- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

JOHN DOE and JAMES ROE,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DAVID C. EVANS, JOE FRANK HARRIS, J. PAUL FORD, ' CHARLES E. BURDEN, and WAYNE SNOW, JR.
(and their respective successors in office),
Defendants.

) CIVIL ACTION FILE ) NO. 1:88-cv-1752-MHS
)

1

i A 111 1 ifi~~~&~1l1i"'llji

I

PC-GA-003-001

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
COME NOW the Plaintiffs, John Doe and James Roe, and make their claim for relief against the Defendants David C. Evans, Joe Frank Harris, J. Paul Ford, Charles E. Burden, and Wayne-Snow,Jr.
PARTIES AND JURISDICTION 1.
Plaintiff John Doe ("Doe")is the fictitious name of an inmate presently incarcerated in the Georgia state prison system. Doe originally entered the Georgia state prison system on his present charge at the Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Center ( "GDCC") in Jackson, Georgia, after which he was transferred to the Augusta Correctional/Medical Institute ("ACMI")in Augusta, Georgia, and to the Jack T. Rutledge Correctional Institute

("Rutledge'Tin Columbus, Georgia, before being transferred to Lee Correctional Institute ("Lee")in Leesburg, Georgia.
Plaintiff James Roe ("Roe")is the fictitious name of an inmate presently incarcerated in the Georgia state prison system. Roe also entered the Georgia state prison system at GDCC, after which he was transferred to ACMI, to Rutledge, and to Lee before being re-transferred to ACMI.
Defendant David C. Evans ("Evansn)is the Commissioner of the Department of Corrections of the State of Georgia and as such, he is responsible for the direction, supervision and control of the Department, including the promulgation and enforcement of rules, regulations, policies and practices related to the management and control of Georgia's penal institutions. Commissioner Evans is responsible for the testing and segregation programs that are challenged in this action.
4.
Defendant Joe Frank Harris ("Harris")is the Governor of the State of Georgia, and in that capacity, he is responsible for the oversight of the Department of Corrections and its policies and practices related to the management and control of Georgia's penal institutions.
5. Defendant J. Paul Ford ("Ford")is the Superintendent of Rutledge. As such, he exercises powers and duties relating to the control, governance and supervision of that facility.

- Superintendent Ford administers the segregation program at
~utledgethat is challenged in this action. 6.
Defendant Charles E. Burden ("Burden")is the Superintendent of ACMI. As such, he exercises powers and duties relating to the control, governance and supervision of that facility. Superintendent Burden administers the segregation program at ACMI that is challenged in this action.
6A.
Defendant Wayne Snow, Jr. ("Snow")is Chairman of the Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles, and as such, he is responsible for the direction, supervision and control of the Board's paorle policies, including the promulgation and enforcement of rules, regulations, policies and practices related to paroles of inmates in Georgia's penal institutions. Chairman Snow is responsible for the parole procedures challenged in this action.
7. Each defendant is sued both individually and in his official capacity. At all times mentioned in the Complaint, each defendant has acted under color of state law.
8. This action seeks to redress injuries suffered by plaintiffs for deprivations under color of state law of rights secured by the United States Constitution and federal law. The claims for relief
are filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. S 1983, and pursuant to S 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. S 701 et sea., as
amended by the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987. Accordingly,

this Court has.+urisdiction over the claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3) and (4).
BACKGROUND 9.
While incarcerated in the Georgia prison systen~,blood samples of plaintiffs Doe and Roe were taken for testing for antibodies to the Human Immunodeficiency Virus ("HIV"or "HTLV-3 virus"), a retrovirus believed to cause the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome ("AIDS"). Neither Doe nor Roe were notified that their blood would be used for such testing, and neither Doe nor Roe would have consented to such testing if they had been so notified.
There is no test for AIDS itself, or for AIDS contagiousness. The ELISA and Western Blot tests which were administered under defendants' direction merely determine the presence of "antibodies" the body has formed to fight "exposure" to the HTLV-3 virus. Neither of these tests is 100% accurate, nor have the laboratories administering the tests maintained a 100% testing procedure accuracy. It has been estimated that over one million Americans would test "seropositive";of all seropositives, only about 5-30% ever develop AIDS.
11. Both plaintiffs Doe and Roe were notified that they had tested positive for antibodies to the HIV virus. Despite this classification as "seropositive" (or "HIV-positive"),plaintiffs Doe and Roe have never exhibited any physical signs of AIDS in the

more than two years since their classification, and plaintiffs Doe and Roe deny that they have AIDS.
12. Despite the lack of any medical basis for believing that seroposivitity equates to AIDS or contagiousness, despite plaintiffs' failure to exhibit any physical symptoms of AIDS for more than two years, and despite plaintiffs' failure to exhibit any likelihood of spreading the disease even if they were contagious, plaintiffs have been kept administratively segregated at each of the correctional institutions since their initial classification as seropositive. This change in housing and custody status was imposed without a hearing, and without regard to appropriate classification factors, such as a prisoner's propensity for violence. Unlike other dorms, the security levels of prisoners in the seropositives' housing areas range from minimum to maximum, creating a potentially dangerous situation.
13. At ACMI, defendant Burden, by his own admission, and upon information and belief with the knowledge and consent of defendants Evans and Harris, made the decision to relegate all alleged seropositives to administrative detention. At Rutledge, alleged seropositives have been similarly kept in administrative segregation (later labelled "special handling"), with the knowledge and consent of defendant Ford and defendant Evans. his segregation is unnecessary, and contrary to the medical advice of

Dr. William-A. Hopkins, the Medical Director of the Georgia
Department of Correctionsf Health Services.
As a result of this segregation, confidentiality.of prisonersf test results is impossible to maintain. Prisoners such as plaintiffs who tested positive for the HIV virus were inevitably branded as "AIDS victims" or "AIDS carriers" to the entire prison community, including other inmates, correctional officers and prison staff, and those who visited the prison.
15. The segregation at ACMI and Rutledge has been maintained in a highly visible and public manner. Housing has been separate and public at both ACMI and Rutledge; at ACMI, in fact, seropositives have been housed in perhaps the most highly visible location possible--adjacent to the dorms of the many transient inmates travelling to ACMI for non-hospitalized medical care. Visitation has been separate and public; visitors at ACMI and Rutledge have been required to meet seropositives in separate rooms, referred to as the AIDS "cages",which are easily visible to other inmates and visitors who meet in the main visitation area. Daily routine has been separate and public; seropositves at ACMI and Rutledge have been regularly escorted by guards, who tell non-seropositives not to associate with the seropositive inmates.
16.
These separated activities--in housing, visitation, and daily routine--have caused the identities of alleged seropositives such as plaintiffs to become public, and have caused them to be branded

- and ostracized as "AIDS carriers". Once so identified,
seropositives are labelled for life, incorrectly, as persons with AIDS, and are stigmatized and ostracized--compounding the anguish not only of the inmates, but of their families as well, and creating the possibility of discrimination in employment, education, housing, credit, insurance, and even social contact.
At ACMI and Rutledge, this ostracism of seropositives such as plaintiffs has been fostered and engendered by prison officials. Some (including defendant Burden) have referred to these alleged seropositives (including plaintiffs) as "the girls", while other prison officials, with the knowledge and consent of defendants, have unnecessarily and cruelly told seropositives they have "six months to live", causing extreme emotional anguish.' Officials at various times have also unnecessarily treated seropositives with rubber gloves and masks.
18.
Seropositives at ACMI have been served food with paper plates, styrofoam cups, and plastic utensils, unlike the other inmates, who have been given reusable plates, cups and flatware. At Rutledge, styrofoam cups and plastic utensils also have been given only to seropositives. While meals to all inmates are served on reusable trays at Rutledge, certain trays have been specially "marked" for exclusive use and reuse by seropositive inmates. At ACMI and Rutledge, seropositives until recently also have been required to eat separately'from the general prison population, and have been served last. Trash cans in the mess

halls at AC-MI and Rutledge have been labelled "HIV Only",
containing special red trash bags.
Special and unjustified parole procedures exist for seropositives. Unlike other inmates, seropositives h a w not been eligible at all for the 90-day early release or any other early release program. In addition, seropositives have been required'to sign a form agreeing to "Special Conditions" before they can be paroled. These "Special Conditions " require notification of the person(s) with whom the seropositive lives, which often delays release for those seeking sponsors, and proof of a medical checkup every thirty days, with consent to dissemination of these medical records, which has allowed employers, insurance companies, and others outside prison to learn about the inmates' seropositive status. In addition, at least one parole "advocate",assigned to argue inmates' cases before the parole board, has openly indicated a belief that seropositives should never be paroled, casting into doubt inmates' chances of effective and vigorous representation in the parole hearing.
20.
Seropositives have not been given an equal opportunity to receive reduced security classifications. There are five such classifications--trusty, minimum, medium, close, and maximum--with attendant privileges afforded to those in lower classificati'ons. Inmates are traditionally reviewed approximately every six months to determine if their good behavior warrants a reduced security classification; plaintiffs and other seropositives, however, have

- not been reviewed on an equal basis, despite repeated requests.
Because of this fact, or for other discriminatory reasons, seropositives hale not been sent to halfway houses (for which a reduced security classification is necessary) in a manner similar to other inmates, who may qualify for halfway house release.
21. Educational and vocational opportunities have been different for seropositives at ACMI and Rutledge. At Rutledge, seropositives have received only one hour per day of classroom work toward a GED high school equivalency degree. Because of the length of time such a degree would take to earn at this rate, many seropositives have dropped the classes. Non-seropositive inmates at Rutledge, by contrast, may spend 3 hours per day in class either in the morning or afternoon. They also have many other benefits which have not been offered to seropositives: college, Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous, Jaycees, and technical education and training. The disparity at ACMI is even greater: classes have been provided to the seropositives only at their dorm for one hour per day (and not every day), and classes have been taught only through the fourth grade level.
22. Religious services at Rutledge have been separate and shorter
for seropositives ( 4 hour) than the regular services ( 1 hour) held for the general population, which also is given access to special guests and outside fellowship denied to seropositives.

23.
A
Recreational opportunities, until recently, have been different for seropositives. At ACMI, seropositive recreational activities have been separate and shorter (one hour of gym per day) than seropositives (longer sessions twice per day). Seropositives have had shorter and less frequent "yard calls" as well, and have been able to use only the yard beside their dorm, unlike non-seropositives. ~t Rutledge, seropositives have received 1$ hours of yard call in a fenced yard six days per week and 14 hour of gym once per week, versus 2 hours of open yard call every morning and 2 hours of gym every evening for nonseropositive inmates.
24.
At one time at Rutledge and ACMI, memoranda with asterisks beside the "HIV+" patients were posted on the prison bulletin boards for all to see. James Roe's name specifically appeared on one such memorandum in February or March of 1988.
25. Several films have been made of seropositives in prison without adequate privacy protections. The first was a Department of Corrections' film made at ACMI in August or September 1987, which is shown to all inmates entering the Georgia prison system. The film shows inmate's faces and names, and says they are dying
of AIDS. Later, the film was broadcast nationwide by the Public
Broadcasting System. Inmates appearing in the film were incorrectly assured that their names would be kept confidential. Another film was later taken at Rutledge in connection with a

lawsuit filed there. Seropositives (including Doe) were forced to march before the camera, and were threatened with disciplinary action if they did not. No privacy waivers were obtained for this film.
Discriminatory exceptions to the segregation policies have been made whenever the exceptions are deemed convenient to prison officials. Plaintiffs have on several occasions been placed on integrated buses along with other passengers when being transferred between segregated prisons. Upon information and belief, an inmate with "AIDS Related Complex" (a seropositive with some, but not all, of the physical symptoms of AIDS) was once reclassified down to "seropositive" so that he could be transferred out of ACMI. Moreover, segregated seropositives at Rutledge (including plaintiff Doe while he was incarcerated there), have been forced to participate in manual labor, unlike others in administrative detention and contrary to the Department of Corrections' regulations.
27. The testing system utilized by the state is inaccurate and flawed. "False positives" can occur'depending on the sophistication of the test and the laboratories' skill and care, while "false negatives" can occur if a person exposed to the HTLV3 virus has simply not yet developed antibodies, which may take the body up to 18 months to produce. On information and belief, defendant Evans is aware of one former Georgia inmate who was erroneously kept segregated for an extended period of time because

of a false posi-tive testing, an error which was only discovered
after the inmate's release. Despite that event and the obvious need for some type of regular retesting and review process, inadequate retesting and review procedures exist. Plaintiff Roe in fact has been told that the test results which identify him as seropositive are "missing from his file", yet he has been kept in seropositive segregation without explanation. Other tests, such as the "T-cell" test given to plaintiff Roe, were discriminatorily given and have been used to segregate plaintiff Roe despite facility doctors' conclusions that the test is not a valid predictor of AIDS.
Medical care for seropositives has been inadequate. The drug
azidothymidine ("AZT",or Zidovudine), which can prolong the life .
of persons with AIDS and also delay the development of AIDS, as well as other similar drugs, has not been made available to Georgia prisoners. Mental health and counseling to distinguish between a positive test result and an AIDS diagnosis, and to provide emotional support to seropositives and AIDS patients also has been lacking or inadequate. Upon information and belief, the Georgia Department of Corrections, ACMI and Rutledge all receive federal financial assistance especially for each seropositive, AIDS-related complex, or AIDS patient, yet such patients have been told inadequate funds are available for further testing or medical care.

-..

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

1. Violation of Constitutional Riqht to Privacy

29.

Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations of paragraphs 1-28

above as if set forth fully herein.

30. Plaintiffs' status as "HIV-positive",even if Correct,

represents a medical diagnosis properly afforded confidentiality

protection by plaintiffs' privacy rights under the United States

Constitution.

31.

By failing to provide for the confidentiality of patients'

test results, and by visibly and publicly displaying plaintiffs as

"seropositivesw,or causing them to be so displayed, defendants

have violated plaintiffs' constitutional rights to privacy.

32.

Plaintiffs have been injured by this denial of their

constitutional rights to privacy.

2. Violation of Due Process

33.

Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations of paragraphs 1-28 and

30-31 above aa if set forth fully herein.

34.

Plaintiffs were unlawfully segregated at ACMI and Rutledge

without just cause, and without a hearing to determine the

justification for their initial administrative detention.

35. Plaintiffs were kept segregated at ACMI and Rutledge without notice of any valid basis for their segregation, and without any regular review being conducted at which their detention would be reconsidered or opportunity to review their files.
36. Plaintiffs have been segregated together with other seropositives without regard to appropriate classification factors, such as a prisoner's propensity for violence.
37. Plaintiffs have been denied access to their medical records and to further and more accurate tests, either of which could rebut defendants' contentions that plaintiffs are seropositive. Plaintiff Roe has been kept segregated despite being told that his seropositive test results are "missing from his file".
38.
Plaintiffs have been denied their constitutional rights of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution as a result of the actions of defendants taken under color of state law, and have been injured thereby.
3, Violation of Equal Protection 39.
Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations of paragraphs 1-28, 30-31, and 34-38 above as if set forth fully herein.
40. The separate and discriminatory treatment of seropositives at. ACMI and Rutledge is neither rationally related to an important

governmenta-l interest nor strictly tailored to a compelling state
interest. AIDS is not transmitted by any form of casual contact with a seropositive person--such as breathing the same air, sharing facilities, using common eating utensils, touching the same objects, shaking hands, or any other ordinary cuntact--and the discriminatory treatment of seropositives lacks a legitimate foundation.
41. Plaintiffs have been denied their constitutional rights of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution as a result of the actions of defendants taken under color of state law, and have been injured thereby.
4. Unlawful Search and Seizure 42.
Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations'of paragraphs 1-28, 30-31, 34-38, and 40-41 above as if set forth fully herein.
43. Plaintiffs' blood was used for testing for antibodies to the HTLV-3 virus without any notification, and without their consent, which they would not have given if they had been so notified. Other inmates were not so tested, and the tests have been given in a sporadic and discriminatory manner.
44. Plaintiff Roe's blood was tested for "T-cell"counts without his consent, and against his wishes. Plaintiff Roe is a diabetic, and blood drawn in connection with his other medical treatment was

- used for T-cell testing, without notification or consent, which he
would not .have given if he had been so notified.
~efendants'actions in taking plaintiffsf blood samples and using them for testing without notification to or consent from plaintiffs constitutes an unlawful search and seizure, in violation of plaintiff's rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.
5 . Cruel and Unusual Punishment 46.
Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations of paragraphs 1-28, 30-31, 34-38, 40-41, and 43-45 above as if set forth fully herein.
47. Plaintiffs have been segregated with other seropositives without regard to appropriate classification factors such as propensity for violence, constituting cruel and unusual punishment in relation to the crimes for which plaintiffs were convicted.
48. Defendants' failure to provide plaintiffs with adequate medical care, and to provide them with access to AZT and other medications which may prolong their lives similarly constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.
49. The totality of circumstances at ACMI and Rutledge, including the lack of confidentiality, the ostracism, the inadequate care, and the emotional distress caused by equating seroposivity with an incurable and fatal disease, all have served to sap plaintiffs of

hope and cr-eate an aura of doom, constituting cruel and unusual
punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Plaintiffs have been injured by this cruel and unusual punishment in violation of thdir constitutional rights.
6. f Viol tio of
Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations of paragraphs 1-28! 30-31, 34-38, 40-41, 43-45 and 47-49 above as if set forth fully herein.
Plaintiffs' status as "HIV-positive" has been recognized as a
handicapping condition pursuant to SS 503 and 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. SS 793 and 794.
53. The Georgia Department of Corrections, ACMI and Rutledge all receive federal financial assistance. These funds are administered by defendants in their official capacities and acting under color of state law.
54. Plaintiffs have been unlawfully discriminated against on the basis of their handicap by defendants, in violation of S 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
55. Plaintiffs have been injured by this discrimination on the basis of their handicap by defendants.

7.- Pendent State Claim: Slander Per Se
56. plaintiffs incorporate the allegations of paragraphs 1-28, 30-31, 34-38, 40-41, 43-45, 47-49, and 52-54 above as if set forth fully herein.
Defendants have published, or caused to be published, statements that plaintiffs are carriers of the AIDS virus, a dread and socially unacceptable communicable disease which is fatal and incurable. Such publication constitutes slander per se under the pendent law of the State of Georgia.
NO ADEQUATE REMEDY AT L ; ~ w 58.
As a result of defendants' policies and acts, plaintiffs have suffered, and will continue to suffer immediate and irreparable injury, including physical, psychological and emotional harm. Plaintiffs have no plain, adequate and complete remedy at law to redress the wrongs described herein, and.wil1 continue to be irreparably injured by defendantsf policies and acts unless this Court grants the injunctive relief plaintiffs seek. The balancing of hardships favors injunctive relief, and injunctive relief will not disserve the public interest.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray as follows:
1. That the Court issue a Declaratory Judgment and Order holding that defendants' policies and conduct toward plaintiffs violate plaintiffs' rights under the First, Fourth,

Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, as well as S 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. S 794, as amended by the Civil Rights Restorat.ionAct of 1987;
2. That the Court preliminarily and permanently enjoin defendants, their officers, agents, employees and successors in office, as well as those acting in concert and participating with them, from subjecting the plaintiffs to the illegal and unconstitutional conditions and practices described in this Complaint at ACMI, Rutledge, or any other Georgia state correctional institution to which plaintiffs might be sent, and further enjoin said persons from directly or indirectly retaliating in any way against plaintiffs for filing this lawsuit;
3. That the Court order that all instances of mention of plaintiffs' names in medical or any other records regarding HIV seropositivity or status, in any form whatsoever, in storage at any location whatsoever, be sought out and obliterated, with proof positive of such obliteration assembled and provided to the Court, or to a Monitor appointed by the Court, and to plaintiffs;
4. That the Court award plaintiffs monetary damages in an amount to be determined at trial;
5 . That the Court award plaintiffs reasonable attorneyst fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. S 1988; and
6. That the Court retain jurisdiction over this matter until said Orders have been fully implemented; and that the Court award plaintiffs such other and further relief as it may deem appropriate.

l f6 This

ay of August, 1989.

KING & SPALDING

#rank C. Jones te Bar No. 400300

2500 Trust Company Tower Atlanta, ~ e o r g i a-30303 (404) 572-4600

mith e Bar No. 658375
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
- John Doe and James Roe

-

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that the within and foregoing Amended

Complaint was today served upon all parties by causing a copy of

same to be sent, via United States mail, postage prepaid, to

counsel of record for defendants, addressed as follows:

Michael E. Hobbs, No. 358200 Senior Assistant Attorney General Attorney General's Office 132 State Judicial Building Atlanta, Georgia 30334

This /g%ay of August, 1989.

 
 CM/ECF LIVE v2.4 - U.S. District Court - Docket Report

Page 1 of 10

U.S. District Court Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:88-cv-01752-MHS

CLOSED

Doe, et al v. Evans, et al Assigned to: Judge Marvin H. Shoob Demand: $0 Cause: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights Plaintiff John Doe TERMINATED: 02/04/1993
Plaintiff James Roe
Plaintiff Mary Brake Executrix of the Will of JOHN DOE, deceased

Date Filed: 08/15/1988 Jury Demand: Defendant Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner: Civil Rights Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Frank C. Jones King & Spalding 191 Peachtree Street, N.E. Atlanta, GA 30303-1763 404-572-4600 TERMINATED: 02/04/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory Stuart Smith Federal Defender Program 100 Peachtree Street, N.W. The Equitable Building, Suite 200 Atlanta, GA 30303 404-688-7530 TERMINATED: 02/04/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Frank C. Jones (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory Stuart Smith (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jeffrey Wright Willis Rogers & Hardin 229 Peachtree Street, N.E. 2700 International Tower, Peachtree

https://ecf.gand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?164150438321203-L_280_0-1

7/21/2005

CM/ECF LIVE v2.4 - U.S. District Court - Docket Report

Page 2 of 10

V. Defendant David C. Evans

Center Atlanta, GA 30303-1601 404-522-4700 Email: jww@rh-law.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephanie Ethel Parker Jones Day 1420 Peachtree Street, NE Suite 800 Atlanta, GA 30309-3053 404-521-3939 Email: separker@jonesday.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daryl Alan Robinson Office of State Attorney General 40 Capitol Square, S.W. Atlanta, GA 30334-1300 404-656-3385 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael E. Hobbs Office of State Attorney General 40 Capitol Square, S.W. Atlanta, GA 30334-1300 404-656-3385 Email: mike.hobbs@law.state.ga.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Terry L. Long Office of State Attorney General 40 Capitol Square, S.W. Atlanta, GA 30334-1300 404-656-3385 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William Bradley Hill, Jr. Paul Hastings Janofsky & Walker 600 Peachtree Street, N.E. Suite 2400 Atlanta, GA 30308-2222

https://ecf.gand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?164150438321203-L_280_0-1

7/21/2005

CM/ECF LIVE v2.4 - U.S. District Court - Docket Report

Page 3 of 10

Defendant Joe Frank Harris
Defendant J. Paul Ford
Defendant Charles E. Burden

404-815-2400 Email: williamhill@asherafuse.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Terry L. Long (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William Bradley Hill, Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daryl Alan Robinson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael E. Hobbs (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Terry L. Long (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William Bradley Hill, Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daryl Alan Robinson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael E. Hobbs (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Terry L. Long (See above for address)

https://ecf.gand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?164150438321203-L_280_0-1

7/21/2005

CM/ECF LIVE v2.4 - U.S. District Court - Docket Report

Page 4 of 10

Defendant Wayne Snow, Jr.
Defendant Bettye O. Hutchings
Defendant James T. Morris
Defendant Mobley Howell
Movant Mary Brake Executrix of the Will of John Doe, deceased

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William Bradley Hill, Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Terry L. Long (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Terry L. Long (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Terry L. Long (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Terry L. Long (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jeffrey Wright Willis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephanie Ethel Parker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 08/29/1989

#

Docket Text

24 RESPONSE by defendants to motion for preliminary injunction [23-1], and motion for consolidation of trial on merits with preliminary hearing by James Roe, John Doe [23-2] (km) (Entered: 08/30/1989)

https://ecf.gand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?164150438321203-L_280_0-1

7/21/2005

CM/ECF LIVE v2.4 - U.S. District Court - Docket Report

Page 5 of 10

08/30/1989
08/31/1989 09/11/1989 09/12/1989 09/25/1989 09/26/1989 09/28/1989 09/28/1989 10/06/1989 10/12/1989 10/12/1989
10/17/1989 10/18/1989 10/20/1989 01/05/1990

SUBMITTED to Judge Marvin H. Shoob on motion for preliminary injunction [23-1], and for consolidation of trial on merits with preliminary hearing by James Roe, John Doe [23-2] (km) (Entered: 08/30/1989)
25 CONSENT ORDER extending discovery to 11/4/89 ; Discovery ends 11/6/89 by Judge Marvin H. Shoob. cc (km) (Entered: 09/06/1989)
26 MOTION by defendant Charles E. Burden, defendant J. Paul Ford, defendant Joe Frank Harris, defendant David C. Evans to consolidate case with 1:89-cv-1604 with brief in support. (km) (Entered: 09/13/1989)
SUBMITTED to Judge Marvin H. Shoob on motion to amend in forma pauperis complaint [1-0] by James Roe, John Doe (km) (Entered: 09/12/1989)
27 BRIEF by John Doe, James Roe in opposition to motion to consolidate case with 1:89-cv-1604 by David C. Evans, Joe Frank Harris, J. Paul Ford, Charles E. Burden [26-1]. (km) (Entered: 09/26/1989)
SUBMITTED to Judge Marvin H. Shoob on motion to consolidate case with 1:89-cv-1604 by David C. Evans, Joe Frank Harris, J. Paul Ford, Charles E. Burden [26-1] (km) (Entered: 09/26/1989)
28 Certificate of interested persons. (to judge) (km) (Entered: 09/29/1989)
29 Settlement certificate. (to judge) (km) (Entered: 09/29/1989)
30 MOTION by defendant Charles E. Burden, defendant J. Paul Ford, defendant Joe Frank Harris, defendant David C. Evans to take deposition of prison inmates . (MHS) (km) (Entered: 10/11/1989)
Proposed consent order extending discovery period. (MHS for approval) (km) (Entered: 10/13/1989)
31 ORDER by Judge Marvin H. Shoob DIRECTING clk that all documents filed after 3/2/89 are available for viewing in chambers upon appointment made with the court. All other pleadings (ie. prior to 3/2/89) are to remain under seal. cc (km) (Entered: 10/13/1989)
32 ORDER GRANTING motion to take deposition of prison inmates by David C. Evans, Joe Frank Harris, J. Paul Ford, Charles E. Burden [30-1] by Judge Marvin H. Shoob. cc (km) (Entered: 10/18/1989)
33 RESPONSE by plaintiff John Doe, plaintiff James Roe to dfts' motion for depositions. (MHS) (km) Modified on 10/19/1989 (Entered: 10/19/1989)
34 CONSENT ORDER extending discovery for 60 days or through the 1st day of hearing, whichever comes first by Judge Marvin H. Shoob. cc (km) (Entered: 10/23/1989)
35 ORDER GRANTING motion to amend in forma pauperis complaint [10] by John Doe, James Roe [22-1] by Judge Marvin H. Shoob. cc (file retained) (km) (Entered: 01/09/1990)

https://ecf.gand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?164150438321203-L_280_0-1

7/21/2005

CM/ECF LIVE v2.4 - U.S. District Court - Docket Report

Page 6 of 10

01/31/1990
02/05/1990 02/14/1990
02/15/1990 03/14/1990
03/21/1990 03/21/1990 03/21/1990 03/21/1990 03/21/1990 03/21/1990 03/21/1990 03/21/1990 03/21/1990

36 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT [1-0] by John Doe, James Roe adding Wayne Snow Jr., Bettye O. Hutchings, James T. Morris, Mobley Howell. (dkt'd from dup, orig not rec'd) (km) Modified on 02/01/1990 (Entered: 02/01/1990)
Summons issued as to Mobley Howell, Wayne Snow, Jr., Bettye O. Hutchings, and James T. Morris and returned to atty for service. (km) (Entered: 02/07/1990)
37 ANSWER to second amended complaint [36-1] by Charles E. Burden, J. Paul Ford, Joe Frank Harris, David C. Evans, Wayne Snow Bettye O. Hutchings, James T. Morris, Mobley Howell; jury demand. (km) (Entered: 02/15/1990)
38 Acknowledgment of service by Wayne Snow Jr., Bettye O. Hutchings, James T. Morris, Mobley Howell , executed 2/8/90 (km) (Entered: 02/20/1990)
39 ORDER DENYING motion to consolidate case with 1:89-cv-1604 by David C. Evans, Joe Frank Harris, J. Paul Ford, Charles E. Burden [261], denying as moot the motion for preliminary injunction [23-1] by James Roe, John Doe, denying as moot the motion for consolidation of trial on merits with preliminary hearing [23-2] by James Roe, John Doe by Judge Marvin H. Shoob. cc (km) (Entered: 03/15/1990)
40 REQUEST with attachments by James Roe, John Doe for expedited hearing on plas' motion for preliminary injunction. (km) (Entered: 03/22/1990)
41 Notice of filing depos by plaintiff James Roe, plaintiff John Doe in support of their motion for preliminary injunction. (km) (Entered: 03/22/1990)
42 STATEMENT of material facts in support of request for expedited ruling on motion for preliminary injunction by James Roe, John Doe [23-1] by plaintiff James Roe, plaintiff John Doe (km) (Entered: 03/22/1990)
Deposition of J. PAUL FORD taken for plaintiff James Roe, plaintiff John Doe (km) (Entered: 03/22/1990)
Deposition of CHARLES E. BURDEN taken for plaintiff James Roe, plaintiff John Doe (km) (Entered: 03/22/1990)
Deposition of LANSON NEWSOME taken for plaintiff James Roe, plaintiff John Doe (km) (Entered: 03/22/1990)
Deposition of MICHAEL SPRADLIN taken for plaintiff James Roe, plaintiff John Doe (km) (Entered: 03/22/1990)
Deposition of MADELEINE LAMARRE taken for plaintiff James Roe, plaintiff John Doe (km) (Entered: 03/22/1990)
Deposition of DAVID C. EVANS taken for plaintiff James Roe, plaintiff John Doe (km) (Entered: 03/22/1990)

https://ecf.gand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?164150438321203-L_280_0-1

7/21/2005

CM/ECF LIVE v2.4 - U.S. District Court - Docket Report

Page 7 of 10

03/21/1990 03/27/1990
03/29/1990 03/30/1990 04/05/1990 04/12/1990 04/12/1990 04/12/1990 04/19/1990
04/23/1990 05/07/1990 05/07/1990 05/11/1990 05/17/1990 05/23/1990

Deposition of DAVID C. EVANS, 10/26/90 taken for plaintiff James Roe, plaintiff John Doe (km) (Entered: 03/22/1990)
43 ORDER VACATING order denying as moot the motion to consolidate case with 1:89-cv-1604 [26-1] for the purpose of clarification; DEFERRING ruling on motion for preliminary injunction by James Roe, John Doe [23-1] until submission of briefs by all ptys by Judge Marvin H. Shoob. cc (km) (Entered: 03/29/1990)
44 MOTION by defendants to extend time to respond to plas' motion for preliminary injunction with consent of plas. (MHS for approval) (km) (Entered: 03/30/1990)
45 CONSENT ORDER GRANTING motion to extend time to respond to plas' motion for preliminary injunction by defendant [44-1] through 4/12/90 by Judge Marvin H. Shoob. c/dft (adl) (Entered: 04/03/1990)
46 ORDER GRANTING motion to extend time to respond to plas' motion for preliminary injunction by defendant [44-1] for 10 days by Judge Marvin H. Shoob. cc (km) (Entered: 04/10/1990)
47 MOTION by defendants for summary judgment with brief, statement of facts and attachments in support and RESPONSE to pla's motion for preliminary injunction. (km) (Entered: 04/13/1990)
Deposition of COMMISSIONER DAVID C. EVANS. taken for defendants (km) (Entered: 04/13/1990)
Deposition of JOHN DOE and JAMES ROE taken for defendants (km) (Entered: 04/13/1990)
48 CONSENT ORDER extending time for plas to respond to dfts' 2nd interrogs to 20 days after ruling on plas' motion for prel inj or dfts' motion for summary judgment by Judge Marvin H. Shoob. cc (km) (Entered: 04/23/1990)
SUBMITTED to Judge Marvin H. Shoob on motion for preliminary injunction by James Roe, John Doe [23-1] (km) (Entered: 04/23/1990)
SUBMITTED to Judge Marvin H. Shoob on motion for summary judgment by defendant [47-1] (km) (Entered: 05/07/1990)
Proposed consent order extending time to respond to motion for summary judgment by defendant [47-1] through 6/7/90. (MHS for approval) (km) (Entered: 05/08/1990)
49 CONSENT ORDER extending time to respond to motion for summary judgment by defendant [47-1] through 6/7/90 by Judge Marvin H. Shoob. cc (km) (Entered: 05/14/1990)
50 REQUEST (letter) by counsel for James Roe, John Doe for copy of pla's motion for tro . (MHS for approval) (km) (Entered: 05/22/1990)
51 ORDER GRANTING Request for copy of pla's motion for tro by John Doe, James Roe [50-1] by Judge Marvin H. Shoob. cc (km) (Entered:

https://ecf.gand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?164150438321203-L_280_0-1

7/21/2005

CM/ECF LIVE v2.4 - U.S. District Court - Docket Report

Page 8 of 10

06/07/1990 06/07/1990 06/07/1990 06/22/1990
07/12/1990
10/11/1990
11/20/1990
11/27/1990
03/26/1991 08/14/1991 08/20/1991 10/11/1991 10/18/1991 10/23/1991 03/31/1992

05/24/1990)
Letter from counsel for pla Roe with attachment to affidavit of Roe [4-0]. (km) (Entered: 06/11/1990)
52 RESPONSE with attachments by plaintiffs to motion for summary judgment by defendant [47-1] (km) (Entered: 06/11/1990)
Deposition of THOMAS WAYNE SNOW, JR. taken for plaintiff John Doe, plaintiff James Roe (km) (Entered: 06/11/1990)
53 MOTION by plaintiff John Doe, plaintiff James Roe for leave to file outof-time affidavit and spporting memorandum with brief in support. (km) (Entered: 06/25/1990)
SUBMITTED to Judge Marvin H. Shoob on motion for leave to file outof-time affidavit and spporting memorandum by James Roe and John Doe [53-1] (km) (Entered: 07/12/1990)
54 ORDER DEFERRING ruling on motion for summary judgment by defendant [47-1] until 11/12/90 by Judge Marvin H. Shoob. Ptys directed to submit briefs w/in 30 days. cc (km) (Entered: 10/15/1990)
SUBMITTED to Judge Marvin H. Shoob on motion for leave to file outof-time affidavit and spporting memorandum by plas [53-1], and motion for summary judgment by defendant [47-1] (km) (Entered: 11/20/1990)
55 ORDER GRANTING motion for leave to file out-of-time affidavit and spporting memorandum by James Roe, John Doe [53-1], nunc pro tunc by Judge Marvin H. Shoob, cc (scg) (Entered: 11/28/1990)
56 Notice of filing change of address by counsel for plaintiffs. (scg) (Entered: 04/01/1991)
SUBMITTED per order [54-1], motion for summary judgment by defendant [47-1] to Judge Marvin H. Shoob . (scg) (Entered: 08/14/1991)
File returned from MHS w/note, motion for summary judgment is still deferred per order [54-1] (scg) (Entered: 08/20/1991)
57 RESPONSE by defendants to order [54-1] requiring briefs on the "Harris v. Thigpen decision of the 11th Circuit. (scg) (Entered: 10/17/1991)
58 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE by plaintiffs to motion for summary judgment by defendant [47-1] (scg) (Entered: 10/18/1991)
SUBMITTED on motion for summary judgment by defendant [47-1] to Judge Marvin H. Shoob . (scg) (Entered: 10/23/1991)
59 ORDER GRANTING IN PART as to plaintiffs' requests for injunctive relief, AND DENYING IN PART as to plaintiffs' claims of slander & breach of confidentiality, motion for summary judgment by defendant [47-1], defendants may file 2nd motion for summary judgment w/in 20 days; DIRECTING clerk to enter judgment in favor of defendants on all requests for injunctive relief; by Judge Marvin H. Shoob. cc (scg)

https://ecf.gand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?164150438321203-L_280_0-1

7/21/2005

CM/ECF LIVE v2.4 - U.S. District Court - Docket Report

Page 9 of 10

05/11/1992 05/11/1992 05/12/1992 05/19/1992 06/09/1992 06/10/1992 06/29/1992 07/13/1992 01/21/1993 01/26/1993 01/26/1993 02/04/1993 03/31/1993 03/31/1993 04/14/1993

(Entered: 03/31/1992)
60 MOTION by defendants to extend time to file 2nd motion for summary judgment with brief in support. (scg) (Entered: 05/12/1992)
61 Response by plaintiffs to motion to extend time to file 2nd motion for summary judgment by defendants [60-1] (scg) (Entered: 05/12/1992)
SUBMITTED on motion to extend time to file 2nd motion for summary judgment by defendants [60-1] to Judge Marvin H. Shoob . (scg) (Entered: 05/12/1992)
62 ORDER GRANTING motion to extend time to file 2nd motion for summary judgment by defendant [60-1], motion to be filed by 6/8/92; by Judge Marvin H. Shoob. cc (scg) (Entered: 05/20/1992)
63 MOTION by defendants for summary judgment and statement of material facts with brief in support. (scg) (Entered: 06/10/1992)
Notice of motion for summary judgment and statement of material facts by defendant [63-1] filed 6/9/92, mailed 6/10/92. (scg) (Entered: 06/10/1992)
64 Response by plaintiffs to motion for summary judgment and statement of material facts by defendant [63-1] w/statement of facts. (scg) (Entered: 06/30/1992)
SUBMITTED on motion for summary judgment [63-1] to Judge Marvin H. Shoob . (scg) (Entered: 07/13/1992)
65 MOTION by plas to substitute counsel with brief in support. (scg) (Entered: 01/22/1993)
66 ORDER DENYING motion to substitute counsel by plas [65-1] by Judge Marvin H. Shoob. cc (scg) (Entered: 01/27/1993)
67 MOTION by movant Mary Brake to substitute Mary Brake, in her capacity as Executrix in place of John Doe, deceased with affidavit in support. (fmr emp) (Entered: 02/05/1993)
68 CONSENT ORDER GRANTING motion to substitute Mary Brake, in her capacity as Executrix in place of John Doe, deceased by Mary Brake [67-1] by Judge Marvin H. Shoob. cc (scg) (Entered: 02/09/1993)
69 ORDER GRANTING motion for summary judgment by dfts [63-1], DIRECTING clerk to enter judgment for dfts on all claims; by Judge Marvin H. Shoob. cc (scg) (Entered: 04/01/1993)
70 JUDGMENT ENTERED on amended complaint by plas [36-1], dismissing plas' complaints, & dfts to recover of the plas their costs of this action. cc (scg) (Entered: 04/01/1993)
71 MOTION by plas for reconsideration of award of costs in judgment [701] with brief in support. (scg) (Entered: 04/19/1993)

https://ecf.gand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?164150438321203-L_280_0-1

7/21/2005

CM/ECF LIVE v2.4 - U.S. District Court - Docket Report

Page 10 of 10

05/17/1993 05/27/1993 05/27/1993 06/01/1993 07/12/1993
08/09/1993 08/11/1993

SUBMITTED on motion for reconsideration of award of costs in judgment [70-1] by Mary Brake, James Roe [71-1] to Judge Marvin H. Shoob. (scg) (Entered: 05/17/1993)
72 ORDER GRANTING motion for reconsideration of award of costs in judgment [70-1] by Mary Brake, James Roe [71-1] VACATING award of costs; by Judge Marvin H. Shoob. cc (scg) (Entered: 05/27/1993)
73 AMENDED JUDGMENT on in forma pauperis complaint [1-0] that plas recover nothing & this action & their complaint is dismissed. cc (scg) (Entered: 05/27/1993)
74 Response by dfts to motion for reconsideration of award of costs in judgment [70-1] by plas [71-1] (no objection) (scg) (Entered: 06/03/1993)
75 ORDER directing parties to show cause w/in 20 days why this case should not be unsealed, failure to respond will result in order directing clerk to unseal case by Judge Marvin H. Shoob. cc (scg) (Entered: 07/12/1993)
SUBMITTED on order directing parties to show cause w/in 20 days why this case should not be unsealed [75-1] to Judge Marvin H. Shoob. (scg) (Entered: 08/09/1993)
76 ORDER unsealing case by Judge Marvin H. Shoob. cc (scg) (Entered: 08/11/1993)

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt

07/21/2005 14:50:40

PACER Login: hs0328

Client Code:

Description: Docket Report Search Criteria: 1:88-cv-01752-MHS

Billable Pages: 5

Cost:

0.40

https://ecf.gand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?164150438321203-L_280_0-1

7/21/2005