James, Jr.

Marcy Bryan Croft (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Gerry Bufkin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/02/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Carson H. Thurman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/02/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica L. Rice (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lawrence S. Blackmon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/10/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marcy Bryan Croft (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Gerry Bufkin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/02/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Carson H. Thurman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/02/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY

Plaintiff Justin James

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica L. Rice (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lawrence S. Blackmon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/10/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marcy Bryan Croft (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Gerry Bufkin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/02/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Carson H. Thurman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/02/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica L. Rice (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lawrence S. Blackmon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/10/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marcy Bryan Croft (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Quenten Johnson
Plaintiff Challis Lewis TERMINATED: 01/29/2020

Thomas Gerry Bufkin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/02/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Carson H. Thurman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/02/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica L. Rice (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lawrence S. Blackmon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/10/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marcy Bryan Croft (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Gerry Bufkin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/02/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Carson H. Thurman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/02/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lawrence S. Blackmon (See above for address)

Plaintiff Deaunte Lewis
Plaintiff Larry Maxwell

TERMINATED: 02/10/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marcy Bryan Croft (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Carson H. Thurman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/02/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica L. Rice (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lawrence S. Blackmon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/10/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marcy Bryan Croft (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Gerry Bufkin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/02/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Carson H. Thurman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/02/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Terrance McKinney

Jessica L. Rice (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lawrence S. Blackmon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/10/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marcy Bryan Croft (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Gerry Bufkin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/02/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Carson H. Thurman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/02/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica L. Rice (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lawrence S. Blackmon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/10/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marcy Bryan Croft (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Gerry Bufkin

Plaintiff Derrick Pan
Plaintiff Brandon Robertson

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/02/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Carson H. Thurman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/02/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica L. Rice (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lawrence S. Blackmon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/10/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marcy Bryan Croft (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Gerry Bufkin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/02/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Carson H. Thurman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/02/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica L. Rice (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Kuriaki Riley

Lawrence S. Blackmon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/10/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marcy Bryan Croft (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Gerry Bufkin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/02/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Carson H. Thurman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/02/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica L. Rice (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lawrence S. Blackmon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/10/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marcy Bryan Croft (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Gerry Bufkin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/02/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Derrick Rogers
Plaintiff Tyree Ross

represented by Carson H. Thurman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/02/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica L. Rice (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lawrence S. Blackmon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/10/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marcy Bryan Croft (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Gerry Bufkin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/02/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Carson H. Thurman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/02/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica L. Rice (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lawrence S. Blackmon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/10/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY

Plaintiff H. D. Alexander Scott
Plaintiff Deangelo Taylor

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marcy Bryan Croft (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Gerry Bufkin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/02/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Carson H. Thurman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/02/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica L. Rice (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lawrence S. Blackmon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/10/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marcy Bryan Croft (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Gerry Bufkin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/02/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Carson H. Thurman (See above for address)

Plaintiff Lemartine Taylor

TERMINATED: 12/02/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica L. Rice (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lawrence S. Blackmon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/10/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marcy Bryan Croft (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Gerry Bufkin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/02/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Carson H. Thurman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/02/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica L. Rice (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lawrence S. Blackmon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/10/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marcy Bryan Croft (See above for address)

Plaintiff Conti Tillis
Plaintiff Demarcus Timmons

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Gerry Bufkin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/02/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Carson H. Thurman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/02/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica L. Rice (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lawrence S. Blackmon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/10/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marcy Bryan Croft (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Gerry Bufkin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/02/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Carson H. Thurman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/02/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Phillip Decarlos Webster

Jessica L. Rice (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lawrence S. Blackmon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/10/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marcy Bryan Croft (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Gerry Bufkin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/02/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Carson H. Thurman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/02/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica L. Rice (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lawrence S. Blackmon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/10/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marcy Bryan Croft (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Gerry Bufkin

Plaintiff Adrian Willard
Plaintiff Curtis Wilson

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/02/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Carson H. Thurman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/02/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica L. Rice (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lawrence S. Blackmon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/10/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marcy Bryan Croft (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Gerry Bufkin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/02/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Carson H. Thurman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/02/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica L. Rice (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Carlos Varnado

Lawrence S. Blackmon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/10/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marcy Bryan Croft (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Gerry Bufkin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/02/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Carson H. Thurman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/02/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica L. Rice (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lawrence S. Blackmon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/10/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marcy Bryan Croft (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Gerry Bufkin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/02/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Ivery Moore
Plaintiff Kevin Thomas
Plaintiff

represented by Carson H. Thurman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/02/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica L. Rice (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Gerry Bufkin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/02/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marcy Bryan Croft (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Carson H. Thurman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/02/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica L. Rice (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Gerry Bufkin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/02/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marcy Bryan Croft (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Caleb Buckner
Plaintiff William Green
Plaintiff

represented by Carson H. Thurman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/02/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica L. Rice (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Gerry Bufkin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/02/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marcy Bryan Croft (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Carson H. Thurman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/02/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica L. Rice (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Gerry Bufkin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/02/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marcy Bryan Croft (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Aric Johnson
V. Defendant Pelicia E. Hall In Her Official Capacity as the Commissioner of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, TERMINATED: 01/29/2020
Defendant Marshal Turner In His Official Capacity as the Superintendent of the Mississippi State Penitentiary TERMINATED: 10/21/2020

represented by Carson H. Thurman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/02/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica L. Rice (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Gerry Bufkin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/02/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marcy Bryan Croft (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by William Easom Jones , III BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES P. O. Drawer 119 190 E. Capital Street Suite #100 Jackson, MS 39201 (601) 948-3101 Fax: 601-960-6902 Email: tjones@brunini.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Krissy C. Nobile Mississippi Attorney General's Office Civil Litigation Division 550 High Street, Suite 1100 Post Office Box 220 Jackson, MS 39205

601-359-3824 Email: knobi@ago.ms.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
R. David Kaufman BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES P. O. Drawer 119 Jackson, MS 39205-0119 (601) 948-3101 Email: dkaufman@brunini.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cody C. Bailey BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES P. O. Drawer 119 190 E. Capital Street Suite #100 Jackson, MS 39201 601-948-3101 Email: cbailey@brunini.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jacob A. Bradley BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES PLLC P.O. Box 119 190 East Capitol Street, Suite 100 Jackson, MS 39201 601-960-6851 Fax: 601-960-6902 Email: jbradley@brunini.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karen E. Howell BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES P. O. Drawer 119 190 E. Capital Street Suite #100 Jackson, MS 39201 Email: khowell@brunini.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Tommy Taylor in his official capacity as the Intermin Commissioner of the Mississippi Department of Corrections TERMINATED: 10/21/2020

Michael James Bentley BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP - Jackson P.O. Box 1789 Jackson, MS 39215-1789 601-592-9935 Email: mbentley@bradley.com TERMINATED: 10/20/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Molly Mitchell Walker Bradley Arant Boult Cummings 188 East Capitol Street Suite 1000 Jackson, MS 39201 601-948-8000 Fax: 601-592-1404 Email: mmwalker@bradley.com TERMINATED: 10/20/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William Easom Jones , III (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Krissy C. Nobile (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
R. David Kaufman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cody C. Bailey (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jacob A. Bradley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karen E. Howell

Defendant
Nathan Burl Cain Commissioner of the Mississippi Department of Corrections

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael James Bentley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/20/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Molly Mitchell Walker (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/20/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William Easom Jones , III (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by John G. Wheeler MITCHELL, MCNUTT & SAMS P. O. Box 7120 Tupelo, MS 38802-7120 (662) 842-3871 Email: jwheeler@mitchellmcnutt.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Krissy C. Nobile (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael D. Chase MITCHELL, MCNUTT & SAMS P. O. Box 7120 Tupelo, MS 38802-7120 (601) 842-3871 Email: mchase@mitchellmcnutt.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
R. David Kaufman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Defendant
Timothy Morris Superintendent of the Mississippi State Penitentiary

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cody C. Bailey (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jacob A. Bradley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karen E. Howell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William Easom Jones , III (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by John G. Wheeler (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Krissy C. Nobile (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael D. Chase (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
R. David Kaufman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cody C. Bailey (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jacob A. Bradley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Karen E. Howell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William Easom Jones , III (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 01/14/2020
01/14/2020 01/15/2020 01/15/2020 01/15/2020 01/16/2020 01/21/2020 01/21/2020

# Docket Text
1 PRISONER COMPLAINT challenging conditions of confinement, Jury Demand, Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 0537-1759850, filed by Kuriaki Riley, Brandon Robertson, Daniel Guthrie, Phillip Decarlos Webster, Quenten Johnson, Willie Friend, Billy James, Jr, Michael Amos, Challis Lewis, Jonathan J. Ham, Terrance McKinney, Adrian Willard, Deaunte Lewis, Larry Maxwell, Tyree Ross, Curtis Wilson, Pitrell Brister, Carlos Varnando, Charles Gayles, H. D. Alexander Scott, Conti Tillis, Desmond Hardy, Demarcus Timmons, Lemartine Taylor, Derrick Rogers, Deangelo Taylor, Justin James, Derrick Pan, Antonio Davis. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet) (tab)
NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT. Case assigned to Judge Debra M Brown and Magistrate Judge Jane M Virden. (tab)
2 Summons Issued as to Pelicia E. Hall, Marshal Turner. E-mailed to attorney for service. (tab)
3 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Lawrence S. Blackmon on behalf of Michael Amos Marshal Turner served on 1/15/2020. (Blackmon, Lawrence)
4 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Lawrence S. Blackmon on behalf of Michael Amos Pelicia E. Hall served on 1/15/2020. (Blackmon, Lawrence)
5 Summons Reissued as to Pelicia E. Hall, Marshal Turner. E-mailed to attorney for service. (tab)
6 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Lawrence S. Blackmon on behalf of Michael Amos Pelicia E. Hall served on 1/16/2020. (Blackmon, Lawrence)
7 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Lawrence S. Blackmon on behalf of Michael Amos Marshal Turner served on 1/16/2020. (Blackmon, Lawrence)

01/21/2020 01/21/2020 01/23/2020
01/23/2020
01/24/2020 01/24/2020
01/25/2020

8 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Marcy Bryan Croft on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Croft, Marcy)
9 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Carson H. Thurman on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Thurman, Carson)
10 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney as to Lawrence S. Blackmon by Michael Amos, Pitrell Brister, Antonio Davis, Willie Friend, Charles Gayles, Daniel Guthrie, Jonathan J. Ham, Desmond Hardy, Billy James, Jr, Justin James, Quenten Johnson, Challis Lewis, Deaunte Lewis, Larry Maxwell, Terrance McKinney, Derrick Pan, Kuriaki Riley, Brandon Robertson, Derrick Rogers, Tyree Ross, H. D. Alexander Scott, Deangelo Taylor, Lemartine Taylor, Conti Tillis, Demarcus Timmons, Carlos Varnado, Phillip Decarlos Webster, Adrian Willard, Curtis Wilson. (Croft, Marcy)
11 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order , MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Michael Amos, Pitrell Brister, Antonio Davis, Willie Friend, Charles Gayles, Daniel Guthrie, Jonathan J. Ham, Desmond Hardy, Billy James, Jr, Justin James, Quenten Johnson, Challis Lewis, Deaunte Lewis, Larry Maxwell, Terrance McKinney, Derrick Pan, Kuriaki Riley, Brandon Robertson, Derrick Rogers, Tyree Ross, H. D. Alexander Scott, Deangelo Taylor, Lemartine Taylor, Conti Tillis, Demarcus Timmons, Carlos Varnado, Phillip Decarlos Webster, Adrian Willard, Curtis Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Redacted Affirmations of Parchmant Inmates, # 2 Exhibit B - Transcript of Evidentiary Hearing) (Croft, Marcy)
12 ORDER denying 11 Motion for TRO; denying 11 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by District Judge Debra M. Brown on 1/24/2020. (jla)
13 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order , MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Michael Amos, Pitrell Brister, Antonio Davis, Willie Friend, Charles Gayles, Daniel Guthrie, Jonathan J. Ham, Desmond Hardy, Billy James, Jr, Justin James, Quenten Johnson, Challis Lewis, Deaunte Lewis, Larry Maxwell, Terrance McKinney, Derrick Pan, Kuriaki Riley, Brandon Robertson, Derrick Rogers, Tyree Ross, H. D. Alexander Scott, Deangelo Taylor, Lemartine Taylor, Conti Tillis, Demarcus Timmons, Carlos Varnado, Phillip Decarlos Webster, Adrian Willard, Curtis Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Redacted Affirmations of Parchman Inmates, # 2 Exhibit B - Transcript of Evidentiary Hearing, # 3 Exhibit C - Declaration - Debra Graham) (Croft, Marcy) (Entered: 01/25/2020)
14 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 13 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order MOTION for Preliminary

01/25/2020 01/27/2020
01/27/2020 01/27/2020 01/28/2020

Injunction filed by Michael Amos, Pitrell Brister, Antonio Davis, Willie Friend, Charles Gayles, Daniel Guthrie, Jonathan J. Ham, Desmond Hardy, Billy James, Jr, Justin James, Quenten Johnson, Challis Lewis, Deaunte Lewis, Larry Maxwell, Terrance McKinney, Derrick Pan, Kuriaki Riley, Brandon Robertson, Derrick Rogers, Tyree Ross, H. D. Alexander Scott, Deangelo Taylor, Lemartine Taylor, Conti Tillis, Demarcus Timmons, Carlos Varnado, Phillip Decarlos Webster, Adrian Willard, Curtis Wilson. (Croft, Marcy)
15 AMENDED / SUPPLEMENT TO DOCUMENT Amendment to 14 Memorandum in Support,, 13 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order MOTION for Preliminary Injunction AMENDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (Croft, Marcy)
16 MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE by Michael Amos, Pitrell Brister, Antonio Davis, Willie Friend, Charles Gayles, Daniel Guthrie, Jonathan J. Ham, Desmond Hardy, Billy James, Jr, Justin James, Quenten Johnson, Challis Lewis, Deaunte Lewis, Larry Maxwell, Terrance McKinney, Derrick Pan, Kuriaki Riley, Brandon Robertson, Derrick Rogers, Tyree Ross, H. D. Alexander Scott, Deangelo Taylor, Lemartine Taylor, Conti Tillis, Demarcus Timmons, Carlos Varnado, Phillip Decarlos Webster, Adrian Willard, Curtis Wilson. (Croft, Marcy)
17 RESPONSE to Motion re 13 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Marshal Turner. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Declarations of Mallett, Sprayberry, and Smith) (Jones, William)
18 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 17 Response to Motion, re 13 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order , MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Pelicia E. Hall, Marshal Turner. (Jones, William) Modified on 1/28/2020 (jla).
19 AMENDED COMPLAINT First Amended Class-Action Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial against Marshal Turner, Tommy Taylor, Jury Demand, filed by Carlos Varnado, Brandon Robertson, Quenten Johnson, Willie Friend, Billy James, Jr, Michael Amos, Adrian Willard, Deaunte Lewis, Larry Maxwell, Curtis Wilson, Demarcus Timmons, Derrick Pan, Kuriaki Riley, Daniel Guthrie, Phillip Decarlos Webster, Jonathan J. Ham, Terrance McKinney, Tyree Ross, Pitrell Brister, Charles Gayles, H. D. Alexander Scott, Desmond Hardy, Conti Tillis, Derrick Rogers, Lemartine Taylor, Justin James, Deangelo Taylor, Antonio Davis, Ivery Moore, Kevin Thomas, Caleb Buckner, William Green, Aric Johnson. (Croft, Marcy)

01/28/2020
01/28/2020 01/28/2020 01/28/2020
01/28/2020 01/28/2020 01/28/2020 01/28/2020 01/28/2020

20 REPLY to Response to Motion re 13 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Michael Amos, Pitrell Brister, Caleb Buckner, Antonio Davis, Willie Friend, Charles Gayles, William Green, Daniel Guthrie, Jonathan J. Ham, Desmond Hardy, Billy James, Jr, Justin James, Aric Johnson, Quenten Johnson, Deaunte Lewis, Larry Maxwell, Terrance McKinney, Ivery Moore, Derrick Pan, Kuriaki Riley, Brandon Robertson, Derrick Rogers, Tyree Ross, H. D. Alexander Scott, Deangelo Taylor, Lemartine Taylor, Kevin Thomas, Conti Tillis, Demarcus Timmons, Carlos Varnado, Phillip Decarlos Webster, Adrian Willard, Curtis Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 Photos, # 2 Exhibit 2 - January 27, 2020 Email Exchange) (Croft, Marcy)
CLERK'S NOTICE OF CORRECTION re 19 Amended Complaint -- Per attorney's office, the wrong document is attached. Please re-file attaching the correct document. (edc)
21 NOTICE of Conference: Telephonic Status Conference set for 1/29/2020 04:00 PM before District Judge Debra M. Brown. (rt)
22 AMENDED COMPLAINT First Amended Class-Action Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial against Tommy Taylor, Marshal Turner, Jury Demand, filed by Carlos Varnado, Brandon Robertson, Quenten Johnson, Willie Friend, Billy James, Jr, Michael Amos, William Green, Adrian Willard, Deaunte Lewis, Larry Maxwell, Curtis Wilson, Demarcus Timmons, Caleb Buckner, Kevin Thomas, Derrick Pan, Kuriaki Riley, Daniel Guthrie, Aric Johnson, Phillip Decarlos Webster, Jonathan J. Ham, Terrance McKinney, Tyree Ross, Pitrell Brister, Charles Gayles, H. D. Alexander Scott, Desmond Hardy, Conti Tillis, Ivery Moore, Derrick Rogers, Lemartine Taylor, Justin James, Deangelo Taylor, Antonio Davis. (Croft, Marcy)
23 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by R. David Kaufman on behalf of Tommy Taylor, Marshal Turner (Kaufman, R.)
24 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by William Easom Jones, III on behalf of Tommy Taylor, Marshal Turner (Jones, William)
25 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Karen E. Howell on behalf of Tommy Taylor, Marshal Turner (Howell, Karen)
26 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Jacob A. Bradley on behalf of Tommy Taylor, Marshal Turner (Bradley, Jacob)
27 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Cody C. Bailey on behalf of Tommy Taylor, Marshal Turner (Bailey, Cody)

01/28/2020
01/29/2020
01/29/2020 01/31/2020 01/31/2020 02/01/2020

28 NOTICE of Withdrawal of Attorney by Carson H. Thurman on behalf of Michael Amos, Pitrell Brister, Caleb Buckner, Antonio Davis, Willie Friend, Charles Gayles, William Green, Daniel Guthrie, Jonathan J. Ham, Desmond Hardy, Billy James, Jr, Justin James, Aric Johnson, Quenten Johnson, Deaunte Lewis, Larry Maxwell, Terrance McKinney, Ivery Moore, Derrick Pan, Kuriaki Riley, Brandon Robertson, Derrick Rogers, Tyree Ross, H. D. Alexander Scott, Deangelo Taylor, Lemartine Taylor, Kevin Thomas, Conti Tillis, Demarcus Timmons, Carlos Varnado, Phillip Decarlos Webster, Adrian Willard, Curtis Wilson re 10 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney (Thurman, Carson) Modified on 1/29/2020 (jla).
29 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice ; Attorney Alexander B. Spiro,(Paid $150 PHV fee; receipt number 0537-1766190) by Michael Amos, Pitrell Brister, Caleb Buckner, Antonio Davis, Willie Friend, Charles Gayles, William Green, Daniel Guthrie, Jonathan J. Ham, Desmond Hardy, Billy James, Jr, Justin James, Aric Johnson, Quenten Johnson, Challis Lewis, Deaunte Lewis, Larry Maxwell, Terrance McKinney, Ivery Moore, Derrick Pan, Kuriaki Riley, Brandon Robertson, Derrick Rogers, Tyree Ross, H. D. Alexander Scott, Deangelo Taylor, Lemartine Taylor, Kevin Thomas, Conti Tillis, Demarcus Timmons, Carlos Varnado, Phillip Decarlos Webster, Adrian Willard, Curtis Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing) (Thurman, Carson)
30 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Debra M. Brown: Status Conference held on 1/29/2020. (Court Reporter Brenda Blackburn.) (rt)
31 ORDER re 13 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order MOTION for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by District Judge Debra M. Brown on 1/31/20. (bds)
32 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion MOTION Hearing re Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel set for 2/3/2020 02:00 PM in Greenville Courtroom 1 before District Judge Debra M. Brown. (rt)
33 MOTION to Compel Expedited Discovery by Michael Amos, Pitrell Brister, Caleb Buckner, Antonio Davis, Willie Friend, Charles Gayles, William Green, Daniel Guthrie, Jonathan J. Ham, Desmond Hardy, Billy James, Jr, Justin James, Aric Johnson, Quenten Johnson, Deaunte Lewis, Larry Maxwell, Terrance McKinney, Ivery Moore, Derrick Pan, Kuriaki Riley, Brandon Robertson, Derrick Rogers, Tyree Ross, H. D. Alexander Scott, Deangelo Taylor, Lemartine Taylor, Kevin Thomas, Conti Tillis, Demarcus Timmons, Carlos Varnado, Phillip Decarlos Webster, Adrian Willard, Curtis Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A:

02/01/2020
02/02/2020 02/02/2020 02/02/2020 02/02/2020 02/02/2020

Declaration of Attorney Marcy B. Croft, # 2 Exhibit B: Email from M.Croft to T. Jones on January 29, 2020, # 3 Exhibit C: Declaration of Jeworski Mallet [Doc 17-1], # 4 Exhibit D: Declaration of John G. Sprayberry [Doc 17-1], # 5 Exhibit E: Declaration of Sean Smith [Doc 17-1], # 6 Exhibit F: Emails between M. Croft & T. Jones, # 7 Exhibit G: Declaration of Attorney Casey L. Smith re: repairs, # 8 Exhibit H: Declaration of Attorney Casey L. Austin re: hanging, # 9 Exhibit I: Spoliation Letter dated January 29, 2020, # 10 Exhibit J: Declaration of Eldon Vail, # 11 Exhibit K: Declaration of Craig Haney, # 12 Exhibit L: Declaration of Marc Stern, # 13 Exhibit M: Declaration of Madeleine LaMarre, # 14 Exhibit N: Declaration of Frank Edwards, # 15 Exhibit O: Declaration of Debra Graham, # 16 Exhibit P: Declaration of Terry Kupers) (Croft, Marcy)
34 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 33 MOTION to Compel Expedited Discovery filed by Michael Amos, Pitrell Brister, Caleb Buckner, Antonio Davis, Willie Friend, Charles Gayles, William Green, Daniel Guthrie, Jonathan J. Ham, Desmond Hardy, Billy James, Jr, Justin James, Aric Johnson, Quenten Johnson, Deaunte Lewis, Larry Maxwell, Terrance McKinney, Ivery Moore, Derrick Pan, Kuriaki Riley, Brandon Robertson, Derrick Rogers, Tyree Ross, H. D. Alexander Scott, Deangelo Taylor, Lemartine Taylor, Kevin Thomas, Conti Tillis, Demarcus Timmons, Carlos Varnado, Phillip Decarlos Webster, Adrian Willard, Curtis Wilson. (Croft, Marcy)
35 RESPONSE in Opposition re 33 MOTION to Compel Expedited Discovery filed by Pelicia E. Hall, Tommy Taylor, Marshal Turner. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Declaration) (Jones, William)
36 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 35 Response in Opposition to Motion re 33 MOTION to Compel Expedited Discovery filed by Pelicia E. Hall, Tommy Taylor, Marshal Turner. (Jones, William) Modified on 2/3/2020 (jla).
37 MOTION to Compel by Pelicia E. Hall, Tommy Taylor, Marshal Turner. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Request for Unredacted Affirmations, # 2 Exhibit 2 - Plaintiffs' Submission to the Court) (Jones, William)
38 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 37 MOTION to Compel filed by Pelicia E. Hall, Tommy Taylor, Marshal Turner. (Jones, William)
39 REPLY to Response to Motion re 33 MOTION to Compel Expedited Discovery filed by Michael Amos, Pitrell Brister, Caleb Buckner, Antonio Davis, Willie Friend, Charles Gayles, William Green, Daniel Guthrie, Jonathan J. Ham, Desmond Hardy, Billy James, Jr, Justin James, Aric Johnson, Quenten Johnson, Deaunte Lewis, Larry

02/03/2020 02/03/2020 02/03/2020 02/07/2020 02/07/2020 02/08/2020
02/08/2020

Maxwell, Terrance McKinney, Ivery Moore, Derrick Pan, Kuriaki Riley, Brandon Robertson, Derrick Rogers, Tyree Ross, H. D. Alexander Scott, Deangelo Taylor, Lemartine Taylor, Kevin Thomas, Conti Tillis, Demarcus Timmons, Carlos Varnado, Phillip Decarlos Webster, Adrian Willard, Curtis Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A: Declaration of Eldon Vail February 2, 2020, # 2 Exhibit B: Declaration of Craig Haney February 2, 2020) (Croft, Marcy)
40 AMENDED NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 33 MOTION to Compel, 37 MOTION to Compel Expedited Discovery: Motion Hearing set for 2/3/2020 02:00 PM in Greenville Courtroom 1 before District Judge Debra M. Brown. (rt)
41 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Krissy C. Nobile on behalf of Tommy Taylor, Marshal Turner (Nobile, Krissy)
42 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Debra M. Brown: Motion Hearing held on 2/3/2020. (Court Reporter Brenda Blackburn.) (rt) Modified on 2/4/2020 as to hearing type (rt).
43 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Thomas Gerry Bufkin on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Bufkin, Thomas)
44 ORDER directing briefing. Signed by District Judge Debra M. Brown on 2/7/20. (bds)
45 Supplement to Motion re 33 MOTION to Compel Expedited Discovery filed by Michael Amos, Pitrell Brister, Caleb Buckner, Antonio Davis, Willie Friend, Charles Gayles, William Green, Daniel Guthrie, Jonathan J. Ham, Desmond Hardy, Billy James, Jr, Justin James, Aric Johnson, Quenten Johnson, Deaunte Lewis, Larry Maxwell, Terrance McKinney, Ivery Moore, Derrick Pan, Kuriaki Riley, Brandon Robertson, Derrick Rogers, Tyree Ross, H. D. Alexander Scott, Deangelo Taylor, Lemartine Taylor, Kevin Thomas, Conti Tillis, Demarcus Timmons, Carlos Varnado, Phillip Decarlos Webster, Adrian Willard, Curtis Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1: Declaration of Eldon Vail February 8, 2020, # 2 Exhibit 2: Declaration of Craig Haney February 8, 2020, # 3 Exhibit 3: Declaration of Debra Graham February 8, 2020, # 4 Exhibit 4: Declaration of Frank Edwards February 8, 2020, # 5 Exhibit 5: Declaration of Marc Stern February 8, 2020, # 6 Exhibit 6: Declaration of Madeleine LaMarre February 8, 2020) (Thurman, Carson)
46 Supplement to Motion re 33 MOTION to Compel Expedited Discovery - Supplemental Brief related to Discovery Issues and in support of Opposition filed by Pelicia E. Hall, Tommy Taylor, Marshal Turner. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Parties' Email Submissions to the

02/10/2020 02/10/2020 02/10/2020 02/11/2020
02/13/2020 02/18/2020
02/21/2020 02/24/2020 02/24/2020 03/09/2020

Court, # 2 Exhibit B - Declaration of Jeworski Mallett) (Jones, William)
47 ORDER granting 10 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Lawrence S. Blackmon terminated. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden on 2/10/20. (bfg)
48 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 33 Motion to Compel; granting in part and denying in part 37 Motion to Compel. Signed by District Judge Debra M. Brown on 2/10/20. (bds)
49 ORDER regarding outstanding inspection issues. Signed by District Judge Debra M. Brown on 2/10/20. (bds)
50 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time of Defendants' Deadline to Respond to, and for Withdrawal of Demand for Jury Trial from, Plaintiffs' First Amended Class-Action Complaint [Doc. 22] by Pelicia E. Hall, Tommy Taylor, Marshal Turner. (Jones, William)
51 ORDER granting 50 Joint Motion for Extension of Time to Respond and for Withdrawal of Demand for Jury Trial. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden on 2/13/20. (bfg)
52 ORDER granting 29 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Alexander B. Spiro. Newly admitted counsel shall register electronically by accessing the Attorney Registration site at www.msnd.uscourts.gov/ecf within five (5) business days of the date of this order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden on 2/18/20. (bfg) Modified on 4/23/2020 (jla).
53 Joint MOTION for Scheduling Order by Pelicia E. Hall, Tommy Taylor, Marshal Turner. (Bailey, Cody)
54 ORDER granting 16 Motion for Judicial Notice. Signed by District Judge Debra M. Brown on 2/24/20. (jla)
55 ORDER granting 53 Motion for Scheduling Order. Signed by District Judge Debra M. Brown on 2/24/20. (jla)
56 MOTION Judicial Notice re 16 MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE by Michael Amos, Pitrell Brister, Caleb Buckner, Antonio Davis, Willie Friend, Charles Gayles, William Green, Daniel Guthrie, Jonathan J. Ham, Desmond Hardy, Billy James, Jr, Justin James, Aric Johnson, Quenten Johnson, Deaunte Lewis, Larry Maxwell, Terrance McKinney, Ivery Moore, Derrick Pan, Kuriaki Riley, Brandon Robertson, Derrick Rogers, Tyree Ross, H. D. Alexander Scott, Deangelo Taylor, Lemartine Taylor, Kevin Thomas, Conti Tillis, Demarcus Timmons, Carlos Varnado, Phillip Decarlos Webster, Adrian

Willard, Curtis Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Alissa Zhu and Lici Beveridge, Inmates Killed during Mississippis Prison Violence: Who are they? CLARION LEDGER (January 3, 2020), # 2 Exhibit B Jimmie E. Gates, Report: 1 Inmate Dead, Others Injured in Fight at the Mississippi State Penitentiary, CLARION LEDGER (January 1, 2020), # 3 Exhibit C - WTVA Staff, Sheriff: One Dead, Two Injured after Fight at Chickasaw Regional Correctional Facility, WTVA (January 2, 2020), # 4 Exhibit D - Alissa Zhu, Parchman Inmate Dies of Natural Causes at Hospital, Coroner Says, CLARION LEDGER (January 8, 2020), # 5 Exhibit E - Alissa Zhu, Parchman Death: Inmate Found Hanging in Cell, Coroner Says, CLARION LEDGER (January 19, 2020), # 6 Exhibit F - MISS. DEPT CORRS., Investigation Underway into 2 Deaths at Parchman, Press Release (January 21, 2020), # 7 Exhibit G - MISS. DEPT OF CORRS., Second Inmate Killed at Parchman Identified, Press Release (January 21, 2020), # 8 Exhibit H MISS. DEPT OF CORRS., Inmate Found Dead Wednesday Morning at Parchman Identified, Press Release (January 22, 2020), # 9 Exhibit I Alissa Zhu, Mississippi Inmate Dies at Marshall County Correctional Facility, CLARION LEDGER (January 26, 2020), # 10 Exhibit J MISS. DEPT OF CORRS., Inmate Found Dead Sunday Morning in a Cell at Parchman, Press Release (January 26, 2020), # 11 Exhibit K MISS. DEPT OF CORRS., State Inmate Collapses and Dies at KemperNeshoba Regional Facility, Press Release (January 28, 2020), # 12 Exhibit L - Lici Beveridge, Mississippi Prison Crisis: 14th State Inmate Death, CLARION LEDGER (January 30, 2020), # 13 Exhibit M - Lici Beveridge, Mississippi Prison Crisis: 15th State Inmate Dies, Cause Under Investigation, CLARION LEDGER (February 2, 2020), # 14 Exhibit N - MISS. DEPT OF CORRS., Inmate who Died this Afternoon in Prison Hospital Identified, Press Release (February 10, 2020), # 15 Exhibit O - Lici Beveridge, Mississippi Prison Crisis: 18th Inmate Dies, 2nd in 24 Hours. He was a Parchman Escapee, CLARION LEDGER (February 16, 2020), # 16 Exhibit P - MISS. DEPT OF CORRS., Inmate Serving 25 Years for Two Armed Robberies in Copiah County Dies, Press Release (February 15, 2020),, # 17 Exhibit Q - MISS. DEPT OF CORRS., Inmate Dies at Rankin County Prison, Press Release (February 16, 2020), # 18 Exhibit R - MISS. DEPT OF CORRS., Prisoner Serving 20 Years for Manslaughter Dies, Press Release (February 26, 2020), # 19 Exhibit S - MISS. DEPT OF CORRS, Two Inmates Die in Prison Hospital this Week, Press Release (February 28, 2020), # 20 Exhibit T - MISS. DEPT OF CORRS., Inmate Serving Six Years Dies at Local Hospital, Press Release (March 4, 2020), # 21 Exhibit U - MISS. DEPT OF CORRS., Inmate Serving Life for Murder Dies at Local Hospital, Press Release (March 2, 2020), # 22 Exhibit V - MISS. DEPT OF CORRS., Identify Released of Inmate who Died in Prison Hospital, Press Release (March 5, 2020), # 23 Exhibit W - MISS. DEPT OF CORRS., Inmate Who Died in

03/09/2020 03/11/2020 03/16/2020

Oxford Hospital Identified, Press Release (March 9, 2020)) (Croft, Marcy)
57 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 56 MOTION Judicial Notice re 16 MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE filed by Michael Amos, Pitrell Brister, Caleb Buckner, Antonio Davis, Willie Friend, Charles Gayles, William Green, Daniel Guthrie, Jonathan J. Ham, Desmond Hardy, Billy James, Jr, Justin James, Aric Johnson, Quenten Johnson, Deaunte Lewis, Larry Maxwell, Terrance McKinney, Ivery Moore, Derrick Pan, Kuriaki Riley, Brandon Robertson, Derrick Rogers, Tyree Ross, H. D. Alexander Scott, Deangelo Taylor, Lemartine Taylor, Kevin Thomas, Conti Tillis, Demarcus Timmons, Carlos Varnado, Phillip Decarlos Webster, Adrian Willard, Curtis Wilson. (Croft, Marcy)
58 MOTION to Amend/Correct 56 MOTION Judicial Notice re 16 MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE by Michael Amos, Pitrell Brister, Caleb Buckner, Antonio Davis, Willie Friend, Charles Gayles, William Green, Daniel Guthrie, Jonathan J. Ham, Desmond Hardy, Billy James, Jr, Justin James, Aric Johnson, Quenten Johnson, Deaunte Lewis, Larry Maxwell, Terrance McKinney, Ivery Moore, Derrick Pan, Kuriaki Riley, Brandon Robertson, Derrick Rogers, Tyree Ross, H. D. Alexander Scott, Deangelo Taylor, Lemartine Taylor, Kevin Thomas, Conti Tillis, Demarcus Timmons, Carlos Varnado, Phillip Decarlos Webster, Adrian Willard, Curtis Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit APlaintiffs' Amended Opposed Motion for Judicial Notice, # 2 Memorandum of Authorities in Support of Plaintiffs' Amended Opposed Motion for Judicial Notice) (Croft, Marcy)
59 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Mandatory Preliminary Injunction as to COVID-19 by Michael Amos, Pitrell Brister, Caleb Buckner, Antonio Davis, Willie Friend, Charles Gayles, William Green, Daniel Guthrie, Jonathan J. Ham, Desmond Hardy, Billy James, Jr, Justin James, Aric Johnson, Quenten Johnson, Deaunte Lewis, Larry Maxwell, Terrance McKinney, Ivery Moore, Derrick Pan, Kuriaki Riley, Brandon Robertson, Derrick Rogers, Tyree Ross, H. D. Alexander Scott, Deangelo Taylor, Lemartine Taylor, Kevin Thomas, Conti Tillis, Demarcus Timmons, Carlos Varnado, Phillip Decarlos Webster, Adrian Willard, Curtis Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit AWorld Health Organization Director-Generals Brief on COVID-19 (Mar. 11, 2020), # 2 Exhibit B-Presidential Proclamation Declaring a National Emergency Concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) dated 03/13/2020, # 3 Exhibit C-State of Mississippi, Office of Governor, Proclamation dated 03/14/2020, # 4 Exhibit DStanding Order In Re: The Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19), 3:20-MC9, U.S. District Court for the N.D. of Miss. dated 3/16/2020, # 5 Exhibit

03/16/2020
03/17/2020 03/19/2020 03/19/2020 03/20/2020

E-WHO Statement, COVID-19 cases surpassing 100,000 (3/7/2020), # 6 Exhibit F-Affidavit of Marc Stern, MD MPH, # 7 Exhibit G-MDOC Press Release MDOC Takes Preventative Steps Against Coronavirus Exposure dated 3/12/2020, # 8 Exhibit H-Medical Records of Inmate Larry Maxwell (showing repeated visits to medical clinic without receiving treatment), # 9 Exhibit I-Bureau of Justice Statistics, US DOJ, Medical Problems of State and Federal Prisoners and Jail Inmates, 2011-12, NCJ 248491 (Rev. 10/4/2016), # 10 Exhibit J-Proposed Order) (Croft, Marcy)
60 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 59 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Mandatory Preliminary Injunction as to COVID-19 filed by Michael Amos, Pitrell Brister, Caleb Buckner, Antonio Davis, Willie Friend, Charles Gayles, William Green, Daniel Guthrie, Jonathan J. Ham, Desmond Hardy, Billy James, Jr, Justin James, Aric Johnson, Quenten Johnson, Deaunte Lewis, Larry Maxwell, Terrance McKinney, Ivery Moore, Derrick Pan, Kuriaki Riley, Brandon Robertson, Derrick Rogers, Tyree Ross, H. D. Alexander Scott, Deangelo Taylor, Lemartine Taylor, Kevin Thomas, Conti Tillis, Demarcus Timmons, Carlos Varnado, Phillip Decarlos Webster, Adrian Willard, Curtis Wilson. (Croft, Marcy)
61 ORDER directing briefing. Signed by District Judge Debra M. Brown on 3/17/20. (bds)
62 RESPONSE in Opposition re 59 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Mandatory Preliminary Injunction as to COVID-19 filed by Tommy Taylor, Marshal Turner. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Declaration of Jeworski Mallett, # 2 Exhibit B Declaration of Gloria Perry, M.D., # 3 Exhibit C - Declaration of Willie Knighten, # 4 Exhibit D - Social Media Posts, # 5 Exhibit E - MS Testing, Collection, Shipping Guidance) (Jones, William)
63 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 62 Response in Opposition to Motion re 59 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Mandatory Preliminary Injunction as to COVID-19 filed by Tommy Taylor, Marshal Turner. (Jones, William) Modified on 3/20/2020 (jla).
64 REPLY to Response to Motion re 59 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Mandatory Preliminary Injunction as to COVID-19 filed by Michael Amos, Pitrell Brister, Caleb Buckner, Antonio Davis, Willie Friend, Charles Gayles, William Green, Daniel Guthrie, Jonathan J. Ham, Desmond Hardy, Billy James, Jr, Justin James, Aric Johnson, Quenten Johnson, Challis Lewis, Deaunte Lewis, Larry Maxwell, Terrance McKinney, Ivery Moore, Derrick Pan,

03/23/2020
03/23/2020
03/24/2020 03/25/2020 04/01/2020 04/07/2020

Kuriaki Riley, Brandon Robertson, Derrick Rogers, Tyree Ross, H. D. Alexander Scott, Deangelo Taylor, Lemartine Taylor, Kevin Thomas, Conti Tillis, Demarcus Timmons, Carlos Varnado, Phillip Decarlos Webster, Adrian Willard, Curtis Wilson. (Croft, Marcy)
65 Second MOTION to Amend/Correct 58 MOTION to Amend/Correct 56 MOTION Judicial Notice re 16 MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE , 56 MOTION Judicial Notice re 16 MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE And to Set Briefing Schedule by Michael Amos, Pitrell Brister, Caleb Buckner, Antonio Davis, Willie Friend, Charles Gayles, William Green, Daniel Guthrie, Jonathan J. Ham, Desmond Hardy, Billy James, Jr, Justin James, Aric Johnson, Quenten Johnson, Deaunte Lewis, Larry Maxwell, Terrance McKinney, Ivery Moore, Derrick Pan, Kuriaki Riley, Brandon Robertson, Derrick Rogers, Tyree Ross, H. D. Alexander Scott, Deangelo Taylor, Lemartine Taylor, Kevin Thomas, Conti Tillis, Demarcus Timmons, Carlos Varnado, Phillip Decarlos Webster, Adrian Willard, Curtis Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Plaintiffs' Amended Opposed Motion for Judicial Notice, Memorandum, & Exhibits) (Croft, Marcy)
66 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 65 Second MOTION to Amend/Correct 58 MOTION to Amend/Correct 56 MOTION Judicial Notice re 16 MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE , 56 MOTION Judicial Notice re 16 MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE And to Set Briefing Schedule filed by Michael Amos, Pitrell Brister, Caleb Buckner, Antonio Davis, Willie Friend, Charles Gayles, William Green, Daniel Guthrie, Jonathan J. Ham, Desmond Hardy, Billy James, Jr, Justin James, Aric Johnson, Quenten Johnson, Deaunte Lewis, Larry Maxwell, Terrance McKinney, Ivery Moore, Derrick Pan, Kuriaki Riley, Brandon Robertson, Derrick Rogers, Tyree Ross, H. D. Alexander Scott, Deangelo Taylor, Lemartine Taylor, Kevin Thomas, Conti Tillis, Demarcus Timmons, Carlos Varnado, Phillip Decarlos Webster, Adrian Willard, Curtis Wilson. (Croft, Marcy)
67 Joint MOTION for Entry of Revised Scheduling Order re 55 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief by Tommy Taylor, Marshal Turner. (Jones, William)
68 Joint MOTION for Protective Order by Tommy Taylor, Marshal Turner. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) (Jones, William)
69 ORDER granting 67 Motion for revised briefing schedule. Signed by District Judge Debra M. Brown on 4/1/2020. (bds)
70 ORDER directing supplemental briefing. Signed by District Judge Debra M. Brown on 4/7/2020. (bds)

04/09/2020 04/09/2020 04/09/2020 04/13/2020
04/15/2020 04/22/2020 04/22/2020

71 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Molly Mitchell Walker on behalf of Tommy Taylor, Marshal Turner (Walker, Molly)
72 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Molly Mitchell Walker on behalf of Tommy Taylor, Marshal Turner (Walker, Molly)
73 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Michael James Bentley on behalf of Tommy Taylor, Marshal Turner (Bentley, Michael)
74 Supplement to Motion re 59 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Mandatory Preliminary Injunction as to COVID-19 filed by Michael Amos, Pitrell Brister, Caleb Buckner, Antonio Davis, Willie Friend, Charles Gayles, William Green, Daniel Guthrie, Jonathan J. Ham, Desmond Hardy, Billy James, Jr, Justin James, Aric Johnson, Quenten Johnson, Deaunte Lewis, Larry Maxwell, Terrance McKinney, Ivery Moore, Derrick Pan, Kuriaki Riley, Brandon Robertson, Derrick Rogers, Tyree Ross, H. D. Alexander Scott, Deangelo Taylor, Lemartine Taylor, Kevin Thomas, Conti Tillis, Demarcus Timmons, Carlos Varnado, Phillip Decarlos Webster, Adrian Willard, Curtis Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A: CDC Guidance-Correctional-Detention, # 2 Exhibit B: CDC Powerpoint Managing COVID 19 in Correctional-Detention, # 3 Exhibit C: Redacted Affirmations of Clients Incarcerated at Parchman, # 4 Exhibit D: Redacted Declarations of Clients Incarcerated at Parchman, # 5 Exhibit E: D.Sullivan Affidavit, # 6 Exhibit F: G. McMahon Affidavit, # 7 Exhibit G: Counsel Email Correspondence) (Croft, Marcy)
75 Supplement to Motion re 59 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Mandatory Preliminary Injunction as to COVID-19 filed by Tommy Taylor, Marshal Turner. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit May Declaration, # 2 Exhibit Knighten Declaration, # 3 Exhibit Ramsue Declaration, # 4 Exhibit Perry Declaration, # 5 Exhibit Turner Declaration) (Bentley, Michael)
76 TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 68 motion for protective order. Because the Court concludes that the proposed protective order is necessary to protect the health and safety of inmates and corrections officers, the joint motion for protective order is granted. The proposed protective order will be entered separately. No further written order shall issue from this court. Signed by District Judge Debra M. Brown on 4/22/2020. (no document attached) (bds)
77 AGREED PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by District Judge Debra M. Brown on 4/22/2020. (tab)

04/23/2020 04/24/2020 04/24/2020
04/27/2020 05/14/2020 05/14/2020

78 AMENDED / SUPPLEMENT TO DOCUMENT Amendment to 62 Response in Opposition to Motion, 75 Supplement to Motion, DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, Notice of Supplemental Authority Order, Valentine v. Collier, 20-20207 (5th Cir. Apr) (Jones, William)
79 ORDER denying 59 Motion for TRO. Signed by District Judge Debra M. Brown on 4/24/20. (bds)
80 Joint MOTION Entry of Revised Scheduling Order re 69 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief by Michael Amos, Pitrell Brister, Caleb Buckner, Antonio Davis, Willie Friend, Charles Gayles, William Green, Daniel Guthrie, Jonathan J. Ham, Desmond Hardy, Billy James, Jr, Justin James, Aric Johnson, Quenten Johnson, Deaunte Lewis, Larry Maxwell, Terrance McKinney, Ivery Moore, Derrick Pan, Kuriaki Riley, Brandon Robertson, Derrick Rogers, Tyree Ross, H. D. Alexander Scott, Deangelo Taylor, Lemartine Taylor, Kevin Thomas, Conti Tillis, Demarcus Timmons, Carlos Varnado, Phillip Decarlos Webster, Adrian Willard, Curtis Wilson. (Croft, Marcy)
81 ORDER granting 80 Motion for Entry of Revised Scheduling Order. Signed by District Judge Debra M. Brown on 4/27/2020. (jtm)
82 ORDER granting 65 Motion to Amend/Correct. Signed by District Judge Debra M. Brown on 5/14/20. (jla)
83 MOTION Second Amended Opposed Motion for Judicial Notice re 56 MOTION Judicial Notice re 16 MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE by Michael Amos, Pitrell Brister, Caleb Buckner, Antonio Davis, Willie Friend, Charles Gayles, William Green, Daniel Guthrie, Jonathan J. Ham, Desmond Hardy, Billy James, Jr, Justin James, Aric Johnson, Quenten Johnson, Deaunte Lewis, Larry Maxwell, Terrance McKinney, Ivery Moore, Derrick Pan, Kuriaki Riley, Brandon Robertson, Derrick Rogers, Tyree Ross, H. D. Alexander Scott, Deangelo Taylor, Lemartine Taylor, Kevin Thomas, Conti Tillis, Demarcus Timmons, Carlos Varnado, Phillip Decarlos Webster, Adrian Willard, Curtis Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Alissa Zhu and Lici Beveridge, Inmates Killed during Mississippis Prison Violence: Who are they? CLARION LEDGER (January 3, 2020), # 2 Exhibit B Jimmie E. Gates, Report: 1 Inmate Dead, Others Injured in Fight at the Mississippi State Penitentiary, CLARION LEDGER (January 1, 2020), # 3 Exhibit C - WTVA Staff, Sheriff: One Dead, Two Injured after Fight at Chickasaw Regional Correctional Facility, WTVA (January 2, 2020), # 4 Exhibit D - Alissa Zhu, Parchman Inmate Dies of Natural Causes at Hospital, Coroner Says, CLARION LEDGER (January 8, 2020), # 5 Exhibit E - Alissa Zhu, Parchman Death: Inmate Found

05/14/2020

Hanging in Cell, Coroner Says, CLARION LEDGER (January 19, 2020), # 6 Exhibit F - MISS. DEPT CORRS., Investigation Underway into 2 Deaths at Parchman, Press Release (January 21, 2020), # 7 Exhibit G - MISS. DEPT OF CORRS., Second Inmate Killed at Parchman Identified, Press Release (January 21, 2020), # 8 Exhibit H MISS. DEPT OF CORRS., Inmate Found Dead Wednesday Morning at Parchman Identified, Press Release (January 22, 2020), # 9 Exhibit I Alissa Zhu, Mississippi Inmate Dies at Marshall County Correctional Facility, CLARION LEDGER (January 26, 2020), # 10 Exhibit J MISS. DEPT OF CORRS., Inmate Found Dead Sunday Morning in a Cell at Parchman, Press Release (January 26, 2020), # 11 Exhibit K MISS. DEPT OF CORRS., State Inmate Collapses and Dies at KemperNeshoba Regional Facility, Press Release (January 28, 2020), # 12 Exhibit L - Lici Beveridge, Mississippi Prison Crisis: 15th State Inmate Death, CLARION LEDGER (January 30, 2020), # 13 Exhibit M - MISS. DEPT OF CORRS., Inmate who Died this Afternoon in Prison Hospital Identified, Press Release (February 10, 2020), # 14 Exhibit O - MISS. DEPT OF CORRS., Inmate Serving 25 Years for Two Armed Robberies in Copiah County Dies, Press Release (February 15, 2020), # 15 Exhibit P - MISS. DEPT OF CORRS., Inmate Dies at Rankin County Prison, Press Release (February 16, 2020), # 16 Exhibit Q - MISS. DEPT OF CORRS., Prisoner Serving 20 Years for Manslaughter Dies, Press Release (February 26, 2020), # 17 Exhibit R - MISS. DEPT OF CORRS, Two Inmates Die in Prison Hospital this Week, Press Release (February 28, 2020), # 18 Exhibit S MISS. DEPT OF CORRS., Inmate Serving Six Years Dies at Local Hospital, Press Release (March 3, 2020), # 19 Exhibit T - MISS. DEPT OF CORRS., Inmate Serving Life for Murder Dies at Local Hospital, Press Release (March 2, 2020), # 20 Exhibit U - MISS. DEPT OF CORRS., Identify Released of Inmate who Died in Prison Hospital, Press Release (March 5, 2020), # 21 Exhibit V - MISS. DEPT OF CORRS., Inmate Who Died in Oxford Hospital Identified, Press Release (March 9, 2020), # 22 Exhibit W - MISS. DEPT OF CORRS., Inmate Who Died at Rankin County Prison Monday Evening Identified, Press Release (March 10, 2020), # 23 Exhibit X - WJTV, MDOC Identifies 80-Year-Old Inmate Who Died at Central Mississippi Correctional Facility, WJTV (March 10, 2020), # 24 Exhibit Y - China Lee, 42-Year-Old Inmate Identified after Being Found Unresponsive at Parchman, WLBT (March 12, 2020, # 25 Exhibit Z - ShaCamree Gowdy, Inmate Serving 30 Years for Assault Dies in Parchman Hospital, WLBT (March 19, 2020), # 26 Exhibit AA - Sarah Fowler, MDOC: Inmate Dies at South Mississippi Correctional Institution, No Foul Play Suspected, Clarion Ledger (March 22, 2020)) (Croft, Marcy)
84 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 83 MOTION Second Amended Opposed Motion for Judicial Notice re 56 MOTION Judicial Notice

05/15/2020 05/15/2020

re 16 MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE filed by Michael Amos, Pitrell Brister, Caleb Buckner, Antonio Davis, Willie Friend, Charles Gayles, William Green, Daniel Guthrie, Jonathan J. Ham, Desmond Hardy, Billy James, Jr, Justin James, Aric Johnson, Quenten Johnson, Deaunte Lewis, Larry Maxwell, Terrance McKinney, Ivery Moore, Derrick Pan, Kuriaki Riley, Brandon Robertson, Derrick Rogers, Tyree Ross, H. D. Alexander Scott, Deangelo Taylor, Lemartine Taylor, Kevin Thomas, Conti Tillis, Demarcus Timmons, Carlos Varnado, Phillip Decarlos Webster, Adrian Willard, Curtis Wilson. (Croft, Marcy)
85 ORDER denying as moot 56 Motion for judicial notice ; denying as moot 58 Motion to Amend. Signed by District Judge Debra M. Brown on 5/15/2020. (tab)
86 MOTION re 16 MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE , 83 MOTION Second Amended Opposed Motion for Judicial Notice re 56 MOTION Judicial Notice re 16 MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE Opposed Motion for Judicial Notice of MDOC Deaths Between March 21,2020 and May 12, 2020 by Michael Amos, Pitrell Brister, Caleb Buckner, Antonio Davis, Willie Friend, Charles Gayles, William Green, Daniel Guthrie, Jonathan J. Ham, Desmond Hardy, Billy James, Jr, Justin James, Aric Johnson, Quenten Johnson, Deaunte Lewis, Larry Maxwell, Terrance McKinney, Ivery Moore, Derrick Pan, Kuriaki Riley, Brandon Robertson, Derrick Rogers, Tyree Ross, H. D. Alexander Scott, Deangelo Taylor, Lemartine Taylor, Kevin Thomas, Conti Tillis, Demarcus Timmons, Carlos Varnado, Phillip Decarlos Webster, Adrian Willard, Curtis Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A MISS. DEPT OF CORRS., Inmate Who Died Last Week Identified, Press Release (April 9, 2020), # 2 Exhibit B - MISS. DEPT OF CORRS., Inmate Dies After Fight with Cellmate, Press Release (April 2, 2020), # 3 Exhibit C - MISS. DEPT OF CORRS., Inmate Serving 15 Years at Rankin County prison dies, Press Release (April 6, 2020, # 4 Exhibit D - MISS. DEPT OF CORRS., Inmate Serving Life Dies in Greenville Hospital, Press Release (April 11, 2020), # 5 Exhibit E MISS. DEPT OF CORRS, Inmate Dies Saturday in Prison Hospital, Press Release (April 18, 2020), # 6 Exhibit F - MISS. DEPT OF CORRS., Inmate Serving 15 Years Dies in Prison Hospital, Press Release (April 23, 2020), # 7 Exhibit G - MISS. DEPT OF CORRS., State inmate dies in Jackson hospital, Press Release (April 30, 2020), # 8 Exhibit H - MISS. DEPT OF CORRS., South Mississippi inmate dies while serving 60-year sentence, Press Release (May 2, 2020), # 9 Exhibit I - MISS. DEPT OF CORRS., North Mississippi inmate serving two life sentences dies in hospital, Press Release (May 4, 2020), # 10 Exhibit J - MISS. DEPT OF CORRS., Inmate serving life for murder dies in prison Press Release (May 11, 2020), # 11 Exhibit K

05/15/2020
05/18/2020 05/19/2020 05/19/2020

- MISS. DEPT OF CORRS., Inmate dies in prison hospital; no foul play suspected, Press Release (May 12, 2020)) (Croft, Marcy)
87 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 86 MOTION re 16 MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE , 83 MOTION Second Amended Opposed Motion for Judicial Notice re 56 MOTION Judicial Notice re 16 MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE Opposed Motion Opposed Motion for Judicial Notice of MDOC Deaths Between March 21,2020 and May 12, 2020 re 83 MOTION Second Amended Opposed Motion for Judicial Notice filed by Michael Amos, Pitrell Brister, Caleb Buckner, Antonio Davis, Willie Friend, Charles Gayles, William Green, Daniel Guthrie, Jonathan J. Ham, Desmond Hardy, Billy James, Jr, Justin James, Aric Johnson, Quenten Johnson, Deaunte Lewis, Larry Maxwell, Terrance McKinney, Ivery Moore, Derrick Pan, Kuriaki Riley, Brandon Robertson, Derrick Rogers, Tyree Ross, H. D. Alexander Scott, Deangelo Taylor, Lemartine Taylor, Kevin Thomas, Conti Tillis, Demarcus Timmons, Carlos Varnado, Phillip Decarlos Webster, Adrian Willard, Curtis Wilson. (Croft, Marcy) Modified on 10/22/2020 (jla).
88 MOTION to Withdraw Notice of Withdrawal of Application for Admission PHV [Doc.29] by Michael Amos, Pitrell Brister, Caleb Buckner, Antonio Davis, Willie Friend, Charles Gayles, William Green, Daniel Guthrie, Jonathan J. Ham, Desmond Hardy, Billy James, Jr, Justin James, Aric Johnson, Quenten Johnson, Challis Lewis, Deaunte Lewis, Larry Maxwell, Terrance McKinney, Ivery Moore, Derrick Pan, Kuriaki Riley, Brandon Robertson, Derrick Rogers, Tyree Ross, H. D. Alexander Scott, Deangelo Taylor, Lemartine Taylor, Kevin Thomas, Conti Tillis, Demarcus Timmons, Carlos Varnado, Phillip Decarlos Webster, Adrian Willard, Curtis Wilson. (Thurman, Carson)
89 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Michael Amos, Pitrell Brister, Caleb Buckner, Antonio Davis, Willie Friend, Charles Gayles, William Green, Daniel Guthrie, Jonathan J. Ham, Desmond Hardy, Billy James, Jr, Justin James, Aric Johnson, Quenten Johnson, Deaunte Lewis, Larry Maxwell, Terrance McKinney, Ivery Moore, Derrick Pan, Kuriaki Riley, Brandon Robertson, Derrick Rogers, Tyree Ross, H. D. Alexander Scott, Deangelo Taylor, Lemartine Taylor, Kevin Thomas, Conti Tillis, Demarcus Timmons, Carlos Varnado, Phillip Decarlos Webster, Adrian Willard, Curtis Wilson. (Thurman, Carson)
90 MOTION Unopposed Motion for Entry of Revised Scheduling Order re 81 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief by Tommy Taylor, Marshal Turner. (Jones, William)

05/22/2020 05/28/2020 05/28/2020 05/28/2020 05/28/2020 06/02/2020
06/02/2020

91 ORDER granting 89 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages; granting 90 Motion for extension. Signed by District Judge Debra M. Brown on 5/22/20. (bds)
92 RESPONSE in Opposition re 83 MOTION Second Amended Opposed Motion for Judicial Notice re 56 MOTION Judicial Notice re 16 MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE filed by Tommy Taylor, Marshal Turner. (Jones, William)
93 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 92 Response in Opposition to Motion re 83 MOTION Second Amended Opposed Motion for Judicial Notice filed by Tommy Taylor, Marshal Turner. (Jones, William) Modified on 5/29/2020 (jla).
94 RESPONSE in Opposition re 86 MOTION re 16 MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE , 83 MOTION Second Amended Opposed Motion for Judicial Notice re 56 MOTION Judicial Notice re 16 MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE Opposed Motion filed by Tommy Taylor, Marshal Turner. (Jones, William)
95 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 94 Response in Opposition to Motion re 86 MOTION re 16 MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE filed by Tommy Taylor, Marshal Turner. (Jones, William) Modified on 5/29/2020 (jla).
96 REPLY to Response to Motion re 83 MOTION Second Amended Opposed Motion for Judicial Notice re 56 MOTION Judicial Notice re 16 MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE filed by Michael Amos, Pitrell Brister, Caleb Buckner, Antonio Davis, Willie Friend, Charles Gayles, William Green, Daniel Guthrie, Jonathan J. Ham, Desmond Hardy, Billy James, Jr, Justin James, Aric Johnson, Quenten Johnson, Deaunte Lewis, Larry Maxwell, Terrance McKinney, Ivery Moore, Derrick Pan, Kuriaki Riley, Brandon Robertson, Derrick Rogers, Tyree Ross, H. D. Alexander Scott, Deangelo Taylor, Lemartine Taylor, Kevin Thomas, Conti Tillis, Demarcus Timmons, Carlos Varnado, Phillip Decarlos Webster, Adrian Willard, Curtis Wilson. (Croft, Marcy)
97 REPLY to Response to Motion re 86 MOTION re 16 MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE , 83 MOTION Second Amended Opposed Motion for Judicial Notice re 56 MOTION Judicial Notice re 16 MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE Opposed Motion filed by Michael Amos, Pitrell Brister, Caleb Buckner, Antonio Davis, Willie Friend, Charles Gayles, William Green, Daniel Guthrie, Jonathan J. Ham, Desmond Hardy, Billy James, Jr, Justin James, Aric Johnson, Quenten Johnson, Deaunte Lewis, Larry Maxwell, Terrance McKinney, Ivery Moore, Derrick Pan, Kuriaki Riley, Brandon Robertson, Derrick Rogers, Tyree

Ross, H. D. Alexander Scott, Deangelo Taylor, Lemartine Taylor, Kevin Thomas, Conti Tillis, Demarcus Timmons, Carlos Varnado, Phillip Decarlos Webster, Adrian Willard, Curtis Wilson. (Croft, Marcy)

06/09/2020

98 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction by Michael Amos, Pitrell Brister, Caleb Buckner, Antonio Davis, Willie Friend, Charles Gayles, William Green, Daniel Guthrie, Jonathan J. Ham, Desmond Hardy, Billy James, Jr, Justin James, Aric Johnson, Quenten Johnson, Deaunte Lewis, Larry Maxwell, Terrance McKinney, Ivery Moore, Derrick Pan, Kuriaki Riley, Brandon Robertson, Derrick Rogers, Tyree Ross, H. D. Alexander Scott, Deangelo Taylor, Lemartine Taylor, Kevin Thomas, Conti Tillis, Demarcus Timmons, Carlos Varnado, Phillip Decarlos Webster, Adrian Willard, Curtis Wilson. (Croft, Marcy)

06/09/2020

99 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 98 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction filed by Michael Amos, Pitrell Brister, Caleb Buckner, Antonio Davis, Willie Friend, Charles Gayles, William Green, Daniel Guthrie, Jonathan J. Ham, Desmond Hardy, Billy James, Jr, Justin James, Aric Johnson, Quenten Johnson, Deaunte Lewis, Larry Maxwell, Terrance McKinney, Ivery Moore, Derrick Pan, Kuriaki Riley, Brandon Robertson, Derrick Rogers, Tyree Ross, H. D. Alexander Scott, Deangelo Taylor, Lemartine Taylor, Kevin Thomas, Conti Tillis, Demarcus Timmons, Carlos Varnado, Phillip Decarlos Webster, Adrian Willard, Curtis Wilson. (Croft, Marcy)

06/09/2020

100 Supplement to Motion re 98 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction filed by Michael Amos, Pitrell Brister, Caleb Buckner, Antonio Davis, Willie Friend, Charles Gayles, William Green, Daniel Guthrie, Jonathan J. Ham, Desmond Hardy, Billy James, Jr, Justin James, Aric Johnson, Quenten Johnson, Deaunte Lewis, Larry Maxwell, Terrance McKinney, Ivery Moore, Derrick Pan, Kuriaki Riley, Brandon Robertson, Derrick Rogers, Tyree Ross, H. D. Alexander Scott, Deangelo Taylor, Lemartine Taylor, Kevin Thomas, Conti Tillis, Demarcus Timmons, Carlos Varnado, Phillip Decarlos Webster, Adrian Willard, Curtis Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A: Vail Report & Addendum) (Croft, Marcy)

06/09/2020

101 Supplement to Motion re 98 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction filed by Michael Amos, Pitrell Brister, Caleb Buckner, Antonio Davis, Willie Friend, Charles Gayles, William Green, Daniel Guthrie, Jonathan J. Ham, Desmond Hardy, Billy James, Jr, Justin James, Aric Johnson, Quenten Johnson, Deaunte Lewis, Larry Maxwell, Terrance McKinney, Ivery Moore, Derrick Pan, Kuriaki Riley, Brandon Robertson, Derrick Rogers, Tyree Ross, H. D.

Alexander Scott, Deangelo Taylor, Lemartine Taylor, Kevin Thomas, Conti Tillis, Demarcus Timmons, Carlos Varnado, Phillip Decarlos Webster, Adrian Willard, Curtis Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit B: Stern Expert Report & Addendum, # 2 Exhibit C: Haney Expert Report, # 3 Exhibit D: Graham Expert Report, # 4 Exhibit E: LaMarre Expert Report, # 5 Exhibit F: Edward Expert Report) (Croft, Marcy)

06/09/2020

102 Supplement to Motion re 98 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction filed by Michael Amos, Pitrell Brister, Caleb Buckner, Antonio Davis, Willie Friend, Charles Gayles, William Green, Daniel Guthrie, Jonathan J. Ham, Desmond Hardy, Billy James, Jr, Justin James, Aric Johnson, Quenten Johnson, Deaunte Lewis, Larry Maxwell, Terrance McKinney, Ivery Moore, Derrick Pan, Kuriaki Riley, Brandon Robertson, Derrick Rogers, Tyree Ross, H. D. Alexander Scott, Deangelo Taylor, Lemartine Taylor, Kevin Thomas, Conti Tillis, Demarcus Timmons, Carlos Varnado, Phillip Decarlos Webster, Adrian Willard, Curtis Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit G: Plaintiffs Affirmation Compilation) (Croft, Marcy)

06/09/2020

103 Supplement to Motion re 98 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction filed by Michael Amos, Pitrell Brister, Caleb Buckner, Antonio Davis, Willie Friend, Charles Gayles, William Green, Daniel Guthrie, Jonathan J. Ham, Desmond Hardy, Billy James, Jr, Justin James, Aric Johnson, Quenten Johnson, Deaunte Lewis, Larry Maxwell, Terrance McKinney, Ivery Moore, Derrick Pan, Kuriaki Riley, Brandon Robertson, Derrick Rogers, Tyree Ross, H. D. Alexander Scott, Deangelo Taylor, Lemartine Taylor, Kevin Thomas, Conti Tillis, Demarcus Timmons, Carlos Varnado, Phillip Decarlos Webster, Adrian Willard, Curtis Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit H: Photograph Submission) (Croft, Marcy)

06/09/2020

104 Supplement to Motion re 98 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction filed by Michael Amos, Pitrell Brister, Caleb Buckner, Antonio Davis, Willie Friend, Charles Gayles, William Green, Daniel Guthrie, Jonathan J. Ham, Desmond Hardy, Billy James, Jr, Justin James, Aric Johnson, Quenten Johnson, Deaunte Lewis, Larry Maxwell, Terrance McKinney, Ivery Moore, Derrick Pan, Kuriaki Riley, Brandon Robertson, Derrick Rogers, Tyree Ross, H. D. Alexander Scott, Deangelo Taylor, Lemartine Taylor, Kevin Thomas, Conti Tillis, Demarcus Timmons, Carlos Varnado, Phillip Decarlos Webster, Adrian Willard, Curtis Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit I: Supplemental Declaration of Webster, # 2 Exhibit J: Supplemental Declaration of Johnson, # 3 Exhibit K: Supplemental Declaration of James, # 4 Exhibit L: Supplemental Declaration of Riley, # 5 Exhibit M1-Sworn COVID Questionnaires, # 6 Exhibit M2-Sworn COVID Questionnaires, # 7 Exhibit M3-Sworn COVID Questionnaires,

# 8 Exhibit M4-Sworn COVID Questionnaires, # 9 Exhibit N1-Vail Additional Expert Source Material Library, # 10 Exhibit N2-Vail Additional Expert Source Material Library, # 11 Exhibit N3-Vail Additional Expert Source Material Library, # 12 Exhibit O: Stern Expert Source Material Redacted, # 13 Exhibit P: Haney Additional Source Material Library, # 14 Exhibit Q: Graham Additional Expert Source Material Library, # 15 Exhibit R: LaMarre Additional Expert Source Material Library, # 16 Exhibit S: Edwards Additional Expert Source Material Library) (Croft, Marcy)

06/09/2020

105 Supplement to Motion re 98 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction filed by Michael Amos, Pitrell Brister, Caleb Buckner, Antonio Davis, Willie Friend, Charles Gayles, William Green, Daniel Guthrie, Jonathan J. Ham, Desmond Hardy, Billy James, Jr, Justin James, Aric Johnson, Quenten Johnson, Deaunte Lewis, Larry Maxwell, Terrance McKinney, Ivery Moore, Derrick Pan, Kuriaki Riley, Brandon Robertson, Derrick Rogers, Tyree Ross, H. D. Alexander Scott, Deangelo Taylor, Lemartine Taylor, Kevin Thomas, Conti Tillis, Demarcus Timmons, Carlos Varnado, Phillip Decarlos Webster, Adrian Willard, Curtis Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit H2: Photograph Submission, # 2 Exhibit H3: Photograph Submission, # 3 Exhibit H4: Photograph Submission, # 4 Exhibit H5: Photograph Submission, # 5 Exhibit H6: Photograph Submission, # 6 Exhibit H7: Photograph Submission, # 7 Exhibit H8: Photograph Submission, # 8 Exhibit H9: Photograph Submission, # 9 Exhibit H10: Photograph Submission) (Croft, Marcy)

06/09/2020

106 NOTICE by Marcy Bryan Croft on behalf of Michael Amos, Pitrell Brister, Caleb Buckner, Antonio Davis, Willie Friend, Charles Gayles, William Green, Daniel Guthrie, Jonathan J. Ham, Desmond Hardy, Billy James, Jr, Justin James, Aric Johnson, Quenten Johnson, Deaunte Lewis, Larry Maxwell, Terrance McKinney, Ivery Moore, Derrick Pan, Kuriaki Riley, Brandon Robertson, Derrick Rogers, Tyree Ross, H. D. Alexander Scott, Deangelo Taylor, Lemartine Taylor, Kevin Thomas, Conti Tillis, Demarcus Timmons, Carlos Varnado, Phillip Decarlos Webster, Adrian Willard, Curtis Wilson DECLARATION OF TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES (Croft, Marcy)

06/12/2020 107 ORDER. Signed by District Judge Debra M. Brown on 6/12/20. (jla)

06/12/2020 108 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Jessica L. Rice on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Rice, Jessica)

06/20/2020

109 MOTION Opposed Fourth Motion for Judicial Notice of MDOC Deaths re 86 MOTION re 16 MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE , 83 MOTION Second Amended Opposed Motion for Judicial

Notice re 56 MOTION Judicial Notice re 16 MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE Opposed Motion, 16 MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE , 83 MOTION Second Amended Opposed Motion for Judicial Notice re 56 MOTION Judicial Notice re 16 MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE by Michael Amos, Pitrell Brister, Caleb Buckner, Antonio Davis, Willie Friend, Charles Gayles, William Green, Daniel Guthrie, Jonathan J. Ham, Desmond Hardy, Billy James, Jr, Justin James, Aric Johnson, Quenten Johnson, Deaunte Lewis, Larry Maxwell, Terrance McKinney, Ivery Moore, Derrick Pan, Kuriaki Riley, Brandon Robertson, Derrick Rogers, Tyree Ross, H. D. Alexander Scott, Deangelo Taylor, Lemartine Taylor, Kevin Thomas, Conti Tillis, Demarcus Timmons, Carlos Varnado, Phillip Decarlos Webster, Adrian Willard, Curtis Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A: State Inmate Dies at Rankin County Hospital, # 2 Exhibit B: Chronically Ill Inmate Dies in Hospital, # 3 Exhibit C: South MS Prison Inmate Dies, # 4 Exhibit D: Inmate in North MS Dies, # 5 Exhibit E: Inmate Dies in Jackson Hospital, # 6 Exhibit F: Rankin County Prison Inmate Serving 30 Years Dies, # 7 Exhibit G: Inmate Found Unresponsive at Wilkinson CCF, # 8 Exhibit H: State Inmate at Carroll-Montgomery County Regional Dies) (Croft, Marcy)

06/20/2020

110 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 109 MOTION Opposed Fourth Motion for Judicial Notice of MDOC Deaths re 86 MOTION re 16 MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE , 83 MOTION Second Amended Opposed Motion for Judicial Notice re 56 MOTION Judicial Notice re 16 filed by Michael Amos, Pitrell Brister, Caleb Buckner, Antonio Davis, Willie Friend, Charles Gayles, William Green, Daniel Guthrie, Jonathan J. Ham, Desmond Hardy, Billy James, Jr, Justin James, Aric Johnson, Quenten Johnson, Deaunte Lewis, Larry Maxwell, Terrance McKinney, Ivery Moore, Derrick Pan, Kuriaki Riley, Brandon Robertson, Derrick Rogers, Tyree Ross, H. D. Alexander Scott, Deangelo Taylor, Lemartine Taylor, Kevin Thomas, Conti Tillis, Demarcus Timmons, Carlos Varnado, Phillip Decarlos Webster, Adrian Willard, Curtis Wilson. (Croft, Marcy)

06/29/2020

111 MOTION to Withdraw Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice [DOC. 29] by Michael Amos, Pitrell Brister, Caleb Buckner, Antonio Davis, Willie Friend, Charles Gayles, William Green, Daniel Guthrie, Jonathan J. Ham, Desmond Hardy, Billy James, Jr, Justin James, Aric Johnson, Quenten Johnson, Challis Lewis, Deaunte Lewis, Larry Maxwell, Terrance McKinney, Ivery Moore, Derrick Pan, Kuriaki Riley, Brandon Robertson, Derrick Rogers, Tyree Ross, H. D. Alexander Scott, Deangelo Taylor, Lemartine Taylor, Kevin Thomas, Conti Tillis, Demarcus Timmons, Carlos Varnado, Phillip Decarlos Webster, Adrian Willard, Curtis Wilson. (Thurman, Carson)

06/30/2020 112 ORDER granting 111 Motion to Withdraw 29 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden on 6/30/20. (bfg)

07/06/2020

113 RESPONSE to Motion re 109 MOTION Opposed Fourth Motion for Judicial Notice of MDOC Deaths re 86 MOTION re 16 MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE , 83 MOTION Second Amended Opposed Motion for Judicial Notice re 56 MOTION Judicial Notice re 16 filed by Tommy Taylor, Marshal Turner. (Jones, William)

07/06/2020

114 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 113 Response to Motion re 109 MOTION Opposed Fourth Motion for Judicial Notice of MDOC Deaths re 86 MOTION re 16 MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE , 83 MOTION Second Amended Opposed Motion for Judicial Notice re 56 MOTION Judicial Notice re 16 filed by Tommy Taylor, Marshal Turner. (Jones, William) Modified on 7/7/2020 (jla).

07/07/2020 115 ORDER regarding reporting of remedial measures. Signed by District Judge Debra M. Brown on 7/7/20. (bds)

07/13/2020

116 AMENDED / SUPPLEMENT TO DOCUMENT Amendment to 102 Supplement to Motion,, Missing Pages from Exhibit G re 98 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. (Croft, Marcy) Modified on 7/15/2020 (jla).

07/13/2020

117 REPLY to Response to Motion re 109 MOTION Opposed Fourth Motion for Judicial Notice of MDOC Deaths re 86 MOTION re 16 MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE , 83 MOTION Second Amended Opposed Motion for Judicial Notice re 56 MOTION Judicial Notice re 16 filed by Michael Amos, Pitrell Brister, Caleb Buckner, Antonio Davis, Willie Friend, Charles Gayles, William Green, Daniel Guthrie, Jonathan J. Ham, Desmond Hardy, Billy James, Jr, Justin James, Aric Johnson, Quenten Johnson, Deaunte Lewis, Larry Maxwell, Terrance McKinney, Ivery Moore, Derrick Pan, Kuriaki Riley, Brandon Robertson, Derrick Rogers, Tyree Ross, H. D. Alexander Scott, Deangelo Taylor, Lemartine Taylor, Kevin Thomas, Conti Tillis, Demarcus Timmons, Carlos Varnado, Phillip Decarlos Webster, Adrian Willard, Curtis Wilson. (Rice, Jessica)

07/13/2020

118 RESPONSE in Opposition re 98 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction filed by Pelicia E. Hall, Tommy Taylor, Marshal Turner. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Declaration of Jeworski Mallett, # 2 Exhibit 2 - Declaration of John Sprayberry, # 3 Exhibit 3 - Declaration of Dr. James Glisson, # 4 Exhibit 4 - Expert Report of John D. Rees, # 5 Exhibit 5 - Expert Report of Stephen C. Tussey, # 6 Exhibit 6 - Photographs from June 24, 2020 Inspection, # 7 Exhibit 7 - Correspondence Regarding Requested Relief,

# 8 Exhibit 8 - Plaintiffs' Medical Records (filed under seal), # 9 Exhibit 9 - Declaration of Dr. May J. Leflore, # 10 Exhibit 10 Declaration of Richard Pennington, # 11 Exhibit 11 - Expert Report of Dr. Thomas Fowlkes, # 12 Exhibit 12 - Declaration of David Bokath, # 13 Exhibit 13 - Declaration of N. Roger Davis, # 14 Exhibit 14 Declaration of Julianne Croegaert, # 15 Appendix Appendix I, Part I Maintenance and Repair Documents, # 16 Appendix Appendix I, Part II - Maintenance and Repair Documents, # 17 Appendix Appendix I, Part III - Maintenance and Repair Documents, # 18 Appendix Appendix I, Part IV - Maintenance and Repair Documents, # 19 Appendix Appendix II - Pest Control Documents) (Bailey, Cody)

07/13/2020

119 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 118 Response in Opposition to Motion re 98 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction filed by Pelicia E. Hall, Tommy Taylor, Marshal Turner. (Bailey, Cody) Modified on 7/15/2020 (jla).

07/13/2020

120 MOTION to Seal Exhibit 8 to Doc. 118 , Defendants' Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Supplemental 98 Emergency Motion for TRO by Tommy Taylor, Marshal Turner. (Bailey, Cody) Modified on 7/15/2020 (jla).

07/15/2020

CLERK'S NOTICE OF CORRECTION re 119 Memorandum in Support; A Memorandum in Support should be linked to the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. All related filings to motions should be linked back to the original motion. Court staff has made the correction. (jla)

07/20/2020

121 MOTION Substitute Exhibit for Sealed Document re 118 Response in Opposition to Motion, 98 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction by Tommy Taylor, Marshal Turner. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - 1 - Substitute Exhibit 6 - Photographs 6/24/2020 Inspection, # 2 Exhibit A - 2 - Substitute Exhibit 6 Photographs 6/24/2020 Inspection, # 3 Exhibit A - 3 - Substitute Exhibit 6 - Photographs 6/24/2020 Inspection, # 4 Exhibit A - 4 Substitute Exhibit 6 - Photographs 6/24/2020 Inspection) (Howell, Karen) Modified on 10/22/2020 (jla).

07/20/2020

CLERK'S NOTICE OF CORRECTION re 121 MOTION Substitute Exhibit for Sealed Document re 118 Response in Opposition to Motion - DISREGARD: Motion to be refiled with attorney's signature affixed. (jtm)

07/20/2020

122 MOTION re 118 Response in Opposition to Motion,,,,, to File Substitute Exhibit for Sealed Document re 98 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction by Tommy Taylor, Marshal Turner. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A Pt. 1 - Sub. Ex. 6 - Photos

6/24/2020 Inspection, # 2 Exhibit A Pt. 2 - Sub. Ex. 6 - Photos 6/24/2020 Inspection, # 3 Exhibit A Pt. 3 - Sub. Ex. 6 - Photos 6/24/2020 Inspection, # 4 Exhibit A Pt. 4 - Sub. Ex. 6 - Photos 6/24/2020 Inspection) (Howell, Karen) Modified on 7/21/2020 (jla).

07/27/2020

123 REPLY to Response to Motion re 98 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, 13 Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Michael Amos, Pitrell Brister, Caleb Buckner, Antonio Davis, Willie Friend, Charles Gayles, William Green, Daniel Guthrie, Jonathan J. Ham, Desmond Hardy, Billy James, Jr, Justin James, Aric Johnson, Quenten Johnson, Deaunte Lewis, Larry Maxwell, Terrance McKinney, Ivery Moore, Derrick Pan, Kuriaki Riley, Brandon Robertson, Derrick Rogers, Tyree Ross, H. D. Alexander Scott, Deangelo Taylor, Lemartine Taylor, Kevin Thomas, Conti Tillis, Demarcus Timmons, Carlos Varnado, Phillip Decarlos Webster, Adrian Willard, Curtis Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A: DLewis Housing Record & MDOC Profile, # 2 Exhibit B: Email Correspondence, # 3 Exhibit C: Justin James Declaration, # 4 Exhibit D: Kuriaki Riley Declaration, # 5 Exhibit E: Aric Johnson Declaration w/ Exhibit A & B, # 6 Exhibit F: Frank Edwards Reply Report, # 7 Exhibit G: Marc Stern Reply Report, # 8 Exhibit H: Madie LaMarre Reply Report, # 9 Exhibit I:1 Pictures, # 10 Exhibit I:2 Pictures, # 11 Exhibit I:3 Pictures, # 12 Exhibit I:4 Pictures, # 13 Exhibit I:5 Pictures, # 14 Exhibit I:6 Pictures, # 15 Exhibit J: MDOC Standard Operating Procedures, # 16 Exhibit K: Pest Control Procedures & Records) (Croft, Marcy)

07/28/2020 124 ORDER granting 122 Motion to File Substitute Exhibit for Sealed Document. Signed by District Judge Debra M. Brown on 7/28/20. (jla)

08/10/2020

125 MOTION Opposed Fifth Motion for Judicial Notice of MDOC Deaths re 86 MOTION re 16 MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE , 83 MOTION Second Amended Opposed Motion for Judicial Notice re 56 MOTION Judicial Notice re 16 MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE Opposed Motion, 109 MOTION Opposed Fourth Motion for Judicial Notice of MDOC Deaths re 86 MOTION re 16 MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE , 83 MOTION Second Amended Opposed Motion for Judicial Notice re 56 MOTION Judicial Notice re 16 , 16 MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE , 83 MOTION Second Amended Opposed Motion for Judicial Notice re 56 MOTION Judicial Notice re 16 MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE by Michael Amos, Pitrell Brister, Caleb Buckner, Antonio Davis, Willie Friend, Charles Gayles, William Green, Daniel Guthrie, Jonathan J. Ham, Desmond Hardy, Billy James, Jr, Justin James, Aric Johnson, Quenten Johnson, Deaunte Lewis, Larry Maxwell, Terrance McKinney, Ivery

Moore, Derrick Pan, Kuriaki Riley, Brandon Robertson, Derrick Rogers, Tyree Ross, H. D. Alexander Scott, Deangelo Taylor, Lemartine Taylor, Kevin Thomas, Conti Tillis, Demarcus Timmons, Carlos Varnado, Phillip Decarlos Webster, Adrian Willard, Curtis Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - MISS. DEPT OF CORRS., State Inmate Dies at Jackson Hospital on Saturday, Press Release (June 29, 2020), # 2 Exhibit B - MISS. DEPT OF CORRS., Inmate at the Central Mississippi Correctional Facility Dies, Press Release (July 1, 2020), # 3 Exhibit C - MISS. DEPT OF CORRS., Inmate Dies in Prison Hospital, Press Release (July 9, 2020), # 4 Exhibit D - MISS. DEPT OF CORRS., Inmate Serving Life Sentence Dies in Greenville Hospital, Press Release (July 13, 2020), # 5 Exhibit E - MISS. DEPT OF CORRS, State Inmate Dies in Tallahatchie County Correctional Facility, Press Release (July 14, 2020), # 6 Exhibit F - MISS. DEPT OF CORRS., South Mississippi Inmate Death Under Investigation, Press Release (July 22, 2020), # 7 Exhibit G - MISS. DEPT OF CORRS, State Inmate Hospitalized in Greenville Dies, Press Release (August 3, 2020), # 8 Exhibit H Wilton Jackson, Mississippi Inmate Serving Life for Killing Pizza Delivery Man Dies in ER at Parchman, CLARION LEDGER (August 7, 2020), # 9 Exhibit I Associated Press, Autopsies Set for 3 Latest Inmate Deaths in Mississippi, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT (August 9, 2020)) (Croft, Marcy)

08/10/2020

126 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 125 MOTION Opposed Fifth Motion for Judicial Notice of MDOC Deaths re 86 MOTION re 16 MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE , 83 MOTION Second Amended Opposed Motion for Judicial Notice re 56 MOTION Judicial Notice re 16 M filed by Michael Amos, Pitrell Brister, Caleb Buckner, Antonio Davis, Willie Friend, Charles Gayles, William Green, Daniel Guthrie, Jonathan J. Ham, Desmond Hardy, Billy James, Jr, Justin James, Aric Johnson, Quenten Johnson, Deaunte Lewis, Larry Maxwell, Terrance McKinney, Ivery Moore, Derrick Pan, Kuriaki Riley, Brandon Robertson, Derrick Rogers, Tyree Ross, H. D. Alexander Scott, Deangelo Taylor, Lemartine Taylor, Kevin Thomas, Conti Tillis, Demarcus Timmons, Carlos Varnado, Phillip Decarlos Webster, Adrian Willard, Curtis Wilson. (Croft, Marcy)

08/10/2020

127 NOTICE by Marcy Bryan Croft on behalf of Michael Amos, Pitrell Brister, Caleb Buckner, Antonio Davis, Willie Friend, Charles Gayles, William Green, Daniel Guthrie, Jonathan J. Ham, Desmond Hardy, Billy James, Jr, Justin James, Aric Johnson, Quenten Johnson, Deaunte Lewis, Larry Maxwell, Terrance McKinney, Ivery Moore, Derrick Pan, Kuriaki Riley, Brandon Robertson, Derrick Rogers, Tyree Ross, H. D. Alexander Scott, Deangelo Taylor, Lemartine Taylor, Kevin Thomas, Conti Tillis, Demarcus Timmons, Carlos Varnado, Phillip Decarlos Webster, Adrian Willard, Curtis Wilson re 125 MOTION Opposed

Fifth Motion for Judicial Notice of MDOC Deaths re 86 MOTION re 16 MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE , 83 MOTION Second Amended Opposed Motion for Judicial Notice re 56 MOTION Judicial Notice re 16 M Notice of Correction (Croft, Marcy)

08/11/2020

128 MOTION to Expedite Discovery Regarding Implementation of COVID19 Measures at Mississippi State Penitentiary by Michael Amos, Pitrell Brister, Caleb Buckner, Antonio Davis, Willie Friend, Charles Gayles, William Green, Daniel Guthrie, Jonathan J. Ham, Desmond Hardy, Billy James, Jr, Justin James, Aric Johnson, Quenten Johnson, Deaunte Lewis, Larry Maxwell, Terrance McKinney, Ivery Moore, Derrick Pan, Kuriaki Riley, Brandon Robertson, Derrick Rogers, Tyree Ross, H. D. Alexander Scott, Deangelo Taylor, Lemartine Taylor, Kevin Thomas, Conti Tillis, Demarcus Timmons, Carlos Varnado, Phillip Decarlos Webster, Adrian Willard, Curtis Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A: Proposed Discovery, # 2 Exhibit B: LaMarre Report, # 3 Exhibit C: Screenshot, # 4 Exhibit D: Correspondence with Counsel) (Croft, Marcy)

08/11/2020

129 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 128 MOTION to Expedite Discovery Regarding Implementation of COVID-19 Measures at Mississippi State Penitentiary filed by Michael Amos, Pitrell Brister, Caleb Buckner, Antonio Davis, Willie Friend, Charles Gayles, William Green, Daniel Guthrie, Jonathan J. Ham, Desmond Hardy, Billy James, Jr, Justin James, Aric Johnson, Quenten Johnson, Deaunte Lewis, Larry Maxwell, Terrance McKinney, Ivery Moore, Derrick Pan, Kuriaki Riley, Brandon Robertson, Derrick Rogers, Tyree Ross, H. D. Alexander Scott, Deangelo Taylor, Lemartine Taylor, Kevin Thomas, Conti Tillis, Demarcus Timmons, Carlos Varnado, Phillip Decarlos Webster, Adrian Willard, Curtis Wilson. (Croft, Marcy)

08/12/2020

130 ORDER directing parties to respond to 128 MOTION to Expedite Discovery Regarding Implementation of COVID-19 Measures at Mississippi State Penitentiary : Responses due by 8/17/2020 Replies due by 8/19/2020.. Signed by District Judge Debra M. Brown on 8/12/20. (jla)

08/13/2020

131 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 128 MOTION to Expedite Discovery Regarding Implementation of COVID-19 Measures at Mississippi State Penitentiary by Tommy Taylor, Marshal Turner. (Walker, Molly)

08/13/2020

132 RESPONSE in Opposition re 131 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 128 MOTION to Expedite Discovery Regarding Implementation of COVID-19 Measures at Mississippi State Penitentiary filed by Michael Amos, Pitrell Brister, Caleb Buckner,

Antonio Davis, Willie Friend, Charles Gayles, William Green, Daniel Guthrie, Jonathan J. Ham, Desmond Hardy, Billy James, Jr, Justin James, Aric Johnson, Quenten Johnson, Deaunte Lewis, Larry Maxwell, Terrance McKinney, Ivery Moore, Derrick Pan, Kuriaki Riley, Brandon Robertson, Derrick Rogers, Tyree Ross, H. D. Alexander Scott, Deangelo Taylor, Lemartine Taylor, Kevin Thomas, Conti Tillis, Demarcus Timmons, Carlos Varnado, Phillip Decarlos Webster, Adrian Willard, Curtis Wilson. (Croft, Marcy)

08/14/2020 133 ORDER denying 120 Motion to Seal. Signed by District Judge Debra M. Brown on 8/14/20. (jla)

08/14/2020 134 ORDER denying 131 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Signed by District Judge Debra M. Brown on 8/14/20. (bds)

08/17/2020

135 RESPONSE in Opposition re 128 MOTION to Expedite Discovery Regarding Implementation of COVID-19 Measures at Mississippi State Penitentiary filed by Tommy Taylor, Marshal Turner. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Declaration of Timothy Morris, # 2 Exhibit B Declaration of Dr. Glisson, # 3 Exhibit C- Declaration of Willie Knighten, # 4 Exhibit D - August 17, 2020 email chain between counsel) (Bentley, Michael)

08/17/2020

136 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 135 Response in Opposition to Motion,re 128 MOTION to Expedite Discovery Regarding Implementation of COVID-19 Measures at Mississippi State Penitentiary filed by Tommy Taylor, Marshal Turner. (Bentley, Michael) Modified on 10/22/2020 (jla).

08/19/2020

137 RESPONSE in Support re 128 MOTION to Expedite Discovery Regarding Implementation of COVID-19 Measures at Mississippi State Penitentiary filed by Michael Amos, Pitrell Brister, Caleb Buckner, Antonio Davis, Willie Friend, Charles Gayles, William Green, Daniel Guthrie, Jonathan J. Ham, Desmond Hardy, Billy James, Jr, Justin James, Aric Johnson, Quenten Johnson, Deaunte Lewis, Larry Maxwell, Terrance McKinney, Ivery Moore, Derrick Pan, Kuriaki Riley, Brandon Robertson, Derrick Rogers, Tyree Ross, H. D. Alexander Scott, Deangelo Taylor, Lemartine Taylor, Kevin Thomas, Conti Tillis, Demarcus Timmons, Carlos Varnado, Phillip Decarlos Webster, Adrian Willard, Curtis Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A Declaration of Madeleine Lamarre, MN, FNP-BC, # 2 Exhibit B MDOC Covid-19 Confirmed Cases Reports From August 17, 2020 and August 19, 2020, # 3 Exhibit C - Collective Email Correspondence with Counsel) (Croft, Marcy)

08/21/2020

138 EXHIBIT re 118 Response in Opposition to Motion,,,,, Exhibit 8 Redacted Medical Records re 98 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction . (Walker, Molly) Modified on 10/22/2020 (jla).

08/24/2020

139 RESPONSE in Opposition re 125 MOTION Opposed Fifth Motion for Judicial Notice of MDOC Deaths re 86 MOTION re 16 MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE , 83 MOTION Second Amended Opposed Motion for Judicial Notice re 56 MOTION Judicial Notice re 16 M filed by Tommy Taylor, Marshal Turner. (Jones, William)

08/24/2020

140 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 139 Response in Opposition to Motion, 125 MOTION Opposed Fifth Motion for Judicial Notice of MDOC Deaths re 86 MOTION re 16 MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE , 83 MOTION Second Amended Opposed Motion for Judicial Notice re 56 MOTION Judicial Notice re 16 M filed by Tommy Taylor, Marshal Turner. (Jones, William)

08/26/2020

141 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 128 Motion to Expedite Discovery Regarding Implementation of COVID-19 Measures at Mississippi State Penitentiary Discovery. Signed by District Judge Debra M. Brown on 8/25/2020. (tab)

08/27/2020

142 MOTION Plaintiffs' Opposed Motion for Judicial Notice of MDOC Deaths Between August 8, 2020 and August 25, 2020 re 86 MOTION re 16 MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE , 83 MOTION Second Amended Opposed Motion for Judicial Notice re 56 MOTION Judicial Notice re 16 MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE Opposed Motion, 109 MOTION Opposed Fourth Motion for Judicial Notice of MDOC Deaths re 86 MOTION re 16 MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE , 83 MOTION Second Amended Opposed Motion for Judicial Notice re 56 MOTION Judicial Notice re 16 , 56 MOTION Judicial Notice re 16 MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE , 125 MOTION Opposed Fifth Motion for Judicial Notice of MDOC Deaths re 86 MOTION re 16 MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE , 83 MOTION Second Amended Opposed Motion for Judicial Notice re 56 MOTION Judicial Notice re 16 M, 83 MOTION Second Amended Opposed Motion for Judicial Notice re 56 MOTION Judicial Notice re 16 MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE by Michael Amos, Pitrell Brister, Caleb Buckner, Antonio Davis, Willie Friend, Charles Gayles, William Green, Daniel Guthrie, Jonathan J. Ham, Desmond Hardy, Billy James, Jr, Justin James, Deaunte Lewis, Larry Maxwell, Terrance McKinney, Ivery Moore, Derrick Pan, Kuriaki Riley, Brandon Robertson, Derrick Rogers, Tyree Ross, H. D. Alexander Scott, Deangelo Taylor, Lemartine Taylor, Kevin Thomas, Conti Tillis, Demarcus Timmons, Carlos Varnado, Phillip Decarlos Webster,

Adrian Willard, Curtis Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - The Associated Press, Mississippi inmate dies after attack in privately-run prison, The Dispatch (August 17, 2020), # 2 Exhibit B - Lici Beveridge, MDOC: 2 Parchman inmates die over the weekend, Press Release, Clarion Ledger (August 17, 2020), # 3 Exhibit C - The Associated Press, 4 Mississippi Inmates Die in Hospitals, Another ID Released, U.S. News and World Report (August 22, 2020), # 4 Exhibit D - Keisha Rowe, 2 Central Mississippi Correctional inmates die at Jackson Hospital, Clarion Ledger (August 24, 2020), # 5 Exhibit E - Keisha Rowe, 2 more inmates from Central Mississippi Correctional Facility die at Jackson Hospital, Clarion Ledger (August 25, 2020)) (Croft, Marcy)

08/27/2020

143 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 142 MOTION Plaintiffs' Opposed Motion for Judicial Notice of MDOC Deaths Between August 8, 2020 and August 25, 2020 re 86 MOTION re 16 MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE , 83 MOTION Second Amended Opposed Motion for Judicial Not filed by Michael Amos, Pitrell Brister, Caleb Buckner, Antonio Davis, Willie Friend, Charles Gayles, William Green, Daniel Guthrie, Jonathan J. Ham, Desmond Hardy, Billy James, Jr, Justin James, Aric Johnson, Quenten Johnson, Deaunte Lewis, Larry Maxwell, Terrance McKinney, Derrick Pan, Kuriaki Riley, Brandon Robertson, Derrick Rogers, Tyree Ross, H. D. Alexander Scott, Deangelo Taylor, Lemartine Taylor, Kevin Thomas, Conti Tillis, Demarcus Timmons, Carlos Varnado, Phillip Decarlos Webster, Adrian Willard, Curtis Wilson. (Croft, Marcy)

08/31/2020

144 RESPONSE in Support re 142 MOTION Plaintiffs' Opposed Motion for Judicial Notice of MDOC Deaths Between August 8, 2020 and August 25, 2020 re 86 MOTION re 16 MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE , 83 MOTION Second Amended Opposed Motion for Judicial Not filed by Michael Amos, Pitrell Brister, Caleb Buckner, Antonio Davis, Willie Friend, Charles Gayles, William Green, Daniel Guthrie, Jonathan J. Ham, Desmond Hardy, Billy James, Jr, Justin James, Aric Johnson, Quenten Johnson, Deaunte Lewis, Larry Maxwell, Terrance McKinney, Ivery Moore, Derrick Pan, Kuriaki Riley, Brandon Robertson, Derrick Rogers, Tyree Ross, H. D. Alexander Scott, Deangelo Taylor, Lemartine Taylor, Kevin Thomas, Conti Tillis, Demarcus Timmons, Carlos Varnado, Phillip Decarlos Webster, Adrian Willard, Curtis Wilson. (Rice, Jessica)

08/31/2020

145 REPLY to Response to Motion re 125 MOTION Opposed Fifth Motion for Judicial Notice of MDOC Deaths re 86 MOTION re 16 MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE , 83 MOTION Second Amended Opposed Motion for Judicial Notice re 56 MOTION Judicial Notice re 16 M filed by Michael Amos, Pitrell Brister, Caleb Buckner, Antonio

Davis, Willie Friend, Charles Gayles, William Green, Daniel Guthrie, Jonathan J. Ham, Desmond Hardy, Billy James, Jr, Justin James, Aric Johnson, Quenten Johnson, Deaunte Lewis, Larry Maxwell, Terrance McKinney, Ivery Moore, Derrick Pan, Kuriaki Riley, Brandon Robertson, Derrick Rogers, Tyree Ross, H. D. Alexander Scott, Deangelo Taylor, Lemartine Taylor, Kevin Thomas, Conti Tillis, Demarcus Timmons, Carlos Varnado, Phillip Decarlos Webster, Adrian Willard, Curtis Wilson. (Rice, Jessica)

09/10/2020

146 NOTICE OF SERVICE of Answers and Objections to Plaintiffs Special Interrogatories and Requests for Production filed on behalf of Nathan Burl Cain, in his official capacity as the Commissioner of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, and Timothy Morris, in his official capacity as the Acting Superintendent/Area I Warden of the Mississippi State Penitentiary by Cody C. Bailey on behalf of Tommy Taylor, Marshal Turner to Plaintiffs. (Bailey, Cody)

09/10/2020

147 RESPONSE in Opposition re 142 MOTION Plaintiffs' Opposed Motion for Judicial Notice of MDOC Deaths Between August 8, 2020 and August 25, 2020 re 86 MOTION re 16 MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE , 83 MOTION Second Amended Opposed Motion for Judicial Not filed on behalf of Nathan Burl Cain, in his official capacity as the Commissioner of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, and Timothy Morris, in his official capacity as the Acting Superintendent/Area I Warden of the Mississippi State Penitentiary filed by Tommy Taylor, Marshal Turner. (Howell, Karen)

09/10/2020 148 ORDER regarding unresolved objections to remedial measure discovery. Signed by District Judge Debra M. Brown on 9/10/20. (bds)

09/10/2020

149 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 147 Response in Opposition to Motion,, filed on behalf of Nathan Burl Cain, in his official capacity as the Commissioner of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, and Timothy Morris, in his official capacity as the Acting Superintendent/Area I Warden of the Mississippi State Penitentiary re 142 MOTION Plaintiffs' Opposed Motion for Judicial Notice of MDOC Deaths Between August 8, 2020 and August 25, 2020 filed by Tommy Taylor, Marshal Turner. (Howell, Karen) Modified on 9/11/2020 (jla).

09/11/2020

CLERK'S NOTICE OF CORRECTION re 149 Memorandum in Support; All related filings to motion should be linked back to the original motion. Court staff has made the correction. (jla)

09/16/2020

150 NOTICE OF SERVICE of Defendants Supplemental Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs Special Interrogatories and Requests for Production Propounded to Defendants Specifically with Regard to

COVID-19 by Cody C. Bailey on behalf of Tommy Taylor, Marshal Turner to Plaintiffs. (Bailey, Cody)

09/17/2020

151 REPLY to Response to Motion re 142 MOTION Plaintiffs' Opposed Motion for Judicial Notice of MDOC Deaths Between August 8, 2020 and August 25, 2020 re 86 MOTION re 16 MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE , 83 MOTION Second Amended Opposed Motion for Judicial Not filed by Michael Amos, Pitrell Brister, Caleb Buckner, Antonio Davis, Willie Friend, Charles Gayles, William Green, Daniel Guthrie, Jonathan J. Ham, Desmond Hardy, Billy James, Jr, Justin James, Aric Johnson, Quenten Johnson, Deaunte Lewis, Larry Maxwell, Terrance McKinney, Ivery Moore, Derrick Pan, Kuriaki Riley, Brandon Robertson, Derrick Rogers, Tyree Ross, H. D. Alexander Scott, Deangelo Taylor, Lemartine Taylor, Kevin Thomas, Conti Tillis, Demarcus Timmons, Carlos Varnado, Phillip Decarlos Webster, Adrian Willard, Curtis Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Official MDOC Press Releases) (Rice, Jessica)

09/17/2020

152 EXHIBIT re 125 MOTION Opposed Fifth Motion for Judicial Notice of MDOC Deaths re 86 MOTION re 16 MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE , 83 MOTION Second Amended Opposed Motion for Judicial Notice re 56 MOTION Judicial Notice re 16 M . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A MISS. DEPT OF CORRS., State inmate serving life dies at prison hospital, Press Release (August 7, 2020),, # 2 Exhibit B MISS. DEPT OF CORRS., Three state inmates die in hospitals, Press Release (August 8, 2020),) (Rice, Jessica)

09/24/2020

153 MOTION to Compel 148 by Michael Amos, Pitrell Brister, Caleb Buckner, Antonio Davis, Willie Friend, Charles Gayles, William Green, Daniel Guthrie, Jonathan J. Ham, Desmond Hardy, Billy James, Jr, Justin James, Aric Johnson, Quenten Johnson, Challis Lewis, Deaunte Lewis, Larry Maxwell, Terrance McKinney, Ivery Moore, Derrick Pan, Kuriaki Riley, Brandon Robertson, Derrick Rogers, Tyree Ross, H. D. Alexander Scott, Deangelo Taylor, Lemartine Taylor, Kevin Thomas, Conti Tillis, Demarcus Timmons, Carlos Varnado, Phillip Decarlos Webster, Adrian Willard, Curtis Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Hearing Transcript, # 2 Exhibit B 20.06.01Defs Letter to Court re Remedial Docs, # 3 Exhibit C 20.07.03 Defs Letter to Court re Remedial Docs, # 4 Exhibit D 20.07.31 Defs Letter to Court re Remedial Docs, # 5 Exhibit E 20.08.28 Defs Letter to Court re Remedial Docs, # 6 Exhibit 20.09.16 Pls' Good Paith Letter to Defense Counsel re Remedial Docs, # 7 Exhibit G - Defs Response to Pls' Good Paith Letter to Defense Counsel re Remedial Docs, # 8 Exhibit H - Parties Good Faith Certificate (Form 4) re Remedial Docs) (Thurman, Carson) Modified on 9/25/2020 (jla). Modified on 9/25/2020 (jla).

09/24/2020

154 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 153 MOTION to Compel 148 filed by Michael Amos, Pitrell Brister, Caleb Buckner, Antonio Davis, Willie Friend, Charles Gayles, William Green, Daniel Guthrie, Jonathan J. Ham, Desmond Hardy, Billy James, Jr, Justin James, Aric Johnson, Quenten Johnson, Challis Lewis, Deaunte Lewis, Larry Maxwell, Terrance McKinney, Ivery Moore, Derrick Pan, Kuriaki Riley, Brandon Robertson, Derrick Rogers, Tyree Ross, H. D. Alexander Scott, Deangelo Taylor, Lemartine Taylor, Kevin Thomas, Conti Tillis, Demarcus Timmons, Carlos Varnado, Phillip Decarlos Webster. (Thurman, Carson) Modified on 9/25/2020 (jla).

09/28/2020 155 ORDER finding as moot 13 Motion for TRO; finding as moot 13 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by District Judge Debra M. Brown on 9/28/2020. (jwr)

09/29/2020

156 NOTICE OF SERVICE of Defendants Second Supplemental Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs Special Interrogatories and Requests for Production Propounded to Defendants Specifically with Regard to COVID-19 filed on behalf of Nathan Burl Cain, in his official capacity as the Commissioner of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, and Timothy Morris, in his official capacity as the Acting Superintendent/Area I Warden of the Mississippi State Penitentiary by Cody C. Bailey on behalf of Tommy Taylor, Marshal Turner to Plaintiffs. (Bailey, Cody)

10/07/2020 157 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Molly M. Walker by Tommy Taylor, Marshal Turner. (Walker, Molly)

10/07/2020 158 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Michael J. Bentley by Tommy Taylor, Marshal Turner. (Bentley, Michael)

10/08/2020

159 Supplement to Motion re 158 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Michael J. Bentley, 157 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Molly M. Walker filed by Tommy Taylor, Marshal Turner. (Walker, Molly)

10/08/2020

160 RESPONSE in Opposition re 153 MOTION to Compel filed on behalf of Nathan Burl Cain, in his official capacity as the Commissioner of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, and Timothy Morris, in his official capacity as the Acting Superintendent/Area I Warden of the Mississippi State Penitentiary filed by Tommy Taylor, Marshal Turner. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Transcript Excerpts of Feb. 3, 2020 Hearing, # 2 Exhibit 2 - April and May 2020 Correspondence, # 3 Exhibit 3 - June 2020 Correspondence, # 4 Exhibit 4 - June 19, 2020 Correspondence, # 5 Exhibit 5 - July 3, 2020 Correspondence, # 6 Exhibit 6 - July 31, 2020 Correspondence, # 7 Exhibit 7 - August 7, 2020 Correspondence, # 8 Exhibit 8 - August 14, 2020

Correspondence, # 9 Exhibit 9 - August 28, 2020 Correspondence, # 10 Exhibit 10 - September 4, 2020 Correspondence, # 11 Exhibit 11 September 16, 2020 Correspondence, # 12 Exhibit 12 - September 22, 2020 Correspondence, # 13 Exhibit 13 - September 25, 2020 Correspondence, # 14 Exhibit 14 - Declaration of Superintendent Morris) (Howell, Karen)

10/08/2020

161 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 160 Response in Opposition to Motion,,,, 153 MOTION to Compel filed on behalf of Nathan Burl Cain, in his official capacity as the Commissioner of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, and Timothy Morris, in his official capacity as the Acting Superintendent/Area I Warden of the Mississippi State Penitentiary filed by Tommy Taylor, Marshal Turner. (Howell, Karen)

10/15/2020

162 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 153 MOTION to Compel Documents by Michael Amos, Pitrell Brister, Caleb Buckner, Antonio Davis, Willie Friend, Charles Gayles, William Green, Daniel Guthrie, Jonathan J. Ham, Desmond Hardy, Billy James, Jr, Justin James, Aric Johnson, Quenten Johnson, Challis Lewis, Deaunte Lewis, Larry Maxwell, Terrance McKinney, Ivery Moore, Derrick Pan, Kuriaki Riley, Brandon Robertson, Derrick Rogers, Tyree Ross, H. D. Alexander Scott, Deangelo Taylor, Lemartine Taylor, Kevin Thomas, Conti Tillis, Demarcus Timmons, Carlos Varnado, Phillip Decarlos Webster. (Thurman, Carson)

10/16/2020

163 ORDER granting 162 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Signed by District Judge Debra M. Brown on 10/16/2020. (bds)

10/16/2020 164 NOTICE of Conference: Video Status Conference set for 10/26/2020 01:30 PM in Greenville Courtroom 1 Video Conference before District Judge Debra M. Brown. (rt)

10/19/2020

165 REPLY to Response to Motion re 153 MOTION to Compel DOCUMENTS REGARDING RELEVANT REMEDIAL MEASURES UNDERTAKEN AT PARCHMAN filed by Michael Amos, Pitrell Brister, Caleb Buckner, Antonio Davis, Willie Friend, Charles Gayles, William Green, Daniel Guthrie, Jonathan J. Ham, Desmond Hardy, Billy James, Jr, Justin James, Aric Johnson, Quenten Johnson, Challis Lewis, Deaunte Lewis, Larry Maxwell, Terrance McKinney, Ivery Moore, Derrick Pan, Kuriaki Riley, Brandon Robertson, Derrick Rogers, Tyree Ross, H. D. Alexander Scott, Deangelo Taylor, Lemartine Taylor, Kevin Thomas, Conti Tillis, Demarcus Timmons, Carlos Varnado, Phillip Decarlos Webster, Adrian Willard, Curtis Wilson. (Thurman, Carson)

10/20/2020

166 ORDER granting 157 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney; granting 158 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorneys Michael James Bentley and Molly Mitchell Walker terminated. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden on 10/20/20. (bfg)

10/20/2020

167 MOTION to Substitute Party by Michael Amos, Pitrell Brister, Caleb Buckner, Antonio Davis, Willie Friend, Charles Gayles, William Green, Daniel Guthrie, Jonathan J. Ham, Desmond Hardy, Billy James, Jr, Justin James, Aric Johnson, Quenten Johnson, Deaunte Lewis, Larry Maxwell, Terrance McKinney, Ivery Moore, Derrick Pan, Kuriaki Riley, Brandon Robertson, Derrick Rogers, Tyree Ross, H. D. Alexander Scott, Deangelo Taylor, Lemartine Taylor, Kevin Thomas, Conti Tillis, Demarcus Timmons, Carlos Varnado, Phillip Decarlos Webster, Adrian Willard, Curtis Wilson. (Rice, Jessica)

10/21/2020

168 ORDER granting 167 Motion to Substitute Party. Tommy Taylor (in his official capacity as the Intermin Commissioner of the Mississippi Department of Corrections) and Marshal Turner (In His Official Capacity as the Superintendent of the Mississippi State Penitentiary) terminated. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden on 10/21/20. (bfg)

10/22/2020 169 ORDER denying 153 Motion to Compel. Signed by District Judge Debra M. Brown on 10/22/2020. (tab)

10/23/2020

170 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Michael Amos, Pitrell Brister, Caleb Buckner, Antonio Davis, Willie Friend, Charles Gayles, William Green, Daniel Guthrie, Jonathan J. Ham, Desmond Hardy, Billy James, Jr, Justin James, Aric Johnson, Quenten Johnson, Deaunte Lewis, Larry Maxwell, Terrance McKinney, Ivery Moore, Derrick Pan, Kuriaki Riley, Brandon Robertson, Derrick Rogers, Tyree Ross, H. D. Alexander Scott, Deangelo Taylor, Lemartine Taylor, Kevin Thomas, Conti Tillis, Demarcus Timmons, Carlos Varnado, Phillip Decarlos Webster, Adrian Willard, Curtis Wilson. (Rice, Jessica)

10/26/2020 171 NOTICE Cancelling October 26, 2020, Video Status Conference Regarding Pending Motions for Judicial Notice (bds)

10/26/2020

172 MOTION to Compel Defendants' Responses to Expedited Discovery Requests Related to COVID-19 and For Sanctions by Michael Amos, Pitrell Brister, Caleb Buckner, Antonio Davis, Willie Friend, Charles Gayles, William Green, Daniel Guthrie, Jonathan J. Ham, Desmond Hardy, Billy James, Jr, Justin James, Aric Johnson, Quenten Johnson, Deaunte Lewis, Larry Maxwell, Terrance McKinney, Ivery Moore, Derrick Pan, Kuriaki Riley, Brandon Robertson, Derrick Rogers, Tyree Ross, H. D. Alexander Scott, Deangelo Taylor, Lemartine Taylor, Kevin Thomas, Conti Tillis, Demarcus Timmons, Carlos Varnado,

Phillip Decarlos Webster, Adrian Willard, Curtis Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A: Defendants' Sept 9,2020 Response to Discovery, # 2 Exhibit B: Defendants' Sept 16,2020 Supplemental Response to Discovery, # 3 Exhibit C: Email Correspondence between Counsel, # 4 Exhibit D: Plaintiffs' Sept 22,2020 Good Faith Letter, # 5 Exhibit E: Defendants' Sept 28,2020 Response to Plaintiffs' Good Faith Letter, # 6 Exhibit F: Defendants' Sept 29,2020 Second Supplemental Response, # 7 Exhibit G: Good Faith Certificate) (Croft, Marcy)

10/26/2020

173 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 172 MOTION to Compel Defendants' Responses to Expedited Discovery Requests Related to COVID-19 and For Sanctions filed by Michael Amos, Pitrell Brister, Caleb Buckner, Antonio Davis, Willie Friend, Charles Gayles, William Green, Daniel Guthrie, Jonathan J. Ham, Desmond Hardy, Billy James, Jr, Justin James, Aric Johnson, Quenten Johnson, Deaunte Lewis, Larry Maxwell, Terrance McKinney, Ivery Moore, Derrick Pan, Kuriaki Riley, Brandon Robertson, Derrick Rogers, Tyree Ross, H. D. Alexander Scott, Deangelo Taylor, Lemartine Taylor, Kevin Thomas, Conti Tillis, Demarcus Timmons, Carlos Varnado, Phillip Decarlos Webster, Adrian Willard, Curtis Wilson. (Croft, Marcy)

10/28/2020

174 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 172 MOTION to Compel Defendants' Responses to Expedited Discovery Requests Related to COVID-19 and For Sanctions by Nathan Burl Cain, Timothy Morris. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, Email Correspondence, # 2 Exhibit 2, Email Correspondence, # 3 Exhibit 3, Confirmed Inmate Cases) (Bradley, Jacob)

10/30/2020 175 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 170 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Signed by District Judge Debra M. Brown on 10/30/2020. (bds)

11/02/2020

176 RESPONSE in Opposition re 172 MOTION to Compel Defendants' Responses to Expedited Discovery Requests Related to COVID-19 and For Sanctions filed by Nathan Burl Cain, Timothy Morris. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Initial Discovery Responses, # 2 Exhibit 2 - September Email Correspondence, # 3 Exhibit 3 - First Supplemental Responses, # 4 Exhibit 4 - September 22 Letter, # 5 Exhibit 5 September 28 Response Letter, # 6 Exhibit 6 - Second Supplemental Discovery Responses, # 7 Exhibit 7 - October Email Correspondence, # 8 Exhibit 8 - Transcript 02-03-20 Hearing, # 9 Exhibit 9 - Expedited COVID-19 Discovery) (Bailey, Cody)

11/02/2020 177 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 176 Response in Opposition to Motion,, 172 MOTION to Compel Defendants' Responses to Expedited

Discovery Requests Related to COVID-19 and For Sanctions filed by Nathan Burl Cain, Timothy Morris. (Bailey, Cody)

11/07/2020

178 REPLY to Response to Motion re 172 MOTION to Compel Defendants' Responses to Expedited Discovery Requests Related to COVID-19 and For Sanctions filed by Michael Amos, Pitrell Brister, Caleb Buckner, Antonio Davis, Willie Friend, Charles Gayles, William Green, Daniel Guthrie, Jonathan J. Ham, Desmond Hardy, Billy James, Jr, Justin James, Aric Johnson, Quenten Johnson, Deaunte Lewis, Larry Maxwell, Terrance McKinney, Ivery Moore, Derrick Pan, Kuriaki Riley, Brandon Robertson, Derrick Rogers, Tyree Ross, H. D. Alexander Scott, Deangelo Taylor, Lemartine Taylor, Kevin Thomas, Conti Tillis, Demarcus Timmons, Carlos Varnado, Phillip Decarlos Webster, Adrian Willard, Curtis Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 Summary Explanation of Discovery Requests and Missing Critical Data) (Croft, Marcy)

11/12/2020

179 ORDER 83 MOTION for Judicial Notice is granted in part, conditionally granted in part and denied in part; 86 MOTION for Judicial Notice is conditionally granted in part and denied in part; 109 MOTION for Judicial Notice is conditionally granted in part and denied in part; 125 MOTION for Judicial Notice is conditionally granted in part and denied in part; 142 MOTION for Judicial Notice is denied. Signed by District Judge Debra M. Brown on 11/12/20. (jla) Modified on 11/12/2020 (jla).

11/12/2020

180 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Michael Amos, Pitrell Brister, Caleb Buckner, Antonio Davis, Willie Friend, Charles Gayles, William Green, Daniel Guthrie, Jonathan J. Ham, Desmond Hardy, Billy James, Jr, Justin James, Aric Johnson, Quenten Johnson, Deaunte Lewis, Larry Maxwell, Terrance McKinney, Ivery Moore, Derrick Pan, Kuriaki Riley, Brandon Robertson, Derrick Rogers, Tyree Ross, H. D. Alexander Scott, Deangelo Taylor, Lemartine Taylor, Kevin Thomas, Conti Tillis, Demarcus Timmons, Carlos Varnado, Phillip Decarlos Webster, Adrian Willard, Curtis Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 Proposed Order Approving Withdrawal as Counsel) (Bufkin, Thomas)

11/12/2020

181 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Michael Amos, Pitrell Brister, Caleb Buckner, Antonio Davis, Willie Friend, Charles Gayles, William Green, Daniel Guthrie, Jonathan J. Ham, Desmond Hardy, Billy James, Jr, Justin James, Aric Johnson, Quenten Johnson, Deaunte Lewis, Larry Maxwell, Terrance McKinney, Ivery Moore, Derrick Pan, Kuriaki Riley, Brandon Robertson, Derrick Rogers, Tyree Ross, H. D. Alexander Scott, Deangelo Taylor, Lemartine Taylor, Kevin Thomas, Conti Tillis, Demarcus Timmons, Carlos Varnado, Phillip Decarlos

Webster, Adrian Willard, Curtis Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 Proposed Order Approving Withdrawal as Counsel) (Thurman, Carson)

11/12/2020

182 ORDER denying in part granting in part (27) Motion to Dismiss in case 4:20-cv-00030-DMB-RP. Signed by District Judge Debra M. Brown on 11/12/2020. Associated Cases: 4:20-cv-00030-DMB-RP, 4:20-cv00007-DMB-JMV (jtm)

11/16/2020

CLERK'S NOTICE OF CORRECTION re 181 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney , 180 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney ; Section 5(B) of Administrative Procedures for ECF states proposed orders are not to be filed as an attachment to a pleading; attorney to email proposed order to chambers. (jla)

11/17/2020

183 REPLY to Response to Motion re (43 in 4:20-cv-00030-DMB-JMV) MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint filed by Andrew Alexander, Jamar Allen, Willie Allen, Cedric Andrews, Christopher Ballard, Larry Bardney, John Barnett, Keith Baskin, Jerry Bland, Joshua Bogan, Kevin Boyd, Roger Boyd, Mondrick Bradley, William Branch, Dwayne Bridget, Nicholas Brooks, Charles Brown, Eric Brown, Frederick Brown, Romaire James Earl Brown, Travis Cardell Brown, Marlon Bruce, Emmitt Buchanan, Johnathan Burns, Keyshun Burnside, Dillon Callaway, Gregory Canerdy, Michael Cannon, Carlos Carter, Ted Dewayne Cauthen, Lebarron Chatman, Jonathan Clark, Wesley Clayton, Demario Coleman, Jerry Collier, Nathan Collier, Johnny Colton, Donte Conner, James Cox, Walter Cox, Nicholas Crawford, Charles Cross, Dustin Crump, Vincent Curlee, Ricky Darden, Antonio Davis, Erphon Davis, John Davis, Jonathan Davis, Anthony Day, Henry Dennis, Joseph Dennis, Michael Dillard, James Dooley, Trent Dora, Wendell Duncan, James Durr, Chancellor Eaton, Jamie Elaire, Lorenzo Evans, Paul Evans, Jr, Ray Evans, Nigel Farmer, Antron Finklea, Troy Ford, Michael Freeman, Ricky Frierson, Issac Garner, Terrence Gatlin, Ricky Joseph Gavin, Randie Gayden, Brandon Gilmore, Jospeh Glenn, William Golden, Jr, Antonio Goldman, Andrew Good, Kenneth Gowdy, Tyler Graham, Jabrandon Green, Dewan Griffin, Stephen Grisham, Dantavious Hairston, Justin Hammons, Brymon Hamp, Charlie Harris, Wilson Harvey, Carlos Henderson, Jonathan Herrington, Gregory Hicks, Janarian Hill, Joseph Holiday, Quincy Holmes, Tommy Holt, Antonio Hoover, Kewan Hosey, Alchello House, George Hudson, Jonathan Ivy, Frank Jackson, Nathaniel Jackson, Michael Jamison, Shun January, Dennis Jobe, Calip Johnson, Charles Johnson, Quincy Johnson, Sammie Johnson, Sellers Johnson, Shaquille Johnson, Xavier Johnson, Alexander Jones, Michael Jones, William Jones, Fredrick Jordan, Juarez Keyes, Tony Keyes, Tommy Kimble, Corderrius King, Newton Knight, Darran Lang, Malcom Lathan, Tony Leaks, Justin Lease, Billy Lee, Legrane Lennox,

James Lewis, Curtis Lipsey, Alvin Luckett, Stanley Luster, Jimmie Magee, Ted Mangum, Chad Marshall, Adrian Martin, Bradley Mask, Kentures McCoy, Jesse McCuin, Kenyatta McGee, Kristopher Meisenholder, Jerry Mettetal, Charles Miles, Sammy Miller, Tyler Miller, Bobby Mitchell, Bobby Montson, Eris Moore, Jermaine Moore, Kerri Morgan, Alex Morris, Bennie Motten, Timothy Myers, Brian Nettles, Eduardo Nichols, Michael Oliver, Victor Otempong, Cory Page, Israel Page, Travis Partee, Jeremiah Patterson, Irvin Andrew Payne, Marshall Phillips, Xavier Phillips-Bowman, Terry Pierce, Gavin Pierson, Casimir Poe, Randy Pogmore, Wilfred Powell, Maurice Pugh, Mario Ragland, Marcus Ramsey, Michael Ray, Joseph Lee Reese, Russell Reich, Frank Rice, Jerry Rice, James Richards, Emanuel Richardson, Tyredies Roberts, Quincy Robertson, Montrail Robinson, Ronaldo Rogers, Kendrick Ross, Leon Ruffin, Micah Ruffin, Cedric Russell, Dominico Saddler, Lavaro Saddler, Charles Scrimpshire, Daryl Shinn, Phillip Shumaker, Herman Sipp, Jr, Jodon Slaughter, Christopher Smith, Robert Sylvester Smith, Tyler Smith, Frederick Spires, Sean Spotts, Lynn Spurlock, Joseph Stack, Joseph Standford, Keion Stanfield, Kedric Steele, Remington Steele, Keith Michael Steinmetz, Darwin Strahan, Cordarius Strong, Jammichael Strong, James Sudduth, Michael Tarvin, Demarquis Tate, Charlie Taylor, Keith Theyer, Christopher Thomas, Eric Thomas, Mark Thomas, Raymond Keith Thomas, Paul Thompson, Airick Toins, Qy'darrious Towns, Serge Trullet, Carlos Twillie, Zarek Tyler, Kendrick Tyson, Netorrium Tyson, Marcus Vaughn, Linnox Walker, Johnny Wallace, John Ware, Antwune Washington, Eric Wayne Watkins, Mack Watts, Corey Wells, Joseph Westbrook, Efrem Whitfield, Bernard Wigley, Daniel Williams, Mario Williams, Richard Wilson, Joe Wommack, Dominic Young, randy anderson, Michael Amos, Pitrell Brister, Caleb Buckner, Willie Friend, Charles Gayles, William Green, Daniel Guthrie, Jonathan J. Ham, Desmond Hardy, Billy James, Jr, Justin James, Aric Johnson, Quenten Johnson, Challis Lewis, Deaunte Lewis, Larry Maxwell, Terrance McKinney, Ivery Moore, Derrick Pan, Kuriaki Riley, Brandon Robertson, Derrick Rogers, Tyree Ross, H. D. Alexander Scott, Deangelo Taylor, Lemartine Taylor, Kevin Thomas, Conti Tillis, Demarcus Timmons, Carlos Varnado, Phillip Decarlos Webster, Adrian Willard, Curtis Wilson. Associated Cases: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV, 4:20-cv-00030-DMB-JMV (Croft, Marcy)

11/17/2020

184 REPLY to Response to Motion re (43 in 4:20-cv-00030-DMB-JMV) MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint filed by Andrew Alexander, Jamar Allen, Willie Allen, Cedric Andrews, Christopher Ballard, Larry Bardney, John Barnett, Keith Baskin, Jerry Bland, Joshua Bogan, Kevin Boyd, Roger Boyd, Mondrick Bradley, William Branch, Dwayne Bridget, Nicholas Brooks, Charles Brown, Eric Brown, Frederick Brown, Romaire James Earl Brown, Travis

Cardell Brown, Marlon Bruce, Emmitt Buchanan, Johnathan Burns, Keyshun Burnside, Dillon Callaway, Gregory Canerdy, Michael Cannon, Carlos Carter, Ted Dewayne Cauthen, Lebarron Chatman, Jonathan Clark, Wesley Clayton, Demario Coleman, Jerry Collier, Nathan Collier, Johnny Colton, Donte Conner, James Cox, Walter Cox, Nicholas Crawford, Charles Cross, Dustin Crump, Vincent Curlee, Ricky Darden, Antonio Davis, Erphon Davis, John Davis, Jonathan Davis, Anthony Day, Henry Dennis, Joseph Dennis, Michael Dillard, James Dooley, Trent Dora, Wendell Duncan, James Durr, Chancellor Eaton, Jamie Elaire, Lorenzo Evans, Paul Evans, Jr, Ray Evans, Nigel Farmer, Antron Finklea, Troy Ford, Michael Freeman, Ricky Frierson, Issac Garner, Terrence Gatlin, Ricky Joseph Gavin, Randie Gayden, Brandon Gilmore, Jospeh Glenn, William Golden, Jr, Antonio Goldman, Andrew Good, Kenneth Gowdy, Tyler Graham, Jabrandon Green, Dewan Griffin, Stephen Grisham, Dantavious Hairston, Justin Hammons, Brymon Hamp, Charlie Harris, Wilson Harvey, Carlos Henderson, Jonathan Herrington, Gregory Hicks, Janarian Hill, Joseph Holiday, Quincy Holmes, Tommy Holt, Antonio Hoover, Kewan Hosey, Alchello House, George Hudson, Jonathan Ivy, Frank Jackson, Nathaniel Jackson, Michael Jamison, Shun January, Dennis Jobe, Calip Johnson, Charles Johnson, Quincy Johnson, Sammie Johnson, Sellers Johnson, Shaquille Johnson, Xavier Johnson, Alexander Jones, Michael Jones, William Jones, Fredrick Jordan, Juarez Keyes, Tony Keyes, Tommy Kimble, Corderrius King, Newton Knight, Darran Lang, Malcom Lathan, Tony Leaks, Justin Lease, Billy Lee, Legrane Lennox, James Lewis, Curtis Lipsey, Alvin Luckett, Stanley Luster, Jimmie Magee, Ted Mangum, Chad Marshall, Adrian Martin, Bradley Mask, Kentures McCoy, Jesse McCuin, Kenyatta McGee, Kristopher Meisenholder, Jerry Mettetal, Charles Miles, Sammy Miller, Tyler Miller, Bobby Mitchell, Bobby Montson, Eris Moore, Jermaine Moore, Kerri Morgan, Alex Morris, Bennie Motten, Timothy Myers, Brian Nettles, Eduardo Nichols, Michael Oliver, Victor Otempong, Cory Page, Israel Page, Travis Partee, Jeremiah Patterson, Irvin Andrew Payne, Marshall Phillips, Xavier Phillips-Bowman, Terry Pierce, Gavin Pierson, Casimir Poe, Randy Pogmore, Wilfred Powell, Maurice Pugh, Mario Ragland, Marcus Ramsey, Michael Ray, Joseph Lee Reese, Russell Reich, Frank Rice, Jerry Rice, James Richards, Emanuel Richardson, Tyredies Roberts, Quincy Robertson, Montrail Robinson, Ronaldo Rogers, Kendrick Ross, Leon Ruffin, Micah Ruffin, Cedric Russell, Dominico Saddler, Lavaro Saddler, Charles Scrimpshire, Daryl Shinn, Phillip Shumaker, Herman Sipp, Jr, Jodon Slaughter, Christopher Smith, Robert Sylvester Smith, Tyler Smith, Frederick Spires, Sean Spotts, Lynn Spurlock, Joseph Stack, Joseph Standford, Keion Stanfield, Kedric Steele, Remington Steele, Keith Michael Steinmetz, Darwin Strahan, Cordarius Strong, Jammichael Strong, James Sudduth, Michael Tarvin, Demarquis Tate, Charlie Taylor, Keith

Theyer, Christopher Thomas, Eric Thomas, Mark Thomas, Raymond Keith Thomas, Paul Thompson, Airick Toins, Qy'darrious Towns, Serge Trullet, Carlos Twillie, Zarek Tyler, Kendrick Tyson, Netorrium Tyson, Marcus Vaughn, Linnox Walker, Johnny Wallace, John Ware, Antwune Washington, Eric Wayne Watkins, Mack Watts, Corey Wells, Joseph Westbrook, Efrem Whitfield, Bernard Wigley, Daniel Williams, Mario Williams, Richard Wilson, Joe Wommack, Dominic Young, randy anderson, Michael Amos, Pitrell Brister, Caleb Buckner, Willie Friend, Charles Gayles, William Green, Daniel Guthrie, Jonathan J. Ham, Desmond Hardy, Billy James, Jr, Justin James, Aric Johnson, Quenten Johnson, Challis Lewis, Deaunte Lewis, Larry Maxwell, Terrance McKinney, Ivery Moore, Derrick Pan, Kuriaki Riley, Brandon Robertson, Derrick Rogers, Tyree Ross, H. D. Alexander Scott, Deangelo Taylor, Lemartine Taylor, Kevin Thomas, Conti Tillis, Demarcus Timmons, Carlos Varnado, Phillip Decarlos Webster, Adrian Willard, Curtis Wilson. Associated Cases: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV, 4:20-cv-00030-DMB-JMV (Croft, Marcy)

12/01/2020 185 ORDER denying 172 Motion to Compel. Signed by District Judge Debra M. Brown on 12/1/2020. (bds)

12/02/2020

186 ORDER granting 180 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Thomas Gerry Bufkin terminated; granting 181 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Carson H. Thurman terminated. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden on 12/2/20. (bfg)

12/03/2020

187 ORDER denying as moot 174 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Signed by District Judge Debra M. Brown on 12/3/20. (jla)

12/15/2020

188 NOTICE OF SERVICE of Third Supplemental Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs' Special Interrogatories and Requests for Production regarding Covid-19 by Cody C. Bailey on behalf of Nathan Burl Cain, Timothy Morris to Plaintiffs. (Bailey, Cody)

01/22/2021 189 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by John G. Wheeler on behalf of Nathan Burl Cain, Timothy Morris Associated Cases: 4:20-cv-00007DMB-JMV, 4:20-cv-00030-DMB-JMV (Wheeler, John)

01/22/2021

190 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Michael D. Chase on behalf of Nathan Burl Cain, Timothy Morris Associated Cases: 4:20-cv-00007DMB-JMV, 4:20-cv-00030-DMB-JMV (Chase, Michael)

01/22/2021 191 NOTICE OF SERVICE of Defendants Fourth Supplemental Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs Special Interrogatories and Requests for Production Propounded to Defendants Specifically with Regard to

COVID-19 by Karen E. Howell on behalf of Nathan Burl Cain, Timothy Morris to Plaintiffs. (Howell, Karen)

02/26/2021

192 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply in Opposition to Defendant Centurion of Mississippi LLC.s Corrected Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction re 65 Second MOTION to Amend/Correct by Andrew Alexander, Jamar Allen, Willie Allen, Cedric Andrews, Christopher Ballard, Larry Bardney, John Barnett, Keith Baskin, Jerry Bland, Carlos Carter, Ted Dewayne Cauthen, Lebarron Chatman, Jonathan Clark, Wesley Clayton, Demario Coleman, Jerry Collier, Nathan Collier, Johnny Colton, Carlos Henderson, Jonathan Herrington, Gregory Hicks, Janarian Hill, Joseph Holiday, Quincy Holmes, Tommy Holt, Antonio Hoover, Kewan Hosey, Alchello House, Casimir Poe, Randy Pogmore, Wilfred Powell, Maurice Pugh, Mario Ragland, Marcus Ramsey, Michael Ray, Joseph Lee Reese, Russell Reich, Frank Rice, Cedric Russell, Dominico Saddler, Lavaro Saddler, Charles Scrimpshire, Daryl Shinn, Phillip Shumaker, Herman Sipp, Jr, Jodon Slaughter, Christopher Smith, Robert Sylvester Smith, Christopher Thomas, Eric Thomas, Mark Thomas, Raymond Keith Thomas, Paul Thompson, Airick Toins, Qy'darrious Towns, Serge Trullet, Carlos Twillie, Corey Wells, Joseph Westbrook, Efrem Whitfield, Bernard Wigley, Daniel Williams, Mario Williams, Richard Wilson, Joe Wommack, Dominic Young, randy anderson, Cory Page, Israel Page, Travis Partee, Jeremiah Patterson, Irvin Andrew Payne, Marshall Phillips, Xavier Phillips-Bowman, Terry Pierce, Gavin Pierson, Curtis Lipsey, Alvin Luckett, Stanley Luster, Jimmie Magee, Ted Mangum, Chad Marshall, Adrian Martin, Bradley Mask, Kentures McCoy, Donte Conner, James Cox, Walter Cox, Nicholas Crawford, Charles Cross, Dustin Crump, Vincent Curlee, Ricky Darden, Antonio Davis, Erphon Davis, John Davis, Jonathan Davis, Anthony Day, Henry Dennis, Joseph Dennis, Michael Dillard, James Dooley, Trent Dora, Wendell Duncan, George Hudson, Jonathan Ivy, Frank Jackson, Nathaniel Jackson, Michael Jamison, Shun January, Dennis Jobe, Calip Johnson, Charles Johnson, Quincy Johnson, James Durr, Chancellor Eaton, Jamie Elaire, Lorenzo Evans, Paul Evans, Jr, Ray Evans, Nigel Farmer, Antron Finklea, Troy Ford, Michael Freeman, Jermaine Moore, Kerri Morgan, Alex Morris, Bennie Motten, Timothy Myers, Brian Nettles, Eduardo Nichols, Michael Oliver, Victor Otempong, Jerry Rice, James Richards, Emanuel Richardson, Tyredies Roberts, Quincy Robertson, Montrail Robinson, Ronaldo Rogers, Kendrick Ross, Leon Ruffin, Micah Ruffin, Jesse McCuin, Kenyatta McGee, Kristopher Meisenholder, Jerry Mettetal, Charles Miles, Sammy Miller, Tyler Miller, Bobby Mitchell, Bobby Montson, Eris Moore, Joshua Bogan, Kevin Boyd, Roger Boyd, Mondrick Bradley, William Branch, Dwayne Bridget, Nicholas Brooks, Charles Brown, Eric Brown, Frederick Brown, Keith Michael Steinmetz,

Darwin Strahan, Cordarius Strong, Jammichael Strong, James Sudduth, Michael Tarvin, Demarquis Tate, Charlie Taylor, Keith Theyer, Kenneth Gowdy, Tyler Graham, Jabrandon Green, Dewan Griffin, Stephen Grisham, Dantavious Hairston, Justin Hammons, Brymon Hamp, Charlie Harris, Wilson Harvey, Ricky Frierson, Issac Garner, Terrence Gatlin, Ricky Joseph Gavin, Randie Gayden, Brandon Gilmore, Jospeh Glenn, William Golden, Jr, Antonio Goldman, Andrew Good, Romaire James Earl Brown, Travis Cardell Brown, Marlon Bruce, Emmitt Buchanan, Johnathan Burns, Keyshun Burnside, Dillon Callaway, Gregory Canerdy, Michael Cannon, Sammie Johnson, Sellers Johnson, Shaquille Johnson, Xavier Johnson, Alexander Jones, Michael Jones, William Jones, Fredrick Jordan, Juarez Keyes, Tony Keyes, Tommy Kimble, Corderrius King, Newton Knight, Darran Lang, Malcom Lathan, Tony Leaks, Justin Lease, Billy Lee, Legrane Lennox, James Lewis, Tyler Smith, Frederick Spires, Sean Spotts, Lynn Spurlock, Joseph Stack, Joseph Standford, Keion Stanfield, Kedric Steele, Remington Steele, Zarek Tyler, Kendrick Tyson, Netorrium Tyson, Marcus Vaughn, Linnox Walker, Johnny Wallace, John Ware, Antwune Washington, Eric Wayne Watkins, Mack Watts. Associated Cases: 4:20-cv-00030-DMB-JMV, 4:20-cv-00007-DMBJMV (Rice, Jessica) Modified on 3/2/2021 (jla).

03/01/2021

193 ORDER granting (192) Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply in case 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV; granting (67) Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply in case 4:20-cv00030-DMB-JMV Responses due by 3/29/2021. Signed by District Judge Debra M. Brown on 3/1/2021. Associated Cases: 4:20-cv-00030DMB-JMV, 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV (jwr)

PACER Service Center Transaction Receipt

PACER Login:
Description:
Billable Pages:

03/05/2021 11:13:33

CRClearinghouse Client Code: McEvoy

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

4:20-cv-00007DMB-JMV

30

Cost:

3.00

 
 Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 13 Filed: 01/24/20 1 of 3 PageID #: 100

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION

MICHAEL AMOS, PITRELL BRISTER, ANTONIO DAVIS, WILLIE FRIEND, CHARLES GAYLES, DANIEL GUTHRIE, JONATHAN J. HAM, DESMOND HARDY, BILLY JAMES, JR., JUSTIN JAMES, QUENTEN JOHNSON, CHALLIS LEWIS, DEAUNTE LEWIS, LARRY MAXWELL, TERRANCE MCKINNEY, DERRICK PAN, BRANDON ROBERTSON, KURIAKI RILEY, DERRICK ROGERS, TYREE ROSS, H.D. ALEXANDER SCOTT, DEANGELO TAYLOR, LEMARTINE TAYLOR, CONTI TILLIS, DEMARCUS TIMMONS, CARLOS VARNADO, PHILLIP DECARLOS WEBSTER, ADRIAN WILLARD, and CURTIS WILSON,

Case No. 4:20-CV-007-DMB-JMV

Plaintiffs,

v.

PELICIA E. HALL, in her official capacity as the Commissioner of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, and MARSHAL TURNER, in his official capacity as the Superintendent of the Mississippi State Penitentiary,

Defendants.

PLAINTIFFS’ EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
COMES NOW Michael Amos, Pitrell Brister, Antonio Davis, Willie Friend, Charles Gayles, Daniel Guthrie, Jonathan J. Ham, Desmond Hardy, Billy James, Jr., Justin James, Quenten Johnson, Challis Lewis, Deaunte Lewis, Larry Maxwell, Terrance McKinney, Derrick Pan, Brandon Robertson, Kuriaki Riley, Derrick Rogers, Tyree Ross, H.D. Alexander Scott, Deangelo Taylor, Lemartine Taylor, Conti Tillis, Demarcus Timmons, Carlos Varnado, Phillip DeCarlos Webster, Adrian Willard, and Curtis Wilson, plaintiffs herein, by and through the

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 13 Filed: 01/24/20 2 of 3 PageID #: 101

undersigned counsel, and pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, respectfully request that this Court grant a temporary restraining order directing the holding of an evidentiary hearing at the Mississippi State Penitentiary and the appointment of a special master to administer appropriate relief to Plaintiffs, and, pending such notice and opportunity to be heard as the Court deems appropriate, a preliminary injunction granting the same.
In support of its motion, Plaintiffs respectfully submit their accompanying Memorandum Brief and the following exhibits:
EXHIBIT A: Redacted Affirmations of Parchman Inmates EXHIBIT B: Transcript of Evidentiary Hearing held by the Hon. District Judge Analisa Torres of the Southern District of New York on February 5, 2019, in the matter U.S. v. Segura-Genao, Case No. 18-CR-219. EXHIBIT C: Declaration of Debra Graham.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court grant their Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiffs further request any other relief to which they may be entitled.

Date: January 24, 2020

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Marcy B. Croft Marcy B. Croft (MS Bar #10864) Carson Thurman (MS Bar #104871) MARON MARVEL BRADLEY ANDERSON & TARDY LLC 200 South Lamar Street Jackson, MS 39201 Telephone: (601) 960-8630 Telefax: (601) 206-0119 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS

- 2 -

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 13 Filed: 01/24/20 3 of 3 PageID #: 102 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on January 24, 2020, a copy of the foregoing pleading was filed electronically with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system. Defendants have not yet filed responsive pleadings in this matter. Therefore, Plaintiffs are undertaking the following steps to effect service: (1) contemporaneous with filing, Plaintiffs will transmit the motion papers to counsel for Defendants, Lynn Fitch, the Attorney General for the State of Mississippi, via electronic mail at her official email address; and, (2) Plaintiffs will attempt to personally serve Attorney General Fitch with true and correct copies of the motion papers at both her workplace and her home. In order to comply with the Court's Order dated January 24, 2020 (ECF No. 12), upon completion of service, Plaintiffs will file a supplemental certificate of service detailing their efforts and confirming the time at which service was effected.
/s/ Marcy B. Croft Marcy B. Croft (MS Bar #10864)
- 3 -

 
 Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 14 Filed: 01/25/20 1 of 22 PageID #: 194

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION

MICHAEL AMOS, PITRELL BRISTER, ANTONIO DAVIS, WILLIE FRIEND, CHARLES GAYLES, DANIEL GUTHRIE, JONATHAN J. HAM, DESMOND HARDY, BILLY JAMES, JR., JUSTIN JAMES, QUENTEN JOHNSON, CHALLIS LEWIS, DEAUNTE LEWIS, LARRY MAXWELL, TERRANCE MCKINNEY, DERRICK PAN, BRANDON ROBERTSON, KURIAKI RILEY, DERRICK ROGERS, TYREE ROSS, H.D. ALEXANDER SCOTT, DEANGELO TAYLOR, LEMARTINE TAYLOR, CONTI TILLIS, DEMARCUS TIMMONS, CARLOS VARNADO, PHILLIP DECARLOS WEBSTER, ADRIAN WILLARD, and CURTIS WILSON,

Case No. 4:20-CV-007-DMB-JMV

Plaintiffs,

v.

PELICIA E. HALL, in her official capacity as the Commissioner of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, and MARSHAL TURNER, in his official capacity as the Superintendent of the Mississippi State Penitentiary,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 14 Filed: 01/25/20 2 of 22 PageID #: 195
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Plaintiffs are inmates at the Mississippi State Penitentiary at Parchman, Mississippi (“Parchman”), a century-old maximum security prison built on the site of a former plantation. Over the last twenty-six (26) days, eight (8) of their fellow inmates have died as a result of the inhumane and torturous conditions in which they are being held. There is no room for mistake or ambiguity: the situation at Parchman is an ongoing and lethal humanitarian crisis. Without this Court’s immediate intervention, more people will die, injuries will worsen, and conditions will further deteriorate. Plaintiffs recognize that there are people incarcerated at Parchman for due cause and that some may be considered a danger to society. We are simply asking that Plaintiffs and their fellow inmates be allowed to serve their sentences as human beings and not animals. The relief Plaintiffs seek will not lessen any prisoner’s sentence by so much as a day. Nor does this Motion ask this Honorable Court to second-guess the discretionary authority of Parchman officials; commandeer the legislature’s determinations as to Parchman’s funding; or otherwise insert the judicial power of the United States where it does not belong. Plaintiffs ask the Court only to apply and enforce a well-established constitutional rule: that prisoners are human beings at the mercy of the State who are entitled to safe, healthy, and humane living conditions. The remedial action sought by this Motion is well within the Court’s power to grant, and urgently needed if Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights—and, indeed, their lives—are to be afforded basic respect. Parchman is operating in a perpetual state of crisis, where prisoners live in barbaric and horrific conditions and their basic human rights are violated daily. Grossly inhumane conditions have cost many prisoners their health, and their sanity, and even their lives. Knowledge of these heinous conditions is and has been widespread for many years by officials at the Mississippi
- 2 -

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 14 Filed: 01/25/20 3 of 22 PageID #: 196
Department of Corrections (MDOC). Even so, prison officials have consistently failed to take reasonable and necessary steps to protect the prisoners in their charge. In less than a month’s time, since January 1, 2020, eight (8) prisoners incarcerated at Parchman have died.1 These deaths are a direct result of Mississippi’s utter disregard for the people it has incarcerated and their constitutional rights. As this State has incarcerated increasing numbers of people, it has dramatically reduced its funding of prisons. Nearly half of the prison guard slots for Mississippi’s prison remain unfilled. Parchman—Mississippi’s oldest prison and only maximum-security facility for males—has only one-quarter of the corrections officers needed.
Understaffing and lack of adequate shelter, food, and health care services exacerbates tension, stress, and competition for resources among inmates. MDOC has been incapable of protecting inmates at Parchman’s chronically understaffed correctional facilities from harm in this environment, resulting in inmate assaults, deaths, and prison breaks. The unthinkable spate of recent deaths is without doubt a gross culmination of systemic neglect, continual understaffing, and utterly inhumane conditions—the impact of which is readily apparent.
For three days this week, undersigned counsel was denied access to their clients. During those three days, three more inmates died, including one by suicide while counsel was on the facility grounds. The actual conditions at Parchman, especially in Unit 29, are far more appalling and egregious than what has been reported in the media. Because MDOC has failed to provide safe and sanitary living conditions for the inmates, requisite medical care, and adequately staff
1 Thomas Lee, age 49, died January 22, 2020 at MSP (Unit 29) due to suspected suicide; Timothy Hudspeth, age 35, died January 21, 2020 at MSP (presumably Unit 30) as a result of blunt force trauma; James Talley, age 36, died January 21, 2020 at MSP (presumably Unit 30) as a result of blunt force trauma; Gabriel Carmen, age 31, died January 19, 2020 at MSP (Unit 29) due to suspected suicide; A.D. Mills, age 42, died January 8, 2020 at MSP (Unit 29); Denorris Howell, age 36, died January 3, 2020 at MSP (Unit 29) as the result of multiple stab wounds; Roosevelt Holliman, age 32, died January 2, 2020 at MSP (Unit 29) as the result of multiple stab wounds; Walter Gates, age 29, died January 1, 2020 at MSP (Unit 29) as the result of multiple stab wounds.
- 3 -

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 14 Filed: 01/25/20 4 of 22 PageID #: 197
and compensate correctional officers, the humanitarian crisis at Parchman is at a boiling point and will only lead to more loss of life if not addressed immediately.
STATEMENT OF FACTS As the Affirmations attached to the Motion at Exhibit A make clear, the most shocking issues include, but are not limited to:2  Inmates in Unit 29 have not been allowed to shower since Christmas Day, December 25, 2019. See e.g. Exhibit A at 3, 24, 29.  Certain inmates and Plaintiffs are being denied visits to the medical unit for daily or critical care (Id. at 26, 40, 46, 51); and, for some, weeks have gone-by without medication. Id. at 6, 26, 30, 40, 43, 45.  There is only one guard (usually female) for each building (160 inmates) at Unit 29. Id. at 1, 8, 28, 33, 48.  Rats and cockroaches crawl over inmates while they sleep and attack their food. Id. at 3, 4, 11, 15, 19, 25, 39, 42, 50.  Toilets overflow with sewage which spills out and remains on the floors. Id. at 3, 4, 18, 24, 31, 44.  Potable water from available sources is contaminated with human waste and brown in color. Id. at 3, 4, 10, 24, 49.  Rain leaks from the roof streaming through multiple cells and causing black mold to grow on walls and surfaces where inmates sleep. Id. at 4, 11, 19, 25, 50.  There are no meals at times, and sometimes only one per day. Id. at 3, 21, 29, 34, 49.
2 See Exhibit A, Redacted Affirmations of Inmates at Parchman, attached to the Motion (ECF No. 13) (“Exhibit A”). Affirmations are redacted due to the extraordinary circumstances of the case and out of fear for their safety. Unredacted versions can and will be provided to this Honorable Court en camera.
- 4 -

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 14 Filed: 01/25/20 5 of 22 PageID #: 198
 When served, the “food” is cold, rotten, and often containing rocks, insects, bird droppings, and rat feces. Id.
 Lone guards can’t, and won’t, enter Unit 29 buildings to prevent violence or even render much needed emergency medical assistance. Id. at 2, 9, 13, 17, 20, 48.
 Finally, inmates are resorting to setting fires to compel officials to enter their building and, hopefully, render life-saving care to fellow inmates who are sick and dying. Id. at 28, 30, 41, 45.
ARGUMENT I. Standard for Relief
It is well-established that courts should grant preliminary injunctive relief where the movant can show the following:
(1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a substantial threat that the movant will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is denied; (3) that the threatened injury outweighs any damage that the injunction might cause the defendant; and (4) that the injunction will not disserve the public interest. Jackson Women’s Health Org. v. Currier, 760 F.3d 448, 452 (quoting Hoover v. Morales, 164 F.3d 221, 224 (5th Cir. 1998)). The same standard applies to both a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction. Clark v. Pritchard, 812 F.2d 991, 993 (5th Cir. 1987). II. Plaintiffs Exceed the Threshold for Temporary and Preliminary Injunctive Relief Under the circumstances of this case, Plaintiffs have more than met the threshold to justify temporary and preliminary injunctive relief from this Court. A. Plaintiffs are Substantially Likely to Prevail on the Merits and will Suffer
Irreparable Harm if Relief is Not Granted 1. The Inhumane Conditions of Plaintiffs’ Detention Violate the Eighth and
Fourteenth Amendments
- 5 -

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 14 Filed: 01/25/20 6 of 22 PageID #: 199
The Eighth Amendment’s categorical ban on cruel and unusual punishment “prohibits the imposition of inherently barbaric punishments under all circumstances.” Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 58 (2010) (citing Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (2002)). This requirement has long been held to apply to the conditions of prisons and the treatment of prison inmates, and to require prison officials to respect inmates’ basic rights. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994). The Supreme Court has stated in simple terms that “[a] prison that deprives prisoners of basic sustenance, including adequate medical care, is incompatible with the concept of human dignity and has no place in civilized society.” Brown v. Plata, 563 U.S. 493, 511 (2011). At absolute minimum, the Eighth Amendment requires prison officials to provide “humane conditions of confinement,” including “adequate food, clothing, shelter, and medical care . . . [as well as] ‘reasonable measures to guarantee the safety of the inmates.’” Id. (quoting Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 526-27 (1984).3 Conditions at Parchman have deteriorated far past this point. Indeed, the inmates—including Plaintiffs—have been systematically denied the most basic humane considerations. The Fifth Circuit and other appellate courts have repeatedly found the Eighth Amendment violations in far less egregious cases.
A claim that prison officials’ conduct violates the Eighth Amendment must meet two conditions. First, the deprivation or violation at issue must be “‘sufficiently serious’; a prison official’s act or omission must result in the denial of ‘the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities.’” Palmer v. Johnson, 193 F.3d 346, 352 (5th Cir. 1999) (quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. at 834). Second, the official must have the requisite culpable state of mind: in this case, “one of deliberate indifference to inmate health or safety.” Palmer, 193 F.3d at 352 (citing Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834). To establish this state of mind, a plaintiff must show that the
3 The Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment applies to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment. State of Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. Resweber, 329 U.S. 459, 463 (1947).
- 6 -

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 14 Filed: 01/25/20 7 of 22 PageID #: 200
officials “(1) were aware of facts from which an inference of an excessive risk to the prisoner’s health or safety could be drawn and (2) that they actually drew an inference that such potential for harm existed.” Palmer, 193 F.3d at 352 (quoting Bradley v. Puckett, 157 F.3d 1022, 1025 (5th Cir. 1998)).
Crucially, although the test involves officials’ subjective knowledge of the risks at issue (such that merely failing to notice a significant risk may not establish liability), the required knowledge can be shown by inference from circumstantial evidence, as well as the straightforward fact that the risk was obvious. Hinojosa v. Livingston, 807 F.3d 657, 665 (5th Cir. 2015) (citing Farmer, 511 U.S. at 842-43). Such a finding is particularly appropriate where, as with Parchman, the risk at issue was “longstanding, pervasive, well-documented, or expressly noted by prison officials in the past, and the circumstances suggest that the defendant official had been exposed to information concerning the risk and thus ‘must have known’ about it . . . .” Id. Consequently, a plaintiff need not delve into an official’s internal thoughts to establish a culpable state of mind: he or she need only present the Court with sufficient evidence that the official must have known of the excessive risk.
Both of the foregoing prongs are easily met under the circumstances. Evidence establishes beyond doubt that the privations taking place at Parchman are severe beyond any acceptable minimum standards, and certainly rise to the level of denial of the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities,’ as Fifth Circuit precedent requires. See P. 4-5, supra.
Lack of Basic Safety and Protection from Violence It is well-established that prison officials’ Eighth Amendment duties toward prisoners include the duty to protect them from violence, including at one another’s hands. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 833 (“[A]s the lower courts have uniformly held, and as we have assumed, ‘prison
- 7 -

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 14 Filed: 01/25/20 8 of 22 PageID #: 201
officials have a duty . . . to protect prisoners from violence at the hands of other prisoners.’”) (quoting Cortes-Quinones v. Jimenez-Nettleship, 842 F.2d 556, 558 (1st Cir. 1988)). Defendants and the officials at Parchman have utterly failed to do so, and their failures of protection are selfevidently severe enough to constitute an Eighth Amendment violation. There have been eight deaths at Parchman since January 1, 2020; and, Plaintiffs ask the Court to take judicial notice of the extraordinarily troubling and haunting accounts of violence and risk to human life contained in official reports, information releases, and statements released by State officials and agencies over the past few weeks. See also Exhibit A at P. 47. The State of Mississippi’s failure to protect the safety and well-being of Parchman inmates under the Eighth Amendment would unquestionably withstand summary judgment under the present circumstances. See Earrey v. Chickasaw Cty., Miss., 965 F.Supp. 870 (N.D. Miss. 1997) (denying summary judgment for defendants on plaintiff prisoner’s claim for failure to protect under the Eighth Amendment, based on his being severely beaten without interference despite a deputy being able to “hear[] the racket” of the beating).
Denial of Urgent Medical Care It is beyond dispute that prisoners are entitled to provision of adequate medical care to address their needs. Brown v. Plata, 563 U.S. 493, 510-11 (2011). See also Order and Judgment of Civil Contempt, Parsons v. Ryan, Case No. 2:12-CV-00601-DKD (D. Ariz. June 22, 2018), ECF No. 2898 (finding Arizona state prison officials in civil contempt for repeatedly failing to meet court-imposed requirements to improve critical flaws in system providing healthcare services to inmates). Due to understaffing, lack of funding, or simple disregard for prisoners’ well-being, Plaintiffs have been consistently denied necessary medical care, including needed
- 8 -

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 14 Filed: 01/25/20 9 of 22 PageID #: 202
medications. See Id.; Exhibit A at 5, 12, 16, 30, 43. Each day, they grow sicker and inch closer to death.
No better evidence of this crisis exists than the fires set by some prisoners in Unit 29. They are not, as has been reported, the result of “gang-violence”, but rather a last and desperate attempt to force their lone guard to enter the Unit building so that sick and dying inmates might receive emergent medical care. See P. 4-5, supra. To be clear, people are setting fires in the locked room from which they cannot escape in order to save their fellow inmates. A clearer indication of how serious the situation has become is difficult to imagine.
Critical Lack of Sanitation and Hygiene Prison officials also have a legal duty to provide adequate means of sanitation and hygiene. Failure to do so constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment, particularly where it actively exposes inmates to sewage, feces, and other contaminants. See Gates v. Cook, 376 F.3d 323, 338 (5th Cir. 2004) (affirming district court’s finding of Eighth Amendment violation where testimony showed cells were filthy due to fecal matter, urine, other fluids, peeling and chipping paint, and food particles, and that such conditions were common and obvious); see also Webb v. Deboo, 423 F. App’x 299, 301 (4th Cir. Apr. 15, 2011) (prisoner stated a claim for unconstitutional prison conditions based on, inter alia, lack of sanitation); McBride v. Deer, 240 F.3d 1287, 1292 (10th Cir. 2001) (being detained for three days in feces-covered cell established a valid Eighth Amendment claim). Prisoners described poor plumbing conditions, stating that toilets are often broken, overrun, backup and overflow. See P. 4-5, supra. They do not flush properly preventing waste disposal and causing the units to flood with sewage and smell like urine and feces. Id. Potable water from available sources is contaminated with human waste and brown in color. Id. Sewage
- 9 -

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 14 Filed: 01/25/20 10 of 22 PageID #: 203
contamination and exposure to raw sewage is not merely unpleasant or uncomfortable: it is actively unhealthy and dangerous. The expert testimony of Debra Graham, whose sworn Declaration is attached to the Motion as Exhibit C, sets forth the many health risks associated with exposure to sewage. See Exhibit C at 3-6 (detailing health risks arising from exposure to sewage and human waste). These conditions are a stark violation of prison officials’ duty under the Eighth Amendment to maintain basic levels of sanitation and hygiene for prisoners and the facilities in which they are held. See, e.g., Harper v. Showers, 174 F.3d 716, 720 (5th Cir. 1999) (affirming that “housing in filthy, unsanitary cells” could constitute a violation of the Eighth Amendment as a matter of law). Such conditions are a flagrant violation of Defendants’ obligation to provide humane, basic sanitation for inmates. Gates v. Cook, 376 F.3d 323, 338 (5th Cir. 2004).
Exposure to Extreme Temperatures The Fifth Circuit has repeatedly and unambiguously held that prison conditions that expose inmates to extreme temperatures—whether heat or cold—are severe enough to violate the Eighth Amendment. See Hinojosa v. Livingston, 807 F.3d 657, 665 (5th Cir. 2015) (“ We have held that exposing an inmate to extreme cell temperatures can constitute cruel and unusual punishment.”) (collecting cases); Beck v. Lynaugh, 842 F.2d 759, 761 (5th Cir. 1988) (finding that prisoners stated valid Eighth Amendment claim for detention over the winter in cells missing window panes, without blankets or coats). Parchman is utterly without sufficient means to protect the inmates from extreme cold. The heat in Unit 29 is not functioning; blankets have not been made available since November 2019; and the building itself cannot retain heat or keep out conditions that worsen the cold, because the windows do not close, there are holes in the walls (allowing in wind and rain), and
- 10 -

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 14 Filed: 01/25/20 11 of 22 PageID #: 204
the ceilings leak when it rains. See e.g. Exhibit A at 4, 22, 25. As the Court is well aware, it is late January as of the time of filing, and near-freezing temperatures at night are common.
Such facts are more than sufficient to establish an Eighth Amendment violation. In Palmer v. Johnson, 193 F.3d 246 (5th Cir. 1999), the Fifth Circuit found such a violation where officials forced several dozen inmates to sleep outdoors in the open for a night without blankets or jackets, while “the temperature fell below fifty-nine degrees Fahrenheit.” Id. at 349. Here, Plaintiffs have been exposed to much lower temperatures, and that repeatedly for weeks or months rather than a single night. See e.g. Exhibit A at 4, 22, and 25. Plaintiffs do not have blankets or other means of keeping warm, any more than the prisoners in Palmer did. Plaintiffs’ being held in their cells rather than sleeping outside as in Palmer is irrelevant: because the cells lack artificial heating and cannot keep out the cold or the elements, Plaintiffs might as well be outside for all the protection they have. In short, since the facts of Palmer sufficed to violate the Eighth Amendment, the much longer exposure to cold in this case a fortiori is unconstitutional as well. It bears noting, furthermore, that the Fifth Circuit’s established position that exposure to extreme temperatures is cruel and unusual is consistent with that of its sister circuits. See Dixon v. Godinez, 114 F.3d 640 (7th Cir. 1997) (finding Eighth Amendment violation on the basis of excessive cold where inmates had inadequate heating and had to rely on standard clothing in conditions where the average temperature was forty degrees for prolonged periods); Corselli v. Coughlin, 842 F.2d 23, 27 (2d Cir. 1988) (reversing district court’s finding that plaintiff had not stated an Eighth Amendment claim based on exposure to extreme cold).
Food Unfit for Human Consumption The Supreme Court has unambiguously confirmed that prisons are responsible for providing food, among other basic necessities, to their inmates. Brown v. Plata, 563 U.S. 493,
- 11 -

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 14 Filed: 01/25/20 12 of 22 PageID #: 205
510-11 (2011) (“Prisoners are dependent on the State for food, clothing, and necessary medical care. . . . A prison that deprives prisoners of basic sustenance . . . is incompatible with the concept of human dignity and has no place in civilized society.”). See P. 4-5, supra. At Parchman, there are no meals at times, and sometimes only one per day. When finally delivered, the “food” is cold, rotten, and often containing rocks, insects, bird droppings, and rat feces. Id.
Any one of the above categories suffices to establish that conditions at Parchman are severe enough to violate the Eighth Amendment. Together, they are mutually reinforcing: courts must consider inadequate prison conditions in their entirety, not piecemeal. See Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 304-05 (1991) (stating that untenable conditions may establish an Eighth Amendment violation even if each would not do so in isolation if they have a mutuallyreinforcing effect, e.g. low cell temperatures coupled with lack of blankets).
Moreover, the facts establish that prison officials are fully and subjectively aware of the facts regarding conditions at Parchman. First, the evidence makes clear that inmates have alerted guards and other officials to their specific grievances many times, to no avail, or that guards have personally been present when violations have occurred. See e.g. Exhibit A at 7, 27. Indeed, prisoners have worked in good faith—it bears repeating, under incredibly difficult conditions— to submit grievances through the Administrative Remedy Program and thus alert the appropriate officials to the grave problems taking place. Id. Yet, the complete breakdown in the systems at Parchman has rendered that process completely unavailable and inaccessible. Id. Second, the facts are clear that the unconstitutional conditions at issue are obvious, unmistakable, and plain. Pervasive black mold, rat and roach infestations, and a lack of heating systems are conditions that prison officials—including Defendants—could not possibly fail to notice. See P. 4-5, supra. Similarly, Defendants certainly know that inmates are at extreme risk of assault or murder from
- 12 -

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 14 Filed: 01/25/20 13 of 22 PageID #: 206
other inmates, given the numerous recent killings at Parchman. Consequently, Defendants, as prison officials, have the requisite culpable state of mind to satisfy the second prong of Plaintiffs’ Eighth Amendment claim.
In short, Plaintiffs have shown that the conditions at Parchman are not only cruel and unusual under the Eighth Amendment, but actively and acutely dangerous in multiple ways— from freezing cold to contaminated water to lack of medical care. See P. 4-5, supra. For the purposes of this Motion, it is plain that the totality of the circumstances and conditions at Parchman are causing, and will cause, Plaintiffs to suffer irreparable harm absent immediate relief.
B. The Harm Plaintiffs Face if Injunctive Relief is Not Granted Significantly Outweighs Any Prejudice to Defendants
As noted above, Plaintiffs are being held in unconscionable conditions in violation of the Eighth Amendment. See P. 4-5, supra. Deaths, including murder, suicide, and upon information and belief, deaths by sickness alone, have been a regular occurrence for weeks as a direct result. Even those whose lives are not in acute danger face ongoing threats to health and safety, and unconstitutionally harsh living conditions in general, as a result of factors such as the extreme cold, the long-standing exposure to raw sewage, the inedible food, and the lack of medical care, to name a few. Id. At an absolute minimum, it is a truism that Plaintiffs have a constitutional right not to be held in conditions that violate the Constitution, and that right will continue to be violated if this Court does not grant relief. Every additional minute Plaintiffs spend in these unconstitutional and unbearable conditions is prejudicial.
No countervailing prejudice to Defendants would occur as a result of granting the Motion, and even if it did, it could not conceivably outweigh the immense prejudice that Plaintiffs will suffer if this Court denies relief. See, e.g., Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk Cty. Jail, 502
- 13 -

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 14 Filed: 01/25/20 14 of 22 PageID #: 207
U.S. 367, 396 (1992) (“the lack of resources can never excuse a failure to obey constitutional requirements”); Henderson v. Stadler, 112 F.Supp.2d 589, 602 (E.D. La. 2000), overruled on other grounds, 287 F.3d 374 (5th Cir. 2002) (injury to constitutional rights outweighs monetary costs).
It is true that restoring Parchman to humane conditions could entail significant expense and time. But that is not what is before the Court. The most immediate priority for Plaintiffs is that an impartial and reliable figure, unaffiliated with the state government or prison administration, be able to see conditions at Parchman firsthand and unvarnished and decide on appropriate next steps, and that Plaintiffs be able to meet with their attorneys.
C. Injunctive Relief Will Serve the Public Interest Finally, it is readily apparent that the relief Plaintiffs seek will promote the public interest. By definition, “[i]t is always in the public interest to prevent the violation of a party’s constitutional rights.” Jackson Women’s Health Org. v. Currier, 760 F.3d 448, 458 n.9 (5th Cir. 2014) (citing Awad v. Ziriax, 670 F.3d 1111, 1132 (10th Cir. 2012), and upholding injunction). Furthermore, the public has a straightforward interest in ensuring that taxpayer-funded prisons are run humanely and in a manner consistent with the Constitution. As such, granting the requested relief will vindicate the public interest. III. Plaintiffs Are Indigent Prisoners and Should Not Be Required to Post a Bond Rule 65(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, pursuant to which this Motion is brought, ordinarily requires that movants seeking a preliminary injunction post security “in an amount the Court considers proper” before the injunction may be issued. However, the amount of such a bond is fully within the discretion of the Court, which is free to require no such bond at all if the situation warrants. See, e.g., Corrigan Dispatch Co. v. Casa Guzman, S.A., 569 F.2d
- 14 -

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 14 Filed: 01/25/20 15 of 22 PageID #: 208
300, 302-303 (5th Cir. 1978) (cited approvingly in Gordon v. City of Houston, Texas, 2015 WL 138115, at *16 (S.D. Tex. January 9, 2015)). Plaintiffs in this matter are indigent and do not have the resources to post a bond. Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court exercise its broad discretion to waive posting security as to this Motion, or alternatively, impose a purely nominal bond. IV. Relief Requested
Because the unconstitutional conditions at the prison are pervasive, diverse, and longstanding, Plaintiffs must ask this Court to craft a multi-faceted injunction to fully and fairly address the needs of this case.
A. Evidentiary Hearing at Parchman First and most immediately, Plaintiffs ask that, upon such notice to Defendants as it may deem appropriate, the Court hold an evidentiary hearing on the record at Parchman itself so that the Court may speak with inmates in person and inspect the facilities. Despite the best efforts of Plaintiffs’ counsel to convey the situation at Parchman, it is impossible to accurately represent the state of the prison in writing. An accurate picture requires in-person inspection. Though the request may seem unusual, at least one district court recently applied precisely this remedy in extremely similar circumstances. In Federal Defenders of New York, Inc. v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, Case No. 19-CV-660 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 2019), plaintiffs sought emergency relief on behalf of their clients detained at the Metropolitan Detention Center (“MDC”) in Brooklyn, New York, after access to counsel had been restricted for days. Id., ECF No. 1 (complaint alleging Sixth Amendment violations due to detainees’ prevention from meeting with counsel), 5 (memorandum in support of temporary injunction). Although facts were initially confused, it first became clear that the MDC had suffered a power outage, then that
- 15 -

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 14 Filed: 01/25/20 16 of 22 PageID #: 209
conditions at the prison had become intolerable due to the lack of power. Attorneys learned that inmates were not only cut off from counsel, but their cells were without heat or hot water, and they lacked laundry service, electric lights, and access to the commissary. See Id., ECF No. 7 at ¶¶ 8-11 (attorney affirmation describing status of detainees). Notably, officials from the Federal Bureau of Prisons consistently either refused to confirm the situation or suggested that the inmates were lying about conditions. Id. at ¶¶ 12-18. Nevertheless, District Judge LaShann Hall granted emergency relief in that case the same day it was sought, restoring counsel’s access to clients. Id., ECF No. 9 (Memorandum and Order granting temporary injunctive relief). The following day, in light of the ongoing dispute over conditions at MDC, District Judge for the Southern District of New York Analisa Torres adjourned an evidentiary hearing in two parallel cases, U.S. v. Segura-Genao, Case No. 18-CR-219, and U.S. v. Perez, No. 17-CR-513, in order to visit the MDC in person. A true and correct copy of the transcript of the evidentiary hearing held at the MDC is attached to the Motion as Exhibit B.
Judge Torres’ inspection, conducted fully on the record and including numerous conversations with inmates at the MDC confirmed that, contrary to the Bureau of Prisons’ assurances, conditions at the MDC were unacceptable. At the height of winter, inmates were without power and heat, and prisoners’ medical needs had gone ignored by prison officials for days or weeks. See, e.g., Exhibit B at 176:1-23 (prisoner with colitis and mental health issues was denied medical care for bleeding rash). The MDC facility itself was in disrepair in places, due to factors such as ongoing water leaks. Id. at 170:1-4. Conditions are comparable at Parchman if not worse, and similar relief is therefore called for. See P. 4-5, supra. This Court must examine the prison in person if it is to gain a full understanding of the circumstances.
- 16 -

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 14 Filed: 01/25/20 17 of 22 PageID #: 210
Plaintiffs stress that this is not intended to sway the Court or introduce emotional elements into its judgment. Rather, Plaintiffs submit that this Court not only has the right and ability to inspect Parchman, but that doing so is necessary for the Court’s full and accurate review of the facts. Moreover, review of the state of the prison and inmates by an impartial arbiter is not prejudicial to Defendants: they do not stand to bear any burden or expense as a result, nor is it inherently unfair for the Court to see the facilities Defendants are responsible for firsthand.
B. Appointment of a Special Master or Independent Special Monitor Following the Court’s in-person examination of Parchman, the Court should appoint an appropriate special master or independent special monitor to assume control of day-to-day operations. Such an individual should be able to step into the shoes of the warden, with all corresponding power to make the changes required to render Parchman livable, or at a minimum, remove Plaintiffs from their life-threatening conditions. The Mississippi Department of Corrections and the current administration of Parchman is responsible for the state of the prison, and there is no indication that they have the resources, energy, or inclination to correct it. Thirdparty intervention is critical if conditions are to be restored to a livable minimum. As the Fifth Circuit recently reaffirmed, a district court’s power to appoint a special master is rooted in its “inherent authority in fashioning equitable remedies.” Moore ex rel. Moore v. Tangipahoa Parish Sch. Bd., 912 F.3d 247, 250 (5th Cir. 2018) (quoting Moore v. Tangipahoa Parish Sch. Bd., 843 F.3d 198, 201 (5th Cir. 2016)). That power is shaped by Rule 53 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and in the specific context of prison litigation, by 18 U.S.C. § 3626. Those provisions do not counsel against the appointment of a special master in
- 17 -

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 14 Filed: 01/25/20 18 of 22 PageID #: 211
this case, let alone prohibit it. On the contrary: case law is clear that the situation in this case is ideally suited for the appointment of a special master.
First, Rule 53 is no obstacle to Plaintiffs’ request. As relevant here, it requires only that appointment be warranted by “some exceptional condition[,]” or that the special master “address pretrial . . . matters that cannot be effectively and timely addressed by an available district judge or magistrate judge of the district[,]” and that the parties first be given notice and an opportunity to be heard. Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(a) & (b)(1). The life-threatening crisis of conditions at Parchman is indisputably an “exceptional condition.” See P. 4-5, supra. Further, a special master would be better positioned than the Court to take prompt action as needed to ensure Plaintiffs’ safety and health while this lawsuit proceeds, particularly given the Court’s many competing concerns and limited judicial resources. Plaintiffs have no objection to Defendants’ notice of this request nor their being heard on the matter. Thus, Plaintiffs’ request complies fully with Rule 53.
18 U.S.C. § 3626, likewise, does not weigh against the appointment of a special master in this case. As a threshold matter, the subsection governing special masters in particular begins with a reaffirmation that the court has broad discretion to appoint a special master where circumstances merit.4 Plaintiffs do not dispute that the same statute cabins the Court’s otherwise-broad discretion to particular circumstances: both prospective relief and preliminary injunctive relief in an action concerning prison conditions must be tailored to correct specific violations of specific plaintiffs’ rights. See 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a). But Plaintiffs’ request is entirely consistent with this requirement. The appointment of a special master with specified powers to cure Plaintiffs’ unconstitutional conditions at Parchman entails a clear and limited 4 See 18 U.S.C. § 3626(f)(1)(A) (“In any civil action in a Federal court with respect to prison conditions, the court may appoint a special master . . . to conduct hearings on the record and prepare proposed findings of fact.”); see also U.S. v. Dillman, 15 F.3d 384, 389 (5th Cir. 1994) (“The word ‘may’ [in Fed. R. Crim. P. 15(a)] signifies that the district court retains broad discretion . . . .”).
- 18 -

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 14 Filed: 01/25/20 19 of 22 PageID #: 212
mission; does not overreach into unnecessary relief for prisoners elsewhere; and is the least intrusive and most efficient way of vindicating Plaintiffs’ Eighth Amendment and Sixth Amendment rights with the urgency required. It would be more unusual, more burdensome, less workable, and less effective if, for instance, this Court attempted to manage the necessary improvement in Plaintiffs’ conditions itself, by direct injunctions.
Case law confirms that appointment of a special master in a case such as this one is entirely proper. Courts faced with litigation over prison conditions have a long history of appointing special masters.5 The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) imposed limits on the practice, but as noted above, the statute explicitly confirms that district courts retain discretion to appoint a special master as long as the appropriate conditions are met. See 18 U.S.C. § 3626(f)(1)(A). Likewise, the Supreme Court has confirmed that where courts are faced with unconstitutional prison conditions, appointment of special masters and receivers remain appropriate remedies. Brown v. Plata, 563 U.S. 493, 211 (2011); see also id. at 526 (“The PLRA should not be interpreted to place undue restrictions on the authority of federal courts to fashion practical remedies when confronted with complex and intractable constitutional violations.”).
The appointment of special masters in prison litigation continues to be familiar in this Circuit after the PLRA; see, e.g., Ball v. Leblanc, Civil Action No. 13-00368-BAJ-SCR, 2015 WL 4454779, at *2 (M.D. La. July 20, 2015). Moreover, although Plaintiffs’ research has not disclosed an appellate case in which the Fifth Circuit expressly blessed the use of a special
5 See, e.g., Ruiz v. Estelle, 679 F.2d 1115, 1161 (5th Cir. 1982), amended in part and vacated in part on other grounds, 688 F.2d 266 (5th Cir. 1982) (per curiam); Union Cty. Jail Inmates v. Di Buono, 713 F.2d 984, 988 (3d Cir. 1983); Inmates of D.C. Jail v. Jackson, 158 F.3d 1357, 1359 (D.C. Cir. 1998); see also Gary W. v. Louisiana, 61 F.2d 240, 244-45 (5th Cir. 1979) (affirming district court’s appointment of special master overseeing injunctive relief for children institutionalized by the state).
- 19 -

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 14 Filed: 01/25/20 20 of 22 PageID #: 213
master in post-PLRA prison litigation, many of its sister circuits have.6 In particular, the Third Circuit recently noted that prison oversight remains the quintessential role for a special master. Prometheus Radio Project v. Fed. Commc’ns Comm’n, 939 F.3d 567, 589 (3d Cir. 2019). In short, both courts’ historic and recent practices and the express dictates of appellate courts, including the nation’s highest court, make it clear that a special master remains within a court’s discretion to grant as an appropriate remedy—and at times, a necessary one.
This is just such a case. As set forth above and in the Affirmations at Exhibit A to the Motion, conditions at Parchman are not only unconstitutional, they are lethal. Inmates are dying at an appalling rate, and there is every indication that they will continue to do so without targeted emergency action—by someone other than Defendants, who are responsible for conditions at Parchman in the first place. Plaintiffs respectfully submit that this Court does not have the institutional capacity, resources, or time to undertake such action itself. A special master with tailored authority, by contrast, would be able to focus entirely on the task at hand, and act quickly and appropriately. No lesser remedy will suffice to stop the deaths and torturous conditions that are the basis for this Motion.
In the alternative, if the Court deems appointment of a special master to be inappropriate at this juncture, Plaintiffs respectfully urge that the Court appoint an independent special monitor. The difference is not semantic: an independent special monitor would have less power to effect immediate change—hence Plaintiffs submit that a special master is the appropriate remedy—but would at least provide neutral and close oversight of conditions at Parchman. Moreover, because an independent special monitor has a distinct role from a special master, it 6 See In re Bayside Prison Litig., 477 F. App’x 16, 17 (3d Cir. Apr. 17, 2012); Montez v. Hickenlooper, 640 F.3d 1126, 1129 (10th Cir. 2011); see also Armstrong v. Brown, 768 F.3d 975, 988 (9th Cir. 2014) (“We also note that the PLRA itself provides for the appointment of a special master in any civil action in a Federal court with respect to prison conditions . . . .”) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 2626(f)) (internal punctuation omitted).
- 20 -

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 14 Filed: 01/25/20 21 of 22 PageID #: 214

has been held not to be subject to the same restrictions imposed on special masters by the PLRA.

See Handberry v. Thompson, 446 F.3d 335, 351-52 (2d Cir. 2006).

Defendants have not yet filed responsive pleadings in this matter, nor has counsel entered

an appearance. In order to comply with the Court's Order dated January 24, 2020 (ECF No. 12),

upon completion of service, Plaintiffs will file a supplemental certificate of service detailing their

efforts and confirming the time at which service was effected.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs request that this Honorable Court

grant the instant Motion and provide the relief sought herein and any other such relief that the

Court deems to be just and appropriate under the circumstances.

Date: January 24, 2020

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Marcy B. Croft Marcy B. Croft (MS Bar #10864) Carson Thurman (MS Bar #104871) MARON MARVEL BRADLEY ANDERSON & TARDY LLC 200 South Lamar Street Jackson, MS 39201 Telephone: (601) 960-8630 Telefax: (601) 206-0119 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS

- 21 -

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 14 Filed: 01/25/20 22 of 22 PageID #: 215 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on January 24, 2020, a copy of the foregoing pleading was filed electronically with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system. Defendants have not yet filed responsive pleadings in this matter. Therefore, Plaintiffs are undertaking the following steps to effect service: (1) contemporaneous with filing, Plaintiffs will transmit the motion papers to counsel for Defendants, Lynn Fitch, the Attorney General for the State of Mississippi, via electronic mail at her official email address; and, (2) Plaintiffs will attempt to personally serve Attorney General Fitch with true and correct copies of the motion papers at both her workplace and her home. In order to comply with the Court's Order dated January 24, 2020 (ECF No. 12), upon completion of service, Plaintiffs will file a supplemental certificate of service detailing their efforts and confirming the time at which service was effected.
/s/ Marcy B. Croft Marcy B. Croft (MS Bar #10864)
- 22 -

 
 Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/14/20 1 of 10 PageID #: 1
4:20-CV-007-DMB-JMV

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/14/20 2 of 10 PageID #: 2

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/14/20 3 of 10 PageID #: 3

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/14/20 4 of 10 PageID #: 4

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/14/20 5 of 10 PageID #: 5

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/14/20 6 of 10 PageID #: 6

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/14/20 7 of 10 PageID #: 7

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/14/20 8 of 10 PageID #: 8

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/14/20 9 of 10 PageID #: 9

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/14/20 10 of 10 PageID #: 10

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 01/14/20 1 of 1 PageID #: 11

1759850

$400

DMB

JMV

 
 Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 31 Filed: 01/31/20 1 of 2 PageID #: 376

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

MICHAEL AMOS, et al.

PLAINTIFFS

V.

NO. 4:20-CV-7-DMB-JMV

TOMMY TAYLOR, et al.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER During the January 29 status conference noticed by the Court, the Court informed the parties that the record on the plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order and injunctive relief was incomplete and insufficient. Accordingly, the Court advised the parties it intended to allow expedited limited discovery relevant to the plaintiffs’ motion. The Court directed the parties to attempt to reach an agreement on the scope and timing of discovery and to provide an update by 4:00 p.m. the next day. At approximately 3:30 p.m. on January 30, the parties, by separate e-mails, informed the Court that they were unable to reach any agreement as to any discovery. Upon review of the parties’ e-mail correspondence, it appears that neither the plaintiffs nor the defendants heeded the Court’s directions or attempted to confer in good faith. The plaintiffs’ proposed requests are unspecific and, in some cases, are not discovery requests at all. The defendants’ rejections of the requests are conclusory and do not appear to be responsive to the nature of the relief sought by the plaintiffs in their motion. Based on these deficiencies and lack of cooperation, it is apparent and discouraging that this Court’s intervention is required. Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 1. No later than 3:00 p.m. on February 1, 2020, the plaintiffs may file a motion to compel expedited discovery, setting forth, with appropriate specificity,1 the discovery they seek,

1 To the extent the plaintiffs seek access to the prison for their counsel or others, the request must specifically identify

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 31 Filed: 01/31/20 2 of 2 PageID #: 377 including the proposed time period, the methods, and the proposed scope.
2. No later than 3:00 p.m. on February 2, 2020, the defendants shall file a response to the plaintiffs’ motion, which must include a counter-proposal to any objectionable discovery request.
3. No later than 9:00 p.m. on February 2, 2020, the plaintiffs shall file a reply to the defendants’ response.
4. The parties shall appear before the Court in person on February 3, 2020, at 2:00 p.m., to resolve any outstanding issues concerning expedited discovery.
SO ORDERED, this 31st day of January, 2020. /s/Debra M. Brown UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the individuals to be provided access and must explain why the request for access would not implicate security concerns.
2

 
 Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 48 Filed: 02/10/20 1 of 13 PageID #: 700

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

MICHAEL AMOS, et al.

PLAINTIFFS

V.

NO. 4:20-CV-7-DMB-JMV

TOMMY TAYLOR, et al.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER This order memorializes and clarifies rulings made during the February 3, 2020, hearing on the parties’ motions to compel expedited discovery.
I Procedural History On January 14, 2020, twenty-nine individuals incarcerated at the Mississippi State Penitentiary in Parchman, Mississippi, filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi against Pelicia E. Hall, in her official capacity as the Commissioner of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, and Marshal Turner, in his official capacity as the Superintendent of the Mississippi State Penitentiary. Doc. #1. In their complaint, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants’ policies and practices caused years of neglect at Parchman, which placed them in imminent danger of serious physical injury, in violation of the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eighth Amendment, as incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment. Ten days later, the plaintiffs filed an emergency motion seeking a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction (“Injunction Motion”). Doc. #13. The motion asks “that this Court grant a temporary restraining order directing the holding of an evidentiary hearing at the Mississippi State Penitentiary and the appointment of a special master to administer appropriate relief to Plaintiffs, and, pending such notice and opportunity to be heard as the Court deems appropriate, a preliminary injunction granting the same.” Id. at 2.

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 48 Filed: 02/10/20 2 of 13 PageID #: 701
Pursuant to an expedited briefing schedule, the defendants responded in opposition to the Injunction Motion, Doc. #17, and the plaintiffs replied, Doc. #18. On January 28, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint.1 Doc. #19. The First Amended Complaint contains the same substantive allegations of mistreatment as the original complaint; names an additional four plaintiffs; substitutes Tommy Taylor, in his official capacity as the Interim Commissioner of MDOC, in place of Hall; and asserts a proposed class action. The First Amended Complaint seeks injunctive and declaratory relief, plus attorney’s fees and expenses.
On January 29, 2020, the Court convened a status conference regarding the plaintiffs’ Injunction Motion. During the conference, the Court informed the parties that the record on the Injunction Motion was incomplete and insufficient. Accordingly, the Court advised the parties it intended to allow expedited limited discovery relevant to the Injunction Motion. The Court directed the parties to attempt to reach an agreement on the scope and timing of discovery and to provide an update by 4:00 p.m. the next day. At approximately 3:30 p.m. on January 30, the parties, by separate e-mails, informed the Court that they were unable to reach any agreement as to any discovery.
After the parties informed the Court that no agreement could be reached, the Court issued an order authorizing the plaintiffs to file a motion to compel expedited discovery. Doc. #31. The order, which set an expedited briefing schedule, also set an in-person hearing to resolve any outstanding discovery issues. Id. at 2. In compliance with this Court’s order, the plaintiffs filed a motion to compel on February 1, 2020. Doc. #33. The next day, the defendants responded to the motion to compel, Doc. #35, and filed their own motion to compel, Doc. #37. The plaintiffs
1 The same day of this filing, counsel for the plaintiffs advised the Clerk’s office that the wrong document had been attached during the filing process. The Clerk advised the plaintiffs to re-file attaching the correct document. The plaintiffs then filed another First Amended Complaint. Doc. #22. To the extent Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1) permits a party to amend its pleading only once within 21 days after its service, the plaintiffs should determine whether a filing error counts as their one time to amend as of right.
2

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 48 Filed: 02/10/20 3 of 13 PageID #: 702
filed a reply in support of their motion to compel, which includes a response to the defendants’ motion. Doc. #39.
On February 3, 2020, the Court held a hearing on the parties’ motions to compel. During the hearing, the Court orally ruled on some of the discovery issues, which rulings are described below. The Court then directed the parties to attempt to reach agreements about the details of the allowed discovery, including an inspection of Parchman, within the confines of the Court’s rulings. Following the hearing, the parties informed the Court of certain outstanding issues. With certain exceptions noted below, the outstanding issues will be addressed by separate order upon consideration of the supplemental briefing this Court ordered on February 7, 2020. See Doc. #45.
II The Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel The plaintiffs’ motion to compel seeks three categories of relief—an inspection of Parchman, “a more streamlined process for inmate interviews,” and authorization for a “third-party medical team to offer inmates free medical examination and treatment for minor wounds.” See Doc. #34. During the hearing, the parties informed the Court that they had reached an agreement regarding the plaintiffs’ request for a modification to the interview process. Accordingly, the plaintiffs’ motion is properly denied as moot in that regard.
A. Applicable Standard As for the plaintiffs’ remaining requests, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 authorizes a court to order discovery before the standard discovery period See Fed. R. Civ. P 26(d)(1) (“A party may not seek discovery from any source before the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f), except … when authorized by … court order.”). “[S]ome courts have found that expedited discovery is appropriate in limited circumstances and for limited rationales, such as when a plaintiff seeks injunctive relief because of the expedited nature of injunctive proceedings.” Midwest Sign & Screen Printing Supply Co. v. Dalpe, 386 F. Supp. 3d 1037, 1057 (D. Minn. 2019)
3

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 48 Filed: 02/10/20 4 of 13 PageID #: 703
(quotation marks omitted). “The purpose of expedited discovery in the context of a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction is for further development of the record before the preliminary injunction hearing, which better enables the court to judge the parties’ interests and respective chances for success on the merits.” Id. at 1057–58 (cleaned up).
When a party seeks expedited discovery for the purpose of an injunction hearing, that party must show good cause. St. Louis Grp., Inc. v. Metals & Additives Corp., Inc., 275 F.R.D. 236, 240 (S.D. Tex. 2011). When discovery is sought for this purpose, the requested discovery must be “reasonably tailored to the time constraints under which both parties must proceed or to the specific issues that will have to be determined at the preliminary injunction hearing.” Irish Lesbian & Gay Org. v. Giuliani, 918 F. Supp. 728, 731 (S.D.N.Y. 1996). Additionally, the requested discovery must, of course, also be “discoverable” under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Electron Am., Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273, 277 (N.D. Cal. 2002) (expedited discovery warranted when it was “relevant and discoverable under the current complaint”).
This Court previously concluded that the subjects and nature of the Injunction Motion justify expedited discovery in this case. Accordingly, resolution of the plaintiffs’ motion to compel depends on two inquiries—whether the requested discovery is reasonably tailored to the injunctive relief sought and whether such discovery is otherwise discoverable.
B. Inspection Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a)(2), a party may seek discovery “to permit entry onto designated land or other property possessed or controlled by the responding party, so that the requesting party may inspect, measure, survey, photograph, test, or sample the property or any designated object or operation on it.” The request “(A) must describe with reasonable particularity each item or category of items to be inspected; (B) must specify a reasonable time,
4

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 48 Filed: 02/10/20 5 of 13 PageID #: 704
place, and manner for the inspection and for performing the related acts; and (C) may specify the form or forms in which electronically stored information is to be produced.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(1). Where a satisfactory request has been made, the responding party must “state with specificity the grounds for objecting to the request, including the reasons.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(B).
In the context of prison inspections, “the search for the truth must be balanced against the burdens and dangers created by the inspection.” United States v. Territory of the V.I., 280 F.R.D. 232, 236–37 (D.V.I. 2012). In this sense, a plaintiff must demonstrate a “heightened showing of relevance … to enter secure premises or to inspect areas or equipment within Defendants’ control that are used for security purposes ….” Abadia-Peixoto v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 114001, 2013 WL 3555668, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 12, 2013) (quotation marks omitted).
Here, the plaintiffs seek a fourteen-day period, beginning February 4, 2020, at 9:00 a.m. for experts and videographers to inspect Units 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 42 of Parchman. Doc. #34 at 8. The proposed inspections would consist of two to three experts, plus counsel and “video documentation,” operating in “three-four days” periods. Id. at 10. The proposed experts are (1) Eldon Vail – a correctional consultant; (2) Craig Haney – a psychologist and consultant; (3) Marc Stern – a professor of public health; (4) Madeline LaMarre – a nurse practitioner with experience in correctional health care; (5) Frank Edwards – a chemical engineer; (6) Debbie Graham – a health specialist and registered sanitarian; and (7) Terry Kupers – a psychiatrist. The expert teams operating would be Stern and LaMarre, Edwards and Graham, with Haney and Vail “floating.”2 The plaintiffs have submitted an affidavit from each expert stating that, based on their experiences with correctional facilities, the inspections would not present a security issue.
According to the plaintiffs, the teams would require:
2 Kupers will not be involved in the inspections. 5

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 48 Filed: 02/10/20 6 of 13 PageID #: 705
Dr. Haney: the entire prisoner file of each prisoner that Dr. Haney interviews at cell front and/or confidentially.
Dr. Stern and Ms. LaMarre: sick call request forms, emergency equipment and inspection logs, full medical records files for inmates that Dr. Stern and Ms. LaMarre interview, and the current health care systems policy and procedure manual(s).
Mr. Edwards and Ms. Graham: appropriate documents regarding existing potable water test results, lead and asbestos testing and abatement reports/plans, mold test results and abatement plans, and sanitary sewage test results; and cleaning, sanitation, and disinfecting policies and procedures (“P&Ps”), food service P&Ps, laundry P&Ps, disposal and biohazard P&Ps, housekeeping and environmental P&Ps, and housekeeping and environmental P&Ps
Mr. Edwards will [also] require the ability to conduct non-intrusive testing for contaminants in Unit 29, Unit 30, Unit 32, and Unit 42.
Ms. Graham will [also] require the ability to test food and food storage temperatures.
Doc. #34 at 11–12.
In their response, the defendants “agree to … a reasonable, photographic and expert
inspection of the units, buildings, and zones in which Plaintiffs are located.” Doc. #36 at 7–8.
The defendants also do not object to the requested documentation3 but submit that such an
inspection should be limited to one day, not include video recordings, not involve cell-front
interviews, be limited to the areas in which the plaintiffs are housed, and be conducted only after
specific plans are approved by the facility. Doc. #36 at 7–11. As grounds, the defendants have
submitted an affidavit of Jeworski Mallett, Mississippi Department of Corrections’ Acting Deputy
Commissioner of Institutions, which states that the plaintiffs’ inspection requests, as framed,
would pose significant security concerns. Thus, while the parties agree as to the propriety of an
inspection, they disagree on the following points: (1) the areas to be inspected; (2) the use of
3 Subsequent to the hearing, the defendants have taken the position that the requested documentation will be provided as document discovery and not made available to the experts during the inspection. This objection, which should have been raised at the time the plaintiffs made the specific document request as a part of their inspection demand, is deemed waived. The requested documentation must be made available to the experts during the inspection, if not before.
6

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 48 Filed: 02/10/20 7 of 13 PageID #: 706
video recordings; (3) inmate interviews; and (4) the length and the commencement of the inspection.
As to the scope of the inspection, to the extent the Injunction Motion is premised on the totality of the conditions of confinement, not just the housing, the request for the inspection of areas to which the named plaintiffs have access is undoubtedly relevant to disposition of the Injunction Motion. Furthermore, to the extent it is undisputed that prisoners at Parchman are often transferred within the institution, a limitation on current access strikes the Court as too narrow. Rather, the plaintiffs should be entitled to discover the conditions of those areas of Parchman to which the plaintiffs are reasonably likely to be or have been exposed.4 Accordingly, with the recognition that past is prologue, in addition to those areas to which the plaintiffs currently have access, the plaintiffs will be entitled to inspect all areas in which they have been housed since February 3, 2019.5
As to the request to video, “[a] party may videotape his site inspection, if the benefit of the videotape to the inspecting party outweighs the burden on the inspected party.” Soler v. County of San Diego, No. 14-cv-2470, 2016 WL 3460255, at *3 (S.D. Cal. June 24, 2016) (collecting cases). Thus, where there is evidence that video would create a disturbance in the prison, a request to videotape is properly denied. Id. at *3–4. Because the plaintiffs have offered no specific justification for video (as opposed to still photographs), and because the defendants have submitted evidence that the use of video recording equipment would create a disturbance, the plaintiffs may not use video equipment during the inspection..
Regarding inmate interviews, courts have cautioned against allowing informal interviews
4 To the extent a current dispute exists over the right to inspect certain maintenance and housekeeping areas, the right to inspection necessarily depends on the extent to which the plaintiffs have now or have had access to such areas. 5 In connection with this decision, the Court directed the defendants to submit documentation of the locations where the plaintiffs were housed in the past year. These documents, which were provided to the Court on February 4, 2020, appear to include private information which must be redacted should either party attempt to place the documents into the record. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2.
7

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 48 Filed: 02/10/20 8 of 13 PageID #: 707
during prison inspections because these unsworn “roving depositions” offer “small utility” to fact
finding. Territory of the V.I., 280 F.R.D. at 236–37. For this reason, and because the plaintiffs at this pre-certification stage may only vindicate their own rights,6 the experts will not be allowed to interview prisoners during the inspection.7
Finally, as to the timeframe, the parties have represented to the Court that they have reached
an agreement that the inspection may commence on February 11, 2020, but that they continue to
disagree on the length of the inspection. Specifically, the plaintiffs seek an inspection of four
days. The defendants ask for two days.
Insofar as the parties have reached an agreement on the commencement of the inspection,
the Court need not resolve the issue. Regarding the proposed length of the inspection, the Court
notes that in their reply, the plaintiffs stated their experts would only “need at least two 8-hour
days to inspect the facilities ….” Doc. #39 at 7. While the plaintiffs now seek additional time,
it seems only fair to hold them to this initial representation to the Court. The inspection, therefore, will be limited to two eight-hour days at this time.8
C. Medical Examinations
The plaintiffs propose:
to bring a third-party medical team to Parchman consisting of one or two medical doctors, between seven and nine nurse practitioners, and two emergency medical technicians, all of whom will have appropriate Mississippi licenses.
Inmates will be brought to the gymnasium in Unit 29 in groups up to 10 inmates, where they will check in and be identified. They will sign the appropriate consent forms accepting or declining examination and treatment, and those who consent will proceed to a station where basic vitals and a brief medical history are taken. Then, each inmate will proceed to one of 10 exam stations. The entire process
6 Where no class has been certified, a plaintiff “does not have a right to access inmates in order to vindicate its own constitutional grievances.” Human Rights Def. Ctr. v. Bezotte, No. 11-cv-13460, 2016 WL 1258992, at *6 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 31, 2016). 7 As explained above, the parties reached a resolution regarding interviews of the named plaintiffs. 8 As indicated in the Court’s February 7 order, the Court retains discretion to modify this time period upon consideration of the parties’ good faith efforts to complete the inspections. Doc. #44 at 1 n.1.
8

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 48 Filed: 02/10/20 9 of 13 PageID #: 708
should take approximately 30 minutes per inmate, and we propose to provide the examinations and treatment, if any, to each inmate free of charge for the 700-1100 inmates we believe are, or have been since the filing of this action, housed in Unit 29 since the inception of this action. If an inmate is found to have basic first aid needs, the medical team will treat the condition with over the counter medications or wound care present on site provided the inmate consents to treatment. Inmates found to have critical medical issues will be seen by the physician and, if necessary, a care recommendation will be made to the senior representative of MDOC available on site at the time. The defendants argue this proposal would create all manner of security concerns and is beyond the scope of discovery. Also, at the hearing, the defendants requested that, to the extent the Court authorizes medical evaluations, the defendants be allowed to conduct evaluations of their own. First, to the extent the plaintiffs seek an order authorizing the medical treatment of inmates, such request has no conceivable relevance to disposition of the Injunction Motion or the associated expedited discovery. Rather, the request itself is for mandatory injunctive relief (an order directing the defendants to allow medical treatment of all inmates at Parchman), which should be sought by a properly supported motion9 seeking such relief. See Waters v. Lincoln Gen. Ins. Co., No. 07-3183, 2008 WL 659471, at *2 (E.D. La. Mar. 5, 2008) (“By utilizing ‘discovery’ procedures to command specific performance of an obligation, ANPAC places the cart before the horse.”). Accordingly, the requested medical treatment is inappropriate and denied. As to the request for medical evaluations, the motion, in substance, seeks entry to Parchman for the purpose of conducting examinations. In this sense, the request is best considered as a Rule 34 demand, such that the Court must balance the security risks of the evaluations against the attendant security risks. Territory of the V.I., 280 F.R.D. at 236–37. To the extent the plaintiffs seek injunctive relief premised on the denial of required medical
9 To the extent the plaintiffs’ motion to compel may be interpreted as a motion for injunctive relief, it would be denied as inadequately supported.
9

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 48 Filed: 02/10/20 10 of 13 PageID #: 709
care,10 there is no question that their current health status is relevant to the resolution of the Injunction Motion. Similarly, insofar as the defendants have sought evaluations of their own, the Court presumes a medical evaluation of a plaintiff would present minimal security risk. Accordingly, the plaintiffs and the defendants are authorized to conduct medical evaluations of only those plaintiffs who seek injunctive relief premised on inadequate medical care.11
III The Defendants’ Motion to Compel In their motion to compel, which is subject to the same standard explained above, the defendants seek expedited discovery of “a completely unredacted version of the Exhibit A [to the Injunction Motion],” which is a compilation of affirmations completed by inmates at Parchman. Doc. #38 at 3. The plaintiffs do not oppose removal of some redactions but argue that “the balance of interests favors continued redaction of inmates’ personally identifying information, with disclosure [of the unredacted portions] under the terms of an attorneys’ eyes-only restriction.” 12 Doc. #39 at 13. The plaintiffs contend that protection of the personally identifiable information is necessary to avoid retaliation from prison officials. First, insofar as the plaintiffs have agreed to remove all redactions unrelated to personally identifying information, the motion to compel is mooted to the extent it seeks such information. See Fin. Guar. Ins. Co. v. Putnam Advisory Co., LLC, 314 F.R.D. 85, 88 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (“Where the party responding to the motion agrees to provide the discovery requested, a motion to compel becomes moot.”). Thus, the Court need only resolve the defendants’ request for the personally identifying information.
10 See Doc. #14 at 3. 11 Per agreement reached at the hearing, representatives from the plaintiffs and representatives from the defendants may be present at all evaluations. 12 As explained above, because the request for a protective order was included in the plaintiffs’ response to the defendants’ motion, the Court directed that the request be re-filed by separate motion.
10

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 48 Filed: 02/10/20 11 of 13 PageID #: 710
As explained above, entitlement to expedited discovery depends on a showing of good cause. St. Louis Grp., 275 F.R.D. at 240. “In a good cause analysis, a court must examine the discovery request on the entirety of the record to date and the reasonableness of the request in light of all the surrounding circumstances.” Id. at 239 (quotation marks omitted). Reasonableness may be determined by considering the following factors: “(1) whether a preliminary injunction is pending; (2) the breadth of the discovery requests; (3) the purpose for requesting the expedited discovery; (4) the burden on the defendants to comply with the requests; and (5) how far in advance of the typical discovery process the request was made.” Disability Rights Council of Greater Wash. v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth., 234 F.R.D. 4, 6 (D.D.C. 2006).
Here, there is a preliminary injunction motion pending. Furthermore, the request for discovery, which is limited to approximately 250 pages of documents, is very narrow. The purpose is to respond to the Injunction Motion. And, given the narrow request and the fact that all documents are in the possession of the plaintiffs, the burden would be minimal. Accordingly, while the request is made well in advance of the typical discovery process, the relevant factors weigh in favor of a finding of good cause. Therefore, to the extent the plaintiffs only resist disclosure of the personally identifiable information in the affirmations, the Court must decide whether such information is discoverable and is “reasonably tailored to the time constraints under which both parties must proceed or to the specific issues that will have to be determined at the preliminary injunction hearing.” Giuliani, 918 F. Supp. at 731.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) authorizes discovery “regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense ….” “A party moving to compel discovery bears the initial burden of proving the relevance of the requested information.” In re Milo’s Kitchen Dog Treats Consol. Cases, 307 F.R.D. 177, 179 (W.D. Pa. 2015). If the information is relevant, the burden shifts to the party resisting discovery to show that the discovery
11

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 48 Filed: 02/10/20 12 of 13 PageID #: 711
“is of such marginal relevance that the potential harm occasioned by discovery would outweigh the ordinary presumption in favor of broad disclosure.” In re Urethane Antitrust Litig., 261 F.R.D 570, 573 (D. Kan. 2009).
In this case, the defendants, beyond conclusory assertions of necessity, have failed to articulate any relevancy as to personally identifying information of inmates who are not parties to this case. Even if the information carried some relevancy, the relevance would be outweighed by the legitimate concerns of retaliation raised by the plaintiffs. Accordingly, the personally identifiable information of non-parties in the affirmations is not discoverable.
However, the conditions of the plaintiffs’ confinements, as stated in the affirmations, are undoubtedly relevant to disposition of both the claims generally and to the injunction motion. Additionally, while the plaintiffs have raised concerns regarding retaliation connected to the disclosure of personally identifying information, these concerns are not implicated by disclosure of the plaintiffs’ personally identifying information, which is already known. Therefore, the Court concludes that the plaintiffs’ personally identifying information in the affirmations is subject to expedited discovery.
IV Requests for Protective Orders In their respective responses to the motions to compel, the parties requested protective orders which would govern the disclosed information. See Docs #36, #39. The Local Rules of this Court provide that “[a] response to a motion may not include a counter-motion in the same document.” L.U. Civ. R. 7(b)(3)(C). Accordingly, the Court instructed the parties during the hearing to confer and submit a joint motion for a protective order, along with a proposed order. Also during the hearing, the Court asked the defendants if there were site and building plans of Parchman’s structures and, if so, to provide them. The defendants agreed to produce such plans but requested that they also be subject to a protective order, which request the Court advised may
12

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 48 Filed: 02/10/20 13 of 13 PageID #: 712
be included in the parties’ joint motion. The parties have not yet filed the joint motion for a protective order. In the meanwhile,
should disclosure of discovery precede the entry of the contemplated protective order, the parties are directed to act in good faith to avoid misuse of the discovery. Given this directive and the expedited nature of these proceedings, the absence of a protective order does not excuse the parties from completing expedited discovery relative to the Injunction Motion.
V Conclusion For the reasons above, the plaintiffs’ motion to compel expedited discovery [33] is GRANTED in Part and DENIED in Part. The motion is GRANTED to the extent it seeks an inspection of Parchman and medical evaluations of the plaintiffs, as set forth above. The motion is DENIED in all other respects. The defendants’ motion to compel expedited discovery [37] is GRANTED in Part and DENIED in Part. The motion is GRANTED to the extent it seeks disclosure of the plaintiffs’ personally identifiable information in the affirmations. The motion is DENIED in all other respects.13 SO ORDERED, this 10th day of February, 2020.
/s/Debra M. Brown UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
13 As mentioned above, the parties’ post-hearing outstanding issues will be addressed by separate order. 13

 
 Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 49 Filed: 02/10/20 1 of 7 PageID #: 713

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

MICHAEL AMOS, et al.

PLAINTIFFS

V.

NO. 4:20-CV-7-DMB-JMV

TOMMY TAYLOR, et al.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER At February 3, 2020, hearing the Court authorized expedited discovery in the form of an on-site inspection at the Mississippi State Penitentiary in Parchman, Mississippi. Following the hearing, the parties informed the Court of nine outstanding issues related to the inspection. The Court directed briefing on six of these issues. On February 8, 2020, the parties submitted supplemental briefs and evidence on the six outstanding issues. Docs. #45, #46.
I Governing Standard As the Court recently explained, a party may seek discovery pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a) “to permit entry onto designated land or other property possessed or controlled by the responding party, so that the requesting party may inspect, measure, survey, photograph, test, or sample the property or any designated object or operation on it.” The request “(A) must describe with reasonable particularity each item or category of items to be inspected; (B) must specify a reasonable time, place, and manner for the inspection and for performing the related acts; and (C) may specify the form or forms in which electronically stored information is to be produced.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(1). Where a satisfactory request has been made, the responding party must “state with specificity the grounds for objecting to the request, including the reasons.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2). In the context of prison inspections, “the search for truth must be balanced against the burdens and dangers created by the inspection.” United States v. Territory of the V.I., 280 F.R.D.

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 49 Filed: 02/10/20 2 of 7 PageID #: 714
232, 236–37 (D.V.I. 2012). In this sense, a plaintiff must demonstrate a “heightened showing of relevance … to enter secure premises or to inspect areas or equipment within Defendants’ control that are used for security purposes ….” Abadia-Peixoto v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 114001, 2013 WL 3555668, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 12, 2013).
II Areas of Inspection First, the parties disagree as to the scope of the inspection. The plaintiffs seek access to every building in which the plaintiffs were housed over the past year. Doc. #45 at 2–4. The plaintiffs argue that this scope is necessary because “inspections that are limited to certain Zones are inadequate [because] they do not afford access for control booth and camera lines of sight which often cross zones.” Id. at 3. The defendants seek to limit such access to the zones within the buildings where the plaintiffs were housed over the past year because “[a]n inmate who is housed in one zone of a building would not be authorized to enter the other zone of the same building unless the inmate was designated to be housed in that other zone.” Doc. #46 at 2–4. The defendants further argue that increasing the scope of the inspection would raise additional security concerns and that, given the lack of access, an inspection of other zones would be of little to no relevance. During the February 3, 2020, hearing, this Court held the plaintiffs were entitled to inspect those areas where the plaintiffs “have been in the past year prior.” In a subsequent order, the Court clarified the proper scope to be those areas to which the plaintiffs had access. See Doc. #48 at 7–8. Accordingly, the plaintiffs will not be entitled to inspect those zones to which the plaintiffs have not had access in the last year.
III Initial Walkthrough The plaintiffs, in essence, seek to conduct two inspections—a “general walk-through” for
2

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 49 Filed: 02/10/20 3 of 7 PageID #: 715
all the experts, and then a return trip “back to specific areas that need to be inspected in greater detail/and or where tests, measurements, and documentation needs to occur.” Doc. #45 at 5–6. The defendants argue that this proposal needlessly doubles the security risks of the inspection. Doc. #46 at 4–5.
This Court agrees with the defendants. Per the limited expedited discovery ordered by this Court, the plaintiffs are entitled to one, not two, inspections of the Parchman premises at this stage. Furthermore, while the plaintiffs’ experts represent that they require the initial walkthrough to “focus” their inquiries “on the most significant problem areas,” the Court is confident that the experts, who each hold what appears to be sterling credentials in their respective fields and have conducted thousands of inspections, have the capacity to identify significant problem areas without the aid of an initial-walk through.
IV Presence of Photographers The plaintiffs seek to bring with their experts two photographers who would “carry their respective equipment in one bag each.” Doc. #45 at 7. The plaintiffs argue that the photographers are necessary because their experts will be focused on conducting the necessary tests and will not be able to take the necessary photographs. They further submit “that taking quality photographs in a setting such as Parchman, where there is limited natural light and many confined spaces, will be challenging for experienced photographers but likely impossible for the Experts, who have no expertise photographing in low light, shadowy conditions.” Id. The defendants argue there is little need for “staged” photography and that the presence of professional photographers with “clearly conspicuous, professional equipment” raises similar concerns to the plaintiffs’ request for a videographer, which the Court previously rejected. Doc. #46 at 6. The defendants finally argue that the presence of additional people would create additional security concerns. Id.
3

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 49 Filed: 02/10/20 4 of 7 PageID #: 716
As an initial matter, the defendants have offered no basis for their assertion that the photographs to be taken by the photographers will be staged in any way. Furthermore, contrary to the defendants’ contention, the Court believes photographs of the living conditions at Parchman to be indisputably relevant. The Court shares the defendants’ concern about “conspicuous” photography equipment but does not believe that a single bag of equipment—which apparently would consist of batteries, lenses, flashes, and one tripod1—is of such a conspicuous character that it would create the same security concerns as a video recorder. Finally, while the defendants argue generally that more people necessarily means more security concerns, they fail to specifically articulate how the presence of two trained photographers would impact security in such a way as to outweigh the clear need for photography in this case. However, the plaintiffs have not explained why it would take two photographers to take desired photographs. Accordingly, to the extent the addition of one photographer does not exceed the number of persons the parties agreed would be allowed during the inspection, the plaintiffs may bring one photographer, provided the equipment does not exceed one bag.
V Digital Medical Records During Medical Evaluations The plaintiffs ask for digital “real time” access to their medical records during the Courtauthorized medical evaluations because the use of paper records would be inefficient.2 Doc. #45 at 8–9. The defendants represent that they are in the process of providing updated medical records for all named plaintiffs but argue that “any relevance of Plaintiffs’ having real time electronic access is far outweighed by the confidential and privacy concerns raised by providing the same. Doc. #46 at 8. Specifically, the defendants argue that providing the requested access would
1 See Doc. #46-1. 2 As explained in this Court’s previous order, the plaintiffs are entitled to conduct medical evaluations of the plaintiffs who seek injunctive relief related to medical care. This is all of them.
4

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 49 Filed: 02/10/20 5 of 7 PageID #: 717
effectively grant the plaintiffs access to the health records of all inmates. Id. Given the privacy concerns raised by the defendants and the fact that the plaintiffs will
indisputably have all relevant medical records, the Court will not grant the plaintiffs the requested access. However, to the extent the use of such records implicates the pace of evaluations in such a way as to prevent the timely completion of medical evaluations, the plaintiffs may seek an extension of time for medical evaluations.
VI Location of Medical Evaluations The plaintiffs seek that the medical evaluations “be performed in a conducive medical environment such as a unit medical clinic or Unit 42, which is the hospital.” Doc. #45 at 9. The defendants propose that the evaluations for the Unit 29 inmates be conducted in the medical clinic in Unit 29, that the evaluations for the inmates in Unit 30 be conducted in the medical clinic in Unit 30, and that the evaluations for the inmates in Units 25 and Units 26 (which do not have individual medical units) be conducted in Unit 42. Doc. #46 at 8–9. Insofar as the defendants’ proposal seems to correspond with the plaintiffs’ request, the Court accepts the defendants’ plan.
VII Review of Testing and Policies and Procedures Finally, the plaintiffs ask that they be permitted during the inspection to review the “most current water and sanitary sewage test results” which Parchman is required to maintain onsite.3 Doc. #45 at 11. The plaintiffs also seek during the inspection to review “relevant policies and procedures related to the common areas being inspected: cleaning, sanitation and disinfecting; food service; laundry, housekeeping, and maintenance; disposal and biohazard; and environmental.” Id. at 11–12. (footnote omitted). According to the plaintiffs, the testing requests are necessary “(a) to ensure that Parchman’s water and sewage systems are up to
3 The defendants have not disputed that Parchman is required to keep such results on-site. 5

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 49 Filed: 02/10/20 6 of 7 PageID #: 718
standards; and (b) to inform the Experts regarding areas that need additional attention during the inspection based on the most recent test results.” Id. at 11. The policies and procedures are allegedly necessary “(a) to ensure Parchman’s policies and procedures meet applicable standards; and (b) to ensure that the policies and procedures are being properly implemented, as evidenced by conditions observed during the inspection.” Id. at 12.
The defendants argue that the request was not made in the original motion to compel and is overbroad and irrelevant. Doc. #46 at 10–11. The defendants also argue they do not have sufficient time to gather the relevant documents. Id.
Contrary to the defendants’ argument, the plaintiffs expressly requested access to the requested documents in their initial motion to compel, which stated that during the inspection:
Lead Plaintiffs’ exerts [sic] require … access to the following readily accessible documentation … Mr. Edwards and Ms. Graham: appropriate documents regarding existing potable water test results, lead and asbestos testing and abatement reports/plans, mold test results and abatement plans, and sanitary sewage test results; and cleaning, sanitation, and disinfecting policies and procedures (“P&Ps”), food service P&Ps, laundry P&Ps, disposal and biohazard P&Ps, housekeeping and environmental P&Ps, and housekeeping and environmental P&Ps. Doc. #34 at 12. The defendants had the opportunity to object to these specific requests but did not do so in the days since the plaintiffs filed their motion to compel on February 1, 2020. However, the Court agrees that the request, as framed for all of Parchman, is overbroad. Rather, the plaintiffs are entitled to those tests, policies, and procedures, related to the areas at Parchman for which the plaintiffs have (or have had over the past year) access. To the extent such documents are encompassed by the plaintiffs’ February 1, 2020, request for on-site inspection, they are entitled to review the documents during the inspection.4
4 The plaintiffs should be mindful that such review must take place during the inspection time period allowed by the 6

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 49 Filed: 02/10/20 7 of 7 PageID #: 719 VIII
Conclusion The on-site inspection shall occur as scheduled on February 11, 2020, as directed above and in accordance with the Court’s prior order issued this day. SO ORDERED, this 6th day of February, 2020.
/s/Debra M. Brown UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Court. 7

 
 Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 59 Filed: 03/16/20 1 of 5 PageID #: 941

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION
MICHAEL AMOS, ET AL.

PLAINTIFFS

V.

CASE NO. 4:20-CV-007-DMB-JMV

TOMMY TAYLOR, ET AL.

DEFENDANTS

PLAINTIFFS’ EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND MANDATORY PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AS TO COVID-19
COME NOW Plaintiffs, by and through counsel, pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and L.U. Civ. R. 7(b)(8), as this is an urgent or necessitous matter, and respectfully request that the Court issue its order directing mandatory and affirmative action to safeguard Plaintiffs at Parchman from SARS-CoV-2, also known as, COVID-19.1 In support, Plaintiffs would show:
1. Plaintiffs are incarcerated persons at the Mississippi State Penitentiary at Parchman, Mississippi (“Parchman”). As inmates at Parchman, Plaintiffs are held in close confinement with other prisoners, in grossly unsanitary conditions, and under a healthcare system that has come under recent scrutiny for failing to provide inmates basic healthcare. Thus, Plaintiffs, along with other inmates at Parchman, are extremely susceptible to COVID-19, which has been elevated to pandemic status by the World Health Organization.
2. By incarcerating Plaintiffs, the State of Mississippi has assumed responsibility for their health and safety. In order for the State to fulfill its duties in the face of COVID-19, Defendants must be required to implement immediately the following protocols to prevent the introduction or mitigate the spread of COVID-19 within Parchman:

1 The official Centers for Disease Control title for the virus at issue is SARS-CoV-2. The virus also has been called coronavirus disease 2019, which abbreviated is “COVID-19.”

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 59 Filed: 03/16/20 2 of 5 PageID #: 942
a. Immediate Testing. Defendants must be required immediately to implement testing protocols for the identification and containment of COVID-19. These protocols must include the immediate testing of all inmates, Parchman employees, and all other individuals entering Parchman.
b. Immediate Screening. Defendants must be required to screen each employee or other person entering the facility every day to detect fever over 100 degrees, cough, shortness of breath, recent travel to a high risk country, and/or exposure to someone who is symptomatic or under surveillance for COVID-19.
c. Current Inmate Quarantine. Defendants must be required to establish nonpunitive quarantine for all individuals who test positive for COVID-19, who were directly exposed to individuals who test positive for COVID-19, or who exhibit symptoms of the virus.
d. New Inmate Quarantine. Defendants must be required to establish a fourteen (14) day, non-punitive quarantine for all new inmates entering Parchman to ensure they are not infected before exposing them to the general population.
e. Institutional Hygiene. Defendants must be required to increase the sanitation and cleaning protocol and schedule for all public spaces, highly traveled areas, and cells.
f. Personal Hygiene. Defendants must be required to provide hand sanitizer with alcohol, antibacterial soap, antibacterial wipes and other hygiene products to each inmate free of charge and ensure replacement products are available as needed. Necessarily, hand sanitizer with alcohol must be declassified as contraband
2

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 59 Filed: 03/16/20 3 of 5 PageID #: 943

temporarily, as it is one of the only methods proven to prevent or slow the spread

of coronavirus.

g. Limit Contact Visitation. Defendants must be required to limit visitation that

allows inmates to come into physical contact with visitors, and Defendants must be

required to implement or increase non-contact visitation methods and opportunities

such as video conferencing and/or telephone calls.

h. Waive Copays. Defendants, including without limitation healthcare providers

working under their direction, must be required to waive copays for inmate medical

evaluation and care related in any way to COVID-19 and/or its symptoms.

i. Supply Chain. Defendants must be required to identify the supplies and other

materials upon which Parchman is dependent, such as food, medical supplies,

certain medicines, cleaning products, etcetera, and prepare for shortages, delays or

disruptions in the supply chain.

j. Reporting. Defendants must be required to report to the Court weekly to apprise

the Court of: the progress in implementing the foregoing; the results of testing of

employees and inmates; the numbers of COVID-19 cases at Parchman, if any; and

the measures in place to separate inmates who have tested positive from the general

prison population.

3.

In support of their Motion, Plaintiffs also submit a Memorandum Brief and attach

hereto the following exhibits, which include a proposed order pursuant L.U. Civ. R. 7(b)(2)(f).

Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C

World Health Organization Director-General’s Brief on COVID-19 (Mar. 11, 2020). Presidential Proclamation Declaring a National Emergency Concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) dated 03/13/2020. State of Mississippi, Office of Governor, Proclamation dated 03/14/2020.

3

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 59 Filed: 03/16/20 4 of 5 PageID #: 944

Exhibit D
Exhibit E Exhibit F Exhibit G
Exhibit H
Exhibit I
Exhibit J

Standing Order In Re: The Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19), 3:20-MC-9, U.S. District Court for the N.D. of Miss. dated 3/16/2020. WHO Statement, COVID-19 cases surpassing 100,000 (3/7/2020). Affidavit of Marc Stern, MD MPH MDOC Press Release “MDOC Takes Preventative Steps Against Coronavirus Exposure” dated 3/12/2020. Medical Records of Inmate Larry Maxwell (showing repeated visits to medical clinic without receiving treatment). Bureau of Justice Statistics, US DOJ, Medical Problems of State and Federal Prisoners and Jail Inmates, 2011-12, NCJ 248491 (Rev. 10/4/2016). Proposed Order.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court

grant this Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Mandatory Preliminary

Injunction as to COVID-19. In addition, Plaintiffs request all further relief the Court may deem

appropriate.

Date: March 16, 2020

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Marcy B. Croft Marcy B. Croft (MS Bar #10864) Carson H. Thurman (MS Bar #104871) MARON MARVEL BRADLEY ANDERSON & TARDY LLC 200 South Lamar Street Jackson, MS 39201 Telephone: (601) 960-8630 Telefax: (601) 206-0119
Thomas G. Bufkin (MS Bar #10810) CARROLL BUFKIN, PLLC 1076 Highland Colony Parkway 600 Concourse, Suite 125 Ridgeland, MS 39157 Telephone: (601) 982-5011 Telefax: (601) 853-9540
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

4

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 59 Filed: 03/16/20 5 of 5 PageID #: 945 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 16th day of March 2020, a copy of the foregoing was filed electronically with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system. Notice of this filing will be sent to all counsel for record registered to receive electronic service by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system.
/s/ Marcy B. Croft
5

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 59-1 Filed: 03/16/20 1 of 4 PageID #: 946
EXHIBIT A World Health Organization Director – General’s Brief on COVID-
19 (Mar. 11, 2020)

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 59-1 Filed: 03/16/20 2 of 4 PageID #: 947
WHO Director-General's opening remarks at the media briefing on COVID-19 - 11 March 2020
11 March 2020
Good afternoon. In the past two weeks, the number of cases of COVID-19 outside China has increased 13-fold, and the number of affected countries has tripled. There are now more than 118,000 cases in 114 countries, and 4,291 people have lost their lives. Thousands more are fighting for their lives in hospitals. In the days and weeks ahead, we expect to see the number of cases, the number of deaths, and the number of affected countries climb even higher. WHO has been assessing this outbreak around the clock and we are deeply concerned both by the alarming levels of spread and severity, and by the alarming levels of inaction. We have therefore made the assessment that COVID-19 can be characterized as a pandemic. Pandemic is not a word to use lightly or carelessly. It is a word that, if misused, can cause unreasonable fear, or unjustified acceptance that the fight is over, leading to unnecessary suffering and death. Describing the situation as a pandemic does not change WHO’s assessment of the threat posed by this virus. It doesn’t change what WHO is doing, and it doesn’t change what countries should do. We have never before seen a pandemic sparked by a coronavirus. This is the first pandemic caused by a coronavirus. And we have never before seen a pandemic that can be controlled, at the same time. WHO has been in full response mode since we were notified of the first cases. And we have called every day for countries to take urgent and aggressive action.

We have rung the alarm bell loud and clear. Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 59-1 Filed: 03/16/20 3 of 4 PageID #: 948
===
As I said on Monday, just looking at the number of cases and the number of countries affected does not tell the full story.
Of the 118,000 cases reported globally in 114 countries, more than 90 percent of cases are in just four countries, and two of those – China and the Republic of Korea - have significantly declining epidemics.
81 countries have not reported any cases, and 57 countries have reported 10 cases or less.
We cannot say this loudly enough, or clearly enough, or often enough: all countries can still change the course of this pandemic.
If countries detect, test, treat, isolate, trace, and mobilize their people in the response, those with a handful of cases can prevent those cases becoming clusters, and those clusters becoming community transmission.
Even those countries with community transmission or large clusters can turn the tide on this virus.
Several countries have demonstrated that this virus can be suppressed and controlled.
The challenge for many countries who are now dealing with large clusters or community transmission is not whether they can do the same – it’s whether they will.
Some countries are struggling with a lack of capacity.
Some countries are struggling with a lack of resources.
Some countries are struggling with a lack of resolve.
We are grateful for the measures being taken in Iran, Italy and the Republic of Korea to slow the virus and control their epidemics.
We know that these measures are taking a heavy toll on societies and economies, just as they did in China.
All countries must strike a fine balance between protecting health, minimizing economic and social disruption, and respecting human rights.
WHO’s mandate is public health. But we’re working with many partners across all sectors to mitigate the social and economic consequences of this pandemic.
This is not just a public health crisis, it is a crisis that will touch every sector – so every sector and every individual must be involved in the fight.
I have said from the beginning that countries must take a whole-of-government, whole-of-society approach, built around a comprehensive strategy to prevent infections, save lives and minimize impact.
Let me summarize it in four key areas.

First, prepare and be ready. Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 59-1 Filed: 03/16/20 4 of 4 PageID #: 949
Second, detect, protect and treat. Third, reduce transmission. Fourth, innovate and learn. I remind all countries that we are calling on you to activate and scale up your emergency response mechanisms; Communicate with your people about the risks and how they can protect themselves – this is everybody’s business; Find, isolate, test and treat every case and trace every contact; Ready your hospitals; Protect and train your health workers. And let’s all look out for each other, because we need each other. === There’s been so much attention on one word. Let me give you some other words that matter much more, and that are much more actionable. Prevention. Preparedness. Public health. Political leadership. And most of all, people. We’re in this together, to do the right things with calm and protect the citizens of the world. It’s doable. I thank you.
Subscribe to the WHO newsletter →

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 59-2 Filed: 03/16/20 1 of 3 PageID #: 950
EXHIBIT B Presidential Proclamation Declaring a National Emergency Concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) dated
3/13/2020

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 59-2 Filed: 03/16/20 2 of 3 PageID #: 951
PROCLAMATIONS
Proclamation on Declaring a National Emergency Concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19)
Outbreak
Issued on: March 13, 2020
★★★
In December 2019, a novel (new) coronavirus known as SARS-CoV-2 (“the virus”) was first detected in Wuhan, Hubei Province, People’s Republic of China, causing outbreaks of the coronavirus disease COVID-19 that has now spread globally. The Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) declared a public health emergency on January 31, 2020, under section 319 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 247d), in response to COVID19. I have taken sweeping action to control the spread of the virus in the United States, including by suspending entry of foreign nationals seeking entry who had been physically present within the prior 14 days in certain jurisdictions where COVID-19 outbreaks have occurred, including the People’s Republic of China, the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the Schengen Area of Europe. The Federal Government, along with State and local governments, has taken preventive and proactive measures to slow the spread of the virus and treat those a ected, including by instituting Federal quarantines for individuals evacuated from foreign nations, issuing a declaration pursuant to section 319F-3 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 247d-6d), and releasing policies to accelerate the acquisition of personal protective equipment and streamline bringing new diagnostic capabilities to laboratories. On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization announced that the COVID-19 outbreak can be characterized as a pandemic, as the rates of infection continue to rise in many locations around the world and across the United States.
The spread of COVID-19 within our Nation’s communities threatens to strain our Nation’s healthcare systems. As of March 12, 2020, 1,645 people from 47 States have been infected with the virus that causes COVID-19. It is incumbent on hospitals and medical facilities throughout the country to assess their preparedness posture and be prepared to surge capacity and capability. Additional measures, however, are needed to successfully contain and combat the virus in the United States.

NOW, THERECFaOsReE:, 4I,:D20O-NcAvL-0D0J0.0T7R-UDMMPB, P-JreMsVideDnotcof#t:h5e9U-2niFteildedS:ta0t3es/1, 6b/y2t0he3aouft3hoPriatgyevIeDste#d: 9in5m2 e by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including sections 201 and 301 of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) and consistent with section 1135 of the Social Security Act (SSA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 1320b-5), do hereby find and proclaim that the COVID-19 outbreak in the United States constitutes a national emergency, beginning March 1, 2020. Pursuant to this declaration, I direct as follows:
Section 1. Emergency Authority. The Secretary of HHS may exercise the authority under section 1135 of the SSA to temporarily waive or modify certain requirements of the Medicare, Medicaid, and State Children’s Health Insurance programs and of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act Privacy Rule throughout the duration of the public health emergency declared in response to the COVID-19 outbreak.
Sec. 2. Certification and Notice. In exercising this authority, the Secretary of HHS shall provide certification and advance written notice to the Congress as required by section 1135(d) of the SSA (42 U.S.C. 1320b-5(d)).
Sec. 3. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this proclamation shall be construed to impair or otherwise a ect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the O ice of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This proclamation shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This proclamation is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its o icers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this thirteenth day of March, in the year of our Lord two thousand twenty, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-fourth.
DONALD J. TRUMP

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 59-3 Filed: 03/16/20 1 of 3 PageID #: 953
EXHIBIT C State of Mississippi, Office of Governor, Proclamation dated
03/14/2020

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 59-3 Filed: 03/16/20 2 of 3 PageID #: 954

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 59-3 Filed: 03/16/20 3 of 3 PageID #: 955

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 59-4 Filed: 03/16/20 1 of 4 PageID #: 956
EXHIBIT D Standing Order In Re: The Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19), 3:20-
MC-9, U.S. District Court for the N.D. of Miss. dated 3/16/2020

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 59-4 Filed: 03/16/20 2 of 4 PageID #: 957

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

IN RE: THE NOVEL CORONAVIRUS (COVID-19)

3:20-MC-9

STANDING ORDER

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has determined that COVID-19 presents a serious public health threat. Consequently, the President of the United States has issued Proclamations prohibiting travel to the United States by foreign nationals who recently visited areas acutely impacted by COVID-19. The Department of State has also issued Travel Advisories for certain affected countries. Domestic and foreign health authorities have issued guidance to citizens and visitors within their respective jurisdictions, both recommending and mandating precautionary measures to defend against the spread of COVID-19.

Mindful of the Court’s duty to ensure the “just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding”1 as well as its duty to protect parties, court staff, witnesses, corporate representatives, and practitioners who appear before it and the community in which it sits, it is therefore ORDERED as follows:

(1) Any attorney or party shall promptly notify the Court and opposing counsel, if such party or attorney reasonably suspects (while erring on the side of caution) that a party, attorney, witness or other case participant scheduled to appear before the Court, or that has recently appeared before the Court, has been in contact within the past 14 days with an individual who may be infected by COVID-19.

(2) If notice is given pursuant to subsection (1), the parties shall promptly confer regarding the appropriate means to conduct the hearing, trial, or deposition that is the subject thereof in a manner consistent with all applicable domestic and foreign regulations and health authority guidance. In doing so, the parties shall consider, among other things: (a) Whether video conferencing would be appropriate and effective; (b) Whether an alternative witness, representative, attorney, or source of proof is available without conflicting with subsection (1); (c) Whether a delay in such hearing, trial, or deposition would alleviate the relevant concern, and if so, what is the least amount of delay necessary.

(3) After any notice given pursuant to subsection (1), the parties shall file a joint notice or joint motion within a reasonable time that: (a) Identifies the concern that was the subject of the notice;

1 FED. R. CIV. P. 1.

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 59-4 Filed: 03/16/20 3 of 4 PageID #: 958
(b) Explains the steps the parties have agreed upon and implemented to alleviate such concern;
(c) Sets forth any relief requested from the Court to address such concern; (d) Sets forth any disagreements among the parties, including alternative proposals not
mutually agreed upon.
(4) Court Proceedings: All proceedings, civil and criminal, scheduled or typically undertaken in person should be continued or conducted by video or telephone conference to every extent possible. With regard to bankruptcy cases, all hearings that can be conducted telephonically, will be. Priority will be given to criminal proceedings with speedy trial implications. The United States Attorney and Federal Defender offices should cooperate and use their discretion to prioritize proceedings, and continue non-essential proceedings wherever possible. (a) Video or telephonic conferencing technology, should be used for any and all court proceedings if at all possible. (b) The Court will entertain motions to continue jury trials on a case-by-case basis, keeping in mind that juror reporting should be eliminated if at all possible until further notice. (c) The Grand Jury scheduled for March will be postponed until further notice. (d) Attorney/Client conferences in criminal matters should be conducted by video and other electronic means to the full extent possible. (e) Detainee and prisoner movement should be minimized and eliminated wherever possible.
(5) Petty Offense: the hearing day set to address misdemeanor citations in April and May will be continued until June and July respectively. The cases set for the March hearing date will be disposed of at the discretion of the presiding judge.
(6) Public access to the courthouses will be limited to access that is absolutely necessary and the Court Security Officers will implement protocols to limit access and screen members of the public seeking access to the courthouses. (a) Every Judge retains the discretion to restrict access to Chambers for all interns, temporary Court staff, and others.
In this time of overriding concerns for life and safety the Court encourages consistent practice among all stakeholders. While the Court appreciates that unusual and emergency situations may arise, the intent behind this order is to help all of us stay well and safe. I strongly encourage adherence to this order in a strict and consistent manner.
2

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 59-4 Filed: 03/16/20 4 of 4 PageID #: 959 This Order is subject to modification and change sua sponte and without notice and will
remain in effect until further order. This Order shall be posted at the entrance to every court facility in the district, and on the court’s internal and public websites.
It is so ORDERED and SIGNED on this, the 13th day of March, 2020. ______________________________________ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 59-5 Filed: 03/16/20 1 of 3 PageID #: 960
EXHIBIT E WHO Statement, COVID-19 cases surpassing 100,000 (3/7/2020)

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 59-5 Filed: 03/16/20 2 of 3 PageID #: 961

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 59-5 Filed: 03/16/20 3 of 3 PageID #: 962

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 59-6 Filed: 03/16/20 1 of 7 PageID #: 963
EXHIBIT F Affidavit of Marc Stern, MD MPH

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 59-6 Filed: 03/16/20 2 of 7 PageID #: 964

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION

MICHAEL AMOS, PITRELL BRISTER, ANTONIO DAVIS, WILLIE FRIEND, CHARLES GAYLES, DANIEL GUTHRIE, JONATHAN J. HAM, DESMOND HARDY, BILLY JAMES, JR., JUSTIN JAMES, QUENTEN JOHNSON, DEAUNTE LEWIS, LARRY MAXWELL, TERRANCE MCKINNEY, DERRICK PAN, BRANDON ROBERTSON, KURIAKI RILEY, DERRICK ROGERS, TYREE ROSS, H.D. ALEXANDER SCOTT, DEANGELO TAYLOR, LEMARTINE TAYLOR, CONTI TILLIS, DEMARCUS TIMMONS, CARLOS VARNADO, PHILLIP DECARLOS WEBSTER, ADRIAN WILLARD, CURTIS WILSON, CALEB BUCKNER, WILLIAM GREEN, ARIC JOHNSON, IVERY MOORE, and KEVIN THOMAS, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
TOMMY TAYLOR, in his official capacity as the Interim Commissioner of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, and MARSHAL TURNER, in his official capacity as the Superintendent of the Mississippi State Penitentiary,
Defendants.

No. 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV

DECLARATION OF MARC STERN, MD MPH IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
ORDER AND MANDATORY TEMPORARY INJUNCTION AS TO COVID-19

08198-00002/11314292.1

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 59-6 Filed: 03/16/20 3 of 7 PageID #: 965
On this 16th day of March, 2020, I hereby declare: 1. My name is Marc Stern. I am an Affiliate Assistant Professor at the University of Washington School of Public Health. 2. I received a Bachelor of Science degree from State University of New York (Albany) in 1975, a medical degree from State University of New York (Buffalo) in 1982, and a Master of Public Health from Indiana University in 1992. 3. I am a board certified internist specializing in correctional health care. I have managed health care operations and practiced health care in multiple correctional settings. Most recently, I served as the Assistant Secretary of Health Care for the Washington State Department of Corrections. 4. On a regular basis I investigate, evaluate, and monitor the adequacy of health care delivery systems in correctional institutions on behalf of a variety of parties including federal courts; the Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; the Special Litigation Section of the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice; and state departments of corrections and county jails. 5. Through 2013, I taught on behalf of the National Commission on Correctional Health Care (NCCHC) the NCCHC’s correctional health care standards semi-annually to correctional health care administrators at NCCHC’s national conferences. I authored a week-long curriculum commissioned by the National Institute of Corrections of the U.S. Department of Justice to train jail and prison wardens and health care administrators in the principles and practice of operating safe and effective correctional health care operations, and served as the principal instructor for this course.
2

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 59-6 Filed: 03/16/20 4 of 7 PageID #: 966
6. In the past four years alone, I have been qualified as an expert in seven different lawsuits involvement correctional health care systems and conditions of confinement, including one such case in the Southern District of Mississippi. My full curriculum vitae is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
7. On February 11, 2020, I personally inspected housing units in Unit 29 at the Mississippi State Penitentiary (“Parchman”) located in Sunflower County, Mississippi. I also conducted the medical evaluations of 17 of the named Plaintiffs to this lawsuit from February 12-14, 2020. Further, I have inspected the medical clinics at Unit 29 and Unit 30, as well as many areas of Unit 42, Parchman’s medical unit, and have studied the policies and procedures related to health care systems at Parchman produced by the Defendants and Centurion in this matter.
8. Overall, the health-related and environmental conditions I observed at Parchman are the worst conditions I have observed in any US jail, prison, or immigration detention facility in my 20 years working in this field. The conditions under which residents exist at Parchman are sub-human and deplorable; on a daily basis, residents are exposed to a significant risk of serious harm to their health.
9. Due to the recent COVID-19 pandemic affecting the nation and world, I have recently familiarized myself with the virus, its causes and conditions, its transmission – especially in crowded and unsanitary conditions – and its ability to quickly spread through correctional facilities.
3

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 59-6 Filed: 03/16/20 5 of 7 PageID #: 967
10. In my opinion, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, the potential for an outbreak of COVID-19 through Parchman prison creates a significant risk of immediate harm to both the Plaintiffs in this lawsuit and all other residents and employees of Parchman. The results of such an outbreak through Parchman would be catastrophic, and potentially fatal to many residents with already compromised immune systems and underlying chronic conditions.
11. In order to mitigate the potential for an outbreak of COVID-19 at Parchman, the following steps should immediately be mandated by the Defendants:
a. Immediate testing. Patients who require testing, based on public health recommendations and the opinion of a qualified medical professional, should be tested for COVID-19.
b. Immediate Screening. Defendants must be required to screen each employee or other person entering the facility every day to detect fever over 100 degrees, cough, shortness of breath, recent travel to a high risk country, and/or exposure to someone who is symptomatic or under surveillance for COVID-19 or screening as required by public health authorities. A record should be made of each screening.
4

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 59-6 Filed: 03/16/20 6 of 7 PageID #: 968
c. Quarantine. The prison must establish non-punitive quarantine for all individuals believed to have been exposed to COVID-19, but not yet symptomatic, and nonpunitive isolation for those believed to be infected with COVID-19 and potentially infectious. Any individual who must interact with those potentially or likely inflicted with COVID-19 must utilize protective equipment as directed by public health authorities. In short, every possible effort must be made to separate infected or potentially infected individuals from the rest of the incarcerated population. Finally, it must be ensured that no individual is incarcerated past their release date, even if quarantine or isolation is warranted, so individuals requiring continued quarantine, isolation, or health care should be transferred from the institution to the appropriate outside venue.
d. Institutional Hygiene. The prison must be required to increase the sanitation and cleaning protocol and frequency for all public spaces, highly traveled areas, and cells.
e. Personal Hygiene. The prison must be required to provide hand soap, disposable paper towels, and access to water to allow residents to wash their hands on a regular basis, free of charge and ensure replacement products are available as needed. Further, hand sanitizer with alcohol must be declassified temporarily as contraband. Correctional staff should be allowed to carry hand sanitizer with alcohol on their person, and residents should be allowed to use hand sanitizer with alcohol when they are in locations or activities where hand washing is not available.
5

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 59-6 Filed: 03/16/20 7 of 7 PageID #: 969
f. Limit Contact Visitation. I understand that the prison already has limited visitation that allows residents to come into physical contact with visitors, but officials must be required to implement or increase non-contact visitation such as video conferencing and/or telephone calls at no charge.
g. Waive Copays. There must be a waiving of copays for medical evaluation and care related in any way to COVID-19 and/or its symptoms. A waiver of these types of copays is necessary to avoid disincentivizing patients from requesting medical treatment. Patients with symptoms of possible COVID-19 should be seen quickly. Those with a cough should be provided masks as soon as they inform staff of this symptom or staff notice this symptom.
h. Supply Chain. The prison must be required to identify the supplies and other materials upon which the institution is dependent, such as food, medical supplies, certain medicines, cleaning products, etcetera and prepare for shortages, delays or disruptions in the supply chain.
12. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on March 16, 2020.
________________________________ Marc Stern, MD MPH
6

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 59-7 Filed: 03/16/20 1 of 2 PageID #: 970
EXHIBIT G MDOC Press Release “MDOC Takes Preventative Steps Against
Coronavirus Exposure” dated 3/12/2020

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 59-7 Filed: 03/16/20 2 of 2 PageID #: 971

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Date: Contact: Phone: E-mail:

March 12, 2020 Office of Communications (601) 359-5289, 359-5608, 359-5689 MDOCOfficeofCommunications@mdoc.state.ms.us

MDOC Takes Steps to Protect Staff, Inmates, Public against Coronavirus Exposure
JACKSON, MISS. – Effective immediately, visitation at all facilities where Mississippi Department of Corrections inmates are housed is temporarily suspended until further notice in order to establish sanitation and prevention protocols to prevent the spread of COVID-19. This is a precautionary measure to protect staff, inmates, volunteers, and visitors from potential exposure to the coronavirus.
Attorneys and essential visitors will be allowed, and the area of visits will be sanitized upon completion of each visit. Additional parameters will be determined as protocols are established.
“We acknowledge any inconveniences that inmate family members and others may experience from the temporary suspension of visitation,” said Deputy Commissioner Jeworski Mallett, who manages state, private, and regional prisons in the state. “However, these actions are necessary for public safety and protecting our inmates, their loved ones, and our staff.”
Also, the Corrections Department is reinforcing common health practices based on preventive measures recommended by the Mississippi Department of Health in accordance with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
There are currently no confirmed cases of COVID-19 within the MDOC prison system.

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 59-8 Filed: 03/16/20 1 of 5 PageID #: 972
EXHIBIT H Medical Records of Inmate Larry Maxwell (showing repeated visits
to medical clinic without receiving treatment)

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 59-8 Filed: 03/16/20 2 of 5 PageID #: 973 Mississippi Department of Corrections
301 North Lamar Street Jackson, MS 39201 (601) 359-5600
01/30/2020 - Appointment Rescheduling: 01/30/2020 Nurse SC; to 01/31/2020 - Not transported to Medical Location of Care: Mississippi State Penitentiary Date Appt rescheduled to occur: 01/31/2020 Appointment type rescheduled: Nurse SC Appointment Rescheduled from 01/30/2020 Reason for reschedule: Not transported to Medical
01/29/2020 - Appointment Rescheduling: 01/29/2020 Nurse SC; to 01/30/2020 - Not transported to Medical Location of Care: Mississippi State Penitentiary Date Appt rescheduled to occur: 01/30/2020 Appointment type rescheduled: Nurse SC

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 59-8 Filed: 03/16/20 3 of 5 PageID #: 974 Mississippi Department of Corrections
301 North Lamar Street Jackson, MS 39201 (601) 359-5600
Appointment Rescheduled from 01/29/2020 Reason for reschedule: Not transported to Medical
01/28/2020 - Appointment Rescheduling: 01/28/2020 Nurse SC; to 01/29/2020 - Not transported to Medical Location of Care: Mississippi State Penitentiary Date Appt rescheduled to occur: 01/29/2020 Appointment type rescheduled: Nurse SC Appointment Rescheduled from 01/28/2020 Reason for reschedule: Not transported to Medical
01/26/2020 - Appointment Rescheduling: 01/26/2020 Nurse SC; to 01/27/2020 - Facility Lockdown Location of Care: Mississippi State Penitentiary Date Appt rescheduled to occur: 01/27/2020 Appointment type rescheduled: Nurse SC Appointment Rescheduled from 01/26/2020 Reason for reschedule: Facility Lockdown
01/25/2020 - Appointment Rescheduling: 01/25/2020 Nurse SC; to 01/26/2020 - Facility Lockdown Location of Care: Mississippi State Penitentiary Date Appt rescheduled to occur: 01/26/2020 Appointment type rescheduled: Nurse SC Appointment Rescheduled from 01/25/2020

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 59-8 Filed: 03/16/20 4 of 5 PageID #: 975 Mississippi Department of Corrections
301 North Lamar Street Jackson, MS 39201 (601) 359-5600
09/03/2019 - Appointment Rescheduling: 09/03/2019 Nurse SC; to 09/04/2019 - Not transported to Medical Location of Care: Mississippi State Penitentiary Date Appt rescheduled to occur: 09/04/2019 Appointment type rescheduled: Nurse SC Appointment Rescheduled from 09/03/2019 Reason for reschedule: Not transported to Medical

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 59-8 Filed: 03/16/20 5 of 5 PageID #: 976 Mississippi Department of Corrections
301 North Lamar Street Jackson, MS 39201 (601) 359-5600
________________________________________________________________________ 07/28/2019 - Appointment Rescheduling: 07/28/2019 Nurse SC; to 07/29/2019 - Not transported to Medical Location of Care: Mississippi State Penitentiary Date Appt rescheduled to occur: 07/29/2019 Appointment type rescheduled: Nurse SC Appointment Rescheduled from 07/28/2019 Reason for reschedule: Not transported to Medical
07/27/2019 - Appointment Rescheduling: 07/27/2019 Nurse SC; to 07/28/2019 - Not transported to Medical Location of Care: Mississippi State Penitentiary Date Appt rescheduled to occur: 07/28/2019 Appointment type rescheduled: Nurse SC Appointment Rescheduled from 07/27/2019 Reason for reschedule: Not transported to Medical
07/26/2019 - Appointment Rescheduling: 07/26/2019 Nurse SC; to 07/27/2019 - Not transported to Medical Location of Care: Mississippi State Penitentiary Date Appt rescheduled to occur: 07/27/2019 Appointment type rescheduled: Nurse SC Appointment Rescheduled from 07/26/2019 Reason for reschedule: Not transported to Medical

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 59-9 Filed: 03/16/20 1 of 24 PageID #: 977
EXHIBIT I Bureau of Justice Statistics, US DOJ, Medical Problems of State and
Federal Prisoners and Jail Inmates, 2011-12, NCJ 248491 (Rev. 10/4/2016)

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 59-9 Filed: 03/16/20 2 of 24 PageID #: 978

U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs

Revised October 4, 2016

Bureau of Justice Statistics

FEBRUARY 2015

Special Report

NCJ 248491

Medical Problems of State and Federal Prisoners and Jail Inmates, 2011–12

Laura M. Maruschak, BJS Statistician Marcus Berzofsky, Dr.P.H., and Jennifer Unangst, RTI International

In 2011–12, half of state and federal prisoners and local jail inmates reported ever having a chronic condition (figure 1). Chronic conditions include cancer, high blood pressure, stroke-related problems, diabetes, heart-related problems, kidney-related problems, arthritis, asthma, and cirrhosis of the liver. Twenty-one percent of prisoners and 14% of jail inmates reported ever having an infectious disease, including tuberculosis, hepatitis B and C, and other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). About 1% of prisoners and jail inmates who had been tested for HIV reported being HIV positive.
This report uses data from the 2011–12 National Inmate Survey (NIS-3) to describe the health status and the health services and treatment received by state and federal prisoners and local jail inmates. Data from the 2009–2012 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) were used to compare the incarcerated populations to the general population. The general population was standardized

Figure 1 Prevalence of ever having a chronic condition or infectious disease among state and federal prisoners and jail inmates, 2011–12 Percent 60
Chronic condition 50

40

30
Infectious disease 20

10

0

Prisoners

Jail inmates

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.

HIGHLIGHTS

 In 2011–12, an estimated 40% of state and federal prisoners and jail inmates reported having a current chronic medical condition while about half reported ever having a chronic medical condition.
 Twenty-one percent of prisoners and 14% of jail inmates reported ever having tuberculosis, hepatitis B or C, or other STDs (excluding HIV or AIDS).
 Both prisoners and jail inmates were more likely than the general population to report ever having a chronic condition or infectious disease. The same finding held true for each specific condition or infectious disease.
 Among prisoners and jail inmates, females were more likely than males to report ever having a chronic condition.
 High blood pressure was the most common chronic condition reported by prisoners (30%) and jail inmates (26%).
 The majority of prisoners (74%) and jail inmates (62%) were overweight, obese, or morbidly obese.

 While female prisoners and jail inmates were less likely than males to be overweight, they were more likely to be obese or morbidly obese.
 About 66% of prisoners and 40% of jail inmates with a current chronic condition reported taking prescription medication.
 The majority of prisoners reported having been tested for HIV (71%) and for tuberculosis (94%) since admission. Among jail inmates, 11% had been tested for HIV and 54% for tuberculosis.
 Seventeen jurisdictions reported testing all inmates for HIV during the intake process, 11 reported opt-out testing, and 10 reported opt-in testing.
 More than half of prisoners (56%) and jail inmates (51%) said that they were either very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with the health care services received since admission.

Celebrating 35 years

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 59-9 Filed: 03/16/20 3 of 24 PageID #: 979

twice, once to match the prison population and once to match the jail population by sex, age, race, and Hispanic origin. Standardizing the general population to the inmate population controls for differences in the distributions of sex, age, and race, and Hispanic origin, which are important risk factors for medical problems. Standardization removes the effect of sex, age, race, and Hispanic origin when comparing the prevalence of medical conditions between the incarcerated populations and the general population. However, it does not remove the effect of other factors associated with both incarceration status and outcome. The report details the prevalence of specific chronic conditions and infectious diseases and highlights important differences in the rates of each by demographic characteristics. It examines treatment received by inmates with health problems and describes inmate satisfaction with health services received while incarcerated.

Prisoners and jail inmates were more likely than the general population to report ever having a chronic condition or an infectious disease
When compared to the general population, both prisoners and jail inmates were more likely to report ever having a chronic condition, and they were more likely to report each of the specific chronic conditions measured. When compared to the general population, the measure of ever having a chronic condition excludes cancer, kidney-related problems, and arthritis or rheumatism because data were not collected on these chronic conditions in the NSDUH. Forty-four percent of prisoners reported ever having a chronic condition, compared to 31% of persons in the general population (table 1). Prisoners were about 1.5 times more likely than persons in the standardized general population to report ever having high blood pressure, diabetes, or asthma. About 45% of jail inmates reported

Difference between ever having and currently having chronic medical conditions

Estimates of chronic medical conditions among state and federal prisoners and jail inmates are based on self-reported information in the National Inmate Survey (NIS-3). Inmates were asked whether a doctor, nurse, or other health care provider ever told them they had select noninfectious medical conditions which were categorized as chronic conditions. Chronic medical conditions involve persistent health problems that have long-lasting effects, and include but are not limited to, the select conditions that were asked about in the NIS-3. This measure indicated a diagnosis of having the condition at least once in their lifetime, but does not mean that the inmate currently has the medical condition. As a measure of current medical conditions in the NIS-3, inmates were also asked at the time of the interview whether a doctor, nurse, or other health care provider had told them they currently had select noninfectious medical conditions.

The data show that an estimated 50% of prisoners and jail inmates reported ever having a chronic condition compared to 40% currently having a chronic condition. The percentage of inmates who reported currently having a chronic condition was lower than those who reported ever having a chronic condition because over time, a past condition may have been resolved, gone into remission, or no longer required treatment. The measure of ever having a chronic medical condition indicates the percentage of inmates who are potentially at risk for future medical problems while the measure of current condition indicates the percentage of inmates who may have needed health care services at the time of interview.

MEDICAL PROBLEMS OF STATE AND FEDERAL PRISONERS AND JAIL INMATES, 2011–12 | FEBRUARY 2015

2

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 59-9 Filed: 03/16/20 4 of 24 PageID #: 980

Table 1

Prevalence of ever having a chronic condition or infectious disease among state and federal prisoners and the general

population (standardized), 2011–12

State and federal prisoners

General population*a

Chronic condition/infectious disease Ever had a chronic conditionb

Percent 43.9%**

Standard error 1.5%

Percent 31.0%

Standard error 0.3%

Cancer

3.5

0.4

/

:

High blood pressure/hypertension

30.2**

1.2

18.1

0.3

Stroke-related problems

1.8**

0.3

0.7

0.1

Diabetes/high blood sugar Heart-related problemsc

9.0**

0.8

9.8**

1.0

6.5

0.2

2.9

0.1

Kidney-related problems

6.1

0.7

/

:

Arthritis/rheumatism

15.0

0.9

/

:

Asthma

14.9**

0.9

10.2

0.2

Cirrhosis of the liver Ever had an infectious diseased

1.8**

0.3

21.0%**

1.3%

0.2

--

4.8%

0.2%

Tuberculosis Hepatitise

6.0**

0.6

10.9**

1.0

0.5

0.1

1.1

0.1

Hepatitis B

2.7

0.4

/

:

Hepatitis C STDsf

9.8

1.0

6.0**

0.5

/

:

3.4

0.1

HIV/AIDS

1.3%**

0.3%

0.4%

0.1%

*Comparison group.

**Difference with comparison group is significant at the 95% confidence level.

--Less than 0.05%.

: Not calculated.

/Not collected in the NSDUH. aGeneral population estimates were standardized to match the prison population by sex, age, race, and Hispanic origin.

bIncludes only conditions measured by both the NIS and NSDUH. In the NSDUH, persons were asked if a doctor or other medical professional had ever told them that they had high blood pressure, a stroke, diabetes, heart disease, asthma, or cirrhosis of the liver. cFor state and federal prisoners, heart-related problems could include angina; arrhythmia; arteriosclerosis; heart attack; coronary, congenital, or rheumatic heart disease; heart valve damage; tachycardia; or other type of heart problem. dExcludes HIV or AIDS due to unknown or missing data. Only those tested reported results.

eIncludes hepatitis B and C for the prison population and all types of hepatitis for the general population. fExcludes HIV or AIDS.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey (NIS), 2011–12; and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), 2009–2012.

MEDICAL PROBLEMS OF STATE AND FEDERAL PRISONERS AND JAIL INMATES, 2011–12 | FEBRUARY 2015

3

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 59-9 Filed: 03/16/20 5 of 24 PageID #: 981

ever having a chronic condition, compared to 27% of the standardized general population (table 2). Jail inmates were nearly two times more likely than persons in the general population to report ever having high blood pressure, diabetes, or asthma.
An estimated 21% of prisoners and 14% of jail inmates reported ever having tuberculosis, hepatitis, or other STDs excluding HIV or AIDS, compared to 5% of the general population.1 For each type of infectious disease, prisoners and jail inmates were more likely than those in the general population to report ever having that infectious disease.
1In the NSDUH, hepatitis includes all types. In the NIS-3, hepatitis includes hepatitis B and hepatitis C.

High blood pressure was the most commonly reported chronic condition among prisoners and jail inmates
Similar to the standardized general population, the most commonly reported chronic condition reported by both prisoners and jail inmates was high blood pressure. Nearly a third (30%) of prisoners and more than a quarter (26%) of jail inmates reported high blood pressure. Asthma (15% for prisoners and 20% for jail inmates) and arthritis (15% for prisoners and 13% for jail inmates) were the second and third most common chronic conditions.

Table 2

Prevalence of ever having a chronic condition or infectious disease among jail inmates and the general population

(standardized), 2011–12

Jail inmates

General population*a

Chronic condition/infectious disease Ever had a chronic conditionb

Percent 44.7%**

Standard error 1.2%

Percent 26.9%

Standard error 0.3%

Cancer

3.6

0.4

/

:

High blood pressure/hypertension

26.3**

1.1

13.9

0.2

Stroke-related problems

2.3**

0.3

0.5

--

Diabetes/high blood sugar Heart-related problemsc

7.2**

0.6

10.4**

0.7

4.5

0.1

1.9

0.1

Kidney-related problems

6.7

0.5

/

:

Arthritis/rheumatism

12.9

0.7

/

:

Asthma

20.1**

1.0

11.4

0.2

Cirrhosis of the liver Ever had an infectious diseased

1.7**

0.3

14.3%**

0.7%

0.1

--

4.6%

0.1%

Tuberculosis Hepatitise

2.5**

0.3

6.5**

0.5

0.4

--

0.9

--

Hepatitis B

1.7

0.2

/

:

Hepatitis C STDse,f

5.6

0.5

6.1**

0.5

/

:

3.5

0.1

HIV/AIDS

1.3%**

0.2%

0.3%

--

*Comparison group.

**Difference with comparison group is significant at the 95% confidence level.

--Less than 0.05%.

: Not calculated.

/Not collected in the NSDUH. aGeneral population estimates were standardized to match the jail population by sex, age, race, and Hispanic origin.

bIncludes only conditions measured by both the NIS and NSDUH. In the NSDUH, persons were asked if a doctor or other medical professional had ever told them that they had high blood pressure, a stroke, diabetes, heart disease, asthma, or cirrhosis of the liver. cFor jail inmates, heart-related problems could include angina; arrhythmia; arteriosclerosis; heart attack; coronary, congenital, or rheumatic heart disease; heart valve damage; tachycardia; or other type of heart problem. dExcludes HIV or AIDS due to unknown or missing data. Only those tested reported results.

eIncludes hepatitis B and C for the jail population and all types of hepatitis for the general population. fExcludes HIV or AIDS.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey (NIS), 2011–12; and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), 2009–2012.

MEDICAL PROBLEMS OF STATE AND FEDERAL PRISONERS AND JAIL INMATES, 2011–12 | FEBRUARY 2015

4

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 59-9 Filed: 03/16/20 6 of 24 PageID #: 982

Among prisoners, hepatitis C was the most commonly reported infectious disease (10%), followed by tuberculosis and STDs (6% each). Among jail inmates, nearly 6% reported ever having hepatitis C, 6% ever had some other STD, and 2% ever had tuberculosis. About 1% of both prisoners and jail inmates who were tested reported having HIV or AIDS.

chronic condition. Similarly, 54% of white, 50% of black, and 37% of Hispanic jail inmates reported ever having a chronic condition. White prisoners were almost 1.5 times more likely than black prisoners to report ever having an infectious disease. About 15% of both white and black jail inmates reported ever having an infectious disease, compared to 10% of Hispanic inmates.

Chronic conditions were more commonly reported by female inmates both in prisons and jails
Female prisoners and jail inmates were more likely than males to report ever having a chronic condition (table 3). About two-thirds of females in both prisons (63%) and jails (67%) reported ever having a chronic condition, compared to half of males in prisons (50%) and jails (48%). In prisons, 25% of females and 21% of males reported ever having an infectious disease. In jails, 20% of females reported ever having an infectious disease, compared to 13% of males.
Hispanic prisoners and jail inmates were less likely than white and black prisoners and jail inmates to report ever having an infectious disease. About 57% of white, 52% of black, and 41% of Hispanic prisoners reported ever having a

Older prisoners were about 3 times more likely than younger persons to report ever having a chronic condition or infectious disease
Older prisoners and jail inmates were more likely than younger persons to report ever having a chronic condition or infectious disease. Prisoners age 50 or older were about 2.5 times more likely than those ages 18 to 24 to report ever having a chronic condition. Similarly, jail inmates age 50 or older were about 2 times more likely than those ages 18 to 24 to report ever having a chronic condition. About 1 in 10 prisoners and jail inmates ages 18 to 24 reported ever having an infectious disease. Prisoners (35%) and jail inmates (30%) age 50 or older were about 3 times more likely to report having an infectious disease than those ages 18 to 24.

Table 3

Prevalence of ever having a chronic condition or infectious disease among state and federal prisoners and jail inmates, by demographic characteristics, 2011–12

Chronic conditiona

Infectious diseaseb

Demographic characteristic

State and federal prisoners*

Jail inmates

State and federal prisoners*

Jail inmates

All inmates

50.5%

50.2%

21.0%

14.3%**

Sex

Male †

49.6%

47.8%

20.7%

13.4%**

Female

62.9 ††

66.6 ††

25.0

20.1 ††

Age

18–24 †

27.5%

37.7%**

11.0%

9.5%

25–34

40.9 ††

45.6 ††

19.7 ††

13.1 ††**

35–49

55.5 ††

57.7 ††

18.8 ††

15.0 ††**

50 or older Race/Hispanic originc

72.6 ††

78.6 ††

35.1 ††

30.1 ††

White­

57.4%

54.3%

24.6% ††

14.9%**

Black/African American †

51.9

49.7

16.7

15.2

Hispanic/Latino Otherd

40.6 ††

37.1 ††

23.4

49.4

61.3 ††

20.0

10.1 ††** 14.9

Note: The jail population was not standardized to match the prison population. Therefore, differences observed may be due to differences in prison and jail population by sex, age, race, and Hispanic origin. See appendix table 8 for standard errors.

*Comparison group.

**Difference with comparison group is significant at the 95% confidence level.

† Comparison group.

†† Difference with comparison group is significant at the 95% confidence level. aIncludes cancer, high blood pressure or hypertension, stroke-related problems, diabetes or high blood sugar, heart-related problems, kidney-related problems, arthritis or rheumatism, asthma, and cirrhosis of the liver. bIncludes tuberculosis, hepatitis B, hepatitis C, and STDs. Excludes HIV or AIDS due to unknown or missing data.

cExcludes persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, unless specified. dIncludes persons identified as American Indian or Alaska Native; Asian, Native Hawaiian, or other Pacific Islander; and two or more races.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.

MEDICAL PROBLEMS OF STATE AND FEDERAL PRISONERS AND JAIL INMATES, 2011–12 | FEBRUARY 2015

5

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 59-9 Filed: 03/16/20 7 of 24 PageID #: 983

Rates of high blood pressure and diabetes increased among prisoners and jail inmates

In the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ (BJS) 2002 Survey of Inmates in Local Jails and 2004 Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities, inmates were asked a series of questions to determine if they ever had or currently have a chronic condition. Inmates were also asked about specific chronic conditions. The 2011–12 National Inmate Survey (NIS-3) included a more restricted measure of ever had or currently having a chronic condition. In the NIS-3, inmates were asked if a doctor, nurse, or other health care provider ever told them that they had a certain chronic condition and, if a doctor, nurse, or health care provider told them that they currently had the chronic condition. Although the NIS-3 collected a more conservative measure, prevalence estimates of some common chronic conditions were higher in 2011–12 than 2002 and 2004, indicating true increases have occurred over time.
Between 2004 and 2011–12, rates of high blood pressure and diabetes rose among prisoners (figure 2). The rate of diabetes in 2011–12 (899 per 10,000 prisoners) was almost twice the rate in 2004 (483 per 10,000). The rate of high blood pressure (3,020 per 10,000 prisoners) was almost 1.5 times the rate in 2004 (2,093 per 10,000). Similar rates were observed for asthma, arthritis, and heart-related problems. Although data suggest stability in these rates, caution should be taken when interpreting data, as the methodology was updated for 2011–12.

Figure 2 Rate of ever having a chronic condition among state and federal prisoners, 2004 and 2011–12
Rate per 10,000 prisoners 3,500
3,000 2011–12

2,500 2004
2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0 High blood Diabetes/ pressure/ high blood hypertension* sugar*

Asthma

Arthritis/ Heart-related rheumatism problems

Note: See appendix table 9 for standard errors. *Differences between years are significant at the 95% confidence level. Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12; and Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities, 2004.

Continued on next page

MEDICAL PROBLEMS OF STATE AND FEDERAL PRISONERS AND JAIL INMATES, 2011–12 | FEBRUARY 2015

6

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 59-9 Filed: 03/16/20 8 of 24 PageID #: 984

Rates of high blood pressure and diabetes increased among prisoners and jail inmates (continued)

Similar trends were observed among jail inmates (figure 3). The 2011–12 rate of jail inmates who reported ever having diabetes (723 per 10,000 jail inmates) was twice the 2002 rate (361 per 10,000), and the rate of high blood pressure in 2011–12 was almost 1.5 times higher than the rate in 2002. The rate of asthma also rose between 2002 and 2011–12, from 1,502 per 10,000 jail inmates to 2,012 per 10,000. Although data suggest that the rates of arthritis and heart-related problems among jail inmates were relatively stable, caution should be taken when interpreting data, as the methodology was updated for 2011–12.

Rate of HIV or AIDS in state and federal prisons continued to decline
Based on data from administrative records reported through BJS’s National Prisoner Statistics (NPS-1) data collection, 18,945 state and federal prisoners were infected with HIV or had confirmed AIDS in 2012—down from 19,536 in 2011 (appendix table 1). Between 2011 and 2012, the estimated rate of HIV or AIDS declined from 145 per 10,000 prisoners to 143 per 10,000. This decline is consistent with declines observed over the previous decades (figure 4).

Figure 3 Rate of ever having a chronic condition among jail inmates, 2002 and 2011–12
Rate per 10,000 jail inmates
3,000

Figure 4 Rate of HIV or AIDS cases among state and federal prisoners, 2001–2012
Rate per 10,000 prisoners
200

2,500

2011–12

150

2,000

2002

1,500

100

1,000

500

50

0 High blood Diabetes/ pressure/ high blood hypertension* sugar*

Asthma* Arthritis/ Heart-related rheumatism problems

Note: See appendix table 10 for standard errors. For comparability to the 2011–12 rates, jail inmates age 17 or younger were excluded when calculating 2002 rates of ever having each specific chronic condition.
*Differences between years are significant at the 95% confidence level.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12; and Survey of Inmates in Local Jails, 2002.

0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Prisoner Statistics Program, 2001–2012.

MEDICAL PROBLEMS OF STATE AND FEDERAL PRISONERS AND JAIL INMATES, 2011–12 | FEBRUARY 2015

7

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 59-9 Filed: 03/16/20 9 of 24 PageID #: 985

24% of prisoners and jail inmates reported at least two chronic conditions
In 2012, nearly a quarter (24%) of both prisoners and jail inmates reported ever having multiple chronic conditions (table 4). About 7% of prisoners and 4% of jail inmates reported high blood pressure and diabetes—two chronic conditions that are risk factors for cardiovascular disease. About 12% of prisoners and 9% of jail inmates reported ever having a chronic condition and an infectious disease. Among prisoners and jail inmates who reported ever having hepatitis B, about 15% reported ever having cirrhosis of the liver. About 11% of those in both populations who ever had hepatitis C reported that they had cirrhosis of the liver.

Table 4 Prevalence of ever having multiple chronic conditions and infectious diseases among state and federal prisoners and jail inmates, 2011–12

State and federal prisoners*

Jail inmates

Chronic condition/ infectious

Standard

Standard

disease

Percent error

Percent error

Chronic conditions

Multiple chronic conditions 24.2% 1.3%

24.3% 1.2%

Hypertension and diabetes 6.6

0.7

Infectious diseasesa

4.4** 0.5

Multiple infectious diseases 4.1% 0.5%

2.2%** 0.3%

Chronic conditions and infectious diseases

Both a chronic condition and infectious disease 12.3% 0.9%

9.1%** 0.6%

Among those who had Hepatitis B–

Had cirrhosis of the liver 14.6

2.8

15.2

4.8

Among those who had Hepatitis C–

Had cirrhosis of the liver 11.3

4.8

11.0

4.6

Note: The jail population was not standardized to match the prison population. Therefore, differences observed may be due to differences in prison and jail population by sex, age, race, and Hispanic origin.

*Comparison group.

**Difference with comparison group is significant at the 95% confidence level.

aIncludes tuberculosis, hepatitis B, hepatitis C, and STDs. Excludes HIV or AIDS due to unknown or missing data.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.

Majority of prisoners and jail inmates were either overweight, obese, or morbidly obese2

In 2011–12, nearly three-quarters of prisoners were either overweight (46%), obese (26%), or morbidly obese (2%), with about a quarter of prisoners being either normal weight (26%) or underweight (1%) (table 5). Measures of overweight, obese, and morbidly obese were calculated using the body mass index (see Methodology). Female prisoners (35%) were less likely than males (47%) to be overweight. However, female (43%) prisoners were more likely than males (27%) to be either obese or morbidly obese (appendix table 2). Prisoners ages 18 to 24 were less likely than all other age groups to be obese. About 14% of prisoners ages 18 to 24 were obese, compared to 20% of those ages 25 to 34, 33% of those ages 35 to 49, and 25% of those age 50 or older. Black prisoners (29%) were more likely than white prisoners (23%) to be obese.
In 2011–12, more than 6 in 10 jail inmates were either overweight (39%), obese (20%), or morbidly obese (2%), while about 4 in 10 jail inmates were either normal weight (37%) or underweight (1%). Female (32%) jail inmates were less likely than males (40%) to be overweight. However, female (37%) jail
2This finding is consistent with the general population of adults age 20 or older (Health, United States, 2013, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention).

Table 5 Body mass index of state and federal prisoners and local jail inmates, 2011–12

Body mass index State and federal prisoners Jail inmates

Total

100%

100%

Normal/underweight

26.4

38.4

Overweight

45.7

39.3

Obese

25.5

20.0

Morbidly obese

2.4

2.3

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.

inmates were more likely than males (20%) to be either obese or morbidly obese (appendix table 3). Similar to prisoners, jail inmates ages 18 to 24 were less likely than all other age groups to be obese. About 13% of jail inmates ages 18 to 24 were obese, compared to 19% of those ages 25 to 34, 27% of those ages 35 to 49, and 22% of those age 50 or older. About 44% of Hispanic jail inmates reported being overweight—the highest percentage among all racial or ethnic categories. About 1 in 5 jail inmates in each racial category was obese. Black jail inmates (3%) were more likely than white jail inmates (1%) to be morbidly obese.

MEDICAL PROBLEMS OF STATE AND FEDERAL PRISONERS AND JAIL INMATES, 2011–12 | FEBRUARY 2015

8

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 59-9 Filed: 03/16/20 10 of 24 PageID #: 986

Most prisoners and jail inmates received medical assessments or exams since admission
Prisoners were more likely than jail inmates to report being assessed and questioned about medical issues at time of admission; to have seen a doctor, nurse, or health care professional for any medical reason; or to have been tested for infectious diseases (table 6). An estimated 85% of prisoners were questioned by staff about their health or medical history, compared to 82% of jail inmates. About two-thirds of prisoners (64%) and half (50%) of jail inmates reported being assessed by staff to see if they were sick, injured, or intoxicated.

An estimated 80% of prisoners and 47% of jail inmates reported seeing a health care professional for a medical reason since admission. Prisoners (71%) were about 6.5 times more likely than jail inmates (11%) to be tested for HIV. Among prisoners, 57% were tested for hepatitis B and 54% were tested for hepatitis C, compared to 6% for both among jail inmates. Almost all prisoners (94%) reported being tested for tuberculosis since admission, compared to about half (54%) of jail inmates.

Table 6 Health care services and medical tests received by state and federal prisoners and jail inmates while incarcerated, 2011–12

State and federal prisoners*

Jail inmates

Health care services provided

Percent

Standard error

Percent

Standard error

At time of admission

Assessed by staff for sickness, injury, or intoxication

63.6%

1.2%

49.4%**

1.6%

Questioned by staff about health or medical history

85.0

1.0

81.8**

1.1

Since admission

Seen a doctor, nurse, or other health care professional for any reason

79.9%

1.2%

46.5%**

1.3%

Tested for—

HIV

71.4

1.4

10.8**

0.8

Tuberculosis

93.6

0.7

53.9**

2.5

Hepatitis B

57.4

1.6

6.0**

0.6

Hepatitis C STDsa

54.4

1.7

32.6

1.2

5.7**

0.5

5.4**

0.5

Note: The jail population was not standardized to match the prison population. Therefore, differences observed may be due to differences in prison and jail population by sex, age, race, and Hispanic origin.

*Comparison group.

**Difference with comparison group is significant at the 95% confidence level.

aExcludes HIV or AIDS.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.

About a third of jurisdictions reported testing all inmates on entry

In 2012, as part of the prison intake process, 17 jurisdictions reported that they test all inmates for HIV, 11 reported that they offer opt-out HIV testing (i.e., all inmates are offered the test, and the test is given unless the inmate declines the test), and 10 reported opt-in HIV testing (i.e., all inmates are offered the test, and the test is given if the inmate wants to be tested). The remaining jurisdictions either had some other practice for testing, did not test, or did not report the testing practice in their jurisdiction (appendix table 4).
Thirty-two percent of prisoners were held in the jurisdictions that reported testing all inmates for HIV, 26% were held in the jurisdictions reporting opt-out testing, and 15% were held in the jurisdictions that reported opt-in testing. The remaining quarter of prisoners were held in jurisdictions that either reported other testing circumstances or did not report their testing practices.
Among the 10 jurisdictions offering opt-in testing, consent specifically for HIV testing was obtained in 9 jurisdictions,

and general consent for medical services was obtained in 1 jurisdiction. For jurisdictions with opt-out testing, type of consent for testing was not consistent. Three jurisdictions obtained consent specifically for HIV testing, six jurisdictions obtained consent for medical services, one jurisdiction did not obtain any consent, and one jurisdiction did not report type of consent.
In 2012, the majority of jurisdictions reported testing inmates in custody who requested an HIV test (42), if there was clinical indication (39), who were involved in an incident (34), and who were under court order (32) (appendix table 5). Twenty jurisdictions reported offering HIV testing during routine medical exams, and 19 offered testing to high-risk inmates.
On discharge, most jurisdictions (24) provided inmates with an HIV test, if requested (appendix table 6). Seven jurisdictions offered an HIV test to all inmates being released, three offered an HIV test to some inmates, and six reported that they did not provide HIV testing on discharge.

MEDICAL PROBLEMS OF STATE AND FEDERAL PRISONERS AND JAIL INMATES, 2011–12 | FEBRUARY 2015

9

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 59-9 Filed: 03/16/20 11 of 24 PageID #: 987

Among prisoners and jail inmates who reported ever having a chronic condition, about three-quarters reported having a chronic condition at admission
Among those who reported ever having a chronic condition, 73% of prisoners and 77% of jail inmates reported that they had a condition at admission (figure 5). Both prisoners and jail inmates were more likely to report a chronic condition at admission than since admission. Among those who reported ever having a chronic condition, about a quarter (27%) of prisoners and a tenth (8%) of jail inmates did not report a chronic condition at admission, but were told that they had the condition since admission. Prisoners and jail inmates who had a chronic condition at admission were equally likely to report taking prescription medication or receiving some other type of treatment in the 30 days prior to admission (table 7). In both populations, about 6 in 10 reported taking prescription medication and more than 3 in 10 reported receiving some other type of treatment.

Figure 5 Prevalence of any chronic condition at admission and since admission among state and federal prisoners and jail inmates who reported ever having a condition, 2011–12
Percent 100
Chronic condition reported at admission 75
50 Chronic condition reported since admission
25

0 Prisoners

Jail inmates

Note: An inmate may have reported ever having multiple conditions. As a result, one inmate may be in both categories because one condition may have been reported at admission and another condition could have been reported since admission.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.

Table 7 Prevalence of prescription medication use and other treatment among prisoners and jail inmates with a current chronic condition or infectious disease, 2011–12

State and federal prisoners*

Jail inmates

Health care services provided Chronic condition at admissiona

Percent

Standard error

Percent

Standard error

In 30 days prior to admission—

Taking prescription medication

60.9%

2.5%

58.8%

2.1%

Receiving medical treatment other than prescription medication

34.4

1.9

Current chronic conditiona

32.6

1.6

Currently taking prescription medication Reasons for not taking prescription medicationb

66.1%

2.3%

39.8%**

1.8%

Inmate had not seen a doctor

20.0

1.7

38.7**

2.2

Inmate did not like taking medication

10.9

1.2

16.0**

1.6

Doctor did not think it was necessary or facility would not provide it

36.3

2.3

36.3

1.6

Inmate did not think medication was necessary

19.4

1.8

30.5**

1.8

Other

35.0

2.4

50.9**

2.0

Currently receiving medical treatment other than prescription medication

19.9

1.7

13.8**

1.4

HIV-positive inmates

Taking prescription medication

84.0%

8.6%

65.9%

9.6%

Note: The jail population was not standardized to match the prison population. Therefore, differences observed may be due to differences in prison and jail population by sex, age, race, and Hispanic origin.

*Comparison group.

**Difference with comparison group is significant at the 95% confidence level. aIncludes cancer, high blood pressure or hypertension, stroke-related problems, diabetes or high blood sugar, heart-related problems, kidney-related problems, arthritis or rheumatism, asthma, and cirrhosis of the liver.

bDetail does not sum to 100% because inmates could select more than one reason.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.

MEDICAL PROBLEMS OF STATE AND FEDERAL PRISONERS AND JAIL INMATES, 2011–12 | FEBRUARY 2015

10

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 59-9 Filed: 03/16/20 12 of 24 PageID #: 988

66% of prisoners and 40% of jail inmates with a current chronic condition reported taking prescription medication
In 2011–12, about 4 in 10 prisoners (41%) and jail inmates (40%) reported having a current chronic condition (appendix table 7). Among prisoners with a current chronic condition, 66% reported that they were taking prescription medication, and 20% said they were receiving some other type of medical treatment. Although inmates could report multiple reasons for not taking prescription medication, prisoners most commonly cited reasons related to lack of health services or doctor’s provision of a prescription. More than a third (36%) of prisoners who were not taking prescription medication said that the doctor did not think medication was necessary or that the facility would not provide the medication, while about 20% reported that they had not seen a doctor. About 19% of prisoners reported that they did not think the medication was necessary, and about 11% reported that they did not like taking the medication. Among prisoners who were HIV positive, 84% reported taking prescription medication.
Jail inmates who reported having a current chronic condition were less likely than prisoners to report taking prescription medication or receiving some other type of medical treatment. About 40% of jail inmates with a current chronic condition reported that they were receiving

prescription medication, and 14% reported receiving some other type of medical treatment. More than a third (39%) of jail inmates who were not taking prescription medication reported that they had not seen a doctor and 36% said the doctor did not think medication was necessary or the facility would not provide the medication. Nearly a third (31%) of jail inmates said that they did not think the medication was necessary, and 16% reported that they did not like taking the medication. Among jail inmates who were HIV positive, 66% reported taking prescription medication.
More than half of prisoners and jail inmates reported being somewhat or very satisfied with health care services received since admission
In 2011–12, 13% of prisoners were very satisfied with the health services received since admission and 44% were somewhat satisfied (table 8). Among jail inmates, 14% were very satisfied with the health services received since admission and 37% were somewhat satisfied. Jail inmates (49%) were more likely than prisoners (44%) to report not being satisfied with the health care services received since admission.
Nearly half (48%) of prisoners and 43% of jail inmates reported that the health care received while incarcerated was better than or about the same as the care they received in the 12 months prior to admission.

Table 8 Satisfaction with health care services received by state and federal prisoners and jail inmates, 2011–12

State and federal prisoners*

Jail inmates

Health care services provided

Percent

Standard error

Percent

Standard error

Since admission

Very satisfied

12.6%

0.9%

14.3%

0.8%

Somewhat satisfied

43.8

1.4

36.9**

1.4

Not at all satisfied

43.6

1.6

48.8**

1.5

Compared to those received 12 months prior to admission

Better

12.4%

1.0%

11.0%

0.7%

About the same

35.8

1.6

32.0

1.1

Worse

51.8

1.8

57.0**

1.3

Note: The jail population was not standardized to match the prison population. Therefore, differences observed may be due to differences in prison and jail population by sex, age, race, and Hispanic origin.

*Comparison group.

**Difference with comparison group is significant at the 95%-confidence level.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.

MEDICAL PROBLEMS OF STATE AND FEDERAL PRISONERS AND JAIL INMATES, 2011–12 | FEBRUARY 2015

11

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 59-9 Filed: 03/16/20 13 of 24 PageID #: 989

Methodology
National Inmate Survey
The 2011–12 National Inmate Survey (NIS-3) was conducted in 233 state and federal prisons, 358 local jails, and 15 special facilities (i.e., military facilities, Indian country jails, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facilities) between February 2011 and May 2012. Data were collected by RTI International under a cooperative agreement with the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS).
The NIS-3 administered two questionnaires to inmates—a survey about sexual victimization and a survey about mental and physical health, past drug and alcohol use, and treatment for substance abuse. Inmates were randomly assigned to receive one of two questionnaires to ensure that the content of the survey remained unknown to facility staff and the interviewers at the time of the interview.
A total of 106,532 inmates participated in the NIS-3, receiving either the sexual victimization survey or the randomly assigned companion survey. Combined, the surveys were administered to 43,721 inmates in state and federal prisons, 61,351 inmates in jails, 605 inmates in military facilities, 192 inmates in Indian country jails, and 663 inmates in ICE facilities.
The interviews, which averaged 35 minutes in length, used computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI) and audio computer-assisted self-interviewing (ACASI) data collection methods. For approximately the first 2 minutes, interviewers conducted a personal interview using CAPI to obtain background information and date of admission to the facility. For the remainder of the interview, inmates interacted with a computer-administered questionnaire using a touchscreen and synchronized audio instructions delivered via headphones. Respondents completed the ACASI portion of the interview in private, with the interviewer either leaving the room or moving away from the computer.
A shorter paper questionnaire was made available for inmates who were unable to come to the private interviewing room or interact with the computer. The paper form was completed by 751 state and federal prisoners (1.9% of all prisoner interviews) and 264 jail inmates (0.5% of all jail inmate interviews). Inmates who completed the paper form were not asked about their physical health, mental health, past drug and alcohol use, or treatment for substance abuse.
Additional information on the methodology for sample selection of facilities and inmates can be found in the report, Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011–12 (NCJ 241399, BJS web, May 2013).

In this report, the analysis of the physical health module was restricted to adult inmates in prisons or jails. Therefore, this report excludes juvenile inmates ages 16 or 17 and inmates in military facilities, Indian country jails, or ICE facilities.
Administration of the physical health module
The physical health module was administered to participating inmates in the NIS-3 for one of two reasons—
1. to ensure the sexual victimization survey length was similar for all participating inmates
2. as part of the alternative survey on mental and physical health, past drug and alcohol use, and treatment for substance abuse.
Among inmates who received the sexual victimization survey (90% of inmates surveyed), a brief physical health module was randomly assigned to half of the inmates who participated. Among those inmates, respondents who completed the core sexual victimization survey in 33 minutes or less received the brief physical health module. Based on the time criteria, 11,671 state and federal prisoners (67% of the prisoners who would have been randomly assigned the brief physical health module) and 17,130 jail inmates (69% of the jail inmates who would have been randomly assigned the brief physical health module) completed the brief physical health module.
Among inmates who received the alternative survey on mental and physical health, past drug and alcohol use, and treatment for substance abuse (10% of inmates surveyed), the full physical health module was administered to those who completed the mental health and disabilities modules in 30 minutes or less. Of the 4,304 inmates randomized to the alternative survey, 3,833 (89%) inmates received and completed the full physical health module. Among the 6,704 jail inmates randomized to the alternative survey, 5,494 inmates (90%) received and completed the full physical health module.
The module on physical health, which was administered through ACASI, relied on inmates reporting their direct experiences. The brief physical health module asked the inmate about the types of medical services received at the time of admission and about any medical conditions (i.e., chronic diseases and infectious diseases) the inmate ever had, had at the time of admission, and had developed since admission. The full physical health module asked the same questions contained in the brief physical module, plus additional items on the types of services and treatments received by inmates with a medical condition and when those services and treatments were received. The entire ACASI questionnaire (listed as the National Inmate Survey-3) is available on the BJS website.

MEDICAL PROBLEMS OF STATE AND FEDERAL PRISONERS AND JAIL INMATES, 2011–12 | FEBRUARY 2015

12

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 59-9 Filed: 03/16/20 14 of 24 PageID #: 990

Nonresponse bias analysis to assess feasibility of using the 90% or 10% sample in the NIS-3
To produce reliable national-level statistics, a nonresponse bias analysis was needed to assess the feasibility of using data in the physical health module from the sexual victimization survey (90% sample) and the alternative survey (10% sample). Bias arises when subjects with characteristics associated with the outcome of interest are either overrepresented or underrepresented, resulting in the estimated prevalence of an outcome being different from the actual prevalence of the outcome. Because not everybody responded to the physical health module, it might be that respondents differ from nonrespondents in significant ways. Because the time to complete earlier modules in the survey was a major factor in determining whether the respondent was administered the physical health module, those who did not receive the physical health module may be different than those who did. The time requirements may have biased the physical health estimates, making them no longer nationally representative of all inmates.
To assess the potential bias in both the sexual victimization survey (90%) and alternative survey (10%) administered in the NIS-3, a nonresponse bias analysis was conducted for those who received the physical health module and those who did not. For the sexual victimization survey, differences in response status to the physical health module were assessed by whether or not an inmate had been sexually victimized, language of the interview (i.e., English or Spanish), whether or not an inmate reported a mental health problem and the interaction of victimization and mental health status. For the alternative survey, differences in response status to the physical health module were assessed by language of the interview (i.e., English or Spanish), whether an inmate reported a mental health problem, and the interaction of language of interview and mental health status.
Key findings from the nonresponse bias analysis for respondents to the sexual victimization survey include—
 For both prisons and jails, inmates who reported a sexual victimization were significantly less likely than inmates who did not report a sexual victimization to receive and complete the brief physical health module (p-value less than 0.0001 for prisoners and jail inmates).
 For both prisons and jails, inmates who responded to the survey in Spanish were significantly less likely than those who responded in English to receive and complete the brief physical health module (p-value less than 0.0001 for prisoners and jail inmates).
 For both prisons and jails, inmates who reported a mental health condition were significantly less likely than those who did not report a mental health condition to receive and complete the brief physical health module (p-value less than 0.0001 for prisoners and jail inmates).

 Among prisoners and jail inmates who reported a sexual victimization, inmates who reported a mental health condition were significantly less likely than inmates who did not report a mental health condition to receive and complete the brief physical health module (p-value less than 0.0001 for prisoners and jail inmates).
 Among prisoners, 1.5% (177 of 11,671 respondents) reported a sexual victimization, reported a mental health condition, and received and completed the brief physical health module.
 Among jail inmates, 1.1% (190 of 17,130 respondents) reported a sexual victimization, reported a mental health condition, and received and completed the brief physical health module.
Key findings from the nonresponse bias analysis for respondents to the alternative survey include—
 For both prisons and jails, inmates who reported a mental health condition were significantly less likely than inmates who did not report a mental health condition to receive and complete the full physical health module (p-value less than 0.0001 for prisoners and jail inmates). However, among those with a mental health condition, 92.0% of prisoners and 86.5% of jail inmates received and completed the physical health module.
 In prisons, 225 inmates (5.2% of respondents) responded to the alternative survey in Spanish.
 In jails, 321 inmates (5.3% of respondents) responded to the alternative survey in Spanish.
 Among prisoners and jail inmates who responded in Spanish, inmates who reported a mental health condition were not significantly less likely than inmates who did not report a mental health condition to receive and complete the full physical health module (p-values of 0.3989 and 0.0678 for prisoners and jail inmates).
For the alternative survey, based on the results of the nonresponse bias analyses, it was determined that a weight adjustment could properly correct for potential bias among respondents to the full physical health module. However, based on the results of the nonresponse bias analyses for the sexual victimization survey, it was determined that a weight adjustment might not fully compensate for the potential bias among those who responded to the brief physical health module. Therefore, the analyses of the physical health data were restricted to inmates who completed the alternative survey.

MEDICAL PROBLEMS OF STATE AND FEDERAL PRISONERS AND JAIL INMATES, 2011–12 | FEBRUARY 2015

13

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 59-9 Filed: 03/16/20 15 of 24 PageID #: 991

Weighting and nonresponse adjustments
Responses from interviewed inmates were weighted to produce national-level estimates. Each interviewed inmate was assigned an initial weight corresponding to the inverse of the probability of selection within each sampled facility. A series of adjustment factors was applied to the initial weight to minimize potential bias due to nonresponse and to provide national estimates. For the analysis of the physical health module, these adjustments were one of two types:
1. adjustments to account for survey nonresponse
2. adjustments to account for module nonresponse due to time constraints.
Methods to adjust for survey nonresponse are detailed in the report, Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011–12 (NCJ 241399, BJS web, May 2013). Once adjusted weights were developed to account for survey nonresponse, an additional weighting adjustment was conducted to account for the potential bias induced by nonresponse due to time constraints. Bias could result if the module nonrespondents were different from the module respondents. The adjustment for module nonresponse included a calibration of the weights to ensure that the weight from a nonresponding inmate was assigned to a responding inmate with similar characteristics. Because both respondents and nonrespondents to the physical health module completed part of the alternative survey, the adjustment used data from modules that both groups completed. These data included demographic, criminal history, mental health, and interview debriefing characteristics. This adjustment ensured that the estimates accurately reflected the full sample, rather than only the inmates who responded to the physical health module. For each inmate, these adjustments were based on a generalized exponential model, developed by Folsom and Singh (2002), and applied to the sexual victimization survey respondents.3
The module nonresponse adjustment maintained the benchmark totals designed to make national-level estimates for the total number of inmates age 18 or older who were held in jails at midyear 2011 or in prisons at yearend 2011. These benchmark totals represented the estimated number of inmates by sex (from BJS’s 2011 Annual Survey of Jails and 2011 National Prisoner Statistics). The national estimates for state prisons were 1,154,600 adult males and 83,400 adult females; for federal prisons, 190,600 adult males and 13,200 adult females; and for jails (with an average daily population of 6 or more inmates), 628,620 adult males and 91,551 adult females.
3Folsom, Jr., R.E. & Singh, A.C. (2000). The Generalized Exponential Model for Sampling Weight Calibration for Extreme Values, Nonresponse, and Poststratification. Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, Survey Research Methods Section, pp. 598–603.

Standard errors and tests of significance
As with any survey, the NIS-3 estimates are subject to error arising from sampling rather than using a complete enumeration of the population of adult inmates in prisons and jails. For each physical health outcome, the estimated sampling error varies by the size of the estimate, the number of completed interviews, and the intra-cluster correlation of the outcome within facilities.
A common way to express this sampling variability is to construct a 95% confidence interval around each survey estimate. Typically, multiplying the standard error by 1.96 and then adding or subtracting the result from the estimate produces the confidence interval. This interval expresses the range of values that could result among 95% of the different samples that could be drawn.
Chronic conditions and infectious disease in the general population
Prevalence rates of chronic conditions and infectious diseases in the general population included in this report come from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH). To be most comparable to the inmate population included in the NIS-3, the survey years from 2009 to 2012 of NSDUH were used in this analysis. Statistical tests comparing the prevalence of chronic conditions and infectious diseases measured in the NIS-3 and NSDUH are presented in tables 1 and 2. NSDUH collects information on six chronic conditions (i.e., high blood pressure, strokerelated problems, diabetes, heart disease, asthma, and cirrhosis of the liver) and four infectious diseases (i.e., HIV or AIDS, tuberculosis, hepatitis, and STDs).
Because the demographic makeup of the general population is different than that of the inmate population (i.e., the general population is older, more white, and more female), general population rates were standardized to the inmate population (i.e., the prison population for table 1 and the jail population for table 2) to assess the differences between comparable populations. Standardization calibrates the weights of one of the populations to the distribution of the other based on a set of specified characteristics. Standardized estimates were computed in SUDAAN using its standardization options in PROC DESCRIPT. For this analysis, the general population was standardized to inmate population based on sex, age, race, and Hispanic origin. The standardized general population estimates for disease can be interpreted as the estimate of disease among the general population, if the general population had the same sex, age, race, and Hispanic origin distribution as the prisoner and jail inmate populations.

MEDICAL PROBLEMS OF STATE AND FEDERAL PRISONERS AND JAIL INMATES, 2011–12 | FEBRUARY 2015

14

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 59-9 Filed: 03/16/20 16 of 24 PageID #: 992
Calculation of body mass index (BMI)
BMI is a measurement of body fat, based on height and weight, that applies to both men and women ages 18 to 65. BMI can be used to determine if a person is underweight (18.5 or less), normal weight (18.5 to 24.9), overweight (25.0 to 29.9), obese (30.0 to 39.9), or morbidly obese (40 or greater). In the NIS-3, BMI was based on the following formula provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention:
BMI = weight (pounds) / (height (inches))2 x 703.

MEDICAL PROBLEMS OF STATE AND FEDERAL PRISONERS AND JAIL INMATES, 2011–12 | FEBRUARY 2015

15

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 59-9 Filed: 03/16/20 17 of 24 PageID #: 993

Appendix table 1 State and federal prisoners with HIV or AIDS, by jurisdiction, yearend 2010, 2011, and 2012

Jurisdiction

2010

2011

2012

U.S. total

20,093

19,536

18,945*

Federal

1,578

1,610

1,601

State

18,515

17,926

17,344*

Alabama

252

274

266

Alaska

/

/

/

Arizona

164

165

181

Arkansas

128

110

105

California

1,098

1,165

1,089

Colorado

181

198

201

Connecticut

301

301

249

Delaware

73

76

81

Florida

2,920

2,679

2,583

Georgia

912

903

891

Hawaii

18

21

13

Idaho

20

/

14

Illinois

487

457

/

Indiana

/

/

/

Iowa

36

37

37

Kansas

33

61

5

Kentucky

87

62

91

Louisiana

665

536

532

Maine

15

3

11

Maryland

722

572

485

Massachusetts

206

208

186

Michigan

233

428

370

Minnesota

47

50

70

Mississippi

254

255

287

Missouri

273

292

295

Montana

7

18

11

Nebraska

20

20

22

Nevada

133

123

115

New Hampshire

12

4

5

New Jersey

420

372

303

New Mexico

27

37

29

New York

3,080

3,010

2,950

North Carolina

720

692

718

North Dakota

9

1

2

Ohio

381

376

405

Oklahoma

155

137

131

Oregon

63

60

63

Pennsylvania

703

706

695

Rhode Island

47

32

35

South Carolina

412

387

328

South Dakota

11

12

11

Tennessee

219

213

226

Texas

2,394

2,320

2,200

Utah

35

24

24

Vermont

3

7

6

Virginia

306

307

279

Washington

75

71

75

West Virginia

25

18

29

Wisconsin

128

120

135

Wyoming

5

6

2

Note: Excludes inmates in jurisdictions that did not report data on HIV or AIDS.

*U.S. and state totals include an estimated number of prisoners with HIV or AIDS in Illinois.

/Not reported.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Prisoner Statistics Program, 2010, 2011, and 2012.

MEDICAL PROBLEMS OF STATE AND FEDERAL PRISONERS AND JAIL INMATES, 2011–12 | FEBRUARY 2015

16

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 59-9 Filed: 03/16/20 18 of 24 PageID #: 994

Appendix table 2 Body mass index of prisoners, by demographic characteristics, 2011–12

Underweight

Normal

Overweight

Obese

Standard Demographic characteristic Percent error

Standard Percent error

Standard Percent error

Standard Percent error

All inmates

0.8% 0.3%

25.6%

1.1%

45.7%

1.1%

25.5% 1.0%

Sex

Male*

0.8% 0.3%

25.8%

1.1%

46.5%

1.2%

24.7% 1.0%

Female

1.0

0.7

21.6**

1.7

34.7**

2.2

37.2** 2.9

Age

18–24*

1.4% 0.6%

42.2%

3.1%

41.2%

2.7%

14.2% 2.1%

25–34

0.3

0.2

29.7**

2.6

47.3

2.5

20.3** 1.7

35–49

1.3

0.6

18.9**

1.5

43.6

1.6

33.3** 2.3

50 or older Race/Hispanic origina

0.5

0.2

21.6**

2.5

50.7**

3.2

25.3** 2.2

White

0.3% 0.1%

28.0%

1.8%

47.2%

1.8%

22.6%** 1.7%

Black/African American*

1.3

0.5

25.2

1.9

42.7

2.1

28.7

1.5

Hispanic/Latino Otherb

1.0

0.7

0.7

0.4

22.0

1.9

47.4

3.8

27.6

3.6

47.0

4.3

26.4

2.8

23.1

4.1

*Comparison group.

**Difference with comparison group is significant at the 95% confidence level.

aExcludes persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, unless specified.

bIncludes persons identified as American Indian or Alaska Native; Asian, Native Hawaiian, or other Pacific Islander; and two or more races.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.

Morbidly obese
Standard Percent error
2.4% 0.4%

2.2% 0.5% 5.6** 1.1

1.1% 0.8%

2.3

1.1

3.0** 0.5

1.9

0.7

1.9% 0.5%

2.1

0.5

3.3

1.4

1.7

0.6

Appendix table 3 Body mass index of jail inmates, by demographic characteristics, 2011–12

Underweight

Normal

Overweight

Obese

Standard Demographic characteristic Percent error

Standard Percent error

Standard Percent error

Standard Percent error

All inmates

1.2% 0.2%

37.2%

1.2%

39.3%

1.1%

20.0%

0.9%

Sex

Male*

1.2% 0.2%

38.3%

1.3%

40.3%

1.1%

18.8%

1.0%

Female

1.8

0.7

29.7**

2.6

31.8**

2.7

28.6**

2.6

Age

18–24*

1.0% 0.4%

52.9%

2.0%

32.1%

2.1%

13.2%

1.4%

25–34

1.3

0.5

34.9**

1.6

42.3**

2.1

18.6**

1.6

35–49

0.9

0.3

27.5**

2.1

41.7**

2.1

27.1**

1.9

50 or older Race/Hispanic origina

3.1

1.1

33.5**

3.1

39.6

3.4

22.2**

3.4

White

1.0% 0.3%

40.3%

2.0%

38.7%

2.0%

18.7%

1.7%

Black/African American*

1.2

0.4

38.1

1.9

36.6

1.9

21.4

1.5

Hispanic/Latino Otherb

1.7

0.8

1.3

0.6

30.7**

2.0

35.7

3.5

44.2**

2.2

39.0

3.5

20.5

2.0

20.4

3.3

*Comparison group.

**Difference with comparison group is significant at the 95% confidence level.

aExcludes persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, unless specified.

bIncludes persons identified as American Indian or Alaska Native; Asian, Native Hawaiian, or other Pacific Islander; and two or more races.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.

Morbidly obese

Standard Percent error

2.3%

0.3%

1.4%

0.2%

8.0**

2.3

0.8%

0.2%

3.0**

0.9

2.9**

0.5

1.6

0.6

1.3%** 0.3%

2.7

0.5

2.9

0.6

3.6

2.3

MEDICAL PROBLEMS OF STATE AND FEDERAL PRISONERS AND JAIL INMATES, 2011–12 | FEBRUARY 2015

17

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 59-9 Filed: 03/16/20 19 of 24 PageID #: 995

Appendix table 4 HIV testing practices and consent received for state and federal prisoners during the intake process, by jurisdiction, 2012

Testing practices

Jurisdiction Federala

Mandatory Opt-out

On

On inmate

Opt-in assessment request

Alabama

X

Arizona

X

Arkansas

X

California

X

Colorado

X

Connecticut

Delaware

X

Florida

X

Georgia

X

Hawaii

X

Idaho

X

Indiana

X

Iowa

X

Kansasb

Kentucky

X

Louisiana

X

Maine

X

Maryland

X

Massachusetts

X

Michigan

X

Minnesota

X

Mississippi

X

Missouri

X

Montana

X

Nebraska

X

Nevada

X

New Hampshire

X

New Jersey

X

New Mexico

X

New Yorkc

North Carolina

X

North Dakota

X

Ohio

X

Oklahoma

X

Oregond

Pennsylvania

X

Rhode Island

X

South Carolina

X

South Dakota

X

Tennessee

X

Texas

X

Utah

X

Vermont

X

Virginia

X

Washington

X

West Virginia

X

X

Wisconsin

X

Wyoming

X

Note: Alaska and Illinois did not report data on testing practices during the intake process.

~Not applicable.

/Not reported.

aHIV testing was only offered to sentenced inmates.

bInmates were only tested for HIV if blood exposure occurred with staff or inmate volunteers.

cAll inmates were offered HIV testing.

dInmates were only tested for HIV on court order.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Prisoner Statistics Program, 2012.

Other X
X
X X

Do not provide
X

Consent obtained

General HIV test

None

X

X

X

X

X

X

~

~

~

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

/

/

/

X

X

X

/

/

/

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

MEDICAL PROBLEMS OF STATE AND FEDERAL PRISONERS AND JAIL INMATES, 2011–12 | FEBRUARY 2015

18

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 59-9 Filed: 03/16/20 20 of 24 PageID #: 996

Appendix table 5 HIV testing practices for state and federal prisoners while in custody, by jurisdiction, 2012

Jurisdiction Federal Alabama Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Floridaa Georgia Hawaii Idaho Indiana Iowa Kansasb Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michiganc Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New Yorkd North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

Offered during routine exam
X X X X X X X X
X
X X
X X
X X
X X X X X

High-risk X X X X X X X
X
X X X X
X
X X
X X
X X

Inmate request X X X X X X X X

Clinical indication X X X X X X X X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Court order X X X X X X X X
X
X X X X X
X X X
X X
X
X X
X
X
X X X X X X
X
X

Note: Alaska and Illinois did not report data on testing practices while in custody. aInmates could be tested for HIV at any time during incarceration. bAll pregnant inmates were tested for HIV. cInmates were tested for HIV on request yearly and if blood exposure occurred. dTesting for HIV was offered on a voluntary basis when transferring between facilities and participating in the Family Reunion Program.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Prisoner Statistics Program, 2012.

Involved in an incident
X
X X X X X
X
X X X X X X X X
X X X
X X X X
X X X X X
X X
X X
X X
X

MEDICAL PROBLEMS OF STATE AND FEDERAL PRISONERS AND JAIL INMATES, 2011–12 | FEBRUARY 2015

19

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 59-9 Filed: 03/16/20 21 of 24 PageID #: 997

Appendix table 6 HIV testing practices for state and federal prisoners during discharge planning, by jurisdiction, 2012

Jurisdiction

All inmates offered

Some inmates offered

Only on inmate request

Other

Do not provide

Federal Alabamaa

X X

Arizona

X

Arkansas

X

California

X

Colorado

X

Connecticut

X

Delaware

X

Florida

X

Georgia

X

Hawaii

X

Idaho

X

Indiana

X

Iowa

X

Kansas

X

Kentucky

X

Louisiana

X

Maine Marylandb

X X

Massachusetts

X

Michigan

X

Minnesota

X

Mississippi Missouric

X X

Nebraska

X

Nevadaa

X

New Hampshire

X

New Jersey

X

New Mexico

X

New York

X

North Carolina

X

North Dakota

X

Ohio

X

Oklahoma

X

Oregon

X

Pennsylvania

X

Rhode Island

X

South Carolina South Dakotad

X X

Tennessee Texasa Utahe

X X X

Vermont

X

Virginia

X

Washington

X

West Virginia

X

Wisconsin

X

Wyoming

X

Note: Alaska, Illinois, and Montana did not report data on testing practices during discharge planning.

aAll inmates tested for HIV on discharge.

bInmates were tested for HIV on request and offered HIV testing for upcoming releases.

cHIV testing was mandatory for all offenders not already HIV positive.

dAll inmates were offered HIV testing at Mike Durfee State Prison. At South Dakota State Prison and South Dakota Women’s Prison, inmates were only tested on inmate request.

eUtah State Health Department tested all inmates for HIV on day of parole.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Prisoner Statistics Program, 2012.

MEDICAL PROBLEMS OF STATE AND FEDERAL PRISONERS AND JAIL INMATES, 2011–12 | FEBRUARY 2015

20

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 59-9 Filed: 03/16/20 22 of 24 PageID #: 998

Appendix table 7 Prevalence of a current chronic condition among state and federal prisoners and jail inmates, 2011–12

Current chronic condition Total
Cancer High blood pressure/hypertension Stroke-related problems Diabetes/high blood sugar Heart-related problems Kidney-related problems Arthritis/rheumatism Asthma Cirrhosis of the liver

State and federal prisoners*

Percent

Standard error

41.0%

1.4%

1.1

0.2

23.0

1.3

0.9

0.2

7.4

0.7

5.1

0.7

3.4

0.5

12.4

1.0

11.9

0.8

1.3

0.3

Percent 39.8% 1.5 20.2 1.0 5.3** 6.0 3.8 10.5 15.6** 1.3

Jail inmates Standard error 1.3% 0.3 1.0 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.7 1.0 0.3

*Comparison group. **Difference with comparison group is significant at the 95% confidence level.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.

Appendix table 8 Standard errors for table 3: Prevalence of ever having a chronic condition or infectious disease among state and federal prisoners and jail inmates, by demographic characteristics, 2011–12

Chronic condition

Infectious disease

Demographic characteristic State and federal prisoners

All inmates

1.5%

Sex

Male

1.6%

Female

2.1

Age

18–24

2.7%

25–34

2.7

35–49

1.9

50 or older

4.3

Race/Hispanic origin

White

2.1%

Black/African American

2.9

Hispanic/Latino

2.8

Other

5.4

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.

Jail inmates 1.3%
1.3% 2.7
2.0% 1.9 2.1 2.5
1.9% 1.7 2.3 3.4

State and federal prisoners 1.3%
1.4% 2.0
2.0% 2.5 1.5 3.1
1.8% 1.5 3.4 2.6

Jail inmates 0.7%
0.7% 2.4
1.0% 1.2 1.2 4.2
1.2% 1.4 1.2 2.1

Appendix table 9 Standard errors for figure 2: Rates of ever having a chronic condition among state and federal prisoners, 2004 and 2011–12

State and federal prisoners

Ever had a chronic condition

2004

2011–12

Chronic condition

High blood pressure/hypertension

0.4%

1.2%

Diabetes/high blood sugar

0.2

0.8

Asthma

0.3

0.9

Arthritis/rheumatism

0.4

0.9

Heart-related problems

0.3

1.0

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12; and Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities, 2004.

Appendix table 10 Standard errors for figure 3: Rate of ever having a chronic condition among jail inmates, 2002 and 2011–12

Ever had a chronic condition Chronic condition
High blood pressure/hypertension Diabetes/high blood sugar Asthma Arthritis/rheumatism Heart-related problems

Jail inmates

2002

2011–12

0.5%

1.1%

0.3

0.6

0.5

1.0

0.5

0.7

0.4

0.7

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12; and Survey of Inmates in Local Jails, 2002.

MEDICAL PROBLEMS OF STATE AND FEDERAL PRISONERS AND JAIL INMATES, 2011–12 | FEBRUARY 2015

21

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 59-9 Filed: 03/16/20 23 of 24 PageID #: 999

Appendix table 11 State and federal prisoners and jail inmates, by demographic characteristics, 2011–12

State and federal prisoners*

Jail inmates

Demographic characteristic

Number

Percent

Standard error

Number

Percent

All inmates

1,441,800

100%

~

720,200

100%

Sex

Male

1,345,200

93.3%

0.9%

628,600

87.3%**

Female Race/Hispanic origina

96,600

6.7

0.9

91,600

12.7**

White

427,100

29.9%

1.5%

261,800

36.7%**

Black/African American

489,900

34.3

2.3

222,500

31.2

Hispanic/Latino Otherb

356,100

24.9

2.6

156,000

10.9

1.0

146,400

20.5

82,800

11.6

Age

18–24

166,200

11.5%

0.9%

188,200

26.1%**

25–34

471,700

32.7

1.4

255,100

35.4

35–49

559,500

38.8

1.5

210,400

29.2**

50 or older

244,500

17.0

1.0

66,500

9.2**

*Comparison group.

**Difference with comparison group is significant at the 95% confidence level.

~Not applicable.

aExcludes persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, unless specified.

bIncludes persons identified as American Indian or Alaska Native; Asian, Native Hawaiian, or other Pacific Islander; and two or more races.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.

Standard error ~
0.9% 0.9
1.6% 1.8 1.6 0.8
1.0% 1.1 1.1 0.7

MEDICAL PROBLEMS OF STATE AND FEDERAL PRISONERS AND JAIL INMATES, 2011–12 | FEBRUARY 2015

22

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 59-9 Filed: 03/16/20 24 of 24 PageID #: 1000
The Bureau of Justice Statistics of the U.S. Department of Justice is the principal federal agency responsible for measuring crime, criminal victimization, criminal offenders, victims of crime, correlates of crime, and the operation of criminal and civil justice systems at the federal, state, tribal, and local levels. BJS collects, analyzes, and disseminates reliable and valid statistics on crime and justice systems in the United States, supports improvements to state and local criminal justice information systems, and participates with national and international organizations to develop and recommend national standards for justice statistics. William J. Sabol is acting director. This report was written by Laura M. Maruschak, BJS Statistician, and Marcus Berzofsky, Dr.P.H., and Jennifer Unangst, RTI International. E. Ann Carson and Jennifer Bronson, Ph.D., BJS Statisticians, and Jennifer Unangst, RTI International, provided statistical verification and review. Morgan Young, Irene Cooperman, and Jill Thomas edited the report. Barbara Quinn produced the report. February 2015, NCJ 248491
Celebrating 35 years
Office of Justice Programs Innovation • Partnerships • Safer Neighborhoods
www.ojp.usdoj.gov

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 59-10 Filed: 03/16/20 1 of 4 PageID #: 1001
EXHIBIT J Proposed Order

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 59-10 Filed: 03/16/20 2 of 4 PageID #: 1002

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION

MICHAEL AMOS, ET AL.

PLAINTIFFS

V.

Case No. 4:20-CV-007-DMB-JMV

TOMMY TAYLOR, ET AL.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER REQUIRING ACTION AT PARCHMAN TO PROTECT AGAINST COVID-19
HAVING COME before the Court, Plaintiffs, individually, and as putative representatives
of the proposed class, pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, requesting
emergency measures to protect against COVID-19 at the Mississippi State Penitentiary at
Parchman, Mississippi (“Parchman”), and the Court, having considered the Motion, its
accompanying Memorandum, and the submissions and arguments of Defendants, finds that the
Motion is well-taken and should be GRANTED.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
a. Immediate Testing. Defendants immediately shall implement testing protocols for the identification and containment of COVID-19. These protocols must include the immediate testing of all inmates, Parchman employees, and all other individuals entering Parchman.
b. Immediate Screening. Defendants immediately shall implement protocols to screen each employee or other person entering the facility each and every day to detect individuals with fever over 100 degrees, cough, shortness of breath, recent travel to a high risk country, and/or exposure to someone who is symptomatic or under surveillance for COVID-19.
c. Current Inmate Quarantine. Defendants immediately shall establish nonpunitive quarantine for all individuals who test positive for COVID-19, who were directly exposed to individuals who test positive for COVID-19, or who exhibit symptoms of the virus.
d. New Inmate Quarantine. Defendants immediately shall establish non-punitive quarantine for fourteen (14) days for all new inmates entering Parchman to ensure they are not infected before integrating them into the general population.

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 59-10 Filed: 03/16/20 3 of 4 PageID #: 1003
e. Institutional Hygiene. Defendants immediately shall institute protocols to clean and disinfect Parchman at least once daily including, without limitation, all common spaces, highly traveled areas, and cells.
f. Personal Hygiene. Defendants immediately shall declassify hand sanitizer as contraband and issue hand sanitizer with at least 60% alcohol, antibacterial soap, antibacterial wipes, and other applicable hygiene products to each inmate free of charge, and shall ensure that replacements are available upon reasonable request.
g. Limit Contact Visitation. Defendants shall continue to limit visitation that allows inmates to come into physical contact with visitors, but immediately must implement or increase non-contact visitation methods and opportunities such as video conferencing and/or telephone calls.
h. Waive Copays. Defendants immediately shall take steps to waive copays or other costs to inmates for inmate medical evaluations and care related in any way to COVID-19 and/or its symptoms.
i. Supply Chain. Defendants immediately shall identify the supplies and other goods and materials upon which Parchman is dependent, such as food, medical supplies, certain medicines, cleaning products, etcetera, and prepare a plan to accommodate shortages, delays or disruptions in the supply chain for these items.
Defendants shall report in writing to the Court within seven (7) days of the date of this
Order to apprise the Court of: (1) their progress in implementing each of the foregoing measures;
(2) the results of testing of employees and inmates at Parchman including the number of COVID-
19 cases at Parchman, if any, in each group; and (3) the measures in place to: (a) quarantine inmates
who have tested positive for COVID-19 or who potentially have been exposed and present a high
risk for developing COVID-19; and (b) quarantine separately for fourteen (14) days inmates who
are transferred to Parchman on or after the date of this Order. Defendants shall update the Court
weekly regarding all of the foregoing efforts.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, this the ____ day of March 2020.
________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 59-10 Filed: 03/16/20 4 of 4 PageID #: 1004
Prepared by:
Marcy B. Croft (MS Bar #10864) Carson H. Thurman (MS Bar #104871) MARON MARVEL BRADLEY ANDERSON & TARDY LLC 200 South Lamar Street Jackson, MS 39201 Telephone: (601) 960-8630 Telefax: (601) 206-0119
Thomas G. Bufkin (MS Bar #10810) CARROLL BUFKIN, PLLC 1076 Highland Colony Parkway 600 Concourse, Suite 125 Ridgeland, MS 39157 Telephone: (601) 982-5011 Telefax: (601) 853-9540
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

 
 Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 60 Filed: 03/16/20 1 of 12 PageID #: 1005

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION

MICHAEL AMOS, ET AL.

PLAINTIFFS

V.

CASE NO. 4:20-CV-007-DMB-JMV

TOMMY TAYLOR, ET AL.

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND MANDATORY PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION AS TO COVID-19

INTRODUCTION/FACTS

The World Health Organization (“WHO”) has declared the coronavirus disease of 2019, also known as COVID-19, a global pandemic.1 As of March 16, 2020, there were 168,019

confirmed coronavirus cases worldwide, which have resulted in 6,610 deaths.2 On March 13, 2020,

President Trump declared a national state of emergency3, and, the following day, Governor Tate Reeves followed suit in Mississippi4. Indeed, this Court has taken judicial notice of the pandemic

and has taken action to protect the Court, its staff, jurors and the public.5

As the number of cases in Mississippi grows, Governor Reeves has urged government officials to take “proactive measures to limit community spread.”6 The Governor’s promise is that

“we [in Mississippi] are not taking any chances.”7 The Governor’s advice: “I urge all

1 See World Health Organization Director-General’s Brief on COVID-19 (3/11/2020) (Ex. A). 2 See WHO website on COVID-19 cases worldwide
https://who.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/c88e37cfc43b4ed3baf977d77e4a0667 3 See Presidential Proclamation Declaring a National Emergency Concerning the Novel Coronavirus
Disease (COVID-19) dated 3/13/2020 (Ex. B). 4 See State of Mississippi, Office of Governor, Proclamation dated 03/14/2020 (Ex. C). 5 See Standing Order In Re: The Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19), 3:20-mc-9, U.S. District Court for the
N.D. Miss. dated 3/16/2020 (Ex. D). 6 See Governor’s video press release re: COVID-19 (3/14/ 2020). 7 Id.

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 60 Filed: 03/16/20 2 of 12 PageID #: 1006
Mississippians to use caution.”8 Similarly, the WHO is encouraging citizens to take responsibility for their own safety. The WHO states that “[e]very person has the capacity to contribute, to protect themselves, to protect others, whether in the home, the community, the healthcare system, the workplace or the transport system.”9 Unfortunately, neither the Governor’s advice, nor the WHO’s supposition, is entirely true.
The inmates at the Mississippi State Penitentiary at Parchman (“Parchman”) cannot “use caution” to avoid COVID-19, as suggested by the Governor. Neither do inmates have the capacity to “protect themselves,” as assumed by the WHO. Inmates at Parchman are wholly dependent on the Mississippi Department of Corrections (“MDOC”) for their health and safety, including their protection from COVID-19. In the face of the coronavirus pandemic, Parchman inmates are helpless in the most literal sense of the word, and without Court intervention, the MDOC will default to the same feckless approach to crises that has become the norm at Parchman.
Thus far in 2020, twenty-seven (27) inmates have died in MDOC custody.10 Some of these deaths were caused, in one way or another, by abhorrent living and medical conditions inside Parchman, which have been described by some experts as the worst by far in the United States.11 Among the litany of woefully deficient conditions inside Parchman, perhaps the chief complaint is the lack of adequate medical care.12 In Parchman, treatment for minor ailments is hard to come by, let alone serious diseases that require monitoring and medication. An outbreak of coronavirus inside Parchman, where many inmates suffer from respiratory diseases that place them at increased
8 Id. 9 See WHO Statement, COVID-19 cases surpassing 100,000 (3/7/2020) (Ex. E). 10 See Doc. # 56 (Plaintiffs’ Opposed Motion for Judicial Notice of 2020 deaths of inmates in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections). 11 See Affidavit of Marc Stern, MD MPH (Ex. F). 12 See Examples of Insufficient Medical Care (Doc. # 14 (Plaintiff’s Motion for TRO and Injunctive Relief); Doc # 19 (Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint); Doc # 33-34, (Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Expedited Discovery); and Doc # 39 (Plaintiffs’ Reply Memorandum in Support of their Motion to Compel)).
2

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 60 Filed: 03/16/20 3 of 12 PageID #: 1007
risk, will immediately overwhelm Parchman’s broken medical apparatus and wreak havoc on the health and safety of the inmate population.
Without immediate Court intervention, Plaintiffs and the other inmates at Parchman will be left helpless, subject to the whims of a virus that has proven fatal, with virtually no protection. The United States and the World are taking unprecedented protective measures to stem the spread of the coronavirus, yet MDOC’s flaccid response has been merely to cancel visitation and limit transfers.13 Defendants are charged by law with protecting the inmates under their care and custody. They cannot be allowed to do virtually nothing in the face of the greatest public health threat to the United States citizenry in over 50 years.
SPECIFIC RELIEF SOUGHT Plaintiffs request the following emergency relief:
a. Immediate Testing. Defendants must be required immediately to implement testing protocols for the identification and containment of COVID-19. These protocols must include the immediate testing of all inmates, Parchman employees, and all other individuals entering Parchman. Specifically, a random sample of inmates (subject to their consent) are to be tested to determine the likelihood that the virus is already present in the facility. If the virus is already present or becomes present, the institution is to be provided with adequate testing kits to determine the extent of the crisis. Those with symptoms, or of a vulnerable class, are to be prioritized. If said adequate testing kits are unavailable or scarce, then the most concerning symptoms—fever and cough—should be tested first. Finally, all guards and other facility employees are to be tested regularly (every two weeks) to ensure that the virus is not carried into
13 See MDOC Press Release “MDOC Takes Preventative Steps Against Coronavirus Exposure” dated 3/12/2020 (Ex. G).
3

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 60 Filed: 03/16/20 4 of 12 PageID #: 1008
the facility. Said guards and employees are to be supplied with masks and gloves so that the virus is not unintentionally and unknowingly spread inside the facility.
b. Immediate Screening. Defendants must be required to screen each employee or other person entering the facility every day to detect fever over 100 degrees, cough, shortness of breath, recent travel to a high risk country, and/or exposure to someone who is symptomatic or under surveillance for COVID-19.
c. Current Inmate Quarantine. Defendants must be required to establish nonpunitive quarantine for all individuals who test positive for COVID-19, who were directly exposed to individuals who test positive for COVID-19, or who exhibit symptoms of the virus. High-risk incarcerated persons must be transferred to a medical facility that can accommodate them to ensure they are appropriately quarantined and treated. Any individual who must interact with those confirmed or likely inflicted with COVID-19 must utilize masks and gloves. In short, every possible effort must be made to separate infected or potentially infected individuals from the rest of the incarcerated population. Finally, it must be ensured that no individual is incarcerated past his release date, even if quarantine is warranted, so confirmed cases requiring quarantine should be transferred from Parchman to an outside hospital or to self-quarantine in such a scenario.
d. New Inmate Quarantine. Defendants must be required to establish a fourteen (14) day, non-punitive quarantine for all new inmates entering Parchman to ensure they are not infected before exposing them to the general population.
e. Institutional Hygiene. Defendants must be required to increase the sanitation and cleaning protocol and frequency for all public spaces, highly traveled areas, and cells.
f. Personal Hygiene. Defendants must be required to provide hand sanitizer with 60% or more alcohol, antibacterial soap, antibacterial wipes and other hygiene products to each
4

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 60 Filed: 03/16/20 5 of 12 PageID #: 1009
inmate free of charge and ensure replacement products are available as needed. Further, hand sanitizer with 60% or more alcohol must be declassified temporarily as contraband, as it is one of the only methods proven to slow and prevent the spread of coronavirus.
g. Limit Contact Visitation. Based on information and belief, Defendants already have limited physical contact visitation, but Defendants must be required to implement or increase non-contact visitation options such as video conferencing and/or telephone calls for all types of visits (family, nonlegal, professional visits, etcetera). Plaintiffs acknowledge that while suspension of physical visitation may be necessary to contain or slow the spread of the virus, measures such as suspension of visitation and institution-wide lockdown have significant negative effects on people under correctional control and their families. For example, psychological distress and increased incidences of violence are documented effects of such measures. Therefore, it is imperative that non-contact visitation methods be implemented and utilized liberally.
h. Waive Copays. Defendants, including without limitation healthcare providers working under their direction, must be required to waive copays for inmate medical evaluation and care related in any way to COVID-19 and/or its symptoms. A waiver of these types of copays is necessary to avoid disincentivizing inmates from requesting medical treatment. Further, steps must be taken to reduce wait times for medical evaluation and treatment to the fullest extent possible. Additionally, the most vulnerable individuals (anyone who is elderly and/or has a history of respiratory illness) should be prioritized and seen as quickly as possible. Further, masks and gloves are to be provided to those exhibiting symptoms (such as coughing and sneezing) while they await medical screening/care.
i. Supply Chain. Defendants must be required to identify the supplies and other materials upon which the institution is dependent, such as food, medical supplies, certain
5

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 60 Filed: 03/16/20 6 of 12 PageID #: 1010
medicines, cleaning products, etcetera, and prepare for shortages of these items, and delays or disruptions in the supply chain.
j. Reporting. Defendants must be required to report to the Court weekly to apprise the Court of the progress made in implementing the foregoing and the results of testing of employees and inmates; the numbers of COVID-19 cases at Parchman, if any; and the measures in place to separate inmates who have tested positive, or who may have been exposed, from the general population.
ARGUMENT It is well-established that courts should grant preliminary injunctive relief where the movant can show the following: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a substantial threat that the movant
will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is denied; (3) that the threatened injury outweighs any damage that the injunction might cause the defendant; and (4) that the injunction will not disserve the public interest. Jackson Women’s Health Org. v. Currier, 760 F.3d 448, 452 (quoting Hoover v. Morales, 164 F.3d 221, 224 (5th Cir. 1998)). The same standard applies to both a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction. Clark v. Pritchard, 812 F.2d 991, 993 (5th Cir. 1987). Further, courts should compel certain actions through granting mandatory injunctive relief where the movant shows a clear entitlement to the relief under the facts and the law. Justin Indus., Inc. v. Choctaw Secur., Ltd. P'ship, 920 F.2d 262, 264 (5th Cir. 1990). I. Plaintiffs are Substantially Likely to Succeed on the Merits, as Plaintiffs are Indisputably Entitled to Reasonable Protections Against COVID-19 Defendants are obligated by law to provide for the health and safety of inmates at Parchman. Prison officials at Parchman have a duty to provide adequate medical care, shelter, and to take “‘reasonable measures to guarantee the safety of the inmates.’” Brown v. Plata, 563 U.S.
6

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 60 Filed: 03/16/20 7 of 12 PageID #: 1011
493, 511 (2011) (quoting Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 526-27 (1984)). “A prison that deprives prisoners of basic sustenance, including adequate medical care, is incompatible with the concept of human dignity and has no place in civilized society.” Id. Defendants are under a duty to take affirmative steps in order to safeguard prisoners by providing them safe, sufficient, and sanitary shelter along with adequate medical treatment. See Id.; see also Palmer v. Johnson, 193 F.3d 346, 352 (5th Cir. 1999) (finding that prisoners are entitled to basic hygiene); Harper v. Showers, 174 F.3d 716, 720 (5th Cir. 1999) (holding as non-frivolous a prisoner’s claims based on deprivation of cleanliness, sleep, and peace of mind); Gates v. Cook, 376 F.3d 323, 338 (5th Cir. 2004) (affirming injunction to clean cells between occupants and make cleaning supplies available weekly); Ramos v. Lamm, 639 F.2d 559, 568 (10th Cir. 1980) (prisoner is entitled to “shelter which does not cause his degeneration or threaten his mental and physical wellbeing.”).
Plaintiffs seek to require Defendants to honor their legal obligation and take reasonable steps immediately to protect inmates at Parchman from COVID-19. Given that the entire World is in a state of emergency, there is a substantial likelihood that Plaintiffs will succeed on the merits of their motion seeking reasonable protections for themselves and the other inmates, who are particularly at risk, but who are not allowed the means available to other citizens to protect themselves.
Unfortunately, Defendants consistently struggle to provide, if not recklessly disregard, basic medical care at Parchman. This deficiency existed long before the rapid spread of COVID19. Scores of sworn affirmations have revealed medieval conditions at Parchman where inmates suffer in cells with no electricity, no running water, overflowing toilets, feces and urine on the floors, rats in the bunks, no heat, no air conditioning, no medical treatment, and no prescription
7

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 60 Filed: 03/16/20 8 of 12 PageID #: 1012
medication.14 So inept is the healthcare system at Parchman, many inmates often cannot even get to the institution’s medical facility, much less receive effective treatment.15 It is upon this woeful healthcare record that Defendants stand to confront the COVID-19 pandemic. Without Court intervention, Plaintiffs and the other inmates at Parchman will remain in their wretched conditions without any meaningful measures to protect them from the deadly pandemic unfolding on their doorstep.
II. Plaintiffs Will Suffer Irreparable Harm Without the Relief Requested There is no greater “irreparable harm” than death, and the risk of death from COVID-19 is
quantifiable. 6,610 people, most of whom likely were living in far better conditions than the inmates at Parchman, have died as a result of COVID-19 as of March 16, 2020. Whatever the risk factor from COVID-19 for people living in the free, outside world, that risk factor must be significantly higher inside the close confines Parchman, where Plaintiffs and other inmates routinely suffer from high blood pressure, diabetes, heart-related problems, asthma, and tuberculosis.16 The CDC has confirmed individuals with these maladies are at significantly higher risk of serious illness or death from COVID-19.17
In order to combat the spread of coronavirus, the CDC recommends that everyone (1) wash their hands often with soap and water, especially after blowing the nose, coughing, sneezing, or having been in a public place; (2) if soap and water is not available, use hand sanitizer containing
14 See Doc. # 14 at 4-5 (Plaintiffs’ Supportive Memo. to their Original Motion for TRO and Injunctive Relief). 15 See Medical Records of Inmate Larry Maxwell (showing repeated visits to medical clinic without receiving treatment) (Ex. H). 16 Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, Medical Problems of State and Federal Prisoners and Jail Inmates, 2011-12, NCJ 248491 (Rev. Oct. 4, 2016) (Ex. I). 17 Id.
8

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 60 Filed: 03/16/20 9 of 12 PageID #: 1013
at least 60% alcohol; (3) clean and disinfect their homes and frequently touched surfaces; and, (4) avoid crowds, especially in poorly ventilated spaces.18
Parchman inmates are precluded from taking any of these protective measures. Despite their vile living conditions, Parchman inmates are provided only one bar of soap a week; they often are housed in cells without running water and are forced to wash their clothing in their toilets; they are not provided cleaners or disinfectants of any kind on a regular basis, if ever; they are not provided hand sanitizer, which actually is considered contraband by MDOC; and they are constantly crammed into crowded spaces with poor ventilation. In short, Parchman inmates live in conditions that are perfectly opposite the best practices recommended by the CDC. Without Court intervention, Plaintiffs and the other inmates at Parchman will suffer the maximum effects of COVID-19, including death, which certainly satisfies the irreparable harm standard.
III. The Harm Faced by Plaintiffs Significantly Outweighs Any Prejudice to Defendants as a Result of the Injunctive Relief Requested
Plaintiffs have requested proactive injunctive relief specifically tailored to minimize the potential impact of COVID-19 on the inmate population at Parchman. Neither the cost of these protective measures, nor any other potential “harm” that Defendants may argue, outweighs the substantial need to protect Plaintiffs and the inmate population, who are helpless against COVID19 without these measures. In fact, the cheapest solution for Defendants is for the inmate population at Parchman not to become infected. Reasonable measures such as frequent and robust cleanings with disinfectants; the distribution of personal hygiene products such as hand sanitizer, disinfectant wipes and gels; and the frequent testing and screening of inmates and employees will
18 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, People At Risk for Serious Illness from COVID-19 (Mar. 12, 2020, 11:35 p.m.), https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/specific-groups/high-riskcomplications.html
9

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 60 Filed: 03/16/20 10 of 12 PageID #: 1014
save untold amounts in taxpayer dollars versus the cost of a widespread outbreak requiring extensive medical treatment of prisoners.
IV. The Injunctive Relief Requested Will Not Disserve The Public Interest The injunctive relief sought will not disserve the public interest. In fact, the relief requested
will serve the public interest in several ways. First, the public’s interest is always served by following the law and protecting fellow human beings. Second, the public’s interest will be served by mitigating the costs of treating COVID-19 victims at Parchman by preventing the spread of the disease within the facility. Third, the public’s interest will be served by stemming the spread of COVID-19 among the families and communities of Parchman’s hundreds of administrators, employees and contractors.
V. Plaintiffs Should Not Be Required to Post Bond. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c) requires that movants requesting a preliminary injunction post security
normally in the form of a bond. The amount of said bound is determined by Court. However, the Court is free to determine that no such bond is required based on the situation. See, e.g., Corrigan Dispatch Co. v. Casa Guzman, S.A., 569 F.2d 300, 302-303 (5th Cir. 1978) (cited approvingly in Gordon v. City of Houston, Texas, 2015 WL 138115, at *16 (S.D. Tex. January 9, 2015)). Plaintiffs are indigent prisoners of the State and do not have the resources to post a bond. Therefore, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court waive the bond requirement as to this Motion, or alternatively, impose a purely nominal bond.
10

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 60 Filed: 03/16/20 11 of 12 PageID #: 1015

CONCLUSION

The entire World is mobilizing in a desperate attempt to avoid the full brunt of the

coronavirus. The United States is in the midst of unprecedented measures in hopes of containing

the spread, and the resulting human and economic costs, of a widespread outbreak. Amidst this

chaos, it would be very easy to forget those who are most helpless; those who are locked away out

of sight and out of mind; those who are suffering not only the consequences of their actions, but

also the consequences of a broken system that cannot, or will not, care for them as human beings.

Court intervention, as described herein, is required to help these people who literally cannot help

themselves.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs request that this Honorable Court

grant the instant Motion and provide the relief sought herein and any other relief that the Court

deems to be just and appropriate under the circumstances.

Date: March 16, 2020

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Marcy B. Croft Marcy B. Croft (MS Bar #10864) Carson H. Thurman (MS Bar #104871) MARON MARVEL BRADLEY ANDERSON & TARDY LLC 200 South Lamar Street Jackson, MS 39201 Telephone: (601) 960-8630 Telefax: (601) 206-0119
Thomas G. Bufkin (MS Bar #10810) CARROLL BUFKIN, PLLC 1076 Highland Colony Parkway 600 Concourse, Suite 125 Ridgeland, MS 39157 Telephone: (601) 982-5011 Telefax: (601) 853-9540
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
11

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 60 Filed: 03/16/20 12 of 12 PageID #: 1016 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 16th day of March 2020, a copy of the foregoing was filed electronically with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system. Notice of this filing will be sent to all counsel for record registered to receive electronic service by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system.
/s/ Marcy B. Croft
12

 
 Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 61 Filed: 03/17/20 1 of 1 PageID #: 1017

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

MICHAEL AMOS, et al.

PLAINTIFFS

V.

NO. 4:20-CV-7-DMB-JMV

TOMMY TAYLOR, et al.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER On March 16, 2020, the plaintiffs filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and for a mandatory preliminary injunction. Doc. #59. The motion seeks a wide spectrum of injunctive relief related to the prevention and treatment of the COVID-19 virus at Parchman. Id. at 1–3. The defendants are DIRECTED to respond to the motion on or before March 19, 2020. The plaintiffs are DIRECTED to file a reply no later than March 20, 2020. SO ORDERED, this 17th day of March, 2020.
/s/Debra M. Brown UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 
 Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 64 Filed: 03/20/20 1 of 10 PageID #: 1107

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION

MICHAEL AMOS, ET AL.

PLAINTIFFS

V.

CASE NO. 4:20-CV-007-DMB-JMV

TOMMY TAYLOR, ET AL.

DEFENDANTS

PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND MANDATORY PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AS TO
COVID-19
At the time the instant Motion was filed, the World Health Organization (“WHO”) had

declared COVID-19, a global pandemic, with 168,019 confirmed cases worldwide, resulting in

6,610 deaths [Dkt. # 60, p. 1]; and, Defendants had announced only two measures they were taking to protect Named Plaintiffs, and all other people incarcerated or employed at Parchman:1

(1) the suspension of certain visitation privileges and (2) a limitation on MDOC transfers. These

measures were being implemented “until further notice,” as MDOC confessed in its Response to

Named Plaintiffs’ motion, “in order to establish sanitation and prevention protocols to prevent

the spread of COVID-19.” [Dkt. # 62-1, p. 22 (emphasis added)]. Named Plaintiffs necessarily

relied on MDOC’s own statements as accurate descriptions of their efforts at that time.

Four days have passed. The World Health Organization now places the current count of

confirmed cases worldwide at 234,073, an increase of nearly forty percent (40%). [Dkt. # 60, p.

1, fn. 2 (updated to March 20, 2020)]. In an effort to stream-line this issue for the Court and the

parties, Plaintiffs’ Counsel contacted Defense Counsel prior to the filing of their response and
1 Defendants quibble with references in the Motion and Memorandum to both Named Plaintiffs and the remaining people incarcerated at Parchman - the unnamed putative class members. Defendants are fully aware that the parties and the Court have not yet addressed the issue of class certification in this matter. Yet, there is no question that the protective measures put in place for the entire inmate population necessarily impact Named Plaintiffs and vice versa, as a spread of COVID-19 through Parchman will not discriminate.

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 64 Filed: 03/20/20 2 of 10 PageID #: 1108
suggested the parties work together to present an order to the Court reflecting the protective measures both sides agree would be reasonable and appropriate. Unfortunately, Defense Counsel declined the offer, rebuffing any suggestion of a discussion. Nevertheless, Named Plaintiffs are pleased to read of the promised steps Centurion and MDOC will take in relation to this crisis, as well as the new measures they claim to have put in place since the filing of Plaintiffs’ motion.
MDOC’s Response reveals a commitment to implementing the procedures generally referenced in three primary documents: (1) the “Centurion Pandemic Preparedness and Emergency Response Plan” [Dkt. # 62-2, p. 16-24], (2) the MDOC Pandemic Influenza Plan SOP 25-09-B [Dkt # 62-2, p. 10-15], and (3) the Centurion general information pamphlets for Incarcerated Persons, Security Staff, and Correctional Healthcare Staff [Dkt # 62-2, p. 5-9]. While no response plan specific to the facilities at Parchman was produced by Defendants, we are relieved that the materials that were produced reflect a requirement to develop same and Centurion and Defendants stated commitment to implementing that plan.
Moreover, in their Response, Defendants claim they have already undertaken some of the new measures that would ultimately be included in any finalized plan to combat the introduction and spread of COVID-19 at the Parchman facilities. Specifically, Defendants now claim to have taken the following measures which correspond with the following requests for relief in Named Plaintiffs’ motion:
(1) Plaintiffs requested that Defendants “screen each employee or other person entering the facility every day to detect fever over 100 degrees, cough, shortness of breath, recent travel to a high risk country, and/or exposure to someone who is symptomatic or under surveillance for COVID-19.
2

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 64 Filed: 03/20/20 3 of 10 PageID #: 1109
Defendants now claim they have implemented “procedures for screening staff and other visitors and restrictions on staff from entering the facility with symptoms of the virus” [Dkt. # 63, p. 3].
(2) Focusing on monitoring, Plaintiffs requested that Defendants “establish non-punitive quarantine for all individuals who test positive for COVID-19, who were directly exposed to individuals who test positive for COVID-19, or who exhibit symptoms of the virus,” which necessarily involves monitoring inmates for symptoms of the virus.
Defendants now claim they have implemented procedures wherein “MDOC officers are currently actively monitoring inmates for symptoms of COVID-19, such as headaches, fevers, coughing, shortness of breath, and trouble breathing” [Dkt. # 63, p. 3]. Notably, however, Defendants provide no evidence to support this claim, nor do they describe how exactly MDOC officers “actively monitor” for headaches, fevers and other internal symptoms that do not announce themselves like a cough. This is especially concerning since evidence shows that most MDOC officers rarely enter housing zones, and, when they do, they are isolated from the inmates in common hallways outside the zones or in sealed observation towers from which active monitoring, as contemplated herein, is impossible.
(3) Focusing on quarantine, Plaintiffs requested the establishment of “non-punitive quarantine for all individuals who test positive for COVID-19, who were directly exposed to individuals who test positive for COVID-19, or who exhibit symptoms of the virus.” (emphasis added).
Defendants now claim they have implemented procedures for quarantine of inmates upon contraction of COVID-19. [Dkt. 63, p. 3]. MDOC also claims it is isolating inmates who are transferred to Parchman regardless of symptoms - yet there are inconsistencies in their filing with respect to the length of time (and location) in which any such quarantine would take place. [Dkt. # 63, p. 4].
3

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 64 Filed: 03/20/20 4 of 10 PageID #: 1110
(4) Plaintiffs requested the implementation or increase of “non-contact visitation methods and opportunities such as video conferencing and/or telephone calls.”
Defendants now claim they have implemented “measures to ameliorate the effects of denial of in-person visitation” such as two free telephone calls per week per inmate. [Dkt. # 63, p. 4]. Yet, no evidence was offered that that the phone systems in the various housing units at Parchman are now in working order.
(5) Plaintiffs request that Defendants be required to “increase the sanitation and cleaning protocol and schedule for all public spaces, highly traveled areas, and cells.
Defendants now claim they are “ensuring that additional chemicals and other cleaners are available to providing [sic] additional sanitation at Parchman” [Dkt. # 63, p. 4] Although, significantly, Defendants refused to even discuss the “assessment of necessary resources, including volume, storage requirements, availability, and utilization procedures” at Parchman as required by Centurion’s own Pandemic Preparedness and Emergency Response Plan, [Dkt. #622, p. 23], asking Named Plaintiffs to simply trust but not be able to verify that “all areas of Parchman” are actually being “cleaned and sanitized” effectively.
(6) Plaintiffs request that they and the other inmates at Parchman be provided “hand sanitizer with alcohol, antibacterial soap, antibacterial wipes and other hygiene products” … “free of charge and ensure replacement products are available as needed.”
Defendants now claim they are distributing “extra supplies of liquid and solid soap to inmates.” [Dkt. # 63, p. 5]. Again, however, no meaningful details were provided beyond this representation.
Given the overwhelming evidence of deficiencies at Parchman in both its facilities and its practices, including deficiencies previously acknowledged by both the Governor and this Court, Plaintiffs are skeptical that Defendants are maintaining, or will be able to maintain in the future,
4

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 64 Filed: 03/20/20 5 of 10 PageID #: 1111
a steady supply of soap and clean, running water to each man entrusted to their care during the life of this pandemic.
PARCHMAN FALLS SHORT OF ALL OTHER CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES Parchman’s overriding problem in preparing to face a global pandemic is the horrible
state from which it begins its preparations. Deputy Director of MDOC, Jaworski Mallett, states in his affidavit [Dkt. # 62-1] that “MDOC’s measures [to prepare for COVID-19] are consistent with those employed by other correctional institutions across the nation.” This statement is inaccurate. Prior to COVID-19, Parchman was fraught with so many sanitation and healthcare issues that it is impossible to compare it, at any point, to other correctional institutions across the Nation. See Affidavit of Marc Stern, MD, MPH [Dkt. # 59-6] (“Overall, the health-related and environmental conditions I observed at Parchman are the worst conditions I have observed in any US jail, prison, or immigration detention facility in my 20 years working in this field.”).2 In other words, Parchman’s starting line in this race to protect incarcerated people from COVID-19 is miles behind “other correctional institutions across the nation.” Without aggressive measures rigorously implemented, Parchman will not be able to catch up to other correctional institutions in time to protect lives.
Moreover, while Named Plaintiff’s appreciate MDOC’s promises to implement the general pandemic plans and strategies identified in their various response exhibits, MDOC must ensure these policies are further developed into a comprehensive Parchman-specific Covid-19 response plan as required by the terms and conditions of the very documents they produced.
2 Defendants complain over Dr. Stern’s qualifications, yet his qualifications in this field are sufficient that he routinely is employed to investigate, evaluate, and monitor the adequacy of health care systems in correctional institutions on behalf of the U.S. Justice Department, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, federal courts, and various state departments of corrections and jails.
5

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 64 Filed: 03/20/20 6 of 10 PageID #: 1112
DEFENDANTS CLAIM THE REQUESTED RELIEF IS INAPPROPRIATE, BUT DEFENDANTS CLAIM TO HAVE BEGUN ENACTING THE SAME RELIEF Defendants make a variety of legal arguments in an odd effort to dispute the requested
relief; the same relief they claim they already working to provide. They are summarily addressed as follows:
 Defendants argue that the relief requested by Plaintiffs is “premature,” yet Defendants also argue they have already performed most of the requested relief. [Dkt. # 63, p. 6].
 Defendants claim that the requested relief is “unsupported” by the evidence, yet they set forth meticulously the evidentiary bases for their preventative actions, which in most instances are identical to the relief requested by Plaintiffs. Support for Defendants’ actions, and, by extension, Plaintiffs’ requested relief, includes recommendations by the Mississippi Department of Health, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Local Law Enforcement, the Centers for Disease Control, [Dkt. # 63, pp. 2, 3, 8].
 Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have provided no evidence of risk of irreparable harm, yet Defendants “do not dispute that COVID-19 presents serious health risks” and unquestionably are aware that those health risks include death. [Dkt. # 63, p. 5]. Neither do Defendants dispute that Plaintiffs are part of the overall inmate population at Parchman, are not segregated based on their inclusion in this lawsuit, and therefore necessarily will be affected by any widespread outbreak of COVID-19.
 Defendants argue that the relief requested is not narrowly tailored. However, as stated previously, Defendants have instituted the very measures they claim exceed 6

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 64 Filed: 03/20/20 7 of 10 PageID #: 1113
the scope of a proper TRO. These measures, therefore, are de facto narrowly tailored to meet the needs outlined in Plaintiffs’ Motion.  Defendants argue that a TRO is to preserve the status quo, and implicitly that Plaintiffs’ Motion is overreaching, yet they simultaneously acknowledge that mandatory injunctive relief – where a TRO requires action instead of merely preserving the status quo - is allowed in the Fifth Circuit. Martinez v. Matthews, 544 F.2d 1233 (5th Cir. 1976).  Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have provided no evidence of reckless indifference by Defendants to the rights of Plaintiffs. However, Defendants do not dispute, and certainly provide no evidence, that at the time the instant Motion was filed, Defendants had in place no protective measures for Plaintiffs other than limitations on visitation and transfers. PLAINTIFFS REQUESTED RELIEF IS APPROPRIATE UNDER THE PLRA The PLRA provides that injunctive relief “in any civil action with respect to prison conditions shall extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a particular plaintiff or plaintiffs.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1). However, it also is true that the Act merely codifies existing law and does not change the standards for determining whether to grant an injunction. See, e.g., Williams v. Edwards, 87 F.3d 126, 133 (5th Cir.1996). Moreover, courts have recognized in the context of similar litigation that “an injunction is not necessarily made overbroad by extending benefit or protection to persons other than prevailing parties in a lawsuit—even if it is not a class action—if such breadth is necessary to give prevailing parties the relief to which they are entitled.” Smith v. Arkansas Dep't of Correction, 103 F.3d 637, 646 (8th Cir. 1996) (internal quotations omitted). Finally, despite Defendants’ contrary assertion,
7

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 64 Filed: 03/20/20 8 of 10 PageID #: 1114
“[t]o prove unconstitutional prison conditions, inmates need not show that death or serious injury has already occurred. They need only show that there is a “substantial risk of serious harm.” Ball v. LeBlanc, 792 F.3d 584, 593 (5th Cir. 2015) (internal citations omitted).
Plaintiffs have readily identified an urgent violation of their Constitutional right which necessitates swift redress both to protect from and prevent irreparable harm. The constitutional right under consideration here is the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. Deliberate indifference to an inmate’ serious medical needs is cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. McCaster v. Clausen, 684 F.3d 740 (8th Cir. 2012); see also, Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976); Vaughn v. Greene Cnty., Ark., 438 F.3d 845, 850 (8th Cir.2006). To establish a “serious medical need,” Plaintiffs must demonstrate that the failure to treat a prisoner’s condition could result in further significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain. Moreover, exposing inmates to infectious, communicable disease has been recognized as a violation of their constitutional rights in some circumstances. See, e.g., Lareau v. Manson, 651 F.2d 96, 109 (2nd Cir.1981); Smith v. Sullivan, 553 F.2d 373, 380 (5th Cir.1977). “[A] prisoner may state a cause of action under the Eighth Amendment when he alleges that prison officials have, with deliberate indifference, exposed him to a serious, communicable disease that poses an unreasonable risk of serious damage to the prisoner’s future health.” Clark v. Williams, 619 F.Supp.2d 95, 105–06 (D.Del.2009) (citing Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 33–35, (1993)). To establish deliberate indifference, “plaintiffs must prove an objectively serious medical need and that prison officials knew of the need but deliberately disregarded it.” Nelson v. Corr. Med. Servs., 583 F.3d 522, 531–32 (8th Cir.2009) (en banc) (citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, (1976)).
8

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 64 Filed: 03/20/20 9 of 10 PageID #: 1115
Defendants urge that no violation or harm exists to be addressed here because no case of COVID-19 has been confirmed at Parchman. However, the Second Circuit has acknowledged that “it is unnecessary to require evidence that an infectious disease has actually spread in an overcrowded jail before issuing a remedy.” Lareau v. Manson, 651 F.2d at 109 (2d. Cir. 1981). The question of the appropriateness of relief, rather, turns on whether Defendants had failed to timely implement reasonable, sufficient measures to ensure adequate protection against COVID19.
MODIFIED RELIEF In line with the relief originally requested by Named Plaintiffs, MDOC and Centurion have now committed to implementing the procedures generally referenced in three primary documents produced with Defendants’ Response: (1) the “Centurion Pandemic Preparedness and Emergency Response Plan” [Dkt. # 62-2, p. 16-24], (2) the MDOC Pandemic Influenza Plan SOP 25-09-B [Dkt # 62-2, p. 10-15], and (3) the Centurion general information pamphlets for Incarcerated Persons, Security Staff, and Correctional Healthcare Staff [Dkt # 62-2, p. 5-9]. Named Plaintiffs seek only to ensure that these measures are effectively and actually implemented at Parchman, and under a response plan specific to Parchman facilities, inmates, and staff. As such, Named Plaintiffs request that this Court enter an order: (1) formalizing the representations and promises contained in policies and procedures; (2) ensuring that these protective measures actually occur and continue to occur throughout the life of this pandemic; (3) and requiring verification of same to the Named Plaintiffs and the Court in whatever format and frequency the Court deems appropriate; and, (4) any such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate under these unique circumstances. Pursuant to L. U. Civ. R. 7(b)(2)(f), Plaintiffs will
9

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 64 Filed: 03/20/20 10 of 10 PageID #: 1116

submit to the Court and Defendants a proposed order setting forth the modified relief requested, as described herein.

Date: March 20, 2020

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Marcy B. Croft Marcy B. Croft (MS Bar #10864) Carson H. Thurman (MS Bar #104871) MARON MARVEL BRADLEY ANDERSON & TARDY LLC 200 South Lamar Street Jackson, MS 39201 Telephone: (601) 960-8630 Telefax: (601) 206-0119
Thomas G. Bufkin (MS Bar #10810) CARROLL BUFKIN, PLLC 1076 Highland Colony Parkway 600 Concourse, Suite 125 Ridgeland, MS 39157 Telephone: (601) 982-5011 Telefax: (601) 853-9540
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 20th day of March 2020, a copy of the foregoing was filed electronically with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system. Notice of this filing will be sent to all counsel for record registered to receive electronic service by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system.
/s/ Marcy B. Croft Marcy B. Croft (MS Bar #10864)
10

 
 Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 65 Filed: 03/23/20 1 of 4 PageID #: 1117

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION

MICHAEL AMOS, ET AL.

PLAINTIFFS

V.

CASE NO. 4:20-CV-007-DMB-JMV

TOMMY TAYLOR, ET AL.

DEFENDANTS

PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED SECOND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND AND TO SET BRIEFING SCHEDULE

COME NOW Plaintiffs, by and through counsel, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 15, and file this Unopposed Second Motion for Leave to Amend and To Set Briefing

Schedule (“Second Motion to Amend”). In support, Plaintiffs would show:

1. The instant Motion seeks leave of court to amend and supplement a second time

the Opposed Motion for Judicial Notice [Dkt. # 56] and to set a briefing schedule related to same.

Defendants do not oppose the instant Motion. Moreover, Defendants agree to the briefing

schedule proposed herein. However, Defendants maintain their opposition on the merits to the

Opposed Motion for Judicial Notice and the substance of any amendments thereto.

2. On March 9, 2020, Plaintiffs filed their Opposed Motion for Judicial Notice [Dkt.

56]. The Opposed Motion for Judicial Notice seeks judicial notice of MDOC inmate deaths in the

State of Mississippi since December 29, 2019: Terrandance Dobbins, Walter Earl Gates, Gregory

Emary, Roosevelt Holliman, Denorris Howell, A.D. Mills, Gabriel Carmen, Timothy Hudspeth,

James Talley, Thomas Lee, Jermaine Tyler, Joshua Norman, Limarion Reaves, Nora Ducksworth, Jesus Garcia, James Allen Brown, Bobby Michael James,1 Bobby Lewis Vance, David Lee May,

Omar Beard, Paul Joseph Capps, Timothy Sharp, Grayland Cox, Patricia Wilhite, Lee R.

Clemmer Jr., and Willie C. Booker.

1 Plaintiffs have become aware that inmate Bobby Michael James was not a MDOC inmate, and therefore he has been removed from the list of deaths in the amended Opposed Motion for Judicial Notice.
1

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 65 Filed: 03/23/20 2 of 4 PageID #: 1118
3. On March 9, 2020, shortly after the Opposed Motion for Judicial Notice was filed, Plaintiffs became aware that David W. Parvin, another MDOC inmate, had died.
4. On March 11, 2020, Plaintiffs filed their Motion to Amend and Supplement Opposed Motion for Judicial Notice [Dkt. # 58], in order to include evidence of the death of David W. Parvin, who died on March 9, 2020, and MDOC’s response.
5. Since March 11, 2020, three additional MDOC inmates have died in Mississippi. Therefore, Plaintiffs seek further leave to amend and supplement their Opposed Motion for Judicial Notice [Dkt. # 56] to include evidence of the deaths of Michael Robertson, Lamar Kitchens, and Troy Michael Daughtery, who died on March 12, 19, and 21, 2020, respectively, and MDOC’s response.
6. Plaintiffs’ Amended Opposed Motion for Judicial Notice, and accompanying Memorandum of Authorities in Support of Plaintiffs’ Amended Opposed Motion for Judicial Notice, both of which Plaintiffs herein seek leave to file, are attached hereto collectively. [Ex. A].
7. The parties request that Defendants be allowed fourteen (14) days to file a response to the Amended Opposed Motion for Judicial Notice, once filed, with an additional five (5) days for Plaintiffs to reply, if necessary.
8. The Plaintiffs make these requests in good faith and for reasons of judicial economy, and not for purposes of undue delay.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs respectfully request leave to file their Amended Opposed Motion for Judicial Notice [Ex. A], with its accompanying Memorandum and Exhibits, and that Defendants be afforded fourteen (14) days to respond and Plaintiffs five (5) days to reply. Further, Plaintiffs request all other relief the Court may deem appropriate.
2

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 65 Filed: 03/23/20 3 of 4 PageID #: 1119

Date: March 23, 2020

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Marcy B. Croft Marcy B. Croft (MS Bar #10864) MARON MARVEL BRADLEY ANDERSON & TARDY LLC 200 South Lamar Street Jackson, MS 39201 Telephone: (601) 960-8630 Telefax: (601) 206-0119
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS

3

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 65 Filed: 03/23/20 4 of 4 PageID #: 1120 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 23rd day of March 2020, a copy of the foregoing was filed electronically with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system. Notice of this filing will be sent to all counsel for record registered to receive electronic service by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system.
/s/ Marcy B. Croft
4

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 65-1 Filed: 03/23/20 1 of 102 PageID #: 1121

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION

MICHAEL AMOS, ET AL.

PLAINTIFFS

V.

CASE NO. 4:20-CV-007-DMB-JMV

TOMMY TAYLOR, ET AL.

DEFENDANTS

PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED OPPOSED MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE COME NOW Plaintiffs, by and through counsel, pursuant to Rule 15 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and Federal R. Evid. 201, and file their Second Amended Opposed Motion for Judicial Notice. In support, Plaintiffs would show:
1. On March 9, 2020, Plaintiffs filed their Opposed Motion for Judicial Notice [Dkt. 56]. The Opposed Motion for Judicial Notice seeks judicial notice of MDOC inmate deaths in the State of Mississippi since December 29, 2019: Terrandance Dobbins, Walter Earl Gates, Gregory Emary, Roosevelt Holliman, Denorris Howell, A.D. Mills, Gabriel Carmen, Timothy Hudspeth, James Talley, Thomas Lee, Jermaine Tyler, Joshua Norman, Limarion Reaves, Nora Ducksworth, Jesus Garcia, James Allen Brown, Bobby Michael James,1 Bobby Lewis Vance, David Lee May, Omar Beard, Paul Joseph Capps, Timothy Sharp, Grayland Cox, Patricia Wilhite, Lee R. Clemmer Jr., and Willie C. Booker.
3. On March 9, 2020, shortly after the Opposed Motion for Judicial Notice was filed, Plaintiffs became aware that David W. Parvin, another MDOC inmate, had died.
4. On March 11, 2020, Plaintiffs filed their Motion to Amend and Supplement Opposed Motion for Judicial Notice [Dkt. # 58], in order to include evidence of the death of David W. Parvin, and MDOC’s response.

1 Plaintiffs have become aware that inmate Bobby Michael James was not a MDOC inmate, and therefore he has been removed from the list of deaths for which Plaintiffs are requesting judicial notice.
1

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 65-1 Filed: 03/23/20 2 of 102 PageID #: 1122
5. Since March 11, 2020, three additional MDOC inmates have died in Mississippi. Michael Robertson, Lamar Kitchens, and Troy Michael Daughtery died on March 12, 19, and 21, 2020, respectively.
6. Plaintiffs now seek leave of Court to amend and supplement their Opposed Motion for Judicial Notice [Dkt. # 56] to include evidence of, and MDOC responses to, the deaths of Michael Robertson, Lamar Kitchens, and Troy Michael Daughtery, who died on March 12, 19, and 21, 2020, respectively.
7. Plaintiffs also request that Defendants be allowed fourteen (14) days to file a response to the Second Amended Opposed Motion for Judicial Notice, with an additional five (5) days for Plaintiffs to reply, if necessary. Defendants agree with this proposed briefing schedule.
8. Plaintiffs make these requests in good faith and for reasons of judicial economy, and not for purposes of undue delay.
9. Plaintiffs respectfully submit that justice requires that they be permitted to amend and supplement their Opposed Motion for Judicial Notice to include such additional transactions and occurrences pursuant to Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
10. In support of their Proposed Motion to Amend, Plaintiffs submit their Memorandum of Law, which is filed concurrently.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court grant their Second Amended Opposed Motion for Judicial Notice and take judicial notice of the death of twenty-nine MDOC inmates since December 29, 2020. Plaintiffs also respectfully request that the Court enter the proposed briefing schedule requested herein, which is agreed to by Defendants. Finally, Plaintiffs request all further relief the Court may deem appropriate.
2

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 65-1 Filed: 03/23/20 3 of 102 PageID #: 1123

This the 23rd day of March 2020.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Marcy B. Croft ____________________________ Marcy B. Croft (MS Bar #10864) MARON MARVEL BRADLEY ANDERSON & TARDY LLC 200 South Lamar Street Jackson, MS 39201 Telephone: (601) 960-8630 Telefax: (601) 206-0119

3

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 65-1 Filed: 03/23/20 4 of 102 PageID #: 1124 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on March 23, 2020, a copy of the foregoing was filed electronically with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system. Notice of this filing will be sent to all counsel of record registered to receive electronic service by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system.
/s/ Marcy B. Croft Marcy B. Croft (MS Bar #10864)
4

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 65-1 Filed: 03/23/20 5 of 102 PageID #: 1125

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION

MICHAEL AMOS, ET AL.

PLAINTIFFS

V.

CASE NO. 4:20-CV-007-DMB-JMV

TOMMY TAYLOR, ET AL.

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED OPPOSED MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

In support of their Motion, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court take judicial notice of the following facts, as supported by the exhibits, attached to the Motion, and hereto:

• On December 29, 2019, according to the Mississippi Department of Corrections (“MDOC”), Terrandance Dobbins was killed at South Mississippi Correctional Institution in a “major disturbance.”1

• On January 1, 2020, Walter Earl Gates was killed at Mississippi State Penitentiary at Parchman. According to the Sunflower County Coroner Heather Burton, Walker died of multiple stab wounds.2

• On January 2, 2020, according to Chickasaw County Sheriff Jim Meyers, Gregory Emary was killed in a fight at Chickasaw County Regional Correctional Facility.3

1 See Exhibit A to Plaintiffs’ Motion, Alissa Zhu and Lici Beveridge, Inmates Killed during Mississippi’s Prison Violence: Who are they? CLARION LEDGER (January 3, 2020), https://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/local/2020/01/03/parchman-riot-ms-prison-violence-who-areinmates-killed/2803405001/.
2 See Exhibit B to Plaintiffs’ Motion, Jimmie E. Gates, Report: 1 Inmate Dead, Others Injured in Fight at the Mississippi State Penitentiary, CLARION LEDGER (January 1, 2020), https://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/politics/2020/01/01/one-inmate-dead-and-several-injured-in-fightat-parchman/2790702001/.
3 See Exhibit C to Plaintiffs’ Motion,. WTVA Staff, Sheriff: One Dead, Two Injured after Fight at Chickasaw Regional Correctional Facility, WTVA (January 2, 2020), https://www.wtva.com/content/news/Sheriff-one-dead-after-fight-at-Chickasaw-Regional-CorrectionalFacility-566644661.html.
1

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 65-1 Filed: 03/23/20 6 of 102 PageID #: 1126
• On January 2, 2020, Roosevelt Holliman was killed at Mississippi State Penitentiary at
Parchman. According to Sunflower County Coroner Heather Burton, Roosevelt was stabbed to death in a “gang fight.”4
• On January 3, 2020, Denorris Howell was killed at Mississippi State Penitentiary at
Parchman. According to Sunflower County Coroner Heather Burton, Denorris died from neck injuries after fight with cellmate.5
• On January 8, 2020, Parchman inmate A.D. Mills died at Merit Health Clarksdale
Hospital. Alleged by Coahoma County Coroner Scotty Meredith, A.D. died of undefined “natural causes.”6
• On January 18, 2020, Gabriel Carmen was found dead at Mississippi State Penitentiary
at Parchman. Alleged by the MDOC, Gabriel’s cause of death was a suicide in an apparent hanging.7
• On January 20, 2020, Timothy Hudspeth was killed at Mississippi State Penitentiary at
Parchman. According to the MDOC, Timothy died of blunt force beating injuries after fight with other inmates.8
• On January 20, 2020, James Talley was killed at Mississippi State Penitentiary at
4 See Exhibit A to Plaintiffs’ Motion. 5 Id. 6 See Exhibit D to Plaintiffs’ Motion, Alissa Zhu, Parchman Inmate Dies of Natural Causes at Hospital, Coroner Says, CLARION LEDGER (January 8, 2020), https://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/2020/01/08/another-parchman-inmate-dies-coroner-confirmsmississippi/2846187001/. 7 See Exhibit E to Plaintiffs’ Motion, Alissa Zhu, Parchman Death: Inmate Found Hanging in Cell, Coroner Says, CLARION LEDGER (January 19, 2020), https://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/2020/01/19/parchman-death-inmate-found-hanging-cell-coronersays/4520805002/. 8 See Exhibit F to Plaintiffs’ Motion, MISS. DEP’T CORRS., Investigation Underway into 2 Deaths at Parchman, Press Release (January 21, 2020), https://www.mdoc.ms.gov/News/PressReleases/Investigation%20Underway%20into%20Two%20Deaths%20 at%20Parchman.pdf.
2

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 65-1 Filed: 03/23/20 7 of 102 PageID #: 1127
Parchman. According to the MDOC, James died of blunt force beating injuries after fight
with other inmates.9
• On January 22, 2020, Thomas Lee was found dead at Mississippi State Penitentiary.
Alleged by the MDOC, Thomas’s cause of death was an apparent suicide via hanging.10
• On January 25, 2020, Jermaine Tyler was found dead at Marshall County Correctional
Facility. Alleged by the Management and Training Corporation (“MTC”), the private
company that runs the prison, Jermaine was found unresponsive and there were no
apparent signs of foul play.11
• On January 26, 2020, Joshua Norman was found dead at Mississippi State Penitentiary.
Alleged by the MDOC, Norman’s cause of death was an apparent suicide via hanging.12
• On January 28, 2020, Limarion Reaves collapsed and died at Kemper-Neshoba Regional
Correctional Facility. According to the MDOC, Limarion’s cause of death is
undetermined pending an autopsy report conducted by the State of Mississippi.13
• On January 30, 2020, Nora Ducksworth died at Marshall County Correctional Facility.
9 See Exhibit G to Plaintiffs’ Motion, MISS. DEP’T OF CORRS., Second Inmate Killed at Parchman Identified, Press Release (January 21, 2020), https://www.mdoc.ms.gov/News/PressReleases/Second%20Inmate%20Killed%20at%20Parchman%20Identif ied.pdf. 10 See Exhibit H to Plaintiffs’ Motion, MISS. DEP’T OF CORRS., Inmate Found Dead Wednesday Morning at Parchman Identified, Press Release (January 22, 2020), https://www.mdoc.ms.gov/News/PressReleases/Parchman%20Inmate%20Found%20Dead%20Wednesday%2 0Morning%20Identified.pdf.
11 See Exhibit I to Plaintiffs’ Motion, Alissa Zhu, Mississippi Inmate Dies at Marshall County Correctional Facility, CLARION LEDGER (January 26, 2020), https://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/2020/01/26/inmate-dies-marshall-county-correctional-facilitycoroner-confirms/4582089002/.
12 See Exhibit J to Plaintiffs’ Motion, MISS. DEP’T OF CORRS., Inmate Found Dead Sunday Morning in a Cell at Parchman, Press Release (January 26, 2020) https://www.mdoc.ms.gov/News/PressReleases/Inmate%20Found%20Dead%20Sunday%20Morning%20at% 20Parchman.pdf; See also [ECF No. 16].
13 See Exhibit K to Plaintiffs’ Motion , MISS. DEP’T OF CORRS., State Inmate Collapses and Dies at KemperNeshoba Regional Facility, Press Release (January 28, 2020), https://www.mdoc.ms.gov/News/PressReleases/Inmate%20Collapses%20and%20Dies%20at%20KemperNeshoba%20RF.pdf.
3

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 65-1 Filed: 03/23/20 8 of 102 PageID #: 1128
Alleged by the MTC, Nora’s cause of death was apparent natural causes with no foul play suspected.14
• On February 2, 2020, Jesus Garcia was found dead at Wilkinson County Correctional
Facility. Alleged by the MTC, Jesus was found unresponsive in a cell, with no signs of assault.15
• On February 10, 2020, James Allen Brown died at the hospital at the Mississippi State
Penitentiary at Parchman. Alleged by the MDOC, no foul play was suspected, with an autopsy conducted by the State of Mississippi pending.16
• On February 15, 2020, Central Mississippi Correctional Inmate, Bobby Lewis Vance,
died at Merit Health Hospital in Jackson, Mississippi. Alleged by the MDOC, no foul play was suspected, with an autopsy conducted by the State of Mississippi pending.17
• On February 16, 2020, David Lee May was found dead at Central Mississippi
Correctional Facility. Alleged by the MDOC, no signs of injury to the body were recorded, with an autopsy conducted by the State of Mississippi pending.18
• On February 27, 2020, alleged by the MDOC, Central Mississippi Correctional inmate,
14 See Exhibit I to Plaintiffs’ Motion. 15 See Exhibit L to Plaintiffs’ Motion, Lici Beveridge, Mississippi Prison Crisis: 15th State Inmate Dies, Cause Under Investigation, CLARION LEDGER (February 2, 2020), https://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/local/2020/02/02/15th-mississippi-inmate-dies-cause-underinvestigation/4641461002/. 16 See Exhibit M to Plaintiffs’ Motion, MISS. DEP’T OF CORRS., Inmate who Died this Afternoon in Prison Hospital Identified, Press Release (February 10, 2020), https://www.mdoc.ms.gov/News/PressReleases/Inmate%20Who%20Died%20in%20Prison%20Hospital%20I dentified.pdf. 17 See Exhibit O to Plaintiffs’ Motion , MISS. DEP’T OF CORRS., Inmate Serving 25 Years for Two Armed Robberies in Copiah County Dies, Press Release (February 15, 2020), https://www.mdoc.ms.gov/News/PressReleases/CMCF%20Inmate%20Serving%2025%20Years%20Dies%20 at%20Hospital.pdf. 18 See Exhibit P to Plaintiffs’ Motion, MISS. DEP’T OF CORRS., Inmate Dies at Rankin County Prison, Press Release (February 16, 2020), https://www.mdoc.ms.gov/News/PressReleases/Inmate%20Dies%20at%20Rankin%20County%20Prison.pdf.
4

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 65-1 Filed: 03/23/20 9 of 102 PageID #: 1129 Omar Beard, died at Merit Health Rankin of undetermined “natural causes.”19
• On February 28, 2020, two inmates, Paul Joseph Capps and Timothy Sharp, died in the
hospital at the Mississippi State Penitentiary at Parchman. Alleged by the MDOC, both
deaths were due to undetermined natural causes, with an autopsy conducted by the State of Mississippi pending.20
• On March 2, 2020, Grayland Cox, who was serving a six-year sentence with an enhanced
penalty for selling cocaine, died at Merit Health Central Jackson. Cox was incarcerated at
Marshall County Correctional Facility. According to the MDOC, no foul play is suspected.21
• On March 2, 2020, Patricia Wilhite died at Baptist Memorial Center in Jackson. She was
an inmate at Central Mississippi Correctional Facility in Rankin County. According to the
MDOC, no foul play is suspected in her death, but the official cause will be determined by
autopsy.22
• On March 4, 2020, Lee R. Clemmer Jr., who was serving eight years for two drug
convictions, died in Unit 42 at the Mississippi State Penitentiary at Parchman. According
to the MDOC, no foul play is suspected as Clemmer was being treated for a terminal
19 See Exhibit Q to Plaintiffs’ Motion, MISS. DEP’T OF CORRS., Prisoner Serving 20 Years for Manslaughter Dies, Press Release (February 26, 2020), https://www.mdoc.ms.gov/News/PressReleases/Prisoner%20Serving%2020%20Years%20for%20Manslaught er%20Dies.pdf.
20 See Exhibit R to Plaintiffs’ Motion, MISS. DEP’T OF CORRS, Two Inmates Die in Prison Hospital this Week, Press Release (February 28, 2020), https://www.mdoc.ms.gov/News/PressReleases/Two%20Inmates%20Die%20in%20Prison%20Hospital%20T his%20Week.pdf. 21 See Exhibit S to Plaintiffs’ Motion, MISS. DEP’T OF CORRS., Inmate Serving Six Years Dies at Local Hospital, Press Release (March 3, 2020) https://www.mdoc.ms.gov/News/PressReleases/Inmate%20Serving%206%20Years%20Dies%20at%20Local %20Hospital.pdf. 22 See Exhibit T to Plaintiffs’ Motion, MISS. DEP’T OF CORRS., Inmate Serving Life for Murder Dies at Local Hospital, Press Release (March 2, 2020) https://www.mdoc.ms.gov/News/PressReleases/Inmate%20Serving%20Life%20for%20Murder%20Dies%20 at%20Hospital.pdf.
5

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 65-1 Filed: 03/23/20 10 of 102 PageID #: 1130
disease.23
• On March 7, 2020, Mississippi State Penitentiary at Parchman Inmate, Willie C. Booker,
died at Baptist Memorial Hospital in Oxford, Mississippi. According to the MDOC, foul
play is not suspected and the cause and manner of death are pending the results of an
autopsy.24
• On March 9, 2020, David W. Parvin died at the Central Mississippi Correctional Facility.
According to the MDOC, foul play was not suspected in the inmate’s death. An autopsy
will determine the official cause and the manner of death.2526
• On March 12, 2020, Michael Robertson died at the Mississippi State Penitentiary at
Parchman. According to the MDOC, Robertson was allegedly found unconscious in his
cell in Unit 30 during the afternoon count. An autopsy will determine the cause and
official manner of death.2728
• On March 19, 2020, Lamar Kitchens died at the hospital at the Mississippi State
23 See Exhibit U to Plaintiffs’ Motion MISS. DEP’T OF CORRS., Identify Released of Inmate who Died in Prison Hospital, Press Release (March 5, 2020) https://www.mdoc.ms.gov/News/PressReleases/Identity%20Released%20in%20Latest%20Inmate%20Death %20at%20Parchman.pdf.
24 See Exhibit V to Plaintiffs’ Motion, MISS. DEP’T OF CORRS., Inmate Who Died in Oxford Hospital Identified, Press Release (March 9, 2020), https://www.mdoc.ms.gov/News/PressReleases/Inmate%20Who%20Died%20in%20Oxford%20Hospital%20 Identified.pdf.
25 See Exhibit W to Plaintiffs’ Motion, MISS. DEP’T OF CORRS., Inmate Who Died at Rankin County Prison Monday Evening Identified, Press Release (March 10, 2020),
https://www.mdoc.ms.gov/News/PressReleases/CMCF%20Inmate%20Who%20Died%20Monday%20Evening%20Ident ified.pdf.
26 See Exhibit X to Plaintiffs’ Motion, WJTV, MDOC Identifies 80-Year-Old Inmate Who Died at Central Mississippi Correctional Facility, WJTV (March 10, 2020), https://www.wjtv.com/news/mdoc-identifies-80year-old-inmate-who-died-at-central-mississippi-correctional-facility/. 27 See Exhibit X to Plaintiffs’ Motion, MISS. DEP’T OF CORRS., Inmate Found Unresponsive at MSP, Press Release (March 12, 2020), https://www.mdoc.ms.gov/News/PressReleases/Inmate%20Found%20Unresponsive%20at%20MSP.pdf.
28 See Exhibit Y to Plaintiffs’ Motion, China Lee, 42-Year-Old Inmate Identified after Being Found Unresponsive at Parchman, WLBT (March 12, 2020), https://www.wlbt.com/2020/03/12/coroner-year-oldinmate-found-unresponsive-parchman/.
6

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 65-1 Filed: 03/23/20 11 of 102 PageID #: 1131 Penitentiary at Parchman. According to the MDOC, no foul play is suspected in his death. An autopsy will determine the official cause and the manner of death.29
• On March 21, 2020, Try Michael Daughtery died at South Mississippi Correctional Institution. According to the MDOC, Daughtery was allegedly found unconscious in his bed that evening, foul play was not suspected in the inmate’s death. An autopsy will determine the cause and official manner of death.30
• Daughtery’s death marks the twenty-ninth death of an MDOC inmate in Mississippi prisons since December 29, 2019. “A judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is either
(1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.”31 Fed. R. Evid. 201(b).
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court grant their motion and take judicial notice of the death of the MDOC inmates listed herein, with the latest death on March 21, 2020 marking the twenty-ninth MDOC inmate death in Mississippi prisons since December 29, 2019, and for such further relief that the Court deems proper in the circumstances.
29 See Exhibit Z to Plaintiffs’ Motion, ShaCamree Gowdy, Inmate Serving 30 Years for Assault Dies in Parchman Hospital, WLBT (March 19, 2020), https://www.wlbt.com/2020/03/19/inmate-serving-yearsassault-dies-parchman-hospital/.
30 See Exhibit AA to Plaintiff’s Motion, Sarah Fowler, MDOC: Inmate Dies at South Mississippi Correctional Institution, No Foul Play Suspected, Clarion Ledger (March 22, 2020), https://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/2020/03/22/mississippi-prison-deaths-inmate-dies-corrections-leakesville-nofoul-play-coroner-jail-cpr/2894582001/.
31 Funk v. Stryker Corp., 631 F.3d 777, 783 (5th Cir. 2011) citing Fed. R. Evid. 201(b).
7

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 65-1 Filed: 03/23/20 12 of 102 PageID #: 1132

This the 23rd day of March 2020.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Marcy B. Croft
Marcy B. Croft (MS Bar #10864) Carson H. Thurman (MS Bar # 104871) MARON MARVEL BRADLEY ANDERSON & TARDY LLC

200 South Lamar Street Jackson, MS 39201 Telephone: (601) 960-8630 Telefax: (601) 206-0119

8

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 65-1 Filed: 03/23/20 13 of 102 PageID #: 1133 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on March 23, 2020, a copy of the foregoing was filed electronically with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system. Notice of this filing will be sent to all counsel of record registered to receive electronic service by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system.
/s/ Marcy B. Croft Marcy B. Croft (MS Bar #10864)
9

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 65-1 Filed: 03/23/20 14 of 102 PageID #: 1134
EXHIBIT A

Parchman riot, MS prison violence: Who are the inmates who have died?
Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 65-1 Filed: 03/23/20 15 of 102 PageID #: 1135

HOME NEWS SPORTS UPSIDE

USA TODAY MORE

Hi, Ericson

Inmates killed during Mississippi's prison violence: Who are they?
Alissa Zhu and Lici Beveridge, Mississippi Clarion Ledger Published 1:30 p.m. CT Jan. 3, 2020 | Updated 10:39 a.m. CT Jan. 10, 2020

Cellphone video taken from inside Parchman shows multiple police units on scene at the facility. Mississippi Clarion Ledger

CONNECT

TWEET

LINKEDIN

COMMENT

EMAIL

MORE

Inmates are dying while Mississippi prisons are on lockdown.

Within less than a week, five inmates have been killed at South Mississippi Correctional Institution, Mississippi State Penitentiary in Parchman and the Chickasaw County Regional Correctional Facility.

Inmates, a local coroner and people who have relatives in prison have told the Clarion Ledger the violence is the result of gang fights.

'Gangs are at war': Fifth Mississippi prison death reported as violence continues

MDOC commissioner resigning: Pelicia Hall leaving this month as head of Mississippi's troubled prison system

https://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/local/2020/01/03/parchman-riot-ms-prison-violence-who-are-inmates-killed/2803405001/[3/9/2020 2:34:00 PM]

Parchman riot, MS prison violence: Who are the inmates who have died?
Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 65-1 Filed: 03/23/20 16 of 102 PageID #: 1136
Keywords (ex. registered nurse) Jackson, MS https://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/local/2020/01/03/parchman-riot-ms-prison-violence-who-are-inmates-killed/2803405001/[3/9/2020 2:34:00 PM]

Parchman riot, MS prison violence: Who are the inmates who have died?
Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 65-1 Filed: 03/23/20 17 of 102 PageID #: 1137

Terrandance Dobbins, 40, was killed at South Mississippi Correctional Institution on Sunday, Dec. 29, 2019. (Photo: Submitted)
Terrandance Dobbins, 40, killed at SMCI
Terrandance Dobbins, 40, died at SMCI in Leakesville on Dec. 29. MDOC locked down all prisons, citing the "major disturbance" that led to Dobbins' death.
He was serving a life sentence for a homicide in Adams County and eight years for aggravated assault in Sunflower County.
His sister, Candice Dobbins, told the Clarion Ledger he felt unsafe at SMCI and she had tried to get him transferred before his death.
Terrandance Dobbins dreamed of getting out of prison and opening a barber shop and salon, she said. He also wanted to mentor young people so they would avoid making the same mistakes he did.
When she visited him in prison with her kids and nephews, he told them: "You don’t want to get in no trouble and be locked down."
He gave advice to inmates who were about to be released, she said, telling them to "get out of this place and don't ever come back."
His sister said MDOC has not been answering her questions about TerrandanceDobbins' death, despite multiple attempts to contact officials.
More: Violence brews at Parchman: Lack of funding, not enough guards and decrepit conditions

FIND JOBS
Share your feedback
to help improve our site experience!
MORE STORIES
Parchman inmate dies at Oxford hospital
March 7, 2020, 8:56 p.m.
JPD: Man dies after being shot at home in Jackson
March 7, 2020, 4:45 p.m.
Danny Glover coming to MS to stump for Sanders
March 7, 2020, 10:12 a.m.
Former pastor found guilty of sexually assaulting 2 minors
March 6, 2020, 6:16 p.m.

https://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/local/2020/01/03/parchman-riot-ms-prison-violence-who-are-inmates-killed/2803405001/[3/9/2020 2:34:00 PM]

Parchman riot, MS prison violence: Who are the inmates who have died?
Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 65-1 Filed: 03/23/20 18 of 102 PageID #: 1138

Get the Storm Watch newsletter in your inbox.
Latest news updates during the emergency.
Delivery: Varies

Watch: Interview with Yo Gotti about MS prisons
March 6, 2020, 4:03 p.m.

More: Parchman reopens notorious, long-closed Unit 32 after deadly Mississippi prison violence

Walter Gates, 25, killed at Parchman

Walter Gates, 25, was killed at Parchman within the first hour of the new year.
Sunflower County Coroner Heather Burton said in a news release that she received a call at 12:42 a.m. from MDOC security at Parchman about the death of an inmate in Unit 29E. She arrived at Parchman to a unit that was still unsecure from a "gang related riot."
Officers assessed the inmates and removed them from the vicinity of the victim, the release said.
Gates had died of multiple stab wounds and was pronounced dead at 12:22 a.m., Burton said.
Gates had been sentenced to 10 years in prison from Coahoma County in 2015.
In a statement, MDOC said there had been a "major disturbance" late New Year's Eve. Several others were injured.

Gregory Emary, 26, killed at Chickasaw County Regional Correctional Facility

Gregory Emary, 26, was killed at the Chickasaw County Regional Correctional Facility on the morning of Jan. 2.

Gregory Emary (Photo: Special to the Clarion Ledger)

He was serving a 16-year sentence for burglary of an unoccupied dwelling in Tate County.

and father of two boys.

His ex-wife, Kara Cox, said Emary was an electrician

"He was a very kind soul and had an amazing sense of humor," Cox said. "He could get along with anybody. Many people really loved him."

Cox said when Emary saw people pulled over on the side of the road, he'd stop to check if they needed help: "He would do anything for anybody."

Deval Patrick to join Joe Biden in Mississippi
March 6, 2020, 2:44 p.m.

https://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/local/2020/01/03/parchman-riot-ms-prison-violence-who-are-inmates-killed/2803405001/[3/9/2020 2:34:00 PM]

Parchman riot, MS prison violence: Who are the inmates who have died?
Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 65-1 Filed: 03/23/20 19 of 102 PageID #: 1139
This undated photo shows Gregory Emary posing with his ex-wife Kara Cox and their two sons. Emary was killed in a fight at the Chickasaw County Regional Correctional Facility on Thursday, Jan. 2, 2020. (Photo: Submitted)
Cox said when prisons statewide went on lockdown, she thought Emary would be kept safe. "He should have been protected," Cox said. "They failed to do that." Cox said Emary was not in a gang. "They riot and there’s nothing else you can do. You can’t run you can’t hide. There’s nowhere for you to go," she said. Emary was planning to get out of prison and return home later this year, Cox said. His former employer was going to give him his job back, she said, and he was looking forward to spending time with his children, ages 5 and 6. After leaving prison, Emary also wanted to help people who had been in prison or drug court, she said. "He wanted to make a difference and show that you can turn your life around," Cox said. Cox said she would call Emary in prison multiple times a day. He told his sons that he loved them every time they talked. "These are people's sons, fathers, brothers," she said. "It's really sad....Something needs to change in the system so that other families don't have their loved ones end up as victims of collateral damage of whats going on."
Roosevelt Holliman, 32, killed at Parchman
Roosevelt Holliman, 32, was stabbed to death in a "gang fight" at Parchman on Jan. 2, Burton said.
https://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/local/2020/01/03/parchman-riot-ms-prison-violence-who-are-inmates-killed/2803405001/[3/9/2020 2:34:00 PM]

Parchman riot, MS prison violence: Who are the inmates who have died?
Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 65-1 Filed: 03/23/20 20 of 102 PageID #: 1140

Holliman, of Hattiesburg, was serving a 12-year sentence for armed robbery, sale of cocaine and burglary of a vehicle. He was scheduled to be released from prison in June 2021.

His sister, Theresa Holliman said her brother was the quiet one of the family, who pretty much kept to himself.

Roosevelt Holliman (Photo: Courtesy of MDOC)

"He was different from all of us," she said.

Theresa Holliman said she believes her brother got involved in illegal activities because "he just wanted to be accepted."

She talked to him often by phone, though, and remained close despite their separation.

"He was everything to me," she said. "He was my big brother."

Her brother's death has devastated her family, who are still trying to get answers about what happened the day their loved one was killed.

"We are not coping with it well at all," Theresa Holliman said. "We didn't expect Roosevelt to go so soon."

Theresa Holliman said her family wasn't given much information about her brother's death. What little they do know was told to them by the funeral home.

Denorris Howell, 36, killed at Parchman

Denorris Howell, 36, was killed early morning of Jan. 3 at Parchman, Burton said.

Denorris Howell (Photo: Courtesy of MDOC)

Burton said she received a call at 3:20 a.m. about the death of an inmate in Unit 29I. Her investigation showed that Howell was involved with an altercation with his cellmate. Howell sustained neck injuries and his cell mate sustained stab wounds.

Howell was serving a 17-year sentence for manslaughter out of Marshall County.

A MDOC statement released Friday afternoon claimed Howell's death was unrelated to the "major disturbances" at prisons.

LOCAL JOURNALISM MATTERS
Our journalists live, work and play in Mississippi. We are striving to make it a better place to live through the stories we tell. Please click here to support quality Mississippi journalism with a digital subscription.
DIG DEEPER
Behind bars: Violence in Miss.

https://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/local/2020/01/03/parchman-riot-ms-prison-violence-who-are-inmates-killed/2803405001/[3/9/2020 2:34:00 PM]

Parchman riot, MS prison violence: Who are the inmates who have died?
Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 65-1 Filed: 03/23/20 21 of 102 PageID #: 1141
'Ticking time bomb': Violence surges amid guard shortage, lockdown
'Extraordinarily dangerous': Gangs powerful in privately run prisons
Private Mississippi prison operator denies gangs are in charge
Trump hailed Mississippi prison reforms. Numbers reflect a grim reality.

This story will be updated as more information is released.
Update: Sunflower County Coroner Heather Burton said Denorris Howell, who died Friday, was not stabbed as she initially reported. He sustained a neck injury. His body is at the state crime lab in Pearl undergoing autopsy.
If you have more information, please contact Alissa Zhu at azhu@gannett.com. Follow @AlissaZhu on Twitter.

CONNECT

TWEET

LINKEDIN

COMMENT

EMAIL

MORE

How To Locate Anyone In 10 Seconds (It's so simple) TruthFinder

Pennsylvania: Senior Drivers Are in For a Big Surprise Insured Nation

Earn 3X Points on Flights and Hotels! Wells Fargo

Where Wesley Snipes Lives Now Will Make You Exceptionally Sad FinancialAdvisorHeroes

The Biggest Selection of Hearing Aids Now in Philadelphia Hearing Aid Advice

Small Businesses In Philadelphia Are Raving About This New CRM Tools for the Modern Creative Professional:
Sponsored Links

https://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/local/2020/01/03/parchman-riot-ms-prison-violence-who-are-inmates-killed/2803405001/[3/9/2020 2:34:00 PM]

Parchman riot, MS prison violence: Who are the inmates who have died?
Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 65-1 Filed: 03/23/20 22 of 102 PageID #: 1142

AD CONTENT

Randy Jackson: "This Drink Is Like A Powerwash For Your Gut" Unify Health Labs Multi-GI 5 Supplement

Sponsored Links

Subscribe

Contact Us

Newsroom

Apps

Newsletters

RSS Feeds

Chat Support

Advertise

Support

Home
Nation Now E-newspaper Blogs

News

Sports

Upside

Elections 2018 Business Metro/State MS Politics National Politics Careers

Mississippi State Ole Miss Southern Miss Jackson State High School Recruiting More...

Magnolia
Taste Entertainment Diversions Faith Books Celebrations

Opinion
Editorials Columnists Letters Editorial Cartoons

Obituaries

Archives

Services

Leave website feedback Advertise with Us Advertising Terms and

Accessibility Support Public Notices Sitemap

Our Partners
The Job Network Cars.com Jackson Homes

https://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/local/2020/01/03/parchman-riot-ms-prison-violence-who-are-inmates-killed/2803405001/[3/9/2020 2:34:00 PM]

Parchman riot, MS prison violence: Who are the inmates who have died?
Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 65-1 Filed: 03/23/20 23 of 102 PageID #: 1143

© 2020 www.clarionledger.com. All rights reserved

Conditions Archives Community Rules Work With Us Subscriber Guide Your California Privacy Rights/Privacy Policy

Do not sell my data / Cookie policy
Privacy Policy

Classifieds Education ReachLocal Thanksgiving.com Grateful

Terms of Service

Our Ethical Principles

https://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/local/2020/01/03/parchman-riot-ms-prison-violence-who-are-inmates-killed/2803405001/[3/9/2020 2:34:00 PM]

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 65-1 Filed: 03/23/20 24 of 102 PageID #: 1144
EXHIBIT B

Parchman: One inmate dead, several injured in fight at State Penitentiary
Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 65-1 Filed: 03/23/20 25 of 102 PageID #: 1145

HOME NEWS SPORTS UPSIDE

USA TODAY MORE

Hi, Ericson

Report: 1 inmate dead, others injured in fight at the Mississippi State Penitentiary
Jimmie E. Gates, Mississippi Clarion Ledger Published 2:06 p.m. CT Jan. 1, 2020 | Updated 11:35 a.m. CT Jan. 2, 2020

CONNECT

TWEET

LINKEDIN

EMAIL

MORE

One inmate is dead and several were injured after an apparent fight New Year's Eve among inmates at the Mississippi State Penitentiary at Parchman.

Sunflower County Sheriff James Haywood and County Coroner Heather Burton confirmed the fight among the inmates Wednesday, WTVA reported. MDOC has also confirmed the incident.

The incident comes after the Mississippi Department of Corrections announced Tuesday that prisons across Mississippi were under lockdown after a "major disturbance" Sunday at the South Mississippi Correctional Institution in Leakesville where one inmate was killed and two others sustained non-life-threatening injuries.

Report: MDOC prisoner in Chickasaw County killed during prison fight, the 3rd this week

The inmate killed in the South Mississippi prison was identified as Terrandance Dobbins, 40, by MDOC. Dobbins was serving a life sentence for a homicide in Adams County and eight years for aggravated assault in Sunflower County.

Keywords (ex. registered nurse) Jackson, MS
FIND JOBS
Share your feedback
to help improve our site experience!
MORE STORIES
What to know about Tuesday elections in Mississippi
March 9, 2020, 11:06 a.m.

FOR SUBSCRIBERS
South Delta struggling to survive another year of flooding
March 9, 2020, 4 a.m.

Effort to ban, regulate kratom fails in Mississippi
March 9, 2020, 3 a.m.

Fight at Mississippi State Penitentiary leads to death of inmate. (Photo: Vickie D. King/Courtesy of the Mississippi Department of Corrections)
MDOC spokeswoman Grace Fisher said Wednesday movement remains restricted

FOR SUBSCRIBERS
Joe Biden speaks with the Clarion Ledger
March 8, 2020, 7:03 p.m.
Danny Glover makes pitch for Sanders in Mississippi

https://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/politics/2020/01/01/one-inmate-dead-and-several-injured-in-fight-at-parchman/2790702001/[3/9/2020 2:35:44 PM]

Parchman: One inmate dead, several injured in fight at State Penitentiary
Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 65-1 Filed: 03/23/20 26 of 102 PageID #: 1146

statewide in the prison system.
The inmate killed at Parchman was identified as Walter Earl Gates, 25, sentenced to 10 years in prison from Coahoma County in 2015.
Fisher said the situation is under control at the prison now but provided no further information citing a pending investigation.
All state prisons, private prisons, and regional facilities are included in the lockdown for the safety of the public, staff, and inmates, Fisher said.
Inmates deaths: 2 inmates die same night at Parchman. They were 26 and 28 years old.
Hinds County jail death: Inmates indicted for first-degree murder in beating death of a fellow inmate
WTVA reported Burton said the fight happened in Unit 29 around 9 p.m. Tuesday and spread to other buildings within the unit. Burton said she was called to the scene at about 1 a.m. Wednesday.
Burton said the inmate suffered multiple stab wounds, possibly from a shank, WTVA reports.
On Tuesday, MDOC Commissioner Pelicia Hall announced she is resigning. Hall will leave MDOC in mid-January to take a job in the private sector.
MDOC: Commissioner Pelicia Hall resigning as head of Mississippi's troubled prison system
Incoming Gov.Tate Reeves hadn't announced his choice for MDOC commissioner prior to Hall's resignation notice.
Mississippi has the third-highest prison incarceration rate in the country, according to the latest Bureau of Justice statistics.
The prison system has faced staff shortages, complaints of gang activity among inmates and inhumane treatment of inmates.
Contact Jimmie E. Gates at 601-961-7212 or jgates@gannett.com. Follow @jgatesnews on Twitter.

March 8, 2020, 5:27 p.m.
Joe Biden in MS: 'You're the reason I'm back'
March 8, 2020, 4:52 p.m.

CONNECT

TWEET

LINKEDIN

EMAIL

MORE

How To Locate Anyone In 10 Seconds (It's so simple)

Earn 3X Points on Gas Stations & Transit! Wells Fargo

Pennsylvania: Senior Drivers Are in For a Big Surprise

https://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/politics/2020/01/01/one-inmate-dead-and-several-injured-in-fight-at-parchman/2790702001/[3/9/2020 2:35:44 PM]

Parchman: One inmate dead, several injured in fight at State Penitentiary
Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 65-1 Filed: 03/23/20 27 of 102 PageID #: 1147

TruthFinder

Insured Nation

Where Wesley Snipes Lives Now Will Make You Exceptionally Sad FinancialAdvisorHeroes

The Biggest Selection of Hearing Aids Now in Philadelphia Hearing Aid Advice

Small Businesses In Philadelphia Are Raving About This New CRM Tools for the Modern Creative Professional:
Sponsored Links

AD CONTENT

Randy Jackson: "This Drink Is Like A Powerwash For Your Gut" Unify Health Labs Multi-GI 5 Supplement

Sponsored Links

Subscribe

Contact Us

Newsroom

Apps

Newsletters

RSS Feeds

Chat Support

Advertise

Support

Home

News

Sports

Upside

Nation Now E-newspaper Blogs

Elections 2018 Business Metro/State MS Politics National Politics Careers

Mississippi State Ole Miss Southern Miss Jackson State High School Recruiting More...

Magnolia
Taste Entertainment Diversions Faith Books Celebrations

Opinion
Editorials Columnists Letters Editorial Cartoons

Obituaries

Archives

https://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/politics/2020/01/01/one-inmate-dead-and-several-injured-in-fight-at-parchman/2790702001/[3/9/2020 2:35:44 PM]

Parchman: One inmate dead, several injured in fight at State Penitentiary
Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 65-1 Filed: 03/23/20 28 of 102 PageID #: 1148

© 2020 www.clarionledger.com. All rights reserved

Services

Leave website feedback Advertise with Us Advertising Terms and Conditions Archives Community Rules Work With Us Subscriber Guide Your California Privacy Rights/Privacy Policy Terms of Service Our Ethical Principles

Accessibility Support Public Notices Sitemap Do not sell my data / Cookie policy Privacy Policy

Our Partners
The Job Network Cars.com Jackson Homes Classifieds Education ReachLocal Thanksgiving.com Grateful

https://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/politics/2020/01/01/one-inmate-dead-and-several-injured-in-fight-at-parchman/2790702001/[3/9/2020 2:35:44 PM]

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 65-1 Filed: 03/23/20 29 of 102 PageID #: 1149
EXHIBIT C

Hom3e/9/2020 Case: 4:20-cv-00007S-DheMriff:BO-nJeMdeVadD, twoocin#ju:re6d 5af-te1r fFighilteadt C: h0ic3ka/s2a3w/R2e0gio3n0al oCofrr1e0cti2onPal aFagceilitIyD #: 1150
News Back Local Mississippi Alabama National News En Espanol
Sports Back Friday Night Fever Local Sports MSU Ole Miss National Sports
Weather Back Forecast Interactive Radar Radar Maps Maps & Forecasts Weather Cams Weather Closings Storm Shelters Submit Your Weather Photos WeatherCall
Video Back On Demand TV Apps Watch Now YouTube Drone Video
Features Back Community Calendar St. Jude Dream Home Giveaway City Spotlight Medical Minute Podcasts Skilled To Work Monday's Miracle Home & Garden Expo Pressure On Prisons
Contests Deals
Back Travel Deals 2020 Golf Card About Us Back Bios History Work For Us Advertise With Us What's On Contact Digital Marketing Our Apps Drive Watch Live
Type to search... Clear

Home

News

Local

Mississippi

Alabama

National News

En Espanol

Sports

Friday Night Fever

Local Sports

MSU

Ole Miss

National Sports

Weather

Forecast

Interactive Radar

Radar Maps

Maps & Forecasts

Weather Cams

Weather Closings

Storm Shelters

htStpusbm://itwYwouwr W.weatvthae.rcPohmoto/csontent/news/Sheriff-one-dead-after-fight-at-Chickasaw-Regional-Correctional-Facility-566644661.html#.XmauMp_fnpg.email

1/6

3/W 9/e2a0th2e0rCall Case: 4:20-cv-00007S-DheMriff:BO-nJeMdeVadD, twoocin#ju:re6d 5af-te1r fFighilteadt C: h0ic3ka/s2a3w/R2e0gio3n1al oCofrr1e0cti2onPal aFagceilitIyD #: 1151
Video On Demand TV Apps Watch Now YouTube Drone Video
Features Community Calendar St. Jude Dream Home Giveaway City Spotlight Medical Minute Podcasts Skilled To Work Monday's Miracle Home & Garden Expo Pressure On Prisons
Contests Deals
Travel Deals 2020 Golf Card About Us Bios History Work For Us Advertise With Us What's On Contact Digital Marketing Our Apps Drive Watch Live
 STREAMING NOW: Watch Now
Sheriff: One dead, two injured after ght at Chickasaw Regional Correctional Facility

 

Updated - Gregory Emary, 26, of Hernando, was pronounced dead at the scene, according to Chickasaw County Coroner Michael Fowler. Posted: Jan 2, 2020 4:50 AM Updated: Jan 2, 2020 12:44 PM Posted By: WTVA Staff
HOUSTON, Miss. (WTVA) - One inmate is dead and two were injured after a ght at the Mississippi Department of Correction's (MDOC) Regional Correctional Facility in Chickasaw County, according to Sheriff Jim Meyers. Gregory Emary, 26, of Hernando, was pronounced dead at the scene, according to Chickasaw County Coroner Michael Fowler.

https://www.wtva.com/content/news/Sheriff-one-dead-after-fight-at-Chickasaw-Regional-Correctional-Facility-566644661.html#.XmauMp_fnpg.email

2/6

3/9/2020 Case: 4:20-cv-00007S-DheMriff:BO-nJeMdeVadD, twoocin#ju:re6d 5af-te1r fFighilteadt C: h0ic3ka/s2a3w/R2e0gio3n2al oCofrr1e0cti2onPal aFagceilitIyD #: 1152

Gregory Emary | Source: MDOC One inmate was taken to the North Mississippi Medical Center in Tupelo for injuries, Meyers said. The other inmate was taken to a hospital in Calhoun County to be treated for lacerations to the head. Reports of a riot were con rmed by jail personnel early Thursday morning. The Mississippi Bureau of Investigation is leading the investigation. According to MDOC’s website, Emary was convicted of burglary of an unoccupied dwelling in Tate County and was sentenced on Oct. 20, 2016. He received a 16-year prison sentence.

TOP ARTICLES 1/5

https://www.wtva.com/content/news/Sheriff-one-dead-after-fight-at-Chickasaw-Regional-Correctional-Facility-566644661.html#.XmauMp_fnpg.email

3/6

3/9/2020 Case: 4:20-cv-00007S-DheMriff:BO-nJeMdeVadD, twoocin#ju:re6d 5af-te1r fFighilteadt C: h0ic3ka/s2a3w/R2e0gio3n3al oCofrr1e0cti2onPal aFagceilitIyD #: 1153

Primary 2020: Tuesday is Election Day in Mississippi

READ MORE

Related Content
Sheriff: One dead, two injured after ght at Chickasaw Regional Correctional Facility Chickasaw County corrections of cer attacked by inmate Former corrections of cer sues Chickasaw County Collision injures one in Chickasaw County Sheriff: 2 motorcycles stolen in Chickasaw County Chickasaw County wreck leaves one person dead Chickasaw Drug arrests Two people injured in Chickasaw Co. ATV wreck Crash claims life of Chickasaw County sheriff's deputy Murder suspect found dead in Chickasaw County jail
Scroll for more content...
Article Comments

1 Comment

Sort by Oldest

Add a comment...
Dozle Z Benzamin He got a Death Sentence. Like · Reply · 9w
Facebook Comments Plugin
Oxford Few Clouds
66° Hi: 69° Lo: 58° Feels Like: 66° More Weather

Radar 

Temperatures 

Severe Weather 

https://www.wtva.com/content/news/Sheriff-one-dead-after-fight-at-Chickasaw-Regional-Correctional-Facility-566644661.html#.XmauMp_fnpg.email

4/6

3/9/2020 Case: 4:20-cv-00007S-DheMriff:BO-nJeMdeVadD, twoocin#ju:re6d 5af-te1r fFighilteadt C: h0ic3ka/s2a3w/R2e0gio3n4al oCofrr1e0cti2onPal aFagceilitIyD #: 1154

Most Popular Stories
Coronavirus case announced in Memphis Tennessee con rms fourth coronavirus patient Cloudy and breezy Monday followed by evening showers Verona shooting suspect said he red in self defense Mississippi inmate dies, at least 25th since late December Coahoma County Sheriff's Of ce: One person injured in of cer-involved shooting

Two US service members killed in Iraq

US stocks halted after falling 7%. Global stocks plunge as oil crashes and coronavirus fear spreads

Photos released of those wanted for car burglaries in Tupelo, Lee County

Oktibbeha county man walks free after judge vacates 120 year prison sentence

Latest Video
Noticiero - 9 de marzo de 2020 Coahoma County Sheriff's Of ce: One person injured in of cer-involved shooting Joel's Monday Afternoon Forecast: Cloudy and breezy Monday followed by evening showers Perry leads Mississippi State over Ole Miss 69-44 Starkville took down Murrah in the 5A state championship. Oktibbeha county man walks free after judge vacates 120 year prison sentence Potts Camp boys can't contain Coahoma County in 2A championship Calhoun City girls defeats Coahoma County for 2A title Columbus girls defeat Brookhaven and claim 1st ever gold ball Final day for hospital in Pickens County, Alabama

FEATURED

Your Event Here!

Display your event here by promoting it today. Click for details

https://www.wtva.com/content/news/Sheriff-one-dead-after-fight-at-Chickasaw-Regional-Correctional-Facility-566644661.html#.XmauMp_fnpg.email

5/6

MON TU3E/9W/2E0D20THU Case: FRI SAT SUN 4:20-cv-00007S-DheMriff:BO-nJeMdeVadD, twoocin#ju:re6d 5af-te1r fFighilteadt C: h0ic3ka/s2a3w/R2e0gio3n5al oCofrr1e0cti2onPal aFagceilitIyD #: 1155
Monday, March 9, 2020
There are no more events for this day.

✔

SUBMIT YOUR EVENT

WTVA 9 News Email Newsletters
Sign up to receive the WTVA 9 News newsletters -- news, breaking news, sports and more!

Email

Required
SUBSCRIBE

Get In Touch With Us
1359 Beech Springs Rd. Saltillo, MS 38866 USA (662) 842-7620
Our Mobile App
Download on theApp Store Download on theGoogle Play
About Us
About Us Advertise With Us Contact Us History Meet The Team Work For Us 2019 WTVA EEO Report 2017 WLOV EEO Report WLOV Public Inspection File Advertisers
Usage and Legal
FCC Public Inspection File EEO Report Child Programming Privacy Policy Terms of Service Ad Choices
All content © copyright WTVA. Copyright © 2020 Allen Media Broadcasting, LLC All Rights Reserved. Generated: 2019-12-31 11:00:03pm

https://www.wtva.com/content/news/Sheriff-one-dead-after-fight-at-Chickasaw-Regional-Correctional-Facility-566644661.html#.XmauMp_fnpg.email

6/6

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 65-1 Filed: 03/23/20 36 of 102 PageID #: 1156
EXHIBIT D

Parchman inmate dies of natural causes at hospital, coroner says
Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 65-1 Filed: 03/23/20 37 of 102 PageID #: 1157

HOME NEWS SPORTS UPSIDE

USA TODAY MORE

Hi, Ericson

Parchman inmate dies of natural causes at hospital, coroner says
Alissa Zhu, Mississippi Clarion Ledger Published 1:33 p.m. CT Jan. 8, 2020 | Updated 2:44 p.m. CT Jan. 8, 2020

CONNECT

TWEET

LINKEDIN

EMAIL

MORE

An inmate who had been held at the Mississippi State Penitentiary at Parchman died at a hospital Wednesday morning, Sunflower County Coroner Heather Burton announced in a news release.

A.D. Mills was pronounced dead Wednesday at 12:41 a.m. at the Merit Health Hospital in Clarksdale, Burton said.

Coahoma County Coroner Scotty Meredith, who is investigating the death, said Mills, 42, had died of natural causes.

The cause of death, Meredith said, was a pulmonary embolism, or a blood clot in the lungs.

A. Mills (Photo: MDOC)

Meredith said Mills' death is unrelated to a recent outbreak of violence that has left five other inmates dead, including three at Parchman, in prisons across the state.

"This doesn't have anything to do with the riots. This is a man who has multiple medical issues," Meredith told the Clarion Ledger.

Parchman riot: 'Gangs are at war.' Fifth Mississippi prison death reported as violence continues

Inmates killed: Who are they?

27 Photos
PHOTOS: An inside look at Parchman in Mississippi, one of nation's most ...

https://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/2020/01/08/another-parchman-inmate-dies-coroner-confirms-mississippi/2846187001/[3/9/2020 2:39:16 PM]

Parchman inmate dies of natural causes at hospital, coroner says
Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 65-1 Filed: 03/23/20 38 of 102 PageID #: 1158

1 of 27

MDOC spokeswoman Grace Fisher said she has no additional information to provide. Prisons: Violence brews at Parchman: Lack of funding, not enough guards and

Keywords (ex. registered nurse) Jackson, MS

https://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/2020/01/08/another-parchman-inmate-dies-coroner-confirms-mississippi/2846187001/[3/9/2020 2:39:16 PM]

Parchman inmate dies of natural causes at hospital, coroner says
Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 65-1 Filed: 03/23/20 39 of 102 PageID #: 1159

decrepit conditions Since Dec. 29, four of five inmates killed in prisons have died from what the Mississippi

FIND JOBS

Department of Corrections has called gang-related violence. A unit at Parchman was

set on fire. Two inmates escaped and have since been recaptured. MDOC announced a statewide prison lockdown was partially lifted Tuesday.
Prisons: Parchman reopens notorious, long-closed Unit 32 after deadly Mississippi

Share your feedback
to help improve our site experience!

prison violence

MORE STORIES

"My thoughts and prayers are with Mr. Mills' family," Burton said in her statement. "Please join me in saying a prayer for them and pray for the safety and wellbeing of the MDOC Corrections Staff, Mississippi Highway Patrol, Mississippi Bureau of Investigation, the inmates, and anyone else that is aiding in the efforts at Parchman. May God bless you all."

What to know about Tuesday elections in Mississippi
March 9, 2020, 11:06 a.m.

Get the Storm Watch newsletter in your inbox.
Latest news updates during the emergency.
Delivery: Varies

FOR SUBSCRIBERS
South Delta struggling to survive another year of flooding
March 9, 2020, 4 a.m.

Contact Alissa Zhu at azhu@gannett.com. Follow @AlissaZhu on Twitter.

Effort to ban, regulate kratom fails in Mississippi
March 9, 2020, 3 a.m.

CONNECT

TWEET

LINKEDIN

EMAIL

MORE

FOR SUBSCRIBERS
Joe Biden speaks with the Clarion Ledger
March 8, 2020, 7:03 p.m.

Earn 3X Points on Gas Stations & Transit! Wells Fargo

How To Locate Anyone In 10 Seconds (It's so simple) TruthFinder

Pennsylvania: Senior Drivers Are in For a Big Surprise Insured Nation

Danny Glover makes pitch for Sanders in Mississippi
March 8, 2020, 5:27 p.m.
Joe Biden in MS: 'You're the reason I'm back'
March 8, 2020, 4:52 p.m.

Small Businesses In Philadelphia Are Raving About This New CRM Tools for the Modern Creative Professional:

Randy Jackson: "This Drink Is Like A Powerwash For Your Unify Health Labs Multi-

CPAP Makers Running Scared After New Snoring Solution Purch Expert
Sponsored Links

https://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/2020/01/08/another-parchman-inmate-dies-coroner-confirms-mississippi/2846187001/[3/9/2020 2:39:16 PM]

Parchman inmate dies of natural causes at hospital, coroner says
Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 65-1 Filed: 03/23/20 40 of 102 PageID #: 1160

AD CONTENT

Celebrity Trainer Unveils New Way to Stay Strong For Aging Americans Powerlife

Sponsored Links

Subscribe

Contact Us

Newsroom

Apps

Newsletters

RSS Feeds

Chat Support

Advertise

Support

Home

News

Sports

Upside

Nation Now E-newspaper Blogs

Elections 2018 Business Metro/State MS Politics National Politics Careers

Mississippi State Ole Miss Southern Miss Jackson State High School Recruiting More...

Magnolia
Taste Entertainment Diversions Faith Books Celebrations

Opinion
Editorials Columnists Letters Editorial Cartoons

Obituaries

Archives

Services

Leave website feedback Advertise with Us Advertising Terms and

Accessibility Support Public Notices Sitemap

Our Partners
The Job Network Cars.com Jackson Homes

https://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/2020/01/08/another-parchman-inmate-dies-coroner-confirms-mississippi/2846187001/[3/9/2020 2:39:16 PM]

Parchman inmate dies of natural causes at hospital, coroner says
Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 65-1 Filed: 03/23/20 41 of 102 PageID #: 1161

© 2020 www.clarionledger.com. All rights reserved

Conditions Archives Community Rules Work With Us Subscriber Guide Your California Privacy Rights/Privacy Policy

Do not sell my data / Cookie policy
Privacy Policy

Classifieds Education ReachLocal Thanksgiving.com Grateful

Terms of Service

Our Ethical Principles

https://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/2020/01/08/another-parchman-inmate-dies-coroner-confirms-mississippi/2846187001/[3/9/2020 2:39:16 PM]

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 65-1 Filed: 03/23/20 42 of 102 PageID #: 1162
EXHIBIT E

3/9/2020 Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMPaVrchDmaoncde#a:th6: I5nm-1ateFfoiluendd :ha0n3gin/2g 3in/c2e0ll, c4o3ronoefr s1a0ys2 PageID #: 1163

Parchman death: Inmate found hanging in cell, coroner says

Alissa Zhu, Mississippi Clarion Ledger Published 7:33 p.m. CT Jan. 19, 2020 | Updated 2:51 p.m. CT Jan. 20, 2020

An inmate at the Mississippi State Penitentiary at Parchman died Saturday night, Sunflower County Coroner Heather Burton announced.

Correctional officers had found Gabriel Carmen hanging in his cell, Burton said in a news release.

Carmen, 31, was housed in Parchman's Unit 29 and was serving a 17 year sentence for grand larceny and unlawful touching of a child, Mississippi Department of Correction's online records indicate.

Carmen is the fifth Parchman inmate to die this year (/story/news/local/2020/01/03/parchman-riot-ms-prison-violence-who-are-inmateskilled/2803405001/). Three men were killed at Parchman earlier this year during a statewide prison lockdown and one other died at a hospital of natural causes, according to the coroner.

There have been two additional killings at other prisons across the state. The outbreak of violence, which prison officials say is gang-related, has renewed scrutiny into brutal conditions inside Mississippi prisons and longstanding problems with under-funding and under-staffing.

Prison violence 'A recipe for disaster': Democratic lawmakers visit Parchman after deadly violence (/story/news/2020/01/11/mississippi-statepenitentiary-parchman-lawmakers-visit-after-deadly-violence/4420450002/)

Mississippi Prison Crisis: Jay-Z lawsuit. Deaths. Riots. Gang violence. What you need to know about Mississippi's troubled prisons (/story/news/2020/01/15/mississippi-prisons-jay-z-yo-gotti-lawsuit-riots-gang-violence/4476867002/)

Burton said Carmen was last seen alive by officers at 6:20 p.m. on Saturday. He was irate and was throwing feces on the wall in a hall, officers said, according to Burton.

Twenty minutes later, a person that was cleaning the hall alerted officers Carmen was hanging, Burton said, and officers immediately ran to the cell to check on him. When they tried to enter the cell, they found that the lock had been jammed from the inside with a pipe Carmen had removed from the toilet, she said.

Medical staff could not get to Carmen until maintenance helped to open the cell door, Burton said. He was pronounced dead at 7:21 p.m. and the coroner was shortly after notified about his death.

Carmen's body was transported to the State Medical Examiner for an autopsy in accordance with state law, Burton said, and official cause of death and manner of death are pending autopsy results.

Get the Storm Watch newsletter in your inbox.

Latest news updates during the emergency.

Delivery: Varies

2 free articles left.

Only 99¢ peYr omuornEthmfaoirl 3 months. Save 90%.

https://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/2020/01/19/parchman-death-inmate-found-hanging-cell-coroner-says/4520805002/

1/2

3/9/2020 Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMPaVrchDmaoncde#a:th6: I5nm-1ateFfoiluendd :ha0n3gin/2g 3in/c2e0ll, c4o4ronoefr s1a0ys2 PageID #: 1164
Burton said she recently learned at a protest rally that, according to other victim's families, MDOC has not provided them details about their loved ones' deaths.
"I was unaware that they were not given details, so I have personally spoken to Mr. Carmen’s parents to express my condolences and offer answers to their questions," Burton said in her release. "Please keep the Carmen family in your prayers, as well as MDOC Staff, inmates, and their families."
MDOC has called Parchman's Unit 29, where Carmen was housed, unsafe. Prison officials have have contracted with a nearby private prison to house more than 300 inmates for 90 days at a cost of more than $2 million (/story/news/politics/2020/01/09/parchman-inmates-being-moved-private-prisontallahatchie-county/4422223002/). MDOC is searching for a place to house (/story/news/2020/01/15/parchman-unit-29-found-unsafe-mississippi-prisoninmates/4465269002/) the more than 600 inmates who remain in Unit 29.
Attorneys working with hip-hop stars Jay-Z and Yo Gotti (/story/news/2020/01/14/jay-z-yo-gotti-sue-mississippi-prison-official-behalfinmates/4469555002/)are representing 29 Parchman inmates in a lawsuit against MDOC officials. The lawsuit claims the conditions people are subjected to while incarcerated amount to cruel and unusual punishment, which is unconstitutional.
Contact Alissa Zhu at azhu@gannett.com (mailto:azhu@gannett.com). Follow @AlissaZhu (https://twitter.com/AlissaZhu) on Twitter.
Read or Share this story: https://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/2020/01/19/parchman-death-inmate-found-hanging-cell-coroner-says/4520805002/

2 free articles left. Only 99¢ per month for 3 months. Save 90%.

https://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/2020/01/19/parchman-death-inmate-found-hanging-cell-coroner-says/4520805002/

2/2

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 65-1 Filed: 03/23/20 45 of 102 PageID #: 1165
EXHIBIT F

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 65-1 Filed: 03/23/20 46 of 102 PageID #: 1166

IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Date: Contact: Phone: E-mail:

January 21, 2020 Office of Communications (601) 359-5289, 359-5608, 359-5689 MDOCOfficeofCommunications@mdoc.state.ms.us

Investigation underway into 2 deaths at Parchman
JACKSON, MISS. – An investigation is ongoing into the deaths of two inmates at the Mississippi State Penitentiary at Parchman. The Mississippi Department of Corrections will continue to provide information as soon as it is verified and is committed to providing updates as quickly as possible.
Timothy Hudspeth, 35, and the second inmate suffered fatal injuries Monday night at Unit 30, where they were housed, following an altercation with other inmates.
Thus far, investigators have determined that the conflict that resulted in these two deaths is unrelated to the recent series of killings within the prison system.
“The safety of staff and prisoners at Parchman is our immediate priority, and we are working hard to restore and maintain order,” said Interim Commissioner Tommy Taylor. “We believe that the motivation behind this latest altercation is limited to this new tragic set of circumstances. The environment that makes such violence possible must be addressed quickly, and we are committed to making changes to do so.”
Hudspeth was serving 10 years for possession of firearm by a felon. He was sentenced in April 2018 in Tate County.
Identification of the second inmate is pending notification of the next of kin. Both men were pronounced dead at the prison.
The cause and the manner of death for each inmate are pending an autopsy.

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 65-1 Filed: 03/23/20 47 of 102 PageID #: 1167
EXHIBIT G

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 65-1 Filed: 03/23/20 48 of 102 PageID #: 1168

IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Date: Contact: Phone: E-mail:

January 21, 2020 Office of Communications (601) 359-5289, 359-5608, 359-5689 MDOCOfficeofCommunications@mdoc.state.ms.us

Second inmate killed at Parchman identified
JACKSON, MISS. – The second of two inmates killed at the Mississippi State Penitentiary at Parchman has been identified.
James Talley, 36, suffered fatal injuries Monday night during an altercation at Unit 30 and was pronounced dead at the prison.
An investigation into his death and that of Timothy Hudspeth, 35, the other Unit 30 inmate, is ongoing. The cause and the manner of death for each inmate are pending an autopsy. Sunflower County Coroner Heather Burton says the two men appear to have died from blunt force beating injuries.
Talley was serving 11 years for two counts of aggravated assault and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in Lee County. He had been in prison since October 2017.
As the Mississippi Department of Corrections works to restore and maintain order at the prison with 2,814 inmates today, movement is restricted until further notice.

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 65-1 Filed: 03/23/20 49 of 102 PageID #: 1169
EXHIBIT H

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 65-1 Filed: 03/23/20 50 of 102 PageID #: 1170

IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Date: Contact: Phone: E-mail:

January 22, 2020 Office of Communications (601) 359-5289, 359-5608, 359-5689 MDOCOfficeofCommunications@mdoc.state.ms.us

Inmate found dead Wednesday morning at Parchman identified
JACKSON, MISS. – The inmate found dead by apparent suicide at the Mississippi State Penitentiary at Parchman on Wednesday morning is now identified.
Thomas Lee, 49, pleaded guilty to capital murder and was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole on Oct. 20, 2014, in Grenada County Circuit Court for the death of Grenada police Capt. John Wayne Haddock. Haddock was struck by a fleeing car on Oct. 7, 2011, while attempting to lay spikes across Mississippi Highway 8 west to stop the car. Lee was a passenger in the car.
MSP officers found Lee, MDOC #193704, in his one-man cell at Unit 29 after 10 a.m. They performed CPR for several minutes before he was pronounced dead at 10:47 a.m.
The county coroner says the cause of death “appears consistent with ligature hanging,” but the official cause and manner of death are pending confirmation by an autopsy and an investigation by the Mississippi Department of Corrections.

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 65-1 Filed: 03/23/20 51 of 102 PageID #: 1171
EXHIBIT I

Inmate dies at Marshall County Correctional Facility, coroner confirms
Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 65-1 Filed: 03/23/20 52 of 102 PageID #: 1172

HOME NEWS SPORTS UPSIDE MAGNOLIA OPINION OBITUARIES

USA TODAY MORE

Hi, Ericson

Mississippi inmate dies at Marshall County Correctional Facility
Alissa Zhu, Mississippi Clarion Ledger Published 2:29 p.m. CT Jan. 26, 2020 | Updated 6:01 p.m. CT Jan. 26, 2020

Hundreds turned out to demand reform for Mississippi's troubled prison system in front of the Capitol building in Jackson on Friday, Jan. 24, 2020.
Mississippi Clarion Ledger

CONNECT

TWEET

LINKEDIN

EMAIL

MORE

A man has died at the Marshall County Correctional Facility in Holly Springs, officials said.

Jermaine Tyler, 38, was found unresponsive in his housing unit at about 8:15 p.m. Saturday, according to a statement from Management and Training Corporation, the private company that runs the prison.

Tyler was serving a life sentence for capital murder, conspiracy to commit a crime and possession of a firearm by a felon out of Rankin County, according to MDOC.

Marshall County Coroner James Anderson told the Clarion Ledger by the time he responded to the prison at around 8:40 p.m. Saturday, the body was "cold to the touch."

Anderson estimated the man had been dead for four to six hours, possibly longer.

There was no visible blood around the body, Anderson said, and he does not know the cause of death.

The inmate's body was sent to the State Medical Examiner's Office for an autopsy, Anderson said.

According to the statement from Management and Training Corporation, "there were no initial signs of foul play."

Keywords (ex. registered nurse) Jackson, MS
FIND JOBS
Share your feedback
to help improve our site experience!

https://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/2020/01/26/inmate-dies-marshall-county-correctional-facility-coroner-confirms/4582089002/[3/9/2020 2:47:17 PM]

Inmate dies at Marshall County Correctional Facility, coroner confirms
Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 65-1 Filed: 03/23/20 53 of 102 PageID #: 1173

Mississippi Department of Corrections is helping investigate the death, the statement said.

MORE STORIES

The Marshall County Correctional Facility is a privately-operated prison that holds about 1,000 inmates for the Mississippi Department of Corrections.
Eleven other inmates have died while in MDOC custody in less than a month. Some inmates were killed in riots, or what officials have called gang-related disturbances.
'This is a war': Protesters demand accountability over Mississippi prison deaths

What to know about Tuesday elections in Mississippi
March 9, 2020, 11:06 a.m.
FOR SUBSCRIBERS
South Delta struggling to survive another year of flooding
March 9, 2020, 4 a.m.

Several hundred people gather in front of the Mississippi Capitol in Jackson, on Friday, Jan. 24, 2020, to protest conditions in prisons where inmates have been killed in violent clashes in recent weeks. Mississippi's new governor says he and the interim corrections commissioner toured a troubled state prison to see conditions and to try to understand what led to an outburst of deadly violence in recent weeks. (AP Photo/Rogelio V. Solis) (Photo: Rogelio V. Solis, AP)

Last week, four inmates died at the Mississippi State Penitentiary, including two from apparent hangings and two who were beaten to death by other inmates, authorities said.
Prison crisis: Jay-Z lawsuit. Deaths. Riots. Gang violence. What you need to know about Mississippi's troubled prisons
Several hundred protesters gathered outside the state Capitol Friday to demand prison reform. Much of the ire was directed at state leaders who protesters say created a deadly mix of corrupt guards, lack of supervision, disgusting living conditions and

dilapidated prisons through under-funding and neglect.

Effort to ban, regulate kratom fails in Mississippi
March 9, 2020, 3 a.m.
FOR SUBSCRIBERS
Joe Biden speaks with the Clarion Ledger
March 8, 2020, 7:03 p.m.
Danny Glover makes pitch for Sanders in Mississippi
March 8, 2020, 5:27 p.m.

Get the Storm Watch newsletter in your inbox.
Latest news updates during the emergency.
Delivery: Varies

Joe Biden in MS: 'You're the reason I'm back'
March 8, 2020, 4:52 p.m.

Contact Alissa Zhu at azhu@gannett.com. Follow @AlissaZhu on Twitter.

CONNECT

TWEET

LINKEDIN

EMAIL

MORE

Earn 3X Points on Gas Stations & Transit!

How To Locate Anyone In 10 Seconds (It's so

Pennsylvania: Senior Drivers Are in For a Big

https://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/2020/01/26/inmate-dies-marshall-county-correctional-facility-coroner-confirms/4582089002/[3/9/2020 2:47:17 PM]

Inmate dies at Marshall County Correctional Facility, coroner confirms
Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 65-1 Filed: 03/23/20 54 of 102 PageID #: 1174

Wells Fargo

simple)

Surprise

TruthFinder

Insured Nation

Where Wesley Snipes Lives Now Will Make You Exceptionally Sad FinancialAdvisorHeroes

CPAP Makers Running Scared After New Snoring Solution Purch Expert

Small Businesses In Philadelphia Are Raving About This New CRM Tools for the Modern Creative Professional:
Sponsored Links

AD CONTENT

Randy Jackson: "This Drink Is Like A Powerwash For Your Gut" Unify Health Labs Multi-GI 5 Supplement

Sponsored Links

Subscribe

Contact Us

Newsroom

Apps

Newsletters

RSS Feeds

Chat Support

Advertise

Support

Home
Nation Now E-newspaper Blogs

News

Sports

Elections 2018 Business Metro/State

Mississippi State
Ole Miss

Upside

Magnolia
Taste Entertainment Diversions

Opinion
Editorials Columnists Letters

Obituaries

Archives

https://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/2020/01/26/inmate-dies-marshall-county-correctional-facility-coroner-confirms/4582089002/[3/9/2020 2:47:17 PM]

Inmate dies at Marshall County Correctional Facility, coroner confirms
Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 65-1 Filed: 03/23/20 55 of 102 PageID #: 1175

MS Politics National Politics Careers

Southern Miss Jackson State High School Recruiting

Faith Books Celebrations

Editorial Cartoons

More...

© 2020 www.clarionledger.com. All rights reserved

Services

Leave website feedback Advertise with Us Advertising Terms and Conditions Archives Community Rules Work With Us Subscriber Guide Your California Privacy Rights/Privacy Policy Terms of Service Our Ethical Principles

Accessibility Support Public Notices Sitemap Do not sell my data / Cookie policy Privacy Policy

Our Partners
The Job Network Cars.com Jackson Homes Classifieds Education ReachLocal Thanksgiving.com Grateful

https://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/2020/01/26/inmate-dies-marshall-county-correctional-facility-coroner-confirms/4582089002/[3/9/2020 2:47:17 PM]

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 65-1 Filed: 03/23/20 56 of 102 PageID #: 1176
EXHIBIT J

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 65-1 Filed: 03/23/20 57 of 102 PageID #: 1177

IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Date: Contact: Phone: E-mail:

January 26, 2020 Office of Communications (601) 359-5289, 359-5608, 359-5689 MDOCOfficeofCommunications@mdoc.state.ms.us

Inmate found dead Sunday morning in cell at Parchman
JACKSON, MISS. – An inmate was found dead in his one-man cell at the Mississippi State Penitentiary at Parchman on Sunday morning.
Joshua Norman, 26, was found hanging at Unit 29. No foul play is suspected, according to Sunflower County Coroner Heather Burton. The investigation into the death is ongoing, and an official cause and manner of death are pending autopsy results.
Norman, MDOC #171262, was serving five years for armed robbery in Oktibbeha County. He was sentenced April 30, 2019.
The Mississippi Department of Corrections will continue to provide information as soon as it is verified and is committed to providing updates as quickly as possible.

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 65-1 Filed: 03/23/20 58 of 102 PageID #: 1178
EXHIBIT K

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 65-1 Filed: 03/23/20 59 of 102 PageID #: 1179

IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Date: Contact: Phone: E-mail:

January 28, 2020 Office of Communications (601) 359-5289, 359-5608, 359-5689 MDOCOfficeofCommunications@mdoc.state.ms.us

State inmate collapses and dies at Kemper-Neshoba Regional Facility
JACKSON, MISS. – A state inmate at the Kemper-Neshoba Regional Correctional Facility in DeKalb collapsed today and was pronounced dead later at a local hospital.
Limarion Reaves, 28, was talking to a relative on a facility phone when he fell ill shortly before 1 p.m., according to Warden Johnny Crockett. CPR and AED shocks were administered by medical staff until an ambulance arrived.
The cause and manner of death are pending an autopsy.
Reaves, MDOC #223305, was sentenced to three years in prison on May 16, 2019, for aggravated assault in Leflore County.
The Mississippi Department of Corrections will continue to provide information as it becomes available and is committed to providing updates as quickly as possible.

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 65-1 Filed: 03/23/20 60 of 102 PageID #: 1180
EXHIBIT L

15th Mississippi inmate dies, cause under investigation
Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 65-1 Filed: 03/23/20 61 of 102 PageID #: 1181

HOME NEWS SPORTS UPSIDE

USA TODAY MORE

Hi, Ericson

Mississippi prison crisis: 15th state inmate dies, cause under investigation
Lici Beveridge, Mississippi Clarion Ledger Published 4:28 p.m. CT Feb. 2, 2020

Hundreds turned out to demand reform for Mississippi's troubled prison system in front of the Capitol building in Jackson on Friday, Jan. 24, 2020.
Mississippi Clarion Ledger

CONNECT

TWEET

LINKEDIN

EMAIL

MORE

Another state inmate death has been reported in Mississippi, at Wilkinson County Correctional Facility, Management and Training Corp. officials said in a news release.

Jesus Garcia, 39, was found lying in his cell on Saturday. He was unresponsive. Medical personnel were called and began life-saving measures but were unsuccessful, according to the release.

Garcia was pronounced dead at 12:52 p.m.

'Quickly as possible': First prison reform legislation filed as Mississippi deaths pile up

Jesus Garcia (Photo: Courtesy of MDOC)
from a DeSoto County case.

The cause and manner of his death are under investigation. There were no obvious signs of assault, prison officials said.
Garcia was serving a 20-year sentence for capital rape

Prison deaths continue: 14th state inmate dies

He is the 15th inmate to die since Dec. 29 and the fifth in little more than a week.

https://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/local/2020/02/02/15th-mississippi-inmate-dies-cause-under-investigation/4641461002/[3/9/2020 2:56:12 PM]

15th Mississippi inmate dies, cause under investigation
Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 65-1 Filed: 03/23/20 62 of 102 PageID #: 1182
On Thursday, Nora Ducksworth died at the Marshall County Correctional Facility. Initial indications were that his death was due to natural causes, but the cause remains under investigation.

Jermaine Tyler, 38, died Jan. 25, also at the Marshall County Correctional Facility with "no initial signs of foul play," according to MTC, the company that runs the facility.

A day later, 26-year-old Joshua Norman was found hanging in a one-man cell at Parchman.

Jay-Z attorney: Mississippi Parchman inmate tried to hang himself in cell

And on Jan. 28, Limarion Reaves, 28, was talking to a relative on a facility phone when he collapsed at the Kemper-Neshoba Regional Correctional Facility in DeKalb.
Last week, Mississippi lawmakers began introducing legislation that could help address some of the deadly problems in the state's prison system, which has been rocked by violence in recent weeks and long-deteriorated living conditions.

Keywords (ex. registered nurse) Jackson, MS
FIND JOBS

"We need to get started as quickly as possible," newly-named House Corrections Chairman Kevin Horan, I-Grenada, told committee members in their first meeting Wednesday.

Share your feedback
to help improve our site experience!

Get the Storm Watch newsletter in your inbox.
Latest news updates during the emergency.
Delivery: Varies

MORE STORIES
What to know about Tuesday elections in Mississippi
March 9, 2020, 11:06 a.m.

Poor conditions: Gov. Reeves vows to close Parchman's Unit 29, calls conditions 'infuriating' in State of State
Horan told the committee to be ready to move quickly through legislation in the coming weeks.
In addition, a group of sheriffs visited the Capitol on Wednesday to advocate moving more medium-security prisoners to regional jails, in order take pressure off state facilities. They said the plan could save the state $22.5 million annually, because it costs about $14 more to house each inmate daily in a state-run facility compared to a county-managed one.
Story continues below photo gallery.

FOR SUBSCRIBERS
South Delta struggling to survive another year of flooding
March 9, 2020, 4 a.m.
Effort to ban, regulate kratom fails in Mississippi
March 9, 2020, 3 a.m.
FOR SUBSCRIBERS
Joe Biden speaks with the Clarion Ledger
March 8, 2020, 7:03 p.m.

Danny Glover makes pitch for Sanders in Mississippi
March 8, 2020, 5:27 p.m.

Joe Biden in MS: 'You're the
https://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/local/2020/02/02/15th-mississippi-inmate-dies-cause-under-investigation/4641461002/[3/9/2020 2:56:12 PM]

15th Mississippi inmate dies, cause under investigation
Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 65-1 Filed: 03/23/20 63 of 102 PageID #: 1183
reason I'm back'
March 8, 2020, 4:52 p.m.

1 of 27

Other recent inmate deaths include:
Dec. 29 — Terrandance Dobbins, 40, was killed in what MDOC called a "major disturbance" at South Mississippi Correctional Institution. Jan. 1 — Walter Gates, 25, died of multiple stab wounds at Parchman. Jan. 2 — Gregory Emary, 26, was killed in a fight at the Chickasaw County Regional Facility. Jan. 2 — Roosevelt Holliman, 32, was stabbed to death in a "gang fight" at Parchman, according to the coroner. Jan. 3 — Denorris Howell, 36, died at Parchman of neck injuries after an altercation with his cellmate. Jan. 8 — A.D. Mills, a 42-year-old Parchman inmate, died of "natural causes" at a hospital in Clarksdale. Jan. 18 — Gabriel Carmen, 31, was found hanging in his cell at Parchman. Jan. 21 — Timothy Hudspeth, 35, died at Parchman of what appeared to be blunt force beating injuries following an altercation with other inmates. Jan. 21 — James Talley, 36, died at Parchman of what appeared to be blunt force beating injuries following an altercation with other inmates. Jan. 22 — Thomas Lee, 49, was found dead in his cell at Parchman. MDOC has called his death "an apparent suicide." Jan. 25 — Jermaine Tyler, 38, died at the Marshall County Correctional Facility with "no initial signs of foul play," according to MTC, which runs the facility. Jan. 26 — Joshua Norman, 26, was found hanging in a one-man cell at Parchman. Jan. 28 — Limarion Reaves, 28, was talking to a relative on a facility phone when he collapsed at the Kemper-Neshoba Regional Correctional Facility in DeKalb. Jan. 30 — Nora Ducksworth, 52, died at the Marshall County Correctional Facility. Initial indications are that the death was due to natural causes, according to MTC. Feb. 1 — Jesus Garcia, 39, died at the Wilkinson County Correctional Facility. His cause and manner of death are under investigation, MTC said in a news release.
Contact Lici Beveridge at 601-584-3104 or lbeveridge@gannett.com. Follow her on Twitter @licibev.

CONNECT

TWEET

LINKEDIN

EMAIL

MORE

https://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/local/2020/02/02/15th-mississippi-inmate-dies-cause-under-investigation/4641461002/[3/9/2020 2:56:12 PM]

15th Mississippi inmate dies, cause under investigation
Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 65-1 Filed: 03/23/20 64 of 102 PageID #: 1184

Earn 3X Points on Gas Stations & Transit! Wells Fargo

How To Locate Anyone In 10 Seconds (It's so simple) TruthFinder

Pennsylvania: Senior Drivers Are in For a Big Surprise Insured Nation

Where Wesley Snipes Lives Now Will Make You Exceptionally Sad FinancialAdvisorHeroes

Small Businesses In Philadelphia Are Raving About This New CRM Tools for the Modern Creative Professional:

CPAP Makers Running Scared After New Snoring Solution Purch Expert
Sponsored Links

AD CONTENT

Randy Jackson Credits "Health Transformation" to 1 Simple Change Unify Health Labs Multi-GI 5 Supplement

Sponsored Links

Subscribe

Contact Us

Newsroom

Apps

Newsletters

RSS Feeds

Chat Support

Advertise

Support

https://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/local/2020/02/02/15th-mississippi-inmate-dies-cause-under-investigation/4641461002/[3/9/2020 2:56:12 PM]

15th Mississippi inmate dies, cause under investigation
Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 65-1 Filed: 03/23/20 65 of 102 PageID #: 1185

Home

News

Sports

Upside

Nation Now E-newspaper Blogs

Elections 2018 Business Metro/State MS Politics National Politics Careers

Mississippi State Ole Miss Southern Miss Jackson State High School Recruiting More...

Magnolia
Taste Entertainment Diversions Faith Books Celebrations

Opinion
Editorials Columnists Letters Editorial Cartoons

Obituaries

Archives

© 2020 www.clarionledger.com. All rights reserved

Services

Leave website feedback Advertise with Us Advertising Terms and Conditions Archives Community Rules Work With Us Subscriber Guide Your California Privacy Rights/Privacy Policy Terms of Service Our Ethical Principles

Accessibility Support Public Notices Sitemap Do not sell my data / Cookie policy Privacy Policy

Our Partners
The Job Network Cars.com Jackson Homes Classifieds Education ReachLocal Thanksgiving.com Grateful

https://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/local/2020/02/02/15th-mississippi-inmate-dies-cause-under-investigation/4641461002/[3/9/2020 2:56:12 PM]

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 65-1 Filed: 03/23/20 66 of 102 PageID #: 1186
EXHIBIT M

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 65-1 Filed: 03/23/20 67 of 102 PageID #: 1187

IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Date: Contact: Phone: E-mail:

Monday, Feb. 10, 2020 Office of Communications (601) 359-5289, 359-5608, 359-5689 MDOCOfficeofCommunications@mdoc.state.ms.us

Inmate who died this afternoon in prison hospital identified
JACKSON, MISS. – The inmate who died Monday afternoon at the hospital at the Mississippi State Penitentiary at Parchman has been identified.
James Allen Brown, 54, was serving life for murder/homicide, plus 25 years for residential burglary, in Scott County. He was sentenced June 11, 1993.
No foul play is suspected in Brown’s death, according to the Sunflower County coroner. The official cause and the manner are pending an autopsy.

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 65-1 Filed: 03/23/20 68 of 102 PageID #: 1188
EXHIBIT O

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 65-1 Filed: 03/23/20 69 of 102 PageID #: 1189

IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Date: Contact: Phone: E-mail:

Saturday, Feb. 15, 2020 Office of Communications (601) 359-5289, 359-5608, 359-5689 MDOCOfficeofCommunications@mdoc.state.ms.us

Inmate serving 25 years for two armed robberies in Copiah County dies
JACKSON, MISS. – A man in prison since 2004 for two armed robberies has died.
Bobby Lewis Vance, 54, died Saturday at Merit Health Central Hospital in Jackson. No foul play is suspected in his death.
Vance, MDOC #21391, was housed at the Central Mississippi Correctional Facility in Rankin County. He was sentenced in Copiah County to serve a total of 25 years on Nov. 9, 2004.
The official cause and the manner of death are pending an autopsy.

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 65-1 Filed: 03/23/20 70 of 102 PageID #: 1190
EXHIBIT P

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 65-1 Filed: 03/23/20 71 of 102 PageID #: 1191

IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Date: Contact: Phone: E-mail:

Sunday, February 16, 2020 Office of Communications (601) 359-5289, 359-5608, 359-5689 MDOCOfficeofCommunications@mdoc.state.ms.us

Inmate dies at Rankin County prison
JACKSON, MISS. – An inmate was found unresponsive in his cell at the Central Mississippi Correctional Facility in Rankin County early Sunday morning as an officer was serving breakfast.
David Lee May, 42, was later pronounced dead after he did not respond to resuscitation efforts.
There were no obvious signs of injuries to the body. An autopsy will determine the cause and the manner of death.
May, who was housed alone, was serving life for two aggravated assaults in Harrison County. He was sentenced Oct. 5, 2017.

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 65-1 Filed: 03/23/20 72 of 102 PageID #: 1192
EXHIBIT Q

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 65-1 Filed: 03/23/20 73 of 102 PageID #: 1193

IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Date: Contact: Phone: E-mail:

Feb. 26, 2020 Office of Communications (601) 359-5289, 359-5608, 359-5689 MDOCOfficeofCommunications@mdoc.state.ms.us

Prisoner serving 20 years for manslaughter dies
JACKSON, MISS. – An inmate serving 20 years for manslaughter in Lowndes County has died while in prison.
Omar Beard, 36, died Wednesday at Merit Health Rankin in Brandon. His death appears to be from natural causes. An autopsy will determine the official cause and the manner of death.
Beard, MDOC #221215, was sentenced on Feb. 6, 2019. He was housed at the Central Mississippi Correctional Facility in Rankin County.

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 65-1 Filed: 03/23/20 74 of 102 PageID #: 1194
EXHIBIT R

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 65-1 Filed: 03/23/20 75 of 102 PageID #: 1195

IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Date: Contact: Phone: E-mail:

Feb. 28, 2020 Office of Communications (601) 359-5289, 359-5608, 359-5689 MDOCOfficeofCommunications@mdoc.state.ms.us

Two inmates die in prison hospital this week
JACKSON, MISS. – Two inmates died in the hospital at the Mississippi State Penitentiary at Parchman this week.
Each death, one on Thursday and the other on Friday, is believed to be from natural causes. An autopsy will determine the official cause and the manner of death in each case.
The inmates’ identifications are pending notification of next of kin.
The Mississippi Department of Corrections is committed to providing updates as quickly as possible.

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 65-1 Filed: 03/23/20 76 of 102 PageID #: 1196
EXHIBIT S

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 65-1 Filed: 03/23/20 77 of 102 PageID #: 1197

IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Date: Contact: Phone: E-mail:

March 4, 2020 Office of Communications (601) 359-5289, 359-5608, 359-5689 MDOCOfficeofCommunications@mdoc.state.ms.us

Inmate Serving 6 Years Dies at Local Hospital
JACKSON, MISS. – Grayland Cox, 62, an inmate at the Central Mississippi Correctional Facility in Rankin County, died Tuesday night at Merit Health Central in Jackson.
No foul play is suspected in Cox’s death. An autopsy will determine the official cause and the manner of death.
Cox, MDOC #75296, was serving six years for selling cocaine (enhanced penalty) in Marshall County. He was sentenced Nov. 13, 2017.

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 65-1 Filed: 03/23/20 78 of 102 PageID #: 1198
EXHIBIT T

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 65-1 Filed: 03/23/20 79 of 102 PageID #: 1199

IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Date: Contact: Phone: E-mail:

March 2, 2020 Office of Communications (601) 359-5289, 359-5608, 359-5689 MDOCOfficeofCommunications@mdoc.state.ms.us

Inmate serving life for murder dies at local hospital
JACKSON, MISS. – Inmate Patricia A. Wilhite, 68, who was serving life without parole for murder, died at the Baptist Medical Center in Jackson this morning.
No foul play is suspected in Wilhite’s death. An autopsy will determine the official cause and the manner of death.
Wilhite, MDOC # R4475, had been an inmate at the Central Mississippi Correctional Facility in Rankin County since 1998.
Wilhite was convicted of a 1995 homicide in Pontotoc County. Her first trial ended in a mistrial. A change of venue placed the second trial in Monroe County. She was found guilty and sentenced April 18, 1998.

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 65-1 Filed: 03/23/20 80 of 102 PageID #: 1200
EXHIBIT U

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 65-1 Filed: 03/23/20 81 of 102 PageID #: 1201

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Date: Contact: Phone: E-mail:

March 5, 2020 Office of Communications (601) 359-5289, 359-5608, 359-5689 MDOCOfficeofCommunications@mdoc.state.ms.us

Identity released of inmate who died in prison hospital
JACKSON, MISS. – The 45-year-old inmate who died Wednesday in the hospital at the Mississippi State Penitentiary at Parchman has been identified.
Inmate Lee R. Clemmer Jr., was serving eight years for two drug convictions.
Clemmer Jr., MDOC #R1031, was twice convicted of selling methamphetamine in Prentiss County, with an enhanced penalty on one count. He received five years when sentenced on Oct. 16, 2018, and three years when sentenced the second time on Jan. 29, 2019.
Foul play is not suspected, and the cause and the manner are pending the results of an autopsy.

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 65-1 Filed: 03/23/20 82 of 102 PageID #: 1202
EXHIBIT V

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 65-1 Filed: 03/23/20 83 of 102 PageID #: 1203

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Date: Contact: Phone: E-mail:

March 9, 2020 Office of Communications (601) 359-5289, 359-5608, 359-5689 MDOCOfficeofCommunications@mdoc.state.ms.us

Inmate who died in Oxford hospital identified
JACKSON, MISS. – The 77-year-old state inmate who died Saturday at Baptist Memorial Hospital in Oxford has been identified.
Willie C. Booker, MDOC #94193, was serving life at the Mississippi State Penitentiary at Parchman for homicide/murder in Calhoun County. He had been in prison for more than 23 years, having been sentenced Jan. 24, 1997.
Foul play is not suspected in Booker’s death; the results of an autopsy will confirm the cause and the manner of his death.

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 65-1 Filed: 03/23/20 84 of 102 PageID #: 1204
EXHIBIT W

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 65-1 Filed: 03/23/20 85 of 102 PageID #: 1205

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Date: Contact: Phone: E-mail:

March 10, 2020 Office of Communications (601) 359-5289, 359-5608, 359-5689 MDOCOfficeofCommunications@mdoc.state.ms.us

Inmate who died at Rankin County prison Monday evening identified
JACKSON, MISS. – The inmate who died Monday evening at the Central Mississippi Correctional Facility in Rankin County has been identified as 80-yearold David W. Parvin.
Parvin, #168115, was convicted of murder/homicide in Monroe County, with one conviction overturned on appeal before the Mississippi State Supreme Court. He was tried, found guilty again, and sentenced to life on March 10, 2014. The Mississippi Court of Appeals later affirmed his conviction and sentence.
Foul play is not suspected in Parvin’s death. An autopsy will determine the official cause and the manner of death.

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 65-1 Filed: 03/23/20 86 of 102 PageID #: 1206
EXHIBIT X

3/23/2020 Case: 4:20-cv-000M0DO7C-DidMentBifie-Js M80-VyeaDr-ooldcin#m:a6te5w-h1o dFieildeadt C: e0n3tra/2l M3is/2sis0sip8p7i Corfre1ct0io2naPl FaacgilietyI|DWJ#T:V1207 72°
BREAKING NEWS / 42 new coronavirus cases reported in Mississippi; 249 total cases in state
CORONAVIRUS INFORMATION

Schools Closed due to Coronavirus

School Lunch Programs

What to Know About Coronavirus

Latest Announcements from CDC

NEWS

MDOC identi es 80-year-old inmate who died at Central Mississippi Correctional Facility

Posted: Mar 10, 2020 / 11:14 AM CDT / Updated: Mar 11, 2020 / 10:55 AM CDT

RANKIN COUNTY, Miss. (WJTV) – The Mississippi Department of Corrections identi ed the 80-year-old inmate who died at the Central Mississippi Correctional Facility on Monday.

The inmate has been identi ed as David W. Parvin. He was convicted of murder/homicide in Monroe County, with one conviction overturned on appeal before the Mississippi State Supreme Court.

According to MDOC, Parvin was tried, found guilty again, and sentenced to life on March 10, 2014. The Mississippi Court of Appeals af rmed his conviction and sentence.

Foul play is not suspected in Parvin’s death. An autopsy will be conducted to determine how he died.

https://www.wjtv.com/news/mdoc-identifies-80-year-old-inmate-who-died-at-central-mississippi-correctional-facility/

1/6

3/23/2020 Case: 4:20-cv-000M0DO7C-DidMentBifie-Js M80-VyeaDr-ooldcin#m:a6te5w-h1o dFieildeadt C: e0n3tra/2l M3is/2sis0sip8p8i Corfre1ct0io2naPl FaacgilietyI|DWJ#T:V1208 72°
Timeline of inmate deaths at Mississippi prisons 20192020
JACKSON, Miss. (WJTV) – Prisons across Mississippi remain on lockdown as the Mississippi Department of Corrections investigates the recent deaths of inmates. Below is a timeline of the reported deaths: December 29, 2019: One inmate killed at South Mississippi Correctional Institution. Inmate has been identified as Terrandance Dobbins. January 1, 2020: One inmate killed at … Continue reading
WJTV
Copyright 2020 Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
SHARE THIS STORY
MORE NEWS STORIES

https://www.wjtv.com/news/mdoc-identifies-80-year-old-inmate-who-died-at-central-mississippi-correctional-facility/

2/6

3/23/2020 Case: 4:20-cv-000M0DO7C-DidMentBifie-Js M80-VyeaDr-ooldcin#m:a6te5w-h1o dFieildeadt C: e0n3tra/2l M3is/2sis0sip8p9i Corfre1ct0io2naPl FaacgilietyI|DWJ#T:V1209 72°
Over 1.5 billion globally asked to stay home to escape virus
by The Associated Press / Mar 23, 2020
NEW YORK (AP) — The hunt for masks, ventilators and other medical supplies consumed the U.S. and Europe, as more than 1.5 billion people — one- fth of the world’s population — were urged or ordered to stay home Monday to try to blunt the spread of the coronavirus. Political paralysis stalled efforts for a quick aid package from Congress. Investor fears about the outbreak’s economic toll pushed U.S. stocks down in morning trading even after the Federal Reserve said it will buy as much government debt as necessary and lend to small and large businesses and local governments to help them cope.
Read the Full Article

Audible offering free audiobooks for kids
Mar 23, 2020
(CNN) - With schools closed and many adults working remotely due to the coronavirus, Audible, which is owned by Amazon, is offering free audiobooks for kids.
Just download the free app, and you'll see a variety of children's stories for all ages. There are also six different languages to choose from.
Read the Full Article

https://www.wjtv.com/news/mdoc-identifies-80-year-old-inmate-who-died-at-central-mississippi-correctional-facility/

3/6

3/23/2020 Case: 4:20-cv-000M0DO7C-DidMentBifie-Js M80-VyeaDr-ooldcin#m:a6te5w-h1o dFieildeadt C: e0n3tra/2l M3is/2sis0sip9p0i Corfre1ct0io2naPl FaacgilietyI|DWJ#T:V1210 72°

MDEQ advises neighbors to not ush wipes or paper towels
Mar 23, 2020
JACKSON, Miss. (WJTV) - The Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality is advising people to not ush disinfecting wipes, paper towels, or similar products in toilets but to dispose of them in household garbage.
These items can cause damage to wastewater treatment and collection systems creating clogs, backups, pump failures, and sewer over ows creating additional public health issues. Wipes listed as “ ushable” can also cause problems for wastewater and septic systems.
Read the Full Article
TOP STORIES

Over 1.5 billion globally asked to stay home to escape virus

Another attempt to move ahead on virus aid package snags

Audible offering free audiobooks for kids

MDEhQttpas:d//vwiwswe.swjntve.ciogmh/bnoewrss/mtodonco-itdenutisfiehs-80-year-oBlde-tinhmIastrea-wehl oC-doinedg-raet-gceanttiroanl-mtiusrsnisssiptpoi-correctional-facility/

4/6

Q ad ses e g bo s to ot us

et s ae Co g egat o tu s to

wipe3s/23o/r20p2a0per Ctoawseels: 4:20-cv-000M0DO7C-DidMenFtBifaie-cJseM8b0o-VyoekaDrf-ooolrdcoin#nm:lain6tee5ws-h1eordFviieicldeeasdt C: e0n3tra/2l M3is/2sis0sip9p1i CTohrfrree1cet0ioa2ncacPl uFaascegildietyIo|DfWinJ#Tt:rVo1d2u1c1ing contraband

72°

into Raymond Detention Center

MORE STORIES

Mississippi Dept. of Mental Health shares wellness tips during Dollar General looking to hire 50,000 employees before end of

coronavirus pandemic

April

Clinton-Tinnin Road to close for culvert repair

American Red Cross seeks public’s help for blood donations

Read more stories

TRENDING STORIES

1 42 new coronavirus cases reported in Mississippi; 249 total cases in state

2 Jackson re ghter killed during armed robbery on Hanging Moss Rd. 3 Three accused of introducing contraband into Raymond Detention Center 4 2 killed after being hit by train in Crystal Springs

5 67 new coronavirus cases in Mississippi; 207 total cases in state

https://www.wjtv.com/news/mdoc-identifies-80-year-old-inmate-who-died-at-central-mississippi-correctional-facility/

5/6

3/23/2020
72°

Case: 4:20-cv-000M0DO7C-DidMentBifie-Js M80-VyeaDr-ooldcin#m:a6te5w-h1o dFieildeadt C: e0n3tra/2l M3is/2sis0sip9p2i Corfre1ct0io2naPl FaacgilietyI|DWJ#T:V1212
FOLLOW US

NEWS APP WEATHER APP

News Weather Politics Sports Watch Live Contact Us About Us
Privacy Policy / Terms of Use / About our ads / WJTV FCC Public Files / WJTV EEO Public File / WHLT EEO Public File / WHLT FCC Public File / Nexstar CC Certification / Do Not Sell My Personal Information

© 1998 - 2020 Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc. | All Rights Reserved.

https://www.wjtv.com/news/mdoc-identifies-80-year-old-inmate-who-died-at-central-mississippi-correctional-facility/

6/6

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 65-1 Filed: 03/23/20 93 of 102 PageID #: 1213

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Date: Contact: Phone: E-mail:

March 12, 2020 Office of Communications (601) 359-5289, 359-5608, 359-5689 MDOCOfficeofCommunications@mdoc.state.ms.us

Inmate found unresponsive at MSP
JACKSON, MISS. – A 42-year-old inmate was found unresponsive Thursday afternoon during a security check at the Mississippi State Penitentiary’s Unit 30.
Emergency personnel were called to the dormitory-style area; the inmate was subsequently pronounced dead.
There were no signs of foul play. An autopsy will determine the cause and the manner of death.
The inmate’s name will be released once his next of kin is notified.

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 65-1 Filed: 03/23/20 94 of 102 PageID #: 1214
EXHIBIT Y

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 65-1 Filed: 03/23/20 95 of 102 PageID #: 1215

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 65-1 Filed: 03/23/20 96 of 102 PageID #: 1216
EXHIBIT Z

Inmate serving 30 years for assault dies in Parchman hospital
Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 65-1 Filed: 03/23/20 97 of 102 PageID #: 1217

TOP ARTICLES 1/5

Search... HOME WATCH LIVE NEWS TRAFFIC WEATHER SPORTS MISSISSIPPI WEEKEND WHAT'S ON TV A

CORONAVIRUS OUTBREAK / 50 CASES REPORTED IN MISSISSIPPI

×

We'll trAydAncodltostsobeydshboyw that ad again
Stop seeing this ad Why this ad?

NEWS
Inmate serving 30 years for assault dies in Parchman hospital

The Mississippi Department of Corrections says much of the unrest is gang-related. (Source: WLOX)

ByMSohtahCearmkreileleGdowbdyym| Maanrcihnv19o,l2v0e2d0 aint 1d:4o1mPMesCtiDcT - Updated March 19 at 1:55 PM

READ MORE

WihnINecSridTdeOanuNtgCwhOitteh.,rMiss. (WLBT) - An inmate serving 30 years for assaulting two people in Winston County died Thursday

moWFLrenuaelirln'nyllgMRtoearredAyteAdtAnbshoicogeudntltosThethsdooebessFyedspuEhliblxttaoSyraliwvzaaegttaShntUhtaFeVtullaMSdiziseasSgiusvassiinppi State Penitentiary at Parchman.
With These SeSatrochpesseeing this ad LamFuall SrizKeiLtucxhureyns, 61, was sentenced for two counts of aggravated assault in November 2008.

Open

Why this ad?

No foul play is suspected in his death.

An autopsy will determine the official cause and the manner of death.

Copyright 2020 WLBT. All rights reserved.

83°
Currently in
https://www.wlbt.com/2020/03/19/inmate-serving-years-assault-dies-parchman-hospital/[3/19/2020 4:13:42 PM]

Inmate serving 30 years for assault dies in Parchman hospital
Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 65-1 Filed: 03/23/20 98 of 102 PageID #: 1218
Jackson, MS
FULFLullFFoOreRcaEsCt AS
Sponsored By

AUTHOR

ShaCamree Gowdy
Digital Content Producer Jackson, MS

ShaCamree Gowdy is a digital content producer at WLBT and Fox40 News in Jackson, MS.

.st0{fill:#FFFFFF;}.st1{fill:#0099FF;}

RECENT CONTENT

 THE
LATEST:
Confirmed
cases of
coronavirus
reported in
La.
COVID-19 is a new strain of coronavirus, a family of viruses known to cause a range of respiratory illnesses.
By WAFB Staff

Saints head coach Sean Payton tests positive for coronavirus
Payton said he came forward with his coronavirus diagnosis because he
https://www.wlbt.com/2020/03/19/inmate-serving-years-assault-dies-parchman-hospital/[3/19/2020 4:13:42 PM]

Inmate serving 30 years for assault dies in Parchman hospital
wants all peoplCe ase: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 65-1 Filed: 03/23/20 99 of 102 PageID #: 1219
to heed the warnings of government officials, stay inside, and behave responsibly By Garland
Gillen
Pickup Truck Lease Deals
Search for 2020 Truck Lease Deals - Check Out the Year's Top Models Yahoo Search
Open
MSDH: Elective surgical procedures must be rescheduled
Published 47m at 2:57 PM
Former Simpson County employee arrested for embezzlement
Published 2h at 1:08 PM
 First
Alert Forecast: warm, breezy Thursday; storms return Friday
Published 2h at 12:51 PM
 2nd
JSU student tests positive
https://www.wlbt.com/2020/03/19/inmate-serving-years-assault-dies-parchman-hospital/[3/19/2020 4:13:42 PM]

Inmate serving 30 years for assault dies in Parchman hospital
for Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 65-1 Filed: 03/23/20 100 of 102 PageID #: 1220
COVID19
Published 3h at 12:28 PM
View Video
Watch Video, Download Here videoconverterhd.com
OPEN
715 South Jefferson Street Jackson, MS 39201 (601)948-3333 CONTACT US NEWS@WLBT.COM  WLBT FCC PUBLIC FILE PUBLICFILE@WLBT.COM 601-960-4436 WLBT EEO REPORT WLBT CLOSED CAPTIONING WLBT CAREERS PRIVACY POLICY TERMS OF SERVICE  
https://www.wlbt.com/2020/03/19/inmate-serving-years-assault-dies-parchman-hospital/[3/19/2020 4:13:42 PM]

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 65-1 Filed: 03/23/20 101 of 102 PageID #: 1221
EXHIBIT AA

MDOC: Inmate dies at South Mississippi Correctional Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 65-1 Filed: 03/23/20 102 of 102 PageID #: 1222 Institution, no foul play suspected
Sarah Fowler, Mississippi Clarion Ledger Published 11:49 a.m. CT March 22, 2020
An inmate died Saturday at the South Mississippi Correctional Institution in Leakesville. Troy Michael Daughtery, 48, was found unconscious in his bed Saturday evening, according to the Mississippi Department of Corrections (https://www.clarionledger.com/in-depth/news/2020/03/18/lifers-in-mississippi-prisons-for-nonviolent-crimes/4818657002/). He did not respond to CP
Troy Daughtery (Photo: Mississippi Department of Corrections)
Daughtery was sentenced June 1, 1999, in Harrison County, for capital murder. No foul play is suspected, according to MDOC. An autopsy will determine the official cause and the manner of death. (https://www.clarionledger.com/ depth/news/2020/03/04/inmates-mississippi-prisons-deadlier-than-most/2858516001/) Do you want to stay informed on more topics like this one? Subscribe to the digital Clarion Ledger. (https://offers.clarionledger.com/specialoffer?gps source=CPNEWS&utm_medium=onsite&utm_source=news&utm_campaign=NEWSROOM&utm_content=CPNEWS) Contact Sarah Fowler (https://www.clarionledger.com/staff/10042814/sarah-fowler/) at 601-961-7303 or sfowler@gannett.com (mailto:sfowler@gannett.com). Follow her on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/FowlerSarahNews) and Twitter (https://twitter.com/FowlerSarah). Read or Share this story: https://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/2020/03/22/mississippi-prison-deaths-inmate-dies-corrections-leakesville-no-foul play-coroner-jail-cpr/2894582001/

 
 Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 68 Filed: 03/25/20 1 of 3 PageID #: 1236

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

MICHAEL AMOS, et al.

PLAINTIFFS

VS.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:20-CV-07-DMB-JMV

TOMMY TAYLOR, et al.

DEFENDANTS

JOINT MOTION FOR ENTRY OF AGREED PROTECTIVE ORDER

Plaintiffs and Defendants, by and through their respective undersigned counsel, submit this Joint Motion for Entry of Agreed Protective Order pursuant to this Court’s previous Orders. In support, the parties state the following:
1. This Court ordered expedited discovery for the purposes of Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (“Emergency Motion”). Doc. 13, 42, 48, & 49. When the parties could not agree to the scope of expedited discovery, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel, the Defendants filed a Response, and Plaintiffs filed a Reply. Doc. 33, 35, & 39. Defendants filed their own Motion to Compel. Doc. 37.
2. In their response to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel, Defendants requested that, for security purposes, “the Court first enter a protective order,” before Plaintiffs’ inspection of Parchman. Doc. 36 at 11. In their reply, Plaintiffs stated that they “have no objection to this additional request [for a protective order], provided such an Order affords adequate procedures for Lead Plaintiffs to seek the Court’s review of any and all photographs that Defendants refuse to ‘approve . . . for security issues . . . .’” Doc. 39 at 3.
3. On February 3, 2020, the Court held a hearing on the Motion to Compel Expedited Discovery. At the hearing, the Court made it clear that a separate motion would be

1

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 68 Filed: 03/25/20 2 of 3 PageID #: 1237

required for entry of a protective order. The Court stated that “ultimately, what [it] would like to

do is to get a protective order that covers everybody’s situation.” Hearing Transcript at 25. The

Court directed the parties to “work on a protective order, file a joint motion, and submit a

proposed agreed protective order.” Hearing Transcript at 116.

4. On February 10, 2020, the Court issued an Order that “memorializes and clarifies

rulings” made during the February 3, 2020, hearing. Doc. 48. In its Order, the Court stated:

The parties have not yet filed the joint motion for a protective order. In the meanwhile, should disclosure of discovery precede the entry of the contemplated protective order, the parties are directed to act in good faith to avoid misuse of the discovery. Given this directive and the expedited nature of these proceedings, the absence of a protective order does not excuse the parties from completing expedited discovery relative to the Injunction Motion.

Id. at 13.

5. The parties thereafter conferred in good faith and have agreed to a mutually

acceptable Agreed Protective Order. A true and correct copy of the Agreed Protective Order is

attached as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference.

ACCORDINGLY, the parties respectfully request that this Court enter the Agreed

Protective Order attached as Exhibit A to this Motion. The parties request such other and further

relief as the Court deems just and appropriate under the circumstances.

Respectfully submitted, this the 24th day of March, 2020.

/s/ Marcy B. Croft Marcy B. Croft (MSB #10864) MARON MARVEL BRADLEY ANDERSON & TARDY LLC 200 South Lamar Street Jackson, MS 39201
/s/ Carson H. Thurman Carson Thurman (MSB #104871) CARROLL BUFKIN, PLLC 1076 Highland Colony Pkwy 600 Concourse, Suite 125

/s/ Trey Jones R. David Kaufman (MSB #3526) William Trey Jones, III (MSB #99185) Karen E. Howell (MSB #102243) Cody C. Bailey (MSB #103718) Jacob A. Bradley (MSB #105541) BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC The Pinnacle Building, Suite 100 190 East Capitol Street (39201) Post Office Drawer 119 Jackson, Mississippi 39205 Counsel for Defendants
2

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 68 Filed: 03/25/20 3 of 3 PageID #: 1238
Ridgeland, MS 39157 Counsel for Plaintiffs /s/ Thomas G. Bufkin Thomas G. Bufkin (MSB #10810) CARROLL BUFKIN, PLLC 1076 Highland Colony Pkwy 600 Concourse, Suite 125 Ridgeland, MS 39157 Counsel for Plaintiffs
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Trey Jones, hereby certify that on March 24, 2020, I caused the foregoing pleading to be electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to all counsel of record and registered participants.
/s/ Trey Jones William Trey Jones, III One of the Attorneys for the Defendants
3

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 68-1 Filed: 03/25/20 1 of 5 PageID #: 1239

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION

MICHAEL AMOS, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others simmilarly situated

Plaintiffs, v.

Case No. 4:20-CV-007-DMB-JMV

TOMMY TAYLOR, in his official capacity as the Interim Commissioner of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, and MARSHAL TURNER, in his official capacity as the Superintendent of the Mississippi State Penitentiary,
Defendants.

AGREED PROTECTIVE ORDER HAVING COME before the Court, the Parties, who, after receiving the Court’s instructions, request by stipulation that the Court enter its order pertaining to various matters relevant to these proceedings. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that: 1. Inmate affirmations used as exhibits and/or provided to the Court in support of Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction [Dkt. #13] and briefing related thereto will be produced to Defense Counsel of record only, until further order of the Court. Said information shall be held by Defense Counsel in the strictest confidence, and shall not be divulged by same, either verbally or in writing, to any person or entity other than the Court and designated experts retained by Defense Counsel to the extent those experts are not MDOC employees or otherwise affiliated with MDOC in anyway. Said experts will hold the information in the strictest confidence, and shall not divulge the contents of

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 68-1 Filed: 03/25/20 2 of 5 PageID #: 1240
same, either verbally or in writing, to any person or entity other than the Court and counsel of record in this matter.
2. Plaintiffs shall redact inmate affirmations before producing them to Defense Counsel as follows: (a) inmate affirmations by the thirty-three (33) named Plaintiffs in the First Amended Class Action Complaint will be produced unredacted except that names and other identifying information of other inmates and families contained in the affirmation shall be redacted; and (b) affirmations by inmates who are not one of the thirty-three (33) named Plaintiffs will be redacted to remove all identifying information of the affirming inmate and all other inmates and families referenced therein until further agreement of the parties or order of the Court. Each affirmation by an inmate who is not one of the thirty-three (33) named Plaintiffs will be uniquely numbered prior to production to Defense Counsel, so that each redacted affirmation will be identifiable in further proceedings.
3. The Court contemplates that the Parties’ experts will be afforded certain access to the Mississippi State Penitentiary (“MSP”) to conduct expert inspections. As part of these inspections, it is contemplated that these experts will have photographs taken, but not video. Any photographs taken as part of the expert inspections shall be for attorneys’ and experts’ eyes only until the parties agree otherwise or further order of the Court. Nothing in this order, however, shall be construed to prevent the parties from complying with requests from federal law enforcement or federal investigative agencies.
4. Defendants, the MSP, and/or their designee/s including, without limitation, Centurion of Mississippi, LLC (“Centurion”), are authorized to provide to Plaintiffs’ Counsel copies of each of the thirty-three (33) named Plaintiff’s medical records, including, without limitation, all protected health information (“PHI”) and individually identifying health
2

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 68-1 Filed: 03/25/20 3 of 5 PageID #: 1241
information (“IIHI”). Persons other than Plaintiffs or their counsel obtaining access to unredacted documents containing PHI or IIHI under this Order shall use the information only for purposes of the instant litigation specified by the style above (including appeals and retrials), and shall not use such information for any other purpose. This Order constitutes a “qualified protective order” pursuant to the Privacy Rule, 45 C.F.R. § 164.512(e)(v), promulgated under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”). Nothing in this order, however, prevents the thirty-three (33) named Plaintiffs from utilizing their own medical records for their own benefit, including without limitation, their own health.
5. On February 3, 2020, during a hearing on this matter, the Court requested a digital, aerial map reflecting the premises and units of MSP and a copy of plans showing the layout of units at MSP. Defendants have provided the aerial map to the Court and Plaintiffs’ Counsel for confidential review. Defense Counsel will provide the plans to the Court and Plaintiffs’ counsel for confidential review. The map and plans are for Defendants, Defense Counsel, Plaintiffs’ Counsel, the parties’ experts, and the Court to review, and they shall not be disclosed to any other person or entity without further court order.
6. On February 3, 2020, during a hearing on this matter, the Court requested documentation of all remedial measures taken by Defendants since the filing of this lawsuit. This documentation shall be provided to the Court for in camera inspection. The Court will release this documentation, in whole or in part, to Plaintiffs to the extent the Court deems said release appropriate.
7. Finally, the Court ordered Defendants to make available to Plaintiffs at MSP and during Plaintiffs’ experts’ inspection certain documents. See Rec. Doc. 48, 49. By agreement of the parties, copies of documents made available during the inspection have been, or will be,
3

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 68-1 Filed: 03/25/20 4 of 5 PageID #: 1242
provided to Plaintiffs. Those documents are subject to this Protective Order and, other than those documents which are publically available,1 shall not be provided or shown to anyone other than Plaintiffs’ Counsel, Defendants’ Counsel, the parties’ experts, and the Court until further agreement of the parties or order of the court. Additionally, to the extent they are not already covered herein, any other documents that: (1) are not publically available; (2) are designated as confidential; and, (3) have been produced or will be produced to Plaintiffs as part of this preliminary discovery process are subject to this Protective Order and shall not be provided or shown to anyone other than Plaintiffs’ Counsel, Defendants’ Counsel, the parties’ experts, and the Court until further agreement of the parties or order of the court. Nothing in this order, however, shall be construed to prevent the parties from complying with requests from federal law enforcement or federal investigative agencies.
8. Attached to this Protective Order as Exhibit A is a Non-Disclosure Agreement that must be executed by any expert for Plaintiffs or Defendants who is in receipt of any of the above discussed documents, photographs, or information that is subject to this Protective Order.
SO ORDERED. THIS the ____ day of March, 2020.
_________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1 For example, in accordance with Miss. Code. Ann. §25-61-1, et seq. and MDOC Policy 05-05,et seq. (effective April 1, 2007), the Mississippi Department of Corrections’ policies, standard operating procedures, and forms are, and remain, a matter of public record.
4

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 68-1 Filed: 03/25/20 5 of 5 PageID #: 1243

EXHIBIT A NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT I, _______________________________, hereby certify that I have been provided a copy of the Agreed Protective Order entered by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi in the case styled Michael Amos, et al. v. Tommy Taylor, et al., Case No. 4:20-CV-007-DMB-JMV, and agree to comply with, and be bound by, its terms and conditions. I understand that a violation of the Agreed Protective Order is punishable by contempt of Court.

Date: _____________________

Signature: _________________________________

Printed Name: _____________________________

5

 
 Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 62 Filed: 03/19/20 1 of 2 PageID #: 1018

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

MICHAEL AMOS, et al.

PLAINTIFFS

VS.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:20-CV-07-DMB-JMV

TOMMY TAYLOR, et al.

DEFENDANTS

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AS TO COVID-19

Tommy Taylor, in his official capacity as Interim Commissioner of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, and Marshall Turner, in his official capacity as Superintendent of the Mississippi State Penitentiary, file this Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction as to COVID-19 [Doc. 59 and 60]. In support, Defendants rely on the arguments and authorities set forth in their accompanying Memorandum of Law and the Declaration of Jeworski Mallett (Exhibit A), the Declaration of Gloria Perry, M.D. (Exhibit B), the Declaration of Willie Knighten (Exhibit C), Social Media Posts (Exhibit D), and Mississippi Public Laboratory SARS-CoV-2 Specimen Collection and Shipping Guidance (Exhibit E). For the reasons discussed in their Memorandum of Law, Defendants respectfully request that the Court deny Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction as to COVID-19. Defendants request such other and further relief as the Court deems just and appropriate under the circumstances.
Date: March 19, 2020.

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 62 Filed: 03/19/20 2 of 2 PageID #: 1019
Respectfully submitted,
TOMMY TAYLOR, in his official capacity as the Interim Commissioner of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, and MARSHAL TURNER, in his official capacity as the Superintendent of the Mississippi State Penitentiary
By: /s/ Trey Jones William Trey Jones, III One of Their Attorneys
OF COUNSEL:
R. David Kaufman (MSB #3526) dkaufman@brunini.com William Trey Jones, III (MSB #99185) tjones@brunini.com Karen E. Howell (MSB #102243) khowell@brunini.com Cody C. Bailey (MSB #103718) cbailey@brunini.com Jacob A. Bradley (MSB #105541) jbradley@brunini.com BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC The Pinnacle Building, Suite 100 190 East Capitol Street (39201) Post Office Drawer 119 Jackson, Mississippi 39205 Telephone: (601) 948-3101 Facsimile: (601) 960-6902
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Trey Jones, hereby certify that on March 19, 2020, I caused the foregoing pleading to
be electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send
notification of such filing to all counsel of record and registered participants.
/s/ Trey Jones William Trey Jones, III One of the Attorneys for the Defendants

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 62-1 Filed: 03/19/20 1 of 23 PageID #: 1020

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

MICHAEL AMOS, et al.

PLAINTIFFS

VS.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:20-CV-07-DMB-JMV

TOMMY TAYLOR, et al.

DEFENDANTS

DECLARATION OF JEWORSKI MALLETT

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I, Jeworski Mallett, declare under penalty of perjury that the following statements, based on my personal knowledge, are true:
1. I am an adult resident citizen of Ridgeland, Mississippi. I am competent to testify to the matters contained in this Declaration, and I give this Declaration voluntarily.
2. I am currently serving as the Acting Deputy Commissioner of Institutions for the Mississippi Department of Corrections (“MDOC”). I have been employed by MDOC since September 2001.
3. In my position as the Acting Deputy Commissioner of Institutions at MDOC, the responsibilities of my office include evaluating the effectiveness of security procedures, protocols, and support services in the correctional system, including at the Mississippi State Penitentiary at Parchman (“Parchman”).
4. As Acting Deputy Commissioner of Institutions, I have personal knowledge regarding measures undertaken by MDOC at Parchman to prevent the spread of COVID-19, to lessen the impact of COVID-19 on inmates and MDOC staff, to prepare for inmates or MDOC staff’s contracting COVID-19, and to respond with appropriate and adequate measures should MDOC staff or inmates contract COVID-19.

1

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 62-1 Filed: 03/19/20 2 of 23 PageID #: 1021
5. I have direct personal knowledge of the present conditions and operations of
Parchman. I have personally observed the present conditions, and I am aware of the efforts
undertaken by the MDOC at Parchman with respect to COVID-19.
6. I am aware of the current status of Parchman and other MDOC facilities as it
relates to COVID-19. To my knowledge, there are currently no confirmed cases of COVID-19 at
Parchman. This includes inmates and MDOC staff at Parchman.
7. I have reviewed Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
and Mandatory Preliminary Injunction as to COVID-19 as well as Plaintiffs’ exhibits and
memorandum in support. I have personal knowledge that MDOC and Parchman are already
performing many of the preventative and responsive measures sought by Plaintiffs’ Motion.
8. I am personally aware of the following preventative and responsive measures
being taken by MDOC at Parchman with regard to COVID-19:
• Internal and External Consultation/Monitoring: I am aware that MDOC officials, including myself, have been meeting internally and consulting externally with other officials and agencies to ensure appropriate preventative measures are being taken with respect to COVID-19. MDOC is consulting with top public health and other officials, including the Mississippi Department of Health and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Office for State and Local Law Enforcement, regarding prevention and treatment of COVID-19. I personally participated in a telephone conference organized by the Department of Homeland Security. On the telephone conference were officials responsible for overseeing state and federal correctional institutions across the nation. Attached to this Declaration as Exhibit 1 is a copy of the agenda of that telephone conference. On the conference, I became aware that MDOC’s current measures are consistent with those employed by other correctional institutions across the nation.
• Collaboration between MDOC and Centurion: I am aware that MDOC is working closely with Centurion of Mississippi, LLC (“Centurion”), Parchman’s third-party healthcare provider, to implement the provisions of Centurion’s Pandemic Preparedness and Emergency Response Plan (the “Centurion Plan”), a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 2 to this Declaration. The Centurion Plan provides written protocols for the diagnosis, treatment, and management of conditions related to infectious diseases such as COVID-19. The Centurion Plan includes, but is not limited to, protocols for: prevention; surveillance; inmate education; treatment,
2

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 62-1 Filed: 03/19/20 3 of 23 PageID #: 1022
including medical insolation; follow-up treatment; reporting; monitoring current community and national trends; appropriate safeguards for inmates and staff; providing personal protective equipment (“PPE”); education and training regarding PPE; and post-exposure management. The Centurion Plan sets “preparedness” action items based on the severity of the virus outbreak, and MDOC is following those action items. MDOC is also implementing Centurion’s “Coronavirus Awareness” guide, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 3 to this Declaration. The Coronavirus Awareness guide includes procedures for screening staff and other visitors and restrictions on staff from entering the facility with symptoms of the virus or if they have traveled to a high-risk area. I am aware MDOC is currently following the Centurion Plan and the Coronavirus Awareness guide.
• Staff Screening: I am aware that MDOC officers and staff are screened daily upon entering Parchman for symptoms and other indicators of exposure to COVID-19. Specifically, staff members are screened pursuant to a COVID-19 screening form provided by Centurion, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 4 to this Declaration. MDOC staff are routed to an alternative screening area at the visitation center to facilitate safe screening. The screening process includes questions about each staff member’s symptoms, if any, including headaches, fevers, coughing, shortness of breath, and any trouble breathing. MDOC subjects staff members to daily temperature screenings before entering Parchman. Further, I am aware that food and other supplies are still being delivered to Parchman despite the outbreak of COVID-19. The persons delivering these provisions are subjected to screening at Parchman as well.
• Inmate Monitoring/Testing: I am aware Parchman is following the Centurion Plan. The Centurion Plan provides written protocols for diagnosis, treatment, and management of conditions related to infectious diseases such as COVID-19, including protocols for prevention, surveillance, and treatment, including medical insolation. I am aware that MDOC officers are currently actively monitoring inmates for symptoms of COVID-19, such as headaches, fevers, coughing, shortness of breath, and trouble breathing. I am aware that MDOC, through Centurion, is prepared to provide COVID-19 testing as deemed appropriate by Centurion.
• Inmate Quarantine: At this time, I am not aware of any confirmed cases of COVID19 at Parchman. Should MDOC learn that an inmate or staff member has contracted COVID-19, MDOC will apply the Centurion Plan as well as its own policies developed to combat spread of COVID-19. Under these plans and policies, inmates who either test positive for COVID-19 or who have COVID-19 symptoms will be quarantined. In the unfortunate event there are insufficient numbers of negativepressure rooms, MDOC will quarantine and isolate inmates from the remainder of the general population in alternative cells or housing areas.
• Suspension/Restriction of Transfers: I am aware that MDOC has suspended all transfers of inmates from county jails to MDOC facilities for the next 30 days. MDOC issued a press release on this point, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 5 to this Declaration. MDOC is monitoring conditions and developments and will extend the restriction as necessary to protect inmates and staff. MDOC has also substantially
3

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 62-1 Filed: 03/19/20 4 of 23 PageID #: 1023
restricted all transfers of inmates between MDOC facilities for the next 30 days. Transfers between facilities will be limited to those absolutely necessary. For those transfers that have been necessary, MDOC has screened inmates for COVID-19 symptoms upon arrival. Even if transferred inmates do not currently have symptoms, MDOC isolates those inmates so as to reduce risk to the general population. MDOC is monitoring conditions and developments and will extend the restriction as necessary to protect inmates and staff.
• Suspension of In-Person Visitation / Increased Sanitation for Essential Visitations: MDOC has temporarily suspended visitation at all MDOC facilities in order to establish sanitation and prevention protocols to prevent the spread of COVID-19. MDOC issued a press release on this point, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 6 to this Declaration. MDOC is currently permitting visitation by attorneys who satisfy MDOC screening requirements. MDOC has established protocols requiring all visitation areas to be sanitized at the completion of each attorney visit.
• Non-Contact Visitation: MDOC has undertaken measures to ameliorate the effects of the denial of in-person visitation. For instance, MDOC has implemented a policy permitting inmates to make two free phone calls per week. MDOC issued a press release to this point, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 7 to this Declaration. According to Interim Commissioner Tommy Taylor, “[t]his is another way to help inmates stay connected with their loved ones and to be reassured of their welfare during this trying time.” Id.
• Common Health Practices: MDOC is recommending and reinforcing common health practices and other guidelines provided by the Mississippi Department of Health and the Centers for Disease Control, including:
o Coughing or sneezing into the bend of the arm, not the hand; o Frequent hand washing for at least 20 seconds or use of hand sanitizer; o Avoiding touching of eyes, nose, or mouth with unwashed hands; o Avoiding social contact such as shaking hands, hugging, or sharing personal
items; and o Use of disinfectants to sanitize high-touch surfaces, such as workstation surfaces,
computer keyboards, countertops, doorknobs, light switches, handrails, control panels, buttons, and tabletops.
• Education of Staff and Inmates: I am aware that MDOC is educating staff and inmates regarding the above-referenced common health practices. MDOC has distributed materials outlining the above common health practices to the inmates. These materials are posted in all inmate housing units as well as on bulletin boards in hallways and other common areas. Further, I am aware that wardens, deputy wardens, and other MDOC officers have visited each housing unit to verbally inform inmates of the above-referenced common health practices.
• Institutional Hygiene: MDOC is ensuring that additional chemicals and other cleaners are made available at Parchman for the purpose of providing additional
4

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 62-1 Filed: 03/19/20 5 of 23 PageID #: 1024
sanitation. MDOC has thoroughly cleaned and sanitized all areas at Parchman and will continue to do so to ensure proper sanitation is achieved.
• Personal Hygiene: MDOC has installed additional hand-sanitizer stations in staff work stations and other staff areas. MDOC has provided extra supplies of liquid and solid soap to inmates to ensure that each inmate’s soap supply is sufficient to follow the recommended universal common health practices outlined above.
9. With regard to the additional measures Plaintiffs request in their Motion that
MDOC is not currently undertaking, I have observed the following from my personal
knowledge:
• Immediate Testing: As stated, MDOC officers are affirmatively monitoring the inmate population for symptoms of COVID-19. MDOC’s third-party medical provider Centurion is responsible for inmate testing for COVID-19. There are approximately 2,700 inmates and MDOC staff at Parchman. My understanding from Centurion is that testing is to be done per local protocols and availability, and that it is currently not feasible or recommended to test individuals unless they have traveled to any area with an outbreak of COVID-19 or with sustained (ongoing) transmission; have a fever or cough; are short of breath; have been in close contact (less than six feet) with someone exhibiting COVID-19 symptoms or a confirmed case of COVID19; or have a temperature of greater than 100.4 F.
• Immediate Screening: I am aware that MDOC is currently conducting the screening requested by Plaintiffs. These screening procedures are described above.
• Current Inmate Quarantine: As discussed above, I am aware MDOC is currently operating under the Centurion Plan for quarantine, which provides written protocols for diagnosis, treatment, and management of conditions related to infectious diseases such as COVID-19, including protocols for, among other things: surveillance, treatment, medical insolation, follow-up treatment, safeguards for inmates and staff, providing PPE, education and training regarding PPEs, and post-exposure management. MDOC, in conjunction with Centurion, have developed appropriate protocols for quarantining any inmates that contract the virus, as described above. Additionally, all scheduled releases from Parchman will occur as planned, with necessary precautions taken.
• New Inmate Quarantine: I am aware that MDOC has suspended all transfers of inmates from county jails to MDOC facilities for the next 30 days and will extend the restriction as necessary to protect inmates and staff. MDOC has also substantially restricted all transfers of inmates between MDOC facilities for the next 30 days and will extend that restriction as necessary to protect inmates and staff. Transfers between MDOC facilities have been limited to those absolutely necessary. In the event such a transfer is necessary, MDOC has and will screen arriving inmates for COVID-19 symptoms and isolate those inmates even if they do not have symptoms.
5

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 62-1 Filed: 03/19/20 6 of 23 PageID #: 1025

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 62-1 Filed: 03/19/20 7 of 23 PageID #: 1026

U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Office for State and Local Law Enforcement Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) Call

WHEN: LOCATION:

Monday, March 16, 2020 11:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. Eastern
Dial-In: 1-800-699-1085

PURPOSE:

To provide an update regarding current activities related to Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19). On this short-notice call, we plan to provide an update on the current situation; and discuss your current concerns, priorities, and where you may need additional assistance within the law enforcement jail population community.

AUDIENCE AGENDA:

Sheriffs with Jail Populations and Jail Administrators

I.

Welcome and Introduction

i. Brian Dorow, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office for State and Local Law

Enforcement, DHS

II.

COVID-19 Response for Law Enforcement/Custodial Settings

i. Alexander L. Eastman, MD, MPH, FACS, FAEMS, Senior Medical

Officer, Office of the Chief Medical Officer, DHS

III.

Available DHS Grant Resources

i. Kerry L. Thomas, Director, Preparedness Grants Division, FEMA

IV.

Accessing Protective Equipment (Mask, Gloves, PPE Kits)

i. Steven A. Adams, MPH, Director (A), Strategic National Stockpile, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, HHS

V.

Bureau of Prisons, Department of Justice (TBD)

VI.

Q&A

VII.

Closing Remarks

*This is a fluid agenda, as information becomes available there may be adjustments made.

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 62-1 Filed: 03/19/20 8 of 23 PageID #: 1027
Centurion Pandemic Preparedness and Emergency Response Plan
Purpose
Centurion will work with the Department of Corrections to provide an infectious communicable disease pandemic preparedness and response plan.
With emerging and reemerging infectious diseases, it is import to be prepared to respond to outbreaks, epidemics and pandemic. Pandemics are unpredictable. While history offers useful benchmarks, there is no way to know the characteristics of a pandemic before it emerges. Nevertheless, we must make assumptions to facilitate planning efforts. The event can be caused from different types of infections and can spread rapidly as the world has experienced in the past. This policy outlines the steps in preparing for a communicable disease or infection pandemic, and an emergency response to a pandemic event. This is a model outlining the steps and will be part of the overall facility procedure for a pandemic event. The plan incorporates current disaster preparedness plans already in place by the facility and agencies, and provides additional measures needed for a pandemic response. Centurion will collaborate and cooperate with the facility, agency, state, local and federal entities that may include local community / sheriff’s offices, Department of Corrections, Department of Health, Office of Homeland Security, CDC in providing a response for safe response to staff and community members if a pandemic is declared.
Definitions
1. Pandemic: A global outbreak. A pandemic occurs when a communicable disease emerges for which there is little or no immunity in the human population, begins to cause serious illness and then spreads easily from person to person
2. Viral Infections: A disease/condition characterized by fever, headache, myalgia (muscle pain), prostration (exhaustion), coryza (symptoms of a head cold), sore throat and cough.
3. Bacterial Infections: A disease/condition characterized by fever, headache, myalgia (muscle pain), prostration (exhaustion), coryza (symptoms of a head cold), sore throat and cough.
4. Bioterrorism agent: An intentional release of a virus or bacteria with intent of harm or death to unsuspecting persons for purpose of biological attack that can be transmitted to multiple persons.
5. Initial Commander: The Shift Commander will assume this role. This person is responsible for the entire facility and the emergency until relieved by Interim Commander or Ultimate Commander.
6. Interim Commander: The Interim Commander is the next person in the chain of command set by the facility or Facility / DOC P o l i c y and Procedure. This person will assume the Commander's position in the event the Ultimate Commander is more than one (1) hour away from the facility.
7. Isolation: Separation and restriction of movement or activities of persons who are too illbut who have a contagious disease, for the purpose of preventing transmission to others.
8. Morbidity: A state of being diseased; or the relative incidence of disease.

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 62-1 Filed: 03/19/20 9 of 23 PageID #: 1028
9. Mortality: The state of being diseased: or the relative incidence of death. 10. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE): Equipment used by any person to
prevent the acquisition or transmission of disease between persons. Examples of personal protective items include, but are not limited to gloves, masks, gowns, and etc. 11. Quarantine: The separation and restriction of movement or activities of ill infected persons who are believed to have been exposed to infection, for the purpose of preventing the transmission of disease. Individuals may be quarantined at home or in designated facilities, healthcare providers and other workers may be subject to quarantine when they are off duty. 12. Segregation/Social distancing: Housing exposed or infected persons away from other population at a distance to decrease or prevent the transmission of disease. 13. Infodemic: The distribution of accurate, inaccurate, and rumored information. The purpose for the recognition of this is to provide accurate, timely information from reliable sources to make appropriate decisions related to any outbreak 14. Ultimate Commander: This role will be assumed by the Warden/designee to have full authority during an emergency.
Procedures
1. The infection prevention and control program, policies and procedures, and clinical guidelines provide written protocols give disease/condition specific guidelines of the diagnosis, treatment, and management of conditions recognized as prevalent in the state or local area.
2. These include procedures for infection prevention, education, identification, surveillance, immunization (as applicable), treatment, follow-up, isolation (as indicated), and reporting requirements to applicable local, state, and federal agencies. A multidisciplinary team that includes clinical, security, environmental, maintenance, and administrative representative meets at least yearly to review and discuss communicable diseases and infection control activities. a. At minimum disease specific protocols will include: i. Prevention to include immunizations, when applicable ii. Surveillance (identification and monitoring) iii. Offenders education and staffing iv. Treatment to include medical isolation, when indicated, v. Follow-up care vi. Reporting requirements to applicable, local, state, and federal agencies vii. Confidentiality/protected health information viii. Monitoring current community/state/national trends
ix. Appropriate safeguards for inmates and all staff x. Education and training on PPE xi. Maintain par levels of PPE xii. Post-exposure management protocols particularly for HIV and viral
hepatitis

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 62-1 Filed: 03/19/20 10 of 23 PageID #: 1029
3. Review of all Emergency plans is an essential element of personnel training and retraining programs. All employees are to be familiar with all emergency plans prior to their permanent work assignments.
Preparedness
1. Cases (large outbreak outside United States a. Monitor reliable information on outbreak and transmission b. Type of infection/disease c. Evaluate outbreak plan, and emergency preparedness and response plan d. Specific screening tool available (risk factors & symptoms)
2. Case diagnosed in United States (not in your state) a. Monitor and provide reliable medical information on current situation b. Update Clinical guidance as recommended by Department of Health and CDC c. Disseminate information to healthcare providers d. Evaluate current par levels of PPE e. Routine communication with public health
3. Single Case diagnosed in your state a. Evaluate current local situation b. Reinforce Infection control measures c. Update information for healthcare providers d. Focus on disease surveillance e. Increase public health communication
4. Cluster linked to cases in your state a. Continue monitor of local situation b. Implement screening tool as indicated c. Continue public health communication d. Update information for healthcare providers
5. Multiple unlinked cases in your state a. Increase surveillance b. Implement screening tool c. Continue public health communication (emergency operation indicated) d. Update information for healthcare providers e. Strict infection control prevention f. Monitor PPE supplies
6. Multiple linked cases in your state a. Increase surveillance b. Implement screening tool c. Continue public health communication (emergency operation indicated) d. Update information for healthcare providers e. Strict infection control prevention f. Monitor PPE supplies g. Follow quarantine recommendations h. Limit access to facility

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 62-1 Filed: 03/19/20 11 of 23 PageID #: 1030
Security
1. The facility will maintain health and safety standards at the highest level possible during a pandemic communicable emergency. Once a pandemic outbreak is confirmed, the community immediately surrounding the institution is also affected. As a result, available resources and external assistance may become limited. This guide should be used in coordination and conjunction with Facility / DOC Policy and Procedure.
Locate and Verify
1. The County Public Health Office and/or the State Health Department will verify a pandemic outbreak within the community or at the facility and notify the FHA/designee.
2. This notification will then be passed to the Regional Office.
Isolate and Contain
1. Upon notification, isolation of confirmed cases is required. The Commander will initiate the Disease Specific Checklist. The Commander may initiate an emergency lockdown in accordance with the Facility / DOC Operational Procedures
2. On duty staff will be expected to remain on site until relieved. Exceptions will be determined by facility authorities on a case by case basis.
3. Inmates affected with the illness will be quarantined in the infirmary and/or detention cells. In the event of a mass epidemic, housing units will be evacuated and utilized to quarantine infected inmates based on the number of infected inmates, and suspected exposures and the custody levels of all involved inmates.
4. The Facility Health Administrator (FHA) will coordinate with the Warden/designee to ensure that standard PPE is available to all staff regardless of assignment.
Notifications
1. The following listing is supplement to the established facility disaster and emergency preparedness procedure, and is intended to include ancillary staff that is essential to the implementation and success of the pandemic plan. a. Warden/Deputy Warden b. Facility Duty Officer c. Food Service Manager and staff d. Facility Health Administrator e. Maintenance staff f. Facility TSU Team Leaders g. Facility Captain h. Off duty staff i. County Coroner j. Local Area Hospitals and EMS providers k. Local law enforcement agencies (PD and SO) l. Inmate population

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 62-1 Filed: 03/19/20 12 of 23 PageID #: 1031
Command Post
1. Activation of the facility Critical Incident Command Posts will occur in accordance with established procedure. The Commander shall ensure that staff is assigned to all essential Posts. Staff assignments will consist of both on duty staff and off duty staff called into the institution. In the event of staff shortages, likely resulting from staff becoming infected and the inability of off duty staff to return to the institution, assistance from other FACILITY / DOC sites may be requested. Essential Posts shall include: a. Security Posts necessary to maintain order and provide for controlled treatment of inmates from housing areas to necessary locations. b. Food Service Staffing. Staff shortages or the threat of the spread of disease may necessitate feeding inmates in cells or housing units. The Commander may initiate an Emergency Food Service Plan at this time. Food service staff will provide contingency meal planning and services for effected and noneffected areas including meals and services for staff. c. Food service will maintain a food and water supply of a minimum of three (3) days, on site. d. Medical Staffing. e. Centurion staff will: i. Initiate their disease specific protocol and will provide services contained in the contract, including diagnosis and treatment for affected staff and inmates inside the facility. ii. Contact local area hospitals giving a briefing on the facility communicable diseases status and request that they accept any critically ill inmate patients if deemed necessary. iii. Shall continue to monitor and treat confirmed or suspected cases. All new cases shall be reported to the Command Post as well as the department of health as required. f. Maintenance Staff. Maintenance supervisors will ensure that sanitation is maintained and that all contaminated waste is disposed of properly. They will also validate operation functions and temperatures of laundry equipment to ensure laundry is properly sanitized. g. Support staff needed to maintain and update inmate records, to provide Chaplain Services, and to complete any other necessary tasks. Any service or programs not deemed necessary to the operation of the institution shall be suspended during the duration of the pandemic status.
Deaths
1. Any deaths will be reported in accordance with facility /FACILITY / DOC Policy and Procedure.
2. Inmate deaths will only be released to the public in accordance with FACILITY / DOC Policy and Procedure.
3. Employee death will only be released to the public in accordance with FACILITY / DOC Policy and Procedures.

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 62-1 Filed: 03/19/20 13 of 23 PageID #: 1032
Portable Sanitation
1. Portable sanitation facilities such as portable toilets may be needed and should be considered where plumbing and availability of water may become an issue.
2. Classification and Housing Assignments: Classification and housing assignments may be impacted in the event of a pandemic, and consideration may be given to housing various custody levels together should isolation of ill inmates and/or quarantine of those not affected be deemed necessary.
On-Site Bivouac
3. Should it be necessary for staff to remain on site to ensure shift coverage or to control spread of disease, Centurion and the Facility / DOC will utilize a designated large area within the complex.
Facility Medical Response
1. The FHA shall be responsible for: a. Provision of updates on the number of infected individuals and their state; b. Any deaths believed to be related to the pandemic; c. Any other information requested by the Facility / DOC related to the event d. Required reporting to the Department of Health, or other agency, numbers of cases either suspected or confirmed. e. Necessary staff and resources to provide medical evaluation and treatment of routine health issues as well as pandemic related health care in all areas of the facility, including those designated as quarantined and non-quarantined. Examples of such services include, but are not limited to: i. Sick call ii. Medication management and delivery iii. Nursing services iv. Health assessments v. Mental health services vi. Pharmacy services
2. The Centurion staff shall be prepared to distribute PPE to all staff and inmates in the institution during a pandemic outbreak.
3. In the event that a pandemic is declared, inmates placed in medical quarantine or suspected of being infected shall utilize PPE to prevent spread of the disease.
4. In addition, all staff working in and around isolation areas, medical clinics and conducting inmate patient care without exception shall use PPE in accordance with recommendations set forth by the Center for Disease Control (CDC), US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the State Department of Health.
Pharmaceuticals
1. Vaccines (if available), and/or antiviral/antibacterial drugs will be made available to all institutional staff first. Vaccines (If available) and or antiviral drugs will be made available to inmates based on availability and in accordance with CDC and HHS

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 62-1 Filed: 03/19/20 14 of 23 PageID #: 1033
recommended priority populations. Although information may change based on the particular strain and virulence of the causative pandemic, the following represents the current information and priority for inmate populations:
a. Inmates over 65 with 1 or more high risk condition b. Inmates under 65 with 2 or more high risk conditions c. Inmates with history of hospitalization for pneumonia, flu, or symptoms of
disease d. Dormitory contacts of immune-compromised inmates who would not be
vaccinated due to likely poor response to vaccine (transplant recipients, AIDS, cancer) e. Healthy inmates 65 and older f. Inmates under 65 with I high risk condition g. Healthy inmates
2. Centurion will provide the available vaccine for inmates and staff.
In general, Centurion will establish a plan in conjunction with the v Facility / DOC for pandemic outbreaks and emergencies to include surveillance, quarantine and treatment, and resolution.
1 . Each Centurion site will have specific areas and staff assignments based on facility location and any Facility / DOC emergency response plans.
2 . Below are general statements that apply to medical services in general and apply to all sites. Centurion disease specific plans will be on file with the Warden at the respective facility.
Authority
The F H A ( F a c i l i t y Health Administrator (FHA) at the facility, at the direction of the Warden or their designee will be in charge of initiating and coordinating the medical portion of the response. In the absence of the FHA, the senior nurse on duty will be in charge of coordinating the medical services.
Implementation of the Procedure
Notification of pandemic status will be provided by the Facility Health Administrator who will have received it from the St at e Department of Health. Centurion staff will be notified by the FHA or designee.
Isolate and Contain
The first priority upon receiving notification of a pandemic will be to isolate anyone who has been exposed to the disease and contain the spread of the illness. If deemed necessary and appropriate, the medical staff will screen all staff reporting for duty for signs and symptoms of the disease. Entry can be denied based on display symptoms until such time as the staff member has been cleared by a physician to return to work. Inmate housing assignments may be temporarily altered to accommodate situations as they arise. This will be done in collaboration with the Warden/designee. Medical staff will work with the Facility / DOC to plan methods to clean and disinfect the treatment areas and rooms.

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 62-1 Filed: 03/19/20 15 of 23 PageID #: 1034
Staffing
The FHA will develop a staffing plan that takes into consideration staffing where possible with separate staff, those areas know to house inmates infected with the virus and those not affected to reduce the possible spread of the disease with the Warden should it become necessary to isolate and/or quarantine in place.
Resource Storage and Supplies
1. An assessment of necessary resources, including volume, storage requirements, availability, and utilization procedures will include the following, and be coordinated with Warden/designee: a. Medical Supplies: b. Disease specific medications (enough to cover all staff and inmates); c. PPE (masks, gloves, gowns, goggles, sanitizers, paper products); d. Medications and medical supplies (i.e., insulin, cardiac, respiratory, anti-viral medications, vaccines (pneumococcal, influenza, and new vaccines developed during pandemic), analgesic and antipyretic meds, LV. solutions and LV. supplies, blood collections tubes, vacutainers, specimen cups); e. Other supplies and equipment necessary to maintain medical operations for a period of forty-five (45) days. (Chemical disinfectants, syringes, needles, alcohol wipes); f. Disposable equipment (urinals, bedpans, wash basins, emesis basins, disposable instruments, biohazard waste bags [large and small). g. Paper products (plates, silverware, toilet paper, paper towels, etc.) h. Centurion will maintain sufficient PPE supplies to include the Facility / DOC staff; i. Soaps, rinse free hand sanitizers, rinse free soaps; j. Items will be stored in the facility warehouse and medical unit.
Coordination with Community Resources
Centurion shall maintain contact with local health authorities and service providers to coordinate any assistance should outside services be necessary. This will include off site local pharmacies in order to obtain medications should routine delivery methods be disrupted (i.e., UPS, FedEx etc.), use of local emergency rooms, off-site private provider clinics, and ancillary services such as radiology. All off-site provider agreements will be updated to include mention of possible assistance during a pandemic situation. Centurion maintain a relationship with local public health nursing offices to further coordination efforts in the event of a pandemic outbreak in the community where the facility is located.
Facility/Site Specific Plans
FHA at each the Facility / DOC will provide the Warden a copy of any site specific alterations to this pandemic plan. Adherence to this plan will vary based on type of service provided, availability to bivouac medical staff on site, use of water and consumables, and inmate population. These addendums will become attachments to this policy and procedure.
Updates and Revisions
As additional information becomes available through the CDC or other recognized health authority, the plans will be updated and/or modified to reflect the most current data and processes.

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 62-1 Filed: 03/19/20 16 of 23 PageID #: 1035
Education
Centurion will work with facility staff to prepare and provide appropriate education for both staff and inmates on proper identification and control of infectious diseases, to include benefits of appropriate vaccines, hand washing techniques, universal precautions, and wellness in general.
Reporting and Testing
Centurion will complete any reports and testing as required by the Department of Health, the CDC, HHS, or other health authority, as well as specific forms required by the facility or the Facility / DOC (yet to be determined) related to a pandemic.
Mortuary Services
1. Mortuary services in the event of a pandemic resulting in deaths that exceed community resources may require the institution to provide a temporary morgue.
2. In the event that outside temperatures are below zero (0), the industry bays will be utilized as a temporary morgue.
3. If outside temperatures do not support the use of the delivery corridor, then a maintenance bay shall be utilized with air conditioning and ice.
4. In the event that morgue services are needed for an extended period of time and appropriate refrigeration is unavailable, the practice of a mass burial will be implemented. Equipment will be utilized to dig a deep opening in the ground in the designated facility parking lots. The deceased will be tagged and placed in body bags taken to the burial site and covered with ice to maintain the integrity of the bodies. This process will operate in coordination with Centurion staff. Both medical aspects associated with storing a body, as well as the psychological impact on staff and inmates have been considered. The Coroner shall be notified immediately once a death occurs. The morgue shall remain in operation until attendant legal obligations are satisfied and the bodies may be removed.
Provided at time of Pandemic: 1. Condition Specific Screening Tool 2. Condition Specific Self-Triaging Algorithm 3. Actions Checklist-Yellow/Orange Alert Level 4. Actions Checklist-Red Alert

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 62-1 Filed: 03/19/20 17 of 23 PageID #: 1036
Coronavirus Awareness Medical Precautions
Reminder:  There is a designated place for updates and announcements on Centurion’s Portal located at portal.mhm-services.com. Click on the banner titled “Coronavirus Updates.” This is where our employees can access the most recent news, formal announcements and resources pertaining to COVID-19.
 Centurion has provided, and will continue to make available, webinars, conference calls and materials including links and references. Staff have access to these resources on the Portal.
 A facility specific screening tool has been developed for jail and prison admissions, transfers, and other trips in/out of facilities. Please check with your supervisors before implementing this guidance as your facility may use other screening tools.
 Do not enter a facility if you: o Are experiencing symptoms (fever, cough, and/or difficulty breathing) o Had recent travel to a high risk area within the past 14 days o Have been advised that you have been exposed to a confirmed case
 Centurion has developed and distributed an outline of a pandemic clinical guideline which can be found on the Portal banner link;
 Teleconferencing and telemedicine capacity has been expanded. Whenever possible, if delivery of care can be done via telehealth technology for primary care, specialty care, nursing care, and mental health, please utilize these resources. Your supervisor will provide guidance as to the availability of these alternatives at your specific facility.
Page 1

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 62-1 Filed: 03/19/20 18 of 23 PageID #: 1037
Recommendations: Below we provide a listing of program-level and site-level recommendations by corporate senior medical leadership. If necessary, a point person is listed for applicable instructions.
 Identify contacts at your nearest local health department for reporting of suspect cases and request testing kits. (Facility infection control nurse; alternate: DON and HSA/FHA)
 Identify areas for single cell isolation for symptomatic patients. (HSA/FHA, DON, site medical director)  Identify air circulation patterns in dormitories in case they are to be used for quarantine. (HSA, DON,
site medical director)  Cancel visitations or limit external vendors and personnel. Instead use videoconferencing and
telephonic communications.  Be sure to use appropriate personal protective equipment (N95 mask, eye/face shield, gown, gloves)
for Movement and Transport Officers. We recommend tracking appropriate levels of PPE, medications, equipment, and supplies as there is potential for supply chain disruption. (Program Manager/Vice President of Operations or HSA)  Review inventory of supplies and medications which might be in short supply. (DON or charge nurse)  Provide a symptom screening for all persons being transferred or released using the Centurion screening tools or other screening tools that are consistent with CDC recommendations for all intakes, transfers in/out, and returns from outside trips such as court, offsite medical trips, and work details. If the screening is positive, there needs to be a determination whether or not it is appropriate to proceed with the planned movement.  Encourage patients who have not taken the influenza vaccination to reconsider.  If allowed by Clients, Centurion is drafting an informational FAQ sheet to healthcare and correctional staff and our patients.  We recommend mock drills for a possible outbreak scenario that incorporates cooperation between custody, health services, and other ancillary staff to become familiar with protocols and have lessons learned to improve the response if such an incident does arise.  We recommend that Centurion regional/site clinical leadership is involved in any task force or committee meetings/discussions relating to COVID-19.  We recommend making available sufficient handwashing with soap access. (HSA)  We recommend programs create educational videos for any in-facility video programming. Keeping not just staff but patients informed is critical to preventing riots and other safety concerns.  We recommend custody staff have ample hospital-grade disinfectants and routinely clean areas. If inmates are to be utilized for cleaning duties, be sure that they have proper training and are handling of materials with appropriate safety equipment.  We recommend that our Clients not to limit soap, tissues, toilet paper, and other hygiene products during this time period.  We encourage our Clients to consider meals/dining be done in the units to limit mass movement and gatherings.  Centurion program leadership should draft and implement a plan for emergency staffing in the event that employees are absent either due to infection or self-quarantine. The plan must ensure adequately licensed and trained staff perform the essential tasks and services under our contract. Further, the plan should address what to do if custody becomes short staffed, such as, by way of example, cell-side encounters and alternative medication administration.  Consider recommending medical release of incarcerated persons who are aged or medically compromised and increase monitoring of those at highest risk.
Page 2

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 62-1 Filed: 03/19/20 19 of 23 PageID #: 1038

COVID-19 (coronavirus) Screening

Date: State:

Time: Facility:

English

Symptoms (check all that apply)
Fever/chills (if on medications that lower temp, may not have fever) Cough
Describe Shortness of breath or trouble breathing
Describe Other:

Yes No

Start date

Vital Signs

B/P

P

R

pSO2

Temp*

* Patients with immune compromised conditions or taking fever reducing medications may not have a fever

In the past 14 days

Have you traveled to or been in any outbreak areas in United States, or
1 traveled internationally*? Many countries have out breaks, and large
outbreaks in China, Italy, Iran, South Korea.

If yes: Where

When

Yes No

Note

2 Have you or any family or friends with whom you live been in such areas?

If yes: Where:

When

3 Have you had close contact with anyone who has tested positive to
COVID-19 or experiencing fever or cough?
If yes: When If yes to any symptoms and yes to any questions 1, 2, 3: Have patient don surgical/procedural mask, educate patient, and consult provider
Or if a person has a fever(>100.4°), cough, shortness of breath, and lower respiratory infection, with unknown source of infection contact practitioner

Practitioner Notified(date/time) Department of Health Notified (Name): Comments

Practitioner Name:

Nurse Signature:

P Patient accepted

Patient Quarantined

P Patient Isolated

Patient Referred to Hospital

PatiePanati Pt aNtaiemnteTested for COVID-19

Date:

Reasults: t i

DOB

te

e

in

*Risk Area=Outbreak areas inclunde United States , major airports, globally.

IPC-042-Eent glish

t

1/2020 renvised 3/17/20

ID #

t

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DCMOBV-JIDM-V1D9o(cco#:r6o2n-1avFiirleuds: )03S/1c9re/2e0n2i0ngof 23 PageID #: 1039

Date:

Time:

Spanish

State:

Facility:

Síntomas (marque todos los que correspondan)
Fiebre / escalofríos Tos
Describir Falta de aliento/ Dificultad para respirar
Describir Other:

Yes No

Start date

Vital Signs

B/P

P

R

pSO2

Temp*

* Patients with immune compromised conditions or taking fever reducing medications may not have a fever

En los últimos 14 días

Yes No

1

¿Ha viajado o ha estado en áreas de brotes en los Estados Unidos, o ha viajado internacionalmente *? Muchos países tienen brotes y grandes brotes

en China, Italia, Irán, Corea del Sur.

Note

2 ¿Usted o alguna familia o amigo con quien vive ha estado en esas áreas?

3 ¿Has tenido contacto cercano con alguien que haya dado positivo a
COVID-19 o que tenga fiebre o tos? Si sí, cuándo
If yes to any symptoms and yes to any questions 1, 2, 3: Have patient don surgical/procedural mask, educate patient, and consult provider
Or if a person has a fever(>100.4°), cough, shortness of breath, and lower respiratory infection, with unknown source of infection consult provider

Provider Notified(date/time) Department of Health Notified (Name) Comments:

Provider Name:

Nurse Signature:

P Patient accepted

Patient Quarantined

Patient Isolated

Patient Referred to Hospital

aPatient Tested for COVID-19 Date:

Results:

Patientt Name

DOB

ID #

i

e

*Risk Area=Outbreak areas include United States , major airports, globally.

n

IPC-042-Sptanish
1/2020 revised 3/17/20

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 62-1 Filed: 03/19/20 21 of 23 PageID #: 1040

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Date: Contact: Phone: E-mail:

March 12, 2020 Office of Communications (601) 359-5289, 359-5608, 359-5689 MDOCOfficeofCommunications@mdoc.state.ms.us

MDOC Suspends Inmate Transfers as Part of Response to Coronavirus
JACKSON, MISS. – Effective immediately, the Mississippi Department of Corrections is suspending the transfers of inmates from all county jails to MDOC custody until further notice.
The action is in addition to the temporary suspension of visitation at all facilities with MDOC inmates as the MDOC establishes sanitation and prevention protocols to prevent the spread of COVID-19.
There will be limited transfer of inmates between MDOC facilities unless absolutely necessary.
“We are monitoring new developments and plans will be updated accordingly,” said Deputy Commissioner Jeworski Mallet. “Steps are being taken to protect staff, inmates, and the public from potential exposure to the coronavirus.”
Additionally, the Corrections Department is reinforcing common health practices based on preventive measures recommended by the Mississippi Department of Health in accordance with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
There are currently no confirmed cases of COVID-19 within the MDOC prison system.

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 62-1 Filed: 03/19/20 22 of 23 PageID #: 1041

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Date: Contact: Phone: E-mail:

March 12, 2020 Office of Communications (601) 359-5289, 359-5608, 359-5689 MDOCOfficeofCommunications@mdoc.state.ms.us

MDOC Takes Steps to Protect Staff, Inmates, Public against Coronavirus Exposure
JACKSON, MISS. – Effective immediately, visitation at all facilities where Mississippi Department of Corrections inmates are housed is temporarily suspended until further notice in order to establish sanitation and prevention protocols to prevent the spread of COVID-19. This is a precautionary measure to protect staff, inmates, volunteers, and visitors from potential exposure to the coronavirus.
Attorneys and essential visitors will be allowed, and the area of visits will be sanitized upon completion of each visit. Additional parameters will be determined as protocols are established.
“We acknowledge any inconveniences that inmate family members and others may experience from the temporary suspension of visitation,” said Deputy Commissioner Jeworski Mallett, who manages state, private, and regional prisons in the state. “However, these actions are necessary for public safety and protecting our inmates, their loved ones, and our staff.”
Also, the Corrections Department is reinforcing common health practices based on preventive measures recommended by the Mississippi Department of Health in accordance with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
There are currently no confirmed cases of COVID-19 within the MDOC prison system.

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 62-1 Filed: 03/19/20 23 of 23 PageID #: 1042

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Date: Contact: Phone: E-mail:

March 16, 2020 Office of Communications (601) 359-5289, 359-5608, 359-5689 MDOCOfficeofCommunications@mdoc.state.ms.us

Free Inmate Phone Calls Offered by State Phone Provider
JACKSON, MISS. – Starting Tuesday, March 17, incarcerated persons using the GTL phone service will be able to make two free phone calls of up to five minutes each per week.
GTL, the state’s phone service provider, is providing the two free calls through April 13. No credit will be given if the free calls are not used.
GTL notified the Mississippi Department of Corrections on Monday that it would be providing the free calls to help people contact their loved ones during this time as the company closely monitors the coronavirus situation.
“We appreciate GTL’s contribution to make the two free phone calls available,” Interim Commissioner Tommy Taylor said. “This is another way to help inmates stay connected with their loved ones and to be reassured of their welfare during this trying time.”
Deputy Commissioner Jeworski Mallett said, “It is important to remind individuals that they are more than inmates. Family ties can help prevent family breakdown and relieve tension in facilities.”
The free calls are only available for service provided by GTL within the prison system.
A message will let the called party know that the call is being provided at no charge.

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 62-2 Filed: 03/19/20 1 of 24 PageID #: 1043

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 62-2 Filed: 03/19/20 2 of 24 PageID #: 1044

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 62-2 Filed: 03/19/20 3 of 24 PageID #: 1045

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 62-2 Filed: 03/19/20 4 of 24 PageID #: 1046

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 62-2 Filed: 03/19/20 5 of 24 PageID #: 1047
Coronavirus is spread like a cold or flu. If a sick person coughs or sneezes near you, or touches surfaces with contaminated hands, you could get sick. Washing your hands and cleaning surfaces is your best protection from germs. Most people (about 80%) who have coronavirus only have mild to moderate symptoms.
The symptoms are like the flu and can be mild, moderate, and severe:
Fever of 100.4°F (a person might not have a fever if you taking Tylenol or other pain / fever reducing medications) Dry cough Shortness of breath / difficulty breathing If you have a dry cough, trouble breathing, or a fever, please tell medical staff. If anyone in your housing unit has these symptoms, please notify medical staff.
Stay healthy! How to Protect Yourself and Others
 Eat healthy, exercise, and reduce stress to keep your immune system strong
 Wash hands often with soap and water: Before eating After going to the bathroom When dirty Touching possible contaminated surfaces or items After sneezing and coughing
 Do not touch your eyes, nose, and mouth  Do not share food  Stay away from people who are sick, with a fever, and
coughing. Tell sick visitors not to come until they are healthy.  Cover your cough or sneeze:
Cough or sneeze into your arm, not your hand Use a tissue, then throw the tissue in the trash then wash your hands  Clean objects and surfaces using disinfectant.
Do not be afraid
 We are prepared.  We are following directions from the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention and health departments.  Ask questions if you are worried.  Tell medical staff if you are sick.
LOWER YOUR RISKS
Stay healthy: Wash hands, social distancing (at least 6 feet or 2 arm lengths), and stop smoking (COVID-19 is a respiratory disease)

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 62-2 Filed: 03/19/20 6 of 24 PageID #: 1048
COVID-19 is a virus similar to other viruses that cause respiratory illness: It is transmitted person to person through cough, sneeze or other respiratory droplets. The virus remains active on surfaces such as doorknobs, table tops or clothing for several hours.
Fortunately, 80% of people that are infected will have mild to moderate symptoms.
The time from exposure to display of symptoms is 2-14 days with an average around day 5. People are most contagious when they are symptomatic but transmission can occur without symptoms.
The symptoms are very similar to the flu and can be mild, moderate, or severe: Fever of 100.4°F (a person might not have a fever if you taking Tylenol or other pain/fever reducing medications) Dry cough Shortness of breath/difficulty breathing
How to Protect Yourself and Others
 Take everyday actions to stay healthy.  Protect your immune system with exercise, healthy eating, and rest.  Wash hands frequently with soap and water:
Before eating After going to the bathroom When dirty Handling or touching possible contaminated surfaces After sneezing and coughing  Avoid touching your eyes, nose, and mouth.  Keep your distance or avoid close contact with people who are sick (fever, coughing).  Cover your cough or sneeze. Use tissue, then throw the tissue in the trash, then wash your hands. If tissue is not available cough or sneeze into your arm not your hand.  Monitor environmental cleaning and disinfect frequently touched objects and surfaces using the disinfectant provided by the facility.  If you are sick or have been exposed to a confirmed case COVID-19, it is recommended you do not come to work. Follow your facility’s and health professional’s recommendation.
Safe Facility
 If you identify or note an inmate who is ill, coughing, short of breath or febrile, notify medical and separate the person from others.

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 62-2 Filed: 03/19/20 7 of 24 PageID #: 1049
Safe Facility (Continued)
 Staff are to wear Personal Protective Equipment (N-95 mask, eye shield, gown and gloves) when escorting or transporting or entering the room of a person suspected of COVID-19 infection.
 Special vigilance is appropriate for older persons and those with medical problems such as emphysema who are more likely to be severely affected by the infection.
 If moving a person suspected of COVID-19, the receiving facility (such as a hospital) should be notified in advance.
 Persons who are exposed to an active case of COVID-19 are generally placed in quarantine for 14 days. This means they are restricted from interacting with persons or places that have not been exposed.
 Do not come to work if you are sick (fever, cough). Follow your facility’s directive.

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 62-2 Filed: 03/19/20 8 of 24 PageID #: 1050
Personal Safety
Maintain healthy habits and be prepared. Always wash hands with soap and water after contact with persons and public objects. Utilize personal protective equipment (PPE) in interactions with patients who might be infected. Recognize that droplets can remain active on surfaces and clothing for several hours. Take everyday actions to stay healthy.
Facility Safety
Do not to enter facilities if you are:  Experiencing symptoms (fever, cough, and/or difficulty breathing).  Traveled within the past 14 days to a high risk area.  Have been exposed to a confirmed case.
If someone in your household has been exposed to a contact, seek guidance from your local health department. Refer to Centurion policy for leave during the COVID-19 epidemic.
Facility Procedures
All patients entering and leaving the facility are to be screened with the following questions or actions:  Have you traveled to any area with an outbreak of COVID-19 or to international areas with sustained (ongoing) transmission such as China, Iran, Italy, Japan, South Korea?  Do you have a fever?  Do you have a cough?  Are you short of breath?  Have you been in close contact (less than six feet) of someone exhibiting these symptoms or confirmed case of COVID-19?  Take and record temperature. If NO to the above screening items, proceed as normal.
If YES to any the above, or temperature >100.0 F, proceed as follows.
If exposure or symptoms or fever: Put a simply surgical/procedure mask on the patient. Place the patient in a separate, closed room and close the door. Ideally, this is an airborne infection isolation room (AIIR) with negative pressure. Healthcare and custody staff wear Personal Protective Equipment (N-95 mask, eye shield, gown, gloves) when entering room or escorting patient.

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 62-2 Filed: 03/19/20 9 of 24 PageID #: 1051
Rapid test for influenza. Assess stability of the patient. Short of breath? Need transfer to hospital? Contact your facility practitioner. Contact local health department or Emergency Department prior to moving patient. Notify security and EMS transport patient with respiratory illness. Testing to be done per local protocols and availability.
Quarantine
If a person is identified with COVID-19, determination is made for those who had potential exposure. Those persons are placed in quarantine for a period of 14 days. This is coordinated with security.
Supplies
Maintain adequate stock of essential supplies, including medications and cleaning equipment.
Minimize Your Risks
Stay healthy: Strict hand washing, social distancing (>6 feet or ~2 arms lengths), and smoking cessation.

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 62-2 Filed: 03/19/20 10 of 24 PageID #: 1052

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 62-2 Filed: 03/19/20 11 of 24 PageID #: 1053

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 62-2 Filed: 03/19/20 12 of 24 PageID #: 1054

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 62-2 Filed: 03/19/20 13 of 24 PageID #: 1055

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 62-2 Filed: 03/19/20 14 of 24 PageID #: 1056

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 62-2 Filed: 03/19/20 15 of 24 PageID #: 1057

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 62-2 Filed: 03/19/20 16 of 24 PageID #: 1058
Centurion Pandemic Preparedness and Emergency Response Plan
Purpose
Centurion will work with the Department of Corrections to provide an infectious communicable disease pandemic preparedness and response plan.
With emerging and reemerging infectious diseases, it is import to be prepared to respond to outbreaks, epidemics and pandemic. Pandemics are unpredictable. While history offers useful benchmarks, there is no way to know the characteristics of a pandemic before it emerges. Nevertheless, we must make assumptions to facilitate planning efforts. The event can be caused from different types of infections and can spread rapidly as the world has experienced in the past. This policy outlines the steps in preparing for a communicable disease or infection pandemic, and an emergency response to a pandemic event. This is a model outlining the steps and will be part of the overall facility procedure for a pandemic event. The plan incorporates current disaster preparedness plans already in place by the facility and agencies, and provides additional measures needed for a pandemic response. Centurion will collaborate and cooperate with the facility, agency, state, local and federal entities that may include local community / sheriff’s offices, Department of Corrections, Department of Health, Office of Homeland Security, CDC in providing a response for safe response to staff and community members if a pandemic is declared.
Definitions
1. Pandemic: A global outbreak. A pandemic occurs when a communicable disease emerges for which there is little or no immunity in the human population, begins to cause serious illness and then spreads easily from person to person
2. Viral Infections: A disease/condition characterized by fever, headache, myalgia (muscle pain), prostration (exhaustion), coryza (symptoms of a head cold), sore throat and cough.
3. Bacterial Infections: A disease/condition characterized by fever, headache, myalgia (muscle pain), prostration (exhaustion), coryza (symptoms of a head cold), sore throat and cough.
4. Bioterrorism agent: An intentional release of a virus or bacteria with intent of harm or death to unsuspecting persons for purpose of biological attack that can be transmitted to multiple persons.
5. Initial Commander: The Shift Commander will assume this role. This person is responsible for the entire facility and the emergency until relieved by Interim Commander or Ultimate Commander.
6. Interim Commander: The Interim Commander is the next person in the chain of command set by the facility or Facility / DOC P o l i c y and Procedure. This person will assume the Commander's position in the event the Ultimate Commander is more than one (1) hour away from the facility.
7. Isolation: Separation and restriction of movement or activities of persons who are too illbut who have a contagious disease, for the purpose of preventing transmission to others.
8. Morbidity: A state of being diseased; or the relative incidence of disease.

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 62-2 Filed: 03/19/20 17 of 24 PageID #: 1059
9. Mortality: The state of being diseased: or the relative incidence of death. 10. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE): Equipment used by any person to
prevent the acquisition or transmission of disease between persons. Examples of personal protective items include, but are not limited to gloves, masks, gowns, and etc. 11. Quarantine: The separation and restriction of movement or activities of ill infected persons who are believed to have been exposed to infection, for the purpose of preventing the transmission of disease. Individuals may be quarantined at home or in designated facilities, healthcare providers and other workers may be subject to quarantine when they are off duty. 12. Segregation/Social distancing: Housing exposed or infected persons away from other population at a distance to decrease or prevent the transmission of disease. 13. Infodemic: The distribution of accurate, inaccurate, and rumored information. The purpose for the recognition of this is to provide accurate, timely information from reliable sources to make appropriate decisions related to any outbreak 14. Ultimate Commander: This role will be assumed by the Warden/designee to have full authority during an emergency.
Procedures
1. The infection prevention and control program, policies and procedures, and clinical guidelines provide written protocols give disease/condition specific guidelines of the diagnosis, treatment, and management of conditions recognized as prevalent in the state or local area.
2. These include procedures for infection prevention, education, identification, surveillance, immunization (as applicable), treatment, follow-up, isolation (as indicated), and reporting requirements to applicable local, state, and federal agencies. A multidisciplinary team that includes clinical, security, environmental, maintenance, and administrative representative meets at least yearly to review and discuss communicable diseases and infection control activities. a. At minimum disease specific protocols will include: i. Prevention to include immunizations, when applicable ii. Surveillance (identification and monitoring) iii. Offenders education and staffing iv. Treatment to include medical isolation, when indicated, v. Follow-up care vi. Reporting requirements to applicable, local, state, and federal agencies vii. Confidentiality/protected health information viii. Monitoring current community/state/national trends
ix. Appropriate safeguards for inmates and all staff x. Education and training on PPE xi. Maintain par levels of PPE xii. Post-exposure management protocols particularly for HIV and viral
hepatitis

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 62-2 Filed: 03/19/20 18 of 24 PageID #: 1060
3. Review of all Emergency plans is an essential element of personnel training and retraining programs. All employees are to be familiar with all emergency plans prior to their permanent work assignments.
Preparedness
1. Cases (large outbreak outside United States a. Monitor reliable information on outbreak and transmission b. Type of infection/disease c. Evaluate outbreak plan, and emergency preparedness and response plan d. Specific screening tool available (risk factors & symptoms)
2. Case diagnosed in United States (not in your state) a. Monitor and provide reliable medical information on current situation b. Update Clinical guidance as recommended by Department of Health and CDC c. Disseminate information to healthcare providers d. Evaluate current par levels of PPE e. Routine communication with public health
3. Single Case diagnosed in your state a. Evaluate current local situation b. Reinforce Infection control measures c. Update information for healthcare providers d. Focus on disease surveillance e. Increase public health communication
4. Cluster linked to cases in your state a. Continue monitor of local situation b. Implement screening tool as indicated c. Continue public health communication d. Update information for healthcare providers
5. Multiple unlinked cases in your state a. Increase surveillance b. Implement screening tool c. Continue public health communication (emergency operation indicated) d. Update information for healthcare providers e. Strict infection control prevention f. Monitor PPE supplies
6. Multiple linked cases in your state a. Increase surveillance b. Implement screening tool c. Continue public health communication (emergency operation indicated) d. Update information for healthcare providers e. Strict infection control prevention f. Monitor PPE supplies g. Follow quarantine recommendations h. Limit access to facility

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 62-2 Filed: 03/19/20 19 of 24 PageID #: 1061
Security
1. The facility will maintain health and safety standards at the highest level possible during a pandemic communicable emergency. Once a pandemic outbreak is confirmed, the community immediately surrounding the institution is also affected. As a result, available resources and external assistance may become limited. This guide should be used in coordination and conjunction with Facility / DOC Policy and Procedure.
Locate and Verify
1. The County Public Health Office and/or the State Health Department will verify a pandemic outbreak within the community or at the facility and notify the FHA/designee.
2. This notification will then be passed to the Regional Office.
Isolate and Contain
1. Upon notification, isolation of confirmed cases is required. The Commander will initiate the Disease Specific Checklist. The Commander may initiate an emergency lockdown in accordance with the Facility / DOC Operational Procedures
2. On duty staff will be expected to remain on site until relieved. Exceptions will be determined by facility authorities on a case by case basis.
3. Inmates affected with the illness will be quarantined in the infirmary and/or detention cells. In the event of a mass epidemic, housing units will be evacuated and utilized to quarantine infected inmates based on the number of infected inmates, and suspected exposures and the custody levels of all involved inmates.
4. The Facility Health Administrator (FHA) will coordinate with the Warden/designee to ensure that standard PPE is available to all staff regardless of assignment.
Notifications
1. The following listing is supplement to the established facility disaster and emergency preparedness procedure, and is intended to include ancillary staff that is essential to the implementation and success of the pandemic plan. a. Warden/Deputy Warden b. Facility Duty Officer c. Food Service Manager and staff d. Facility Health Administrator e. Maintenance staff f. Facility TSU Team Leaders g. Facility Captain h. Off duty staff i. County Coroner j. Local Area Hospitals and EMS providers k. Local law enforcement agencies (PD and SO) l. Inmate population

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 62-2 Filed: 03/19/20 20 of 24 PageID #: 1062
Command Post
1. Activation of the facility Critical Incident Command Posts will occur in accordance with established procedure. The Commander shall ensure that staff is assigned to all essential Posts. Staff assignments will consist of both on duty staff and off duty staff called into the institution. In the event of staff shortages, likely resulting from staff becoming infected and the inability of off duty staff to return to the institution, assistance from other FACILITY / DOC sites may be requested. Essential Posts shall include: a. Security Posts necessary to maintain order and provide for controlled treatment of inmates from housing areas to necessary locations. b. Food Service Staffing. Staff shortages or the threat of the spread of disease may necessitate feeding inmates in cells or housing units. The Commander may initiate an Emergency Food Service Plan at this time. Food service staff will provide contingency meal planning and services for effected and noneffected areas including meals and services for staff. c. Food service will maintain a food and water supply of a minimum of three (3) days, on site. d. Medical Staffing. e. Centurion staff will: i. Initiate their disease specific protocol and will provide services contained in the contract, including diagnosis and treatment for affected staff and inmates inside the facility. ii. Contact local area hospitals giving a briefing on the facility communicable diseases status and request that they accept any critically ill inmate patients if deemed necessary. iii. Shall continue to monitor and treat confirmed or suspected cases. All new cases shall be reported to the Command Post as well as the department of health as required. f. Maintenance Staff. Maintenance supervisors will ensure that sanitation is maintained and that all contaminated waste is disposed of properly. They will also validate operation functions and temperatures of laundry equipment to ensure laundry is properly sanitized. g. Support staff needed to maintain and update inmate records, to provide Chaplain Services, and to complete any other necessary tasks. Any service or programs not deemed necessary to the operation of the institution shall be suspended during the duration of the pandemic status.
Deaths
1. Any deaths will be reported in accordance with facility /FACILITY / DOC Policy and Procedure.
2. Inmate deaths will only be released to the public in accordance with FACILITY / DOC Policy and Procedure.
3. Employee death will only be released to the public in accordance with FACILITY / DOC Policy and Procedures.

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 62-2 Filed: 03/19/20 21 of 24 PageID #: 1063
Portable Sanitation
1. Portable sanitation facilities such as portable toilets may be needed and should be considered where plumbing and availability of water may become an issue.
2. Classification and Housing Assignments: Classification and housing assignments may be impacted in the event of a pandemic, and consideration may be given to housing various custody levels together should isolation of ill inmates and/or quarantine of those not affected be deemed necessary.
On-Site Bivouac
3. Should it be necessary for staff to remain on site to ensure shift coverage or to control spread of disease, Centurion and the Facility / DOC will utilize a designated large area within the complex.
Facility Medical Response
1. The FHA shall be responsible for: a. Provision of updates on the number of infected individuals and their state; b. Any deaths believed to be related to the pandemic; c. Any other information requested by the Facility / DOC related to the event d. Required reporting to the Department of Health, or other agency, numbers of cases either suspected or confirmed. e. Necessary staff and resources to provide medical evaluation and treatment of routine health issues as well as pandemic related health care in all areas of the facility, including those designated as quarantined and non-quarantined. Examples of such services include, but are not limited to: i. Sick call ii. Medication management and delivery iii. Nursing services iv. Health assessments v. Mental health services vi. Pharmacy services
2. The Centurion staff shall be prepared to distribute PPE to all staff and inmates in the institution during a pandemic outbreak.
3. In the event that a pandemic is declared, inmates placed in medical quarantine or suspected of being infected shall utilize PPE to prevent spread of the disease.
4. In addition, all staff working in and around isolation areas, medical clinics and conducting inmate patient care without exception shall use PPE in accordance with recommendations set forth by the Center for Disease Control (CDC), US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the State Department of Health.
Pharmaceuticals
1. Vaccines (if available), and/or antiviral/antibacterial drugs will be made available to all institutional staff first. Vaccines (If available) and or antiviral drugs will be made available to inmates based on availability and in accordance with CDC and HHS

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 62-2 Filed: 03/19/20 22 of 24 PageID #: 1064
recommended priority populations. Although information may change based on the particular strain and virulence of the causative pandemic, the following represents the current information and priority for inmate populations:
a. Inmates over 65 with 1 or more high risk condition b. Inmates under 65 with 2 or more high risk conditions c. Inmates with history of hospitalization for pneumonia, flu, or symptoms of
disease d. Dormitory contacts of immune-compromised inmates who would not be
vaccinated due to likely poor response to vaccine (transplant recipients, AIDS, cancer) e. Healthy inmates 65 and older f. Inmates under 65 with I high risk condition g. Healthy inmates
2. Centurion will provide the available vaccine for inmates and staff.
In general, Centurion will establish a plan in conjunction with the v Facility / DOC for pandemic outbreaks and emergencies to include surveillance, quarantine and treatment, and resolution.
1 . Each Centurion site will have specific areas and staff assignments based on facility location and any Facility / DOC emergency response plans.
2 . Below are general statements that apply to medical services in general and apply to all sites. Centurion disease specific plans will be on file with the Warden at the respective facility.
Authority
The F H A ( F a c i l i t y Health Administrator (FHA) at the facility, at the direction of the Warden or their designee will be in charge of initiating and coordinating the medical portion of the response. In the absence of the FHA, the senior nurse on duty will be in charge of coordinating the medical services.
Implementation of the Procedure
Notification of pandemic status will be provided by the Facility Health Administrator who will have received it from the St at e Department of Health. Centurion staff will be notified by the FHA or designee.
Isolate and Contain
The first priority upon receiving notification of a pandemic will be to isolate anyone who has been exposed to the disease and contain the spread of the illness. If deemed necessary and appropriate, the medical staff will screen all staff reporting for duty for signs and symptoms of the disease. Entry can be denied based on display symptoms until such time as the staff member has been cleared by a physician to return to work. Inmate housing assignments may be temporarily altered to accommodate situations as they arise. This will be done in collaboration with the Warden/designee. Medical staff will work with the Facility / DOC to plan methods to clean and disinfect the treatment areas and rooms.

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 62-2 Filed: 03/19/20 23 of 24 PageID #: 1065
Staffing
The FHA will develop a staffing plan that takes into consideration staffing where possible with separate staff, those areas know to house inmates infected with the virus and those not affected to reduce the possible spread of the disease with the Warden should it become necessary to isolate and/or quarantine in place.
Resource Storage and Supplies
1. An assessment of necessary resources, including volume, storage requirements, availability, and utilization procedures will include the following, and be coordinated with Warden/designee: a. Medical Supplies: b. Disease specific medications (enough to cover all staff and inmates); c. PPE (masks, gloves, gowns, goggles, sanitizers, paper products); d. Medications and medical supplies (i.e., insulin, cardiac, respiratory, anti-viral medications, vaccines (pneumococcal, influenza, and new vaccines developed during pandemic), analgesic and antipyretic meds, LV. solutions and LV. supplies, blood collections tubes, vacutainers, specimen cups); e. Other supplies and equipment necessary to maintain medical operations for a period of forty-five (45) days. (Chemical disinfectants, syringes, needles, alcohol wipes); f. Disposable equipment (urinals, bedpans, wash basins, emesis basins, disposable instruments, biohazard waste bags [large and small). g. Paper products (plates, silverware, toilet paper, paper towels, etc.) h. Centurion will maintain sufficient PPE supplies to include the Facility / DOC staff; i. Soaps, rinse free hand sanitizers, rinse free soaps; j. Items will be stored in the facility warehouse and medical unit.
Coordination with Community Resources
Centurion shall maintain contact with local health authorities and service providers to coordinate any assistance should outside services be necessary. This will include off site local pharmacies in order to obtain medications should routine delivery methods be disrupted (i.e., UPS, FedEx etc.), use of local emergency rooms, off-site private provider clinics, and ancillary services such as radiology. All off-site provider agreements will be updated to include mention of possible assistance during a pandemic situation. Centurion maintain a relationship with local public health nursing offices to further coordination efforts in the event of a pandemic outbreak in the community where the facility is located.
Facility/Site Specific Plans
FHA at each the Facility / DOC will provide the Warden a copy of any site specific alterations to this pandemic plan. Adherence to this plan will vary based on type of service provided, availability to bivouac medical staff on site, use of water and consumables, and inmate population. These addendums will become attachments to this policy and procedure.
Updates and Revisions
As additional information becomes available through the CDC or other recognized health authority, the plans will be updated and/or modified to reflect the most current data and processes.

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 62-2 Filed: 03/19/20 24 of 24 PageID #: 1066
Education
Centurion will work with facility staff to prepare and provide appropriate education for both staff and inmates on proper identification and control of infectious diseases, to include benefits of appropriate vaccines, hand washing techniques, universal precautions, and wellness in general.
Reporting and Testing
Centurion will complete any reports and testing as required by the Department of Health, the CDC, HHS, or other health authority, as well as specific forms required by the facility or the Facility / DOC (yet to be determined) related to a pandemic.
Mortuary Services
1. Mortuary services in the event of a pandemic resulting in deaths that exceed community resources may require the institution to provide a temporary morgue.
2. In the event that outside temperatures are below zero (0), the industry bays will be utilized as a temporary morgue.
3. If outside temperatures do not support the use of the delivery corridor, then a maintenance bay shall be utilized with air conditioning and ice.
4. In the event that morgue services are needed for an extended period of time and appropriate refrigeration is unavailable, the practice of a mass burial will be implemented. Equipment will be utilized to dig a deep opening in the ground in the designated facility parking lots. The deceased will be tagged and placed in body bags taken to the burial site and covered with ice to maintain the integrity of the bodies. This process will operate in coordination with Centurion staff. Both medical aspects associated with storing a body, as well as the psychological impact on staff and inmates have been considered. The Coroner shall be notified immediately once a death occurs. The morgue shall remain in operation until attendant legal obligations are satisfied and the bodies may be removed.
Provided at time of Pandemic: 1. Condition Specific Screening Tool 2. Condition Specific Self-Triaging Algorithm 3. Actions Checklist-Yellow/Orange Alert Level 4. Actions Checklist-Red Alert

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 62-3 Filed: 03/19/20 1 of 8 PageID #: 1067

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 62-3 Filed: 03/19/20 2 of 8 PageID #: 1068

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 62-3 Filed: 03/19/20 3 of 8 PageID #: 1069

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 62-3 Filed: 03/19/20 4 of 8 PageID #: 1070

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 62-3 Filed: 03/19/20 5 of 8 PageID #: 1071

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 62-3 Filed: 03/19/20 6 of 8 PageID #: 1072

COVID-19 (coronavirus) Screening

Date: State:

Time: Facility:

English

Symptoms (check all that apply)
Fever/chills (if on medications that lower temp, may not have fever) Cough
Describe Shortness of breath or trouble breathing
Describe Other:

Yes No

Start date

Vital Signs

B/P

P

R

pSO2

Temp*

* Patients with immune compromised conditions or taking fever reducing medications may not have a fever

In the past 14 days

Have you traveled to or been in any outbreak areas in United States, or
1 traveled internationally*? Many countries have out breaks, and large
outbreaks in China, Italy, Iran, South Korea.

If yes: Where

When

Yes No

Note

2 Have you or any family or friends with whom you live been in such areas?

If yes: Where:

When

3 Have you had close contact with anyone who has tested positive to
COVID-19 or experiencing fever or cough?
If yes: When If yes to any symptoms and yes to any questions 1, 2, 3: Have patient don surgical/procedural mask, educate patient, and consult provider
Or if a person has a fever(>100.4°), cough, shortness of breath, and lower respiratory infection, with unknown source of infection contact practitioner

Practitioner Notified(date/time) Department of Health Notified (Name): Comments

Practitioner Name:

Nurse Signature:

P Patient accepted

Patient Quarantined

P Patient Isolated

Patient Referred to Hospital

PatiePanati Pt aNtaiemnteTested for COVID-19

Date:

Reasults: t i

DOB

te

e

in

*Risk Area=Outbreak areas inclunde United States , major airports, globally.

IPC-042-Eent glish

t

1/2020 renvised 3/17/20

ID #

t

Case: 4:20-cv-00007C-DOMVBI-DJM-1V9D(occo#r:o6n2a-3viFriulesd): 0S3c/1re9/e2n0i7ngof 8 PageID #: 1073

Date:

Time:

Spanish

State:

Facility:

Síntomas (marque todos los que correspondan)
Fiebre / escalofríos Tos
Describir Falta de aliento/ Dificultad para respirar
Describir Other:

Yes No

Start date

Vital Signs

B/P

P

R

pSO2

Temp*

* Patients with immune compromised conditions or taking fever reducing medications may not have a fever

En los últimos 14 días

Yes No

1

¿Ha viajado o ha estado en áreas de brotes en los Estados Unidos, o ha viajado internacionalmente *? Muchos países tienen brotes y grandes brotes

en China, Italia, Irán, Corea del Sur.

Note

2 ¿Usted o alguna familia o amigo con quien vive ha estado en esas áreas?

3 ¿Has tenido contacto cercano con alguien que haya dado positivo a
COVID-19 o que tenga fiebre o tos? Si sí, cuándo
If yes to any symptoms and yes to any questions 1, 2, 3: Have patient don surgical/procedural mask, educate patient, and consult provider
Or if a person has a fever(>100.4°), cough, shortness of breath, and lower respiratory infection, with unknown source of infection consult provider

Provider Notified(date/time) Department of Health Notified (Name) Comments:

Provider Name:

Nurse Signature:

P Patient accepted

Patient Quarantined

Patient Isolated

Patient Referred to Hospital

aPatient Tested for COVID-19 Date:

Results:

Patientt Name

DOB

ID #

i

e

*Risk Area=Outbreak areas include United States , major airports, globally.

n

IPC-042-Sptanish
1/2020 revised 3/17/20

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 62-3 Filed: 03/19/20 8 of 8 PageID #: 1074

CORONAVIRUS DISEASE 2019 (COVID-19)
STAFF SCREENING TOOL

1. Assess the Risk Of Exposure
LI Yes LI No Traveled from, or through, any of the locations identified by the CDC as increasing epidemiologic risk within the last 14 days?

Describe:

LI Yes LI No

Had close contact with anyone diagnosed with the COVID-19 illness within the last 14 days?

LI Yes LI No Deployed for COVID-19 response and back from deployment within the last 14 days?

If the answer to ALL the above risk of exposure questions is NO, then STOP here. If the answer to ANY of the above risk of exposure questions is YES, then assess symptoms in step 2 and proceed to step 3.

2. Assess Symptoms

LI Yes

LI No Fever (Fever may not be present in some patients, such as

elderly, immunosuppressed, or taking certain medications.

Fever may be subjective or objective).

LI Yes

LI No Cough

LI Yes

LI No Shortness of Breath (SOB)

Date of Onset:

TEMPERATURE:

3. Contact Central Office
If the staff member answers Yes to either question in section 1 (exposure risk), Yes to any question in symptoms; or Temperature >100.4F, contact:

_______________________________________________ ____________________ _____________________

STAFF NAME (Last, First)

BADGE #

DOB

________________________________________________ INTERVIEWED BY

____________________________ DATE/TIME:

IPC- 043 COVID-19 STAFF SCREENING 03/17/2020

3/19/2020 CaCosmep:le4x:o2n0T-wcitvte-r:0"0Yo0G0o7tti-hDaMs teBam-JeMd uVp wDithotche#R:oc6N2a-t4ionFtoildeedm:an0d3th/1e 9M/is2s0iss1ippoi Dfe1pa0rtmPeantgoef CIDorr#ec:tio1n0s 7de5velop a plan to…

Search Twitter

Log in

Sign up

Marcy Croft Retweeted
Complex @Complex
Yo Gotti has teamed up with the Roc Nation to demand the Mississippi Department of Corrections develop a plan to stop the spread of #CoronaVirus cmplx.co/15534JO

New to Twitter?
Sign up now to get your own personalized timeline!
Sign up

Relevant people
Complex @Complex Making Culture Pop.

Follow

Trends
Terms Privacy policy Cookies Ads info More © 2020 Twitter, Inc.

6:26 PM · Mar 13, 2020 · Twitter Web App 80 Retweets 438 Likes

zaayett @ZforZaayett · Mar 13 Replying to @Complex Gotti for president!

NaNa

@bksfinest1179 · Mar 13

Replying to @Complex and @RocNation

@YoGotti should team up with @BernieSanders since hes the only one

running for president that can help fight in the house & said "During a crisis

we must make sure that we care for those who are currently incarcerated

and in jails"

https://twitter.com/Complex/status/1238607491530928128

1/2

3/19/2020 CaCosmep:le4x:o2n0T-wcitvte-r:0"0Yo0G0o7tti-hDaMs teBam-JeMd uVp wDithotche#R:oc6N2a-t4ionFtoildeedm:an0d3th/1e 9M/is2s0iss2ippoi Dfe1pa0rtmPeantgoef CIDorr#ec:tio1n0s 7de6velop a plan to…

Search Twitter Justice and Safety for All Today, we say to the prison-industrial-complex that we are going to bring about real criminal justice reform. We are going to end the …
berniesanders.com

Log in

Sign up

New to Twitter?
Sign up now to get your own personalized timeline!

duck @iccy_king17 · Mar 13 Replying to @Complex
Eromey @Eromey1 · Mar 13 Replying to @Complex BIG HOMMIE RULES @YoGotti

Sign up

Relevant people
Complex @Complex Making Culture Pop.
Trends

Follow

Show more replies

Terms Privacy policy Cookies Ads info More © 2020 Twitter, Inc.

https://twitter.com/Complex/status/1238607491530928128

2/2

3/19/2020

CaMsarecy: C4r:o2ft0o-ncTvw-it0te0r:0"D0o7n’-t DforMgeBt. #-PJaMrcVhmDano@cte#am: r6oc2#-M4SFPriilseodnR:e0fo3rm/1N9ow/2h0ttps3://ot.cfo/1P0Vi0PQaQpg0eXIEDhtt#ps::/1/t.0co7/R7lvOLCvdPn" / …

Search Twitter

Log in

Sign up

Marcy Croft @marcybcroft
Don’t forget. #Parchman @teamroc #MSPrisonReformNow

Jonathan Allen @jallen1985 · Mar 16 Does anyone else think it's irresponsible for @msdh to feature a death toll of zero in red font on their #COVID19 webpage? There are already-infected Mississippians who will die from this virus, as will many Mississippians who aren't yet infected. msdh.ms.gov/msdhsite/_stat…
9:03 PM Mar 16 2020 from Madison MS Twitter for iPhone https://twitter.com/marcybcroft/status/1239734025935368193

New to Twitter?
Sign up now to get your own personalized timeline!
Sign up

Relevant people

Marcy Croft @marcybcroft

Follow

Lawyer, Wife, Mom, Tired #msprisonreformnow #Parchman RTs are not endorsements

Team Roc @teamroc

Follow

“Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced.“- James Baldwin

Jonathan Allen @jallen1985
@UMichLaw

Follow

Trends
Terms Privacy policy Cookies Ads info More © 2020 Twitter, Inc.
1/2

3/19/2020 CaMsarecy: C4r:o2ft0o-ncTvw-it0te0r:0"D0o7n’-t DforMgeBt. #-PJaMrcVhmDano@cte#am: r6oc2#-M4SFPriilseodnR:e0fo3rm/1N9ow/2h0ttps4://ot.cfo/1P0Vi0PQaQpg0eXIEDhtt#ps::/1/t.0co7/R8lvOLCvdPn" / …
9:03 PM · Mar 16, 2020 from Madison, MS · Twitter for iPhone

6 Likes

Search Twitter

Log in

Sign up

https://twitter.com/marcybcroft/status/1239734025935368193

2/2

3/19/2020 CaCsBeS:N4ew:2s 0on-cTwvi-tt0er0: "0L0aw7y-eDrsMdeBma-nJdMcoVronDavoircus#te:st6in2g-fo4r iFnmilaeteds:a0t M3i/s1si9ss/i2pp0i p5risoonfh1ttp0s:/P/t.acog/Oe7IbDIlW#a:M1Gt0h7ttp9s://t.co/fD3DK…

Search Twitter

Log in

Sign up

Marcy Croft Retweeted
CBS News @CBSNews
Lawyers demand coronavirus testing for inmates at Mississippi prison cbsn.ws/2w3kZME

New to Twitter?
Sign up now to get your own personalized timeline!
Sign up

Relevant people

CBS News @CBSNews

Follow

Your source for original reporting and trusted news.

Trends
Terms Privacy policy Cookies Ads info More © 2020 Twitter, Inc.

9:29 PM · Mar 16, 2020 · Sprinklr 39 Retweets 110 Likes

DH @Used_2B_Sane · Mar 16 Replying to @CBSNews If you want healthcare as a human right, just get locked up...
3

Fork It @fishfanz · Mar 16 Replying to @CBSNews There’s probably more empathy and sympathy for those not committing crimes. Inmates might be a tad down the list. How about those providing front line health care first?
2

Devil Pup

@DevilPup74 · Mar 16

Replying to @CBSNews

Seems appropriate.

1

marty @tcblues · Mar 16 Replying to @CBSNews Duh, they ain't going anywhere. People come to them, assisted Living.

Dyran @buloy1971 · Mar 16 Replying to @CBSNews why do they have to test them. do the people outside first. if they get it then so be it.
1

https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/1239740641757802499

1/2

3/19/2020

CaCsBeS:N4ew:2s 0on-cTwvi-tt0er0: "0L0aw7y-eDrsMdeBma-nJdMcoVronDavoircus#te:st6in2g-fo4r iFnmilaeteds:a0t M3i/s1si9ss/i2pp0i p6risoonfh1ttp0s:/P/t.acog/Oe7IbDIlW#a:M1Gt0h8ttp0s://t.co/fD3DK…

Search Twitter Show more replies

Log in

Sign up

New to Twitter?
Sign up now to get your own personalized timeline!
Sign up

Relevant people

CBS News @CBSNews

Follow

Your source for original reporting and trusted news.

Trends
Terms Privacy policy Cookies Ads info More © 2020 Twitter, Inc.

https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/1239740641757802499

2/2

3/19/2020

CaTesaem:R4o:c2o0n-Tcwvitt-e0r:0"00UP7D-ADTMEB A-nJMemVergDenocycre#li:ef6m2o-ti4on Fhailsebdee:n0fi3le/d1o9n/b2e0hal7f oof #fP1ar0chmPaangPreisIoDn in#m:a1te0s 8am1id the global c…

Search Twitter

Log in

Sign up

Marcy Croft Retweeted
Team Roc @teamroc
UPDATE An emergency relief motion has been filed on behalf of #ParchmanPrison inmates amid the global coronavirus outbreak demanding that officials establish quarantines and priority testing/care for vulnerable patients and those showing symptoms.

New to Twitter?
Sign up now to get your own personalized timeline!
Sign up

Relevant people

Team Roc @teamroc

Follow

“Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced.“- James Baldwin

Trends
Terms Privacy policy Cookies Ads info More © 2020 Twitter, Inc.

Lawyers demand coronavirus testing for inmates at Mississippi prison Lawyers representing inmates at the Mississippi State Penitentiary, known as Parchman, filed a motion on Monday requesting emergency relief amid the glob…
teamroc.io
10:20 PM · Mar 16, 2020 · Twitter Web App
10 Retweets 18 Likes

Jonathan Allen @jallen1985 · Mar 16 Replying to @teamroc When will you post photographs and descriptions from your inspection of the prison?

1

1

Talkalotent @talkalotent · Mar 17 Replying to @teamroc That sign should read Mississippi State Plantation.

https://twitter.com/teamroc/status/1239753410955575297

1/2

3/19/2020 CaTesaem:R4o:c2o0n-Tcwvitt-e0r:0"00UP7D-ADTMEB A-nJMemVergDenocycre#li:ef6m2o-ti4on Fhailsebdee:n0fi3le/d1o9n/b2e0hal8f oof #fP1ar0chmPaangPreisIoDn in#m:a1te0s 8am2id the global c…

https://twitter.com/teamroc/status/1239753410955575297

2/2

3/19/2020

Case: 4:M2a0rc-ycCvr-o0ft0o0n 0Tw7it-teDr:M"haBd-tJoMremVinDd yo'acll ##P:ar6ch2m-a4n F@itleeadm:ro0c 3#m/1sp9ri/s2on0re9foromfno1w0htPtpsa:/g/t.ecoI/DdaK#o:Ts1ff0C8j" 3/ Twitter

Search Twitter

Log in

Sign up

Marcy Croft @marcybcroft
had to remind y'all #Parchman @teamroc #msprisonreformnow

REFORM Alliance @REFORM · Mar 17 Viruses don’t respect borders or prison walls – they can spread everywhere. We need to stop the spread of #coronavirus in prisons before it spreads to our communities.
We need to make prisons, jails, and our communities SAFER #NoPrisonPandemic. Show this thread

8:27 PM · Mar 17, 2020 from Madison, MS · Twitter for iPhone 4 Likes
https://twitter.com/marcybcroft/status/1240087467304398848

New to Twitter?
Sign up now to get your own personalized timeline!
Sign up

Relevant people

Marcy Croft @marcybcroft

Follow

Lawyer, Wife, Mom, Tired #msprisonreformnow #Parchman RTs are not endorsements

Team Roc @teamroc

Follow

“Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced.“- James Baldwin

REFORM Alliance @REFORM

Follow

Reforming the criminal justice system by changing laws and policies while changing hearts and minds #REFORM #FightDifferent

Trends
1/2

3/19/2020

Case: 4:2M0a-rccyvC-r0of0t o0n0T7w-itDterM: "hBad-JtoMreVminDdoy'call##P: a6rc2h-m4anF@ilteeadm:r0oc3#/m1s9p/ri2so0nr1ef0ormonfow10httpPsa://gt.ceo/IdDaK#oT:s1ffC0j"8/4Twitter

Search Twitter

Terms Privacy policyLoCgoionkies Ads iSnifognMuopre
© 2020 Twitter, Inc.

https://twitter.com/marcybcroft/status/1240087467304398848

2/2

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 62-5 Filed: 03/19/20 1 of 2 PageID #: 1085

Mississippi Public Health Laboratory SARS-CoV-2 (virus that causes COVID-19) Specimen Collection and Shipping Guidance

The Mississippi Public Health Laboratory (MPHL) is currently authorized to perform diagnostic testing for COVID-19 infections in clinical respiratory specimens using the CDC 2019-nCoV (SARS-CoV-2) real-time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel.
Patients That Should be Prioritized for Testing:
Specimens may be collected and submitted to the MPHL for testing from patients that meet one or more of the below clinical scenarios:
Patients, including healthcare personnel, who within 14 days of symptom onset had close contact with a suspect or laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 patient, or who have a history of travel from affected geographic areas (see https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/travelers/index.html) within 14 days of their symptom onset. Hospitalized patients who have signs and symptoms compatible with COVID-19, such as fever and/or symptoms of acute respiratory illness (e.g. cough and/or difficulty breathing) and do not have an alternative explanatory diagnosis (e.g., influenza). Other symptomatic individuals at higher risk for poor outcomes, including those who are ≥ 65 years, immunocompromised or have chronic medical conditions (e.g., diabetes, heart disease, receiving immunosuppressive medications, chronic lung disease, chronic kidney disease).
For patients who do not meet the above clinical scenarios, clinicians may elect to submit samples to a commercial laboratory for SARS-CoV-2 testing.

Specimen Types and Requirements: A nasopharyngeal swab AND an oropharyngeal swab are mandatory for each patient. Sputum can be submitted for patients with productive coughs or Bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL)/tracheal aspirate (TA) if already collected for clinical diagnosis. The induction of sputum is not indicated, and a BAL or TA should NOT be collected ONLY for COVID-19 testing. Maintain proper infection control when collecting specimens.

Specimen Type

Specimen Source

Specimen Collection

Upper respiratory REQUIRED SPECIMENS

Nasopharyngeal Swab (NP)

Use only synthetic fiber swabs with plastic shafts. Insert a swab into a nostril parallel to the palate and leave the swab in place for a few seconds to absorb secretions; repeat on the second nostril using the same swab. Place the swab into a separate 2-3 ml vial of viral transport media (VTM such as M4 or M5 or a universal transport media appropriate for viruses) and carefully break the swab applicator stick at the preformation (swab tip will remain in VTM) before tightly sealing the tube.

Lower Respiratory Submit Specimens ONLY if
available

Bronchoalveolar lavage or tracheal aspirate Sputum

Collect 2-3 ml into a leak-proof, sterile, screw cap sputum collection cup or sterile dry container.
Have the patient rinse their mouth with water and then expectorate deep cough sputum directly into a leak-proof, sterile, screw cap sputum collection cup.

Storage and Shipment: Specimens should be refrigerated at 2-8oC immediately after collection. Specimens must be packaged as Biological Substance, Category B (UN3373) and must be shipped refrigerated (on ice packs) to the MPHL for overnight delivery. Specimens may be dropped off directly at the MPHL MondayFriday, 8am-4:30 pm, or at a local MSDH clinic for delivery to the MPHL. Contact your local MSDH clinic prior to dropping off a specimen to confirm the
Page 1 of 2 Revised 03/13/2020

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 62-5 Filed: 03/19/20 2 of 2 PageID #: 1086
clinic’s hours of operation. If an alternate MSDH drop-off location is required, contact the MSDH Office of Field Services at 601-576-7951 for assistance. Specimens must be received within 3 days of specimen collection and must be maintained at refrigerated temperatures. Please label the shipper with the following shipping address:
Mississippi Public Health Laboratory Attention: Molecular Diagnostics Section/Thompson Facility 570 East Woodrow Wilson Drive Jackson, MS 39216
Required Specimen Submission Forms: The submitter must complete a MSDH Form 1198, SARS-CoV-2 (Virus that causes COVID-19) Testing Requisition with each specimen set (one form per patient). Incomplete or illegible forms will result in reporting delays.
Test Performance and Turn-Around-Time: The MPHL will perform SARS-CoV-2 testing each working day, Monday-Friday. Testing turn-around-time will be dependent on testing volumes.

Result Interpretation:
Reported Result Presumptive positive Not Detected Inconclusive
Invalid

Action Specimen is referred to the CDC for additional testing. Confirmatory testing at the CDC is required.
Testing for SARS-CoV-2 is complete. Additional testing may be considered in consultation with the MSDH Office of Epidemiology.
Specimen is referred to the CDC for additional testing. The absence or presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA could not be determined with certainty after repeat testing of the specimen in the laboratory. Additional testing is required
The absence or presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA could not be determined with certainty after repeat testing of the specimen in the laboratory due to PCR inhibition. Consultation with the MSDH Office of Epidemiology is required to determine if a new specimen should be collected.

Result Reporting: The MPHL will verbally notify the MSDH Office of Epidemiology of all positive, inconclusive and invalid (abnormal) results immediately upon test completion. The MSDH Office of Epidemiology will contact the submitting clinician regarding abnormal results. All negative (normal) results will be reported to the submitter via the MPHL web portal or by fax. All final MPHL results will be reported electronically by fax or the MPHL web portal within 24 hours of testing completion. All results are immediately reported to the CDC upon testing completion using an electronic laboratory report.

Page 2 of 2 Revised 03/13/2020

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 63 Filed: 03/19/20 1 of 20 PageID #: 1087

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

MICHAEL AMOS, et al.

PLAINTIFFS

VS.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:20-CV-07-DMB-JMV

TOMMY TAYLOR, et al.

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AS TO COVID-19

Despite having no facts and no apparent understanding of precautionary actions being taken by the Mississippi Department of Corrections (“MDOC”) to protect inmates, staff, and the public from the potential spread of COVID-19 at the Mississippi State Penitentiary (“Parchman”), Plaintiffs ask the Court to intervene and order MDOC to take a litany of other measures—many of which MDOC is already taking. See Exhibits A, B, and C. Plaintiffs have no support for their assumption that their requested measures would be more effective in preventing the outbreak or spread of COVID-19 than those already being taken by MDOC. In fact, before filing their Motion, Plaintiffs did not even bother to confer with Defendants or inquire as to the current measures MDOC is taking. Instead, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have a “woeful healthcare record,” and speculate that Defendants therefore must not be taking measures to “confront the COVID-19 pandemic.” Doc. 60 at 8. Plaintiffs present no evidence whatsoever to show that Defendants are acting with deliberate indifference to the impact of COVID-19 or that, absent Court intervention, Plaintiffs will be left “without any meaningful measures to protect them from the deadly pandemic unfolding on their doorstep.” Id. Such conjecture and hyperbole

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 63 Filed: 03/19/20 2 of 20 PageID #: 1088
underscore the pretext of Plaintiffs’ Motion – publicity, media attention, and inflaming the
emotions of the public with misinformation.
If Plaintiffs had bothered to simply confer with Defendants to discuss MDOC’s current
COVID-19 measures before filing their Motion and involving the Court, Plaintiffs would have
learned that MDOC is already actively engaged in significant courses of action to protect inmates
and staff from COVID-19, including many of the measures identified by Plaintiffs.1 MDOC and
its third-party healthcare provider, Centurion of Mississippi, LLC (“Centurion”), are currently
engaged in the following:
1. Internal and External Consultation/Monitoring: MDOC officials have been meeting internally and consulting externally with the proper officials and agencies to ensure appropriate preventative measures regarding COVID-19. MDOC is consulting with top public health and other officials, including the Mississippi Department of Health and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Office for State and Local Law Enforcement, regarding the appropriate precautions to be taken concerning COVID-19. See Agenda of Telephone Conference with DHS, attached as Ex. 1 to the Declaration of Jeworski Mallett (Ex. A). MDOC, in consultation with health officials, continues to monitor new developments and implement preventative and responsive measures related to COVID-19. See Declaration of Dr. Gloria Perry (Ex. B).2
2. Collaboration between MDOC and Centurion: MDOC is working closely with Centurion to implement the provisions of Centurion’s Pandemic Preparedness and Emergency Response Plan (the “Centurion Plan”). See Ex. 2 to Mallett Declaration (Ex. A); see also Declaration of Willie Knighten of Centurion (Ex. C). The Centurion Plan provides written protocols or best practices for the diagnosis, treatment, and management of conditions related to infectious diseases such as COVID-19. The Centurion Plan includes, but is not limited to, protocols or guidance for: prevention; surveillance; inmate education; treatment, including medical insolation; follow-up treatment; reporting; monitoring current community and national trends; appropriate safeguards for inmates and staff; providing personal protective equipment (“PPE”);
1 Had Plaintiffs conferred with Defendants before filing their Motion, the parties could have also saved valuable time and resources that should be instead aimed at addressing the impact of COVID-19.
2 The gravity and breadth of the potential impact of COVID-19 continues to evolve. MDOC and Centurion are actively engaged in following the recommendations and guidelines issued by global, national, and local health authorities and leaders, which change and develop daily. MDOC and Centurion have been monitoring the development of COVID-19 and adapting their prevention and response plans as necessary to protect inmates, staff, and the public. Updated recommendations, practices, and guidance materials are being assessed and implemented where appropriate.
2

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 63 Filed: 03/19/20 3 of 20 PageID #: 1089
education and training regarding PPE; and post-exposure management. The Centurion Plan sets “preparedness” action items based on the severity of the virus outbreak, and MDOC is following those action items. MDOC is also implementing Centurion’s “Coronavirus Awareness” guide, attached as Ex. 3 to the Mallett Declaration (Ex. A), which includes, among other things, procedures for screening staff and other visitors and restrictions on staff from entering the facility with symptoms of the virus or if they have traveled to a high-risk area. See also Ex. C, discussing screening measures.
3. Staff Screening: MDOC officers and other staff are screened daily upon entering Parchman for symptoms and other indicators of exposure to COVID-19. Specifically, staff members are screened pursuant to a COVID-19 screening form provided by Centurion, attached as Ex. 4 to the Mallett Declaration. MDOC staff are routed to an alternative screening area at the visitation center to facilitate safe screening. The screening process includes questions about each staff member’s symptoms, if any, including headaches, fevers, coughing, shortness of breath, and trouble breathing. MDOC subjects staff members to daily temperature screenings before they are permitted on the grounds. Id.
4. Inmate Monitoring/Testing: As discussed above, the Centurion Plan provides written guidance for diagnosis, treatment, and management of conditions related to infectious diseases such as COVID-19, including protocols for prevention, surveillance, and treatment, including medical insolation. In addition to implementing the Centurion Plan, MDOC officers are currently actively monitoring inmates for symptoms of COVID-19, such as headaches, fevers, coughing, shortness of breath, and trouble breathing. Should healthcare staff determine an inmate is exhibiting signs or symptoms of COVID-19, through screening or otherwise, specific measures will be taken as described in the declaration of Health Services Administrator Willie Knighten, attached as Exhibit C, and COVID-19 testing will be administered per local and Centers for Disease Control protocols and availability. See Ex. B and C.
5. Inmate Quarantine/Isolation: At this time, there are no confirmed cases of COVID19 at Parchman. Should MDOC learn that an inmate or staff member has contracted COVID-19, MDOC will apply the Centurion Plan as well as its own policies developed to combat the spread of COVID-19. Under these plans and policies, inmates who either test positive for COVID-19 or is suspected of having COVID-19 will be isolated and any inmate or staff member suspected of being exposed will be quarantined. Further precautionary steps will also be taken, as more specifically described in the declaration of Willie Knighten, attached as Ex. C, including the use of personal protective equipment. In the unfortunate event there are insufficient numbers of negative-pressure rooms, MDOC will quarantine and isolate inmates from the remainder of the general population in alternative cells or housing areas. Ex. A.
6. Suspension/Restriction of Transfers: MDOC has suspended all transfers of inmates from county jails to MDOC facilities for the next 30 days. See Ex. 5 to Mallett Declaration (Ex. A). MDOC is monitoring conditions and developments and will extend the restriction as necessary to protect inmates and staff. MDOC has also substantially restricted all transfers between MDOC facilities for the next 30 days.
3

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 63 Filed: 03/19/20 4 of 20 PageID #: 1090
Transfers between facilities will be limited to those absolutely necessary. For those transfers that have been necessary, MDOC has screened inmates for COVID-19 symptoms upon arrival. Even if transferred inmates do not currently have symptoms, MDOC isolates those inmates so as to reduce the risk to the general population. MDOC is monitoring conditions and developments and will extend the restriction as necessary to protect inmates and staff. Ex. A.
7. Suspension of In-Person Visitation / Increased Sanitation for Essential Visitations: MDOC has temporarily suspended visitation at all MDOC facilities “in order to establish sanitation and prevention protocols to prevent the spread of COVID-19.” See Ex. 6 to Mallett Declaration (Ex. A). MDOC is currently permitting visitation by attorneys who satisfy MDOC screening requirements and has established protocols requiring all visitation areas to be effectively sanitized at the completion of each visit.
8. Non-Contact Visitation: MDOC has undertaken measures to ameliorate the effects of the denial of in-person visitation. For instance, MDOC has implemented a policy permitting inmates to make two free phone calls per week. See Exhibit 7 to Mallett Declaration (Ex. A). According to Interim Commissioner Tommy Taylor, “[t]his is another way to help inmates stay connected with their loved ones and to be reassured of their welfare during this trying time.” Id.
9. Common Health Practices: MDOC is recommending and reinforcing common health practices and other guidelines provided by the Mississippi Department of Health and the CDC, including:  Coughing or sneezing into the bend of the arm, not the hand;  Frequent hand washing for at least 20 seconds or use of hand sanitizer;  Avoiding touching of eyes, nose, or mouth with unwashed hands;  Avoiding social contact such as shaking hands, hugging, or sharing personal items; and  Use of disinfectants to sanitize high-touch surfaces, such as workstation surfaces, computer keyboards, countertops, doorknobs, light switches, handrails, control panels, buttons, and tabletops. Ex. A.
10. Education of Staff and Inmates: MDOC is educating staff and inmates regarding the above-referenced universal common health practices. MDOC has distributed materials outlining the above common health practices to the inmates. These materials are posted in all inmate housing units as well as on bulletin boards in hallways and other common areas. Further, wardens, deputy wardens, and other MDOC officers have visited each housing unit to verbally inform inmates of the above-referenced common health practices. Id.
11. Institutional Hygiene: MDOC is ensuring that additional chemicals and other cleaners are available to providing additional sanitation at Parchman. MDOC has thoroughly cleaned and sanitized all areas at Parchman and will continue to do so to ensure proper sanitation is achieved. Id.
4

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 63 Filed: 03/19/20 5 of 20 PageID #: 1091
12. Personal Hygiene: MDOC has provided extra supplies of liquid and solid soap to inmates to ensure that each inmate’s supply is sufficient to follow the recommended universal common health practices outlined above. Id. MDOC, like other correctional agencies across the country, does not provide inmates with their own bottles of hand sanitizer containing at least 60% alcohol because it can be used to make drinking alcohol. However, hand sanitizer is available to MDOC staff. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the most effective method of good hand hygiene is handwashing with soap and water for 20 seconds. See Ex. B.
MDOC’s COVID-19 measures are consistent with, if not more preventative than, those being taken by other correctional agencies and institutions across the country, including the federal bureau of prisons. See Ex. A, B, and C. The attached declarations refute Plaintiffs’ baseless claim that MDOC’s response “has been merely to cancel visitation and limit transfers.” Doc. 60 at 3. Plaintiffs offer no factual support whatsoever to show that their points of requested emergency relief are not already being addressed by MDOC to the extent feasible and appropriate. Id. at 3-6. Plaintiffs also offer no support to show that their requested measures are as effective or are more effective than MDOC’s current actions. In fact, the only exhibit utilized by Plaintiffs that even mentions their specific requests is a declaration from Dr. Marc Stern, but Dr. Stern does not allege that MDOC’s current preventative measures are inadequate. See Doc. 59-6. It does not appear that Dr. Stern is even aware of the current measures being taken by MDOC and Centurion. Id. Moreover, Dr. Stern is not an infectious disease specialist, and he admits he has only “recently familiarized [himself] with the virus.” Id.
To be clear, Defendants do not dispute that COVID-19 presents serious health risks, but MDOC is currently taking the proper and reasonable proactive measures to prevent infiltration of COVID-19 into Parchman and to be prepared to respond to any outbreak at Parchman. See Ex. A, B, and C. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion is unfounded and improper; it fails to even present a claim to be addressed by the Court and should be denied.
5

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 63 Filed: 03/19/20 6 of 20 PageID #: 1092
ARGUMENT Plaintiffs are correct that “Defendants are charged by law with protecting the inmates under their care and custody,” Doc. 60 at 3, but there are guidelines for determining the extent and reasonableness of the measures to be taken. The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) was enacted to limit court involvement in directing state prison operations. Plaintiffs are asking the Court for an order of so-called “relief” that is premature, unsupported by any evidentiary basis, inconsistent with the PLRA, and fails under the deliberate-indifference and preliminaryinjunction standards. As shown below, Plaintiffs have failed to meet their “heavy burden” to demonstrate entitlement to the extraordinary remedy of granting preliminary injunctive relief.3 I. The “relief” requested by Plaintiffs is not appropriate under the PLRA. Congress enacted the Prison Litigation Reform Act in 1996 to bring prison condition litigation under control and “restrict the authority of federal courts to issue and enforce compliance with orders for prospective relief, and thus to curb the involvement of the federal judiciary in prison management.” United States v. Territory of the Virgin Islands, 884 F. Supp. 2d 399, 406–08 (D.V.I. 2012) (quoting Gilmore v. California, 220 F.3d 987, 991 (9th Cir. 2000) (“It is clear that Congress intended the PLRA to revive the hands-off doctrine,” the former “rule of judicial quiescence” that the federal judiciary not be involved with the problems of state-run prisons)); Inmates of Suffolk Cty. Jail v. Rouse, 129 F.3d 649, 655 (1st Cir. 1997). The purpose of a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) is typically “to preserve the status quo and prevent irreparable harm, but only until the court can hold an adversarial hearing for a
3 Plaintiffs offer no factual support for their assertion that MDOC’s response to COVID-19 is “feckless.” Doc. 60 at 2. Instead, it is clear that Plaintiffs’ Motion, filed without first making any good-faith effort to determine the measures being implemented by MDOC, is about garnering attention in the media. See id.; see also Exhibit D, a collection of Plaintiffs’ counsel’s recent social media postings related to their COVID-19 Motion for preliminary relief. At the February 3, 2020 motion hearing, the Court was clear that counsel should not interject this case into the media. See hearing transcript at page 118, lines 11–20.
6

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 63 Filed: 03/19/20 7 of 20 PageID #: 1093
preliminary injunction[,]” and the purpose of a preliminary injunction is typically to “preserve the status quo during the course of litigation until the court can hold a trial on the matter.” Walker v. Turner, 2019 WL 615360, at *1 (N.D. Miss. Feb. 11, 2019). However, Plaintiffs do not seek to preserve the status quo. Rather, Plaintiffs seek affirmative “relief” from a problem that has not been shown to exist and from constitutional violations that they have not established. A request for a mandatory injunction, seeking relief well beyond the status quo, is “particularly disfavored, and should not be issued unless the facts and the law clearly favor the [Plaintiffs].” Martinez v. Mathews, 544 F.2d 1233, 1243 (5th Cir. 1976). ). Here, they do not.
The PLRA “greatly limits the ability of a court to fashion injunctive relief.” Dockery v. Hall, No. 13-cv-326, Doc. 850 at 14 (S.D. Miss. Dec. 31, 2019). It provides that “prospective relief in any civil action with respect to prison conditions shall extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a particular plaintiff or plaintiffs.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) (emphasis added). It follows that under the PLRA, the Court must first find a “violation of [a] Federal right” to “correct.” Id. Next, before preliminary injunctive relief can issue, a district court must find that such relief is “narrowly drawn, extend[s] no further than necessary to correct the harm the court finds requires preliminary relief, and [is] the least intrusive means necessary to correct that harm.” Id. at § 3626(a)(2).
There is no harm or violation here to be addressed by the Court because MDOC’s measures are a reasonable response to the COVID-19 crisis, which is all that is required under the deliberate indifference standard, and Plaintiffs have offered no evidence to the contrary. See Ex. A, B, C. Even if there were some harm to be remedied, which there is not, the so-called “relief” requested by Plaintiffs is not the “least intrusive means necessary” to prevent harm. Thus, Court intervention is not warranted or appropriate.
7

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 63 Filed: 03/19/20 8 of 20 PageID #: 1094
The “relief” requested in Plaintiffs’ Motion and memorandum seeks to require
Defendants to implement measures that are either already being undertaken, that are in many
respects not possible or recommended (such as testing every single inmate), or that have not been
shown by Plaintiffs to have any reasonable relation to preventing the alleged harm:
a. Immediate Testing:4 Plaintiffs request that MDOC immediately “implement testing protocols for the identification and containment of COVID-19,” and further demand that such protocols include “the immediate testing of all inmates, Parchman employees, and all other individuals entering Parchman.” Doc. 60 at 3. Testing protocols have been implemented by Centurion, but it is not feasible or recommended that every inmate, employee, or other person entering Parchman be tested for COVID-19. The shortage of tests has been widely reported by the national and local media and acknowledged by numerous Federal and State officials.5 See also Ex. B. There are approximately 2,700 inmates and MDOC staff at Parchman. Ex. A. Even if testing every one of these individuals were advisable, it is doubtful the CDC would appropriate such testing resources. Current guidance from public health officials requires physicians to issue tests as needed only to individuals who meet certain criteria, including “symptomatic individuals at higher risk for poor outcomes.”6 Centurion is responsible for inmate testing for COVID-19. Testing is done per local protocols and availability. It is currently not feasible, advisable, or recommended under any applicable guidelines to test individuals unless they have traveled to any area with an outbreak of COVID-19 or with sustained (ongoing) transmission; have a fever or cough; are short of breath; have been in close contact (less than six feet) with someone exhibiting COVID-19 symptoms or a confirmed case of COVID-19; or have a temperature of greater than 100.4 F. See Ex. B. And even if one or more of those factors applies, a test for influenza must also be conducted. Id. Plaintiffs’ mere disagreement with these testing protocols is not a basis for finding deliberate
4 For ease of reference, Defendants use the headings included in Plaintiffs’ Motion with no admission as to their validity or legitimacy.
5 E.g., Peter Whoriskey and Neena Satija, How U.S. Coronavirus Testing Stalled, THE WASHINGTON POST (Mar. 16, 2020), online at https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/03/16/cdc-whocoronavirus-tests/ (last visited March 18, 2020).
6 Guidance from the CDC and Mississippi Department of Health make clear that not all individuals should be tested. Physicians, in their best judgment, “may” choose to test patients who: “within 14 days of symptom onset had close contact with a suspected or laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 patient, or who have a history of travel from affected geographic areas;” “[h]ospitalized patients who have signs and symptoms compatible with COVID-19, such as fever and/or symptoms of acute respiratory illness . . . and do not have an alternative explanatory diagnosis;” and “[o]ther symptomatic individuals at higher risk for poor outcomes.” Mississippi Public Health Laboratory SARS-CoV-2 (virus that causes COVID-19) Specimen Collection and Shipping Guidance, attached as Ex. E. As of March 17, 2020, the MSDH Public Health Laboratory has performed only 389 tests. Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), online at https://msdh.ms.gov/msdhsite/_static/14,0,420.html (last visited March 18, 2020).
8

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 63 Filed: 03/19/20 9 of 20 PageID #: 1095
indifference.7 Plaintiffs offer no proof that any Plaintiff would fall within the accepted criteria for testing, and Plaintiffs do not allege that any Plaintiff has requested and warranted testing but been refused.
b. Immediate Screening: MDOC is already conducting the screening requested by Plaintiffs. Ex. A, B, C. As described above, under its current protocols, MDOC screens each employee or other person entering Parchman every day to determine whether the individual has any symptoms of COVID-19, including headaches, fevers, cough, shortness of breath, and trouble breathing. The individuals are also questioned regarding their recent travel, the travel of their friends and family, and whether they have been exposed to individuals who are experiencing COVID-19 symptoms. MDOC subjects each employee or other person entering Parchman to daily temperature screenings before they are permitted on the grounds. Moreover, if inmate transfers are necessary, those inmates are screened and then isolated even if they do not currently have symptoms.
c. Current Inmate Quarantine: Plaintiffs ask that the Court require MDOC to establish non-punitive quarantine “for all individuals who test positive for COVID19, who were directly exposed to individuals who test positive for COVID-19, or who exhibit symptoms of the virus.” Doc. 60 at 4. Plaintiffs make additional requests regarding where such inmates should be quarantined and what PPE should be worn by individuals interacting with such inmates. Id. at 4, 5. Again, the Centurion Plan implemented by MDOC provides best practices for diagnosis, treatment, and management of conditions related to infectious diseases such as COVID-19, including protocols or guidelines for, among other things: surveillance; treatment, including medical quarantine and insolation; follow-up treatment; safeguards for inmates and staff; providing PPE, education and training regarding PPEs; and postexposure management. See Ex. A, B, C. MDOC, in conjunction with Centurion, have developed appropriate protocols for isolating inmates who contract the virus. These protocols include isolating symptomatic and virus-positive inmates in negativepressure rooms and isolated housing units at Parchman. Additionally, all scheduled releases from Parchman will occur as planned, with necessary precautions taken. Id. Plaintiffs offer no evidence that their suggested protocol is not being followed.
d. New Inmate Quarantine: Plaintiffs request that MDOC establish a 14-day, nonpunitive quarantine for all new inmates entering Parchman. Doc. 60 at 4. MDOC has suspended all transfers of inmates from county jails to MDOC facilities for the next 30 days and will extend the restriction as necessary to protect inmates and staff. MDOC has also substantially restricted all transfers between MDOC facilities for the
7 A prisoner’s belief that he should have received different treatment does not implicate the Eighth Amendment because a mere disagreement with the treatment that was provided, absent exceptional circumstances that do not exist here, does not support a claim of deliberate medical indifference. Gobert v. Caldwell, 463 F.3d 339, 346 (5th Cir. 2006). To succeed on a Section 1983 claim for lack of medical care under the deliberate indifference standard, a prisoner must establish that the defendants “refused to treat him, ignored his complaints, intentionally treated him incorrectly, or engaged in any similar conduct that would clearly evince a wanton disregard for any serious medical needs.” Domino v. Texas Dept. of Crim. Justice, 239 F.3d 752, 756 (5th Cir. 2001) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 107 (1976)).
9

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 63 Filed: 03/19/20 10 of 20 PageID #: 1096
next 30 days and will extend that restriction as necessary to protect inmates and staff. Transfers between MDOC facilities have been limited to those absolutely necessary. In the event such a transfer is necessary, MDOC has and will screen arriving inmates for COVID-19 symptoms and temporarily isolate those inmates even if they do not have symptoms. See Ex. A.
e. Institutional Hygiene: Plaintiffs ask that the Court order MDOC to increase the sanitation and cleaning protocol and frequency for all public spaces, highly traveled areas, and cells. Doc. 60 at 4. As stated above, MDOC is already taking precautionary measures to ensure that additional chemicals and other cleaners are made available at Parchman for the purpose of providing additional sanitation. See Ex. A. MDOC has thoroughly cleaned and sanitized all areas at Parchman, and its staff will continue to do so to ensure proper sanitation is achieved. Id.
f. Personal Hygiene: Plaintiff asks that MDOC be required to “provide hand sanitizer with 60% or more alcohol, antibacterial soap, antibacterial wipes and other hygiene products to each inmate free of charge and ensure replacement products are available as needed.” Doc. 60 at 4-5. Plaintiff further requests that the Court order MDOC to declassify hand sanitizer with 60% or more alcohol as contraband, since it is “one of the only methods proven to slow and prevent the spread of coronavirus.” Id. at 5. MDOC has distributed additional solid and liquid soap to inmates in sufficient qualities to ensure all are able to adhere to the common health practices outlined by the CDC and others. Ex. A. MDOC has not and cannot safely de-classify as contraband hand sanitizer with 60% or more alcohol. Id. Given that the CDC’s common health practices state that proper hygiene is achieved primarily through hand washing, the security risk of permitting use of individual hand sanitizer outweighs the alleged health concern in not providing bottles of it to inmates. Ex. B. MDOC’s policy in this regard is consistent with other institutions across the nation. Id.
g. Limit Contact Visitation: Plaintiffs acknowledge MDOC has already limited physical contact visitation, but claims MDOC “must be required to implement or increase non-contact visitation options such as video conferencing and/or telephone calls for all types of visits[.]” Doc. 60 at 5. MDOC has undertaken measures to mitigate the effect of the denial of in-person visitation, in part by implementing a policy permitting inmates to make two free phone calls per week “to help people contact their loved ones.” See Ex. A. Plaintiffs have no constitutional right to video conferencing, and it is not deliberate indifference for MDOC not to provide it.8 Furthermore, requiring MDOC to provide video conferencing services, which are not currently available at Parchman, would not be narrowly drawn or the least intrusive means necessary to “correct” any alleged violation. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2).
8 “Convicted prisoners have no absolute constitutional right to visitation.” Lynott v. Henderson, 610 F.2d 340, 342 (5th Cir. 1980). “The very object of imprisonment is confinement,” and therefore restrictions on visitation do not violate the Constitution so long as they “bear a rational relation to legitimate penological interests.” Overton v. Bazzetta, 539 U.S. 126, 131–32 (2003). The Court “must accord substantial deference to the professional judgment of prison administrators” in this regard. Id. at 132.
10

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 63 Filed: 03/19/20 11 of 20 PageID #: 1097
h. Waive Copays: Plaintiffs claim MDOC and “healthcare providers working under [its] direction” “must be required to waive copays for inmate medical evaluation and care related in any way to COVID-19 and/or its symptoms.” Doc. 60 at 5. As stated above, even though non-indigent inmates have no constitutional right to a waiver of copays, and it is not deliberate indifference for MDOC to not waive copays, MDOC has already decided to waive copays related to COVID-19.9 See Ex. B.
i. Supply Chain: Plaintiffs ask that the Court require MDOC to “identify the supplies and other materials upon which the institution is dependent … and prepare for shortages of these items, and delays or disruptions in the supply chain.” Doc. 60 at 56. This is a perfect example of Plaintiffs’ desire to have the Court “micromanage” MDOC, an impermissible exercise even if Plaintiffs had proven a constitutional deprivation, which they have not.10 The request is premature and based solely on the unsupported assertion that MDOC will run out of supplies. MDOC has already been taking inventory of their current supplies and planning for potential shortages and delays. MDOC has adequate stockpiles and has adequate plans in place to maintain necessary food and supplies. Ex. A. Plaintiffs’ proposed micromanagement is not the least intrusive means of preventing any perceived, but nonexistent, constitutional violation with regard to COVID-19 measures.
j. Reporting: Plaintiffs want the Court to require MDOC to report weekly “to apprise the Court of the progress made in implementing the foregoing and the results of testing of employees and inmates; the numbers of COVID-19 cases at Parchman, if any; and the measures in place to separate inmates who have tested positive, or who may have been exposed, from the general population.” Doc. 60 at 6. This is the type of court involvement the PLRA sought to limit, particularly where there has been no showing whatsoever to justify the proposed reporting requirements.
Accordingly, the requested “relief” is redundant to the protocols, best practices, and
guidelines already being implemented by MDOC, and such “relief” is premature, inappropriate,
and unnecessary under the PLRA. Thus, the Court should deny the Motion.
9 See Morris v. Livingston, 739 F.3d 740, 746–47 (5th Cir. 2014) (upholding inmate charges for medical services). 10 The Fifth Circuit has explained that federal courts “are not to micromanage state prisons.” Gates v. Cook, 376 F.3d 323, 338 (5th Cir. 2004) (citing Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 562 (1979)). The Fifth Circuit has further noted that “courts are ill-equipped to deal with the increasingly urgent problems of prison administration . . . and that it is not wise . . . to second-guess the expert (or any other) administrators on matters on which they are better informed.” Jones v. Diamond, 636 F.2d 1364, 1368 (5th Cir. 1981) (quoting Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 405 (1974)). Problems associated with operating prison facilities “are complex and intractable, and, more to the point, they are not readily susceptible of resolution by decree.” Procunier, 416 U.S. at 405.
11

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 63 Filed: 03/19/20 12 of 20 PageID #: 1098
II. Plaintiffs have failed to satisfy their burden to show that the Court should grant the requested temporary and preliminary injunctive relief. Even if Plaintiffs’ requests complied with the PLRA, which they do not, Plaintiffs fail to
satisfy their heavy burden under the test for allowing the extraordinary remedy of preliminary injunctive relief. In Canal Auth. of State of Fla. v. Callaway, 489 F.2d 567, 572 (5th Cir. 1974), the Fifth Circuit established the four prerequisites for granting a preliminary injunction:
(1) a substantial likelihood that plaintiff will prevail on the merits; (2) a substantial threat that plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted; (3) that the threatened injury to plaintiff outweighs the threatened harm the injunction may do to defendant; and (4) that granting the preliminary injunction will not disserve the public interest. Id. “In considering these four prerequisites, the court must remember that a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy which should not be granted unless the movant clearly carries the burden of persuasion.” Id. at 573. To obtain temporary or preliminary injunctive relief, Plaintiffs “must carry ‘a heavy burden of persuading the district court that all four elements are satisfied,’ and failure to carry the burden on any one of the four elements will result in the denial of the preliminary injunction.’” Leachman v. Harris Cty., Texas, 779 F. App’x 234, 237 (5th Cir. 2019), as revised (Oct. 2, 2019) (quoting Enter. Int’l, Inc. v. Corporacion Estatal Petrolera Ecuatoriana, 762 F.2d 464, 472 (5th Cir. 1985)). It is critical to bear in mind that Plaintiffs are not just asking the Court to maintain the status quo—they are asking for mandatory relief in the form of an order requiring MDOC to take specific actions regarding COVID-19. Doc. 59; Doc. 60. Again, Plaintiffs’ request for preliminary relief, which “goes beyond maintaining the status quo,” is “particularly disfavored,
12

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 63 Filed: 03/19/20 13 of 20 PageID #: 1099
and should not be issued unless the facts and the law clearly favor the moving party.” Martinez, 544 F.2d at 1243. As discussed below, Plaintiffs are not “substantially likely” to prevail on the merits of their claims, particularly given the “deliberate indifference” standard. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have failed to carry their burden on all four Canal prerequisites, and therefore, the Court should deny Plaintiffs’ motion for temporary and preliminary injunctive relief.11
a. Plaintiffs are not substantially likely to succeed on the merits of their claims. It is clear that Plaintiffs do not understand the standard for prevailing on a motion for preliminary relief related to a constitutional claim under the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiffs state: “Given that the entire World is in a state of emergency, there is substantial likelihood that Plaintiffs will succeed on the merits of their motion seeking reasonable protections for themselves and the other inmates, who are particularly at risk, but who are not allowed the means available to other citizens to protect themselves.” Doc. 60 at 7.12 First, Plaintiffs do not represent “other inmates.” Second, to show that they are “substantially likely to succeed on the merits of their claims,” Plaintiffs must show that it is substantially likely they will be able to prove that Defendants are acting with “deliberate indifference” to their health or safety. Wilson v. Seiter,
11 The grant or denial of a preliminary injunction is within the discretion of the trial court. Apple Barrel Productions, Inc. v. Beard, 730 F.2d 384, 386 (5th Cir. 1984). 12 Plaintiffs’ burden to prove deliberate indifference is even greater given that COVID-19 virus is an “emergency”. Doc. 60 at 7. “In deciding whether the [Defendants] were deliberately indifferent to the needs of the plaintiffs, however, [the Court] must also consider any relevant constraints.” Alberti v. Sheriff of Harris Cty., 937 F.2d 984, 998 (5th Cir. 1991). The Supreme Court has made clear that in the deliberate indifference analysis, the Court must look to the “constraints facing the official.” Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 303 (1991). If a widespread emergency is facing the official, courts are far less likely to find deliberate indifference. E.g., Francis v. United States, 2007 WL 2332322, at *2 (E.D. La. Aug. 13, 2007) (finding no deliberate indifference in conditions of confinement claim because “[p]etitioner, his jailers, and many free residents of Greater New Orleans area suffered substantially similar conditions in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina”).
13

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 63 Filed: 03/19/20 14 of 20 PageID #: 1100
501 U.S. 294, 302–03 (1991).13 “Deliberate indifference is an extremely high standard to
meet.” Sanchez v. Young Cty., 866 F.3d 274, 280 (5th Cir. 2017).
To satisfy “deliberate indifference,” it must be shown that a prison official “knows of and
disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety; the official must both be aware of facts
from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994).14 “A prison
official acts with deliberate indifference ‘only if he knows that inmates face a substantial risk of
serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable measures to abate it.’” Jones v.
Texas Dep’t of Criminal Justice, 880 F.3d 756, 759 (5th Cir. 2018) (quoting Farmer, 511 U.S. at
847) (emphasis added); see also Dockery, 3:13-cv-326-WHB-JCG, Doc. 850 at 23, 36.
There are simply no factual allegations, much less evidence to support, that Defendants
are actively disregarding the risks posed by COVID-19 or ignoring the impact that COVID-19
could have on the prison population. Quite the contrary, MDOC is actively engaged in
attempting to prevent the infiltration of COVID-19 and implementing measures to protect
inmates and MDOC staff should the virus infect those at Parchman. See Ex. A, B, and C. As
shown by the declarations from MDOC and Centurion, the prison officials have continuously
and dutifully taken reasonable measures in an effort to address risks. Id. Prison officials cannot
be deemed to be deliberately indifferent if they “responded reasonably” to substantial risks to
13 “[O]nly the ‘unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain’ implicates the Eighth Amendment.” Wilson, 501 U.S. at 297. “It is obduracy and wantonness, not inadvertence or error in good faith, that characterize the conduct prohibited by the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause, whether that conduct occurs in connection with establishing conditions of conditions of confinement, supplying medical needs, or restoring official control over a tumultuous cellblock.” Id. at 299 (quoting Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 319 (1986) (emphasis in Wilson)). 14 The “same subjective deliberate indifference standard has been applied to pre-trial detainees under the Fourteenth Amendment as well as convicted inmates under the Eighth Amendment.” Caston v. Harris, 2013 WL 5724127, at *1 (N.D. Miss. Oct. 21, 2013) (citing Hare v. City of Corinth, 74 F.3d 633, 648 (5th Cir. 1996)). The Eighth Amendment applies to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment. See State of Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. Resweber, 329 U.S. 459, 463 (1947).
14

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 63 Filed: 03/19/20 15 of 20 PageID #: 1101
inmate health or safety, “even if the harm ultimately was not averted.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 84445. In other words, MDOC cannot guarantee that COVID-19 will not eventually infiltrate Parchman. But as required, MDOC is taking all necessary and reasonable precautions to protect inmates and MDOC staff. Plaintiffs have presented no evidence to show otherwise, much less evidence that Parchman officials are ignoring the issue and failing to take reasonable measures.15
While there is limited case law in the Fifth Circuit discussing and applying the deliberate indifference standard to viral outbreaks on the scale of COVID-19, some guidance can be found in cases arising out of the swine flu epidemic that impacted prisons in 2009. Courts have recognized that prisons may not ultimately be able to prevent the introduction of diseases like COVID-19 into the population, but corrections officials are expected to take reasonable steps to prevent inmates from being exposed, just like MDOC is doing now. “Absent any indication that the defendants ignored willfully the swine flu outbreak in their facilities, the plaintiff’s infection, though unfortunate, is insufficient to support an Eighth Amendment claim.” Ayala v. NYC Dep’t of Corr., 2011 WL 2015499, *2 (S.D.N.Y. May 9, 2011) (prisoner who contracted swine flu could not prevail on deliberate indifference claim because prison officials took reasonable measures to sanitize contaminated facility and prevent inmate infections); Jackson v. Rikers Island Facility, 2011 WL 3370205, *2–3 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 2, 2011) (corrections officials were not deliberately indifferent to prisoner’s medical needs when they responded timely to request for swine flu treatment); Washington v. Harrington, 2012 WL 3763964, *2–6 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2012), aff’d, 549 F. App’x 679 (9th Cir. 2013) (inmate suffering from asthma could not state
15 As stated, “there is no Eighth Amendment violation if the official ‘responded reasonably to the risk, even if the harm ultimately was not averted.” Johnson, 385 F.3d at 525 (quoting Farmer, 511 U.S. at 844). “Prison administrators . . . should be accorded wide-ranging deference in the adoption and execution of policies and practices that in their judgment are needed to preserve internal order and discipline and to maintain institutional security.” Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 547 (1979).
15

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 63 Filed: 03/19/20 16 of 20 PageID #: 1102
deliberate indifference claim where symptoms of swine flu were recognized and monitored and inmate was transferred outside of prison for medical treatment).
It is clear that MDOC is working dutifully to prevent the infiltration of COVID-19 and to install effective protocols should inmates or MDOC staff become infected. See Ex. A, B, and C. Accordingly, it is not substantially likely that Plaintiffs will be able to show that MDOC or Defendants have acted with deliberate indifference to the risks of COVID-19. For that reason alone, the Court should deny the Motion.
b. Plaintiffs have not established a substantial threat that they will suffer irreparable harm unless their requested “relief” is granted.
“Perhaps the single most important prerequisite for the issuance of a preliminary injunction is a demonstration that if it is not granted the applicant is likely to suffer irreparable harm before a decision on the merits can be rendered.” Trinity USA Operating, LLC v. Barker, 844 F. Supp. 2d 781, 786 (S.D. Miss. 2011) (quotation omitted). The test is whether there is a substantial threat that Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm unless the Court grants the requested relief. But Plaintiffs have offered no support to show that their requested relief would operate to prevent COVID-19 better than the measures currently being implemented by MDOC and Centurion. See Ex. A, B, and C. Plaintiffs’ many, conclusory allegations are wholly insufficient to meet the “heavy burden” under this element.
“Without question, the irreparable harm element must be satisfied by independent proof, or no injunction may issue.” White v. Carlucci, 862 F.2d 1209, 1211 (5th Cir. 1989) (emphasis added). Plaintiffs set forth no such “independent proof” of irreparable harm. “Indeed, where no irreparable injury is alleged and proved, denial of a preliminary injunction is appropriate.” Canal Auth., 489 F.2d at 574. Plaintiffs have simply not shown that there is a substantial threat that they will suffer irreparable harm unless their requested “relief” is granted. Plaintiffs offer no support
16

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 63 Filed: 03/19/20 17 of 20 PageID #: 1103
to show that their requested measures are as effective or are more effective than MDOC’s current protocols. In fact, the only exhibit utilized by Plaintiffs that mentions their specific requests is a declaration from Dr. Marc Stern, but Dr. Stern does not allege that MDOC’s current preventative measures related to COVID-19 are inadequate. See Doc. 59-6.16 In other words, Plaintiffs have not shown, or even alleged, that MDOC’s actions regarding COVID-19 are inadequate and will cause harm to Plaintiffs absent Court intervention. Therefore, the Court should deny the Motion.
c. Interfering with MDOC internal operations based only on Plaintiffs’ suggestion, without factual backing, that MDOC should take alternative measures to protect inmates is harmful to the public and unlawful.
Because Mississippi’s interest is indistinguishable from the “public’s interest,” the final two prerequisites of the Canal Authority test are considered together. Plaintiffs must make a “clear showing,” White, 862 F.2d at 1211, “that the threatened injury to plaintiff outweighs the threatened harm the injunction may do to defendant; and . . . that granting the preliminary injunction will not disserve the public interest.” Canal Auth., 489 F.2d at 572. The public interest would be best served by implementing MDOC’s own measures without further interference, and Plaintiffs have failed to make a “clear showing” that their proposed measures would serve the public (or even their own) interest. White, 862 F.2d at 1211.
As Congress’s passage of the PLRA demonstrates, it is in the public’s interest that prison officials are free to institute measures to promote the safety of inmates, staff, and the public without “micromanage[ment]” from plaintiffs or federal courts. Gates, 376 F.3d at 338; Bell, 441 U.S. at 562. With regard to public interest analysis, “[c]onsiderations of federalism weigh heavily against interference by federal courts through the issuance of preliminary injunctions against state agencies.” Edwards v. Livingston, 2016 WL 7674806, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 14,
16 Plaintiffs have offered nothing to show that any of the Plaintiffs are of a particular age, or have a particular health history, that makes them especially susceptible to contracting COVID-19. In fact, of the named Plaintiffs who are still residing at Parchman, the oldest is 53 years old.
17

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 63 Filed: 03/19/20 18 of 20 PageID #: 1104
2016). Even before the PLRA, the Fifth Circuit stated “courts are ill-equipped to deal with the increasingly urgent problems of prison administration . . . and that it is not wise . . . to secondguess the expert (or any other) administrators on matters on which they are better informed.” Jones, 636 F.2d at 1368 (quotation omitted). “Proper respect for the State and for its governmental processes requires that the . . . court exercise its jurisdiction to accord the State considerable latitude to find mechanisms and make plans to correct the violations in a prompt and effective way consistent with public safety.” Brown v. Plata, 563 U.S. 493, 543 (2011); Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 362 (1996) (federal courts should not allow themselves to become “enmeshed in the minutiae of prison operations”).
To be frank, the exigencies of COVID-19 require that prison officials devote all their resources to meeting the COVID-19 threat head-on, not to responding to requests for measures that MDOC is already implementing, that are inappropriate, or that are not feasible. To be sure, the threatened injury to the public, inmates, and staff from COVID-19 is significant, and MDOC is acting reasonably to attempt to prevent the infiltration of COVID-19 into Parchman and to ameliorate damage of any infiltration. Yet, having the Court interfere with MDOC operations every time Plaintiffs believe they might do something differently than MDOC is harmful and unlawful. Here, as in other cases, “interference with prison operations in such circumstances would not be in the public’s interest as it would be a waste of judicial resources micromanaging prison affairs.” Valigura v. Mendoza, 2005 WL 3279275, at *2 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 2, 2005).
As shown, the public interest, as well as the interests of Plaintiffs, will be best served by permitting MDOC to continue to implement their protocols. See Ex. A, B, and C. The Fifth Circuit requires that courts do not “second-guess the expert (or any other) administrators on matters on which they are better informed.” Jones, 636 F.2d at 1368. Here, MDOC is far more
18

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 63 Filed: 03/19/20 19 of 20 PageID #: 1105
informed than Plaintiffs with regard to appropriate COVID-19 measures at Parchman. MDOC is on the front lines of prevention and has been collaborating with top health officials, including the CDC, Mississippi Department of Health, and United States Department of Security regarding measures to prevent and reduce COVID-19. Ex. A. MDOC is collaborating with Centurion to ensure that the most up-to-date data and guidance from public health officials is gathered, studied, and followed if appropriate. Ex. B and C. The public interest would not be better served by following Plaintiffs’ uninformed recommendations. Accordingly, the Court should deny Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction.
CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed above, Defendants respectfully request that the Court deny Plaintiffs’ motion for temporary restraining order and mandatory preliminary injunction as to COVID-19 and request such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate under the circumstances. Date: March 19, 2020.
Respectfully submitted, TOMMY TAYLOR, in his official capacity as the Interim Commissioner of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, and MARSHAL TURNER, in his official capacity as the Superintendent of the Mississippi State Penitentiary By: /s/ Trey Jones William Trey Jones, III One of Their Attorneys
19

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 63 Filed: 03/19/20 20 of 20 PageID #: 1106
OF COUNSEL: R. David Kaufman (MSB #3526) dkaufman@brunini.com William Trey Jones, III (MSB #99185) tjones@brunini.com Karen E. Howell (MSB #102243) khowell@brunini.com Cody C. Bailey (MSB #103718) cbailey@brunini.com Jacob A. Bradley (MSB #105541) jbradley@brunini.com BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC The Pinnacle Building, Suite 100 190 East Capitol Street (39201) Post Office Drawer 119 Jackson, Mississippi 39205 Telephone: (601) 948-3101 Facsimile: (601) 960-6902
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Trey Jones, hereby certify that on March 19, 2020, I caused the foregoing pleading to be electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to all counsel of record and registered participants.
/s/ Trey Jones William Trey Jones, III One of the Attorneys for the Defendants
20

 
 Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 70 Filed: 04/07/20 1 of 2 PageID #: 1246

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

MICHAEL AMOS, et al.

PLAINTIFFS

V.

NO. 4:20-CV-7-DMB-JMV

TOMMY TAYLOR, et al.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER On March 16, 2020, the plaintiffs filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and mandatory preliminary injunction. Doc. #59. The motion seeks an “order directing mandatory and affirmative action to safeguard Plaintiffs at Parchman from SARS-CoV-2, also known as, COVID-19.” Doc. #59. Specifically, the plaintiffs argue the defendants should be required to implement certain rules and procedures designed to prevent the spread of COVID-19 at Parchman. After this Court directed expedited briefing on the motion, the defendants filed a response on March 19, 2020, Doc. #62, and the plaintiffs replied a day later, Doc. #64. Three days after the completion of the expedited briefing, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued a document titled, “Interim Guidance on Management of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Correctional and Detention Facilities.”1 To issue a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction, a court must find (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a substantial threat of irreparable injury in the absence of injunctive relief; (3) the threatened injury outweighs the harm in granting the injunction; and (4) granting the injunction would not harm the public interest. Janvey v. Alguire, 647 F.3d 585, 595 (5th Cir. 2011) (elements for preliminary injunction); Turner v. Epps, 460 F. App’x 322, 325 n.3 (5th Cir. 2012) (elements for TRO). When inmate plaintiffs have asserted

1 Accessible at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/downloads/guidance-correctional-detention.pdf.

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 70 Filed: 04/07/20 2 of 2 PageID #: 1247 claims of deliberate indifference to medical needs, injunctive relief may be appropriate during an infectious outbreak based on prison officials’ “known noncompliance with generally accepted guidelines for inmate health.” Hernandez v. Cty. of Monterey, 110 F. Supp. 3d 929, 943 (N.D. Cal. 2015). Such guidelines may include CDC publications. Id.
Based on the authority above and the CDC’s recent publication, the plaintiffs are DIRECTED to file a supplemental brief, supported by competent evidence, addressing the extent to which Parchman officials are not in compliance with the CDC’s Interim Guidance, or should be required to implement measures beyond what the CDC’s Interim Guidance recommends. The plaintiffs’ brief shall be filed on or before April 13, 2020. The defendants shall file a response brief, also supported by competent evidence, within forty-eight (48) hours of the filing of the plaintiffs’ supplement.
SO ORDERED, this 7th day of April, 2020. /s/Debra M. Brown UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2

 
 Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74 Filed: 04/13/20 1 of 22 PageID #: 1254

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION

MICHAEL AMOS, ET AL.

PLAINTIFFS

V.

CASE NO. 4:20-CV-007-DMB-JMV

TOMMY TAYLOR, ET AL.

DEFENDANTS

PLAINTIFFS’ SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND
MANDATORY PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AS TO COVID-19

Pursuant to the Court’s order dated April 7, 2020 [Dkt. # 70], Plaintiffs respectfully submit

this Supplemental Brief, along with competent evidence, in support of their Emergency Motion

for Temporary Restraining Order and Mandatory Preliminary Injunction as to COVID-19 [Dkt. #

59], which collectively show that Defendants have not effectively implemented adequate measures

to protect the health and safety of inmates at Parchman from COVID-19 including, without

limitation, the recommendations found in the Centers For Disease Control and Prevention’s

(“CDC”) Interim Guidance on Management of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in

Correctional and Detention Facilities (“March 23, 2020”) (“COVID-19 Guidelines”)[Ex. A].

INTRODUCTION & FACTS

In their Memorandum in Response, dated March 19, 2020 [Dkt. # 63], Defendants claim

that “MDOC is on the front lines of prevention and has been collaborating with top health officials,

including the CDC … regarding measures to prevent and reduce COVID-19.” Dkt. # 63, p. 19.

Four days later, on March 23, 2020, the CDC issued its COVID-19 Guidelines for correctional

facilities. Now, three weeks have passed since the CDC issued its COVID-19 Guidelines, and

Defendants have yet to implement, much less effectively perform, the most rudimentary protective

measures required by the CDC’s COVID-19 Guidelines.

Defendants plainly are on the front lines, as inmates are far more at risk than other persons,

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74 Filed: 04/13/20 2 of 22 PageID #: 1255
but Defendants’ response to COVID-19 has been anything but heroic. Despite the known health risks of COVID-19, and despite the particular susceptibility of the incarcerated, Defendants for over three weeks have failed to implement effectively the CDC’s COVID-19 Guidelines at Parchman while simultaneously claiming a close collaboration with the CDC since mid-March 2020. This failure by Defendants cannot be viewed as anything but deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm to Plaintiffs in violation of their Constitutional rights under the 8th and 14th Amendments.
As of the dates of the affidavits and affirmations submitted herewith,1 Defendants have not effectively implemented at Parchman: (1) the CDC’s COVID-19 Guidelines; (2) MDOC/Centurion’s own protective policies and procedures (“Centurion Plan”); or (3) the protective measures Defendants claimed in their Memorandum in Support [Dkt. # 63] they were in the process of implementing on March 19, 2020. Plaintiffs respectfully submit that preliminary injunctive relief is necessary and appropriate under the circumstances in order to ensure that Defendants fully and immediately implement protective measures at Parchman including the CDC’s COVID-19 Guidelines.
CDC’S COVID-19 GUIDELINES ARE NOT BEING FOLLOWED AT PARCHMAN The CDC’s COVID-19 Guidelines contain numerous recommendations, of which
Defendants have known at least since March 23, 2020, but which have not been implemented at Parchman. The Guidelines breakdown into three major categories:
1Plaintiffs have attached hereto the best evidence available to them within the deadline provided in the Court’s order dated April 7, 2020. Not surprisingly, gathering evidence in an environment where Defendants, who have a vested interest in the evidence not coming to light, wholly control access to the evidence by virtue of walls, barbed wire and armed guards, is challenging to say the least.
2

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74 Filed: 04/13/20 3 of 22 PageID #: 1256
See Ex. B, CDC Powerpoint Slides on CDC Guidance and Management of COVID-19 in Correctional and Detention Facilities, at Slide 4 (March 23, 2020). Because it is well past the time for Parchman to properly “Prepare” ahead of this pandemic, this briefing focuses on necessary measures found under the second and third categories of Prevention and Management. MDOC’s failure to implement these crucial measures has, by turn, placed the health and safety of residents and employees of Parchman in dire jeopardy. More specifically:
Category 2: Prevent (Hygiene, Cleaning, Screening for Symptoms, Social Distancing) 1. The CDC Guidelines recommend the following categorized measures of
“Prevention”: (1) ramping up cleaning schedules and hand hygiene reminders; (2) limiting transfers; (3) screening everyone coming in for symptoms (new intakes, staff, visitors), (4) implementing social distancing, (5) making sure everyone knows what to do if they have symptoms; and (6) encouraging non-contact visits or suspending visitation. See Ex A at 8-13; Ex. B at Slide 8.
2. The CDC’s COVID-19 Guidelines recommend that Parchman “[p]erform verbal screening (for COVID-19 symptoms and close contact with cases) and temperature checks for all visitors and volunteers on entry.” See Ex. A at 13. Defendants claim they are screening everyone who enters Parchman every day to determine whether each person has any symptoms of COVID19. See [Dkt. # 63] at 9. However, the evidence shows that on March 24 and 25, 2020, visitors entering Parchman were transported as a group to the main gate, where an MDOC correctional
3

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74 Filed: 04/13/20 4 of 22 PageID #: 1257
officer purportedly performed a COVID-19 screening while simultaneously performing a vehicle security check. The officer was not wearing any PPE, did not ask any of the verbal screening questions, and repeatedly failed to disinfect the “contact thermometer” between each person’s temperature check. See Ex. E, Aff. of Daniel R. Sullivan, at¶ 3; Ex. F, Aff. Greg McMahon, at¶ 2.
3. The CDC’s COVID-19 Guidelines recommend that all staff members be screened upon entry into Parchman. Indeed, Defendants represented to the Court in their Memorandum in Response on March 19, 2020, that “MDOC officers and other staff are screened daily upon entering Parchman for symptoms and other indicators of exposure to COVID-19.” See [Dkt. # 63] at 3; [Dkt. # 62-1] at 14. “The screening process includes questions about each staff member’s symptoms, if any, including headaches, fevers, coughing, shortness of breath, and trouble breathing.” See [Dkt. # 63] at 3; [Dkt. # 62-1] at 14. However, vehicles containing MDOC staff and/or contractors were witnessed on March 24 and 25, 2020, entering Parchman without any verbal screening or temperature check of the occupants. See Ex. E at 3-5; Ex. F at 3.
4. The CDC’s COVID-19 Guidelines recommend that signage be placed throughout the facility describing “symptoms of COVID-19 and hand hygiene instructions.” See Ex. A at 6. As of March 25, 2020, the Parchman visitor intake center had no signage inside and a single poster outside noting the symptoms of COVID-19. See Ex. E at 3; Ex. F at 2. Moreover, the visitor intake center does not have any signage, inside or outside, communicating “hand hygiene instructions.” See Ex. E at 3; Ex. F at 2.
5. The CDC’s COVID-19 Guidelines recommend that Parchman, “several times per day, clean and disinfect surfaces and objects that are frequently touched, especially in common areas. Such surfaces may include objects/surfaces not ordinarily cleaned daily (e.g., doorknobs, light switches, sink handles, countertops, toilets, toilet handles, recreation equipment, kiosks, and telephones).” See Ex. A at 9; see also [Dkt. # 62-1] at 18. According to inmates, no measures have
4

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74 Filed: 04/13/20 5 of 22 PageID #: 1258
been taken since the COVID-19 outbreak to disinfect bunk areas in Unit 30. See, e.g., Ex. C collective Affirmations of Parchman Inmates dated April 10, 2020 and Ex. D, collective Declarations of Parchman Inmates dated April 14, 2020.2 Upon information and belief, no such measures have been taken in any other unit at Parchman either. While the CDC recommends cleaning and disinfecting “several times per day,” MDOC represents only that it “has thoroughly cleaned and sanitized all areas at Parchman and will continue to do so” on some unspecified schedule that, based on inmate testimony, clearly does not conform to the CDC’s recommendations. See [Dkt. # 63] at 4.
6. The CDC’s COVID-19 Guidelines recommend that Parchman “[r]einforce healthy hygiene practices, and provide and continually restock hygiene supplies throughout the facility, including in bathrooms, food preparation and dining areas, intake areas, visitor entries and exits, visitation rooms and waiting rooms, common areas, medical and staff-restricted areas (e.g., break rooms).” See Ex. A at 10. Moreover, the CDC recommends “alcohol-based hand sanitizer with at least 60% alcohol in visitor entrances, exits, and waiting areas.” See Ex. A at 13. However, the visitor intake center remains devoid of any hand sanitizer including at the entrance, in the waiting room, and at the exit. See Ex. E at 3; Ex. F at 2. The visitor intake center restrooms were similarly lacking proper hand washing materials. The men’s visitor intake center restroom contains no hand soap of any kind. See Ex. E at 3; Ex. F at 2.
7. The CDC’s COVID-19 Guidelines recommend additional soap for inmates (preferably liquid), hand drying machines or paper towels, facial tissues, and no-touch trashcans. See Ex. A 10; see also [Dkt. # 62-1] at 18. Further, according to the CDC, Parchman is to provide
2 Due to the access limitations and constraints to clients at Parchman, the unsworn inmate declarations submitted as Exhibit D will be substituted April 14, 2020 for Exhibit D.
5

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74 Filed: 04/13/20 6 of 22 PageID #: 1259
“a no-cost supply of soap to incarcerated/detained persons, sufficient to allow frequent hand washing.” See Ex. A at 8. In contrast, Unit 30 inmates have been issued two bars of soap—instead of one—which is far from sufficient to support “frequent hand washing.” See, e.g., Exs. C, D. Moreover, Unit 30 inmates have received no hand-drying machines or paper towels, no facial tissues, and no no-touch trashcans. See, e.g., Exs. C, D. These practices are inconsistent with the CDC Guidelines as well as Defendants’ representation in their Memorandum in Response stating that, “MDOC has provided extra supplies of liquid and solid soap to inmates to ensure that each inmate’s supply is sufficient to follow the recommended universal common health practices outlined above.” See [Dkt. # 63] at 3.
8. The CDC’s COVID-19 Guidelines recommend social distancing in correctional facilities. However, what should have been the first 7 days of quarantine, inmates in Unit 30 ate their meals together in the dining hall and were not staggered to achieve social distancing. See [Dkt. # 62-01]18. The only exception to this described by inmates interviewed on April 10, 2020, was the one-week period from April 2 to April 9, when they were put on quarantine. Now that quarantine has ended, meals are once again taking place in the dining halls without any staggering for social distancing. See Exs. C, D. Moreover, the bunking arrangements are the same. See, e.g., Exs. C, D. In some areas, 108 inmates sleep approximately 1 ½ feet apart without even rearranging to sleep in a head to foot configuration rather than head to head. See, e.g., Exs. C, D.
Category 3: Manage (Information, Identification, Isolation, Infection Control) 9. The CDC Guidelines recommend the following categorized measures of “Management”: (1) suspending all non-medical transfers; (2) masking and medically isolating symptomatic people; (3) integrating screening into release planning; (4) coordinating with public health; (5) identifying and quarantining close contacts; (6) wearing recommended PPE; (7) providing clinical care or transfer for care; and (8) communicating clearly and often. See Ex. A at
6

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74 Filed: 04/13/20 7 of 22 PageID #: 1260
14-26; Ex. B at Slide 12. 10. The CDC’s COVID-19 Guidelines recommend that “incarcerated/detained
individuals with COVID-19 symptoms should wear a face mask and should be placed in medical isolation immediately.” See Ex. A at 15. At least on inmate who was exhibiting symptoms was temporarily transferred to Unit 42, returned with a mask, however, is not made to wear it. See, e.g., Exs. C, D. Further, no one in close proximity to him have been given any information of whether he was tested even if so, they were not made aware of the results. Moreover, Unit 30 inmates who have been exhibiting symptoms have neither been issued face masks, nor placed in medical isolation, nor tested for COVID-19. See, e.g., Exs. C, D.
11. The CDC’s COVID-19 Guidelines recommend that Parchman “medical staff should evaluate symptomatic individuals to determine whether COVID-19 testing is indicated.” See Ex. A at 22. Moreover, Defendants in their Memorandum in Response represented to the Court that “MDOC officers are currently actively monitoring inmates for symptoms of COVID-19, such as headaches, fevers, coughing, shortness of breath, and trouble breathing.” See [Dkt. # 63] at 3. However, inmates reporting symptoms to staff have been rebuffed by staff rather than evaluated by medical staff. See, e.g., Exs. C, D.
12. Finally, Defendants claim in their Memorandum in Response that they have “the Centurion Plan” that contains the “best practices for diagnosis, treatment, and management of conditions related to infectious diseases such as COVID-19.” See [Dkt. # 63] at 9. However, the mere presence of a plan is not the same as the effective implementation of that plan, and the evidence provided herein shows that Defendants are not adhering either to their own policies or those of the CDC’s COVID-19 Guidelines.
13. The CDC’s COVID-19 Guidelines recommend that Parchman “[p]rovide up-todate information about COVID-19 to incarcerated/detained persons on a regular basis, including:
7

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74 Filed: 04/13/20 8 of 22 PageID #: 1261
Symptoms of COVID-19 and its health risks [and] [r]eminders to report COVID-19 symptoms to staff at the first sign of illness.” See Ex. A at 12. See [Dkt. # 62-1] at 16,18. However, inmates housed in Unit 30 did not receive any information concerning COVID-19 until April 2, 2020 – nearly two weeks after the CDC issued its COVID-19 Guidelines and even longer since the Defendants knew about the pandemic. See, e.g., Exs. C, D. Additionally, on April 8, 2020, counsel for Defendant’s represented the following:
“…an officer who has previously worked in Units 30C and 30D reported that he/she was inadvertently exposed to someone with COVID-19 symptoms while the officer was at a location outside of Parchman. Out of an abundance of caution, Parchman placed those two units on quarantine. The 14-day quarantine period ends tomorrow, April 9, and that is why you will be allowed to visit with your clients from those units on Friday, April 10. Please follow all Parchman safety guidelines regarding personal protective equipment for your attorney-client visits…” See Ex. G, Collective Email Correspondence from Defense counsel. To the contrary, all inmates who Plaintiffs’ counsel have met with since April 9, 2020, denied any knowledge of a quarantine for the period of March 26 through April 1. See, e.g., Exs. C, D. 14. Moreover, none of the eight inmates interviewed on April 10, 2020, were aware that medical co-pays had been waived for COVID-19. See, e.g., Exs. C, D. This is inconsistent with the CDC’s COVID-19 Guidelines and Defendants’ representation to the Court in their Response stating, “MDOC is educating staff and inmates regarding the above-referenced universal common health practices.” See [Dkt. # 63] at 4. 15. Finally, the CDC COVID-19 Guidelines recommend that laundry be washed in the Parchman’s laundry facility in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. See Ex. A at 18. The Centurion Plan further states that the operational functions and temperature of laundry
8

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74 Filed: 04/13/20 9 of 22 PageID #: 1262
equipment will be validated to ensure proper laundry sanitation. See [Dkt. # 62-1] at 12. Despite those recommended measures, inmates in Unit 30 are still using sinks and showers to wash their laundry. See, e.g., Exs. C, D.
ARGUMENT I. A Temporary Restraining Order / Permanent Injunction is Appropriate
A temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction should issue when Plaintiffs demonstrate “(1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a substantial threat of irreparable injury in the absence of injunctive relief; (3) the threatened injury outweighs the harm in granting the injunction; and (4) granting the injunction would not harm the public interest. Janvey v. Alguire, 647 F.3d 585, 595 (5th Cir. 2011) (elements for preliminary injunction); Turner v. Epps, 460 F. App’x 322, 325 n.3 (5th Cir. 2012) (elements for TRO).” See [Dkt. # 70] at 1. “When inmate plaintiffs have asserted claims of deliberate indifference to medical needs, injunctive relief may be appropriate during an infectious outbreak based on prison officials’ ‘known noncompliance with generally accepted guidelines for inmate health.’ Hernandez v. Cty. of Monterey, 110 F. Supp. 3d 929, 943 (N.D. Cal. 2015). Such guidelines may include CDC publications. Id.” See [Dkt. # 70] at 2.
The evidence provided herein proves (1) “a substantial likelihood of success on the merits” in that Defendants are not following the most basic guidelines recommended by the CDC, required by MDOC’s Centurion Plan, and promised by Defendants in their Memorandum in Response to the Court; (2) “a substantial threat of irreparable injury in the absence of injunctive relief” in that COVID-19 can cause pain, suffering, permanent injury, and even death, which courts have deemed irreparable; (3) “the threatened injury outweighs the harm in granting the injunction” in that the “harm” to Defendants is monetary, if any; and (4) “granting the injunction would not harm the public interest” as protecting constitutional rights, inmates, prison staff and the surrounding
9

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74 Filed: 04/13/20 10 of 22 PageID #: 1263
communities are always in the public interest. A. Plaintiffs Have a Substantial Likelihood of Success on the Merits. Plaintiffs have a substantial likelihood of success on the merits such that the Court should
not wait for a trial on the merits to provide the relief necessary to protect Plaintiffs from a substantial threat of serious, imminent harm.
Plaintiffs have provided the Court with evidence that Defendants’ policies and practices at Parchman do not conform to the standards of the CDC and others, including MDOC’s Centurion Plan, “creating an excessive risk of harm to all inmates as well as other community members.” Hernandez v. Cty. of Monterey, 110 F. Supp. 3d 929, 943 (N.D. Cal. 2015). Indeed, Defendants are largely ignoring the best practices established by the CDC for preventing the spread of COVID19 at Parchman. While the CDC’s COVID-19 Guidelines are not “mandatory” regulations or standards, “known noncompliance with generally accepted guidelines for inmate health strongly indicates deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm.” Id. at 942-3 (emphasis added). At least since the CDC released its guidelines for COVID-19 on March 23, 2020, Defendants have known about the risks of harm but have not changed their practices. Id. at 943. To the extent it is uncertain whether confirmed cases of COVID-19 have occurred at Parchman, “prison officials may not ‘ignore a condition of confinement that is sure or very likely to cause serious illness and needless suffering next week or month or year,’ merely because no harm has yet occurred.” Id. at 945 (quoting Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 35, 113 S.Ct. 2475, 125 L.Ed.2d 22 (1993)). In sum, it is substantially likely that the Court after a trial on the merits will order Defendants to conform to the CDC’s COVID-19 Guidelines, and indeed their own Centurion Plan, for the protection of inmates, but unfortunately by that time it will be far too late to avoid the irreparable harm facing Plaintiffs currently.
B. Substantial Threat of Irreparable Harm Absent Injunctive Relief
10

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74 Filed: 04/13/20 11 of 22 PageID #: 1264
Plaintiffs are likely to suffer irreparable harm absent preliminary injunctive relief. In making this determination, “[t]he court must consider the injury the plaintiff will suffer if he or she loses on the preliminary injunction but ultimately prevails on the merits, particularly attending to whether the ‘remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury.” Id. at 957. With COVID-19, the injuries at issue are pain, suffering, lung damage, and potentially death, which certainly constitute irreparable harm that cannot be compensated adequately by monetary damages. Id. at 956 (“pain, suffering and the risk of death constitute ‘irreparable harm’ sufficient to support a preliminary injunction in prison cases.”). Moreover, it is not only inmates who are at risk of irreparable harm, but “community members are at risk without proper … identification, isolation, diagnosis and treatment.” Id. at 957. “Injunctive relief is appropriate ‘to prevent a substantial risk of serious injury from ripening into actual harm.’” Thomas v. Bryant, 614 F.3d 1288, 1318 (11th Cir. 2010)(quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 845 (1994))); see also Hoffer v. Jones, 290 F. Supp. 3d 1292, 1304 (N.D. Fla. 2017) (holding that prisoners will “undoubtedly suffer irreparable injury” if not treated properly for the Hepatitis C virus because, left untreated, the virus causes liver damage). Moreover, “[t]he existence of a continuing constitutional violation constitutes proof of an irreparable harm.” Laube v. Haley, 234 F. Supp. 2d 1227, 1251 (M.D. Ala. 2002) (finding irreparable harm prong of preliminaryinjunction test satisfied where plaintiffs made showing that prisoners were living in overcrowded and understaffed conditions in violation of Eighth Amendment).3
C. Threatened Injury Outweighs the Harm in Granting the Injunction
3 Indeed, other courts are granting preliminary injunctions in response to COVID-19 based on a recognition that the risk of exposure in the prison context constitutes an irreparable harm. See supra note 2 (collecting cases granting emergency release from custody to inmates exposed to coronavirus); see also Swain, et al. v. Junior, et al., 2020 WL 1692668 (S.D. Fla. April 7, 2020) (granting preliminary injunction in response to COVID-19).
11

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74 Filed: 04/13/20 12 of 22 PageID #: 1265
The risk of serious injury or death to inmates, Parchman staff, and the surrounding communities far outweighs any harm Defendants may suffer as a result of a temporary injunction requiring them to adopt the CDC’s COVID-19 Guidelines.4 Indeed, the only “harm” to Defendants as a result of the injunctive relief requested herein, if any, would be the monetary cost of having to buy new supplies and implement new measures. The courts have rejected this as a defense. “Lack of funds for facilities cannot justify an unconstitutional lack of competent medical care and treatment for inmates.” Ancata v. Prison Health Servs. Inc., 769 F.2d 700, 705 (11th Cir. 1985); see also Hoffer, 290 F. Supp. 3d at 1304 (finding balance of harms weighed in favor of plaintiffs seeking injunction against Florida Department of Corrections for inadequate treatment of Hepatitis C because “the only harm facing FDC is that it will have to spend more money than it wants to.”); Laube, 234 F. Supp. 2d at 1252 (“The threat of harm to the plaintiffs cannot be outweighed by the risk of financial burden or administrative inconvenience to the defendants.”). “The balance of hardships tips sharply in Plaintiffs’ favor” when one considers that both “inmates, [prison staff], and [the surrounding] community members are at risk without proper … identification, isolation, diagnosis and treatment.” Id. at 957; see also Laube, 234 F. Supp. 2d at 1252 (finding that “defendants will suffer no harm from providing sufficient staff and adequate facilities” and “[i]n fact, officers employed by the defendants face an extremely dangerous situation, and they, too, will benefit from injunctive relief”).
D. Granting the Injunction Will Serve the Public Interest “[I]t is always in the public interest to prevent the violation of a party’s constitutional rights.” Hernandez, 110 F. Supp. 3d at 958; see also Melendres v. Arpaio, 695 F.3d 990, 1002 (9th
4 Many of Defendants’ own policies for the management of a pandemic, which are Centurion’s policies, mirror the CDC’s COVID-19 Guidelines. Thus, there can be no “harm” in requiring Defendants to adhere to their own policies.
12

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74 Filed: 04/13/20 13 of 22 PageID #: 1266
Cir. 2012) (citation omitted); Awad v. Ziriax, 670 F.3d 1111, 1132 (10th Cir. 2012). “But given the risk [also] to jail staff and the community from the spread of communicable diseases, … the public interest is advanced [even further in this instance] by a preliminary injunction.” Id. II. Plaintiffs’ Constitutional Rights Are Being Violated.
The government has an Eighth Amendment duty to protect those it detains. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994); Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). “A jail violates both Amendments [8th and 14th] if it ‘incarcerates inmates under conditions posing a substantial risk of serious harm to their health or safety (the objective prong), and if Defendants acted with deliberate indifference, that is, with conscious disregard for that risk (the subjective prong).’” Hernandez, 110 F.Supp.3d at 934 (quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994)); Lane v. Philbin, 835 F.3d 13012, 1307 (11th Cir. 2016) (requiring for an Eighth Amendment violation: a substantial risk of serious harm, deliberate indifference to that risk of serious harm, and causation). Unsafe conditions that “pose an unreasonable risk of serious damage to [a prisoner’s] future health” may satisfy this objective prong and show violation of the Eighth Amendment, even if the damage has not yet occurred and may not affect every prisoner exposed to the conditions. See Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 35 (1993); see also Truss v. Warden, 684 F. App’x 794, 796 (11th Cir. 2017) (recognizing that exposure to a disease can constitute a substantial risk of serious harm).
A. Risk of Serious Harm. A plaintiff satisfies the “risk of serious harm” requirement when conditions are “extreme and pose an unreasonable risk of serious injury to his future health or safety.” Lane, 835 F.3d at 1307. There can be no doubt that COVID-19 is such a threat, as it is a novel virus with no vaccine, no effective treatment, and no cure. Health professionals across the globe report hat the disease can cause severe pain and respiratory distress even in mild cases. For those who recover, the virus
13

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74 Filed: 04/13/20 14 of 22 PageID #: 1267
can cause permanent damage to the lungs. In severe cases, pneumonia and inflammation of the
lungs have required days or weeks attached to a ventilator. Finally, in the most severe causes,
COVID-19 results in death at an estimated rate 10 times higher than influenza.5
Moreover, the risk of contracting COVID-19 once exposed is extreme. Across the country,
cities, states including Mississippi, and the federal government have issued “shelter in place”
orders closing public schools until further notice, shutting down all non-essential businesses,
banning people from eating in restaurants or otherwise congregating in groups, and requiring
individuals to stay in their homes unless it is absolutely necessary to leave. Even when they leave,
people are advised to stay at least six feet from other individuals, wear masks to prevent the risk
of transmission through the air, avoid touching their faces while outside, and wash their hands
immediately after returning home. These measures are unprecedented in the United States, and the
message gleaned from these extreme measures is clear: COVID-19 is extremely contagious and
can be extremely dangerous once contracted. Numerous courts around the country have recognized
the foregoing and have acted in recent days to grant extraordinary relief to incarcerated or detained
individuals whose risk of contracting COVID-19 in confinement was found to constitute an
unreasonable risk.6
5See, e.g., Testimony of Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) before House Oversight and Reform Committee (Mar. 12, 2020), https://oversight.house.gov/legislation/hearings/coronavirus-preparedness-and-response; Joseph Guzman, Coronavirus 10 times more lethal than seasonal flu, top health official says, The Hill (Mar. 11, 2020) https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/prevention-cures/487086-coronavirus-10-times-morelethal-than-seasonal. 6See, e.g., United States v. Grobman, No. 18-cr-20989, Dkt. No. 397 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 29, 2020); United States v. Perez, 17-cr-513-3 (AT) (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 1, 2020); United States v. Underwood, No. 8:18-cr-201TDC, Dkt. No. 179 (D. Md. Mar. 31, 2020); Thakker v. Doll, 20-cv-480 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 31, 2020), ECF No. 47; Castillo et al. v. Barr, 5:20-cv-00605, ECF Doc. 32 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2020); United States v. Meekins, Case No. 1:18-cr-222-APM, Dkt. No. 75 (D.D.C. Mar. 31, 2020); United States v. Marin, No. 15cr-252, Dkt. No. 1326 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2020); United States v. Davis, No. 1:20-cr-9-ELH, Dkt. No. 21, 2020 WL 1529158 (D. Md. Mar. 30, 2020); United States v. Muniz, Case No. 4:09-cr-199, Dkt. No. 578 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 30, 2020); United States v. Bolston, No. 1:18-cr-382-MLB, Dkt. No. 20 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 30, 2020); United States v. Mclean, No. 19-cr-380, Dkt. No. (D.D.C. Mar. 28, 2020); United States v.
14

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74 Filed: 04/13/20 15 of 22 PageID #: 1268
B. Deliberate Indifference.
Defendants have acted with deliberate indifference toward the health and safety of inmates,
staff, and the surrounding communities because they have consciously disregarded widely-
accepted, available protections against COVID-19 despite knowledge of its severe risks.
Defendants have known of the seriousness of COVID-19 for months through public health
briefings, state and federal government orders,7 as well as untold numbers of news articles and
stories.8 Indeed, MDOC’s own communications and announcements confirm this awareness.9
On March 23, 2020, the CDC issued its COVID-19 Guidelines aimed directly at protecting
inmates incarcerated in correctional and detention facilities. Defendants claim a close
Powell, No. 1:94-cr-316-ESH, Dkt. No 98 (D.D.C. Mar. 28, 2020); United States v. Hector, No. 2:18-cr-3002, Dkt. No. 748 (W.D. Va. Mar. 27, 2020); United States v. Kennedy, 18-cr-20315 (JEL), Dkt. No. 77 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 27, 2020); United States v. Hector, 18-cr-3, Dkt. No. 17 (4th Cir. Mar. 27, 2020); United States v. Michaels, 8:16-cr-76-JVS, Minute Order, Dkt. No. 1061 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2020); United States v. Jaffee, No. 19-cr-88 (RDM) (D.D.C. Mar. 26, 2020); United States v. Harris, No. 19-cr-356 (RDM), 2020 WL 1503444 (D.D.C. Mar. 26, 2020); USA v. Garlock, No. 18 Cr 00418, 2020 WL 1439980, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2020); Xochihua-Jaimes v. Barr, No. 18-71460 (9th Cir. Mar. 24, 2020); U.S. v. Stephens, 15 Cr. 95 (AJN), 2020 WL 1295155 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2020); In re. Extradition of Alejandro Toledo Manrique, 2020 WL 1307109, (N.D. Cal. March 19, 2020). 7See, e.g., President’s Coronavirus Guidelines for America, Whitehouse.gov (Mar. 16, 2020), https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/03.16.20_coronavirusguidance_8.5x11_315PM.pdf; Gov. Tate Reeves Executive Order No. 1466 issued by Gov. Tate Reeves (Apr. 2, 2020), https://www.sos.ms.gov/Education-Publications/ExecutiveOrders/1466.pdf. 8 David Mills & Emily Galvin-Almanza, As many as 100,000 incarcerated people in our prisons will die from the coronavirus, unless the US acts now, Bus. Insider (Apr. 2, 2020), https://www.businessinsider.com/failure-to-release-prisoners-is-condemning-thousands-to-death-2020-4; Anna Flagg & Joseph Neff, Why Jails Are So Important in the Fight Against Coronavirus, N.Y. Times (Mar. 31, 2020), https://nyti.ms/3aIBHjv; Timothy Williams et al., ‘Jails Are Petri Dishes’: Inmates Freed as the Virus Spreads Behind Bars, N.Y. Times (Mar. 30, 2020), https://nyti.ms/2Jmnf4z; Emma Grey Ellis, Covid-19 Poses a Heightened Threat in Jails and Prisons, Wired (Mar. 24, 2020), https://www.wired.com/story/coronavirus-covid-19-jails-prisons; Ryan Lucas, As COVID-19 Spreads, Calls Grow to Protect Inmates in Federal Prisons, NPR (Mar. 24, 2020), https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/03/24/820618140/as-covid-19-spreads-callsgrow-to-protect-inmates-in-federal-prisons; Weihua Li & Nicole Lewis, This Chart Shows Why the Prison Population Is So Vulnerable to COVID-19, Marshall Proj. (Mar. 19, 2020), https://www.themarshallproject.org/2020/03/19/this-chart-shows-why-the-prison-population-is-sovulnerable-to-covid-19; German Lopez, A coronavirus outbreak in jails or prisons could turn into a nightmare, Vox (Mar. 17, 2020). 9See, e.g., MDOC COVID-19 Questions & Answers, https://www.mdoc.ms.gov/Documents/COVID19%20Questions%20and%20Answers.pdf (last visited April 13, 2020).
15

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74 Filed: 04/13/20 16 of 22 PageID #: 1269
collaboration with the CDC at the time the COVID-19 Guidelines were issued. Therefore, “[a]t least since the CDC released its guidelines … Defendants have known about the risks of harm but have not changed their practices.” Id. at 943. An official demonstrates disregard of a risk by “failing to take reasonable measures to abate it.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 847.
Even absent the CDC’s COVID-19 Guidelines, the list of reasonable measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19 is well-delineated and well-publicized: “[s]ocial distancing and proper hygiene are the only effective means by which we can stop the spread of COVID-19.” Memo. & Order at 21, Thakkar v. Doll, No. 20-cv-480 (Mar. 31, 2020), ECF No. 47. As health professionals have explained repeatedly to the general public, COVID-19 is best avoided by (1) “[w]ash[ing] your hands for at least 20 seconds with soap and water or hand sanitizer that contains at least 60% alcohol often (especially after touching common surface areas . . . and other social interactions),” (2) avoiding crowded places “and maintain[ing] at least 6 feet of distance between yourself and others,” and (3) “[d]isinfect[ing] surfaces that are used regularly, using household sprays or wipes.”10 These guidelines for the general public are the same as many of the guidelines recommended by the CDC in jails and prisons: calling social distancing of at least six feet at all times the “cornerstone of reducing transmission” of COVID-19 within detention facilities, pushing facilities to “[p]rovide a no-cost supply of soap to incarcerated/detained persons, sufficient to allow frequent hand washing,” and advising that facilities must, “[s]everal times a day, clean and disinfect surfaces and objects that are frequently touched, especially in common areas.” See Ex. A at 4, 8-10.
Despite the foregoing clear directives from a variety of credible sources, including the
10Angel N. Desai & Rayal Patel, Am. Medical Ass’n, Stopping the Spread of COVID-19 (Mar. 20, 2020), https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2763533; see also CDC, How to Protect Yourself (last updated Apr. 1, 2020).
16

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74 Filed: 04/13/20 17 of 22 PageID #: 1270
CDC’s recommendations directly to correctional facilities, Defendants have failed to provide inmates at Parchman with the personal space, sanitizer, and adequate cleaning supplies necessary to protect themselves and those around them from infection. Nor have Defendants exhibited an ability to timely identify, isolate, and treat people who develop symptoms and to segregate those who are symptomatic from those who are not. In sum, Plaintiffs are at a substantially increased risk of contracting COVID-19 as a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ refusal to implement the best practices identified by the CDC and others, measures which have been implemented in many other jurisdictions. 11 A clearer or potentially more costly example of deliberate indifference is difficult to conceive.
C. Causation. Plaintiffs now are exposed to a dramatically increased risk of exposure and contraction of COVID-19 as the sole, direct and proximate result of Defendants’ refusal to implement the protective measures and screening protocols set forth by the CDC in its COVID-19 Guidelines, many of which are the same protocols required by MDOC’s own Centurion Plan.
CONCLUSION For three weeks, since March 23, 2020, Defendants have known of the CDC’s COVID-19 Guidelines for protecting the health and safety of inmates. Yet, Defendants have failed to effectively implement the COVID-19 Guidelines at Parchman. Defendants, as a result of their
11See, e.g., Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, Executive Order No. 2020-29 (COVID-19), https://www.michigan.gov/whitmer/0,9309,7-387-90499_90705-523422--,00.html; Megan Harris et al., With In-Person Visits Eliminated, PA Prisons Get More Phone & Video Privileges, WESA (Mar. 19, 2020), https://www.wesa.fm/post/person-visits-eliminated-pa-prisons-get-more-phone-videoprivileges#stream/0; Arizona Dep’t of Corrections, Media Advisory, COVID-19 Management Strategy Update (Mar. 18 2020); Joe Szydlowski, Sheriff’s Office: Hunger strike ends at Monterey County Jail, Californian (Mar. 27, 2020), https://www.thecalifornian.com/story/news/2020/03/27/sheriffs-officehunger-strike-ends-monterey-county-jail/2929726001/; Mela Seyoum, Santa Rita Jail adjusts as organizations call for action amid COVID-19, Daily Californian (Apr. 2, 2020), https://www.dailycal.org/2020/04/02/santa-rita-jail-adjusts-as-organizations-call-for-action-amid-covid19/.
17

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74 Filed: 04/13/20 18 of 22 PageID #: 1271
failures, have acted with deliberate indifference toward the health and safety of inmates in the face of a serious and well-known risk.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court grant the relief requested in the proposed order submitted to the Court on March 21, 2020, but with the additions described below in Paragraphs 1 and 5. To wit: requiring Defendants to comply also with the recommendations of the CDC’s COVID-19 Guidelines, and requiring Defendants to allow Plaintiffs reasonable access to Parchman for the purpose of monitoring adherence to the Court’s order. The specific relief requested, with the aforementioned additional provisions added, are as follows:
1. Defendants shall immediately, or as soon as is practicable, implement at Parchman, and shall follow throughout the life of this pandemic, or until further order of this Court, the recommendations of the Centers For Disease Control and Prevention’s (“CDC”) Interim Guidance on Management of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Correctional and Detention Facilities (“March 23, 2020”) (“COVID-19 Guidelines”) [Ex. A].
2. Defendants shall immediately, or as soon as is practicable, implement at Parchman, and shall follow throughout the life of this pandemic, or until further order of this Court, their plans, policies and procedures pertaining to their response to this pandemic including, without limitation, Centurion’s Pandemic Preparedness and Emergency Response Plan (“Centurion Plan”), with all of its “written protocols and best practices for the diagnosis, treatment, and management of conditions related to infectious diseases such as COVID-19.” [Dkt. # 63, p. 2].
3. Defendants shall immediately implement at Parchman, and shall follow throughout the life of this pandemic, or until further order of this Court, the following emergency measures, which Defendants assert generally they are in the process of enacting:
18

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74 Filed: 04/13/20 19 of 22 PageID #: 1272
a. Defendants shall screen daily each and every person who enters Parchman to detect fever over 100 degrees, cough, shortness of breath, recent travel to a high-risk country, and/or exposure to someone who has tested positive for COVID-19, is symptomatic for COVID-19, or is under surveillance for COVID-19.
b. Defendants shall actively monitor inmates daily for symptoms of COVID-19 including headaches, fever, cough, shortness of breath, or other trouble breathing.
c. Defendants shall prepare to isolate inmates according to the following groups, with each group being isolated separately: (i) inmates who test positive for COVID-19; (ii) inmates who are symptomatic for COVID-19 and/or who have been exposed to someone who has been diagnosed with or is symptomatic for COVID-19; and (iii) inmates who are transferred to Parchman but who do not fall into categories (i) or (ii).
d. Defendants shall afford and shall continue to afford inmates non-contact visitation opportunities, which Defendants have defined as two free telephone calls per week per inmate, in lieu of contact visitation, so long as contact visitation is limited as a result of COVID-19.
e. Defendants shall ensure that Parchman has sufficient cleaning agents to provide regular cleaning, disinfecting and sanitation to all areas of Parchman including, without limitation, all units and zones where inmates are housed, all cells where inmates are housed, all common areas, hallways, and support buildings such as medical, kitchen, laundry and administration.
19

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74 Filed: 04/13/20 20 of 22 PageID #: 1273
f. Defendants shall ensure that inmates have a continuous supply of liquid and/or solid soap, and uninterrupted access to clean, running water in their cells, or, if inmates are housed in barracks-style units, in their respective zones.
g. Defendants shall ensure that all co-pays for inmate healthcare at Parchman related in any way to COVID-19 and/or its symptoms are waived until conclusion of this pandemic and the emergency measures under which Defendants, MDOC, and Parchman are operating.
4. Defendants shall report to the Court weekly by email, with copy to Named Plaintiffs, and provide the following: (a) the number of inmates at Parchman who have tested positive for COVID-19, including the names of any Named Plaintiffs; (b) the number of inmates at Parchman, and the names of any Named Plaintiffs, who are in isolation as a result of significant exposure to, or symptoms of, COVID-19; (c) confirmation that cleaning supplies are available at Parchman and being utilized regularly to clean all areas; and (d) confirmation that soap is available at Parchman for each inmate and that all inmates have continual access to clean, running water.
5. Defendants shall report to the Court weekly by email, with copy to Named Plaintiffs, and provide a copy of all filed reports as required by local, state, and federal laws and regulations, as is required by Centurion’s Infectious Disease Prevention and Control policy, Policy No. P-B-02, p. 2.
6. Finally, Defendants shall allow a competent employee of the Mississippi Department of Health, who is educated on the CDC’s COVID-19 Guidelines, to be given reasonable access at any given time to Parchman for the purpose of ensuring compliance with the Court’s order and reporting his/her findings to the Court, with a copy to Named Plaintiffs. There is nothing in this order intended to limit Defendants from taking
20

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74 Filed: 04/13/20 21 of 22 PageID #: 1274

further action, beyond the measures prescribed herein, to protect Named Plaintiffs,

other inmates, administration, employees, visitors, or their respective communities

from COVID-19.

7. All other relief the Court may deem appropriate.

Date: April 13, 2020

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Marcy B. Croft Marcy B. Croft (MS Bar #10864) MARON MARVEL BRADLEY ANDERSON & TARDY LLC 200 South Lamar Street Jackson, MS 39201 Telephone: (601) 960-8630 Telefax: (601) 206-0119

Thomas G. Bufkin (MS Bar #10810) CARROLL BUFKIN, PLLC 1076 Highland Colony Parkway 600 Concourse, Suite 125 Ridgeland, MS 39157 Telephone: (601) 982-5011 Telefax: (601) 853-9540

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

21

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74 Filed: 04/13/20 22 of 22 PageID #: 1275 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 13th day of April 2020, a copy of the foregoing was filed electronically with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system. Notice of this filing will be sent to all counsel for record registered to receive electronic service by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system.
/s/ Marcy B. Croft Marcy B. Croft (MS Bar #10864)
22

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-1 Filed: 04/13/20 1 of 27 PageID #: 1276
EXHIBIT A

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-1 Filed: 04/13/20 2 of 27 PageID #: 1277
Interim Guidance on Management of Coronavirus Disease
2019 (COVID-19) in Correctional and Detention Facilities

This interim guidance is based on what is currently known about the transmission and severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) as of March 23, 2020.
The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) will update this guidance as needed and as additional information becomes available. Please check the following CDC website periodically for updated interim guidance: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/index.html.
This document provides interim guidance specific for correctional facilities and detention centers during the outbreak of COVID-19, to ensure continuation of essential public services and protection of the health and safety of incarcerated and detained persons, staff, and visitors. Recommendations may need to be revised as more information becomes available.

In this guidance
• Who is the intended audience for this guidance?
• Why is this guidance being issued?
• What topics does this guidance include?
• Definitions of Commonly Used Terms
• Facilities with Limited Onsite Healthcare Services
• COVID-19 Guidance for Correctional Facilities
• Operational Preparedness
• Prevention
• Management
• Infection Control
• Clinical Care of COVID-19 Cases
• Recommended PPE and PPE Training for Staff and Incarcerated/Detained Persons
• Verbal Screening and Temperature Check Protocols for Incarcerated/ Detained Persons, Staff, and Visitors

Who is the intended audience for this guidance?
This document is intended to provide guiding principles for healthcare and non-healthcare administrators of correctional and detention facilities (including but not limited to federal and state prisons, local jails, and detention centers), law enforcement agencies that have custodial authority for detained populations (i.e., US Immigration and Customs Enforcement and US Marshals Service), and their respective health departments, to assist in preparing for potential introduction, spread, and mitigation of COVID-19 in their facilities. In general, the document uses terminology referring to correctional environments but can also be applied to civil and pre-trial detention settings.
This guidance will not necessarily address every possible custodial setting and may not use legal terminology specific to individual agencies’ authorities or processes. The guidance may need to be adapted based on individual facilities’ physical space, staffing, population, operations, and other resources and conditions. Facilities should contact CDC or their state, local, territorial, and/or tribal public health department if they need assistance in applying these principles or addressing topics that are not specifically covered in this guidance.

CS 316182-A  03/27/2020

cdc.gov/coronavirus

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-1 Filed: 04/13/20 3 of 27 PageID #: 1278
Why is this guidance being issued?
Correctional and detention facilities can include custody, housing, education, recreation, healthcare, food service, and workplace components in a single physical setting. The integration of these components presents unique challenges for control of COVID-19 transmission among incarcerated/detained persons, staff, and visitors. Consistent application of specific preparation, prevention, and management measures can help reduce the risk of transmission and severe disease from COVID-19.
• Incarcerated/detained persons live, work, eat, study, and recreate within congregate environments, heightening the potential for COVID-19 to spread once introduced.
• In most cases, incarcerated/detained persons are not permitted to leave the facility.
• There are many opportunities for COVID-19 to be introduced into a correctional or detention facility, including daily staff ingress and egress; transfer of incarcerated/detained persons between facilities and systems, to court appearances, and to outside medical visits; and visits from family, legal representatives, and other community members. Some settings, particularly jails and detention centers, have high turnover, admitting new entrants daily who may have been exposed to COVID-19 in the surrounding community or other regions.
• Persons incarcerated/detained in a particular facility often come from a variety of locations, increasing the potential to introduce COVID-19 from different geographic areas.
• Options for medical isolation of COVID-19 cases are limited and vary depending on the type and size of facility, as well as the current level of available capacity, which is partly based on medical isolation needs for other conditions.
• Adequate levels of custody and healthcare staffing must be maintained to ensure safe operation of the facility, and options to practice social distancing through work alternatives such as working from home or reduced/alternate schedules are limited for many staff roles.
• Correctional and detention facilities can be complex, multi-employer settings that include government and private employers. Each is organizationally distinct and responsible for its own operational, personnel, and occupational health protocols and may be prohibited from issuing guidance or providing services to other employers or their staff within the same setting. Similarly, correctional and detention facilities may house individuals from multiple law enforcement agencies or jurisdictions subject to different policies and procedures.
• Incarcerated/detained persons and staff may have medical conditions that increase their risk of severe disease from COVID-19.
• Because limited outside information is available to many incarcerated/detained persons, unease and misinformation regarding the potential for COVID-19 spread may be high, potentially creating security and morale challenges.
• The ability of incarcerated/detained persons to exercise disease prevention measures (e.g., frequent handwashing) may be limited and is determined by the supplies provided in the facility and by security considerations. Many facilities restrict access to soap and paper towels and prohibit alcohol-based hand sanitizer and many disinfectants.
• Incarcerated persons may hesitate to report symptoms of COVID-19 or seek medical care due to co-pay requirements and fear of isolation.
CDC has issued separate COVID-19 guidance addressing healthcare infection control and clinical care of COVID-19 cases as well as close contacts of cases in community-based settings. Where relevant, community-focused guidance documents are referenced in this document and should be monitored regularly for updates, but they may require adaptation for correctional and detention settings.
2

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-1 Filed: 04/13/20 4 of 27 PageID #: 1279
This guidance document provides additional recommended best practices specifically for correctional and detention facilities. At this time, different facility types (e.g., prison vs. jail) and sizes are not differentiated. Administrators and agencies should adapt these guiding principles to the specific needs of their facility.
What topics does this guidance include?
The guidance below includes detailed recommendations on the following topics related to COVID-19 in correctional and detention settings:
√ Operational and communications preparations for COVID-19
√ Enhanced cleaning/disinfecting and hygiene practices
√ Social distancing strategies to increase space between individuals in the facility
√ How to limit transmission from visitors
√ Infection control, including recommended personal protective equipment (PPE) and potential alternatives during PPE shortages
√ Verbal screening and temperature check protocols for incoming incarcerated/detained individuals, staff, and visitors
√ Medical isolation of confirmed and suspected cases and quarantine of contacts, including considerations for cohorting when individual spaces are limited
√ Healthcare evaluation for suspected cases, including testing for COVID-19
√ Clinical care for confirmed and suspected cases
√ Considerations for persons at higher risk of severe disease from COVID-19
Definitions of Commonly Used Terms
Close contact of a COVID-19 case—In the context of COVID-19, an individual is considered a close contact if they a) have been within approximately 6 feet of a COVID-19 case for a prolonged period of time or b) have had direct contact with infectious secretions from a COVID-19 case (e.g., have been coughed on). Close contact can occur while caring for, living with, visiting, or sharing a common space with a COVID-19 case. Data to inform the definition of close contact are limited. Considerations when assessing close contact include the duration of exposure (e.g., longer exposure time likely increases exposure risk) and the clinical symptoms of the person with COVID-19 (e.g., coughing likely increases exposure risk, as does exposure to a severely ill patient).
Cohorting—Cohorting refers to the practice of isolating multiple laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases together as a group, or quarantining close contacts of a particular case together as a group. Ideally, cases should be isolated individually, and close contacts should be quarantined individually. However, some correctional facilities and detention centers do not have enough individual cells to do so and must consider cohorting as an alternative. See Quarantine and Medical Isolation sections below for specific details about ways to implement cohorting to minimize the risk of disease spread and adverse health outcomes.
Community transmission of COVID-19—Community transmission of COVID-19 occurs when individuals acquire the disease through contact with someone in their local community, rather than through travel to an affected location. Once community transmission is identified in a particular area, correctional facilities and detention centers are more likely to start seeing cases inside their walls. Facilities should consult with local public health departments if assistance is needed in determining how to define “local community” in the context of COVID-19 spread. However, because all states have reported cases, all facilities should be vigilant for introduction into their populations.
3

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-1 Filed: 04/13/20 5 of 27 PageID #: 1280
Confirmed vs. Suspected COVID-19 case—A confirmed case has received a positive result from a COVID-19 laboratory test, with or without symptoms. A suspected case shows symptoms of COVID-19 but either has not been tested or is awaiting test results. If test results are positive, a suspected case becomes a confirmed case.
Incarcerated/detained persons—For the purpose of this document, “incarcerated/detained persons” refers to persons held in a prison, jail, detention center, or other custodial setting where these guidelines are generally applicable. The term includes those who have been sentenced (i.e., in prisons) as well as those held for pre-trial (i.e., jails) or civil purposes (i.e, detention centers). Although this guidance does not specifically reference individuals in every type of custodial setting (e.g., juvenile facilities, community confinement facilities), facility administrators can adapt this guidance to apply to their specific circumstances as needed.
Medical Isolation—Medical isolation refers to confining a confirmed or suspected COVID-19 case (ideally to a single cell with solid walls and a solid door that closes), to prevent contact with others and to reduce the risk of transmission. Medical isolation ends when the individual meets pre-established clinical and/or testing criteria for release from isolation, in consultation with clinical providers and public health officials (detailed in guidance below). In this context, isolation does NOT refer to punitive isolation for behavioral infractions within the custodial setting. Staff are encouraged to use the term “medical isolation” to avoid confusion.
Quarantine—Quarantine refers to the practice of confining individuals who have had close contact with a COVID-19 case to determine whether they develop symptoms of the disease. Quarantine for COVID-19 should last for a period of 14 days. Ideally, each quarantined individual would be quarantined in a single cell with solid walls and a solid door that closes. If symptoms develop during the 14-day period, the individual should be placed under medical isolation and evaluated for COVID-19. If symptoms do not develop, movement restrictions can be lifted, and the individual can return to their previous residency status within the facility.
Social Distancing—Social distancing is the practice of increasing the space between individuals and decreasing the frequency of contact to reduce the risk of spreading a disease (ideally to maintain at least 6 feet between all individuals, even those who are asymptomatic). Social distancing strategies can be applied on an individual level (e.g., avoiding physical contact), a group level (e.g., canceling group activities where individuals will be in close contact), and an operational level (e.g., rearranging chairs in the dining hall to increase distance between them). Although social distancing is challenging to practice in correctional and detention environments, it is a cornerstone of reducing transmission of respiratory diseases such as COVID-19. Additional information about social distancing, including information on its use to reduce the spread of other viral illnesses, is available in this CDC publication.
Staff—In this document, “staff” refers to all public sector employees as well as those working for a private contractor within a correctional facility (e.g., private healthcare or food service). Except where noted, “staff” does not distinguish between healthcare, custody, and other types of staff including private facility operators.
Symptoms—Symptoms of COVID-19 include fever, cough, and shortness of breath. Like other respiratory infections, COVID-19 can vary in severity from mild to severe. When severe, pneumonia, respiratory failure, and death are possible. COVID-19 is a novel disease, therefore the full range of signs and symptoms, the clinical course of the disease, and the individuals and populations most at risk for disease and complications are not yet fully understood. Monitor the CDC website for updates on these topics.
Facilities with Limited Onsite Healthcare Services
Although many large facilities such as prisons and some jails usually employ onsite healthcare staff and have the capacity to evaluate incarcerated/detained persons for potential illness within a dedicated healthcare space, many smaller facilities do not. Some of these facilities have access to on-call healthcare staff or providers who visit the facility every few days. Others have neither onsite healthcare capacity nor onsite medical isolation/quarantine space and must transfer ill patients to other correctional or detention facilities or local hospitals for evaluation and care.
4

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-1 Filed: 04/13/20 6 of 27 PageID #: 1281
The majority of the guidance below is designed to be applied to any correctional or detention facility, either as written or with modifications based on a facility’s individual structure and resources. However, topics related to healthcare evaluation and clinical care of confirmed and suspected COVID-19 cases and their close contacts may not apply directly to facilities with limited or no onsite healthcare services. It will be especially important for these types of facilities to coordinate closely with their state, local, tribal, and/or territorial health department when they encounter confirmed or suspected cases among incarcerated/detained persons or staff, in order to ensure effective medical isolation and quarantine, necessary medical evaluation and care, and medical transfer if needed. The guidance makes note of strategies tailored to facilities without onsite healthcare where possible.
Note that all staff in any sized facility, regardless of the presence of onsite healthcare services, should observe guidance on recommended PPE in order to ensure their own safety when interacting with confirmed and suspected COVID-19 cases. Facilities should make contingency plans for the likely event of PPE shortages during the COVID-19 pandemic.
COVID-19 Guidance for Correctional Facilities
Guidance for correctional and detention facilities is organized into 3 sections: Operational Preparedness, Prevention, and Management of COVID-19. Recommendations across these sections can be applied simultaneously based on the progress of the outbreak in a particular facility and the surrounding community.
• Operational Preparedness. This guidance is intended to help facilities prepare for potential COVID-19 transmission in the facility. Strategies focus on operational and communications planning and personnel practices.
• Prevention. This guidance is intended to help facilities prevent spread of COVID-19 from outside the facility to inside. Strategies focus on reinforcing hygiene practices, intensifying cleaning and disinfection of the facility, screening (new intakes, visitors, and staff), continued communication with incarcerated/ detained persons and staff, and social distancing measures (increasing distance between individuals).
• Management. This guidance is intended to help facilities clinically manage confirmed and suspected COVID-19 cases inside the facility and prevent further transmission. Strategies include medical isolation and care of incarcerated/detained persons with symptoms (including considerations for cohorting), quarantine of cases’ close contacts, restricting movement in and out of the facility, infection control practices for individuals interacting with cases and quarantined contacts or contaminated items, intensified social distancing, and cleaning and disinfecting areas visited by cases.
Operational Preparedness
Administrators can plan and prepare for COVID-19 by ensuring that all persons in the facility know the symptoms of COVID-19 and how to respond if they develop symptoms. Other essential actions include developing contingency plans for reduced workforces due to absences, coordinating with public health and correctional partners, and communicating clearly with staff and incarcerated/detained persons about these preparations and how they may temporarily alter daily life.
Communication & Coordination
√ Develop information-sharing systems with partners. ο Identify points of contact in relevant state, local, tribal, and/or territorial public health departments before cases develop. Actively engage with the health department to understand in advance which entity has jurisdiction to implement public health control measures for COVID-19 in a particular correctional or detention facility.
ο Create and test communications plans to disseminate critical information to incarcerated/detained persons, staff, contractors, vendors, and visitors as the pandemic progresses.
5

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-1 Filed: 04/13/20 7 of 27 PageID #: 1282
ο Communicate with other correctional facilities in the same geographic area to share information including disease surveillance and absenteeism patterns among staff.
ο Where possible, put plans in place with other jurisdictions to prevent confirmed and suspected COVID-19 cases and their close contacts from being transferred between jurisdictions and facilities unless necessary for medical evaluation, medical isolation/quarantine, clinical care, extenuating security concerns, or to prevent overcrowding.
ο Stay informed about updates to CDC guidance via the CDC COVID-19 website as more information becomes known.
√ Review existing pandemic flu, all-hazards, and disaster plans, and revise for COVID-19. ο Ensure that physical locations (dedicated housing areas and bathrooms) have been identified to isolate confirmed COVID-19 cases and individuals displaying COVID-19 symptoms, and to quarantine known close contacts of cases. (Medical isolation and quarantine locations should be separate). The plan should include contingencies for multiple locations if numerous cases and/ or contacts are identified and require medical isolation or quarantine simultaneously. See Medical Isolation and Quarantine sections below for details regarding individual medical isolation and quarantine locations (preferred) vs. cohorting. ο Facilities without onsite healthcare capacity should make a plan for how they will ensure that suspected COVID-19 cases will be isolated, evaluated, tested (if indicated), and provided necessary medical care. ο Make a list of possible social distancing strategies that could be implemented as needed at different stages of transmission intensity. ο Designate officials who will be authorized to make decisions about escalating or de-escalating response efforts as the epidemiologic context changes.
√ Coordinate with local law enforcement and court officials. ο Identify lawful alternatives to in-person court appearances, such as virtual court, as a social distancing measure to reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission. ο Explore strategies to prevent over-crowding of correctional and detention facilities during a community outbreak.
√ Post signage throughout the facility communicating the following: ο For all: symptoms of COVID-19 and hand hygiene instructions ο For incarcerated/detained persons: report symptoms to staff ο For staff: stay at home when sick; if symptoms develop while on duty, leave the facility as soon as possible and follow CDC-recommended steps for persons who are ill with COVID-19 symptoms including self-isolating at home, contacting their healthcare provider as soon as possible to determine whether they need to be evaluated and tested, and contacting their supervisor. ο Ensure that signage is understandable for non-English speaking persons and those with low literacy, and make necessary accommodations for those with cognitive or intellectual disabilities and those who are deaf, blind, or low-vision.
Personnel Practices
√ Review the sick leave policies of each employer that operates in the facility. ο Review policies to ensure that they actively encourage staff to stay home when sick. ο If these policies do not encourage staff to stay home when sick, discuss with the contract company. ο Determine which officials will have the authority to send symptomatic staff home.
6

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-1 Filed: 04/13/20 8 of 27 PageID #: 1283
√ Identify staff whose duties would allow them to work from home. Where possible, allowing staff to work from home can be an effective social distancing strategy to reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission. ο Discuss work from home options with these staff and determine whether they have the supplies and technological equipment required to do so. ο Put systems in place to implement work from home programs (e.g., time tracking, etc.).
√ Plan for staff absences. Staff should stay home when they are sick, or they may need to stay home to care for a sick household member or care for children in the event of school and childcare dismissals. ο Allow staff to work from home when possible, within the scope of their duties. ο Identify critical job functions and plan for alternative coverage by cross-training staff where possible. ο Determine minimum levels of staff in all categories required for the facility to function safely. If possible, develop a plan to secure additional staff if absenteeism due to COVID-19 threatens to bring staffing to minimum levels. ο Consider increasing keep on person (KOP) medication orders to cover 30 days in case of healthcare staff shortages.
√ Consider offering revised duties to staff who are at higher risk of severe illness with COVID-19. Persons at higher risk may include older adults and persons of any age with serious underlying medical conditions including lung disease, heart disease, and diabetes. See CDC’s website for a complete list, and check regularly for updates as more data become available to inform this issue. ο Facility administrators should consult with their occupational health providers to determine whether it would be allowable to reassign duties for specific staff members to reduce their likelihood of exposure to COVID-19.
√ Offer the seasonal influenza vaccine to all incarcerated/detained persons (existing population and new intakes) and staff throughout the influenza season. Symptoms of COVID-19 are similar to those of influenza. Preventing influenza cases in a facility can speed the detection of COVID-19 cases and reduce pressure on healthcare resources.
√ Reference the Occupational Safety and Health Administration website for recommendations regarding worker health.
√ Review CDC’s guidance for businesses and employers to identify any additional strategies the facility can use within its role as an employer.
Operations & Supplies
√ Ensure that sufficient stocks of hygiene supplies, cleaning supplies, PPE, and medical supplies (consistent with the healthcare capabilities of the facility) are on hand and available, and have a plan in place to restock as needed if COVID-19 transmission occurs within the facility. ο Standard medical supplies for daily clinic needs ο Tissues ο Liquid soap when possible. If bar soap must be used, ensure that it does not irritate the skin and thereby discourage frequent hand washing. ο Hand drying supplies ο Alcohol-based hand sanitizer containing at least 60% alcohol (where permissible based on security restrictions) ο Cleaning supplies, including EPA-registered disinfectants effective against the virus that causes COVID-19
7

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-1 Filed: 04/13/20 9 of 27 PageID #: 1284
ο Recommended PPE (facemasks, N95 respirators, eye protection, disposable medical gloves, and disposable gowns/one-piece coveralls). See PPE section and Table 1 for more detailed information, including recommendations for extending the life of all PPE categories in the event of shortages, and when face masks are acceptable alternatives to N95s.
ο Sterile viral transport media and sterile swabs to collect nasopharyngeal specimens if COVID-19 testing is indicated
√ Make contingency plans for the probable event of PPE shortages during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly for non-healthcare workers. ο See CDC guidance optimizing PPE supplies.
√ Consider relaxing restrictions on allowing alcohol-based hand sanitizer in the secure setting where security concerns allow. If soap and water are not available, CDC recommends cleaning hands with an alcohol-based hand sanitizer that contains at least 60% alcohol. Consider allowing staff to carry individual-sized bottles for their personal hand hygiene while on duty.
√ Provide a no-cost supply of soap to incarcerated/detained persons, sufficient to allow frequent hand washing. (See Hygiene section below for additional detail regarding recommended frequency and protocol for hand washing.) ο Provide liquid soap where possible. If bar soap must be used, ensure that it does not irritate the skin and thereby discourage frequent hand washing.
√ If not already in place, employers operating within the facility should establish a respiratory protection program as appropriate, to ensure that staff and incarcerated/detained persons are fit tested for any respiratory protection they will need within the scope of their responsibilities.
√ Ensure that staff and incarcerated/detained persons are trained to correctly don, doff, and dispose of PPE that they will need to use within the scope of their responsibilities. See Table 1 for recommended PPE for incarcerated/detained persons and staff with varying levels of contact with COVID-19 cases or their close contacts.
Prevention
Cases of COVID-19 have been documented in all 50 US states. Correctional and detention facilities can prevent introduction of COVID-19 from the community and reduce transmission if it is already inside by reinforcing good hygiene practices among incarcerated/detained persons, staff, and visitors (including increasing access to soap and paper towels), intensifying cleaning/disinfection practices, and implementing social distancing strategies.
Because many individuals infected with COVID-19 do not display symptoms, the virus could be present in facilities before cases are identified. Both good hygiene practices and social distancing are critical in preventing further transmission.
Operations
√ Stay in communication with partners about your facility’s current situation. ο State, local, territorial, and/or tribal health departments ο Other correctional facilities
√ Communicate with the public about any changes to facility operations, including visitation programs.
8

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-1 Filed: 04/13/20 10 of 27 PageID #: 1285
√ Restrict transfers of incarcerated/detained persons to and from other jurisdictions and facilities unless necessary for medical evaluation, medical isolation/quarantine, clinical care, extenuating security concerns, or to prevent overcrowding. ο Strongly consider postponing non-urgent outside medical visits. ο If a transfer is absolutely necessary, perform verbal screening and a temperature check as outlined in the Screening section below, before the individual leaves the facility. If an individual does not clear the screening process, delay the transfer and follow the protocol for a suspected COVID-19 case— including putting a face mask on the individual, immediately placing them under medical isolation, and evaluating them for possible COVID-19 testing. If the transfer must still occur, ensure that the receiving facility has capacity to properly isolate the individual upon arrival. Ensure that staff transporting the individual wear recommended PPE (see Table 1) and that the transport vehicle is cleaned thoroughly after transport.
√ Implement lawful alternatives to in-person court appearances where permissible.
√ Where relevant, consider suspending co-pays for incarcerated/detained persons seeking medical evaluation for respiratory symptoms.
√ Limit the number of operational entrances and exits to the facility.
Cleaning and Disinfecting Practices
√ Even if COVID-19 cases have not yet been identified inside the facility or in the surrounding community, begin implementing intensified cleaning and disinfecting procedures according to the recommendations below. These measures may prevent spread of COVID-19 if introduced.
√ Adhere to CDC recommendations for cleaning and disinfection during the COVID-19 response. Monitor these recommendations for updates. ο Several times per day, clean and disinfect surfaces and objects that are frequently touched, especially in common areas. Such surfaces may include objects/surfaces not ordinarily cleaned daily (e.g., doorknobs, light switches, sink handles, countertops, toilets, toilet handles, recreation equipment, kiosks, and telephones). ο Staff should clean shared equipment several times per day and on a conclusion of use basis (e.g., radios, service weapons, keys, handcuffs). ο Use household cleaners and EPA-registered disinfectants effective against the virus that causes COVID-19 as appropriate for the surface, following label instructions. This may require lifting restrictions on undiluted disinfectants. ο Labels contain instructions for safe and effective use of the cleaning product, including precautions that should be taken when applying the product, such as wearing gloves and making sure there is good ventilation during use.
√ Consider increasing the number of staff and/or incarcerated/detained persons trained and responsible for cleaning common areas to ensure continual cleaning of these areas throughout the day.
√ Ensure adequate supplies to support intensified cleaning and disinfection practices, and have a plan in place to restock rapidly if needed.
9

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-1 Filed: 04/13/20 11 of 27 PageID #: 1286
Hygiene
√ Reinforce healthy hygiene practices, and provide and continually restock hygiene supplies throughout the facility, including in bathrooms, food preparation and dining areas, intake areas, visitor entries and exits, visitation rooms and waiting rooms, common areas, medical, and staff-restricted areas (e.g., break rooms).
√ Encourage all persons in the facility to take the following actions to protect themselves and others from COVID-19. Post signage throughout the facility, and communicate this information verbally on a regular basis. Sample signage and other communications materials are available on the CDC website. Ensure that materials can be understood by non-English speakers and those with low literacy, and make necessary accommodations for those with cognitive or intellectual disabilities and those who are deaf, blind, or low-vision.
ο Practice good cough etiquette: Cover your mouth and nose with your elbow (or ideally with a tissue) rather than with your hand when you cough or sneeze, and throw all tissues in the trash immediately after use.
ο Practice good hand hygiene: Regularly wash your hands with soap and water for at least 20 seconds, especially after coughing, sneezing, or blowing your nose; after using the bathroom; before eating or preparing food; before taking medication; and after touching garbage.
ο Avoid touching your eyes, nose, or mouth without cleaning your hands first. ο Avoid sharing eating utensils, dishes, and cups. ο Avoid non-essential physical contact.
√ Provide incarcerated/detained persons and staff no-cost access to: ο Soap—Provide liquid soap where possible. If bar soap must be used, ensure that it does not irritate the skin, as this would discourage frequent hand washing. ο Running water, and hand drying machines or disposable paper towels for hand washing ο Tissues and no-touch trash receptacles for disposal
√ Provide alcohol-based hand sanitizer with at least 60% alcohol where permissible based on security restrictions. Consider allowing staff to carry individual-sized bottles to maintain hand hygiene.
√ Communicate that sharing drugs and drug preparation equipment can spread COVID-19 due to potential contamination of shared items and close contact between individuals.
Prevention Practices for Incarcerated/Detained Persons
√ Perform pre-intake screening and temperature checks for all new entrants. Screening should take place in the sallyport, before beginning the intake process, in order to identify and immediately place individuals with symptoms under medical isolation. See Screening section below for the wording of screening questions and a recommended procedure to safely perform a temperature check. Staff performing temperature checks should wear recommended PPE (see PPE section below).
ο If an individual has symptoms of COVID-19 (fever, cough, shortness of breath):  Require the individual to wear a face mask.  Ensure that staff who have direct contact with the symptomatic individual wear recommended PPE.  Place the individual under medical isolation (ideally in a room near the screening location, rather than transporting the ill individual through the facility), and refer to healthcare staff for further evaluation. (See Infection Control and Clinical Care sections below.)  Facilities without onsite healthcare staff should contact their state, local, tribal, and/or territorial health department to coordinate effective medical isolation and necessary medical care.
10

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-1 Filed: 04/13/20 12 of 27 PageID #: 1287
ο If an individual is a close contact of a known COVID-19 case (but has no COVID-19 symptoms):  Quarantine the individual and monitor for symptoms two times per day for 14 days. (See Quarantine section below.)  Facilities without onsite healthcare staff should contact their state, local, tribal, and/or territorial health department to coordinate effective quarantine and necessary medical care.
√ Implement social distancing strategies to increase the physical space between incarcerated/ detained persons (ideally 6 feet between all individuals, regardless of the presence of symptoms). Strategies will need to be tailored to the individual space in the facility and the needs of the population and staff. Not all strategies will be feasible in all facilities. Example strategies with varying levels of intensity include: ο Common areas:  Enforce increased space between individuals in holding cells, as well as in lines and waiting areas such as intake (e.g., remove every other chair in a waiting area) ο Recreation:  Choose recreation spaces where individuals can spread out  Stagger time in recreation spaces  Restrict recreation space usage to a single housing unit per space (where feasible) ο Meals:  Stagger meals  Rearrange seating in the dining hall so that there is more space between individuals (e.g., remove every other chair and use only one side of the table)  Provide meals inside housing units or cells ο Group activities:  Limit the size of group activities  Increase space between individuals during group activities  Suspend group programs where participants are likely to be in closer contact than they are in their housing environment  Consider alternatives to existing group activities, in outdoor areas or other areas where individuals can spread out ο Housing:  If space allows, reassign bunks to provide more space between individuals, ideally 6 feet or more in all directions. (Ensure that bunks are cleaned thoroughly if assigned to a new occupant.)  Arrange bunks so that individuals sleep head to foot to increase the distance between them  Rearrange scheduled movements to minimize mixing of individuals from different housing areas ο Medical:  If possible, designate a room near each housing unit to evaluate individuals with COVID-19 symptoms, rather than having them walk through the facility to be evaluated in the medical unit. If this is not feasible, consider staggering sick call.  Designate a room near the intake area to evaluate new entrants who are flagged by the intake screening process for COVID-19 symptoms or case contact, before they move to other parts of the facility.
11

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-1 Filed: 04/13/20 13 of 27 PageID #: 1288
√ Communicate clearly and frequently with incarcerated/detained persons about changes to their daily routine and how they can contribute to risk reduction.
√ Note that if group activities are discontinued, it will be important to identify alternative forms of activity to support the mental health of incarcerated/detained persons.
√ Consider suspending work release programs and other programs that involve movement of incarcerated/detained individuals in and out of the facility.
√ Provide up-to-date information about COVID-19 to incarcerated/detained persons on a regular basis, including: ο Symptoms of COVID-19 and its health risks ο Reminders to report COVID-19 symptoms to staff at the first sign of illness
√ Consider having healthcare staff perform rounds on a regular basis to answer questions about COVID-19.
Prevention Practices for Staff
√ Remind staff to stay at home if they are sick. Ensure that staff are aware that they will not be able to enter the facility if they have symptoms of COVID-19, and that they will be expected to leave the facility as soon as possible if they develop symptoms while on duty.
√ Perform verbal screening (for COVID-19 symptoms and close contact with cases) and temperature checks for all staff daily on entry. See Screening section below for wording of screening questions and a recommended procedure to safely perform temperature checks. ο In very small facilities with only a few staff, consider self-monitoring or virtual monitoring (e.g., reporting to a central authority via phone). ο Send staff home who do not clear the screening process, and advise them to follow CDCrecommended steps for persons who are ill with COVID-19 symptoms.
√ Provide staff with up-to-date information about COVID-19 and about facility policies on a regular basis, including: ο Symptoms of COVID-19 and its health risks ο Employers’ sick leave policy ο If staff develop a fever, cough, or shortness of breath while at work: immediately put on a face mask, inform supervisor, leave the facility, and follow CDC-recommended steps for persons who are ill with COVID-19 symptoms. ο If staff test positive for COVID-19: inform workplace and personal contacts immediately, and do not return to work until a decision to discontinue home medical isolation precautions is made. Monitor CDC guidance on discontinuing home isolation regularly as circumstances evolve rapidly. ο If a staff member is identified as a close contact of a COVID-19 case (either within the facility or in the community): self-quarantine at home for 14 days and return to work if symptoms do not develop. If symptoms do develop, follow CDC-recommended steps for persons who are ill with COVID-19 symptoms.
√ If a staff member has a confirmed COVID-19 infection, the relevant employers should inform other staff about their possible exposure to COVID-19 in the workplace, but should maintain confidentiality as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act. ο Employees who are close contacts of the case should then self-monitor for symptoms (i.e., fever, cough, or shortness of breath).
12

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-1 Filed: 04/13/20 14 of 27 PageID #: 1289
√ When feasible and consistent with security priorities, encourage staff to maintain a distance of 6 feet or more from an individual with respiratory symptoms while interviewing, escorting, or interacting in other ways.
√ Ask staff to keep interactions with individuals with respiratory symptoms as brief as possible.
Prevention Practices for Visitors
√ If possible, communicate with potential visitors to discourage contact visits in the interest of their own health and the health of their family members and friends inside the facility.
√ Perform verbal screening (for COVID-19 symptoms and close contact with cases) and temperature checks for all visitors and volunteers on entry. See Screening section below for wording of screening questions and a recommended procedure to safely perform temperature checks. ο Staff performing temperature checks should wear recommended PPE. ο Exclude visitors and volunteers who do not clear the screening process or who decline screening.
√ Provide alcohol-based hand sanitizer with at least 60% alcohol in visitor entrances, exits, and waiting areas.
√ Provide visitors and volunteers with information to prepare them for screening. ο Instruct visitors to postpone their visit if they have symptoms of respiratory illness. ο If possible, inform potential visitors and volunteers before they travel to the facility that they should expect to be screened for COVID-19 (including a temperature check), and will be unable to enter the facility if they do not clear the screening process or if they decline screening. ο Display signage outside visiting areas explaining the COVID-19 screening and temperature check process. Ensure that materials are understandable for non-English speakers and those with low literacy.
√ Promote non-contact visits: ο Encourage incarcerated/detained persons to limit contact visits in the interest of their own health and the health of their visitors. ο Consider reducing or temporarily eliminating the cost of phone calls for incarcerated/detained persons. ο Consider increasing incarcerated/detained persons’ telephone privileges to promote mental health and reduce exposure from direct contact with community visitors.
√ Consider suspending or modifying visitation programs, if legally permissible. For example, provide access to virtual visitation options where available. ο If moving to virtual visitation, clean electronic surfaces regularly. (See Cleaning guidance below for instructions on cleaning electronic surfaces.) ο Inform potential visitors of changes to, or suspension of, visitation programs. ο Clearly communicate any visitation program changes to incarcerated/detained persons, along with the reasons for them (including protecting their health and their family and community members’ health). ο If suspending contact visits, provide alternate means (e.g., phone or video visitation) for incarcerated/detained individuals to engage with legal representatives, clergy, and other individuals with whom they have legal right to consult.
NOTE: Suspending visitation would be done in the interest of incarcerated/detained persons’ physical health and the health of the general public. However, visitation is important to maintain mental health.
13

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-1 Filed: 04/13/20 15 of 27 PageID #: 1290
If visitation is suspended, facilities should explore alternative ways for incarcerated/detained persons to communicate with their families, friends, and other visitors in a way that is not financially burdensome for them. See above suggestions for promoting non-contact visits.
√ Restrict non-essential vendors, volunteers, and tours from entering the facility.
Management
If there has been a suspected COVID-19 case inside the facility (among incarcerated/detained persons, staff, or visitors who have recently been inside), begin implementing Management strategies while test results are pending. Essential Management strategies include placing cases and individuals with symptoms under medical isolation, quarantining their close contacts, and facilitating necessary medical care, while observing relevant infection control and environmental disinfection protocols and wearing recommended PPE.
Operations
√ Implement alternate work arrangements deemed feasible in the Operational Preparedness section.
√ Suspend all transfers of incarcerated/detained persons to and from other jurisdictions and facilities (including work release where relevant), unless necessary for medical evaluation, medical isolation/quarantine, care, extenuating security concerns, or to prevent overcrowding. ο If a transfer is absolutely necessary, perform verbal screening and a temperature check as outlined in the Screening section below, before the individual leaves the facility. If an individual does not clear the screening process, delay the transfer and follow the protocol for a suspected COVID-19 case— including putting a face mask on the individual, immediately placing them under medical isolation, and evaluating them for possible COVID-19 testing. If the transfer must still occur, ensure that the receiving facility has capacity to appropriately isolate the individual upon arrival. Ensure that staff transporting the individual wear recommended PPE (see Table 1) and that the transport vehicle is cleaned thoroughly after transport.
√ If possible, consider quarantining all new intakes for 14 days before they enter the facility’s general population (SEPARATELY from other individuals who are quarantined due to contact with a COVID-19 case). Subsequently in this document, this practice is referred to as routine intake quarantine.
√ When possible, arrange lawful alternatives to in-person court appearances.
√ Incorporate screening for COVID-19 symptoms and a temperature check into release planning. ο Screen all releasing individuals for COVID-19 symptoms and perform a temperature check. (See Screening section below.)  If an individual does not clear the screening process, follow the protocol for a suspected COVID-19 case—including putting a face mask on the individual, immediately placing them under medical isolation, and evaluating them for possible COVID-19 testing.  If the individual is released before the recommended medical isolation period is complete, discuss release of the individual with state, local, tribal, and/or territorial health departments to ensure safe medical transport and continued shelter and medical care, as part of release planning. Make direct linkages to community resources to ensure proper medical isolation and access to medical care.  Before releasing an incarcerated/detained individual with COVID-19 symptoms to a communitybased facility, such as a homeless shelter, contact the facility’s staff to ensure adequate time for them to prepare to continue medical isolation, or contact local public health to explore alternate housing options.
14

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-1 Filed: 04/13/20 16 of 27 PageID #: 1291
√ Coordinate with state, local, tribal, and/or territorial health departments. ο When a COVID-19 case is suspected, work with public health to determine action. See Medical Isolation section below. ο When a COVID-19 case is suspected or confirmed, work with public health to identify close contacts who should be placed under quarantine. See Quarantine section below. ο Facilities with limited onsite medical isolation, quarantine, and/or healthcare services should coordinate closely with state, local, tribal, and/or territorial health departments when they encounter a confirmed or suspected case, in order to ensure effective medical isolation or quarantine, necessary medical evaluation and care, and medical transfer if needed. See Facilities with Limited Onsite Healthcare Services section.
Hygiene
√ Continue to ensure that hand hygiene supplies are well-stocked in all areas of the facility. (See above.)
√ Continue to emphasize practicing good hand hygiene and cough etiquette. (See above.)
Cleaning and Disinfecting Practices
√ Continue adhering to recommended cleaning and disinfection procedures for the facility at large. (See above.)
√ Reference specific cleaning and disinfection procedures for areas where a COVID-19 case has spent time (below).
Medical Isolation of Confirmed or Suspected COVID-19 Cases
NOTE: Some recommendations below apply primarily to facilities with onsite healthcare capacity. Facilities with Limited Onsite Healthcare Services, or without sufficient space to implement effective medical isolation, should coordinate with local public health officials to ensure that COVID-19 cases will be appropriately isolated, evaluated, tested (if indicated), and given care.
√ As soon as an individual develops symptoms of COVID-19, they should wear a face mask (if it does not restrict breathing) and should be immediately placed under medical isolation in a separate environment from other individuals.
√ Keep the individual’s movement outside the medical isolation space to an absolute minimum. ο Provide medical care to cases inside the medical isolation space. See Infection Control and Clinical Care sections for additional details. ο Serve meals to cases inside the medical isolation space. ο Exclude the individual from all group activities. ο Assign the isolated individual a dedicated bathroom when possible.
√ Ensure that the individual is wearing a face mask at all times when outside of the medical isolation space, and whenever another individual enters. Provide clean masks as needed. Masks should be changed at least daily, and when visibly soiled or wet.
√ Facilities should make every possible effort to place suspected and confirmed COVID-19 cases under medical isolation individually. Each isolated individual should be assigned their own housing space and bathroom where possible. Cohorting should only be practiced if there are no other available options.
15

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-1 Filed: 04/13/20 17 of 27 PageID #: 1292
ο If cohorting is necessary:  Only individuals who are laboratory confirmed COVID-19 cases should be placed under medical isolation as a cohort. Do not cohort confirmed cases with suspected cases or case contacts.  Unless no other options exist, do not house COVID-19 cases with individuals who have an undiagnosed respiratory infection.  Ensure that cohorted cases wear face masks at all times.
√ In order of preference, individuals under medical isolation should be housed: ο Separately, in single cells with solid walls (i.e., not bars) and solid doors that close fully ο Separately, in single cells with solid walls but without solid doors ο As a cohort, in a large, well-ventilated cell with solid walls and a solid door that closes fully. Employ social distancing strategies related to housing in the Prevention section above. ο As a cohort, in a large, well-ventilated cell with solid walls but without a solid door. Employ social distancing strategies related to housing in the Prevention section above. ο As a cohort, in single cells without solid walls or solid doors (i.e., cells enclosed entirely with bars), preferably with an empty cell between occupied cells. (Although individuals are in single cells in this scenario, the airflow between cells essentially makes it a cohort arrangement in the context of COVID-19.) ο As a cohort, in multi-person cells without solid walls or solid doors (i.e., cells enclosed entirely with bars), preferably with an empty cell between occupied cells. Employ social distancing strategies related to housing in the Prevention section above. ο Safely transfer individual(s) to another facility with available medical isolation capacity in one of the above arrangements (NOTE—Transfer should be avoided due to the potential to introduce infection to another facility; proceed only if no other options are available.)
If the ideal choice does not exist in a facility, use the next best alternative.
√ If the number of confirmed cases exceeds the number of individual medical isolation spaces available in the facility, be especially mindful of cases who are at higher risk of severe illness from COVID-19. Ideally, they should not be cohorted with other infected individuals. If cohorting is unavoidable, make all possible accommodations to prevent transmission of other infectious diseases to the higher-risk individual. (For example, allocate more space for a higher-risk individual within a shared medical isolation space.) ο Persons at higher risk may include older adults and persons of any age with serious underlying medical conditions such as lung disease, heart disease, and diabetes. See CDC’s website for a complete list, and check regularly for updates as more data become available to inform this issue. ο Note that incarcerated/detained populations have higher prevalence of infectious and chronic diseases and are in poorer health than the general population, even at younger ages.
√ Custody staff should be designated to monitor these individuals exclusively where possible. These staff should wear recommended PPE as appropriate for their level of contact with the individual under medical isolation (see PPE section below) and should limit their own movement between different parts of the facility to the extent possible.
√ Minimize transfer of COVID-19 cases between spaces within the healthcare unit.
16

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-1 Filed: 04/13/20 18 of 27 PageID #: 1293
√ Provide individuals under medical isolation with tissues and, if permissible, a lined no-touch trash receptacle. Instruct them to: ο Cover their mouth and nose with a tissue when they cough or sneeze ο Dispose of used tissues immediately in the lined trash receptacle ο Wash hands immediately with soap and water for at least 20 seconds. If soap and water are not available, clean hands with an alcohol-based hand sanitizer that contains at least 60% alcohol (where security concerns permit). Ensure that hand washing supplies are continually restocked.
√ Maintain medical isolation until all the following criteria have been met. Monitor the CDC website for updates to these criteria.
For individuals who will be tested to determine if they are still contagious:  The individual has been free from fever for at least 72 hours without the use of fever-reducing medications AND  The individual’s other symptoms have improved (e.g., cough, shortness of breath) AND  The individual has tested negative in at least two consecutive respiratory specimens collected at least 24 hours apart
For individuals who will NOT be tested to determine if they are still contagious:  The individual has been free from fever for at least 72 hours without the use of fever-reducing medications AND  The individual’s other symptoms have improved (e.g., cough, shortness of breath) AND  At least 7 days have passed since the first symptoms appeared
For individuals who had a confirmed positive COVID-19 test but never showed symptoms: ο At least 7 days have passed since the date of the individual’s first positive COVID-19 test AND ο The individual has had no subsequent illness
√ Restrict cases from leaving the facility while under medical isolation precautions, unless released from custody or if a transfer is necessary for medical care, infection control, lack of medical isolation space, or extenuating security concerns. ο If an incarcerated/detained individual who is a COVID-19 case is released from custody during their medical isolation period, contact public health to arrange for safe transport and continuation of necessary medical care and medical isolation as part of release planning.
Cleaning Spaces where COVID-19 Cases Spent Time
Thoroughly clean and disinfect all areas where the confirmed or suspected COVID-19 case spent time. Note—these protocols apply to suspected cases as well as confirmed cases, to ensure adequate disinfection in the event that the suspected case does, in fact, have COVID-19. Refer to the Definitions section for the distinction between confirmed and suspected cases.
ο Close off areas used by the infected individual. If possible, open outside doors and windows to increase air circulation in the area. Wait as long as practical, up to 24 hours under the poorest air exchange conditions (consult CDC Guidelines for Environmental Infection Control in Health-Care Facilities for wait time based on different ventilation conditions), before beginning to clean and disinfect, to minimize potential for exposure to respiratory droplets.
ο Clean and disinfect all areas (e.g., cells, bathrooms, and common areas) used by the infected individual, focusing especially on frequently touched surfaces (see list above in Prevention section).
17

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-1 Filed: 04/13/20 19 of 27 PageID #: 1294
√ Hard (non-porous) surface cleaning and disinfection ο If surfaces are dirty, they should be cleaned using a detergent or soap and water prior to disinfection. ο For disinfection, most common EPA-registered household disinfectants should be effective. Choose cleaning products based on security requirements within the facility.  Consult a list of products that are EPA-approved for use against the virus that causes COVID-19. Follow the manufacturer’s instructions for all cleaning and disinfection products (e.g., concentration, application method and contact time, etc.).  Diluted household bleach solutions can be used if appropriate for the surface. Follow the manufacturer’s instructions for application and proper ventilation, and check to ensure the product is not past its expiration date. Never mix household bleach with ammonia or any other cleanser. Unexpired household bleach will be effective against coronaviruses when properly diluted. Prepare a bleach solution by mixing:
- 5 tablespoons (1/3rd cup) bleach per gallon of water or
- 4 teaspoons bleach per quart of water
√ Soft (porous) surface cleaning and disinfection ο For soft (porous) surfaces such as carpeted floors and rugs, remove visible contamination if present and clean with appropriate cleaners indicated for use on these surfaces. After cleaning:  If the items can be laundered, launder items in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions using the warmest appropriate water setting for the items and then dry items completely.  Otherwise, use products that are EPA-approved for use against the virus that causes COVID-19 and are suitable for porous surfaces.
√ Electronics cleaning and disinfection ο For electronics such as tablets, touch screens, keyboards, and remote controls, remove visible contamination if present.  Follow the manufacturer’s instructions for all cleaning and disinfection products.  Consider use of wipeable covers for electronics.  If no manufacturer guidance is available, consider the use of alcohol-based wipes or spray containing at least 70% alcohol to disinfect touch screens. Dry surfaces thoroughly to avoid pooling of liquids.
Additional information on cleaning and disinfection of communal facilities such can be found on CDC’s website.
√ Ensure that staff and incarcerated/detained persons performing cleaning wear recommended PPE. (See PPE section below.)
√ Food service items. Cases under medical isolation should throw disposable food service items in the trash in their medical isolation room. Non-disposable food service items should be handled with gloves and washed with hot water or in a dishwasher. Individuals handling used food service items should clean their hands after removing gloves.
√ Laundry from a COVID-19 cases can be washed with other individuals’ laundry. ο Individuals handling laundry from COVID-19 cases should wear disposable gloves, discard after each use, and clean their hands after. ο Do not shake dirty laundry. This will minimize the possibility of dispersing virus through the air. ο Launder items as appropriate in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. If possible, launder items using the warmest appropriate water setting for the items and dry items completely.
18

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-1 Filed: 04/13/20 20 of 27 PageID #: 1295
ο Clean and disinfect clothes hampers according to guidance above for surfaces. If permissible, consider using a bag liner that is either disposable or can be laundered.
√ Consult cleaning recommendations above to ensure that transport vehicles are thoroughly cleaned after carrying a confirmed or suspected COVID-19 case.
Quarantining Close Contacts of COVID-19 Cases
NOTE: Some recommendations below apply primarily to facilities with onsite healthcare capacity. Facilities without onsite healthcare capacity, or without sufficient space to implement effective quarantine, should coordinate with local public health officials to ensure that close contacts of COVID-19 cases will be effectively quarantined and medically monitored.
√ Incarcerated/detained persons who are close contacts of a confirmed or suspected COVID-19 case (whether the case is another incarcerated/detained person, staff member, or visitor) should be placed under quarantine for 14 days (see CDC guidelines). ο If an individual is quarantined due to contact with a suspected case who is subsequently tested for COVID-19 and receives a negative result, the quarantined individual should be released from quarantine restrictions.
√ In the context of COVID-19, an individual (incarcerated/detained person or staff) is considered a close contact if they: ο Have been within approximately 6 feet of a COVID-19 case for a prolonged period of time OR ο Have had direct contact with infectious secretions of a COVID-19 case (e.g., have been coughed on)
Close contact can occur while caring for, living with, visiting, or sharing a common space with a COVID-19 case. Data to inform the definition of close contact are limited. Considerations when assessing close contact include the duration of exposure (e.g., longer exposure time likely increases exposure risk) and the clinical symptoms of the person with COVID-19 (e.g., coughing likely increases exposure risk, as does exposure to a severely ill patient).
√ Keep a quarantined individual’s movement outside the quarantine space to an absolute minimum. ο Provide medical evaluation and care inside or near the quarantine space when possible. ο Serve meals inside the quarantine space. ο Exclude the quarantined individual from all group activities. ο Assign the quarantined individual a dedicated bathroom when possible.
√ Facilities should make every possible effort to quarantine close contacts of COVID-19 cases individually. Cohorting multiple quarantined close contacts of a COVID-19 case could transmit COVID-19 from those who are infected to those who are uninfected. Cohorting should only be practiced if there are no other available options. ο If cohorting of close contacts under quarantine is absolutely necessary, symptoms of all individuals should be monitored closely, and individuals with symptoms of COVID-19 should be placed under medical isolation immediately. ο If an entire housing unit is under quarantine due to contact with a case from the same housing unit, the entire housing unit may need to be treated as a cohort and quarantine in place. ο Some facilities may choose to quarantine all new intakes for 14 days before moving them to the facility’s general population as a general rule (not because they were exposed to a COVID-19 case). Under this scenario, avoid mixing individuals quarantined due to exposure to a COVID-19 case with individuals undergoing routine intake quarantine.
19

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-1 Filed: 04/13/20 21 of 27 PageID #: 1296
ο If at all possible, do not add more individuals to an existing quarantine cohort after the 14-day quarantine clock has started.
√ If the number of quarantined individuals exceeds the number of individual quarantine spaces available in the facility, be especially mindful of those who are at higher risk of severe illness from COVID-19. Ideally, they should not be cohorted with other quarantined individuals. If cohorting is unavoidable, make all possible accommodations to reduce exposure risk for the higher-risk individuals. (For example, intensify social distancing strategies for higher-risk individuals.)
√ In order of preference, multiple quarantined individuals should be housed: ο Separately, in single cells with solid walls (i.e., not bars) and solid doors that close fully ο Separately, in single cells with solid walls but without solid doors ο As a cohort, in a large, well-ventilated cell with solid walls, a solid door that closes fully, and at least 6 feet of personal space assigned to each individual in all directions ο As a cohort, in a large, well-ventilated cell with solid walls and at least 6 feet of personal space assigned to each individual in all directions, but without a solid door ο As a cohort, in single cells without solid walls or solid doors (i.e., cells enclosed entirely with bars), preferably with an empty cell between occupied cells creating at least 6 feet of space between individuals. (Although individuals are in single cells in this scenario, the airflow between cells essentially makes it a cohort arrangement in the context of COVID-19.) ο As a cohort, in multi-person cells without solid walls or solid doors (i.e., cells enclosed entirely with bars), preferably with an empty cell between occupied cells. Employ social distancing strategies related to housing in the Prevention section to maintain at least 6 feet of space between individuals housed in the same cell. ο As a cohort, in individuals’ regularly assigned housing unit but with no movement outside the unit (if an entire housing unit has been exposed). Employ social distancing strategies related to housing in the Prevention section above to maintain at least 6 feet of space between individuals. ο Safely transfer to another facility with capacity to quarantine in one of the above arrangements
(NOTE—Transfer should be avoided due to the potential to introduce infection to another facility; proceed only if no other options are available.)
√ Quarantined individuals should wear face masks if feasible based on local supply, as source control, under the following circumstances (see PPE section and Table 1): ο If cohorted, quarantined individuals should wear face masks at all times (to prevent transmission from infected to uninfected individuals). ο If quarantined separately, individuals should wear face masks whenever a non-quarantined individual enters the quarantine space. ο All quarantined individuals should wear a face mask if they must leave the quarantine space for any reason. ο Asymptomatic individuals under routine intake quarantine (with no known exposure to a COVID-19 case) do not need to wear face masks.
√ Staff who have close contact with quarantined individuals should wear recommended PPE if feasible based on local supply, feasibility, and safety within the scope of their duties (see PPE section and Table 1). ο Staff supervising asymptomatic incarcerated/detained persons under routine intake quarantine (with no known exposure to a COVID-19 case) do not need to wear PPE.
20

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-1 Filed: 04/13/20 22 of 27 PageID #: 1297
√ Quarantined individuals should be monitored for COVID-19 symptoms twice per day, including temperature checks. ο If an individual develops symptoms, they should be moved to medical isolation immediately and further evaluated. (See Medical Isolation section above.) ο See Screening section for a procedure to perform temperature checks safely on asymptomatic close contacts of COVID-19 cases.
√ If an individual who is part of a quarantined cohort becomes symptomatic: ο If the individual is tested for COVID-19 and tests positive: the 14-day quarantine clock for the remainder of the cohort must be reset to 0. ο If the individual is tested for COVID-19 and tests negative: the 14-day quarantine clock for this individual and the remainder of the cohort does not need to be reset. This individual can return from medical isolation to the quarantined cohort for the remainder of the quarantine period. ο If the individual is not tested for COVID-19: the 14-day quarantine clock for the remainder of the cohort must be reset to 0.
√ Restrict quarantined individuals from leaving the facility (including transfers to other facilities) during the 14-day quarantine period, unless released from custody or a transfer is necessary for medical care, infection control, lack of quarantine space, or extenuating security concerns.
√ Quarantined individuals can be released from quarantine restrictions if they have not developed symptoms during the 14-day quarantine period.
√ Meals should be provided to quarantined individuals in their quarantine spaces. Individuals under quarantine should throw disposable food service items in the trash. Non-disposable food service items should be handled with gloves and washed with hot water or in a dishwasher. Individuals handling used food service items should clean their hands after removing gloves.
√ Laundry from quarantined individuals can be washed with other individuals’ laundry. ο Individuals handling laundry from quarantined persons should wear disposable gloves, discard after each use, and clean their hands after. ο Do not shake dirty laundry. This will minimize the possibility of dispersing virus through the air. ο Launder items as appropriate in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. If possible, launder items using the warmest appropriate water setting for the items and dry items completely. ο Clean and disinfect clothes hampers according to guidance above for surfaces. If permissible, consider using a bag liner that is either disposable or can be laundered.
Management of Incarcerated/Detained Persons with COVID-19 Symptoms
NOTE: Some recommendations below apply primarily to facilities with onsite healthcare capacity. Facilities without onsite healthcare capacity or without sufficient space for medical isolation should coordinate with local public health officials to ensure that suspected COVID-19 cases will be effectively isolated, evaluated, tested (if indicated), and given care.
√ If possible, designate a room near each housing unit for healthcare staff to evaluate individuals with COVID-19 symptoms, rather than having them walk through the facility to be evaluated in the medical unit.
√ Incarcerated/detained individuals with COVID-19 symptoms should wear a face mask and should be placed under medical isolation immediately. Discontinue the use of a face mask if it inhibits breathing. See Medical Isolation section above.
21

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-1 Filed: 04/13/20 23 of 27 PageID #: 1298
√ Medical staff should evaluate symptomatic individuals to determine whether COVID-19 testing is indicated. Refer to CDC guidelines for information on evaluation and testing. See Infection Control and Clinical Care sections below as well.
√ If testing is indicated (or if medical staff need clarification on when testing is indicated), contact the state, local, tribal, and/or territorial health department. Work with public health or private labs as available to access testing supplies or services. ο If the COVID-19 test is positive, continue medical isolation. (See Medical Isolation section above.) ο If the COVID-19 test is negative, return the individual to their prior housing assignment unless they require further medical assessment or care.
Management Strategies for Incarcerated/Detained Persons without COVID-19 Symptoms
√ Provide clear information to incarcerated/detained persons about the presence of COVID-19 cases within the facility, and the need to increase social distancing and maintain hygiene precautions. ο Consider having healthcare staff perform regular rounds to answer questions about COVID-19. ο Ensure that information is provided in a manner that can be understood by non-English speaking individuals and those with low literacy, and make necessary accommodations for those with cognitive or intellectual disabilities and those who are deaf, blind, or low-vision.
√ Implement daily temperature checks in housing units where COVID-19 cases have been identified, especially if there is concern that incarcerated/detained individuals are not notifying staff of symptoms. See Screening section for a procedure to safely perform a temperature check.
√ Consider additional options to intensify social distancing within the facility.
Management Strategies for Staff
√ Provide clear information to staff about the presence of COVID-19 cases within the facility, and the need to enforce social distancing and encourage hygiene precautions. ο Consider having healthcare staff perform regular rounds to answer questions about COVID-19 from staff.
√ Staff identified as close contacts of a COVID-19 case should self-quarantine at home for 14 days and may return to work if symptoms do not develop. ο See above for definition of a close contact. ο Refer to CDC guidelines for further recommendations regarding home quarantine for staff.
Infection Control
Infection control guidance below is applicable to all types of correctional facilities. Individual facilities should assess their unique needs based on the types of exposure staff and incarcerated/ detained persons may have with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 cases.
√ All individuals who have the potential for direct or indirect exposure to COVID-19 cases or infectious materials (including body substances; contaminated medical supplies, devices, and equipment; contaminated environmental surfaces; or contaminated air) should follow infection control practices outlined in the CDC Interim Infection Prevention and Control Recommendations for Patients with Suspected or Confirmed Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Healthcare Settings. Monitor these guidelines regularly for updates.
22

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-1 Filed: 04/13/20 24 of 27 PageID #: 1299
ο Implement the above guidance as fully as possible within the correctional/detention context. Some of the specific language may not apply directly to healthcare settings within correctional facilities and detention centers, or to facilities without onsite healthcare capacity, and may need to be adapted to reflect facility operations and custody needs.
ο Note that these recommendations apply to staff as well as to incarcerated/detained individuals who may come in contact with contaminated materials during the course of their work placement in the facility (e.g., cleaning).
√ Staff should exercise caution when in contact with individuals showing symptoms of a respiratory infection. Contact should be minimized to the extent possible until the infected individual is wearing a face mask. If COVID-19 is suspected, staff should wear recommended PPE (see PPE section).
√ Refer to PPE section to determine recommended PPE for individuals persons in contact with confirmed COVID-19 cases, contacts, and potentially contaminated items.
Clinical Care of COVID-19 Cases
√ Facilities should ensure that incarcerated/detained individuals receive medical evaluation and treatment at the first signs of COVID-19 symptoms. ο If a facility is not able to provide such evaluation and treatment, a plan should be in place to safely transfer the individual to another facility or local hospital. ο The initial medical evaluation should determine whether a symptomatic individual is at higher risk for severe illness from COVID-19. Persons at higher risk may include older adults and persons of any age with serious underlying medical conditions such as lung disease, heart disease, and diabetes. See CDC’s website for a complete list, and check regularly for updates as more data become available to inform this issue.
√ Staff evaluating and providing care for confirmed or suspected COVID-19 cases should follow the CDC Interim Clinical Guidance for Management of Patients with Confirmed Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) and monitor the guidance website regularly for updates to these recommendations.
√ Healthcare staff should evaluate persons with respiratory symptoms or contact with a COVID-19 case in a separate room, with the door closed if possible, while wearing recommended PPE and ensuring that the suspected case is wearing a face mask. ο If possible, designate a room near each housing unit to evaluate individuals with COVID-19 symptoms, rather than having them walk through the facility to be evaluated in the medical unit.
√ Clinicians are strongly encouraged to test for other causes of respiratory illness (e.g., influenza).
√ The facility should have a plan in place to safely transfer persons with severe illness from COVID-19 to a local hospital if they require care beyond what the facility is able to provide.
√ When evaluating and treating persons with symptoms of COVID-19 who do not speak English, using a language line or provide a trained interpreter when possible.
Recommended PPE and PPE Training for Staff and Incarcerated/Detained Persons
√ Ensure that all staff (healthcare and non-healthcare) and incarcerated/detained persons who will have contact with infectious materials in their work placements have been trained to correctly don, doff, and dispose of PPE relevant to the level of contact they will have with confirmed and suspected COVID-19 cases.
23

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-1 Filed: 04/13/20 25 of 27 PageID #: 1300
ο Ensure that staff and incarcerated/detained persons who require respiratory protection (e.g., N95s) for their work responsibilities have been medically cleared, trained, and fit-tested in the context of an employer’s respiratory protection program.
ο For PPE training materials and posters, please visit the CDC website on Protecting Healthcare Personnel.
√ Ensure that all staff are trained to perform hand hygiene after removing PPE.
√ If administrators anticipate that incarcerated/detained persons will request unnecessary PPE, consider providing training on the different types of PPE that are needed for differing degrees of contact with COVID-19 cases and contacts, and the reasons for those differences (see Table 1). Monitor linked CDC guidelines in Table 1 for updates to recommended PPE.
√ Keep recommended PPE near the spaces in the facility where it could be needed, to facilitate quick access in an emergency.
√ Recommended PPE for incarcerated/detained individuals and staff in a correctional facility will vary based on the type of contact they have with COVID-19 cases and their contacts (see Table 1). Each type of recommended PPE is defined below. As above, note that PPE shortages are anticipated in every category during the COVID-19 response. ο N95 respirator
See below for guidance on when face masks are acceptable alternatives for N95s. N95 respirators should be prioritized when staff anticipate contact with infectious aerosols from a COVID-19 case. ο Face mask ο Eye protection—goggles or disposable face shield that fully covers the front and sides of the face ο A single pair of disposable patient examination gloves
Gloves should be changed if they become torn or heavily contaminated. ο Disposable medical isolation gown or single-use/disposable coveralls, when feasible
 If custody staff are unable to wear a disposable gown or coveralls because it limits access to their duty belt and gear, ensure that duty belt and gear are disinfected after close contact with the individual. Clean and disinfect duty belt and gear prior to reuse using a household cleaning spray or wipe, according to the product label.
 If there are shortages of gowns, they should be prioritized for aerosol-generating procedures, care activities where splashes and sprays are anticipated, and high-contact patient care activities that provide opportunities for transfer of pathogens to the hands and clothing of staff.
√ Note that shortages of all PPE categories are anticipated during the COVID-19 response, particularly for non-healthcare workers. Guidance for optimizing the supply of each category can be found on CDC’s website: ο Guidance in the event of a shortage of N95 respirators  Based on local and regional situational analysis of PPE supplies, face masks are an acceptable alternative when the supply chain of respirators cannot meet the demand. During this time, available respirators should be prioritized for staff engaging in activities that would expose them to respiratory aerosols, which pose the highest exposure risk. ο Guidance in the event of a shortage of face masks ο Guidance in the event of a shortage of eye protection ο Guidance in the event of a shortage of gowns/coveralls
24

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-1 Filed: 04/13/20 26 of 27 PageID #: 1301
Table 1. Recommended Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for Incarcerated/Detained Persons and Staff in a Correctional Facility during the COVID-19 Response

Classification of Individual Wearing PPE

N95 respirator

Face mask

Eye Protection

Gloves

Gown/ Coveralls

Incarcerated/Detained Persons

Asymptomatic incarcerated/detained persons (under Apply face masks for source control as feasible based on local supply, quarantine as close contacts of a COVID-19 case*) especially if housed as a cohort

Incarcerated/detained persons who are confirmed or

suspected COVID-19 cases, or showing symptoms of

–



–

–

–

COVID-19

Incarcerated/detained persons in a work placement

handling laundry or used food service items from a

–

–

–





COVID-19 case or case contact

Incarcerated/detained persons in a work placement Additional PPE may be needed based on

cleaning areas where a COVID-19 case has spent time the product label. See CDC guidelines for





more details.

Staff

Staff having direct contact with asymptomatic incarcerated/detained persons under quarantine as close contacts of a COVID-19 case* (but not performing temperature checks or providing medical care)

–

Face mask, eye protection, and gloves as local supply and scope of duties allow.

–

Staff performing temperature checks on any group

of people (staff, visitors, or incarcerated/detained persons), or providing medical care to asymptomatic

–

quarantined persons









Staff having direct contact with (including transport)

or offering medical care to confirmed or suspected

**

COVID-19 cases (see CDC infection control guidelines)







Staff present during a procedure on a confirmed

or suspected COVID-19 case that may generate respiratory aerosols (see CDC infection control



–







guidelines)

Staff handling laundry or used food service items from a COVID-19 case or case contact

–

–

–





Staff cleaning an area where a COVID-19 case has

Additional PPE may be needed based on

spent time

the product label. See CDC guidelines for





more details.

* If a facility chooses to routinely quarantine all new intakes (without symptoms or known exposure to a COVID-19 case) before integrating into the facility’s general population, face masks are not necessary.
** A NIOSH-approved N95 is preferred. However, based on local and regional situational analysis of PPE supplies, face masks are an acceptable alternative when the supply chain of respirators cannot meet the demand. During this time, available respirators should be prioritized for procedures that are likely to generate respiratory aerosols, which would pose the highest exposure risk to staff.

25

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-1 Filed: 04/13/20 27 of 27 PageID #: 1302
Verbal Screening and Temperature Check Protocols for Incarcerated/Detained Persons, Staff, and Visitors
The guidance above recommends verbal screening and temperature checks for incarcerated/detained persons, staff, volunteers, and visitors who enter correctional and detention facilities, as well as incarcerated/detained persons who are transferred to another facility or released from custody. Below, verbal screening questions for COVID-19 symptoms and contact with known cases, and a safe temperature check procedure are detailed. √ Verbal screening for symptoms of COVID-19 and contact with COVID-19 cases should include
the following questions: ο Today or in the past 24 hours, have you had any of the following symptoms?  Fever, felt feverish, or had chills?  Cough?  Difficulty breathing? ο In the past 14 days, have you had contact with a person known to be infected with the novel coronavirus (COVID-19)?
√ The following is a protocol to safely check an individual’s temperature: ο Perform hand hygiene ο Put on a face mask, eye protection (goggles or disposable face shield that fully covers the front and sides of the face), gown/coveralls, and a single pair of disposable gloves ο Check individual’s temperature ο If performing a temperature check on multiple individuals, ensure that a clean pair of gloves is used for each individual and that the thermometer has been thoroughly cleaned in between each check. If disposable or non-contact thermometers are used and the screener did not have physical contact with an individual, gloves do not need to be changed before the next check. If non-contact thermometers are used, they should be cleaned routinely as recommended by CDC for infection control. ο Remove and discard PPE ο Perform hand hygiene
26

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-2 Filed: 04/13/20 1 of 26 PageID #: 1303
EXHIBIT B

CDC Guidance on Management of COVID-19 in Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-2 Filed: 04/13/20 2 of 26 PageID #: 1304 Correctional and Detention Facilities
This interim guidance is based on what is currently known about the transmission and severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) as of March 30, 2020. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) will update this guidance as needed and as additional information becomes available. Please check the CDC website periodically for updated interim guidance.
cdc.gov/coronavirus

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-2 Filed: 04/13/20 3 of 26 PageID #: 1305
Finding the CDC guidance for corrections
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019ncov/community/correction-detention/guidancecorrectional-detention.html

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-2 Filed: 04/13/20 4 of 26 PageID #: 1306
What types of facilities does the guidance cover?

Prisons

Jails

Detention Centers

Size Onsite healthcare capacity

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-2 Filed: 04/13/20 5 of 26 PageID #: 1307
Navigating the CDC Guidance Document

1

2

3

PREPARE
Communications Personnel Practices
Operations Supplies

PREVENT
Hygiene Cleaning Screening for Symptoms Social Distancing

MANAGE
Medical Isolation Quarantine
Infection Control Clinical Care

Make sure to look at recommendations from all phases, regardless of whether you have cases

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-2 Filed: 04/13/20 6 of 26 PageID #: 1308
COMMUNICATE with local public health

PREPARE

IDENTIFY medical isolation and quarantine spaces ahead of time
PLAN for staff absences and encourage sick employees to stay home
POST information around the facility on COVID-19 symptoms and hygiene
CHECK supply stocks (cleaning supplies, hand washing supplies, medical supplies, PPE)

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-2 Filed: 04/13/20 7 of 26 PageID #: 1309
Communications Resources
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/communication/factsheets.html

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-2 Filed: 04/13/20 8 of 26 PageID #: 1310
A quick note on…SOAP
Make sure it is: • Free • Accessible • Restocked continually • Not irritating to skin
Alcohol-based hand sanitizer (at least 60% alcohol) is a good alternative when soap & water aren’t available – consider loosening restrictions where feasible

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-2 Filed: 04/13/20 9 of 26 PageID #: 1311
RAMP UP cleaning schedule & hand hygiene reminders

PREVENT

LIMIT transfers between facilities
SCREEN everyone coming in for symptoms (new intakes, staff, visitors)
IMPLEMENT social distancing
MAKE SURE everyone knows what to do if they have symptoms
ENCOURAGE non-contact visits or consider suspending visitation

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-2 Filed: 04/13/20 10 of 26 PageID #: 1312
Screening
• New intakes – AT SALLYPORT • Incarcerated people leaving the facility • Staff – daily on entry • Visitors
1. Today or in the past 24 hours, have you had any of the following symptoms?
• Fever, felt feverish, or had chills? • Cough? • Difficulty breathing?
2. In the past 14 days, have you had contact with a person known to be infected with coronavirus (COVID-19)?
3. Take the person’s temperature

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-2 Filed: 04/13/20 11 of 26 PageID #: 1313
Social Distancing
• Ideally 6 feet between people (sick or not)
• Decrease frequency of contact
Reduces risk of spreading disease

Social Distancing Examples for Corrections Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-2 Filed: 04/13/20 12 of 26 PageID #: 1314

NOT one-size-fits-all…each facility will need to choose what works for them

Common areas
• Enforce increased space between people in • holding cells • lines • waiting areas such as intake (e.g., remove every other chair in a waiting area)

Recreation
• Choose spaces where people can spread out • Stagger time in recreation spaces • Assign each housing unit a dedicated
recreation space to avoid mixing and crosscontamination

Meals
• Stagger meals • Rearrange seating in the dining hall
(e.g., remove every other chair and use only one side of the table) • Provide meals inside housing units or cells

Group activities
• Limit their size • Increase space between people • Suspend group programs where people will
be in closer contact than in their housing environment • Choose outdoor areas or other areas where people can spread out

Housing
• Reassign bunks to provide more space between people
• Sleep head to foot • Minimize mixing of people from different
housing areas

Medical
• Designate a room near each housing unit to evaluate people with COVID-19 symptoms
• Stagger sick call • Designate a room near the intake area to
evaluate new entrants who are flagged by the intake screening process

COMMUNICATE the reasons for social distancing

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-2 Filed: 04/13/20 13 of 26 PageID #: 1315
SUSPEND all non-medical transfers

INTEGRATE screening into release planning

COORDINATE with public health

MANAGE

MASK & MEDICALLY ISOLATE symptomatic people IDENTIFY & QUARANTINE close contacts

WEAR recommended PPE

PROVIDE clinical care or transfer for care

COMMUNICATE clearly & often

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-2 Filed: 04/13/20 14 of 26 PageID #: 1316

MEDICAL ISOLATION
Who: Symptomatic people
What: MASK & separate from others
When: Immediately once symptoms appear
Where: Ideally, an individual cell
Why: Prevent exposing others Evaluate, test if needed Give care
How long: It’s complicated (More on next slide)

QUARANTINE
Who: Close contacts of a known or suspected case (staff or incarcerated)
What: Separate from others Monitor for symptoms
When: Once identified as a close contact
Where: Ideally, an individual cell (if incarcerated) At home (if staff)
Why: Prevent exposing others if infected
How long: 14 days

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-2 Filed: 04/13/20 15 of 26 PageID #: 1317

Medical Isolation

MASK for source control
Separate from others (individually if possible) & restrict movement
Provide with tissues, trash can, and hand hygiene supplies

Isolate anyone with symptoms of COVID-19

Notify public health Clean & disinfect thoroughly

Evaluate and test, if indicated

Give care (or transfer for care)

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-2 Filed: 04/13/20 16 of 26 PageID #: 1318

Options for Medical Isolation
when multiple people need to be isolated due to COVID-19

IDEAL: SEPARATELY
• Single cells with solid walls & solid door • Single cells with solid walls
NEXT BEST: AS A COHORT – use social distancing
• Large, well-ventilated cell with solid walls & solid door • Large, well-ventilated cell with solid walls • Single, barred cells (ideally with empty cell between) • Multi-person, barred cells (ideally with empty cell between)
LAST RESORT: TRANSFER
• Transfer to a facility with isolation space
(LAST RESORT due to possibility of introducing COVID-19 to another facility)

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-2 Filed: 04/13/20 17 of 26 PageID #: 1319
CAUTIONS for Cohorting COVID-19 Cases

DO NOT COHORT CONFIRMED CASES WITH SUSPECTED CASES
DO NOT COHORT CASES WITH UNDIAGNOSED RESPIRATORY INFECTIONS

PRIORITIZE SINGLE CELLS FOR PEOPLE AT HIGHER RISK OF SEVERE ILLNESS
FROM COVID-19
• Older adults • People with serious underlying
medical conditions

USE SOCIAL DISTANCING AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-2 Filed: 04/13/20 18 of 26 PageID #: 1320
When Does Medical Isolation End?
Test-based strategy • Fever-free for ≥72 hours (without fever reducing medications) AND • Respiratory symptoms have improved AND • Tested negative in ≥2 consecutive respiratory specimens collected ≥24 hours apart
Symptom-based strategy • Fever-free for ≥72 hours (without fever reducing medications) AND • Respiratory symptoms have improved AND • At least 7 days have passed since the first symptoms appeared
If the person had a positive test but never had symptoms • At least 7 days have passed since the first positive COVID-19 test AND • The person has had no subsequent illness

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-2 Filed: 04/13/20 19 of 26 PageID #: 1321

Quarantine

Identify close contacts Mask as source control, if PPE stocks allow

A close contact is anyone who:
• Has been within 6 feet of a confirmed/suspected case for a prolonged period of time
OR • Has had contact with
infectious secretions from a confirmed/suspected case (e.g., coughed on)

Separate from others (ideally individually) & restrict movement
Monitor symptoms 2x per day
If symptoms develop, immediately mask and medically isolate
If cohorting and another case develops, 14-day clock restarts Return to previous housing and lift movement restrictions after 14 days if no symptoms develop

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-2 Filed: 04/13/20 20 of 26 PageID #: 1322

Options for Quarantine
when multiple close contacts of a COVID-19 case need to be quarantined

IDEAL: SEPARATELY
• Single cells with solid walls & solid door • Single cells with solid walls
NEXT BEST: AS A COHORT – use social distancing
• Large, well-ventilated cell with solid walls & solid door • Large, well-ventilated cell with solid walls • Single, barred cells (ideally with empty cell between) • Multi-person, barred cells (ideally with empty cell between) • If a whole housing unit has been exposed: quarantine in
place, with no movement outside the unit
LAST RESORT: TRANSFER
• Transfer to a facility with quarantine space
(LAST RESORT due to possibility of introducing COVID-19 to another facility)

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-2 Filed: 04/13/20 21 of 26 PageID #: 1323
CAUTIONS for Cohorting Close Contacts of COVID-19 Cases

MONITOR SYMPTOMS CLOSELY, AND IMMEDIATELY PLACE SYMPTOMATIC PEOPLE UNDER MEDICAL ISOLATION TO PREVENT FURTHER SPREAD
(14-DAY CLOCK RESTARTS)

PRIORITIZE SINGLE CELLS FOR PEOPLE AT HIGHER RISK OF SEVERE ILLNESS FROM
COVID-19
• Older adults • People with serious underlying
medical conditions

DO NOT ADD PEOPLE TO AN EXISTING QUARANTINE COHORT
DO NOT MIX PEOPLE QUARANTINED DUE TO EXPOSURE WITH PEOPLE
UNDER ROUTINE INTAKE QUARANTINE

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-2 Filed: 04/13/20 22 of 26 PageID #: 1324
Clinical Care for Patients with COVID-19
• Refer to full CDC guidance at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nCoV/index.html:
• Evaluating and Testing Persons for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)
• CDC Interim Clinical Guidance for Management of Patients with Confirmed Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19)
• Evaluate people for COVID-19 at the first sign of symptoms
• Include assessment of high risk status • Test for other causes of respiratory illness
(e.g., influenza)
• Have a plan in place to safely transport cases to a local hospital if they need care beyond what the facility can provide

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-2 Filed: 04/13/20 23 of 26 PageID #: 1325
Infection Control & PPE
• Refer to full CDC guidance at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nCoV/index.html: • CDC Interim Infection Prevention and Control Recommendations for Patients with Suspected or Confirmed Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Healthcare Settings • NOTE: language is not specific for correctional settings – implement as fully as able, may need to adapt
• Assess PPE needs based on the type of contact a person has with a confirmed/suspected COVID-19 case (see full guidance document and accompanying PPE table – details on next 2 slides)
• Minimize contact with a symptomatic person until that person is wearing a mask (6 feet if possible)
• Clean duty belt, gear, clothing that comes into contact with a symptomatic person
• Wash hands thoroughly after any contact

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-2 Filed: 04/13/20 24 of 26 PageID #: 1326
Infection Control & PPE
• Nationwide shortages are expected for all PPE categories:
• Refer to CDC’s guidance on optimizing PPE supplies: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/ppestrategy/index.html
Some strategies include:
• N95 respirators: Face masks are an acceptable alternative to N95 respirators when supplies are limited. N95s should be prioritized for procedures expected to generate infectious aerosols.
• Face masks: Extended use for multiple patients; use beyond shelf life; reuse; prioritize for splashes/sprays; increase ventilation; homemade masks
• Eye protection: Choose reusable options if available; use beyond shelf life; extended use for multiple patients; clean disposable units; prioritize for splashes/sprays
• Gowns: Cloth/reusable options; use beyond shelf life; use gowns meeting international standards; prioritize for splashes/sprays/high-contact; other garments

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-2 Filed: 04/13/20 25 of 26 PageID #: 1327
Recommended PPE
PPE recommended for staff and incarcerated people depends on the level of contact they have with COVID-19 cases and/or contaminated materials 2nd to last page of guidance document

NOTE: Change to table forthcoming – staff performing temperature checks do NOT need to wear gowns/coveralls.

* If a facility chooses to routinely quarantine all new intakes (without symptoms or known exposure to a COVID-19 case) before integrating into the facility’s general population, face masks are not necessary. **A NIOSH-approved N95 is preferred. However, based on local and regional situational analysis of PPE supplies, face masks can be used as an alternative when the supply chain of respirators cannot meet the demand. During this time, available respirators should be prioritized for procedures that are likely to generate respiratory aerosols, which would pose the highest exposure risk to staff.

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-2 Filed: 04/13/20 26 of 26 PageID #: 1328
Q & A

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-3 Filed: 04/13/20 1 of 43 PageID #: 1329
EXHIBIT C

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-3 Filed: 04/13/20 2 of 43 PageID #: 1330

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-3 Filed: 04/13/20 3 of 43 PageID #: 1331

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-3 Filed: 04/13/20 4 of 43 PageID #: 1332
Exhibit C - Affirmations 003

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-3 Filed: 04/13/20 5 of 43 PageID #: 1333

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-3 Filed: 04/13/20 6 of 43 PageID #: 1334

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-3 Filed: 04/13/20 7 of 43 PageID #: 1335
Exhibit C - Affirmations 006

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-3 Filed: 04/13/20 8 of 43 PageID #: 1336

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-3 Filed: 04/13/20 9 of 43 PageID #: 1337

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-3 Filed: 04/13/20 10 of 43 PageID #: 1338
Exhibit C - Affirmations 009

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-3 Filed: 04/13/20 11 of 43 PageID #: 1339

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-3 Filed: 04/13/20 12 of 43 PageID #: 1340
Exhibit C - Affirmations 011

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-3 Filed: 04/13/20 13 of 43 PageID #: 1341

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-3 Filed: 04/13/20 14 of 43 PageID #: 1342
Exhibit C - Affirmations 013

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-3 Filed: 04/13/20 15 of 43 PageID #: 1343

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-3 Filed: 04/13/20 16 of 43 PageID #: 1344

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-3 Filed: 04/13/20 17 of 43 PageID #: 1345
Exhibit C - Affirmations 016

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-3 Filed: 04/13/20 18 of 43 PageID #: 1346
Exhibit C - Affirmations 017

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-3 Filed: 04/13/20 19 of 43 PageID #: 1347
Exhibit C - Affirmations 018

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-3 Filed: 04/13/20 20 of 43 PageID #: 1348

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-3 Filed: 04/13/20 21 of 43 PageID #: 1349
Exhibit C - Affirmations 020

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-3 Filed: 04/13/20 22 of 43 PageID #: 1350

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-3 Filed: 04/13/20 23 of 43 PageID #: 1351

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-3 Filed: 04/13/20 24 of 43 PageID #: 1352
Exhibit C - Affirmations 023

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-3 Filed: 04/13/20 25 of 43 PageID #: 1353
Exhibit C - Affirmations 024

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-3 Filed: 04/13/20 26 of 43 PageID #: 1354

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-3 Filed: 04/13/20 27 of 43 PageID #: 1355

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-3 Filed: 04/13/20 28 of 43 PageID #: 1356

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-3 Filed: 04/13/20 29 of 43 PageID #: 1357

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-3 Filed: 04/13/20 30 of 43 PageID #: 1358

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-3 Filed: 04/13/20 31 of 43 PageID #: 1359
Exhibit C - Affirmations 030

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-3 Filed: 04/13/20 32 of 43 PageID #: 1360
Exhibit C - Affirmations 031

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-3 Filed: 04/13/20 33 of 43 PageID #: 1361

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-3 Filed: 04/13/20 34 of 43 PageID #: 1362
Exhibit C - Affirmations 033

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-3 Filed: 04/13/20 35 of 43 PageID #: 1363
Exhibit C - Affirmations 034

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-3 Filed: 04/13/20 36 of 43 PageID #: 1364

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-3 Filed: 04/13/20 37 of 43 PageID #: 1365

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-3 Filed: 04/13/20 38 of 43 PageID #: 1366
Exhibit C - Affirmations 037

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-3 Filed: 04/13/20 39 of 43 PageID #: 1367

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-3 Filed: 04/13/20 40 of 43 PageID #: 1368

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-3 Filed: 04/13/20 41 of 43 PageID #: 1369
Exhibit C - Affirmations 040

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-3 Filed: 04/13/20 42 of 43 PageID #: 1370
Exhibit C - Affirmations 041

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-3 Filed: 04/13/20 43 of 43 PageID #: 1371

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-4 Filed: 04/13/20 1 of 21 PageID #: 1372
EXHIBIT D

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-4 Filed: 04/13/20 2 of 21 PageID #: 1373
Exhibit D - Declarations 001

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION

MICHAEL AMOS, ET AL.

PLAINTIFFS

V.

CASE NO. 4:20-CV-007-DMB-JMV

TOMMY TAYLOR, ET AL.

DEFENDANTS

DECLARATION OF

On this the ___ day of April 2020, I hereby declare under penalty of perjury, pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1746, that the following statements, based on my personal knowledge, are true and

correct:

1. My name is

. I am an inmate at the Mississippi State Penitentiary in Parchman,

Mississippi. I am housed in Unit 30, Building C, Zone A.

2. On or about Thursday April 2, 2020, Superintendent Turner spoke to Building C, Zone A of

Unit 30 and stated that on March 26, 2020 we had possibly been exposed to an individual

who had been tested for COVID-19 and that Buildings C and D of Unit 30 would be placed

on lockdown until April 9, 2020.

3. On or about April 2, 2020, Superintendent Turner explained that we were exposed to the

virus by someone (a guard or nurse) who had exhibited COVID-19 symptoms and last came

in contact with us on March 26, 2020. Superintendent Turner refused to answer any

questions at that time. 4. Between March 26th and April 2nd, men in my building were still going to the dining hall for

meals, and inmates from Buildings C and D who worked were still in contact with people in

A and B Buildings, the dining hall, and other common areas. We were not in quarantine or

lockdown from March 26, 2020 to April 2, 2020.

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-4 Filed: 04/13/20 3 of 21 PageID #: 1374
Exhibit D - Declarations 002

5. On or about April 2nd or April 3rd, a nurse came to our zone, handed out a flyer, and began

taking temperatures. Since that day, we have been given no further information from

correctional or medical staff.

6. Building C was on lockdown/quarantine for one week (from April 2, 2020 until April 9,

2020). During that time, I was never issued a mask.

7. With the exception of

, no one in my building or zone has been given a mask

except when we were brought to see our attorneys on April 10th.

8. We were not given frequent updates about the virus. It was not emphasized to use that co-

pays would be waived for virus related symptoms.

9. Bunks were not rearranged to allow men to social distance. We were not instructed to sleep

head to foot, for example.

10. Intra-prison transfers (from unit to unit or zone to zone) continued during this time.

11. I did not observe the guards using masks or maintaining social distances at all times. Some

guards wore masks, others did not.

12. We were told we would receive two free 5-minute phone calls per week but that these free

calls would end on April 13, 2020. There are only two working phones in my zone for 108

inmates.

13. Nurses began administering daily temperature checks once per day starting on or about April 2nd or 3rd. At the beginning, one nurse who was taking our temperature was not wearing a

mask. Most wore masks and gloves after that.

14. Nurses were utilizing thermometers that had to be placed directly onto our temples. Between

each use, I saw nurses wiping the tip of the thermometer with the same alcohol pad multiple

times. This happened from April 2 or 3 until April 8th. On April 8th, nurses began using

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-4 Filed: 04/13/20 4 of 21 PageID #: 1375
Exhibit D - Declarations 003

laser thermometers. We did not stand 6 feet apart, and were not told to stand 6 feet apart, in

line while waiting for our temperatures to be checked.

15. On April 9, 2020, lockdown was lifted, and we went back to the dining hall that day for

meals. 16. On April 9, 2020, my building had mandatory recreation call in the gym on April 9th. My

entire zone went to the gym for about an hour to an hour and a half. Some inmates played

basketball during this time.

17. The hygiene measures that have been implemented to my knowledge in Building C include

receiving one (1) bar of Dial soap in the last week of March. We have received two (2) bars

of state-issued soap per week instead of the usual one (1) bar. We were not given tissues or

paper towels to use.

18. No additional cleaning measures were implemented inside the unit. Bunks are never cleaned.

Laundry services are still provided but laundry comes back dirty so inmates don’t use it

often. There was a special detail of inmates generally cleaning and painting things prior to

lockdown, but no extra precautions were taken during lockdown.

19. Inmate

was exhibiting COVID-19 symptoms and was taken to Unit 42 on April 2,

2020 and came back to the zone on Wednesday, April 8th. His bedding and property

remained on his bunk while he was gone.

returned with a mask and face shield

which he does not wear.

20. Nurses did not ask about symptoms when our temperatures were being taken. When we

reported symptoms or someone had a fever, they were given Tylenol and sent back to their

bunk.

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-4 Filed: 04/13/20 5 of 21 PageID #: 1376
Exhibit D - Declarations 004
21. Other inmates in my zone have had fevers exhibited some symptoms related to COVID-19, but they have not been removed from the zone or otherwise treated.
22. To my knowledge, no one on my zone has been tested for the flu or for COVID-19. 23. I personally was exhibiting COVID-19 symptoms on April 9th. I felt feverish, had chills and
a sore throat, and registered a 99.7 degree fever during the daily temperature check. That same day, I attempted to tell the nurse of my condition and request to be tested or otherwise helped. Once I told her of my symptoms, a guard pulled a can of mace out and told me to go back to the zone, which I did. I received Tylenol from a fellow inmate; that is the extent of the medical attention I have received related to COVID-19 symptoms. I declare under penalty of perjury that all of the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. THIS the ___ day of April, 2020.

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-4 Filed: 04/13/20 6 of 21 PageID #: 1377
Exhibit D - Declarations 005

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION

MICHAEL AMOS, ET AL.

PLAINTIFFS

V.

CASE NO. 4:20-CV-007-DMB-JMV

TOMMY TAYLOR, ET AL.

DEFENDANTS

DECLARATION OF

On this the ___ day of April 2020, I hereby declare under penalty of perjury, pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1746, that the following statements, based on my personal knowledge, are true and

correct:

1. My name is

I am an inmate at the Mississippi State Penitentiary in Parchman,

Mississippi. My MDOC number is

. I am housed in Unit 30, Building C, Zone A.

2. As of April 9, 2020, to the best of my knowledge and information, no inmate on my zone has

received a face mask. I did not receive a mask before meeting with my attorneys on April

10, 2020.

3. Superintendent Turner spoke to my zone on Thursday, April 2, 2020 and informed us that we

may have come in contact with someone who tested positive for COVID-19 and we would be

on lockdown until April 9, 2020.

4. There are only two working phones in my zone. We were given 2 free five minute calls per

week, but we fight over phone.

5. Social distancing was not enforced or promoted. They were moving people between units

and new people came in and out just not during the last eight days.

6. No more cleaning supplies than normal were given to inmates. No extra laundry was run. No

clean sheets were given out. No paper towels or facial tissues were handed out. No extra

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-4 Filed: 04/13/20 7 of 21 PageID #: 1378
Exhibit D - Declarations 006
trash runs were done. We were not given special instructions about trash or given no-touch trash receptacles. 7. Between March 26th and April 2nd, myself and the other inmates in my building were still eating our meals in the dining halls, where we were in close contact to one another. 8. My building was placed on lockdown for one (1) week after Superintendent Turner announced that our building was to be quarantined for COVID-19. On April 9, 2020, the lockdown was lifted. As a result, we were allowed to resume eating meals in the dining hall on April 9th. 9. On April 9th, we were told that we would have a mandatory recreation call in the Unit 30 gym, in which every prisoner incarcerated in my zone was required to participate. My entire zone proceeded to the gym and participated in the recreation call for about an hour to an hour and a half. 10. Prior to April 2, 2020, every inmate on my zone was given 1 bar of Dial soap. Since April 2nd, every inmate on my zone has been given two bars of state-issued soap per week. 11. There are only two working toilets, two showers, and three sinks for 108 men on my zone. 12. Guards only began giving certain at-risk individuals on my zone protective masks and gloves the previous week based, in my view, upon favoritism. 13. As of April 10, 2020, I am aware of two inmates who work in the administration area (who Ira Hadley plays cards with) who have been coughing and sick, but they have not been tested. 14. Nurses began mandatory temperature checks of every inmate on our zone April 2nd, the same day Superintendent Turner informed us that we had spent the previous week, and as such, would subsequently spend the following week, under quarantine.

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-4 Filed: 04/13/20 8 of 21 PageID #: 1379
Exhibit D - Declarations 007
15. I personally witnessed a nurse conduct temperature checks, on myself and the inmates on my zone, without wearing a protective mask.
16. Until or around April 9, 2020, temperature checks were conducted using a contact thermometer, which were subsequently swabbed with an alcohol sterilization pad. As of today, the temperature checks are conducted with laser thermometers.
17. With a single exception, I have personally witnessed multiple inmates exhibit supposed symptoms of COVID-19 but were never taken to Unit 42 for treatment. To the best of my knowledge, as of April 10, 2020, none of those inmates have been tested for COVID-19 or the flu.
18. I personally witnessed an inmate on my zone exhibit symptoms of COVID-19 and, as a result, he was transferred to Unit 42 on April 4, 2020. Four days later, I personally witnessed the same inmate return to the zone on Wednesday, April 8, 2020. As of today, I have yet to witness anyone sterilize either the inmate’s bed or personal possessions. I swear under penalty of perjury that all of the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my
knowledge. THIS the ___ day of April, 2020.

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-4 Filed: 04/13/20 9 of 21 PageID #: 1380
Exhibit D - Declarations 008

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION

MICHAEL AMOS, ET AL.

PLAINTIFFS

V.

CASE NO. 4:20-CV-007-DMB-JMV

TOMMY TAYLOR, ET AL.

DEFENDANTS

DECLARATION OF

On this the ___ day of April 2020, I hereby declare under penalty of perjury, pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1746, that the following statements, based on my personal knowledge, are true and

correct:

1. My name is

. I am an inmate at the Mississippi State Penitentiary at

Parchman, Mississippi. My MDOC number is

. I am currently housed in Unit 30,

Building D, Zone A.

2. Superintendent Turner came to Building D, Zone A of Unit 30 on April 2, 2020 and

announced that someone who worked in our building and had been in the dining hall had tested

positive for COVID-19. Superintendent Turner explained that the individual had last been

around us on March 26, 2020. He did not answer any questions we had or explain anything

further.

3. Between March 26th and April 2nd, men in my building were still going to the dining

hall for meals, and inmates from Buildings C and D who worked were still in contact with people

in A and B Buildings, the dining hall, and other common areas. We were not in quarantine or

lockdown from March 26, 2020 to April 2, 2020.

4. Building D was on lockdown/quarantine for one week (from April 2, 2020 until April 9,

2020). During that time, I was never issued a mask.

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-4 Filed: 04/13/20 10 of 21 PageID #: 1381
Exhibit D - Declarations 009
5. The day after Superintendent made his announcement regarding COVID-19 to my zone, nurses began daily temperature checks and gave us flyers that explained proper hand-washing and other safety procedures. Since receiving that flyer, we have received no other information from correctional or medical staff. At no point during daily temperature administration were we told to be six feet apart from one another. All knowledge and information I have regarding COVID-19 has come from the local news that men in my zone listen to most evenings, except for the initial flyer given to us.
6. Nurses were utilizing thermometers that had to be placed directly onto our temples. Between each use, I saw nurses wiping the tip of the thermometer with the same alcohol pad multiple times. This happened from April 2 or 3 until April 8th. On April 8th, nurses began using laser thermometers. We did not stand 6 feet apart, and were not told to stand 6 feet apart, in line while waiting for our temperatures to be checked.
7. On April 2nd or 3rd, I had a fever of 100.7 degrees. The nurse sent me back to my zone. No other protocol steps were taken, and I was given no treatment or medical advice at that time. The next day, they took my temperature again, and my fever was reduced. That was the extent of my testing and treatment.
8. On April 9, 2020, my building had mandatory recreation call in the gym on April 9th. My entire zone went to the gym for about an hour to an hour and a half. Some inmates played basketball during this time.
9. The hygiene measures that have been implemented to my knowledge in Building D include receiving two (2) bars of state-issued soap per week instead of the usual one (1) bar. We were not given tissues or paper towels to use.

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-4 Filed: 04/13/20 11 of 21 PageID #: 1382
Exhibit D - Declarations 010
10. No additional cleaning measures were implemented inside the unit. Bunks are never cleaned. Laundry services are still provided but laundry comes back dirty so inmates don’t use it often. There was a special detail of inmates generally cleaning and painting things prior to lockdown, but no extra precautions were taken during lockdown.
11. One man in my zone had fever and was exhibiting multiple COVID-19 symptoms on April 2nd or 3rd, and he was removed from the zone. A day or two later, he was brought back to the zone. He has since been released. Other inmates in my zone have had fevers exhibited some symptoms related to COVID-19, but most have not been removed from the zone or otherwise treated.
12 I know of no one in my building or zone who have been tested for the flu or for COVID19.
13. I am hesitant to eat the food from the dining hall due to the fact that the individual who tested positive for COVID-19 had been in the kitchen/dining hall on March 26, 2020.
I declare under penalty of perjury that all of the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
THIS the ___ day of April, 2020.

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-4 Filed: 04/13/20 12 of 21 PageID #: 1383
Exhibit D - Declarations 011

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION

MICHAEL AMOS, ET AL.

PLAINTIFFS

V.

CASE NO. 4:20-CV-007-DMB-JMV

TOMMY TAYLOR, ET AL.

DEFENDANTS

DECLARATION OF

On this the ___ day of April 2020, I hereby declare under penalty of perjury, pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1746, that the following statements, based on my personal knowledge, are true and

correct:

1. My name is

. I am an inmate at the Mississippi State Penitentiary in Parchman,

Mississippi. My MDOC number is

I am housed in Unit 30, Building C, Zone A.

2. On or about Thursday April 2, 2020, Superintendent Turner spoke to Building C, Zone A of

Unit 30 and stated that on March 26, 2020 we had possibly been exposed to an individual

who had been tested for COVID-19 and that Buildings C and D of Unit 30 would be placed

on lockdown until April 9, 2020. 3. Between March 26th and April 2nd, men in my building were still going to the dining hall for

meals. I am part of a cleaning crew, and I was working and still in contact with people in A and B Buildings, the dining hall, and other common areas in between March 26th and April 2nd. We were not in quarantine or lockdown from March 26, 2020 to April 2, 2020. 4. On or about April 2nd or April 3rd, a nurse came to our zone, handed out a flyer, and began

taking temperatures. Since that day, we have been given no further information from

correctional or medical staff.

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-4 Filed: 04/13/20 13 of 21 PageID #: 1384
Exhibit D - Declarations 012
5. Building C was on lockdown/quarantine for one week (from April 2, 2020 until April 9, 2020). I received a mask once quarantine ended since I was going back to work. All men on the work detail were provided a mask.
6. With the exception of a single inmate on my zone, no one on my zone apart from working inmates, to my knowledge, has been given a mask.
7. We were not given updates about the virus. It was not emphasized to me that co-pays would be waived for virus-related symptoms.
8. Bunks were not rearranged to allow men to social distance. We were not instructed to sleep head to foot, for example.
9. I did not observe the guards using masks or maintaining social distances at all times. Some guards wore masks, others did not.
10. Nurses began administering daily temperature checks once per day starting on or about April 2nd or 3rd. There are people in my unit with COVID-19 symptoms who were not removed or tested.
11. Nurses were utilizing thermometers that had to be placed directly onto our temples. Between each use, I saw nurses wiping the tip of the thermometer with the same alcohol pad multiple times. This happened from April 2 or 3 until April 8th. On April 8th, nurses began using laser thermometers. We did not stand 6 feet apart, and were not told to stand 6 feet apart, in line while waiting for our temperatures to be checked.
12. On April 9, 2020, lockdown was lifted, and we went back to the dining hall that day for meals. My zone also had mandatory recreation call in the gym on April 9th. I was working, so I did not participate in recreation call.

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-4 Filed: 04/13/20 14 of 21 PageID #: 1385
Exhibit D - Declarations 013
13. The hygiene measures that have been implemented to my knowledge in Building C include receiving one (1) bar of Dial soap in the last week of March. We have received two (2) bars of state-issued soap per week instead of the usual one (1) bar. We were not given tissues or paper towels to use.
14. No additional cleaning measures were implemented inside the unit. The same chemicals were provided that are usually provided. Laundry services are still provided but laundry comes back dirty so inmates don’t use it often.
15. Other inmates in my zone have had fevers exhibited some symptoms related to COVID-19, but they have not been removed from the zone or otherwise treated.
16. To my knowledge, no one on my zone has been tested for the flu or for COVID-19. I declare under penalty of perjury that all of the foregoing is true and correct to the best of
my knowledge. THIS the ___ day of April, 2020.

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-4 Filed: 04/13/20 15 of 21 PageID #: 1386
Exhibit D - Declarations 014

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION

MICHAEL AMOS, ET AL.

PLAINTIFFS

V.

CASE NO. 4:20-CV-007-DMB-JMV

TOMMY TAYLOR, ET AL.

DEFENDANTS

DECLARATION OF

On this the ___ day of April 2020, I hereby declare under penalty of perjury, pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1746, that the following statements, based on my personal knowledge, are true and

correct:

1. My name is

I am an inmate at the Mississippi State Penitentiary in Parchman,

Mississippi. My MDOC number is

. I am housed in Unit 30, Building C, Zone A.

2. On or about Thursday April 2, 2020, Superintendent Turner spoke to Building C, Zone A of

Unit 30 and stated that on March 26, 2020 we had possibly been exposed to an individual

who had been tested for COVID-19 and that Buildings C and D of Unit 30 would be placed

on lockdown until April 9, 2020. 3. Between March 26th and April 2nd, men in my building were still going to the dining hall for

meals, and inmates from Buildings C and D who worked were still in contact with people in

A and B Buildings, the dining hall, and other common areas. We were not in quarantine or

lockdown from March 26, 2020 to April 2, 2020. 4. On or about April 2nd or April 3rd, a nurse came to our zone, handed out a flyer explaining the

symptoms of COVID-19, and began taking temperatures of all men on our zone. Since that

day, we have been given no further information from correctional or medical staff.

5. Building C was on lockdown/quarantine for one week (from April 2, 2020 until April 9,

2020). During that time, I was never issued a mask.

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-4 Filed: 04/13/20 16 of 21 PageID #: 1387
Exhibit D - Declarations 015
6. We were not given frequent updates about the virus. I was not told that co-pays would be waived for placing a sick call request for virus-related symptoms.
7. I was not told about social distancing in general. Bunks were not rearranged to allow men to social distance. We were not instructed to sleep head to foot, for example. We sleep three feet apart.
8. I did not observe the guards using masks or maintaining social distances at all times. Some guards wore gloves or masks, others did not. Guards in the towers do not wear mask, or would have them pulled away from their face while talking with one another.
9. We were told we would receive two free 5-minute phone calls per week. There are only two working phones in my zone for 108 inmates.
10. Nurses began administering daily temperature checks once per day starting on or about April 2nd or 3rd. At the beginning, one nurse who was taking our temperature was not wearing a mask. Most wore masks and gloves after that. I observed one nurse wearing a protective gown after having not seen the nurse for two to three days.
11. Nurses were utilizing thermometers that had to be placed directly onto our temples. Between each use, I saw nurses wiping the tip of the thermometer with the same alcohol pad multiple times. This happened from April 2 or 3 until April 8th. On April 8th, nurses began using laser thermometers. We did not stand 6 feet apart, and were not told to stand 6 feet apart, in line while waiting for our temperatures to be checked.
12. On April 9, 2020, lockdown was lifted, and we went back to the dining hall that day for meals.
13. On April 9, 2020, my building had mandatory recreation call in the gym on April 9th. My entire zone (108 people) went to the gym for about an hour. Some inmates played basketball

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-4 Filed: 04/13/20 17 of 21 PageID #: 1388
Exhibit D - Declarations 016
during this time. I observed that the ball was never sanitized and men were in close contact with one another. 14. The hygiene measures that have been implemented to my knowledge in Building C include receiving one (1) bar of Dial soap a few weeks ago. We have received two (2) bars of stateissued soap per week instead of the usual one (1) bar. We were not given Kleenex or paper towels to use. We receive our standard supply toilet paper weekly. 15. No additional cleaning measures were implemented inside the unit. Bunks are never cleaned. Laundry services are still provided but laundry comes back dirty so inmates don’t use it often. 16. My rack mate exhibited symptoms of COVID-19 and was taken to Unit 42. I was never asked about symptoms or told to self-isolate by any medical staff even though I was in close proximity with him. His personal belongings were never cleaned or sanitized and remained on his bunk while he was in Unit 42. 17. Everyone on my zone is confined together, and social distancing is not enforced. 18. As an inmate with underling conditions, I have not been provided extra medical attention or checks. Fortunately, I did receive an inhaler for my newly-diagnosed asthma before lockdown began. 19. Other inmates in my zone have had fevers and/or exhibited some symptoms related to COVID-19, but they have not been removed from the zone or otherwise treated besides my rack mate. 20. Nurses do not ask us any questions regarding our condition or welfare while we get our temperature checked. They check it, tell us the temperature, and then leave. 21. I was given a mask right before meeting with my attorneys on April 10, 2020.

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-4 Filed: 04/13/20 18 of 21 PageID #: 1389
Exhibit D - Declarations 017
22. To my knowledge, no one on my zone has been tested for the flu or for COVID-19. I declare under penalty of perjury that all of the foregoing is true and correct to the best of
my knowledge. THIS the ___ day of April, 2020.

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-4 Filed: 04/13/20 19 of 21 PageID #: 1390
Exhibit D - Declarations 018

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION

MICHAEL AMOS, ET AL.

PLAINTIFFS

V.

CASE NO. 4:20-CV-007-DMB-JMV

TOMMY TAYLOR, ET AL.

DEFENDANTS

DECLARATION OF

On this the ___ day of April 2020, I hereby declare under penalty of perjury, pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1746, that the following statements, based on my personal knowledge, are true and

correct:

1. My name is

I am an inmate at the Mississippi State Penitentiary in

Parchman, Mississippi. My MDOC number is

I am housed in Unit 30, Building C,

Zone B.

2. On or about Thursday April 2, 2020, Superintendent Turner spoke to Building C, Zone B of

Unit 30 and stated that on March 26, 2020 we had possibly been exposed to an individual

who had been tested for COVID-19 and that Buildings C and D of Unit 30 would be placed

on lockdown until April 9, 2020. 3. Between March 26th and April 2nd, men in my building were still going to the dining hall for

meals, and inmates from Buildings C and D who worked were still in contact with people in

A and B Buildings, the dining hall, and other common areas. We were not in quarantine or

lockdown from March 26, 2020 to April 2, 2020. 4. On or about April 2nd or April 3rd, a nurse came to our zone, handed out a flyer detailing

symptoms of COVID-19, and began taking temperatures of all men on the zone. Since that

day, we have received no further information from correctional or medical staff.

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-4 Filed: 04/13/20 20 of 21 PageID #: 1391
Exhibit D - Declarations 019
5. Building C was on lockdown/quarantine for one week (from April 2, 2020 until April 9, 2020). During that time, I was never issued a mask.
6. Instead, I made a mask out of a t-shirt during quarantine in order to protect myself and others.
7. We were not given any updates about the virus except what we see on the news. It was not emphasized to me that co-pays would be waived for virus-related symptoms.
8. Bunks were not rearranged to allow men to social distance. We were not instructed to sleep head to foot, for example.
9. We were told we would 10 free minutes per week for two phone calls. In zone B, we have three working phones.
10. Intra-prison transfers (from unit to unit or zone to zone) continued during this time. An inmate was transferred to my zone from Building D and was transferred out a week later, for example. This happened mere days before Superintendent Turner told us we had been exposed to someone with COVID-19.
11. I did not observe the guards using masks or maintaining social distances at all times. Some guards wore masks, others did not.
12. Nurses began administering daily temperature checks once per day starting on or about April 2nd or 3rd. Nurses were utilizing thermometers that had to be placed directly onto our temples. On April 8th, nurses began using laser thermometers.
13. We did not stand six feet apart, and were not told to stand six feet apart in line while waiting for our temperatures to be checked.
14. On April 9, 2020, lockdown was lifted. During quarantine, meals were brought to us.

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-4 Filed: 04/13/20 21 of 21 PageID #: 1392
Exhibit D - Declarations 020
15. On April 9, 2020, my building had mandatory recreation call in the gym on April 9th. My entire zone went to the gym for about an hour. Some inmates played basketball during this time.
16. The hygiene measures that have been implemented to my knowledge in Building C include receiving one (1) bar of Dial soap in the last week of March. We have received two (2) bars of state-issued soap per week instead of the usual one (1) bar. We were not given tissues or paper towels to use.
17. No additional cleaning measures were implemented inside the unit. Bunks are never cleaned unless done so by the inmates. Laundry services are still provided but laundry comes back dirty so inmates don’t use it often. There was a special detail of inmates generally cleaning and painting things prior to lockdown, but no extra precautions were taken during lockdown.
18. Other inmates in my zone have had fevers exhibited some symptoms related to COVID-19, but they have not been removed from the zone or otherwise treated.
19. To my knowledge, no one on my zone has been tested for the flu or for COVID-19. Some swabs were done on the final day of lockdown out in the hallway for some of the diabetics, but no one has been told results from these swabs. I declare under penalty of perjury that all of the foregoing is true and correct to the best of
my knowledge. THIS the ___ day of April, 2020.

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-5 Filed: 04/13/20 1 of 6 PageID #: 1393
EXHIBIT E

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-5 Filed: 04/13/20 2 of 6 PageID #: 1394

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-5 Filed: 04/13/20 3 of 6 PageID #: 1395

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-5 Filed: 04/13/20 4 of 6 PageID #: 1396

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-5 Filed: 04/13/20 5 of 6 PageID #: 1397

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-5 Filed: 04/13/20 6 of 6 PageID #: 1398

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-6 Filed: 04/13/20 1 of 5 PageID #: 1399
EXHIBIT F

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-6 Filed: 04/13/20 2 of 5 PageID #: 1400
On this 10th day of April 2020, I hereby declare: 1. My name is Gregory M. McMahon. I currently live in Chicago, Illinois. 2. I am an Attorney at the law firm of Maron Marvel Bradley Anderson & Tardy, LLC, (hereinafter MMBAT) located in Chicago, Illinois. 3. MMBAT has been retained to advocate for the civil liberties of the inmates at the Mississippi State Penitentiary (hereinafter “Parchman”) located in Parchman, Mississippi. 4. Over the past two months, I traveled to Parchman, Units 29 and 30 with private investigators and other attorneys from MMBAT to interview inmates regarding their living conditions and health care needs. 5. I’ve appeared at the prison regularly, generally commencing on January 22, 2020 Monday through Friday, until the close of business on Friday March 26, 2020. 6. On the morning of Thursday March 19, 2020, I traveled to Parchman to conduct inmate interviews in Unit 29. I was accompanied by Private Investigator Daniel R. Sullivan. After entering the visitor intake unit, I was advised by an MDOC Correctional Officer that I would be required to be screened for COVID-19. After passing through the security checkpoints, I was told to wait for a nurse to administer the screening and test regarding COVID-19. Approximately 30 minutes later, a female identifying herself as a MDOC nurse assigned to Unit 42 arrived at the visitor center. I was required to complete an MDOC Medical Questionnaire including name, date of birth, address and information regarding travel outside of the United States. The Medical Questionnaire listed symptoms related to COVID-19 that would preclude my admittance to the prison. After I completed the questionnaire, the MDOC nurse placed a thermometer to my head, contacting my right temple and informed me my temperature was

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-6 Filed: 04/13/20 3 of 5 PageID #: 1401
within the required marker for entry. The nurse was not wearing a protective face mask of any kind.
7. I observed Deputy Commissioner of Institutions Jeworski Mallet be administtered the same COVID-19 screening on Thursday March 19, 2020 at the same approximate time. The Unit 42 nurse was not wearing a face mask.
8. On Tuesday March 24, 2020 I traveled to Parchman to conduct inmate interviews in Unit 30. I was accompanied by Private Investigator Daniel R. Sullivan. While in the visitor intake unit, the men’s visitor restroom did not have hand soap, hand sanitizer was not available, and I did not see any COVID-19 signage. I was advised by an MDOC Correctional Officer that COVID-19 screening would take place after our normal security checks. After completing the security checkpoints, PI Sullivan and I were driven by an MDOC Correctional Officer in an MDOC van to the main gate at Parchman. The MDOC Correctional Officer at the main gate was the only guard present and was also conducting vehicle searches entering the Parchman prison grounds. Upon completion of a vehicle inspection, the officer had me complete an entry into a log page in a binder with my name and date of birth. The Correction Officer commented that she was just taught how to perform the test and was not sure if the batteries for the thermometer were working properly. The officer took PI Sullivan’s temperature then immediately without cleaning the thermometer placed the thermometer to my head, contacting my right temple and informed me my temperature was within the required marker for entry. The officer did not ask me any verbal COVID-19 screening questions and the officer was not wearing any Personal Protective Equipment (“PPE”).
2

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-6 Filed: 04/13/20 4 of 5 PageID #: 1402
9. While at the main gate on March 24, 2020, I observed the officer perform multiple vehicle searches, however, no temperature checks or vebal COVID-19 screening was performed.
10. After leaving the main gate PI Sullivan and I were driven to Unit 30. While present in Unit 30, I did not see any MDOC staff members wearing PPE. Inmates were constantly passing to and from the Unit 30 front lobby as had normally taken place during my previous visits. I did not witness any social distancing measures being implemented.
11. On Wednesday March 25, 2020 I traveled to Parchman to conduct inmate interviews in Unit 29 and Unit 30. I was accompanied by Private Investigator Daniel R. Sullivan. While in the visitor intake unit, the men’s visitor restroom did not have hand soap, hand sanitizer was not available, and I did not see any COVID-19 signage. After completing the standard security checks, PI Sullivan and I were driven by an MDOC Correctional Officer in an MDOC van to the main gate at Parchman. The MDOC Correctional Officer at the main gate was the only guard present and was also conducting vehicle searches entering the Parchman prison grounds. The officer had me complete an entry into a log page in a binder with my name and date of birth. The officer first took PI Sullivan’s temperature then immediately, without cleaning the thermometer, placed the thermometer to my head, contacting my right temple and informed me my temperature was within the required marker for entry. The officer did not ask me any verbal COVID-19 screening questions and the officer was not wearing any PPE.
12. While at the main gate on March 25, 2020, I observed the officer perform multiple vehicle searches, however, no temperature checks or vebal COVID-19 screening was performed.
3

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-6 Filed: 04/13/20 5 of 5 PageID #: 1403 13. After leaving the main gate PI Sullivan and I were driven to Unit 29 and Unit 30.
While present in Unit 29 and Unit 30, I did not witness any social distancing measures being utilized or any MDOC staff members wearing PPE. Executed on April 10, 2020. Gregory M. McMahon (IL Bar 6278015)
4

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-7 Filed: 04/13/20 1 of 7 PageID #: 1404
EXHIBIT G

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-7 Filed: 04/13/20 2 of 7 PageID #: 1405
From: Trey Jones TJones@brunini.com Subject: RE: PARCHMAN INFORMATION
Date: April 13, 2020 at 7:00 PM To: Marcy Croft MCroft@maronmarvel.com, Cody Bailey cbailey@brunini.com, David Kaufman DKaufman@brunini.com, Garrig Shields garrig.shields@shieldsgoodson.com, Carson Thurman cthurman@carrollbufkin.com, KRISSY NOBILE KNOBI@ago.ms.gov, Karen Howell KHowell@brunini.com, Gary Bufkin tgb@carrollbufkin.com, Chan E. McLeod CMcLeod@maronmarvel.com, Molly Walker mmwalker@bradley.com, wmanuel@bradley.com, Leonard Vincent LVINCENT@mdoc.state.ms.us, mbentley@bradley.com
I understand that there has been one conﬁrmed positive Covid-19 test of an inmate at Parchman. The inmate who tested positive has passed away, and the cause of death is undetermined at this time.
Trey
William Trey Jones III E: mailto:tjones@brunini.com P: 601-960-6857 F: 601-960-6902
Brunini, Grantham, Grower & Hewes, PLLC The Pinnacle Building 190 East Capitol St, Suite 100, Jackson, MS 39201 Post Ofﬁce Drawer 119, Jackson, MS 39205
Conﬁdentiality Statement The information contained in this electronic message from the law ﬁrm of Brunini, Grantham, Grower & Hewes, PLLC is conﬁdential or privileged. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this message is prohibited. If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify us immediately by telephone at (601) 948-3101.
-----Original Message----From: Marcy Croft [mailto:MCroft@maronmarvel.com] Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 1:57 PM To: Cody Bailey; Trey Jones; David Kaufman; Garrig Shields; Carson Thurman; KRISSY NOBILE; Karen Howell; Gary Bufkin; Chan E. McLeod; Molly Walker; wmanuel@bradley.com; Leonard Vincent; mbentley@bradley.com Subject: PARCHMAN INFORMATION Importance: High
Counsel: As you know, our additional brieﬁng is due to the Court today. Could you please conﬁrm whether and how many inmates who have been or currently are housed at Parchman: (1) have been tested for COVID_19, (2) tested positive for COVID-19, (3) tested negative for COVID-19, (4) have been/are considered as PUIs (5) have reported/recorded fevers or ﬂu-like/covid-19 symptoms since March 20? Could you please provide the same information with respect to the staff who have been or are currently working at Parchman?
Finally, we are hearing that there was a death in Unit 26 yesterday. Can you conﬁrm or deny that there was another death at Parchman or of another Parchman inmate over the weekend?
We would appreciate a response by COB today to these questions so that our submissions to the Court can be ﬁnalized.
Thank you.
- Marcy Croft
Marcy Croft | Attorney at Law D: 601-960-8630 | mcroft@maronmarvel.com

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-7 Filed: 04/13/20 3 of 7 PageID #: 1406
D: 601-960-8630 | mcroft@maronmarvel.com
bio<https://www.maronmarvel.com/attorneys/Marcy-Croft> | vcard<https://www.maronmarvel.com/attorneys/Marcy-Croft/vcard> | [https://esig365snippets.blob.core.windows.net/images/7E1D9365-6828-4F74-A4BC-9AEFC143F6A8/linkedin-icon.png] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/maron-marvel-bradley-&-anderson> [https://esig365snippets.blob.core.windows.net/images/7E1D9365-6828-4F74-A4BC-9AEFC143F6A8/mm-logo.gif] PO Box 22803 Jackson, MS 39225-2803 | M: 601-812-6630 | F: 601-206-0119 www.maronmarvel.com | <http://www.maronmarvel.com/> [https://esig365snippets.blob.core.windows.net/images/7E1D9365-68284F74-A4BC-9AEFC143F6A8/facebook-high4.png] <https://www.facebook.com/MaronMarvel/> <https://www.facebook.com/MaronMarvel/>
This email is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521 and is legally privileged. The information contained in this communication is conﬁdential, is subject to the attorney-client privilege, may constitute inside information, and is intended only for the use of the addressee. It is the property of Maron Marvel Bradley Anderson & Tardy LLC. Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail, and destroy this communication and all copies thereof, including all attachments.
________________________________ From: Cody Bailey [cbailey@brunini.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2020 1:27 PM To: Marcy Croft; Trey Jones; David Kaufman; Garrig Shields; Carson Thurman; KRISSY NOBILE; Karen Howell; Gary Bufkin; Chan E. McLeod; Molly Walker; wmanuel@bradley.com; Leonard Vincent; mbentley@bradley.com Subject: RE: Wednesday, 4/8/2020, Parchman Client Meetings
Marcy, an ofﬁcer who has previously worked in Units 30C and 30D reported that he/she was inadvertently exposed to someone with COVID-19 symptoms while the ofﬁcer was at a location outside of Parchman. Out of an abundance of caution, Parchman placed those two units on quarantine. The 14-day quarantine period ends tomorrow, April 9, and that is why you will be allowed to visit with your clients from those units on Friday, April 10. Please follow all Parchman safety guidelines regarding personal protective equipment for your attorney-client visits. Thank you.
Cody
Cody C. Bailey E: mailto:cbailey@brunini.com P: 601-973-8790 F: 601-960-6902
Brunini, Grantham, Grower & Hewes, PLLC The Pinnacle Building 190 East Capitol St, Suite 100, Jackson, MS 39201 Post Ofﬁce Drawer 119, Jackson, MS 39205
Conﬁdentiality Statement The information contained in this electronic message from the law ﬁrm of Brunini, Grantham, Grower & Hewes, PLLC is conﬁdential or privileged. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this message is prohibited. If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify us immediately by telephone at (601) 948-3101.
-----Original Message----From: Marcy Croft [mailto:MCroft@maronmarvel.com]

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-7 Filed: 04/13/20 4 of 7 PageID #: 1407
From: Marcy Croft [mailto:MCroft@maronmarvel.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2020 1:23 PM To: Trey Jones; Cody Bailey; David Kaufman; Garrig Shields; Carson Thurman; KRISSY NOBILE; Karen Howell; Gary Bufkin; Chan E. McLeod; Molly Walker; wmanuel@bradley.com; Leonard Vincent Subject: Fwd: Wednesday, 4/8/2020, Parchman Client Meetings
Counsel: Per the email chain below, we were originally approved to see 7 of our clients at Parchman today.
Late yesterday afternoon, however, we were informed things had changed and we could only see 2 of the 7 clients.
The remaining 5 clients, we were told, are in Unit 30 Buildings C&D, and are “unavailable.”
Could you please let us know ASAP why we are not being allowed to see any of our clients in Unit 30, Buildings C&D? This is very disconcerting.
- Marcy Croft
Marcy Croft | Attorney at Law D: 601-960-8630 | mcroft@maronmarvel.com
bio<https://www.maronmarvel.com/attorneys/Marcy-Croft<https://www.maronmarvel.com/attorneys/Marcy-Croft>> | vcard<https://www.maronmarvel.com/attorneys/Marcy-Croft/vcard<https://www.maronmarvel.com/attorneys/Marcy-Croft/vcard>> | [https://esig365snippets.blob.core.windows.net/images/7E1D9365-6828-4F74-A4BC-9AEFC143F6A8/linkedinicon.png<https://esig365snippets.blob.core.windows.net/images/7E1D9365-6828-4F74-A4BC-9AEFC143F6A8/linkedin-icon.png>] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/maron-marvel-bradley-&-anderson<https://www.linkedin.com/company/maron-marvel-bradley-&anderson>> [https://esig365snippets.blob.core.windows.net/images/7E1D9365-6828-4F74-A4BC-9AEFC143F6A8/mmlogo.gif<https://esig365snippets.blob.core.windows.net/images/7E1D9365-6828-4F74-A4BC-9AEFC143F6A8/mm-logo.gif>] PO Box 22803 Jackson, MS 39225-2803 | M: 601-812-6630 | F: 601-206-0119 www.maronmarvel.com<http://www.maronmarvel.com> | <http://www.maronmarvel.com/<http://www.maronmarvel.com>> [https://esig365snippets.blob.core.windows.net/images/7E1D9365-6828-4F74-A4BC-9AEFC143F6A8/facebookhigh4.png<https://esig365snippets.blob.core.windows.net/images/7E1D9365-6828-4F74-A4BC-9AEFC143F6A8/facebookhigh4.png>] <https://www.facebook.com/MaronMarvel/<https://www.facebook.com/MaronMarvel>> <https://www.facebook.com/MaronMarvel/<https://www.facebook.com/MaronMarvel/>>
This email is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521 and is legally privileged. The information contained in this communication is conﬁdential, is subject to the attorney-client privilege, may constitute inside information, and is intended only for the use of the addressee. It is the property of Maron Marvel Bradley Anderson & Tardy LLC. Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail, and destroy this communication and all copies thereof, including all attachments.
Begin forwarded message:
From: Marcy Croft <MCroft@maronmarvel.com> Date: April 8, 2020 at 8:46:27 AM CDT To: "Rebekah S. Clayton" <RClayton@maronmarvel.com> Cc: "McIntyre, Kathryn" <KMcIntyre@mdoc.state.ms.us>, "Hall, Charles" <ChHall@mdoc.state.ms.us>, "McLeod, Gia" <GMcLeod@mdoc.state.ms.us>, Carson Thurman <CThurman@carrollbufkin.com>, "Christi G. Jones" <CJones@maronmarvel.com>, "Hope E. VanEtten" <HVanEtten@maronmarvel.com>, Leonard Vincent <LVINCENT@mdoc.state.ms.us>, Gary Bufkin <tgb@carrollbufkin.com> Subject: Re: Wednesday, 4/8/2020, Parchman Client Meetings
Hi, Kathy and Leonard: After being approved yesterday to see all seven clients per our normal process, could you please let us know why we now are not being allowed see any of our clients in Unit 30, Buildings C & D? This is very disconcerting.
Thank you.

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-7 Filed: 04/13/20 5 of 7 PageID #: 1408
- Marcy Croft
On Apr 8, 2020, at 8:39 AM, Rebekah S. Clayton <RClayton@maronmarvel.com> wrote:
Rebekah S. Clayton | Attorney at Law D: 601-973-5991 | rclayton@maronmarvel.com
bio<https://www.maronmarvel.com/attorneys/Rebekah-Clayton<https://www.maronmarvel.com/attorneys/Rebekah-Clayton>> | vcard<https://www.maronmarvel.com/attorneys/Rebekah-Clayton/vcard<https://www.maronmarvel.com/attorneys/RebekahClayton/vcard>> | [https://esig365snippets.blob.core.windows.net/images/7E1D9365-6828-4F74-A4BC-9AEFC143F6A8/linkedinicon.png<https://esig365snippets.blob.core.windows.net/images/7E1D9365-6828-4F74-A4BC-9AEFC143F6A8/linkedin-icon.png>] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/maron-marvel-bradley-&-anderson<https://www.linkedin.com/company/maron-marvel-bradley-&anderson>> [https://esig365snippets.blob.core.windows.net/images/7E1D9365-6828-4F74-A4BC-9AEFC143F6A8/mmlogo.gif<https://esig365snippets.blob.core.windows.net/images/7E1D9365-6828-4F74-A4BC-9AEFC143F6A8/mm-logo.gif>] PO Box 22803 Jackson, MS 39225-2803 | M: 601-812-6630 | F: 601-206-0119 www.maronmarvel.com<http://www.maronmarvel.com> | <http://www.maronmarvel.com/<http://www.maronmarvel.com/>> [https://esig365snippets.blob.core.windows.net/images/7E1D9365-6828-4F74-A4BC-9AEFC143F6A8/facebookhigh4.png<https://esig365snippets.blob.core.windows.net/images/7E1D9365-6828-4F74-A4BC-9AEFC143F6A8/facebookhigh4.png>] <https://www.facebook.com/MaronMarvel/<https://www.facebook.com/MaronMarvel/>> <https://www.facebook.com/MaronMarvel/<https://www.facebook.com/MaronMarvel/>>
This email is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521 and is legally privileged. The information contained in this communication is conﬁdential, is subject to the attorney-client privilege, may constitute inside information, and is intended only for the use of the addressee. It is the property of Maron Marvel Bradley Anderson & Tardy LLC. Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail, and destroy this communication and all copies thereof, including all attachments.
From: Rebekah S. Clayton Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 4:53 PM To: 'McIntyre, Kathryn' Cc: 'Hall, Charles'; 'McLeod, Gia'; Marcy Croft; Carson Thurman; Christi G. Jones; Hope E. VanEtten Subject: RE: Wednesday, 4/8/2020, Parchman Client Meetings
Kathy,
As a follow-up to our conversation, it is my understanding that we are now only approved to see clients John Barnette and Quincy Johnson tomorrow. As the remaining ﬁve clients listed below, housed in C and D buildings, are no longer available to be seen until Friday, 4/10/2020, the team will still plan to meet with Barnette and Johnson tomorrow (4/8/2020).
If I’ve misunderstood our conversation in any way, please let me know.
Thank you, Rebekah Clayton
From: Rebekah S. Clayton Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 3:16 PM To: 'McIntyre, Kathryn' Cc: 'Hall, Charles'; 'McLeod, Gia'; Marcy Croft; Carson Thurman; Christi G. Jones; Hope E. VanEtten Subject: RE: Wednesday, 4/8/2020, Parchman Client Meetings
Hi Kathy,
Thank you for approving the below client meetings for tomorrow, 4/8/2020. The team will go to Unit 42 ﬁrst, to meet with John Barnette, and then to Unit 30 to meet with the remaining clients. Please let the gate guards know.
Thank you, Rebekah Clayton

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-7 Filed: 04/13/20 6 of 7 PageID #: 1409
From: Rebekah S. Clayton Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 11:59 AM To: 'McIntyre, Kathryn' Cc: 'Hall, Charles'; 'McLeod, Gia'; Marcy Croft; Carson Thurman; Christi G. Jones; Hope E. VanEtten Subject: Wednesday, 4/8/2020, Parchman Client Meetings
Hi Kathy,
We would like to see the following clients tomorrow, Wednesday, 4/8/2020.
Antonio Davis MDOC 193095 Christopher Ballard MDOC R3298 Jesse Mccuin MDOC 153950 John Barnett MDOC 131134 John Ware MDOC 39586 Quincy Johnson MDOC L6175 Wilson Hervey MDOC M4911
The following team members will arrive around 9:30am tomorrow morning:
1. Marcy Croft (attorney)
2. Ericson Enger (attorney)
Thank you, Rebekah Clayton

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 74-7 Filed: 04/13/20 7 of 7 PageID #: 1410

 
 Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75 Filed: 04/15/20 1 of 30 PageID #: 1411

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION
MICHAEL AMOS, et al.

PLAINTIFFS

VS.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:20-CV-07-DMB-JMV

TOMMY TAYLOR, et al.

DEFENDANTS

DEFENDANT MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS’ SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

Defendants Tommy Taylor and Marshal Turner oppose Plaintiffs’ request for a temporary

restraining order that would dictate MDOC’s response to the evolving coronavirus pandemic.

INTRODUCTION

The Mississippi Department of Corrections (“MDOC”), in coordination with its contract

healthcare provider Centurion of Mississippi, LLC (“Centurion”), was prepared for the impacts of

the novel coronavirus COVID-19 well before the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

(CDC) issued its interim guidance on March 23, 2020. See Doc. 62 & Doc. 63 (MDOC response

to Plaintiffs’ TRO motion). And since the CDC guidance was issued, MDOC and Centurion have

worked diligently to implement and comply with the guidance at Parchman and other facilities.

But that is not all: MDOC and Centurion have continued to develop and refine best practices for

protecting Parchman’s inmate population and staff from the risks associated with COVID-19.

Plaintiffs have not demonstrated (and cannot demonstrate) “known noncompliance” with

CDC’s guidance. MDOC’s ongoing efforts to combat COVID-19 are documented in this

supplemental brief and declarations. Those efforts comply with CDC guidance and far exceed the

Eighth Amendment requirements that govern Plaintiffs’ motion.

1

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75 Filed: 04/15/20 2 of 30 PageID #: 1412
BACKGROUND I. The COVID-19 outbreak has caused a global pandemic that inevitably impacts prison
systems, just as it has impacted every other sector of society. “Running a prison is an inordinately difficult undertaking that requires expertise, planning, and the commitment of resources, all of which are peculiarly within the province of the legislative and executive branches of government.” Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 84-85 (1987). Running a prison in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic is all the more difficult, as corrections systems are neither infallible nor immune from the virus’s spread. Across the nation, according to the latest updates, the virus has infected over 600,000 Americans, killing over 24,000 of them.1 In Mississippi alone, the virus has infected over 3,300 people and caused more than 120 deaths.2 The virus has also infiltrated prison systems across the United States despite the best efforts of prison officials and healthcare workers to prevent it. The Federal Bureau of Prisons, for example, reports over 440 inmate infections, 248 staff infections, and 14 inmate deaths attributable to COVID-19.3 The Federal Correctional Facility in Yazoo City, Mississippi, has 46 confirmed inmate cases and four confirmed staff cases.4 In neighboring Louisiana, at least 60 inmates in state correctional institutions have tested positive for the virus.5
1 See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html (vis. April 15, 2020) 2 See Mississippi State Department of Health, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), https://msdh.ms.gov/msdhsite/static/14,0,420.html (vis. April 15, 2020). 3 See Federal Bureau of Prisons, COVID-19 Coronavirus (COVID-19 Cases), https://www.bop.gov/coronavirus/ (vis. April 15, 2020). 4 Id. 5 See Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections, COVID-19 Inmate Positives https://doc.louisiana.gov/ doc-covid-19-testing/ (vis. April 15, 2020).
2

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75 Filed: 04/15/20 3 of 30 PageID #: 1413
MDOC confirmed its first positive case this past weekend: An inmate at Parchman became infected, was transferred to a community hospital in Greenville, Mississippi for treatment, and later died at the hospital.6
MDOC leaders—including the defendants in this suit, Interim Commissioner Taylor and Superintendent Turner—are acutely aware of the risks that COVID-19 poses to its facilities. MDOC leadership, working with MDOC’s healthcare contractor Centurion, has been preparing for COVID-19 long before the CDC issued its interim guidance. See Doc. 62 & Doc. 63 (MDOC response to Plaintiffs’ TRO motion and supporting brief detailing efforts taken prior to March 19). MDOC and Centurion have coordinated efforts, developed guidance, and implemented practices aimed at protecting the system—inmates and staff alike—from the risk of harm due to the virus. Since it was issued on March 23rd, MDOC has followed the CDC’s Interim Guidance on Management of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Correctional and Detention Facilities (the “CDC Interim Guidance”). Even before the CDC Interim Guidance was issued, MDOC and Centurion were already following many of its recommendations. II. The CDC Interim Guidance provides recommended best practices for corrections
systems and jails based on information known on March 23, 2020. The CDC Interim Guidance provides “guiding principles” based on what was known as of March 23, 2020, about the transmission and severity of COVID-19. See Doc. 74-1 (CDC Interim Guidance at 1). Given that the circumstances and information known about COVID-19 is rapidly evolving, the CDC Interim Guidance is not a static document; CDC plans to update its guidance as additional information becomes available. Id. And the guidance is not a one-size-fits-all
6 The inmate’s test results came back after he died. An autopsy has not been completed, and the cause of death is not yet determined. See Mississippi Department of Corrections, Press Release, MDOC confirms one COVID-19 case among inmates, https://www.mdoc.ms.gov/News/PressReleases/MDOC%20Confirms%20One%20COVID19%20Case.pdf (vis. April 15, 2020).
3

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75 Filed: 04/15/20 4 of 30 PageID #: 1414
remedy for coronavirus risks; it recognizes that state and local corrections officers must use discretion in deciding how to best implement the guidance:
This guidance will not necessarily address every possible custodial setting and may not use legal terminology specific to individual agencies’ authorities or processes. The guidance may need to be adapted based on individual facilities’ physical space, staffing, population, operations, and other resources and conditions. Id. (emphasis added). Finally, the CDC Interim Guidance does not set a floor (or minimum standards) for responding to the COVID-19 threat; instead, it provides “recommended best practices”—that is, ideal conditions—that prisons and jails may strive to meet. Id. at 3. III. MDOC and Centurion are complying with the CDC Interim Guidance at Parchman. As detailed in the declarations and exhibits provided with this supplemental brief, MDOC and Centurion are not only complying with the CDC Interim Guidance, they are—as the guidance recommends—continuing to develop, refine, and implement their own policies and best practices for fighting COVID-19 at Parchman. The CDC Interim Guidance document is divided into three phases: Preparation, Prevention, and Management. MDOC is following the CDC’s recommendations at each phase. A. Operational Preparedness The CDC’s Operational Preparedness guidance is intended to help facilities prepare for potential COVID-19 transmission in the facility. Doc. 74-1 at 5 (CDC Interim Guidance). Strategies focus on operational and communications planning and personnel practices. MDOC’s preparations to respond to COVID-19 follow what has been recommended by the CDC in each category. Doc. 74-1 at 6.
1. Communication & Coordination The CDC Interim Guidance suggests a number of actions to facilitate communication and coordination so that all persons in a facility know the symptoms of COVID-19 and how to respond.
4

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75 Filed: 04/15/20 5 of 30 PageID #: 1415
These include: coordinating with public health, law enforcement, and correctional partners; reviewing existing pandemic flu/disaster plans and revising for COVID-19; and posting signage in the facility regarding COVID-19. Doc. 74-1 at 5-6.
MDOC has been and continues to consult with public health and other officials, including the Mississippi Department of Health and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Office for State and Local Law Enforcement, regarding prevention and treatment of COVID-19. MDOC’s Acting Deputy Commissioner of Institutions, Jeworski Mallett, participated in a telephone conference organized by the Department of Homeland Security on March 16, 2020. On the telephone conference were officials responsible for overseeing state and federal correctional institutions across the nation who confirmed that MDOC’s measures are consistent with those employed by other correctional institutions across the nation. See Doc. 62-1 (Declaration of Jeworski Mallett at 2).
Even before the identification of COVID-19 in December 2019, MDOC had a Pandemic Influenza Policy, Doc. 62-2, Ex. 3, and Centurion had a Pandemic Preparedness and Emergency Response Plan in place that was intended to be tailored to new pandemics as they arise, Doc. 621, Ex. 2. These plans work in conjunction and as the current COVID-19 pandemic has developed, MDOC, in partnership with Centurion, has continued to develop and refine its plans and procedures for dealing with the virus. See Doc. 62-2 (Declaration of Dr. Gloria Perry); Exhibit A (Declaration of Dr. John May at 2 (April 15, 2020)).
On March 18, 2020, MDOC posted signage at Parchman and provided handouts to inmates listing the symptoms of COVID-19 and informing them of ways to protect themselves, such as handwashing, covering coughs and sneezes, and not sharing food. See Ex. A (May Decl., Attachments H & I); Exhibit B (Declaration of Willie Knighten at 2 (April 15, 2020)). That same
5

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75 Filed: 04/15/20 6 of 30 PageID #: 1416
day, Centurion distributed handouts for healthcare staff and security staff regarding personal safety habits such as hand washing and use of PPE; facility safety, with precautions not to enter the facility if they have been exposed to a confirmed case or are experiencing symptoms; details of the symptoms of COVID-19; facility procedures; quarantine coordination; and supplies. Ex. A (May Decl., Attachments F & G).
2. Personnel Practices The CDC Interim Guidance suggests reviewing certain personnel practices, such as: review the sick leave polices of each employer that operates in the facility; planning for staff absences; and offering flu vaccines. Doc. 74-1 at 6-7. MDOC has made it clear to all employees on site at Parchman that they should not return to work if they feel sick. Ex. A (May Decl., Attachments F &G). Parchman staff are screened daily when they arrive at work to ensure that no one has a fever or is experiencing symptoms of COVID-19. Doc. 62-3 (Knighten Decl.) Centurion sent a communication to all employees regarding sick time allowance on March 4, 2020, and has distributed return to work guidance to staff at Parchman who have had exposure to COVID-19 or have traveled to certain locations. See Exhibit C (Declaration of Dr. Clayton Ramsue, Attachments F, G, & H (April 15, 2020)). These guidelines were approved by MDOC’s Chief Medical Officer. See Exhibit D (Declaration of Dr. Gloria Perry at 3 (April 15, 2020)). Inmates have a thirty days supply of most keep on person medications, should any staff absences cause brief interruptions in medication distributions. See Ex. B (Knighten Decl. at 3). Parchman already has an annual offering of the influenza vaccination to inmates. Id.
6

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75 Filed: 04/15/20 7 of 30 PageID #: 1417
3. Operations & Supplies The CDC Interim Guidance recommends ensuring that sufficient stocks of hygiene supplies, cleaning supplies, PPE, and medical supplies are on hand and available; having a plan in place to restock as needed; considering relaxed restriction on allowing alcohol-based hand sanitizer in the secure setting where security concerns allow; and providing a no-cost supply of soap to inmates, sufficient to allow frequent handwashing. Doc. 74-1 at 7-8. MDOC has taken an inventory of supplies in response to the COVID-19 outbreak and has determined that current stockpiles of cleaning and handwashing supplies are sufficient at Parchman. Doc. 62-1 (Mallet Decl. at 6). While it was not feasible to distribute hand sanitizer directly to inmates for security reasons, as explained in Dr. Perry’s declaration, MDOC has installed hand-sanitizer stations in staff work stations. Id.; see also Doc.62-2 (Perry Decl.). Inmates have access to sinks where they can regularly wash their hand, and MDOC has provided extra supplies of soap to inmates to ensure that each inmate’s soap supply is sufficient to follow the recommended universal common health practice. Id. Likewise, Centurion leadership is continually monitoring supplies of PPE and other medical supplies, and essential pharmaceuticals. Doc. 62-3 (Knighten Decl.). Centurion is has also worked with its pharmacy vendor to be prepared to stockpile the top medications used should there be interruptions in the supply chain. Id. Dr. Perry receives regular updates on the status of these supplies. Ex. C (Ramsue Decl. at 3, 5); Ex. D (Perry Decl. at 2-3). B. Prevention. The CDC’s guidance on Prevention advises that correctional facilities can prevent introduction of COVID-19 from the community and reduce transmission if it is already inside by reinforcing good hygiene practices among inmate, staff, and visitors, intensifying
7

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75 Filed: 04/15/20 8 of 30 PageID #: 1418
cleaning/disinfection practices, limiting transfers between facilities, suspending visitation, and implementation of social distancing strategies. Doc. 74-1 at 8; 74-2 at 9. MDOC is following CDC’s Interim Guidance on these points.
1. Operations The CDC suggests maintaining communications, restricting transfers from other facilities, and suspending co-pays. Doc. 74-1 at 8-9. As noted, MDOC is maintaining communications with state health agencies, as well as state and national law enforcement organizations. See Exhibit E Declaration of Marshal Turner at 6 (April 15, 2020)). DOC has also been communicating with the public regarding any changes to health conditions, operations, and visitation within its facilities. Id. MDOC suspended in-person visitation at correctional facilities to prevent the spread of COVID-19, and also suspended nonmedical transfers between facilities except for emergencies and serious security threats. See Doc. 62-1 (Mallet Decl. at 4); Ex. E (Turner Decl. at 6). While inmates are always provided medical care regardless of their ability to afford treatment, MDOC is no longer charging co-pays for influenza and COVID-19 testing and treatment. Doc. 62-2 (Perry Decl. at 3); Ex. E (Turner Decl. at 7).
2. Cleaning and Disinfecting Practices Similar to the Operational Preparedness guidance, the CDC recommends increased cleaning and disinfection practices in the Prevention phase of its guidance. MDOC has ramped up its cleaning measures at Parchman. Three times per day, MDOC staff issues to a select group of inmates in each zone disinfecting chemicals to be mixed with water, spray bottles, and paper towels. Ex. E (Turner Decl. at 4). Those inmates are charged with cleaning and disinfecting shared surfaces and areas in the zone that might be frequently touched,
8

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75 Filed: 04/15/20 9 of 30 PageID #: 1419
including doorknobs, sink handles, water fountains, countertops, toilets, garbage containers, vending machines, tables, floors, mirrors, desks, and telephones. Id. MDOC staff instructs the inmate workers to wipe down anything that anyone could have touched. Id. In addition, MDOC staff has been instructed to frequently clean any shared equipment and upon conclusion of use of that equipment. Id.
3. Hygiene Reinforcement of healthy hygiene practices and the availability of hygiene supplies are also part of the recommendations of the Prevention phase. Doc. 74-1 at 10. MDOC is supplying Parchman inmates with additional hand soap on a weekly basis, in sufficient qualities to ensure that all inmates are able to adhere to the common health practices outlined by the CDC and Centurion. Ex. E (Turner Decl. at 3). The soap is free, accessible, and restocked continually. Id. In addition, Parchman’s commissary vendor provided each Parchman inmate with an additional bar of Dial antibacterial soap. Id. Parchman has also placed signage in each unit, building, and zone to remind inmates to regularly wash their hands and to do so for at least 20 seconds. Id. Although hand sanitizer with 60% or more alcohol remains a security concern, MDOC is attempting to obtain additional hand sanitizer for inmates and is working on developing a strategy to allow inmates to use the hand sanitizer in a manner that is safe for all persons at Parchman. Ex. E (Turner Decl. at 3). Hand sanitizer is already being made available for staff to use at the areas where they clock-in and clock-out of Parchman. Id. As previously detailed, signage is posted throughout the facility and handouts have been given to inmates and staff regarding health hygiene practices.
9

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75 Filed: 04/15/20 10 of 30 PageID #: 1420
4. Prevention Practices for Inmates Prevention practices for inmates to be considered under the CDC Interim guidance include: screening of new entrants; social distancing; and frequent communications related to COVID-19 with inmates. Doc. 74-1 at 11-12. The CDC provides specific recommendations for screening and temperature checks for all new entrants, which are nearly identical to those already implemented at Parchman. Doc. 74-1 at 10-11. At Parchman the intake process is as follows:  Inmates’ vital signs and temperature are taken  Inmates are asked about symptoms - fever/chills, cough, shortness of breath or trouble breathing  Inmates are asked if, in the past 14 days:
1) Have you traveled to or been in any outbreak areas in the United States, or traveled internationally? If yes: Where/When
2) Have you or any family or friends with whom you live been in such areas? If yes: Where/When
3) Have you had close contact with anyone who has tested positive to COVID-19 or experiencing fever or cough? If yes: When
If the inmate answers yes to any symptoms and yes to any question 1-3: a mask is placed on the inmate, he is educated, and a provider will be consulted. A provider is additionally contacted if the inmate has a fever greater that 100.4 F, cough, shortness of breath, and lower respiratory infection, with unknown source of infection. See Ex. C (Ramsue Decl., Attachment A (Inmate Screening Tool).
10

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75 Filed: 04/15/20 11 of 30 PageID #: 1421
While few inmates are being transferred into Parchman currently, in the case of an emergency or serious security situation, that new inmate would also be quarantined for 14 days before being allowed to enter the general inmate population. Ex. E (Turner Decl. at 6).
The CDC Interim Guidance recommends implementation of social distancing strategies to increase the physical space between inmates, but recognizes that the examples of social distancing strategies it provides will not be feasible in all facilities. Doc. 74-1 at 11. MDOC has, however, posted signage at Parchman to advise inmates of the CDC’s social distancing recommendations. Ex. E (Turner Decl. at 5). MDOC staff has also been directed to verbally encourage social distancing among inmates in common areas, during meal times, and during recreation. Id. MDOC staff is also encouraging inmates to sleep head to foot, as opposed to head to head, and MDOC has posted signage inside each zone advising inmates to sleep head to foot. Id.
Inmates who are at a higher risk due to underlying medical conditions, or who present a risk of infection to others due to their need to be transported to outside medical facilities, are being housed separately in the medical unit. Ex. B (Knighten Decl. at 3). Centurion nurses visit housing units twice a day to answer questions inmates may have related to COVID-19. Id. at 2. In addition, the Director of Nursing, medical providers and the Health Services Administrator have regularly visited units and will continue to do so to provide updates related to COVID-19. Id.
5. Prevention Practices for Staff The CDC Interim Guidance recommended prevention practices for staff include: reminders to stay home when sick; verbal screening and temperature checks daily on entry; providing up to date information regarding COVID-19; informing staff of confirmed COVID-19 cases; and limiting interactions with individual with respiratory symptoms. Doc. 74-1 at 12.
11

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75 Filed: 04/15/20 12 of 30 PageID #: 1422
As detailed above, employees have regular reminders that they should not come to work at Parchman if they are sick. On or about March 16, 2020, Centurion began screening staff at Parchman in the same manner as described for new inmates. Ex. C (Ramsue Decl. at 3). Upon returning to work, staff undergo a temperature check and update the individual who is doing the screening if any of their original responses to the screening questions have changed. Doc. 62-3 (Knighten Decl.); Ex. E (Turner Decl. at 4-5). In addition, staff has begun using no-touch thermometers as an added level of safety. Ex. B (Knighten Decl. at 2). Staff performing these screenings wear PPE, including masks. Id.
Centurion’s employee portal includes many informational documents related to COVID19 which are updated regularly and can be shared with MDOC staff. Ex. A (May Decl. at 2) Ex. C (Ramsue Decl. at 3). Recently, consistent with new CDC guidance, Centurion instructed staff on the recommended proper use of face coverings. See Ex. A (May Decl., Attachment J). Centurion leadership has a daily call with medical staff at Parchman to discuss issues related to COVID-19, including the availability of PPE inventory, COVID-19 testing supplies, status of medication supplies, and treatment guidelines. Ex. C (Ramsue Decl. at 5).
In the instances when a staff member has tested positive for COVID-19, the results of that test will be made known to potentially impacted individuals and appropriate quarantine measures have been taken. For example, on or about March 26, 2020, MDOC learned that inmate kitchen workers had been exposed to a Parchman staff member who had tested positive for COVID-19. Ex. B (Knighten Decl. at 4). In response, inmates housed in the building where those inmate workers are housed were quarantined under a shelter in place protocol for 14 days. Id.
12

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75 Filed: 04/15/20 13 of 30 PageID #: 1423
6. Prevention Practices for Visitors CDC Interim Guidance suggests discouraging contact visits, performing verbal screening and temperature checks for all visitors, promoting non-contact visits, and restricting non-essential vendors, volunteers and tours from entering the facility. Doc. 74-1 at 13-14. As already detailed above, MDOC has suspended all visitation, with the exception of attorneys, at its facilities, including Parchman. See Ex. E (Turner Decl. at 5). Additionally, Centurion temporarily suspended the non-emergency onsite audiologist, optometry, and prosthetic services. Doc. 62-3 (Knighten Decl. at 4) Anyone who does come on site, such as vendors, must have their temperature taken and answer the screening questions. Ex. B (Knighten Decl. at 2). Attorneys meeting with inmate clients are asked to wear PPE including gowns, gloves, and masks. Ex. E (Turner Decl. at 5). MDOC requires all visitation areas to be sanitized at the completion of each visit. Id. C. Management. The CDC Interim Guidance strategies for Management apply if there has been a suspected COVD-19 case inside the facility. The CDC considers essential Management strategies to include: placing cases and individuals with symptoms under medical isolation, quarantining their close contacts, and facilitating necessary medical care, while observing relevant infection control and environmental disinfection protocols and wearing recommended PPE. Doc. 74-1 at 14.
1. Handling of Confirmed or Suspected COVID-19 Cases and Management of Inmates with COVID-19 Symptoms.
The CDC recommends that as soon as an individual develops symptoms of COVID-19, they should wear a face mask and should be immediately placed under medical isolation in a separate environment from other individuals, require the individual to wear the face mask any time they are outside the medical isolation space. Every effort should be made to isolate the patient
13

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75 Filed: 04/15/20 14 of 30 PageID #: 1424
individually. Medical isolation should be maintained when certain criteria are met. Doc. 74-1 at 15-17. The CDC recommends inmates with COVID-19 symptoms should wear face masks and should be placed under medical isolation immediately and be evaluated to determine whether COVD-19 testing is indicated. Doc. 74-1 at 22.
Parchman’s Protocols in place to handle inmates with symptoms of COVID-19 are directly in compliance with CDC Interim Guidance. Inmates with fever or having symptoms of COVID19 are donned with a mask and are placed in a separate room. 62-3 (Knighten Decl.); Ex. A (May Decl., Attachment B). The Centurion Pandemic Preparedness Plan, approved by Dr. Perry, also requires isolation for confirmed cases. See Ex. A (May Decl., Attachment A).
Not only are these protocols in place, they have been deployed at Parchman. On April 2, 2020, an inmate presented to the medical unit complaining of weight loss and he also had a fever. Ex. B (Knighten Decl. at 3-4). After placing a mask on the patient, the inmate was tested for flu and COVID-19 by staff outfitted in PPE. Id. Both tests came back negative, but the inmate was isolated in the medical unit until after his symptoms had subsided. Id. at 4.
2. Cleaning Spaces where COVID-19 Cases Spent Time The CDC advises thoroughly cleaning and disinfecting all areas where a confirmed or suspected COVID-19 case spent time, with some specific recommendations as to how to clean certain surfaces and washing laundry. Doc. 74-1 at 17-18. Protocols are also in place and have been utilized for cleaning which are consistent with this guidance. If coronavirus is suspected in a patient, after the patient is relocated, a terminal cleaning will be performed of the patient’s hospital room or room within the medial unit with hospital grade disinfectant. Doc. 62-3 (Knighten Decl.). After there was a confirmed case of COVID-19 in an inmate at Parchman, the hospital room in the medical unit where the inmate was
14

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75 Filed: 04/15/20 15 of 30 PageID #: 1425
temporarily housed prior to his transfer as well as the building where he was previously housed were been thoroughly cleaned with Biovex and bleach. Ex. B (Knighten Decl. at 4).
3. Quarantining Close Contacts of COVID-19 Cases The CDC recommends inmates who are close contacts of a confirmed or suspected COVID-19 case be placed under quarantine for 14 days, be monitored twice daily for symptoms and temperature checks, and be provided meals in their quarantine space. Doc. 74-1 at 20-21. Protocols are in place at Parchman consistent with CDC Guidance for quarantining individuals, and those protocols are being followed. If an inmate contracts COVID-19, Parchman staff will a determine who has potentially been exposed to that inmate and the exposed persons will be placed in quarantine for 14 days. Doc. 62-3 (Knighten Decl. at 3). Handouts provided to healthcare and security staff on March 17, 2020 directed staff to place persons with potential exposure to COVID-19 in quarantine for 14 days. Ex. C (Ramsue Decl., Attachments B, C). As noted above, only one inmate a Parchman has tested positive for COVID-19. After that positive result, inmates housed in the building where the positive inmate was previously housed, as well as the buildings where he worked, have been placed on 14-day quarantine. Ex. B (Knighten Decl. at 4). Centurion staff is checking the temperatures and monitoring those quarantined inmates for symptoms of COVID-19 twice daily. Id. Additionally, the quarantined inmates have been provided face masks. Id. Those who were identified as having been in close contact have additionally been tested and are being monitored closely while the results are pending. Id. On March 26, 2020, MDOC learned that inmate kitchen workers had been exposed to a Parchman staff member who had tested positive for COVID-19. In response, inmates housed in the building where those inmate workers are housed were quarantined under a shelter in place protocol for 14 days. Ex. B (Knighten Decl. at 4). Temperature checks of all inmates in those
15

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75 Filed: 04/15/20 16 of 30 PageID #: 1426
buildings were performed daily and inmates were additionally monitored for symptoms of COVID-19. Id. Any inmate with a temperature over 100.4 would have been transported to the medical unit for further evaluation. Id. No inmates meeting these criteria, however, were discovered. Id.
4. Management strategies for staff and inmates without COVID-19 symptoms.
The CDC Interim Guidance recommends providing clear information to inmates about the presence of COVID-19 cases within the facility and implementing daily temperature checks in housing units where the COVID-19 cases have been identified. Doc. 74-1 at 22. The CDC also recommends providing clear information to staff about the presence of COVID-19 cases within the facility and staff identified as close contacts of a COVID-19 case should self-quarantine at home for 14 days and may return to work if symptoms do not develop. Id.
As detailed above, MDOC is providing guideline-compliant information to inmates and staff related to the presence of COVID-19. Further, specific direction has been given to all staff related to returning to work after potential close contact with a COVID-19 case. Ex. C (Ramsue Decl., Attachments B, C). IV. Plaintiffs’ critiques of MDOC’s compliance with the CDC Interim Guidance, even if
credited, do not show known noncompliance with the guidance. Notwithstanding MDOC’s proactive response and daily attention to the COVID-19 threat, including its implementation of and compliance with the CDC Interim Guidance, Plaintiffs allege that there have been incidents in which MDOC staff departed from the recommendations. See Doc. 74 (Plaintiffs’ Supp. Br. at 3-9). That is, Plaintiffs do not dispute that MDOC, Centurion, and Parchman’s leadership have implemented the CDC Interim Guidance and developed their own
16

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75 Filed: 04/15/20 17 of 30 PageID #: 1427
best practices for Parchman. Instead, Plaintiffs identify incidents in which, in their view, MDOC staff did not adhere to all of the CDC’s recommended practices at certain points in time.
For example, under the heading “Category 2: Prevent,” Plaintiffs claim that on March 24th and March 25th, just a day or two after the CDC Interim Guidance was issued, a guard at Parchman’s main gate performed a temperature check on attorney visitors, but failed to ask appropriate verbal screening questions. Doc. 74 at 3-4. On those same days, Plaintiffs assert that vehicles containing staff and contractors entered Parchman’s main gate without proper screening. Id. at 4. Plaintiffs also say that, while MDOC had some COVID-19 signage as of March 25th (again, two days after the guidance was issued), it was not the signage recommended by the CDC Interim Guidance. Id.
Plaintiffs also argue that, in the view of some inmates, MDOC’s cleaning and sanitization efforts at Parchman do not meet the CDC recommendations. Id. at 4-5. And they say that, on March 24th and March 25th, hand sanitizer and soap were not available in visitor areas. (It is welldocumented, of course, that hand sanitizer was in short supply around the country, both then and now.). Plaintiffs also suggest that social distancing is not being enforced rigidly enough in some areas of the prison, such as the dining hall and some units where inmates sleep on bunk beds. Id. at 5-6.
Under the heading “Category 3: Manage,” Plaintiffs say there have been cases in which inmates exhibiting symptoms suggestive of COVID-19 were not issued masks or were issued masks but not made to wear them; that defendants are not adhering to their own “policies” on COVID-19; that information about the virus and a waiver of medical co-pays is not being disseminated quickly enough to some inmates; and that some inmates (those in Unit 30) are washing their laundry in sinks and showers. Id. at 6-9.
17

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75 Filed: 04/15/20 18 of 30 PageID #: 1428
MDOC disputes these claims, and has documented its ongoing efforts to comply with CDC and other guidance, develop and follow other best practices, and educate inmates on the steps they should take to prevent the spread of COVID-19. See supra, Section III. Whatever shortcomings some inmates may perceive, other inmates report that educational flyers on COVID-19 have been distributed, extra soap has been provided, face masks have been issued to inmates, daily temperature checks are being performed on inmates, medical and custody staff are wearing masks, gloves, and other PPE, and recreation is restricted during quarantine. See Doc. 74-3 (inmate responses to Plaintiffs’ questionnaires). These accounts by inmates are in keeping with the CDC Interim Guidance and the best practices being followed by MDOC and Centurion.
As discussed below, however, this Court need not resolve any perceived factual disputes to decide Plaintiffs’ request for preliminary injunctive relief. Plaintiffs’ views about MDOC’s implementation of the CDC Interim Guidance, even if credited, do not demonstrate “known noncompliance” with that guidance, much less “deliberate indifference” on the part of MDOC officials. There can be no dispute that MDOC has responded—and continues to respond— reasonably to protect Parchman’s inmates and staff during the COVID-19 pandemic.
18

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75 Filed: 04/15/20 19 of 30 PageID #: 1429
LEGAL STANDARDS To obtain the extraordinary remedy of a mandatory preliminary injunction, Plaintiffs must show: “(1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, (2) a substantial threat of irreparable injury if the injunction is not issued, (3) that the threatened injury if the injunction is denied outweighs any harm that will result if the injunction is granted, and (4) that the grant of an injunction will not disserve the public interest.” Byrum v. Landreth, 566 F.3d 442, 445 (5th Cir. 2009). Plaintiffs “must carry a heavy burden of persuading the district court that all four elements are satisfied, and failure to carry the burden on any one of the four elements will result in the denial of the preliminary injunction.” Leachman v. Harris Cty., Texas, 779 F. App’x 234, 237 (5th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks omitted). Because Plaintiffs are inmates seeking injunctive relief, the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) also applies to restrict the available injunctive relief: Prospective relief in any civil action with respect to prison conditions shall extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a particular plaintiff or plaintiffs. The court shall not grant or approve any prospective relief unless the court finds that such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2). As the Fifth Circuit has explained, “[t]he PLRA greatly limits a court’s ability to fashion injunctive relief.” Ball v. LeBlanc, 792 F.3d 584, 598 (5th Cir. 2015). Most fundamentally, any injunction must be carefully limited so that it provides only the relief necessary to correct an Eighth Amendment violation: “Under the PLRA, plaintiffs are not entitled to the most effective available remedy; they are entitled to a remedy that eliminates the constitutional injury.” Id. at 599.
19

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75 Filed: 04/15/20 20 of 30 PageID #: 1430
ARGUMENT MDOC and Centurion developed and implemented best-practice guidelines for COVID19 well before the CDC Interim Guidance was issued on March 23rd, and MDOC continues to follow both its own best practices and the CDC Interim Guidance at Parchman. As Plaintiffs acknowledge, however, their request for a temporary restraining order is governed by the Eighth Amendment’s “deliberate indifference” standard and the PLRA. I. Plaintiffs have not met their heavy burden to show that a mandatory preliminary injunction should be entered against MDOC officials. A. Plaintiffs have not shown a substantial likelihood of success under the Eighth
Amendment’s deliberate indifference standard. Plaintiffs cannot meet their heavy burden to show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits under the Eighth Amendment’s deliberate indifference standard because MDOC officials and staff are responding reasonably to the COVID-19 pandemic. The weight of their burden is all the more pronounced here because Plaintiffs seek a mandatory preliminary injunction that would require MDOC to perform certain acts. Such an injunction “is particularly disfavored, and should not be issued unless the facts and law clearly favor the moving party.” Martinez v. Mathews, 544 F.2d 1233, 1243 (5th Cir. 1976). MDOC officials cannot be deemed deliberately indifferent if they “respond[] reasonably” to substantial risks to inmate health or safety, “even if the harm ultimately was not averted.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834, 844-45 (“Whether one puts it in terms of duty or deliberate indifference, prison officials who act reasonably cannot be found liable under the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause.”). As the Fifth Circuit has explained, “[a] prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if [ (A) ] he knows that inmates face a substantial risk of serious bodily harm and [(B)] he disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable measures to abate it.” Gobert v. Caldwell,
20

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75 Filed: 04/15/20 21 of 30 PageID #: 1431
463 F.3d 339, 346 (5th Cir. 2006). Deliberate indifference is an “extremely high standard to meet.” Id. “This circuit has worded the test as requiring extreme deprivation of any minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities.” Gates v. Cook, 376 F.3d 323, 332 (5th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
The question on Plaintiffs’ TRO Motion, then, is whether Plaintiffs are substantially likely to show that MDOC’s response to the COVID-19 outbreak is so deficient that it evinces a deliberate indifference on the part of MDOC officials, Gobert, 463 F.3d at 345-46, justifying the extraordinary step of preliminary court intervention in the midst of a pandemic. Plaintiffs cannot meet this heavy burden. As documented above, MDOC has responded and continues to respond reasonably to the risks posed by COVID-19, and it is protecting its population and staff in keeping with the CDC Interim Guidance and other measures developed by Centurion and MDOC.
Plaintiffs argue that they have provided “evidence that Defendants’ policies and practices at Parchman do not conform to the standards of the CDC and others, including MDOC’s Centurion Plan, which—Plaintiffs say—is sufficient to satisfy their burden under the deliberate indifference burden. Doc. 74 at 10 (citing Hernandez v. Cty. of Monterey, 110 F. Supp. 3d 929, 943 (N.D. Cal. 2015)). Plaintiffs are wrong on both counts.
First, they have not shown “known noncompliance” with the CDC Interim Guidance on the part of MDOC officials. Hernandez, 110 F. Supp. 3d at 943 (emphasis added). In Hernandez, the court (applying Ninth Circuit precedent) found that county jail officials demonstrated “known noncompliance” to the risks of tuberculosis infection by adopting screening policies that were inconsistent with CDC guidance on tuberculosis, refusing to change those policies in light of CDC guidance, and ignoring the recommendations of a neutral expert retained to evaluate the jail’s practices. Id. at 942-44. Plaintiffs have not shown anything of the sort in MDOC’s case. To the
21

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75 Filed: 04/15/20 22 of 30 PageID #: 1432
contrary, the evidence shows that MDOC and Centurion are complying with the CDC Interim Guidance and have adopted their own guidelines and practices that track (if not exceed) the CDC Interim Guidance.
Second, Plaintiffs cannot prove an Eighth Amendment violation by pointing to perceived failures by MDOC to conform its practices to the CDC Interim Guidance in all respects. The Hernandez decision addressed the rights of pretrial detainees, and in the Ninth Circuit—as the district court noted—“[t]he United States Constitution affords pretrial detainees greater protection from dangerous conditions of confinement than those sentenced after conviction.” Id. at 934. Under the Eighth Amendment, which controls the claims in this case, it is established that expert guidance and best-practice recommendations are not the standard by which deliberate indifference is judged. Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 348 n.13 (1981) (“[T]he District Court erred in assuming that opinions of experts as to desirable prison conditions suffice to establish contemporary standards of decency.”); Inmates of Occoquan v. Barry, 844 F.2d 828, 837 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (“Nor will it do to invoke the standards of professional organizations as showing failings of purportedly constitutional significance. In this setting, it is decency—elementary decency— not professionalism that the Eighth Amendment is all about.”). Similarly, a deviation from prison policies does not establish an Eighth Amendment violation. Hernandez v. Estelle, 788 F.2d 1154, 1158 (5th Cir. 1986).
Third, recent federal court decisions in prisoner suits seeking injunctions related to COVID-19 confirm that, if prison officials are taking reasonable steps to address the outbreak, then there is no legal basis to issue an injunction. See Money v. Pritzker, 2020 WL 1820660 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 10, 2020); Baxley v. Jividen, 2020 WL 1802935, at **6-9 (S.D. W. Va. Apr. 8, 2020). In both Money and Baxley, a putative class of inmates sought a mandatory temporary restraining
22

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75 Filed: 04/15/20 23 of 30 PageID #: 1433
order requiring prison officials to take certain steps to protect inmates from exposure to and harm
from COVID-19. In both cases, the courts refused to issue injunctions because evidence showed
that prison officials were taking reasonable steps to address the coronavirus outbreak. Money,
2020 WL 1820660, at *18 (“Clearly Defendants are trying, very hard, to protect inmates against
the virus and to treat those who have contracted it. The record simply does not support any
suggestion that Defendants have turned the kind of blind eye and deaf ear to a known problem that
would indicate ‘total unconcern’ for the inmates’ welfare.”); Baxley, 2020 WL 1802935, at *6
(“The existence and ongoing implementation of Defendants’ COVID-19 response plan makes it
impossible to conclude that Defendants actually knew of and disregarded a substantial risk of
serious injury to the detainee. In fact, the opposite seems to be the case: Defendants have
demonstrated actual knowledge of the risk of COVID-19, and regard it with the seriousness it deserves.” (citations omitted)).7
The Florida district court decision cited by Plaintiffs does not undertake a deliberate
indifference analysis and does not identify any steps that the Florida jail was taking prior to the
request for a restraining order. See Swain v. Junior, 2020 WL 1692668 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 7, 2020).
Presumably, the injunction was justified because no reasonable steps were being taken to address
the risks posed by COVID-19. See id. That is plainly not the case at MDOC.
7 Courts are divided over the different, though related, question of whether persons detained by the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement may obtain release as a means of protection from possible exposure to COVID-19. While some courts have issued injunctions requiring the release of high-risk detainees, other courts have rejected such drastic remedies. Compare Basank v. Decker, 2020 WL 1481503 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2020) (ordering release of detainees with health conditions that put them at high-risk of injury); Castillo v. Barr, 2020 WL 1502864 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2020) (same); Rafael L.O. v. Tsoukaris, 2020 WL 1808843, at *7 (D.N.J. Apr. 9, 2020) (same) with Sacal-Micha v. Longoria, 2020 WL 1518861 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 27, 2020) (denying request for TRO seeking release of detainee where detention facility had implemented measures to reduce the risk of contracting COVID-19); Camacho Lopez v. Lowe, 2020 WL 1689874 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 7, 2020) (denying TRO request by detainee suffering from COVID19 who had not shown that detention facility was incapable of treating him); Verma v. Doll, 2020 WL 1814149 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 9, 2020) (denying release of detainee where prison officials “have taken reasonable steps to limit the spread throughout its facility”). These decisions confirm that, when detainees are involved, a case-by-case analysis of the plaintiffs’ condition and the detention facility’s response to the COVID-19 outbreak is required.
23

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75 Filed: 04/15/20 24 of 30 PageID #: 1434
It is not substantially likely that this Court will “order Defendants to conform to the CDC’s COVID-19 Guidelines, and indeed their own Centurion Plan,” Doc. 74 at 10, because MDOC is already taking those steps. MDOC is not disregarding the risk of COVID-19; it is proactively taking steps—including developing its own policies and following the CDC Interim Guidance— to protect Parchman and its other institutions from the virus and minimize the risks that it poses.
B. Plaintiffs do not face a substantial threat of irreparable harm. Plaintiffs also have not established that they face a substantial threat of irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction because, again, MDOC is taking reasonable steps to protect all inmates from the virus and minimize any harms that it might pose to the inmate population.8 Plaintiffs appear to argue that the mere risk of exposure to COVID-19 during the current pandemic is sufficient to establish the threat of irreparable harm. Doc. 74 at 11. The caselaw is to the contrary. When prison officials take reasonable steps to prevent exposure to an infectious disease and provide timely treatment to prisoners who become infected, then the fact that a prisoner is exposed to and even contracts the disease is not cause for finding a constitutional violation. See Forbes v. Edgar, 112 F.3d 262, 266-67 (7th Cir. 1997) (explaining that Eighth Amendment did not guarantee “foolproof protection from infection” with tuberculosis); Jackson v. Rikers Island Facility, 2011 WL 3370205, **2-3 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 2, 2011) (corrections officials were not deliberately indifferent to prisoner’s medical needs when they responded timely to request for swine flu treatment); Glaspie v. New York City Dep’t of Corr., 2010 WL 4967844, *1 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 2010) (“mere exposure to swine flu does not involve an unreasonable risk of serious damage to . . . future health”).
8 This case has not been certified as a class action, and many of the named plaintiffs are no longer held at Parchman. Plaintiffs must show how MDOC’s actions create a substantial threat of irreparable harm to the handful of plaintiffs still located at Parchman, only one of whom has offered a declaration in support of Plaintiffs’ supplemental brief.
24

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75 Filed: 04/15/20 25 of 30 PageID #: 1435
The Seventh Circuit’s decision in Forbes is analogous to this case. In Forbes, an Illinois state prison adopted and followed tuberculosis control procedures that were recommended by the CDC and American Thoracic Society. 112 F.3d at 267. Nevertheless, the plaintiff inmate became infected with tuberculosis, after which she sued prison officials for “allowing TB to be spread in the prison” and failing to properly quarantine infected inmates. Id. at 265-66. The Seventh Circuit rejected her deliberate indifference claim, holding: “That infection may occur and even that isolated mistakes might be made despite the procedures and reasonable care does not make the defendants liable under the Eighth Amendment.” Id. at 267.
The risk that inmates at Parchman may be exposed to and contract COVID-19 during a global pandemic is a real one. But it is not a basis for issuing an injunction under the facts of this case. MDOC is aware of the risk and is acting to prevent the virus from spreading among the inmate population and, when necessary, to provide treatment to inmates who become infected.
C. Enjoining MDOC officials would not serve the public’s interest. The third and fourth factors overlap and merge into a balancing of hardships analysis. Veasey v. Abbott, 870 F.3d 387, 391 (5th Cir. 2017) (“Because the State is the appealing party, its interest and harm merge with that of the public.”). Plaintiffs must show that “the balance of equities tips in [their] favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Texas Midstream Gas Servs., LLC v. City of Grand Prairie, 608 F.3d 200, 206 (5th Cir. 2010). For the reasons discussed in MDOC’s original brief, Doc. 63 at 17-19, Plaintiffs cannot meet this burden. In their supplemental brief, Plaintiffs argue that their proposed restraining order will not cause any harm, aside from increased expenditures by MDOC at Parchman. As an initial matter, that is incorrect. Plaintiffs have proposed a 13-part (including subparts) injunction that, if entered, would cause the court to become “enmeshed in the minutiae of prison operations” at
25

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75 Filed: 04/15/20 26 of 30 PageID #: 1436
Parchman in the midst of a pandemic, something that courts are reluctant to do even in normal times. Estate of Henson v. Wichita Cty., Tex., 795 F.3d 456, 468 (5th Cir. 2015). The proposed injunction would effectively insert Plaintiffs’ counsel as an additional layer of prison management, who are entitled to weekly reports and given implicit oversight authority, at a time when flexibility and rapid deployment of MDOC resources is at a premium. Such an injunction would disserve the public interest. See Turner v, 482 U.S. at 84-85 (explaining that courts afford “deference and flexibility to state officials trying to manage a volatile environment” within a prison).
Moreover, the additional funds that Plaintiffs say should be diverted to support their proposed injunctive relief at Parchman come from a limited pool of state resources, which are being used to coordinate the State’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic across all communities, and state and local agencies in Mississippi. It is likely that a restraining order mandating an immediate reallocation of COVID-19 resources to Parchman would result in a diversion of resources needed in another prison facility, another state agency, or another community in Mississippi. Again, the public’s interest lies in affording state officials the flexibility to manage the State’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, both in its communities and its prisons. II. Plaintiffs’ proposed injunctive relief would violate the PLRA.
Plaintiffs’ have not met their burden to show that a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order should be issued against MDOC officials. Moreover, they have not proposed injunctive relief that is narrowly tailored to remedy a constitutional violation, which is required under the PLRA. Ball, 792 F.3d at 598. Plaintiffs’ proposed injunctive relief is not necessary to remedy a constitutional violation, not practical given the fluid circumstances of the coronavirus pandemic, and not workable for this Court or the parties
26

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75 Filed: 04/15/20 27 of 30 PageID #: 1437
First, Plaintiffs’ proposed injunction bears no relation to constitutional requirements. Plaintiffs ask this Court to impose a 13-part (including subparts) temporary restraining order that would require MDOC to comply with the CDC Interim Guidance, comply with Centurion’s pandemic preparedness plan, undertake multiple other practices associated with monitoring and treating inmates, create and provide weekly reports to Plaintiffs’ counsel, and appoint an employee of the Mississippi Department of Health who must be given access to Parchman “at any time” for the purpose of monitoring MDOC’s compliance with the proposed injunction. Doc. 74 at 18-20. Plaintiffs offer no explanation as to why these steps, the majority of which are already being taken by MDOC, should be decreed constitutional requirements by the Court. The proposed 13-part relief is not necessary to remedy any constitutional violations at Parchman and, in fact, would extend far beyond the what the Eighth Amendment requires. See Hare v. City of Corinth, Miss., 74 F.3d 633, 646 (5th Cir. 1996) (explaining that “negligent inaction” and even “gross negligence” by prison officials does not amount to deliberate indifference); Inmates of Occoquan, 844 F.2d at 837 (explaining that “the standards of professional organizations” are not constitutional requirements).
Second, Plaintiffs’ proposal to convert CDC Interim Guidance and other best-practices into court-imposed relief is impractical. The CDC Interim Guidance is just what it says—interim guidance based on information known as of March 23rd, must be adapted on a facility-by-facility basis, and which is subject to revision by the CDC. The same is true of Centurion’s best-practice guidance, which is evolving along with the CDC’s updated recommendations, the advice of correctional healthcare organizations, and the information that government and scientific bodies are providing every day about the coronavirus. The pandemic is fluid; the government’s response is fluid; and the best-practices guidance is fluid. Converting it into a mandatory injunction would
27

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75 Filed: 04/15/20 28 of 30 PageID #: 1438
only serve to slow or prevent MDOC from adapting to new developments and new guidance about COVID-19.
Finally, Plaintiffs’ proposed “obey the guidance” injunction is not only unnecessary and impractical, it is unworkable. The CDC Interim Guidance recognizes that it provides only “guiding principles” (not universal remedies) that may need to be adapted on a facility-by-facility basis. Plaintiffs’ proposed injunction will lead to satellite litigation about whether any adaptation by MDOC and Parchman leadership is appropriate or not, which will doubtless require regular court intervention to approve (or not) Parchman’s adaptation. Courts rightly reject this type of injunction because they do not provide clear and specific guidance that a party can obey and a court may enforce. See Walker v. City of Calhoun, Ga., 682 F. App’x 721, 724-25 (11th Cir. 2017) (reversing “comply with the Constitution” or “obey the law” injunction as unenforceable).
CONCLUSION Plaintiffs have not shown that MDOC has engaged in “known noncompliance” with the CDC Interim Guidance, much less actions that violate the Constitution. Instead, Plaintiffs ask the Court to take MDOC’s robust response to the pandemic and, without any legal basis for doing so, order MDOC to continue taking the steps that it is already taking to combat the COVID-19 pandemic. The Eighth Amendment and the PLRA prohibit this approach to adjudicating deliberate indifference claims, and this Court should deny Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order. Date: April 15, 2020.
Respectfully submitted, TOMMY TAYLOR, in his official capacity as the Interim Commissioner of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, and MARSHAL TURNER, in his official capacity as the
28

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75 Filed: 04/15/20 29 of 30 PageID #: 1439
Superintendent of the Mississippi State Penitentiary
s/ Michael J. Bentley Michael J. Bentley One of Their Attorneys
OF COUNSEL
R. David Kaufman (MSB #3526) dkaufman@brunini.com William Trey Jones, III (MSB #99185) tjones@brunini.com Karen E. Howell (MSB #102243) khowell@brunini.com Cody C. Bailey (MSB #103718) cbailey@brunini.com Jacob A. Bradley (MSB #105541) jbradley@brunini.com BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC The Pinnacle Building, Suite 100 190 East Capitol Street (39201) Post Office Drawer 119 Jackson, Mississippi 39205 Telephone: (601) 948-3101 Facsimile: (601) 960-6902
Michael J. Bentley (MSB# 102631) Molly M. Walker (MSB# 100689) Bradley Arant Boult Cummings, LLC One Jackson Place 188 East Capitol Street, Suite 1000 PO Box 1789 Jackson, MS 39215-1789 Telephone: (601) 948-8000 Facsimile: (601) 948-3000 mbentley@bradley.com mmwalker@bradley.com
29

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75 Filed: 04/15/20 30 of 30 PageID #: 1440 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on April 15, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to all counsel of record.
/s/ Michael J. Bentley An Attorney for the Defendants
30

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75-1 Filed: 04/15/20 1 of 35 PageID #: 1441
A

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75-1 Filed: 04/15/20 2 of 35 PageID #: 1442

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75-1 Filed: 04/15/20 3 of 35 PageID #: 1443

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75-1 Filed: 04/15/20 4 of 35 PageID #: 1444
ATTACHMENT A

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75-1 Filed: 04/15/20 5 of 35 PageID #: 1445
Centurion Pandemic Preparedness and Emergency Response Plan
Purpose
Centurion will work with the Department of Corrections to provide an infectious communicable disease pandemic preparedness and response plan.
With emerging and reemerging infectious diseases, it is import to be prepared to respond to outbreaks, epidemics and pandemic. Pandemics are unpredictable. While history offers useful benchmarks, there is no way to know the characteristics of a pandemic before it emerges. Nevertheless, we must make assumptions to facilitate planning efforts. The event can be caused from different types of infections and can spread rapidly as the world has experienced in the past. This policy outlines the steps in preparing for a communicable disease or infection pandemic, and an emergency response to a pandemic event. This is a model outlining the steps and will be part of the overall facility procedure for a pandemic event. The plan incorporates current disaster preparedness plans already in place by the facility and agencies, and provides additional measures needed for a pandemic response. Centurion will collaborate and cooperate with the facility, agency, state, local and federal entities that may include local community / sheriff’s offices, Department of Corrections, Department of Health, Office of Homeland Security, CDC in providing a response for safe response to staff and community members if a pandemic is declared.
Definitions
1. Pandemic: A global outbreak. A pandemic occurs when a communicable disease emerges for which there is little or no immunity in the human population, begins to cause serious illness and then spreads easily from person to person
2. Viral Infections: A disease/condition characterized by fever, headache, myalgia (muscle pain), prostration (exhaustion), coryza (symptoms of a head cold), sore throat and cough.
3. Bacterial Infections: A disease/condition characterized by fever, headache, myalgia (muscle pain), prostration (exhaustion), coryza (symptoms of a head cold), sore throat and cough.
4. Bioterrorism agent: An intentional release of a virus or bacteria with intent of harm or death to unsuspecting persons for purpose of biological attack that can be transmitted to multiple persons.
5. Initial Commander: The Shift Commander will assume this role. This person is responsible for the entire facility and the emergency until relieved by Interim Commander or Ultimate Commander.
6. Interim Commander: The Interim Commander is the next person in the chain of command set by the facility or Facility / DOC P o l i c y and Procedure. This person will assume the Commander's position in the event the Ultimate Commander is more than one (1) hour away from the facility.
7. Isolation: Separation and restriction of movement or activities of persons who are too illbut who have a contagious disease, for the purpose of preventing transmission to others.
8. Morbidity: A state of being diseased; or the relative incidence of disease.

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75-1 Filed: 04/15/20 6 of 35 PageID #: 1446
9. Mortality: The state of being diseased: or the relative incidence of death. 10. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE): Equipment used by any person to
prevent the acquisition or transmission of disease between persons. Examples of personal protective items include, but are not limited to gloves, masks, gowns, and etc. 11. Quarantine: The separation and restriction of movement or activities of ill infected persons who are believed to have been exposed to infection, for the purpose of preventing the transmission of disease. Individuals may be quarantined at home or in designated facilities, healthcare providers and other workers may be subject to quarantine when they are off duty. 12. Segregation/Social distancing: Housing exposed or infected persons away from other population at a distance to decrease or prevent the transmission of disease. 13. Infodemic: The distribution of accurate, inaccurate, and rumored information. The purpose for the recognition of this is to provide accurate, timely information from reliable sources to make appropriate decisions related to any outbreak 14. Ultimate Commander: This role will be assumed by the Warden/designee to have full authority during an emergency.
Procedures
1. The infection prevention and control program, policies and procedures, and clinical guidelines provide written protocols give disease/condition specific guidelines of the diagnosis, treatment, and management of conditions recognized as prevalent in the state or local area.
2. These include procedures for infection prevention, education, identification, surveillance, immunization (as applicable), treatment, follow-up, isolation (as indicated), and reporting requirements to applicable local, state, and federal agencies. A multidisciplinary team that includes clinical, security, environmental, maintenance, and administrative representative meets at least yearly to review and discuss communicable diseases and infection control activities. a. At minimum disease specific protocols will include: i. Prevention to include immunizations, when applicable ii. Surveillance (identification and monitoring) iii. Offenders education and staffing iv. Treatment to include medical isolation, when indicated, v. Follow-up care vi. Reporting requirements to applicable, local, state, and federal agencies vii. Confidentiality/protected health information viii. Monitoring current community/state/national trends
ix. Appropriate safeguards for inmates and all staff x. Education and training on PPE xi. Maintain par levels of PPE xii. Post-exposure management protocols particularly for HIV and viral
hepatitis

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75-1 Filed: 04/15/20 7 of 35 PageID #: 1447
3. Review of all Emergency plans is an essential element of personnel training and retraining programs. All employees are to be familiar with all emergency plans prior to their permanent work assignments.
Preparedness
1. Cases (large outbreak outside United States a. Monitor reliable information on outbreak and transmission b. Type of infection/disease c. Evaluate outbreak plan, and emergency preparedness and response plan d. Specific screening tool available (risk factors & symptoms)
2. Case diagnosed in United States (not in your state) a. Monitor and provide reliable medical information on current situation b. Update Clinical guidance as recommended by Department of Health and CDC c. Disseminate information to healthcare providers d. Evaluate current par levels of PPE e. Routine communication with public health
3. Single Case diagnosed in your state a. Evaluate current local situation b. Reinforce Infection control measures c. Update information for healthcare providers d. Focus on disease surveillance e. Increase public health communication
4. Cluster linked to cases in your state a. Continue monitor of local situation b. Implement screening tool as indicated c. Continue public health communication d. Update information for healthcare providers
5. Multiple unlinked cases in your state a. Increase surveillance b. Implement screening tool c. Continue public health communication (emergency operation indicated) d. Update information for healthcare providers e. Strict infection control prevention f. Monitor PPE supplies
6. Multiple linked cases in your state a. Increase surveillance b. Implement screening tool c. Continue public health communication (emergency operation indicated) d. Update information for healthcare providers e. Strict infection control prevention f. Monitor PPE supplies g. Follow quarantine recommendations h. Limit access to facility

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75-1 Filed: 04/15/20 8 of 35 PageID #: 1448
Security
1. The facility will maintain health and safety standards at the highest level possible during a pandemic communicable emergency. Once a pandemic outbreak is confirmed, the community immediately surrounding the institution is also affected. As a result, available resources and external assistance may become limited. This guide should be used in coordination and conjunction with Facility / DOC Policy and Procedure.
Locate and Verify
1. The County Public Health Office and/or the State Health Department will verify a pandemic outbreak within the community or at the facility and notify the FHA/designee.
2. This notification will then be passed to the Regional Office.
Isolate and Contain
1. Upon notification, isolation of confirmed cases is required. The Commander will initiate the Disease Specific Checklist. The Commander may initiate an emergency lockdown in accordance with the Facility / DOC Operational Procedures
2. On duty staff will be expected to remain on site until relieved. Exceptions will be determined by facility authorities on a case by case basis.
3. Inmates affected with the illness will be quarantined in the infirmary and/or detention cells. In the event of a mass epidemic, housing units will be evacuated and utilized to quarantine infected inmates based on the number of infected inmates, and suspected exposures and the custody levels of all involved inmates.
4. The Facility Health Administrator (FHA) will coordinate with the Warden/designee to ensure that standard PPE is available to all staff regardless of assignment.
Notifications
1. The following listing is supplement to the established facility disaster and emergency preparedness procedure, and is intended to include ancillary staff that is essential to the implementation and success of the pandemic plan. a. Warden/Deputy Warden b. Facility Duty Officer c. Food Service Manager and staff d. Facility Health Administrator e. Maintenance staff f. Facility TSU Team Leaders g. Facility Captain h. Off duty staff i. County Coroner j. Local Area Hospitals and EMS providers k. Local law enforcement agencies (PD and SO) l. Inmate population

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75-1 Filed: 04/15/20 9 of 35 PageID #: 1449
Command Post
1. Activation of the facility Critical Incident Command Posts will occur in accordance with established procedure. The Commander shall ensure that staff is assigned to all essential Posts. Staff assignments will consist of both on duty staff and off duty staff called into the institution. In the event of staff shortages, likely resulting from staff becoming infected and the inability of off duty staff to return to the institution, assistance from other FACILITY / DOC sites may be requested. Essential Posts shall include: a. Security Posts necessary to maintain order and provide for controlled treatment of inmates from housing areas to necessary locations. b. Food Service Staffing. Staff shortages or the threat of the spread of disease may necessitate feeding inmates in cells or housing units. The Commander may initiate an Emergency Food Service Plan at this time. Food service staff will provide contingency meal planning and services for effected and noneffected areas including meals and services for staff. c. Food service will maintain a food and water supply of a minimum of three (3) days, on site. d. Medical Staffing. e. Centurion staff will: i. Initiate their disease specific protocol and will provide services contained in the contract, including diagnosis and treatment for affected staff and inmates inside the facility. ii. Contact local area hospitals giving a briefing on the facility communicable diseases status and request that they accept any critically ill inmate patients if deemed necessary. iii. Shall continue to monitor and treat confirmed or suspected cases. All new cases shall be reported to the Command Post as well as the department of health as required. f. Maintenance Staff. Maintenance supervisors will ensure that sanitation is maintained and that all contaminated waste is disposed of properly. They will also validate operation functions and temperatures of laundry equipment to ensure laundry is properly sanitized. g. Support staff needed to maintain and update inmate records, to provide Chaplain Services, and to complete any other necessary tasks. Any service or programs not deemed necessary to the operation of the institution shall be suspended during the duration of the pandemic status.
Deaths
1. Any deaths will be reported in accordance with facility /FACILITY / DOC Policy and Procedure.
2. Inmate deaths will only be released to the public in accordance with FACILITY / DOC Policy and Procedure.
3. Employee death will only be released to the public in accordance with FACILITY / DOC Policy and Procedures.

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75-1 Filed: 04/15/20 10 of 35 PageID #: 1450
Portable Sanitation
1. Portable sanitation facilities such as portable toilets may be needed and should be considered where plumbing and availability of water may become an issue.
2. Classification and Housing Assignments: Classification and housing assignments may be impacted in the event of a pandemic, and consideration may be given to housing various custody levels together should isolation of ill inmates and/or quarantine of those not affected be deemed necessary.
On-Site Bivouac
3. Should it be necessary for staff to remain on site to ensure shift coverage or to control spread of disease, Centurion and the Facility / DOC will utilize a designated large area within the complex.
Facility Medical Response
1. The FHA shall be responsible for: a. Provision of updates on the number of infected individuals and their state; b. Any deaths believed to be related to the pandemic; c. Any other information requested by the Facility / DOC related to the event d. Required reporting to the Department of Health, or other agency, numbers of cases either suspected or confirmed. e. Necessary staff and resources to provide medical evaluation and treatment of routine health issues as well as pandemic related health care in all areas of the facility, including those designated as quarantined and non-quarantined. Examples of such services include, but are not limited to: i. Sick call ii. Medication management and delivery iii. Nursing services iv. Health assessments v. Mental health services vi. Pharmacy services
2. The Centurion staff shall be prepared to distribute PPE to all staff and inmates in the institution during a pandemic outbreak.
3. In the event that a pandemic is declared, inmates placed in medical quarantine or suspected of being infected shall utilize PPE to prevent spread of the disease.
4. In addition, all staff working in and around isolation areas, medical clinics and conducting inmate patient care without exception shall use PPE in accordance with recommendations set forth by the Center for Disease Control (CDC), US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the State Department of Health.
Pharmaceuticals
1. Vaccines (if available), and/or antiviral/antibacterial drugs will be made available to all institutional staff first. Vaccines (If available) and or antiviral drugs will be made available to inmates based on availability and in accordance with CDC and HHS

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75-1 Filed: 04/15/20 11 of 35 PageID #: 1451
recommended priority populations. Although information may change based on the particular strain and virulence of the causative pandemic, the following represents the current information and priority for inmate populations:
a. Inmates over 65 with 1 or more high risk condition b. Inmates under 65 with 2 or more high risk conditions c. Inmates with history of hospitalization for pneumonia, flu, or symptoms of
disease d. Dormitory contacts of immune-compromised inmates who would not be
vaccinated due to likely poor response to vaccine (transplant recipients, AIDS, cancer) e. Healthy inmates 65 and older f. Inmates under 65 with I high risk condition g. Healthy inmates
2. Centurion will provide the available vaccine for inmates and staff.
In general, Centurion will establish a plan in conjunction with the v Facility / DOC for pandemic outbreaks and emergencies to include surveillance, quarantine and treatment, and resolution.
1 . Each Centurion site will have specific areas and staff assignments based on facility location and any Facility / DOC emergency response plans.
2 . Below are general statements that apply to medical services in general and apply to all sites. Centurion disease specific plans will be on file with the Warden at the respective facility.
Authority
The F H A ( F a c i l i t y Health Administrator (FHA) at the facility, at the direction of the Warden or their designee will be in charge of initiating and coordinating the medical portion of the response. In the absence of the FHA, the senior nurse on duty will be in charge of coordinating the medical services.
Implementation of the Procedure
Notification of pandemic status will be provided by the Facility Health Administrator who will have received it from the St at e Department of Health. Centurion staff will be notified by the FHA or designee.
Isolate and Contain
The first priority upon receiving notification of a pandemic will be to isolate anyone who has been exposed to the disease and contain the spread of the illness. If deemed necessary and appropriate, the medical staff will screen all staff reporting for duty for signs and symptoms of the disease. Entry can be denied based on display symptoms until such time as the staff member has been cleared by a physician to return to work. Inmate housing assignments may be temporarily altered to accommodate situations as they arise. This will be done in collaboration with the Warden/designee. Medical staff will work with the Facility / DOC to plan methods to clean and disinfect the treatment areas and rooms.

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75-1 Filed: 04/15/20 12 of 35 PageID #: 1452
Staffing
The FHA will develop a staffing plan that takes into consideration staffing where possible with separate staff, those areas know to house inmates infected with the virus and those not affected to reduce the possible spread of the disease with the Warden should it become necessary to isolate and/or quarantine in place.
Resource Storage and Supplies
1. An assessment of necessary resources, including volume, storage requirements, availability, and utilization procedures will include the following, and be coordinated with Warden/designee: a. Medical Supplies: b. Disease specific medications (enough to cover all staff and inmates); c. PPE (masks, gloves, gowns, goggles, sanitizers, paper products); d. Medications and medical supplies (i.e., insulin, cardiac, respiratory, anti-viral medications, vaccines (pneumococcal, influenza, and new vaccines developed during pandemic), analgesic and antipyretic meds, LV. solutions and LV. supplies, blood collections tubes, vacutainers, specimen cups); e. Other supplies and equipment necessary to maintain medical operations for a period of forty-five (45) days. (Chemical disinfectants, syringes, needles, alcohol wipes); f. Disposable equipment (urinals, bedpans, wash basins, emesis basins, disposable instruments, biohazard waste bags [large and small). g. Paper products (plates, silverware, toilet paper, paper towels, etc.) h. Centurion will maintain sufficient PPE supplies to include the Facility / DOC staff; i. Soaps, rinse free hand sanitizers, rinse free soaps; j. Items will be stored in the facility warehouse and medical unit.
Coordination with Community Resources
Centurion shall maintain contact with local health authorities and service providers to coordinate any assistance should outside services be necessary. This will include off site local pharmacies in order to obtain medications should routine delivery methods be disrupted (i.e., UPS, FedEx etc.), use of local emergency rooms, off-site private provider clinics, and ancillary services such as radiology. All off-site provider agreements will be updated to include mention of possible assistance during a pandemic situation. Centurion maintain a relationship with local public health nursing offices to further coordination efforts in the event of a pandemic outbreak in the community where the facility is located.
Facility/Site Specific Plans
FHA at each the Facility / DOC will provide the Warden a copy of any site specific alterations to this pandemic plan. Adherence to this plan will vary based on type of service provided, availability to bivouac medical staff on site, use of water and consumables, and inmate population. These addendums will become attachments to this policy and procedure.
Updates and Revisions
As additional information becomes available through the CDC or other recognized health authority, the plans will be updated and/or modified to reflect the most current data and processes.

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75-1 Filed: 04/15/20 13 of 35 PageID #: 1453
Education
Centurion will work with facility staff to prepare and provide appropriate education for both staff and inmates on proper identification and control of infectious diseases, to include benefits of appropriate vaccines, hand washing techniques, universal precautions, and wellness in general.
Reporting and Testing
Centurion will complete any reports and testing as required by the Department of Health, the CDC, HHS, or other health authority, as well as specific forms required by the facility or the Facility / DOC (yet to be determined) related to a pandemic.
Mortuary Services
1. Mortuary services in the event of a pandemic resulting in deaths that exceed community resources may require the institution to provide a temporary morgue.
2. In the event that outside temperatures are below zero (0), the industry bays will be utilized as a temporary morgue.
3. If outside temperatures do not support the use of the delivery corridor, then a maintenance bay shall be utilized with air conditioning and ice.
4. In the event that morgue services are needed for an extended period of time and appropriate refrigeration is unavailable, the practice of a mass burial will be implemented. Equipment will be utilized to dig a deep opening in the ground in the designated facility parking lots. The deceased will be tagged and placed in body bags taken to the burial site and covered with ice to maintain the integrity of the bodies. This process will operate in coordination with Centurion staff. Both medical aspects associated with storing a body, as well as the psychological impact on staff and inmates have been considered. The Coroner shall be notified immediately once a death occurs. The morgue shall remain in operation until attendant legal obligations are satisfied and the bodies may be removed.
Provided at time of Pandemic: 1. Condition Specific Screening Tool 2. Condition Specific Self-Triaging Algorithm 3. Actions Checklist-Yellow/Orange Alert Level 4. Actions Checklist-Red Alert

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75-1 Filed: 04/15/20 14 of 35 PageID #: 1454
ATTACHMENT B

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75-1 Filed: 04/15/20 15 of 35 PageID #: 1455

COVID-19 (coronavirus) Screening

Date: State:

Time: Facility:

English

Symptoms (check all that apply)
Fever/chills (if on medications that lower temp, may not have fever) Cough
Describe Shortness of breath or trouble breathing
Describe Other:

Yes No

Start date

Vital Signs

B/P

P

R

pSO2

Temp*

* Patients with immune compromised conditions or taking fever reducing medications may not have a fever

In the past 14 days

Have you traveled to or been in any outbreak areas in United States, or
1 traveled internationally*? Many countries have out breaks, and large
outbreaks in China, Italy, Iran, South Korea.

If yes: Where

When

Yes No

Note

2 Have you or any family or friends with whom you live been in such areas?

If yes: Where:

When

3 Have you had close contact with anyone who has tested positive to
COVID-19 or experiencing fever or cough?
If yes: When If yes to any symptoms and yes to any questions 1, 2, 3: Have patient don surgical/procedural mask, educate patient, and consult provider
Or if a person has a fever(>100.4°), cough, shortness of breath, and lower respiratory infection, with unknown source of infection contact practitioner

Practitioner Notified(date/time) Department of Health Notified (Name): Comments

Practitioner Name:

Nurse Signature:

P Patient accepted

Patient Quarantined

P Patient Isolated

Patient Referred to Hospital

PatiePanati Pt aNtaiemnteTested for COVID-19

Date:

Reasults: t i

DOB

te

e

in

*Risk Area=Outbreak areas inclunde United States , major airports, globally.

IPC-042-Eent glish

t

1/2020 renvised 3/17/20

ID #

t

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DCMOBV-JIDM-V1D9o(cco#:r7o5n-1avFiirleuds: )04S/1c5re/2e0n1i6ngof 35 PageID #: 1456

Date:

Time:

Spanish

State:

Facility:

Síntomas (marque todos los que correspondan)
Fiebre / escalofríos Tos
Describir Falta de aliento/ Dificultad para respirar
Describir Other:

Yes No

Start date

Vital Signs

B/P

P

R

pSO2

Temp*

* Patients with immune compromised conditions or taking fever reducing medications may not have a fever

En los últimos 14 días

Yes No

1

¿Ha viajado o ha estado en áreas de brotes en los Estados Unidos, o ha viajado internacionalmente *? Muchos países tienen brotes y grandes brotes

en China, Italia, Irán, Corea del Sur.

Note

2 ¿Usted o alguna familia o amigo con quien vive ha estado en esas áreas?

3 ¿Has tenido contacto cercano con alguien que haya dado positivo a
COVID-19 o que tenga fiebre o tos? Si sí, cuándo
If yes to any symptoms and yes to any questions 1, 2, 3: Have patient don surgical/procedural mask, educate patient, and consult provider
Or if a person has a fever(>100.4°), cough, shortness of breath, and lower respiratory infection, with unknown source of infection consult provider

Provider Notified(date/time) Department of Health Notified (Name) Comments:

Provider Name:

Nurse Signature:

P Patient accepted

Patient Quarantined

Patient Isolated

Patient Referred to Hospital

aPatient Tested for COVID-19 Date:

Results:

Patientt Name

DOB

ID #

i

e

*Risk Area=Outbreak areas include United States , major airports, globally.

n

IPC-042-Sptanish
1/2020 revised 3/17/20

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75-1 Filed: 04/15/20 17 of 35 PageID #: 1457
ATTACHMENT C

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75-1 Filed: 04/15/20 18 of 35 PageID #: 1458
Coronavirus Awareness Medical Precautions
Reminder:  There is a designated place for updates and announcements on Centurion’s Portal located at portal.mhm-services.com. Click on the banner titled “Coronavirus Updates.” This is where our employees can access the most recent news, formal announcements and resources pertaining to COVID-19.
 Centurion has provided, and will continue to make available, webinars, conference calls and materials including links and references. Staff have access to these resources on the Portal.
 A facility specific screening tool has been developed for jail and prison admissions, transfers, and other trips in/out of facilities. Please check with your supervisors before implementing this guidance as your facility may use other screening tools.
 Do not enter a facility if you: o Are experiencing symptoms (fever, cough, and/or difficulty breathing) o Had recent travel to a high risk area within the past 14 days o Have been advised that you have been exposed to a confirmed case
 Centurion has developed and distributed an outline of a pandemic clinical guideline which can be found on the Portal banner link;
 Teleconferencing and telemedicine capacity has been expanded. Whenever possible, if delivery of care can be done via telehealth technology for primary care, specialty care, nursing care, and mental health, please utilize these resources. Your supervisor will provide guidance as to the availability of these alternatives at your specific facility.
Page 1

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75-1 Filed: 04/15/20 19 of 35 PageID #: 1459
Recommendations: Below we provide a listing of program-level and site-level recommendations by corporate senior medical leadership. If necessary, a point person is listed for applicable instructions.
 Identify contacts at your nearest local health department for reporting of suspect cases and request testing kits. (Facility infection control nurse; alternate: DON and HSA/FHA)
 Identify areas for single cell isolation for symptomatic patients. (HSA/FHA, DON, site medical director)  Identify air circulation patterns in dormitories in case they are to be used for quarantine. (HSA, DON,
site medical director)  Cancel visitations or limit external vendors and personnel. Instead use videoconferencing and
telephonic communications.  Be sure to use appropriate personal protective equipment (N95 mask, eye/face shield, gown, gloves)
for Movement and Transport Officers. We recommend tracking appropriate levels of PPE, medications, equipment, and supplies as there is potential for supply chain disruption. (Program Manager/Vice President of Operations or HSA)  Review inventory of supplies and medications which might be in short supply. (DON or charge nurse)  Provide a symptom screening for all persons being transferred or released using the Centurion screening tools or other screening tools that are consistent with CDC recommendations for all intakes, transfers in/out, and returns from outside trips such as court, offsite medical trips, and work details. If the screening is positive, there needs to be a determination whether or not it is appropriate to proceed with the planned movement.  Encourage patients who have not taken the influenza vaccination to reconsider.  If allowed by Clients, Centurion is drafting an informational FAQ sheet to healthcare and correctional staff and our patients.  We recommend mock drills for a possible outbreak scenario that incorporates cooperation between custody, health services, and other ancillary staff to become familiar with protocols and have lessons learned to improve the response if such an incident does arise.  We recommend that Centurion regional/site clinical leadership is involved in any task force or committee meetings/discussions relating to COVID-19.  We recommend making available sufficient handwashing with soap access. (HSA)  We recommend programs create educational videos for any in-facility video programming. Keeping not just staff but patients informed is critical to preventing riots and other safety concerns.  We recommend custody staff have ample hospital-grade disinfectants and routinely clean areas. If inmates are to be utilized for cleaning duties, be sure that they have proper training and are handling of materials with appropriate safety equipment.  We recommend that our Clients not to limit soap, tissues, toilet paper, and other hygiene products during this time period.  We encourage our Clients to consider meals/dining be done in the units to limit mass movement and gatherings.  Centurion program leadership should draft and implement a plan for emergency staffing in the event that employees are absent either due to infection or self-quarantine. The plan must ensure adequately licensed and trained staff perform the essential tasks and services under our contract. Further, the plan should address what to do if custody becomes short staffed, such as, by way of example, cell-side encounters and alternative medication administration.  Consider recommending medical release of incarcerated persons who are aged or medically compromised and increase monitoring of those at highest risk.
Page 2

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75-1 Filed: 04/15/20 20 of 35 PageID #: 1460
ATTACHMENT D

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75-1 Filed: 04/15/20 21 of 35 PageID #: 1461

CORONAVIRUS DISEASE 2019 (COVID-19)
STAFF SCREENING TOOL

1. Assess the Risk Of Exposure
LI Yes LI No Traveled from, or through, any of the locations identified by the CDC as increasing epidemiologic risk within the last 14 days?

Describe:

LI Yes LI No

Had close contact with anyone diagnosed with the COVID-19 illness within the last 14 days?

LI Yes LI No Deployed for COVID-19 response and back from deployment within the last 14 days?

If the answer to ALL the above risk of exposure questions is NO, then STOP here. If the answer to ANY of the above risk of exposure questions is YES, then assess symptoms in step 2 and proceed to step 3.

2. Assess Symptoms

LI Yes

LI No Fever (Fever may not be present in some patients, such as

elderly, immunosuppressed, or taking certain medications.

Fever may be subjective or objective).

LI Yes

LI No Cough

LI Yes

LI No Shortness of Breath (SOB)

Date of Onset:

TEMPERATURE:

3. Contact Central Office
If the staff member answers Yes to either question in section 1 (exposure risk), Yes to any question in symptoms; or Temperature >100.4F, contact:

_______________________________________________ ____________________ _____________________

STAFF NAME (Last, First)

BADGE #

DOB

________________________________________________ INTERVIEWED BY

____________________________ DATE/TIME:

IPC- 043 COVID-19 STAFF SCREENING 03/17/2020

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75-1 Filed: 04/15/20 22 of 35 PageID #: 1462
ATTACHMENT E

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75-1 Filed: 04/15/20 23 of 35 PageID #: 1463

COVID-19 Staff Screening

Date:

Facility:

State:

Time

Employee# or name

If using ID#,
please write
initials

Do you have a fever?

TEMP

Do you have a cough?

Are you short of breath?

Traveled to an
area with COVID-
19 outbreak?

Have you been in close contact (less than 6ft) with
someone who displays
these symptoms?

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Y / N

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75-1 Filed: 04/15/20 24 of 35 PageID #: 1464
ATTACHMENT F

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75-1 Filed: 04/15/20 25 of 35 PageID #: 1465
Personal Safety
Maintain healthy habits and be prepared. Always wash hands with soap and water after contact with persons and public objects. Utilize personal protective equipment (PPE) in interactions with patients who might be infected. Recognize that droplets can remain active on surfaces and clothing for several hours. Take everyday actions to stay healthy.
Facility Safety
Do not to enter facilities if you are:  Experiencing symptoms (fever, cough, and/or difficulty breathing).  Traveled within the past 14 days to a high risk area.  Have been exposed to a confirmed case.
If someone in your household has been exposed to a contact, seek guidance from your local health department. Refer to Centurion policy for leave during the COVID-19 epidemic.
Facility Procedures
All patients entering and leaving the facility are to be screened with the following questions or actions:  Have you traveled to any area with an outbreak of COVID-19 or to international areas with sustained (ongoing) transmission such as China, Iran, Italy, Japan, South Korea?  Do you have a fever?  Do you have a cough?  Are you short of breath?  Have you been in close contact (less than six feet) of someone exhibiting these symptoms or confirmed case of COVID-19?  Take and record temperature. If NO to the above screening items, proceed as normal.
If YES to any the above, or temperature >100.0 F, proceed as follows.
If exposure or symptoms or fever: Put a simply surgical/procedure mask on the patient. Place the patient in a separate, closed room and close the door. Ideally, this is an airborne infection isolation room (AIIR) with negative pressure. Healthcare and custody staff wear Personal Protective Equipment (N-95 mask, eye shield, gown, gloves) when entering room or escorting patient.

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75-1 Filed: 04/15/20 26 of 35 PageID #: 1466
Rapid test for influenza. Assess stability of the patient. Short of breath? Need transfer to hospital? Contact your facility practitioner. Contact local health department or Emergency Department prior to moving patient. Notify security and EMS transport patient with respiratory illness. Testing to be done per local protocols and availability.
Quarantine
If a person is identified with COVID-19, determination is made for those who had potential exposure. Those persons are placed in quarantine for a period of 14 days. This is coordinated with security.
Supplies
Maintain adequate stock of essential supplies, including medications and cleaning equipment.
Minimize Your Risks
Stay healthy: Strict hand washing, social distancing (>6 feet or ~2 arms lengths), and smoking cessation.

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75-1 Filed: 04/15/20 27 of 35 PageID #: 1467
ATTACHMENT G

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75-1 Filed: 04/15/20 28 of 35 PageID #: 1468
COVID-19 is a virus similar to other viruses that cause respiratory illness: It is transmitted person to person through cough, sneeze or other respiratory droplets. The virus remains active on surfaces such as doorknobs, table tops or clothing for several hours.
Fortunately, 80% of people that are infected will have mild to moderate symptoms.
The time from exposure to display of symptoms is 2-14 days with an average around day 5. People are most contagious when they are symptomatic but transmission can occur without symptoms.
The symptoms are very similar to the flu and can be mild, moderate, or severe: Fever of 100.4°F (a person might not have a fever if you taking Tylenol or other pain/fever reducing medications) Dry cough Shortness of breath/difficulty breathing
How to Protect Yourself and Others
 Take everyday actions to stay healthy.  Protect your immune system with exercise, healthy eating, and rest.  Wash hands frequently with soap and water:
Before eating After going to the bathroom When dirty Handling or touching possible contaminated surfaces After sneezing and coughing  Avoid touching your eyes, nose, and mouth.  Keep your distance or avoid close contact with people who are sick (fever, coughing).  Cover your cough or sneeze. Use tissue, then throw the tissue in the trash, then wash your hands. If tissue is not available cough or sneeze into your arm not your hand.  Monitor environmental cleaning and disinfect frequently touched objects and surfaces using the disinfectant provided by the facility.  If you are sick or have been exposed to a confirmed case COVID-19, it is recommended you do not come to work. Follow your facility’s and health professional’s recommendation.
Safe Facility
 If you identify or note an inmate who is ill, coughing, short of breath or febrile, notify medical and separate the person from others.

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75-1 Filed: 04/15/20 29 of 35 PageID #: 1469
Safe Facility (Continued)
 Staff are to wear Personal Protective Equipment (N-95 mask, eye shield, gown and gloves) when escorting or transporting or entering the room of a person suspected of COVID-19 infection.
 Special vigilance is appropriate for older persons and those with medical problems such as emphysema who are more likely to be severely affected by the infection.
 If moving a person suspected of COVID-19, the receiving facility (such as a hospital) should be notified in advance.
 Persons who are exposed to an active case of COVID-19 are generally placed in quarantine for 14 days. This means they are restricted from interacting with persons or places that have not been exposed.
 Do not come to work if you are sick (fever, cough). Follow your facility’s directive.

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75-1 Filed: 04/15/20 30 of 35 PageID #: 1470
ATTACHMENT H

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75-1 Filed: 04/15/20 31 of 35 PageID #: 1471
Coronavirus is spread like a cold or flu. If a sick person coughs or sneezes near you, or touches surfaces with contaminated hands, you could get sick. Washing your hands and cleaning surfaces is your best protection from germs. Most people (about 80%) who have coronavirus only have mild to moderate symptoms.
The symptoms are like the flu and can be mild, moderate, and severe:
Fever of 100.4°F (a person might not have a fever if you taking Tylenol or other pain / fever reducing medications) Dry cough Shortness of breath / difficulty breathing If you have a dry cough, trouble breathing, or a fever, please tell medical staff. If anyone in your housing unit has these symptoms, please notify medical staff.
Stay healthy! How to Protect Yourself and Others
 Eat healthy, exercise, and reduce stress to keep your immune system strong
 Wash hands often with soap and water: Before eating After going to the bathroom When dirty Touching possible contaminated surfaces or items After sneezing and coughing
 Do not touch your eyes, nose, and mouth  Do not share food  Stay away from people who are sick, with a fever, and
coughing. Tell sick visitors not to come until they are healthy.  Cover your cough or sneeze:
Cough or sneeze into your arm, not your hand Use a tissue, then throw the tissue in the trash then wash your hands  Clean objects and surfaces using disinfectant.
Do not be afraid
 We are prepared.  We are following directions from the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention and health departments.  Ask questions if you are worried.  Tell medical staff if you are sick.
LOWER YOUR RISKS
Stay healthy: Wash hands, social distancing (at least 6 feet or 2 arm lengths), and stop smoking (COVID-19 is a respiratory disease)

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75-1 Filed: 04/15/20 32 of 35 PageID #: 1472
ATTACHMENT I

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75-1 Filed: 04/15/20 33 of 35 PageID #: 1473
CORONAVIRUS (COVID-19) PRECAUTIONS
In order to protect our
STOP staff and inmates, we ask the you
DO NOT enter the facility during this time if you have the following active symptoms:
 Fever Cough/Sneezing Cold Symptoms Difficulty breathing
In order to keep our facility free of COVID-19 we ask that you abide by this. Anyone with “active”signs of this virus should stay home, avoid contact with the public, and see their Doctor as soon as possible.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION AND UNDERSTANDING

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75-1 Filed: 04/15/20 34 of 35 PageID #: 1474
ATTACHMENT J

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75-1 Filed: 04/15/20 35 of 35 PageID #: 1475
1593 Spring Hill Road Suite 600 Vienna, VA 22182
April 9, 2020
To all Centurion Staff, Due to the CDC recommendations of everyone to wear face coverings in public to help stop the transmission of COVID-19 virus, Centurion is requesting all staff to comply with this recommendation to help avoid any introduction of the virus into our facilities. There are specific recommendations for the care of these coverings, and many do it yourself instruction videos. Please read the instructions on the use of face coverings and masks in our portal or click here. In accordance with CDC recommendations and facility policies, Centurion will continue to prioritize supplying PPE to healthcare providers engaged in direct care with COVID19 patients and other suspected cases. See table. Again, please utilize our COVID-19 resource site on the portal or email us your questions and concerns at: DLCorpCOVID19@TeamCenturion.com We will get through this in the same way we have handled all challenging times, as One Team.
Thank you for your service. Johnny Wu, MD, FACP, FACCP, CCHP-P, CCHP-A Chief of Clinical Operations

1-800-416-3649

CenturionManagedCare.com

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75-2 Filed: 04/15/20 1 of 5 PageID #: 1476
B

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75-2 Filed: 04/15/20 2 of 5 PageID #: 1477

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75-2 Filed: 04/15/20 3 of 5 PageID #: 1478

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75-2 Filed: 04/15/20 4 of 5 PageID #: 1479

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75-2 Filed: 04/15/20 5 of 5 PageID #: 1480

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75-3 Filed: 04/15/20 1 of 25 PageID #: 1481
C

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75-3 Filed: 04/15/20 2 of 25 PageID #: 1482

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75-3 Filed: 04/15/20 3 of 25 PageID #: 1483

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75-3 Filed: 04/15/20 4 of 25 PageID #: 1484

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75-3 Filed: 04/15/20 5 of 25 PageID #: 1485

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75-3 Filed: 04/15/20 6 of 25 PageID #: 1486
ATTACHMENT A

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75-3 Filed: 04/15/20 7 of 25 PageID #: 1487

CORONAVIRUS DISEASE 2019 (COVID-19)
STAFF SCREENING TOOL

1. Assess the Risk Of Exposure
LI Yes LI No Traveled from, or through, any of the locations identified by the CDC as increasing epidemiologic risk within the last 14 days?

Describe:

LI Yes LI No

Had close contact with anyone diagnosed with the COVID-19 illness within the last 14 days?

LI Yes LI No Deployed for COVID-19 response and back from deployment within the last 14 days?

If the answer to ALL the above risk of exposure questions is NO, then STOP here. If the answer to ANY of the above risk of exposure questions is YES, then assess symptoms in step 2 and proceed to step 3.

2. Assess Symptoms

LI Yes

LI No Fever (Fever may not be present in some patients, such as

elderly, immunosuppressed, or taking certain medications.

Fever may be subjective or objective).

LI Yes

LI No Cough

LI Yes

LI No Shortness of Breath (SOB)

Date of Onset:

TEMPERATURE:

3. Contact Central Office
If the staff member answers Yes to either question in section 1 (exposure risk), Yes to any question in symptoms; or Temperature >100.4F, contact:

_______________________________________________ ____________________ _____________________

STAFF NAME (Last, First)

BADGE #

DOB

________________________________________________ INTERVIEWED BY

____________________________ DATE/TIME:

IPC- 043 COVID-19 STAFF SCREENING 03/17/2020

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75-3 Filed: 04/15/20 8 of 25 PageID #: 1488

COVID-19 (coronavirus) Screening

Date: State:

Time: Facility:

English

Symptoms (check all that apply)
Fever/chills (if on medications that lower temp, may not have fever) Cough
Describe Shortness of breath or trouble breathing
Describe Other:

Yes No

Start date

Vital Signs

B/P

P

R

pSO2

Temp*

* Patients with immune compromised conditions or taking fever reducing medications may not have a fever

In the past 14 days

Have you traveled to or been in any outbreak areas in United States, or
1 traveled internationally*? Many countries have out breaks, and large
outbreaks in China, Italy, Iran, South Korea.

If yes: Where

When

Yes No

Note

2 Have you or any family or friends with whom you live been in such areas?

If yes: Where:

When

3 Have you had close contact with anyone who has tested positive to
COVID-19 or experiencing fever or cough?
If yes: When If yes to any symptoms and yes to any questions 1, 2, 3: Have patient don surgical/procedural mask, educate patient, and consult provider
Or if a person has a fever(>100.4°), cough, shortness of breath, and lower respiratory infection, with unknown source of infection contact practitioner

Practitioner Notified(date/time) Department of Health Notified (Name): Comments

Practitioner Name:

Nurse Signature:

P Patient accepted

Patient Quarantined

P Patient Isolated

Patient Referred to Hospital

PatiePanati Pt aNtaiemnteTested for COVID-19

Date:

Reasults: t i

DOB

te

e

in

*Risk Area=Outbreak areas inclunde United States , major airports, globally.

IPC-042-Eent glish

t

1/2020 renvised 3/17/20

ID #

t

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-CDOMBV-IJDM-V19Do(cco#r:o7n5-a3vFirilueds:)0S4/c1r5e/2e0n9inogf 25 PageID #: 1489

Date:

Time:

Spanish

State:

Facility:

Síntomas (marque todos los que correspondan)
Fiebre / escalofríos Tos
Describir Falta de aliento/ Dificultad para respirar
Describir Other:

Yes No

Start date

Vital Signs

B/P

P

R

pSO2

Temp*

* Patients with immune compromised conditions or taking fever reducing medications may not have a fever

En los últimos 14 días

Yes No

1

¿Ha viajado o ha estado en áreas de brotes en los Estados Unidos, o ha viajado internacionalmente *? Muchos países tienen brotes y grandes brotes

en China, Italia, Irán, Corea del Sur.

Note

2 ¿Usted o alguna familia o amigo con quien vive ha estado en esas áreas?

3 ¿Has tenido contacto cercano con alguien que haya dado positivo a
COVID-19 o que tenga fiebre o tos? Si sí, cuándo
If yes to any symptoms and yes to any questions 1, 2, 3: Have patient don surgical/procedural mask, educate patient, and consult provider
Or if a person has a fever(>100.4°), cough, shortness of breath, and lower respiratory infection, with unknown source of infection consult provider

Provider Notified(date/time) Department of Health Notified (Name) Comments:

Provider Name:

Nurse Signature:

P Patient accepted

Patient Quarantined

Patient Isolated

Patient Referred to Hospital

aPatient Tested for COVID-19 Date:

Results:

Patientt Name

DOB

ID #

i

e

*Risk Area=Outbreak areas include United States , major airports, globally.

n

IPC-042-Sptanish
1/2020 revised 3/17/20

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75-3 Filed: 04/15/20 10 of 25 PageID #: 1490
ATTACHMENT B

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75-3 Filed: 04/15/20 11 of 25 PageID #: 1491
Personal Safety
Maintain healthy habits and be prepared. Always wash hands with soap and water after contact with persons and public objects. Utilize personal protective equipment (PPE) in interactions with patients who might be infected. Recognize that droplets can remain active on surfaces and clothing for several hours. Take everyday actions to stay healthy.
Facility Safety
Do not to enter facilities if you are:  Experiencing symptoms (fever, cough, and/or difficulty breathing).  Traveled within the past 14 days to a high risk area.  Have been exposed to a confirmed case.
If someone in your household has been exposed to a contact, seek guidance from your local health department. Refer to Centurion policy for leave during the COVID-19 epidemic.
Facility Procedures
All patients entering and leaving the facility are to be screened with the following questions or actions:  Have you traveled to any area with an outbreak of COVID-19 or to international areas with sustained (ongoing) transmission such as China, Iran, Italy, Japan, South Korea?  Do you have a fever?  Do you have a cough?  Are you short of breath?  Have you been in close contact (less than six feet) of someone exhibiting these symptoms or confirmed case of COVID-19?  Take and record temperature. If NO to the above screening items, proceed as normal.
If YES to any the above, or temperature >100.0 F, proceed as follows.
If exposure or symptoms or fever: Put a simply surgical/procedure mask on the patient. Place the patient in a separate, closed room and close the door. Ideally, this is an airborne infection isolation room (AIIR) with negative pressure. Healthcare and custody staff wear Personal Protective Equipment (N-95 mask, eye shield, gown, gloves) when entering room or escorting patient.

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75-3 Filed: 04/15/20 12 of 25 PageID #: 1492
Rapid test for influenza. Assess stability of the patient. Short of breath? Need transfer to hospital? Contact your facility practitioner. Contact local health department or Emergency Department prior to moving patient. Notify security and EMS transport patient with respiratory illness. Testing to be done per local protocols and availability.
Quarantine
If a person is identified with COVID-19, determination is made for those who had potential exposure. Those persons are placed in quarantine for a period of 14 days. This is coordinated with security.
Supplies
Maintain adequate stock of essential supplies, including medications and cleaning equipment.
Minimize Your Risks
Stay healthy: Strict hand washing, social distancing (>6 feet or ~2 arms lengths), and smoking cessation.

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75-3 Filed: 04/15/20 13 of 25 PageID #: 1493
ATTACHMENT C

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75-3 Filed: 04/15/20 14 of 25 PageID #: 1494
COVID-19 is a virus similar to other viruses that cause respiratory illness: It is transmitted person to person through cough, sneeze or other respiratory droplets. The virus remains active on surfaces such as doorknobs, table tops or clothing for several hours.
Fortunately, 80% of people that are infected will have mild to moderate symptoms.
The time from exposure to display of symptoms is 2-14 days with an average around day 5. People are most contagious when they are symptomatic but transmission can occur without symptoms.
The symptoms are very similar to the flu and can be mild, moderate, or severe: Fever of 100.4°F (a person might not have a fever if you taking Tylenol or other pain/fever reducing medications) Dry cough Shortness of breath/difficulty breathing
How to Protect Yourself and Others
 Take everyday actions to stay healthy.  Protect your immune system with exercise, healthy eating, and rest.  Wash hands frequently with soap and water:
Before eating After going to the bathroom When dirty Handling or touching possible contaminated surfaces After sneezing and coughing  Avoid touching your eyes, nose, and mouth.  Keep your distance or avoid close contact with people who are sick (fever, coughing).  Cover your cough or sneeze. Use tissue, then throw the tissue in the trash, then wash your hands. If tissue is not available cough or sneeze into your arm not your hand.  Monitor environmental cleaning and disinfect frequently touched objects and surfaces using the disinfectant provided by the facility.  If you are sick or have been exposed to a confirmed case COVID-19, it is recommended you do not come to work. Follow your facility’s and health professional’s recommendation.
Safe Facility
 If you identify or note an inmate who is ill, coughing, short of breath or febrile, notify medical and separate the person from others.

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75-3 Filed: 04/15/20 15 of 25 PageID #: 1495
Safe Facility (Continued)
 Staff are to wear Personal Protective Equipment (N-95 mask, eye shield, gown and gloves) when escorting or transporting or entering the room of a person suspected of COVID-19 infection.
 Special vigilance is appropriate for older persons and those with medical problems such as emphysema who are more likely to be severely affected by the infection.
 If moving a person suspected of COVID-19, the receiving facility (such as a hospital) should be notified in advance.
 Persons who are exposed to an active case of COVID-19 are generally placed in quarantine for 14 days. This means they are restricted from interacting with persons or places that have not been exposed.
 Do not come to work if you are sick (fever, cough). Follow your facility’s directive.

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75-3 Filed: 04/15/20 16 of 25 PageID #: 1496
ATTACHMENT D

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75-3 Filed: 04/15/20 17 of 25 PageID #: 1497
Coronavirus is spread like a cold or flu. If a sick person coughs or sneezes near you, or touches surfaces with contaminated hands, you could get sick. Washing your hands and cleaning surfaces is your best protection from germs. Most people (about 80%) who have coronavirus only have mild to moderate symptoms.
The symptoms are like the flu and can be mild, moderate, and severe:
Fever of 100.4°F (a person might not have a fever if you taking Tylenol or other pain / fever reducing medications) Dry cough Shortness of breath / difficulty breathing If you have a dry cough, trouble breathing, or a fever, please tell medical staff. If anyone in your housing unit has these symptoms, please notify medical staff.
Stay healthy! How to Protect Yourself and Others
 Eat healthy, exercise, and reduce stress to keep your immune system strong
 Wash hands often with soap and water: Before eating After going to the bathroom When dirty Touching possible contaminated surfaces or items After sneezing and coughing
 Do not touch your eyes, nose, and mouth  Do not share food  Stay away from people who are sick, with a fever, and
coughing. Tell sick visitors not to come until they are healthy.  Cover your cough or sneeze:
Cough or sneeze into your arm, not your hand Use a tissue, then throw the tissue in the trash then wash your hands  Clean objects and surfaces using disinfectant.
Do not be afraid
 We are prepared.  We are following directions from the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention and health departments.  Ask questions if you are worried.  Tell medical staff if you are sick.
LOWER YOUR RISKS
Stay healthy: Wash hands, social distancing (at least 6 feet or 2 arm lengths), and stop smoking (COVID-19 is a respiratory disease)

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75-3 Filed: 04/15/20 18 of 25 PageID #: 1498
ATTACHMENT E

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75-3 Filed: 04/15/20 19 of 25 PageID #: 1499
WORKING DOCUMENT MARCH 27, 2020
ASSESSMENT PROTOCOL FOR PATIENTS PRESENTING WITH FEBRILE RESPIRATORY ILLNESS
Patient presents with complaints of fever and/or respiratory symptoms (apply surgical mask to inmate)
➔ RN assessment including full set of vitals to include O2 sat, attention to high risk or vulnerable conditions.
Category: Afebrile and not ill or symptomatologynot concerning If the patient is not febrile and not exhibiting respiratory symptoms consistent with viral illness then address underlying symptom(s) such as allergies, and educate patient → return to housing.
Category: Febrile and ill with respiratory symptoms ➔ Provider assessment, if confirmed flu-like illness then administer rapid Influenza test ➔ If Influenza positive, isolate and follow Infection Control Guidelines with contact map and close contact screening/education. May cohort patients exposed who are exhibiting similar symptoms. Supportive care. Close monitoring for complications that would require higher level of care ➔ If Influenza negative or not available, isolate and cohort separately from Influenza group. May cohort patients exposed who are exhibiting similar symptoms. Supportive care. Close monitoring for complications that would require higher level of care o If COVID-19 test available, may choose to test 1-2 patients in the cohort but not necessary to test multiple close contacts who have similar symptoms. o If COVID-19 test not available, this population can be “presumed positive”
Category: Febrile and ill or compromised ➔ Mask, provider assessment, stabilize and transport to ER—call report to ER staff
Additional workup: For any of the ill patients with laboratory confirmed or presumed positive COVID-19, consider CXR and/or laboratory (CBC, CMP). Bilateral pneumonia is a complication, even If oxygen saturations and lung exam is normal. Patients can have either elevated or normal WBC, but will predominantly exhibit leukopenia with COVID. Nearly 30% may have transaminitis.
Monitoring: These patients need RN visits Q shift and Provider visits at least daily until stabilizing. Please remember that a small percentage of patients with COVID will decompensate and need additional respiratory support- be on the lookout for this and escalate any patient that seems to be worsening. Many Intensivists are reporting that some patients unexpectedly have respiratory worsening after a short period of stabilization and improvement, some developing sudden Respiratory Failure/ARDS and requiring ventilator and life support.
WHEN TO D/C ISOLATION for symptomatic patients either known or presumed to have COVID ??
a) 72 hours have passed with no fever (and not on fever reducing med) AND
b) Symptoms IMPROVED (this is a recent CDC change from “symptoms resolved”) AND
c) At least 7 days or more have passed since symptom onset

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75-3 Filed: 04/15/20 20 of 25 PageID #: 1500
ATTACHMENT F

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75-3 Filed: 04/15/20 21 of 25 PageID #: 1501
CDC Return to work criteria for confirmed or suspected COVID -19 Centurion of Mississippi is observing test based strategy
1- Test Based strategy- Exclude from work until: -Resolution of fever without fever reducing medications AND -Improvement of respiratory symptoms AND -Negative results of an emergency use authorized molecular assay for COVID-19 from at least two consecutive nasopharyngeal swab specimens collected > 24 hours apart
2- Non-test based strategy: Exclude from work until: -At least 3 days (72 hours) have passed since recovery (defined as no fever without use of fever reducing medications AND improvement of respiratory symptoms) AND -At least 7 days have passed since symptoms first appeared
Return to work practices and restrictions
After returning to work, the HCP should: - Wear a facemask at all times while in the healthcare facility until all symptoms have resolved or until 14 days after illness onset whichever is longer. - Be restricted from contact with severely immunocompromised patients until at least 14 days after illness onset - Adhere to hand hygiene, respiratory hygiene and cough etiquette - Self-monitor for symptoms and seek evaluation if symptoms return or worsen

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75-3 Filed: 04/15/20 22 of 25 PageID #: 1502
ATTACHMENT G

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75-3 Filed: 04/15/20 23 of 25 PageID #: 1503
CDC Return to work criteria for High/ Medium Risk Covid-19 Exposure with NO CURRENT SYMPTOMS
1- Test Based strategy- Exclude from work until: -Negative results of an emergency use authorized molecular assay for COVID-19 from an FDA approved nasopharyngeal swab
2- Non-test based strategy: Exclude from work until: -At least 14 days from last exposure and no fever and /or respiratory symptoms
Return to work practices and restrictions
If returning to work before the 14 day period from last exposure and a negati ve test, the HCP should:
- Wear a facemask at all times while in the healthcare facility until at least 14 days after last exposure.
- Participate in the daily facility screening - Be restricted from contact with severely immunocompromised patients until at leas t 14
days after last exposure - Adhere to hand hygiene, respiratory hygiene and cough etiquette - Self-monitor for symptoms and seek evaluation if symptoms appear or change in health
status If returning after 14 days from last exposure, the HCP should:
- Adhere to hand hygiene, respiratory hygiene and cough etiquette - Self-monitor for symptoms and seek evaluation if symptoms appear or change in health
status - Participate in daily facility screening

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75-3 Filed: 04/15/20 24 of 25 PageID #: 1504
ATTACHMENT H

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75-3 Filed: 04/15/20 25 of 25 PageID #: 1505
Centurion of MS Return to work criteria for domestic plane travel or work in high risk areas (Community ER, LTAC, Hospitals, Mental Health facilities) With unknown/unconfirmed COVID-19 Exposure
Return to work practices and restrictions
After returning to work, the HCP should: - Wear a facemask at all times while in the healthcare facility until 14 days after last possible high/medium risk exposure (Defined as less than six feet for more than 30 minutes) - Participate in daily facility COVID screenings - Be restricted from contact with severely immunocompromised patients until at least 14 days after illness onset - Adhere to hand hygiene, respiratory hygiene and cough etiquette - Self-monitor for symptoms and seek evaluation if symptoms return or worsen

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75-4 Filed: 04/15/20 1 of 3 PageID #: 1506

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

MICHAEL AMOS, et al.
vs.

PLAINTIFFS CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:20-CV-07-DMB-JMV

TOMMY TAYLOR, et al.

DEFENDANTS

DECLARATION OF GLORIA PERRY, MD

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I, Gloria Perry, M.D., declare under penalty of perjury that the following statements, based on my personal knowledge, are true:
1. I am an adult resident citizen of Brandon, Mississippi. I am competent to testify to the matters contained in this Declaration, and I give this Declaration voluntarily.
2. I am currently serving as the Chief Medical Officer for the Mississippi Department of Corrections ("MDOC"). I have been employed by MDOC since 2008.
3. I am offering this declaration as a supplement and update to my prior declaration filed in this Court on March 19, 2020.
4. My duties as Chief Medical Officer include overseeing measures undertaken by MDOC and Centurion of Mississippi, LLC (''Centurion") at the Mississippi State Penitentiary at Parchman (''MSP") to prevent the spread of COVID-19, to lessen the impact of COVID-19 on inmates and MDOC staff, to prepare for the potential contraction of COVID-19 by inmates or MDOC staff, and to respond with appropriate and adequate measures should MDOC staff or inmates contract COVID-19.

1

D

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75-4 Filed: 04/15/20 2 of 3 PageID #: 1507
5. I have knowledge of the present conditions and medical operations of MSP. I am aware of the efforts undertaken by the MDOC and Centurion at MSP with respect to COVID-19.
6. I am aware of the current status of MSP and other MDOC facilities as it relates to COVID-19. To my knowledge, there has been one confirmed case of COVID-19 of an inmate housed at MSP. On April 11, 2020, this inmate died at a local hospital. After his death, MDOC learned of the positive test result.
7. To my knowledge, MDOC and Centurion staff are complying with CDC guidance in response to the confirmed positive case to protect inmates and staff who may have been exposed to the infected individual and to prevent the spread of COVID-19 through quarantine, temperature checks, monitoring, and sanitization.
8. I have reviewed Plaintiffs' Supplement Briefin Support of their Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Mandatory Preliminary Injunction as to COVID-19 filed on April 13, 2020. I have personal knowledge that MDOC and Centurion are already performing most, if not all, of the preventive and responsive measures sought by Plaintiffs' Supplemental Brief.
9. I have reviewed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Interim Guidance on Management of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Correctional and Detention Facilities, issued on March 23, 2020. I have personal knowledge that MDOC and Centurion have implemented at MSP procedures and practices consistent with the CDC's recommended guidance.
10. I have daily calls with Centurion leadership to discuss and receive updates on various aspects of COVID-19 prevention, preparedness, and management at MDOC facilities, including MSP. Topics of our daily calls have included, but are not limited to: availability of COVID-19 testing supplies; numbers of inmates who have been tested for COVID-19 and the
2

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75-4 Filed: 04/15/20 3 of 3 PageID #: 1508 results of those tests; PPE inventory; Mississippi State Department of Health alerts; production and distribution of cloth masks and gowns; and dental procedure restrictions. Additionally, I have approved Centurion's COVID Assessment Tool and Return to Work Guidance.
I declare under penalty of perjury and in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1746 that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed this [b7Aday of April 2020.
3

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75-5 Filed: 04/15/20 1 of 16 PageID #: 1509

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

MICHAEL AMOS,et al.

PLAINTIFFS

VS.

CIVIL ACTION NO.4:20-CV-07-DMB-JMV

TOMMY TAYLOR,et ai.

DEFENDANTS

DECLARATION OF MARSHAL TURNER

Pursuantto 28 U.S.C.§ 1746,1,Marshal Turner,declare under penalty ofpeijury that the following statements,based on my personal knowledge,are true:
1. I am an adult resident citizen ofSaraland,Alabama.I am competentto testify to the matters contained in this Declaration,and I give this Declaration voluntarily.
2. I am currently serving as the Superintendent ofthe Mississippi State Penitentiary atParchman("MSP").I am employed by the Mississippi Department ofCorrections("MDOC"). I have been employed by MDOC since 2002.1 have served as the Superintendent ofMSP since
2017.
3. As Superintendent,I have personal knowledge regarding measures taken by MDOC officers and staffat MSP to prevent the spread ofCOVID-19,to lessen the impact of COVID-19 on MSP inmates and MDOC staff, to prepare for MSP inmates or MDOC staffs contracting COVID-19,and to respond with appropriate and adequate measures should MDOC staffor MSP inmates contract COVID-19 so as to manage any confirmed or suspected cases of COVID-19 inside MSP and to prevent further transmission.

E

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75-5 Filed: 04/15/20 2 of 16 PageID #: 1510
4. I have direct, personal knowledge ofthe present conditions and operations of MSP,and I am aware ofthe preventative,responsive,and management efforts undertaken by MDOC at MSP with respect to COVID-19.
5. I have reviewed Plaintiffs' Supplemental Briefin Support oftheir Emergency Motion for Temporaiy Restraining Order and Mandatory Preliminary Injunction as to COVID19,including the exhibits. I have personal knowledge that MSP is already performing most,if not all,ofthe preventative and responsive measures sought by Plaintiffs' Motion,including those recommended by the CDC's Interim Guidance on ManagementofCOVID-19 in Correctional and Detention Facilities(the"CDC Guidance")and Centurion ofMississippi,LLC's ("Centurion")PandemicPreparedness and Emergency Response Plan(the"Centurion Plan").
6. As discussed more specifically below,at MSP we have increased our cleaning measures; posted CDC signage and communications throughout MSP to communicate COVID19 related awareness,prevention,and management;suspended non-medical transfers between facihties except for emergencies and serious security threats; we screen everyone that comes into MSP for symptoms(including staff,inmates,and visitors); we have developed a system to verbally communicate to each zone that the inmates should be monitoring themselves for symptoms and reporting any symptoms to MDOC staff; we have suspended all in person visitation except for attorney-client visitation; we are coordinating closely with public health officials; we work closely with Centurion to provide medical care for persons with symptoms of COVID-19; we mask and medically isolate any symptomatic inmates; we screen all inmates who are in the same building as any inmate who has developed symptoms; we identify and quarantine any close contacts ofpersons who have exhibited symptoms ofCOVID-19; we are working to develop a plan for distributing masks to all inmates to the extent feasible and safe; and although

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75-5 Filed: 04/15/20 3 of 16 PageID #: 1511
social distancing is extremely difficult inside a correctional facility, we have posted signage and are verbally encouraging social distancing,including during meal times and recreational times. We are also encouraging the inmates to sleep head to foot,as opposed to head to head.
7. Specifically,I am aware ofthe following preventative,responsive,and management efforts undertaken by MDOC at MSP with respect to COVID-19.
8. Hvgiene and PPE. With regard to hygiene,MDOC is supplying MSP inmates with additional hand soap on a weekly basis,in sufficient qualities to ensure that all inmates are able to adhere to the common health practices outlined by the CDC and Centurion. The soap is free,accessible,and restocked continually.In addition,MSP's commissary vendor provided each MSP inmate with an additional bar ofDial antibacterial soap.MSP has also placed signage in each unit,building,and zone to remind inmates to regularly wash their hands and to do so for at
least 20 seconds.
With regard to hand sanitizer, although hand sanitizer with 60% or more alcohol remains a security concern,MDOC is attempting to obtain additional hand sanitizer forinmates and is working on developing a strategy to allow inmates to use the hand sanitizer in a manner that is safe for all persons at MSP.Hand sanitizer is already being made available for staffto use at the areas where they clock-in and clock-out ofMSP.
With regard to PPE,all staffpersons are required to wear masks and gloves at all times while inside the buildings and zones ofa unit at MSP and while interacting with inmates. MDOC has also provided all inmate workers with masks and gloves to wear while they are performing their duties or interacting with other inmates. MDOC has ordered,but not yet received, masks for all inmates. Once received, MSP will distribute the masks to all inmates and develop a plan for

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75-5 Filed: 04/15/20 4 of 16 PageID #: 1512
allowing all inmates to utilize the masks safely, as they pose a considerable security concern in not being able to identify inmates involved in an altercation or incident.
9. Cleaning. MDOC has ramped up its cleaning measures at MSP.Three times per day,MDOC staffissues to a select group ofinmates in each zone disinfecting chemicals to be mixed with water,spray bottles,and papertowels. Those inmates are charged with cleaning and disinfecting shared surfaces and areas in the zone that might be frequently touched,including doorknobs,sink handles, water fountains,countertops,toilets, garbage containers,vending machines,tables,floors, mirrors,desks,and telephones. MDOC staffinstructs the inmate workers to wipe down anything that anyone could have touched. Attached to this declaration as Exhibit A arejust afew examples ofthe daily cleaning logs which MSP keepsfor all units and buildings.
In addition,MDOC staffhas been instructed to frequently clean any shared equipment and upon conclusion ofany use ofthat equipment.
Contrary to the statements in Plaintiffs' Motion and exhibits,I have observed that Centurion staffand MDOC staffare following instructions to ensure that all screening equipment,such as thermometers,are disinfected before each individual use.
10. Screening and Visitation. MDOC screens its staffand all visitors at MSP daily upon entrance to the facility for symptoms and other indicators ofexposure to COVID-19.Ifany staffleaves the premises ofMSP,they are screened again upon reentry to MSP. MDOC screens all staffand visitors using a COVlD-19 screening form provided by Centurion,a copy ofwhich was previously provided to the Court. MDOC staffand visitors are routed to an altemative screening area at the visitation center to facilitate safe screening by a registered nurse. The screening process includes questions about symptoms,ifany,including headaches,fevers.

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75-5 Filed: 04/15/20 5 of 16 PageID #: 1513
coughing,shortness ofbreath,and any trouble breathing,travel history,and includes the administration ofa temperature reading.Ifany staffperson or visitor exhibits a temperature greater than 100 degrees, medical attention is required and they are asked to leave the premises.
MDOC is also actively monitoring all inmates for symptoms ofCOVID-19,such as headaches,fevers,coughing,shortness ofbreath,and trouble breathing. MDOC has directed staff to announce daily to all inmates in each zone that they should immediately report any symptoms ofCOVID-19 to MDOC staffso that medical attention can be requested. Ifany inmate in a particularzone exhibits symptoms ofCOVID-19,then Centurion visits thatzone and conducts a screening and temperature reading ofall inmates in thatzone.
In the case ofa new inmate being transferred to MSP because ofan emergency or serious security situation, that new inmate is not only screened but also isolated for 14 days before being allowed to enter the general inmate population.
No visitors are being allowed to meetin person with inmates at this time,exceptfor the inmates' attorneys. And in the event ofsuch attorney-client visits,the attorneys are being asked to wearPPE including gowns,gloves,and masks.MDOC requires all visitation areas to be sanitized atthe completion ofeach attorney visit.
11. Social Distancing: As acknowledged by the CDC Guidance,social distancing inside a correctional facility is extremely difficult. MDOC has,however,posted signage at MSP to advise inmates ofthe CDC's social distancing recommendations. MDOC staffhas also been directed to verbally encourage social distancing among inmates in common areas, during meal times,and during recreation. MDOC staffis also encouraging inmates to sleep head to foot,as opposed to head to head,and MDOC has posted signage inside each zone advising inmates to sleep head to foot.

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75-5 Filed: 04/15/20 6 of 16 PageID #: 1514
12. Inmate Transfers: MDOC has suspended all inter-facility transfers,exceptfor cases ofan emergency or a serious security threat.Inmates are not coming into MSP or leaving MSP unless there is an emergency or a serious security threat. In the event ofan emergency or security threat that requires that a new inmate be brought into MSP,that new inmate will be screened and isolated for 14 days before being allowed to enter the general inmate population. Unless there is a quarantine situation,intra-facility transfers are still being conducted within MSP,in accordance with MSP policies to upgrade or downgrade an inmate's security classification as necessary. MSP is taking all measures that it can to provide safety to inmates and at the same time avoid a lockdown situation, which would lead to disgruntled inmates and increased security concerns.
13. Medical Quarantine and Isolation: MDOC is following CDC Guidance and the Centurion Plan with regard to quarantine and isolation practices.Ifany staffperson or inmate gets tested for COVID-19,or ifthey are suspected ofhaving COVID-19,then MDOC requires that person to be medically isolated until person has been fever-ffee and symptom-free for at least 72 hours and at least seven days have passed since the person's symptoms first appeared. In such an event, MDOC also requires that any inmate housing units where the sick or potentially sick person has had direct contact be quarantined for 14 days. MDOC has identified areas of MSP to use for overflow during times ofquarantine. MDOC transports to a local hospital any inmate who needs medical care beyond what MSP can provide.
14. Collaboration and Communication: I and other MDOC officials are working with Centurion to ensure that MDOC staffis doing everything it can to adhere to the CDC Guidance and to the Centurion Plan. I have personally reviewed the CDC's communication resources.

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75-5 Filed: 04/15/20 7 of 16 PageID #: 1515
including their print resources and posters,and I have directed MDOC staffto post many of these print resources in every unit, building,and zone at MSP.I and others at MSP are working to ensure that inmates are educated about COVlD-19and understand the importance ofgood hygiene,social distancing,cleaning,and communicating the presence ofsymptoms.
I and other MDOC officials are collaborating and sharing information with the Mississippi DepartmentofHealth,the United States DepartmentofHomeland Security's Office for State and Local Law Enforcement,and other health officials and agencies to ensure appropriate preventative measures are being taken at MSP with respect to COVID-19.
MDOC officials are also communicating with the public through press releases and other means as much as possible regarding any changes to health conditions,operations,and visitation.
15. Laundrv: The allegations that inmates are being forced or required to wash their own clothes in the sink is completely erroneous.In fact,all inmates know that it is against the rules to wash clothes in the sink. MSP has placed many signs informing inmates ofthis,butthe signs are repeatedly torn down.Inmates use this clothes washing practice asa way to make money inside MSP.There is a central laundry at MSP,and MDOC provides a laundry service to all MSP inmates.Inmates choose to wash their clothes in the sink,even though it is not allowed.
16. Copavs: Contrary to the allegations in Plaintiffs' brief,1 understand that Centurion has already waived all copays related to COVID-19.
I declare under penalty ofpeijury underthe laws ofthe United States ofAmerica thatthe foregoing is true and correct.
Dated: April 15,2020 Respecthilly submitted.
Marshal Turner
7

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75-5 Filed: 04/15/20 8 of 16 PageID #: 1516

MISSISSIPPISTATEPENITENTIARY ffJ
HOUSEKEEPING AND SANITATION

UNIT

DATE

^OCATIIOONN

MSP

H;;

THE FOLLOWING CLEANING SCHEDULES APPLY TO MINIMUM CLEANNING STANDARDS

^

ITEM
WASHBASINS COMMODES

SCHEDULE
3XDAILY 3XDAILY

SIGNATURE& SIGNATURE& SIGNATURE&

TIME

TIME

TIME/^5

i

COMMENTS

SINKS REFRIGERATORS

3XDAILY

/

3XDAILY

BEVERAGE DISPENSERS 3XDAILY

r/iM

FLOORS SHOWERS

3XDAILY 3XDAILY

oilZ

Im

PARKING LOT/DOCKS

3XDAILY

MIRRORS BEDS

3XDAILY

DAILY DAILY

\L0'' ^ -

DESKS FOUNTAIN

3XDAILY 3XDAILY

FLOOR MATS

3XDAILY 3XDAILY

MATTRESS

WEEKLY

GARBAGE CONTAINERS 3XDAILY

TABLES

3XDAILY

llkk
'(imd^
w3

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75-5 Filed: 04/15/20 9 of 16 PageID #: 1517

MISSISSIPPI STATE PENITENTIARY
SEKEEPmO AND SANITATION LOjar^1V
UNIT 2-f- 7 Y/if^ATE "2/ / / / -7^ .mK:ation MSP

THE FOLLOWING CLEANING SCHEDULES APPLY TO MINIMUM CLEANmO ST^

ITEM WALLS

SCHEDULE DAILY

ST
SIGNATURE & TIME

)I5d"
SIGNATURE & TIME

SIGNATURE

WINDOWS

DAILY

COM

BLINDS
WINDOW AIR CONDITIONERS EXTINGUISHERS

DAILY DAILY WEEKLY

HF
41/X - no)

M

Zl//^

CHAIRS CABINETS

WEEKLY WEEKLY

CLEANING CARTS

3XDAXLY

VENDING MACHINES

3X DAILY

DOOR & HARDWARE
BAR/CELL(S)
BUFFERS
DESKTOP EQUIPMENT
STALLS & EQUIPMENT FURNISHING & APPLIANCES OFFENDER TELEPHONE DINING HALL

3XDAILY

WEEKLY DAILY
3XDAILY

smiL

3XDAILY

3XDAILY

3XDAILY

AFTER

SERVING

EACH

ZONE/

TIER

/i//^

(■iHioi
/l/ff
/4^
u

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75-5 Filed: 04/15/20 10 of 16 PageID #: 1518

. USSISSffPI STATE PENITENTIARY
(>Tin housekeeping AND SANITATION LOG

UNIT iin

DATE H ! L no

LOCATION /^&P

THE FOLLOWING CLEANING SCHEDULES APPLY TO MINIMUM CLEANING STANDARDS

ITEM COOLERS

SCHEDULE 3XDAILY

ICT

2ND

SIGNATURE& SIGNATURE&

TIME

TIME

3RD
SIGNATURE &
TIME/^&i'

COMMESfrS

ICE MACHINES BAKING RACK MOP BUCKETS MOPS GARBAGE BINS WALKWAYS

3XDAILY
AFTER EACH USE After Each Use After Each Use DAILY
Daily

0
TV
Ikc/j/jof
P^i

W/p
i f
Ik^l IliOo
/aM4/V

j

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75-5 Filed: 04/15/20 11 of 16 PageID #: 1519

UNIT J

MISSISSIPPI STATE PENITENTIARY HOUSEKEEPING AND SANITATION LOG
DATE ^ 'a.,X) LOCATION MSP

THEFOLLOWING CLEANINGSCHEDULgSJ^'PLM'AJ^IN™®®!^^

ITEM
WASHBASINS COMMODES SINKS REFRIGERATORS

SCHEDULFEEl jsr n oNi5 M

SIGNATURE& SIGNATURE & SIGNATURE &

TIME

TIME

3XDAILY

/7D0

ir u 3X DAILY

3X DAILY oEP
3XDAILY

%
noi
hi^
/7®

COMMENTS

BEVERAGE DISPENSERS 3X DAILY

FLOORS

3XDAILY

MA-

fv-fA
rpo

SHOWERS PARKING LOT/DOCKS MIRRORS BEDS

3XDAILY 3XDAILY 3XDAILY DAILY

^qjpo
Nfr

5E:

LOCKERS

DAILY

n—'

DESKS FOUNTAIN FLOOR MATS SOAP HOLDERS

3XDAILY 3XDAILY 3XDAILY 3XDAILY

im
^LM.

MATTRESS

WEEKLY

GARBAGE CONTAINERS 3XDAILY

TABLES

3XDAILY

w

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75-5 Filed: 04/15/20 12 of 16 PageID #: 1520

UNIT

MISSISSIPPI STATE PENITENTIARY HOUSEKEEPING AND SANITATION LOG
DATE -4 / A- /

THE FOLLOWING CLEANING SCH®IfflBS-i«PLY TO Ml

ITEM
WALLS WINDOWS

SCHEDUL
DAILY DAILY

SIGNATURE& SIGNATURE& SIGNATURE&

TIME

TIME

f^(iA

BLINDS

DAILY

WINDOW Am CONDITIONERS EXTINGUISHERS

DAILY
WEEKLY 0(L.iO

h(JA

CHAIRS CABINETS

WEEKLY WEEKLY

CLEANING CARTS

3XDAILY

VENDING MACHINES 3X DAILY

DOOR& HARDWARE 3XDAILY

BAR/CELL(S)

WEEKLY

BUFFERS
DESKTOP EQUIPMENT
STALLS & EQUIPMENT FURNISHING & APPLIANCES OFFENDER TELEPHONE DINING HALL

DAILY 3XDAILY
3XDAILY
3XDAILY
3XDAILY 0
AFTER SERVING EACH ZONE/ TIER

J2U^
6i^i)0
^LJA

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75-5 Filed: 04/15/20 13 of 16 PageID #: 1521

UNIT

MISSISSIPPI STATE PENITENTIARY HOUSEKEEPING AND SANITATION LOG
DATE A ! -X ! Pf\Gf) LOCATION

MSP

THE FOLLOWING CLEANING SCHEmiLEaAEPLY T044INIMUM CLEAN!

ITEM COOLERS ICE MACHINES

3XDAILY 3XDAILY

SIGNATURE & TIME

SIGNATURE & n
35
L&

SIGNATURE &

COMMENTS

BAKING RACK MOP BUCKETS MOPS GARBAGE BINS

AFTER EACH USE
After Each Use After Each Use DAILY

3 k \fiy^

WALKWAYS

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75-5 Filed: 04/15/20 14 of 16 PageID #: 1522

UNIT^^^

MISSISSIPPI STATE PENITENTIARY HOUSEKEEPING AND SANITATION LOG

DATE

!A !

LOCATION

MSP

nU'o tt^5 THE FOLLOWING CLEANING SCHEDULES APPLY TO MINIMUM CLEANING STANDARDS

ITEM

SCHEDULE

r§T"

COMMENTS

SIGNATURE & SIGNATURE & SIGNATURE &

TIME

TIME

TIME

WASHBASINS

3X DAILY

iLr\4Qr

COMMODES

aXDAILY

SINKS

3X DAILY

REFRIGERATORS

3XDAILY

-S3

BEVERAGE DISPENSERS 3X DAILY

)Vflf

FLOORS

3XDAILY

SHOWERS

3 X DAILY

PARKING LOT/DOCKS

3XDAILY

MIRRORS

3 X DAILY

BEDS

DAILY

UurvVei/ \VJr^^
Ma. MA
nurAar
VWvV^
/\/|V
VLanAeY*

LOCKERS

DAILY

DESKS FOUNTAIN

3X DAILY 3XDAILY

FLOOR MATS SOAP HOLDERS

3X DAILY 3 X DAILY

MATTRESS

WEEKLY

GARBAGE CONTAINERS 3X DAILY

TABLES

3XDAILY

\W>Vg</
Wi>vig^

ts,

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75-5 Filed: 04/15/20 15 of 16 PageID #: 1523

MISSISSIPPI STATE PENITENTIARY HOUSEKEEPING AND SANITATION LOG

DATE H !S!tLO

LOCATION

MSP

THE FOLLOWING CLEANING SCHEDULES APPLY TO MINIMUM CLEANING STANDARDS

ITEM
WALLS WINDOWS
BLINDS WINDOW AIR CONDITIONERS EXTINGUISHERS
CHAIRS CABINETS

SCHEDULE
DAILY DAILY

jST

2NiJ

SIGNATURE& SIGNATURE&

TIME

TIME

'14jrA«?ir

n
DAILY

WfV

DAILY WEEKLY WEEKLY

^\Lr\W
•^mniVe*'

3RD
SIGNATURE & TIME
l-ki-A-ar Ml\
VWv^e/

COMMENTS

CLEANING CARTS
VENDING MACHINES
DOOR & HARDWARE
BAR/CELL(S)
BUFFERS
DESKTOP EQUIPMENT
STALLS & EQUIPMENT FURNISHING & APPLIANCES OFFENDER TELEPHONE DINING HALL

3 X DAILY
3X DAILY
3XDAILY
WEEKLY
DAILY 3XDAILY
3XDAILY
3XDAILY
S-
3XDAILY
AFTER SERVING EACH ZONE/ TIER

ful/h
Ajlf^

'W-nie/
lU/IV
UorvVeV MIV
' HurAfti^*
VLrvVa^
IrWxVc/
l-W\Vo

Wcntef
Ni\
(■W-yVej'
IS/IV IWYVetl"
■\WsV^
Kiv

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 75-5 Filed: 04/15/20 16 of 16 PageID #: 1524

unitS

MISSISSIPPI STATE PENITENTIARY HOUSEKEEPING AND SANITATION LOG

DATE

^

LOCATION

MSP

THE FOLLOWING CLEANING SCHEDULES APPLY TO MIINIIMMfUlM CLEANING STANDARDS

ITEM
COOLERS ICE MACHINES BAKING RACK MOPBUCKETS MOPS GARBAGE BINS WALKWAYS

SCHEDULE
3XDAILY
3 X DAILY
AFTER EACH USE After Each Use After Each Use DAILY
Daily

jST

2»

SIGNATURE& SIGNATURE&

TIME

TIME

ttunkr

l\ll\
/ {/
NtV

A--
IWAot

vA-n^ep'

3Rb •
SIGNATURE & TIME
l4<-n^e/
IVnVer l-VjrvV'Cr
l-iurvi-e/

COMMENTS

Ivp

 
 Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 77 Filed: 04/22/20 1 of 5 PageID #: 1525

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

MICHAEL AMOS, et al.

PLAINTIFFS

V.

NO. 4:20-CV-7-DMB-JMV

TOMMY TAYLOR, et al.

DEFENDANTS

AGREED PROTECTIVE ORDER HAVING COME before the Court, the Parties, who, after receiving the Court’s instructions, request by stipulation that the Court enter its order pertaining to various matters relevant to these proceedings. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that: 1. Inmate affirmations used as exhibits and/or provided to the Court in support of Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction [Dkt. #13] and briefing related thereto will be produced to Defense Counsel of record only, until further order of the Court. Said information shall be held by Defense Counsel in the strictest confidence, and shall not be divulged by same, either verbally or in writing, to any person or entity other than the Court and designated experts retained by Defense Counsel to the extent those experts are not MDOC employees or otherwise affiliated with MDOC in anyway. Said experts will hold the information in the strictest confidence, and shall not divulge the contents of same, either verbally or in writing, to any person or entity other than the Court and counsel of record in this matter. 2. Plaintiffs shall redact inmate affirmations before producing them to Defense Counsel as follows: (a) inmate affirmations by the thirty-three (33) named Plaintiffs in the First Amended Class Action Complaint will be produced unredacted except that names and other

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 77 Filed: 04/22/20 2 of 5 PageID #: 1526
identifying information of other inmates and families contained in the affirmation shall be redacted; and (b) affirmations by inmates who are not one of the thirty-three (33) named Plaintiffs will be redacted to remove all identifying information of the affirming inmate and all other inmates and families referenced therein until further agreement of the parties or order of the Court. Each affirmation by an inmate who is not one of the thirty-three (33) named Plaintiffs will be uniquely numbered prior to production to Defense Counsel, so that each redacted affirmation will be identifiable in further proceedings.
3. The Court contemplates that the Parties’ experts will be afforded certain access to the Mississippi State Penitentiary (“MSP”) to conduct expert inspections. As part of these inspections, it is contemplated that these experts will have photographs taken, but not video. Any photographs taken as part of the expert inspections shall be for attorneys’ and experts’ eyes only until the parties agree otherwise or further order of the Court. Nothing in this order, however, shall be construed to prevent the parties from complying with requests from federal law enforcement or federal investigative agencies.
4. Defendants, the MSP, and/or their designee/s including, without limitation, Centurion of Mississippi, LLC (“Centurion”), are authorized to provide to Plaintiffs’ Counsel copies of each of the thirty-three (33) named Plaintiff’s medical records, including, without limitation, all protected health information (“PHI”) and individually identifying health information (“IIHI”). Persons other than Plaintiffs or their counsel obtaining access to unredacted documents containing PHI or IIHI under this Order shall use the information only for purposes of the instant litigation specified by the style above (including appeals and retrials), and shall not use such information for any other purpose. This Order constitutes a “qualified protective order” pursuant to the Privacy Rule, 45 C.F.R. § 164.512(e)(v), promulgated under the
2

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 77 Filed: 04/22/20 3 of 5 PageID #: 1527
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”). Nothing in this order, however, prevents the thirty-three (33) named Plaintiffs from utilizing their own medical records for their own benefit, including without limitation, their own health.
5. On February 3, 2020, during a hearing on this matter, the Court requested a digital, aerial map reflecting the premises and units of MSP and a copy of plans showing the layout of units at MSP. Defendants have provided the aerial map to the Court and Plaintiffs’ Counsel for confidential review. Defense Counsel will provide the plans to the Court and Plaintiffs’ counsel for confidential review. The map and plans are for Defendants, Defense Counsel, Plaintiffs’ Counsel, the parties’ experts, and the Court to review, and they shall not be disclosed to any other person or entity without further court order.
6. On February 3, 2020, during a hearing on this matter, the Court requested documentation of all remedial measures taken by Defendants since the filing of this lawsuit. This documentation shall be provided to the Court for in camera inspection. The Court will release this documentation, in whole or in part, to Plaintiffs to the extent the Court deems said release appropriate.
7. Finally, the Court ordered Defendants to make available to Plaintiffs at MSP and during Plaintiffs’ experts’ inspection certain documents. See Rec. Doc. 48, 49. By agreement of the parties, copies of documents made available during the inspection have been, or will be, provided to Plaintiffs. Those documents are subject to this Protective Order and, other than those documents which are publically available,1 shall not be provided or shown to anyone other than Plaintiffs’ Counsel, Defendants’ Counsel, the parties’ experts, and the Court until further agreement of the parties or order of the court. Additionally, to the extent they are not already
1 For example, in accordance with Miss. Code. Ann. §25-61-1, et seq. and MDOC Policy 05-05,et seq. (effective April 1, 2007), the Mississippi Department of Corrections’ policies, standard operating procedures, and forms are, and remain, a matter of public record.
3

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 77 Filed: 04/22/20 4 of 5 PageID #: 1528 covered herein, any other documents that: (1) are not publically available; (2) are designated as confidential; and, (3) have been produced or will be produced to Plaintiffs as part of this preliminary discovery process are subject to this Protective Order and shall not be provided or shown to anyone other than Plaintiffs’ Counsel, Defendants’ Counsel, the parties’ experts, and the Court until further agreement of the parties or order of the court. Nothing in this order, however, shall be construed to prevent the parties from complying with requests from federal law enforcement or federal investigative agencies.
8. Attached to this Protective Order as Exhibit A is a Non-Disclosure Agreement that must be executed by any expert for Plaintiffs or Defendants who is in receipt of any of the above discussed documents, photographs, or information that is subject to this Protective Order.
SO ORDERED, this 22nd day of April, 2020. /s/Debra M. Brown UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 77 Filed: 04/22/20 5 of 5 PageID #: 1529

EXHIBIT A NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT I, _______________________________, hereby certify that I have been provided a copy of the Agreed Protective Order entered by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi in the case styled Michael Amos, et al. v. Tommy Taylor, et al., Case No. 4:20-CV-007-DMB-JMV, and agree to comply with, and be bound by, its terms and conditions. I understand that a violation of the Agreed Protective Order is punishable by contempt of Court.

Date: _____________________

Signature: _________________________________

Printed Name: _____________________________

5

 
 Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 78 Filed: 04/23/20 1 of 4 PageID #: 1530

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

MICHAEL AMOS, et al.

PLAINTIFFS

VS.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:20-CV-07-DMB-JMV

TOMMY TAYLOR, et al.

DEFENDANTS

DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AS TO COVID-19

Tommy Taylor, in his official capacity as Interim Commissioner of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, and Marshall Turner, in his official capacity as Superintendent of the Mississippi State Penitentiary, file this Notice of Supplemental Authority in Support of Defendants’ Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction as to COVID-19.
Although not addressed in this Court’s Local Rules or in the Rules of Civil Procedure, “a notice of supplemental authority [is] commonly used in the federal court system to alert the Court to a decision of another court issued after the close of the briefing period.” Sisk v. Abbott Laboratories, 2012 WL 1164559, at *1 (W.D.N.C. Apr. 9, 2012). Such notices should “contain no legal arguments and alert the Court to a case that was unavailable at the time of pleading.” Ashghari-Kamrani v. United States Auto. Ass’n, 2016 WL 8253884, at *2 (E.D.N.C. Mar. 18, 2016); see Highland Capital Mgmt. L.P. v. Bank of Am., 2013 WL 4502789, at *28 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 23, 2013) (although Texas Local Rule 56.7 requires leave of court to file supplemental briefing “the court will generally permit a party to file a notice of supplemental authority without seeking formal leave of court” especially where the party does not “mak[e] any arguments as to

1

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 78 Filed: 04/23/20 2 of 4 PageID #: 1531
its relevance or import”); 16 Front Street LLC v. Mississippi Silicon, LLC, 2015 WL 4665223, at *5, n.9 (N.D. Miss. July 30, 2015) (noting filing of notice of supplemental authority); Ford v. PHH Mortg. Corp., 2013 WL 5445621, at *3–4 (S.D. Miss. Sept. 30, 2013) (granting requested relief on basis of case submitted in notice of supplemental authority).
Plaintiffs filed their Motion on March 16, 2020. Doc. 59. Defendants responded on March 19, 2020, Doc. 62, and Plaintiffs filed a Reply on March 20, 2020, Doc. 64. On April 7, 2020, this Court ordered supplemental briefing based on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issuing their “Interim Guidance on Management of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Correctional and Detention Facilities.” Doc. 70. Plaintiffs filed supplemental briefing on April 13, 2020, Doc. 74, and Defendants filed supplemental briefing on April 15, 2010, Doc. 75.
Since the close of the supplemental briefing period, the Fifth Circuit handed down on April 22, 2020, an Order which is relevant to issues before this Court. Valentine v. Collier, 2020207, 2020 WL 1934431 (5th Cir. Apr. 22, 2020). A copy of the Valentine v. Collier Order is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The Fifth Circuit’s Order stayed a preliminary injunction entered by the Southern District of Texas with regard to COVID-19.
ACCORDINGLY, Defendants respectfully file this notice of supplemental authority to bring to the Court’s attention the Fifth Circuit’s April 22, 2020, Order in Valentine v. Collier.
Date: April 23, 2020. Respectfully submitted, TOMMY TAYLOR, in his official capacity as the Interim Commissioner of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, and MARSHAL TURNER, in his official capacity as the Superintendent of the Mississippi State Penitentiary
2

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 78 Filed: 04/23/20 3 of 4 PageID #: 1532
By: /s/ Trey Jones William Trey Jones, III One of Their Attorneys
OF COUNSEL:
R. David Kaufman (MSB #3526) dkaufman@brunini.com William Trey Jones, III (MSB #99185) tjones@brunini.com Karen E. Howell (MSB #102243) khowell@brunini.com Cody C. Bailey (MSB #103718) cbailey@brunini.com Jacob A. Bradley (MSB #105541) jbradley@brunini.com BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC The Pinnacle Building, Suite 100 190 East Capitol Street (39201) Post Office Drawer 119 Jackson, Mississippi 39205 Telephone: (601) 948-3101 Facsimile: (601) 960-6902
Michael J. Bentley (MSB# 102631) mbentley@bradley.com Molly M. Walker (MSB# 100689) mmwalker@bradley.com Bradley Arant Boult Cummings, LLC One Jackson Place 188 East Capitol Street, Suite 1000 Post Office Box 1789 Jackson, MS 39215-1789 Telephone: (601) 948-8000 Facsimile: (601) 948-3000
3

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 78 Filed: 04/23/20 4 of 4 PageID #: 1533 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Trey Jones, hereby certify that on April 23, 2020, I caused the foregoing pleading to be electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to all counsel of record and registered participants.
/s/ Trey Jones William Trey Jones, III One of the Attorneys for the Defendants
4

Case: 20-20207 Document: 00515392232 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/22/2020 Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 78-1 Filed: 04/23/20 1 of 18 PageID #: 1534

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-20207

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit
FILED
April 22, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

LADDY CURTIS VALENTINE; RICHARD ELVIN KING,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.

BRYAN COLLIER; ROBERT HERRERA; TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,

Defendants-Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas
Before JONES, HIGGINSON, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:
This case implicates the State of Texas’s response to COVID-19. On April 16, 2020, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas issued a reticulated preliminary injunction against the executive director of the Texas prison system and the warden of one of its prisons. The injunction regulates in minute detail the cleaning intervals for common areas, the types of bleach-based disinfectants the prison must use, the alcohol content of hand sanitizer that inmates must receive, mask requirements for inmates, and inmates’ access to tissues (amongst many other things). The district court admitted that its injunction “goes beyond” the recommendations of the Centers

Case: 20-20207 Document: 00515392232 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/22/2020 Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 78-1 Filed: 04/23/20 2 of 18 PageID #: 1535
No. 20-20207
for Disease Control and Prevention. But in the district court’s view, anything less than this injunction—including, presumably, the CDC guidelines— violates the Eighth Amendment. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 8, we stay the injunction pending appeal.
I. As with every other part of the country, our Nation’s correctional facilities have not escaped the reach of COVID-19. To mitigate the spread of the virus, the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (“TDCJ”) has adopted and implemented several rounds of measures guided by ever-changing CDC recommendations. Plaintiffs are two inmates at the TDCJ Wallace Pack Unit (“Pack Unit”), a prison for the elderly and the infirm. They say TDCJ’s measures don’t go far enough. On March 30, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of disabled and high-risk Pack Unit inmates against TDCJ, its executive director, and the warden of the Pack Unit. The complaint alleges violations of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, and of the Americans with Disabilities Act. In addition, Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction. After considering Defendants’ written evidence and Plaintiffs’ live witness testimony, the district court granted that injunction, finding it likely that Plaintiffs could prove an Eighth Amendment violation. The district court enjoined TDCJ to: • “Provide Plaintiffs and the class members with unrestricted access to hand soap and disposable hand towels to facilitate handwashing.” • “Provide Plaintiffs and the class members with access to hand sanitizer that contains at least 60% alcohol in the housing areas, cafeteria, clinic, commissary line, pill line, and laundry exchange.”
2

Case: 20-20207 Document: 00515392232 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/22/2020 Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 78-1 Filed: 04/23/20 3 of 18 PageID #: 1536
No. 20-20207
• “Provide Plaintiffs and the class members with access to tissues, or if tissues are not available, additional toilet paper above their normal allotment.”
• “Provide cleaning supplies for each housing area, including bleachbased cleaning agents and CDC-recommended disinfectants in sufficient quantities to facilitate frequent cleaning, including in quantities sufficient for each inmate to clean and disinfect the floor and all surfaces of his own housing cubicle, and provide new gloves and masks for each inmate during each time they are cleaning or performing janitorial services.”
• “Provide all inmates and staff members with masks. If TDCJ chooses to provide inmates with cotton masks, such masks must be laundered regularly.”
• “Require common surfaces in housing areas, bathrooms, and the dining hall to be cleaned every thirty minutes from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. with bleach-based cleaning agents, including table tops, telephones, door handles, and restroom fixtures.”
• “Increase regular cleaning and disinfecting of all common areas and surfaces, including common-use items such as television controls, books, and gym and sports equipment.”
• “Institute a prohibition on new prisoners entering the Pack Unit for the duration of the pandemic. In the alternative, test all new prisoners entering the Pack Unit for COVID-19 or place all new prisoners in quarantine for 14 days if no COVID-19 tests are available.”
• “Limit transportation of Pack Unit inmates out of the prison to transportation involving immediately necessary medical appointments and release from custody.”
• “For transportation necessary for prisoners to receive medical treatment or be released, CDC-recommended social distancing requirements should be strictly enforced in TDCJ buses and vans.”
• “Post signage and information in common areas that provides: (i) general updates and information about the COVID-19 pandemic; (ii) information on how inmates can protect themselves from contracting COVID-19; and (iii) instructions on how to properly wash hands. Among other locations, all signage must be posted in every housing area and above every sink.”
3

Case: 20-20207 Document: 00515392232 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/22/2020 Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 78-1 Filed: 04/23/20 4 of 18 PageID #: 1537
No. 20-20207
• “Educate inmates on the COVID-19 pandemic by providing information about the COVID- 19 pandemic, COVID-19 symptoms, COVID-19 transmission, and how to protect oneself from COVID-19. A TDCJ staff person must give an oral presentation or show an educational video with the above-listed information to all inmates, and give all inmates an opportunity to ask questions. Inmates should be provided physical handouts containing COVID-19 educational information, such as the CDC’s ‘Share Facts About COVID-19’ fact sheet already in TDCJ’s possession.”
• “TDCJ must also orally inform all inmates that co-pays for medical treatment are suspended for the duration of the pandemic, and encourage all inmates to seek treatment if they are feeling ill.”
• “TDCJ must, within three (3) days, provide the Plaintiffs and the Court with a detailed plan to test all Pack Unit inmates for COVID-19, prioritizing those who are members of Dorm A and of vulnerable populations that are the most at-risk for serious illness or death from exposure to COVID-19. For any inmates who test positive, TDCJ shall provide a plan to quarantine them while minimizing their exposure to inmates who test negative. TDCJ must also provide a plan for testing all staff who will continue to enter the Pack Unit, and for any staff that test positive, provide a plan for minimizing inmates’ exposure to staff who have tested positive.”
Prelim. Inj. Order at 2–4 [hereinafter PI Order].
In its memorandum opinion explaining this injunction, the district court
acknowledged that “many of the measures ordered in the preliminary
injunction largely overlap with TDCJ’s COVID-19 policy requirements and
recommendations.” D. Ct. Op. at 23. Yet the court believed the injunction
necessary “to promote compliance” with TDCJ’s policy, as well as CDC
guidelines. Id. at 24. Some of the conduct required of Defendants under the
injunction goes even further than CDC guidelines. But the district court found
that compliance with those guidelines alone could be constitutionally
insufficient. Id. at 25–26.
4

Case: 20-20207 Document: 00515392232 Page: 5 Date Filed: 04/22/2020 Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 78-1 Filed: 04/23/20 5 of 18 PageID #: 1538
No. 20-20207
The district court stayed its preliminary injunction until April 22, 2020, at 5 p.m. Defendants timely appealed and sought a stay of the preliminary injunction pending appeal.
II. When considering a stay, “a court considers four factors: (1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.” Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 426 (2009) (quotation omitted). The first two factors are the most critical. Barber v. Bryant, 833 F.3d 510, 511 (5th Cir. 2016).
A. We start with TDCJ’s likelihood of success on appeal. In a constitutional claim alleging deliberate indifference to the conditions of a prisoner’s confinement, the plaintiff must satisfy both the “subjective and objective requirements” of the Eighth Amendment inquiry. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 846 (1994). To satisfy the objective requirement, the plaintiff must show an “objectively intolerable risk of harm.” Ibid. To satisfy the subjective requirement, the plaintiff must show that the defendant: “(1) was ‘aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists’; (2) subjectively ‘dr[e]w the inference’ that the risk existed; and (3) disregarded the risk.” Cleveland v. Bell, 938 F.3d 672, 676 (5th Cir. 2019) (quoting Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837). The “incidence of diseases or infections, standing alone,” do not “imply unconstitutional confinement conditions, since any densely populated residence may be subject to outbreaks.” Shepherd v. Dallas Cty., 591 F.3d 445, 454 (5th Cir. 2009). Instead, the plaintiff must show a denial of “basic human needs.” Ibid. “Deliberate indifference is an extremely
5

Case: 20-20207 Document: 00515392232 Page: 6 Date Filed: 04/22/2020 Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 78-1 Filed: 04/23/20 6 of 18 PageID #: 1539
No. 20-20207
high standard to meet.” Cadena v. El Paso Cty., 946 F.3d 717, 728 (5th Cir. 2020).
TDCJ is likely to prevail on the merits of its appeal. That’s for two reasons: (1) after accounting for the protective measures TDCJ has taken, the Plaintiffs have not shown a “substantial risk of serious harm” that amounts to “cruel and unusual punishment”; and (2) the district court committed legal error in its application of Farmer v. Brennan.
1. First, the harm analysis. There is no doubt that infectious diseases generally and COVID-19 specifically can pose a risk of serious or fatal harm to prison inmates. TDCJ acknowledges that fact. And it submitted evidence to the district court of the protective measures it has taken as a result.1 Those protective measures include many of the things the district court ordered— including “access to soap, tissues, gloves, masks, regular cleaning, signage and education, quarantine of new prisoners, and social distancing during transport.” D. Ct. Op. at 24. The legal question is whether the Eighth Amendment requires TDCJ to do more to mitigate the risk of harm. The district court said yes. It acknowledged the numerous protections TDCJ provided, but it wanted to see “extra measures,” such as providing alcohol-based sanitizer and additional paper products. D. Ct. Op. at 26. The district court further acknowledged that the “extra measures” it required “go[ ] beyond TDCJ and CDC policies.” Id. at 25. Plaintiffs have cited no precedent
1 The district court made much of the fact that TDCJ did not present “live testimony” at the preliminary-injunction hearing. It’s unclear to us why that matters. It long has been true that parties can present evidence at the preliminary-injunction stage with declarations or affidavits. See, e.g., Sierra Club, Lone Star Chapter v. FDIC, 992 F.2d 545, 551 (5th Cir. 1993). And, of course, it’s the Plaintiffs’ burden to prove their entitlement to an injunction, not the Defendants’ burden to prove the opposite.
6

Case: 20-20207 Document: 00515392232 Page: 7 Date Filed: 04/22/2020 Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 78-1 Filed: 04/23/20 7 of 18 PageID #: 1540
No. 20-20207
holding that the CDC’s recommendations are insufficient to satisfy the Eighth Amendment.
TDCJ also is likely to succeed on appeal insofar as the district court enjoined the State to follow its own laws and procedures. In Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984), a plaintiff class brought suit under inter alia the Eighth Amendment and state law to challenge the conditions at a state facility for people with mental disabilities. See id. at 92. The Supreme Court held that the Eleventh Amendment prohibits federal courts from enjoining state facilities to follow state law. See id. at 103–23. Here, however, the district court acknowledged that its injunction “largely overlap[ped] with TDCJ’s COVID-19 policy requirements and recommendations.” D. Ct. Op. at 23. In the district court’s view, this was a virtue not a vice because its injunction would “promote compliance” with TDCJ’s own policies. Id. at 24. Pennhurst plainly prohibits such an injunction.
2. Second, even assuming that there is a substantial risk of serious harm, the Plaintiffs lack evidence of the Defendants’ subjective deliberate indifference to that risk. In Farmer v. Brennan, the Supreme Court held that deliberate indifference requires the defendant to have a subjective “state of mind more blameworthy than negligence,” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 835, akin to criminal recklessness, id. at 839–40. The district court misapplied this standard. It appeared to think that the question was “whether [the Defendants] reasonably abate[d] the risk” of infection, D. Ct. Op. at 20, or stated differently, “whether and how [TDCJ’s] policy is being administered,” id. at 23. The district court thus collapsed the objective and subjective components of the Eighth Amendment inquiry established in Farmer, treating inadequate
7

Case: 20-20207 Document: 00515392232 Page: 8 Date Filed: 04/22/2020 Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 78-1 Filed: 04/23/20 8 of 18 PageID #: 1541
No. 20-20207
measures as dispositive of the Defendants’ mental state. Such an approach resembles the standard for civil negligence, which Farmer explicitly rejected. Though the district court cited the Defendants’ general awareness of the dangers posed by COVID-19, it cited no evidence that they subjectively believe the measures they are taking are inadequate. To the contrary, the evidence shows that TDCJ has taken and continues to take measures—informed by guidance from the CDC and medical professionals—to abate and control the spread of the virus. See Dkt. 36-7 (declaration of TDCJ Health Services Director); Dkt. 36 at 13–20 (compiling evidence of protective measures taken by TDCJ). Although the district court might do things differently, mere “disagreement” with TDCJ’s medical decisions does not establish deliberate indifference. Cadena, 946 F.3d at 729.
B. TDCJ also has shown that it will be irreparably injured absent a stay. See Nken, 556 U.S. at 434. When the State is seeking to stay a preliminary injunction, it’s generally enough to say “ ‘[a]ny time a State is enjoined by a court from effectuating statutes enacted by representatives of its people, it suffers a form of irreparable injury.’ ” Maryland v. King, 133 S. Ct. 1, 3 (2012) (Roberts, C.J., in chambers) (quoting New Motor Vehicle Bd. of Cal. v. Orrin W. Fox Co., 434 U.S. 1345, 1351 (1977) (Rehnquist, J., in chambers)). The Texas Legislature assigned the prerogatives of prison policy to TDCJ. See, e.g., TEX. GOV’T CODE ch. 501. The district court’s injunction prevents the State from effectuating the Legislature’s choice and hence imposes irreparable injury. Moreover, the Supreme Court has repeatedly warned that “it is ‘difficult to imagine an activity in which a State has a stronger interest, or one that is more intricately bound up with state laws, regulations, and procedures, than the administration of its prisons.’ ” Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 94 (2006)
8

Case: 20-20207 Document: 00515392232 Page: 9 Date Filed: 04/22/2020 Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 78-1 Filed: 04/23/20 9 of 18 PageID #: 1542
No. 20-20207
(quoting Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 491–92 (1973)); see also Missouri v. Jenkins, 495 U.S. 33, 51 (1990). Yet the district court in this case imposed a number of immediate demands on TDCJ. Among these is a plan within three days to test all Pack Unit inmates for COVID-19, as well as a new plan to quarantine those who test positive, distribute physical handouts with COVID19 information to the inmates, clean common surfaces every thirty minutes for fifteen hours each and every day, and to provide masks to all inmates and staff members. As we’ve said before about such intrusive orders, this one creates “an administrative nightmare” for TDCJ “to comply with the district court’s quotas and deadlines.” Ruiz v. Estelle, 650 F.2d 555, 571 (5th Cir. Unit A June 1981). “[T]he burden upon TDC[J] in terms of time, expense, and administrative red tape is too great” while it must respond in other ways to the crisis. Ibid.
The harm to TDCJ is particularly acute because the district court’s order interferes with the rapidly changing and flexible system-wide approach that TDCJ has used to respond to the pandemic so far. The TDCJ’s Director of Health Services explained this statewide approach in her declaration. See Dkt. 36-7. The Director worked with a team of medical directors to develop Policy B-14.52 in response to COVID-19. Id. at 2. TDCJ first implemented that policy on March 20, 2020. It was designed “to adhere to guidance issued” by the CDC. Ibid. And the policy was then disseminated to staff, placed in the “Correctional Managed Health Care Infection Control Policy Manual[,] and posted on the TDCJ website.” Id. at 3. But just three days later, the CDC updated its guidance, so TDCJ implemented a revised policy on March 27, 2020. Id. at 4. More changes came again on April 2, 2020, and again TDCJ disseminated and implemented the updated policy. Ibid. And on April 15, 2020, TDCJ disseminated and began implementation of yet another policy. Id. at 4–5.
9

Case: 20-20207 Document: 00515392232 Page: 10 Date Filed: 04/22/2020 Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 78-1 Filed: 04/23/20 10 of 18 PageID #: 1543
No. 20-20207
TDCJ’s ability to continue to adjust its policies is significantly hampered by the preliminary injunction, which locks in place a set of policies for a crisis that defies fixed approaches. See, e.g., Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 28– 29 (1905); In re Abbott, No. 20-50264, 2020 WL 1685929, at *12 (5th Cir. 2020) (describing COVID-19 as a “massive and rapidly-escalating threat”). And it prevents TDCJ from responding to the COVID-19 threat without a permission slip from the district court. That constitutes irreparable harm.
C. The remaining two factors of the stay standard are the balance of the harms and the public interest. See Nken, 556 U.S. at 426. Both weigh in favor of staying the district court’s injunction. There is no doubt that COVID-19 poses risks of harm to all Americans, including those in the Pack Unit. But the question is whether Plaintiffs have shown that they will suffer irreparable injuries even after accounting for the protective measures in TDCJ Policy B14.52. Neither the Plaintiffs nor the district court suggest the evidence satisfies that standard. And “[b]ecause the State is the appealing party, its interest and harm merge with that of the public.” Veasey v. Abbott, 870 F.3d 387, 391 (5th Cir. 2017) (citing Nken, 556 U.S. at 435). Therefore, TDCJ has satisfied all four requirements of the stay standard.
III. Plaintiffs also face several obstacles to relief under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”). Two bear emphasis at this stage: exhaustion and narrowness.
A. First, exhaustion. The PLRA requires inmates to exhaust “such administrative remedies as are available” before filing suit in federal court to challenge prison conditions. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). This exhaustion obligation
10

Case: 20-20207 Document: 00515392232 Page: 11 Date Filed: 04/22/2020 Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 78-1 Filed: 04/23/20 11 of 18 PageID #: 1544
No. 20-20207
is mandatory—there are no “futility or other [judicially created] exceptions [to the] statutory exhaustion requirements . . . .” Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 n.6 (2001). So long as the State’s administrative procedure grants “authority to take some action in response to a complaint,” that procedure is considered “available,” even if it cannot provide “the remedial action an inmate demands.” Id. at 736 (emphasis added); see also id. at 739 (“Congress meant to require procedural exhaustion regardless of the fit between a prisoner’s prayer for relief and the administrative remedies possible.”).
By contrast, a remedy is not “available”—and exhaustion is not required—when:
1. The procedure “operates as a simple dead end” because “the relevant administrative procedure lacks authority to provide any relief,” or “administrative officials have apparent authority, but decline ever to exercise it.” 2. The “administrative scheme [is] so opaque that . . . no reasonable prisoner can use them.” 3. Or when “prison administrators thwart inmates from taking advantage of a grievance process through machination, misrepresentation, or intimidation.” Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850, 1859–60 (2016) (quotation omitted). Under these standards, Plaintiffs’ suit appears premature. All parties agree that the TDCJ administrative process is open for Plaintiffs’ use. And Plaintiffs do not argue that TDCJ is incapable of providing some (albeit inadequate) relief. Nor do they contend that TDCJ always “decline[s] to exercise” its authority, id. at 1859, that the scheme is unworkably opaque, or that administrators thwart use of the system, see id. at 1859–60. Therefore, according to the standards the Supreme Court has given us, TDCJ’s grievance procedure is “available,” and Plaintiffs were required to exhaust. The district court disagreed. It considered the TDCJ process too lengthy to provide timely relief, and therefore incapable of use and unavailable under
11

Case: 20-20207 Document: 00515392232 Page: 12 Date Filed: 04/22/2020 Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 78-1 Filed: 04/23/20 12 of 18 PageID #: 1545
No. 20-20207
the special circumstances of the COVID-19 crisis. See D. Ct. Op. at 16. Other inmates have tried this argument before. In Blake v. Ross, 787 F.3d 693 (4th Cir. 2015), the court of appeals held that true exhaustion was not required when the inmate had “exhausted his remedies in a substantive sense by affording corrections officials time and opportunity to address complaints internally.” Id. at 698 (quoting Macias v. Zenk, 495 F.3d 37, 43 (2d Cir. 2007)).
The Supreme Court rejected this “special circumstances” exception “as inconsistent with the PLRA.” Ross, 136 S. Ct. at 1855. In so holding, the Court noted that the precursor to today’s § 1997e(a) “would require exhaustion only if a State provided ‘plain, speedy, and effective’ remedies . . . .” Id. at 1858 (quoting § 7(a), 94 Stat. 352 (1980)). By enacting the PLRA (which removed that proviso), Congress rejected this “weak exhaustion provision” in favor of an “invigorated” and absolute “exhaustion provision.” Ibid. (quotation omitted). In the Supreme Court’s view, reading a “special circumstances” exception into the PLRA would undo the PLRA and “resurrect” its predecessor. Ibid.
The district court’s understanding of the exhaustion requirement similarly revivifies the rejected portions of the old regime. The crux of the court’s concern is that TDCJ has not acted speedily enough. But that was an exception to exhaustion under the old § 1997e(a), not the current one. Moreover, the district court held that TDCJ’s procedure would be unduly lengthy if TDCJ were to use the full time allotted for a response to the grievance under state law. See D. Ct. Op. at 17. But the district court never found that TDCJ would take the full time if given the chance. The holding that the TDCJ process “presents no ‘possibility of some relief,’ ” id. at 17–18 (citing Ross, 136 S. Ct. at 1859), is therefore unsupported by the evidence.
Nor are we persuaded by the district court’s reliance on Fletcher v. Menard Correctional Center, 623 F.3d 1171 (7th Cir. 2010). In that case, Judge
12

Case: 20-20207 Document: 00515392232 Page: 13 Date Filed: 04/22/2020 Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 78-1 Filed: 04/23/20 13 of 18 PageID #: 1546
No. 20-20207
Posner hypothesized that administrative remedies might “offer no possible relief in time to prevent . . . imminent danger from becoming an actual harm.” Fletcher, 623 F.3d at 1174. But, in that hypothetical, the State procedure could “offer no possible relief ” because State law prohibited a response to the grievance until two weeks after it was filed—rendering the procedure of no use to an inmate threatened with death in 24 hours. Ibid. (emphasis added). In those circumstances, of course the procedure is unavailable—“it lacks authority to provide any relief,” Ross, 136 S. Ct. at 1859, because as a matter of law it cannot respond quickly enough. We need not confront Judge Posner’s hypothetical because TDCJ faces no legal bar to offering timely relief. TDCJ is empowered to act on a grievance any time up to—not after, as in Fletcher—the statutory limit. Relief by TDCJ therefore remains possible (and the procedure available), even if TDCJ has not acted as swiftly as Plaintiffs would like.2
B. Finally, it appears that the district court’s injunction goes well beyond the limits of what the PLRA would allow even if the Plaintiffs had properly exhausted their claims. The PLRA mandates that “[p]reliminary injunctive relief must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the harm the court finds requires preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary to correct that harm.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2). And the PLRA says courts “shall give substantial weight to any adverse impact on public safety or the operation of a criminal justice system caused by the preliminary
2 Nor is the possibility of TDCJ action speculative. As noted above in Part II.B, Defendants offered uncontroverted testimony from the Director of TDCJ Health Services that TDCJ adopted an infection control policy as early as March 20, 2020. Dkt. 36-7 at 3. TDCJ’s medical directors have updated the policy periodically in response to ever-evolving CDC guidelines and other input. Id. at 4.
13

Case: 20-20207 Document: 00515392232 Page: 14 Date Filed: 04/22/2020 Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 78-1 Filed: 04/23/20 14 of 18 PageID #: 1547
No. 20-20207 relief and shall respect the principles of comity set out in paragraph (1)(B) in tailoring any preliminary relief.” Ibid.
The district court’s order recited these propositions, see PI Order at 1–2, but the injunction’s substance contravenes them. This is a class-action injunction that applies to all inmates—disabled and non-disabled alike—in the Pack Unit. And it’s hard to see how an injunction that prescribes both a prisonwide testing regime and a cleaning schedule down to the half-hour interval is “narrowly drawn” or the “least intrusive means” available. See id. at 3–4. So too with the requirement that every single sink have a sign over it with COVID-19 information. See id. at 3. These may be salutary health measures. But that level of micromanagement, enforced upon threat of contempt, does not reflect the principles of comity commanded by the PLRA.
* * * For the foregoing reasons, TDCJ’s motion to stay the preliminary injunction pending appeal is GRANTED. The appeal is EXPEDITED to the next available argument calendar.
14

Case: 20-20207 Document: 00515392232 Page: 15 Date Filed: 04/22/2020 Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 78-1 Filed: 04/23/20 15 of 18 PageID #: 1548
No. 20-20207
STEPHEN A. HIGGINSON, Circuit Judge, concurring in the judgment: I agree that Appellants have demonstrated a substantial likelihood of
success on their claim that Appellees failed to exhaust prison remedies prior to seeking relief in federal court. Appellees did not submit any grievance request to prison authorities before filing this lawsuit, and I am not aware of any case, nor do Appellees or the district court cite one, in which a prisoner has been deemed compliant with the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) when there has been no attempt to file a grievance prior to suit in federal court.1
I write separately, however, to emphasize two points as governments, state and federal, respond to the COVID-19 crisis, which presents enormous and imminent health risks for prisoners and correctional officers alike.
First, the instant stay order does not foreclose the possibility that, upon expedited consideration, our court may nonetheless conclude that a remedy using the Texas Department of Criminal Justice’s (TDCJ) grievance system is not “available” because of the immediacy of the COVID-19 medical emergency coupled with statements credited by the district court that prisoners’ grievances may not be addressed promptly. If these plaintiffs—geriatric prisoners, many of whom are medically compromised—have no opportunity to expedite systemic medical emergency grievances, our court might hold that prison administrative remedies “operate[] as a simple dead end” giving prison officials apparent authority though they decline to exercise it. See Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850, 1859 (2016).2 However, here it is undisputed that the
1 Cf. United State of America v. Vigna, No. S1 16-CR-786-3 (NSR), 2020 WL 1900495, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 17, 2020) (noting that the court is not aware of any case where an inmate’s failure to exhaust has been excused without the inmate “at least submitting a request [to the prison] . . . prior to, or in conjunction with, his or her application to the court”).
2 See also Fletcher v. Menard Corr. Ctr., 623 F.3d 1171, 1174 (7th Cir. 2010); Nellson v. Barnhart, No. 20-CV-00756-PAB, 2020 WL 1890670, at *4 (D. Colo. Apr. 16, 2020) (discussing importance of an imminent-danger exception while also noting that the Supreme Court clarified that “total and immediate relief is not the standard for exhaustion, ‘the
15

Case: 20-20207 Document: 00515392232 Page: 16 Date Filed: 04/22/2020 Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 78-1 Filed: 04/23/20 16 of 18 PageID #: 1549
No. 20-20207
plaintiffs sought relief in federal district court prior to filing any grievance, and Appellees cite no PLRA exhaustion caselaw supporting a not “available” determination ex ante.
Second, our reasoning on PLRA’s exhaustion requirement does not foreclose federal prisoners from seeking relief under the First Step Act’s provisions for compassionate release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Though that statute contains its own administrative exhaustion requirement, several courts have concluded that this requirement is not absolute and that it can be waived by the government or by the court, therefore justifying an exception in the unique circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic. See, e.g., United States v. Russo, No. 16-cr-441 (LJL), 2020 WL 1862294, at *4–5 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 14, 2020) (holding that, “[d]espite the mandatory nature of [the statute’s] exhaustion requirement,” the exhaustion bar is “not jurisdictional” and can therefore be waived); United States v. Smith, No. 12 Cr. 133 (JFK), 2020 WL 1849748, at *2–3 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 13, 2020) (citing cases); see also Vigna, 2020 WL 1900495, at *5–6 (identifying the difficulties of the First Step Act exhaustion question while ultimately deferring a ruling until the petitioner exhausted his remedies); but see United States v. Raia, -- F.3d --, No. 20-1033, 2020 WL 1647922, at *2 (3d Cir. Apr. 2, 2020); United States v. Clark, No. 1785-SDD-RLB, 2020 WL 1557397, at *3 (M.D. La. Apr. 1, 2020).3
possibility of some relief’ is”). Cf. Muhammad v. Mayfield, 933 F.3d 993, 1000 (8th Cir. 2019) (identifying the examples in Ross as “at least three” of the circumstances where the administrative process may be “unavailable” (emphasis added)); Williams v. Corr. Officer Priatno, 829 F.3d 118, 123 n.2 (2d Cir. 2016) (“We note that the three circumstances discussed in Ross do not appear to be exhaustive . . . .”).
3 I note that, unlike the PLRA, Section 3582 does not limit the exhaustion requirement to “available” remedies. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (authorizing a motion for a sentence reduction “after the defendant has fully exhausted all administrative rights to appeal a failure of the Bureau of Prisons to bring a motion on the defendant’s behalf or the lapse of 30 days from the receipt of such a request by the warden of the defendant’s facility”). The “availability” caveat—PLRA’s “built-in exception to the exhaustion requirement,” Ross, 136 S. Ct. at 1855— arguably presents a stronger basis from which to conclude that Appellants were not required to exhaust their remedies here.
16

Case: 20-20207 Document: 00515392232 Page: 17 Date Filed: 04/22/2020 Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 78-1 Filed: 04/23/20 17 of 18 PageID #: 1550
No. 20-20207
Because Appellants are substantially likely to succeed on their argument that statutory exhaustion of administrative remedies was not even sought prior to filing this lawsuit, I would not reach the merits of Appellees’ ADA and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims. Whereas those claims face high legal hurdles,4 they also are intensely fact-based.5 The district court assessed lay and expert testimony before making extensive and careful findings of fact showing that mitigation deficiencies still exist. D. Ct. Op. at 7–14. However, given the TDCJ’s systemic and ongoing responses to fast-changing guidance, I would reserve for the merits panel the complex question of whether and which of these deficiencies amount to a cognizable violation.
4 See Gobert v. Caldwell, 463 F.3d 339, 349 (5th Cir. 2006) (holding that “deliberate indifference exists wholly independent of an optimal standard of care”); see also Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287, 301 (1985) (holding that an accommodation is reasonable under the ADA if it provides “meaningful access to the benefit[s] that the [prison] offers”); Love v. Westville Corr. Ctr., 103 F.3d 558, 561 (7th Cir. 1996) (holding that in the prison context, it is appropriate to consider “[s]ecurity concerns, safety concerns, and administrative exigencies”); cf. Garza v. City of Donna, 922 F.3d 626, 636–37 (5th Cir. 2019) (holding that a deliberate indifference claim does not “require[] proof that officials subjectively intend that the harm occur” (emphasis added)).
5 See, e.g., Banks v. Booth, No. 1:20-cv-00849 (D.D.C. Apr. 19, 2020) (order granting temporary restraining order in COVID-19 prison context); cf. Fraher v. Heyne, No. 1:10-cv00951-MJS (PC), 2011 WL 5240441, *2 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2011) (prisoner with preexisting heart condition who was refused a swine flu test could state a claim for violation of constitutional rights).
17

Case: 20-20207 Document: 00515392244 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/22/2020 Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 78-1 Filed: 04/23/20 18 of 18 PageID #: 1551

LYLE W. CAYCE CLERK

United States Court of Appeals
FIFTH CIRCUIT OFFICE OF THE CLERK
TEL. 504-310-7700 600 S. MAESTRI PLACE,
Suite 115 NEW ORLEANS, LA 70130

April 22, 2020

MEMORANDUM TO COUNSEL OR PARTIES LISTED BELOW:

No. 20-20207 Laddy Valentine, et al v. Bryan Collier, et al USDC No. 4:20-CV-1115

Enclosed is the opinion entered in the case captioned above.

Sincerely, LYLE W. CAYCE, Clerk

Mr. Brandon W. Duke Mr. Jeff S. Edwards Mr. Kyle Douglas Hawkins Mr. John R. Keville Mr. Jason R. LaFond Mr. Christin Cobe Vasquez

By: _________________________ Nancy F. Dolly, Deputy Clerk 504-310-7683

 
 Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 79 Filed: 04/24/20 1 of 22 PageID #: 1552

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

MICHAEL AMOS, et al.

PLAINTIFFS

V.

NO. 4:20-CV-7-DMB-JMV

TOMMY TAYLOR, et al.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER The plaintiffs, all inmates at the state penitentiary in Parchman, Mississippi, seek emergency injunctive relief requiring the Mississippi Department of Corrections’ interim commissioner and superintendent to implement certain measures to prevent or mitigate the spread of COVID-19. Because the plaintiffs have not satisfied the requisite elements for injunctive relief, their request for injunctive relief will be denied.
I Procedural History On January 28, 2020, thirty-three inmates at the Mississippi State Penitentiary at Parchman filed a “First Amended Class-Action Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial” against Tommy Taylor, in his official capacity as the Interim Commissioner of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, and Marshal Turner, in his official capacity as the Superintendent of Parchman. Doc. #22. In their complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants’ policies and practices caused years of neglect at Parchman, which placed them in imminent danger of serious physical injury, in violation of the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eighth Amendment, as incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment. The pleading, which includes a proposed class action, seeks monetary and injunctive relief. On March 16, 2020, the plaintiffs filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and mandatory preliminary injunction. Doc. #59. The motion seeks an “order directing mandatory and affirmative action to safeguard Plaintiffs at Parchman from SARS-CoV-2, also

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 79 Filed: 04/24/20 2 of 22 PageID #: 1553
known as COVID-19.” Id. at 1. After this Court directed expedited briefing on the motion, the defendants filed a response
on March 19, 2020. Doc. #62. The plaintiffs replied a day later. Doc. #64. Three days after the completion of the expedited briefing, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued a document titled, “Interim Guidance on Management of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Correctional and Detention Facilities.”1 Accordingly, the Court directed the parties to supplement their filings in light of the CDC’s guidance. Doc. #70. The parties complied with this directive. Docs. #74, #75.
II Relevant Facts The facts relevant to this motion are derived from the numerous exhibits submitted by the parties, including (1) an affidavit of Marc Stern, an expert for the plaintiffs; (2) redacted declarations and questionnaires executed under penalty of perjury by six inmates housed in Unit 30; (3) affidavits from various MDOC officials;2 (4) affidavits from employees of Centurion of Mississippi, LLC,3 MDOC’s third-party health care provider; (5) affidavits from one of the plaintiffs’ attorneys and a private investigator retained by the plaintiffs; and (6) an array of documentary evidence. Because these documents reveal no material disputed facts, and because no party has requested an evidentiary hearing, the Court concludes that no hearing on the plaintiffs’ motion is unnecessary. See Kaepa, Inc. v. Achilles Corp., 76 F.3d 624, 628 (5th Cir. 1996). A. Background The unfortunate backdrop to this case is known to all. The United States of America, and
1 Accessible at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/downloads/guidance-correctional-detention.pdf. 2 The officials are Jeworski Mallett, MDOC’s Acting Deputy Commissioner of Institutions; Gloria Perry, MDOC’s Chief Medical Officer; and Marshal Turner, the Superintendent of Parchman. 3 The employees are John May, Centurion’s Chief Medical Officer; Willie Knighten, Centurion’s Health Services Administrator at Parchman; and Clayton Ramsue, Centurion’s Mississippi Statewide Medical Director.
2

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 79 Filed: 04/24/20 3 of 22 PageID #: 1554
most of the world, is in the midst of an outbreak of a respiratory illness known as COVID-19. As
of April 22, 2020, the Centers for Disease Control reported 828,441 cases in American territories,
resulting in 46,379 deaths.4 Also as of April 22, 2020, the State of Mississippi reported 5,153
cases, with 201 resulting deaths.5
“The virus that causes COVID-19 is spreading very easily and sustainably between
people,” typically through respiratory droplets produced by an infected person.6 Symptoms of
the disease include fever, cough, and shortness of breath. Doc. #74-1 at 4. Transmission
“mainly” occurs “[b]etween people who are in close contact with one another (within about 6
feet).”7 Because, according to the CDC, “[l]imiting face-to-face contact with others is the best
way to reduce the spread” of the virus,8 the CDC recommends that people “practice social or
physical distancing” by staying at least six feet from other people, not gathering in groups, and
avoiding “crowded places” and “mass gatherings.”9
B. Pre-COVID-19 Parchman Conditions
According to Marc Stern, a board-certified internist with a specialty in correctional
healthcare, the pre-COVID-19 “health-related and environmental conditions” at Parchman were
4 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Cases in the U.S., https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html (last visited April 24, 2020). The Court takes judicial notice of this and other CDC statements regarding the virus. See In re Abbott, 954 F.3d 772, 779 (5th Cir. 2019) (apparently taking judicial notice of CDC facts related to COVID-19); Gent v. CUNA Mut. Ins. Soc., 611 F.3d 79, 84 & n.5 (1st Cir. 2010) (taking judicial notice of CDC guidance and facts related to Lyme disease). The Court will also take judicial notice of state and local statements. See Coleman v. Dretke, 409 F.3d 665, 667 (5th Cir. 2005) (taking judicial notice of information on state website). 5 Mississippi State Department of Health, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): COVID-19 in Mississippi and the U.S., https://msdh.ms.gov/msdhsite/_static/14,0,420.html (last visited April 24, 2020). 6 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): How COVID-19 Spreads, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/how-covid-spreads.html (last visited April 24, 2020). 7 Id. 8 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Social Distancing, Quarantine, and Isolation, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/social-distancing.html (last visited April 24, 2020). 9 Id.
3

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 79 Filed: 04/24/20 4 of 22 PageID #: 1555
the worst he had seen in his twenty-year career. Doc. #59-6 at ¶¶ 3, 8. In his affidavit, Stern states that a COVID-19 outbreak at Parchman “would be catastrophic, and potentially fatal to many residents with already compromised immune systems and underlying chronic conditions.” Id. at ¶ 10.
Based on the conditions at Parchman, which Stern observed during a February 11, 2020, inspection of the facility, Stern opines the defendants “should immediately … mandate[]” the following steps: (1) test patients who require testing, “based on public health recommendations and the opinion of a qualified medical professional; (2) screen on a daily basis every visitor to the facility (including employees) for a fever over 100 degrees, cough, shortness of breath, recent travel to a high risk country, or exposure to a symptomatic individual; (3) isolate inmates “believed to have been exposed to COVID-19” and those “believed to be infected … and potentially infectious;” (4) “increase the sanitation and cleaning protocol and frequency for all public spaces, highly traveled areas, and cells;” (5) provide inmates sufficient “hand soap, disposable paper towels, and access to water, … free of charge,” and lift Parchman’s ban on hand sanitizer and allow use of sanitizer by inmates; (6) “require[] or increase non-contact visitation;” (7) waive copays “related in any way to COVID-19 and/or its symptoms; and (8) “identify the supplies and other materials upon which the institution is dependent, such as food, medical supplies, certain medicines, cleaning products, etcetera and prepare for shortages, delays or disruptions in the supply chain.” Doc. #59-6 at ¶ 11.
C. The CDC Guidance On March 23, 2020, the CDC issued “Interim Guidance on Management of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Correctional and Detention Facilities” (“CDC Guidance”). Doc. #74-1. The document “provides … recommended best practices specifically for correctional and detention facilities.” Id. at 3.
4

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 79 Filed: 04/24/20 5 of 22 PageID #: 1556
The CDC Guidance is divided into three categories: (1) “operational preparedness” strategies, which focus “on operational and communications planning and personnel practices” “intended to help facilities prepare for potential COVID-19 transmission in the facility;” (2) “prevention” strategies, which focus “on reinforcing hygiene practices, intensifying cleaning and disinfection of the facility, screening (new intakes, visitors, and staff), continued communication with incarcerated/detained persons and staff, and social distancing measures (increasing distance between individuals); and (3) “management” strategies, such as “medical isolation” and quarantines, “intended to help facilities clinically manage confirmed and suspected COVID-19 cases inside the facility and prevent further transmission.” Id. at 5.
Of relevance to the plaintiffs’ motion, the CDC Guidance, which “may need to be adapted based on individual facilities’ physical space, staffing, population, operations, and other resources and conditions,”10 includes the following recommendations for correctional facilities:
1. Post signage “throughout the facility” which communicates the “symptoms of COVID-19 and hand hygiene instructions,” and which informs inmates to “report symptoms to staff.” Doc. #74-1 at 6.
2. Provide to inmates on a regular basis “up-to date information about COVID-19,” including “[s]ymptoms of COVID-19 and its health risks,” and “[r]eminders to report COVID-19 symptoms to staff at the first sign of illness.” Doc. #74-1 at 12.
3. “If soap and water are not available,” “[c]onsider relaxing restrictions on allowing alcohol-based hand sanitizer in the secure setting where security concerns allow.” Id. at 8.
4. “Provide a no-cost supply of soap to [inmates], sufficient to allow frequent hand washing.” Doc. #74-1 at 8. The soap should preferably be liquid and should be
10 Doc. #74-1 at 1. 5

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 79 Filed: 04/24/20 6 of 22 PageID #: 1557
in sufficient quantities to allow the inmate to “[re]gularly wash [his] hands with soap and water for at least 20 seconds.” Id. at 8, 10. 5. “Reinforce healthy hygiene practices, and provide and continually restock hygiene supplies throughout the facility, including in bathrooms, food preparation and dining areas, intake areas, visitor entries and exits, visitation rooms and waiting rooms, common areas, medical, and staff-restricted areas (e.g., break rooms).” Doc. #74-1 at 10. Hand sanitizer should be placed “in visitor entrances, exits, and waiting areas.” Id. at 13. 6. “[C]onsider suspending co-pays for [inmates] seeking medical evaluation or respiratory symptoms.” Doc. #74-1 at 9. 7. Implement “intensified cleaning and disinfecting procedures” by cleaning and disinfecting “[s]everal times per day … surfaces and objects that are frequently touched, especially in common areas,” such as “doorknobs, light switches, sink handles, countertops, toilets, toilet handles, recreation equipment, kiosks, and telephones.” Doc. #74-1 at 9. 8. Consider eliminating in-person visits and, if eliminated, promote non-contact by reducing or eliminating the cost of telephone calls, and increasing telephone privileges. Doc. #74-1 at 13. 9. “Perform verbal screening … and temperature checks for all visitors and volunteers on entry” to screen for COVID-19 symptoms and potential exposure to the virus. Doc. #74-1 at 13. The screening process should be administered by staff wearing personal protective equipment (such as respiratory protection) and should exclude visitors who do not clear the screening process or who decline screening. Id. Perform the same screening daily for staff. Id. at 12.
6

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 79 Filed: 04/24/20 7 of 22 PageID #: 1558
10. “Implement social distancing strategies to increase the physical space between incarcerated/detained persons (ideally 6 feet between all individuals regardless of the presence of symptoms).” Doc. #74-1 at 11. Example strategies include, staggering recreation and meal times, rearranging seating in the dining halls, providing meals to inmates in cells, limiting group activities, reassigning bunks, and arranging bunks so that individuals sleep head to foot. Id.
11. When an inmate develops COVID-19, the inmate should wear a face mask and “should be immediately placed under medical isolation in a separate environment from other individuals.” Doc. #74-1 at 15. Facility staff “should evaluate symptomatic individuals to determine whether COVID-19 testing is indicated.” Id. at 22. D. Parchman’s COVID-19 Measures and Procedures
Before the issuance of the CDC Guidance, MDOC and Centurion officials were working to implement the provisions of “Centurion Pandemic Preparedness and Emergency Response Plan” (“Centurion Plan”), a document setting forth “protocols for the diagnosis, treatment, and management of conditions related to infectious diseases such as COVID-19.” Doc. #62-1 at ¶ 8. Since then, the following measures and procedures have been established at Parchman:
1. Centurion staff distributed COVID-19 informational handouts to health care staff, security staff, and inmates at Parchman. Doc. #75-2 at PageID #1477. The forms all listed the symptoms of COVID-19 and provided additional instructions and procedures for each group. Doc. #75-3 at PageID #1491–97. The inmate forms recommended that inmates wash hands “often with soap and water,” practice social distancing of six feet or more, cover coughs and sneezes, and stop smoking. Id. at PageID #1497. The healthcare staff forms provided that if an inmate was exposed
7

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 79 Filed: 04/24/20 8 of 22 PageID #: 1559
to COVID-19 or displayed symptoms of COVID-19, the inmate should be placed in a separate and closed room for further testing. Id. at PageID #1491–92. 2. MDOC suspended in-person visitation and allowed inmates to make two free phone calls per week through April 13, 2020. Doc. #62-1 at 6 & PageID #1042. 3. MDOC posted signs at the entrances to all housing units at Parchman stating that anyone experiencing fever, coughing, sneezing, cold symptoms, or difficulty breathing should not enter the facility. Doc. #75-2 at PageID #1477. MDOC also posted signs regarding handwashing in Parchman’s restrooms. Id. 4. MDOC is supplying Parchman inmates extra hand soap and placed signage “in each unit, building, and zone to remind inmates to regularly wash their hands and to do so for at least 20 seconds.” Doc. #75-5 at ¶ 8. Hand sanitizer is available to staff “at the areas where they clock-in and clock-out” but has not been made available to inmates. Id. 5. MDOC requires that all staff wear masks and gloves “while inside the buildings and zones of a unit at [Parchman] and while interacting with inmates.” Doc. #755 at ¶ 8. Inmate workers are provided masks and gloves “to wear while they are performing their duties or interacting with other inmates.” Id. Centurion imposed a similar requirement for its staff on April 15, 2020. Doc. #75-2 at 3. 6. Three times per day, MDOC issues cleaning supplies to inmate workers to disinfect common areas in each zone. Doc. #75-5 at ¶ 9. MDOC staff have also “been instructed to frequently clean any shared equipment and upon conclusion of any use of that equipment.” Id. 7. MDOC requires screening of “staff and all visitors at [Parchman] daily upon entrance to the facility for symptoms and other indicators of exposure to COVID-
8

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 79 Filed: 04/24/20 9 of 22 PageID #: 1560
19.” Doc. #75-5 at ¶ 10. This process “includes questions about symptoms, if any, including headaches, fevers, coughing, shortness of breath, and any trouble breathing, travel history, and includes the administration of a temperature reading.” Id. Staff or visitors with temperatures greater than 100 degrees are asked to leave the premises. Id. 8. MDOC directed staff “to announce daily to all inmates in each zone that they should immediately report any symptoms of COVID-19 to MDOC staff.” Doc. #75-5 at ¶ 10. If an inmate exhibits symptoms of COVID-19, Centurion screens all inmates in that zone. Id. 9. When dealing with a symptomatic inmate, Centurion employees are to follow an “Assessment Protocol for Patients Presenting with Febrile Respiratory Illness.” Doc. #75-3 at ¶ 23 & PageID #1499. Under this protocol, the on-duty RN must apply a surgical mask to the inmate before conducting an assessment. Id. at PageID #1499. If the RN determines the inmate does not have a fever and is “not exhibiting respiratory symptoms consistent with viral illness” then the patient should be educated and returned to housing. Id. Otherwise, the RN should confirm whether there is a “flu-like illness” and then administer a rapid Influenza test. Id. If the influenza test is positive, the patient should be isolated. Id. If the influenza test is negative or not available, the RN may test one or two patients in the area for COVID-19 or presume the population to be positive, if tests are unavailable. Id. If the patient has a fever and is otherwise “ill or compromised” the inmate should be transported to the ER. Id. 10. MDOC ceased in-person visits with inmates, except for visits with attorneys. Doc. #75-5 at ¶ 10. Attorneys are asked to wear gowns, gloves, and masks. Id. All
9

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 79 Filed: 04/24/20 10 of 22 PageID #: 1561
visitation areas are sanitized after each visit. Id. 11. MDOC posted signage at Parchman to advise inmates of social distancing
recommendations and directed staff “to verbally encourage social distancing,” including encouraging sleeping head to foot. Doc. #75-5 at ¶ 11. 12. MDOC suspended inter-facility transfers of inmates in and out of Parchman, “except for cases of an emergency or a serious security threat.” Doc. #75-5 at ¶ 12. When a new inmate is transferred into Parchman, the new inmate is screened and isolated for fourteen days. Id. However, intra-facility transfers are still occurring. Id. Parchman inmates who are transported outside Parchman for medical care are quarantined upon return. Doc. #75-2 at ¶ 12. 13. MDOC implemented a quarantine plan under which if an inmate or staff person is tested for COVID-1 or is suspected of having COVID-19, any housing unit in which the potentially sick person had direct contact is quarantined for fourteen days. Doc. #75-5 at ¶ 13. The potentially sick person is then medically isolated. Id. Staff with direct contact with the individual must wear personal protective equipment (PPE), including masks and gloves. Doc. #75-2 at ¶ 16. 14. Centurion waived all co-pays related to COVID-19, effective March 19, 2020. Doc. #75-5 at ¶ 16; Doc. #75-3 at ¶ 20. 15. Inmates with underlying medical conditions are housed separately in Parchman’s medical unit. Doc. #75-2 at ¶ 13. 16. Centurion nurses travel to housing units twice a day to answer inmate questions. Id. at ¶ 10. E. Challenges to Implementation of Measures and Procedures in Unit 30 As explained above, the plaintiffs submitted questionnaires and declarations executed
10

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 79 Filed: 04/24/20 11 of 22 PageID #: 1562
under penalty of perjury by six inmates housed in Unit 30, as well as affidavits from a private investigator and the plaintiffs’ counsel. See Docs. #74-3, #74-4, #74-5, #74-6. Taken together, these documents show:
1. On March 24 and 25, 2020, Parchman staff did not wear personal protective equipment while screening visitors, did not ask screening questions, and did not disinfect the contact thermometer after each use. Doc. #74-5 at ¶¶ 10–11, 14–15. On these dates, vehicles containing MDOC or Centurion employees were allowed to enter Parchman without any screening. Id.
2. As of March 25, 2020, the Parchman visitor center had no COVID-19 signage. Doc. #74-6 at ¶ 11. The visitor restroom had no hand soap or hand sanitizer. Id. at ¶ 8.
3. Inmates in Unit 30 are receiving two bars of soap weekly, rather than the one they are normally provided. See Doc. #74-4 at PageID #1375.
4. Except for the quarantines, the defendants have made no effort to enforce social distancing guidelines between the inmates in Unit 30. See Doc.# 74-4 at PageID #1388. For example, inmates can play basketball. Doc. #74-4 at PageID #1392.
5. Inmates in Unit 30 have received limited information on the virus and some were not informed by the defendants that co-pays had been waived.11 See Doc. #74-3 at PageID #1331, #1338.
6. The defendants did not clean the bedding and property of an inmate in Unit 30 who was taken to the medical unit for COVID-19 related symptoms. Doc. #74-4 at PageID #1375.
11 Of the six inmate declarants, three stated definitively they were not told of the waiver, one said he was told “3rd hand,” one said it was not “emphasized,” and one is “not sure” he was told. See Doc. #74-3. In their accompanying declarations, two of the inmates who stated they were not told, and the inmate who stated he was “not sure,” all clarified that the waiver was not “emphasized.”
11

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 79 Filed: 04/24/20 12 of 22 PageID #: 1563
7. While inmates in Unit 30 are provided supplies to clean portions of Parchman, bunks are never cleaned, and laundry service is not used often by inmates because inmates believe the laundry “comes back dirty.” Doc. #74-4 at PageID #1375.
8. During daily temperature checks in Unit 30, nurses do not ask about symptoms. Doc. #74-4 at PageID #1375. Inmates with fevers and coughs are not consistently referred to the medical unit or evaluated in any way. Doc. #74-4 at PageID #1392. On at least one occasion an inmate was threatened with mace when he tried to inform a nurse of his COVID-19 symptoms. Id. at PageID #1376.
9. Inmates in Unit 30 have not been provided paper towels, tissues, or no-touch trash cans. Doc. #74-4 at PageID #1375, #1377–78.
10. Guards in Unit 30 do not always use masks or maintain social distancing. Doc. #74-4 at PageID #1374.
11. “Most” but not all medical staff wear gloves. Doc. #74-4 at PageID #1374. F. Quarantines in Unit 30
On or about March 26, 2020, Parchman officials learned that a staff member who worked with inmate kitchen workers had tested positive for COVID-19. Doc. #75-2 at ¶ 18. In response to this development, MDOC “quarantined” for fourteen days all inmates housed with the exposed inmate kitchen workers. Id. From March 26 until April 2, 2020, inmates in Buildings C and D of Unit 30 (the impacted buildings) were still eating meals with inmates in other buildings. Doc. #74-4 at ¶ 4. It was not until April 2, 2020, that the buildings were locked down. See id. at PageID #1373, #1377, #1389, #1383, #1386, #1390. Regardless, no inmates developed a fever before the quarantine ended on April 9, 2020. Doc. #75-2 at ¶ 18.
On April 8, 2020, an inmate previously admitted to the Parchman hospital was tested for COVID-19. Id. at ¶ 19. Two days later, after his condition deteriorated, the inmate was
12

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 79 Filed: 04/24/20 13 of 22 PageID #: 1564
transferred to a hospital off the Parchman site. Id. On April 11, 2020, the inmate passed away. Id. Later that evening, the defendants learned that the inmate tested positive for COVID-19. Id.
Following the positive test, Parchman officials cleaned with Biovex and bleach both the medical unit and the building where the inmate had been housed. Doc. #75-2 at ¶ 20. Additionally, the defendants quarantined for fourteen days all inmates housed in the buildings where the sick inmate was previously housed and all inmates housed in the buildings where the sick inmate previously worked. Id. at ¶ 21. The quarantined inmates were provided face masks and are being monitored for COVID-19 symptoms two times a day. Id. Inmates who had been “in close contact” with the sick inmate were tested for COVID-19 in addition to being placed in quarantine. Id. at ¶ 22.
III Standards for Injunctive Relief “Federal court procedural rules distinguish preliminary injunctions from temporary restraining orders. Issuance of an injunction may occur only after notice to the parties, while a temporary restraining order may be issued ex parte and without notice.” Knoles v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 513 F. App’x 414, 415 (5th Cir. 2013) (comparing Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a) and (b)(1)). Nevertheless, the standards are similar. To issue a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction, a court must find (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a substantial threat of irreparable injury in the absence of injunctive relief; (3) the threatened injury outweighs the harm in granting the injunction; and (4) granting the injunction would not harm the public interest. Janvey v. Alguire, 647 F.3d 585, 595 (5th Cir. 2011) (elements for preliminary injunction); Turner v. Epps, 460 F. App’x 322, 325 n.3 (5th Cir. 2012) (elements for TRO). While the elements are the same, a plaintiff seeking a temporary restraining order must ordinarily make a stronger showing than a plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction. Esparza v. Bd. of Trs., 182 F.3d 915 (5th Cir. 1999) (table decision). “Mandatory preliminary relief, which
13

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 79 Filed: 04/24/20 14 of 22 PageID #: 1565
goes well beyond simply maintaining the status quo pendente lite, is particularly disfavored, and
should not be issued unless the facts and law clearly favor the moving party.” Martinez v.
Mathews, 544 F.2d 1233, 1243 (5th Cir. 1976).
In addition to the above standards applicable to injunction motions generally, the Prison
Litigation Reform Act provides:
Prospective relief in any civil action with respect to prison conditions shall extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a particular plaintiff or plaintiffs. The court shall not grant or approve any prospective relief unless the court finds that such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right. The court shall give substantial weight to any adverse impact on public safety or the operation of a criminal justice system caused by the relief.
18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A). Necessarily, “when a district court fashions prospective relief in
prison litigation, the relief must meet the standards set forth in the Act.” Williams v. Edwards, 87
F.3d 126, 133 (5th Cir. 1996). However, “[a]lthough the PLRA significantly affects the type of
prospective injunctive relief that may be awarded, it has not substantially changed the threshold
findings and standards required to justify an injunction.” Gomez v. Vernon, 255 F.3d 1118, 1129
(9th Cir. 2001) (emphases added).
IV Analysis
As supplemented, the plaintiffs’ motion seeks a court order requiring that the defendants:
(1) implement the CDC Guidance;12 (2) implement the Centurion Plan;13 (3) enact a variety of
screening, visitation, and cleaning protocols;14 (4) make regular reports to the Court and the
12 “Defendants shall immediately, or as soon as practicable, implement at Parchman, and shall follow through the life of this pandemic, or until further order of this Court, the [CDC Guidance].” Doc. #74 at 18. 13 “Defendants shall immediately, or as soon as is practicable, implement at Parchman, and shall follow throughout the life of this pandemic, or until further order of this Court, their plans, policies and procedures pertaining to their response to this pandemic including, without limitation, [the Centurion Plan].” Id. 14 The requested procedures are: (1) daily screening of all persons entering Parchman; (2) active monitoring of all inmates for symptoms of COVID-19; (3) implementation of isolation policies for inmates who test positive for COVID-19, have symptoms of COVID-19, and new inmates; (4) continuing to offer free telephone calls to inmates;
14

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 79 Filed: 04/24/20 15 of 22 PageID #: 1566
plaintiffs;15 and (5) provide access to a Mississippi Department of Health official who will monitor compliance with the Court’s order, and report to the Court and the plaintiffs.16 Doc. #74 at 18–
21.
The defendants contend that the relief the plaintiffs’ seek is inappropriate because (1) there
is no underlying violation of a federal right which would justify the relief; (2) even if there was an
underlying constitutional violation, the requested relief is more intrusive than necessary; and (3)
all the requested measures “are either already being undertaken, … are in many respects not
possible or recommended (such as testing every single inmate), or … have not been shown by
Plaintiffs to have any reasonable relation to preventing the alleged harm.” Doc. #63 at 7–8.
A. Likelihood of Success
“[T]here must be a relationship between the injury claimed in [a] motion for injunctive
relief and the conduct asserted in the underlying complaint.” Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v.
Queens’ Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 636 (9th Cir. 2015) (collecting cases). “The relationship
between the preliminary injunction and the underlying complaint is sufficiently strong where the
preliminary injunction would grant ‘relief of the same character as that which may be granted
finally.’” Id. (quoting De Beers Consol. Mines v. United States, 325 U.S. 212, 220 (1945)).
Accordingly, the substantial likelihood of success inquiry focuses on the “merits of [the]
(5) ensuring Parchman has “sufficient cleaning agents;” (6) ensuring inmates have “a continuous supply” of soap and access to running water; and (7) waiver of all co-pays related to COVID-19. Id. at 19–20. 15 The plaintiffs ask that the reports include (1) the number of inmates who have tested positive for COVID-19, and the names of such people if they are named plaintiffs; (2) the number of inmates who are in medical isolation related to COVID-19, and the names of such people if they are named plaintiffs; (3) “confirmation” that cleaning supplies are available and being utilized; and (4) “confirmation” that soap is available to each inmate and that each inmate has access to clean running water. Id. at 20. The plaintiffs also ask that the defendants “report to the Court weekly by email, with copy to Named Plaintiffs, and provide a copy of all filed reports as required by local, state, and federal laws and regulations, as is required by Centurion’s Infectious Disease Prevention and Control Policy, Policy No. PB-02, p. 2.” Id. 16 “Defendants shall allow a competent employee of the Mississippi Department of Health, who is educated on the CDC’s COVID-19 Guidelines, to be given reasonable access at any given time to Parchman for the purpose of ensuring compliance with the Court’s order and reporting his/her findings to the Court, with a copy to Named Plaintiffs.” Id. at 20.
15

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 79 Filed: 04/24/20 16 of 22 PageID #: 1567
underlying claim.” Walgreen Co. v. Hood, 275 F.3d 475, 478 (5th Cir. 2001). “The importance of this requirement varies with the relative balance of threatened hardships facing each of the parties.” Canal Auth. of State of Fla. v. Callaway, 489 F.2d 567, 576 (5th Cir. 1974).
The plaintiffs’ ground their motion for injunctive relief related to COVID-19 protections in their underlying Eighth Amendment claims regarding the defendants’ “duty to provide adequate medical care, shelter, and to take reasonable measures to guarantee the safety of inmates.” Doc. #60 at 6–7 (quotation marks omitted). The question, therefore, is whether the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claims that the defendants’ response to COVID-19 violates the plaintiffs’ Eighth Amendment rights. See Valentine v. Collier, __ F.3d __, No. 20-20207, 2020 WL 1934431, at *3 (5th Cir. Apr. 22, 2020) (prisoners’ entitlement to injunctive relief depends on showing of deliberate indifference); see generally Baxley v. Jividen, 2020 WL 1802935, at *3 (S.D.W.V. Apr. 8, 2020) (“[T]his case as pled is about statewide claims related to how inmates generally receive medical and mental health treatment upon admission. The Court believes this language is sufficiently broad to encompass claims for medical treatment for COVID-19.”) (cleaned up).
Section 198317 claims brought against defendants in their official capacities are suits against the entity the officials represent. Rayborn v. Bossier Par. Sch. Bd., 881 F.3d 409, 417 (5th Cir. 2018). “To establish liability against a governmental entity … a plaintiff must … show the existence of (1) a policy maker; (2) an official policy; and (3) causation, or a violation of rights whose moving force is the policy.” Doe v. United States, 831 F.3d 309, 317–18 (5th Cir. 2016). While this standard ordinarily requires a policy, “a custom may also suffice.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). A custom is “a persistent widespread practice of governmental officials or
17 As this Court has previously explained, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 “is the exclusive vehicle for an Eighth Amendment claim against a state actor.” Duren v. Carroll-Montgomery Reg’l Corr. Facility, No. 4:17-cv-154, 2019 WL 4482531, at *4 n.6 (N.D. Miss. Sep. 18, 2019) (citing Berger v. City of New Orleans, 273 F.3d 1095 (5th Cir. 2001) (table decision)).
16

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 79 Filed: 04/24/20 17 of 22 PageID #: 1568
employees that is so common and well-settled as to constitute a custom that fairly represents policy.” Id. (cleaned up). A claim for injunctive relief against a governmental entity or a supervisory official must be likely to satisfy this standard. Gale v. O’Donohue, 751 F. App’x 876, 884 (6th Cir. 2018); see also Church v. City of Huntsville, 30 F.3d 1332, 1345 (11th Cir. 1994); Zinter v. Salvaggio, No. 5-18-cv-680, 2018 WL 5098785, at *4 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 19, 2018); Proctor v. District of Columbia, 310 F. Supp. 3d 107, 115 (D.D.C. 2018).
The Eighth Amendment imposes on prison authorities a duty to protect prisoners. Jason v. Tanner, 938 F.3d 191, 195 (5th Cir. 2019). This duty is violated by an official “only when two requirements are met. First, as an objective matter, the deprivation or harm must be sufficiently serious. Second, the official must have been deliberately indifferent.” Id. (cleaned up). To satisfy the first element, “the plaintiff must show an objectively intolerable risk of harm.” Valentine, 2020 WL 1934431, at *3 (quotation marks omitted). The second requirement is subjective and requires that the plaintiff show the defendant “(1) was aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists; (2) subjectively drew the inference that the risk existed; and (3) disregarded the risk.” Id. (cleaned up). Here, the defendants do not dispute that “COVD-19 presents serious health risks.” Doc. #63 at 5. Rather, they contend they are not responding to this threat with deliberate indifference. Id.
Even if the plaintiffs could establish likelihood of success on the objective prong, they cannot make a similar showing as to the subjective prong. The deliberate indifference standard may be satisfied when officials respond to an infectious disease “outbreak with a series of negligent and reckless actions.” DeGidio v. Pung, 920 F.2d 525, 533 (8th Cir. 1990). “[K]nown noncompliance with generally accepted guidelines for inmate health strongly indicates deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm.” Hernandez v. County of Monterey, 110 F. Supp. 3d 929, 943 (N.D. Cal. 2015). Such guidelines may include CDC guidance, even if the
17

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 79 Filed: 04/24/20 18 of 22 PageID #: 1569
guidance is not mandatory. Id. However, mere departure from recommended best practices is insufficient to show deliberate indifference. See M.D. ex rel Stukenberg v. Abbot, 929 F.3d 272, 289 (5th Cir. 2019) (Higginbotham, J., concurring in part) (“Best practices are not the handmaiden of deliberate indifference.”). Rather, the known noncompliance must result in an excessive risk to inmate health or safety. Tanner, 938 F.3d at 195.
Analytically, the deficiencies identified by the plaintiffs fall into one of two categories— deficiencies in Parchman’s measures and procedures or deficiencies in implementation of those measures and procedures. Claims premised on deficiencies in the measures and procedures themselves must likely meet the deliberate indifference standard. When a claim is premised on a failure to implement, the failure must be so prevalent to be deemed a custom and must rise to the level of deliberate indifference.
Here, the defendants have undoubtedly taken steps to address the risk of COVID-19 in Parchman. Such undisputed steps include the creation and updating of the Centurion Plan, posting of signs, promulgation of quarantine and screening policies for both inmates and visitors, suspension of in-person visitation except for attorneys, implementing cleaning procedures in the housing units, the waiving of co-pays for inmates, limitations on transfers, and the provision of extra soap to inmates. However, the record is also undisputed that the implementation of these steps has been inconsistent or ineffectual. On at least two occasions, Parchman staff did not verbally screen attorney visitors, and did not screen staff at the entrance to the facility. Signage and hygiene at the visitors center appears insufficient and contrary to the CDC Guidance. In Unit 30, not all inmates were notified of the waiver of co-pays; not all prison employees wear PPE; bunks are not cleaned; a quarantine was apparently not enforced for a week; and inmates with fevers, sore throats, or coughs are allowed to remain in their units and, in at least one instance, have been threatened with mace when discussing symptoms.
18

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 79 Filed: 04/24/20 19 of 22 PageID #: 1570
Additionally, portions of the defendants’ stated policies conflict in some ways with some
of the general recommendations of the CDC Guidance. The CDC Guidance recommends taking
affirmative steps to produce social distancing, such as the staggering of meals and recreation times,
limiting group activities, and reassigning bunks. Doc. #74-1 at 11. However, it is undisputed
the defendants have made no efforts to enforce, rather than merely recommend adherence to, social distancing guidelines.18 The CDC Guidance also recommends that facilities provide inmates
“hand drying machines or disposable paper towels for hand washing” and “tissues and no-touch
trash receptacles for disposal.” Id. at 10. None of these items are provided as a part of
Parchman’s response.
The facts of this case are very similar to those in Valentine v. Collier, a case in which the
Fifth Circuit stayed pending appeal an injunction issued by a district court against a prison because the plaintiffs were unlikely to be able to show deliberate indifference.19 2020 WL 1934431, at
*4. In Valentine, as here, the prison took numerous steps to prevent transmission, including
employee screenings, copay waivers, suspension of in-person visits, isolation for symptomatic
inmates, masks for staff, increased cleaning in inmate areas, and increased soap access. No. 4:20-
cv-1115, 2020 WL 1916883, at *10 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 20, 2020). Also as here, the Valentine
plaintiffs submitted evidence showing that at least one symptomatic inmate was not isolated; some
cleaning policies were not being implemented; the prison refused to give inmates hand sanitizer,
18 The plaintiffs have advanced other arguments regarding alleged non-compliance which are facially frivolous. First, the plaintiffs seem to suggest that the failure to provide sanitizers is contrary to the CDC Guidance. However, the CDC Guidance only recommends the use of sanitizer “[i]f soap and water are not available.” Doc. #74-1 at 8. The plaintiffs also contend, without support, that the extra bar of soap provided to the inmates is insufficient to support frequent hand washing. No support is offered for this proposition and no evidence is cited that inmates who run out of soap are denied extra soap. Similarly, the plaintiffs argue in conclusory fashion that the defendants’ laundry practices violate the CDC Guidance’s provisions requiring that facilities “launder items in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions using the warmest appropriate water setting ….” Id. at 18. While the plaintiffs have offered some evidence that the laundry services are not particularly efficient, there is no evidence of what procedures the laundry service follows. 19 The Fifth Circuit’s decision in Valentine addressed the issue of a stay of an ordered injunction rather than the ultimate entitlement to the injunction itself. In this sense, the opinion is not dispositive of the case. However, the evaluation of the merits of the Valentine plaintiffs’ claims should not be ignored.
19

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 79 Filed: 04/24/20 20 of 22 PageID #: 1571
facial tissues or paper towels; information on co-pays and COVID-19 were not adequately presented to inmates; and social distancing was not being enforced. Id. at *4–6.
While the district court in Valentine found the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the deliberate indifference claim, the Fifth Circuit stayed the injunction, concluding the prison was likely to succeed on the merits of its appeal because “the Plaintiffs lack evidence of the Defendants’ subjective deliberate indifference” to the risk of COVID-19. Valentine, 2020 WL 1934431, at *4. In reaching this conclusion, the Fifth Circuit held:
Though the district court cited the Defendants’ general awareness of the dangers posed by COVID-19, it cited no evidence that they subjectively believe the measures they are taking are inadequate. To the contrary, the evidence shows that TDCJ has taken and continues to take measures—informed by guidance from the CDC and medical professionals—to abate and control the spread of the virus. Although the district court might do things differently, mere “disagreement” with TDCJ’s medical decisions does not establish deliberate indifference. Id. (citations omitted). Here, as in Valentine, there is insufficient evidence to support a finding of deliberate indifference, at least with respect to COVID-19.20 The defendants have taken numerous proactive steps to prevent the transmission of COVID-19, which they believe to be consistent with the CDC Guidance. Doc. #75-2 at ¶ 5. While there is some evidence showing incomplete implementation of the procedures, the evidence is either limited to sporadic instances, limited to two buildings in a single unit of Parchman, or both, and therefore fails to show a policy or custom which would justify the facility-wide injunctive relief sought by the plaintiffs. See Foster v. Tarrant Cty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, No. 4:20-cv-113, 2020 WL 1906095, at *3 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 17, 2020) (“The general rule is that allegations of isolated incidents are insufficient to establish a custom or policy.”) (collecting cases).
20 Stern’s affidavit, which is uncontradicted by any evidence, paints a very grim picture of the general conditions at Parchman. See Doc. #59-6.
20

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 79 Filed: 04/24/20 21 of 22 PageID #: 1572
Similarly, while elements of Parchman’s protocols appear to conflict with a handful of provisions in the CDC Guidance (provision of paper towels and tissues and policies enforcing social distancing), these departures are insufficient on their own to show a likelihood of success regarding deliberate indifference, particularly in light of the comprehensive and far reaching steps taken by the defendants. Valentine, 2020 WL 1934431, at * 4; cf. Hernandez, 110 F. Supp. 3d at 943 (“At least since the CDC released its guidelines, and since Puisis issued his report showing Defendants’ policies and practices fell below the constitutional standard of care, Defendants have known about the risks of harm but have not changed their practices.”). Indeed, as in Valentine, the evidence shows that Parchman “has taken and continues to take measures—informed by guidance from the CDC and medical professionals—to abate and control the spread of the virus.” 2020 WL 1934431, at * 4. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on their claims.
B. Substantial Threat of Irreparable Injury The plaintiffs must show “that they will suffer irreparable injuries even after accounting for the protective measures” in place. Valentine, 2020 WL 1934431, at *5. There is no evidence to support such a finding.
C. Whether Threatened Injury Outweighs Harm to Non-Movant “[A]ny time a state is enjoined by a court from effectuating from effectuating statutes enacted by representatives of its people, it suffers a form of irreparable injury.” Valentine, 2020 WL 1934431, at *4. Accordingly, when a legislature assigns prison policy to an administration, an injunction modifying such policy “imposes irreparable injury.” Id. Here, the Mississippi legislature has responsibility for prison policy to MDOC. See Miss. Code Ann. § 47-5-23. Accordingly, the injunction sought in this case would impose irreparable injury which outweighs the potential threat to the plaintiffs.
21

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 79 Filed: 04/24/20 22 of 22 PageID #: 1573 D. Public Interest
When “state officials are the parties against whom the injunction is sought, …. consideration of the harm to them should the injunction issue merges with consideration of the public interest.” Dean v. Leake, 550 F. Supp. 2d 594, 605 (E.D.N.C. 2008); see also Planned Parenthood of Greater Tex. Surgical Health Servs. v. Abbott, 734 F.3d 406, 419 (5th Cir. 2013) (“As the State is the appealing party, its interest and harm merges with that of the public.”). Accordingly, for the reasons above, the Court concludes that the public interest would be harmed by granting the injunction.
V Conclusion The plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction [59] is DENIED. SO ORDERED, this 24th day of April, 2020.
/s/Debra M. Brown UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
22

 
 Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 98 Filed: 06/09/20 1 of 4 PageID #: 1753

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION

MICHAEL AMOS, ET AL.

PLAINTIFFS

V.

CASE NO. 4:20-CV-007-DMB-JMV

TOMMY TAYLOR, ET AL.

DEFENDANTS

PLAINTIFFS’ SUPPLEMENTAL EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

COMES NOW Michael Amos, Pitrell Brister, Antonio Davis, Willie Friend, Charles

Gayles, Daniel Guthrie, Jonathan J. Ham, Desmond Hardy, Billy James, Jr., Justin James,

Quenten Johnson, Deaunte Lewis, Larry Maxwell, Terrance McKinney, Derrick Pam, Brandon

Robertson, Kuriaki Riley, Derrick Rogers, Tyree Ross, H.D. Alexander Scott, Deangelo Taylor,

Lemartine Taylor, Conti Tillis, Demarcus Timmons, Carlos Varnado, Phillip DeCarlos Webster,

Adrian Willard, and Curtis Wilson, Caleb Buckner, William Green, Aric Johnson, Ivery Moore,

and Kevin Thomas, plaintiffs herein, by and through undersigned counsel, and pursuant to Rule

65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, respectfully request that this Court grant their Motion

for Temporary and Preliminary Injunction and the specific relief described below:

Regarding Aric Johnson in Unit 29, Building F, Zone A, Defendants should be ordered

to remedy the following unconstitutional conditions:

1. Within five (5) days, Johnson must see a medical doctor to assess his high

blood pressure;

2. Within twenty-four hours, refill Johnson’s high blood pressure

medication;

3. Within five (5) days, repair the roof and other avenues of water intrusion

in Johnson’s immediate living area;

1

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 98 Filed: 06/09/20 2 of 4 PageID #: 1754
4. Within five (5) days, repair the exposed electrical wires in Johnson’s shower;
5. Within five (5) days, repair the toilets and urinals in Johnson’s zone; 6. Within five (5) days, repair the air conditioning in Johnson’s zone. Regarding Phillip Webster in Unit 29, Building F, Zone A, Defendants should be ordered to remedy the following unconstitutional conditions: 1. Within five (5) days, treat effectively the infestation of rats and
cockroaches in Webster’s immediate living area; 2. Within five (5) days, repair the roof and other avenues of water intrusion
in Webster’s immediate living area; 3. Within five (5) days, repair the air conditioning in Webster’s zone; 4. Within five (5) days, Webster must see an ophthalmologist to treat his
burning eyes. Regarding Kuriaki Riley in Unit 30, Building B, Zone A, Defendants should be ordered to remedy the following unconstitutional conditions:
1. Within five (5) days, Riley should see a psychiatrist to assess his mental health and develop a long-term mental health plan including periodic follow up visits, as medically indicated;
2. Within five (5) days, Riley should see a medical doctor to assess his high blood pressure;
3. Within twenty-four hours, refill Riley’s high blood pressure medication; 4. Within five (5) days, restore the drinking water in Riley’s zone to
acceptable standards.
2

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 98 Filed: 06/09/20 3 of 4 PageID #: 1755
Regarding Justin James in Unit 30, Building A, Zone B, Defendants should be ordered
to remedy the following unconstitutional conditions:
1. Within five (5) days, treat effectively the infestation of rats and
cockroaches in James’ immediate living area;
2. Within five (5) days, repair the roof and other avenues of water intrusion
in James’ immediate living area;
3. Within five (5) days, remediate the mold in the shower in James’ zone;
4. Within five (5) days, repair the air conditioning in James’ zone;
5. Within five (5) days, repair the air conditioning in James’ zone;
6. Within five (5) days, arrange for James to have the required one hour of
recreation daily.
In support of its motion, Plaintiffs respectfully submit their accompanying Supplemental
Memorandum Brief and the following exhibits:
EXHIBIT A: Eldon Vail Expert Report and Addendum EXHIBIT B: Dr. Marc Stern Expert Report and Addendum EXHIBIT C: Craig Haney, Ph.D., J.D. Expert Report EXHIBIT D: Debra Graham Expert Report and Addendum EXHIBIT E: Madeleine LaMarre Expert Report EXHIBIT F: Frank Edwards Expert Report EXHIBIT G: Plaintiffs’ Affirmation Compilation EXHIBIT H: Plaintiffs’ Photograph Submission EXHIBIT I: Supplemental Declaration of Phillip Webster (June 5, 2020) EXHIBIT J: Supplemental Declaration of Aric Johnson (June 5, 2020) EXHIBIT K: Supplemental Declaration of Justin James (June 5, 2020) EXHIBIT L: Supplemental Declaration of Kuriaki Riley (June 5, 2020) EXHIBIT M: Sworn COVID Questionnaire Compilation EXHIBIT N: Vail’s Additional Expert Source Material EXHIBIT O: Stern’s Additional Expert Source Material EXHIBIT P: Haney’s Additional Expert Source Material EXHIBIT Q: Graham’s Additional Expert Source Material EXHIBIT R: LaMarre’s Additional Expert Source Material EXHIBIT S: Edwards’ Additional Expert Source Material
3

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 98 Filed: 06/09/20 4 of 4 PageID #: 1756
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this
Court grant their Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary
Injunction and for any other relief the Court deems appropriate.
This the 8th day of June, 2020.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Marcy B. Croft______________________ Marcy B. Croft (MS Bar #10864) Jessica L. Rice (MS Bar #105722) Ericson Enger (MS Bar #105808) MARON MARVEL BRADLEY ANDERSON & TARDY LLC 200 South Lamar Street Jackson, MS 39201 Telephone: (601) 960-8630 Telefax: (601) 206-0119 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF
Thomas G. Bufkin (MS Bar #10810) Carson H. Thurman (MS Bar #104871) CARROLL BUFKIN PLLC 1076 Highland Colony Pkwy. 600 Concourse, Suite 125 Ridgeland, MS 39157 Telephone: (601) 982-5011 Telefax: (601) 853-9450 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on June 8, 2020, a copy of the foregoing was filed
electronically with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system. Notice of this filing will be
sent to all counsel of record registered to receive electronic service by operation of the Court’s
electronic filing system.
/s/ Marcy B. Croft Marcy B. Croft (MS Bar #10864)
4

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 99 Filed: 06/09/20 1 of 50 PageID #: 1757

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION

MICHAEL AMOS, ET AL.

PLAINTIFFS

V.

CASE NO. 4:20-CV-007-DMB-JMV

TOMMY TAYLOR, ET AL.

DEFENDANTS

SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Plaintiffs respectfully submit this Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs’
Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (“Supplemental
Memorandum”).1
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Plaintiffs are 33 inmates2 at the Mississippi State Penitentiary in Parchman, Mississippi
(“Parchman”), who have brought this class action to remedy unconstitutional and life-threatening
conditions at the prison. Parchman is in the midst of a humanitarian crisis that has claimed 23
lives3 to date in 2020 and that leaves Plaintiffs daily at risk of violence, injury, disease, and
death, not to mention torturous conditions of confinement. While abhorrent, Parchman’s
condition is no secret to Defendants. Governor Tate Reeves, the chief law enforcement officer in
1 This Supplemental Memorandum is provided pursuant to this Court’s order [Doc. 55] in support of Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (“Motion”) [Doc. 13], and Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion (“Original Memorandum”). [Doc. 14]. Per the Court, this Supplemental Memorandum supersedes and replaces the Original Memorandum. Id. 2 Based on information and belief, since the filing of this action, Defendants have transferred 24 of the Named Plaintiffs from Parchman to other MDOC facilities and released 2 Named Plaintiffs May 3 and May 26, 2020, respectively. Pursuant to the last hearing of the parties, Plaintiffs have not yet filed their second amended complaint in this action, but will be prepared to do same when permitted and when appropriate. Said amendment will necessarily include substitution of certain named defendants (to reflect new individuals serving in the official roles) and substitution of certain named plaintiffs to serve as class and/or sub-class representatives. 3 See Docs. #56, #97 and additional press releases contained in the News and Announcements section of the official website for the Mississippi Department of Corrections, accessible at https://www.mdoc.ms.gov/Pages/default.aspx (last visited June 8, 2020).

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 99 Filed: 06/09/20 2 of 50 PageID #: 1758
the State of Mississippi, visited Parchman on January 23, 2020 and declared the situation “infuriating.”4 He blamed Parchman’s condition on a “leadership crisis” within the Mississippi Department of Corrections (“MDOC”) and admitted, “[t]here is no excuse.”5 Yet, despite the Governor’s admonition, Defendants seem unwilling and incapable of bringing Parchman up to constitutional standards. In fact, Defendants, in this very proceeding, have grown indignant in defense of mismanagement at Parchman. Their indignation, however, is grossly misplaced. Consider the conclusions of nationally renowned experts in the field of prison administration, healthcare, and hygiene, each of whom has inspected Parchman in the context of this litigation:
Eldon Vail, a former prison warden and administrator with 35 years experience, including 11 years in the top two positions in the Washington State Department of Corrections, states in his report that, “[i]t is not hyperbole to say the conditions at Parchman fall far below anything I have ever seen in any other jurisdiction in this country.” Ex. A, Eldon Vail Expert Report and Addendum, p.36 (“Vail”).
Marc Stern, MD, MPH, who specializes in correctional health care, and who has evaluated approximately 100 jails, prisons, and immigration detention facilities in the United States, writes that, “[t]he health-related conditions I observed at Parchman are the worst conditions I have observed in any U.S. jail, prison, or immigration detention facility in my 20 years working in this field. To say that the Mississippi Department of Corrections warehouses human beings at Parchman would be insulting to proper warehouses. The conditions under which residents exist at Parchman are sub-human and deplorable in a civilized society.” Ex. B, Dr. Marc Stern Expert Report and Addendum, p. 3 (“Stern”).
4 See Website of the Office of the Governor of the State of Mississippi, https://governorreeves.ms.gov/ (linking to https://www.facebook.com/197649153585886/videos/224534535221371/) (last visited June 8, 2020). 5 Id.
- 2 -

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 99 Filed: 06/09/20 3 of 50 PageID #: 1759
Craig Haney, Ph.D., J.D., Distinguished Profession of Psychology at the University of California, Santa Cruz, was a principal researcher in the “Stanford Prison Experiment,” and has published extensively on the psychological effects of confinement on prisoners. Haney states that those in charge of Parchman exhibit “a profound level of neglect and disregard for the prisoners themselves, including gross underfunding of the prison, unprecedented levels of understaffing, an abject failure to maintain a livable physical environment for prisoners, and a systemic disregard for the prisoners’ medical and mental health needs.” Ex. C, Craig Haney, Ph.D., J.D. Expert Report, p. 7 (“Haney”).
Debra Graham, an environmental health specialist and registered dietician, who for 28 years served in the Miami-Dade Corrections and Rehabilitation Department, including two and one-half years as its director of departmental compliance, states that, “[t]he deplorable and inhumane environmental conditions at MSP are putting offenders, staff and visitors at serious risk of harm.” Ex. D, Debra Graham Expert Report and Addendum, p. 23 (“Graham”).
Madeleine LaMarre, a nurse practitioner with nearly 40 years experience in correctional health care and administration, states that “[t]he totality of the conditions in Units 29 and 30 at MSP are so horrific that all inmates should be transferred from these Units within 60 days, and these Units should be permanently closed.” Ex. E, Madeline LaMarre Expert Report, p. 26 (“LaMarre”).
Given the foregoing, it is quite unreasonable – indeed, beyond the pale – to believe that Parchman’s deplorable, unconstitutional conditions, which are so obvious to even occasional observers like Governor Tate Reeves, Eldon Vail, Marc Stern, Craig Haney, Debra Graham, and Madeleine LaMarre, are anything but well-known, open, and obvious to Defendants. Yet, Defendants have turned a blind eye and a callous heart toward the unconstitutional and
- 3 -

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 99 Filed: 06/09/20 4 of 50 PageID #: 1760
dangerous conditions, and human suffering, at Parchman. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to emergency injunctive relief.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Class-Action Complaint in this action on January 28, 2020.6 Shortly thereafter, in response to deadly and dangerous conditions at Parchman, Plaintiffs sought emergency injunctive relief. [Doc. #13]. The Court directed the parties to engage in limited discovery and supplement the record with evidence relating to the conditions at Parchman. [Doc. ## 31, 48, 55]. This Memorandum is the product of that limited discovery effort and contains, as evidentiary support, six expert reports, sworn inmate declarations, numerous photographs of conditions inside Parchman, MDOC’s own documents, and medical records of Plaintiffs. Importantly, during the evidentiary period granted by the Court, Defendants have transferred (likely temporarily) from Parchman some 24 of the 33 named Plaintiffs. Of course, this necessarily narrows the scope of this motion, which, under applicable standards, is designed to prevent Named Plaintiffs from suffering immediate, irreparable harm.7 Accordingly, Plaintiffs have included as exhibits to the Motion, and have cited in this Memorandum, a second, more recent declaration from each of the following named Plaintiffs who remain housed in Parchman: Aric Johnson, Phillip Webster, Kuriaki Riley, and Justin James. Each of these four named Plaintiffs currently suffers from emergent, unconstitutional conditions at Parchman. Defendants are, and have been, aware of these deficiencies for some time, yet have failed to act. Therefore, these Plaintiffs are entitled to immediate injunctive relief.
6 See Doc. #22 (seeking injunctive relief, costs/expenses). Demand for a jury trial was withdrawn. Doc. #51. 7 Defendants have previously noted that, as is typical in cases of this nature, the putative class has not yet been certified. See e.g. Doc. #93 at 2. Plaintiffs have been following the guidelines set forth at the last in-person hearing in this matter, but are ready to move forward with pre-class certification discovery pursuant to FRCP 26.
- 4 -

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 99 Filed: 06/09/20 5 of 50 PageID #: 1761
LEGAL STANDARD A. TRO/Preliminary Injunction Plaintiffs are entitled to a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction upon the following showing: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a substantial threat that the movant will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is denied; (3) that the threatened injury outweighs any damage that the injunction might cause the defendant; and (4) that the injunction will not disserve the public interest. Jackson Women’s Health Org. v. Currier, 760 F.3d 448, 452 (quoting Hoover v. Morales, 164 F.3d 221, 224 (5th Cir. 1998)). Clark v. Pritchard, 812 F.2d 991, 993 (5th Cir. 1987). As the merits of this case will be decided under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, an analysis of its requirements are appropriate, as well. B. Eighth Amendment The Eighth Amendment bans cruel and unusual punishment. This prohibition includes “inherently barbaric punishments under all circumstances.” Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 58 (2010) (citing Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (2002)). The conditions of confinement in prisons are subject to this prohibition. Thus, prison officials are constitutionally mandated to ensure that conditions of confinement meet inmates’ basic needs and rights. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994). “A prison that deprives prisoners of basic sustenance, including adequate medical care, … is incompatible with the concept of human dignity and has no place in civilized society.” Brown v. Plata, 563 U.S. 493, 511 (2011). The Eighth Amendment, at an absolute minimum, requires “humane conditions of confinement,” including “adequate food, clothing,
- 5 -

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 99 Filed: 06/09/20 6 of 50 PageID #: 1762
shelter, and medical care . . . [as well as] ‘reasonable measures to guarantee the safety of the inmates.’” Id. (quoting Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 526-27 (1984)).8
The Eighth Amendment standard carries two requirements:9 First, the deprivation complained of must be “sufficiently serious” that it denies inmates “the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities.” Palmer v. Johnson, 193 F.3d 346, 352 (5th Cir. 1999) (quoting Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834). In order to satisfy this prong, Plaintiffs may rely on the collective conditions of confinement in order to provide the Court will full context. See, e.g., Gates v. Cook, 376 F.3d 323, 333 (5th Cir. 2004) (noting that conditions with a “mutually enforcing effect” may establish an Eight Amendment violation in combination.) (citing Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 304 (1991); Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 686-87 (1978)). Moreover, any substantial risk of harm is sufficient regardless of whether it is actually occurring. See, e.g., Watkins v. Monroe, No. 6:18-CV-347, 2019 WL 2246850, at *7 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 12, 2019) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 103-06 (1976)). As the Supreme Court has noted, “[i]t would be odd to deny an injunction to inmates who plainly proved an unsafe, life-threatening condition in their prison on the ground that nothing yet had happened to them.” Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 33 (1993).
Second, prison officials must be shown to have acted with “deliberate indifference to inmate health or safety.” Id. In order to prove “deliberate indifference,” the evidence must show that the prison officials “(1) were aware of facts from which an inference of an excessive risk to
8 The Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment applies to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment. State of Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. Resweber, 329 U.S. 459, 463 (1947). 9 Named Plaintiffs have attempted to submit grievances pursuant to Parchman’s Administrative Relief Program (“ARP”), but to no avail. Ex. G. This is because the ARP at Parchman mirrors much of the rest of the prison; it is non-functioning. This lack of any meaningful administrative relief option for named Plaintiffs is noted both by Eldon Vail and Madeleine LaMarre. “The Administrative Relief Program at MSP is broken. LaMarre Report, Ex. E at 26. “[F]or all intents and purposes, Plaintiffs have no available avenue to grieve health concerns and the conditions of confinement.” Id. “This system is a dead end providing these plaintiffs with no possibility of relief.” Id. “Grievance forms are often not available and complaints that do get filed rarely receive a response.” Vail Report, Para. 124.
- 6 -

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 99 Filed: 06/09/20 7 of 50 PageID #: 1763
the prisoner’s health or safety could be drawn and (2) that they actually drew an inference that such potential for harm existed.” Id. (quoting Bradley v. Puckett, 157 F.3d 1022, 1025 (5th Cir. 1998)). Subjective knowledge can be proven by inference from circumstantial evidence; in other words, subjective knowledge is proven if the facts show that the risk of harm was obvious. Hinojosa v. Livingston, 807 F.3d 657, 665 (5th Cir. 2015) (citing Farmer, 511 U.S. at 842-43) (holding that violations that are “longstanding, pervasive, well-documented, or expressly noted by prison officials in the past,” are sufficient to show that a prison official “must have known about” the deficient condition). Moreover, demonstrating that Defendants have known about the substantial risk of harm, but have not changed their practices, is a clear manner in which their deliberate indifference can be proven. See Doc. #79 at 21 (citing Hernandez v. County of Monterey, 110 F. Supp. 3d 929, 943 (N.D. Cal. 2015). When Defendants “continue[] to turn a blind eye to severe violations of inmates’ constitutional rights – despite having received notice of such violations – a rational fact finder may properly infer the existence of a previous policy or custom of deliberate indifference.” Henry v. County of Shasta, 137 F. 3d 1372, 1372 (9th Cir. 1998) (amending prior opinion at 132 F.3d 512, 519 (9th Cir. 1997)); see also Hernandez, 110 F. Supp. 3d at 943.
ARGUMENT A. PLAINTIFFS ARE LIKELY TO SUCCEED ON THE MERITS OF THEIR CLAIMS
1. Lack of Basic Safety and Protection from Violence/Lack of Security The conditions of confinement at Parchman fail to provide Plaintiffs basic security and protection from violence. No statistic bears out this allegation more clearly than the 2020 death
- 7 -

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 99 Filed: 06/09/20 8 of 50 PageID #: 1764
rate at Parchman. At least 23 people incarcerated at Parchman have died this year.10 According to Eldon Vail, “[t]his is an extraordinary rate of death in such a short amount of time . . . far beyond anything I have seen or experienced in my forty-plus years of working in corrections.” Vail Report, ¶ 14. But sadly, violence is a part of everyday life at Parchman. Plaintiffs testify by sworn declarations that guards ignore inmate violence, at best, and often encourage or actively participate in the violence.
For example, Plaintiff Willie Friend testifies that in late December 2019, a guard allowed an inmate affiliated with a gang to open the cell of another inmate, Walter Gates, and stab him. Ex. G, Friend Dec., ¶ 5-6, P000044. Plaintiff William Green has personally witnessed murders at Parchman, and he testifies that when inmates fight, guards intentionally delay their response. Ex. G, Green Dec., ¶ 8-9, P000059. “Many Prisoners reported seeing staff actively involved in mistreating and abusing Prisoners.” Haney, ¶ 25. Plaintiff Deaunte Lewis testifies that he was stabbed approximately 10 times by other inmates, but guards did nothing to stop the assault and he received no medical care for four hours. Ex. G, Lewis Dec., ¶ 8, P000148. Lewis’ friend was murdered in the same incident. Id. Plaintiff Daniel Guthrie was stabbed in 2017 and promptly was returned to his cell by guards and locked inside with the same inmate who stabbed him. Ex. G, Guthrie Dec., ¶ 6, P000080. Plaintiff Adrian Willard likewise testifies that guards have helped inmates access other inmates’ cells, and when he has needed help from prison staff, he has gone unassisted. Ex. G, Willard Dec., ¶ 5, P000302. Willard once witnessed another inmate being stabbed at least a dozen times; the inmate who was stabbed was assisted by other prisoners rather than prison staff. Id.
Parchman’s endemic violence results, or at least is furthered by, critical understaffing in the housing units where Plaintiffs live. Staffing levels at Parchman range on the high side from
10 See supra fn. 3.
- 8 -

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 99 Filed: 06/09/20 9 of 50 PageID #: 1765
three or four guards per 150 inmates in Units 29-I (Ex. G, Buckner Dec., ¶ 6, P000026), to as few as one guard per 140 or 160 inmates in Units 29-K and 29-G respectively (Ex. G, Moore Dec., ¶ 6, P000187; Ex. G, Pam Dec., ¶ 6, P000196; Ex. G, D. Taylor Dec., ¶ 6, P000245), and two guards for some 240 inmates in Unit 26 (Ex. G, Thomas Dec., ¶ 6, P000262).
Plaintiff Derrick Pam testifies in his sworn declaration that guards were completely absent from his living area for a day and a half in December 2019, and (apparently are absent regularly) during holidays. Ex. G, Pam Dec., ¶ 8, P000196. “The lack of even remotely adequate staffing has led to unbelievably lax security practices.” Haney, ¶ 28. The result is that “corrections staff and prisoners alike are afraid, prisoners are not properly supervised, and the facility has devolved to ceding the authority of correctional officers to some prisoners who are often powerful gang leaders.” Vail, ¶ 16. As Vail noted,
“Twenty-eight of the [33] plaintiffs were asked about how the zones that they lived in were supervised, how many officers were assigned, where the officers were stationed and how often they actually came into the zones in Unit 29. Their responses were remarkably consistent with very few deviations. Twenty-six of them reported that there was one officer assigned and that they spent their time in the hallway adjacent to the unit and that they were never in the tower. Two of the named plaintiffs said there were two officers assigned but they were never in the tower either. When asked about how often officers actually came into the zone, the overwhelming report was only for counts and to escort the nurse for pill call.” Vail, ¶ 62. Craig Haney’s interviews with Plaintiffs produced similar results. “Prisoners reported that there are very few correctional officers working in the housing units. As a result, they [the prisoners] are left to fend for themselves at multiple levels in multiple ways, including washing their own clothes in the sinks of their cells and cutting each other’s hair with the razors and combs they are allowed to have. Even more importantly, significant understaffing means that the officers rarely check directly on the Prisoners. In fact, there are so few correctional officers that they cannot respond to emergencies in a timely manner.” Haney, ¶ 26.
- 9 -

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 99 Filed: 06/09/20 10 of 50 PageID #: 1766
Plaintiff Pam describes instances when guards refused to take action to prevent inmate on inmate violence even when they were warned that violence was about to occur. Ex. G, Pam Dec. ¶ 8, P000196. Most troubling in Pam’s account is the implication that guards are affiliated with gangs, an allegation that is corroborated by Friend’s testimony that guards have let gang members into the locked cells of rival gang members in order to perpetrate violence.11 “Many Prisoners reported seeing staff actively involved in mistreating and abusing Prisoners.” Haney, ¶ 25. “Plaintiffs report that some correctional officers are sexually involved and/or aligned with gang-affiliated inmates and provide weapons and special access to these inmates to allow them to harm other, rival gang-affiliated inmates.” LaMarre, p. 6. Prison officials often house prisoners with different gang affiliations in the same area, which is an invitation to violence. D. Taylor Dec., ¶ 9, P000246.
On some occasions, guards have been absent from entire buildings altogether. See Ex. G, Thomas Dec., ¶ 6, P000262 (stating that he did not see a single guard in Unit 26 between December 22nd – 27th). Cameras are not always functional, making it even more unlikely that officials can respond to inmate violence in a timely or effective manner. Id., ¶ 9, P000263; Ex. G, Ham Dec., ¶ 1, P000086. Vail states that “[n]ot regularly entering the zones in Parchman to do security checks (which are different than counts) in Unit 29 is a significant problem. Vail, ¶ 86. “Prisoners in Unit 29 are classified as high security prisoners. You cannot adequately supervise such prisoners from the hallway. It is bizarre and unexplained why the towers in these units are not staffed.” Vail, ¶ 63.
The grossly understaffed and inadequate security at Parchman is, by any measure, sufficiently serious to establish the first element of an Eighth Amendment violation: Plaintiffs
11 Id. ¶ 27, P000200; see also Website of the Office of the Governor of the State of Mississippi, https://governorreeves.ms.gov/ (linking to https://www.facebook.com/197649153585886/videos/2610318775913021/) (last visited June 8, 2020).
- 10 -

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 99 Filed: 06/09/20 11 of 50 PageID #: 1767
are certainly “incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial risk of serious harm.” Farmer, 511 at 834. Indeed, Vail states that security at Parchman “has deteriorated to the point where a shotgun is taken to the units [by prison officials entering the units], teeth are getting knocked out, dogs are being used and floorwalkers [certain inmates with authority] are using force with the approval of correctional officers. This is far beyond what I have seen in other prisons in my role as a correctional consultant and expert and I have inspected many troubled prisons.” Vail, ¶ 105.
The conditions at Parchman satisfy the “deliberate indifference” requirement of the Eighth Amendment, as well. As noted supra, Plaintiffs can make the necessary showing of Defendants’ subjective state of mind through objective facts – such as violations that are “longstanding, pervasive, well-documented” – which show that Defendants must have known of the problem. See, e.g., Hinojosa v. Livingston, 807 F.3d 657, 665 (5th Cir. 2015) (citing Farmer, 511 U.S. at 842-43). It is no defense to a “failure-to-protect” claim that Defendants did not know that the specific complainant was in danger from a specific other inmate. Edmond v. Eaves, 70 F. App’x 159, 160 (5th Cir. July 3, 2003) (per curiam) (quoting Farmer, 511 U.S. at 843). “[I]t does not matter whether the risk comes from a single source or multiple sources, any more than it matters whether a prisoner faces an excessive risk of attack for reasons personal to him or because all prisoners in his situation face such a risk.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 843. In instances where officials are aware of a persistent, serious threat to inmate security, “it would obviously be irrelevant to liability that the officials could not guess beforehand precisely who would attack whom.” Id. Defendants’ indifference to the climate of violence at Parchman is sufficient. Indeed, where Plaintiffs are held in an environment “where terror reigns,” i.e. where guards are virtually absent much of the time and violent inmates prey on others with impunity, such incarceration is itself cruel and unusual, and Defendants’ knowledge of that state of affairs alone
- 11 -

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 99 Filed: 06/09/20 12 of 50 PageID #: 1768
will satisfy the subjective prong. See Jones v. Diamond, 636 F.2d 1364, 1373 (5th Cir. 1981), overruled on other grounds by Int’l Woodworkers of Am., AFL-CIO and its Local No. 5-376 v. Champion Int’l Corp., 790 F.2d 1174 (5th Cir. 1986). Given that violent inmates have access to cell keys as a result of gross understaffing, and guards have been unable to stop an unusual series of murders and other acts of violence since the New Year, Parchman deservingly qualifies as a facility “where terror reigns.” Id. Moreover, it is not plausible that Defendants have failed to notice the many deaths and attacks happening on their watch. Defendants undeniably are well aware of the problem, yet have failed, and continue to fail, to take the necessary remedial action; this establishes their deliberate indifference. See, e.g., Wilkins v. Henry, No. 4:17-CV-137-DAS, 2018 WL 3945617 (N.D. Miss. Aug. 16, 2018) (allowing failure-to-protect claim to proceed against Warden Morris, who had known for two to three months that inmates in a zone of Parchman’s Unit 29 had tampered with cell locks so that they did not lock properly, but took no action).
In sum, Plaintiffs live under the constant threat of brutal violence. The risk is not hypothetical. The victimization of Plaintiffs, the deaths they have witnessed assaults they have endured, and the undisputed outbreaks of violence in Unit 29 and elsewhere, show the immediacy and severity of the threat to Plaintiffs at Parchman. In full knowledge of the risk, Defendants have not held guards accountable for neglecting inmate violence, nor have they meaningfully increased staffing, or even taken basic steps to prevent further violence such as fixing broken cameras or ensuring guards stay at their posts. A clearer example of deliberate indifference is difficult to imagine.
2. Plaintiffs Have Been Deprived Adequate Medical Care A prison official violates the Eighth Amendment’s “deliberate indifference” standard when he or she “knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety . . . .”
- 12 -

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 99 Filed: 06/09/20 13 of 50 PageID #: 1769
Easter v. Powell, 467 F.3d 459, 463 (5th Cir. 2006) (quoting Farmer, 511 U.S. at 832). The Supreme Court in Brown v. Plata declared, “[j]ust as a prisoner may starve if not fed, he or she may suffer or die if not provided adequate medical care. A prison that deprives prisoners of basic sustenance, including adequate medical care, is incompatible with the concept of human dignity and has no place in civilized society.” 563 U.S. at 510-11; see also Farmer, 511 U.S. at 832 (the Eighth Amendment requires prison officials to “ensure that inmates receive adequate food, clothing, shelter, and medical care . . . .”). As the Fifth Circuit has noted, this deprivation can take many forms: an inmate has a valid Eighth Amendment claim for inadequate medical treatment if he can show that a defendant official “refused to treat him, ignored his complaints, intentionally treated him incorrectly, or engaged in any similar conduct that would clearly evince a wanton disregard for any serious medical needs.” Easter, 467 F.3d. at 464 (quoting Domino v. Tex. Dep’t of Criminal Justice, 239 F.3d 752, 756 (5th Cir. 2001). The Fifth Circuit has further recognized that an inmate suffering while medical care is withheld qualifies as substantial harm establishing a constitutional violation. See Coleman v. Sweetin, 745 F.3d 756, 765-66 (5th Cir. 2014) (inmate suffered substantial harm due to experiencing severe pain while officials ignored his requests for medical assistance); Easter, 467 F.3d at 465 (inmate with history of cardiac problems suffered substantial harm due to the severe chest pains he suffered during the period of time defendant failed to treat him).
Defendants have denied Plaintiffs urgently needed medical treatment. For instance, Friend, Pam, Ross, and Willard all have sought medical attention and medication that has been denied. Ex. G, Friend Dec., ¶ 24, P000048 (no response in the past month to medical request for broken finger); Ex. G, Pam Dec., ¶ 23-24, P000199 (no nurse in the unit for ten days at time of statement; inmates had to start a fire to get attention after diabetic was denied insulin for three
- 13 -

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 99 Filed: 06/09/20 14 of 50 PageID #: 1770
days; medical help took 24 hours to arrive after guards used rubber bullets on inmates); Ex. G, Ross Dec., ¶ 24, P000233 (denied medication for blood pressure condition during lockdown; denied medication despite filing sick call requests; when stabbed in the head in 2018, was not seen for 45 minutes and waited 90 further minutes for an ambulance); Ex. G, Willard Dec., ¶ 24, P000306 (received delayed attention for major dental issue despite filing sick call requests; personally witnessed inmates suffering a seizure and multiple stabbings without prison staff intervening).
Lewis, after being stabbed repeatedly, did not receive medical care for four hours and his friend died in the same attack. Ex. G, Lewis Dec., ¶ 8, P000147. Other Plaintiffs have testified that nurses deny having any sick call request slips, preventing inmates from formally requesting medical assistance at all. See Ex. G, McKinney Dec., ¶ 24, P000175.
Billy James concisely summarized the problem. When asked, “[h]ow does sick call work?” he answered, “It doesn’t.” Ex. G, B. James Dec., ¶ 45, P000113. “Lack of access to health care is systemic at MSP. Correctional officers repeatedly fail to transport Plaintiffs to health care appointments.
Correctional officer understaffing is one, but not the only, factor in lack of health care access.” LaMarre, p. 6. For emergencies, the already bleak situation is worse. “Plaintiffs reported that COs are rarely, if ever, present in the living unit…. Once the CO is aware that there is a medical emergency in the living unit, they do not always enter the living unit immediately to assess the situation – even though all residents are securely sequestered in their cells – instead waiting, according to two Plaintiffs, 30 to 40 minutes for a supervisor to arrive. Further, once on scene of a medical emergency COs do not automatically notify a health care professional.” Stern, pp. 4-5. “Inmates experiencing acute and life-threatening emergencies are not provided timely
- 14 -

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 99 Filed: 06/09/20 15 of 50 PageID #: 1771
and appropriate emergency care. In some cases, staff did not provide emergency care at all, resulting in inmate deaths.” LaMarre, p. 15.
“Plaintiffs report that when they need urgent medical attention, they are often unable to notify correctional officers due to no officers being stationed within the housing units. Plaintiffs resort to escalating measures including yelling, banging on cell doors, and lighting fires. As just one example, multiple Plaintiffs reported of a diabetic inmate who was not provided insulin for 3 days and inmates set fires in the housing units to summon help. LaMarre, p. 22. Plaintiffs also report setting fires when the water was turned off for 3 days. Plaintiffs sometimes resort to feigning suicide to access care when they feel threatened or lack food.” LaMarre, p. 6. If an inmate is fortunate enough to be transported to the medical unit, the ambulance service is abysmal. “The medical staff utilize three ambulances to transport patients. [Stern] inspected all three ambulances and found them in conditions comparable to decommissioned ambulances … in junk yards ready to be stripped for parts, and definitely not in a state ready to transport sick patients.” Stern, pp. 14. Moreover, the hospital unit itself has, inter alia, poor sanitation, missing medical equipment, and torn examination tables. LaMarre, p. 22. And once an emergency subsides, follow-up care is virtually non-existent. “Medical providers do not provide Plaintiffs timely and appropriate follow-up following urgent events or specialty services.” LaMarre, p. 15.
3. Plaintiffs are Denied Adequate Mental Health Care Meaningful mental health care at Parchman is nonexistent, and its absence is a denial of an Eighth Amendment right. Friend testifies that officials are aware that certain inmates need help, but mental health aid is refused; as a result, his own cellmate hung himself. Ex. G, Friend Dec., ¶ 25, P000048. Timmons testifies that he tied a rope around his neck and told a passing guard that he would jump and hang himself; the guard told him not to, walked away, and never
- 15 -

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 99 Filed: 06/09/20 16 of 50 PageID #: 1772
came back. Ex. G, Timmons Dec., ¶ 25, P000282. Similarly, guards have responded to inmates who express suicidal thoughts with taunts such as “make the rope strong enough.” Ex. G, Pam Dec., ¶ 25, P000200. Johnson testifies that he has “never seen anyone offering those services”— i.e. no mental health services whatsoever. Ex. G, Johnson Dec., ¶ 7, P000137. Riley testifies that, although he was able to see a psychiatric specialist after a two-week wait, he was denied his request for medication that would help him sleep, and six months after his request, no one has bothered to check on him. Ex. G, Riley Dec., ¶ 6, P000207. Finally, as with homicides at Parchman, the sheer number of suicides at Parchman is undeniable evidence that inmates who require mental health care are unable to obtain it. Plaintiffs, through the foregoing testimony, have established the “serious harm” requirement of the first prong of an Eighth Amendment claim for failure to provide medical care.
The second prong, deliberate indifference, is again established by the longstanding, pervasive, and obvious nature of the problem. Under the circumstances, Defendants cannot disclaim knowledge of comprehensive flaws in the medical systems at Parchman. See Gates v. Cook, 376 F.3d 323, 342-43 (5th Cir. 2004) (affirming injunction to alleviate inadequate mental health care at Parchman, noting deficiencies including “that prisoners seldom see medical staff and that monitoring of medication was sporadic,” and holding that “the obvious and pervasive nature of these conditions supports [the district court’s finding of] deliberate indifference”). Despite knowing of the serious hazards that lack of medical attention poses to inmates with medical conditions — ranging from those with chronic conditions requiring consistent treatment (see, e.g., Ex. G, Riley Dec., ¶ 6, P000207) to those who receive untimely or no care for lifethreatening wounds (see, e.g., Ex. G, Lewis Dec., ¶ 8, P000147) — Defendants have not acted to remedy the glaring deficiencies in Parchman’s medical capabilities.
- 16 -

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 99 Filed: 06/09/20 17 of 50 PageID #: 1773
Accordingly, Plaintiffs have demonstrated that Defendants are deliberately indifferent to the serious risks that inadequate medical care poses to Plaintiffs. Thus, Plaintiffs are likely to prevail on the merits of their constitutional claim for inadequate medical care.
4. Defendants Fail to Provide Adequate Food and Water The Eighth Amendment requires prison officials to furnish adequate food to sustain prisoners’ health. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 832 (“prison officials must ensure that inmates receive adequate food . . . .”). Indeed, deprivation of adequate food has long been recognized as a form of corporal punishment. See Gates v. Collier, 501 F.2d 1291, 1306 (5th Cir. 1974) (holding that “[u]nquestionably, the district court correctly enjoined” numerous corporal punishment practices used by Parchman officials, including “depriving inmates of . . . adequate food . . . .”). The Eighth Amendment sets standards for not only the quantity, but the substance of food: at a minimum, inmates are entitled to “well-balanced meal[s], containing sufficient nutritional value to preserve health . . . .” Smith v. Sullivan, 553 F.2d 373, 379-80 (5th Cir. 1977). Defendants have violated this constitutional requirement in several ways. First, Plaintiffs testify repeatedly that they often are denied meals. Rogers testifies that he is aware of “many occasions” when food was not given to the prisoners at all, and this testimony is echoed by other Plaintiffs. See, e.g., Ex. G, Rogers Dec., ¶ 11, P000222; Ross Dec., ¶ 11, P000231; D. Taylor Dec., ¶ 11, P000247; Thomas Dec., ¶ 11, P000264 (specifying 17 occasions); Varnado Dec., ¶ 2, P000286. Gayles testifies that meals were missed between January 14 and January 18, 2020. Ex. G, Gayles Dec., ¶ 13, P000053. Friend cites “numerous” occasions when meals have been missed since January 1, 2020. Ex. G, Friend Dec., ¶ 11, P000046. Plaintiffs recognize that an occasional missed meal does not rise to the level of a constitutional deprivation. However, when Plaintiffs testify that they are denied food entirely on
- 17 -

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 99 Filed: 06/09/20 18 of 50 PageID #: 1774
“many” occasions over a matter of months, the deprivation becomes systematic, not sporadic. The Eighth Amendment does not permit such systematic failure.
Second, Plaintiffs testify consistently that the food at Parchman is often inedible. This does not mean the food is merely unpalatable, but rather it is contaminated with animal or insect feces or it is raw and therefore unsafe to eat. See, e.g., Ex. G, Amos Dec., ¶ 12, P000004 (food left exposed to rats); Brister Dec., ¶ 11, P000019 (food served uncooked or not defrosted); Green Dec., ¶ 12, P000060 (rat droppings on food tray, cockroaches crawling on food); Green Dec., ¶ 10-11, P000067 (rocks and bird feces in food); Guthrie Dec., ¶ 2-4, P000078-80 (rocks, grasshopper parts, animal excrement in food; “I wouldn’t feed it to a dog”); Ham Dec., ¶ 2, P000087 (rocks and insects in food, which is “consistently cold and spoiled”); Hardy Dec., ¶ 9, P000094 (bird droppings in food); J. James Dec., ¶ 2, P000117 (food “always comes cold,” rat and bird feces found in food); Q. Johnson Dec., ¶ 2, P000134 (rat and bird feces in food, as well as rocks). It is no exaggeration to say that the food at Parchman, as described by Plaintiffs, is unfit for human consumption.
Third, the food system at Parchman fails its basic purpose of keeping inmates healthy. The Constitution entitles inmates not merely sustenance, but food of sufficient quantity and quality to preserve reasonable health. The food Plaintiffs are given—tainted by animal feces, spoiled, and raw—is unhealthy by definition. As a result of eating contaminated food, Plaintiffs have suffered adverse effects on their health. Taylor testified that he vomited for days from apparent food poisoning. Ex. G, D. Taylor Dec., ¶ 10-12, P000246-47. Many of the Plaintiffs have lost significant amounts of weight, a clear testament to the inadequacy of their diet. See, e.g., Ex. G, Wilson Dec., ¶ 24, P000322 (lost sixty pounds since September 2019); Scott Dec., ¶ 9, P000238 (lost forty pounds since August 2019); Friend Dec., ¶ 24, P000048 (lost thirty
- 18 -

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 99 Filed: 06/09/20 19 of 50 PageID #: 1775
pounds since incarceration in 2018); Gayles Dec., ¶ 14, P000053 (lost twenty-three pounds since incarceration in 2019).
The deficiencies originate in the kitchens at Parchman, which “lack adherence to standard food safety practices, because of missing floor tiles, lack of chemical control, bathrooms that are not stocked properly for appropriate and adequate hand hygiene, missing ceiling tiles and ceilings in disrepair, standing water on the floors, and improper hot holding temperatures of food items on the steamtable. All of these issues are security and/or food safety and Food Code violations.” Graham, p. 24. In short, Defendants are failing to provide inmates with safe, edible food with sufficient nutrition to keep them reasonably healthy, as the Constitution requires.
Water, likewise, is a basic need of human life, and failing to provide adequate water to inmates is thus a denial of the “minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities,” violating the Eighth Amendment. Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991) (quoting Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981)). The Constitution requires that inmates have access to clean water that is not toxic. Cole v. Livingston, No. 4:14-CV-1698, 2016 WL 3406439, at *7-8 (S.D. Tex. June 21, 2016) (granting preliminary injunction requiring prison officials to provide inmates water consistent with EPA standards), appeal vacated as moot due to automatic expiration of preliminary injunction, sub nom. Yates v. Collier, 677 F. App’x 915 (5th Cir. Jan. 30, 2017); see also Roberts v. Williams, 456 F.2d 819, 827 (5th Cir. 1971) (stating that if prison administrators allowed drinking water to become contaminated with typhoid bacteria over time, it could be cruel and unusual).
At Parchman, Defendants have failed to make safe, drinkable water available to Plaintiffs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. First, often there is no running water at all. Green testified that as of January 23, 2020, he already had endured ten days since the New Year in
- 19 -

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 99 Filed: 06/09/20 20 of 50 PageID #: 1776
which there was no running water in his cell. Ex. G, Green Dec., ¶ 13, P000060. Hardy experienced seven consecutive days without running water. Ex. G, Hardy Dec., ¶ 12, P000095. Friend stated that in the two and a half weeks before he gave his declaration, running water was shut off for all, or nearly all, of that period. Ex. G, Friend Dec., ¶ 13, P000046. Moreover, when water is available, it appears to be contaminated. Plaintiffs repeatedly testify that the water is brown in color and has an unpleasant aroma and taste. Plaintiffs believe the water at Parchman is tainted with sewage, based on the color and odor, as well as the fact that Parchman’s sewage system is in a severe state of disrepair. See, e.g., Ex. G, Scott Dec., ¶ 11, P000239; Riley Dec., ¶ 3, P000205; Pam Dec., ¶ 3, P000197.
A guard told Plaintiff Ham not to drink the water, saying it was contaminated with lead. Ex. G, Ham Dec., ¶ 3, P000085. Edwards in his report confirms the guard’s warning to Ham, stating there is “evidence the drinking water quality at the prison has been compromised in the past two years with contaminants, such as lead and bacteria, both of which are regulated by the MSDH as harmful to human health in drinking water.” Edwards, p. 16. Showing their knowledge of this ongoing contamination, MDOC received an email on December 22, 2017, from MSDH stating “that lead was detected above the action level in ten samples for the 2015 to 2017 three year monitoring period.” Edwards, p. 4. Edwards agrees there is a “historical pattern of noncompliance [with] MSDH regulations regarding providing the prison with safe drinking water and safe management of raw, sanitary sewage. The evidence indicates complacency/neglect/noncommitment to address these issues in a timely manner to protect human health.” Edwards, p. 16. Tests at Parchman by Frank Edwards also reveal “[t]otal Coliform detected in drinking water samples above the Safe Drinking Water Act’s acceptable level for human consumption on multiple occasions.” Edwards, p. 4.
- 20 -

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 99 Filed: 06/09/20 21 of 50 PageID #: 1777
The Eighth Amendment does not allow Defendants to cut off the water supply to Plaintiffs, or to permit the drinking water to be contaminated with sewage and toxins. Stated simply, the Eighth Amendment entitles Plaintiffs to water that will not make them sick. Poisonous substances in the drinking water that repeatedly fail State-required testing compels the conclusion that Defendants are, and have been, fully aware of this problem. Yet, they have done nothing. This denial over time of safe food and water constitutes deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs’ rights and subjects them to an unreasonable risk of serious harm. Consequently, Plaintiffs have established a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their Eighth Amendment claim for denial of adequate, safe food and water.
5. Defendants Fail to Provide Adequate Sanitation and Hygiene As the Fifth Circuit and other courts have long recognized, failure to provide inmates with adequate sanitation and hygiene constitutes an Eighth Amendment violation. See, e.g., Gates v. Cook, 376 F.3d 323, 341 (5th Cir. 2004) (affirming district court’s injunction requiring Parchman officials to repair toilets that consistently overflowed, spilling raw waste into cells); Palmer v. Johnson, 193 F.3d 346, 352 (5th Cir. 1999) (noting that the Fifth Circuit has previously determined that “the deprivation of basic elements of hygiene” is sufficiently “base, inhumane, and barbaric” that it violates the Eighth Amendment) (quoting Novak v. Beto, 453 F.2d 661, 665 (5th Cir. 1971)); see also Bradley v. Puckett, 157 F.3d 1022 (5th Cir. 1998) (finding that allegations that a disabled inmate had to bathe using toilet water because he was denied a shower chair were sufficient to state a claim for an Eighth Amendment violation). Not surprisingly, exposure to sewage and waste not only violates the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual physical conditions, but also offends the Eighth Amendment’s protection of human dignity. See Despain v. Uphoff, 264 F.3d 965, 974 (10th Cir. 2001) (finding that exposure to human waste “evokes both the health concerns emphasized in
- 21 -

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 99 Filed: 06/09/20 22 of 50 PageID #: 1778
Farmer and the more general standards of dignity embodied in the Eighth Amendment.”); see also Plata, 563 at 510 (“Prisoners retain the essence of human dignity inherent in all persons. Respect for that dignity animates the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.”). The Fifth Circuit has repeatedly held that cells that are continually filthy, including due to human waste, are unconstitutional. See Gates, 376 F.3d at 338; Harper v. Showers, 174 F.3d 716, 716 (5th Cir. 1999).
Defendants have utterly failed to maintain Parchman’s plumbing and sewage systems, and as a result, Plaintiffs are routinely exposed to raw sewage, sometimes for weeks at a time. Ex. G, Ross Dec., ¶ 14, P000231 (sewage on the floor on “many” occasions since 2018); Friend Dec., ¶ 14, P000046 (sewage on the floor every day for a month); Amos Dec., ¶ 14, P000004 (sewage on the floor “nearly every day for the past six weeks”); Ham Dec., ¶, 3, P000088 (toilets in Unit 29-C “were constantly overflowing,” spilling raw sewage). The exposure to sewage can occur because of overflow in cell toilets, or because toilets will not flush. See Ex. G, Q. Johnson Dec., ¶ 19, P000142 (stating that the toilets in Unit 29 do not work); Willard Dec., ¶ 19, P000312 (toilets back up when water is shut off); Scott Dec., ¶ 5, P000213 (Plaintiff’s toilet backs up whenever the toilet in a neighboring cell is flushed). Indeed, some Plaintiffs testify that sewage in their cells has been a daily reality as long as they can remember. See, e.g., Ex. G, Pam Dec., ¶ 14, P000197 (Plaintiff observed sewage on the floor every day for eight months); B. James Dec., ¶ 14, P000103 (sewage exposure “always,” since “forever”); Thomas Dec., ¶ 14, P000264 (sewage on the floor on “countless” occasions since incarceration in January 2018).
Upon inspection, Eldon Vail “found even worse conditions in Unit 32 than … in 29H, Bzone. In Unit 32 there was clearly visible mold, cell windows that could not be controlled and were either stuck open or shut, as well as severe problems with toilets and sinks. In the three
- 22 -

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 99 Filed: 06/09/20 23 of 50 PageID #: 1779
zones I inspected, which had sixteen cells in each, the most striking and disgusting evidence were how many toilets remained full of feces or toilets that were sealed so they could not be used. The smell of feces in the unit was overwhelming. In one of the zones fourteen of the toilets were in such shape.” Vail, ¶ 30. “Plumbing issues are so pervasive that there is a serious risk to health of offenders and staff.” Graham, p. 18.
Notwithstanding foul conditions, inmates are frequently denied cleaning supplies that might allow them to disinfect their cells and alleviate some of the health risks associated with exposure to raw sewage. See, e.g., Ex. G, Riley Dec., ¶ 3, P000205 (inmates have to clean themselves, but are not given cleaning supplies); Q. Johnson Dec., ¶ 26, P000143 (cleaning supplies never provided in the two years of Plaintiff’s experience); McKinney Dec., ¶ 20, P000182 (if toilets overflow, inmates clean it themselves, but “w/no chemicals”). Kevin Thomas testified that inmates had gone weeks without even being given toilet paper. Ex. G, Thomas Dec., ¶ 14, P000264.
In a similar vein, Parchman’s laundry service is deficient, at best, and most often nonfunctional, which forces inmates to wash their clothes in the sink, when it is working, and in the toilet, when it is not. Ex. G, Scott Dec., ¶ 13, P000239 (Plaintiff has never been permitted to launder his clothes other than in his cell); Hardy Dec., ¶ 13, P000093 (same) see also Maxwell Dec., ¶ 18, P000165 (stating that Plaintiff must wash clothes in toilet); McKinney Dec., ¶ 18, P000181 (same).
According to Vail, it is “a common complaint in the interviews and affirmations of the named plaintiffs … that cleaning supplies, including sufficient supplies of cleaning chemicals and cleaning equipment are not made available for the prisoner population in order for them to maintain an adequate level of cleanliness in their individual cells. It is reported in those same
- 23 -

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 99 Filed: 06/09/20 24 of 50 PageID #: 1780
documents that the floors outside of the cells of the unit are sometimes swept but rarely, if ever, mopped. The result is the accumulated filth that I witnessed in my inspection of this zone. It is generally unhealthy for the prisoners confined in such an environment and sends a powerful message to the prisoners about the prison administrations concern for their health and welfare.” Vail, ¶ 26.
Numerous Plaintiffs also have been denied showers for long periods of time, despite the highly unsanitary conditions in their cells. See, e.g., Ex. G, Ham Dec., ¶ 3, P000088 (Plaintiff was not allowed to shower between December 27 and January 20); Hardy Dec., ¶ 12, P000095 (Plaintiff was denied a shower between Thanksgiving and January 27); B. James Dec., ¶ 15, P000103 (Plaintiff had last been allowed to shower on December 25). This deprivation is pernicious in several respects: it worsens the health risks caused by exposure to sewage; it forces inmates to use toilet water for bathing if their sink is not working, risking further exposure to waste; it can aggravate or cause medical conditions in itself, such as skin disorders or infections; and it dehumanizes and humiliates inmates in violation of the Eighth Amendment’s protection of human dignity.
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ Eighth Amendment claim based on inadequate sanitation and hygiene is highly likely to succeed on the merits. What Plaintiffs experience is far beyond mere discomfort or unsightliness, and courts have routinely held that persistent denial of hygiene is by no means a minor inconvenience. For instance, the Third Circuit has stated that “it would be an abomination of the Constitution” to force a prisoner to live surrounded by his waste for even four days. Young v. Quinlan, 960 F.2d 351, 365 (3d Cir. 1992). Indeed, this Court, in declining to find an Eighth Amendment violation based on filthy conditions over a period of a few days, has cautioned that holding inmates in such conditions for “weeks or months”—as
- 24 -

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 99 Filed: 06/09/20 25 of 50 PageID #: 1781
Plaintiffs have endured—would violate the Constitution. Anderson v. Morris, No. 4:16-CV-101DMB-JMV, 2017 WL 9565839, at *11 (N.D. Miss. July 18, 2017).
Defendants know full well the abysmal condition of sanitation at Parchman. In fact, Defendants have been ordered to fix these very same problems in the past. In particular, Gates v. Cook dealt extensively with sewage exposure, and the Fifth Circuit not only upheld the district court’s injunction requiring MDOC to repair the “ping-pong toilets” in Parchman’s Unit 32-C — toilets that overflow whenever a neighboring toilet is flushed — but also noted the health risks of exposure to human waste. 376 F.3d at 341 (5th Cir. 2004). Further, despite MDOC’s argument that it was working on the problem and therefore not deliberately indifferent, the Court noted that the broken plumbing persisted for more than a decade despite repeated warnings from health officials, and that courts have repeatedly cautioned that exposure to human waste poses serious constitutional problems. Id. Plaintiffs in their testimony are clear that these problems are not new or isolated: they are longstanding realities of life at Parchman. Under the circumstances, Defendants cannot effectively deny knowledge of the lack of hygiene suffered by Plaintiffs.
In sum, Plaintiffs’ testimony shows that inadequate hygiene – including not only exposure to raw sewage, but also denial of cleaning supplies, showers, and clean laundry – are longstanding and pervasive problems that Defendants most certainly are aware of; indeed, MDOC has been on actual notice for years of these problems and the attendant health risks. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have shown both deliberate indifference to the inadequate hygiene conditions at Parchman, and a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of this Eighth Amendment claim.
6. Defendants Have Pervasive Structural Deficiencies in the Facilities As noted supra, Defendants bear a general obligation to ensure inmates’ safety. Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 33 (1993) (quoting Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 315-16
- 25 -

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 99 Filed: 06/09/20 26 of 50 PageID #: 1782
(1982)). When the spaces in which inmates are held move beyond uncomfortable into dangerous and harmful, the Eighth Amendment requires action. See, e.g., Ball v. LeBlanc, 792 F.3d 584, 592 (5th Cir. 2015) (stating that “[e]xtreme cell temperatures . . . can violate the Eighth Amendment” and finding Eighth Amendment violation based on excessively hot temperatures in cells); Beck v. Lynaugh, 842 F.2d 759, 761 (5th Cir. 1988) (finding that prisoners stated valid Eighth Amendment claim for detention over the winter in cells missing window panes, without blankets or coats); Gates v. Collier, 501 F.2d 1291, 1299-1303 (5th Cir. 1974) (finding that plaintiffs prevailed on Eighth Amendment claim of unsafe prison conditions at Parchman, including frayed and exposed electric wiring, inadequate firefighting capabilities, inadequate support systems such as kitchens and bathrooms, and general disrepair of facilities).
Plaintiffs almost uniformly testify that mold exists in their living spaces, including in showers and the walls of the building. See, e.g., Ex. G, Amos Dec., ¶ 20, P000005; Ham Dec., ¶ 5, P000089; Thomas Dec., ¶ 20, P000265; Timmons Dec., ¶ 18, P000280; Varnado Dec., ¶ 5, P000288; Webster Dec., ¶ 20, P000296; Willard Dec., ¶ 20, P000305. According to Dr. Stern, “[m]old is ubiquitous in the living areas of Parchman residents. I observed it on the ceilings over their heads and on the walls next to where they sleep.” Stern, p. 15. Frank Edwards confirms this in his report stating, “[t]he FLIR imagery was captured in Unit 29 (buildings B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, K, L), Unit 30 (buildings A, B, C, D), and Unit 32, and depicts numerous locations within each building indicative of moisture accumulation causing mold growth. The FLIR imagery is documented in the photographic log included as Appendix D. The FLIR thermal imagery results were further validated by first hand observations of water leaks within the buildings and structure staining indicative of mold, as discussed below.” Edwards, p. 15.
- 26 -

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 99 Filed: 06/09/20 27 of 50 PageID #: 1783
The mold in the cells at Parchman is most likely a direct consequence of the many leaks: numerous Plaintiffs testify that water leaks into their cells when it rains. See Ex. G, Friend Dec., ¶ 18, P000047; L. Taylor Dec., ¶ 5, P000257; Webster Dec., ¶ 18, P000296. According to Stern’s inspection, “[t]he buildings at Parchman are best described as sieves. Pools of standing water were on the floors of hallways and many cells. As I toured the facility, water dripped on my head. Water soaked through to my socks. Residents pointed out where rainwater was dripping on their beds. Apart from the stress this causes and the risk to health of not being dry when one has an infectious illness, the standing water poses a risk of slips and falls as well as a risk of electricity-induced injury.” Stern, p. 16. “Multiple areas were found with active leaking from the roof, walls, pipe chases (water closets), and excessive amounts of standing water were observed on the floors and wet towels about the areas. All of these instances promote the growth of bacteria and mold, both of which are capable of causing adverse health issues. Mold growths were observed in numerous areas within buildings and housing areas.” Graham, p. 16. “Water is permitted to stand on floors in cells and dayrooms for extended periods of time. Leaks are remedied by stuffing a towel under doors, along walls, in drain holes of pipe chases (water closets), and spread on floors to absorb water, all very unsanitary practices.” Graham, p. 18. The effects on Plaintiffs of leaks and water intrusion into the cells are worsened by the absence of heat. See Ex. G, Willard Dec., ¶ 18, P000305; Amos Dec., ¶ 18, P000005; Timmons Dec., ¶ 23, P000281.
Particularly disconcerting amidst all the leaks and flooding is the web of exposed electrical wires that crisscross the floors of most housing units: standing water and exposed wires in the same area are an open and obvious electrocution hazard. At least one Plaintiff has actually been shocked by the wires. See Ex. G, Amos Dec., ¶ 18, P000005; Willard Dec., ¶ 18, P000305
- 27 -

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 99 Filed: 06/09/20 28 of 50 PageID #: 1784
(shocked by wires). Stern’s personal observation confirms Plaintiffs’ account: “The number of exposed electrical wires in the living units at Parchman is unimaginable. Bare wires stick out of metal electrical boxes everywhere, including in cells. Extension cords are strung from the center tower on the first floor to the second floor where in two units, they are secured by wrapping around a railing bannister, then lose their outer protective sheathes, and run, unprotected, across the hallway floor, into a resident’s cell. The risk of a serious electricity-induced injury (burn or death) is a constant risk.” Stern, p. 16.
As if the physical deficiencies were not enough, Parchman also is infested with vermin, primarily rats and cockroaches, to the point that they are an inescapable presence. See, e.g., Ex. G, Timmons Dec., ¶ 17, P000280 (“I see rats all day long. . . they created a nest in the corner of my [sleeping] mat”); Webster Dec., ¶ 19, P000296 (infestations particularly bad in kitchen areas); Green Dec., ¶ 12, P000060 (cockroaches in food); Willard Dec., ¶ 19, P000305 (rats in cells eat inmates’ food). Willie Friend even testifies to snakes entering living spaces through holes in the walls. Ex. G, Friend Dec., ¶ 19, P000047. Plaintiffs testify that guards have done nothing about the vermin infestations. See Ex. G, Wilson Dec., ¶ 19, P000321.
The above conditions documented are sufficiently severe raise an Eighth Amendment violation, particularly when their cumulative effect is taken into account such as the combination of multiple leaks, or exposure to the elements and inadequate heat, or the combination of exposed wires and standing water. Courts in this circuit have found accordingly. See, e.g., Gates v. Collier, 501 F.2d at 1299-1303; Huff v. Pundt, No. 2:11-CV-148, 2012 WL 2994839, at *8 (S.D. Tex. June 29, 2012) (finding prisoner’s Eighth Amendment claim based on unsafe, broken set of showers, which featured exposed wires, exposed light fixtures, and black mold, survived summary judgment). Moreover, Defendants’ failure to remedy these deficiencies must
- 28 -

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 99 Filed: 06/09/20 29 of 50 PageID #: 1785
be viewed as deliberate indifference to the conditions, not ignorance or mere negligence. The multitude of leaks and the absence of heat in cells, mold in living spaces, exposed electrical wires, and ubiquitous rat and cockroach infestations are obvious conditions of which Defendants could not conceivably be unaware. As such, both prongs of an Eighth Amendment claim for unconstitutional living conditions exist, and Plaintiffs have demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of this claim.
B. PLAINTIFFS WILL BE IRREPARABLY HARMED IF THE MOTION IS DENIED.
The foregoing mountain of evidence demonstrates the longstanding, pervasive and continuous deficiencies that exist at Parchman. While Defendants have temporarily moved some 26 named Plaintiffs from Parchman in an attempt to alleviate the risk of immediate irreparable injury to which they have been subjected, and thwart the purposes of this Motion, certain named Plaintiffs remain in unconstitutional conditions and will suffer immediate, irreparable harm if the Court does not grant relief.
The classic definition of “irreparable harm” for purposes of a preliminary injunction is a harm that cannot be adequately remedied at law, such as by monetary damages. Janvey v. Alguire, 647 F.3d 585, 600 (5th Cir. 2011). However, “the mere fact that economic damages may be available does not always mean that a remedy at law is ‘adequate.’” Id. The central question is whether there exists an adequate remedy at law for the injury alleged. See, e.g., Davis v. McCain, No. 1:16-CV-01534, 2018 WL 4936566, at *5-6 (W.D. La. Sept. 19, 2018) (granting preliminary injunction mandating that prison officials enforce Louisiana’s ban on tobacco use in the prison).
The hazards and injuries that named Plaintiffs and their experts describe from first-hand observation, cannot be remedied with an award of damages. First and foremost, Defendants’
- 29 -

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 99 Filed: 06/09/20 30 of 50 PageID #: 1786
inability to provide adequate security for inmates at Parchman creates a very real threat to Plaintiffs’ lives; the tragic deaths of 22 inmates this year alone are undeniable evidence. Plaintiffs’ risk of death, if conditions at Parchman are not improved, is far from speculative or theoretical. Because death is plainly an irreparable injury, Plaintiffs’ detailed allegations of the risk to their lives posed by uncontrolled inmate violence satisfies the irreparable harm requirement.
Furthermore, courts in this Circuit—including this Court—have recognized that substantial injuries and risks to inmate health qualify as irreparable harm in the context of a preliminary injunction. See Gates v. Fordice, No. CIV.A. 4:71CV6–JAD, 1999 WL 33537206, at *4 (N.D. Miss. July 19, 1999) (holding that “‘the risk of diminished treatment options’ for HIV-positive inmates at Parchman ‘is clearly irreparable harm’”); see also Cole v. Collier, 4:14CV-1698, 2017 WL 3049540, at *43 (S.D. Tex. July 19, 2017) (holding that inmates established irreparable injury by heatstroke, where twenty-three inmates had died of heat-related causes at Texas prisons; plaintiffs suffered symptoms of heat illness; and heatstroke posed severe health risks); Davis v. McCain, No. 1:16-CV-01534, 2018 WL 4936566, at *5-6 (W.D. La. Sept. 19, 2018) (holding that the health risks of inmate’s exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke constituted irreparable harm). Cases such as these establish beyond doubt that Plaintiffs’ harm, as described in the evidence presented herein, is irreparable for purposes of injunctive relief.
Plaintiffs consistently have testified that they routinely endure serious health risks. Plaintiffs have been left without medical treatment; are forced to eat spoiled or inedible food; and are exposed to contaminated water and raw sewage, to name a few. These conditions pose clear health risks. Moreover, Plaintiffs have produced expert testimony that help to fill in the details, by connecting the specific conditions Plaintiffs allege to specific health risks. In short,
- 30 -

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 99 Filed: 06/09/20 31 of 50 PageID #: 1787
the record before the Court speaks clearly that the conditions Plaintiffs seek to remedy through this Motion inflict irreparable harm on Plaintiffs, and will continue to do so if the Motion is denied. Therefore, this element of the test for injunctive relief is met.
C. Plaintiffs Will Be Far More Prejudiced If The Court Denies Relief Than Defendants Will Be If Relief Is Granted
Plaintiffs, as described herein, stand to be irreparably harmed if the relief sought in this Motion is not granted. For Plaintiffs, their physical safety, medical care, sustenance, hygiene, and living conditions are basic needs of human life, for which they depend entirely on Defendants to provide. Plaintiffs currently are living without these basic needs of human life, and will continue to do so, in conditions that are cruel and unusual in violation of the Eighth Amendment, unless relief is granted. In the interest of brevity, Plaintiffs refer the Court to the sworn declarations of Plaintiffs, and the expert reports, all of which are submitted herewith, and which detail the crippling burdens that Plaintiffs and their fellow inmates endure daily at Parchman. It follows that, for the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs will suffer extreme prejudice if this Motion is denied.
No countervailing prejudice to Defendants as a result of granting the requested relief exists, and accordingly, injunctive relief in Plaintiffs’ favor is warranted. Indeed, this Motion has been reduced, as a result of transfers, to only four named Plaintiffs complaining of unconstitutional conditions. The burden to Defendants associated with the relief required to satisfy the constitutional minimums as to these four inmates is negligible. Certainly, this “burden” does not constitute ‘prejudice’ that could outweigh Plaintiffs’ interests and justify denying relief. Indeed, it is well-established that lack of resources is not a valid basis for leaving constitutional violations in place. See Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk Cty. Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 396 (1992) (“the lack of resources can never excuse a failure to obey constitutional requirements”);
- 31 -

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 99 Filed: 06/09/20 32 of 50 PageID #: 1788
Smith v. Sullivan, 553 F.2d 373, 378 (5th Cir. 1977) (“inadequate resources can never be an adequate justification for depriving any person of his constitutional rights.”) (quoting Hamilton v. Love, 328 F.Supp. 1182, 1194 (E.D. Ark. 1971)); Cole v. Collier, No. 4:14-CV-1698, 2017 WL 3049540, at *43 (S.D. Tex. July 19, 2017) (granting preliminary injunction despite prison officials’ protests that implementing the relief sought would be “fiscally catastrophic” for the state department of corrections); Advocacy Center for Elderly & Disabled v. La. Dep’t of Health & Hosp., 731 F.Supp.2d 603, 626 (E.D. La. 2010) (finding plaintiff inmates met this prong of the standard for preliminary injunction, notwithstanding defendants’ assertion that complying with such an injunction would require budget cuts elsewhere).
The argument of an administrative burden on Defendants is no more persuasive. Courts have ordered emergency relief when necessary to remedy threats to inmates’ basic rights and needs, irrespective of the fact that it may require Defendants to put forth further efforts. See, e.g., Cole v. Livingston, No. 4:14-CV-1698, 2016 WL 3406439, at *7 (S.D. Tex. June 21, 2016) (holding, in weighing the parties’ respective burdens, that inmates’ prejudice from having to drink water that failed EPA standards, even though the additional risk of cancer was “minute,” was “significantly more troublesome” than Defendants’ burden in taking steps to provide clean water), appeal vacated as moot due to automatic expiration of preliminary injunction, sub nom. Yates v. Collier, 677 F. App’x 915 (5th Cir. Jan. 30, 2017); Gates v. Fordice, No. CIV.A. 4:71CV6–JAD, 1999 WL 33537206, at *4 (N.D. Miss. July 19, 1999) (holding that “the risk of medical injury to the plaintiffs outweighs the harm, if any, to the defendants. The HIV positive inmates are entitled to a degree of care that will not hasten their death and the defendants are obligated to provide it.”). Constitutional requirements must take priority over the moderate and reasonable administrative burdens necessary to guarantee them.
- 32 -

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 99 Filed: 06/09/20 33 of 50 PageID #: 1789
In short, the bare fact that only four Plaintiffs now seek relief that would impose new “burdens” on Defendants is no barrier to relief. First, any injunctive relief that raises Plaintiffs’ circumstances to constitutionally permissible standards will require Defendants to do more. Second, the inquiry is not whether Defendants will be inconvenienced at all, but whether they will be prejudiced to an extent that outweighs the prejudice Plaintiffs will suffer without relief. Defendants cannot make such a showing, because the “prejudice” from adopting tailored relief mandated by the Eighth Amendment cannot remotely compare to the prejudice Plaintiffs are suffering, and continue to suffer daily, as a direct result of the conditions Defendants have created and knowingly allow to persist at Parchman. Consequently, this requirement of the preliminary injunction standard is plainly satisfied.
D. The Public Interest is Served by Plaintiffs’ Requested Relief Finally, far from disserving the public interest, the relief Plaintiffs seek will promote critical public goals. As a general rule, the Fifth Circuit has stated that “[i]t is always in the public interest to prevent the violation of a party’s constitutional rights.” Jackson Women’s Health Org. v. Currier, 760 F.3d 448, 458 n.9 (5th Cir. 2014) (upholding injunction) (citing Awad v. Ziriax, 670 F.3d 1111, 1132 (10th Cir. 2012); see also O’Donnell v. Harris Cty., Tex., 251 F.Supp.3d 1052, 1159 (S.D. Tex. 2017) (stating the same principle that “[i]t is always in the public interest to prevent the violation of a party’s constitutional rights”) (quoting Simms v. D.C., 872 F.Supp.2d 90, 105 (D.D.C. 2012)). It is similarly well established that an injunction that bars unconstitutional state action serves the public interest, and meets this prong of the standard for preliminary injunctive relief. See Ingebretsen ex rel. Ingebretsen v. Jackson Pub. Sch. Dist., 88 F.3d 274, 280 (5th Cir. 1996) (“The School Prayer Statute is unconstitutional, so the public interest was not disserved by an injunction preventing its implementation.”). Accordingly, an
- 33 -

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 99 Filed: 06/09/20 34 of 50 PageID #: 1790
injunction from this Court to remedy Plaintiffs’ unconstitutional conditions of confinement at Parchman is perfectly consistent with the public good.
Moreover, courts have previously found this element to be satisfied as to relief highly similar to that sought by this Motion. See, e.g., Gates v. Fordice, No. CIV.A. 4:71CV6–JAD, 1999 WL 33537206, at *4 (N.D. Miss. July 19, 1999) (holding, regarding Parchman inmates’ request for injunctive relief, that “the public interest is served by assuring that adequate medical care is provided to all citizens, especially those who are incarcerated and have no means for providing for themselves.”); see also Cole v. Collier, No. 4:14-CV-1698, 2017 WL 3049540, at *46 (S.D. Tex. July 19, 2017) (granting plaintiffs preliminary injunction mandating relief for environmental conditions that posed a risk to prisoners’ health and safety); Johnson v. Wetzel, 209 F.Supp.3d 766, 781 (M.D. Pa. 2016) (holding, where inmate challenged the conditions of his detention as cruel and unusual, “[i]ssuance of a preliminary injunction will serve the public's interest in defending the integrity of a constitutional right.”). By the same token, Plaintiffs’ request for relief meets the required standard. III. This Court Should Waive the Requirement to Post Security
Rule 65(c) ordinarily requires movants seeking preliminary injunctive relief to post security “in an amount that the court considers proper” before an injunction may be issued. As this language suggests, the Court has substantial discretion over the amount of such security, and it is fully within the Court’s power to waive the requirement entirely, where appropriate. See, e.g., Corrigan Dispatch Co. v. Casa Guzman, S.A., 569 F.2d 300, 302-03 (5th Cir. 1978). In this case, Plaintiffs are indigent prisoners who do not have the resources to post the ordinary security. Further, Plaintiffs’ claims further the public interest by vindicating constitutional rights, “an area in which the courts have recognized an exception to the Rule 65 security requirement.” City of Atlanta v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Auth., 636 F.2d 1084, 1094 (5th Cir. Unit B 1981).
- 34 -

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 99 Filed: 06/09/20 35 of 50 PageID #: 1791
Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court exercise its discretion to dispense with such security in connection with this Motion, or in the alternative, require Plaintiffs to post security in a nominal amount. IV. Relief
Based on the foregoing evidence, Plaintiffs respectfully request relief to remedy unconstitutional conditions at Parchman that are posing an immediate risk of substantial harm to the following named Plaintiffs.
A. Plaintiff Aric Johnson Aric Johnson currently is housed in Unit 29, Building F, Zone A. Johnson’s constitutional rights currently are being violated, as he is being deprived of constitutionally-adequate medical care and his conditions of confinement fall below constitutional standards, both of which subject him to an immediate risk of irreparable harm. Defendants are aware of, but have not addressed, the constitutional violations addressed herein, and therefore Johnson is entitled to relief. Medical Care Johnson has been diagnosed with high blood pressure and hypertension. Ex. J, Johnson Decl. ¶ 2, p.1. He is supposed to have his blood pressure checked regularly by the Parchman medical staff, but no one has checked his blood pressure in the past two months. Id. Johnson frequently goes without his blood pressure medication because the medical staff will not provide refills in a timely manner. Id. Johnson has attempted to request medical attention, but he has not been provided “sick call” forms and, when he attempted to make the request by writing on a blank piece of paper, he was cursed and rebuffed by a guard. Id. Madeleine LaMarre, who examined Johnson’s medical records, confirms that Johnson “has not received timely and appropriate follow-up for his hypertension….” LaMarre, Appendix B-17.
- 35 -

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 99 Filed: 06/09/20 36 of 50 PageID #: 1792
Defendants know of Johnson’s medical condition, and his need for medication, yet they have ignored his treatment.
The Supreme Court has held that, “[j]ust as a prisoner may starve if not fed, he or she may suffer or die if not provided adequate medical care. A prison that deprives prisoners of basic sustenance, including adequate medical care, is incompatible with the concept of human dignity and has no place in civilized society.” Plata, 563 U.S. at 510-11; see also Farmer, 511 U.S. at 832.
Plaintiff Aric Johnson suffers immediate risk of irreparable harm as a result of denial of adequate medical care for his high blood pressure and hypertension. Defendants are aware of Johnson’s conditions, yet have failed, and continue to fail, to provide him adequate medical care. Accordingly, the Court should enter its order requiring Defendants to check Johnson’s blood pressure, update and fill his medications immediately.
Conditions of Confinement The roof in Aric Johnson’s cell leaks when it rains. Ex. J, Johnson Decl. ¶ 6, p.2. In the shower in his zone, there are exposed wires hanging from the ceiling. Id. Johnson has been electrocuted several times while showering due to the exposed wiring. Id. Further, Johnson testified in his declaration that there is no air conditioning or heat in his zone. Id. Moreover, Johnson’s zone, wherein the inmates are housed “barracks” style, has only one working toilet and one working urinal for all of the inmates to share. Id. He describes the environmental conditions in the building similar to being outside. Id. If it is freezing outside, it is freezing inside. If it is 100 degrees outside, it is at least 100 degrees inside. As summer approaches, with its sweltering temperatures, mosquitos also have begun to infest Johnson’s zone. Id.
- 36 -

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 99 Filed: 06/09/20 37 of 50 PageID #: 1793
Dr. Marc Stern inspected Unit 29 including Aric Johnson’s zone. Dr. Stern states, “[t]he buildings at Parchman are best described as sieves. Pools of standing water were on the floors of hallways and many cells. As I toured the facility, water dripped on my head. Water soaked through to my socks. Residents pointed out where rainwater was dripping on their beds. Apart from the stress this causes and the risk to health of not being dry when one has an infectious illness, the standing water poses a risk of slips and falls as well as a risk of electricity-induced injury.” Stern, p. 16. Dr. Stern also agreed that “at times there is no heat when ambient temperature is low and at times there is insufficient cooling when the ambient temperature is high … both hypo- and hyperthermia are potentially fatal conditions.” Stern, p. 16.
The Fifth Circuit has held that the general disrepair of facilities, such as leaking ceilings and walls, exposed wiring, and excessively hot or cold temperatures can violate a prisoner’s Eighth Amendment rights. Gates v. Collier, 501 F.2d 1291, 1299-1303 (5th Cir. 1974) (finding Eighth Amendment violation at Parchman for inter alia the general disrepair of facilities); Ball v. LeBlanc, 792 F.3d 584, 592 (5th Cir. 2015) (finding Eighth Amendment violation for excessively hot temperatures in cells); Beck v. Lynaugh, 842 F.2d 759, 761 (5th Cir. 1988) (finding Eighth Amendment violation for excessively cold temperatures in cells as a result of missing window panes); Gates v. Collier, 501 F.2d 1291, 1299-1303 (5th Cir. 1974) (finding Eighth Amendment violation at Parchman for frayed and exposed electric wiring).
Defendants are aware, and have been for years, of the dilapidated condition of Unit 29, including Johnson’s zone. Indeed, guards and other MDOC personnel occupy Unit 29 daily. More recently, the Governor of the State of Mississippi and the press have borne witness to its abhorrent conditions. Subjective knowledge of a constitutional violation can be proven by inference from circumstantial evidence; in other words, subjective knowledge is proven if the
- 37 -

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 99 Filed: 06/09/20 38 of 50 PageID #: 1794
facts show that the risk of harm was obvious such that prison officials “must have known” about the deficient conditions. Hinojosa v. Livingston, 807 F.3d 657, 665 (5th Cir. 2015) (citing Farmer, 511 U.S. at 842-43).
Plaintiff Aric Johnson suffers immediate risk of irreparable harm as a result of his conditions of confinement including water intrusion into his living area, the risk of electrocution from exposed electrical wiring in the shower, and excessively high or low temperatures due to inadequate cooling and heating. Defendants are aware of Johnson’s conditions of confinement, yet have failed, and continue to fail, to provide him constitutionally-adequate living conditions. Accordingly, the Court should enter its order requiring Defendants immediately to repair the walls in Johnson’s living area to stop the flow of water, repair the exposed electrical wiring in the showers, repair all the toilets and urinals in Johnson’s zone, and provide adequate cooling.
B. Plaintiff Phillip Webster Phillip Webster currently is housed in Unit 29, Building F, Zone A. Webster’s constitutional rights currently are being violated, as he is being deprived of constitutionallyadequate medical care and his conditions of confinement fall below constitutional standards, both of which subject him to an immediate risk of irreparable harm. Defendants are aware of, but have not addressed, the constitutional violations addressed herein, and therefore Johnson is entitled to relief. Conditions of Confinement Webster testifies in his declaration that his living area is inundated with rats and cockroaches. Ex. I, Webster Decl. ¶ 2, p.1. He has resorted to trapping the rats that get close to his bunk in an effort to keep them from crawling on him at night. Id. Like Johnson, who also lives in 29/F/A, Webster’s roof leaks every time it rains, which forces Webster to clean
- 38 -

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 99 Filed: 06/09/20 39 of 50 PageID #: 1795
throughout the night in an effort to stem the flow of water. Id. Webster also testifies that there is no air conditioning in his zone, which presents a particular hazard as the stifling temperatures of the Mississippi summer fast approach. Id.
Dr. Stern, who inspected Unit 29, states that, “the association between rats and human disease is well-enough accepted science to conclude that the rat infestation at Parchman places its residents at significant risk of serious harm.” Stern, p. 15. Indeed, in Bienvenu v. Beauregard Parish Police Jury, the Fifth Circuit held that allegations of a cold, rainy, roach-infested cell supported finding an Eighth Amendment violation. 705 F.2d 1457 (5th Cir. 1983). Similarly, allegations of rats crawling on prisoners stated a cause of action for a constitutional violation in Foulds v. Corley. 833 F.2d 52 (5th Cir. 1987). The Fifth Circuit also has held that the general disrepair of facilities, such as leaking ceilings and walls, and excessively hot or cold temperatures can violate a prisoner’s Eighth Amendment rights. Gates v. Collier, 501 F.2d 1291, 1299-1303 (5th Cir. 1974) (finding Eighth Amendment violation at Parchman for inter alia the general disrepair of facilities); Ball v. LeBlanc, 792 F.3d 584, 592 (5th Cir. 2015) (finding Eighth Amendment violation for excessively hot temperatures in cells); Beck v. Lynaugh, 842 F.2d 759, 761 (5th Cir. 1988) (finding Eighth Amendment violation for excessively cold temperatures in cells as a result of missing window panes).
Defendants are aware, and have been for years, of the dilapidated condition of Unit 29, including Webster’s zone. Indeed, guards and other MDOC personnel occupy Unit 29 daily. More recently, the Governor of the State of Mississippi and the press have borne witness to its abhorrent conditions. Subjective knowledge of a constitutional violation can be proven by inference from circumstantial evidence; in other words, subjective knowledge is proven if the facts show that the risk of harm was obvious such that prison officials “must have known” about
- 39 -

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 99 Filed: 06/09/20 40 of 50 PageID #: 1796
the deficient conditions. Hinojosa v. Livingston, 807 F.3d 657, 665 (5th Cir. 2015) (citing Farmer, 511 U.S. at 842-43).
Plaintiff Phillip Webster suffers immediate risk of irreparable harm as a result of his conditions of confinement including infestation of rats and cockroaches, rainwater intrusion in his living area, and inadequate air conditioning. Defendants are aware of Webster’s conditions of confinement, yet have failed, and continue to fail, to provide him constitutionally-adequate living conditions. Accordingly, the Court should enter its order requiring Defendants immediately to repair the ceiling and walls in Webster’s living area to stop the flow of water, treat successfully the infestation of rats and cockroaches, and provide adequate cooling.
Medical Care Phillip Webster suffers from burning in his eyes, which he attributes to the contaminated water in his zone. An eye examination was scheduled for Webster in 2019, but he was never taken for the appointment. Ex. I, Webster Decl. ¶ 5, p.1. Madeleine LaMarre, who inspected Parchman and reviewed Webster’s medical records, concluded that the medical providers at Parchman “do not provide Plaintiffs timely and appropriate follow-up following urgent events or specialty services.” LaMarre, p. 13. LaMarre found that Webster’s medical records reveal that Defendants knew of Webster’s condition, yet failed to provide him adequate follow-up treatment. Specifically, on March 30, 2019, Webster was seen by a nurse for his burning eyes. LaMarre, Appendix B-46. The nurse flushed his eyes with a solution, but the burning returned. On June 25, 2019, Webster was seen again by a nurse for his burning eyes, and again the nurse flushed his eyes. LaMarre, Appendix B-47. On August 29, 2019, Webster was seen by an “optometrist” who prescribed Webster an ophthalmic solution, and who scheduled Webster for a return visit one month later to check on his condition. LaMarre, Appendix B-47. Unfortunately,
- 40 -

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 99 Filed: 06/09/20 41 of 50 PageID #: 1797
Webster was never taken for his return appointment, and the burning in his eyes persists. Ex. I, Webster Decl. ¶ 5, p.1.
Plaintiff Phillip Webster suffers immediate risk of irreparable harm as a result of denial of adequate medical care. Obviously, any condition of the eyes, which inherently may affect eyesight, carries with it the risk of irreparable harm. Defendants are aware of Webster’s eye condition, since they have seen him but failed to adequately treat, or even follow up, on his treatment. All the while, Webster’s painful eye condition persists. Accordingly, the Court should enter its order requiring Defendants immediately to arrange and facilitate an appointment with an ophthalmologist.
C. Plaintiff Kuriaki Riley Kuriaki Riley currently is housed in Unit 30, Building B, Zone A. Ex. L, Riley Decl. ¶ 1, p.1. Riley’s constitutional rights currently are being violated, as he is being deprived of constitutionally-adequate medical care and his conditions of confinement fall below constitutional standards, both of which subject him to an immediate risk of irreparable harm. Defendants are aware of, but have not addressed, the constitutional violations addressed herein, and therefore Riley is entitled to immediate relief. Medical Care Riley testifies in his declaration that there is rampant gang violence in his zone, and that guards do not attempt to intervene. Id. at ¶ 2, p.1. Accordingly, Riley states that he fears for his life. Id. So fearful and hopeless has Riley become that he attempted suicide in February 2020. LaMarre, Appendix B-10. According to Dr. Stern, this type of stress constitutes a serious risk of irreparable harm. “The sum total of stress for those subjected to multiple stressors is unimaginable. From a medical standpoint, chronic stress can impact the heart, digestive system,
- 41 -

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 99 Filed: 06/09/20 42 of 50 PageID #: 1798
sleep, and blood pressure, among other systems. Therefore, the traumatization caused by current conditions at Parchman significantly increases the risk of serious medical harm.” Stern, p. 15.
Despite a suicide attempt, Riley has never been seen by a mental health professional at Parchman. Ex. L, Riley Decl. ¶ 3, p.1. With no mental health treatment, Riley remains at serious risk of imminent harm. Neither his environmental conditions, nor his mental health condition, has changed, and thus he remains at risk. Id.; Conn v. City of Reno, 572 F.3d 1047, 1055 (9th Cir. 2009) (“Though complaints of depression are not necessarily serious, acute or serious depression may constitute a serious medical need, and threats or risk of suicide certainly are.”).
Additionally, Riley has been diagnosed with high blood pressure. Stern, p. 10. Riley routinely goes without his blood pressure medication because nurses are late refilling his medications. Ex. L, Riley Decl. ¶ 7, p.1. Delays in receiving his medication cause his symptoms to return, symptoms which can be fatal, which clearly places Riley at immediate risk of irreparable harm. Id. As of the date of Riley’s Declaration attached hereto, Riley has been without his blood pressure medication for two weeks. Id.
An inmate has a valid Eighth Amendment claim for inadequate medical treatment if he can show that a defendant official “refused to treat him, ignored his complaints, intentionally treated him incorrectly, or engaged in any similar conduct that would clearly evince a wanton disregard for any serious medical needs.” Easter, 467 F.3d. at 464 (5th Cir. 2006). As the Supreme Court held in Plata, “a prison that deprives prisoners of basic sustenance, including adequate medical care, is incompatible with the concept of human dignity and has no place in civilized society.” Plata, 563 U.S. at 510-11 (emphasis added); see also Farmer, 511 U.S. at 832.
- 42 -

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 99 Filed: 06/09/20 43 of 50 PageID #: 1799
Plaintiff Kuriaki Riley suffers immediate risk of irreparable harm as a result of denial of adequate medical care for his high blood pressure and treatment for his mental health condition. Defendants are aware of Riley’s high blood pressure and suicide attempt, yet have failed, and continue to fail, to provide him adequate medical and mental health care. Accordingly, the Court should enter its order requiring Defendants to check Riley’s blood pressure immediately, update and fill his prescription for his blood pressure medicine, and ensure that he is seen immediately by a mental health professional.
Conditions of Confinement Kuriaki Riley testifies that the drinking water available to him is brown and so contaminated that he becomes ill from drinking it. Ex. L, Riley Decl. ¶ 4, p.1. Of course, water is a basic need of human life, and the courts have held that failing to provide adequate water to inmates is a denial of the “minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities,” violating the Eighth Amendment. Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991) (quoting Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981)); Cole v. Livingston, No. 4:14-CV-1698, 2016 WL 3406439, at *7-8 (S.D. Tex. June 21, 2016) (granting preliminary injunction requiring prison officials to provide inmates water consistent with EPA standards), appeal vacated as moot due to automatic expiration of preliminary injunction, sub nom. Yates v. Collier, 677 F. App’x 915 (5th Cir. Jan. 30, 2017); see also Roberts v. Williams, 456 F.2d 819, 827 (5th Cir. 1971). Defendants know of unconstitutional unclean water conditions in Riley’s zone, some of which were detailed in a January 2020 Building Inspection Report. Graham, p. 12. The Report notes that the pipes in the shower are broken, the water fountain is inoperable, the showers are inoperable, rusty and leak, and there is no hot water. Id. Frank Edwards inspected Parchman, and reviewed Mississippi Department of Health (“MDOH”) records related to its water supply. Parchman’s entire water
- 43 -

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 99 Filed: 06/09/20 44 of 50 PageID #: 1800
supply has been abysmally deficient for years. Edwards, p. 16. By no later than 2017, Defendants were aware of lead in Parchman’s drinking water. Id. In 2018, the MDOH again placed Defendants on notice that Parchman was in violation of the Safe Drinking Water Act, and directed Parchman to notify its inmates of unsafe water. Id. at 5. So persistently deficient is Parchman’s water supply that it has been directed by the MDOH to maintain a log of all activities related to the operation and maintenance of the water system. Id. at 97. With all of these deficiencies related to the water at Parchman, it is not surprising that Riley’s water is brown and makes him ill when he drinks. Ex. L, Riley Decl. ¶ 4, p.1.
Plaintiff Kuriaki Riley suffers immediate risk of irreparable harm as a result of his conditions of confinement including contaminated drinking water that is consistently making him ill. Defendants are aware of Riley’s conditions of confinement, yet have failed, and continue to fail, to provide him clean water. Accordingly, the Court should enter its order requiring Defendants immediately to bring Riley’s drinking water up to minimum standards.
D. Plaintiff Justin James Justin James currently is housed in Unit 30, Building A, Zone B. Ex. K, James Decl. ¶ 1, p.1. James’ constitutional rights currently are being violated, as his conditions of confinement fall below constitutional standards, which subjects him to an immediate risk of irreparable harm. Defendants are aware of, but have not addressed, the constitutional violations addressed herein, and therefore James is entitled to immediate relief. James testifies in his declaration that every night rats and roaches crawl on him in his bunk. Id. at ¶ 2, p.1. James states that his drinking water is brown and smells like sewage. Id. at ¶ 3, p.1. While he is afraid to drink it, he has no choice. Id. When it rains, water leaks through the ceiling and into James’ bunk and onto the floor. Id. at ¶ 6, p.1. When the rain is heavy, it also
- 44 -

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 99 Filed: 06/09/20 45 of 50 PageID #: 1801
leaks and seeps through the walls. Id. And after a heavy rain, there are puddles of standing water throughout the zone. Id. Likely due to the leaky roof and walls, mold grows in the shower in James’ zone. Id. There is also no air conditioning or heat. James testifies that when it gets hot outside, it is “like an oven in the zone, even with fans.” Id. at ¶ 5, p.1.
Defendants have known of the litany of unconstitutional conditions in Unit 30, Building A, Zone B, where James is housed, for some time. In January 2020, a Building Inspection Report produced by MDOC states that sinks are inoperable, the water fountain is inoperable, pipes are broken in shower, toilets and urinals are missing, the hot water is inoperable, the wall telephone is broken, floor tiles are missing throughout the zone, drains are clogged, the zone’s lights are inoperable, the exhaust fan is inoperable, the shower panel needs replacing, the light fixture covering is missing, there are exposed wires, there is no heat, and the inmates are breathing smoke from previous fire. Graham, p. 12 (citing MDOC-Amos 7353-7354).
Moreover, Frank Edwards inspected Unit 30, and reviewed Mississippi Department of Health (“MDOH”) records related to its water supply. Edwards found that Defendants have known that Parchman’s water supply has been abysmally deficient for years. Edwards, p.16. By no later than 2017, Defendants were aware of lead in Parchman’s drinking water. Id. In 2018, the MDOH again placed Defendants on notice that Parchman was in violation of the Safe Drinking Water Act, and directed Parchman to notify its inmates of unsafe water. Id. at 5. So persistently deficient is Parchman’s water supply that it has been directed by the MDOH to maintain a log of all activities related to the operation and maintenance of the water system. Id. (E0021-48). With all of these deficiencies related to the water at Parchman, it is not surprising that James’ water is brown and he is afraid to drink it. Ex. K, James Decl. ¶ 3, p.1.
- 45 -

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 99 Filed: 06/09/20 46 of 50 PageID #: 1802
Parchman also has known about is ubiquitous mold problem for years. First, mold growth is open and obvious. Subjective knowledge can be proven by inference from circumstantial evidence; in other words, subjective knowledge is proven if the facts show that the risk of harm was obvious. Hinojosa v. Livingston, 807 F.3d 657, 665 (5th Cir. 2015) (citing Farmer, 511 U.S. at 842-43) (holding that violations that are “longstanding, pervasive, well-documented, or expressly noted by prison officials in the past,” are sufficient to show that a prison official “must have known about” the deficient condition). Second, Frank Edwards inspected Unit 30 A for mold using FLIR imagery, and identified numerous areas within the building indicative of moisture accumulation causing mold growth. Edwards, p. 15 (Appendix D, E0150-154; E0190191).
Dr. Stern, who also inspected Parchman, warned against the dangerous of inoperative air and heating systems in the prison environment. Stern states that “both hypo- and hyperthermia are potentially fatal conditions” and are more likely to occur when buildings lack basic necessities of contemporary society. Stern p. 16. Not surprisingly, the Fifth Circuit has held that excessively hot or cold temperatures violate an inmates constitutional right against cruel and unusual punishment. Ball v. LeBlanc, 792 F.3d 584, 592 (5th Cir. 2015) (finding Eighth Amendment violation for excessively hot temperatures in cells); Beck v. Lynaugh, 842 F.2d 759, 761 (5th Cir. 1988) (finding Eighth Amendment violation for excessively cold temperatures in cells as a result of missing window panes).
As for infestations, the Fifth Circuit has held rat or roach infestations are evidence of a constitutional violation. Foulds v. Corley, 833 F.2d 52 (5th Cir. 1987); Bienvenu v. Beauregard Parish Police Jury, 705 F.2d 1457 (5th Cir. 1983).
Finally, James has not been offered recreation in three weeks. Id. The American
- 46 -

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 99 Filed: 06/09/20 47 of 50 PageID #: 1803
Corrections Association (“ACA”) states that at a minimum outdoor areas must be provided for general population inmates to exercise at least one hour daily. Vail, p. 28 (citing ACA Standard 5-ACI-2E-01). Despite its constitutional implications, Vail notes that “exercise for prisoners” is one of the ACA standards that has “gone away at Parchman.” Id. Moreover, crowding and lack of correctional staff do not provide penological justification for lack of exercise. Gilland v. Owens, 718 F. Supp. 665, 685 (W.D. Tenn. 1989).
As with Unit 29, subjective knowledge of a constitutional violation in Unit 30 can be proven by inference from circumstantial evidence; in other words, subjective knowledge is proven if the facts show that the risk of harm was obvious such that prison officials “must have known” about the deficient conditions. Hinojosa v. Livingston, 807 F.3d 657, 665 (5th Cir. 2015) (citing Farmer, 511 U.S. at 842-43).
Plaintiff Justin James suffers immediate risk of irreparable harm as a result of his conditions of confinement including exposure to rats and roaches, unclean drinking water, excessive heat, and lack of exercise. Defendants are aware of James’ conditions of confinement, yet have failed, and continue to fail, to provide him constitutionally acceptable conditions. Accordingly, the Court should enter its order requiring Defendants immediately to provide James with housing that is free from rats and roaches, clean drinking water, housing that maintains a reasonable temperature, and daily exercise.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court grant their Motion for Temporary and Preliminary Injunction and the specific relief described below:
A. With regard to Aric Johnson in Unit 29, Building F, Zone A, Defendants should be ordered to remedy the following unconstitutional conditions:
- 47 -

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 99 Filed: 06/09/20 48 of 50 PageID #: 1804
1. Within five (5) days, Johnson must see a medical doctor to assess his high blood pressure;
2. Within twenty-four hours, refill Johnson’s high blood pressure medication;
3. Within five (5) days, repair the roof and other avenues of water intrusion in Johnson’s immediate living area;
4. Within twenty-four hours, repair the exposed electrical wires in Johnson’s shower;
5. Within five (5) days, repair the toilets and urinals in Johnson’s zone; 6. Within five (5) days, repair the air conditioning in Johnson’s zone. B. With regard to Phillip Webster in Unit 29, Building F, Zone A, Defendants should be ordered to remedy the following unconstitutional conditions: 1. Within five (5) days, treat effectively the infestation of rats and cockroaches in Webster’s immediate living area; 2. Within five (5) days, repair the roof and other avenues of water intrusion in Webster’s immediate living area; 3. Within five (5) days, repair the air conditioning in Webster’s zone; 4. Within five (5) days, Webster must see an ophthalmologist to treat his burning eyes. C. With regard to Kuriaki Riley in Unit 30, Building B, Zone A, Defendants should be ordered to remedy the following unconstitutional conditions:
- 48 -

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 99 Filed: 06/09/20 49 of 50 PageID #: 1805

1. Within five (5) days, Riley should see a psychiatrist to assess his mental

health and develop a long term mental health plan including periodic follow up visits, as

medically indicated;

2. Within five (5) days, Riley should see a medical doctor to assess his high

blood pressure;

3. Within twenty-four hours, refill Riley’s high blood pressure medication;

4. Within five (5) days, restore the drinking water in Riley’s zone to

acceptable standards.

D. With regard to Justin James in Unit 30, Building A, Zone B, Defendants should

be ordered to remedy the following unconstitutional conditions:

1. Within five (5) days, treat effectively the infestation of rats and

cockroaches in James’ immediate living area;

2. Within five (5) days, repair the roof and other avenues of water intrusion

in James’ immediate living area;

3. Within five (5) days, remediate the mold in the shower in James’ zone;

4. Within five (5) days, repair the air conditioning in James’ zone;

5. Within five (5) days, repair the air conditioning in James’ zone;

6. Within five (5) days, arrange for James to have the required one hour of

recreation daily.

E. Plaintiffs further request all other relief the Court may deem appropriate.

Date: June 8, 2020

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Marcy B. Croft Marcy B. Croft (MS Bar #10864) Jessica Rice (MS Bar #105722) Ericson Enger (MS Bar #105808) MARON MARVEL BRADLEY ANDERSON &

- 49 -

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 99 Filed: 06/09/20 50 of 50 PageID #: 1806

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

TARDY LLC 200 South Lamar Street Jackson, MS 39201 Telephone: (601) 960-8630 Telefax: (601) 206-0119
Thomas G. Bufkin (MS Bar #10810) Carson H. Thurman (MS Bar #104871) CARROLL BUFKIN PLLC 1076 Highland Colony Pkwy. 600 Concourse, Suite 125 Ridgeland, MS 39157 Telephone: (601) 982-5011 Telefax: (601) 853-9450

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on June 8, 2020, a copy of the foregoing was filed electronically with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system. Notice of this filing will be sent to all counsel of record registered to receive electronic service by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system.
/s/ Marcy B. Croft Marcy B. Croft (MS Bar #10864)

- 50 -

 
 Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 17 Filed: 01/27/20 1 of 2 PageID #: 222

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

MICHAEL AMOS, et al.

PLAINTIFFS

VS.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:20-CV-07-DMB-JMV

PELICIA E. HALL, et al.

DEFENDANTS

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Tommy Taylor, in his official capacity as Interim Commissioner of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, and Marshall Turner, in his official capacity as Superintendent of the Mississippi State Penitentiary, file this Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction [Doc. 13 and 14].1 In support, Defendants rely on the arguments and authorities set forth in their accompanying Memorandum of Law and on the declarations of Jeworski Mallett, John Sprayberry, and Sean Smith, collectively attached hereto as Exhibit A. For the reasons discussed in their Memorandum of Law, Defendants respectfully request that the Court deny Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. Defendants request such other and further relief as the Court deems just and appropriate under the circumstances.
Date: January 27, 2020.

1 Plaintiffs named Pelicia Hall as a Defendant in this case, but she is no longer with MDOC.

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 17 Filed: 01/27/20 2 of 2 PageID #: 223
Respectfully submitted,
TOMMY TAYLOR, in his official capacity as the Interim Commissioner of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, and MARSHAL TURNER, in his official capacity as the Superintendent of the Mississippi State Penitentiary
By: /s/ Trey Jones William Trey Jones, III One of Their Attorneys
OF COUNSEL: R. David Kaufman (MSB #3526) dkaufman@brunini.com William Trey Jones, III (MSB #99185) tjones@brunini.com Karen E. Howell (MSB #102243) khowell@brunini.com Cody C. Bailey (MSB #103718) cbailey@brunini.com Jacob A. Bradley (MSB #105541) jbradley@brunini.com BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC The Pinnacle Building, Suite 100 190 East Capitol Street (39201) Post Office Drawer 119 Jackson, Mississippi 39205 Telephone: (601) 948-3101 Facsimile: (601) 960-6902
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Trey Jones, hereby certify that on January 27, 2020, I caused the foregoing pleading to
be electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send
notification of such filing to all counsel of record and registered participants.
/s/ Trey Jones William Trey Jones, III One of the Attorneys for the Defendants
2

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 17-1 Filed: 01/27/20 1 of 18 PageID #: 224

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 17-1 Filed: 01/27/20 2 of 18 PageID #: 225

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 17-1 Filed: 01/27/20 3 of 18 PageID #: 226

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 17-1 Filed: 01/27/20 4 of 18 PageID #: 227

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 17-1 Filed: 01/27/20 5 of 18 PageID #: 228

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 17-1 Filed: 01/27/20 6 of 18 PageID #: 229

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 17-1 Filed: 01/27/20 7 of 18 PageID #: 230

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 17-1 Filed: 01/27/20 8 of 18 PageID #: 231

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 17-1 Filed: 01/27/20 9 of 18 PageID #: 232

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 17-1 Filed: 01/27/20 10 of 18 PageID #: 233

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 17-1 Filed: 01/27/20 11 of 18 PageID #: 234 MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS LIST OF ACTIVE INMATES SERVING TIME
REPORT DATE : January 27,2020

MDOC# 119350 Name: ADRIAN,WILLIARD
OFFENSE
CAPITAL MURDER AGGRAVATED ASSAULT

Gender: MALE Race: BLACK

Age: 39

Total Term To Serve: LIFE

TERM_TO_SERVE

COUNTY_CONV

LIFE

HINDS

20 YEARS

HINDS

MDOC# 106808 Name: ANTONIO,DAVIS
OFFENSE
AGGRAVATED ASSAULT POSSESSION OF FIREARM BY CONVICTED FELON
MDOC# 139614 Name: BILLY,JAMES
OFFENSE
MANSLAUGHTER

Gender: MALE Race: BLACK

Age: 41

Total Term To Serve: 8 YEARS

TERM_TO_SERVE

COUNTY_CONV

6 YEARS

HOLMES

8 YEARS

HOLMES

Gender: MALE Race: BLACK

Age: 34

Total Term To Serve: 20 YEARS

TERM_TO_SERVE

COUNTY_CONV

20 YEARS

CARROLL

MDOC# 153126 Name: BRANDON,ROBERTSON
OFFENSE
ROBBERY RECEIVE STOLEN PROPERTY

Gender: MALE Race: BLACK

Age: 29

Total Term To Serve: 11 YEARS

TERM_TO_SERVE

COUNTY_CONV

6 YEARS

HARRISON

5 YEARS

HARRISON

MDOC# 158780 Name: CARLOS,VARNADO
OFFENSE

Gender: MALE Race: BLACK

Age: 35

Total Term To Serve: 40 YEARS

TERM_TO_SERVE

COUNTY_CONV

ARMED ROBBERY

20 YEARS

MARION

CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT A CRIME

5 YEARS

MARION

1

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 17-1 Filed: 01/27/20 12 of 18 PageID #: 235 MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS LIST OF ACTIVE INMATES SERVING TIME
REPORT DATE : January 27,2020

MDOC# L6223 Name: CHALLIS,LEWIS
OFFENSE
SEXUAL BATTERY BURGLARY-RESIDENTIAL STATUTORY RAPE

Gender: MALE Race: BLACK

Age: 35

Total Term To Serve: 41 YEARS

TERM_TO_SERVE

COUNTY_CONV

33 YEARS

MADISON

8 YEARS

MADISON

33 YEARS

MADISON

MDOC# 211559 Name: CHARLES,GAYLES
OFFENSE
ARMED ROBBERY ARMED ROBBERY

Gender: MALE Race: BLACK

Age: 23

Total Term To Serve: 26 YEARS

TERM_TO_SERVE

COUNTY_CONV

26 YEARS

DESOTO

26 YEARS

DESOTO

MDOC# 157731 Name: CONTI,TILLIS
OFFENSE
POSSESSION OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE POSSESSION OF FIREARM BY CONVICTED FELON

Gender: MALE Race: BLACK

Age: 27

Total Term To Serve: 10 YEARS

TERM_TO_SERVE

COUNTY_CONV

3 YEARS

WARREN

7 YEARS

WARREN

MDOC# 216587 Name: CURTIS,WILSON
OFFENSE
BURGLARY-RESIDENTIAL BURGLARY-VEHICLE BURGLARY-VEHICLE RECEIVE STOLEN PROPERTY BURGLARY-VEHICLE

Gender: MALE Race: BLACK

Age: 21

Total Term To Serve: 20 YEARS

TERM_TO_SERVE

COUNTY_CONV

10 YEARS

RANKIN

7 YEARS

RANKIN

3 YEARS

RANKIN

10 YEARS

RANKIN

YEARS

RANKIN

2

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 17-1 Filed: 01/27/20 13 of 18 PageID #: 236 MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS LIST OF ACTIVE INMATES SERVING TIME
REPORT DATE : January 27,2020

MDOC# 105808 Name: DANIEL,GUTHRIE
OFFENSE

Gender: MALE Race: WHITE

Age: 38

Total Term To Serve: 55 YEARS

TERM_TO_SERVE

COUNTY_CONV

POSS OF CNTLD SUBST WITH INTENT 50 YEARS

MADISON

METHAMPHETAMINE - POSSESSION

5 YEARS

OKTIBBEHA

MDOC# 184836 Name: DEANGELO,TAYLOR
OFFENSE
ARMED ROBBERY

Gender: MALE Race: BLACK

Age: 29

Total Term To Serve: 15 YEARS

TERM_TO_SERVE

COUNTY_CONV

15 YEARS

ATTALA

MDOC# 131851 Name: DEAUNTE,LEWIS
OFFENSE
MANSLAUGHTER

Gender: MALE Race: BLACK

Age: 33

Total Term To Serve: 20 YEARS

TERM_TO_SERVE

COUNTY_CONV

20 YEARS

WARREN

MDOC# 184112 Name: DEMARCUS,TIMMONS
OFFENSE

Gender: MALE Race: BLACK

Age: 31

Total Term To Serve: 32 YEARS

TERM_TO_SERVE

COUNTY_CONV

KIDNAP-

30 YEARS

MADISON

KIDNAP-

32 YEARS

MADISON

CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT A CRIME

5 YEARS

MADISON

ARMED ROBBERY

32 YEARS

MADISON

MDOC# 164936 Name: DERRICK,PAM
OFFENSE

Gender: MALE Race: BLACK

Age: 28

Total Term To Serve: 6 YEARS

TERM_TO_SERVE

COUNTY_CONV

THEFT X TAKING MOTOR VEHICLE

4 YEARS

WASHINGTON

RECEIVE STOLEN PROPERTY

1 YEARS

WASHINGTON

3

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 17-1 Filed: 01/27/20 14 of 18 PageID #: 237 MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS LIST OF ACTIVE INMATES SERVING TIME
REPORT DATE : January 27,2020

CONSPIRACY

4 YEARS

WASHINGTON

GRAND LARCENY

4 YEARS

WASHINGTON

AGGRAVATED ASSAULT

5 YEARS

WASHINGTON

MDOC# 160736 Name: DERRICK,ROGERS
OFFENSE
BURGLARY-RESIDENTIAL POSSESS STOLEN PROP

Gender: MALE Race: BLACK

Age: 28

Total Term To Serve: 15 YEARS

TERM_TO_SERVE

COUNTY_CONV

15 YEARS

HINDS

5 YEARS

HINDS

MDOC# 145959 Name: DESMOND,HARDY
OFFENSE
ROBBERY CONSPIRACY ARMED ROBBERY

Gender: MALE Race: BLACK

Age: 31

Total Term To Serve: 10 YEARS

TERM_TO_SERVE

COUNTY_CONV

2 YEARS

WASHINGTON

5 YEARS

WASHINGTON

8 YEARS

WASHINGTON

MDOC# 117837 Name: H.D.,SCOTT
OFFENSE
MURDER 2ND DEGREE

Gender: MALE Race: BLACK

Age: 38

Total Term To Serve: 20 YEARS

TERM_TO_SERVE

COUNTY_CONV

20 YEARS

TALLAHATCHIE

MDOC# 106197 Name: JONATHAN,HAM
OFFENSE
COCAINE-POSSESS COCAINE-SELL

Gender: MALE Race: BLACK

Age: 34

Total Term To Serve: 11 YEARS

TERM_TO_SERVE

COUNTY_CONV

6 YEARS

RANKIN

5 YEARS

RANKIN

4

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 17-1 Filed: 01/27/20 15 of 18 PageID #: 238 MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS LIST OF ACTIVE INMATES SERVING TIME
REPORT DATE : January 27,2020

MDOC# 162538 Name: JUSTIN,JAMES
OFFENSE
AGGRAVATED ASSAULT

Gender: MALE Race: BLACK

Age: 32

Total Term To Serve: 60 YEARS

TERM_TO_SERVE

COUNTY_CONV

20 YEARS

ATTALA

ARMED ROBBERY

20 YEARS

ATTALA

CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT A CRIME

5 YEARS

ATTALA

MANSLAUGHTER

20 YEARS

ATTALA

MDOC# 110851 Name: KURIAKI,RILEY
OFFENSE
SEXUAL BATTERY HOMICIDE/MURDER

Gender: MALE Race: BLACK

Age: 42

Total Term To Serve: LIFE

TERM_TO_SERVE

COUNTY_CONV

30 YEARS

ATTALA

LIFE

ATTALA

MDOC# 160323 Name: LARRY,MAXWELL
OFFENSE

Gender: MALE Race: BLACK

Age: 26

Total Term To Serve: 16 YEARS

TERM_TO_SERVE

COUNTY_CONV

BURGLARY LARCENY-UNOCCUPIED DWELLING ROBBERY

10 YEARS 6 YEARS

STONE HARRISON

MDOC# 124724 Name: LEMARTINE,TAYLOR
OFFENSE

Gender: MALE Race: BLACK

Age: 31

Total Term To Serve: 30 YEARS

TERM_TO_SERVE

COUNTY_CONV

AGGRAVATED ASSAULT

YEARS

RANKIN

BURGLARY LARCENY-UNOCCUPIED DWELLING ARMED ROBBERY

YEARS 30 YEARS

RANKIN RANKIN

MDOC# 217140 Name: MICHAEL,AMOS
5

Gender: MALE Race: BLACK

Age: 22

Total Term To Serve: 7 YEARS

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 17-1 Filed: 01/27/20 16 of 18 PageID #: 239 MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS LIST OF ACTIVE INMATES SERVING TIME
REPORT DATE : January 27,2020

OFFENSE
ESCAPE-JAIL BURGLARY-NONRESID

TERM_TO_SERVE
5 YEARS 2 YEARS

COUNTY_CONV
HOLMES HOLMES

MDOC# 157916 Name: PHILLIP,WEBSTER
OFFENSE
MANSLAUGHTER

Gender: MALE Race: BLACK

Age: 31

Total Term To Serve: 20 YEARS

TERM_TO_SERVE

COUNTY_CONV

20 YEARS

WASHINGTON

MDOC# 208459 Name: PITRELL,BRISTER
OFFENSE
ARMED ROBBERY AGGRAVATED ASSAULT ARMED ROBBERY

Gender: MALE Race: BLACK

Age: 25

Total Term To Serve: 20 YEARS

TERM_TO_SERVE

COUNTY_CONV

20 YEARS

HINDS

20 YEARS

HINDS

20 YEARS

HINDS

MDOC# 120671 Name: QUENTEN,JOHNSON
OFFENSE
CHILD ABUSE

Gender: MALE Race: BLACK

Age: 31

Total Term To Serve: 7 YEARS

TERM_TO_SERVE

COUNTY_CONV

7 YEARS

HINDS

MDOC# 130596 Name: TERRANCE,MCKINNEY
OFFENSE

Gender: MALE Race: BLACK

Age: 38

Total Term To Serve: 10 YEARS

TERM_TO_SERVE

COUNTY_CONV

POSSESSION OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE POSS OF CNTLD SUBST WITH INTENT

10 YEARS 8 YEARS

JACKSON HARRISON

MDOC# K9384 Name: TYREE,ROSS

Gender: MALE Race: BLACK

Age: 37

Total Term To Serve: 10 YEARS

6

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 17-1 Filed: 01/27/20 17 of 18 PageID #: 240 MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS LIST OF ACTIVE INMATES SERVING TIME
REPORT DATE : January 27,2020

OFFENSE
VEHICLE THEFT ROBBERY

TERM_TO_SERVE
10 YEARS 10 YEARS

COUNTY_CONV
MARION LAMAR

MDOC# K4717 Name: WILLIE,FRIEND
OFFENSE

Gender: MALE Race: BLACK

Age: 37

Total Term To Serve: 20 YEARS

TERM_TO_SERVE

COUNTY_CONV

AGGRAVATED ASSLT-DOMESTIC

20 YEARS

LEE

INVOLVEMENT

BURGLARY LARCENY-RESIDENTIAL

YEARS

LEE

7

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 17-1 Filed: 01/27/20 18 of 18 PageID #: 241

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 18 Filed: 01/27/20 1 of 24 PageID #: 242

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

MICHAEL AMOS, et al.

PLAINTIFFS

VS.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:20-CV-07-DMB-JMV

PELICIA E. HALL, et al.

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Defendants, like the rest of Mississippi’s elected leaders and the public, want to see positive changes at Parchman as soon as possible, but the preliminary injunctive relief requested by Plaintiffs is not the means to that end. Plaintiffs have asked the Court to immediately hold an evidentiary hearing at Parchman and to appoint a private, third-party to “step into the shoes of the warden” and “assume control of day-to-day operations” at Parchman. Plaintiffs provide no factual support that such a drastic measure would actually benefit or improve current conditions; instead, such an abrupt change could very well make matters worse. Plaintiffs do not identify the qualifications that the appointee would possess, how the appointee’s operations would be funded, or the specific changes that the appointee would seek to implement. As the declarations attached to this response brief demonstrate, current Parchman officials are working diligently with the resources that they have to provide a reasonably safe environment for inmates.
The recent nationwide rise of violence, riots, and suicides in prisons is well documented and indisputable. The inmates housed in Parchman, and Unit 29 in particular, include violent and dangerous individuals. The rapid growth of gangs in prison and resulting gang-related violence is a significant challenge as well. Mississippi’s corrections officers and elected leadership

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 18 Filed: 01/27/20 2 of 24 PageID #: 243
recognize the tremendous challenges at Parchman, including the recent violence and tragic deaths, and they are currently working to address the issues.
Unfortunately, complaints about prison conditions are not new and they are not unique to Parchman or Mississippi. The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) was enacted to limit court involvement in directing state prison operations. In this case, Plaintiffs are asking the Court for an order of so-called “relief” that is premature, unprecedented, inconsistent with both the PLRA and preliminary-injunction standards, and unsupported by any evidentiary basis. Indeed, Plaintiffs’ emergency motion does not even seek an appropriate remedy that would directly address what they claim are unconstitutional conditions.
It must also be emphasized that Plaintiffs’ Complaint and motion before this Court are not part of a class action on behalf of all inmates at Parchman. And of course, generalized grievances about prison conditions do not state injuries for purposes of presenting a justiciable case or controversy. Instead, the claims at issue are limited to those of 29 individual Plaintiffs.1 Any claims held by other inmates who might have allegedly suffered injuries related to prison conditions are not before the Court. The focus in this case should be on whether these particular Plaintiffs have carried their “heavy burden” to demonstrate entitlement to the extraordinary remedy of granting preliminary injunctive relief. As shown below, they have not. The motion is deficient on a number of grounds and should be denied.
FACTS While it is undisputed that the Mississippi State Penitentiary at Parchman, Mississippi (“MSP” or “Parchman”) has experienced very serious issues in recent days and weeks as a result of inmate violence, the unsupported allegations in Plaintiffs’ motion and related submissions are
1 See Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Sean Smith, which is attached to Defendants’ response as part of Exhibit A and includes information related to Plaintiffs and their convictions.
1

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 18 Filed: 01/27/20 3 of 24 PageID #: 244
very much disputed. See Declarations of Jeworski Mallett, John Sprayberry, and Sean Smith collectively attached to Defendants’ response as Exhibit A.
On December 29, 2019, an inmate at the South Mississippi Correctional Facility was killed in a gang-related altercation. Although Parchman and other prisons around the State were immediately placed on lockdown, that incident set off a chain reaction, resulting in further gangrelated inmate violence. The violence contributed, at least in part, to the tragic deaths of multiple Parchman inmates. See Doc. 14 at 3, n.1. As Mississippi’s elected leaders have acknowledged, the violence and other inmate activity has also resulted in diminished living conditions for many inmates at Parchman.2 Importantly, however, Plaintiffs’ unsworn, redacted “affirmations” attached to their motion are inaccurate and misleading as to the existence, extent, and root cause of conditions at Parchman. Moreover, the State has undertaken extraordinary measures to combat inmate violence and remediate the living conditions at Parchman. See Ex. A.
As discussed below, Plaintiffs’ so-called “affirmations,” which are redacted and unsworn, are not evidence, and therefore, cannot serve as a basis for granting the preliminary relief Plaintiffs seek or any other relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b); Doc. 13-1. Many of the central allegations in Plaintiffs’ motion and “affirmations” are simply not true, are exaggerated, or are misleading because they are without context or because Plaintiffs conveniently omit the known cause of the condition. As shown in Exhibit A to Defendants’ response, Mississippi corrections officials have submitted sworn declarations addressing Plaintiffs’ allegations in turn:
 Showers – Prior to December 29, inmates were extended normal shower privileges. When lockdowns are instituted for inmates’ and corrections officers’ safety, it is
2 See, e.g., Sarah Warnock, Gov. stations an agent at Parchman oversee, review MDOC employees and inmates, CLARION LEDGER (Jan. 23, 2020), online at https://www.clarionledger.com/videos/news/2020/01/23/tate-reeves-stations-agent-parchmanprison/4558311002/.
2

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 18 Filed: 01/27/20 4 of 24 PageID #: 245
necessary to temporarily suspend shower and other privileges. Shower privileges were restored as of January 21, 2020.3
 Medical Care – Lockdowns required temporary suspension of the ability to visit the medical unit. Since the lockdown was initiated, medical personnel have made rounds throughout Parchman to deliver medications and provide medical care. Inmates have been and continue to be provided their medical prescriptions.
 Corrections Officers – Since December 29, the Mississippi Department of Corrections (“MDOC”) has commissioned supplemental correctional officers from various jails and state agencies to address the officer shortage.
 Pests – Parchman has a permanent, full-time pest-control specialist whose only duty is to eliminate pests, and that person is currently providing services to Parchman.
 Plumbing – Inmates cause flooding and other problems by flushing their pillows, sheets, cell phones, and other objects down the toilets. Since December 29, officials have spent thousands of dollars commissioning contractors to remedy the issues. These efforts are stalled by inmates’ continued flushing of items and re-flooding their cells. Inmates constantly attack the infrastructure at Parchman. Extensive corrective efforts are ongoing.
 Water – Plaintiffs’ allegations as to deprivation of water are simply untrue. The water supply was interrupted for a 12-hour period as a result of a significant weather event. The water supply has been restored by MDOC crews and outside contractors. Bottled water was made available to inmates in the interim. MDOC officials have not observed water that is allegedly contaminated with human waste or is brown in color. Inmates drink the same water as officers. Parchman has an officer whose duty is to ensure compliance with laws regarding the water supply, and Parchman is in compliance with such laws.
 Roof – Parchman officials have undertaken repair efforts to address leaks in Unit 29’s roof. The leaks existed in part as a result of inmates’ tampering. Corrections officers on site at Parchman are unaware of the presence of alleged black mold. Plaintiffs have not requested that officials investigate any of their cells to determine whether black mold exists, and Parchman officials are not aware of any tests, studies, or reports that indicate the presence of black mold.
 No Meals – Plaintiffs’ allegations regarding meals are simply untrue. Multiple meals are provided to inmates on a daily basis. Safety measures taken in lockdown require officers to deliver meals to inmates’ cells, which results in some inmates not receiving food according to their ordinary schedules, but the inmates are receiving meals.
3 Parchman generally maintains logs to document extension of privileges or services to inmates. Due to the unusually short time frame Defendants had to respond to Plaintiffs’ motion, Defendants have not been able to obtain any logs. But see Exhibit A to Defendants’ response. Defendants reserve the right to supplement this response with additional evidence, including Parchman logs, to document the privileges and services that have been afforded to Parchman inmates, if necessary or requested by the Court.
3

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 18 Filed: 01/27/20 5 of 24 PageID #: 246
 Food Quality – Defendants dispute these allegations. Inmates are not receiving rotten food containing rocks, insects, bird droppings, and/or rat feces.
 Entering Units – Corrections officers’ safety is paramount. If alone, an officer will not intervene to attempt to stop violence between inmates until additional officers arrive on the scene. Additional officers are presently on site at Parchman.
 Fires – On December 29 and thereafter, many inmates destroyed their own, others’, and Parchman’s property. Inmates set fires to their cells and other areas of Parchman. Corrections officials are unaware of any specific incident where a fire was set by an inmate as a life-saving measure. Notwithstanding the lockdown, officers have undertaken measures to ensure that inmates receive medical care and prescriptions.
 Access to Attorneys – Inmates have had access to their attorneys.  Lights – Corrections officers and contractors from around the State have undertaken
efforts to repair lighting damaged by inmate destruction. When new lighting is installed, inmates often destroy it immediately. In response, Parchman is installing portable lighting outside the units which shines light into the units.  Commissary – Where possible, officers extend commissary privileges to inmates.  Heat/Blankets – The heat in some buildings was lost for 12 hours as a result of a storm event. The heat in all buildings was restored after that 12-hour period, and it is currently working properly. New and additional blankets have been provided to inmates since December 29. Inmates continue to destroy their own and others’ blankets. See Exhibit A to Defendants’ response.
Plaintiffs assert the “‘evidence’ makes clear that inmates have alerted officers and other
officials to their specific grievances many times, to no avail.” Doc. 14 at 12. Not so. Plaintiffs
submitted no such “evidence.” Plaintiffs assert that “prisoners have worked in good faith . . . to
submit grievances through the Administrative Remedy Program” (“ARP”), but again Plaintiffs
submit no evidence of such grievances. Id. (emphasis added). And importantly, submissions by
“prisoners” in general do not equate to submissions by these 29 Plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs submitted a “declaration” from Debra Graham to discuss health risks associated
with sewage. Doc. 13-3. Due to the unusually short time restraints of responding to this motion,
Defendants have been unable to obtain an expert to respond to Ms. Graham’s assertions.
4

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 18 Filed: 01/27/20 6 of 24 PageID #: 247
However, while exposure to sewage can result in health risks, Ms. Graham apparently has no personal knowledge of the existence of sewage at Parchman. She has not even visited Parchman. And the “affirmations” she relies on are not affidavits or declarations but are unsworn, selfserving, redacted notes. Id. at 2, ¶6. Defendants’ investigations reveal that many photographs and videos that have surfaced in the media were staged by inmates. Ms. Graham presumably used the same photographs and videos as a basis for her opinion. Id. Ms. Graham does not identify what “other evidence” she purportedly reviewed for her statement. Id.
Plaintiffs also do not address the swift and extraordinary efforts of Defendants and other state officials to attempt to cure the conditions at Parchman. First, high-level corrections officers have been recently hired and strategically placed to correct the issues. Governor Reeves appointed an interim MDOC Commissioner, Tommy Taylor, to combat issues at Parchman and elsewhere.4 The Governor also appointed a search committee for a permanent MDOC Commissioner. Further, MDOC and Defendants coordinated an emergency effort to move 375 inmates to private prisons near Parchman.5
Governor Reeves recently visited Parchman and other Mississippi facilities and has stated plans to initiate other correctional measures. Warnock, Gov. stations an agent at Parchman, CLARION LEDGER (JAN. 23, 2020). Among other things, the Governor has “deployed an agent to Parchman to conduct a wide-ranging criminal investigation.” Id. He has stated that MDOC will “rebuild the integrity of the system.” Id. The Governor and the State are “doing everything we can to minimize and mitigate any future events” at Parchman. Id.
4 Mississippi governor: Prison violence was a ‘catastrophe’, AP (Jan. 17, 2020), online at https://wreg.com/2020/01/17/mississippi-governor-prison-violence-was-a-catastrophe/. Commissioner Pelicia Hall, a named Defendant in this case, is no longer with MDOC. Id. 5 As stated by Governor Reeves, efforts are underway to move inmates. Warnock, Gov. stations an agent at Parchman, CLARION LEDGER (Jan. 23, 2020). Not only is moving inmates an exceptionally difficult task, plans for moving prisoners are not shared with the general public for safety reasons.
5

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 18 Filed: 01/27/20 7 of 24 PageID #: 248
Apart from the Governor, other MDOC officials are undertaking unprecedented measures to restore safety and conditions at Parchman following the inmate violence and destruction. The following are some, but not all, of those measures:
 MDOC has spent significant funds over and above its annual budget to combat the violence and destruction at Mississippi prisons, including Parchman;
 Corrections officers and agents from across the State and from other states spent nearly two weeks at Parchman assisting with inmate safety and other critical operations;
 Outside contractors from Mississippi and elsewhere have repaired and re-repaired vandalized facilities, including lighting, plumbing, water supply, and heating;6
 Cleaning and re-cleaning units is underway;  Improvements to administrative functions have been and are being undertaken;  Interim personnel are being appointed to fill vacant positions;  Officers are being screened for gang affiliation;  Substantial resources are being expended to reinstate inmate privileges;  Officers and investigators are devoting substantial resources to finding and seizing cell
phones, which are a contributing factor to inmate violence; and  Lockdowns remain in place in some units to facilitate inmate safety and to ensure
investigators can properly identify the inmates responsible for the recent violence. See Exhibit A to Defendants’ response.
The recent violence at Parchman is unfortunate, but the evidence shows that Defendants and the State are working arduously towards a resolution.
For the reasons discussed below, the Court should deny Plaintiffs’ motion.
6 Officials state, and work orders will show, that the MDOC has spent thousands of dollars on contractors and materials to repair vandalized facilities, but such efforts are thwarted by further inmate destruction as soon as the repairs are completed.
6

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 18 Filed: 01/27/20 8 of 24 PageID #: 249
ARGUMENT I. The PLRA restricts the authority of federal courts to issue orders for
prospective relief. Congress enacted the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) in 1996 to bring prison condition litigation under control. United States v. Territory of the Virgin Islands, 884 F. Supp. 2d 399, 406 (D. V.I. 2012) (citing Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 114 (2006) (“The PLRA contains a variety of provisions to bring this [prison condition] litigation under control.”). The primary purpose of the PLRA was “to restrict the authority of federal courts to issue and enforce compliance with orders for prospective relief, and thus to curb the involvement of the federal judiciary in prison management.” Territory of the Virgin Islands, 884 F. Supp. 2d at 408 (citing Gilmore v. California, 220 F.3d 987, 991 (9th Cir. 2000) (“It is clear that Congress intended the PLRA to revive the hands-off doctrine,” the former “rule of judicial quiescence” that the federal judiciary not be involved with the problems of state-run prisons.); Inmates of Suffolk Cnty. Jail v. Rouse, 129 F.3d 649, 655 (1st Cir. 1997) (“Congress passed the PLRA in an effort, in part, to oust the federal judiciary from day-to-day prison management.”)). Under the PLRA, “[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). “The PLRA’s exhaustion requirement applies to all inmate suits about prison life, whether they involve general circumstances or particular episodes.” Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532 (2002). Exhaustion is mandatory, even if the inmate seeks monetary relief. Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 740-41 (2001). The purpose of the requirement “is to give an agency ‘an opportunity to correct its own mistakes with respect to the programs it administers before it is haled into federal court’ and to encourage the efficient resolution of claims.” Missouri v.
7

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 18 Filed: 01/27/20 9 of 24 PageID #: 250
Domino, 2018 WL 7051035, at *2 (S.D. Miss. Nov. 15, 2018) (quoting Woodford , 548 U.S. at 89); see also Days v. Johnson, 322 F.3d 863, 866 (5th Cir. 2003). Plaintiffs do not allege that they have exhausted their available administrative remedies.7
Moreover, the PLRA “greatly limits the ability of a court to fashion injunctive relief.” Dockery v. Hall, No. 13-cv-326, Doc. 850 at 14 (S.D. Miss. Dec. 31, 2019). It provides that “prospective relief in any civil action with respect to prison conditions shall extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a particular plaintiff or plaintiffs.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A). Before preliminary injunctive relief can issue, a district court must find that such relief “is narrowly drawn, extend[s] no further than necessary to correct the harm the court finds requires preliminary relief, and [is] the least intrusive means necessary to correct that harm.” Id. at § 3626(a)(2) (emphasis added). (Taken together, these requirements are commonly referred to as the “need-narrowness-intrusiveness” standard.) The Court must also “give substantial weight to any adverse impact on public safety or the operation of a criminal justice system caused by the relief.” Id. As shown below, the so-called “relief” requested by Plaintiffs is not the “least intrusive means necessary” to correct the conditions at Parchman.
II. The “relief” requested by Plaintiffs is not appropriate under the PLRA. The purpose of a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) is “to preserve the status quo and
prevent irreparable harm, but only until the court can hold an adversarial hearing for a preliminary injunction[,]” and the purpose of a preliminary injunction is typically to “preserve
7 The Complaint is silent on the issue, and Plaintiffs’ supporting memorandum simply states that “prisoners” have “worked in good faith … to submit grievances through the Administrative Remedy Program and thus alert the appropriate officials to the grave problems taking place. Yet the complete breakdown in the systems at Parchman has rendered the process completely unavailable and inaccessible.” Doc.14 at 12 (citing Exhibit A, Doc. 13-1). Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that each of the named Plaintiffs have individually exhausted their administrative remedies. Defendants have not had an opportunity to investigate this issue, and therefore, Defendants reserve all rights with respect to dismissal of some or all of the claims based on a failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
8

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 18 Filed: 01/27/20 10 of 24 PageID #: 251
the status quo during the course of litigation until the court can hold a trial on the matter.” Walker v. Turner, 2019 WL 615360, at *1 (N.D. Miss. Feb. 11, 2019) (citations omitted).8
The “relief” requested in Plaintiffs’ motion and memorandum does not seek to prohibit Defendants from taking action nor does it seek to require Defendants to act. Instead, Plaintiffs ask the Court to “hold an evidentiary hearing on the record in Parchman itself so that the Court may speak with inmates in person and inspect the facilities,” and that the Court appoint a receiver to “step into the shoes of the warden” and “assume control of day-to-day operations” at Parchman, or in the alternative, appoint an independent “special monitor” to provide oversight at Parchman. Doc. 14 at 15-20. This motion is not the proper medium for such extraordinary requests. Regardless, the “relief” is premature and inappropriate under the PLRA.
a. An “evidentiary hearing” at Parchman is not proper, and the eventual hearing in this case should be conducted only after the parties have had an opportunity to develop the factual record.
The problems with the “evidentiary hearing” request are many: (1) Plaintiffs cite no authority to support their “unusual” request for an immediate “evidentiary hearing” at the prison; (2) any eventual “evidentiary hearing” must be fair and therefore cannot be held at Parchman; and (3) the eventual evidentiary hearing should be held only after the parties have had a chance to develop the factual record and must include an opportunity for cross examination.
Plaintiffs conflate their request for an “evidentiary hearing” at Parchman with a correctional facility tour that was conducted by a judge in another state in an unrelated case. Plaintiffs assign importance to a New York criminal case where the judge toured the Metropolitan Detention Center (“MDC”) “on the record . . . [and had] conversations with
8 Plaintiffs moved “pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure” for a TRO and preliminary injunctive relief. See Doc. 13. Before a TRO can be issued, Plaintiffs must set forth “specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint” to “clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). Plaintiffs failed to do so.
9

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 18 Filed: 01/27/20 11 of 24 PageID #: 252
inmates at the MDC.” Doc. 14 at 16. In other words, although Plaintiffs request “an evidentiary
hearing on the record at Parchman,” Plaintiffs cite no authority for such an “unusual” request.
Doc. 14 at 15. Plaintiffs cite only to a case where a facility tour was conducted in connection with a criminal hearing that was actually held in a courtroom and not at the correctional facility.9
The facility walk-through in the New York case was not an evidentiary hearing. Although it was
conducted “on the record, the court did not allow for an orderly presentation of evidence” as is
required in a fair evidentiary hearing, and the court did not permit cross examination of the
inmates. See, e.g., United States v. Jimenez, 464 F.3d 555, 559 (5th Cir. 2006) (quoting Davis v.
Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 317 (1974) (“[Cross-examination] is the principal means by which the
believability of a witness and the truth of his testimony are tested.”)).
Moreover, any evidentiary hearing in this case must be meaningful and fair, especially
because of the “extraordinary remedy” of preliminary injunction sought by Plaintiffs. Amando v.
Whitfield, 2017 WL 1102883, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 28, 2017) (quoting United States v. Jefferson
Cty., 720 F.2d 1511, 1519 (5th Cir. 1983)). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a) states that “a
preliminary injunction [shall issue] only on notice to the adverse party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a).
The Fifth Circuit has stated this “notice requirement . . . mean[s] that ‘where factual disputes are
presented, the parties must be given a fair opportunity and a meaningful hearing to present their
9 The New York case cited by the Plaintiffs is inapposite. Unlike here, the plaintiffs in that case did not request, and the Eastern District of New York did not order or participate in, the MDC walk-through. See Fed. Defenders of N.Y., Inc. v. Fed. Bur. of Prisons, 1:19-cv-660 (E.D.N.Y.). In that Sixth Amendment case, the Eastern District merely ordered that the MDC grant detainees access to their attorneys. Doc. 9 (“Indeed, the temporary restraining order sought by Plaintiff is limited to Plaintiff’s request to permit attorney and social visits”). Instead, the February 5, 2019 evidentiary hearing was ordered by another Judge in another district court and in a criminal case. United States v. Segura-Genao, 18-CR-219, Dkt. 80 (S.D.N.Y.); United States v. Perez, 17-CR-513, Dkt. 60 (S.D.N.Y.). The MDC walk-throughs in those criminal cases occurred months after the criminal proceedings were initiated. Thus, the Federal Defenders case does not stand for the proposition that courts have or should order hearings at penal institutions immediately upon filing of a lawsuit or a motion for TRO. Neither does it stand for the proposition that courts have or should conduct hearings at detention facilities as a precursor to ordering those institutions to take corrective measures to cure unconstitutional conditions. The walk-through in the New York criminal case was not conducted for that purpose.
10

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 18 Filed: 01/27/20 12 of 24 PageID #: 253
differing versions of those facts before a preliminary injunction may be granted.’” Kaepa, Inc. v. Achilles Corp., 76 F.3d 624, 628 (5th Cir. 1996) (quoting Commerce Park at DFW Freeport v. Mardian Const. Co., 729 F.2d 334, 342 (5th Cir. 1984)) (emphasis added). A “fair” hearing cannot be held at Parchman. Contrary to their bald statements, it is clearly Plaintiffs’ goal to “sway the Court” with “emotional elements” that would prejudice any fact finder.10
Finally, it would be improper for the Court to award preliminary injunctive relief, much less the drastic relief sought by Plaintiffs, based on a hurried and undeveloped factual record and without permitting Defendants and elected leaders to address the concerns at Parchman. Defendants and MDOC are currently undertaking extraordinary efforts to stabilize Parchman, address the allegedly deteriorated conditions, and minimize further inmate violence. See Ex. A. To that point, an immediate hearing at the prison could destabilize the situation. See Williams v. Krystopa, 1998 WL 848069, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 8, 1998) (prison visits can be destabilizing, even under the best of conditions); State v. O’Neal, 718 S.W.2d 498, 502 (Mo. 1986) (same); and Nimkoff v. Dollhausen, 262 F.R.D. 191, 195–96 (E.D.N.Y. 2009) (same). Moreover, the logistical demands of a hearing at Parchman (such as moving court personnel, counsel for all parties, and devices necessary to present evidence) would be imprudent and disruptive. And although federal hearings are generally open to the public, a hearing at Parchman could not be open to the public for obvious safety reasons. Smith v. Klecker, 554 F.2d 848, 849 (8th Cir. 1977) (cancelled hearing at prison because it “would be subject to the . . . open meetings law and warned of problems with security and false testimony”). Also, the Court would likely not gain an
10 In addition to not being proper or fair, Plaintiffs have pointed to no case where a court conducted an evidentiary hearing at a prison at the initial stages of litigation or in connection with a motion for preliminary injunctive relief. Research has not revealed any courts within the Fifth Circuit that have done so. Judges have of course toured prisons, but almost always as a part of a trial on the merits. Again, touring a facility is much different than what Plaintiffs are requesting.
11

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 18 Filed: 01/27/20 13 of 24 PageID #: 254
accurate picture of the facts from an immediate hearing at Parchman. For the above reasons, an immediate evidentiary hearing at Parchman would be improper.
b. No “special master” or “independent monitor” should be appointed. “The PLRA has substantially limited the capacity of federal courts to appoint special masters to oversee prison conditions, specifically in order to ensure compliance with the Eighth Amendment.” Webb v. Goord, 340 F.3d 105, 111 (2d Cir. 2003).11 See Ctr. v. Lampert, 726 F. App’x 672, 676 (10th Cir. 2018) (upholding denial of appointment of court advocate to oversee prison operations). The Act “provides that a federal court may not grant any prospective relief at all—let alone appoint a special master to administer a state prison system—unless the court finds that ‘such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.’” Webb, 340 F.3d at 111 (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A)) (emphasis added). Plaintiffs’ requests that the Court appoint what amounts to a receiver to “administer appropriate relief” or, in the alternative, an independent monitor to provide “neutral and close oversight of conditions” are premature, at best, given the fact the Court has not made any determinations as to “appropriate relief.” Doc. 13 at 2; Doc. 14 at 20. The appointment of a special master is “a means of achieving previously ordered relief, rather than a form of relief itself.” Territory of the Virgin Islands, 884 F.Supp.2d at 409 (citations omitted) (emphasis added). The request for appointment of a private, third-party receiver is not proper “relief.” Nonetheless, Plaintiffs seek the draconian appointment of what amounts to a receiver to assume control of the day-to-day operations at Parchman and step into the shoes of the warden. Doc. 14 at 17. Such an appointment must be accompanied by findings that the need-narrowness-
11 As noted above, the purpose of the PLRA was “curb the involvement of the federal judiciary in prison management.” Territory of the Virgin Islands, 884 F. Supp. 2d at 408.
12

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 18 Filed: 01/27/20 14 of 24 PageID #: 255
intrusiveness standard is satisfied. See Webb, 340 F.3d at 111.12 Yet, here, Plaintiffs do not offer a shred of evidence that such an appointment is necessary or will remedy any of their complaints. For example, Plaintiffs provide no evidence as to how the appointment would cure what Plaintiffs allege is a gross understaffing problem. And Plaintiffs have submitted no evidence that some other unspecified staffing plan, assuming the special master could implement one, would prevent further inmate-on-inmate violence. And Plaintiffs have not indicated what authority the special master would have to repair the alleged leaking roof or to undertake other construction or repair activities. Furthermore, Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate that the appointment of a special master is narrowly drawn or the least intrusive means necessary to correct the alleged violations when the Governor has announced a number of measures he is implementing to address some of the very issues Plaintiffs raise. Plaintiffs offer no evidence to contradict the possibility that the Governor’s measures will remedy or minimize the alleged problems.
In an attempt to support their request, Plaintiffs rely on cases that are distinguishable and, in many instances, prove the point that now is not the time for the appointment of a special master or monitor. For example, Plaintiffs claim that courts faced with litigation over prison conditions have a long history of appointing special masters. Doc. 14 at 19. But not one of the cases Plaintiffs cited in support of that statement involved the appointment of a special master prior to a judicial determination that injunctive relief was appropriate.13
12 To the extent Plaintiffs are seeking the appointment of a receiver instead of a special master, this is the minimum standard required. Plata v. Schwarzenegger, 603 F.3d 1088, 1095 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A)). 13 Ruiz v. Estelle, 679 F.2d 1115, 1127-28 (5th Cir.), amended in part, vacated in part, 688 F.2d 266 (5th Cir. 1982) (special master and several monitors appointed under Rule 53 to monitor implementation of court-ordered relief following 159 days of trial, 349 witnesses, and 1,565 exhibits); Union Cty. Jail Inmates v. Di Buono, 713 F.2d 984, 988 (3d Cir. 1983) (district court approved consent agreement between parties in October 1981 and appointed a Rule 53 special master in 1982 to investigate conditions at jail and assess defendant’s efforts under consent judgment); Inmates of D.C. Jail v. Jackson, 158 F.3d
13

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 18 Filed: 01/27/20 15 of 24 PageID #: 256
Plaintiffs also claim the Supreme Court has confirmed that where courts are faced with unconstitutional prison conditions, appointment of special masters and receivers remain appropriate remedies, citing Brown v. Plata, 563 U.S. 493, 511 (2011). See Doc. 14 at 19. That case concerned two cases about prison conditions in California. The first to commence, Coleman v. Brown, was filed in 1990 and involved a class of seriously mentally ill persons in California prisons. Brown, 563 U.S. at 506. In 1995, after a 39-day trial, the Coleman district court found “overwhelming evidence of the systemic failure to deliver necessary care to mentally ill inmates” in California prisons. Coleman v. Wilson, 912 F.Supp. 1282, 1316 (E.D.Cal. 1995). The court then appointed a special master to oversee development and implementation of a remedial plan. Brown, 536 U.S. at 506. The second action, Plata v. Brown, was filed in 2001 and involved a class of state inmates with serious medical conditions. Id. at 507. After the action commenced, the state conceded that deficiencies in prison medical care violated inmates’ Eighth Amendment rights and stipulated to an injunction. Id. However, in 2005, after the state failed to comply with that injunction, the court appointed a receiver to oversee remedial efforts. Id. The situation here does not fit either scenario, as there have been no decisions and there are no orders in place.
Plaintiffs cite Ball v. Leblanc, 2015 WL 4454779, at *2 (M.D. La. July 20, 2015), in support of their statement that the appointment of special masters in prison litigation continues to be familiar in this circuit post-PLRA. Doc. 14 at 19. Unsurprisingly, that case concerned the appointment of a special master at a later stage in the case. Ball, 2015 WL 4454779, at *1. Specifically, several months after an evidentiary hearing on the plaintiffs’ motion for injunctive
1357, 1359 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (in 1975, years after case was filed, district court found constitutional violations and issued an injunction ordering defendant to improve conditions for inmates; district court later found pattern of continuing violations and repeatedly issued orders attempting to bring conditions into compliance; in 1995, court appointed a special master to coordinate with defendant and ordered that jail’s medical and mental health services be placed in receivership); Gary W. v. Louisiana, 601 F.2d 240, 244-45 (5th Cir. 1979) (two years after entry of a 1976 court order, district court granted plaintiff’s request for appointment of a special master under Rule 53).
14

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 18 Filed: 01/27/20 16 of 24 PageID #: 257
relief and a trial on the merits, a special master was appointed to oversee the defendants’ implementation of the court-ordered remedial plan and report on the defendants’ progress. See Ball v. Leblanc, 3:13-cv-368, Doc. 87, at 98-99 (M.D. La. Dec. 19, 2013).
Plaintiffs concede they were unable to find a single appellate case in which the Fifth Circuit expressly blessed the use of a special master in post-PLRA prison litigation, but claim many of its sister circuits have. Doc. 14 at 19. Two of the cases they cite involved situations in which parties agreed to the appointment of a special master well into the litigation,14 and the third simply acknowledged PLRA language stating that a special master may be appointed.15
Plaintiffs further contend that the Third Circuit “recently noted that prison oversight remains the quintessential role for a special master,” citing Prometheus Radio Project v. Fed. Commc’ns Comm’n, 939 F.3d 567, 589 (3d Cir. 2019). That Federal Communications Commission case, which cited a 1982, pre-PLRA case (Ruiz v. Estelle), simply stated: “Courts will sometimes appoint a special master to oversee compliance with remedial decrees, but these cases typically involve institutions such as prisons where the Court could not otherwise easily ascertain whether the defendant is complying, and the master’s job is limited only to observing and reporting.” Id. (emphasis added). Prometheus is hardly an endorsement of the appointment of a special master to step in and run the day-to-day operations of the prison.
14 In re Bayside Prison Litig., 477 F. App’x 16, 17 (3d Cir. Apr. 17, 2012) (only reference to a special master is to state that cases triggered by homicide of a corrections officer in 1997, which involved numerous jury trials and numerous appeals, resulted in hundreds of claims being “referred to and heard (by consent) before a Special Master in streamlined proceedings”); Montez v. Hickenlooper, 640 F.3d 1126, 1129 (10th Cir. 2011) (in 2003, parties in a class action lawsuit filed in the early 1990s entered into a consent decree setting forth actions defendants would take to bring state prison system into compliance and establishing a procedure through which individual inmates could bring damage claims, with consent decree providing that damage claims of class members would be determined by special master, subject to abuse-of-discretion review by district court). 15 Armstrong v. Brown, 768 F.3d 975, 988 (9th Cir. 2014) (did not concern the appointment of a special master, merely recited the language of the PLRA stating that they may be appointed).
15

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 18 Filed: 01/27/20 17 of 24 PageID #: 258
Regarding their request for appointment of an independent special monitor, Plaintiffs state that, because of their more limited roles, monitors are not subject to the same restrictions imposed on the appointment of special masters by the PLRA, citing Handberry v. Thompson, 446 F.3d 335, 351-352 (2d Cir. 2006). The discussion in Handberry regarding restrictions concerned the defendants’ responsibility to pay the court-appointed monitor, not whether the “need-narrowness-intrusiveness” standard applied. Regardless, as in the other cases cited by Plaintiffs, the monitor was appointed years after the case was filed and only after the court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and adopted a remedial plan. Id. at 339-340. She was to monitor the defendants’ efforts to implement the court-ordered plan and submit a report. Id. at 340. Here, there is no plan for a monitor to oversee, and the request therefore is at best premature.
All of these cases make clear that no special master or monitor should be appointed without a full evidentiary hearing where Defendants have adequate time to address Plaintiffs’ constitutional allegations with fact and expert testimony and fair and meaningful cross examination. The Court should not do so via a truncated TRO or preliminary injunction proceeding lacking full development of the facts.
III. Plaintiffs have failed to satisfy their burden to show that the Court should grant the requested temporary and preliminary injunctive relief.
Even if Plaintiffs’ requests complied with the PLRA, which they do not, Plaintiffs fail to satisfy their heavy burden under the test for allowing the extraordinary remedy of preliminary injunctive relief. In Canal Auth. of State of Fla. v. Callaway, 489 F.2d 567, 572 (5th Cir. 1974), the Fifth Circuit established the four prerequisites for granting a preliminary injunction:
(1) a substantial likelihood that plaintiff will prevail on the merits; (2) a substantial threat that plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted;
16

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 18 Filed: 01/27/20 18 of 24 PageID #: 259
(3) that the threatened injury to plaintiff outweighs the threatened harm the injunction may do to defendant; and (4) that granting the preliminary injunction will not disserve the public interest. Id. “In considering these four prerequisites, the court must remember that a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy which should not be granted unless the movant clearly carries the burden of persuasion.” Id. at 573. To obtain temporary or preliminary injunctive relief, Plaintiffs “must carry ‘a heavy burden of persuading the district court that all four elements are satisfied,’ and failure to carry the burden on any one of the four elements will result in the denial of the preliminary injunction.’” Leachman v. Harris Cty., Texas, 779 F. App’x 234, 237 (5th Cir. 2019), as revised (Oct. 2, 2019) (quoting Enter. Int’l, Inc. v. Corporacion Estatal Petrolera Ecuatoriana, 762 F.2d 464, 472 (5th Cir. 1985)). It is critical to bear in mind that Plaintiffs are not just asking the Court to maintain the status quo—they are asking the Court to (1) “hold an evidentiary hearing on the record at Parchman” and (2) appoint some unidentified private third party to “step into the shoes of the warden” and “assume control of day-to-day operations” at Parchman.” Doc. 14 at 15, 17.16 Plaintiffs’ request for preliminary relief, which “goes beyond maintaining the status quo,” is “particularly disfavored, and should not be issued unless the facts and the law clearly favor the moving party.” Martinez v. Matthews, 544 F.2d 1233, 1243 (5th Cir. 1976). As discussed below, Plaintiffs are not “substantially likely” to prevail on the merits of their claims, particularly given the “deliberate indifference” standard. And Plaintiffs offered no support whatsoever for their position that the Court’s failure to grant this extraordinary and drastic request would prevent “irreparable injury.” In other words, Plaintiffs have not shown that
16 Courts are not permitted to “micromanage” state prisons. Gates v. Cook, 376 F.3d 323, 338 (5th Cir. 2004) (citing Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 562 (1979)).
17

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 18 Filed: 01/27/20 19 of 24 PageID #: 260
some unidentified, private third party would be immediately more successful in protecting inmates from harm and in providing sufficient environmental conditions than the current administration. Finally, Plaintiffs’ requested relief, which amounts to a judicial takeover of state functions, is not in the public’s best interest. Plaintiffs do not even suggest how the requested appointment of what amounts to a receiver would change conditions for the better, much less how such an appointment and accompanying protocols would be funded. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have failed to carry their burden on all four Canal prerequisites, and therefore, the Court should deny Plaintiffs’ motion for temporary and preliminary injunctive relief.17
a. Plaintiffs are not substantially likely to succeed on the merits of their claims. In determining whether prison officials have violated the Eighth Amendment, courts apply a two-pronged analysis.18 First, there must be an objective showing that the alleged constitutional deprivation is of a “sufficiently serious” nature. Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991); see also Dockery v. Hall, 3:13-cv-326-WHB-JCG, Doc. 850 Opinion and Order at 13-14 (S.D. Miss. Dec. 31, 2019). To satisfy the “sufficiently serious” requirement, a prison official’s act or omission must result in the “extreme deprivation” of the “minimal civilized measures of life’s necessities,” Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S 337, 347 (1981), or result in an inmate’s being “incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial risk of serious harm.” Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 35 (1993); see also Davis v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1003, 1006 (5th Cir. 1998) (quoting Wilson, 501 U.S. at 304). Second, the official must have a “sufficiently culpable
17 The grant or denial of a preliminary injunction is within the discretion of the trial court. Apple Barrel Productions, Inc. v. Beard, 730 F.2d 384, 386 (5th Cir. 1984). 18 The “same subjective deliberate indifference standard has been applied to pre-trial detainees under the Fourteenth Amendment as well as convicted inmates under the Eighth Amendment.” Caston v. Harris, 2013 WL 5724127, at *1 (N.D. Miss. Oct. 21, 2013) (citing Hare v. City of Corinth, 74 F.3d 633, 648 (5th Cir. 1996)). And as Plaintiffs note, the Eighth Amendment applies to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment. Doc. 14 (citing State of Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. Resweber, 329 U.S. 459, 463 (1947)).
18

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 18 Filed: 01/27/20 20 of 24 PageID #: 261
state of mind.” Wilson, 501 U.S. at 298. In prison-conditions cases, that means the official must have acted with “deliberate indifference” to a prisoner’s health or safety. Id. at 302–303. To satisfy the “deliberate indifference” requirement, it must be shown that a prison official “knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety; the official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994).
“A prison official acts with deliberate indifference ‘only if he knows that inmates face a substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable measures to abate it.’” Jones v. Texas Dep’t of Criminal Justice, 880 F.3d 756, 759 (5th Cir. 2018) (quoting Farmer v, 511 U.S. at 847) (emphasis added); see also Dockery, 3:13-cv-326-WHB-JCG, Doc. 850 at 23, 36. Here, although Plaintiffs allege that the environmental and social conditions at Parchman are “severe” and pose a substantial risk of harm to inmates, Plaintiffs do not allege any facts to support a claim that the prison officials “disregarded that risk by failing to take reasonable measures to abate it.” To the contrary, as shown by the declarations from MDOC personnel, the prison officials have continuously and dutifully taken the reasonable measures that they can afford in an effort address the environmental and safety risks at Parchman. See Ex. A. Unfortunately, such measures are almost always rendered futile by the violent, destructive acts of inmates. Id. Plaintiffs have presented no evidence to show otherwise, much less evidence that Parchman officials ignored the problems and failed to take reasonable abatement measures.19
19 Plaintiffs’ “redacted affirmations of Parchman inmates,” Doc. 14-1, are insufficient. They are not affidavits made under oath or declarations under penalty of perjury. And they do not set forth any facts to show that the prison officials intentionally disregarded the alleged risks and failed to take measures to address the risks. Instead, declarations attached to Defendants’ response as Exhibit A show that officials have taken many measures to address the risks, many of which are thwarted by actions of inmates. And while lack of adequate funding is alleged, Defendants of course have no role in appropriating funding.
19

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 18 Filed: 01/27/20 21 of 24 PageID #: 262
Moreover, as noted above, Governor Reeves announced that he had appointed a special
agent at Parchman to investigate conditions and make recommendations, which is part of what Plaintiffs are requesting.20 Governor Reeves acknowledged “problems in the system” and stated: “We don’t want to hide them, we want to fix them.”21 Governor Reeves announced that he and
others are already working to implement “common sense” changes, including sending
maintenance teams to improve conditions, studying a potential relocation of inmates to another
facility, removing contraband, and working to remove corruption from the ranks of officers. The
evaluation of conditions at a prison continues throughout the litigation and is not a snap shot in
time. See, e.g., Dockery, 3:13-cv-326-WHB-JCG, Doc. 850 at 53-55. It is clear that that the State
is working to correct the noted problems at Parchman, and the Court should allow it the
opportunity to do that before implementing any outside relief, as is required by Fifth Circuit law.
See, e.g., Chisom, 853 F.2d at 1187. For the above-stated reasons, Plaintiffs are not “substantially
likely” to succeed on the merits of their claims.
b. Plaintiffs have not established a substantial threat that they will suffer irreparable harm unless an evidentiary hearing is held at Parchman and the Court appoints what amounts to a receiver to take over as warden.
“Perhaps the single most important prerequisite for the issuance of a preliminary
injunction is a demonstration that if it is not granted the applicant is likely to suffer irreparable
harm before a decision on the merits can be rendered.” Trinity USA Operating, LLC v. Barker,
20 Even if the Court were to find a substantial likelihood that Plaintiffs would prevail on their claims, the Court should not grant injunctive relief without first allowing the State to correct the alleged deficiencies. See Chisom v. Roemer, 853 F.2d 1186, 1187 (5th Cir. 1988) (“It is now established beyond challenge that upon finding a particular standard, practice, or procedure to be contrary to either a federal constitutional or statutory requirement, the federal court must grant the appropriate state or local authorities an opportunity to correct the deficiencies . . . before the court attempts to draft a remedial plan.”). 21 See, e.g., Sarah Warnock, Gov. stations an agent at Parchman oversee, review MDOC employees and inmates, CLARION LEDGER (Jan. 23, 2020), online at https://www.clarionledger.com/videos/news/2020/01/23/tate-reeves-stations-agent-parchmanprison/4558311002/.
20

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 18 Filed: 01/27/20 22 of 24 PageID #: 263
844 F. Supp. 2d 781, 786 (S.D. Miss. 2011). Plaintiffs essentially ignore this element of the test, which is detrimental to their motion for preliminary injunctive relief. In fact, the only reference that Plaintiffs make to the “irreparable harm” element is to state: “For the purposes of this Motion, it is plain that the totality of the circumstances and conditions at Parchman are causing, and will cause, Plaintiffs to suffer irreparable harm absent immediate relief.” Doc 14 at 13. That is not the test. The test is whether there is a substantial threat that Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm unless the Court grants the requested relief. Plaintiffs have made no showing that holding an evidentiary hearing at Parchman and appointing a private third party to take over control of the prison would act to prevent any threat of harm. Their conclusory allegation is wholly insufficient to meet the “heavy burden” under this element of the test.
“Without question, the irreparable harm element must be satisfied by independent proof, or no injunction may issue.” White v. Carlucci, 862 F.2d 1209, 1211 (5th Cir. 1989) (emphasis added, citation omitted). Plaintiffs set forth no such “independent proof” of irreparable harm. “Indeed, where no irreparable injury is alleged and proved, denial of a preliminary injunction is appropriate.” Canal Auth., 489 F.2d at 574. Plaintiffs have not shown how the so-called “relief” that they are requesting addresses the problems at hand. Plaintiffs offer no facts to show how such an appointment would better the prison environment or protect inmates. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have failed to show a substantial threat of irreparable harm absent the requested “relief,” and therefore, the Court should not issue a preliminary injunction.
c. Plaintiffs are not entitled to a preliminary injunction because they ignore the public’s significant interests.
Because Mississippi’s interest is indistinguishable from the “public’s interest,” the final two prerequisites of the Canal Authority test are considered together. Plaintiffs must make a “clear showing” “that the threatened injury to plaintiff outweighs the threatened harm the
21

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 18 Filed: 01/27/20 23 of 24 PageID #: 264
injunction may do to defendant; and . . . that granting the preliminary injunction will not disserve the public interest.” White, 862 F.2d at 1211. Plaintiffs have failed to make such a “clear showing.” Id. Defendants of course do not dispute that Plaintiffs are entitled to constitutional protections or that they would be prejudiced by a denial of constitutional rights. But the public’s interests in keeping Mississippi citizens safe, reducing recidivism and violence, allocating an appropriate level of tax-payer funding for prisons through elected representatives, and maintaining autonomy and control over the State’s penitentiary, as opposed to having the judicial system run the prison, far outweigh Defendants’ requests for an evidentiary hearing and the appointment of a third-party receiver to assume the role of warden.
Mississippi taxpayers finance the operation of public prisons, including Parchman. Plaintiffs have set forth no facts to show how they propose to fund control by the third-party receiver, how much that would cost, the impact such would have on public safety, or how the requested relief would solve the alleged problems. Notwithstanding, they would like for the Court to place into the hands of someone who is “unaffiliated with the state government or prison administration” full control over the prison, presumably including its funding, staffing, security, and all other operations. Plaintiffs merely state conclusively that “it is readily apparent that the relief Plaintiffs seek will promote the public interest.” Doc. 14 at 14. But Plaintiffs fail to explain how or why that is the case, and offer nothing to support their position. Accordingly, the Court should deny Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction.
CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed above, Defendants respectfully request that the Court deny Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction and request such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate under the circumstances.
22

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 18 Filed: 01/27/20 24 of 24 PageID #: 265

Date: January 27, 2020.

Respectfully submitted,
TOMMY TAYLOR, in his official capacity as the Interim Commissioner of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, and MARSHAL TURNER, in his official capacity as the Superintendent of the Mississippi State Penitentiary
By: /s/ Trey Jones William Trey Jones, III One of Their Attorneys
OF COUNSEL:
R. David Kaufman (MSB #3526) dkaufman@brunini.com William Trey Jones, III (MSB #99185) tjones@brunini.com Karen E. Howell (MSB #102243) khowell@brunini.com Cody C. Bailey (MSB #103718) cbailey@brunini.com Jacob A. Bradley (MSB #105541) jbradley@brunini.com BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC The Pinnacle Building, Suite 100 190 East Capitol Street (39201) Post Office Drawer 119 Jackson, Mississippi 39205 Telephone: (601) 948-3101 Facsimile: (601) 960-6902

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Trey Jones, hereby certify that on January 27, 2020, I caused the foregoing pleading to be electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to all counsel of record and registered participants.
/s/ Trey Jones William Trey Jones, III One of the Attorneys for the Defendants
23

 
 Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123 Filed: 07/27/20 1 of 11 PageID #: 7993

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION

MICHAEL AMOS, ET AL.

PLAINTIFFS

V.

CASE NO. 4:20-CV-007-DMB-JMV

TOMMY TAYLOR, ET AL.

DEFENDANTS

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Defendants’ response and the purported actions taken therein, are nothing less than an admission that the constitutional violations raised in Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Emergency Motion call for immediate action and resolution. As the Court aptly stated at the February hearing in this matter, we are certainly not going to complain when Defendants take any action to improve the lives of Plaintiffs and putative class members. [Feb. 3, 2020 Hearing Tr. 64:9-12]. However, Plaintiffs disagree that Defendants have done all they claim to have accomplished.
Whether through negligence or intent, the narrative Defendants presented to this Honorable Court is simply inconsistent with the truth. By way of example, Defendants failed to disclose that one of the 33 Named Plaintiffs (Deaunte Lewis), who was transferred to Tallahatchie ten days after Plaintiffs’ original inspection (Feb. 21, 2020), had been transferred back to Parchman on June 18, 2020, ten days after Plaintiffs’ supplemental briefing was filed. [Ex. A, Housing RecordsLewis at 2-3]. Yet, the records produced by Defendants on June 19 cut-off the housing data for Lewis as of June 5, 2020 – making it appear as if he remained at Tallahatchie. [Id. at 1]. Moreover, three weeks later, on July 13, 2020, MDOC’s filing inexplicably makes no mention of Lewis’ sudden return to Parchman. Instead, Defendants swore under penalty of perjury that seven (not eight) of the Named Plaintiffs remained at MSP. [Doc. 118-1 at ¶11-2]. (Only through a routine check of the MDOC inmate information systems were Plaintiffs’ counsel able to uncover the truth.)

1

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123 Filed: 07/27/20 2 of 11 PageID #: 7994
Unfortunately, the absurdity of Defendants’ response does not end with its inmate-hideand-transfer game. MDOC’s submission contains such incredulous assertions as: (1) “I am not aware of any rodent or insect infestation at MSP.” [Doc. 118-2 at 4]; (2) “I am not aware of any water at MSP that appears to be brown in color.” [Id. at 5]; and, (3) “During the inspection of the institution with particular focus on housing units, showers, food services, etc. no mold was observed anywhere during the facility tour.” [Doc. 118-5 at 5]. Both the inspection in February and June decry these claims. [See Ex. I, June Photographs; Ex. F, Edwards Reply Report].
In addition to their willful blindness to on-going conditions and sweeping denials, Defendants’ discussed an assortment of remedial measures in their Response, arguing generally: (1) they have remedied all 20 of the constitutional violations specific to Plaintiffs; (2) evidence presented by Plaintiffs is premature; (3) Defendants’ deliberate indifference is negated by remedial measures and the hiring of a new commissioner; (4) evidence presented by Plaintiffs is not current; (5) the Court has no discretion to find the ARP effectively unavailable as MDOC should have the “opportunity to correct its own mistakes”; and (6) Plaintiffs are attempting to stigmatize Parchman unfairly. Plaintiffs disagree.
INTRODUCTION On January 24, 2020, Plaintiffs’ filed their Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (“Original Motion”) [Doc. 13]. In support thereof, Plaintiffs provided sworn affirmations from 33 named Plaintiffs detailing a litany of unconstitutional conditions of confinement. See [Doc. 13-1]. Shortly after submitting these affirmations, COVID-19 caused a five-month delay in Plaintiffs’ prosecution of the Original Motion. Five months is an eternity in the world of emergency motions for injunctive relief, and Defendants used this unprecedented delay to transfer 26 of the 33 named Plaintiffs out of Parchman. [Doc. 118-1 at ¶11]. Of course, a
2

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123 Filed: 07/27/20 3 of 11 PageID #: 7995
plaintiff cannot show imminent risk of irreparable harm due to unconstitutional conditions at Parchman if he is not housed at Parchman. Defendants used the cover of the COVID pandemic to play a human shell game designed expressly to circumvent justice by marginalizing much of the limited discovery allowed by the Court. 1
The Original Motion, and the limited discovery allowed by the Court, generated evidence of unconstitutional conditions in 24 separate buildings at Parchman where the 33 named Plaintiffs were housed or served. See [Docs. 98, 99, and Exhibits attached thereto]. Parchman is a sprawling facility, but unconstitutional conditions in 24 buildings touches the lives of nearly every inmate. Unfortunately, this voluminous evidence of Parchman’s culture of constitutional disregard now serves mostly as a backdrop for the more urgent constitutional complaints of the remaining named Plaintiffs. Of course, diminishing the impact of the Court’s limited discovery, and the Original and Supplemental Motions, was Defendants’ intent in transferring 26 of the 33 named Plaintiffs.
While Defendants have gained a reprieve by removing most of the named Plaintiffs, and by scurrying to repair aspects alleged in the Supplemental Motion, the reprieve is only temporary. Regardless of the outcome of this Motion, the full weight of the evidence of constitutional deficiencies at Parchman will come before the Court in the next phase of these proceedings.
Conversely, there is a silver lining to the end-run on justice perpetrated by Defendants during the COVID-19 delay. The 26 named Plaintiffs who have been transferred no longer face the horrors of Parchman (that is, until transferred back), and those remaining, according to Defendants, are seeing “indisputable, significant” and “drastically improved” conditions of confinement as a direct result of this lawsuit. [Doc. 119 at 1, 3]. For example, Defendants claim
1 The Court expressly precluded the addition of plaintiffs to this case during the pendency of the Original Motion. Defendants used the Court’s order to unfair advantage by reducing the number of named Plaintiffs, and thus the scope of Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Motion, knowing the Plaintiffs could not replace the 26 named Plaintiffs who were transferred from Parchman.
3

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123 Filed: 07/27/20 4 of 11 PageID #: 7996
Parchman is under the care of new leadership; more than 1600 inmates have been transferred to bring staffing levels within acceptable standards; six buildings in Unit 292 have been closed; a repair frenzy has occurred addressing roofs, showers, toilets, urinals, lights, and other structural deficiencies; the food is better, the medical care is better, and the relationship between MDOC and Centurion, the medical provider, is better. [Doc. 119 at 35-36] (citing [Docs. 118-1 at ¶¶9-12; 1182 at ¶9]). Who knows if any of these claims are true, as they are supported almost exclusively by self-serving affidavits, but assuming some are true, Plaintiffs and others may be better than they were at the outset of litigation. No matter that Defendants’ motive in making improvements is to avoid Court intervention, and not to remedy the decades-old practices of abuse and neglect at Parchman. But, if the result is improved conditions for those at Parchman, that is sufficient for now. Again, we will not complain when Defendants improve the lives of Plaintiffs.
Yet, evidence gathered by Plaintiffs suggests cause for skepticism over some of Defendants’ responses. Defendants ensconce their descriptions of alleged improvements in vague terms, qualifying language, aspirational tones, and mischaracterizations. [Doc. 119]. Plaintiffs’ evidence, along with a thorough review of Defendants’ evidence, shows that unconstitutional conditions persist and present a daily risk of irreparable harm to those who remain at Parchman.
ARGUMENT 1. Evidence Shows Plaintiffs Still Suffer Unconstitutional Conditions.
Defendants claim they have remedied all constitutional violations facing the remaining named Plaintiffs. But “improvements” allegedly made by Defendants may not be as sweeping, or effective, as they would have the Court believe. Plaintiffs have attached affirmations from the
2 In contrast, at the June 24 inspection, Plaintiffs’ counsel observed only three closed buildings – 29-B, D, and E. DCI Mallet verified this while standing outside Buildings C and E. Mallet further discussed MDOC’s current work refurbishing building 29-C and its intentions to transfer inmates from 29-F to Unit 29-C upon completion of that work.
4

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123 Filed: 07/27/20 5 of 11 PageID #: 7997
remaining few named Plaintiffs. Of course, Plaintiffs have no means by which to gather more conclusive evidence, as Defendants exclusively control access to Parchman and named Plaintiffs and forbade Plaintiffs’ experts to view purported changes at the June inspection. See Ex. B.
Further, Defendants allege that inmate-to-guard ratios “are currently in substantial compliance with ACA standards.” [Doc. 118-1 at ¶10]. Yet, as of July 24, Plaintiff James, who is housed in Unit 30, building B has never seen an increase of guards on any shift in his zone, where 108 inmates reside. [Ex. C, James Dec. (July 24) at ¶12]. The current evidence shows that, at least in some areas, nothing has changed. [Id.] Given that MDOC policy precludes a guard from entering a zone alone in the event of violence, having only one guard in a zone is a security risk per se. [Doc. 17-1 at ¶7]. Similarly, Plaintiff Riley, who is housed in Unit 30, building C still fears attack and abuse by other prisoners, as evidenced by recent suicidal ideations and Parchman officials ignoring pleas for mental and medical treatment. [Ex. D, Riley Dec. (July 27) at ¶¶2-4]. Further, Defendants’ claims regarding managing the COVID pandemic are hollow, as well. For instance, Plaintiff Johnson states that as recently as July 24, 2020, that nurses and staff making rounds in the housing units do not wear masks to protect the inmates, and photographic evidence supports this testimony. [Ex. E, Johnson Dec. (July 24) at ¶4 (citing specific photographs)].
Furthermore, Plaintiffs stand by their argument that structural deficiencies abound that threaten an imminent risk of irreparable harm, including but not limited to, excessive heat, brown drinking water, mold, and insect and rodent-infested housing units. [Doc. 99] See also, [Ex. I; Ex. K]. In addition to the foregoing evidence that the remaining named Plaintiffs are at risk of irreparable harm, Defendants also make several broad-brushed arguments that require a response. 2. Plaintiffs’ Evidence is Sufficiently Current.
5

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123 Filed: 07/27/20 6 of 11 PageID #: 7998
Defendants would have the Court believe evidence of unconstitutional conditions must be presented to the Court in “real time” to accurately reflect the conditions of confinement. This is incorrect. Courts do not deal in “real time” evidence under any circumstances; they always are looking back on facts that existed at some point, whether recently or long ago. In Dockery v. Hall, for example, the case lingered for over half a decade between the filing of the lawsuit and the court’s ultimate ruling. 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 231575, *21 (S.D. Miss. Dec. 31, 2019). By the time the court ruled, the evidence was over six years old. Id. Predictably, the court found that said evidence, viewed in context with over six years of improvement, was not sufficiently current to support a finding of existing constitutional violations. Id.
In the instant case, Defendants argue that evidence collected only weeks or months ago is out of date, but when compared to the six-year ordeal in Dockery, which Defendants rely on, the evidence before the Court is actually quite current. Indeed, the Court granted limited discovery, expressly for the purpose of developing evidence relevant to this instant Motion. [Docs. 48, 49]. Therefore, the evidence produced by the Court’s limited discovery is sufficiently current. Even if the Court believes that evidence from weeks or months ago is starting to grow stale, equitable principles preclude Defendants from benefiting from their own obstructionist conduct. For instance, Defendants conducted their expert inspections more recently than Plaintiffs. In an effort to observe and document the most current conditions, Plaintiffs attempted to bring an expert who was present at the February inspection and a professional photographer. See [Ex. B]. However, Defendants, who have exclusive control over Parchman, refused to allow it. [Id.] As a part of Defendants’ gamesmanship, they precluded Plaintiffs from collecting more recent evidence and then turned around and asserted to the Court that Plaintiffs’ evidence is not recent enough.3
3 Defense experts (but not Plaintiffs’) were allowed to inspect the following areas: Unit 31(C) in its entirety; Unit 42 holding cells; Unit 29 dining hall; and Unit 30’s main kitchen. Defense experts were also allowed to observe one zone
6

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123 Filed: 07/27/20 7 of 11 PageID #: 7999
3. Plaintiffs’ Evidence is Not Premature. Defendants argue that Plaintiffs, and their experts, have attempted to “leap ahead to class
certification” by “offering broad-stroke and highly generalized assertions regarding conditions of confinement” at Parchman. [Doc. 119 at 2]. Defendants attempt to mischaracterize the limited discovery allowed by the Court as premature because it is broader than the unconstitutional conditions facing the remaining named Plaintiffs. This argument is nonsense. The evidence presented by Plaintiffs provides context and support to the constitutional violations alleged by the named Plaintiffs remaining at Parchman, and, in many instances, supports the allegations by showing a pattern of unconstitutional conditions that has persisted.4 The Court even said that,
[I]f I find through a request for a preliminary injunction that there are certain matters that are not directly in front of the Court but that would . . . make practical sense to actually have the benefits of those things extend to persons who are not parties before the Court, then as a practical matter, I would probably be inclined to allow those things, once the Court gets to a ruling about a preliminary injunction. [Feb. 3, 2020 Hearing Tr. 105:1-9]. Defendants did not object. [Id.] Defendants are aware that aggregate evidence may show deliberate indifference to constitutional violations, and the evidence provided by Plaintiffs’ experts and Plaintiffs themselves is overwhelming in this regard. [Doc. 119 and exhibits]; See, e.g., Mitchell v. Maynard, 80 F.3d 1434, 1442 (10th Cir. 1996) (citing Wilson v. Seiter 501 U.S. 294, 305 (1991)). Plaintiffs have evidence of individual deprivations and longstanding deficiencies in overall conditions of confinement, which together show deliberate indifference. 4. Improvements at Parchman Do Not Preclude a Finding of Deliberate Indifference.
enter the dining hall, be served, and eat. Defense experts also initiated conversation with inmates, even after being instructed not to do so. See Ex. I. 4 Defendants misconstrue Edwards’ report regarding mold and water quality at Parchman, and his reply is attached. [Ex. F]. Defendants attempt to disparage Plaintiffs’ medical experts, who have a combined 90 years’ experience between them in the health field. See Stern’s (Ex. G) and LaMarre’s (Ex. H) reply reports.
7

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123 Filed: 07/27/20 8 of 11 PageID #: 8000
Defendants argue that because they allegedly have improved certain conditions at Parchman in response to this lawsuit, they cannot be deliberately indifferent to longstanding constitutional violations. Jurisprudence says otherwise. “It is well settled that a defendant's voluntary cessation of a challenged practice does not deprive a federal court of its power to determine the legality of the practice.” Gates v. Cook, 376 F.3d 323, 337 (5th Cir. 2004) (citing Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 190 (2000)).5 Defendants have admitted in great detail the longstanding deficiencies at Parchman that remained in existence as recently as when this lawsuit was filed. These admissions confirm Defendants have acted with deliberate indifference toward the remaining named Plaintiffs for years up to and including the date this lawsuit was filed. This is particularly true given that many of the so-called improvements are aspirational. [Doc. 118-1 at ¶10]. Specifically, Defendants, who seem to place an inordinate value on “real time” evidence, ask the Court to accept their word, rather than any evidence, that they intend to: become ACA compliant despite seven years of non-compliance; update their inmate classification system; evaluate their current classification system; increase confiscations of contraband; establish funds for new security equipment; establish rehabilitation policies; and replace deficient wastewater systems. [Doc. 119 at 35-36] (citing [Docs. 118-1 at ¶912; 118-2 at ¶9)]. After decades of horrific conditions at Parchman, self-serving promises are insufficient to avoid injunctive relief requested by Plaintiffs. 5. The Court Has Discretion to Find Parchman’s ARP Unavailable.
5 “If it did, the courts would be compelled to leave “the defendant ... free to return to his old ways.” A case might become moot if subsequent events made it absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur. The “heavy burden of persuading” the court that the challenged conduct cannot reasonably be expected to start up again lies with the party asserting mootness . . . The fact that many of these conditions have persisted for years despite MDOC's purported efforts leads us to likewise conclude that MDOC has not met the heavy burden of showing that its voluntary conduct has mooted any of the issues presented here.” Id. (citations omitted).
8

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123 Filed: 07/27/20 9 of 11 PageID #: 8001
The PLRA mandates that an inmate must exhaust “such administrative remedies as are available” before filing suit challenging prison conditions. 42 U.S.C. §1997e(a) (emphasis added). Exhaustion is not required if the ARP: (1) “operates as a simple dead end” for prisoner complaints; (2) the scheme is so “opaque” that no reasonable prisoner can use it; (3) or when prison administrators thwart inmates’ attempts through “machination, misrepresentation, or intimidation.” Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850, 1859-60 (2016). Remaining Plaintiffs have submitted sworn evidence that the ARP is unavailable to them, as have the 33 named Plaintiffs. See [Doc. 102]; [Ex. C at ¶11; Ex. E at ¶8]. Plaintiffs’ experts have also opined on the unavailability of the ARP. [Docs. 99 and expert reports]. Further, courts have found that where plaintiffs have declared under penalty of perjury that they are not provided grievance forms, a court may view as an open question whether a reasonable administrative remedy was available and relieve them of the exhaustion obligation. Bertres v. Byers, 2007 WL 4224389, *8 (M.D. Pa., Nov. 28, 2007). “It would be an anomalous result, indeed, if prison officials could foreclose prison inmates from filing civil rights lawsuits in federal court simply by depriving them of the means to fulfill a mandatory prerequisite to doing so.” Chatham v. Adcock, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72523, *43 (N.D. Ga. Sept. 28, 2007). The grievance system at Parchman is effectively unavailable. 6. Plaintiffs Have No Need To Stigmatize Parchman.
Defendants complain indignantly that Plaintiffs are attempting to “stigmatize” Parchman by “painting a grim picture of [its] conditions.” [Doc. 119 at 3]. This argument is preposterous. Plaintiffs have no need to expend any effort toward stigmatizing Parchman, as five decades of horrific conditions of confinement have done that long before Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit. See, e.g., Cook, 376 F.3d 323; Gates v. Collier, 501 F.2d 1291 (5th Cir. 1974). Even the Governor found conditions at Parchman “infuriating,” blaming a “failure of leadership” within MDOC. As if to
9

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123 Filed: 07/27/20 10 of 11 PageID #: 8002

confirm the Governor’s point, Defendants have eagerly admitted that Parchman is an institution in

desperate need for improvement. [Doc. 119 at 1]. In their Introduction alone, Defendants use the

term “improve” or a similar term no less than 14 times. [Id. at 1-5].

Of course, all of these improvements came after Plaintiffs filed suit in this matter, and each

and every one of these alleged improvements is an admission that Parchman is a place that needs

to improve dramatically. Whether any improvement has occurred is an open question. Regardless,

Plaintiffs do not have to stigmatize Parchman; it has been a failure as a correctional institution

since before the 1970s, and Defendants’ many admissions concerning the need for improvement

confirm that. E.g., Collier, 501 F.2d 1291; [Docs. 119 and 118-1].

Conclusion

This Supplemental Motion is neither an attempt to accelerate this litigation prematurely,

nor to stigmatize Parchman unfairly beyond its current, well-deserved reputation as a catastrophic

failure among correctional institutions nationwide. Rather, this Motion is an attempt to present in

a meaningful way the evidence the Court has allowed Plaintiffs to gather during limited discovery,

while remaining true to the legal standard applicable to a motion for emergency injunctive relief.

For the reasons set forth herein, as well as in our prior filings, Plaintiffs request that the Court enter

its order granting the injunctive relief requested.

Date: July 27, 2020

Respectfully submitted,

OF COUNSEL: Marcy B. Croft (MS Bar #10864) Jessica L. Rice (MS Bar #105722) MARON MARVEL BRADLEY ANDERSON & TARDY LLC 200 South Lamar Street Jackson, MS 39201 Telephone: (601) 960-8630

/s/ Marcy B. Croft Marcy B. Croft (MS Bar #10864)
Thomas G. Bufkin (MS Bar #10810) Carson H. Thurman (MS Bar #104871) CARROLL BUFKIN, PLLC 1076 Highland Colony Pkwy. 600 Concourse, Suite 125 Ridgeland, MS 39157 Telephone: (601) 982-5011

10

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123 Filed: 07/27/20 11 of 11 PageID #: 8003 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on July 27, 2020, a copy of the foregoing was filed electronically with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system. Notice of this filing will be sent to all counsel of record registered to receive electronic service by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system.
/s/ Marcy B. Croft Marcy B. Croft (MS Bar #10864)
11

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-1 Filed: 07/27/20 1 of 4 PageID #: 8004
EXHIBIT “A” DEAUNTE LEWIS HOUSING RECORD AND MDOC PROFILE

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-1 Filed: 07/27/20 2 of 4 PageID #: 8005

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-1 Filed: 07/27/20 3 of 4 PageID #: 8006

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-1 Filed: 07/27/20 4 of 4 PageID #: 8007

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-2 Filed: 07/27/20 1 of 13 PageID #: 8008
EXHIBIT “B” EMAIL CORRESPONDANCE BETWEEN PARTIES’ COUNSEL

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-2 Filed: 07/27/20 2 of 13 PageID #: 8009

From: Sent: To: Cc:
Subject:

Cody Bailey <cbailey@brunini.com> Tuesday, June 23, 2020 3:10 PM Marcy Croft Carson Thurman; Gary Bufkin; Trey Jones; Karen Howell; Jessica L. Rice; Mary Clark Joyner; mbentley@bradley.com; mmwalker@bradley.com Re: Parchman inspection

Marcy,
Your team may enter through the main gate tomorrow morning. 7:30 am is fine. I understand we will be routed to the visitation center for further screening before the inspection begins. Thanks.
Cody
> On Jun 22, 2020, at 6:07 PM, Marcy Croft <MCroft@maronmarvel.com> wrote: > > Cody: The attorneys attending the inspection will be > > Marcy Croft > Carson Thurman > Jessica Rice > Ericson Enger > Mary Clark Joyner > > We will see you Wednesday morning at 7:15 a.m. at the Visitors Center. If we need to be there earlier, please let us know. > > - Marcy > > > > Marcy Croft | Attorney at Law > D: 601-960-8630 | mcroft@maronmarvel.com > > > bio<https://www.maronmarvel.com/attorneys/Marcy-Croft> | vcard<https://www.maronmarvel.com/attorneys/Marcy-Croft/vcard> | [https://esig365snippets.blob.core.windows.net/images/7E1D9365-6828-4F74-A4BC9AEFC143F6A8/linkedin-icon.png] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/maron-marvel-bradley-&-anderson> > [https://esig365snippets.blob.core.windows.net/images/7E1D9365-6828-4F74-A4BC-9AEFC143F6A8/mmlogo.gif] > PO Box 22803 > Jackson, MS 39225-2803 | M: 601-812-6630 | F: 601-206-0119 > www.maronmarvel.com | <http://www.maronmarvel.com/> [https://esig365snippets.blob.core.windows.net/images/7E1D9365-6828-4F74-A4BC9AEFC143F6A8/facebook-high4.png] <https://www.facebook.com/MaronMarvel/> <https://www.facebook.com/MaronMarvel/>
1

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-2 Filed: 07/27/20 3 of 13 PageID #: 8010
> > > > This email is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521 and is legally privileged. The information contained in this communication is confidential, is subject to the attorney-client privilege, may constitute inside information, and is intended only for the use of the addressee. It is the property of Maron Marvel Bradley Anderson & Tardy LLC. Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail, and destroy this communication and all copies thereof, including all attachments. > > > > > ________________________________ > From: Cody Bailey [cbailey@brunini.com] > Sent: Monday, June 22, 2020 5:44 PM > To: Marcy Croft; Carson Thurman > Cc: Gary Bufkin; Trey Jones; Karen Howell; Jessica L. Rice; Mary Clark Joyner; mbentley@bradley.com; mmwalker@bradley.com > Subject: RE: Parchman inspection > > Marcy, > > Please see my below email. I believe I was clear that "Defendants continue to object to the presence of Plaintiffs’ experts or photographers at the Defendants’ inspection," and unless you would like to get the Court involved, "please do not attempt to bring your experts or photographer to the inspection." > > During the Plaintiffs' inspection, Defense counsel attended and did not have a photographer or expert present. Defense counsel and Plaintiffs' counsel took photos using their phones, and Defense counsel produced those photos to Plaintiffs. Also, Plaintiffs were required to produce to Defendants the photos taken by Plaintiffs' photographer. During the Defendants' inspection on Wednesday, the Defendants will likewise have a photographer present, and Defendants will produce to the Plaintiffs the photos that are taken by Defendants' photographer. Defense counsel and Plaintiffs' counsel may take photos using their phones, and the parties must produce those photos to the other side. As before, no videos of any kind are allowed, and there should be no photography of inmates, MDOC staff or personnel, Centurion staff or personnel, or other persons who have not consented to be photographed. Thus, Plaintiffs are in fact receiving "the same" you claim to be seeking. > > Thanks, > Cody > > -----Original Message----> From: Marcy Croft [mailto:MCroft@maronmarvel.com] > Sent: Monday, June 22, 2020 5:24 PM > To: Cody Bailey <cbailey@brunini.com>; Carson Thurman <cthurman@carrollbufkin.com> > Cc: Gary Bufkin <tgb@carrollbufkin.com>; Trey Jones <TJones@brunini.com>; Karen Howell <KHowell@brunini.com>; Jessica L. Rice <JRice@maronmarvel.com>; Mary Clark Joyner <mcjoyner@carrollbufkin.com>; mbentley@bradley.com; mmwalker@bradley.com > Subject: RE: Parchman inspection > > Cody: The parties' positions on expert attendance have been properly documented in multiple emails. We
2

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-2 Filed: 07/27/20 4 of 13 PageID #: 8011
understand that MDOC will not allow Frank Edwards to attend the inspection on Wednesday. Given the short time period, we will reserve our right to take this matter up with the Court after the inspection should we deem it appropriate to do so. Since Edwards will not be allowed to attend, we will have a member of the legal team take his place, and will get you that name later this evening. > > With respect to the photographer, Defendants took hundreds of pictures documenting Plaintiffs' inspection. We are simply seeking the same. We understand the same rules apply regarding photography (and generally) to both Plaintiffs' and Defendants' inspections. [At this point, it would be members of the legal team and one photographer present during Defendants' inspections.] > > Finally, if you intend to begin at 7:30a.m., please let us know what time we should be at the Parchman visitors center on Wednesday morning (7:30 a.m. or earlier). > > Thank you. > > - Marcy > > > > > > Marcy Croft | Attorney at Law > D: 601-960-8630 | mcroft@maronmarvel.com > > > bio<https://www.maronmarvel.com/attorneys/Marcy-Croft<https://www.maronmarvel.com/attorneys/MarcyCroft>> | vcard<https://www.maronmarvel.com/attorneys/MarcyCroft/vcard<https://www.maronmarvel.com/attorneys/Marcy-Croft/vcard>> | [https://esig365snippets.blob.core.windows.net/images/7E1D9365-6828-4F74-A4BC9AEFC143F6A8/linkedin-icon.png<https://esig365snippets.blob.core.windows.net/images/7E1D9365-68284F74-A4BC-9AEFC143F6A8/linkedin-icon.png>] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/maron-marvelbradley-&-anderson<https://www.linkedin.com/company/maron-marvel-bradley-&-anderson>> > [https://esig365snippets.blob.core.windows.net/images/7E1D9365-6828-4F74-A4BC-9AEFC143F6A8/mmlogo.gif<https://esig365snippets.blob.core.windows.net/images/7E1D9365-6828-4F74-A4BC9AEFC143F6A8/mm-logo.gif>] > PO Box 22803 > Jackson, MS 39225-2803 | M: 601-812-6630 | F: 601-206-0119 > www.maronmarvel.com<http://www.maronmarvel.com> | <http://www.maronmarvel.com/<http://www.maronmarvel.com>> [https://esig365snippets.blob.core.windows.net/images/7E1D9365-6828-4F74-A4BC9AEFC143F6A8/facebook-high4.png<https://esig365snippets.blob.core.windows.net/images/7E1D9365-68284F74-A4BC-9AEFC143F6A8/facebook-high4.png>] <https://www.facebook.com/MaronMarvel/<https://www.facebook.com/MaronMarvel>> <https://www.facebook.com/MaronMarvel/<https://www.facebook.com/MaronMarvel/>> > > > > This email is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521 and is legally privileged. The information contained in this communication is confidential, is subject to the attorney-client privilege, may constitute inside information, and is intended only for the use of the addressee. It is the property of Maron Marvel Bradley Anderson & Tardy LLC. Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this
3

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-2 Filed: 07/27/20 5 of 13 PageID #: 8012
communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail, and destroy this communication and all copies thereof, including all attachments. > > > > > ________________________________ > From: Cody Bailey [cbailey@brunini.com] > Sent: Monday, June 22, 2020 4:51 PM > To: Carson Thurman > Cc: Marcy Croft; Gary Bufkin; Trey Jones; Karen Howell; Jessica L. Rice; Mary Clark Joyner; mbentley@bradley.com; mmwalker@bradley.com > Subject: RE: Parchman inspection > > Carson, > > I do not yet have a list of the exact areas we are inspecting. We are aiming to begin the inspection at 7:30 am Wednesday and conclude the same day. Since my last email, I have learned that Dr. Thomas Fowlkes will be participating in the inspection as an expert for Centurion and MDOC. > > As stated, Defendants continue to object to the presence of Plaintiffs’ experts or photographers at the Defendants’ inspection. That was not contemplated by the Court or the parties. The Plaintiffs have already conducted their expert inspections, and Defendants do not agree that Plaintiffs are entitled to any further expert inspections in connection with the Emergency Motion for TRO and PI. Please let me know if we need to get the Court involved on this. Otherwise, please do not attempt to bring your experts or photographer to the inspection. > > Thanks, > Cody > > From: Carson Thurman [mailto:CThurman@carrollbufkin.com] > Sent: Monday, June 22, 2020 3:04 PM > To: Cody Bailey <cbailey@brunini.com> > Cc: Marcy Croft <MCroft@maronmarvel.com>; Gary Bufkin <tgb@carrollbufkin.com>; Trey Jones <TJones@brunini.com>; Karen Howell <KHowell@brunini.com>; Jessica L. Rice <JRice@maronmarvel.com>; Mary Clark Joyner <mcjoyner@carrollbufkin.com>; mbentley@bradley.com; mmwalker@bradley.com > Subject: RE: Parchman inspection > > Good afternoon, Cody> > Plaintiffs are good with Wednesday, June 24, carrying over to Thursday, June 25, if necessary. Can you please let us known exactly what areas you plan on inspecting? > > For the Plaintiffs, attending legal team members will be: > > > 1. Marcy Croft > 2. Jessica Rice > 3. Carson Thurman >
4

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-2 Filed: 07/27/20 6 of 13 PageID #: 8013
> As you can see, we have downsized our attorney group, which is now smaller than Defendants’ attorney group that attended Plaintiffs’ initial inspection. Additionally, we intend to bring the following individuals: > > > 1. Greg Morgan, Jr.- will bring camera gear (all to fit within one bag), exact inventory log to be provided soon > 2. Frank Edwards- will bring FLIR imaging gear, exact inventory log to be provided soon > > Please let us know by close of business whether or not Defendants will allow Mr. Morgan and Mr. Edwards in for the inspection. If Defendants are going to refuse access, Plaintiffs will need a date very early within the Rebuttal period for Plaintiff experts to be allowed back in. > > I would also reiterate the following: > > > * First, the number of individuals Plaintiffs plan to attend is far, far less than the number that Defendants brought to Plaintiffs’ initial inspection. While you did not attend the initial inspection, Karen would be able to convey just how large that group was that made its way through all areas allowed to be inspected without incident. > * Second, the Defendants allowed various individuals to attend Plaintiffs’ initial inspection that were not employed by Defendants (we still don’t even know the identity of everyone Defendants allowed to attend); these individuals were allowed to attend without any prior notification to or agreement with Plaintiffs. > * Third, Plaintiffs are only asking to bring one expert to (a) monitor/observe defense experts and (b) perform non-evasive imaging; neither (a) or (b) will impact or hinder the progress of Defendants’ inspections in any way. > * Fourth, Defendants chose not to bring any experts to Plaintiffs’ initial inspection (see our email exchange leading up to the date of the initial inspection concerning this issue) but never stated that Plaintiffs would not be able to bring an expert to attend Defendants’ inspection. > > Please let us know. Thank you. > > Carson H. Thurman > Carroll Bufkin, pllc > (601) 982-5011 – Telephone > www.carrollbufkin.com<http://www.carrollbufkin.com><http://www.carrollbufkin.com/<http://www.carrollbuf kin.com>> > > From: Cody Bailey <cbailey@brunini.com> > Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2020 11:12 AM > To: Carson Thurman <CThurman@carrollbufkin.com> > Cc: Marcy Croft <MCroft@maronmarvel.com>; Gary Bufkin <tgb@carrollbufkin.com>; Trey Jones <TJones@brunini.com>; Karen Howell <KHowell@brunini.com>; Jessica L. Rice <JRice@maronmarvel.com>; Mary Clark Joyner <mcjoyner@carrollbufkin.com>; mbentley@bradley.com; mmwalker@bradley.com > Subject: RE: Parchman inspection > > Carson and Marcy, > > We are aiming to conduct Defendants’ inspection this coming Wednesday, 6/24. I do not know the start time yet, but will let you know as soon as I do. We are hoping to finish in one day. Our experts are John Rees and Steve Tussey. Defendants continue to object to the presence of Plaintiffs’ experts and photographer at the
5

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-2 Filed: 07/27/20 7 of 13 PageID #: 8014
Defendants’ inspection. That was never contemplated by the Court or the parties. Plaintiffs have already conducted their expert inspection. > > Thanks, > Cody > > From: Carson Thurman [mailto:CThurman@carrollbufkin.com] > Sent: Monday, June 15, 2020 2:45 PM > To: Cody Bailey <cbailey@brunini.com<mailto:cbailey@brunini.com>> > Cc: Marcy Croft <MCroft@maronmarvel.com<mailto:MCroft@maronmarvel.com>>; Gary Bufkin <tgb@carrollbufkin.com<mailto:tgb@carrollbufkin.com>>; Trey Jones <TJones@brunini.com<mailto:TJones@brunini.com>>; Karen Howell <KHowell@brunini.com<mailto:KHowell@brunini.com>>; Jessica L. Rice <JRice@maronmarvel.com<mailto:JRice@maronmarvel.com>>; Mary Clark Joyner <mcjoyner@carrollbufkin.com<mailto:mcjoyner@carrollbufkin.com>>; mbentley@bradley.com<mailto:mbentley@bradley.com>; mmwalker@bradley.com<mailto:mmwalker@bradley.com> > Subject: Re: Parchman inspection > > Cody> > First, regarding Defendants’ upcoming inspection, please let us know the new dates you are considering as soon as you are able. And can you please provide to us the identity of your experts, like we did to you before our inspection? You haven’t responded either of the two times I’ve asked. > > Second, to clear up some points in your email below- First, if I remember correctly, Defendants had four attorneys attend at least day one of our inspection if not both days (Karen, Jacob Bradley, Ellie Word, and Will Manuel on day one), so it seems that maybe your statement about it being unnecessary to bring four attorneys was misguided. > > Second, I have never been involved in litigation where an expert from one side was not allowed to be present during a site inspection by experts of the other side. If you recall, I asked you in an email if your experts were coming to our inspection, and you simply said no. You certainly didn't indicate your experts were not allowed to attend, or indicate that an expert or ours would not be allowed to attend your inspection. > > Third, while Plaintiff is not attempting to dictate defendants' inspection, we are asking for some courtesy in your setting of dates/times and last minute cancellations. You'll remember that we did the same when selecting our dates (and our first choice couldn't be accommodated). Further, as Marcy said below, one of our expert's scheduling interference was not sufficient to change the parameters of our inspection, so I am not sure why it should be different for your experts. > > Fourth, there were non-party representatives and individuals at our inspection, including one high ranking individual of non-party Mississippi State Police who arrived in a helicopter, and others who we were never given their identity, none of which was agreed to by Plaintiffs beforehand. > > Thank you, > > > > Carson H. Thurman >
6

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-2 Filed: 07/27/20 8 of 13 PageID #: 8015
> Carroll Bufkin, pllc > > 1076 Highland Colony Parkway<UrlBlockedError.aspx> > > 600 Concourse, Suite 125<UrlBlockedError.aspx> > > Ridgeland, Mississippi 39157<UrlBlockedError.aspx> > > (601) 982-5011<tel:(601)%20982-5011> > > www.carrollbufkin.com<http://www.carrollbufkin.com><http://www.carrollbufkin.com/<http://www.carrollbuf kin.com/>> > > On Jun 13, 2020, at 11:28 AM, Cody Bailey <cbailey@brunini.com<mailto:cbailey@brunini.com>> wrote: > Marcy, > > I apologize for the inconvenience, but Plaintiffs do not get to dictate when MDOC conducts an inspection of its own facility. Also, there was never an agreement for Plaintiffs to bring its expert or photographer to the Defendants' inspection. All four of the attorneys on your list are based in the Jackson, MS area. And while it seems unnecessary for Plaintiffs to bring four lawyers to the inspection, there should be no increased costs for them in connection with this postponement. Further, the reason for the postponement is that one of MDOC's two experts operates a prison in another state, and that prison had a COVID situation that is preventing the expert from attending. It makes no sense to conduct the inspection twice, and it would be costly to the State to do so. I will let you know as soon as we can get the inspection rescheduled. > > Thanks, > Cody > > > > > > > > > > > > Cody C. Bailey > E: mailto:cbailey@brunini.com > P: 601-973-8790 F: 601-960-6902 > > Brunini, Grantham, Grower & Hewes, PLLC > The Pinnacle Building > 190 East Capitol St, Suite 100, Jackson, MS 39201 Post Office Drawer 119, Jackson, MS 39205 > > > > >
7

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-2 Filed: 07/27/20 9 of 13 PageID #: 8016
> Confidentiality Statement > The information contained in this electronic message from the law firm of Brunini, Grantham, Grower & Hewes, PLLC is confidential or privileged. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this message is prohibited. If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify us immediately by telephone at (601) 948-3101. > Cody C. Bailey > E: cbailey@brunini.com<mailto:cbailey@brunini.com> > P: 601-973-8790 F: 601-960-6902 > > [Image removed by sender.] > > The Pinnacle Building > 190 East Capitol St, Suite 100, Jackson, MS 39201 Post Office Drawer 119, Jackson, MS 39205 > > www.brunini.com<http://www.brunini.com><http://www.brunini.com/<http://www.brunini.com>> > Bio<http://www.brunini.com/attorneys-94.html<http://www.brunini.com/attorneys-94.html>> / VCard<http://www.brunini.com/vcard-94.vcf<http://www.brunini.com/vcard-94.vcf>> > > > Confidentiality Statement > The information contained in this electronic message from the law firm of Brunini, Grantham, Grower & Hewes, PLLC is confidential or privileged. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this message is prohibited. If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify us immediately by telephone at (601) 948-3101. > -----Original Message----> From: Marcy Croft [mailto:MCroft@maronmarvel.com] > Sent: Friday, June 12, 2020 6:28 PM > To: Cody Bailey <cbailey@brunini.com<mailto:cbailey@brunini.com>>; Carson Thurman <cthurman@carrollbufkin.com<mailto:cthurman@carrollbufkin.com>>; Gary Bufkin <tgb@carrollbufkin.com<mailto:tgb@carrollbufkin.com>> > Cc: Trey Jones <TJones@brunini.com<mailto:TJones@brunini.com>>; Karen Howell <KHowell@brunini.com<mailto:KHowell@brunini.com>>; Jessica L. Rice <JRice@maronmarvel.com<mailto:JRice@maronmarvel.com>>; Mary Clark Joyner <mcjoyner@carrollbufkin.com<mailto:mcjoyner@carrollbufkin.com>>; mbentley@bradley.com<mailto:mbentley@bradley.com>; mmwalker@bradley.com<mailto:mmwalker@bradley.com> > Subject: RE: Parchman inspection > > Cody: Carson is unavailable right now and asked me to respond to the email you sent at 4:33PM this afternoon. Unfortunately, we cannot agree to reschedule the site inspection for Monday and Tuesday (June 15 and 16) - an inspection that was unilaterally set by Defendants last Friday. As a practical impediment, our team members have already made travel arrangements, including flights and hotels, which would be costly to cancel on such short notice. And while we understand logistical and scheduling challenges (you may remember that one of our experts located on the West Coast was unable to avoid an emergency scheduling conflict and actually had to miss the initial February 11/12 inspection altogether), our motion has already been delayed three times and we cannot risk further delays given future risks associated with COVID-19. Finally, we requested identification of Defendants' experts yesterday and received no response at all. Therefore, we don't really have the information necessary to assess Defendants' request to reschedule beyond the last minute claim of a conflict with the dates you unilaterally selected.
8

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-2 Filed: 07/27/20 10 of 13 PageID #: 8017
> > - Marcy > > > > Marcy Croft | Attorney at Law > D: 601-960-8630 | mcroft@maronmarvel.com<mailto:mcroft@maronmarvel.com> > > > bio<https://www.maronmarvel.com/attorneys/Marcy-Croft<https://www.maronmarvel.com/attorneys/MarcyCroft><https://www.maronmarvel.com/attorneys/MarcyCroft<https://www.maronmarvel.com/attorneys/Marcy-Croft>>> | vcard<https://www.maronmarvel.com/attorneys/MarcyCroft/vcard<https://www.maronmarvel.com/attorneys/MarcyCroft/vcard><https://www.maronmarvel.com/attorneys/MarcyCroft/vcard<https://www.maronmarvel.com/attorneys/Marcy-Croft/vcard>>> | [https://esig365snippets.blob.core.windows.net/images/7E1D9365-6828-4F74-A4BC9AEFC143F6A8/linkedin-icon.png<https://esig365snippets.blob.core.windows.net/images/7E1D9365-68284F74-A4BC-9AEFC143F6A8/linkedinicon.png><https://esig365snippets.blob.core.windows.net/images/7E1D9365-6828-4F74-A4BC9AEFC143F6A8/linkedin-icon.png<https://esig365snippets.blob.core.windows.net/images/7E1D9365-68284F74-A4BC-9AEFC143F6A8/linkedin-icon.png>>] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/maron-marvelbradley-&-anderson<https://www.linkedin.com/company/maron-marvel-bradley-&anderson><https://www.linkedin.com/company/maron-marvel-bradley-&anderson<https://www.linkedin.com/company/maron-marvel-bradley-&-anderson>>> > [https://esig365snippets.blob.core.windows.net/images/7E1D9365-6828-4F74-A4BC-9AEFC143F6A8/mmlogo.gif<https://esig365snippets.blob.core.windows.net/images/7E1D9365-6828-4F74-A4BC9AEFC143F6A8/mm-logo.gif><https://esig365snippets.blob.core.windows.net/images/7E1D9365-6828-4F74A4BC-9AEFC143F6A8/mm-logo.gif<https://esig365snippets.blob.core.windows.net/images/7E1D9365-68284F74-A4BC-9AEFC143F6A8/mm-logo.gif>>] > PO Box 22803 > Jackson, MS 39225-2803 | M: 601-812-6630 | F: 601-206-0119 > www.maronmarvel.com<http://www.maronmarvel.com><http://www.maronmarvel.com<http://www.maronma rvel.com>> | <http://www.maronmarvel.com/<http://www.maronmarvel.com/><http://www.maronmarvel.com/<http://www. maronmarvel.com/>>> [https://esig365snippets.blob.core.windows.net/images/7E1D9365-6828-4F74-A4BC9AEFC143F6A8/facebook-high4.png<https://esig365snippets.blob.core.windows.net/images/7E1D9365-68284F74-A4BC-9AEFC143F6A8/facebookhigh4.png><https://esig365snippets.blob.core.windows.net/images/7E1D9365-6828-4F74-A4BC9AEFC143F6A8/facebook-high4.png<https://esig365snippets.blob.core.windows.net/images/7E1D9365-68284F74-A4BC-9AEFC143F6A8/facebook-high4.png>>] <https://www.facebook.com/MaronMarvel/<https://www.facebook.com/MaronMarvel/><https://www.facebook .com/MaronMarvel/<https://www.facebook.com/MaronMarvel/>>> <https://www.facebook.com/MaronMarvel/<https://www.facebook.com/MaronMarvel/><https://www.facebook .com/MaronMarvel/<https://www.facebook.com/MaronMarvel/>>> > > > > This email is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521 and is legally privileged. The information contained in this communication is confidential, is subject to the attorney-client
9

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-2 Filed: 07/27/20 11 of 13 PageID #: 8018
privilege, may constitute inside information, and is intended only for the use of the addressee. It is the property of Maron Marvel Bradley Anderson & Tardy LLC. Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail, and destroy this communication and all copies thereof, including all attachments. > > > > > ________________________________ > From: Cody Bailey [cbailey@brunini.com] > Sent: Friday, June 12, 2020 4:33 PM > To: Carson Thurman; Marcy Croft; Gary Bufkin > Cc: Trey Jones; Karen Howell; Jessica L. Rice; Mary Clark Joyner; mbentley@bradley.com<mailto:mbentley@bradley.com>; mmwalker@bradley.com<mailto:mmwalker@bradley.com> > Subject: RE: Parchman inspection > > Carson, > > Due to an emergency situation with one of our experts, we are unfortunately not able to proceed with the inspections Monday and Tuesday as planned. I will let you know when we are able to reschedule. > > Also, Trey emailed you this morning to confirm our understanding of the limited relief requested by the Plaintiffs. See attached. Can you please let us know whether you believe we are incorrect in our understanding? > > Thanks, > Cody > > From: Carson Thurman [mailto:CThurman@carrollbufkin.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2020 11:14 AM > To: Cody Bailey <cbailey@brunini.com<mailto:cbailey@brunini.com>>; 'MCroft@maronmarvel.com' <MCroft@maronmarvel.com<mailto:MCroft@maronmarvel.com>>; Gary Bufkin <tgb@carrollbufkin.com<mailto:tgb@carrollbufkin.com>> > Cc: Trey Jones <TJones@brunini.com<mailto:TJones@brunini.com>>; Karen Howell <KHowell@brunini.com<mailto:KHowell@brunini.com>>; Jessica L. Rice <JRice@maronmarvel.com<mailto:JRice@maronmarvel.com>>; Mary Clark Joyner <mcjoyner@carrollbufkin.com<mailto:mcjoyner@carrollbufkin.com>> > Subject: RE: Parchman inspection > > Good morning, Cody> > The following members of our team will be onsite for Defendants' inspections next Monday and Tuesday: > > > 1. Marcy Croft > 2. Jessica Rice > 3. Mary Clark Joyner > 4. Frank Edwards > 5. Greg Morgan, Jr. > 6. Carson Thurman
10

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-2 Filed: 07/27/20 12 of 13 PageID #: 8019
> > A few questions: > - What time should we meet onsite? > - Will we need to submit a supply list / inventory again? > - And are there any other guidelines we need to know? > > Also, could you please let me know the names of Defendants' experts that will be onsite? > > Thank you. > > Carson H. Thurman > Carroll Bufkin, pllc > 1076 Highland Colony Parkway > 600 Concourse, Suite 125 > Ridgeland, Mississippi 39157 > T: 601.982.5011 > F: 601.853.9540 > www.carrollbufkin.com<http://www.carrollbufkin.com><http://www.carrollbufkin.com/<http://www.carrollbuf kin.com/><UrlBlockedError.aspx>> > > Licensed in Mississippi and Tennessee > > From: Carson Thurman > Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2020 2:45 PM > To: Cody Bailey <cbailey@brunini.com<mailto:cbailey@brunini.com>>; MCroft@maronmarvel.com<mailto:MCroft@maronmarvel.com>; Gary Bufkin <tgb@carrollbufkin.com<mailto:tgb@carrollbufkin.com>> > Cc: Trey Jones <TJones@brunini.com<mailto:TJones@brunini.com>>; Karen Howell <KHowell@brunini.com<mailto:KHowell@brunini.com>> > Subject: RE: Parchman inspection > > Cody- I apologize for the delay in responding. I should have our list together by tomorrow. Thank you. > > Carson H. Thurman > Carroll Bufkin, pllc > (601) 982-5011 - Telephone > www.carrollbufkin.com<http://www.carrollbufkin.com><http://www.carrollbufkin.com/<http://www.carrollbuf kin.com/><UrlBlockedError.aspx>> > > From: Cody Bailey <cbailey@brunini.com<mailto:cbailey@brunini.com<mailto:cbailey@brunini.com%3cmailto:cbailey@brunini. com>>> > Sent: Friday, June 5, 2020 12:12 PM > To: Carson Thurman <CThurman@carrollbufkin.com<mailto:CThurman@carrollbufkin.com<mailto:CThurman@carrollbufkin.com %3cmailto:CThurman@carrollbufkin.com>>>; MCroft@maronmarvel.com<mailto:MCroft@maronmarvel.com<mailto:MCroft@maronmarvel.com%3cmailto :MCroft@maronmarvel.com>>; Gary Bufkin <tgb@carrollbufkin.com<mailto:tgb@carrollbufkin.com<mailto:tgb@carrollbufkin.com%3cmailto:tgb@carroll
11

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-2 Filed: 07/27/20 13 of 13 PageID #: 8020
bufkin.com>>> > Cc: Trey Jones <TJones@brunini.com<mailto:TJones@brunini.com<mailto:TJones@brunini.com%3cmailto:TJones@brunini. com>>>; Karen Howell <KHowell@brunini.com<mailto:KHowell@brunini.com<mailto:KHowell@brunini.com%3cmailto:KHowell@ brunini.com>>> > Subject: Parchman inspection > > Carson, I assume you guys are on track to file Plaintiffs' supplementation on Monday, June 8. We are planning to conduct our experts' inspection of Parchman on Monday, June 15, and if necessary, Tuesday, June 16. Please let us know who, if anyone, from your team will be attending those inspections. Thanks. > > Cody > Cody C. Bailey > E: cbailey@brunini.com<mailto:cbailey@brunini.com<mailto:cbailey@brunini.com%3cmailto:cbailey@brunini.c om>> > P: 601-973-8790 F: 601-960-6902 > > [Image removed by sender.] > > The Pinnacle Building > 190 East Capitol St, Suite 100, Jackson, MS 39201 Post Office Drawer 119, Jackson, MS 39205 > > www.brunini.com<http://www.brunini.com><http://www.brunini.com/<http://www.brunini.com/><UrlBlocked Error.aspx>> > Bio<http://www.brunini.com/attorneys-94.html<http://www.brunini.com/attorneys94.html><http://www.brunini.com/attorneys-94.html<http://www.brunini.com/attorneys-94.html>>> / VCard<http://www.brunini.com/vcard-94.vcf<http://www.brunini.com/vcard94.vcf><http://www.brunini.com/vcard-94.vcf<http://www.brunini.com/vcard-94.vcf>>> > > > Confidentiality Statement > The information contained in this electronic message from the law firm of Brunini, Grantham, Grower & Hewes, PLLC is confidential or privileged. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this message is prohibited. If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify us immediately by telephone at (601) 948-3101.
12

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-3 Filed: 07/27/20 1 of 3 PageID #: 8021
EXHIBIT “C” JUSTIN JAMES DECLARATION (JULY 24)

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-3 Filed: 07/27/20 2 of 3 PageID #: 8022

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-3 Filed: 07/27/20 3 of 3 PageID #: 8023

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-4 Filed: 07/27/20 1 of 3 PageID #: 8024
EXHIBIT “D” KURIAKI RILEY DECLARATION (JULY 27)

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-4 Filed: 07/27/20 2 of 3 PageID #: 8025

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-4 Filed: 07/27/20 3 of 3 PageID #: 8026

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-5 Filed: 07/27/20 1 of 12 PageID #: 8027
EXHIBIT “E” ARIC JOHNSON DECLARATION (JULY 24) AND ATTACHED PHOTOGRAPHS

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-5 Filed: 07/27/20 2 of 12 PageID #: 8028

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-5 Filed: 07/27/20 3 of 12 PageID #: 8029

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-5 Filed: 07/27/20 4 of 12 PageID #: 8030

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-5 Filed: 07/27/20 5 of 12 PageID #: 8031

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-5 Filed: 07/27/20 6 of 12 PageID #: 8032

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-5 Filed: 07/27/20 7 of 12 PageID #: 8033

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-5 Filed: 07/27/20 8 of 12 PageID #: 8034

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-5 Filed: 07/27/20 9 of 12 PageID #: 8035

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-5 Filed: 07/27/20 10 of 12 PageID #: 8036

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-5 Filed: 07/27/20 11 of 12 PageID #: 8037

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-5 Filed: 07/27/20 12 of 12 PageID #: 8038

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-6 Filed: 07/27/20 1 of 34 PageID #: 8039
EXHIBIT “F” EDWARDS REPLY REPORT

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-6 Filed: 07/27/20 2 of 34 PageID #: 8040

July 27, 2020

Reference No. 11208846

Maron Marvel Bradley Anderson & Tardy, LLC City Centre 200 South Lamar Street Suite 550N Jackson, Mississippi 39201
Carroll Bufkin, PLLC 1076 Highland Colony Parkway 600 Concourse, Suite 125 Ridgeland, Mississippi 39157
Dear Esquires:
Re: Misconceptions and Inaccuracies Regarding Defense Assertions of Drinking Water Quality and Mold Mississippi State Penitentiary, Parchman Prison Sunflower County, Mississippi
GHD Services Inc. (GHD), retained by Maron Marvel Bradley Anderson & Tardy, LLC and Carroll Bufkin, PLLC on behalf of the Plaintiffs in the matter of MICHAEL AMOS, et al. (“Plaintiffs”) versus TOMMY TAYLOR, in his official capacity as the Interim Commissioner of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, and MARSHAL TURNER, in his official capacity as the Superintendent of the Mississippi State Penitentiary, prepared the enclosed to identify misconceptions and inaccuracies in the Defense response to the Expert Report of GHD, dated June 6, 2020. The Defense experts present misconceptions and inaccurately portray facts regarding the drinking water quality and the presence of mold within the Mississippi State Penitentiary in the following documents:
 Expert Report and Declaration of John D. Rees CCE, dated July 13, 2020
 Declaration of Jeworski Mallett, dated July 13, 2020
 Declaration of John G. Sprayberry, July 13, 2020
 Expert Report and Declaration of Stephen C. Tussey, dated July 13, 2020
Misconceptions and Inaccuracies in Defense Responses Regarding Drinking Water Quality
The Defense purports the drinking water analyses presented in the Expert Report of GHD prepared by Mr. Frank D. Edwards support their position regarding the quality of potable water at Parchman. This section provides misconceptions presented by the Defense of the findings regarding the quality of drinking water at the Mississippi State Penitentiary presented in the Expert Report of GHD (June 6, 2020) and inaccuracies in the Defense assertions regarding the quality of drinking water at the Mississippi State Penitentiary.
As stated in the Expert Report of GHD, safe drinking water at the Mississippi State Penitentiary (hereafter referred to as Parchman) is subject to regulation by and compliance with the Mississippi Safe Drinking Water

GHD
5551 Corporate Boulevard Suite 200 Baton Rouge Louisiana 70808 USA T 225 292 9007 F 225 952 2978 W www.ghd.com

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-6 Filed: 07/27/20 3 of 34 PageID #: 8041

Act (Title 41. Public Health, Chapter 26. Mississippi Safe Drinking Water Act of 1997). The Plaintiffs’ request for adherence and compliance with the Mississippi Safe Drinking Water Act is not only reasonable but also consistent with the laws of the State of Mississippi.
The Mississippi Safe Drink Water Act incorporates by reference the United States Safe Drinking Water Act. The United States Safe Drinking Water Act establishes contaminant specific criteria for drinking water and codified these requirements in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) (Protection of the Environment), Chapter I. (Environmental Protection Agency), Subpart D. (Water Programs), Part 141 (National Primary Drinking Water Standards), referred to as 40 CFR 141. The National Primary Drinking Water Standards established Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the following:
 Inorganic chemicals
 Organic chemicals
 Drinking water disinfectants
 Drinking water disinfection byproducts
 Radionuclides
 Microorganisms
It is not only reasonable but also required by the Mississippi Safe Drinking Water Act for the Parchman drinking water supply to adhere to the National Primary Drinking Water Standards for all regulated contaminants, not just the subset of contaminants selected and monitored at Parchman. One cannot attest the potable water at Parchman is safe to drink without analysis for the full set of National Primary Drinking Water contaminants, which has yet to be produced by the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC).
In addition, the Defense conveniently ignores the analytical program and note on page 12 of the Expert Report of GHD, which clearly states a subset of the required contaminants with associated, mandatory, National Primary Drinking Water Standards were not analyzed by GHD due to inadequate sampling points provided by the MDOC (i.e., aerated lavatory or shower head fixtures, which are not conducive to obtaining representative volatile organic samples for analysis). Furthermore, the MDOC failed to produce complete analysis for the Mississippi Safe Drinking Water Act mandatory, critical microorganism analyses, such as Giardia lamblia (gastrointestinal illness (e.g., diarrhea, vomiting, cramps)) and Legionella (Legionnaire’s Disease, a type of Pneumonia).
The Defense inaccurately asserts historical Mississippi State Drinking Water Act violations at the Mississippi State Penitentiary, cited in the Expert Report of GHD dated June 6, 2020, are not current and relevant. However, the Export Report of GHD provided evidence the drinking water quality at the prison has been compromised in the past two years with contaminants, such as lead and bacteria, both of which are regulated by the Mississippi State Department of Health as harmful to human health in drinking water. Available documents indicate essential chlorination of the drinking water to combat disease causing bacteria was compromised at the prison, as recent as last year. The Plaintiffs’ were incarcerated at the prison and drinking the water at the prison during these violations of the Mississippi Safe Drinking Water Act.

11208846-Esquires-2

3

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-6 Filed: 07/27/20 4 of 34 PageID #: 8042
Misconceptions and Inaccuracies in Defense Responses Regarding Mold
The Defense provides the misconception that the lack of mold testing validates the absence of mold. However, the Defense experts don’t acknowledge the reason there is no analytical data indicating the presence of mold is because the buildings have not been tested for mold. Despite MDOC’s lack of analytical data, during February 11 and 12, 2020, on-Site inspections GHD utilized Forward-Looking Infrared Thermal Imaging Technology (FLIR) to detect moisture accumulation inside the building structures, so as to avoid invasive testing into the structure itself. FLIR thermal imagery results revealed moisture levels at the level appropriate for mold growth in both Units 29 and Unit 30. Additionally, mold growth was visible to the naked eye during the above stated on-Site inspections, as depicted in the pictures attached hereto which were included in GHD’s original report, however MDOC admits no mold remediation has taken place as they claim there is no mold. Furthermore, the Defense experts ignore the Mississippi State Department of Health’s mold information stating “For mold to grow, it needs…a source of moisture. The following are sources of indoor moisture that may cause problems: flooding, backed-up sewers, leaky roofs…”, (https://msdh.ms.gov/msdhsite/_static/43,0,230,331.html) all of which are acknowledge by the Defense experts to have occurred within specific incarceration buildings where the Plaintiffs were or are currently housed and confirmed from first hand observations of these building by GHD on February 11 and 12, 2020. Control and prevention of water intrusion into the buildings is further confirmed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, which states “The best way to control mold growth is to control moisture.”(https://www.epa.gov/mold)
As stated by the Mississippi Department of Health, the process to properly remediate mold includes “Identify and correct the moisture source” and “Clean, disinfect, and dry the moldy area”. (https://msdh.ms.gov/msdhsite/_static/43,0,230,331.html). Addressing the moisture source alone is not enough as stated in the Mississippi State Department of Health’s mold remediation protocols “Unless the source of moisture is removed and the contaminated area is cleaned and disinfected, mold growth is likely to reoccur.” (https://msdh.ms.gov/msdhsite/_static/43,0,230,331.html).
Furthermore, the Defense experts purport the lack of visual evidence of mold, although the observations occurred after the interior building surfaces were painted. The Expert Report of GHD contains data supportive of mold growth before the interior painting occurred.
Mr. Edwards attempted to observe and document the conditions reportedly viewed by the Defense Experts, as cited in their declarations and Expert Reports, during Defense’s inspection of the prison. However, Mr. Edwards was denied access to the prison by Defense counsel (e-mail dated June 22, 2020, from Mr. Cody Bailey to Ms. Marcy Croft and Mr. Carson Thurman).

11208846-Esquires-2

3

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-6 Filed: 07/27/20 5 of 34 PageID #: 8043
Should you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact GHD at (225) 292-9007. Sincerely, GHD Frank D. Edwards Vice President FDE/jlf/1 Encl.: Attachment A - Site Photographic Log

11208846-Esquires-2

3

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-6 Filed: 07/27/20 6 of 34 PageID #: 8044
Attachment A Site Photographic Log
GHD | 11208846-Esquires-2

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-6 Filed: 07/27/20 7 of 34 PageID #: 8045

Unit 29 - Building B - Zone B

Site Photographic Log 11208846 (1)

Page 1

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-6 Filed: 07/27/20 8 of 34 PageID #: 8046

Site Photographic Log 11208846 (1)

Page 2

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-6 Filed: 07/27/20 9 of 34 PageID #: 8047

Unit 29 - Building C - Zone B

Site Photographic Log 11208846 (1)

Page 3

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-6 Filed: 07/27/20 10 of 34 PageID #: 8048

Site Photographic Log 11208846 (1)

Page 4

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-6 Filed: 07/27/20 11 of 34 PageID #: 8049

Unit 29 - Building D - Zone A

Site Photographic Log 11208846 (1)

Page 5

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-6 Filed: 07/27/20 12 of 34 PageID #: 8050

Site Photographic Log 11208846 (1)

Page 6

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-6 Filed: 07/27/20 13 of 34 PageID #: 8051

Unit 29 - Building E - Zone B

Site Photographic Log 11208846 (1)

Page 7

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-6 Filed: 07/27/20 14 of 34 PageID #: 8052

Site Photographic Log 11208846 (1)

Page 8

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-6 Filed: 07/27/20 15 of 34 PageID #: 8053

Unit 29 - Building F - Zones A&B

Site Photographic Log 11208846 (1)

Page 9

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-6 Filed: 07/27/20 16 of 34 PageID #: 8054

Site Photographic Log 11208846 (1)

Page 10

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-6 Filed: 07/27/20 17 of 34 PageID #: 8055

Unit 29 - Building G - Zones A&B

Site Photographic Log 11208846 (1)

Page 11

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-6 Filed: 07/27/20 18 of 34 PageID #: 8056

Site Photographic Log 11208846 (1)

Page 12

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-6 Filed: 07/27/20 19 of 34 PageID #: 8057

Unit 29 - Building H - Zone A

Site Photographic Log 11208846 (1)

Page 13

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-6 Filed: 07/27/20 20 of 34 PageID #: 8058

Site Photographic Log 11208846 (1)

Page 14

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-6 Filed: 07/27/20 21 of 34 PageID #: 8059

Unit 29 - Building I - Zones A&B

Site Photographic Log 11208846 (1)

Page 15

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-6 Filed: 07/27/20 22 of 34 PageID #: 8060

Site Photographic Log 11208846 (1)

Page 16

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-6 Filed: 07/27/20 23 of 34 PageID #: 8061

Unit 29 - Building K - Zones A&B

Site Photographic Log 11208846 (1)

Page 17

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-6 Filed: 07/27/20 24 of 34 PageID #: 8062

Site Photographic Log 11208846 (1)

Page 18

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-6 Filed: 07/27/20 25 of 34 PageID #: 8063

Unit 29 - Building L - Zone A

Site Photographic Log 11208846 (1)

Page 19

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-6 Filed: 07/27/20 26 of 34 PageID #: 8064

Site Photographic Log 11208846 (1)

Page 20

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-6 Filed: 07/27/20 27 of 34 PageID #: 8065

Unit 30 - Building A - Zone B

Site Photographic Log 11208846 (1)

Page 21

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-6 Filed: 07/27/20 28 of 34 PageID #: 8066

Site Photographic Log 11208846 (1)

Page 22

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-6 Filed: 07/27/20 29 of 34 PageID #: 8067

Unit 30 - Building B - Zone B

Site Photographic Log 11208846 (1)

Page 23

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-6 Filed: 07/27/20 30 of 34 PageID #: 8068

Site Photographic Log 11208846 (1)

Page 24

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-6 Filed: 07/27/20 31 of 34 PageID #: 8069

Unit 30 - Building C - Zone B

Site Photographic Log 11208846 (1)

Page 25

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-6 Filed: 07/27/20 32 of 34 PageID #: 8070

Site Photographic Log 11208846 (1)

Page 26

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-6 Filed: 07/27/20 33 of 34 PageID #: 8071

Unit 30 - Building D - Zones A&B

Site Photographic Log 11208846 (1)

Page 27

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-6 Filed: 07/27/20 34 of 34 PageID #: 8072

Site Photographic Log 11208846 (1)

Page 28

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-7 Filed: 07/27/20 1 of 5 PageID #: 8073
EXHIIBT “G” DR. STERN REPLY REPORT

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-7 Filed: 07/27/20 2 of 5 PageID #: 8074
Marc F. Stern, MD, MPH Consultant in Correctional Health Care
Tumwater, Washington 98501 (360) 701-6520
marcstern@live.com
July 27, 2020
Background and Objective I was asked by attorneys representing 33 named Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit of Amos et al. v. Taylor et al. to opine on the correctional health care system and general medical conditions to which Plaintiffs are exposed at the Mississippi State Penitentiary located in Parchman, Mississippi ("Parchman"), due to an unexpected number of recent deaths at the facility as well as information emerging on social and other media alleging dangerous conditions at the facility. The present response is produced to address Defendants’ statements contained in their response as filed on July 13, 2020, specifically, declarations of John D. Rees CCE, James Glisson, M.D., PHARM.D, Thomas D. Fowlkes, M.D., and Jeworski Mallet.
Qualifications and Disclosures I am a board-certified internist specializing in correctional health care. I have managed health care operations and practiced health care in multiple correctional settings. Most recently, I served as the Assistant Secretary of Health Care for the Washington State Department of Corrections.
On a regular basis I investigate, evaluate, and monitor the adequacy of health care delivery systems in correctional institutions on behalf of a variety of parties including federal courts; the Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; the Special Litigation Section of the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice; and state departments of corrections and county jails. In the course of my work, I have visited and evaluated medical care in approximately 100 jail, prison, and immigration detention facilities in the US.
Through 2013, on behalf of the National Commission on Correctional Health Care (NCCHC), I taught the NCCHC's correctional health care standards semi-annually to correctional health care administrators at NCCHC's national conferences. I authored a week-long curriculum commissioned by the National Institute of Corrections of the U.S. Department of Justice to train jail and prison wardens and health care administrators in the principles and practices of operating safe and effective correctional health care operations, and served as the principal instructor for this course. Additional details of my education, teaching and work experience, and publications, are contained in my Curriculum Vitae, which is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
I am being compensated for my work in this matter at a rate of $350 per hour.
Declaration of John D. Rees CCE Mr. Rees opines:

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-7 Filed: 07/27/20 3 of 5 PageID #: 8075
In his summary of his report, Dr. Marc Stern makes various outlandish statements regarding the medical services being rendered to the inmate population at Parchman, including the named Plaintiffs. While I am not qualified to speak to the specifics of the medical care, I am qualified to provide a general statement as to the overall quality of the health services being provided and how they compare to generally accepted standards within the field of Corrections. The medical services being provided by Centurion of Mississippi are accredited by the National Commission on Correctional Health Care. Since Dr. Stern says he used those standards as a guide to evaluate the health system, then his opinions should align with NCCHC findings and current status.
Doc.#118-4, pg. 5
As Mr. Rees admits, he does not possess the qualifications to speak to medical care, which must apply generally, as well as specifically, to his statements. Further, NCCHC accreditation is largely about the presence of appropriate policies and of some procedures; much of the accreditation does not speak to the actual quality of care delivered. For example, NCCHC accreditation standards require that residents receive an oral health screening within seven days of arrival. However, the standards are silent regarding the clinical quality of that screening. Finally, NCCHC accreditation only attests to the facility’s adherence to the standards as of the date of the accreditation.
Mr. Rees further opines:
I was concerned about the allegations that “floor walkers” were controlling access to sick call requests, as this would not be acceptable. During my tour of the facilities, I observed sick call boxes in multiple locations where sick call requests could be deposited and accessible to the offenders. I observed medical staff holding sick call in the units and doing medicine distribution.
Doc.#118-4, pg. 5
Mr. Rees’ statement is a non-sequitur. That there are barriers to access to sick call is not rebutted by observing that there are boxes where patients can deposit sick call requests. It simply demonstrates that there is a box. While interesting, Rees’ statement that some sick call visits were taking place during his visit is irrelevant, as I did not state that no sick call visits were taking place; what I stated, and what Rees’ assertion fails to rebut, is that significant barriers exist to obtaining sick call visits.
Declaration of James Glisson, M.D., PHARM.D. Dr. Glisson does not rebut any of my assertions regarding the care provided to Aric Johnson nor any of the other claims of poor care that appeared in my report.
Declaration of Thomas D. Fowlkes, M.D. Pertaining to the chronic care of prison residents, Dr. Fowlkes states:
2.… only 78 missed/rescheduled appointments due to the inmate not being transported to

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-7 Filed: 07/27/20 4 of 5 PageID #: 8076
medical. 3. Superintendent Morris is prioritizing the support of the medical staff and inmate health. The custody staff is escorting the inmates to appointments as scheduled.
Doc.#118-11, pg. 11
Despite Dr. Fowlkes’ claim that the chronic care of inmates is operating properly, he readily admits that 78 residents were not transported to medical for their appointments but then claims that custody staff escort the residents to appointments “as scheduled.” These two claims are mutually exclusive: If custody staff were escorting residents to appointments, then 78 residents would not have missed medical appointments due to not being transported.
Dr. Fowlkes’ entire rebuttal of the assertions in my report rests on representations made to him by medical staff that the problems I had described were fixed; he provides no first hand evidence that infirm the serious assertions in my report. (Doc.# 111-8 page 12,13)
Declaration of Deputy Commissioner Jeworski Mallet Mr. Mallet’s comments regarding medical care improvement are vacuous. Mallet states that he is “not aware of any credible reports of any inmates being forced to resort to lighting fires to get an officer’s attention,” however, he provides no methodology for arriving at his conclusions. (Doc.#118-1 page 10)
He continues, “MSP’s third-party medical care provider has reported that the percentage of inmates making it to their medical appointments has increased substantially over the past five months.” There is no evidence he independently verified this representation. Further, even if the representation is true, “increased substantially,” without context, carries little weight. For example, one could legitimately characterize an increase from 5% to 10% of patients making it to their appointment as a substantial increase, but this would still describe a system that is very far from constitutionally adequate. (Doc.#118-1 page 10)
Plaintiff Daniel Guthrie: Care after Site Visit There are serious deficiencies in on-going care for this patient.
At my request, Plaintiffs previously notified Defendants that the patient reported having been recently sexually assaulted. The patient was seen for this by a mental health professional on March 2, 2020. Despite the patient’s symptoms of fear and inability to sleep, the mental health professional failed to address these nor schedule any follow-up. Also, MSP staff failed to make any arrangements to make the patient safe: He reported that the assailants were still in his housing unit, but as of June 6, 2020, he was still housed in the same unit with his alleged assailants.
The patient further suffered a major health development on February 26, 2020: bilateral leg pain and swelling. He was sent to the community hospital emergency room (ER) but the ER did not do any of the diagnostic testing requested by the MSP physician nor send a report back to MSP. MSP failed to request the missing ER report, and, despite the fact that MSP medical staff continued to be concerned about possible heart damage or blood clot – medical urgencies both – and wanted the patient to have two tests (echocardiogram of the heart, and Doppler studies of the legs), as of

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-7 Filed: 07/27/20 5 of 5 PageID #: 8077
June 16, 2020, the tests had still not been done and no one did anything to get them done. In other words, the patient’s serious symptoms were subsequently ignored.
Licensed practical nurses (LPN) continue to operate independently, beyond the scope of their license. The most serious breach occurred on March 2, 2020, when the patient returned from the aforementioned ER visit. An LPN admitted him to the infirmary on her own, failed to get any orders for patient management, failed to obtain and review the ER report, and failed to notify anyone with higher clinical authority that the patient had arrived.
The medical record continues to be incomplete. Many documents are missing, e.g., all the laboratory results, a copy of a patient refusal, and a copy of a patient consent, among many others.
Execution of medical orders is either delayed or not done. Ted stockings (ordered for the patient’s leg swelling, to prevent clots) were ordered in March. They were not provided until three months later. On May 24, 2020, someone ordered for the patient to have monitoring after receiving an injection of steroid. No monitoring was done.
Plaintiff Kuriaki Riley: Care after Site Visit I have concerns regarding the quality of mental health care delivered to this patient in the period from July 10 to July 15, 2020. The records describe an expression of suicidal ideation by the patient on July 10 at which time a mental health nurse practitioner felt he was not at risk of self harm. However, the following day, a medical nurse practitioner felt otherwise and admitted him to the Infirmary for closer mental health observation. I was unable to find any specific order to place the patient under suicide observation, an order which was necessary at that point to ensure the patient’s safety (though notes made by other staff seem to indicate that the patient was under suicide observation). The patient was discharged back to general population on July 14 based on an evaluation by a mental health physician assistant. As the patient's story and apparent reasons for saying he was suicidal changed over the five-day treatment period, the safeness of his discharge back to general population, without further clarification of the discrepancies in his reasoning, is questionable.
In addition, an LPN note from July 15, prompted by a new change in the patient’s behavior, provides yet another example of independent practice by LPNs outside the legal scope of practice.
Marc F. Stern, MD, MPH

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-8 Filed: 07/27/20 1 of 8 PageID #: 8078
EXHIBIT “H” LAMARRE REPLY REPORT

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-8 Filed: 07/27/20 2 of 8 PageID #: 8079

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

MICHAEL AMOS, ET AL. V. TOMMY TAYLOR, ET AL.

PLAINTIFFS CASE NO. 4:20-CV-007-DMB-JMV
DEFENDANTS

THIRD DECLARATION OF MADELEINE LAMARRE, MN, FNP-BC
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 I, Madeleine LaMarre, declare under penalty of perjury that the following statements, based on my personal knowledge, are true:
1. My name is Madeleine LaMarre, and I currently live in Atlanta, Georgia. 2. I am a family nurse practitioner with over 35 years in correctional health care. 3. This is the third Declaration (my "Third Declaration") I have submitted in this
litigation on behalf of the Plaintiffs. In addition to my two previous Declarations, I also submitted an expert report dated June 8, 2020 (the "LaMarre Report") that was attached as an Exhibit to Plaintiff's Supplemental Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. My qualifications and experience as stated in my prior Declarations and my LaMarre Report remain true and applicable to this Third Declaration.
4. I am familiar with the above-referenced litigation having participated in the Parchman site inspection on February 12-14, 2020; having personally conducted medical evaluations on 12 of the named Plaintiffs to this litigation; and having reviewed all of the medical records, pleadings, documents, reports, photographs, and other material as stated in my two previous Declarations and my LaMarre Report.

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-8 Filed: 07/27/20 3 of 8 PageID #: 8080 5. Additionally, since submitting my LaMarre Report, I have reviewed the following
non-exhaustive list of materials: a. Defendants' Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Supplemental
Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (Defendants' "Response") and Memorandum of Law in Support of the same (Defendants' "Memorandum");
b. Exhibit 1 to Defendants' Response-the Declaration of Jeworski Mallet, and attached materials;
c. Exhibit 3 to Defendants' Response-the Declaration of Dr. James Glisson, and attached materials;
d. Exhibit 4 to Defendants' Response-the Expert Report and Declaration of John D. Rees, and attached materials;
e. Exhibit 5 to Defendants' Response -the Expert Report and Declaration of Stephen C. Tussey, and attached materials;
f. Exhibit 8 to Defendants' Response. - a selection of medical records concerning the following Plaintiffs: Arie Johnson, Phillip Webster, Kuriaki Riley, and Justin James;
g. Exhibit 11 to Defendants' Response -the Report of Dr. Thomas Fowlkes, and attached materials;
h. Defendants' supplemental medical records production, received from defense counsel in parts on July 16, 2020 and July 17, 2020 (the "Supplemental Medical Records"); and 6. Specifically, I am submitting this Third Declaration at the request of Plaintiffs' counsel in respond to various inaccuracies, mischaracterizations, and purported findings found within the Defendants' Response and Memorandum, and in the reports and declarations attached to Defendants' Response listed above in Paragraph 5 of this Third Declaration. 7. My review of the materials listed above in Paragraph 5 show that Defendants'
2

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-8 Filed: 07/27/20 4 of 8 PageID #: 8081
experts have provided no evidence that refutes the findings in either my LaMarre Report or the expert report of Dr. Marc Stern dated June 8, 2020 (the "Stem Report"). I will go through several of the items presented by Defendants as support for their Response and Memorandum in the paragraphs below.
The Supplemental Medical Records 8. My review of the still incomplete Supplemental Medical Records shows continued problems with inmate custody, not transporting inmates to scheduled appointments, lack of timely and appropriate chronic disease management, failure to obtain hospital reports, and failure to medically evaluate and diagnose patients with serious medical conditions in a timely manner. 9. Additionally, and despite unsupported assertions made by the Defendant, my review of both the previously produced medical records and the Supplemental Medical Records confirms my finding from my LaMarre Report that many patients have experienced significant and unintended weight loss and have not been medically evaluated in a timely manner. 10. I have also reviewed Dr. Stern's analysis of the Supplemental Medical Records, and I fully agree with Dr. Stern's findings. 11. In my professional opinion, both my findings and the findings submitted by Dr. Stern support the need for a Temporary Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction as requested by Plaintiffs.
Dr. Thomas Fowlkes' Report 12. In his report, Dr. Fowlkes does not dispute any of the findings from my LaMarre Report or the Stern Report with proof. 13. In his report, Dr. Fowlkes did not mention having conducted any independent evaluation of the Plaintiffs to address any of their medical concerns as raised in my LaMarre Report, in the Stern Report, and/or in the letter dated February 26, 2020, sent by Plaintiffs' counsel to counsel for the Defendants, that detailed serious medical issues currently (at that time) affecting 18 of the named Plaintiffs. This letter was attached as Exhibit B to my LaMarre report. In fact, Defendants have yet to even respond to the February 26, 2020 letter at all.
3

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-8 Filed: 07/27/20 5 of 8 PageID #: 8082 14. Dr. Fowlkes make the following statement in his report: "At this time, health care
provided to inmates at MSP is reasonable, appropriate and within the acceptable standard of care." This statement is unsupported by the evidence presented to date in this litigation. Further, Dr. Fowlkes' conclusory statement simply cannot be true in light of the LaMarre Report's and Stem Report's findings, which remain undisputed by Dr. Fowlkes.
15. Dr. Fowlkes' repeated claim that the Parchman health care facility ("Unit 42") is accredited by the National Commission on Correctional Health Care (the "NCCHC") has no relevancy with respect to whether Parchman's health care systems are actually functioning at the level ofacceptable standards. Again, Dr. Fowlkes does not dispute the findings found within either my LaMarre Report or the Stem Report in this regard.
16. With regard to medications, Dr. Fowlkes merely described the aspirational medical administration and refill processes but conducted no independent evaluation as to whether or not patients actually received their medications in a timely manner.
17. With regard to chronic disease management, Dr. Fowlkes makes the conclusory statement that ''[t]he chronic disease program is operating as designed." The only evidence provided as the basis for this statement is a noted reduction in backlog. Dr. Fowlkes did not evaluate or respond to the timeliness and/or quality of care issues as raised by a review of the Plaintiffs' medical record and presented in both my LaMarre Report and the Stem Report.
Dr. James Glisson's Declaration 18. In his Declaration, Dr. Glisson (like Dr. Fowlkes) does not dispute any of the findings from my LaMarre Report or the Stem Report with proof. 19. Instead, Dr. Glisson's Declaration states unsupported claims. For example with regard to the unintended weight loss ofPlaintiffCurtis Wilson: I personally examined Mr. Wilson on February 13, 2020, and his weight was 148 pounds, nearly the exact same weight as reported on records produced from his February 17, 2020 health care visit (150 pounds). Dr. Glisson claims that Wilson weighed 171 pounds in June 2018 and 170 pounds in June 2020; however, Dr. Glisson
4

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-8 Filed: 07/27/20 6 of 8 PageID #: 8083
does not cite or attached records in support of this claim. (This also shows the lack of fairness in Plaintiffs' and Defendants' respective access to needed information-Dr. Glisson and Defendants have access to all Plaintiffs' digital medical records for the entirety of their incarceration, while Plaintiffs were only given incomplete, hard copy records going back to January 1, 2019. This allows Defendants to cite to an alleged record from June 2018 to support a claim, leaving Plaintiffs with no way to verify or respond).
20. In his Declaration, Dr. Glisson (like Dr. Fowlkes) did not mention having conducted any independent evaluation of the Plaintiffs to address any of their medical concerns as raised in my LaMarre Report, in the Stern Report, and/or in the February 26, 2020 letter (attached as Exhibit B to my LaMarre report). Again, Defendants have yet to even respond to the February 26, 2020 letter at all.
21. Instead, Dr. Glisson's Declaration mainly discussed the aspirational plans developed by Defendants and their third-party medical contractor, Centurion, without an analysis as to how the system actually functions and whether or not the aspirational goals are being met.
Report of John Rees 22. In his report, Mr. Rees does not dispute any of the findings from my LaMarre Report or the Stern Report with proof. In fact, Mr. Rees does not dispute any of the findings from any expert report submitted on behalf of the Plaintiffs with proof. 23. In the same breath, Mr. Rees admits he is "not qualified to speak to the specifics of the medical care," while also alleging he is "qualified to provide a general statement as to the overall quality of health services being provided and how they compare to generally accepted standards within the field ofCorrections." Rees Report, p. 5. No, he is not. Citing and/or referring to NCCHC standards is not the same as having personal expert knowledge ofwhether or not health
5

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-8 Filed: 07/27/20 7 of 8 PageID #: 8084
care systems are actually working or whether or not the quality ofcare being provided is adequate. Mr. Rees is unqualified to provide any alleged analysis ofDr. Stem's findings as to the adequacy and sufficiency ofMDOC's health care systems at Parchman.1
Declaration of Jeworski Mallett 24. In his Declaration, Mr. Mallett does not dispute any of the findings from my LaMarre Report or the Stem Report with proof. Instead, the thrust ofMr. Mallett's Declaration is that the conditions documented by my LaMarre Report and in the other expert reports submitted by the Plaintiffs "have changed significantly in the past 5 months." Mallett Declaration, p. 2. 25. Mr. Mallett admits that MDOC will be operating on the same inadequate budget for fiscal year 2020-2021 as it did last year (actually, probably less given that Mr. Mallett states that MDOC retained "approximately the same funding"). Mallett Declaration, p. 6. Mr. Mallett's statement also does not disclose that MDOC's budget has been reduced by $185,000,000 since 2014. 26. Mr. Mallett's statement on p. 7 that he is "not aware" ofany floor walkers abusing their authority and/or exerting influence over other inmates is not proof that this conduct is not occurring. Plaintiffs stated repeatedly that this occurred most often at meal times, resulting in certain inmates being denied food. 27. Similarly, Mr. Mallett's statement that he, personally, has never seen a rodent in inmate housing is not proofthat rodents do not exist there. This is especially true given that, first, Mr. Mallett does not work at Parchman on a daily basis and, second, documents produced by
Mr. Rees' statement that Dr. Stem made "outlandish statements" in the Stem Report is entirely speculative and without basis. Mr. Rees continues to prove his lack of expertise in the realm of health care with his beliefthat that because there have been no cases ofCOVID-19 at Parchman, "it establishes the fact that adequate medical care is being provided." Mr. Rees does not even attempt to explain how he makes this leap, and that is because there is no identifiable relationship between the two sentiments which, for example, does not take into consideration the abysmally low COVID-19 testing numbers at Parchman.
6

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-8 Filed: 07/27/20 8 of 8 PageID #: 8085
Defendants in this lawsuit contain reports and emails among MDOC documenting the existence of rodent and pest problems. For exan1ple, see the email from Timothy Morris dated January 21, 2020 from Warden Timothy Morris to Lee Simon noting the presence of "rats running" in I Building.
28. While Mr. Mallett makes general statements on p. 10 of his repo1i about "efforts" being made to ensure Parchman's health care services are improving, he does not (because he cannot) provide any proof to dispute the medical and mental health care findings from my LaMarre Report, the Stem Report, or any of the other expert reports submitted by the Plaintiffs.
29. Further, Mr. Mallett is unqualified to opine as to the adequacy ofParchman's health care systems overall and/or the adequacy of care provided to any inmate on an individual basis. Mr. Mallett's attempt to provide expert analysis concerning four ofthe Plaintiffs' individual health care issues is improper and unsupported by any personal expert knowledge.
30. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on July 27, 2020.
/)1-{' ,;Ld?Pl,.__
Madeleine LaMaiTe, MN, FNP-BC
7

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-15 Filed: 07/27/20 1 of 30 PageID #: 8839
EXHIBIT “J” THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
STANDARD OPERATTING PROCEDURES

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-15 Filed: 07/27/20 2 of 30 PageID #: 8840
CA STANDARDS: 2-CO-4D-01,4-4329thru 4-4333,
POLICY: It is the policy of the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC) that facility sanitation and hygiene programs will comply with applicable regulations and standards.
(None) PRECEPTS: All Mississippi Department of Corrections facilities will comply with the sanitation and health codes of all applicable jurisdictional authorities. Each facility's compliance will be documented by an outside professional source. Administration of CorrectionalAgencies (Central Office): Written agency policy provides that the agency complies with applicable governmental regulations and standards. At a minimum, these policies cover the following:
sanitation inspections water supply testing
. water disposal housekeeping
. clothing and bedding supplies . bathing and personal hygiene . hair care services [2-CO-4D-011
Adult Correctional Institutions: (MANDATORY) The facility complies with all applicable health codes and regulations of the governing jurisdiction, and there is documentation by an independent, outside source that any past deficiencies noted in annual inspections have been corrected. Copies of all inspections will be forwarded to both the facility or program administrator and the health authority. The following facility inspections are required:
weekly sanitation inspections of all facility areas by a qualified departmental staff member comprehensive and thorough monthly inspections by a safety or sanitation specialist at least annual inspections by federal, state, andlor local sanitation and health officials or other qualified person(s) [4-43291.
24-01 (e)

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-15 Filed: 07/27/20 3 of 30 PageID #: 8841
Adult Community Residential Services: (MANDATORY) The facility complies with the sanitation and health codes of the jurisdiction having authority [4-ACRS-1A-021.
Adult Community Residential Services: Sanitation and safety inspections are conducted weekly, Inspections results are reviewed, and deficiencies are corrected [4-ACRS-IA-031.
Each facility's compliance will be documented by an outside professional source.
The Superintendents, PrivatelRegional Wardens, Community Corrections Directors or designees will establish inspection procedures to include:
1. Weekly sanitation inspections of all facility areas by a qualified staff member 2. Comprehensive and thorough monthly inspections by a safetylsanitation specialist 3. An annual inspection by federal, state, and or local regulatory officials
Each Facility's Controlling Authority will ensure:
Adult Correctional Institutions: The institution's potable water source and supply, whether owned and operated by the public water department or the institution, is certified by an independent, outside source to be in compliance with jurisdictional laws and regulations [Mandatory 4-43301.
Adult Community Residential Services: The facility's potable water source and supply are sanitary and are approved by an independent, qualified agency or individual to be in compliance with jurisdictional laws and regulations [Mandatory 4-ACRS-1A-011.
Adult Correctional Institutions: The institution provides for a waste disposal system, in accordance with an approved plan by the appropriate regulatory agency [Mandatory 443311.
Adult Community Residential Services: Waste is disposed of properly in accordance with an approved plan by the appropriate regulatory agency [Mandatory 4-ACRS-1A-041.
Adult Correctional Institutions: The institution provides for the control of vermin and pests [Mandatory 4-43321.
Adult Community ResidentialServices: Vermin and pest are controlled [Mandatory 4-ACRS1A-051.
Adult Correctional Institutions: A written housekeeping plan for all areas of the facility's physical plant provides for daily housekeeping and regular maintenance by assigning specific duties and responsibilities to staff and inmates [4-43331.
Adult Community Residential Services: The facility is clean and in good repair, and a housekeeping and maintenance plan is i n effect 14-ACRS-1A-061.

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-15 Filed: 07/27/20 4 of 30 PageID #: 8842

85 DOCUMENTS REQUIRED:
86 87 As required by this policy and through the chain of command.

Reviewed and

ority of the Deputy

24-01 (e)

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-15 Filed: 07/27/20 5 of 30 PageID #: 8843

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-15 Filed: 07/27/20 6 of 30 PageID #: 8844

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-15 Filed: 07/27/20 7 of 30 PageID #: 8845

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-15 Filed: 07/27/20 8 of 30 PageID #: 8846

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-15 Filed: 07/27/20 9 of 30 PageID #: 8847

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-15 Filed: 07/27/20 10 of 30 PageID #: 8848

24-01-01 – F1 Revision 7/01/03
JOB NO.
C.W.C.
OTHER

Case: 4:20-cMv-I0S00S0I7S-SDIMPBP-IJMDVEDPoAcR#T: 1M23E-1N5TFiOledF: C07O/2R7/R20E1C1ToIfO30NPSageID #: 8849

CONSTRUCTION MAINTENANCE WORK SHEET

BLDG #

CMCF

MSP

SMCI

LOCATION REQUESTED BY

CARPENTRY COMMUNICATIONS

CONSTRUCTION ELECTRICAL

ELECTRONICS GROUNDS

DATE RECEIVED TIME RECEIVED PRIORITY E 1 2 3

DATE STARTED TIME STARTED NO. INMATES

DESCRIPTION OF WORK TO BE PERFORMED

HVAC PAINT

PEST CONTROL PLUMBING

PREVENTIVE WELDING

DATE COMPLETED TIME COMPLETED TOTAL MAN HOURS

MATERIAL USED

QTY

APPROVED BY COST CENTER
WORK TYPE

PREVENTIVE PREDICTIVE GEN MAINT. CONSTRUCTION

COST EA.

TOTAL

SPECIAL COMMENTS:
Accepted By: Supervisor: Superintendent:

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-15 Filed: 07/27/20 12 of 30 PageID #: 8850

MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS MSP PEST CONTROL WORK SHEET

Date: _________________________ Pest: _____________________________

Time: _________________________ Pesticide Used: ____________________

Location

Date Time Amount

Description of Work

24-01-01 – F2 Revision 7/01/03

Authorized Signature for Service: ____________________________________ Work Supervisor: _________________________________________________

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-15 Filed: 07/27/20 13 of 30 PageID #: 8851

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-15 Filed: 07/27/20 14 of 30 PageID #: 8852

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-15 Filed: 07/27/20 15 of 30 PageID #: 8853

WIND-CHILL FACTOR CHART
At times, employees and offenders must work in places that are extremely cold or extremely hot. Problems of heat stress are more common than those presented by a very cold environment. To assist unit officials in determining safe working conditions in both high and low temperature extremes, the following chart is provided.

WS

Actual Air Temperature

I P 35 30 25 20 15 10 05 00 -05 -10 -15 -20 -25 -30 -35

NE

DE

Apparent Temperature

D

5 33 27 21 16 12 07 00 -05 -10 -15 -21 -26 -31 -36 -042 10 22 16 10 03 -03 -09 -15 -22 -27 -34 -40 -46 -52 -58 -064 15 16 09 02 -05 -11 -18 -25 -31 -38 -45 -51 -58 -65 -72 -078 20 12 04 -03 -10 -17 -24 -31 -39 -46 -53 -60 -67 -74 -81 -088 25 08 01 -07 -15 -22 -29 -36 -44 -51 -59 -66 -74 -81 -88 -096 30 06 -02 -10 -18 -25 -33 -41 -49 -56 -64 -71 -79 -88 -93 -101
NOTE: Winds of more than 45 mph add little to the chilling

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-15 Filed: 07/27/20 16 of 30 PageID #: 8854

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-15 Filed: 07/27/20 17 of 30 PageID #: 8855

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-15 Filed: 07/27/20 18 of 30 PageID #: 8856

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-15 Filed: 07/27/20 19 of 30 PageID #: 8857

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-15 Filed: 07/27/20 20 of 30 PageID #: 8858

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-15 Filed: 07/27/20 21 of 30 PageID #: 8859

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-15 Filed: 07/27/20 22 of 30 PageID #: 8860

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-15 Filed: 07/27/20 23 of 30 PageID #: 8861

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-15 Filed: 07/27/20 24 of 30 PageID #: 8862

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-15 Filed: 07/27/20 25 of 30 PageID #: 8863

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-15 Filed: 07/27/20 26 of 30 PageID #: 8864

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-15 Filed: 07/27/20 27 of 30 PageID #: 8865

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-15 Filed: 07/27/20 28 of 30 PageID #: 8866

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-15 Filed: 07/27/20 29 of 30 PageID #: 8867

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-15 Filed: 07/27/20 30 of 30 PageID #: 8868

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-16 Filed: 07/27/20 1 of 49 PageID #: 8869
EXHIBIT “K” THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS PEST CONTROL PROCEDURES AND WORK RECORDS

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-16 Filed: 07/27/20 2 of 49 PageID #: 8870

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-16 Filed: 07/27/20 3 of 49 PageID #: 8871

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-16 Filed: 07/27/20 4 of 49 PageID #: 8872

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-16 Filed: 07/27/20 5 of 49 PageID #: 8873

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-16 Filed: 07/27/20 6 of 49 PageID #: 8874

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-16 Filed: 07/27/20 7 of 49 PageID #: 8875

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-16 Filed: 07/27/20 8 of 49 PageID #: 8876

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-16 Filed: 07/27/20 9 of 49 PageID #: 8877

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-16 Filed: 07/27/20 10 of 49 PageID #: 8878

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-16 Filed: 07/27/20 11 of 49 PageID #: 8879

24-01-01-F1 Revision 71100111/03
JOB NO C.W.C. OTHER

MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS CONSTRUCTION MAINTENANCE WORKSHEET

u CMCF

N-MSP

u SMCI

13011
4:2 BLDG # L.4,2 Cf
MS LOCATION MS(
4 7L.,..,1 REQUESTED BY Qic.V. Kce-)

U CARPENTRY

U CONSTRUCTION DU ELECTRONICS U HI4VVAC iIi/si1<6STT CONTROL UID PREVENTIVE

DU COMMUNICATIONS U ELECTRICAL

LUI GROUNDS

.U3 PRAk LIN\ T Uri PLUMBING

UJ WELDING

APPROVED BY COST CENTER

DATE RECEIVED TIME RECEIVED PRIORITY E 1 2 3

WORK TYPE

DATE START Y/271-1Z0-.00 DATE COMPLETED

22--/1t//L4 )

PREVENTIVE

'-•-_-4-J)

/33-0 TIME STAARRTTED /33 -0 TIME COMPLETED f0 / V 4 S-

PREDICTIVE

U

NNOa, LNMIMAAETESS .0

GEN MA[ENNTT,.

D U

TOTAL MAN HOURS I/. 22--.f57-p"2.2.„.4-~,G, . CONSTRUCTION 11U--1

DESCRIPTION OF WORK TO BE PERFORMED

iM\•AIA.CT`ERIAr't.l USED

<,.-0d.i,_4ig--k?_. -774%t1 aOlzz5,,„-.2640-'0 //
r ' 'ef

,I' smi_-eS-lee-ftr-

Fite-r--&•2=,=--Srof,

-f i e

K 7.1--.v ••O1,a40et-.-.4-1--PP. Cc) /1

V

CCI leLet.e..4,"4.1 I/1C- 4- 7;

QTY

COST EA.

TOTAL

SPECIAL COMMENTS:

Accepted By-

...-

Supervisor: •

Superintendent:

CONFIDENTIAL

MSPRepairs 001369 MDOC-Amos 016056

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-16 Filed: 07/27/20 12 of 49 PageID #: 8880

24-01-01-F1 Revision 71/0011/i0(
JOB NO C.W.C. OTHER

MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS CONSTRUCTION MAINTENANCE WORKSHEET

W '133001122

u CMCF

1,L1JI-iSCIPSP

u SMCI

BLDG # C't -2 LOCNAITTION 14 -2 rr‘ :' REQUESTIEED BY //0444=

DU CARPENTRY

ED-.I CONSTRUCTION LUl ELECTRONICS

DU COMMUNICATIONS CUJ ELECTRICAL

;A GROUNDS

2-U iHiI\..)!..C(7 :.1.01■••Kri CONTRROOLL. 0U PREVENTIVE

1=1I P. - 1I . .:1T- U PLUMBING

1U WELDING

APPROVED BY COST CENTER

WORK TYPE

DATE RECEIVED ----

- DATE START Y 217/447 7 DATI E COMPLETED

PREVENTIVE

LI

TIME RECEIVED

TIME STARTED /423,3V 7

TIME COMPLETED i/N33 fV sc '

PREDICTIVE

D U

PRIORITY E 1 2 3

NO. INMATES

GEN MAINT.

JLI

_ TOTTAALLMAN HOURS • 4/55- •0•--I, :'''''' CONSTRUCTION !0..]

33 ccoifiekiA,1-f. v074 4,1..)..,/)s./is4, DESCRIPTION OF WORK TO BE PERFORMED

'1J,e1rrgyVt , 74--601

eC-oc7 %.7414_0/

..te.,N.se. A
.ne‘ , ..re.e)L--

MATERIAL USED

QTY

COST EA.

TOTAL

a_c.44Iiii:7747zfi-vcs.

cCk)- e---c--2z__4.e9 i•-)i) k 1#4)7,

SPECIAL COMMENTS:

Accepted BByy: Supervisor: &—' I

.e. _

....,577,4- 71--------;-/-

Superintendent:

CONFIDENTIAL

MSPRepairs 001370 MDOC-Amos 016057

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-16 Filed: 07/27/20 13 of 49 PageID #: 8881

24-01-01-F1 Revision 771/0011/03
JOB NO C.W.C. OTHER

MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
CONSTRUCTION MAINTENANCE WORKSHEET

NW!. - 13014

0 CMCF

VrOSP

D SMCI

BLDG #

-33 o

- '0 3 410; eV'

LOCATION / 441---SC-7C2

REQUESTED BY(15a-LA1J _J1. 44,11-

0 CARPENTRY

1021 CONSTRUCTION 0 ELECTRONICS

0 COMMUNICATIONS 0 ELECTRICAL

0U GROUNDS

201 HVAC &UloorfrtST CONTROL 0U PREVENTIVE

ULi PAINT D0 PLUMBING

U WELDING

APPROVED BY COST CENTER

DATE RECEIVED TIME RECEIVED PRIORITY E 1 2 3

t4,e(///z12,,A. DATE START O r/Zr ,f(‘2-ev) DATE COMPLETED

WORK TYPE

PREVENTIVE

D J

TLIMME STARTED 1If/ i/ SC

NO. INMATES

0g lA4

Yr- TIME COMPLETED t(51 §--

PREDICTIVE

D

g0 ,,......,t,i,i,,.6._..„,GGEENN MAINT.

J

TOTAL MAN HOURS '•_30

'CCOONNSSTTRRUUCCTTIIOONN D

D SCRIPTION OF WORK TO BE PERFORMED

It ),

:I‘' t,-.r.-s

2,,.''-i"e rn

xips,,,,dMMAATTEERR1IAALL USED
14. ,1- /-t„d 1,441 --e I---
- ::4-.4- .-ee-_0n-7,, e_pf- J*
--7-7-7--S1-57-A1.1- )7

QTY

COST EA.

TOTAL

SPECIAL COMMENTS:

Accepted By: , Supervisor: Superintendent:

te." "„Le•"-•.

CONFIDENTIAL

-
MSPRepairs 001372 MDOC-Amos 016059

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-16 Filed: 07/27/20 14 of 49 PageID #: 8882

24-01-01-F1 Revision 7/01/03
JOB NO C.W.C. OTHER

MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS CONSTRUCTION MAINTENANCE WORKSHEET

uD CMCF

31-424SP

u SMCI

4N!t - 130200
BLDG # LLOOCATION 415(/ a REQUESTED BY U.it...Pierriicc7A\. C- / erkered

0 CARPENTRY

0 CONSTRUCTION 0 ELECTRONICS

0 COMMUNICATIONS 0D ELECTRICAL

iJ GROUNDS

D2 HEINVlA'i.C. UU•lIlI'SST CONTROL D PREVENTIVE

CD] PAINT CUl PLUMBING

0 WELDING

DATTEE RREECEIVED TTIIMMEE RREECCEEIVED PPRRIIOORRIITTYY EE 11 22 33

DDAATE SSTTAART K / i/7e/-c)-c) DDAATTEE COMPLETED YVe/A/4 --44)

TTIIMMEE SSTTAARRTTEEDD M//SSCT) Ahp?.-.TTIIMvIEE CCOOMMPPLLEETTEEDD A/.22/'331",L-a-,--

NNOO.. IINNMMAATTEESS

TTOOTTAAL MMAAN HHOOUURRS

APPROVED BY COST CENTER
WORK TTYYPE PREVENTIVVEE DD PPRREDICTIVE 0D GGEENN MAAIINNT. 0U CCOONNSTRUCTION DD

DESCRRIIPPTTIIOONN OOFF WWOORRKK TTOO BEE PPEERRFFOORRMMEEDD

40k441/- Y--4) ` z cc.l1i1..45.,t4y5titeief 5

W/ el •*1-4'ee,---

MMAATTEERRIIAALL UUSSEEDD
't-*21 --.41 414-ite 4,
C61:,/94--4-,14:1/ 4 /
edmks.,-.;:Ccif}ofo

QCITY CCOOSSTT EEA. TTOOTTAALL

SSPPEECCIIAALL CCOOMMMMEENNTTSS::
Accepted By. Supervisor: Superintendent:

CONFIDENTIAL

MSPRepairs 001378 MDOC-Amos 016065

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-16 Filed: 07/27/20 15 of 49 PageID #: 8883

SSISSIPPI F EPARTIVT.E?\;T CORRECTIONS l'YlSP PEST CONTROL WORK SREET

te:

Time: 4P,-„9e)

__. .. .
Loca t 1.0,0

• - 1,-,

. Tune !

____._ .-1.

c2. /

/-/

/02-(z?.f'7--

1

Pest!

Pesticide

• ..------Lis e ci : j.e425e- x....4-1

/knit inn —7 ----- -

Descyiption of Wo11( MI,ilee-4

F

414.,

vied Sign a tu r e iso

lc C :

Superviso r:

CONFIDENTIAL

MDOC-Amos 014344

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-16 Filed: 07/27/20 16 of 49 PageID #: 8884

v1SSiSSIJ?Pi DEA).A.RTMINT OF CORRECTIONS
MS]? PEST CONTROL WOP.K.

Pest:

ime: /D1_‹10 -1
-

P.esticidc Used:

trnc., •

Am unt
O

Des .1 bon of W.ork

•

e. . `--

I

SiE.;naturc For Scrvice \York Supervisor:
1\A 4E-1-(

CONFIDENTIAL

MDOC-Amos 014590

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-16 Filed: 07/27/20 17 of 49 PageID #: 8885

ISSISSIPPI IVISP PEST

ARTMENT 017 CORRECTIONS CONTROL WOI:K. SfIEET

Pest:

Pesticidc Used:

4-/

Anicn it

Descriptio 0'Work

1

I

Autitc.)rized Sic,i,itature
.01.1( Supervisor:

Survier.

CONFIDENTIAL

MDOC-Amos 014675

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-16 Filed: 07/27/20 18 of 49 PageID #: 8886

MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS V.1SP PEST CONTROL WORK. SREET

Da (.c.:
Time:
MI tiOn
f

...

5 <„2_
/-5-2
Th a . ! 'FiT11C; H

Pest:

P.0s t i (2.i cl c Use u: ----d-'I-----'-"--.-24---4--1--4-----------

Am _hint T ate_

Desc_ii tion ot V.N1.1(

• - • •:,• -

•
i

I. !1,.. "•.

_4.--..___.— ______—_—_—

I
. :

—
__,...._r.

____________1F_

,,

,

• ...______________

Au[hOrind Sk4ligurc [or SurvicC: 1V0r1( SilperviS0r:

CONFIDENTIAL

MDOC-Amos 014781

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-16 Filed: 07/27/20 19 of 49 PageID #: 8887

Date: Time:

MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

842 79ISP PEST CONTROL WO Pest:

SHEET

Pesticide Used:

Location

D to Akek

Time

Aiyouf) (rg -

DessripVon of Work

24-01-01 — F2 Revision 7/01/03

3 1t
Authorized Signature for Servi e6i )

Work Supervisor:

et-z, in SA

CONFIDENTIAL

MDOC-Amos 014881

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-16 Filed: 07/27/20 20 of 49 PageID #: 8888

MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS MSP PEST CONTROL WORK SHEET

Date: i j1-C2 /cj

Pest:

Time: O?2—c>

Pesticide Used: k"ajz z,/

Location
7.?ir- F

9ate Time Amount

1((g-C1/1 et) 471-

,frkkfi

Descriptign of Work,

eg>"-14-e(

ae-A11-44`-f

24-01-01 — F2 Revision 7/01/03

Authorized Signature for Service: ice
Work Supervisor:
CONFIDENTIAL

MDOC-Amos 015064

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-16 Filed: 07/27/20 21 of 49 PageID #: 8889

MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS MSP PEST CONTROL WORK SHEET

Date:

Pest: jezet,la-si / 44 kidiiW

Time:

Location

ate Time 117 h 11 to

Pesticide Used:

Amount J2,

Descrip?on of Wor
,c4,s441,Qai

24-01-01 — F2 Revision 7/01/03

Authorized Signature for Service Work Supervisor:
CONFIDENTIAL

MDOC-Amos 015066

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-16 Filed: 07/27/20 22 of 49 PageID #: 8890

1.);.1 1•2
Time:

m ISSISSIPPI 1)11; 'ARTMENT CORRECTION'S NIS? PEST CONTROL WORK SHEET Pesticide Used:

?fr4'-r
g-Y _

1 ._() C:1 i 10r1
.1,/13 6 .........___ '

1. ' 1 1Li
1g/i7

Tr ill C
/[24-1

I\_ni cunt t, ----c3

ID escFi -) )on 01 Voi.R

I

!

1

r

I

.

i T

I-

I

[

i

..-\\LI

S (41M t1.1 1- C r0

Ce:

Work ..(upervisor:

CONFIDENTIAL

MDOC-Amos 014421

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-16 Filed: 07/27/20 23 of 49 PageID #: 8891

3
.1 L
ct

D EP ARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS 1\1SP PEST CONTROL W OP K. SILIELT
Pest!

Pesticide liscd:

Ti m

n t

_

:Desci. iption oi

.

_

.

•. •

t

ze.c1 S <41igtau
work supervisor:

. ' 1.1? ICC:
z2t.e.e.„74--

CONFIDENTIAL

MDOC-Amos 014549

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-16 Filed: 07/27/20 24 of 49 PageID #: 8892

Time:

MISS1SSIPPT D EP ARTM..0.\rf. OIT CORRECTIONS NISI) PEST CONTROL WOPX c.1.01,ET Pest:
)e.scri -Yion or Work

thorize.d Si(4nature S- 'vice
1Vork Supervisor:
.fflar/5..e.
CONFIDENTIAL

MDOC-Amos 014732

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-16 Filed: 07/27/20 25 of 49 PageID #: 8893

te
i' i llie:
0 :1110n

i\iiISSISS ( PPI DE; S1) PEST

)ARTMEN7.' 01? CORRECTIONS CONTROL WORK. SHEET

Pest

5.5

Pesticidc Used:

Time -I Arno nt

Desen

•. ,••_.-

1

1 :

. •iiI_. -- • 1,

th 17. ed Si (411 t

[.0r S

1

CONFIDENTIAL

MDOC-Amos 014733

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-16 Filed: 07/27/20 26 of 49 PageID #: 8894

Time:

MISS1SSIPPT D EP ARTM..0.\rf. OIT CORRECTIONS NISI) PEST CONTROL WOPX c.1.01,ET Pest:
)e.scri -Yion or Work

thorize.d Si(4nature S- 'vice
1Vork Supervisor:
.fflar/5..e.
CONFIDENTIAL

MDOC-Amos 014746

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-16 Filed: 07/27/20 27 of 49 PageID #: 8895

te
i' i llie:
0 :1110n

i\iiISSISS ( PPI DE; S1) PEST

)ARTMEN7.' 01? CORRECTIONS CONTROL WORK. SHEET

Pest

5.5

Pesticidc Used:

Time -I Arno nt

Desen

•. ,••_.-

1

1 :

. •iiI_. -- • 1,

th 17. ed Si (411 t

[.0r S

1

CONFIDENTIAL

MDOC-Amos 014747

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-16 Filed: 07/27/20 28 of 49 PageID #: 8896

Time:
1)

DiSPARTMENT COREZ.ECTIONS IYISP PEST CONTROL WORK SHEET

Pcsh

.Tillle -

P,e.stic.icIc Used:

Amount -T-

De

tion of Woi-1

•

A it 0 1. i:/.e Si(4111turC lUr

c.:

1Vor1( pervisor

cpi

CONFIDENTIAL

MDOC-Amos 014751

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-16 Filed: 07/27/20 29 of 49 PageID #: 8897

MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT O CORRECTIONS MSP PEST CONTROL WORK SHEET

;):etc:

Time:

2-0

Loc ion

• 11at F rime _

Amount

Pest:

cZA6-40--

Pestieicle Used: gOCAPF/ 7

e•

i

De cri tion of Work

i-i

.

- -----,

• -,--

f ! :
1 ... - 1 -
!

.

i

i

I

I

i I

! I . -.-^-. ---•••-••^•-• -1--. ---
I - i•

i 1
-F •• I
•[ ...

Authorized Signaturc I( urvice:
Work _Supervisor:
1.

CONFIDENTIAL

MDOC-Amos 014811

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-16 Filed: 07/27/20 30 of 49 PageID #: 8898

MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT 01? CORRECTIONS 1VISP PEST CONTROL WORK SHEET

Date:

(09

Pest:

.t ;me; gq)

P.esticicie Used:

: ime •i An tin T r

iDescri('ion 1 Woi.1(

• •

•

1

:Authorized Signature for S.rvicc: 1-Vork Supervisor:

CONFIDENTIAL

MDOC-Amos 014812

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-16 Filed: 07/27/20 31 of 49 PageID #: 8899

MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS MSP PEST CONTROL WORK SHEET

Date: S e% Time: /?SS -

Pest: 4teh- r Pesticide Used:

.Loc tion

atA, Time Amg1unt fl

Descriptiony of Worke

24-01-01 — F2 Revision 7/01/03

Authorized Signature for Work Supervisor:

ice. bC c, K

CONFIDENTIAL

MDOC-Amos 014887

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-16 Filed: 07/27/20 32 of 49 PageID #: 8900

Date:

MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
//7 MSP PEST CONTROL WORK SHEET Pest: it as

Time: Ote>

Pesticide Used:

1‘.1

Location

Date, Time
0 .241/q o77.-c)

Amount
144/*

Deseri' tion ofNVorl$,,
oa-4 / l-05

24-01-01 — F2 Revision 7/01/03

Authorized Signature for rvi

lid

Work Supervisor: A

ec9R6/y4 Orr

CONFIDENTIAL

MDOC-Amos 014899

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 123-16 Filed: 07/27/20 33 of 49 PageID #: 8901

Date: Time: Location

MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS MSP PEST CONTROL WORK SHEET

i(o

Pest:

iaj

Pesticide

DAte Time ( Amza,tzg

/Zek.)

yafrof

Descrfloq of Work , crse,L24

24-01-01 — F2 Revision 7/01/03

Authorized Signature for Service. Work Supervisor:
CONFIDENTIAL

MDOC-Amos 014949

CCaassee::44:2:200--ccvv--0000000077--DDMMBB--JJMMVVDDoocc##::112138--116FFilieledd::0077/1/237/2/2004354ooff7469PPaaggeeIDID##::58296002

M

D

Y

12

2

19

12

2

19

12

2

19

2

19

12

2

19

12

2

19

12

2

19

12

2

19

12

3

19

12

3

19

12

4

19

12

4

19

12

4

19

12

4

19

12

4

19

12

4

19

12

9

19

12

9

19

12

9

19

12

9

19

12

9

19

12

9

19

12

9

19

12

9

19

12

9

19

12

9

19

12

9

19

12

9

19

12

10

19

12

10

19

12

10

19

12

10

19

12

10

19

12

10

19

12

10

19

12

10

19

12

11

19

12

11

19

12

11

19

12

16

19

12

16

19

12

16

19

12

16

19

12

16

19

12

16

19

12

16

19

12

17

19

12

17

19

12

17

19

MSP PEST CONTROL APPLICATIONS (December 2019)

WO#

Work Location

200304 MPIC KITCHEN

200305 SUP'S KIRCHEN

200306 PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT

200307 PAROLE OFFICE

200308 RECORD DEPARTMENT

200310 LEGAL DEPARTMENT

200311 POST OFFICE

200312 UNIT 42 KITCHEN

200313 SUPT'S RESIDENCE

200314 UNIT 29 KITCHEN

200315 UNIT 30 KITCHEN

200316 UNIT 30-D BUILDING

200317 UNIT 30-D BUILDING

200318 AUTO SHOP

200319 UNIT 31 HOUSING

200320 UNIT 31 KITCHEN

200321 UNIT 26 KITCHEN

200322 UNIT 26-B BUILDING

200323 UNIT 26-A BUILDING

200324 UNIT 25 KITCHEN

200325 UNIT 25 HOUSING

200326 UNIT 28 HOUSING

200327 UNIT 28 KITCHEN

200328 UNIT 42 KITCHEN

200329 TRAINING BUILDING

200330 TRAINING BUILDING

200331 FIRING RANGE

200332 FIRING RANGE

200333 WELLNESS CENTER

200334 VOC-TECH SCHOOL SHOP

200335 VOC-TECH KITCHEN

200336 MPIC TEXTILE

200337 TELECOMMUNICATION

200338 UNIT 30 KITCHEN

200339 UNIT 29 KITCHEN

200340 VISITATION DEPARTMENT

200341 MPIC KITCHEN

200342 GROUNDS UPKEP

200343 K-9(OFFICES&BARNS)

200344 UNIT 30 ABE

200345 UNIT 30-A BUILDING

200346 UNIT 30-B BUILDING

200347 UNIT 30 LIBRARY

200348 UNIT 30 KITCHEN

200349 UNIT 30-C BUILDING

200350 UNIT 30-D BUILDING

200351 UNIT 25 KITCHEN

200352 UNIT 42 KITCHEN

200353 UNIT 28 KITCHEN

Pest ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS MICE ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS MICE ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS MICE MICE RATS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

Application KONTROL 4-4 KONTROL 4-4 DEMON WP DEMON WP DEMON WP DEMON WP DEMON WP DEMON WP BLUEMAX MINI BLOCKS KONTROL 4-4 KONTROL 4-4 MAXF. ROACH KILLER BAIT STATIONS KONTROL 4-4 MOUSE GLUE BOARDS KONTROL 4-4 KONTROL 4-4 TALSTAR TALSTAR TALSTAR TAURUS TAURUS TAURUS TAURUS TAURUS TAURUS MOUSE GLUE BOARDS MOUSE GLUE BOARDS MAXF. MINI BLUE BLOCKS TALSTAR TALSTAR KONTROL 4-4 TALSTAR TALSTAR KONTROL 4-4 KONTROL 4-4 TALSTAR TALSTAR TALSTAR TALSTAR ONSLAUGHT FAST CAP ONSLAUGHT FAST CAP ONSLAUGHT FAST CAP ONSLAUGHT FAST CAP KONTROL 4-4 KONTROL 4-4 KONTROL 4-4 KONTROL 4-4 ONSLAUGHT FAST CAP ONSLAUGHT FAST CAP

EXHIBIT
E

Supervisor ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST

Authorized TOI COX ROBINSON ROSEMARY PIMPTON TRACY ALSUP LINDA BELL SHRONDA WILLIS NIKI GARDNER MARTAVIOUS DURR A. JONES SUPT. MARSHALL TURNER KATABA JORDAN KATRINE JACKSON H. HICKS H. HICKS ANTOINETTE NORMAN DEBRA CROFT DEBRA CROFT ELLA HOGAN BEATRIC SMITH SHIRLEY BROWN YULANDA BELL YULANDA BELL HARRY HARRIS HARRY HARRIS DELOIS NIX BEVERLY COX BEVERLY COX KENNY SCOTT KENNY SCOTT MICHAEL WEEKS H. KEYS DAVID HDLEY C. MOSLEY HAROLD MITCHELL MICHAEL NONEYCUTT M. MINTON CRYSTAL GODDEN KEVIN GAMBLE ANNETTE RATLIFF LEATHER WILLIAMS GLORIA ROBINSON VICTORIA ECKFORD EDDIE NORRIS MELINDA BUCKNER JACUQUIN WRIGHT JACUQUIN WRIGHT SHYLA DAVIS SHIRLEY MILLER J.D. STALLINGS CADERRICK SMITH

CCaassee::44:2:200--ccvv--0000000077--DDMMBB--JJMMVVDDoocc##::112138--116FFilieledd::0077/1/237/2/2004365ooff7469PPaaggeeIDID##::58296013

M

D

Y

12

17

19

12

17

19

12

18

19

12

23

19

12

23

19

12

23

19

12

23

19

12

23

19

12

23

19

12

23

19

12

23

19

12

23

19

12

23

19

12

23

19

12

23

19

12

24

19

12

24

19

12

24

19

12

24

19

12

24

19

12

24

19

12

26

19

12

26

19

12

30

19

12

30

19

12

30

19

12

30

19

12

30

19

12

31

19

WO#

Work Location

200354 UNIT 29 KITCHEN

200355 CID

200356 RECORD DEPARTMENT

200357 UNIT 29-A BUILDING

200358 UNIT 26-B BUILDING

200359 UNIT 29-C BUILDING

200360 UNIT 29-D BUILDING

200361 UNIT 29-E BUILDING

200362 UNIT 29-F BUILDING

200363 UNIT29-G BUILDING

200364 UNIT 29-H BUILDING

200365 UNIT 29-I BUILDING

200366 UNIT 29-J BUILDING

200367 UNIT 29-K BUILDING

200368 UNIT 29-L BUILDING

200369 UNIT 30-KITCHEN

200370 UNIT 29 KITCHEN

200371 UNIT 26 KITCHEN

200372 UNIT 25 KITCHEN

200373 UNIT 28 KITCHEN

200374 UNIT 42 KITCHEN

200375 PRE-RELEARSE

200376 PRE-RELEARSE

200377 UNIT 26 KITCHEN

200378 UNIT 25 KITCHEN

200379 UNIT 42 KITCHEN

200380 UNIT 28 KITCHEN

200381 UNIT 29 KITCHEN

200382 UNIT 30 KITCHEN

MSP PEST CONTROL APPLICATIONS (December 2019)

Pest ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS SNAKES MICE ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS , SIDERS ROACHES, ANTS , SIDERS ROACHES, ANTS , SIDERS ROACHES, ANTS , SIDERS

Application KONTROL 4-4 ONSLAUGHT FAST CAP ONSLAUGHT FAST CAP TALSTAR TALSTAR TALSTAR TALSTAR TALSTAR TAURUS TALSTAR TALSTAR TALSTAR TALSTAR TALSTAR TALSTAR KONTROL 4-4 KONTROL 4-4 TAURUS TAURUS KONTROL 4-4 TALSTAR SNAKE-A WAY MOUSE GLUE BOARDS KONTROL 4-4 TALSTAR TALSTAR TALSTAR KONTROL 4-4 KONTROL 4-4

Supervisor ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST

Authorized SUPERVISOR MINTON ARLISA MARTIN JASMINE TAYLOR CHARLES TOWNSEND PARKESHE KENNEDY LINDA PRICE LASHUNDRA MCBRIDE JASMINE WATTS MARTHA HUNTER BETTY POWELL LAWANDA MCASKILL LEETIA REDDMAN OFC. MAGEE J. MEEKS YVONNE EPPS KATHERINE JACKSON SUPERVISOR MINTON M.FOSTER YULONDA BELL GARY DAVIS DELOIS NIX MIRRINDA FRISON MIRRINDA FRISON WANDA MILLER SHIRLEY MILLER PATRICIA JONES CORDERIAL SMITH RONJA JOHNSON MAEOLA RASH

CCaassee::44:2:200--ccvv--0000000077--DDMMBB--JJMMVVDDoocc##::112138--116FFilieledd::0077/1/237/2/2004376ooff7469PPaaggeeIDID##::58296024

M

D

Y

1

6

20

1

6

20

1

6

20

1

6

20

1

6

20

1

6

20

1

6

20

1

7

20

1

7

20

1

7

20

1

7

20

1

7

20

1

7

20

1

7

20

1

7

20

1

7

20

1

7

20

1

8

20

1

8

20

1

8

20

1

8

20

1

8

20

1

8

20

1

8

20

1

8

20

1

13

20

1

13

20

1

13

20

1

13

20

1

13

20

1

13

20

1

14

20

1

14

20

1

14

20

1

14

20

1

14

20

1

14

20

1

14

20

1

14

20

1

14

20

1

14

20

1

15

20

1

15

20

1

15

20

1

21

20

1

21

20

WO#

Work Location

200382 MPAE

200383 MPAE TEST KITCHEN

200384 ARCHIVES

200385 UNIT 29 KITCHEN

200386 UNIT 28 KITCHEN

200387 UNIT 42 KITCHEN

200388 UNIT 28 HOUSINGS

200389 POST OFFICE

200390 LEGAL DEPARTMENT

200391 SUP'S KITCHEN

200392 TELECOMMUNICATION

200393 HOUSE #75

200394 MSP GATE 1

200395 RECORD DEPARTMENT

200396 PAROLE OFFICE

200397 PSYCH DEPARTMENT

200398 PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT

200399 UNIT 26-A BUILDING

200400 UNIT 26-B BUILDING

200401 UNIT 25 KITCHEN

200402 UNIT 25 HOUSINGS

200403 UNIT 25

200404 UNIT 26 KITCHEN

200405 MPIC KITCHEN

200406 UNIT 30 KITCHEN

200407 VOC-TECH KITCHEN

200408 UNIT 31 KITCHEN

200409 UNIT 31

200410 UNIT 31 HOUSINGS

200411 MPIC TEXTILE

200412 VISITATION DEPARTMENT

200413 UNIT 29 KITCHEN

200414 UNIT 29 KITCHEN

200415 UNIT 25 KITCHEN

200416 UNIT 28 KITCHEN

200417 UNIT 28

200418 UNIT 42 KITCHEN

200419 UNIT 42

200420 UNIT 42

200421 UNIT 42

200422 UNIT 30

200423 UNIT 26

200424 ADMIN. BUILDING

200425 SUPT'S RESIDENCE

200426 UNIT 25 KITCHEN

200427 UNIT 26 KITCHEN

MSP PEST CONTROL APPLICATIONS (January 2020)

Pest ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS MICE ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS MICE ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS MICE ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS MICE ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS MICE ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS, RATS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS BEES RATS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

Application KONTROL 4-4 DEMON WP DEMON WP TENGARD DEMON WP DEMON WP DEMON WP TAURUS TAURUS TAURUS TAURUS MOUSE GLUE BOARDS TAURUS TAURUS TAURUS TAURUS TAURUS TENGARD TENGARD TAURUS TAURUS MOUSE GLUE BOARDS TENGARD TENGARD TENGARD TENGARD TENGARD MOUSE GLUE BOARDS ROACHES, ANTS,SPIDERS TENGARD TENGARD TALSTAR MOUSE GLUE BOARDS KONTROL 4-4 KONTROL 4-4 MOUSE GLUE BOARDS KONTROL 4-4 MAXFORCE ROACH BAIT GEL KONTROL 4-4 MAXF. ROACH BAIT STATIONS MAXF. MINI BLUE BLOCKS KONTROL 4-4 DEMON MAX MAXF. MINI BLUE BLOCKS TENGARD TENGARD

Supervisor ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST

Authorized JANET EPPS JANET EPPS EUGENE THOMAS KATABA JORDAN HARRY HARRIS DELOIS NIX HARRY HARRIS LOTTIE JOHNSON NIKKI GARDNER ROGER DAVIS SHARONDA DAVIS MARTANESHA HALL VICTORIA GRANDERSON TRINA BURRIS LINDA BELL M. JONES ARLEATHA WILLIAMS ISIAH POINTER TORI WASHINGTON PEGGY LARRY PEGGY LARRY PEGGY LARRY WANDA MILLER KEVIN GAMBLE MICHAEL HONEYCUTT DAVID HADLEY ISIAH POINTER ISIAH POINTER ISIAH POINTER JASMINE WATTS CRYSTAL GOODEN KATABA JORDAN KATABA JORDAN PEGGY LARRY C. SMITH C. SMITH TIARA PENNINGTON WILLIE KNIGHTEN WILLIE KNIGHTEN WILLIE KNIGHTEN MARY WILLIAMS PATRICIA THREADGILL ANNETTE RATLIFF ALBERT FIRST YULONDA BELL ELLA HOGAN

CCaassee::44:2:200--ccvv--0000000077--DDMMBB--JJMMVVDDoocc##::112138--116FFilieledd::0077/1/237/2/2004387ooff7469PPaaggeeIDID##::58296035

M

D

Y

1

21

20

1

21

20

1

21

20

1

22

20

1

22

20

1

22

20

1

22

20

1

22

20

1

22

20

1

22

20

1

23

20

1

23

20

1

28

20

1

28

20

1

28

20

1

28

20

1

28

20

1

28

20

1

28

20

1

28

20

1

28

20

1

28

20

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

MSP PEST CONTROL APPLICATIONS (January 2020)

WO#

Work Location

200428 UNIT 26

200429 UNIT 42 KITCHEN

200430 UNIT 28 KITCHEN

200431 CENTRAL WAREHOUSE

200432 UNIT 30-A BUILDING

200433 UNIT 30-B BUILDING

200434 UNIT 30-C BUILDING

200435 UNIT 30 KITCHEN

200436 UNIT 30-D BUILDING

200437 UNIT 30 ADMIN.

200437 UNIT 29 KITCHEN

200438 PROPERTY/CANTEEN/ILAP/ARP

200439 UNIT 29-A BUILDING

200440 UNIT 29-B BUILDING

200441 UNIT 29-F BUILDING

200442 UNIT 29-G BUILDING

200443 UNIT 29-H BUILDING

200444 UNIT 29-I BUILDING

200445 UNIT 29-J BUILDING

200446 UNIT 29-K BUILDING

200447 UNIT 29-L BUILDING

200448 UNIT 29 KITCHEN

Pest MICE ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS RATS, ANTS, ROACHES ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

Application MOUSE GLUE BOARDS ONSLAUGHT FAST CAP ONSLAUGHT FAST CAP ONSLAUGHT FAST CAP ONSLAUGHT FAST CAP ONSLAUGHT FAST CAP ONSLAUGHT FAST CAP ONSLAUGHT FAST CAP ONSLAUGHT FAST CAP ONSLAUGHT FAST CAP KONTROL 4-4 TAURUS TAURUS TAURUS TAURUS KONTROL 4-4/GLUE BOARDS KONTROL 4-4 TAURUS KONTROL 4-4 TAURUS TAURUS KONTROL 4-4

Supervisor ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST

Authorized ELLA HOGAN DELOIS NIX HARRY HARRIS SHEBA CHANDLER GLORIA ROBINSON MICHELLE HORN MARCINE FOSTER SUPERVISOR MINTON VICTORIA ECKFORD LETHA TOWNSEND JOHN MURRY DAVID COLLINS ANNIE TELLIS JACQUELINE CANNON DEBBIE BEASLEY JENNIFER MCCLINTON A. THURMOND GLORIA JORDAN JUANITA SIMMON JESSICA PICKETT YVONNE EPPS TOMMY ADAMS

CCaassee::44:2:200--ccvv--0000000077--DDMMBB--JJMMVVDDoocc##::112138--116FFilieledd::0077/1/237/2/2004398ooff7469PPaaggeeIDID##::58296046

MSP PEST CONTROL APPLICATIONS (February 2020)

M

D

Y

WO#

Work Location

Pest

Application

Supervisor

Authorized

2

3

20

200449 UNIT 42 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

KONTROL 4-4

ALBERT FIRST

DELOIS NIX

2

3

20

200450 UNIT 30

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

KONTROL 4-4

ALBERT FIRST

GLORIA ROBINSON

2

3

20

200451 SPIRITUAL LIFE CENTER

MICE

MOUSE GLUE BOARDS ALBERT FIRST

CHAPLAIN HAMMON

2

3

20

200452 SPIRITUAL LIFE CENTER

RATS

BLUEMAX MINI BLOCKS ALBERT FIRST

CHAPLAIN HAMMON

2

3

20

200453 UNIT 28 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

DEMON MAX

ALBERT FIRST

HARRY HARRIS

2

3

20

200454 UNIT 28 HOUSING

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

DEMON MAX

ALBERT FIRST

HARRY HARRIS

2

3

20

200455 UNIT 26

MICE

MOUSE GLUE BOARDS ALBERT FIRST

TAMEKA HUNTER

2

3

20

200456 UNIT 26

MICE

REX MINI TRAPS

ALBERT FIRST

TAMEKA HUNTER

2

3

20

200557 UNIT 28

MICE

MOUSE GLUE BOARDS ALBERT FIRST

HARRY HARRIS

2

3

20

200458 UNIT 28

MICE

REX MINI TRAPS

ALBERT FIRST

HARRY HARRIS

2

3

20

200459 MPAE KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

TALSTAR

ALBERT FIRST

JANET EPPS

2

3

20

200460 MPAE ADMINISTRATION

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

TALSTAR

ALBERT FIRST

JANET EPPS

2

3

20

200461 UNIT 26-B BUILDING

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

TALSTAR

ALBERT FIRST

BEATRICE SMITH

2

3

20

200462 UNIT 26 VISITATION

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

TALSTAR

ALBERT FIRST

AQUILLA MCCRAY

2

3

20

200463 UNIT 26-A BUILDING

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

TALSTAR

ALBERT FIRST

SHIRLEY BROWN

2

3

20

200464 UNIT 26 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

TALSTAR

ALBERT FIRST

AQUILLA MCCRAY

2

3

20

200465 UNIT 25 HOUSING

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

TALSTAR

ALBERT FIRST

YULANDA BELL

2

3

20

200466 UNIT 25 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

TALSTAR

ALBERT FIRST

YULANDA BELL

2

4

20

200467 POST OFFICE

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

BIFEN

ALBERT FIRST

LATRICE EDWARDS

2

4

20

200468 PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

BIFEN

ALBERT FIRST

TRACY ALSUP

2

4

20

200469 PSYCH DEPARTMENT

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

BIFEN

ALBERT FIRST

MELODY JOHNS

2

4

20

200470 ADMINISTRATION BUILDING ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

BIFEN

ALBERT FIRST

SHIRLEY REDDICS

2

4

20

200471 ACA OFFICE

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

BIFEN

ALBERT FIRST

MICHELLE FEDRICK

2

4

20

200472 PAROLE OFFICE

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

BIFEN

ALBERT FIRST

TRINA BURRIS

2

4

20

200473 RECORD DEPARTMENT

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

BIFEN

ALBERT FIRST

WANDA CARTWRIGHT

2

4

20

200474 UNIT 31

MICE

MOUSE GLUE BOARDS ALBERT FIRST

DEBRA CROFT

2

4

20

200475 UNIT 31 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

BIFEN

ALBERT FIRST

DEBRA CROFT

2

4

20

200476 UNIT 31 HOUSING

MICE

MOUSE GLUE BOARDS ALBERT FIRST

DEBRA CROFT

2

4

20

200477 UNIT 30 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

KONTROL 4-4

ALBERT FIRST

JOSILETTE DAVIS

2

4

20

200478 UNIT 29 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

DEMON MAX

ALBERT FIRST

KATABA JORDAN

2

4

20

200479 FIRE DEPARTMENT

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

BIFEN

ALBERT FIRST

MAURICE COLEMAN

2

4

20

200480 FIRE DEPARTMENT

MICE

MOUSE GLUE BOARDS ALBERT FIRST

MAURICE COLEMAN

2

4

20

200481 TRAINING BUILDING

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

BIFEN

ALBERT FIRST

BEVERLY COX

2

4

20

200482 LEGAL DEPARTMENT

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

BIFEN

ALBERT FIRST

JUANITA JONES

2

5

20

200483 VOC-TECH KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

MICE

ALBERT FIRST

DAVID HADLEY

2

5

20

200484 MPIC TEXTILE

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

BIFEN

ALBERT FIRST

CHRISTOPHER MOSBY

2

5

20

200485 MPIC TEXTILE

MICE

MOUSE GLUE BOARDS ALBERT FIRST

CHRISTOPHER MOSBY

2

5

20

200486 VOC-TECH

MICE

MOUSE GLUE BOARDS ALBERT FIRST

DEBRA DAVENPORT

2

5

20

200487 VOC-TECH KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

DEMON MAX

ALBERT FIRST

DAVID HADLEY

2

5

20

200488 MSP GATE I

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

DEMON MAX

ALBERT FIRST

MARY ROBINSON

2

10

20

200489 UNIT 29 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

BIFEN

ALBERT FIRST

KATABA JORDAN

2

10

20

200490 UNIT 29-F BUILDING

MICE

MICE

ALBERT FIRST

DEBBIE BEASLEY

CCaassee::44:2:200--ccvv--0000000077--DDMMBB--JJMMVVDDoocc##::112138--116FFilieledd::0077/1/237/2/2005309ooff7469PPaaggeeIDID##::58296057

MSP PEST CONTROL APPLICATIONS (February 2020)

M

D

Y

WO#

Work Location

Pest

2

10

20

200491 UNIT 29-F BUILDING

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

2

10

20

200492 UNIT 29-F BUILDING

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

2

10

20

200493 UNIT 29-B BUILDING

MICE

2

10

20

200494 UNIT 29-A BUILDING

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

2

10

20

200495 UNIT 29-A BUILDING

MICE

2

11

20

200496 UNIT 29-H BUILDING

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

2

11

20

200497 UNIT 29-H BUILDING

MICE

2

11

20

200498 UNIT 29-I BUILDING

MICE

2

11

20

200499 UNIT 26 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

2

11

20

200500 UNIT 29-L BUILDING

MICE

2

11

20

200501 UNIT 29-L BUILDING

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

2

11

20

200502 UNIT 29-K BUILDING

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

2

11

20

200503 UNIT 29-K BUILDING

MICE

2

11

20

200504 UNIT 29- J BUILDING

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

2

11

20

200505 UNIT 29- J BUILDING

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

2

11

20

200506 UNIT 29-G BUILDING

MICE

2

11

20

200507 UNIT 29-G BUILDING

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

2

12

20

200508 UNIT 28 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

2

12

20

200509 UNIT 28 HOUSING

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

2

12

20

200510 UNIT 30 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

2

12

]20

200511 UNIT 25 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

2

12

20

200512 UNIT 42 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

2

17

20

200513 UNIT 30 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

2

17

20

200514 UNIT 30-C BUILDING

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

2

17

20

200515 UNIT 30-D BUILDING

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

2

17

20

200516 UNIT 30 CONTROL

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

2

17

20

200517 UNIT 30 GATE I

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

2

17

20

200518 THE PLACE

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

2

17

20

200519 UNIT 26 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

2

17

20

200520 UNIT 25 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

2

17

20

200521 UNIT 42 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

2

17

20

200522 UNIT 28 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

2

18

20

200523 GROUNDS UPKEEP

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

2

18

20

200524 VOC-TECH KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

2

18

20

200525 POST OFFICE

MICE

2

18

20

200526 POST OFFICE

MICE

2

18

20

200527 TELECOMMUNICATION

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

2

18

20

200528 VISITATION DEPARTMENT

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

2

18

20

200529 UNIT 29 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

2

18

20

200530 UNIT 29- H

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

2

18

20

200531 UNIT 29- H

MICE

2

19

20

200532 UNIT 32 LAUNDRY

MICE

Application BIFEN BIFEN MINI REX TRAPS BIFEN MINI REX TRAPS BIFEN MOUSE GLUE BOARDS MOUSE GLUE BOARDS BIFEN MOUSE GLUE BOARDS BIFEN BIFEN MOUSE GLUE BOARDS BIFEN KONTROL 4-4 MOUSE GLUE BOARDS BIFEN TALSTAR TALSTAR TALSTAR TALSTAR TALSTAR TALSTAR ONSLAUGHT FAST CAP ONSLAUGHT FAST CAP ONSLAUGHT FAST CAP ONSLAUGHT FAST CAP ONSLAUGHT FAST CAP ONSLAUGHT FAST CAP ONSLAUGHT FAST CAP ONSLAUGHT FAST CAP ONSLAUGHT FAST CAP TAURUS TAURUS MOUSE GLUE BOARDS MINI REX TRAPS TAURUS TAURUS ONSLAUGHT FAST CAP ONSLAUGHT FAST CAP MOUSE GLUE BOARDS MOUSE GLUE BOARDS

Supervisor ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST

Authorized DEBBIE BEASLEY CRYSTAL HARVELL CRYSTAL HARVELL ANNIE TELLIS ANNIE TELLIS SHIRLEY PUGH SHIRLEY PUGH GLORIA JORDAN WANDA MILLER JESSSICA PICKETT JESSSICA PICKETT JACQULINE CANNON JACQULINE CANNON O. POLLARD GLORIA JORDAN PATRICIA POWELL PATRICIA POWELL HARRY HARRIS HARRY HARRIS KATHERINE JACKSON YULANDA BELL PATRICIA JONES KATHERINE JACKSON HENRY WOODS CHELSEY DOBBS D. WILSON C. BRADFORD PRINCESS LOVE AQUILLA MCCRAY YULANDA BELL PATRICIA JONES HARRY HARRIS ANNETTE RATLIFF DIANE WASHINGTON LOTTIE JOHNSON LOTTIE JOHNSON SHARONDA GIIBS CRYSTAL GOODEN JASEVOIA MITCHELL CASLIE BROOKS CASLIE BROOKS MOSIE THOMPSON

CCaassee::44:2:200--ccvv--0000000077--DDMMBB--JJMMVVDDoocc##::112138--116FFilieledd::0077/1/237/2/2005410ooff7469PPaaggeeIDID##::58296068

MSP PEST CONTROL APPLICATIONS (February 2020)

M

D

Y

WO#

Work Location

Pest

2

19

20

200533 UNIT 32 LAUNDRY

MICE

2

19

20

200534 UNIT 30-B BUILDING

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

2

19

20

200535 UNIT 30-A BUILDING

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

2

24

20

200536 PROPERTY/CANTEEN /ARP

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

2

24

20

200537 CENTRAL WAREHOUSE

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

2

24

20

200538 ARCHIVES

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

2

24

20

200539 ARCHIVES

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

2

24

20

200540 UNIT 26 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

2

24

20

200541 UNIT 25 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

2

24

20

200542 UNIT 42 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

2

24

20

200543 UNIT 28 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

2

25

20

200544 UNIT 29 KITCHEN

ROACHES

2

25

20

200545 VOC-TECH KITCHEN

ROACHES

2

25

20

200546 UNIT 30 KITCHEN WAREHOUSE ROACHES

2

25

20

200547 UNIT 30 KITCHEN

ROACHES

2

25

20

200548 MPIC KITCHEN

ROACHES

2

26

20

200549 COLD STORAGE

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

2

26

20

200550 MPAE KITCHEN

ROACHES

Application MINI REX TRAPS TAURUS TAURUS CYZMIC SC CYZMIC SC CYZMIC SC TALSTAR CYZMIC SC CYZMIC SC TEMPRID TEMPRID MAXF. ROACH GEL BAIT MAXF. ROACH GEL BAIT MAXF. ROACH GEL BAIT MAXF. ROACH GEL BAIT MAXF. ROACH GEL BAIT CYZMIC SC MAXF. ROACH GEL BAIT

Supervisor ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST

Authorized MOSIE THOMPSON MICHELLE HORN VIETONE ECKFORD KEITH FLEMMON STACY JOHNSON EUGENE THOMAS EUGENE THOMAS WANDA MILLER PEGGY LARRY STANDREKA MOTEN JOHN CARPENTER TACILLIA BUTLER DAVID HADLEY KATHERINE JACKSON MAEOLA RASH JASMINE WATTS CHARLES LAKES JANET EPPS

CCaassee::44:2:200--ccvv--0000000077--DDMMBB--JJMMVVDDoocc##::112138--116FFilieledd::0077/1/237/2/2005421ooff7469PPaaggeeIDID##::58296079

MSP PEST CONTROL APPLICATIONS (March 2020)

M

D

Y

WO#

Work Location

Pest

Application

3

1

20

200551 UNIT 29-C BUILDING

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS KONTROL 4-4

3

1

20

200552 UNIT 29 ADMINISTRATION

MICE

MOUSE GLUE

3

2

20

200553 UNIT 29-G BUILDING

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS KONTROL 4-4

3

2

20

200554 UNIT 26-B BUILDING

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS KONTROL 4-4

3

2

20

200555 UNIT 26-A BUILDING

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS KONTROL 4-4

3

2

20

200556 UNIT 26 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS KONTROL 4-4

3

2

20

200557 UNIT 25 CONTROL

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS KONTROL 4-4

3

2

20

200558 UNIT 25 HOUSINGS

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS KONTROL 4-4

3

2

20

200559 UNIT 42 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS KONTROL 4-4

3

2

20

200560 UNIT 28

MICE

MOUSE GLUE

3

2

20

200561 UNIT 28 HOUSINGS

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS KONTROL 4-4

3

2

20

200562 UNIT 28 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS KONTROL 4-4

3

3

20

200563 UNIT 29-I BUILDING

MICE

MOUSE GLUE

3

3

20

200564 UNIT 29 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS KONTROL 4-4

3

3

20

200565 UNIT 29-G BUILDING

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS KONTROL 4-4

3

3

20

200566 UNIT 29-I BUILDING

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS KONTROL 4-4

3

3

20

200567 UNIT 29-J BUILDING

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS KONTROL 4-4

3

3

20

200568 UNIT 29-L BUILDING

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS KONTROL 4-4

3

9

20

200569 THE PLACE

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS BIFEN

3

9

20

200570 UNIT 29-I BUILDING

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS KONTROL 4-4

3

10

20

200571 VOC-TECH KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS TALSTAR

3

10

20

200572 UNIT 31 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS TAURUS

3

10

20

200573 UNIT 31 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS TAURUS

3

10

20

200574 UNIT 29 GATE 1

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS TAURUS

3

10

20

200575 UNIT 29 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS TAURUS

3

11

20

200576 MAIN MAINTENANCE

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS TAURUS

3

11

20

200577 MAIN MAINTENANCE

MICE

MOUSE GLUE

3

16

20

200578 GUEST HOUSE

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS TALSTAR

3

16

20

200579 PSYCH DEPARTMENT

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS TALSTAR

3

16

20

200580 PAROLE OFFICE

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS TALSTAR

3

16

20

200581 RECORD DEPARTMENT

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS TALSTAR

3

16

20

200582 LEGAL DEPARTMENT

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS TALSTAR

3

16

20

200583 POST OFFICE

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS TALSTAR

3

16

20

200584 VISITATION

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS TALSTAR

3

16

20

200585 VISITATION

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS TEMPRID

3

16

20

200586 SUPT'S RESIDENCE

RATS

BLUEMAX MINI BLOCKS

3

17

20

200587 UNIT 42 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS TALSTAR

3

17

20

200588 UNIT 30 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS TALSTAR

3

17

20

200589 UNIT 29 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS TALSTAR

3

17

20

200590 MPAE

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS TALSTAR

3

17

20

200591 UNIT 26 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS TALSTAR

3

17

20

200592 UNIT 25 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS TALSTAR

3

18

20

200593 METAL FAB

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS TALSTAR

3

18

20

200594 VOC-TECH SCHOOL/SHOPS

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS TALSTAR

Supervisor ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST

Authorized LAQUITA MEEKS LEE SIMON CASHAINA BROOKS JOSILETTE DAVIS SHIRLEY BROWN BEATRICE SMITH YULONDA BELL YULONDA BELL SONYA REMBERT HARRY HARRIS HARRY HARRIS HARRY HARRIS PATRICIA POWELL M. WILLIAMS PATRICIA EVANS JACOBS MEEKS WALTER RANDLE YVONNE EPPS ROSEMARY PIMPTON PATRICIA POWELL DAVID HADLEY T. ROMERO SHIRLEY MILLER PATRICIA EVANS RENITA SWIMS ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST LEONIA ADAMS MELODY JOHNS LINDA BELL TRINA BURRIS NIKKI GARDNER LOTTIE JOHNSON SHARONDA GIBSON RONJA RANDLE SUPT. MARSHALL TURNER TEREIA CARR KATHERINE JACKSON LAWANDA MCCASKILL JANET EPPS PATRICIA THREADGILL YULAONDA BELL TOI COX ROBINSON TRENT FRANKLIN

CCaassee::44:2:200--ccvv--0000000077--DDMMBB--JJMMVVDDoocc##::112138--116FFilieledd::0077/1/237/2/2005432ooff7469PPaaggeeIDID##::58296180

MSP PEST CONTROL APPLICATIONS (March 2020)

M

D

Y

WO#

Work Location

Pest

Application

3

18

20

200595 VOC-TECH KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS TALSTAR

3

18

20

200596 PRE-RELEASE

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS TALSTAR

3

23

20

200597 UNIT 42 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS TALSTAR

3

23

20

200598 UNIT 28 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS TAURUS

3

23

20

200599 UNIT 30-A BUILDING

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS TAURUS

3

23

20

200600 UNIT 30-B BUILDING

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS TAURUS

3

23

20

200601 UNIT 30 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS TAURUS

3

23

20

200602 UNIT 30-C BUILDING

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS TAURUS

3

23

20

200603 UNIT 30- D BUILDING

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS TAURUS

3

24

20

200604 UNIT 30 GATE-1

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS TAURUS

3

24

20

200605 SPIRITUAL LIFE CENTER

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS TAURUS

3

24

20

200606 WELLNESS CENTER

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS TAURUS

3

24

20

200607 MPIC KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS TAURUS

3

24

20

200608 CID

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS TAURUS

3

24

20

200609 VOC-TECH KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS TAURUS

3

24

20

200610 UNIT 29 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS TAURUS

3

24

20

200611 UNIT 26 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS TAURUS

3

24

20

200612 UNIT 25 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS TAURUS

3

24

20

200613 UNIT 42 BIO-HARZARD SHADE WASPS

WASP FREEZE

3

24

20

200614 UNIT 42 BIO-HARZARD SHADE BEES

KONTROL 4-4

3

25

20

200615 UNIT 29-K BUILDING

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS DEMON MAX

3

29

20

200616 TELECOMMUNICATION

TERMITES

TRANSPORT

3

30

20

200617 UNIT 30 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS TENGARD

3

30

20

200618 GROUND UPKEEPS

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS TENGARD

3

30

20

200619 AUTO SHOP

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS TENGARD

3

30

20

200620 CANTEEN/PROPERTY

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS TENGARD

3

30

20

200621 CENTRAL WAREHOUSE

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS TRANSPORT

3

30

20

200622 UNIT 26 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS TRANSPORT

3

30

20

200623 UNIT 25 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS TRANSPORT

3

30

20

200624 UNIT 42 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS TRANSPORT

3

30

20

200625 UNIT 28 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS TRANSPORT

3

30

20

200626 UNIT 29 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS TENGARD

3

30

20

200627 UNIT 29-F BUILDING

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS TENGARD

3

31

20

200628 ARCHIVES

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS TENGARD

3

31

20

200629 MIPIC METAL FAB KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS TENGARD

3

31

20

200630 VOC-TECH KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS TENGARD

3

31

20

200631 MPIC TEXTILE

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS TENGARD

3

31

20

200632 UNIT 29-L BUILDING

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS TENGARD

Supervisor ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST

Authorized DAVID HADLEY MIRINDA FRISON LAQUITA CARPENTER CLYDE DAVIS VICTORIA ECKFORD MICHELLE HORN MARY WILLIAMS JACQUELINE WRIGHT TAKILA HAMPTON GLORIA ROBINSON CHAPLAIN SABREE MICHAEL WEEKS YOLANDA HAYES ARLISA MARTIN DEBRA DAVENPORT ANITA THURMOND WANDA MILLER PEGGY LARRY LAQUITA CARPENTER LAQUITA CARPENTER TAKILA HAMPTON HAROLD MITCHELL MICHAEL HONEYCUTT ANNETTE RATLIFF MATVIN LOWE KEITH FLEMMONS STACY JOHNSON BEATRICE SMITH YULAONDA BELL TIARA PENNINGTON HARRY HARRIS OFC. FLAGG MARTHA HUMTER EUGENE THOMAS KEVIN GAMBLE DEBRA DAVENPORT JASMINE WATTS JASMINE JOHNSON

CCaassee::44:2:200--ccvv--0000000077--DDMMBB--JJMMVVDDoocc##::112138--116FFilieledd::0077/1/237/2/2005443ooff7469PPaaggeeIDID##::58296191

MSP PEST CONTROL APPLICATIONS (April 2020)

M

D

Y

WO#

Work Location

Pest

Application

4

1

20

200633 UNIT 29-C BUILDING

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS KONTROL 4-4

4

1

20

200634 UNIT 29 ADMINISTRATION

MICE

MOUSE GLUE BOARDS

4

6

20

200635 LEGAL DEPARTMENT

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS BIFEN

4

6

20

200636 FIRING RANGE

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS DEMON MAX

4

6

20

200637 TRAINING BUILDING

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS BIFEN

4

6

20

200638 RECORD DEPARTMENT

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS BIFEN

4

6

20

200639 PAROLE BOARD

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS BIFEN

4

6

20

200640 POST OFFICE

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS BIFEN

4

6

20

200641 ACA OFFICE

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS BIFEN

4

6

20

200642 PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

BIFEN

4

6

20

200643 PSYCH DEPARTMENT

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

BIFEN

4

6

20

200644 HOUSE #71(WARDEN MORRIS)

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

BLUEMAX MINI BLOCKS

4

6

20

200645 HOUSE #70( GARRIET GRIFFIN)

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

BLUEMAX MINI BLOCKS

4

7

20

200646 VISITATION DEPARTMENT

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

BIFEN

4

7

20

200647 TELECOMMUNICATIONS

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

BIFEN

4

7

20

200648 MPIC TEXTILE

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

BIFEN

4

7

20

200649 VOC-TECH SCHOOL/SHOPS

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

BIFEN

4

7

20

200650 VOC-TECH KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

BIFEN

4

7

20

200651 THE PLACE

MICE

MOUSE GLUE BOARDS

4

7

20

200652 THE PLACE

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

BIFEN

4

7

20

200653 UNIT 32 LAUNDRY

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

DEMON MAX

4

7

20

200654 UNIT 26 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

BIFEN

4

7

20

200655 UNIT 31 HOUSING

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

BIFEN

4

7

20

200656 UNIT 31 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

BIFEN

4

7

20

200657 UNIT 30 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

KONTROL 4-4

4

8

20

200658 FIRE DEPARTMENT

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

BIFEN

4

8

20

200659 UNIT 29 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

DEMON MAX

4

8

20

200660 UNIT 29-G BUILDING

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

DEMON MAX

4

8

20

200661 UNIT 25 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

D-FENSE

4

8

20

200662 UNIT 25 HOUSING

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

D-FENSE

4

8

20

200663 UNIT 28 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

D-FENSE

4

13

20

200664 UNIT 42 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

D-FENSE

4

13

20

200665 UNIT 30 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

TAURUS

4

13

20

200666 VOC-TECH KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

TALSTAR

4

13

20

200667 UNIT 29-C BUILDING

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

TAURUS

4

13

20

200668 UNIT 29-D BUILDING

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

TAURUS

4

13

20

200669 UNIT 29-F BUILDING

MICE

MOUSE GLUE BOARDS

4

13

20

200670 UNIT 29-F BUILDING

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

TAURUS

4

13

20

200671 UNIT KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

TAURUS

4

13

20

200672 UNIT 28 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

TAURUS

4

15

20

200673 UNIT 28 HOUSING

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

TAURUS

4

15

20

200674 UNIT 26 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

TAURUS

4

15

20

200675 UNIT 25 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

TAURUS

4

15

20

200676 UNIT 42 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

TAURUS

4

15

20

200677 UNIT 29 KITCHEN

MICE

MOUSE GLUE BOARDS

4

20

20

200678 MPIC KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

ONSLAUGHT FAST CAP

Supervisor ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST
ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST

Authorized LAQUITA MEEKS LEE SIMON MARTAVIUS DURR KENNY SCOTT BEVERLY COX SHRONDA WILLIS VIRGINIUS TAYLOR MARTAVIUS DURR
MICHELLE FEDRICK AMBER EPPS EMMA BROWNLOW TIMOTHY MORRIS GARRIET GRIFFIN OFC. RANDLE HAROLD MITCHELL JASMINE WATTS CHRIS DAVIS CHRIS DAVIS ROSEMARY PIMPTON ROSEMARY PIMPTON MOSIE THOMPSON WANDA MILLER TENIKA ROMERO TENIKA ROMERO ELY SMITH MAURICE COLEMAN STANLEY FLAGGS MELVIN AMOS YULONDA BELL YULONDA BELL HARRY HARRIS TIARA PENNINGTON MICHAEL HONEYCUTT DEBRA DAVENPORT MARTHA HUNTER MARTHA HUNTER MARTHA HUNTER MARTHA HUNTER STANLEY FLAGGS HARRY HARRIS HARRY HARRIS WANDA MILLER PEGGY LARRY TIARA PENNINGTON ROBERT SMITH DIANN WASHINGTON

CCaassee::44:2:200--ccvv--0000000077--DDMMBB--JJMMVVDDoocc##::112138--116FFilieledd::0077/1/237/2/2005454ooff7469PPaaggeeIDID##::58297102

MSP PEST CONTROL APPLICATIONS (April 2020)

M

D

Y

WO#

Work Location

Pest

Application

Supervisor

Authorized

4

20

20

200679 UNIT 26 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

ONSLAUGHT FAST CAP

ALBERT FIRST

WANDA MILLER

4

20

20

200680 UNIT 26-B BUILDING

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

ONSLAUGHT FAST CAP

ALBERT FIRST

ANEISHA ADAMS

4

20

20

200681 UNIT 25 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

ONSLAUGHT FAST CAP

ALBERT FIRST

PEGGY LARRY

4

20

20

200682 UNIT 42 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

ONSLAUGHT FAST CAP

ALBERT FIRST

TIARA PENNINGTON

4

20

20

200683 UNIT 28 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

ONSLAUGHT FAST CAP

ALBERT FIRST

CORDRIEL SMITH

4

20

20

200684 WELLNESS CENTER

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

ONSLAUGHT FAST CAP

ALBERT FIRST

MICHAEL WEEKS

4

20

20

200685 K-9(OFFICE&BARNS)

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

ONSLAUGHT FAST CAP

ALBERT FIRST

LEATHA WILLIAMS

4

20

20

200686 WELLNESS CENTER

MICE

MOUSE GLUE BOARDS

ALBERT FIRST

MICHAEL WEEKS

4

21

20

200687 GROUNDS UPKEEPS

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

ONSLAUGHT FAST CAP

ALBERT FIRST

ANNETTE RATLIFF

4

21

20

200688 UNIT 29(OUTSIDE PERIMETER)

BEES

WASP FREEZE

ALBERT FIRST

VICINT BIRDS

4

21

20

200689 UNIT 29(OUTSIDE PERIMETER)

BEES

KONTROL 4-4

ALBERT FIRST

VICINT BIRDS

4

21

20

200690 UNIT 29 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

TALSTAR

ALBERT FIRST

EUNICE FLEMING

4

21

20

200691 UNIT 30-B BUILDING

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

TALSTAR

ALBERT FIRST

DREKUS SMITH

4

21

20

200692 UNIT 30 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

TALSTAR

ALBERT FIRST

MAEOLA RASH

4

21

20

200693 UNIT 30 KITCHEN(WAREHOUSE)

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

TALSTAR

ALBERT FIRST

MARY WILLIAMS

4

21

20

200694 UNIT 30-C BUILDING

MICE

MOUSE GLUE BOARDS

ALBERT FIRST

JACQUELINE WRIGHT

4

21

20

200695 UNIT 30-C BUILDING

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

ONSLAUGHT FAST CAP

ALBERT FIRST

JACQUELINE WRIGHT

4

21

20

200696 UNIT 30-A BUILDING

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

TALSTAR

ALBERT FIRST

VICTORIA ECKFORD

4

21

20

200697 UNIT 30-D BUILDING

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

TALSTAR

ALBERT FIRST

TAKILA HAMPTON

4

22

20

200698 UNIT 30 KITCHEN(WAREHOUSE)

MICE

BLUEMAX MINI BLOCKS

ALBERT FIRST

MARY WILLIAMS

4

22

20

200699 MAIN MAINTENANCE

MICE

MOUSE GLUE BOARDS

ALBERT FIRST

DONNEL WIGGINS

4

22

20

200700 VOC-TECH KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

TALSTAR

ALBERT FIRST

DEBRA DAVEPORT

4

27

20

200701 UNIT 29-G BUILDING

MICE

MOUSE GLUE BOARDS

ALBERT FIRST

LAWANDA MCCASKILL

4

27

20

200702 UNIT 29-G BUILDING

ROACHES

MAXFORCE ROACH KILLER BAIT GEL

ALBERT FIRST

CASHINA BROOKS

4

27

20

200703 UNIT 29-G BUILDING

ROACHES

MAXFORCE ROACH KILLER BAIT GEL

ALBERT FIRST

CALVIN BEARDS

4

27

20

200704 UNIT 29-G BUILDING

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

TRANSPORT

ALBERT FIRST

CASHAINA BROOKS

4

27

20

200705 UNIT 29-D BUILDING

MICE

MICE

ALBERT FIRST

MARTHA HUNTER

4

27

20

200706 UNIT 29-D BUILDING

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

TRANSPORT

ALBERT FIRST

MARTHA HUNTER

4

27

20

200707 UNIT 29-C BUILDING

MICE

MOUSE GLUE BOARDS

ALBERT FIRST

MARTHA HUNTER

4

27

20

200708 UNIT 29-C BUILDING

MICE

MOUSE GLUE BOARDS

ALBERT FIRST

MARTHA HUNTER

4

27

20

200709 UNIT 29-B BUILDING

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

TRANSPORT

ALBERT FIRST

MARTHA HUNTER

4

27

20

200710 UNIT 29-A BUILDING

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

TRANSPORT

ALBERT FIRST

JACOB MEEKS

4

27

20

200711 UNIT 29-B BUILDING

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

TRANSPORT

ALBERT FIRST

JACOB MEEKS

4

27

20

200712 UNIT 29-A BUILDING

MICE

MOUSE GLUE BOARDS

ALBERT FIRST

JACOB MEEKS

4

27

20

200713 UNIT 29-A BUILDING

ROACHES

MAXFORCE ROACH BAIT STATIONS

ALBERT FIRST

JACOB MEEKS

4

27

20

200714 UNIT 29-L BUILDING

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

TRANSPORT

ALBERT FIRST

LASHUNDRA MCBRIDE

4

27

20

200715 UNIT 29-L BUILDING

MICE

MOUSE GLUE BOARDS

ALBERT FIRST

LASHUNDRA MCBRIDE

4

27

20

200716 UNIT 29-J BUILDING

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

TRANSPORT

ALBERT FIRST

JOHN WINTER

4

27

20

200717 UNIT 29-J BUILDING

MICE

MOUSE GLUE BOARDS

ALBERT FIRST

JOHN WATTS

4

27

20

200718 UNIT 29-I BUILDING

MICE

MOUSE GLUE BOARDS

ALBERT FIRST

PARKISHA KENNEDY

4

27

20

200719 UNIT 29-I BUILDING

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

TRANSPORT

ALBERT FIRST

PARKISHA KENNEDY

4

27

20

200720 UNIT 42 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

TRANSPORT

ALBERT FIRST

LAQUITA CARPENTER

4

28

20

200721 UNIT 28 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

TRANSPORT

ALBERT FIRST

HARRY HARRIS

4

28

20

200722 MSP GATE 1

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

TRANSPORT

ALBERT FIRST

VICTORIA GRANDERSON

4

28

20

200723 VOC-TECH KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

TRANSPORT

ALBERT FIRST

DEBRA DAVENPORT

4

28

20

200724 UNIT 25 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

TRANSPORT

ALBERT FIRST

YULANDA BELL

CCaassee::44:2:200--ccvv--0000000077--DDMMBB--JJMMVVDDoocc##::112138--116FFilieledd::0077/1/237/2/2005465ooff7469PPaaggeeIDID##::58297113

MSP PEST CONTROL APPLICATIONS (April 2020)

M

D

Y

WO#

Work Location

Pest

Application

4

28

20

200725 MPAE ADMINISTRATION

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

TRANSPORT

4

28

20

200726 MPAE KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

TRANSPORT

4

28

20

200727 UNIT 26 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

TRANSPORT

4

28

20

200728 UNIT 29 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

TRANSPORT

4

28

20

200729 WARDEN MORRIS' RESIDENCE

SNAKES

SNAKE-A-WAY

4

28

20

200730 MPIC KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

BIFEN

4

29

20

200731 PROPERTY/CANTEEN/ARP/COMPL. ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

BIFEN

4

29

20

200732 UNIT 30 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

BIFEN

4

29

20

200733 CENTRAL WAREHOUSE

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

BIFEN

4

29

20

200735 ARCHIVES

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

BIFEN

Supervisor ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST

Authorized JANET EPPS JANET EPPS WANDA MILLER MELVIN THOMAS TIMOTHY MORRIS KEVIN GAMBLE KEITH FLEMMONS MARY WILLIAMS STACY JOHNSON EUGENE THOMAS

CCaassee::44:2:200--ccvv--0000000077--DDMMBB--JJMMVVDDoocc##::112138--116FFilieledd::0077/1/237/2/2005476ooff7469PPaaggeeIDID##::58297124

MSP PEST CONTROL APPLICATIONS (May 2020)

M

D

Y

WO#

Work Location

Pest

Application

Supervisor

Authorized

5

1

20

200736 MSP GATE 1

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

TALSTAR

ALBERT FIRST

VICTORIA GRANDERSON

5

4

20

200737 UNIT 26-B BUILDING

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

BIFEN

ALBERT FIRST

LAVETHA JOHNSON

5

4

20

200738 UNIT 42 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

BIFEN

ALBERT FIRST

SHIRLEY HARRIS

5

4

20

200739 UNIT 42 BACK DOCK

WASPS AND BEES

WASP FREEZE II

ALBERT FIRST

SHIRLEY HARRIS

5

4

20

200740 UNIT 42 BACK SHACK

WASPS AND BEES

KONTROL 4-4

ALBERT FIRST

SHIRLEY HARRIS

5

4

20

200741 UNIT 26-A BUILDING

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

BIFEN

ALBERT FIRST

SHIRLEY HARRIS

5

4

20

200742 UNIT 25 HOUSINGS

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

BIFEN

ALBERT FIRST

PEGGY LARRY

5

4

20

200743 UNIT 25 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

BIFEN

ALBERT FIRST

PEGGY LARRY

5

4

20

200744 UNIT 28 HOUSINGS

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

BIFEN

ALBERT FIRST

JERMEY PAGE

5

4

20

200745 UNIT 28 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

BIFEN

ALBERT FIRST

JERMEY PAGE

5

4

20

200746 UNIT 29-H BUILDING

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

KONTROL 4-4

ALBERT FIRST

LEE SIMON

5

4

20

200747 UNIT 29-H BUILDING

MICE

MOUSE GLUE BOARDS

ALBERT FIRST

LEE SIMON

5

5

20

200748 UNIT 31 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

TAURUS

ALBERT FIRST

TENIKA ROMERO

5

5

20

200749 UNIT 31 HOUSINGS

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

TAURUS

ALBERT FIRST

TENIKA ROMERO

5

5

20

200750 PERSONNEL DEPT.

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

TAURUS

ALBERT FIRST

MARY FONVILLE

5

5

20

200751 PSYCH DEPT.

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

TAURUS

ALBERT FIRST

MAGGIE MCCLELLAN

5

5

20

200752 PAROLE OFFICE

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

TAURUS

ALBERT FIRST

WANDA CARTWRIGHT

5

5

20

200753 RECORD DEPARTMENT

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

TAURUS

ALBERT FIRST

TRINA BURRIS

5

5

20

200754 POST OFFICE

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

TAURUS

ALBERT FIRST

MONTAVIOUS DURR

5

5

20

200755 ILAP DEPT.

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

TAURUS

ALBERT FIRST

CHARLES HALL

5

5

20

200756 THE PLACE

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

TAURUS

ALBERT FIRST

ROSEMARY PIMPTON

5

5

20

200757 TELECOMMUNICATIONS

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

TAURUS

ALBERT FIRST

HAROLD MITCHELL

5

5

20

200758 VISITATION CENTER

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

TAURUS

ALBERT FIRST

CRYSTAL GOODEN

5

5

20

200759 ,MAIN MAINTENANCE

RATS

BLUEMAX MINI BLOCKS

ALBERT FIRST

ALBERT FIRST

5

6

20

200760 UNIT 30 WAREHOUSE

WASPS

WASP FREEZE II

ALBERT FIRST

GLORIA ROBINSON

5

6

20

200761 UNIT 29-K BUILDING

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

TALSTAR

ALBERT FIRST

EUNICE FLEMING

5

6

20

200762 UNIT 30 KITCHEN

ROACHES

MAXFORCE ROACH BAIT KILLER GEL ALBERT FIRST

MAEOLA RASH

5

11

20

200763 UNIT 26 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

TALSTAR

ALBERT FIRST

F. GARY

5

11

20

200764 UNIT 25 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

TALSTAR

ALBERT FIRST

YOULANDA BELL

5

11

20

200765 UNIT 28 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

TALSTAR

ALBERT FIRST

HARRY HARRIS

5

11

20

200766 UNIT 42 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

TALSTAR

ALBERT FIRST

T. WEATHERSBY

5

11

20

200767 UNIT 31 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

TALSTAR

ALBERT FIRST

DEBRA CROFT

5

11

20

200768 WELLNESS CENTER

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

TALSTAR

ALBERT FIRST

MICHAEL WEEKS

5

11

20

200769 MPIC KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

TALSTAR

ALBERT FIRST

KEVIN GAMBLE

5

11

20

200780 VOC-TECH KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

TALSTAR

ALBERT FIRST

CHRIS DAVIS

5

11

20

200781 MPIC TEXTILE

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

TALSTAR

ALBERT FIRST

TOI ROBINSON

5

`11

20

200782 HOUSE #7 WARDEN MORRIS MOSQUIOTS

B.I.T. BRIQUETS

ALBERT FIRST

TIMOTHY MORRIS

5

12

20

200783 TRAINING DEPT.

WASPS

WASP FREEZE II

ALBERT FIRST

TRACY MCDONALD

5

12

20

200784 K-9(OFFICES&BARNS)

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

TALSTAR

ALBERT FIRST

KENNY SCOTT

5

12

20

200785 COLD STORAGE

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

TALSTAR

ALBERT FIRST

TED BALLARD

5

12

20

200786 MPAE KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

TALSTAR

ALBERT FIRST

JANET EPPS

5

12

20

200787 UNIT 29 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

TALSTAR

ALBERT FIRST

EUNICE FLEMING

5

13

20

200788 CANTEEN/PROPERTY/ARP

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

DEMON MAX

ALBERT FIRST

KEITH FLEMONS

5

13

20

200789 CENTRAL WAREHOUSE

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

DEMON MAX

ALBERT FIRST

SHEBA CHANDLER

5

13

20

200790 UNIT 30 GATE II

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

DEMON MAX

ALBERT FIRST

ASHLEE WILLIAMS

5

18

20

200791 UNIT 25 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

DEMON MAX

ALBERT FIRST

PEGGY LARRY

5

18

20

200792 UNIT 42 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

DEMON MAX

ALBERT FIRST

LAQUITA CARPENTER

CCaassee::44:2:200--ccvv--0000000077--DDMMBB--JJMMVVDDoocc##::112138--116FFilieledd::0077/1/237/2/2005487ooff7469PPaaggeeIDID##::58297135

MSP PEST CONTROL APPLICATIONS (May 2020)

M

D

Y

WO#

Work Location

Pest

5

18

20

200793 UNIT 28 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

5

18

20

200794 UNIT 30-A BUILDING

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

5

18

20

200795 UNIT 30-B BUILDING

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

5

18

20

200796 UNIT 30 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

5

18

20

200797 UNIT 30-D BUILDING

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

5

18

20

200798 UNIT 30-C BUILDING

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

5

19

20

200799 UNIT 29-H, A&B ZONE

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

5

19

20

200800 UNIT 29-G, B-ZONE

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

5

19

20

200801 UNIT 30, 29, KITCHENS

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

5

19

20

200802 VISITATION

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

5

19

20

200803 UNIT 25 OUTSIDE PERIMETER RATS

5

19

20

200804 UNIT 26 PERIMETER

RATS

5

19

20

200805 UNIT 26 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

5

26

20

200806 UNIT 29-H BUILDING

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

5

26

20

200807 UNIT 29-G BUILDING

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

5

26

20

200808 UNIT 29 ADMIN.

MICE

5

26

20

200809 UNIT 29 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

5

26

20

200810 UNIT 29-I BUILDING

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

5

26

20

200811 UNIT 29-J BUILDING

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

5

26

20

200812 UNIT 29-L BUILDING

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

5

27

20

200813 UNIT 26-B BUILDING

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

5

27

20

200814 UNIT 26 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

5

27

20

200815 UNIT 29 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

5

27

20

200816 UNIT 30 ADMIN.

MICE

5

27

20

200817 MPIC METAL FAB

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

5

27

20

200818 VOC-TECH SCHOOLS&SHOPS ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

5

27

20

200819 VOC-TECH KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

5

27

20

200820 MPIC TEXTILE

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

5

28

20

200821 UNIT 28 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

Application DEMON MAX DEMON MAX DEMON MAX DEMON MAX DEMON MAX DEMON MAX KONTROL 4-4 KONTROL 4-4 KONTROL 4-4(FOGGER) BUGS BLUEMAX MINI BLOCKS BLUEMAX MINI BLOCKS DEMON MAX TALSTAR TALSTAR MOUSE GLUE BOARDS TALSTAR TALSTAR TALSTAR TALSTAR KONTROL 4-4 KONTROL 4-4 KONTROL 4-4 MOUSE GLUE BOARDS TAURUS TAURUS TAURUS TAURUS KONTROL 4-4

Supervisor ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST

Authorized J. SMITH SHIRLEY MILLER MICHELLE HORN C. DAVIS DAVID SMITH ENICA LACKLEY ANITA THURMOND JASEUOIA MITCHELL ELY SMITH VICTORIA GRANBERRY PEGGY LARRY WANDA MILLER WANDA MILLER CASHAINA BROOKS CHARLES TOWNSENDS LEE SIMON STANLEY FLAGS ROBERTA WILLIS WALTER RANDLE P. KENNEDY ANEISHA ADAMS WANDA MILLER MAEOLA RASH BRENDA S. COX TOI ROBISON YOLANDA HAYES YOLANDA HAYES WENDELL ANDERSON RAYMOND CHAMERMON

CCaassee::44:2:200--ccvv--0000000077--DDMMBB--JJMMVVDDoocc##::112138--116FFilieledd::0077/1/237/2/2005498ooff7469PPaaggeeIDID##::58297146

MSP PEST CONTROL APPLICATIONS (June 2020)

M

D

Y

WO#

Work Location

Pest

Application

12

2

19

200304 MPIC KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

KONTROL 4-4

12

2

19

200305 SUP'S KIRCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

KONTROL 4-4

12

2

19

200306 PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

DEMON WP

12

2

19

200307 PAROLE OFFICE

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

DEMON WP

12

2

19

200308 RECORD DEPARTMENT

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

DEMON WP

12

2

19

200310 LEGAL DEPARTMENT

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

DEMON WP

12

2

19

200311 POST OFFICE

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

DEMON WP

12

2

19

200312 UNIT 42 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

DEMON WP

12

3

19

200313 SUPT'S RESIDENCE

MICE

BLUEMAX MINI BLOCKS

12

3

19

200314 UNIT 29 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

KONTROL 4-4

12

4

19

200315 UNIT 30 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

KONTROL 4-4

12

4

19

200316 UNIT 30-D BUILDING

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

MAXF. ROACH KILLER BAIT STATIONS

12

4

19

200317 UNIT 30-D BUILDING

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

KONTROL 4-4

12

4

19

200318 AUTO SHOP

MICE

MOUSE GLUE BOARDS

12

4

19

200319 UNIT 31 HOUSING

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

KONTROL 4-4

12

4

19

200320 UNIT 31 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

KONTROL 4-4

12

9

19

200321 UNIT 26 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

TALSTAR

12

9

19

200322 UNIT 26-B BUILDING

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

TALSTAR

12

9

19

200323 UNIT 26-A BUILDING

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

TALSTAR

12

9

19

200324 UNIT 25 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

TAURUS

12

9

19

200325 UNIT 25 HOUSING

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

TAURUS

12

9

19

200326 UNIT 28 HOUSING

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

TAURUS

12

9

19

200327 UNIT 28 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

TAURUS

12

9

19

200328 UNIT 42 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

TAURUS

12

9

19

200329 TRAINING BUILDING

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

TAURUS

12

9

19

200330 TRAINING BUILDING

MICE

MOUSE GLUE BOARDS

12

9

19

200331 FIRING RANGE

MICE

MOUSE GLUE BOARDS

12

9

19

200332 FIRING RANGE

RATS

MAXF. MINI BLUE BLOCKS

12

10

19

200333 WELLNESS CENTER

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

TALSTAR

12

10

19

200334 VOC-TECH SCHOOL SHOP

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

TALSTAR

12

10

19

200335 VOC-TECH KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

KONTROL 4-4

12

10

19

200336 MPIC TEXTILE

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

TALSTAR

12

10

19

200337 TELECOMMUNICATION

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

TALSTAR

12

10

19

200338 UNIT 30 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

KONTROL 4-4

12

10

19

200339 UNIT 29 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

KONTROL 4-4

12

10

19

200340 VISITATION DEPARTMENT

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

TALSTAR

12

11

19

200341 MPIC KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

TALSTAR

12

11

19

200342 GROUNDS UPKEP

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

TALSTAR

12

11

19

200343 K-9(OFFICES&BARNS)

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

TALSTAR

12

16

19

200344 UNIT 30 ABE

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

ONSLAUGHT FAST CAP

12

16

19

200345 UNIT 30-A BUILDING

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

ONSLAUGHT FAST CAP

12

16

19

200346 UNIT 30-B BUILDING

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

ONSLAUGHT FAST CAP

12

16

19

200347 UNIT 30 LIBRARY

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

ONSLAUGHT FAST CAP

12

16

19

200348 UNIT 30 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

KONTROL 4-4

12

16

19

200349 UNIT 30-C BUILDING

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

KONTROL 4-4

12

16

19

200350 UNIT 30-D BUILDING

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

KONTROL 4-4

12

17

19

200351 UNIT 25 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

KONTROL 4-4

12

17

19

200352 UNIT 42 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

ONSLAUGHT FAST CAP

12

17

19

200353 UNIT 28 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

ONSLAUGHT FAST CAP

Supervisor ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST

Authorized TOI COX ROBINSON ROSEMARY PIMPTON TRACY ALSUP LINDA BELL SHRONDA WILLIS NIKI GARDNER MARTAVIOUS DURR A. JONES SUPT. MARSHALL TURNER KATABA JORDAN KATRINE JACKSON H. HICKS H. HICKS ANTOINETTE NORMAN DEBRA CROFT DEBRA CROFT ELLA HOGAN BEATRIC SMITH SHIRLEY BROWN YULANDA BELL YULANDA BELL HARRY HARRIS HARRY HARRIS DELOIS NIX BEVERLY COX BEVERLY COX KENNY SCOTT KENNY SCOTT MICHAEL WEEKS H. KEYS DAVID HDLEY C. MOSLEY HAROLD MITCHELL MICHAEL NONEYCUTT M. MINTON CRYSTAL GODDEN KEVIN GAMBLE ANNETTE RATLIFF LEATHER WILLIAMS GLORIA ROBINSON VICTORIA ECKFORD EDDIE NORRIS MELINDA BUCKNER JACUQUIN WRIGHT JACUQUIN WRIGHT SHYLA DAVIS SHIRLEY MILLER J.D. STALLINGS CADERRICK SMITH

CCaassee::44:2:200--ccvv--0000000077--DDMMBB--JJMMVVDDoocc##::112138--116FFilieledd::0077/1/237/2/2006409ooff7469PPaaggeeIDID##::58297157

MSP PEST CONTROL APPLICATIONS (June 2020)

M

D

Y

WO#

Work Location

Pest

12

17

19

200354 UNIT 29 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

12

17

19

200355 CID

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

12

18

19

200356 RECORD DEPARTMENT

SPIDERS

12

23

19

200357 UNIT 29-A BUILDING

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

12

23

19

200358 UNIT 26-B BUILDING

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

12

23

19

200359 UNIT 29-C BUILDING

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

12

23

19

200360 UNIT 29-D BUILDING

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

12

23

19

200361 UNIT 29-E BUILDING

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

12

23

19

200362 UNIT 29-F BUILDING

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

12

23

19

200363 UNIT29-G BUILDING

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

12

23

19

200364 UNIT 29-H BUILDING

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

12

23

19

200365 UNIT 29-I BUILDING

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

12

23

19

200366 UNIT 29-J BUILDING

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

12

23

19

200367 UNIT 29-K BUILDING

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

12

23

19

200368 UNIT 29-L BUILDING

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

12

24

19

200369 UNIT 30-KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

12

24

19

200370 UNIT 29 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

12

24

19

200371 UNIT 26 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

12

24

19

200372 UNIT 25 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

12

24

19

200373 UNIT 28 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

12

24

19

200374 UNIT 42 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

12

26

19

200375 PRE-RELEARSE

SNAKES

12

26

19

200376 PRE-RELEARSE

MICE

12

30

19

200377 UNIT 26 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

12

30

19

200378 UNIT 25 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS, SPIDERS

12

30

19

200379 UNIT 42 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS , SIDERS

12

30

19

200380 UNIT 28 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS , SIDERS

12

30

19

200381 UNIT 29 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS , SIDERS

12

31

19

200382 UNIT 30 KITCHEN

ROACHES, ANTS , SIDERS

Application KONTROL 4-4 ONSLAUGHT FAST CAP ONSLAUGHT FAST CAP TALSTAR TALSTAR TALSTAR TALSTAR TALSTAR TAURUS TALSTAR TALSTAR TALSTAR TALSTAR TALSTAR TALSTAR KONTROL 4-4 KONTROL 4-4 TAURUS TAURUS KONTROL 4-4 TALSTAR SNAKE-A WAY MOUSE GLUE BOARDS KONTROL 4-4 TALSTAR TALSTAR TALSTAR KONTROL 4-4 KONTROL 4-4

Supervisor ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST ALBERT FIRST

Authorized SUPERVISOR MINTON ARLISA MARTIN JASMINE TAYLOR CHARLES TOWNSEND PARKESHE KENNEDY LINDA PRICE LASHUNDRA MCBRIDE JASMINE WATTS MARTHA HUNTER BETTY POWELL LAWANDA MCASKILL LEETIA REDDMAN OFC. MAGEE J. MEEKS YVONNE EPPS KATHERINE JACKSON SUPERVISOR MINTON M.FOSTER YULONDA BELL GARY DAVIS DELOIS NIX MIRRINDA FRISON MIRRINDA FRISON WANDA MILLER SHIRLEY MILLER PATRICIA JONES CORDERIAL SMITH RONJA JOHNSON MAEOLA RASH

 
 Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 119 Filed: 07/13/20 1 of 60 PageID #: 7738

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

MICHAEL AMOS, et al.

PLAINTIFFS

VS.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:20-CV-07-DMB-JMV

TOMMY TAYLOR, et al.

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ SUPPLEMENTAL EMERGENCY MOTION FOR
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

INTRODUCTION The relief now requested by Plaintiffs in their Supplemental Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) and Preliminary Injunction shows that there is no emergency necessitating the extraordinary remedy of a TRO or preliminary injunction. After four months of delay caused by COVID-19, and indisputable, significant improvements to the conditions at the Mississippi State Penitentiary at Parchman (“MSP” or “Parchman”) during that time, Plaintiffs have abandoned their original request for appointment of a third-party receiver to take over control of MSP. Plaintiffs now request only 20 specific items of relief for just four of the original 33 named Plaintiffs (e.g., “repair the toilets and urinals in Johnson’s zone”). Despite Plaintiffs’ failure to formally exhaust their administrative remedies, as discussed below, Defendants have already remedied Plaintiffs’ specific items of relief through their normal course of operations, effectively nullifying the Motion. Because the 20 items of relief have been resolved, or otherwise do not warrant immediate action, Plaintiffs cannot show that there is any

1

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 119 Filed: 07/13/20 2 of 60 PageID #: 7739
threat of irreparable injury, much less a substantial one. The Court should therefore deny
Plaintiffs’ Motion, allowing the litigation to progress along its regular path.1
The vast majority of Plaintiffs’ brief, and their thousands of pages of exhibits, are
devoted to broader allegations of alleged unconstitutional conditions at MSP that are not material
to, or determinative of, the very limited items of relief requested in Plaintiffs’ Motion. Rather
than focus on the specific relief requested by the four named Plaintiffs at issue here, Plaintiffs’
six experts leap ahead to a class-certification stage, offering broad-stroke and highly generalized
assertions regarding conditions of confinement at MSP. Plaintiffs jumped the gun in what is
really just an improper attempt to stigmatize MSP. Of course, at this stage of the litigation,
Defendants have not yet even answered Plaintiffs’ Complaint, much less engaged in the kind of
discovery necessary to evaluate Plaintiffs’ broad, general allegations of constitutional violations,
which are far removed from the specific relief requested in the Motion.2
Notwithstanding, it is important that Plaintiffs’ broad allegations are not based on current
conditions or supported by current evidence. The Supreme Court has held that in cases where an
1 As with Plaintiffs’ motion for TRO related to COVID-19, had Plaintiffs simply conferred with Defendants regarding the 20 items of newly requested relief before filing their Supplemental Emergency Motion, the items could have been resolved without involving the Court. Instead, Plaintiffs chose to file a 50-page brief, six expert reports, and more than 3,000 pages of exhibits in support of a Motion that is now a nullity. It is again apparent that actual relief for inmates is not the Plaintiffs’ primary goal; rather, their goal is telling a story in the media. See, e.g., Jay-Z, Yo Gotti and Team Roc Are Still Fighting for Inmates at Mississippi’s Parchman Prison, NBC LX, https://www.lx.com/community/jay-z-yo-gotti-and-teamroc-file-lawsuit-for-mississippi-prison-reform/15068/ (Plaintiffs’ counsel giving interview regarding alleged conditions). Plaintiffs continue to ignore and defy the Court’s admonishment to refrain from “trying to make their case in the media.” See Transcript of Feb. 3, 2020 hearing at 118:11-21. As shown below and in the exhibits attached to Defendants’ Response, the truth does not fit the Plaintiffs’ narrative.
2 The Court was clear that this preliminary stage of litigation is limited to 33 named Plaintiffs and is not intended to reach into class-certification discovery or analyses. See Transcript of Feb. 3, 2020 hearing at 48:23-25, 49:1-12. Despite this known limitation, Plaintiffs’ experts purport to offer prison-wide critiques without a prison-wide vantage point. Although MSP’s population was over 3,200 inmates at the time of the February 2020 inspection, Plaintiffs’ experts offer broad, sweeping opinions that are based on their evaluation of only 33 inmates—roughly 1% of the prison population. See, e.g., [Doc. 101-1] (Stern Report at 2); [Doc. 101-4] (LaMarre Report, Appendix B).
2

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 119 Filed: 07/13/20 3 of 60 PageID #: 7740
inmate seeks injunctive relief, “the Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference standard ‘should be determined in light of the prison authorities’ current attitudes and conduct,’” not alleged past wrongs. Dockery v. Hall, 2019 WL 9046797, at *5 (S.D. Miss. Dec. 31, 2019) (quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 845 (1994)). Plaintiffs’ counsel and their experts conducted an inspection of conditions at MSP on February 12-13, 2020, five months ago.3 Most of the conditions observed by Plaintiffs in February were caused in large part by an extraordinary, deadly gang disruption in late December 2019 and early January 2020. Since that time, as shown by the expert reports, photographs, declarations, and documents attached as exhibits to Defendants’ Response, conditions at MSP have drastically improved, and the conditions will continue to improve under current Mississippi Department of Corrections (“MDOC”) leadership. See, e.g., Exhibit 1 (Declaration of Jeworski Mallett at ¶¶ 6-10, 13). Plaintiffs have attempted both in this action and in the media to paint a grim picture of conditions at MSP, but as shown below, Plaintiffs’ depiction is inaccurate. The improvements made by MDOC at MSP, and their plan for additional improvements, preclude a finding of deliberate indifference.
As newly elected Governor Reeves acknowledged in his public remarks, conditions that existed at MSP earlier this year needed to improve. And they have. The improvements are due in large part to changes in leadership. The Governor recently appointed, and the legislature confirmed, Burl Cain as the new MDOC Commissioner. Commissioner Cain has already instituted many proven measures to better MSP. See Ex. 1, (Mallett Decl. at ¶ 9). Deputy Commissioner of MDOC Institutions Jeworski Mallett has settled into the role that he assumed on January 15, 2020, shortly after the gang-related disruptions at MSP, and he has been instrumental in making progressive and meaningful changes at MSP. Id. at ¶ 2, 6-10. In late
3 Indeed, Plaintiffs attempt to prejudice the Court’s analysis by referring to conditions that existed in 2004 and earlier. See [Doc. 99] at 25 (citing Gates v. Cook, 376 F.3d 323, 341 (5th Cir. 2004)).
3

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 119 Filed: 07/13/20 4 of 60 PageID #: 7741
April, the former Superintendent of MSP retired, and MDOC appointed Warden Timothy Morris as acting Superintendent. Id. at ¶ 9. Commissioner Cain recently expanded Superintendent Morris’s authority in an effort to give the Superintendent a greater ability to timely address problems at MSP without administrative encumbrances. Id.
Moreover, since January of this year, MDOC has transferred approximately 1,600 inmates out of MSP, including roughly 800 inmates from Unit 29, bringing the officer-to-inmate ratio into compliance with American Correctional Association (“ACA”) standards. See Ex. 1, (Mallett Decl. at ¶ 9). MDOC has closed six of the 12 buildings within Unit 29, and MDOC has begun efforts to close Unit 29-F, in which two of the named Plaintiffs reside, and move those inmates to newly refurbished Unit 29-C. Id. MDOC has also mounted a significant, continued attack on all maintenance issues at MSP, as demonstrated by hundreds of pages of purchase requisitions and construction maintenance worksheets attached to Defendants’ Response. See Exhibit 2 (Declaration of John Sprayberry at ¶¶ 7-9 & Exhibits). Also, in mid-February 2020, Centurion of Mississippi, LLC (“Centurion”), MDOC’s third-party healthcare provider, hired a new Medical Director and Chief Physician at MSP. See Exhibit 3 (Declaration of Dr. James Glisson at 1). Communications between MDOC and Centurion personnel have improved, bettering inmates’ access to good medical and mental health care.
MSP is simply not the same prison it was earlier this year. See Ex. 1, (Mallett Decl. at ¶¶ 6-13); Ex. 2, (Sprayberry Decl. at ¶¶ 7-9); Exhibit 4 (Expert Report and Declaration of John D. Rees at 3-4); Exhibit 5 (Expert Report and Declaration of Stephen C. Tussey at 4); Exhibit 6 (Photographs from 6/24/20 Inspection). Of the 33 named Plaintiffs, only seven remain at MSP. See Ex. 1, (Mallett Decl. at ¶11). Contrary to the exaggerations in Plaintiffs’ brief (which are based on outdated and mischaracterized evidence), only four of the seven named Plaintiffs who
4

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 119 Filed: 07/13/20 5 of 60 PageID #: 7742
remain at MSP even claim that their conditions of confinement require preliminary injunctive relief.4 The relief requested by the four Plaintiffs has either already been remedied, or does not require remediation at all (e.g., two Plaintiffs claim that their units lack an air cooling system, but the buildings at MSP were not constructed to have such cooling systems, and they are not a constitutional requirement for adequate inmate living conditions). As such, Defendants have not been deliberately indifferent to Plaintiffs’ claims, and there is no threat of irreparable harm to Plaintiffs in the absence of preliminary injunctive relief. Accordingly, the Court should deny Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Emergency Motion, and MDOC should be permitted to continue its improvement efforts while the parties litigate the underlying claims in this action.
ARGUMENT I. Plaintiffs cannot satisfy their heavy burdens under the TRO and preliminary
injunction standard, the Prison Litigation Reform Act, or the Eighth Amendment. The law is well settled that issuing preliminary relief “is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, not to be granted routinely, but only when the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.” White v. Carlucci, 862 F.2d 1209, 1211 (5th Cir.1989) (quotation omitted). An injunction “is to be treated as the exception rather than the rule.” Miss. Power & Light Co. v. United Gas Pipe Line Co., 760 F.2d 618, 621 (5th Cir. 1985). The purpose of a preliminary injunction is typically to “preserve the status quo during the course of litigation until the court can hold a trial on the matter.” Walker v. Turner, 2019 WL 615360, at *1 (N.D. Miss. Feb. 11, 2019). “Mandatory preliminary relief, which goes well beyond simply maintaining the status quo pendente lite, is particularly disfavored, and should not be issued unless the facts and law clearly favor the moving party.” Martinez v. Matthews, 544 F.2d 1233, 1243 (5th Cir 1976). 4 The evidence that exists today clearly shows that there is not a “humanitarian crisis” at MSP. Plaintiffs allege that the purported humanitarian crisis has “claimed 23 lives to date in 2020.” [Doc. 99] at 1. That is false. While there have been a total of 24 deaths at MSP in 2020, 16 of those deaths were determined to be of natural causes, and three were suicides. See Ex. 1, (Mallett Decl. at ¶ 9).
5

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 119 Filed: 07/13/20 6 of 60 PageID #: 7743
In Canal Auth. of State of Fla. v. Callaway, 489 F.2d 567, 572 (5th Cir. 1974), the Fifth Circuit established the four prerequisites for granting a preliminary injunction as: (1) a substantial likelihood of plaintiff’s success on the merits; (2) a substantial threat that plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury in the absence of injunctive relief; (3) that the threatened injury to plaintiff outweighs the harm the injunction may do to defendant; and (4) that granting the preliminary injunction will not disserve the public interest. Id. The same standard applies to a TRO. See Amos v. Taylor, 2020 WL 1978382, at *7 (N.D. Miss. Apr. 24, 2020). Plaintiffs “must carry ‘a heavy burden of persuading the district court that all four elements are satisfied,’ and failure to carry the burden on any one of the four elements will result in the denial” of the requested relief. Leachman v. Harris Cty., Tex., 779 F. App’x 234, 237 (5th Cir. 2019), as revised (Oct. 2, 2019) (quoting Enter. Int’l, Inc. v. Corporacion Estatal Petrolera Ecuatoriana, 762 F.2d 464, 472 (5th Cir. 1985)).
Because Plaintiffs are inmates seeking preliminary injunctive relief, the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) also applies to restrict the available relief:
Preliminary injunctive relief must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the harm the court finds requires preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary to correct that harm. The court shall give substantial weight to any adverse impact on public safety or the operation of a criminal justice system caused by the preliminary relief and shall respect the principles of comity set out in paragraph (1)(B) in tailoring any preliminary relief. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2). “Necessarily, ‘when a district court fashions prospective relief in prison litigation, the relief must meet the standards set forth in the Act.’” Amos, 2020 WL 1978382, at *8 (quoting Williams v. Edwards, 87 F.3d 126, 133 (5th Cir. 1996)). As the Fifth Circuit has explained, “[t]he PLRA greatly limits a court’s ability to fashion injunctive relief.” Ball v. LeBlanc (Ball I), 792 F.3d 584, 598 (5th Cir. 2015). Fundamentally, any injunction must be carefully limited so that it provides only the relief necessary to correct an Eighth Amendment
6

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 119 Filed: 07/13/20 7 of 60 PageID #: 7744
violation: “Under the PLRA, plaintiffs are not entitled to the most effective available remedy; they are entitled to a remedy that eliminates the constitutional injury.” Id. at 599. The PLRA “significantly affects the type of prospective injunctive relief that may be awarded,” but “has not substantially changed the threshold findings and standards required to justify an injunction.” Amos, 2020 WL 1978382, at *8 (quotation omitted).
Still, requests for injunctive relief in the prison setting are granted only “with great caution because judicial restraint is especially called for in dealing with the complex and intractable problems of prison administration.” Goff v. Harper, 60 F.3d 518, 520 (8th Cir. 1995) (quotation omitted). “It is well settled that the courts . . . are reluctant to interfere with the day-today operations of a prison,” and “‘[p]rison administrators . . . should be accorded wide-ranging deference in the adoption and execution of policies and practices that in their judgment are needed to preserve internal order and discipline and to maintain institutional security.’” Moody v. Handy, 2007 WL 1610791, at *1 (N.D. Miss. June 1, 2007) (quoting Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 321-22 (1986)).
And because Plaintiffs claim that Defendants violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on “cruel and unusual punishments,” the merits of this lawsuit require Plaintiffs must prove Defendants acted with a “sufficiently culpable state of mind” of “deliberate indifference.” Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 297 (1991). “Deliberate indifference is an extremely high standard to meet.” Sanchez v. Young Cty., 866 F.3d 274, 280 (5th Cir. 2017). As the Court stated in a previous Order, an Eighth Amendment violation is established:
“only when two requirements are met. First, as an objective matter, the deprivation or harm must be sufficiently serious. Second, the official must have been deliberately indifferent.” To satisfy the first element, “the plaintiff must show an objectively intolerable risk of harm.” The second requirement is subjective and requires that the plaintiff show the defendant “(1) was aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious
7

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 119 Filed: 07/13/20 8 of 60 PageID #: 7745
harm exists; (2) subjectively drew the inference that the risk existed; and (3) disregarded the risk.”
Amos, 2020 WL 1978382, at *9 (quoting Jason v. Tanner, 938 F.3d 191, 195 (5th Cir. 2019) and
Valentine v. Collier, 956 F.3d 797, 801 (5th Cir. 2020)).
The first prong objectively asks whether the alleged constitutional violation is
“sufficiently serious,” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834, taking into account that the Eighth Amendment
does not guard against “discomfort and inconvenience” and inmates “cannot expect the
amenities, conveniences, and services of a good hotel,” Wilson v. Lynaugh, 878 F.2d 846, 849 & n.5 (5th Cir. 1989) (quotation omitted).5 To satisfy the “sufficiently serious” requirement, a
prison official’s act or omission must result in “extreme deprivation” of the “minimal civilized
measures of life’s necessities,” Davis v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1003, 1006 (5th Cir. 1998) (quotation
omitted), such that an inmate is “incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial risk of
serious harm,” Dockery, 2019 WL 9046797, at *5.
The second, subjective prong is more demanding. See, e.g., Amos, 2020 WL 1978382, at
*9-10 (no deliberate indifference where “defendants have undoubtedly taken steps to address the
risk”). The determination hinges on whether officials possessed a “sufficiently culpable state of
mind.” Wilson, 501 U.S. at 297. “A prison official acts with deliberate indifference ‘only if he
knows that inmates face a substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to
take reasonable measures to abate it.’” Jones v. Tex. Dep’t of Crim. Justice, 880 F.3d 756, 759
5 Plaintiffs are incorrect in asserting that they can satisfy the objective “sufficiently serious” prong by “rely[ing] on the collective conditions of confinement in order to provide the Court with full context.” [Doc. 99] at 6 (citing Gates, 376 F.3d at 333). As the Supreme Court explained in Wilson v. Seiter, while “some conditions of confinement may establish an Eighth Amendment violation ‘in combination’ when each would not do so alone,” such combined effects are permissible “only when they have a mutually enforcing effect that produces the deprivation of a single, identifiable human need such as food, warmth, or exercise – for example, a low cell temperature at night combined with a failure to issue blankets.” 510 U.S. at 304. In other words, “nothing so amorphous as ‘overall conditions’ can rise to the level of cruel and unusual punishment.” Id. Plaintiffs’ attempt to allege a violation of their “collective conditions of confinement” is directly contrary to Supreme Court precedent.
8

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 119 Filed: 07/13/20 9 of 60 PageID #: 7746
(5th Cir. 2018) (quoting Farmer, 511 U.S. at 847) (emphasis added).6 In other words, Plaintiffs must show that Defendants “‘subjectively believe the measures they are taking are inadequate.’” Amos, 2020 WL 1978382, at *11 (quoting Valentine, 956 F.3d at 802).
Moreover, as noted above, the focus of the deliberate indifference evaluation is on the official’s “current attitudes and conduct.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 841 (quotation omitted). The evaluation of conditions at a prison continues throughout the litigation, is not a snapshot in time, and certainly should not be based on an aberrant period that existed following the disruptive gang riots in late 2019 and early 2020. See, e.g., Dockery, 2019 WL 9046797, at *1 and *15. In a very similar case,7 the Southern District of Mississippi denied injunctive relief relating to allegedly inadequate medical and mental health care, protection from harm, environmental conditions, and food on the basis that “many changes ha[d] been made at the subject prison that pertain to the claims alleged in this lawsuit.” Id. at *1. The court stated the “conditions existing [at the prison] in the past may have been intolerable[,] [but] [t]hose conditions have changed.” Id. Focusing on the measures taken by the defendants since the lawsuit was filed, the court concluded that the changes at the prison prevented a finding of deliberate indifference “and, therefore, that the injunctive relief sought by Plaintiffs ha[d] not been shown necessary.” Id.
Even assuming Plaintiffs’ allegations are truthful, the past conditions upon which Plaintiffs rely for their claims have been remediated. Because the alleged unconstitutional conditions have been addressed, and there are no ongoing violations as required for relief under the PLRA, the Court should deny Plaintiffs’ Motion without further analysis. See, e.g., Barrett v.
6 “Best practices are not the handmaiden of deliberate indifference.” Id. (quoting M.D. ex. Rel. Stukenberg v. Abbott, 929 F.3d 272, 289 (5th Cir. 2019) (Higginbotham, J., concurring). 7 The plaintiffs in Dockery even relied on many of the same experts that Plaintiffs rely on: Marc Stern, Madeleine LaMarre, and Eldon Vail. Id. at *6 and *11–13; see also id. at *17 (dismissing expert opinion on the basis that expert testimony “does not create constitutional standards”).
9

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 119 Filed: 07/13/20 10 of 60 PageID #: 7747
MDOC, 2007 WL 1139538, at *1 (S.D. Miss. Apr. 17, 2007) (preliminary injunction denied as “essentially moot” where inmate sought preliminary injunction for “medical treatment of his injured leg” and “expedit[ing] his request for ‘lay-in’ food tray status,” but before the court ruled, the inmate “received knee surgery” and “receiv[ed] a ‘lay-in’ food tray three times a day”); Harris v. City of Houston, 151 F.3d 186, 189 (5th Cir. 1998) (injunction denied where “no order of the court can affect the rights of the parties with regard to the requested relief” because the court “cannot enjoin that which has already taken place”).
Under the high bars of the preliminary injunction standard, the PLRA and accompanying deference extended to prison administrators, and the deliberate indifference standard, the Court should deny Plaintiffs’ requests for relief. Plaintiffs cannot establish that they, in the absence of the requested relief, will be irreparably harmed before this Court is able to hold a trial on the merits. Plaintiffs’ 20 specific requests for relief have already been addressed, “essentially moot[ing]” the request for a preliminary injunction and absolving any threat of irreparable harm. See, e.g., Barrett, 2007 WL 1139538, at *1. Plaintiffs cannot establish a current, ongoing violation of any constitutional rights, as required under the traditional preliminary-injunction analysis and the heightened standard of the PLRA. And considering the significant actions Defendants have taken and are taking to improve MSP, Plaintiffs cannot establish that Defendants are subjectively and deliberately indifferent under the Eighth Amendment.
For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate any of the four prerequisites for granting a TRO or preliminary injunction in connection with their 20 items of limited relief or otherwise, and because the requested relief has already been addressed or does not warrant action, any injunction mandating such relief would be overly broad in violation of the PLRA. Accordingly, the Court should deny Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Emergency Motion.
10

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 119 Filed: 07/13/20 11 of 60 PageID #: 7748
II. Plaintiffs’ 20 specific items of limited relief have already been remedied, or do not warrant remediation, thus precluding a finding of irreparable harm. Moreover, the 20 items of relief do not amount to constitutional deprivations and do not invoke a basis for finding deliberate indifference.8
“Perhaps the single most important prerequisite for the issuance of a preliminary
injunction is a demonstration that if [the requested relief] is not granted the applicant is likely to
suffer irreparable harm before a decision on the merits can be rendered.” Trinity USA Operating,
LLC v. Barker, 844 F. Supp. 2d 781, 786 (S.D. Miss. 2011) (quotation omitted). “Without
question, the irreparable harm element must be satisfied by independent proof, or no injunction
may issue.” White, 862 F.2d at 1211 (emphasis added). “Indeed, where no irreparable injury is
alleged and proved, denial of a preliminary injunction is appropriate.” Canal Auth., 489 F.2d at
574.9 It is Plaintiffs’ burden to show that they “are likely to suffer irreparable harm absent the
requested injunctive relief.” Hispanic Affairs Project v. Perez, 141 F. Supp. 3d 60, 68 & 70
(D.D.C. 2015). Here, Plaintiffs have failed to do so.
As shown below, all 20 of Plaintiffs’ requested items of relief have either been resolved
or otherwise do not warrant action (such as installation of air cooling systems).10 Thus, it is clear
8 Plaintiffs previously requested appointment of a third-party receiver to take over the day to day operations at MSP, [Docs. 13 and 14], but they make no mention of that relief in their Supplemental Motion and Memorandum. Instead, Plaintiffs acknowledge the Court’s prior Order prevents them from relying on relief they requested in their initial motion, stating: “Per the Court, [Plaintiffs’] Supplemental Memorandum supersedes and replaces the Original Memorandum.” [Doc. 99] at 1, n.1 (citing [Doc. 55]). Noting that the transfer of the vast majority of named Plaintiffs “necessarily narrows the scope of th[eir] motion,” Plaintiffs set forth only 20 specific items of limited relief related to four inmates, as addressed below. Id. at 4. Despite Plaintiffs’ attempt to ascribe improper motives to Defendants’ transfers of some named Plaintiffs, all transfers were part of a random and broad policy of transferring inmates in order to close parts of Unit 29 and improve officer-to-inmate ratios. See Ex. 1, (Mallett Decl. at ¶ 12).
9 Winter v. Nat’l Res. Defense Counsel, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008) (“Issuing a preliminary injunction based only on a possibility of irreparable harm is inconsistent with our characterization of injunctive relief as an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.”).
10 The 20 specific, limited items of relief requested by Plaintiffs have been addressed by Defendants, and therefore, there is no chance of any irreparable harm, much less a substantial threat. Plaintiffs apparently
11

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 119 Filed: 07/13/20 12 of 60 PageID #: 7749
that Defendants have not acted with deliberate indifference and that Plaintiffs will not suffer
irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary injunctive relief. In the earlier COVID-19 Order
[Doc. 79], the Court made it clear that to prove irreparable harm “plaintiffs must show ‘that they
will suffer irreparable injuries even after accounting for the [] measures’” Defendants have taken.
Amos, 2020 WL 1978382, at *12 (quoting Valentine, 956 F.3d at 804) (emphasis in original).
Both this Court and the Fifth Circuit reasoned that a motion for preliminary injunction or TRO
should be denied where measures already taken were adequate to alleviate the alleged threat of
irreparable harm. That is the case here. Because Defendants have already addressed the limited
items of relief requested by Plaintiffs, or because the items otherwise do not warrant action, Plaintiffs are not likely to suffer irreparable harm. Id.11 Accordingly, even without examining the
hope that the Court might perform the role of Plaintiffs’ counsel and award them more relief than they have identified or requested. In an effort to streamline the pleadings, Defendants asked Plaintiffs to confirm their requested relief, and Plaintiffs responded:
[W]e believe the pleadings and the law speak for themselves. The [C]ourt has the latitude to grant the relief it deems appropriate and to address all of the constitutional violations described in the voluminous evidence if it so chooses, and we are not going to do anything to limit the relief the Court may choose to provide.
See Exhibit 7 (Correspondence Regarding Requested Relief). On the contrary, it is not for the Court to evaluate what Plaintiffs should have requested or to issue advisory opinions based on deficient pleadings. See, e.g., United States v. Sineneng-Smith, 140 S. Ct. 1575, 1579 (2020) (citing the “principle of party presentation” and reversing the court that performed the role of the party’s counsel, stating “we rely on the parties to frame the issues for decision and assign to courts the role of neutral arbiter of matters the parties present”); see also United States v. Samuels, 808 F.2d 1298, 1301 (8th Cir. 1987) (Arnold, J. concurring) (“courts are essentially passive instruments of government . . . . [They] do not, or should not, sally forth each day looking for wrongs to right. [They] wait for cases to come to [them], and when [cases arise, courts] normally decide only questions presented by the parties”); OCA-Greater Houston v. Texas, 867 F.3d 604, 616 (5th Cir. 2017) (reversing grant of injunction because “[t]he injunction . . . exceed[ed] the scope of the parties’ presentation, which was limited”). 11 Recent Fifth Circuit precedent and this Court’s prior orders also show that an injunction may not issue merely to “‘promote compliance’ with [the prison’s] own policies” which it has already implemented. Valentine, 956 F.3d at 802; see Amos, 2020 WL 1978382, at *11-12 (discussing Valentine).
12

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 119 Filed: 07/13/20 13 of 60 PageID #: 7750
other legal deficiencies of Plaintiffs’ claims,12 it is clear that Defendants have not acted with deliberate indifference and that the Court should deny Plaintiffs’ Motion.
a. Plaintiff Aric Johnson (Unit 29, Building F, Zone A) Plaintiff Aric Johnson, residing in Zone A of Building F in Unit 29, requests six items of injunctive relief:13 (1) allow him to see a medical doctor to assess his high blood pressure; (2) refill his blood pressure medication; (3) repair water intrusion in his immediate living area; (4) repair exposed electrical wires in his shower; (5) repair toilets and urinals in his zone; and (6) repair the “air conditioning” in his zone. [Doc. 99] at 35-38, 48. His requests should be denied because the alleged defective conditions have either already been remedied, or as with the “air conditioning,” do not warrant remediation. In addition, Defendants’ documented repairs and voluntary remedial actions show that they are not acting with deliberate indifference. Johnson’s blood pressure and related medication According to Johnson’s declaration, his blood pressure had gone unchecked for two months as of June 5, 2020. [Doc. 104-2] at ¶ 2. Johnson also asserts that he frequently goes without his blood pressure medication because the medical staff does provide timely refills. Id. According to his medical records, and as verified by his treating physician, Dr. Glisson, however, Johnson has received routine follow-up visits in 2020, and his blood pressure is well
12 For instance, as discussed in greater detail below, the four Plaintiffs have not exhausted their administrative remedies with regard to their requested relief. 13 Throughout their requests, Plaintiffs request that certain actions be taken “within five (5) days” or “within twenty-four hours.” It is unclear from what point in time Plaintiffs are measuring their arbitrary deadlines. Neither Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Emergency Motion nor their Memorandum clarifies the deadlines. To the extent Plaintiffs are requesting relief from the date they filed their Supplemental Motion, such requests would be contrary to the Court’s numerous Orders providing Defendants with no less than thirty days to respond to Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Motion. See [Docs. 69, 81, and 91].
13

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 119 Filed: 07/13/20 14 of 60 PageID #: 7751
controlled. Exhibit 8, (Medical Records at 1-34).14 Johnson is a chronic care patient due to his hypertension, and the frequency of his follow-up visits is determined by how well his blood pressure is controlled. Ex. 3, (Glisson Decl. at 3-4). Patients with poorly controlled blood pressure are seen each month or sooner; patients with fair control are scheduled for follow-up in three months; and those with well controlled blood pressure are seen again in six months. Id.
In January 2020, Johnson’s blood pressure was found to be elevated, after previously being well controlled without medication. Ex. 3, (Glisson Decl. at 4). He was started on medication and rescheduled for monthly checks with providers in February and March. Id. Johnson’s blood pressure was checked weekly from February 5, 2020 to March 9, 2020, and was found to be well controlled. Id. After refusing a May 6, 2020 appointment, Johnson was seen again by medical staff on June 3, 2020, at which time his blood pressure was checked and was still well controlled. Id. Because Johnson’s blood pressure has been consistently well controlled, his next chronic care appointment is scheduled for December 2020. Id.
In addition, Johnson’s blood pressure medication has been routinely refilled on a monthly basis. At MSP, blood pressure medications are designated keep-on-person (“KOP”), which means the prescription is filled by the pharmacy and the patient is provided with one month’s supply at a time. Ex. 3, (Glisson Decl. at 3).15 Since being prescribed blood pressure medication in January 2020, Johnson has received a thirty-day supply of the same every time he has
14 Defendants are filing a contemporaneous motion for leave to file Exhibit 8 under seal, as it includes Plaintiffs’ medical records. 15 In the case of KOP medications, just as in the community, each patient is responsible for requesting refills when his medications are running low. Inmates may submit refill requests no more than 7 days in advance of finishing their supply. See Ex. 3, (Glisson Decl. at 3). Upon receipt of a refill request, medical staff submits the request to the pharmacy the day it is received from the inmate or the very next day. Id. If an inmate is consistently not receiving his KOP medications before his prior prescription runs out, it is due to the fact that he is not submitting refill requests timely.
14

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 119 Filed: 07/13/20 15 of 60 PageID #: 7752
requested a refill—on January 16, February 8, March 23, April 28, and June 3. Id. at 4-5. At no time has Johnson waited more than four days between requesting and receiving a refill. Id.
Thus, Johnson’s allegations are defeated by his own irrefutable medical records and by Dr. Glisson’s testimony regarding his treatment. Johnson’s blood pressure has been routinely monitored and is well controlled, and his blood pressure medication has been refilled by medical staff every time he has requested it. See Ex. 3, (Glisson Decl. at 3-4). Johnson’s characterization of the care provided to him is plainly inaccurate and unsupported.16
Demonstrating deliberate indifference on a claim for alleged deprivation of medical care requires showing Defendants “refused to treat [inmates], ignored [their] complaints, intentionally treated [inmates] incorrectly, or engaged in any similar conduct that would clearly evince a wanton disregard for any serious medical needs.” Domino v. Texas Dep’t of Crim. Justice, 239 F.3d 752, 756 (5th Cir. 2001).17 “A prisoner’s belief that he should have received different medical treatment does not implicate the Eighth Amendment.” Dockery, 2019 WL 9046797, at *6 (citing Gobert v. Caldwell, 463 F.3d 339, 346 (5th Cir. 2006)). Absent exceptional circumstances, mere disagreement with the provided medical treatment, or a delay in providing the treatment, does not support a claim of deliberate indifference. Id.; Easter v. Powell, 467 F.3d 459, 463 (5th Cir. 2006). There is no basis for finding that MSP’s medical staff was deliberately indifferent to Johnson’s medical condition. His request for emergency injunctive relief should be denied because his blood pressure is being properly monitored and controlled with medication.
16 Though Nurse Practitioner Madeleine LaMarre opines that Johnson “has not received timely and appropriate follow-up,” she readily admits she did not “adequately evaluate the patient[’]s care.” [Doc. 101-4], LaMarre App’x B-17 at 47. Ms. LaMarre’s opinion that Johnson’s care was inadequate when she has not even reviewed his records is incredible and should be discounted entirely. 17 See Thomas v. Carter, 593 F. App’x 338, 342 (5th Cir. 2014) (stating that the same standard applies to claims of inadequate mental health care).
15

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 119 Filed: 07/13/20 16 of 60 PageID #: 7753
See Kennedy v. Potter, 344 F. App’x 987, 989–90 (5th Cir. 2009) (denying temporary injunctive relief where prison medical staff was aware of, and responsive to, inmate’s health concerns).
Johnson’s alleged leaks, exposed electrical wires, toilets, urinals, and “air conditioning” As shown by Declarations of Jeworski Mallett and John Sprayberry, Defendants have devoted substantial resources over the last several weeks and months and undertaken extensive, continuing measures to repair MSP’s housing unit roofs, restroom facilities, and other conditions of confinement. Specifically, in March 2020, MDOC repaired the roof over Unit 29, Building F, in which Johnson is housed. See Ex. 1, (Mallett Decl. at ¶ 13 & Ex. D); Ex. 2, (Sprayberry Decl. at ¶ 9 & Ex. B). On July 6, 2020, Johnson acknowledged that he was no longer experiencing any water intrusion or leak issues in his immediate living area. Ex. 1, (Mallett Decl. at ¶ 13). No known leaks or avenues of water intrusion currently exist in Johnson’s immediate living area, as alleged. Id.; see also Ex. 2, (Sprayberry Decl. at ¶ 9). In addition, water leaks are not sufficiently serious violations. As the Fifth Circuit has found, a “leak in [a] cell, alone or in combination with other conditions, was [not] sufficiently serious as to deprive [an inmate] of ‘minimally safe housing.’” Shannon v. Vannoy, 682 F. App’x 283, 285 (5th Cir. 2017). The Court in Shannon stated that a hole allowing water into an inmate’s cell and the fact that he slipped on the water and fell “is plainly insufficient” to prove a sufficiently serious deprivation of the minimal civilized measures of life’s necessities. Id. And any leak is irrelevant so long as Defendants engage in reasonable remedial measures, even during the pendency of the suit. See Dockery, 2019 WL 9046797 at *5-6. For instance, in Bunton v. Corrections Corp. of Am., 286 F. App’x 242, 243 (5th Cir. 2008), the Fifth Circuit stated: “Even if it is assumed arguendo that the leaking roof constituted a condition that posed a
16

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 119 Filed: 07/13/20 17 of 60 PageID #: 7754
substantial risk of serious harm to Bunton, the evidence established that the defendants took reasonable remedial measures and, thus, did not act with deliberate indifference.”
On July 6, 2020, MDOC also confirmed that there were no exposed electrical wires in any of the showers in Johnson’s zone, and that the majority of the toilets and urinals in Johnson’s zone were in working order. See Ex. 1, (Mallett Decl. at ¶ 13 & Ex. D).18 Of course, it is totally conceivable that an inmate in Johnson’s zone may tomorrow expose additional electrical wires and break one or more of the toilets or urinals, and Defendants will then need to go back and repair those items again. MSP’s maintenance crews routinely repair and replace fixtures, wiring, and other aspects of the facilities that are damaged or destroyed by the prisoners. See id. at ¶ 13; see also Ex. 2, (Sprayberry Decl. at ¶¶ 5, 9). Even assuming arguendo that exposed electrical wires or broken toilets and urinals pose a substantial risk of serious harm, which they do not, the evidence shows that Defendants have taken, and are taking, reasonable remedial measures to address those issues, and therefore, they have not acted with deliberate indifference.
As to Johnson’s request for “air conditioning,” Plaintiffs do not allege that there is not an adequate, working heating unit in Johnson’s zone. See Plaintiffs’ expert report from Debra Graham, [Doc. 101-3] at 16 (describing comfortable air temperature on a cold, rainy winter day); see also Ex. 1, (Mallett Decl. at ¶¶ 10, 13). However, there is no air cooling system in Johnson’s building, as is the case with most housing units at Parchman, because it was not designed or constructed to have an air cooling system. Id. Instead, there are several, industrial-sized fans across his zone which are routinely monitored by MDOC and repaired or replaced, if necessary. Id. See also Ex. 2, (Sprayberry Decl. at ¶ 9). In addition, MDOC has recently purchased four
18 Repairs to MSP facilities, especially remediation of exposed wires and repair of toilets, sinks, and showers, are often necessitated by inmate destruction, and therefore are an ongoing, continual process. See Ex. 2, (Sprayberry Decl. at ¶¶ 5, 9). When such destruction occurs, Defendants attempt to make repairs within a reasonable time. Id.
17

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 119 Filed: 07/13/20 18 of 60 PageID #: 7755
new, industrial-sized fans for each building at MSP, including 29-F, 30-A, and 30-B, which are the buildings at issue. See Ex. 1, (Mallett Decl. at ¶¶ 9, 10).
Moreover, air cooling systems are not constitutionally required, and it would violate the PLRA to order installation of the same. See Ball v. LeBlanc (Ball II), 881 F.3d 346, 348 (5th Cir. 2018) (order of “air conditioning was ‘unnecessary to correct the Eighth Amendment violation’” and violated PLRA).19 “Extreme cell temperatures . . . can violate the Eighth Amendment,” if Defendants are deliberately indifferent to “‘an unreasonable risk of serious damage’ to a prisoner’s health.” Ball I, 792 F.3d at 592 (quoting Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 35 (1993)). Rather, when prison cell temperatures are merely “uncomfortable,” it does not violate the Eighth Amendment. Id. (constitutional violation only when inmates “housed in very hot cells without sufficient access to heat-relief measures, while [defendants] know[] that each [plaintiff] suffers from conditions that render him extremely vulnerable to serious heat-related injury.”).
Here, Johnson and the other three named Plaintiffs merely allege they are uncomfortable. None have alleged exposure to extreme heat in their zones or that they are especially vulnerable to serious heat-related injury. See [Doc. 99] at 37. Defendants have repaired all fans in Johnson’s zone, as well as in the other three Plaintiffs’ zones, and Defendants are supplying four new fans to each building at MSP. See Ex. 1, (Mallett Decl. at ¶¶ 9, 10, 13). Accordingly, Johnson’s requested relief is unnecessary to prevent any alleged constitutional violation or irreparable harm between now and a trial on the merits, and, therefore, should be denied.
Even assuming arguendo that the alleged conditions are sufficiently serious to constitute a constitutional deprivation, and they are not, the extensive, continuing measures undertaken by Defendants with respect to the alleged water intrusion issues, exposed electrical wires, toilets and 19 Two other Plaintiffs, Webster and James, also request that MSP repair their “air conditioning” as part of Plaintiffs’ Motion. The same analysis applies. There are no “air conditioning” (that is, cooling) systems in their buildings, and none are required.
18

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 119 Filed: 07/13/20 19 of 60 PageID #: 7756
urinals, and air circulation preclude a finding of deliberate indifference and any threat of irreparable harm. See, e.g. Dockery, 2019 WL 9046797, at *5.20
b. Plaintiff Phillip Webster (Unit 29, Building F, Zone A) Plaintiff Phillip Webster, who with Johnson also resides in Zone A of Building F in Unit 29, requests four items of injunctive relief:21 (1) treat effectively the alleged infestation of rats and cockroaches in his immediate living area; (2) repair water intrusion in his immediate living area; (3) repair the “air conditioning” in his zone; and (4) allow him to see an ophthalmologist to treat his allegedly “burning eyes.” [Doc. 99] at 38-41, 48. Webster’s requests should be denied because the alleged defective conditions have either been remedied or do not warrant action. In addition, Defendants’ documented actions show they are not acting with deliberate indifference Webster’s request for eye treatment Plaintiff Phillip Webster claims he has suffered from a burning sensation in his eyes for four months, see [Doc. 104-1], and he seeks to have an ophthalmologist treat his eyes, see [Doc. 99] at 40-41, 48. Webster’s medical records confirm, however, that he was seen by an optometrist on August 29, 2019, and was given an eye wash. See Ex. 8 (Medical Records at 7274); Ex. 3, (Glisson Decl. at 5); Ex. 1, (Mallett Decl. at ¶ 13). Contrary to Plaintiffs’ brief, [Doc. 99] at 40, the optometrist who treated Webster did not recommend any follow-up visits with an ophthalmologist. Ex. 3, (Glisson Decl. at 5). Plaintiffs and their expert, Ms. LaMarre, admit that Webster was seen about his eyes on at least three occasions. [Doc. 99] at 40 (citing [Doc. 101-4], LaMarre App’x B-46-47).
20 Defendants’ subjective state of mind must be determined by their “current attitudes and conduct.” Id. at *5. Deliberate indifference cannot be found where evidence shows the allegedly deficient conditions “are attributable to prisoners who damage” the facilities, if the facilities “are routinely repaired.” Id. at *14. 21 Again, Plaintiffs request that these actions be taken “within five (5) days,” but it is unclear from what point in time Plaintiffs are measuring their arbitrary deadlines.
19

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 119 Filed: 07/13/20 20 of 60 PageID #: 7757
As described in greater detail below, MSP has a sick call procedure that inmates use to request to be seen by medical staff. No records exists of any sick call requests by Webster since his August 2019 appointment related to his eye condition, to complain that the medication provided to him was ineffective, or to request to see an eye doctor. Ex. 3, (Glisson Decl. at 6).
Webster’s belief that he should have been treated at a follow-up appointment is insufficient to constitute subjective deliberate indifference. Stewart v. Murphy, 174 F.3d 530, 534-35 (5th Cir. 1999) (failure to follow up was mere negligence, not deliberate indifference). If Webster believes that further eye treatment is needed, he should alert medical staff about his concerns through the sick call process, not ask this Court to address the issue for the first time in a TRO request. There is no basis for ordering injunctive relief requiring immediate specialty medical treatment for an eye condition that, so far as MSP’s medical staff is aware, was properly treated and is no longer an issue. See Valentine, 956 F.3d at 804-05 (explaining that administrative exhaustion is mandatory before filing suit even when prisoner-plaintiff seeks TRO or other emergency relief). The Court should deny Webster’s request for injunctive relief.
Webster’s alleged rat and cockroach infestation, leaks, and “air conditioning” Webster lives in the same zone as Johnson, discussed supra, but Johnson did not complain of any “infestation” of rats and cockroaches; in fact, Johnson’s declaration never mentions such issues. See [Doc. 104-2]. MDOC regularly treats Webster’s building for rodents, roaches, ants, and spiders, and has done so for the past several months as a matter of routine pest control procedures. See Ex. 1, (Mallett Decl. at ¶¶ 10, 13 & Ex. E); Ex. 2, (Sprayberry Decl. at ¶ 9 & App’x II). On July 10, 2020, MDOC treated Webster’s building again for rats, roaches, ants and spiders. See Ex. 1, (Mallett Decl. at ¶¶ 10, 13); Ex. 2, (Sprayberry Decl. at ¶ 9). None of Plaintiffs’ experts documented having seen any vermin at MSP, and Defendants’ experts
20

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 119 Filed: 07/13/20 21 of 60 PageID #: 7758
likewise never saw vermin at MSP. Moreover, Deputy Commissioner Mallet has never seen a rat in housing units at MSP. See Ex. 1, (Mallett Decl. at ¶ 10).
“The presence of pests, by itself, is not a constitutional violation.” Walker v. Davis, 2019 WL 2465298, at *13 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 10, 2019). Courts have recognized that in “rural” areas such as Parchman where prisons are often located, “creatures are a fact of life.” Id. “It is not realistic for prison administrators to eliminate all such vermin from a unit.” Brooks v. Bell, 2018 WL 8547665, at *7 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 26, 2018). Although an inundation of pests could create an inhumane condition that rises to a level of a constitutional violation, courts focus on pest-control management performed by prisons to eliminate pests. See Dockery, 2019 WL 9046797 at *17.22
Plaintiffs’ anecdotal allegations of widespread rat and bug infestation are simply unsupported by any evidence. MSP is located in a rural area in the Mississippi delta. While pests undoubtedly attempt to infiltrate the prison units, Defendants are actively engaged in pest control measures aimed at eradicating any infestations. See Ex. 1, (Mallett Decl. at ¶¶ 10, 13 & Ex. E).23 Defendants have a contract with a licensed pest control applicator who provides pest control services at MSP three days a week. Id. Defendants’ preventative measures to protect inmates from such pests preclude a finding of deliberate indifference and irreparable harm.
22 Allen v. Gusman, 2006 WL 286007, at *2 (E.D. La. Feb. 2, 2006) (no showing of deliberate indifference to spider infestation where evidence showed prison routinely sprayed for pests); Bennett v. Morris, 2020 WL 60240, at *6 (N.D. Miss. Jan. 6, 2020) (Parchman case holding defendants were not deliberately indifferent where they attempted to alleviate bird problem by installing hawk call); Knight v. McGee, 2007 WL 3506462, at *4 (S.D. Miss. Nov. 14, 2007) (no deliberate indifference where proof showed defendants “sprayed routinely for insects and rodents”). 23 In Dockery, the finding of no deliberate indifference was based on the fact that the prison was “under contract with an outside vendor to provide pest control services, and that those services are provided on a monthly basis.” Dockery, 2019 WL 9046797 at *17. The court found monthly treatment was sufficient to withstand a finding of subjective deliberate indifference despite plaintiffs’ expert’s testimony that “best practices for pest control” required weekly pest control services. Id. The expert’s testimony “did not create constitutional standards.” Id. (quoting Green v. Ferrell, 801 F.2d 765, 770 (5th Cir. 1986)).
21

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 119 Filed: 07/13/20 22 of 60 PageID #: 7759
As to water intrusion, and as stated above, in March 2020, MDOC repaired the roof over Unit 29, Building F, where Webster is housed. See Ex. 1, (Mallett Decl. at ¶ 13 & Ex. D). There are currently no known leaks or avenues of water intrusion in Webster’s living area. Id. Again, water leaks alone are not sufficiently serious violations. Shannon, 682 F. App’x at 285.
And as to Webster’s request for “air conditioning,” his building was not designed or constructed with an air cooling system; instead, there are several, industrial-sized fans across his zone. See Ex. 1, (Mallett Decl. at ¶¶ 9, 10, 13); Ex. 2, (Sprayberry Decl. at ¶9). His zone is receiving additional new fans. See Ex. 1, (Mallett Decl. at ¶¶ 9, 13). Plaintiffs do not allege that there is not an adequate, working heating unit in Johnson’s zone. Id. at ¶¶ 10, 13; Ex. 2, (Sprayberry Decl. at ¶ 9). And again, air cooling systems are not constitutionally required. Ball II, 881 F.3d at 348.
Accordingly, and in light of Defendants’ documented efforts to address conditions at MSP, there is simply no basis for finding deliberate indifference or any entitlement to injunctive relief related to pest control, water intrusion, or “air conditioning.”
c. Plaintiff Kuriaki Riley (Unit 30, Building B, Zone A) Plaintiff Kuriaki Riley, residing in Zone A of Building B in Unit 30, requests four items of injunctive relief: (1) allow him to see a psychiatrist to assess his mental health and develop a long-term mental health plan including periodic follow up visits, as medically indicated; (2) allow him to see a medical doctor to assess his high blood pressure; (3) refill his high blood pressure medication; and (4) restore the drinking water in his zone to acceptable standards.24 [Doc. 99] at 41-44, 49. As discussed below, his requests should be denied because they have either already been remedied, or as with the drinking water, do not warrant remediation. In
24 Again, Plaintiffs request that these actions be taken “within five (5) days” or “within twenty-four hours,” but it is unclear from what point in time Plaintiffs are measuring their arbitrary deadlines.
22

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 119 Filed: 07/13/20 23 of 60 PageID #: 7760
addition, Defendants’ remedial actions show they are not acting with deliberate indifference. Riley’s alleged medical and mental health needs Riley makes complaints regarding his blood pressure that are similar to those of Johnson;
he requests to see a doctor to assess his high blood pressure and that his blood pressure medication be refilled. [Doc. 99] at 41-43, 48-49. Riley also requests to see a psychiatrist to assess his mental health and develop a treatment plan. Id. In his declaration, Riley claims that he has been to the chronic care clinic only once for blood pressure treatment and that his blood pressure medication refills are always delivered late by the nurses. See [Doc. 104-4].
Riley’s assertions are refuted by his medical records and his treating physician’s testimony regarding the care he receives. See Ex. 8, (Medical Records at 35-71). Like Johnson, Riley is designated as a chronic care patient for hypertension. Riley has been consistently seen by a provider to monitor his blood pressure every three months, as is standard practice for those individuals with fairly well controlled blood pressure levels. Ex. 3, (Glisson Decl. at 5); Ex. 1, (Mallett Decl. at ¶ 13). Most recently, Riley was seen in chronic care on April 7, 2020. Id. Riley also receives regular refills (a month’s supply each time) of his KOP blood pressure medications. Riley’s medication was refilled on January 14, February 6, February 25, March 21, April 28, May 14 (a seven day supply upon discharge from hospital), May 19, and July 9. Id. Given these regular refills, there has been no time at which Riley should have been without a sufficient supply of his medication.25
25 It should be noted that Plaintiffs appear to mischaracterize Riley’s declaration. Compare [Doc. 99], Supplemental Brief at 42, with [Doc. 104-4], Riley Dec. at ¶7. Riley states: “I have been without my high blood pressure medication for up to two weeks.” [Doc. 104-4], Riley Dec. at ¶7. Riley seems to be stating that at some point in time he was without his medication for “up to two weeks.” Id. Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Brief by contrast states that “as of” June 5, 2020, “Riley has been without his blood pressure medication for two weeks.” [Doc. 99] at 42. Regardless, it is not true. See Ex. 3, (Glisson Decl. at 5); Ex. 1, (Mallett Decl. at ¶ 13).
23

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 119 Filed: 07/13/20 24 of 60 PageID #: 7761
Turning to his mental health concerns, Riley alleges he received no follow-up care after spending time in the hospital for cutting his wrists, [Doc. 104-4], and he requests to be seen and treated by a psychiatrist, [Doc. 98] at 49. In fact, Riley did not cut his wrists. He was, however, seen by mental health professionals following a hospital admission after threatening suicide. On May 11, 2020, Riley was admitted to the MSP hospital for observation after threatening to hang himself. Exhibit 9 (Declaration of Dr. May J. Leflore at 3). He was monitored and then discharged on May 14. Id. at 3-4. A psychiatric nurse practitioner saw him two days later. Id. Riley was seen again two days after that by a mental health professional, who determined Riley was not a threat to himself and did not require psychiatric intervention. Id. at 4.
Riley has received regular medical and mental health treatment for the conditions about which he complains. While he may disagree with the prescribed course of treatment or prefer other treatment, his views on alternative courses of treatment are not sufficient to support a deliberate indifference claim, much less emergency injunctive relief. See Kennedy, 344 F. App’x at 989–90. Defendants have implemented a policy to provide Riley with adequate medical and mental health care, and the Fifth Circuit has held that Supreme Court precedent “plainly prohibits . . . an injunction” designed to “promote compliance” with the prison’s “own policies.” See Valentine, 956 F.3d at 802.
Thus, Plaintiffs have not shown that the medical or mental health care Defendants provided to Riley was constitutionally inadequate, that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to Riley’s alleged physical ailments, or that any basis exists for finding irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief before a hearing on the merits. Again, a prisoner’s disagreement with the care he has received and allegations of negligence and unsuccessful treatment outcomes
24

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 119 Filed: 07/13/20 25 of 60 PageID #: 7762
do not support a claim of deliberate medical indifference. Thomas v. Carter, 593 F. App’x 338, 342 (5th Cir. 2014); Gobert, 463 F.3d at 346; Domino, 239 F.3d at 756.
Riley’s drinking water Riley is housed in Zone A of Building B in Unit 30, and he complains that when he drinks the water in his zone, he becomes ill. See [Doc. 104-4].26 All prisoners, staff, and administrators at MSP drink the same water, regardless of the building in which they live or work. See Ex. 1, (Mallett Decl. at ¶ 10); Ex. 2, (Sprayberry Decl. at ¶ 9). The most recent potable water test results for MSP show that the drinking water is well within acceptable standards. See id. at ¶ 9 & Ex. E (water test results). Plaintiffs cite to no water tests that MSP has failed in any recent years, instead pointing to “historical results” from 2013 to 2018, before MDOC replaced much of the current water system at MSP. Id. at ¶ 9.27 Defendants have improved the watersupply system at MSP in recent years, installing a new, state-of-the-art water treatment system in 2019 to ensure safe and clean drinking water for MSP inmates. See id. Plaintiffs have zero evidence to support their misrepresentation that “Defendants know of unconstitutional unclean water conditions in Riley’s zone.” [Doc. 99] at 43. That is not true. In fact, Plaintiffs’ own expert, Frank Edwards, confirmed that there no harmful contaminants in MSP’s water system. See [Doc. 101-5]. Plaintiffs lament that “it is not surprising that Riley’s water is brown and makes him ill when he drinks,” but Mr. Edwards clarified that “you cannot tell by the look, taste, or smell of the water if disease-causing organisms are in it.” Id. at 4. The analytical water test results included Mr. Edwards’ expert report clearly show that the water at
26 It is also possible that Plaintiff James, discussed below, intended to ask for similar relief related to water. [Doc. 98] at 3. Curiously, both items 4 and 5 under James’ section of Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Motion request that Defendants “repair the air conditioning in James’ zone.” See id. 27 Water tests from years ago are irrelevant so long as Defendants’ “current attitudes and conduct” evince that Defendants are not “knowingly and unreasonable disregarding an objectively intolerable risk of harm.” See Dockery, 2019 WL 9046797, at *5 (quoting Farmer, 511 U.S. at 841).
25

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 119 Filed: 07/13/20 26 of 60 PageID #: 7763
MSP is not deficient or unclean. See [Doc. 101-5], Edwards, at 16 and 29. Accordingly, Riley’s
requested relief is unnecessary to prevent any alleged constitutional violation or irreparable harm
between now and a trial on the merits and should be denied.
There is no evidence, other than Riley’s bald and unsupported declaration, that the water does not meet applicable standards, and Riley’s testimony is directly refuted by his own expert.28
Accordingly, the requested relief is unnecessary, and Plaintiffs cannot show a constitutional
violation or subjective deliberate indifference on the part of Defendants.
d. Plaintiff Justin James (Unit 30, Building A, Zone B)
Plaintiff Justin James, residing in Zone B of Building A in Unit 30, requests five items of injunctive relief:29 (1) treat effectively the alleged infestation of rats and cockroaches in his
immediate living area; (2) repair water intrusion in his immediate living area; (3) remediate the
alleged mold in the shower in his zone; (4) repair the “air conditioning” in his zone; and (5)
arrange for him to “have the required one hour of recreation daily.” [Doc. 99] at 38-41, 49.
James’s requests should be denied because the alleged defective conditions have either already
been remedied or do not warrant action, and Defendants have not been deliberately indifferent.
James’s alleged rat and cockroach infestation, leaks, mold, and “air conditioning”
As with Webster, MDOC regularly treats James’s building for rodents, roaches, ants, and
28 Courts regularly disregard inmates’ “self-serving affidavit[s].” See, e.g., Norman v. Prince, 2011 WL 6369977, at *5 & n.4 (M.D. La. Nov. 3, 2011) (granting summary judgment on protection-from-harm claim despite three inmate declarations that inmates informed officers of potential for violence because declarations were “inherently self-serving [and] uncorroborated by anything in the record”); Davie v. Wingard, 958 F. Supp. 1244, 1251 n.2 (S.D. Ohio 1997) (“self-serving abstract declarations made by inmates are entitled to little weight compared with the judgment of experienced prison officials who have the day-to-day responsibility for providing a safe living environment for all inmates. Courts should give substantial deference to prison officials’ hard-earned, practical judgments about security issues”); Dohner v. McCarthy, 635 F. Supp. 408, 417 n.21 (C.D. Cal. 1985) (“Inmate testimony about urination in mop sinks and contamination of food is entitled to little weight.”). 29 Again, Plaintiffs request that these actions be taken “within five (5) days,” but it is unclear from what point in time Plaintiffs are measuring their arbitrary deadlines.
26

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 119 Filed: 07/13/20 27 of 60 PageID #: 7764
spiders, and has done so for the past several months as a matter of routine pest control procedures. See Ex. 1, (Mallett Decl. at ¶¶ 10, 13 & Ex. E); Ex. 2, (Sprayberry Decl. at ¶ 9 & App’x II). On July 10, 2020, MDOC treated James’s building again for rats, roaches, ants, and spiders. See Ex. 1, (Mallett Decl. at ¶¶ 10, 13); Ex. 2, (Sprayberry Decl. at ¶ 9). Again, none of Plaintiffs’ experts documented having seen any vermin at MSP, and likewise, Defendants’ experts did not see any vermin at MSP. Deputy Commissioner Mallet has never seen a rat in the housing units at MSP. See Ex. 1, (Mallett Decl. at ¶ 10). There is simply no basis for claiming there is an “infestation” at MSP or in James’s zone.
Furthermore, as discussed above, the “presence of pests, by itself, is not a constitutional violation.” Walker, 2019 WL 2465298, at *13. This is because in rural areas like Parchman, “creatures are a fact of life.” Id. Defendants are engaged in adequate pest-control measures aimed at eradicating any infestations. See Ex. 1, (Mallett Decl. at ¶¶ 10, 13 & Ex. E); Ex. 2, (Sprayberry Decl. at ¶ 9 & App’x II). Defendants have a contract with a licensed pest control applicator who provides pest control services at MSP three days a week. See Ex. 1, (Mallett Decl. at ¶¶ 10, 13); Ex. 2, (Sprayberry Decl. at ¶ 9). Defendants’ preventative measures preclude a finding of deliberate indifference and irreparable harm.
As to claims of leaks, MDOC recently repaired the roof over Unit 30, Building A, in which James is housed. See Ex. 1, (Mallett Decl. at ¶ 13 & Ex. F). There are currently no known leaks or avenues of water intrusion in James’ immediate living area. Id. And as discussed supra, water leaks alone are not sufficiently serious violations. Shannon, 682 F. App’x at 285.
As to James’s request for “air conditioning,” again, his building was not designed or constructed with an air cooling system; instead, there are several, industrial-sized fans across his zone. See Ex. 1, (Mallett Decl. at ¶¶ 10, 13); Ex. 2, (Sprayberry Decl. at ¶ 9). His zone is also
27

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 119 Filed: 07/13/20 28 of 60 PageID #: 7765
receiving additional new fans. Id. Plaintiffs do not allege that there is not an adequate, working heating unit in Johnson’s zone. See id. Again, air cooling systems are not constitutionally required. Ball II, 881 F.3d at 348.30
Finally, James states, without support: “There is mold in the shower in my zone.” [Doc. 104-3] at ¶4. However, MDOC confirmed on July 6, 2020, that there is no appearance of mold in the shower in James’ zone. See Ex. 1, (Mallett Decl. at ¶¶ 10, 13). Plaintiffs do not submit any competent evidence to the contrary. See [Doc. 99] at 46. Neither Plaintiffs nor their experts have actually conducted any testing for mold. Other than the unsupported declaration from James, Plaintiffs’ only “evidence” of mold is Edwards’ purported expert opinion that there is “potential mold growth” in other areas of MSP caused by water intrusion. See [Doc. 101-5], Edwards, at 15. Again, the water intrusion issues have already been addressed at MSP. See Ex. 1, (Mallett Decl. at ¶ 10, 13). Despite sweeping hyperbolic statements, neither Edwards nor anyone else has confirmed the existence of mold at MSP, much less in James’ shower. During Defendants’ recent tour of MSP, mold was not observed, as confirmed by Defendants’ experts. See Exs. 4, 5.
Even if mold was present, which it is not shown to be, cases from within this Circuit routinely hold that “the mere fact that mold is present does not render an inmate’s confinement unconstitutional.” Billizone v. Jefferson Parish Correctional Ctr., 2015 WL 1897683, at *3 (E.D. La. Apr. 27, 2015); Eaton v. Magee, 2012 WL 2459398, at *5 (S.D. Miss. June 27, 2012) (“Plaintiff’s claim that the bathroom and shower area are unsanitary and contain black mold fails to rise to the level of a constitutional violation.”); McCarty v. McGee, 2008 WL 341643, at *3 (S.D. Miss. Feb. 5, 2008) (“Plaintiff’s claim that the shower he was forced to share with other
30 Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Motion and Memorandum each describes items (4) and (5) of James’ requests for relief as “repair the air conditioning in James’ zone.” [Doc. 98] at 3; [Doc. 99] at 49. If Plaintiffs’ intent was to instead include a request regarding drinking water, the relief is inappropriate for the reasons stated above as to Riley. MDOC’s potable water test results and Plaintiffs’ own evidence show that no contaminants have been found in the water supply for Unit 30. See Ex. 2, (Sprayberry Decl. at ¶ 9).
28

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 119 Filed: 07/13/20 29 of 60 PageID #: 7766
inmates is polluted and covered in mold and fungus, causing him to catch athlete’s foot and ringworm, fails to rise to the level of a constitutional violation.”); Knight v. McGee, 2007 WL 3506462, at *4 (S.D. Miss. Nov. 14, 2007) (same). Notwithstanding, if there was mold in James’s shower, MDOC would act promptly to remedy it. Plaintiffs cannot show any deliberate indifference on the part of Defendants.
Accordingly, and in light of Defendants’ documented efforts to address conditions at MSP, there is simply no basis for finding deliberate indifference or any entitlement to injunctive relief related to pest control, water intrusion, mold, or “air conditioning.”
James’s request for recreation Plaintiffs complain that James “has not been offered recreation in three weeks.” [Doc. 99] at 46. MDOC’s records show that James had recreation (“yard call”) multiple times over the past month: June 10, June 12, June 30, July 1, and July 2. See Ex. 1, (Mallett Decl. at ¶ 13 & Ex. G). MDOC’s goal is to provide inmates, including James, with as much recreation as possible. See id. Deputy Commissioner Mallett has directed all MSP wardens to ensure that general population inmates, like James, receive at least one hour of recreation or “yard time” per day. Id. Thus, James’ requested injunctive relief is unnecessary to prevent any alleged constitutional violation or irreparable harm between now and a trial on the merits and should be denied. Regardless, denial of recreation does not constitute a sufficiently serious risk to health and safety under the Eighth Amendment in most cases. See, e.g., Hernandez v. Velasquez, 522 F.3d 556, 559-64 (5th Cir. 2008). In Hernandez, the court found that there was no constitutional violation where an inmate was deprived of recreation for 13 months. Moreover, there is no deliberate indifference where there is a justifiable reason for such a denial, such as a lockdown or measures implemented due to COVID-19 precautions. Id. Even if the denial of recreation did
29

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 119 Filed: 07/13/20 30 of 60 PageID #: 7767
pose a serious risk in this case, which it does not, that risk has been absolved by Defendants’ actions and directives, and no basis exists for a finding of deliberate indifference.
Accordingly, as shown above, all 20 of Plaintiffs’ items of specific relief have been remediated or do not otherwise warrant action. Plaintiffs therefore cannot meet their burden to show that there is a threat of irreparable harm. Because the requested relief either has already been addressed by Defendants or is not warranted, the Supplemental Motion is effectively nullified since “no order of the court can affect the rights of the parties with regard to the requested relief.” Harris, 151 F.3d at 189. Further, Plaintiffs cannot show any constitutional violations or deliberate indifference by Defendants as to the requested relief. Therefore, no further analysis of the elements of injunctive relief is necessary, and the Court should deny Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Emergency Motion. III. In addition to being unable to demonstrate a substantial threat of irreparable harm,
Plaintiffs have not satisfied the other prerequisites for preliminary injunctive relief. Plaintiffs’ Motion is nullified by Defendants’ remediation of Plaintiffs’ specific items of relief, and an analysis of the remaining three prerequisites for granting a preliminary injunction under the PLRA therefore is not necessary. Moreover, as shown below, Plaintiffs have failed to exhaust their administrative remedies as required by the PLRA. Notwithstanding, the current evidence shows that Plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on the merits of their underlying claims. Also, Plaintiffs have not shown that their injury outweighs the harm to Defendants or that the public interest would not be harmed by granting the Supplemental Emergency Motion.
a. Plaintiffs have not exhausted their administrative remedies. The PLRA requires inmates to exhaust “administrative remedies” before filing suit in federal court to challenge prison conditions. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Plaintiffs can “show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits only if the defendants [are] unlikely to
30

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 119 Filed: 07/13/20 31 of 60 PageID #: 7768
demonstrate a lack of PLRA exhaustion.” Swain v. Junior, 961 F.3d 1276, 1292 (11th Cir. 2020) (holding district court erred in granting preliminary injunction and TRO against prison after “refusing to consider defendants’ arguments with respect to PLRA exhaustion”). “This exhaustion obligation is mandatory—there are no ‘futility or other [judicially created] exceptions [to the] statutory exhaustion requirements.’” Valentine, 956 F.3d at 804 (quoting Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 n.6 (2001)). “So long as the State’s administrative procedure grants ‘authority to take some action in response to a complaint,’ that procedure is considered ‘available,’ even if it cannot provide ‘the remedial action an inmate demands.’” Id. Under the Fifth Circuit’s “strict approach” to exhaustion, “[d]istrict courts have no discretion to excuse a prisoner’s failure to properly exhaust the prison grievance process before filing their [§ 1983] complaint . . . and the case must be dismissed if available administrative remedies were not exhausted.” Gonzalez v. Seal, 702 F.3d 785, 788 (5th Cir. 2012).31
“[I]t is the prison’s requirements, and not the PRLA, that define the boundaries of proper exhaustion.” Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 923 (2007). Miss. Code Ann. § 47-5-801 grants the MDOC the authority to adopt an administrative review procedure at each of its correctional facilities. “Pursuant to this statutory authority, the MDOC has set up an Administrative Remedy Program (‘ARP’) through which an offender may seek formal review of a complaint relating to any aspect of his incarceration.” Kelly v. Mgmt. & Training Corp., 2017 WL 4284598, at *3 (S.D. Miss. Sept. 27, 2017). The ARP is a two-step process:
31 Exhaustion is not required only when: (1) the procedure “operates as a simple dead end” because “the relevant administrative procedure lacks authority to provide any relief,” or “administrative officials have apparent authority, but decline ever to exercise it;” (2) the “administrative scheme [is] so opaque that ... no reasonable prisoner can use them;” or (3) when “prison administrators thwart inmates from taking advantage of a grievance process through machination, misrepresentation, or intimidation.” Valentine, 956 F.3d at 804 (quoting Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850, 1859-60 (2016)). MDOC’s grievance procedure is “available,” and, thus, Plaintiffs were required to exhaust, but they failed to do so.
31

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 119 Filed: 07/13/20 32 of 60 PageID #: 7769
Inmates are required to initially submit their grievances within thirty days of the incident. If, after screening, a grievance is accepted into the ARP, the request is forwarded to the appropriate official, who will issue a First Step Response. If the inmate is unsatisfied with this response, he may continue to the Second Step by using ARP form ARP-2 and sending it to the Legal Claims Adjudicator. A final decision will then be made by the Superintendent, Warden, or Community Corrections Director. If the offender is not satisfied with the Second Step Response, he may file suit in state or federal court. Id. (citing MDOC Handbook, at Ch. VIII); see also Wilson v. Epps, 776 F.3d 296, 300 (5th Cir. 2015) (dismissing MSP inmate’s complaint because MSP inmate failed to appeal after MDOC did not respond to his initial ARP letter). “The PLRA’s exhaustion requirement applies to all inmate suits about prison life, whether they involve general circumstances or particular episodes.” Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532 (2002). Exhaustion is mandatory. Booth, 532 U.S. at 740-41 & n.6. The purpose of the exhaustion requirement “is to give an agency ‘an opportunity to correct its own mistakes with respect to the programs it administers before it is haled into federal court’ and to encourage the efficient resolution of claims.” Missouri v. Domino, 2018 WL 7051035, at *2 (S.D. Miss. Nov. 15, 2018) (quoting Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 89 (2006)). Here, the four named Plaintiffs seeking relief do not even attempt to allege that they have exhausted their available administrative remedies. There is no evidence that they even tried to exhaust. Instead, Plaintiffs’ counsel and experts argue that the Administrative Remedy Program (“ARP”) at MSP is “broken,” and therefore, any attempt to exhaust would have been futile. [Doc. 99] at 6, n.9. Nonsense. As shown by the declaration from Richard Pennington, MDOC’s custodian of ARP records at MSP, none of the four named Plaintiffs even submitted grievances relating to their conditions of confinement at MSP. See Exhibit 10 (Declaration of Richard Pennington at 1-2 & Ex. A). In other words, the four Plaintiffs who seek relief in the Supplemental Emergency Motion have not submitted grievances to the ARP department related
32

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 119 Filed: 07/13/20 33 of 60 PageID #: 7770
to the relief they now request from the Court. Id. Thus, they have not exhausted their
administrative remedies and are substantially unlikely to prevail on the merits of their claims.
For this reason alone, the Court should deny Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Emergency Motion.
b. Plaintiffs are not substantially likely to succeed on the merits of their underlying Eighth Amendment claims.
Despite the limited scope of Plaintiffs’ “emergency” requests for relief, they devote
approximately 30 pages of their Memorandum and more than 3,000 pages of exhibits to broad
allegations concerning general conditions at MSP. Plaintiffs attempt to paint MSP in a negative
light, as they have done in the media throughout this lawsuit. However, Plaintiffs’ reliance on
outdated evidence, including photographic and expert evidence of conditions existing five months ago during Plaintiffs’ February inspection, skews the current reality at MSP.32 The
current evidence paints an entirely different picture. See Ex. 4, (Expert Report of J. Rees at 3-4);
Ex. 5, (Expert Report of S. Tussey at 4); Ex. 6, (Photographs). Therefore, Defendants take this
opportunity to edify the Court as to the current conditions at MSP, the current attitude and
conduct of Defendants, the substantial improvements that have been made since the inmate
violence and destruction in January, and Defendants’ plan for continued improvement at MSP.
The current evidence demonstrates Plaintiffs do not have a substantial likelihood of
success on the merits of their underlying claims because Plaintiffs cannot show that existing
32 Plaintiffs’ experts go far beyond their stated areas of expertise and reach overly generalized, speculative, and unsupported conclusions about broad conditions at MSP, including with regard to areas that they have never even inspected. See, e.g., [Doc. 100-1], Vail Report at 7-8 (extrapolating alleged conditions from Unit 29-H and Unit 32, buildings that were not inhabited when Plaintiffs’ inspected them and, in the case of Unit 32, is still not inhabited, to attempt to describe overall prison conditions); [Doc. 101-1], Stern Report at 14-16 (offering opinions on environmental conditions, food and water, and “electrical wires,” to name a few, which are far outside his purported area of expertise); [Doc. 101-2], Haney Report at 6, 15-23 (offering opinions about all areas at MSP even though he admits he only inspected Unit 29-H, and also opining about several aspects of security and environmental conditions of which he has no expertise whatsoever). Many of Plaintiffs’ experts’ opinions are insufficiently supported and well outside of their purported areas of expertise.
33

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 119 Filed: 07/13/20 34 of 60 PageID #: 7771
conditions at MSP are sufficiently dangerous such that they constitute violations of the Eighth Amendment. Likewise, Plaintiffs cannot show that Defendants’ current attitudes and conduct evince subjective deliberate indifference. See Amos, 2020 WL 1978382, at *9 (substantial likelihood of success inquiry focuses on merits of underlying claims). The current declarations of MDOC officials and contractors, documentation of repairs performed at MSP over the last few months, photographs of the facilities, and reports of Experts John Rees and Stephen Tussey detail the remarkable improvements that have taken place at MSP since earlier this year. Defendants’ experts confirm there are not presently any sufficiently serious deprivations of life’s necessities at MSP such as would warrant a finding of an Eighth Amendment violation. See Ex. 4, (Expert Report of J. Rees at 4-8); Ex. 5, (Expert Report of S. Tussey at 4-7). Further, the photographs of MSP taken during Defendants’ June 24, 2020 inspection depict a constitutionally adequate correctional facility that is only improving. See Ex. 6, (Photographs).
But perhaps most encouraging are the plans that have been made for MSP in recent weeks since the confirmation of new MDOC Commissioner Burl Cain. See Ex. 1, (Mallett Decl. at ¶ 9). Notably, conditions are not the sole test for Eighth Amendment violations. The principal and necessary inquiry is whether Defendants currently possess the subjective state of mind of deliberate indifference. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 847; Dockery, 2019 WL 9046797, at *5. The focus for deliberate indifference is whether Defendants “know[] that inmates face a substantial risk of serious harm and disregard[] that risk by failing to take reasonable measures to abate it.’” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 847. To show subjective deliberate indifference Plaintiffs must show Defendants “subjectively believe that the measures they are taking are inadequate.” Amos, 2020 WL 1978382, at *11 (quoting Valentine, 956 F.3d at 802). That certainly is not the case here.
34

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 119 Filed: 07/13/20 35 of 60 PageID #: 7772
The appointment of the new officials and Defendants’ campaign of remedial,
preventative, and forward-looking measures since early 2020 preclude a finding of deliberate
indifference. Conditions at MSP at the beginning of 2020 needed to improve; they have, and they
will continue to improve under the new MSP leadership appointed precisely for that purpose.
MSP’s actions since January 2020 includes, among other things:
 The Appointment of Deputy Commissioner Jeworski Mallett. Mr. Mallett was appointed on January 15, 2020, as acting Deputy Commissioner of MDOC. See Ex. 1, (Mallett Decl. at ¶ 2). Mallett’s role was made official in February 2020. Id. Mallett has succeeded in spurring and facilitating the ongoing changes and improvements now evident at MSP. Id. at ¶ 9. Among other things, Mallett has made instrumental personnel changes at MSP and has demanded a new level of responsiveness to maintenance issues and security. Id.
 The Retirement of Marshall Turner and Appointment of Timothy Morris as Acting MSP Superintendent. MSP’s former Superintendent retired in April 2020, making room for the appointment of Warden Timothy Morris as the new acting Superintendent of MSP. See Ex. 1, (Mallett Decl. at ¶ 9). MDOC expects and demands that Morris’ appointment will be an improvement designed to propel MSP to ACA accreditation. Id. Commissioner Cain recently expanded Superintendent Morris’s authority in an effort to give the Superintendent a greater ability to timely address problems at MSP without administrative encumbrances. Id.
 The Appointment of Burl Cain as MDOC Commissioner. In June 2020, Governor Reeves appointed Burl Cain, former warden at the Louisiana State Penitentiary, to be the new MDOC Commissioner. See Ex. 1, (Mallett Decl. at ¶ 9). Cain was successful during his tenure at the Louisiana State Penitentiary in decreasing violence in that prison. Defendants’ expert John Rees, a highly respected prison administrator in his own right, is among the many who are confident that violence will decrease and conditions will improve at MSP under Cain’s leadership. See Ex. 4, (Expert Report of J. Rees at 3, 7); see also Ex. 1, (Mallett Decl. at ¶ 9).
 Inmate Transfers. Since January 2020, Defendants have transferred more than 1600 inmates out of MSP, including nearly 800 from Unit 29, in order to close parts of Unit 29 and bring the officer-to-inmate ratio at MSP into compliance with ACA standards. See Ex. 1, (Mallett Decl. at ¶¶ 10, 12). The transfer of inmates has also allowed MDOC to accelerate repairs and structural improvements at MSP. Id. at ¶ 9.
 Closure of Buildings and Zones. With the transfer of inmates and repair and improvements of other buildings and zones, MSP has successfully closed six buildings in Unit 29, where MSP was experiencing the highest levels of maintenance issues and inmate violence and destruction. See Ex. 1, (Mallett Decl. at ¶ 9). MDOC has begun
35

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 119 Filed: 07/13/20 36 of 60 PageID #: 7773
efforts to close Unit 29-F at MSP, in which two of the named Plaintiffs reside, and move those inmates to newly refurbished Unit 29-C. Id.
 Campaign of Repairs and Improvements. Defendants have mounted a significant, continued attack on the maintenance issues at MSP. The extensive repairs are welldocumented. Since February, Defendants have repaired roofs, showers, and bathrooms. MSP replaced two of its six sewage/wastewater lift stations in 2018-2019, and it has plans and funding to replace the rest. See Ex. 2, (Sprayberry Decl. at ¶ 9). MSP has additional improvements to make to become ACA accredited, but it is presently a constitutionally adequate facility. See Ex. 4, (Expert Report of J. Rees at 4-8); Ex. 5, (Expert Report of S. Tussey at 4-7).
 Improved Communication with Centurion. In part as a result of personnel changes, including MSP’s new Acting Superintendent and Centurion’s new Medical Director at MSP, communication and cooperation between MSP officials and Centurion have drastically improved, leading to improvement in access to already good medical care provided to inmates. See Ex. 1, (Mallett Decl. at ¶ 9). Among other things, the increased cooperation has led to more efficient and timely transport of inmates and inmate medications to and from the medical units at MSP. Id.
These ameliorative measures and others have led to improved conditions at MSP in recent
months. The improved conditions not only prevent Plaintiffs from showing sufficiently serious
constitutional deprivations, but also prevent Plaintiffs showing subjective deliberate indifference.
Defendants address each of Plaintiffs’ categorical allegations in turn.
i. There is not a lack of basic safety and protection from violence at MSP.
Plaintiffs claim generally that the conditions at MSP fail to provide basic security and
protection from violence. [Doc. 99] at 7. However, in support, Plaintiffs mostly cite statements
from inmates who no longer reside at MSP. [Doc. 99] at 8. Kuriaki Riley is the only named
Plaintiff residing at MSP who alleged that Defendants “don’t pay any attention to” alleged
violence “or try to stop it.” [Doc. 104-4]. Riley provides no support for his bald, self-serving
allegation, and he does not seek any relief related to the allegation. Indeed, Plaintiffs’ failure to
seek any remedy whatsoever with respect to “protection from violence” impeaches the argument
that MSP’s current measures to protect inmates from one another are constitutionally deficient.
36

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 119 Filed: 07/13/20 37 of 60 PageID #: 7774
See High Tech Med. Instr., Inc. v. New Image Indus., Inc., 49 F.3d 1551, 1557 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (failure to seek relief weighs against a finding of irreparable harm).
Defendants have not turned a blind eye to inmate violence and safety. Since the gang riot occurred in December 2019 and January 2020, Defendants have worked to find solutions to prevent inmate-on-inmate violence, and it is now obvious that many of their measures have been successful. See Ex. 1, (Mallett Decl. at ¶ 10). Defendants successfully transferred more than 1,600 inmates out of MSP, including nearly 800 out of Unit 29, resulting in improved inmate-toofficer ratios, within ACA standards. See Ex. 5, (Expert Report of S. Tussey). Defendants also relocated certain inmates within MSP after reclassifying them according to security-threat groups, and Defendants are in the process of a reclassification analysis for all inmates at MSP. See Ex. 1, (Mallett Decl. at ¶¶ 9, 10); Ex. 4, (Expert Report of J. Rees at 3). Defendants have increased screening, training, and supervision of correctional officers, and they have focused efforts on recruiting additional officers. See Ex. 1, (Mallett Decl. at ¶ 10). In fact, MDOC has hired 11 new correctional officers for MSP since June 3, 2020. Id. at ¶ 9. MDOC has increased pay for correctional officers by $1,500 per year, and MDOC has altered its hiring process to eliminate unnecessary delay. Id. MDOC has also hired one of the country’s top security and staffing experts to assess MSP’s staffing needs and provide an analysis of the same. Id.33
Plaintiffs allege inmate violence is caused by “critical understaffing in the housing units where Plaintiffs live.” [Doc. 99] at 8. Understaffing, in and of itself, does not necessitate a finding of deliberate indifference. See Walker v. Reese, 2008 WL 4426123, at *18 (S.D. Miss. Sept. 25, 2008). The Court must take into account relevant constraints when assessing deliberate indifference. Wilson, 501 U.S. at 300. For instance, in Walker v. Reese, while it was conceded 33 These are just a few of the measures that MDOC has instituted recently for MSP, many of which are directly from newly appointed Commissioner Burl Cain. See Ex. 1, (Mallett Decl. at ¶ 9). Defendants aim to have MSP back to ACA-accreditation levels by July 2022. Id.
37

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 119 Filed: 07/13/20 38 of 60 PageID #: 7775
that the staff at the prison “was not at full complement,” the proof showed that the deficient staffing was due to Yazoo City’s “remoteness” and the facility’s “salary constraints.” 2008 WL 4426123, at *18 n.31. The court noted the defendants’ “extensive recruitment efforts” to hire additional staff. Id. at *18. In doing so, the Court found that there was no deliberate indifference. Id. MDOC of course faces similar salary and recruitment challenges for MSP, given its budgetary limitations and rural location, but MDOC is anything but deliberately indifferent to those challenges. See Ex. 1, (Mallett Decl. at ¶ 9). On the contrary, MDOC and Commissioner Cain are facing those challenges head on. MDOC has ramped up its recruiting efforts. Id. As an example, there are double the number of correctional officers in the training academy for MSP in July 2020 than there were even in June 2020. Id.
As a result of Defendants’ inmate transfers and recruiting efforts, the inmate-to-officer ratio at MSP is now approximately 40:1, which is within ACA standards. See Ex. 5, (Expert Report of S. Tussey at 6); Ex. 1, (Mallett Decl. at ¶ 10). MDOC’s planned goal is to continue recruiting efforts and to continue to improve the inmate-to-officer ratio at all facilities, including MSP. Id. at ¶ 9. The measures instituted by Defendants preclude Plaintiffs from proving deliberate indifference. See Dockery, 2019 WL 9046797, at *13 (no deliberate indifference where defendants instituted several measures to improve staff shortages and actually “increased the staffing level” although less than plaintiffs alleged was necessary).
To support their generalized grievances, Plaintiffs rely on outdated evidence. They submit anecdotal accounts of inmate violence and deaths that occurred months ago, during and immediately after the gang riot in December 2019 and January 2020. There are no allegations that such violence has occurred recently, and the evidence confirms it has not. See Ex. 1, (Mallett Decl. at ¶¶ 9, 10); Ex. 4, (Expert Report of J. Rees at 4-5). In fact, the last inmate-on-inmate
38

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 119 Filed: 07/13/20 39 of 60 PageID #: 7776
fatality at MSP occurred on January 21, 2020. See Ex. 1, (Mallett Decl. at ¶ 5). Without causation and evidence of deliberate difference, the fact of death alone is not adjudicative of claims in the lawsuit. Plaintiffs’ evidence is insufficient to show a substantially serious, current risk of harm caused by further inmate violence or Defendants’ subjective deliberate indifference to that risk. Based on the current evidence, Plaintiffs cannot show that they would be substantially likely to succeed on their underlying claim for protection from violence.
ii. Plaintiffs have not been deprived adequate medical care or adequate mental health care.
MSP’s healthcare staff provides medical and mental health care that comports with constitutional standards.34 Plaintiffs claim that they are denied adequate medical care and that mental health care is “nonexistent” at MSP. See [Doc. 99] at 12-17. As discussed, to prevail on these claims, Plaintiffs must demonstrate that healthcare at MSP is so deficient that it evinces a “deliberate indifference” by prison officials to Plaintiffs’ serious medical needs. Gobert, 463 F.3d at 345-46. “The Constitution does not mandate comfortable prisons,” Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 349 (1981), and “deliberate indifference exists wholly independent of an optimal standard of care,” Gobert, 463 F.3d at 349. The adequacy of prison medical care is not judged against a community malpractice standard: “Unsuccessful medical treatment, acts of negligence, or medical malpractice do not constitute deliberate indifference[.]” Id. at 346. Instead, “the plaintiff must show a denial of ‘basic human needs.’” Valentine, 956 F.3d at 801; see also Inmates of Occoquan v. Barry, 844 F.2d 828, 837 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (“In [the prison] setting, it is decency—elementary decency—not professionalism that the Eighth Amendment is all about.”).
MSP’s medical and mental health system, which is accredited by the National Commission on Correctional Health Care (“NCCHC”), is functioning effectively and providing 34 Centurion, a correctional healthcare company, provides medical and mental health care to inmates at MSP pursuant to a contract with MDOC.
39

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 119 Filed: 07/13/20 40 of 60 PageID #: 7777
necessary care to MSP inmates. This is confirmed by the testimony of Dr. James Glisson, the medical director for MSP, Dr. May Leflore, the mental health director for MSP, and the opinions of Dr. Thomas Fowlkes, an independent expert in correctional healthcare who inspected MSP and has provided a report on its medical system and the care being provided at the prison today.
1. MSP’s medical and mental health systems are operating effectively and are certified by the NCCHC.
MSP’s medical staff delivers care in much the same way as do hospitals or clinics operating in the community, subject of course to the constraints of a prison setting. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 57 (1988) (“Unlike the situation confronting free patients, the nonmedical functions of prison life inevitably influence the nature, timing, and form of medical care provided to inmates”). Since February 2020, the MSP medical team has been led by Dr. James Glisson, a licensed physician with 15 years of professional experience. See Ex. 3, (Glisson Decl. at 1). As the site medical director and chief physician, Dr. Glisson is supported by a team of over 60 medical providers: two other medical doctors, including an emergency room physician; a physician’s assistant and two nurse practitioners; a director of nursing who supervises two nurse supervisors, five nursing assistants, 16 registered nurses, and 24 licensed practical nurses; four EMTs/paramedics. Id. at 2. These providers are supported by medical administrative staff, a phlebotomist, a physical therapist, a dentist and two dental assistants, a pharmacy director and two pharmacy technicians, two lab technicians, and an infection control program coordinator (who is a registered nurse). Id. The staff is supervised by a Health Services Administrator—a position akin to the administrator of a hospital. Id.
MSP’s mental health team is led by the site mental health director, Dr. May Leflore, a psychologist and licensed professional counselor with over 12 years of experience in correctional mental health care. Ex. 9, (Leflore Decl. at 1). In addition to Dr. Leflore, MSP has three mental
40

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 119 Filed: 07/13/20 41 of 60 PageID #: 7778
health professionals (masters-level counselors) on site who provide regular mental health counseling to inmates. Id. at 2. Inmates also have access to a psychiatrist who is on site weekly and can access psychiatric care at other times through use of telepsychiatry services. Id. at 2. As of June 30, there are 235 inmates at MSP who are on the mental health case load, meaning that they have a diagnosed mental health condition. Id. at 2.
The hub of the healthcare system at MSP is the hospital (Unit 42), a 56-bed facility located on prison grounds. Prisoners are transported to MSP’s hospital for emergency care and inpatient treatment, such as treatment for chronic conditions or other serious medical needs. In addition, patients may stay in the hospital for observation if their condition requires more constant attention, such as suicide watch or psychiatric observation. Ex. 9, (Leflore Decl. at 3).
MSP also has two satellite medical clinics, one in housing Unit 29 and another in housing Unit 30. Ex. 3, (Glisson Decl. at 3); see also Exhibit 11, (Report of Dr. Thomas Fowlkes at 5). Each medical clinic is staffed by a nurse practitioner during the week. Id. Those nurse practitioners provide primary care to their patients, including treatment for emergent medical conditions through the “sick call” process. Id.35 In addition to routine treatment, prisoners may be held in the medical unit for observation or further care if their condition requires more constant attention. Ex. 3, (Glisson Decl. at 3). When off-site emergency care is required, Dr. Glisson arranges for the inmate to be transported to a community hospital, either by an ambulance that serves the local community or by one of MSP’s medical transport vehicles if the ambulance’s estimated response time is too long. Id.
35 At MSP, prisoners request medical care by completing “sick call” request forms, which are collected by medical staff twice daily and triaged within 24 hours. Ex. 11, (Dr. Fowlkes Report at 6-7). The nurse practitioners address medical conditions that can be treated in the clinic (colds, sinus infections, headaches). Id. at 5. If the condition is more serious, the patient will be transported to the hospital.
41

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 119 Filed: 07/13/20 42 of 60 PageID #: 7779
MSP’s medical systems are evaluated by the NCCHC, a national organization that develops and promulgates standards for effective correctional healthcare operations.36 The NCCHC has accredited MSP’s medical policies and operations, and that accreditation remains in effect today. Ex. 11, (Dr. Fowlkes Report at 5).
2. Plaintiffs’ generalized allegations about medical and mental healthcare at MSP are neither supported by the evidence nor relevant to the preliminary injunctive relief sought.
The medical relief actually requested by the four named Plaintiffs in their Motion is very limited, and only three of the four even seek medical or mental health relief. As discussed in detail above, their requests have already been addressed in the normal course of patient care before Plaintiffs ever filed their Motion, or in some cases, are not substantiated by the inmate’s medical records or current condition. See discussion in Section II, supra.
Rather than focus on the preliminary relief requested, however, Plaintiffs’ medical experts—Dr. Marc Stern and Ms. Madeleine LaMarre—have jumped ahead to a classcertification stage, offering broad-stroke and highly generalized assertions about medical care at MSP. This approach does not assist the Court in resolving the narrow issues presented by the Motion. Worse, it appears to be an improper attempt to prematurely stigmatize the health systems and care provided to inmates at MSP based on a non-random, statistically insignificant subset of inmates (less than 1% of MSP’s population) with known complaints about care.37
36 Information about NCCHC including details on its accreditation process and standards, is available on its website: https://www.ncchc.org/facility-accreditation. Plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Marc Stern, purported to rely on NCCHC standards when offering his opinions. See [Doc. 101-1] (Stern Report at 3). Dr. Stern neglected to mention that MSP is currently, and has long been, accredited by NCCHC. 37 Again, the Court made clear that this preliminary stage of litigation is limited to 33 named plaintiffs, only four of whom remain at MSP and have filed requests for preliminary relief, and was not intended to reach class-certification discovery or analysis. See Transcript of Feb. 3, 2020 hearing at 48:23-25, 49:112. Although MSP’s population was over 3,200 inmates at the time of his review, Dr. Stern based his sweeping opinions on 17 inmates—less than 1% of the population. See [Doc. 101-1] (Stern Report at 2).
42

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 119 Filed: 07/13/20 43 of 60 PageID #: 7780
Another district court in Mississippi recently criticized Dr. Stern and Ms. LaMarre for their “purposive” sampling approach, which involves extrapolating across an entire prison system based on a few cases. See Dockery, 2019 WL 9046797, at *6.
Relying on Dr. Stern’s and Ms. LaMarre’s opinions, Plaintiffs make general allegations about medical and mental health care that, while detached from the relief actually requested, warrant a brief response. In particular, Plaintiffs claim that: (1) correctional officer understaffing impedes care; (2) the sick call process doesn’t function properly; (3) follow-up care after emergencies “is virtually non-existent”; (4) the ambulances at MSP should be decommissioned; and (5) inmates cannot obtain mental health care. [Doc. 99] at 13-17. As noted, MDOC retained Dr. Thomas Fowlkes, an expert in correctional healthcare, to inspect MSP and offer his opinions on the medical systems and care being provided at the prison today. Dr. Fowlkes’s report and opinions, as well as the information provided by MSP’s medical team, demonstrate that Plaintiffs claims are unsupported and even misguided in some cases.
First, Plaintiffs’ assertions—like their experts’ opinions—are based on a snapshot of MSP during an aberrant period from late 2019 through February 2020. At that time, MSP housed over 3,200 prisoners, including hundreds of “close-custody” (dangerous) offenders, and MSP officers were combating a spate of gang violence that threatened the safety of everyone at the prison. As of July 10, the inmate population has been reduced to approximately 2,000.38 As discussed above, this dramatic reduction in prisoners, including the transfer of dangerous offenders to other facilities, has greatly improved the ability of correctional officers to respond to inmate medical concerns and transport inmates to MSP’s hospital or clinics as needed. Today, as
It is difficult to determine how many inmate case studies Ms. LaMarre based her opinions on, but it was no more than 32—again only 1% of the population. See [Doc. 101-4] (LaMarre Report, App’x B). 38 MDOC reports its Daily Inmate Population on its public website: https://www.mdoc.ms.gov/AdminFinance/Pages/Daily-Inmate-Population.aspx.
43

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 119 Filed: 07/13/20 44 of 60 PageID #: 7781
reported by MSP’s medical team and confirmed by Dr. Fowlkes’s inspection and report, inmate medical needs are being met and sick call and chronic care appointments are being kept. See Ex. 11, (Dr. Fowlkes Report at 6-7, 11-12).
Second, Plaintiffs are mistaken in their claim that the sick call process does not function effectively. “Sick call” is the process by which an inmate notifies medical staff via a written form that he has a health concern or condition that he would like to discuss with a medical provider. As confirmed by Dr. Fowlkes’s inspection, sick call forms are available in all housing units, sick call requests are made by placing the form in a locked box without reliance on custody officers (so that the inmate’s privacy is ensured), sick call forms are collected by nurses twice daily and triaged within 24 hours, and sick call appointments are being kept. See Ex. 11, (Dr. Fowlkes Report at 6-7). In addition, Dr. Glisson’s decision to staff the satellite clinics with nurse practitioners ensures inmates can be quickly seen for emergent medical needs that have been identified through the sick call process. Id.
Third, Dr. Glisson and his medical team follow NCCHC standards for follow-up care after an inmate has received medical treatment or offsite specialty care. See Ex. 11, (Dr. Fowlkes Report at 9-10). MSP’s medical team also ensures that specialty care is ordered when necessary, and they monitor and follow-up with the patient until the off-site care can be scheduled and provided. Id. Whatever might have been the case in January and February 2020, the time period on which Plaintiffs’ experts focus, Dr. Fowlkes’s inspection and medical-staff interviews confirmed that the follow-up process is working properly and effectively today. Id.
Fourth, Plaintiffs claim that the “ambulance service” at MSP is “abysmal” and the ambulances on site should be decommissioned. [Doc. 99] at 15. For starters, there is no Eighth Amendment requirement that prisons maintain licensed ambulances or that inmates be
44

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 119 Filed: 07/13/20 45 of 60 PageID #: 7782
transported for medical care in an “ambulance” as opposed to a transport van. See, e.g., Lane v. Klingler, 25 F. App’x 781, 783 (10th Cir. 2001) (rejecting deliberate indifference claim based on inmate’s assertion that he should have been transported to community hospital in an ambulance, rather than prison van); Harvey v. Jones, 2015 WL 9687841, *2 (W.D. La. Nov. 16, 2015) (same). Even so, MSP has three ambulances—which are more aptly described as medical transport vans—that are stocked with medical supplies and used to transport inmates within the confines of MSP to its internal hospital at Unit 42. Ex. 3, (Glisson Decl. at 3). In addition, medical staff sometimes uses these vehicles to transport inmates to community hospitals when the response time of an outside ambulance company seems too long and the patient’s medical condition allows for transport without full ambulance-standard equipment. Id. Dr. Fowlkes inspected the ambulances and determined that they are adequate medical transport vans. Ex. 11, (Dr. Fowlkes Report at 12-13).
Fifth, Plaintiffs claim—citing only inmate testimony—that there are “no mental health services whatsoever.” Doc. 99 at 16. This is plainly wrong. MSP has a team of mental health professionals, led by Dr. Leflore, who provide mental health treatment and care to inmates consistent with NCCHC standards. See Ex. 9, (Leflore Decl. at 2). Plaintiffs do not offer any expert testimony criticizing the work of MSP’s mental health providers. The only one of Plaintiffs’ experts who even mentions mental health care is Dr. Craig Haney, and he just parrots one inmate’s complaints about the quality of his interactions with mental health providers. See [Doc. 101-2], Report of Dr. Craig Haney at 22.39 The fact that “a prisoner does not agree that the
39 Dr. Haney’s opinions should be wholly rejected by the Court as the information he relies upon was collected in violation the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court’s discovery order [Doc. 48]. Specifically, Dr. Haney’s report relies on interviews conducted by Dr. Haney personally, before discovery was permissible and in the face of an objection from Defense counsel, with non-party inmates, and with party inmates who have no mental-health claims. The Rules and this Court’s order prohibit such conduct.
45

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 119 Filed: 07/13/20 46 of 60 PageID #: 7783
medical care offered is appropriate” is not sufficient to show deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. Kennedy, 344 F. App’x at 989.40
iii. Plaintiffs have not been deprived adequate food. The specific, limited relief requested by the four individual named Plaintiffs at issue in this Motion does not concern any food-related violations; therefore, Plaintiffs’ likelihood of success on the merits of underlying, broader food-related claims is irrelevant to their Motion. Nonetheless, Defendants will address Plaintiffs’ general food and nutritional allegations. Plaintiffs state that they “often are denied meals,” that the food at MSP “is often inedible,” that the food “fails its basic purpose of keeping inmates healthy,” and that “deficiencies originate in the kitchens at Parchman.” [Doc. 99] at 17-19. These generalized allegations are unfounded, and regardless, they do not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. See Abreu v. Lipka, 778 F. App’x 28, 33 (2d Cir. 2019) (for Eighth Amendment claim, plaintiffs must show food poses “an immediate danger to the health and well-being of the inmates who consume it”).
1. Plaintiffs are not denied meals. Plaintiffs first allege that “they often are denied meals” and cite various affirmations of inmates who no longer reside at MSP in support of their vague claim. See [Doc. 99] at 17-18. However, a simple review of Plaintiffs’ own “Affirmation Compilation” reveals that many of the inmates do not claim they were denied meals.41 One inmate even volunteered that there is “plenty [of food] for him to eat.” See [Doc. 102-1], Ex. G, B. James Dec., ¶ 14, P000111.42
40 In addition, MSP recently filled three positions for chaplains who will live on the grounds at MSP and provide religious-based counseling. See Ex. 1, (Mallett Decl. at ¶ 9). MSP also identified 30 inmate preachers who have never been utilized. This effort is aimed at bettering mental health and preventing suicides. Id. Clearly, Defendants are not deliberately indifferent to Plaintiffs’ mental health needs. 41 See, e.g., [Doc. 102-1], Ex. G, Davis Dec., ¶ 2, P000036 (only complains that “[m]eals are late every ‘now and then’”); Green Dec., ¶ 11, P000060 and ¶ 53, P000073 (stating he receives three meals per day except for during the noted gang riot); J. James Dec., ¶ 2, P000117 (only complains that dinner is served
46

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 119 Filed: 07/13/20 47 of 60 PageID #: 7784
The food service provider at MSP is Aramark Correctional Services, LLC (“Aramark”). In his declaration, Aramark’s General Manager of MDOC’s food service account, David Bokath, states that Aramark prepares three meals a day for the inmates and no inmates are denied a meal. See Ex 12, (Bokath Decl. at ¶ 9). Bokath’s statements are confirmed by Roger Davis, MDOC’s Director of Food Services. See Ex. 13, (Declaration of N. Roger Davis at ¶ 5). For each meal, MDOC requires that Aramark prepare enough food to feed MSP’s prison population plus a five percent overage. Id. Invoices, count sheets, and Aramark’s Delivery Sheets and Daily Production Packets confirm there is no systematic denial of meals to inmates at MSP. Id. at ¶ 5 & Ex. B. The evidence demonstrates that Plaintiffs cannot establish a substantial likelihood of success of proving a systematic denial of meals to Plaintiffs or any other inmates at MSP.
Even if Plaintiffs were able to establish that they have been denied meals on a few occasions, which they cannot, such a showing does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. Talib v. Gilley, 138 F.3d 211, 214 n.3 (5th Cir. 1998). “The deprivation of food constitutes cruel and unusual punishment only if it denies the prisoner the ‘minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities.’” Id. (quotation omitted). “Whether the deprivation of food falls below this threshold depends on the amount and duration of the deprivation.” Id. (doubting that plaintiff’s allegation of missing 50 meals in five months rises to a constitutional violation); Berry v. Brady, 192 F.3d 504, 508 (5th Cir. 1999) (inmate’s claim he was denied eight meals did not
late); Riley Dec., ¶ 2, P000204; Scott Dec., ¶ 10, P000239; Tillis Dec., ¶ 9-10, P000271-72 (only complains that “meals are delayed”); Timmons Dec., ¶ 10, P000279 (not aware of any “occasions where food has not been given to the prisoners at all”); Willard Dec., ¶ 13, P000312 (stating that meals are “always provided”); Wilson Dec., ¶ 11, P000320. 42Instead of demonstrating a systematic denial of meals, Plaintiffs’ Affirmation Compilation merely suggests, at best, that there may be an occasional delay in providing meals. However, even a significant duration of time between meals does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. Benson v. Brown, 2020 WL 2526005, at *4 (S.D. Ind. May 18, 2020) (duration of more than 14 hours between inmate’s dinner and breakfast did not violate Constitution).
47

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 119 Filed: 07/13/20 48 of 60 PageID #: 7785
rise to level of a constitutional violation because “[e]ven on a regular, permanent basis, two meals a day may be adequate”); Rieco v. Moran, 633 F. App’x 76, 78 (3d Cir. 2015) (“only a substantial deprivation of food to prisoner states a viable Eighth Amendment claim”); Zanders v. Ferko, 439 F. App’x 158, 160 (3d Cir. 2011) (inmate’s claim he was “depriv[ed] of three meals over two days fail[ed] to rise to the level of a constitutional violation”).
2. The food at MSP is adequate, nutritional, and edible. The meals Plaintiffs receive at MSP meet caloric and nutritional requirements for inmates and are adequate to maintain good health. See Ex. 14, (Declaration of Julianne Croegaert at ¶ 4). The daily meals provide approximately 2900 calories, along with 92 grams of protein and healthy amounts of vitamin A, vitamin C, calcium, and iron. Id at ¶ 4; see also Ex. 12, (Bokath Decl. at ¶ 32); Ex. 13, (Davis Decl. at ¶ 5). Indeed, Plaintiffs’ own expert admits that MSP’s “regular diet menu, as planned, averaging 2,900 calories per day likely meets the minimum nutritional standards for most adults.” See [Doc. 101-3], Graham Report at 19. Ms. Graham does not opine that meals at MSP are nutritionally inadequate; instead, she states that “further assessments of meal plans and actual meals served, diets provided, and meal schedules is required in order to determine whether meals are adequate in fact.” Id. However, a speculative claim of a potential constitutional violation is an insufficient basis for an injunction. Fountain v. Rupert, 2018 WL 1127925, at *2-4 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 2, 2018) (denying inmate’s request for injunctive relief based on claim of inadequate meals and nutrition in part because plaintiff’s allegations that defendants were not following their own meal plans were speculative, conclusory, and did not show an immediate risk of harm). And contrary to Graham’s limited observations, the menu at MSP is strictly followed. “The recipes for the menus are almost always followed to the letter, except in the rare instance
48

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 119 Filed: 07/13/20 49 of 60 PageID #: 7786
where a substitute food item is used because of an issue with supply or unavailability[,]” in which case “a food item of equal or greater nutritional value is used.” Ex. 12, (Bokath Decl. at ¶ 5); Ex. 13, (Davis Decl. at ¶ 5). Further, specific utensils are used to ensure that a full serving of each food item is easily and precisely measured on the individual trays for the inmates. See Ex. 12, (Bokath Decl. at ¶ 7); Ex. 13, (Davis Decl. at ¶ 5). Bokath and Davis also inspect the meals to ensure compliance with the menus, including verifying portion sizes. See Ex. 12, (Bokath Decl. at ¶¶ 17-19); Ex. 13, (Davis Decl. at ¶ 5).
Moreover, MDOC has confirmed the nutritional adequacy of the meals through its review of the inmates’ health records. There is no evidence of any significant health concerns caused by inadequate nutrition. Although Plaintiffs cite some random claims of weight loss and one alleged incident of food poisoning, see [Doc. 99] at 18-19, those claims, made by inmates who are no longer housed at MSP, are based on declarations that are contradicted or explained by medical records. See Ex. 3, (Glisson Decl. at 6).43 Plaintiffs have not proffered any expert testimony from medical personnel to show that Plaintiffs experienced any significant health issues caused by a nutritionally inadequate diet or that the alleged isolated instances present a danger to the health and well-being of all MSP inmates. See, e.g., Gabriel v. Gusman, 2010 WL 3169840, at *6 (E.D. La. July 16, 2010) (“without an allegation of resulting harm, complaints regarding food service practices simply are not of constitutional dimension”).
Plaintiffs also claim “the food at Parchman is often inedible.” [Doc. 99] at 18. Plaintiffs cite various unsupported affirmations given by inmates who no longer reside at MSP for their
43 For instance, Curtis Wilson’s medical records show that he weighed 171 lbs. in June 2018 and 170 lbs. in June 2020. Id. H.D. Scott’s medical records show that he arrived at MSP in August 2019 weighing 297 lbs. and weighed 262 lbs. when he was last seen in February 2020, which is a healthier weight for his size. Id. Willie Friend’s medical records show that he weighed 150 lbs. in February 2018 and weighed 149 lbs. in February 2020. Id. Finally, Charles Gayles’ medical records show that he weighed 165 lbs. in September 2018, gained weight during his incarceration, but then reported having begun exercising and was back down to 165 lbs. Id.
49

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 119 Filed: 07/13/20 50 of 60 PageID #: 7787
claim that the food is sometimes “contaminated with animal or insect feces or it is raw.” Id.44 There is simply no evidence that the food, which is adequate and nutritional, is inedible. In fact, neither MDOC’s Director of Food Services nor Aramark’s General Manager is aware of a single claim of food borne illness at MSP from July 1, 2016 to the present. See Ex. 13, (Davis Decl. at ¶ 5); Ex. 12, (Bokath Decl. at ¶ 29). As to the claim of raw food, most of the meat items on the menu are precooked by the manufacturer and merely reheated at MSP. Id. at ¶ 30. Further, Bokath and Davis inspect and taste the meals to ensure palatability before they are delivered or served to inmates. See Ex. 13, (Davis Decl. at ¶ 5); Ex. 12, (Bokath Decl. at ¶¶ 16-19).
Even if there was some factual basis for this allegation, which there is not, it does not amount to a constitutional violation. The Constitution “does not mandate comfortable prisons,” Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 349, and prisoners “cannot expect the amenities, conveniences and services of a good hotel,” Wilson, 878 F.2d at 849 & n.5. To that end, prisoners are not entitled to food that is tasty or even appetizing. See McGee v. Aramark Correctional Servs., 2018 WL 7247135, at *2 (S.D. Miss. Dec. 20, 2018) (Constitution “requires that food served prisoners provide adequate nutrition, not that particular food be supplied, or that the food be served at a certain temperature or level of tastiness”); Robbins v. Robertson, 782 F App’x 794, 805 (11th Cir. 2019) (Eighth Amendment does not require prison officials “to indulge inmates’ dietary preferences”). And the Constitution does not guarantee food that is prepared and served in a culinary pleasing manner. E.g., Hmeid v. Nelson Coleman Correctional Ctr., 2018 WL 4922381, at *13 (E.D. La. Aug. 15, 2018); Brown-El v. Delo, 969 F.2d 644, 648 (8th Cir. 1992) (prisoner’s claim that his constitutional rights were violated when he was served cold food was frivolous). “The fact that the food occasionally contains foreign objects or sometimes is served cold, while unpleasant,
44 It should be noted that the allegations about feces in food are part of a typed, form declaration that Plaintiffs’ counsel submitted to inmates.
50

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 119 Filed: 07/13/20 51 of 60 PageID #: 7788
does not amount to a constitutional deprivation.” Hamm v. DeKalb County, 774 F. 2d 1567, 1575
(11th Cir. 1985).45
3. The kitchens at MSP do not present a danger to the health and well-being of inmates.
Plaintiffs claim that food “deficiencies originate in the kitchens at Parchman,” quoting
Graham’s statement that she observed “‘security and/or food safety and Food Code violations.’”
See [Doc. 99] at 19 (quoting [Doc. 101-3], Ex. D, Graham, p. 24). However, the kitchens in
Units 26 and 30, which prepare the food for the rest of the housing units at MSP, regularly
receive grades of “A” or “B” during annual inspections by the Mississippi Department of Health.
See Ex. 13, (Davis Decl. at ¶ 5 & Ex. A). In Dockery, the court found this type of evidence to
demonstrate “Plaintiffs ha[d] not shown they [were] being denied well-balanced, nutritionally
sufficient meals based on the manner or environment in which those meals [were] prepared.”
2019 WL 9046797, at *17. The meals are prepared and served under conditions which do not
present a danger to the health and well-being of inmates at MSP. See Ex. 14, (Croegaert Decl. at
¶ 4); Ex. 12, (Bokath Decl. at ¶ 32); Ex. 13, (Davis Decl. at ¶ 5).
4. MDOC is not deliberately indifferent to Plaintiffs’ food needs.
Even if there were a basis to find a sufficiently serious harm that objectively amounts to a
constitutional violation, which there is not, Plaintiffs cannot show Defendants have acted with
45 To the extent Plaintiffs have ever received servings of food that were unsatisfactory, they still do not have a claim. Bosarge v. Brown, 2015 WL 5156767, at *5 (S.D. Miss. Sept. 2, 2015) (“Courts have repeatedly held that occasional incidents of foreign objects contained in food do not present a question of constitutional proportions”). The few occasions, if any, in which Plaintiffs may have allegedly been served unsatisfactory meals present, at most, mere acts of negligence and not a Constitutional violation. See George v. King, 837 F.2d 705, 707 (5th Cir. 1998) (“A single incident of unintended food poisoning, whether suffered by one or many inmates at an institution, does not constitute a violation of the constitutional rights of the affected prisoners.”); Sinclair v. Henderson, 331 F. Supp. 1123, 1126 (E.D. La. 1971) (“[a]n occasional incident of a foreign object finding its way into [prison] food, while regrettable, does not raise a question of constitutional proportion”); Walker v. Dart, 2010 WL 669448, at *5 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 19, 2010) (plaintiff must show persistent problem and significant physical harm); Smith-Bey v. CCA/CTF, 703 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (D.D.C. 2010) (two instances of cockroaches in prisoner’s food does not rise to level of constitutional violation).
51

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 119 Filed: 07/13/20 52 of 60 PageID #: 7789
deliberate indifference. See Ex. 13, (Davis Decl. at ¶ 5); Ex. 12, (Bokath Decl. at ¶¶ 4-32). “Mere negligence on the part of the jail officials in the way they manage the food services does not amount to a constitutional violation.” Bosarge v. Brown, 2015 WL 5156767, at *5 (S.D. Miss. Sept. 2, 2015). Where, as here, Plaintiffs are inmates alleging deprivation of an adequate diet, “deliberate indifference” means “a state of mind equivalent to a reckless disregard of a known risk of harm.” Parris v. Aramark Foods, 2012 WL 1118672, at *6 (D.N.J. Apr. 2, 2012).
MDOC, through Aramark, tries to accommodate Plaintiffs and respond to any grievances about food. See Ex. 12, (Bokath Decl. at ¶ 20). On the rare occasion when an inmate complains about a foreign substance in the food, Aramark immediately replaces the inmate’s meal and removes any alleged contaminated food from the service line. Id. Further, in between meals, Aramark takes several precautions to clean and sanitize the kitchens where food is prepared. Id. ¶¶ 25-27. Moreover, Aramark provides religious meal plans and special medical diets to inmates at MSP who are deemed eligible by MDOC. See Ex. 14, (Croegaert Decl. at ¶ 5). And in the event MDOC alerts Aramark that it is short on the requisite number of meals, Aramark prepares replacement meals so long as the kitchens are still open at the time MDOC makes the request. See Ex. 12, (Bokath Decl. at ¶ 14). Accordingly, Plaintiffs have not shown and cannot show that MDOC is deliberately indifferent to their food needs, and thus they cannot show a likelihood of success on the merits of their food-related claims.
iv. Plaintiffs have not been denied adequate water. Plaintiffs also claim Defendants have failed to make safe, drinkable water available to them in violation of the Eighth Amendment, citing vague allegations of contamination, aroma, appearance and taste and a lack of running water for various periods following the gang riot in January 2020. [Doc. 99] at 19-20. However, as discussed in detail above, there is absolutely no
52

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 119 Filed: 07/13/20 53 of 60 PageID #: 7790
evidence to support Plaintiffs’ claim that the water at MSP is not safe and drinkable. The most recent potable water test results for MSP show its water is well within acceptable standards for drinking. See Ex. 2, (Sprayberry Decl. at ¶ 9 & Ex. E). And Plaintiffs’ allegations to the contrary are refuted by the findings of their own expert based on samples he took at MSP in February 2020. [Doc. 101-5], Edwards, at 16 and 29. Edwards further acknowledged that whether drinking water is safe cannot be determined by aroma, appearance, or taste. Id.
Not only is Plaintiffs’ evidence is insufficient to show a substantially serious risk of harm, but it is also insufficient to show Defendants’ subjective deliberate indifference. Water tests from years ago are irrelevant so long as Defendants’ “current attitudes and conduct” evince that they are not “knowingly and unreasonably disregarding an objectively intolerable risk of harm.” See Dockery, 2019 WL 9046797, at *5. Again, Defendants have improved the watersupply system at MSP in recent years, installing a new, state-of-the-art water treatment system in 2019 to ensure safe and clean drinking water for MSP inmates. See Ex. 2, (Sprayberry Decl. at ¶¶ 7, 9). The water at MSP is routinely tested and is within acceptable standards for drinking. When Defendants become aware of lack of access to running water, they make repairs within a reasonable time. Id. Moreover, when MSP was on lockdown in January 2020, each inmate in Unit 29 was provided with six bottles of water per day. See Ex. 13, (Davis Decl. at ¶5).
Plaintiffs have not shown, and cannot show, that the water at MSP is inadequate or that MDOC is deliberately indifferent to their water needs. Accordingly, Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of these claims.
v. Defendants provide adequate sanitation and hygiene. With regard to sanitation and hygiene, Plaintiffs again rely on outdated evidence and ignore, or simply are unaware of, the documented measures undertaken by Defendants to remedy
53

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 119 Filed: 07/13/20 54 of 60 PageID #: 7791
alleged unsanitary conditions. To be clear, Plaintiffs request no injunctive relief with regard to the vast majority of the alleged sanitation and hygiene violations. The only request for relief that even arguably falls within this category is the request to repair broken toilets and urinals, which as discussed in detail above, has already been addressed. See Ex. 1, (Mallett Decl.), Ex. 2, (Sprayberry Decl.).
None of the four named Plaintiffs here complain of “sewage” issues that allegedly existed in the past. See [Doc. 99] at 21-23. And Plaintiffs do not submit any evidence of the alleged sewage problems other than anecdotal and vague allegations from inmates who no longer reside at MSP. See, e.g., [Doc. 99] at 22 (“sewage on the floor on ‘many’ occasions since 2018”). Moreover, Plaintiffs rely principally on expert opinions regarding sewage problems in Unit 32, a unit which has been closed for more than a decade and does not regularly house any prisoners. See Ex. 1 (Mallett Decl. at ¶ 10). Inmates were temporarily housed in Unit 32 for two weeks in January 2020 after the gang riot in an effort to protect them from harming one another and to prevent further loss of life until a more permanent solution could be formulated. Id.; see also Ex. 4, (Expert Report of J. Rees at 6-7). To cite conditions in Unit 32 as evidence of MSP’s sanitation issues is misleading and shows the weakness of Plaintiffs’ arguments.
By contrast, the most recent evidence demonstrates that MSP’s facilities are drastically improved. The photographs attached as exhibits to Defendants’ Response show the reality of present conditions at MSP. See Ex. 6, (Photographs).
Moreover, Plaintiffs cite no evidence whatsoever that MSP’s “laundry service is deficient.” [Doc. 99] at 23. As ordered by the Court, Plaintiffs were allowed to inspect only areas of MSP where they resided or to which they had access since February 3, 2019. See [Docs. 48 & 49]. MSP’s central laundry is operated by a group of inmates with special privileges and
54

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 119 Filed: 07/13/20 55 of 60 PageID #: 7792
access—a group to which none of the named Plaintiffs have ever belonged. Therefore, none of the named Plaintiffs have ever had access to the central laundry. Plaintiffs’ experts on one hand admit they were not allowed to inspect the central laundry, but on the other hand they still criticize the central laundry service provided at MSP. In fact, there is nothing deficient about the central laundry service at MSP, and MDOC recently purchased three new washers and three new dryers for the laundry. See Ex. 1, (Mallett Decl. at ¶ 10). Inmates are prohibited from washing their clothes in the sinks, but many refuse to send their clothes to the central laundry. Id.
Inmates are also being provided adequate amounts of cleaning supplies, contrary to Plaintiffs’ contentions. See Ex. 1, (Mallett Decl. at ¶ 10); Ex. 4, (Expert Report of J. Rees at 7); Ex. 5, (Expert Report of S. Tussey at 4).46 And the current evidence of the conditions at MSP confirm that, while it is not perfect and needs continual cleaning, it is not “filthy” or neglected. See Ex. 6 (Photographs).
Inmates are not deprived of showers, nor were they ever deprived of showers, except for during a limited time of lockdown following the gang riots, which was necessary for security reasons. See Ex. 1, (Mallett Decl. at ¶ 10).47 Of course, no part of MSP is on lockdown now, and inmates in general population are allowed to shower any time they like, as much as they like. Id. Dangerous inmates who are on long-term segregation status because of their classification are allowed to shower three times per week. Id. Showers are being provided as required. Id.
The current conditions at MSP are far from posing a “substantial risk of harm to inmates.” Taylor v. Stevens, 946 F.3d 211, 220 (5th Cir. 2019). Plaintiffs are being provided “minimal civilized measures of life’s necessities,” which is all the Eighth Amendment requires. 46 Courts determining the constitutionality of cell conditions often weigh whether inmates are “given the chance to clean [their] cell[s].” Taylor v. Stevens, 946 F.3d 211, 221 & n.13 (5th Cir. 2019). 47 A “filthy, overcrowded cell . . . might be tolerable for a few days and intolerably cruel for weeks or months.” Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 686-87 (1978).
55

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 119 Filed: 07/13/20 56 of 60 PageID #: 7793
Davis, 157 F.3d at 1006. And, again, even if Plaintiffs could show sufficiently serious risks of harm, which they cannot, Plaintiffs cannot show Defendants have acted with deliberate indifference. As mentioned exhaustively, Defendants are engaged in a comprehensive and farreaching effort to repair and improve MSP’s facilities. See Ex. 1, (Mallett Decl. at ¶¶ 6, 7, 9, 10, 13 & Exs. D-F); Ex. 2, (Sprayberry Decl. at ¶¶ 7-9 & Exs. B, C, F, App’x I, II). These efforts preclude a finding of any Eighth Amendment violations with respect to sanitation and hygiene.
vi. Defendants have remedied, and work diligently and continually to remedy, alleged structural deficiencies.
Plaintiffs generally allege the following structural deficiencies at MSP: mold, leaky roofs, exposed electrical wires, and rodent and insect infestation. [Doc. 99] at 25-28. Defendants have disposed of each of these allegations in the preceding sections relating to the specific relief that Plaintiffs requested. See Section II, supra.
First, as outlined above, and as a factual matter, Defendants have already remediated the alleged structural conditions. See Ex. 1, (Mallett Decl. at ¶¶ 6, 7, 9, 10, 13 & Exs. D-F); Ex. 2, (Sprayberry Decl. at ¶¶ 7-9 & Exs. B, C, F, App’x I, II) (there is no evidence of mold at MSP, no test has ever confirmed any presence of mold at MSP, and mold was not observed by Defendants’ experts when they inspected MSP; the roofs at MSP have been repaired; the exposed electrical wires have been remediated and will continue to be remediated as inmates expose additional wiring; and MSP routinely conducts pest control services).
Second, Plaintiffs cannot show that the alleged structural deficiencies amount to sufficiently serious risks of harm such that they could be deemed constitutional violations. See Section II, supra. And finally, the current evidence, which shows that Defendants are making every effort to provide inmates with a structurally sound facility, precludes a finding that Defendants have acted with deliberate indifference toward ongoing structural needs at MSP. Id.
56

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 119 Filed: 07/13/20 57 of 60 PageID #: 7794
Accordingly, Plaintiffs cannot obtain a preliminary injunction or TRO for these alleged constitutional violations because they cannot show that these matters constitute sufficiently serious risks of harm and that Defendants are deliberately indifferent to such risks.
c. Threatened injury to Plaintiffs does not outweigh the harm to Defendants and the coinciding public interest.
Because Mississippi’s interest is indistinguishable from the “public’s interest” in this case, the final two prerequisites of the Canal Authority test are considered together. See Amos, 2020 WL 1978382, at *12 (because state officials are the parties against whom relief is sought, consideration of the harm to them should the injunction issue merges with consideration of the public interest). Plaintiffs must make a “clear showing” that the threatened injury to plaintiff outweighs the threatened harm the injunction may do to defendant and that granting the preliminary injunction will not disserve the public interest. White, 862 F.2d at 1211.
In arguing Defendants will suffer “[n]o countervailing prejudice” should an injunction be granted, see [Doc. 99] at 31, Plaintiffs ignore the state’s significant interest in operating MSP free from judicial interference, an interest that this Court recognized in its prior orders. In its Order related to Plaintiffs’ previous COVID-19 Motion, this Court stated that “any time a state is enjoined by a court from effectuating statutes enacted by representatives of its people, it suffers a form of irreparable injury.” Amos, 2020 WL 1978382, at *12 (quoting Valentine, 956 F.3d at 803). “[T]he Supreme Court has repeatedly warned that ‘it is difficult to imagine an activity in which a State has a stronger interest, or one that is more intricately bound up with state laws, regulations, and procedures, than the administration of its prisons.’” Valentine, 956 F.3d at 803 (quoting Woodford, 548 U.S. at 94). “Accordingly, when a legislature assigns prison policy to an administration, an injunction modifying such policy ‘imposes irreparable injury.’” Amos, 2020 WL 1978382, at *12. As the Court recently stated, “the Mississippi legislature has [assigned]
57

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 119 Filed: 07/13/20 58 of 60 PageID #: 7795
responsibility for prison policy to MDOC.” Id. (citing Miss. Code Ann. § 47-5-23). As such, MDOC would suffer “irreparable injury” if the Court entered a preliminary injunction or TRO. This is especially true given that MDOC has just recently confirmed its new Commissioner, who is already working hard to address needed improvements at MSP. The Court should give the new Commissioner a chance to improve MSP. For the same reasons, the public interest would be harmed by granting the requested injunction.
Plaintiffs have failed to make the requisite “clear showing” that the threatened injury to Plaintiffs outweighs the threatened harm the injunction may do to Defendants and the public interest. White, 862 F.2d at 1211. Defendants of course do not dispute that Plaintiffs are entitled to constitutional protections or that Plaintiffs would be prejudiced by a denial of constitutional rights. But the public’s interests in allowing MDOC to maintain autonomy and control over the State’s penitentiary, free from judicial decree, far outweigh Defendants’ requests for preliminary relief. As shown above, there is no emergency of any kind here, and Defendants have already addressed Plaintiffs’ specific and limited items of relief. As such, Plaintiffs fail to make the requisite “clear showing” that the equities weigh in favor of granting preliminary relief.
CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed above, Defendants respectfully request that the Court deny Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. Defendants request such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate under the circumstances. Date: July 13, 2020.
58

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 119 Filed: 07/13/20 59 of 60 PageID #: 7796
Respectfully submitted,
TOMMY TAYLOR, in his official capacity as the Interim Commissioner of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, and MARSHAL TURNER, in his official capacity as the Superintendent of the Mississippi State Penitentiary
By: /s/ Cody C. Bailey Cody C. Bailey, MSB #103718 One of Defendants’ Attorneys
OF COUNSEL: R. David Kaufman (MSB #3526) dkaufman@brunini.com William Trey Jones, III (MSB #99185) tjones@brunini.com Karen E. Howell (MSB #102243) khowell@brunini.com Cody C. Bailey (MSB #103718) cbailey@brunini.com Jacob A. Bradley (MSB #105541) jbradley@brunini.com BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC The Pinnacle Building, Suite 100 190 East Capitol Street (39201) Post Office Drawer 119 Jackson, Mississippi 39205 Telephone: (601) 948-3101 Facsimile: (601) 960-6902
Michael J. Bentley (MSB# 102631) mbentley@bradley.com Molly M. Walker (MSB# 100689) mmwalker@bradley.com Bradley Arant Boult Cummings, LLC One Jackson Place 188 East Capitol Street, Suite 1000 Post Office Box 1789 Jackson, MS 39215-1789 Telephone: (601) 948-8000 Facsimile: (601) 948-3000
59

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 119 Filed: 07/13/20 60 of 60 PageID #: 7797 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Cody C. Bailey, hereby certify that on July 13, 2020, I caused the foregoing pleading to be electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to all counsel of record and registered participants.
/s/ Cody C. Bailey One of the Defendants’ Attorneys
60

 
 Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 22 Filed: 01/28/20 1 of 30 PageID #: 320

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION

MICHAEL AMOS, PITRELL BRISTER, ANTONIO DAVIS, WILLIE FRIEND, CHARLES GAYLES, DANIEL GUTHRIE, JONATHAN J. HAM, DESMOND HARDY, BILLY JAMES, JR., JUSTIN JAMES, QUENTEN JOHNSON, DEAUNTE LEWIS, LARRY MAXWELL, TERRANCE MCKINNEY, DERRICK PAN, BRANDON ROBERTSON, KURIAKI RILEY, DERRICK ROGERS, TYREE ROSS, H.D. ALEXANDER SCOTT, DEANGELO TAYLOR, LEMARTINE TAYLOR, CONTI TILLIS, DEMARCUS TIMMONS, CARLOS VARNADO, PHILLIP DECARLOS WEBSTER, ADRIAN WILLARD, CURTIS WILSON, CALEB BUCKNER, WILLIAM GREEN, ARIC JOHNSON, IVERY MOORE, and KEVIN THOMAS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
TOMMY TAYLOR, in his official capacity as the Interim Commissioner of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, and MARSHAL TURNER, in his official capacity as the Superintendent of the Mississippi State Penitentiary,
Defendants.

Civil Action No. 4:20-CV-007-DMB JMV
FIRST AMENDED CLASS-ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 22 Filed: 01/28/20 2 of 30 PageID #: 321
Plaintiffs MICHAEL AMOS, PITRELL BRISTER, ANTONIO DAVIS, WILLIE FRIEND, CHARLES GAYLES, DANIEL GUTHRIE, JONATHAN J. HAM, DESMOND HARDY, BILLY JAMES, JR., JUSTIN JAMES, QUENTEN JOHNSON, DEAUNTE LEWIS, LARRY MAXWELL, TERRANCE MCKINNEY, DERRICK PAN, BRANDON ROBERTSON, KURIAKI RILEY, DERRICK ROGERS, TYREE ROSS, H.D. ALEXANDER SCOTT, DEANGELO TAYLOR, LEMARTINE TAYLOR, CONTI TILLIS, DEMARCUS TIMMONS, CARLOS VARNADO, PHILLIP DECARLOS WEBSTER, ADRIAN WILLARD, CURTIS WILSON, CALEB BUCKNER, WILLIAM GREEN, ARIC JOHNSON, IVERY MOORE, and KEVIN THOMAS each individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, by and through their undersigned attorneys, respectfully complain as follows against Defendants TOMMY TAYLOR, in his official capacity as the interim acting Commissioner of the Mississippi Department of Corrections (“MDOC”), and MARSHAL TURNER, in his official capacity as the Superintendent of the Mississippi State Penitentiary, as follows:
INTRODUCTION 1. The Mississippi State Penitentiary, also known as Parchman Farm (hereinafter “Parchman”), is operating in perpetual crisis under a state of degradation, filth, and inhumanity, endangering the health and safety of incarcerated inmates and staff alike daily. 2. Plaintiffs’ lives are in peril. Individuals held in Parchman are dying because MDOC and Defendants, acting under color of state law as further set forth below, have failed to adequately staff, manage and maintain the prison’s operations and facilities, resulting in prisons where violence reigns because prisons are out of control. This month alone, so far, nine men incarcerated at Parchman have died—five as the result of rampant prison violence and three as the result of apparent suicide from the despair brought on by the seemingly hopeless conditions
2

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 22 Filed: 01/28/20 3 of 30 PageID #: 322
of their confinement. These deaths are a direct result of Defendants’ utter disregard for the people incarcerated and their constitutional rights.
3. This unthinkable spate of deaths is the culmination of years of severe understaffing and neglect at Parchman. Mississippi has the third highest incarceration rate per capita of any U.S. state, with approximately 640 people living behind bars per 100,000 residents. As Mississippi has incarcerated increasing numbers of people, it has dramatically cut funding of prisons—reducing spending in this area approximately $185 million since 2014. The state has functionally divested from its correctional system, leaving those individuals who live and work within that system to pay the consequential deadly costs instead.
4. Underfunding forces prisoners at Parchman to live in squalor, endangering their physical and mental health. Incarcerated inmates are regularly denied basic sanitary and hygienic conditions, such as functioning toilets and handwashing and bathing facilities, because Defendants’ have allowed Parchman’s facilities to deteriorate and decay beyond their useful lives. MDOC has failed to ensure that individuals incarcerated at Parchman are provided simple necessities.
5. The units at Parchman are subject to frequent flooding from rain and overflowing plumbing, requiring Plaintiffs to live in and wade through standing water. Many cells and common areas suffer from roof leaks, inadequate plumbing, and often lack running water or electricity for days at a time. Many cells lack functioning toilets, constraining prisoners to defecate into plastic trash bags. Black mold and mildew permeates the units due to dilapidated conditions, poor ventilation and shoddy maintenance. Rats and mice infest the premises. The kitchen facilities at Parchman are abysmal; the most recent annual inspection by the Mississippi Health Department in June 2019 lambasts the conditions, finding containers of dried, spoiled and
3

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 22 Filed: 01/28/20 4 of 30 PageID #: 323
molded food, flies and other pests, food maintained in coolers at unsafe temperatures, collapsing ceilings, and other unhealthy food preparation and storage conditions. Each of these conditions, by itself, places prisoners at a substantial risk of serious harm. Taken together, these conditions create an environment so toxic that they threaten the physical and mental health of all the prisoners exposed to them.
6. Prior MDOC officials acknowledged in January 2019 that near-capacity prison populations and extreme staff vacancy rates had created a “staffing crisis,” which threatened a “pressure cooker type situation” in Mississippi’s three state-run prisons. Reportedly, Parchman had a staff vacancy rate of 42 percent at the time. MDOC’s 2019 Annual Report shows that as of June 30, 2019, only 310 of 583 authorized security officer positions at Parchman were filled. Parchman is operating with little more than half the staff minimally required to operate it safely. Without adequate guards, prisons are plagued by rampant violence, with Plaintiffs fearing for their lives. Yet, MDOC has failed and refused to hire the necessary staff to operate Parchman properly.
7. Defendants employees are incapable of monitoring and protecting inmates in their charge due to security staff shortages. Correctional officers seldom appear on the housing zones and prisoners are left sealed in their cells or common areas to fend for themselves. Consequently, prisoners are virtually unsupervised and Plaintiffs’ basic needs have been disregarded as a result.
8. Defendants deny prisoners even rudimentary medical care and mental health treatment. Many prisoners suffer from poorly treated or untreated medical and mental illnesses; access to timely, proper care and treatment is routinely ignored or denied. Prison guards refuse to answer distress calls from inmates. Setting fires is often the only way to get medical attention in emergencies. Suicide attempts are frequent; some are successful—as with Gabriel Carmen,
4

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 22 Filed: 01/28/20 5 of 30 PageID #: 324
Thomas Lee and Joshua Norman each of whom was found hanging in his cell in Unit 29 at Parchman and determined by the Sunflower County Coroner to have died by apparent suicides on January 19, January 22, and January 26, 2020, respectively.
9. Acts of violence are rampant throughout Mississippi’s correctional system, including at Parchman. Deaths in MDOC custody, which were already higher than the rest of the country, continue to rise at an alarming rate—from 62 in fiscal year 2014 to 85 in 2018 then 80 in 2019 to now, January 2020, with nine deaths at Parchman alone—five as a result of inmateon-inmate violence—days before month’s end. On information and belief, Defendants have allowed vicious gangs to exert nearly total control over Parchman, controlling prisoners’ access to food, mattresses, recreation and other prison services. Indeed, it is believed that Defendants have failed to screen prison guards hired for gang affiliation, resulting in rival factions obtaining support from those entrusted with prison oversight and control.
10. Even before the recent epidemic of deaths at Parchman, prisoners were regularly placed on extended lockdown because of violence and admitted understaffing. During lockdowns, Prisoners spend 22 hours a day or more in their cells for days and weeks at time with no access to recreation, showers, opportunities to interact with anyone else, no educational or rehabilitative programming, or visitation by family. These lockdowns affect incarcerated people indiscriminately, without respect to any security threats they pose or disciplinary infractions they have committed, and can start and end without warning. These lockdowns also prevent individuals from participating in programming and work that allows them to earn good time credit toward their sentences. Defendants’ arbitrary failure or deliberate indifference to manage Parchman’s facilities safely contributes to lengthier sentences for individuals who are abiding by the rules but are prevented from engaging in rehabilitative and educational programming.
5

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 22 Filed: 01/28/20 6 of 30 PageID #: 325
11. In short, Parchman is an extremely dangerous facility operating in a perpetual state of crisis, where prisoners live in barbaric and horrific conditions and their basic human rights are violated daily. Grossly inhumane conditions have cost many prisoners their health, sanity, and even their lives. Defendants, high-ranking MDOC officials, have known of the intolerable and abhorrent conditions at Parchman for years. They have repeatedly failed to take reasonable steps to protect the prisoners in their charge in spite of their constitutional obligation to protect the health and safety of those very individuals.
12. Defendants have the duty and responsibility to provide safe and humane conditions for the prisoners in their charge. Nevertheless, inmates are subjected to sleeping on concrete and contaminated cellblock floors without bed mats or pillows; deprived of meals and clean water; and denied regular access to bathing facilities, basic hygiene items, medical and mental health care.
13. The Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits the infliction of cruel and unusual punishment and is violated when prison officials fail to protect against prison-related violence and when prison conditions fail to meet basic human needs. The conditions present a grave and imminent danger to Plaintiffs.
14. The myriad unsafe and inhumane conditions at Parchman operate together to render inmates effectively deprived of shelter, sanitation, medical and mental health care, food, and protection from harm. These conditions are deliberately indifferent, unconstitutional and must be brought to an immediate end.
15. By this action, Plaintiffs seek immediate relief from these unconstitutional conditions and redress of injuries suffered by them and the class they represent for deprivation
6

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 22 Filed: 01/28/20 7 of 30 PageID #: 326
under color of state law of rights secured by the Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
JURISDICTION 16. This action arises under the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Jurisdiction proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3) and (4).
VENUE 17. Venue lies properly with this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1)-(2) because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims in this Complaint occurred in this District.
PARTIES NAMED PLAINTIFFS 18. All of the Plaintiffs are individuals currently incarcerated at the Mississippi State Penitentiary in Parchman, Mississippi (“Parchman”), and, as set forth in the factual and class action allegations herein, bring this action on behalf of themselves and a class of prisoners currently confined at Parchman who are at a substantial risk of serious harm due to prison violence and squalid living which fall below the standards of human decency, inflict needless suffering on inmates confined there and which deprive them of educational and recreational opportunities. More specifically, Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief for deprivation under color of state law of the rights, privileges and immunities secured to them by the Constitution of the United States and in particular the Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments thereof. 19. Plaintiff MICHAEL AMOS is a male inmate currently incarcerated in Parchman. He brings this Complaint on behalf of himself and the proposed Class as described herein.
7

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 22 Filed: 01/28/20 8 of 30 PageID #: 327
20. Plaintiff PITRELL BRISTER is a male inmate currently incarcerated in Parchman. He brings this Complaint on behalf of himself and the proposed Class as described herein.
21. Plaintiff ANTONIO DAVIS is a male inmate currently incarcerated in Parchman. He brings this Complaint on behalf of himself and the proposed Class as described herein.
22. Plaintiff WILLIE FRIEND is a male inmate currently incarcerated in Parchman. He brings this Complaint on behalf of himself and the proposed Class as described herein.
23. Plaintiff CHARLES GAYLES is a male inmate currently incarcerated in Parchman. He brings this Complaint on behalf of himself and the proposed Class as described herein.
24. Plaintiff DANIEL GUTHRIE is a male inmate currently incarcerated in Parchman. He brings this Complaint on behalf of himself and the proposed Class as described herein.
25. Plaintiff JONATHAN J. HAM is a male inmate currently incarcerated in Parchman. He brings this Complaint on behalf of himself and the proposed Class as described herein.
26. Plaintiff DESMOND HARDY is a male inmate currently incarcerated in Parchman. He brings this Complaint on behalf of himself and the proposed Class as described herein.
27. Plaintiff BILLY JAMES, JR. is a male inmate currently incarcerated in Parchman. He brings this Complaint on behalf of himself and the proposed Class as described herein.
28. Plaintiff JUSTIN JAMES is a male inmate currently incarcerated in Parchman. He brings this Complaint on behalf of himself and the proposed Class as described herein.
8

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 22 Filed: 01/28/20 9 of 30 PageID #: 328
29. Plaintiff QUENTEN JOHNSON is a male inmate currently incarcerated in Parchman. He brings this Complaint on behalf of himself and the proposed Class as described herein.
30. Plaintiff DEAUNTE LEWIS is a male inmate currently incarcerated in Parchman. He brings this Complaint on behalf of himself and the proposed Class as described herein.
31. Plaintiff LARRY MAXWELL is a male inmate currently incarcerated in Parchman. He brings this Complaint on behalf of himself and the proposed Class as described herein.
32. Plaintiff TERRANCE MCKINNEY is a male inmate currently incarcerated in Parchman. He brings this Complaint on behalf of himself and the proposed Class as described herein.
33. Plaintiff DERRICK PAN is a male inmate currently incarcerated in Parchman. He brings this Complaint on behalf of himself and the proposed Class as described herein.
34. Plaintiff BRANDON ROBERTSON is a male inmate currently incarcerated in Parchman. He brings this Complaint on behalf of himself and the proposed Class as described herein.
35. Plaintiff KURIAKI RILEY is a male inmate currently incarcerated in Parchman. He brings this Complaint on behalf of himself and the proposed Class as described herein.
36. Plaintiff DERRICK ROGERS is a male inmate currently incarcerated in Parchman. He brings this Complaint on behalf of himself and the proposed Class as described herein.
37. Plaintiff TYREE ROSS is a male inmate currently incarcerated in Parchman. He brings this Complaint on behalf of himself and the proposed Class as described herein.
9

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 22 Filed: 01/28/20 10 of 30 PageID #: 329
38. Plaintiff H.D. ALEXANDER SCOTT is a male inmate currently incarcerated in Parchman. He brings this Complaint on behalf of himself and the proposed Class as described herein.
39. Plaintiff DEANGELO TAYLOR is a male inmate currently incarcerated in Parchman. He brings this Complaint on behalf of himself and the proposed Class as described herein.
40. Plaintiff LEMARTINE TAYLOR is a male inmate currently incarcerated in Parchman. He brings this Complaint on behalf of himself and the proposed Class as described herein.
41. Plaintiff CONTI TILLIS is a male inmate currently incarcerated in Parchman. He brings this Complaint on behalf of himself and the proposed Class as described herein.
42. Plaintiff DEMARCUS TIMMONS is a male inmate currently incarcerated in Parchman. He brings this Complaint on behalf of himself and the proposed Class as described herein.
43. Plaintiff CARLOS VARNADO is a male inmate currently incarcerated in Parchman. He brings this Complaint on behalf of himself and the proposed Class as described herein.
44. Plaintiff PHILLIP DECARLOS WEBSTER is a male inmate currently incarcerated in Parchman. He brings this Complaint on behalf of himself and the proposed Class as described herein.
45. Plaintiff ADRIAN WILLARD is a male inmate currently incarcerated in Parchman. He brings this Complaint on behalf of himself and the proposed Class as described herein.
10

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 22 Filed: 01/28/20 11 of 30 PageID #: 330
46. Plaintiff CURTIS WILSON is a male inmate currently incarcerated in Parchman. He brings this Complaint on behalf of himself and the proposed Class as described herein.
47. Plaintiff CALEB BUCKNER is a male inmate currently incarcerated in Parchman. He brings this Complaint on behalf of himself and the proposed Class as described herein.
48. Plaintiff WILLIAM GREEN is a male inmate currently incarcerated in Parchman. He brings this Complaint on behalf of himself and the proposed Class as described herein.
49. Plaintiff ARIC JOHNSON is a male inmate currently incarcerated in Parchman. He brings this Complaint on behalf of himself and the proposed Class as described herein.
50. Plaintiff IVERY MOORE is a male inmate currently incarcerated in Parchman. He brings this Complaint on behalf of himself and the proposed Class as described herein.
51. Plaintiff KEVIN THOMAS is a male inmate currently incarcerated in Parchman. He brings this Complaint on behalf of himself and the proposed Class as described herein.
DEFENDANTS 52. Defendant TOMMY TAYLOR is the appointed Interim Commissioner of MDOC.1 In that capacity, Defendant Taylor is ultimately responsible for the administrative and fiscal control and policymaking of the Department of Corrections, including at Parchman. His duties, responsibilities and authority as Interim Commissioner include: “[e]stablish[ing] the general policy of the Department” (§47-5-20); “implement[ing] and administer[ing] laws and policy related to corrections” (§47-5-28(a)); and “establish[ing] standards. . .and exercise[ing] the requisite supervision as it relates to correctional programs over all state-supported adult
1 By statute, MDOC is “vested with the exclusive responsibility for management and control of the correctional system, and all properties belonging thereto” and “shall be responsible for the management of affairs of the correctional system and for the proper care, treatment, feeding, clothing and management of the offenders confined therein.” Miss. Code Ann. § 47-5-23.
11

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 22 Filed: 01/28/20 12 of 30 PageID #: 331
correctional facilities” (§47-5-28(b)). As Interim Commissioner, Defendant Taylor is responsible for overseeing all aspects of Mississippi’s correctional system and ensuring that all prisons under the jurisdiction of MDOC, including Parchman, operate in compliance with state and federal law. Defendant Taylor is sued in his official capacity. At all times relevant hereto, he has acted under color of state law. Additional allegations regarding Defendant Taylor’s conduct are set forth herein.
53. Defendant MARSHAL TURNER is Superintendent of the Mississippi State Penitentiary. In that capacity, Defendant Turner manages the day-to-day operations of Parchman. Defendant Turner is further responsible for the care, custody and protection of individuals including Plaintiffs. Defendant Turner has failed to take reasonable measures to abate the substantial risks of serious harm set forth herein despite knowledge and awareness of the existence of such problems throughout his tenure as Superintendent. Defendant Turner is sued in his official capacity. At all times relevant hereto, he has acted under color of state law.
FACTS 54. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 53 as if fully set out herein. 55. For years, Mississippi has dramatically underfunded its prisons. While the number of people in custody has increased, Mississippi has reduced funding by tens of millions of dollars each year. 56. As a result, the Mississippi prison system as a whole is chronically understaffed. On average, nearly half of prison corrections official positions remain unfilled. 57. A year ago, the MDOC issued a press release stating that the MDOC needed “help to address staffing.” The MDOC described the precarious situation as an issue of “public
12

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 22 Filed: 01/28/20 13 of 30 PageID #: 332
safety” that meant MDOC was “operating in a pressure cooker type situation.” At the time, the “staffing crisis” at Parchman amounted to a forty-two percent staff vacancy rate. The staffing crisis has persisted.
58. These longstanding problems have in recent weeks reached a boiling point that imperils Plaintiffs and places them in imminent danger of serious physical injury. Five recent deaths in Mississippi’s prisons exemplify the extreme risk of violence that Plaintiffs are currently facing. Three of those death occurred at Parchman in the first week of the year, with nine total deaths at Parchman this month alone.
59. Walter Gates, an inmate of Unit 29E at Parchman was stabbed multiple times the night of New Year’s Eve, and pronounced dead just after midnight. Roosevelt Holliman was stabbed to death in a fight the next day. Denorris Howell, an inmate of Unit 29I at Parchman, was stabbed multiple times and pronounced dead the day after that. Timothy Hudspeth and James Talley, inmates housed in Unit 30 at Parchman, were pronounced dead from blunt force trauma on January 21, 2020 following an altercation with other inmates. Three inmates housed in Unit 29 at Parchman, Gabriel Carmen, Thomas Lee and Joshua Norman, died on January 19, January 22, and January 26, 2020, respectively. All three inmates apparently died by hanging according to the Sunflower County Coroner.
60. The county coroner described the recent spate of violence at Parchman as “unprecedented,” noting that so many were injured in the prison violence that the Parchman medical facility was unable to accommodate them all.
61. The understaffing at Parchman presents an imminent risk to Plaintiffs. Every day presents the possibility of yet another preventable death.
13

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 22 Filed: 01/28/20 14 of 30 PageID #: 333
62. The federal government has recognized that understaffing of these levels presents a substantial risk of imminent harm. In April 2019, the Department of Justice issued a report concerning Alabama’s Department of Corrections (the “ADOC”). Despite the fact that the ADOC overall actually had a staffing ratio higher than the ratio at Parchman, the Department of Justice report described the lack of prison guards at ADOC as an “egregious level of understaffing” with “inadequate supervision that results in a substantial risk of serious harm.”
63. The neglected state of prison facilities fosters an environment for violence. Parchman is overcrowded and has insufficient mattresses for its population, leaving inmates sleeping on the floor. The prison units have been flooded and are now covered in black mold. The physical facilities reflect the scars of neglect, with light fixtures missing and holes in the walls. Toilets back up, resulting in floors covered with raw sewage. Electricity and running water are provided only sporadically. At Parchman, drinking water repeatedly has failed to meet federal safety standards. The prison’s sewage system is in such disrepair that it has been cited for violating the federal Clean Water Act.
64. The kitchen facilities at Parchman are abysmal; the most recent annual inspection by the Mississippi Health Department in June 2019 lambasts the conditions, finding containers of dried, spoiled and molded food, flies and other pests, food maintained in coolers at unsafe temperatures, collapsing ceilings, and other unhealthy food preparation and storage conditions.
65. In its June 2019 inspection of Parchman the Mississippi Department of Health further found “more than 400 cells with problems such as flooding and leaks, lack of lights, power and water, broken toilets and sinks, broken windows and bird nests, as well as missing pillows and mattresses.” Flies and moldy food containers and improper food storage were documented. Hundreds of other environmental deficiencies were also identified by the
14

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 22 Filed: 01/28/20 15 of 30 PageID #: 334
inspection, including exposed wiring and mildew. MDOC itself has described Unit 29 of Parchman as “unsafe for staff and inmates because of age and general deterioration.”
66. Inmates in Unit 29 were not allowed to shower for weeks beginning on Christmas Day, December 25, 2019.
67. Certain inmates and Plaintiffs are being denied visits to the medical unit for daily or critical care; and, for some, weeks have gone-by without medication.
68. There is only one guard (usually female) for each building (160 inmates) at Unit 29.
69. Rats and cockroaches crawl over inmates while they sleep and attack their food. 70. Toilets overflow with sewage which spills out and remains on the floors. 71. Potable water from available sources is contaminated with human waste and brown in color. 72. Rain leaks from the roof streaming through multiple cells and causing black mold to grow on walls and surfaces where inmates sleep. 73. At times there are no meals, and sometimes only one per day. 74. When served, the "food" is cold, rotten, and often containing rocks, insects, bird droppings, and rat feces. 75. Lone guards cannot, and will not, enter Unit 29 buildings to prevent violence or even render much needed emergency medical assistance. 76. Finally, inmates are resorting to setting fires to compel officials to enter their building and, hopefully, render life-saving care to fellow inmates who are sick and dying.
15

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 22 Filed: 01/28/20 16 of 30 PageID #: 335
77. These conditions, in and of themselves, present a serious risk of imminent harm. They threaten the health of the people living within Parchman’s walls and put them at a substantial risk of developing chronic and serious illnesses.
78. The factual allegations set forth in paragraphs 55 through 77 have been obvious and known to Defendants for a substantial period of time, with notice provided by numerous individuals and agencies; yet Defendants have failed to adequately address the conditions described.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 79. Plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalf and, pursuant to Rules 23(a), 23(b)(1), and 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of a class of all prisoners who are now, or will in the future be, subjected to the degrading policies and practices of MDOC and filthy, inhumane conditions endangering prisoner health and safety for the duration of their incarceration at Parchman, (“the proposed Class”).
Numerosity/Impracticality of Joinder: Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1) 80. The proposed class is so numerous that joinder of all proposed Class Members is impracticable. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1). On information and belief, approximately 3000 prisoners are presently incarcerated under custody of MDOC at Parchman, all of whom are or were subject to the conditions set forth herein and therefore face a significant risk of serious illness and injury. 81. Class members are identifiable using records maintained in the ordinary course of business by MDOC.
Commonality: Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2) 82. Common questions of law and fact exist as to all proposed Class Members. Such questions include but are not limited to:
16

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 22 Filed: 01/28/20 17 of 30 PageID #: 336
a) Whether the unhygienic and dangerous conditions at Parchman subject the proposed Class to an ongoing, substantial, and imminent risk of physical and psychological harm, illness, and death;
b) Whether Defendants have been deliberately indifferent to the serious health care needs of class members;
c) Whether Defendants have been deliberately indifferent to the actual and serious risk of mental and physical health and/or suffering of the proposed Class;
d) The nature, scope, and operation of Defendants’ practices, policies and customs as applied to prisoners incarcerated at Parchman;
e) Whether Defendants maintain a policy, custom, and/or widespread practice of violating the proposed Class’ constitutional rights through exposure to the dangerous conditions at Parchman;
f) Whether Defendants failure to hire, train, and/or supervise competent security staff resulted in violations of the proposed Class’ constitutional rights; and,
g) Whether the totality of conditions at Parchman violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment.
Typicality: Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3) 83. The claims of the Plaintiffs are typical of those of the Plaintiff Class, as their claims arise from the same policies, practices, or courses of conduct; and their claims are based on the same theory of law as the class’s claims.
Adequacy: Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4) 84. Plaintiffs are capable of fairly and adequately protecting the interests of the Plaintiff class because Plaintiffs do not have any interests antagonistic to the class. Plaintiffs, as
17

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 22 Filed: 01/28/20 18 of 30 PageID #: 337
well as the Plaintiff class members, seek to enjoin the unlawful acts and omissions of Defendants. Finally, Plaintiffs are represented by counsel experienced in civil rights litigation, prisoners’ rights litigation, and complex class action litigation.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1) and/or (2) 85. The proposed Classes should also be certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1) and/or (b)(2) because:
a) The prosecution of separate actions by individual Class Members would create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudication with respect to individual Class Members that would establish incompatible standards of conduct for Defendants;
b) The prosecution of separate actions by individual Class Members would create a risk of adjudications with respect to them which would, as a practical matter, be dispositive of the interests of other Class Members not parties to the adjudications, or substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their interests; and/or
c) Defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the proposed Classes, thereby making appropriate final and injunctive relief with respect to the Class Members as a whole.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF First Claim for Relief
(Eighth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983: Environmental Conditions) 86. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 85 as if fully set out herein. 87. At all relevant times herein, Defendants were “persons” for purposes of 42 USCA § 1983, and acted under color of law to deprive Plaintiffs of their Constitutional rights, as set forth more fully below.
18

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 22 Filed: 01/28/20 19 of 30 PageID #: 338
88. Defendant Taylor, as Interim Commissioner of MDOC, was aware of, and acquiesced in, the unconstitutional restrictions and conditions of Plaintiffs’ confinement at Parchman as set forth below, and failed to take necessary and appropriate action. Defendant Taylor therefore subjected or caused Plaintiffs to be subjected to unconstitutional conditions and restrictions, and demonstrated deliberate indifference.
89. Defendant Turner, as Superintendent of Parchman was aware of, and acquiesced in, the unconstitutional restrictions and conditions of Plaintiffs’ confinement at Parchman set forth below. Defendant Turner was directly responsible for operating, managing, and maintaining Parchman and is therefore directly responsible for said unconstitutional restrictions and conditions. Defendant Turner therefore subjected or caused Plaintiffs to be subjected to unconstitutional conditions and restrictions of confinement, and demonstrated deliberate indifference.
90. Roaches, mice, insects and other vermin have been in various areas of the State Penitentiary throughout the period of Plaintiffs’ confinement.
91. Throughout the winter there has been no heat, and inmates are not allowed to wear extra clothing or receive the necessary number of blankets.
92. By their policies and practices described herein, Defendants subject Plaintiff and the proposed Class to substantial risk of serious harm and injury from dangerous environmental conditions, including, but not limited to, vermin, exposure to mold and other toxic substances that endanger health, filthy cells and fixtures, broken plumbing, inoperable lighting, lack of electricity, and inadequate ventilation.
93. These policies and practices have been and continue to be implemented by Defendants and their agents, officials, employees, and all persons acting in concert with them
19

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 22 Filed: 01/28/20 20 of 30 PageID #: 339
under color of state law, in their official capacities, and are the cause of Plaintiffs’ and the proposed Class’ ongoing deprivation of rights secured by the United States Constitution under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments and federal law.
94. Defendants have been and are aware of all of the deprivations complained of herein, and have condoned or been deliberately indifferent to such conduct.
Second Claim for Relief (Eighth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983: Protection from Harm) 95. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 94 as if fully set out herein. 96. At all relevant times herein, defendants were “persons” for purposes of 42 USCA § 1983, and acted under color of law to deprive Plaintiffs of their Constitutional rights, as set forth more fully below. 97. Defendant Taylor, as Interim Commissioner of MDOC, was aware of, and acquiesced in, the unconstitutional restrictions and conditions of Plaintiffs’ confinement at Parchman as set forth below, and failed to take necessary and appropriate action. Defendant Taylor therefore subjected or caused Plaintiffs to be subjected to unconstitutional conditions and restrictions, and demonstrated deliberate indifference. 98. Defendant Turner, as Superintendent of Parchman was aware of, and acquiesced in, the unconstitutional restrictions and conditions of Plaintiffs’ confinement at Parchman set forth below. Defendant Turner was directly responsible for operating, managing, and maintaining the Parchman and is therefore directly responsible for said unconstitutional restrictions and conditions. Defendant Turner therefore subjected or caused Plaintiffs to be subjected to unconstitutional conditions and restrictions of confinement, and demonstrated deliberate indifference.
20

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 22 Filed: 01/28/20 21 of 30 PageID #: 340
99. By their policies and practices described herein, Defendants subject Plaintiffs and the proposed Class to a substantial risk of serious harm by failing to protect them from violence, ignoring, by act or omission emergency situations, and enabling violent attacks within prison walls. These policies and practices have been and continue to be implemented by Defendants and their agents, officials, employees, and all persons acting in concert with them under color of state law, in their official capacities, and are the cause of Plaintiffs’ and the proposed Class’ ongoing deprivation of rights secured by the United States Constitution under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments and federal law.
100. Defendants have been and are aware of all of the deprivations complained of herein, and have condoned or been deliberately indifferent to such conduct.
Third Claim for Relief (Eighth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983: Nutrition and Food Safety) 101. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 100 as if fully set out herein. 102. At all relevant times herein, defendants were “persons” for purposes of 42 USCA § 1983, and acted under color of law to deprive Plaintiffs of their Constitutional rights, as set forth more fully below. 103. Defendant Taylor, as Interim Commissioner of MDOC, was aware of, and acquiesced in, the unconstitutional restrictions and conditions of Plaintiffs’ confinement at Parchman as set forth below, and failed to take necessary and appropriate action. Defendant Taylor therefore subjected or caused Plaintiffs to be subjected to unconstitutional conditions and restrictions, and demonstrated deliberate indifference. 104. Defendant Turner, as Superintendent of Parchman was aware of, and acquiesced in, the unconstitutional restrictions and conditions of Plaintiffs’ confinement at Parchman set
21

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 22 Filed: 01/28/20 22 of 30 PageID #: 341
forth below. Defendant Turner was directly responsible for operating, managing, and maintaining the Parchman and is therefore directly responsible for said unconstitutional restrictions and conditions. Defendant Turner therefore subjected or caused Plaintiffs to be subjected to unconstitutional conditions and restrictions of confinement, and demonstrated deliberate indifference.
105. By their policies and practices described herein, Defendants subject Plaintiffs and the proposed Class to substantial risk of serious harm and injury by providing inadequate nourishment to maintain health and serving food in an unsanitary and unsafe manner.
106. A 2019 Mississippi Department of Health inspection of Parchman documented improper food storage, moldy food containers and flies in Parchman’s food preparation and service area. The kitchen facility itself is unclean and unsanitary.
107. Over and over again Plaintiffs find insects, rocks, bird droppings, and other contaminants in food from the Parchman kitchen. They have observed cockroaches and mice where food trays are stacked prior to their distribution to inmates. Neither the kitchen workers nor the food servers wear hair nets.
108. Plaintiffs meals are frequently served cold and they are periodically denied meals altogether.
109. These policies and practices have been and continue to be implemented by Defendants and their agents, officials, employees, and all persons acting in concert with them 1mder color of state law, in their official capacities, and are the cause of Plaintiffs’ and the proposed Class’ ongoing deprivation of rights secured by the United States Constitution under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments and federal law.
22

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 22 Filed: 01/28/20 23 of 30 PageID #: 342
110. Defendants have been and are aware of all of the deprivations complained of herein, and have condoned or been deliberately indifferent to such conduct.
Fourth Claim for Relief (Eighth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983: Health Care) 111. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 110 as if fully set out herein. 112. At all relevant times herein, defendants were “persons” for purposes of 42 USCA § 1983, and acted under color of law to deprive Plaintiffs of their Constitutional rights, as set forth more fully below. 113. Defendant Taylor, as Interim Commissioner of MDOC, was aware of, and acquiesced in, the unconstitutional restrictions and conditions of Plaintiffs’ confinement at Parchman as set forth below, and failed to take necessary and appropriate action. Defendant Taylor therefore subjected or caused Plaintiffs to be subjected to unconstitutional conditions and restrictions, and demonstrated deliberate indifference. 114. Defendant Turner, as Superintendent of Parchman was aware of, and acquiesced in, the unconstitutional restrictions and conditions of Plaintiffs’ confinement at Parchman set forth below. Defendant Turner was directly responsible for operating, managing, and maintaining Parchman and is therefore directly responsible for said unconstitutional restrictions and conditions. Defendant Turner therefore subjected or caused Plaintiffs to be subjected to unconstitutional conditions and restrictions of confinement, and demonstrated deliberate indifference. 115. By their policies and practices described herein, Defendants subject Plaintiffs and the proposed Class to substantial risk of serious harm and injury from inadequate medical care, including dental care, optical care, and other health-related services.
23

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 22 Filed: 01/28/20 24 of 30 PageID #: 343
116. Defendants have a policy and practice of failing to provide prisoners with medically necessary care to address ongoing medical needs or diseases. Medical attention and care at the institution is wholly inadequate. The deficiencies are systematic. Plaintiffs cannot not obtain routine medical, dental or optical care upon request. Frequently, Plaintiffs have to submit grievances in order to receive medical attention from physicians.
117. Defendants’ deliberate indifference to their systemic failure to properly treat or manage prisoners’ chronic illnesses exacerbates prisoners’ conditions, and frequently leads to preventable permanent injuries or deaths.
118. Plaintiffs routinely suffer serious medical problems for extension periods of time before receiving medical attention.
119. Prisoners wait months or longer for basic dental and optical treatment and suffer significant pain, worsening symptoms, and other harm.
120. Defendants also have a policy and practice of not providing medical diets ordered by clinicians for prisoners with chronic conditions such as high blood pressure, high cholesterol, kidney failure, and diabetes. Instead, all prisoners, including those with chronic conditions requiring special diets, are given a nutritionally inadequate, high-fat and high-sodium diet.
121. Defendants have a policy and practice of failing to mitigate the risk of infectious and communicable diseases, such as HIV and Hepatitis C. Defendants fail to maintain basic sanitation to prevent the exacerbation of chronic conditions and the spread of infectious diseases. Many sections of Parchman are filthy, fail to meet basic sanitation standards, and expose prisoners to serious, and sometimes fatal, communicable diseases. These conditions include urine-soaked mattresses, uncontrolled infestations of vermin, and cell walls and floors covered with black mold or smeared with the feces, spit, and blood of other inmates. Prisoners with cuts
24

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 22 Filed: 01/28/20 25 of 30 PageID #: 344
or other injuries to their bodies have contracted serious infections from the unsanitary conditions of the prison.
122. These policies and practices have been and continue to be implemented by Defendants and their agents, officials, employees, and all persons acting in concert with them under color of state law, in their official capacities, and are the cause of Plaintiffs’ and the proposed Class’ ongoing deprivation of rights secured by the United States Constitution under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments and federal law.
123. Defendants have been and are aware of all of the deprivations complained of herein, and have condoned or been deliberately indifferent to such conduct.
Fifth Claim for Relief (Eighth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983: Mental Health Care) 124. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 123 as if fully set out herein. 125. At all relevant times herein, defendants were “persons” for purposes of 42 USCA § 1983, and acted under color of law to deprive Plaintiffs of their Constitutional rights, as set forth more fully below. 126. Defendant Taylor, as Interim Commissioner of MDOC, was aware of, and acquiesced in, the unconstitutional restrictions and conditions of Plaintiffs’ confinement at Parchman as set forth below, and failed to take necessary and appropriate action. Defendant Taylor therefore subjected or caused Plaintiffs to be subjected to unconstitutional conditions and restrictions, and demonstrated deliberate indifference. 127. Defendant Turner, as Superintendent of Parchman was aware of, and acquiesced in, the unconstitutional restrictions and conditions of Plaintiffs’ confinement at Parchman set forth below. Defendant Turner was directly responsible for operating, managing, and
25

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 22 Filed: 01/28/20 26 of 30 PageID #: 345
maintaining Parchman and is therefore directly responsible for said unconstitutional restrictions and conditions. Defendant Turner therefore subjected or caused Plaintiffs to be subjected to unconstitutional conditions and restrictions of confinement, and demonstrated deliberate indifference.
128. Defendants have a policy and practice of failing to provide and/or denying prisoners with adequate mental health care, and are deliberately indifferent to the fact that the systemic failure to do so results in injury and a substantial risk of serious harm to prisoners. Because of chronic understaffing, suicidal and mentally ill prisoners have insufficient interactions with psychiatrists; many receive at most a five- or ten-minute interactions once or twice a year. As a result, clinicians cannot make informed decisions about care.
129. Since they possess at most a glancing familiarity with their patients, clinicians are unable to meaningfully evaluate crucial decisions affecting safety and health, such as the clinical appropriateness of indefinite confinement in units that hold prisoners in long-term isolation with minimal opportunities for human interaction.
130. Moreover, Defendants have a policy and practice of housing prisoners s in unsafe conditions that heighten their risk of suicide.
131. By their policies and practices described herein, Defendants subject Plaintiffs and the proposed Class to a substantial risk of serious harm and injury from inadequate mental health care. These policies and practices have been and continue to be implemented by Defendants and their agents, officials, employees, and all persons acting in concert with them under color of state law, in their official capacities, and are the cause of Plaintiffs’ and the proposed Class’ ongoing deprivation of rights secured by the United States Constitution under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments and federal law.
26

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 22 Filed: 01/28/20 27 of 30 PageID #: 346
132. Defendants have been and are aware of all of the deprivations complained of herein, and have condoned or been deliberately indifferent to such conduct.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Plaintiffs and the class and subclasses they seek to represent have no adequate remedy at law to redress the wrongs suffered as set forth in this complaint. Plaintiffs and the proposed Class they seek to represent have suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable injury as a result of the unlawful acts, omissions, policies, and practices of Defendants Taylor and Turner, as alleged herein, unless this Court grants the relief requested. The need for relief is critical because the rights at issue are paramount under the United States Constitution and the laws of the United States. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that this Honorable Court grant the following relief: A. Declare that the suit is maintainable as a class action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(1) and/or (2); B. Adjudge and declare that the acts, omissions, policies, and practices of Defendants, and their agents, employees, officials, and all persons acting in concert with them under color of state law or otherwise as described herein are in violation of the rights of Plaintiffs and the proposed Class they seek to represent under the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and federal law; C. Preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendants, their agents, employees, officials, and all persons acting in concert with them under color of state law, from subjecting Plaintiffs and the proposed Class they seek to represent to the illegal and unconstitutional conditions, acts, omissions, policies, and practices set forth above;
27

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 22 Filed: 01/28/20 28 of 30 PageID #: 347

D. Order Defendants to develop and implement, as soon as practical, a plan to

eliminate the substantial risks of serious harm that Plaintiffs and members of the class suffer due

to filthy and dangerous environmental conditions, failure to protect prisoners from violence,

malnutrition and/or unsanitary food preparation and delivery, inadequate medical (including

dental and optical) and mental health care. Defendants’ plan shall include at a minimum the

following:

i.

Environmental Conditions: Housing prisoners in safe and clean conditions

free from filth and vermin and with adequate access to exercise, outdoor recreation,

showers, lighting, sanitation, plumbing, ventilation, and other basic human needs

required by dignity, civilized standards, humanity, and decency;

ii.

Protection from Harm: Protection of prisoners from harm by other

prisoners and failing to timely respond to emergency conditions by, inter alia, assuring an

adequate level of properly trained staff;

iii.

Nutrition and Food Safety: Provision to prisoners of nutritionally adequate

meals prepared and served in a safe and sanitary manner;

iv.

Medical Care: Provision of timely access to adequate medical care,

including services such as dental and optical care, to treat serious health needs and to

abate a substantial risk of serious harm;

v.

Mental Health Care: Provision of timely access to adequate treatment for

serious mental illness, including, but not limited to, medication, therapy, inpatient

treatment, suicide prevention, and suicide watch in a manner that abates a substantial risk

of serious harm; and

28

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 22 Filed: 01/28/20 29 of 30 PageID #: 348

vi.

Accountability, Oversight, and Monitoring: Adequate monitoring and

timely remediation of the performance of any and all private prison contractors, including

health contractors, to whom Defendants delegate the operation of Parchman.

E. Award Plaintiffs the costs of this suit, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and litigation

expenses pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and other applicable law;

F. Retain jurisdiction of this case until Defendants have fully complied with the

orders of this Court, and there is a reasonable assurance that Defendants will continue to comply

in the future absent continuing jurisdiction; and

G. Award such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

This the 28th day of January, 2020.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Marcy B. Croft Marcy B. Croft (MS Bar #10864) Carson H. Thurman (MS Bar #104871) MARON MARVEL BRADLEY ANDERSON & TARDY LLC 200 South Lamar Street Jackson, MS 39201 Telephone: (601) 960-8630 Telefax: (601) 206-0119
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS

29

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 22 Filed: 01/28/20 30 of 30 PageID #: 349 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and foregoing was filed via ECF which automatically serves a copy on all counsel of record, including counsel for the Defendants:
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, this the 28th day of January, 2020. /s/ Marcy B. Croft
Marcy B. Croft (MS Bar #10864) Carson H. Thurman (MS Bar #104871)
30

 
 Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 185 Filed: 12/01/20 1 of 21 PageID #: 10362

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

MICHAEL AMOS, et al.

PLAINTIFFS

V.

NO. 4:20-CV-7-DMB-JMV

TOMMY TAYLOR, et al.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER Before the Court is “Plaintiffs’ Opposed Motion to Compel Defendants’ Responses to Expedited Discovery Requests Related to COVID-19 and for Sanctions.” Doc. #172.
I Procedural History On January 28, 2020, thirty-three inmates at the Mississippi State Penitentiary at Parchman filed a “First Amended Class-Action Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial” against Tommy Taylor, in his official capacity as the Interim Commissioner of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, and Marshal Turner, in his official capacity as the Superintendent of Parchman. Doc. #22. In their complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants’ policies and practices caused years of neglect at Parchman, which placed them in imminent danger of serious physical injury, in violation of the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eighth Amendment, as incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment. The pleading, which includes a proposed class action, seeks monetary and injunctive relief. On March 16, 2020, the plaintiffs filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and mandatory preliminary injunction seeking an “order directing mandatory and affirmative action to safeguard Plaintiffs at Parchman from SARS-CoV-2, also known as, COVID-19.” Doc. #59 at 1. Three days after the completion of expedited briefing, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued a document titled, “Interim Guidance on Management of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Correctional and Detention Facilities.” Based upon this guidance,

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 185 Filed: 12/01/20 2 of 21 PageID #: 10363
the Court directed the parties to supplement their briefing. Doc. #70. The parties completed their supplemental briefing on April 15, 2020. See Docs. #74, #75.
On April 24, 2020, this Court denied the plaintiffs’ request for preliminary injunctive relief, finding:
[T]he defendants have undoubtedly taken steps to address the risk of COVID-19 in Parchman. Such undisputed steps include the creation and updating of the [facility’s pandemic] Plan, posting of signs, promulgation of quarantine and screening policies for both inmates and visitors, suspension of in-person visitation except for attorneys, implementing cleaning procedures in the housing units, the waiving of co-pays for inmates, limitations on transfers, and the provision of extra soap to inmates. Doc. #79 at 18. In reaching these factual conclusions, the Court credited the affidavits of officials from MDOC and Centurion (MDOC’s third-party healthcare provider). Id. at 2–13. On August 11, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion for “expedited discovery focused on Defendants’ compliance [with] the representations made to this Court [regarding COVID-19 precautions at the Mississippi State Penitentiary] and with public health guidelines and implementation of measures at Parchman to reduce spread and protect against COVID-19.” Doc. #128 at 1. Specifically, the motion asked that “the Court enter an Order: (1) that service of Plaintiffs’ Interrogatories and RFPs on Defendants’ be deemed effective the date this Motion is granted; and (2) directing Defendants to respond to interrogatories and produce documents responsive to Plaintiffs’ RFPs on an expedited basis – within five (5) to seven (7) days.” Id. at 3. On August 26, 2020, the Court granted the motion to the extent it sought leave to conduct expedited discovery and deem the requested discovery (eight interrogatories and eight requests for production) served as of the date of the order. Doc. #141 at 17. The Court required the defendants to respond to the discovery requests within fourteen days and authorized the plaintiffs to file “an appropriate motion to compel” if the defendants objected to discovery and the good faith requirements of Rule 37 were satisfied. Id.
2

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 185 Filed: 12/01/20 3 of 21 PageID #: 10364
Two months after the Court authorized discovery, the plaintiffs filed a motion to compel.
Doc. #172. The motion to compel is fully briefed. Docs. #173, #177, #178.
II The Discovery Requests and Responses
As mentioned above, on August 26, 2020, the Court deemed the plaintiffs’ requests for
discovery (eight requests for production and eight interrogatories) served as of that date and
directed the defendants to respond within fourteen days. The plaintiffs’ proposed discovery seeks
responses to the following interrogatories:
INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Consistent with information provided by Departments of Correction throughout the country, including the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, please separately provide the following COVID-19 statistics for both the inmate and employee populations of each of the twenty-three (23) facilities for which MDOC typically reports COVID19 information: (1) total number tested; (2) total number of positive tests; (3) total number of negative tests; (4) total number of pending tests; (5) total number of retests processed; (6) total number of recovered cases; and, (7) total number of COVID-19 deaths.
INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Consistent with information and statistics provided by Departments of Correction throughout the country, including the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, please separately provide the following COVID-19 statistics and information for both the employee and inmate populations by Unit, Building, and Zone at Parchman: (1) total number tested; (2) total number of positive tests; (3) current number of symptomatic positive cases; (4) current number of asymptomatic positive cases; (5) total number of negative tests; (6) total number of pending tests; (7) total number of retests processed; (8) total number of recovered cases; and, (9) total number of COVID-19 deaths.
INTERROGATORY NO. 3: For all inmate and employee statistics requested in Interrogatory No. 2, please identify the individual Persons counted in the statistics along with the reason/basis for their testing, the date(s) on which their test(s) were conducted and on which results were received. For the employee population, please identify the Persons counted in the statistics who have self-reported this information along with the reason/basis for their testing, the date(s) on which their tests were conducted and on which results were received. If the employee did not self-report, you may identify said employee by a unique identifier consistent throughout these responses.
INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Identify and provide information regarding the individuals who were determined to be Close Contacts of any and all Parchman Residents and employees who have tested positive for COVID-19. Please include
3

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 185 Filed: 12/01/20 4 of 21 PageID #: 10365
in the information provided: (i) the identity of the Covid-19 positive case with whom they were a Close Contact; (ii) the steps taken to identify Close Contacts of the positive case; (iii) the location, time, and manner under which the contact took place; (iv) the Person(s) who undertook the contact tracing and/or Close Contact investigation and the date(s) on which it occurred; and, (v) whether the local or state health department was notified and/or involved in investigating/contact tracing.
INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Please identify each instance, since March 11, 2020, in which an individual, cohort, or any other group of Persons has been subject to Quarantine at Parchman. With respect to each instance, please include the following information: (i) whether it is an individual, cohort, or other group subject to the Quarantine; (ii) the number and identity of the Parchman Residents and employees involved or with access, including any floorwalkers or work crews; (iii) the location (Unit/Building/Zone/Cell/Bed) where it took place; (iv) the beginning and ending date, if any, of the Quarantine; (v) the identity of the Person(s) who made the decision to Quarantine; (vi) the circumstances and reasons the Quarantine was instituted; and, (vii) the MDOC employee(s) and/or healthcare professional(s) responsible for monitoring the health and symptoms of those subject to the Quarantine.
INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Please identify each instance, since March 11, 2020, in which a Person was placed under Medical Isolation at Parchman. With respect to each instance, please include the following information: (i) the identity of the Parchman Resident(s) and employee(s) involved or with access, including any floor walkers or work crews; (ii) the location (Unit/Building/Zone/Cell/Bed) where the Medical Isolation took place; (iii) the beginning and ending date, if any, of the Medical Isolation; (iv) the identity of the Person(s) who made the decision to begin Medical Isolation; (v) the circumstances and reasons the Medical Isolation was instituted; and, (vi) the MDOC employee(s) and/or healthcare professional(s) responsible for monitoring the health and symptoms of the person in Medical Isolation.
INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Please state the criteria used to determine when a COVID-19 test should be administered to a Parchman Resident and any guidance, instruction, or suggestions provided by MDOC (or any other government agency, official, or representative) to Parchman on the circumstances under which a COVID-19 test should be administered. Please include in your response (a) the role of MSP custody staff in assessing the need for testing, (b) the supply of available tests in MSP, and (c) the use of outside medical facilities and the Mississippi Department of Health for testing.
INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Pursuant to MDOC’s announcement on April 27, 2020, MDOC suspended “inter-facility transfers, except in emergency cases,” while intra-facility transfers were never suspended. Please identify: (a) the number of inter-facility transfers (by date, departure, and arrival facility) that have occurred since April 27, 2020; (b) for those inter-facility transfers that occurred between April 27, 2020 and May 29, 2020, please identify the “emergent reason” for said
4

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 185 Filed: 12/01/20 5 of 21 PageID #: 10366
transfer; (c) the number of intra-facility transfers that have occurred at Parchman (by date, departure Unit/Building/Zone, and arrival Unit/Building/Zone) since the diagnosis of the first COVID-19 case at the facility.
Doc. #128-1 at 4–7. The requests for production provide:
REQUEST NO. 1: Produce any and all Documents, ESI, data, or other materials on which you relied in answering the foregoing Interrogatories including, but not limited to: test results, Close Contact tracing investigation records, MDOC Mortality/Morbidity and Death of Offender report forms, employee work schedules, logs, minutes, reports, inmate records, updates from daily/weekly/monthly calls relating to COVID-19, reports to state and federal agencies, screening forms, and transfer documentation.
REQUEST NO. 2: Produce all Sick Call requests submitted on or after March 11, 2020 by Parchman Residents reporting one or more COVID-19 Symptoms or a belief of having contracted COVID-19. Please include the documents reflecting the corresponding response/result, if any, of those Sick Call requests.
REQUEST NO. 3: Produce the policies, procedures, and protocols instituted to address the evaluation, care, custody, medical monitoring, treatment, and supervision of Parchman Residents who: (a) have tested positive for COVID-19; (b) are awaiting test results for COVID-19; (c) have underlying medical conditions that increase the risk of severe illness from COVID-19; and/or, (d) report COVID19 Symptoms.
REQUEST NO. 4: All Documents and ESI in your possession, custody, or control relating to Centurion of Mississippi, LLC’s (“Centurion”) Pandemic Preparedness and Emergency Response Plan (the “Centurion Plan”), including, but not limited to, those required, maintained, created, and/or updated per the terms of the Centurion Plan and all records required to be maintained in this regard ….
REQUEST NO. 5: Produce all iterations of the rules, regulations, methods, policies, protocols, and procedures for (a) when staff may report to work at Parchman after they report symptoms of COVID-19 or test positive for COVID19, and (b) notifying staff or visitors who were in contact with employees and Parchman Residents who exhibit symptoms, are determined be a Suspected COVID-19 case, become subject to Quarantine, and/or test positive.
REQUEST NO. 6: Upon information and belief, on or about April 8, 2020, Parchman Resident Earl Dycus was transported to Unit 42, the Parchman Hospital, due to COVID-19 Symptoms. Within two days of arriving at Unit 42, Dycus was transported to a local hospital where he died on April 11, 2020, having ultimately been diagnosed with COVID-19. Please produce all documentation reflecting the members of Dycus’ work crew; the date(s) and locations (Unit/Building/Zone) where he worked in the fourteen (14) days prior to exhibiting COVID-19 Symptoms; the work performed; and, the Close Contact tracing investigation related to his diagnosis and death.
5

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 185 Filed: 12/01/20 6 of 21 PageID #: 10367
REQUEST NO. 7: Upon information and belief, a COVID-19 outbreak is currently on-going in Unit 31, the medically vulnerable unit of Parchman, where Defendants have allegedly housed Unit 31 inmates with confirmed negative COVID-19 tests in Zones A and B, and those with confirmed positive tests in Zones C and D. On or about July 27, 2020, Parchman Resident Jermaine Moore was housed in Zone C of Unit 31, waiting on the results of a pending COVID-19 test. That same day, Moore (along with other similarly situated inmates) was inexplicably moved from Unit 31 Zone C to Unit 31 Zone A, where medically vulnerable inmates who tested negative for COVID-19 were being housed. On or about the following day, July 28, 2020, Moore’s and other inmates’ tests returned positive and they were moved back to Zone C after having already exposed other Parchman Residents housed in Unit 31, Zone A (the “Moore Incident”). Please produce all documentation reflecting: (i) the transfer of Moore and any other Parchman Resident to/from/within Unit 31 since July 1, 2020; (ii) the investigation and Close Contact tracing that was performed as a result of this Moore Incident; (iii) the Person(s) who made the decision to transfer Moore; and, (iv) the actions taken by Defendant as a result of the Moore Incident.
REQUEST NO. 8: Upon information and belief, at least three Parchman Residents housed in Unit 29/A, the “quarantine unit”, tested positive for COVID-19. Please produce all documentation relating to this matter including, but not limited, those Documents regarding: (i) the investigation and Close Contact tracing performed; (ii) the timing and transfer, if any, of the positive inmates from Unit 29/A; (iii) the treatment, monitoring, care, supervision, and custody of Parchman Residents housed in Unit 29/A; and, (iv) any other actions taken by Defendants as a result of this incident.
Id. at 7.
The defendants responded to these discovery requests on September 9, 2020. Doc. #172-
1. Their September 9 responses include approximately five pages of general objections which, as
discussed below, formed the bases of the specific objections to the discovery responses. See id.
at 2–6. The defendants objected to most of the plaintiffs’ discovery requests. As for those few
discovery requests to which there was no objection, the defendants stated they would produce the
relevant document or documents within seven days. Id. at 7. According to the plaintiffs, the
only documents produced with the September 9 responses were certain housing records for the
named plaintiffs.1 One week later, the defendants provided supplemental discovery responses.
1 The parties disagree whether this information was requested by the plaintiffs. This dispute is immaterial to 6

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 185 Filed: 12/01/20 7 of 21 PageID #: 10368
Doc. #171-2. Their supplemental responses, like their initial responses, objected to most of the plaintiffs’ discovery requests. See id.
Dissatisfied with the defendants’ supplemental responses, the plaintiffs sent the defendants a good faith letter on September 22, 2020. Doc. #172-4. The good faith letter identified numerous alleged deficiencies in the defendants’ supplemental responses. The defendants responded to the good faith letter on September 28, 2020, Doc. #172-5, and served a second set of supplemental responses the next day, Doc. #172-6. The instant motion to compel followed one month later.
III Applicable Framework Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 authorizes a court to order discovery before the standard discovery period is set. See Fed. R. Civ. P 26(d)(1) (“A party may not seek discovery from any source before the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f), except … when authorized by … court order.”). When, as here, a party seeks expedited discovery for the purpose of preparing for a preliminary injunction hearing, the requested discovery must be “narrowly tailored to obtain information relevant to a preliminary injunction determination.” Dimension Data N. Am., Inc. v. NetStar-1, Inc., 226 F.R.D. 528, 532 (E.D.N.C. 2005). Additionally, the requested discovery must, of course, also be “discoverable” under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Electron Am., Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273, 277 (N.D. Cal. 2002) (expedited discovery warranted when it was “relevant and discoverable under the current complaint”); Doe v. MarineLombard, No. 16-cv-14876, 2016 WL 6658965, at *3 (E.D. La. Nov. 10, 2016) (“While the Defendant has demonstrated good cause for expedited discovery, the discovery request is still bound by the scope of discovery laid out in Rule 26(b)(1).”).
resolving the plaintiffs’ motion to compel. 7

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 185 Filed: 12/01/20 8 of 21 PageID #: 10369
Once expedited discovery has been authorized and served, a party may seek to compel responses to the served discovery but only after the “movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort to obtain it without court action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1), (3)(B). Ordinarily, “[t]he moving party bears the burden of showing that the materials and information sought are relevant to the action or will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Abraham v. Alpha Chi Omega, 271 F.R.D. 556, 559 (N.D. Tex. 2010). Once this is done, “the burden shifts to the party resisting discovery to show why the discovery is irrelevant, overly broad, or unduly burdensome or oppressive, and thus should not be permitted.” Id.
However, this standard burden shifting framework is derived from Rule 26(b)(1)’s broad authorization for the scope of discovery. 8 Wright & Miller, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 2008 (3d ed. 2020). And compliance with Rule 26(b)(1) is just one of two requirements for an expedited discovery request to be proper. When a party seeks to compel expedited discovery, the moving party’s initial burden necessarily differs. The movant must show both that the materials are relevant to the action or will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and that the requested discovery falls within the scope of permitted expedited discovery—in other words, that it is narrowly tailored to obtain information relevant to a preliminary injunction determination. See generally Old Republic Nat’l Title Ins. Co. v. Kensington Vanguard Nat’l Land Servs. of Tex. LLC, No. 3:17-CV-1014, 2017 WL 8677357, at *1 (N.D. Tex. May 10, 2017) (quashing discovery that “exceed[ed] the scope of permitted expedited discovery”). All this, however, presupposes that the moving party has satisfied its initial obligation to confer in good faith with the non-movant.
IV Good Faith Conference Pursuant to Federal Rule 37(a)(1), a motion to compel “must include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party failing to
8

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 185 Filed: 12/01/20 9 of 21 PageID #: 10370
make disclosure or discovery in an effort to obtain it without court action.” In the absence of controlling Fifth Circuit law on what good faith entails, courts in this circuit have looked to Shuffle Master, Inc. v. Progressive Games, Inc.,2 “[a] hallmark case on the matter.” Compass Bank v. Shamgochian, 287 F.R.D. 397, 398 (S.D. Tex. 2012). In Shuffle Master, the district court recognized two “performance” components to Rule 37—conferment and “good faith in conferring.” 170 F.R.D. at 171 (quotation marks omitted). “The ‘conferment’ [component] requires a party to have had or attempted to have had an actual meeting or conference.” Id. (emphasis added). The good faith component “is tested by the court according to the nature of the dispute, the reasonableness of the positions held by the respective parties, and the means by which both sides conferred.” Id. Where the conferment requirement has not been met, the good faith requirement is necessarily absent.
Here, there is no indication from the record that the plaintiffs held an “actual meeting or conference” with the defendants or attempted to hold such a conference. Rather, the only communications between the parties related to the plaintiffs’ discovery are e-mails between counsel, Doc. #172-3; a “Good Faith Letter” sent by the plaintiffs to the defendants, Doc. #172-4; and the defendants’ response to the plaintiffs’ letter, Doc. #172-5. “[A] single letter and a series of emails outlining the deficiencies in a party’s discovery responses have been deemed insufficient to constitute a good faith conferral or attempt to confer.” Kleppinger v. Tex. Dep’t of Transp., No. 5:10-cv-124, 2012 WL 12894140, at *3 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 8, 2012) (collecting cases); Hepstall v. Humana Health Plan, Inc., No. 18-163, 2018 WL 6588552, at *1 (S.D. Ala. Dec. 6, 2018) (“[S]imply corresponding with opposing counsel is not considered a good-faith attempt to confer or have a conference to resolve discovery disputes.”) (collecting cases); Reed v. Beverly Hills Porsche, No. 6:17-cv-59, 2017 WL 11495243, at *1 (W.D. Va. Nov. 22, 2017) (“The meet and
2 170 F.R.D. 166 (D. Nev. 1996). 9

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 185 Filed: 12/01/20 10 of 21 PageID #: 10371
confer obligation requires a personal or telephonic consultation during which the parties engage in meaningful negotiations or otherwise provide legal support for their position.”).
Although defense counsel offered on at least two occasions to speak with the plaintiffs’ counsel,3 the plaintiffs’ counsel made no effort to arrange such a meeting. Furthermore, the record is clear that the plaintiffs had no intention of engaging in a good-faith conference. Indeed, the very first e-mail from the plaintiffs’ counsel stated, “we intend to file a motion to compel and for sanctions.” Doc. #172-3 at PageID 9898. Under these circumstances, the Court concludes that the conferral requirement has not been met and, as a result, the plaintiffs’ motion must be denied. Nevertheless, to facilitate any future conferences on the discovery responses at issue here, the Court will provide the parties guidance on some overarching issues.
V Guidance The plaintiffs’ memorandum brief makes no effort to individually analyze the disputed discovery requests. Rather, the plaintiffs argue that the defendants “objections are improper, inapplicable, deficient, or without merit; and, therefore, are either waived or subject to denial.” Doc. #173 at 11. They further submit that most of the defendants’ objections rely on an erroneous understanding of relevance in this case. A. Objections and Waiver In attacking the sufficiency of the defendants’ objections, the plaintiffs argue that the defendants (1) utilized improper identical “boilerplate” objections; (2) utilized improper “General Objections;” (3) “improperly hedged all responses through the use of ‘subject to’ or ‘without waiving’ language;” and (4) improperly made “Blanket Privilege Assertions” and failed to support such assertions with privilege logs. Doc. #173 at 11–17 (cleaned up).
3 See Doc. #172-3 at PageID 9893 (“I remain open to having a telephone discussion or a meeting in person with you to discuss this matter.”), Page ID 9894 (“I would be happy to have a meeting or phone conversation with you to discuss this further if you would like.”).
10

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 185 Filed: 12/01/20 11 of 21 PageID #: 10372
1. Boilerplate objections
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that a party objecting to interrogatories or
requests for production state with specificity the reasons for the objection. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
33(b)(4) (“The grounds for objecting to an interrogatory must be stated with specificity.”); Fed. R.
Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(B) (“For each [request for production], the response must either state that
inspection and related activities will be permitted as requested or state with specificity the grounds
for objecting to the request.”). To satisfy the specificity requirements of these rules, a party may
not make “[g]eneral or boilerplate objections.” Zenith Ins. Co. v. Tex. Inst. for Surgery, L.L.P.,
328 F.R.D. 153, 161 (N.D. Tex. 2018). “General, boilerplate, and unsupported objections to
discovery requests that fail to state their grounds with specificity are improper and result in waiver
of those objections.” Cinco Bayous, LLC v. Samson Expl., LLC, No. 1:19-cv-452, 2020 WL
4926430, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 21, 2020) (collecting authorities).
The plaintiffs argue that the defendants used boilerplate objections because fifteen of the
sixteen discovery responses begin with the following language:
Defendants object to this [Interrogatory/Request] on the basis that it seeks information that is irrelevant, not proportional to the needs of the case, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and protected from disclosure by the physician-patient privilege and privacy interests of inmates whom have not placed their medical care at issue in this action.
Doc. #173 at 13. The plaintiffs also contend:
Defendants further objected to seven of eight Interrogatories and all eight Requests for Production because they sought “information for individuals other than the 33 named Plaintiffs in this action” - a limitation Defendants knew was not placed on this particular set of discovery. Defendants also claimed for five of eight Interrogatories and all eight Requests for Production that Plaintiffs’ requests were “not relevant” and “not proportional” to the needs of the case. Yet, in each instance, Defendants failed to provide any explanation or specificity whatsoever as to how or why each individual request should be characterized as such.
Id. at 11–12 (cleaned up).
The defendants respond that the objections are not boilerplate because they “are
11

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 185 Filed: 12/01/20 12 of 21 PageID #: 10373
specifically tailored to be responsive to Plaintiffs’ COVID discovery requests.” Doc. #177 at 9. Specifically, the defendants argue that in addition to responding to the individual discovery requests, they “provided the detailed explanation of their generally applicable exceptions at the forefront of their discovery responses as a practical matter to avoid an excessively long response and because Defendants’ objections applied to each of Plaintiffs’ discovery requests.” Id. at 10.
“Boilerplate objections are those that utilize ‘standardized text’ or ‘ready-made or allpurpose language.’” Tim Long Plumbing, Inc. v. Kinsale Ins. Co., No. 4:20-CV-42, 2020 WL 6559869, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 9, 2020). However, “copying and pasting an objection, by itself” does not render that objection a boilerplate objection. Id. at *4. “Objections are typically deemed ‘boilerplate’ when they are identical and not tailored to the specific discovery request.” Amazing Ins., Inc. v. DiManno, No. 2:19-cv-1349, 2020 WL 5440050, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 2020) (emphasis added). Examples of boilerplate objections include “Defendant objects to this Request, as it is overly broad and vague” and “Defendant objects to this Request to the extent it seeks discovery of information that is irrelevant and not proportional to the needs of the case.” Kinsale Ins., 2020 WL 6559869, at *3.
To be sure, the portions of the objections quoted by the plaintiffs would be boilerplate objections if they were standing alone. However, the language must be read in the context of the defendants’ general objections, which provide detailed explanations for the defendants’ arguments regarding relevancy and privilege. See Doc. #172-1 at 1–6. Additionally, while the defendants utilized near-identical language at the beginning of their discovery responses, the language cited by the plaintiffs does not represent the entirety of the specific objections to the discovery requests. For most (but not all) of the discovery responses, the defendants went on to detail why their general objections applied to the specific request at issue. See Doc. #172-1 at 13–14. When they did so, the objection is not boilerplate. When they failed to do so, the objection is boilerplate.
12

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 185 Filed: 12/01/20 13 of 21 PageID #: 10374
2. General objections General objections, “as that term is commonly understood … refers to objections that a party responding to discovery asserts as applicable to multiple individual requests set forth in … a given set of interrogatories or document production requests.” Grider v. Keystone Health Plan Cent., Inc., 580 F.3d 119, 134 n.16 (3d Cir. 2009). The plaintiffs object to the defendants’ use of general objections in this case, arguing that “[i]n this District, the prohibition against general objections has long been established.” Doc. #173 at 16 (citing Wurlitzer Co. v. E.E.O.C., 50 F.R.D. 421, 424 (N.D. Miss. 1970) and Carr v. Conoco Plastics, No. 6861, 1969 WL 104, at *2 (N.D. Miss. June 16, 1969)). The defendants respond that while general objections are disfavored, they are allowed in certain circumstances. Doc. #177 at 11. As to the plaintiffs’ first point, the defendants are correct that there is no per se prohibition (in this district or anywhere) on the use of general objections. In Wurlitzer, the first case cited by the plaintiffs, a district judge stated the general proposition of law that discovery objections must be specific and that “general objections that the information sought [is] irrelevant, immaterial, oppressive, conclusory or already in possession of the requesting party [are] insufficient.” 50 F.R.D. at 424. Carr, the other case cited by the plaintiffs, includes similar language. 1969 WL 104, at *2 n.3 (“A general objection that interrogatories are onerous and burdensome and require the party to make research and compile data raises no issue. The objection must make a specific showing of reasons why the interrogatory should not be answered.”). Both Carr and Wurlitzer stand for the unremarkable proposition that a general objection which is untethered to specific requests (and is thus also a boilerplate objection) is improper. See DL v. District of Columbia, 251 F.R.D. 38, 43 (D.D.C. 2008) (“When faced with general objections, the applicability of which to specific document requests is not explained further, this Court will not raise objections for the responding party, but instead will overrule the responding
13

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 185 Filed: 12/01/20 14 of 21 PageID #: 10375
party’s objections on those grounds.”) (cleaned up). Neither case precludes the use of general objections in all cases.
To the contrary, “[g]eneral objections may occasionally serve as an efficient response [when t]he court may consider and rule upon general objections raised against sets of interrogatories or requests for production.” Pulsecard, Inc. v. Discover Card Servs., Inc., 168 F.R.D. 295, 304 (D. Kan. 1996). However, to serve this purpose, and to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the general objections must raise “specific objections” and “correspond[] to … specific discovery requests.” Dickey v. Apache Indus. Serv., Inc., No. 18-572, 2019 WL 4261117, at *3 (M.D. La. Sept. 9, 2019) (collecting cases); see Hall v. Louisiana, No. 12-657, 2014 WL 2560579, at *1 (M.D. La. June 6, 2014) (“Defendants initially gave general objections applicable to all of Plaintiff's discovery requests. But critically, after providing their general objections, Defendants addressed each and every discovery request individually, making specific objections before providing detailed and informative responses, notwithstanding those objections.”). Accordingly, where the general objections are connected both to the facts of this case and specific discovery requests, they are proper. When they are disconnected from either the facts or the discovery requests, they are improper.
3. Use of “subject to” or “without waiving” language Next, the plaintiffs argue that because the defendants produced some discovery “subject to” or “without waiving” their objections, the defendants have “waived each objection under these circumstances.” Doc. #173 at 18. With the exception of objections involving privilege or work product, “the practice of responding to interrogatories and documents requests ‘subject to’ and/or ‘without waiving’ objections is manifestly confusing (at best) and misleading (at worse), and has no basis at all in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Heller v. City of Dallas, 303 F.R.D. 466, 486–87 (N.D. Tex. 2014) (cleaned up). Such an objection paired with a response “preserves
14

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 185 Filed: 12/01/20 15 of 21 PageID #: 10376
nothing and serves only to waste the time and resources of both the Parties and the Court.” Id. at
487. To the extent the defendants produced discovery responses “subject to” or “without
waiving” objections other than privilege or work product, such objections are waived. Id.
4. Privilege objections
The plaintiffs object to the defendants’ (1) failure to produce privilege logs; (2) use of
“blanket” privilege objections; and (3) “assertions that certain information is protected under either
the physician-patient privilege, the psychotherapist-patient privilege, or is subject to statutory
protection under the Privacy Act of 1974 and HIPAA.” Doc. #173 at 19–23.
a. Privilege Logs
Federal Rule 26(b)(5) states:
When a party withholds information otherwise discoverable by claiming that the information is privileged or subject to protection as trial-preparation material, the party must:
(i) expressly make the claim; and
(ii) describe the nature of the documents, communications, or tangible things not produced or disclosed--and do so in a manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable other parties to assess the claim.
To effectuate this requirement, Local Rule 26(e) requires:
A party withholding information claimed privileged or otherwise protected must submit a privilege log that contains at least the following information: name of the document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing; description of the document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing, which description must include each requisite element of the privilege or protection asserted; date; author(s); recipient(s); and nature of the privilege. To withhold materials without such notices subjects the withholding party to sanctions under FED.R.CIV.P. 37 and may be viewed as a waiver of the privilege or protection.
The plaintiffs argue that to the extent the defendants have asserted privilege but failed to
produce privilege logs, “any and all objections proffered on the basis of privilege, including
general objections, should be deemed waived.” Doc. #173 at 21. The defendants respond that
15

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 185 Filed: 12/01/20 16 of 21 PageID #: 10377
no privilege log is required because Rule 26 applies only to “otherwise discoverable” information and that since they have objected to the allegedly privileged documents on other grounds, the documents are not “otherwise discoverable.” Doc. #177 at 13. They further argue that even if a privilege log was technically required, the Court should excuse the requirement because the plaintiffs “know the type of information being withheld and can adequately state their grievances.” Doc. #177 at 15.
The defendants are correct that under Federal Rule 26(b)(5) a responding party need not produce a privilege log if materials are withheld based on an additional non-privileged objection. See Oceana, Inc. v. Ross, 920 F.3d 855, 865 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (“The federal rules do not require parties to provide logs of all documents that were not produced because they were deemed immaterial or irrelevant.”). In such circumstances, “courts will need to make a judgment whether the nonprivilege grounds for objection are sufficiently substantial to excuse immediate presentation of detailed justification for privilege claims.” 8 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 2016.1 (3d ed.).
In contrast to the Federal Rules’ conditional privilege log requirement, Local Rule 26(e) imposes an absolute requirement that a party asserting a privilege must produce a privilege log. But “district courts [may] adopt only local rules that are consistent with the policies of the Federal Rules.” Bernard v. Gulf Oil Co., 596 F.2d 1249, 1268 n.11 (5th Cir. 1979) (Godbold, J., concurring in part). Thus, “local rules of procedure must be read together with the federal rules to ensure the consistency required both by statute and rule.” CX Reinsurance Co. Ltd. v. Johnson, 977 F.3d 306, 311 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Federal Rule 26(b)(5) evinces a clear policy to require a privilege log only when privilege is asserted as to otherwise discoverable materials. To avoid a conflict with the Federal Rules, the Court reads Local Rule 26(e) to clarify what must be disclosed pursuant to Federal Rule 26(b)(5),
16

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 185 Filed: 12/01/20 17 of 21 PageID #: 10378
rather than creating an independent disclosure obligation. It follows, therefore, that the defendants are not required to produce a privilege log for those materials to which non-privileged objections remain outstanding.
b. Blanket Privilege Objections “A party may not make a blanket assertion of privilege in response to a discovery request.” Green v. Baca, 219 F.R.D. 485, 491 (C.D. Cal. 2003) (collecting cases). A blanket privilege objection, which is an objection that does “not provide any particular or clear indication of how the requests … would be protected by … privilege,” “will not suffice to prevent production.” Cunningham v. Smithkline Beecham, 255 F.R.D. 474, 480–81 (N.D. Ind. 2009). The plaintiffs argue the defendants utilized improper blanket privilege objections by referring broadly to privilege protections in their general objections. Doc. #173 at 21–22. The defendants respond that the objections are not blanket privilege objections because, notwithstanding references to other privileges, their general objections refer specifically to privacy interests and physician-patient privilege and “[t]he only information and documents withheld for privilege here are the medical information and records of the inmates and employees at [Parchman] and other MDOC facilities who are not named Plaintiffs in this action.” Doc. #177 at 13. Given this clarification, and the specific arguments made in the defendants’ general objections, the Court concludes that the defendants’ objections provide a clear indication of how the requests would be protected by privilege. The assertions of privilege, therefore, are not improper blanket privilege objections.
c. Specific Privilege Objections In their general objections, the defendants invoke two grounds for withholding medical information for persons other than the plaintiffs—“the physician-patient or psychotherapist-patient privilege” and “laws aimed at protecting healthcare information,” specifically the Health Insurance
17

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 185 Filed: 12/01/20 18 of 21 PageID #: 10379
Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) and the Privacy Act of 1974. Doc. #172-1 at 5. The plaintiffs argue each of these objections is without merit. Doc. #173 at 23.
First, where, as here, a court’s jurisdiction is based on federal question, federal law governs the existence of evidentiary privilege. Jefferson Cmty. Health Care Ctrs., Inc. v. Jefferson Parish Gov’t, 849 F.3d 615, 624 (5th Cir. 2017). Under federal law, “[t]he psychotherapist-patient privilege is a recognized privilege” that protects “confidential communications made to licensed psychiatrists and psychologists, and confidential communications made to licensed social workers in the course of psychotherapy.” United States v. Auster, 517 F.3d 312, 315 (5th Cir. 2008) (cleaned up). However, “there is no physician-patient privilege under federal law.” Gilbreath v. Guadalupe Hosp. Found. Inc., 5 F.3d 785, 791 (5th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, to the extent the defendants invoke a physician-patient privilege, such invocation is improper.
Second, the plaintiffs argue that the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a does not apply to state agencies. Doc. #173 at 26. The plaintiffs are correct. Mamarella v. Cnty. of Westchester, 898 F. Supp. 236, 237–38 (S.D.N.Y. 1995). Even if the statute did apply, it does not preclude discovery of otherwise discoverable materials. See Laxalt v. McClatchy, 809 F.2d 885, 889 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (“[A] party can invoke discovery of materials protected by the Privacy Act through the normal discovery process and according to the usual discovery standards, and the test of discoverability is the relevance standard of Rule 26(b)(1) of the FRCP.”).
Third, HIPAA does not create a privilege against disclosure. Nw. Mem’l Hosp. v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 923, 926 (7th Cir. 2004). Rather, it creates a procedure for obtaining and using protected medical information in litigation. Id. Pursuant to HIPAA, disclosure of otherwise protected material is authorized if it is in response to a discovery request so long as the “individual who is the subject of the protected health information … has been given notice of the request” or the party seeking the information has made “reasonable efforts … to secure a qualified protective
18

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 185 Filed: 12/01/20 19 of 21 PageID #: 10380
order.” 45 C.F.R. § 164.512(e). The Court believes that any potential HIPAA concerns can be alleviated through an appropriate protective order.
B. Relevance In their general objections, the defendants—citing the transcript of a February 3, 2020, hearing in this case and two court orders requiring the defendants to report certain remedial measures undertaken at Parchman—argue “that at this preliminary stage of litigation, all discovery is limited to the areas of [Parchman] where the named Plaintiffs in this action have lived or otherwise had access since February 3, 2019.” Doc. #172-1 at 2. The defendants thus contend that “discovery related to (1) any persons other than the 33 named Plaintiffs (e.g., MDOC employees), or to (2) any area of an MDOC facility other than the specific areas of [Parchman] where the named Plaintiffs have lived or had access since February 3, 2019, is not relevant and is beyond the scope of permissible discovery.” Id. This is simply incorrect. The defendants’ argument seems to rest on the premise that once a court approves expedited discovery for the purpose of one preliminary injunction motion, the scope of the approved expedited discovery controls all subsequent motions for expedited discovery, even those for separate preliminary injunction motions. Neither caselaw, treatises, nor logic support such an approach. As this Court previously observed, “[t]he purpose of expedited discovery in the context of a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction is for further development of the record before the [relevant] injunction hearing ….” Amos v. Taylor, No. 4:20-CV-7, 2020 WL 5809972, at *4 (N.D. Miss. Aug. 26, 2020) (quoting Midwest Sign & Screen Printing Supply Co. v. Dalpe, 386 F. Supp. 3d 1037, 1057 (D. Minn. 2019)). It follows that discovery is “relevant” for this purpose when it would impact the relevant “preliminary injunction determination.” NetStar-1, 226 F.R.D. at 532; Franco-Gonzalez v. Napolitano, No. 10-2211, 2010 WL 11479349, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 24, 2010) (limiting requests “solely [to] those issues relevant to the Court’s consideration
19

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 185 Filed: 12/01/20 20 of 21 PageID #: 10381
of the Motion for a Preliminary Injunction.”). The fact that expedited discovery has been approved (and limited) for a separate preliminary injunction request has no conceivable bearing on this inquiry. Thus, the Court rejects the defendants’ argument that the relevance for the expedited discovery at issue here is somehow circumscribed by previous orders related to separate expedited discovery requests.
The plaintiffs requested expedited discovery for the purpose of filing a renewed preliminary injunction motion seeking to require the defendants to implement certain measures to prevent or mitigate the spread of COVID-19. Such a motion, which would be grounded in the plaintiffs’ Eighth Amendment claims regarding the defendants’ failure to mitigate the risk of infectious and communicable diseases,4 would require the plaintiffs to show that an official policy or custom caused a violation of the plaintiffs’ Eighth Amendment rights. Doe v. United States, 831 F.3d 309, 317–18 (5th Cir. 2016). To show a constitutional violation, the plaintiffs would have to show that they were exposed to an “objectively intolerable risk of harm” and that a prison official was deliberately indifferent to such a risk. Valentine v. Collier, 956 F.3d 797, 801 (5th Cir. 2020). Facts relevant to these inquiries include (1) COVID-19 infection rates at the facility where inmates are incarcerated, Blackburn v. Noble, __ F. Supp. 3d __, 2020 WL 4758358, at *6 (E.D. Ky. Aug. 17, 2020); (2) “protective measures” implemented at the facility, Valentine, 956 F.3d at 801–02; and (3) the implementation of the relevant protective measures, Banks v. Booth, 468 F. Supp. 3d 101, 115 (D.D.C. June 2020). Consistent with these factors, this Court held that expedited “discovery related to the policies of screening, testing, and quarantining of Parchman inmates and staff, as well as information related to the actual implementation of such policies, would undoubtedly be reasonable.” Doc. #141 at 13. To the extent the defendants have adopted a definition of relevancy inconsistent with these conclusions, their position is flawed.
4 Doc. #141 at 7. 20

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 185 Filed: 12/01/20 21 of 21 PageID #: 10382 IV
Conclusion Due to the absence of a good faith conference, the plaintiffs’ motion to compel [172] is DENIED. If discovery disputes remain outstanding once the good faith conference requirement is satisfied, the plaintiffs may renew their motion to compel as to such disputes. SO ORDERED, this 1st day of December, 2020.
/s/Debra M. Brown UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
21

 
 Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 195 Filed: 03/19/21 1 of 36 PageID #: 10403

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

MICHAEL AMOS, et al.

PLAINTIFFS

V.

NO. 4:20-CV-7-DMB-JMV

NATHAN “BURL” CAIN, et al.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER This is a tale of two prisons—if both the story of the inmates and the story of the prison administrators are credited. One prison, as told by the inmates and their retained experts, is unfit for human habitation, is dangerously understaffed, contains an array of inhumane conditions, and stands in clear violation of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The other prison, according to the administrators and their retained experts, implemented recent repairs and increased staffing numbers and, as a result, complies with the Eighth Amendment, at least in most respects. These conflicting stories describe the same place— the Mississippi State Penitentiary at Parchman—just at different times. The inmates in this case, who have moved for injunctive relief for four of the plaintiffs, describe Parchman as it existed in February of 2020. The administrators describe Parchman as it existed in June of 2020, after the implementation of numerous improvements. Because the injunctive relief sought relies largely on the state of Parchman as it existed before the repairs and the plaintiffs otherwise have not shown a constitutional violation justifying injunctive measures, injunctive relief will be denied.
I Procedural History On January 28, 2020, thirty-three inmates at the Mississippi State Penitentiary at Parchman filed a “First Amended Class-Action Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial” against Tommy Taylor, in his official capacity as the Interim Commissioner of the Mississippi Department of

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 195 Filed: 03/19/21 2 of 36 PageID #: 10404
Corrections,1 and Marshal Turner, in his official capacity as the Superintendent of Parchman.
Doc. #22. In their amended complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants’ policies and
practices caused years of neglect at Parchman, which place them in imminent danger of serious
physical injury, in violation of the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eighth
Amendment, as incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. at 18–26. The pleading, which
includes a proposed class action, seeks monetary and injunctive relief. Id. at 27–29.
On June 9, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a supplemental motion2 for a temporary restraining
order and preliminary injunction.3 Doc. #98. Pursuant to a scheduling order issued by the Court,4
the defendants responded to the motion on July 13, 2020, Doc. #119, and the plaintiffs replied on
July 27, 2020, Doc. #123.
II Standard of Review
A preliminary injunction is warranted only if the movant establishes: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, (2) a substantial threat of irreparable injury if the injunction is not issued, (3) that the threatened injury if the injunction is denied outweighs any harm that will result if the injunction is granted, and (4) that the grant of an injunction will not disserve the public interest.
Big Tyme Invs., L.L.C. v. Edwards, 985 F.3d 456, 463–64 (5th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks
omitted). For a preliminary injunction to issue, the party seeking the injunction must “clearly
1 Nathan “Burl” Cain, the current Commissioner of MDOC, was substituted for Taylor on October 21, 2020. Doc. #168. The same order also substituted Timothy Morris, the current Superintendent of Parchman, for Marshal Turner. Id. 2 The Court set a June 8, 2020, deadline for filing the supplemental motion. Doc. #91. It appears the plaintiffs missed this deadline by approximately one minute. In the interest of efficiency, and in the absence of any timeliness objection from the defendants, the Court considers the motion on the merits. 3 Earlier, on January 24, 2020, the plaintiffs filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, along with a supporting memorandum. Docs. #13, #14. On February 24, 2020, this Court, on the parties’ joint motion, issued a scheduling order to allow the parties to supplement the record and provide additional briefing. Doc. #55. The scheduling order provided, “[i]n the interest of efficiency, the supplementary briefing and evidence shall be deemed to supersede all earlier-filed briefs and evidence. Accordingly, the parties should include all relevant arguments and evidence in their supplemental filings. Any filings that fail to comply with the Court’s local rules may be disregarded.” Id. at 1 n.1. Because the supplemental filing did not address the relief requested in the initial injunction motion, this Court denied the first motion as moot. Doc. #155. 4 Doc. #91.
2

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 195 Filed: 03/19/21 3 of 36 PageID #: 10405
carr[y] the burden of persuasion on all four requirements.” Id. at 464. “The standard for issuing a [temporary restraining order] is the same as the standard for
issuing a preliminary injunction.” Texas v. United States, __ F. Supp. 3d __, No. 6:21-cv-3, 2021 WL 247877, at *1 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 26, 2021) (citing Clark v. Prichard, 812 F.2d 991, 993 (5th Cir. 1987)). While the elements are the same, a plaintiff seeking a temporary restraining order must ordinarily make a stronger showing than a plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction. Esparza v. Bd. of Trs., 182 F.3d 915 (5th Cir. 1999) (table decision). “Mandatory preliminary relief, which goes well beyond simply maintaining the status quo pendente lite, is particularly disfavored, and should not be issued unless the facts and law clearly favor the moving party.” Martinez v. Mathews, 544 F.2d 1233, 1243 (5th Cir. 1976).
In addition to the standards applicable to injunction motions generally, the Prison Litigation Reform Act provides:
Prospective relief in any civil action with respect to prison conditions shall extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a particular plaintiff or plaintiffs. The court shall not grant or approve any prospective relief unless the court finds that such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right. The court shall give substantial weight to any adverse impact on public safety or the operation of a criminal justice system caused by the relief. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A). Necessarily, “when a district court fashions prospective relief in prison litigation, the relief must meet the standards set forth in the Act.” Williams v. Edwards, 87 F.3d 126, 133 (5th Cir. 1996). To determine whether the standards for an injunction have been satisfied, “the procedures in the district court are less formal, and the district court may rely on otherwise inadmissible evidence, including hearsay evidence.” Sierra Club, Lone Star Chapter v. F.D.I.C., 992 F.2d 545, 551 (5th Cir. 1993). However, “the record must nevertheless support [a] court’s decision.” Id.
3

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 195 Filed: 03/19/21 4 of 36 PageID #: 10406
III Scope of Motion Before addressing the merits of the plaintiffs’ supplemental motion, it is necessary to clarify the scope of the requested relief and how this scope impacts the issues before the Court. While the amended complaint includes a proposed class action, no class action has been certified. Accordingly, “each plaintiff’s case … must be examined separately.” Crawford v. W. Elec. Co., Inc., 614 F.2d 1300, 1317 (5th Cir. 1980). In this sense, each plaintiff’s entitlement to an injunction depends on their individual entitlement to such relief. See Chainey v. Street, 523 F.3d 200, 218 (3d Cir. 2008) (“This is not a class action suit; each plaintiff must prove he or she is entitled to damages.”). That is not to say that a plaintiff (or even a non-party) who is not individually entitled to injunctive relief may not benefit from one who is so entitled. Others may benefit from an injunction “if such breadth is necessary to give prevailing parties the relief to which they are entitled.” Easyriders Freedom F.I.G.H.T. v. Hannigan, 92 F.3d 1486, 1502 (9th Cir. 1996). The supplemental motion seeks injunctive relief as to four plaintiffs—Aric Johnson, Phillip Webster, Kuriaki Riley, and Justin James (“Injunction Plaintiffs”). Doc. #98 at 1–3. The requested relief concerns the medical treatment of these plaintiffs as well as the environmental conditions to which they are exposed. Id. The relevant factual background, therefore, is limited to those aspects of the Injunction Plaintiffs’ medical treatment and housing directly related to the requests for injunctive relief.
IV General Factual Background5 “Parchman is a prison consisting of an area of over 28 square miles, 58 separate buildings; a facility maintaining miles of roads, a water system, and sewage treatment plant.” Doc. #118-4
5 The Court sets forth the specific facts relevant to each of the Injunction Plaintiffs when considering their individual requests for injunctive relief. These facts are derived from six general categories of evidence: (1) inmates’
4

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 195 Filed: 03/19/21 5 of 36 PageID #: 10407
at 7. Parchman is divided into “Units.” Doc. #101-1 at 1. Units are divided into buildings, id., and buildings are divided into zones, Doc. #101-5 at PageID 2402.
Of relevance to this case, inmates are housed in Unit 25, Unit 26, Unit 29, and Unit 30. Doc. #101-1 at 9–10. Johnson and Webster are housed in Unit 29, Building F, Zone A.6 James is housed in Unit 30, Building A, Zone B.7 And Riley is housed in Unit 30, Building B, Zone A.8 Parchman’s central medical operation is in Unit 42. Doc. #101-1 at 1–2.
As a part of permitted expedited discovery, a team of experts retained by the plaintiffs was authorized to inspect Parchman’s premises. The results of this inspection, which occurred over three days in February 2020 (February 11, 12, and 28), paint a stunning picture of the conditions at that time.
Eldon Vail, a former correctional administrator with 35 years of experience in the field,9 identified major problems with plumbing and electrical systems, including malfunctioning sinks and toilets and exposed wiring. See Doc. #100-1 at 9–12. Vail also observed “filthy” conditions and significant security risks posed by staffing shortages and use of force practices. Id. at 5–6. According to Vail, “the conditions at Parchman fall[] far below anything I have ever seen in any other jurisdiction in this country.” Id. at 36.
Marc Stern, a board-certified internist specializing in correctional health care,10 called “[t]he health-related conditions … at Parchman … the worst conditions I have observed in any
“affirmations” dated on or about January 2020; (2) reports prepared by the plaintiffs’ experts following a February 2020 inspection of Parchman; (3) inmates’ declarations dated on or about June 2020; (4) reports prepared by the defendants’ experts following a June 2020 inspection of Parchman; (5) MDOC officials’ declarations dated on or about July 5, 2020; and (6) inmates’ declarations dated on or about July 24, 2020, which were executed in response to the defendants’ evidence. 6 Doc. #104-1 at ¶ 1; Doc. #104-2 at ¶ 1. 7 Doc. #104-3 at ¶ 1. 8 Doc. #104-4 at ¶ 1. 9 Doc. #100-1 at 2. 10 Doc. #101-1 at 1.
5

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 195 Filed: 03/19/21 6 of 36 PageID #: 10408
U.S. jail, prison, or immigration detention facility in my 20 years working in this field.” Doc. #101-1 at 3. Stern based this conclusion on deficiencies in Parchman’s healthcare practices, as well as the presence of mold, prisoner complaints about rodent infestations, prisoner complaints about temperatures, and the physical condition of Parchman. Id. 5–15.
Craig Haney, a professor in psychology,11 found that the inmates at Parchman were being “subjected to truly horrendous living conditions” which posed a grave risk to their mental wellbeing. Doc. #101-2 at 19–20. Debra Graham, an environmental health and safety expert,12 found that “the cleanliness and sanitation at [Parchman] is inadequate, and in many of the areas the conditions are deplorable.” Doc. #101-3 at 12. Graham also found deficiencies in Parchman’s lighting, plumbing, and fire safety. Id. at 18–19.
Madeline LaMarre, a nurse practitioner,13 found a “systemic” lack of access to healthcare at Parchman. Doc. #101-4 at 6. LaMarre reached this conclusion based on inmate reports concerning access to healthcare request forms and the general provision of treatment. Id. at 8– 12. Ultimately, LaMarre found that “[t]he totality of the conditions in Units 29 and 30 … are so horrific that all inmates should be transferred … and these Units should be permanently closed.” Id. at 26.
Following the February inspection, Marshall Turner, the former superintendent at Parchman, resigned from his position. Doc. #118-1 at 3. Warden Timothy Morris was appointed as Acting Superintendent at Parchman. Id. Additionally, Mississippi Governor Tate Reeves appointed Burl Cain as the new MDOC Commissioner. Id. Beyond these changes in leadership, state officials have undertaken efforts to improve the conditions at Parchman. These changes include closure of certain buildings, transfers of inmates, the implementation of new staffing
11 Doc. #101-2 at 2. 12 Doc. #101-3 at 1. 13 Doc. #101-4 at 3.
6

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 195 Filed: 03/19/21 7 of 36 PageID #: 10409
policies, and repairs to the infrastructure at Parchman. Id. at 3–6. Stephen Tussey, a corrections officer retained by the defendants,14 conducted an inspection
of Parchman on June 23, 2020, and June 24, 2020. Doc. #118-5 at 2. Tussey noted “significant steps to improve conditions at Parchman” and found “the living conditions” to be acceptable. Id. at 4–5.
V The Role of Corrective Measures As discussed in more detail below, the defendants argue that many of the Injunction Plaintiffs’ complaints have been addressed by the new Parchman administration and the subsequent repairs. See generally Doc. #119. The plaintiffs respond that the voluntary cessation of the allegedly illegal practices “does not deprive a federal court of its power to determine the legality of the practice.” Doc. #123 at 8. The plaintiffs’ argument is true, to an extent. Subsequent remedial measures are still relevant to the plaintiffs’ claims for injunctive relief. Specifically, the impact of the remedial steps on an inmate’s request for injunctive relief may relate to four separate issues—sovereign immunity, mootness, the injunction requirements under the PLRA, and the general requirements for injunctive relief.
A. Mootness “Article III’s ‘case or controversy’ requirement permits federal courts to adjudicate only live disputes—a party must retain a legally cognizable interest in the outcome of an issue, or its resolution is moot.” Hinkley v. Envoy Air, Inc., 968 F.3d 544, 548 (5th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). “[R]esolution of a particular issue may be moot even if other issues … remain ripe.” Id. To determine mootness, the “central question is whether decision of a onceliving dispute continues to be justified by a sufficient prospect that the decision will have an impact
14 Doc. #118-5 at 1. 7

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 195 Filed: 03/19/21 8 of 36 PageID #: 10410
on the parties.” Id. (cleaned up). In the context of motions for injunctive relief, “[a] request for injunctive relief generally becomes moot when the event sought to be enjoined takes place.” Boerschig v. Trans-Pecos Pipeline, L.L.C., 872 F.3d 701, 704 (5th Cir. 2017).
Where a controversy has been facially mooted by a defendant’s voluntary cessation of a practice, the issue will not be moot unless “it is absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not be reasonably expected to recur.” Speech First, Inc. v. Fenves, 979 F.3d 319, 328 (5th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). While this is a “heavy burden,” “government actors in their sovereign capacity and in the exercise of their official duties are accorded a presumption of good faith because they are public servants, not self-interested private parties. Without evidence to the contrary, [courts] assume that formally announced changes to official governmental policy are not mere litigation posturing.” Sossamon v. Lone Star State of Tex., 560 F.3d 316, 325 (5th Cir. 2009) (finding that injunctive relief claim was moot where the prison had changed the suspect policy).
B. Sovereign Immunity “[S]tate sovereign immunity precludes suits against state officials in their official capacities.” Tex. Democratic Party v. Abbott, 961 F.3d 389, 400 (5th Cir. 2020). Suits against MDOC officials are suits against state officials which ordinarily fall under the sovereign immunity bar. See Wilkins v. Miss. Dep’t of Corrs., No. 4:17-CV-137, 2020 WL 3490063, at *3 (N.D. Miss. June 26, 2020). However, “[t]he Supreme Court’s decision in Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), established a narrow exception to that immunity for suits for injunctive or declaratory relief against individual state officials acting in violation of federal law.” Spec’s Fam. Partners, Ltd. v. Nettles, 972 F.3d 671, 680 (5th Cir. 2020) (cleaned up). The Ex Parte Young exception applies when a suit “seeks prospective, injunctive relief from a state actor, in her official capacity, based on an alleged ongoing violation of the federal
8

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 195 Filed: 03/19/21 9 of 36 PageID #: 10411
constitution.” K.P. v. LeBlanc, 729 F.3d 427, 439 (5th Cir. 2013). Ordinarily, this is a “straightforward inquiry into whether the complaint alleges an ongoing violation of federal law and seeks relief properly characterized as prospective.” City of Austin v. Paxton, 943 F.3d 993, 998 (5th Cir. 2019) (alteration omitted). But as with any other jurisdictional issue, a defendant may attack on factual grounds the absence of an ongoing violation. See Green v. Mansour, 474 U.S. 64, 71 (1985) (where defendant officials ceased illegal conduct after filing of the complaint, holding that “[b]ecause there is no continuing violation of federal law to enjoin in this case, an injunction is not available”); Lighthouse Fellowship Church v. Northam, __ F. Supp. 3d __, No. 2:20-cv-204, 2021 WL 302446, at *4 (E.D. Va. Jan. 27, 2021) (“There is no ongoing violation of federal law in this case. The Orders on which Plaintiff bases its Complaint are no longer in effect.”).
“The interplay between the mootness inquiry and the ongoing-violation requirement under Ex Parte Young is somewhat unsettled.” Braggs v. Dunn, 257 F. Supp. 3d 1171, 1263 n.92 (M.D. Ala. 2017). However, the Fifth Circuit has suggested that the requirement is satisfied when the voluntary cessation exception to mootness applies. See LeBlanc, 729 F.3d at 439 (“The gist of their argument appears to be that with the panel’s medical review now complete, any violation of federal law is no longer ongoing. …. Their theory, if accepted, would work an end-run around the voluntary-cessation exception to mootness where a state actor is involved.”).
C. PLRA Courts are split on whether the PLRA’s “narrowly drawn and necessary” language allows a court to grant injunctive relief in the absence of an ongoing constitutional violation. The Ninth Circuit has reasoned that because § 3626(a)(1)(A) requires that injunctive relief “extend[] no further than necessary to correct the violation of their Eighth Amendment rights,” the statute necessarily presupposes “the existence of a constitutional ‘violation’ in need of correction.”
9

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 195 Filed: 03/19/21 10 of 36 PageID #: 10412
Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 743 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Fourth and Eleventh Circuits have reached the opposite conclusion based on two primary considerations: (1) a court should not construe a statute to displace traditional equitable remedies; and (2) the inclusion of the phrase “current and ongoing violation” appears in a different section of the statute, suggesting that Congress knew how to include an ongoing violation requirement if it wanted to do so. Thomas v. Bryant, 614 F.3d 1288, 1319–20 (11th Cir. 2010); Porter v. Clarke, 923 F.3d 348, 367 (4th Cir. 2019).
The Fifth Circuit has not yet squarely weighed in on this debate. It has, however, held that findings “that relief be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of a federal right, and be the least intrusive means to correct the violation of that right” are distinct from the finding that an ongoing violation exists. Guajardo v. Tex. Dep’t of Crim. Just., 363 F.3d 392, 395 (5th Cir. 2004). To the extent this reasoning resonates with the approach of the Eleventh and Fourth Circuits, it appears likely the Fifth Circuit would not require an express finding of an ongoing violation under the PLRA. This Court, therefore, will follow that approach.
D. Injunctions Generally “The purpose of an injunction is to prevent future violations.” United States v. W.T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629, 633 (1953) (emphasis added). This purpose, which drives a court’s power to grant injunctive relief, is independent from a court’s “power to hear the case,” i.e., mootness. Id. (“Along with its power to hear the case, the court’s power to grant injunctive relief survives discontinuance of the illegal conduct.”). Accordingly, when a defendant discontinues its illegal conduct, a court must consider whether “there exists some cognizable danger of recurrent violation.” Id. This determination is based on “the bona fides of the expressed intent to comply, the effectiveness of the discontinuance and, in some cases, the character of the past violations.” Id. Put differently, although mootness
10

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 195 Filed: 03/19/21 11 of 36 PageID #: 10413
and the propriety of an injunction following remedial conduct may be similar, “they are analytically distinct, and a court could find that a case is not moot yet deny injunctive relief.” Wilk v. Am. Med. Ass’n, 895 F.2d 352, 366 (7th Cir. 1990) (collecting cases).
E. Summary When an inmate seeks injunctive relief against state officials and the officials argue that their subsequent conduct has remedied the alleged violations, a court must undertake a multi-part inquiry. First, the Court must consider whether the cessation of the conduct amounted to the request for injunctive relief, thereby mooting the request. If the voluntary cessation moots the request, the Court must consider whether the voluntary cessation exception to mootness applies. Second, if the case has not been mooted, the Court must consider whether the corrective conduct was so complete as to allow the Court to conclude there is no dispute that there is no ongoing violation to support the Ex Parte Young exception to sovereign immunity. If the cessation has produced this sort of correction, the Court must determine whether the voluntary cessation doctrine applies. Third, if the case has not been mooted and if the Ex Parte Young exception remains applicable, the Court must decide whether the defendants corrected the underlying violation so as to preclude invocation of the Court’s equitable powers. Fourth and finally, if all these elements have been satisfied, the Court must determine whether injunctive relief is appropriate under the traditional standards for granting such relief and under the PLRA.
VI Exhaustion As another preliminary matter, the defendants argue the Court may not consider any of the claims for injunctive relief because the Injunction Plaintiffs have not exhausted their
11

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 195 Filed: 03/19/21 12 of 36 PageID #: 10414
administrative remedies. Doc. #119 at 32. “The PLRA’s exhaustion requirement is no-nonsense. Inmates seeking to challenge prison
conditions must exhaust such administrative remedies as are available before challenging prison conditions in court. The provision is mandatory, and courts have zero discretion to hear unexhausted claims.” Valentine v. Collier, 978 F.3d 154, 160 (5th Cir. 2020) (cleaned up). To exhaust administrative remedies under the PLRA, “[t]he petitioner must have pursued the grievance remedy to conclusion—substantial compliance with administrative procedures is not enough.” Bargher v. White, 928 F.3d 439, 447 (5th Cir. 2019) (cleaned up). Whether a plaintiff has satisfied the exhaustion requirement depends on the facts as they existed at the time the plaintiff filed his complaint in federal court. See Valentine, 978 F.3d at 160 (plaintiff must exhaust “before challenging prison conditions in court”).
Because failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense, it is a defendant’s “burden to establish that there were available procedures that [the plaintiff] did not exhaust. Cantwell v. Sterling, 788 F.3d 507, 508, 509 (5th Cir. 2015). This standard is satisfied when a defendant shows that the plaintiff did not exhaust a remedy which was “generally available.” Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1172 (9th Cir. 2014) (collecting cases). A remedy is generally available when a “grievance procedure exists.” Wright v. Ga. Dep’t of Corrs., 820 F. App’x 841, 845 (11th Cir. 2020); see Hubbs v. Suffolk Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 788 F.3d 54, 59 (2d Cir. 2015) (“Because failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense, defendants bear the initial burden of establishing, by pointing to legally sufficient sources such as statutes, regulations, or grievance procedures, that a grievance process exists and applies to the underlying dispute.”) (cleaned up).
“Inmates who fail to exhaust can proceed in court by showing that administrative remedies were not available.” Valentine, 978 F.3d at 160 (internal quotation marks omitted). The United States Supreme Court has identified three circumstances when remedies will be considered
12

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 195 Filed: 03/19/21 13 of 36 PageID #: 10415
unavailable: “(1) when an administrative process ‘operates as a simple dead end,’ (2) when the process is ‘so opaque that it becomes, practically speaking, incapable of use,’ and (3) when ‘prison administrators thwart inmates from taking advantage of a grievance process through machination, misrepresentation, or intimidation.’” Muhammad v. Wiles, __ F. App’x __, No. 19-50514, 2021 WL 112523, at *3 (5th Cir. Jan. 12, 2021) (quoting Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850, 1859–60 (2016)). The burden of showing unavailability rests with the plaintiff. Valentine, 978 F.3d at 161.
“Exhaustion is defined by the prison’s grievance procedures ….” Cantwell, 788 F.3d at 509. At Parchman, these procedures comprise the Administrative Remedy Program (“ARP”). Doc. #118-10 at ¶ 2. The ARP at Parchman is a multi-step process. Id. at ¶ 4. An inmate first must file a grievance within thirty days of the incident complained of. Id. If the grievance is accepted into the ARP, the grievance is forwarded to an “appropriate official” who then issues a First Step Response. Id. The inmate may appeal the First Step Response by sending a form to the ARP’s Statewide Director. Id. A final decision will then issue. Id.
According to Richard Pennington, the ARP’s Statewide Director,15 none of the Injunction Plaintiffs submitted a grievance related to any claim at issue here, much less pursued such a claim to conclusion. Id. at ¶¶ 6–9. Under these circumstances, the Court concludes that the defendants have shown the Injunction Plaintiffs failed to exhaust a generally available remedy. Accordingly, the burden shifts to the plaintiffs to show that the generally available remedy was, in fact, unavailable.
In arguing that administrative remedies were unavailable, the plaintiffs rely on the expert reports of Vail and LaMarre. Doc. #123 at 9. According to Vail, “[t]he current ARP program is perceived to be useless by the prisoners. Grievance forms are often not available and complaints
15 Doc. #118-10 at ¶ 3. 13

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 195 Filed: 03/19/21 14 of 36 PageID #: 10416
that do get filed rarely receive a response.” Doc. #100-1 at 35. LaMarre opines that inmates at Parchman “have no meaningful way to administratively grieve their health care or conditions of confinement” and that “[t]his system is a dead end providing these plaintiffs with no possibility of relief.” Doc. #101-4 at 26. As support for her opinions, LaMarre points to reports from inmates that grievance forms were sometimes unavailable, that “nothing happens” to forms which are submitted, and that correctional officers confiscated the prisoner handbooks “which presumably instruct[] how to file grievances.” Id. In response to these opinions, the defendants rely primarily on the fact that from January 2020 to June 2020 “578 grievances submitted at MSP have been resolved, with 91 resolved in favor of inmates. Of that 91, 13 concerned quality of life issues and 10 concerned medical issues.” Doc. #118-10 at ¶ 5.
The problem with the defendants’ evidence is one of timing. To be sure, it seems the ARP process at Parchman improved during the six-month period after this litigation was commenced. But the functioning of the ARP system now is irrelevant to whether the ARP was available (or unavailable) at the time the plaintiffs filed their initial complaint on January 14, 2020 (or the operative amended complaint on January 28, 2020). The only relevant evidence in this respect is the unchallenged assertions of the plaintiffs’ experts that officials at Parchman confiscated the prison handbooks which provided instructions for submitting grievances and failed to provide inmates ARP grievance forms. The evidence also suggests that ARP grievances at Parchman “rarely” received responses, such that the process was functionally a dead end. Given this evidence, the Court concludes that the plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on their argument that administrative remedies were unavailable because the ARP at Parchman was a dead end and because Parchman officials took steps to thwart inmate access to the ARP. See generally Banks v. Booth, 468 F. Supp. 3d 101, 121 (D.D.C. 2020) (in preliminary injunction analysis, finding plaintiffs “evidence of exhaustion sufficient to show a likelihood of success on the merits
14

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 195 Filed: 03/19/21 15 of 36 PageID #: 10417
of exhaustion”). VII
Requests for Injunctive Relief “[T]here must be a relationship between the injury claimed in [a] motion for injunctive relief and the conduct asserted in the underlying complaint.” Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queens’ Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 636 (9th Cir. 2015) (collecting cases). “The relationship between the preliminary injunction and the underlying complaint is sufficiently strong where the preliminary injunction would grant ‘relief of the same character as that which may be granted finally.’” Id. (quoting De Beers Consol. Mines v. United States, 325 U.S. 212, 220 (1945)). Accordingly, the substantial likelihood of success inquiry focuses on the “merits of [the] underlying claim.” Walgreen Co. v. Hood, 275 F.3d 475, 478 (5th Cir. 2001). In their motion, the Injunction Plaintiffs ground their requests for injunctive relief on their underlying Eighth Amendment claims for failure to “provide basic security and protection from violence;” deprivations of adequate medical care (including mental health care); failure to provide adequate food and water; failure to provide adequate food and hygiene; and the existence of “pervasive structural deficiencies in the facility.” Doc. #99 at 7–29. Because, as explained below, each request for injunctive relief is mooted, barred by sovereign immunity, or otherwise unlikely to succeed, the Court need not address any of the other preliminary injunction factors. See Walgreen Co., 275 F.3d at 478 (“Because Walgreen does not have a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of its underlying claim we affirm the district court’s denial of Walgreen’s motion for preliminary injunction.”).
A. Deliberate Indifference and the Eighth Amendment “The Constitution does not mandate comfortable prisons, but neither does it permit inhumane ones ….” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994) (cleaned up). Rather, the Eighth Amendment requires that prison officials “ensure that inmates receive adequate food,
15

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 195 Filed: 03/19/21 16 of 36 PageID #: 10418
clothing, shelter, and medical care, and … take reasonable measures to guarantee the safety of the inmates.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
When a plaintiff alleges an Eighth Amendment claim based on conditions of confinement, the plaintiff must make two showings. First, the plaintiff must show an objectively “sufficiently serious” deprivation by establishing a “denial of the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities.” Id. at 834 (internal quotation marks omitted). When a plaintiff claims a failure to prevent harm, “the inmate must show that he is incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial risk of serious harm.”16 Id.
Second, the plaintiff must show that the prison official had a “sufficiently culpable state of mind” by establishing that the official was deliberately indifferent to inmate health or safety. Id. The deliberate indifference inquiry is subjective and requires the plaintiff “show that the defendant: (1) was aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists; (2) subjectively drew the inference that the risk existed; and (3) disregarded the risk.” Valentine v. Collier, 956 F.3d 797, 801 (5th Cir. 2020) (cleaned up). An official disregards a risk when he fails “to take reasonable measures to abate it.” Torres v. Livingston, 972 F.3d 660, 663 (5th Cir. 2020).
B. Johnson The plaintiffs argue that “Johnson’s constitutional rights currently are being violated, as he is being deprived of constitutionally-adequate medical care and his conditions of confinement fall below constitutional standards, both of which subject him to an immediate risk of irreparable harm.” Doc. #99 at 35. Based on these alleged constitutional violations, Johnson seeks
16 Some Fifth Circuit opinions treat the “life’s necessities” standard as distinct from the “substantial risk of serious harm” inquiry. See, e.g., Arenas v. Calhoun, 922 F.3d 616, 620 (5th Cir. 2019) (“[H]e must demonstrate that the alleged deprivation was objectively serious, exposing him ‘to a substantial risk of serious harm’ and resulting ‘in the denial of the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities.’”). This appears to be inconsistent with Farmer’s analysis.
16

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 195 Filed: 03/19/21 17 of 36 PageID #: 10419
injunctive relief ordering that within (1) five days he be seen by a medical doctor to assess his blood pressure; (2) twenty-four hours he receive a refill of his blood pressure medication; (3) five days the defendants repair the roof and other avenues of water intrusion in his immediate living area; (4) five days the defendants repair exposed electrical wiring in his shower; (5) five days the defendants repair the toilets and urinals in his zone; and (6) five days the defendants repair the air conditioning in his zone. Doc. #98 at 1–2. The first two of these requests relate to Johnson’s claims for denial of adequate medical care. The latter four relate to Johnson’s claims regarding the physical conditions in his living area.
1. Medical Care “Prison officials violate the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment when they show deliberate indifference to an inmate’s serious medical needs.” Grogan v. Kumar, 873 F.3d 273, 277 (5th Cir. 2017). To show an Eighth Amendment violation based on medical care, a plaintiff must show a “substantial risk of serious harm” from the condition and “that prison officials acted or failed to act with deliberate indifference to that risk.” Valentine, 978 F.3d at 162. An official is deliberately indifferent to a medical risk when he is aware of the risk and disregards it by refusing to treat the plaintiff, ignoring his complaints, intentionally treating the plaintiff incorrectly, or “engag[ing] in any similar conduct that would clearly evince a wanton disregard for … serious medical needs.” Id. at 163. In support of his claims, Johnson submitted a declaration dated June 5, 2020, stating that (1) he suffers from high blood pressure and hypertension; (2) he is “supposed to have [his] blood pressure checked regularly;” (3) his blood pressure “has gone unchecked for two months;” (4) he “frequently” is without his blood pressure medicine because he does not receive refills on time; and (5) after he was denied a sick call form, he was not permitted to deliver a hand written request to a nurse. Doc. #104-2 at ¶ 2. He also submitted the appendix of LaMarre’s report which states
17

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 195 Filed: 03/19/21 18 of 36 PageID #: 10420
that Johnson “has not received timely and appropriate follow-up for his hypertension.” Doc. #104-15 at PageID 4848.
In response, the defendants provided a declaration of James Glisson, M.D., the Medical Director for Centurion17 and the Chief Physician at Parchman. Doc. #118-3 at ¶ 2. Glisson states that (1) it is “standard practice for providers to follow-up every six months with patients whose blood pressure is well-controlled;” (2) that Johnson’s blood pressure tested normally in March 2019; (3) Johnson refused a six-month follow-up in September 2019 and then registered an elevated blood pressure on January 13, 2020; (4) based on the elevated blood pressure, Johnson was started on blood pressure medication and scheduled for monthly checks in February and March; (5) Johnson received regular checkups from February 5 through March 9, and was seen again on June 3, just two days before he executed his affidavit; (6) at each checkup, Johnson’s blood pressure was evaluated as “controlled;” and (7) Johnson received regular refills of his medication, except for the month of May, when he refused a medical appointment. Id. at ¶¶ 14– 15.
Assuming without deciding that Johnson’s blood pressure and hypertension qualify as serious medical conditions,18 Johnson has failed to establish that any prison official disregarded the risks associated with such conditions. The record is clear that following a single elevated blood pressure test, Johnson received a prescription for blood pressure medication (which he was provided monthly, except for the month he refused an appointment) and was provided regular blood pressure checks and follow-up appointments. These facts fall well short of the conduct needed to show deliberate indifference. See LaBorde v. Lowe, 471 F. App’x 390, 391 (5th Cir.
17 Centurion, “[t]hrough a contract with [MDOC], … provides medical and mental health care to inmates housed at MSP.” Doc. #118-3 at ¶ 6. The Court notes that in a separate case involving conditions at Parchman, Centurion has moved to dismiss on the ground that it “is no longer the contract healthcare provider for” MDOC. See Lang v. Taylor, No. 4:20-cv-30, at Doc. #65 (N.D. Miss. Feb. 12, 2021). 18 See Miller v. Larson, 756 F. App’x 606, 610 (7th Cir. 2018) (“[H]e suffered from high blood pressure, which is an objectively serious condition.”).
18

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 195 Filed: 03/19/21 19 of 36 PageID #: 10421
2012) (“Laborde [sic] received extensive medical care and numerous prescription medications; he has not shown any intentional delay or refusal to provide him with medical treatment for his high blood pressure or any other medical condition for which he requested treatment.”);19 see generally Fails v. DeShields, 349 F. App’x 973, 976 (5th Cir. 2009) (“Deliberate indifference is especially hard to show when the inmate was provided with ongoing medical treatment.”). Accordingly, Johnson is unlikely to prevail on an Eighth Amendment claim premised on failure to provide medical care for his blood pressure and hypertension.
2. Water Intrusion When a plaintiff asserts an Eighth Amendment claim based on the physical conditions of his incarceration, he “must show not only that the conditions were objectively so serious as to deprive prisoners of the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities but also that the responsible prison officials acted with deliberate indifference to his conditions of confinement.” Alexander v. Tex. Dep’t of Crim. Just., 951 F.3d 236, 241 (5th Cir. 2020) (cleaned up). Life’s necessities include “minimally safe housing.” Shannon v. Vannoy, 682 F. App’x 283, 285 (5th Cir. 2017). In his June 5 declaration, Johnson states that there is a roof leak in his zone and that there is “standing water” in the building. Doc. #104-2 at ¶ 4, 6. The defendants respond that a leaking roof does not rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation and, even if it did, Johnson acknowledged on July 6, 2020, that the roof over his zone was repaired in March. Doc. #119 at 16. The record is undisputed that the roof above Unit F has been repaired and that Johnson himself has stated the leaking has ceased. See Doc. #118-1 at 11. Furthermore, the voluntary cessation doctrine ordinarily will not apply when the conduct underlying the voluntary cessation
19 Because the plaintiff in LaBorde was a pretrial detainee, the claims were brought under the Fourteenth Amendment, rather than the Eighth Amendment. However, “Fourteenth Amendment case law concerning pretrial detainees is based on the Supreme Court’s Eighth Amendment precedent concerning prisoners.” Baughman v. Hickman, 935 F.3d 302, 306 (5th Cir. 2019) (alteration omitted).
19

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 195 Filed: 03/19/21 20 of 36 PageID #: 10422
involves physical improvements to property. See Medina Rodriguez v. Canóvanas Plaza Rial Econo Rial, LLC, No. 17-1943, 2020 WL 3971656, at *4 (D.P.R. July 13, 2020) (collecting cases). To the extent this repair amounts to a physical improvement of the building, the voluntary cessation exception to the mootness inquiry is inapplicable and accordingly, Johnson’s claim for injunctive relief related to the water intrusion is moot and will be denied. Furthermore, to the extent the repairs unambiguously have addressed the ongoing violation, it would also appear the Ex Parte Young exception to sovereign immunity would no longer apply, thus depriving the Court of jurisdiction over the claim. Finally, even if the Court had jurisdiction over the claim, the Court finds the defendants’ efforts at repair to be bona fide and effective, thereby precluding injunctive relief. See W.T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. at 633.
3. Exposed Wiring in Shower As mentioned above, Johnson’s declaration states that he has been electrocuted due to exposed wiring in his unit’s showers. Doc. #104-2 at ¶ 4. The defendants (rightfully) do not dispute that exposed wiring in a shower may pose a serious risk to inmate health or safety. See Cotton v. Taylor, 176 F.3d 479 (5th Cir. Mar. 9, 1999) (table decision) (risk of electrocution from wiring was serious risk). They argue, however, that there is no exposed wiring in Johnson’s shower. Doc. #119 at 17. The evidence is that while a light fixture in the unit’s showers was, at one point, destroyed, the fixture has been repaired to eliminate any exposed wires. Doc. #118-1 at 12. As this physical repair directly addresses Johnson’s request that the wiring be repaired, such request is denied for the reasons identified above.
4. Toilets and Urinals Johnson also avers that in his unit, “there is only one toilet and one urinal that work, and all of the inmates … are required to share them.” Doc. #104-2 at ¶ 7. Assuming without deciding
20

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 195 Filed: 03/19/21 21 of 36 PageID #: 10423
that one toilet and one urinal for a unit would be constitutionally inadequate, Johnson’s claim still must fail because the evidence shows that as of July 6, 2020, all toilets and urinals were operable. Doc. #118-1 at 12. These repairs justify denial of the request for injunctive relief related to toilets and urinals for all the same reasons discussed above regarding the water intrusion.
5. Air Conditioning Finally, Johnson avers that “[t]here is no air conditioning or working heat in [his] zone.” Doc. #104-2 at ¶ 5. The defendants respond that air conditioning is not constitutionally required and that to alleviate any heating issues they have purchased industrial-sized fans for each building at Parchman. Doc. #119 at 17–18. “[E]xposing an inmate to extreme cell temperatures can constitute cruel and unusual punishment.” Hinojosa v. Livingston, 807 F.3d 657, 665 (5th Cir. 2015). However, “merely uncomfortable [temperature] in a prisoner’s cell does not reflect a basic human need that the prison has failed to meet and is not constitutionally suspect.” Ball v. LeBlanc, 792 F.3d 584, 592 (5th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). Rather, the condition must post an unreasonable risk of serious damage to a prisoner’s health. Id. An air-conditioning unit is required only when the temperature in the cell is unconstitutional and “other acceptable and less-intrusive remedies” are not available. Yates v. Collier, 868 F.3d 354, 370 (5th Cir. 2017). Johnson has not shown that the temperatures in the cells in his unit reach an extreme or dangerous level. While the plaintiffs’ experts reported complaints of various inmates, Johnson does not appear to be one of these inmates.20 During the plaintiffs’ expert’s inspection, which was conducted on days when the outside temperatures were in comfortable ranges, the ambient air measurements were within normal ranges. Doc. #101-3 at 16. During Tussey’s inspection,
20 Stern’s report states that “many” of the plaintiffs complained of thermal extremes. Doc. #101-1 at 16. According to Stern, two plaintiffs “reported specific situations in which the temperature was so high that two or three residents … could not breathe.” Id.
21

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 195 Filed: 03/19/21 22 of 36 PageID #: 10424
which included “all units, buildings, zones, and other areas at issue,” and was conducted “on a very hot and humid Mississippi day,” “the ambient temperature inside the units was acceptable.” Doc. #118-5 at 2, 6. Tussey further observed that “[t]he environmental conditions noticed throughout [his] tour were acceptable, and although most housing units have never been air conditioned, the comfort was maintained by numerous large fans. There was good air flow and virtually no odor in spite of the fact that some units held several hundred inmates.” Id. at 6.
Even if Johnson could establish that the heat in his zone posed a serious risk of harm, he cannot establish the requisite deliberate indifference because it is undisputed the defendants are taking reasonable remedial steps (the installation of new industrial fans) to combat any heating issues. Even if Johnson could show deliberate indifference, he has made no effort to show that there are no acceptable and less-intrusive remedies to justify an injunction directing the installation of air conditioning. For all these reasons, Johnson cannot establish a likelihood of success with respect to his request for air conditioning.
6. Summary Johnson has not shown entitlement to any of his requests for injunctive relief.
C. Webster Webster seeks injunctive relief ordering that within five days the defendants (1) treat a rat and cockroach infestation in his “immediate living area;” (2) repair the roof and other avenues of water intrusion in his living area; (3) repair the air conditioning in his zone; and (4) provide him an ophthalmologist to treat burning eyes. Doc. #98 at 2.
1. Pest Infestation Webster avers that his zone is “inundated with rats and cockroaches” and that he has to “trap them when they get too close to keep them from crawling on [him].” Doc. #104-1 at ¶ 2. The defendants argue that none of the plaintiffs’ experts documented a rodent problem and that
22

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 195 Filed: 03/19/21 23 of 36 PageID #: 10425
Parchman regularly treats Webster’s building “for rodents, roaches, ants, and spiders, and has done so for the past several months as a matter of routine pest control procedures.” Doc. #119 at 20.
Pest infestations may rise to the level of a constitutional violation. See Gates v. Cook, 376 F.3d 323, 340 (5th Cir. 2004) (affirming injunction related to “pest infestation problems”); see Smith v. Dart, 803 F.3d 304, 312 (7th Cir. 2015) (“Pest infestations may … form the basis of a[n] … Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claim.”). However, “[t]he presence of insects and pests in a rural Mississippi prison unit does not, alone, establish a constitutional violation.” Bennett v. Morris, No. 4:12-CV-108, 2020 WL 60240, at *5 (N.D. Miss. Jan. 6, 2020) (collecting cases). Rather, the presence of the pests must rise to the level of an objective risk of harm and the prison officials must have responded to such a risk with deliberate indifference. In determining whether a pest infestation poses an objective risk of harm, a court should consider whether (1) the pests are present in the plaintiff’s cell; (2) the pests have come in contact with the plaintiff’s person or property; (3) whether the plaintiff has been bitten or stung or otherwise suffered physical or psychological harm; and (4) whether the plaintiff’s property has been damaged. Dart, 803 F.3d at 312; see Gates, 376 F.3d at 340 (“In addition to the risk of heatrelated illness, the pest infestation problems were linked to chronic sleep deprivation, which exacerbates the symptoms of mental illness.”).
Webster’s allegations of a rodent and cockroach infestation so severe that he must trap them to prevent contact would seem to rise to the level of a deprivation of life’s necessities. However, these allegations are simply not credible considering the rest of the record.
The defendants are correct that none of the plaintiffs’ experts observed any rats. The plaintiffs’ experts observed only “several roaches” during the two-day inspection. Doc. #101-3 at 23. No evidence of an infestation was cited by any expert.21 The defendants’ expert Tussey
21 The closest an expert came was noting that “[t]here was ample amounts of food and water available to support both a rodent and roach infestation in the areas visited” and that “a more complete inspection is necessary to determine the
23

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 195 Filed: 03/19/21 24 of 36 PageID #: 10426
specifically noted that he “observed numerous areas [of Parchman] and … did not see any unusual infestation of any pests or insects.” Doc. #118-5 at 5. Even considering that “rodents and roaches are nocturnal and may not be observed in daylight hours or where there is activity” and that “many inmates self-reported that they see rodents and roaches in and about their living areas,” Doc. #101-3 at 23, the lack of any objective evidence supporting Webster’s allegations precludes a finding of likelihood of success on this issue.
Even if Webster could show a substantial risk of harm, the claim premised on the pest control would fail because he cannot establish a likelihood of success as to deliberate indifference. In the absence of indications that pest treatments are futile,22 ongoing pest control measures ordinarily will preclude a finding of deliberate indifference to a pest problem. See Bennett, 2020 WL 60240, at *5 (“[T]he very fact that that [sic] MDOC’s pest control efforts are consistent undermines the argument that they are poor enough to constitute deliberate indifference.”). It is undisputed MDOC employs a licensed pest control applicator who is on site three days a week, and that Webster’s building is “routinely” treated for pests. Doc. #118-1 at 12. Given the lack of any evidence that the pest control service is futile, these services defeat a claim of deliberate indifference.
2. Water Intrusion and Air Conditioning Webster is housed in the same building as Johnson. His claims premised on the presence of water intrusion and lack of air conditioning fail for the same reason as do Johnson’s claims.
level of rodent and insect infestation that may be present at MSP.” Doc. #101-3 at 23. The possibility of an infestation is not the same as an infestation. 22 Bentz v. Hardy, 638 F. App’x 535, 537–38 (7th Cir. 2016) (“[E]vidence of a pest control contract alone does not necessarily exculpate the defendants since persisting in an ineffective method of pest control may be evidence of deliberate indifference.”) (collecting cases).
24

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 195 Filed: 03/19/21 25 of 36 PageID #: 10427
3. Ophthalmologist Webster avers that “[f]or months” he has suffered from “burning in [his] eyes,” which he attributes to Parchman’s “dirty water.” Doc. #104-1 at ¶ 5. He claims that an eye exam was scheduled in 2019 but he was not taken to it. Id. During his February 2020 medical examination of Webster, LaMarre observed “bilateral conjunctival injection and watery eyes, no purulent drainage.” Doc. #104-15 at PageID 4878. The defendants respond that Webster’s medical records show he was seen regularly for his eye irritation and that, therefore, he cannot show deliberate indifference. Doc. #119 at 19–20. The defendants are correct. According to Lamarre, Webster’s medical records show that (1) on March 28, 2019, Webster submitted a Health Request form complaining that his eyes were “still burning from the water;” (2) on March 30, 2019, a nurse saw Webster, flushed his eyes, and noted that the irritation may be caused by chlorine in the water; (3) on June 23, 2019, Webster submitted a Health Request form complaining of burning eyes; (4) on June 25, 2019, a nurse flushed Webster’s eyes; (5) Webster was scheduled for an appointment on August 23, 2019, but for unknown reasons was not transported to the appointment; and (6) on August 29, 2019, Webster saw an optometrist who observed eye irritation, provided eye wash solution, and recommended a return appointment in one month. Doc. #104-15 at PageID 4878. It does not appear Webster saw an optometrist after the August 29, 2019 appointment. However, there is no record Webster submitted a request for such an appointment. Doc. #118-3 at ¶ 20. In the absence of evidence of degeneration or severe pain, mere eye irritation is not a serious medical need under the Eighth Amendment. See Donald v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 982 F.3d 451, 459 (7th Cir. 2020); Davidson v. Scully, 155 F. Supp. 2d 77, 88 (S.D.N.Y. 2001); Carter v. Baker, No. 17-cv-52, 2020 WL 4605228, at *3 (D.N.H. Aug. 10, 2020). Because Webster’s medical record shows no evidence of degeneration or pain connected to his eye
25

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 195 Filed: 03/19/21 26 of 36 PageID #: 10428
irritation, it is unlikely such a condition could be considered a serious medical need. Even if the condition could be considered sufficiently serious, there is no evidence any prison official engaged in the type of conduct which would show a disregard for such a need. To the contrary, the record shows consistent treatment for Webster’s complaints.
4. Summary Webster has not shown entitlement to any of his requests for injunctive relief.
D. James James seeks an order directing that within five days the defendants (1) treat effectively the infestation of rats and cockroaches in his immediate living area; (2) repair the roof and other avenues of water intrusion in his immediate living area; (3) remediate the mold in the shower in his zone; (4) repair the air conditioning in his zone; and (5) arrange for him to have one hour of recreation daily. Doc. #98 at 3.
1. Pest Infestation James avers that he has “rats and roaches in [his] cell frequently.” Doc. #104-3 at ¶ 2. He states that “[e]very night, rats crawl on me in my bunk and eat my food. There are infestations of roaches in certain areas of my zone, and I see them in my cell all the time.” Id. As with Webster, the defendants argue that “[t]here is simply no basis for claiming there is an ‘infestation’ at MSP or in James’s zone.” Doc. #119 at 27. In reply, James declares that while a “pest control applicator employee delivers insecticide/chemicals approximately every two months to [his] zone,” the employee does not apply the treatment in the zone. Doc. #123-3 at ¶ 2. Instead, the “task is performed by an inmate located on the zone” and that “[a]fter the application … rodents and insects are still present.” Id. As explained above, the presence of pests is not, standing alone, a sufficiently serious deprivation to support an Eighth Amendment claim. Bennett, 2020 WL 60240, at *5. The pests
26

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 195 Filed: 03/19/21 27 of 36 PageID #: 10429
must be present in such numbers as to create a risk of direct contact with an inmate. Because no expert observed anything which would support such an infestation, James is unlikely to prevail on such a claim.
2. Water Intrusion James states that “[w]hen it rains, water leaks through the ceiling and into [his] cell. When the rain is heavy, it also leaks through the walls. There are similar leaks all over [his] zone. After a heavy rain, there are puddles of standing water throughout the zone.” Doc. #104-3 at ¶ 6. The defendants respond that “MDOC recently repaired the roof over Unit 30, Building A, in which James is housed” and “[t]here are currently no known leaks or avenues of water intrusion in James’ immediate living area.” Doc. #119 at 27. James replies that “[t]here are currently six to seven water leaks on [his] zone which have not been repaired. One of the six to seven roof leaks is directly above [his] head on [his] sleeping rack.” Doc. #123-3 at ¶ 3. To the extent James’ relief is premised on the conditions as they existed before the roof repair, the Court finds, for the reasons above, that the relief must be denied. To the extent the relief is premised on the remaining “six or seven” leaks, the claim must fail because James has not shown a serious deprivation. A leak, without more, does not deprive an inmate of life’s necessities. Shannon, 682 F. App’x at 285. However, the Eighth Amendment may be implicated when the leak conspires with other conditions (such as exposed electrical wires or raw sewage) to place the safety of inmates at risk. Id. (collecting cases). James’ reply affidavit offers no details as to the frequency or severity of the leaks. And while he states that there is exposed electrical wiring in his zone, he does not allege that any of the leaks are sufficiently close to such wiring as to pose a risk of electrocution. Under these circumstances, James is unlikely to be able to show a deprivation of life’s necessities to support a claim for injunctive relief.
27

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 195 Filed: 03/19/21 28 of 36 PageID #: 10430
3. Mold The presence of mold standing alone does not amount to a constitutional violation. Zeno v. Terrebonne Par. Crim. Just. Complex, No. 20-2521, 2020 WL 6909292, at *3 (E.D. La. Nov. 2, 2020) (collecting cases). The presence of the mold must “present[] an unreasonable risk of harm.” Stokelin v. A.C.J.F. Warden, No. 17-3484, 2018 WL 4357482, at *2 (D.N.J. Sept. 13, 2018) (collecting cases). James declares that there is mold in the shower in his zone. Doc. #104-3 at ¶ 4. However, according to Jeworski Mallett, MDOC’s Deputy Commissioner of Institutions, as of July 6, 2020, there was no mold in James’ shower area.23 Doc. #118-1 at 13. James’ reply declaration does not dispute this fact. See Doc. #123-3. To the extent it appears the mold issue has been resolved, James’ claim based on the presence of such mold is likely moot. Even if the mold remained (or was likely to recur), James has introduced no evidence that the mold in the shower is of the type which would present a risk of harm.24 His claim is unlikely to succeed for this reason.
4. Air Conditioning James’s declaration alleges that “[t]here is no air conditioning” in the zone. Doc. #104-3 at ¶ 5. He states that on hot days, “it is like an oven in the zone, even with fans.” Id. According to Mallett, there is no air conditioning system in the zone. Doc. #118-1 at 13. Instead, Parchman utilizes “industrial-sized fans, which are routinely monitored … and repaired or replaced as
23 The affidavit goes further, stating “I am aware of no test, investigation, or study that has ever confirmed the existence of mold anywhere at MSP.” Doc. #118-1 at 13. This statement is contrary to the statement in Stern’s report that “[m]old is ubiquitous in the living areas of Parchman.” Doc. #101-1 at 15. Graham’s report also repeatedly mentions the presence of mold. See Doc. #101-3 at 7–10. 24 The plaintiffs’ experts opined on general health risks associated with mold. See Doc. #101-1 at 15 (“For patients sensitive to mold, its presence can cause or exacerbate breathing difficulties, such as asthma.”); Doc. #101-3 at 16 (“Mold can adversely affect the health of those exposed causing respiratory issues, asthma symptoms, cough, and/or sinus problems.”). But no expert opined on the specific health risks associated with the alleged mold in James’ shower.
28

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 195 Filed: 03/19/21 29 of 36 PageID #: 10431
necessary.” Id. Mallett also states that “new industrial-sized fans are being installed [in] James’s zone.” Id. Thus, although the request for injunctive relief asks that the defendants repair the air conditioning in James’ zone, it seems the request is that air conditioning be installed in the zone. This request fails for the same reasons described above—that because the experts observed no issues with heat (even on a hot day), James is unlikely to be able to show extreme temperatures which would constitute a serious deprivation; because the defendants are installing industrial fans to improve the temperature situation, James cannot show the defendants are acting with deliberate indifference; and because James cannot show that air conditioning is the least invasive means for addressing any constitutional deprivation.
5. Recreation Time “To succeed on an Eighth Amendment claim that he was denied adequate recreation, [a plaintiff] must establish (1) that prison officials failed to provide him with adequate exercise opportunities; and (2) that prison officials acted with deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of harm to his health and safety.” Lewis v. Smith, 277 F.3d 1373 (5th Cir. Nov. 13, 2001) (table decision) (cleaned up) (collecting cases). “Thus, what is constitutionally required is that the prisoner not be confined for long periods without the opportunity for regular physical exercise, whether it be indoor or outdoor.” Woods v. St. Tammany Par. Jail, No. 19-12469, 2020 WL 4926964, at *4 (E.D. La. July 14, 2020) (cleaned up and emphasis added). James submitted a declaration that he has “not been out of [his] zone for recreation in three weeks” due to a staff shortage. Doc. #104-3 at ¶ 7. Mallett responds that around June of 2020 he “instructed all wardens to ensure that they permit inmates in general population, such as James, to have at least one hour of recreation or yard time every day.” Doc. #118-1 at 14. However, in his July 24, 2020, declaration, James states that he has not been allowed recreation time in two
29

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 195 Filed: 03/19/21 30 of 36 PageID #: 10432
weeks and that “[f]rom January 2020 to [July]” he has been allowed recreation time “on less than ten occasions.” Doc. #123-3 at ¶ 6.
Even if the denial of recreation time could be deemed a severe deprivation of the right to exercise, James has made no effort to show that such a deprival was done with deliberate indifference to his health or safety. See Hernandez v. Velasquez, 522 F.3d 556, 560–61 (5th Cir. 2008) (plaintiff deprived of out-of-cell exercise for thirteen months failed to show deliberate indifference when his records “revealed no complaint of muscle disorder”). His claim is unlikely to succeed for these reasons.
6. Summary James has not shown entitlement to any of his requests for injunctive relief.
E. Riley Riley seeks an order that within (1) five days he see a psychiatrist regarding his mental health; (2) five days, he see a doctor to “assess” his high blood pressure; (3) twenty-four hours he receive a refill of his blood pressure medication; and (4) five days the defendants return the water in his zone to “acceptable standards.” Doc. #98 at 2.
1. Psychiatrist Riley argues that “[d]espite a suicide attempt, [he] has never been seen by a mental health professional at Parchman” and “[w]ith no mental health treatment, [he] remains at serious risk of imminent harm.” Doc. #99 at 42. Claims for mental health treatment (or the lack thereof) fall under the same rubric as general claims for deliberate indifference to health. See Grogan, 873 F.3d at 278. That is, the plaintiff must show a serious psychiatric need and that prison officials knew of the need and “refused to treat him, ignored his complaints, intentionally treated him incorrectly, or engaged in any similar conduct that would clearly evince a wanton disregard for any serious medical needs.”
30

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 195 Filed: 03/19/21 31 of 36 PageID #: 10433
Id. Riley states that he fears for his safety and feels hopeless at Parchman. Doc. #104-4 at ¶
3. He claims he was admitted to the hospital after cutting his wrists but has not seen a mental health provider after that event. Id. In a July 27, 2020, declaration, he states that within the last two weeks he has experienced suicidal ideations and has spent several days in Unit 42 on a psychiatric hold but has “yet to be prescribed any mental health medication or received any therapeutic treatment.” Doc. #123-4 at ¶¶ 2, 4. He claims that his suicidal ideations stem from the “security issues” in his zone. Id. at ¶ 3.
Riley’s medical records do not reflect a hospitalization for cutting his wrists. See Doc. #118-9 at ¶ 13; Doc. #138 at PageID 9182–9191. The records do, however, show that he was seen at the infirmary on May 11, 2020, for suicidal ideations. Doc. #138 at PageID 9182. At the infirmary, Riley stated that he was having thoughts about hanging himself and complained about his relationships with other inmates. Id. at PageID 9182–83. Notes from this visit reflect a treatment plan of admitting Riley “for short stay for suicidal ideations” and drawing labs. Id. at PageID 9183. The notes also state that Riley “is on suicide precautions although his complaints sound more like security issues.” Id.
The next day, May Leflore, the primary mental health professional, completed a “Mental Health Crisis Treatment Plan – Suicide Watch” for Riley. Id. at PageID 9184. The plan provides certain “Patient Strategies to Reduce Risks” as well as recommending two “Staff Interventions.” Id. The recommended staff interventions were to “[e]valuate inmate for the need for medication and prescribe medication as appropriate” and “[a]ssist in identification of reasons for continuing to choose to live or reasons to choose not to kill self.” Id.
Riley was discharged from the infirmary on May 14, 2020. Id. at PageID 9186. The notes from Riley’s discharge reflect that he denied symptoms of depression and that he wanted “to
31

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 195 Filed: 03/19/21 32 of 36 PageID #: 10434
kill himself because people were going to hurt him in his zone.” Id. However, he did not identify “what the issue was on the zone and why he was fearful for his safety.” Id. The notes state, “At this time he is safe and stable for discharge. He is not a threat to himself and has not made any suicidal gestures.” Id. at PageID 9187.
At a May 16, 2020, follow-up interview, Riley joked about his recent admission and stated that he was trying to leave Parchman. Id. at PageID 9188. The provider, Evelyn Dunn PMHNPBC, noted that Riley displayed no mood or thought disturbances and that the mood disturbances which resulted in his earlier admission were “highly likely related to his substance abuse.” Id. Dunn found that there were “no indications for a mental health transfer.” Id.
At a second follow-up two days later, Riley informed Emma Brownlow MHP that he was doing “alright” but was still having suicidal thoughts connected to security concerns. Id. at PageID 9190. Brownlow noted that Riley denied any delusions or hallucinations and exhibited no signs of distress. Id. at PageID 9191. Brownlow concluded that Riley was “exhibiting security issues” and referred him to security. Id. She also educated Riley “on access to medical care and … advised [him] to complete a sick call when need arrives.” Id. There is no indication that Riley ever requested a follow-up. But in mid-July, Riley experienced suicidal ideations and was placed on a psychiatric hold. Doc. #123-4 at ¶ 2.
Riley’s arguments basically amount to a belief that the array of professionals who saw him were incorrect in their assessment that he was not suffering from a mental health condition which would require therapy or medication. However, absent extraordinary circumstances, a “prisoner’s disagreement with his medical treatment” does not establish deliberate indifference. Grogan, 873 F.3d at 278.
The record reflects that Riley was provided hospitalizations when he expressed suicidal ideations. Following these hospitalizations, Riley was provided regular follow-ups. That these
32

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 195 Filed: 03/19/21 33 of 36 PageID #: 10435
follow-ups did not produce the results that Riley desired is not a fact which would support a finding of deliberate indifference. See id. at 278–79. Accordingly, even if Riley can show a serious psychiatric need, he is unlikely to succeed on his claim premised on inadequate medical care.
2. Hypertension Treatment and Medication It is undisputed that Riley suffers from hypertension and is prescribed medication for this condition. See Doc. #138 at PageID 9193. However, Riley states that despite submitting his “refill requests in advance, … the delivery from nurses is always late and [his] symptoms return.” Doc. #104-4 at ¶ 7. He has been without his medication “for up to two weeks.” Id. Riley also states that he has been to the chronic care clinic only one time for his blood pressure. Id. at ¶ 8. The defendants argue that Riley has received regular checkups and medication refills. Doc. #119 at 23. The defendants are correct that Riley’s medical records undermine his claims. The records show that Riley was seen at least three times at the chronic care clinic. Riley first was seen on October 21, 2019. Doc. #138 at PageID 9193. Notes from this visit state that Riley’s hypertension was “fair[ly] controlled.” Id. at PageID 9195–96. The notes also recommend weekly blood pressure monitoring and a chronic care visit every three months. Id. at PageID 9196. Consistent with this recommendation, Riley was seen at the clinic on January 9, 2020. Id. at PageID 9201. At this visit, Riley was prescribed updated medications, education on various issues associated with hypertension, and scheduled for a follow-up in three months. Id. at PageID 9202. Riley was seen again at the chronic care clinic on April 7, 2020. Id. at PageID 9204. A follow-up appointment was scheduled for August 2020. Doc. #118-3 at ¶ 17. The records also show that he received (1) thirty-day supplies of his blood pressure medications on January 14, February 6, February 25, March 21, April 28, (2) a seven-day supply on May 14; and (3) thirtyday supplies on May 19 and July 7. Id. at ¶ 18; see Doc. #138 at PageID 9208–16.
33

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 195 Filed: 03/19/21 34 of 36 PageID #: 10436
To the extent Riley’s request to see a doctor to “assess” his hypertension appears grounded in an argument that he has not been seen by doctors, such claim is unlikely to succeed for the simple fact that Riley is receiving medical treatment for his hypertension. This regular treatment precludes a finding of deliberate indifference.
With respect to delays in receiving medication, the serious harm and deliberate indifference inquiries focus on the effects of the delay in medication, rather than the underlying condition. See Lee v. Richland Par. Det. Ctr., 483 F. App’x 904, 905 (5th Cir. 2012). Put differently, it is “the particular risk of harm faced by a prisoner due to the challenged deprivation of care, rather than the severity of the prisoner’s underlying medical condition, considered in the abstract, that is relevant for Eighth Amendment purposes.” Smith v. Carpenter, 316 F.3d 178, 186 (2d Cir. 2003).
A delay in receiving hypertension medication is not a severe deprivation unless there is evidence that the delay “gave rise to a significant risk of harm.” Bumpus v. Canfield, 495 F. Supp. 2d 316, 322 (W.D.N.Y. 2007). Riley has submitted no evidence that would show the alleged delays in medications gave rise to a significant risk of harm. Beyond a reference to being without medication for two weeks (a time period which he does not attribute solely to any delay), Riley does not state how long the alleged delays have been. He merely claims that the delays cause his symptoms to return but does not clarify what these symptoms are or why the symptoms suggest he would be at a serious risk of harm. Even if the delays could be deemed sufficiently serious, there is nothing in Riley’s allegations that suggests any officials knew of the delay to warrant a finding of deliberate indifference. Thus, he cannot establish an Eighth Amendment violation as to the delays in receiving his medication.
3. Drinking Water “[A]ccess to a sufficient supply of uncontaminated drinking water is a basic human need.” Womble v. Harvanek, 739 F. App’x 470, 473 (10th Cir. 2017); see James v. Edwards, No. 20-452,
34

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 195 Filed: 03/19/21 35 of 36 PageID #: 10437
2020 WL 2500202, at *5 (E.D. La. Apr. 7, 2020) (“Obviously, potable water is a basic human need and must be provided to inmates.”) (collecting cases). Of course, to succeed on such a claim a plaintiff must show that the water is, in fact, sufficiently contaminated and that the prison officials were deliberately indifferent to this fact. Wright v. N.Y. State Dep’t of Corr. Servs., 372 F. App’x 175, 176 (2d Cir. 2010). Water is sufficiently contaminated when it is “demonstrably unsafe.” See Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 33 (1993) (“[A] prison inmate also could successfully complain about demonstrably unsafe drinking water without waiting for an attack of dysentery.”). Riley’s drinking water claim is unlikely to succeed because he has not established that the water at Parchman is unsafe.
To be sure, Riley alleges that the water in his zone “is brown and contaminated to the point that [he] become[s] ill when [he] drink[s] it.” Doc. #104-4 at ¶ 4. But this claim seems unsupported by objective evidence. It does not appear any of the experts in this case actually observed such discolored water (although the plaintiffs’ experts credited the complaints of inmates as to the color). See Doc. #101-1 at 15; Doc. #101-2 at 21. Furthermore, even if the water in Riley’s cell is brown, Frank Edwards (the plaintiff’s water testing expert)25 noted that “[y]ou cannot tell by the look, taste, or smell of the water if disease-causing organisms are in it.” Doc. #101-5 at 4. With respect to testing, the plaintiffs’ water testing expert found that the water at Parchman was “below the [maximum contaminant levels] for the parameters analyzed.” Doc. Id. at 13. The expert also noted that “the limited data provided by the MDOC to date indicates the absence of fecal coliform and Escherichia coli.” Id. While the expert tempered this analysis by noting that he was unable to test for all contaminants and that a single test does not paint a complete picture of contamination, id.,26 Mallett averred “that the most recent potable water test results for
25 Doc. #101-5 at 1–2. 26 This does not represent a conclusion that Parchman always provided the inmates clean water. The opposite seems to be true. Doc. #101-5 at 4–5. Graham noted that Parchman records showed that in 2013 and 2015 testing showed elevated levels of Coliform in Parchman’s water. Id. at 4. Graham also noted that from 2015 to 2017, the drinking
35

Case: 4:20-cv-00007-DMB-JMV Doc #: 195 Filed: 03/19/21 36 of 36 PageID #: 10438
MSP show its water is within acceptable standards.” Doc. #118-1 at 13. Accordingly, the lack
of any demonstrable danger in the water dooms Riley’s claim.
4. Summary
Riley has not shown entitlement to any of his requests for injunctive relief.
VIII Conclusion
While this is a tale of two prisons, the present motion concerns only the story of four
inmates. These inmates indisputably experienced inhumane and intolerable conditions at
Parchman in the early months of 2020 (and likely before). The conclusions in this order regarding
Parchman’s current state are not intended to diminish these inmates’ experiences or suggest there
is no form of redress available for what they were forced to endure. Nor does this order hold that
Parchman as it stands today is in complete compliance with all constitutional standards or that the
prison administrators’ work to improve Parchman is done. This Court merely concludes that,
based on the administrators’ recent efforts, the limited injunctive relief requested for these four
inmates is inappropriate. The prison administrators are encouraged, if not cautioned, to continue to improve the conditions at Parchman to ensure that the Parchman of early 2020 never returns.27
For now, because the plaintiffs seek injunctive relief for four inmates based on conditions at
Parchman that no longer exist or for which they have not shown a constitutional violation to justify
the relief sought, their supplemental motion for injunctive relief [98] is DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this 19th day of March, 2021.
/s/Debra M. Brown UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
water tested at Parchman contained lead at levels approximately three parts per billion above the “reporting limit” of 15 PPB. Id. Given the unchallenged results from 2020, these older tests, which predate the litigation by approximately three years, fall short of establishing a risk of demonstrable harm. 27 Should such conditions return, voluntary remedial efforts likely would be insufficient to defeat a request for immediate and far-ranging injunctive relief. See Gates, 376 F.3d at 337 (“The fact that many of these conditions have persisted for years despite MDOC's purported efforts leads us to likewise conclude that MDOC has not met the heavy burden of showing that its voluntary conduct has mooted any of the issues presented here.”) (emphasis added).
36