Goldsmith v. Dean

PC-VT-001-001
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF VERMONT

ROBERT GOLDSMITH, EARL LAWRENCE SQUIRES, RICHARD STEMPEL, ROGER BLACKBURN, STORMY WRIGHT, JEFF STRATTON, EDWARD BENNETT, ROBERT GOKEY, DON PAYDON, DAVID MCKEEN, ROBERT LAWTON, WILLIAM VERRINDER III, CHARLES CONWAY, RANDY BLODGETT, FRED ASHWORTH, JEROME CLEMENT, and GEORGE NEGRON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,

V.

) Civil Action No,

HOWARD DEAN, Governor of the State of Vermont; JOHN GORCZYK, Commissioner of the Department of Corrections of the State of Vermont; Steven Maranville, Superintendent of the Northwest State

)
) CLASS ACTION ) COMPLAINT FOR ) INJUNCTIVE AND ) DECLARATORY ) RELIEF

Correctional Facility; Keith Tallon,

)

Superintendent of the Southwest Regional

)

Correctional Facility; Lawrence McLiverty, )

Superintendent of the Southeast Regional

)

Correctional Facility; Stewart K. Robinson, )

Superintendent of the Northwest Regional

)

Correctional Facility; Celeste M. Girrell, )

Superintendent of the Northeast Regional

)

Correctional Facility; T. Michael Coxon, )

Superintendent of the Southeast State

)

Correctional Facility; William D. Pithers, )

Director of the Vermont Treatment Program )

for Sexual Aggressors; Jack Bush, Director )

of the Violent Offender Program; Immediate )

Care Health Center; Ottauquechee Health

)

Center, Inc.; Dr. Judith Hill; Dr. Carleton )

Stickney; Dr. John Ajamie; Dr. Jeffrey

)

Rothfeld; Alice Hafner, Chairperson of the )

Vermont Parole Board; Ernest Torpey, Arthur )

Silvester, Lorraine Graham, and Elaine

)

Charboneau, members of the Vermont Parole )

Board, all sued in their official capacity; )

and the Vermont Department of Corrections, )

Defendants.

On behalf of themselves and the class alleged herein, plaintiffs state the following for their complaint against defendants:
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. This is a class action brought by plaintiffs on behalf of all individuals who are now or in the future will be confined in Vermont prisons. This action is also brought on behalf of individuals who are now or in the future will be subject to the policies and practices of the Vermont Department of Corrections and the Vermont Parole Board regarding the Vermont Treatment Program for Sexual Aggressors and the Violent Offender Program.
2. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief for deprivations under color of state law of rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the Constitution of the United States, and in particular those secured by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments thereof, as well as violations of federal statutory provisions.
3. Plaintiffs specifically seek relief from conditions at Vermont's prison facilities that fall below contemporary standards of human decency, deny basic human needs, inflict needless pain and suffering, and threaten plaintiffs' physical and mental well-being. Plaintiffs also seek relief from the policies and practices of the defendants in connection with two programs, the Vermont Treatment Program for Sexual Aggressors and the Violent Offender Program, which involve unreasonable intrusions on plaintiffs' bodily
- 2-

integrity and mental processes; inflict needless pain and suffering

and threaten plaintiffs' physical and mental well-being.

4. The Vermont Department of Corrections has custody of

approximately 1200 prisoners including both sentenced prisoners and

pretrial detainees. These numbers have been growing in recent

years and are likely to increase in the future.

JURISDICTION

5. Plaintiffs seek to vindicate rights protected by the

First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments of

the United States Constitution; by Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and by

the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Title 42 U.S.C. § 12101

et. seq.

This Court has jurisdiction of this civil action

pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and I343(a)(3) and (4).

Pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, this Court has

jurisdiction to declare the rights of the parties and to grant all

further relief found necessary and proper.

PARTIES

6. Plaintiff Robert Goldsmith is a citizen of the United

Stated currently incarcerated as a sentenced prisoner at the

Northwest State Correctional Facility in St. Albans, Vermont.

7. Plaintiff Earl Lawrence Squires is a citizen of the

United States currently incarcerated as a sentenced prisoner at the

Southeast state Correctional Facility in Windsor, Vermont.

8. Plaintiff Richard Stempel is a citizen of the United

States currently incarcerated as a sentenced prisoner at the

Southeast State Correctional Facility in Windsor, Vermont.

- 3-

9. Plaintiff Roger Blackburn is a citizen of the United States currently incarcerated as a sentenced prisoner at the Southeast State Correctional Facility in Windsor, Vermont.
10. Plaintiff Stormy Wright is a citizen of the United States currently incarcerated as a sentenced prisoner at the Northwest Regional Correctional Facility in South Burlington, Vermont.
11. Plaintiff Jeff Stratton is a citizen of the United States currently incarcerated as a sentenced prisoner at the Northwest Regional Correctional Facility in South Burlington, Vermont.
12. Plaintiff Edward Bennett is a citizen of the United States who is currently a pretrial detainee at the Northwest Regional Correctional Facility in South Burlington, Vermont.
13. Plaintiff Robert Gokey is a citizen of the United States currently incarcerated as a sentenced prisoner at the Northeast Regional Correctional Facility in St. Johnsbury, Vermont.
14. Plaintiff Don Paydon is a citizen of the United States currently incarcerated as a sentenced prisoner at the Northeast Regional Correctional Facility in St. Johnsbury, Vermont.
15. Plaintiff David McKeen is a citizen of the United States who is currently a pretrial detainee at the Northwest State Correctional Facility in St. Albans, Vermont.
16. Plaintiff Robert Lawton is a citizen of the United States currently incarcerated as a sentenced prisoner at the Northwest State Correctional Facility in St. Albans, Vermont.
- 4-

17. Plaintiff William Verrinder, III is a citizen of the United States currently incarcerated as a sentenced prisoner at the Northwest State Correctional Facility in St. Albans, Vermont.
18. Plaintiff Charles Conway is a citizen of the United States currently incarcerated as a sentenced prisoner at the Northwest State Correctional Facility in St. Albans, Vermont.
19. Plaintiff Randy Blodgett is a citizen of the United States currently incarcerated as a sentenced prisoner at the Southeast Regional Correctional Facility in Woodstock, Vermont.
20. Plaintiff Fred Ashworth is a citizen of the United States currently incarcerated as a sentenced prisoner at the Southeast Regional Correctional Facility in Woodstock, Vermont.
21. Plaintiff Jerome Clement is a citizen of the United States currently incarcerated as a sentenced prisoner at the Southeast Regional Correctional Facility in Woodstock, Vermont.
22. Plaintiff George Negron is a citizen of the United States who is currently a pretrial detainee at the Southwest Regional Correctional Facility in Rutland, Vermont.
23. Defendant Howard E. Dean, M.D. is the Governor of Vermont. As such, under Chapter II § 20 of the Constitution of the State of Vermont he is authorized to appoint the Commissioner of the Vermont Department of Corrections as well as to present to the legislature the Department of Corrections' annual budget. Governor Dean is responsible for the administration and operation of all aspects of State government agencies including the Department of
- 5-

Corrections and the Parole Board. He is sued in his official capacity.
24. Defendant John Gorczyk is the Commissioner of the Vermont Department of Corrections. As such, under Title 28, Chapter 3, § 101, and Chapter 7, § 4 03 of the Vermont Statutes, he is responsible for the administration and operation of the prisons and the parole system in the State of Vermont. Defendant Gorczyk is sued in his official capacity.
25. Defendant Steven Maranville is the Superintendent of the Northwest State Correctional Facility. He is responsible for the daily operations of that prison and is sued in his official capacity.
26. Defendant Keith Tallon is the Superintendent of Southwest Regional Correctional Facility. He is responsible for the daily operations of that prison and is sued in his official capacity.
27. Defendant Lawrence McLiverty is the Superintendent of the Southeast Regional Correctional Facility. He is responsible for the daily operations of that prison and is sued in his official capacity.
28. Defendant Stewart K. Robinson is the Superintendent of Northwest Regional Correctional Facility. He is responsible for the daily operations of that prison and is sued in his official capacity.
29. Defendant Celeste M. Girrell is the Superintendent of the Northeast Regional Correctional Facility. She is responsible for
- 6-

the daily operations of that prison and is sued in her official capacity.
30. Defendant T. Michael Coxon is the Superintendent of the Southeast State Correctional Facility. He is responsible for the daily operations of that prison and is sued in his official capacity.
31. Defendant William D. Pithers is the Director of the Vermont Center for the Prevention and Treatment of Sexual Abuse, and is an agent or employee of the Department of Corrections. On information and belief, he is responsible for formulating policy and for the direction and/or oversight of the Vermont Treatment Program for Sexual Aggressors. He is sued in his official capacity.
32. Defendant Jack Bush is an agent of the Department of Corrections and has the responsibility for directing the DOC's Violent Offender Program. He is sued in his official capacity.
33. Defendant Immediate Care Health Center, a nongovernmental entity, is responsible for the provision of medical treatment and care at the Northwest Regional Correctional Facility located at South Burlington, Vermont, pursuant to a contract with the Vermont Department of Corrections.
34. Ottauquechee Health Center, Inc., a non-governmental entity, is responsible for the provision of medical treatment and care to plaintiffs at Southeast Regional Correctional Facility located at Woodstock, Vermont, pursuant to a contract with the Vermont Department of Corrections.
- 7-

35. Defendant Dr. Judith Hill, affiliated with the Mt. Ascutney Medical Group, is responsible for the provision of medical treatment and care to plaintiffs at Southeast State Correctional Facility located at Windsor, Vermont, pursuant to a contract with the Vermont Department of Corrections. She is sued in her official capacity.
36. Defendant Dr. Carleton Stickney is responsible for the provision of medical services at Southwest Regional Correctional Facility located at Rutland, Vermont, pursuant to a contract with the Vermont Department of Corrections. He is sued in his official capacity.
37. Defendant Dr. John Ajamie, affiliated with St. Johnsbury Family Medicine, is responsible for the provision of medical services at Northeast Regional Correctional Facility located at St. Johnsbury, Vermont, pursuant to a contract with the Vermont Department of Corrections. He is sued in his official capacity.
38. Defendant Dr. Jeffrey Rothfeld, affiliated with the Medical Center Hospital of Vermont, is responsible for the provision of medical services at Northwest State Correctional Facility located at St. Albans, Vermont, pursuant to a contract with the Vermont Department of Corrections. He is sued in his official capacity.
39. Defendant Alice Hafner is the Chairperson of the Vermont Parole Board. Under Title 28, Chapter 7, § 404, subchapter 2, § 451, subchapter 3, §§ 501-506, and subchapter 4, § 551 of the Vermont statutes, the Board is responsible for setting the
- 8 -

conditions that plaintiffs must meet in order to be considered eligible for release on parole and, once released, to remain at liberty under parole supervision. Defendant Hafner administers the work of the Vermont Parole Board with regard to the selection of plaintiffs for parole supervision, assessment of plaintiffs' compliance with established conditions, and revocation of parole supervision based on plaintiffs' failure to comply with stated conditions. Defendant Hafner is sued in her official capacity.
40. Defendants Ernest Torpey, Arthur Silvester, Lorraine Graham and Elaine Charboneau are members of the Vermont Parole Board. As such, under Title 28, Chapter 7 of the Vermont Statutes, they have the responsibility for setting parole eligibility criteria for plaintiffs to gain release on parole supervision, assessing plaintiffs' compliance with parole conditions, and revoking parole, thus returning plaintiffs to prison for failure to comply with stated conditions. Defendants Torpey, Silvester, Graham and Charboneau are sued in their official capacities.
41. At all times relevant hereto and in all of the actions described herein, all defendants were acting under color of state law and pursuant to their authority as officials, agents, contractors or employees of the State of Vermont.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 42. The named plaintiffs seek to maintain this action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated pursuant to Rules 23 (a) and 23 (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. They seek to represent a class of all individuals who are now or in
—Q _

the future will be confined in Vermont prisons, and all individuals who are now or in the future will be subject to the policies and practices of the Vermont Department of Corrections and the Vermont Parole Board with respect to two programs, the Vermont Treatment Program for Sexual Aggressors, and the Violent Offender Program. In the absence of relief, plaintiffs represent a class of persons who have been or will be treated in the manner set forth below. As a result of such treatment, the members of the class are or will be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment and deprived of fundamental constitutional rights, as well as federal statutory rights. Plaintiffs therefore seek declaratory and injunctive relief to eliminate defendants' actions,' policies, and practices which deprive them of those rights.
43. The class of both sentenced and pretrial prisoners is so numerous with approximately 1200 members that joinder of all members is impractical.
44. There are questions of law and fact common to the class, including the constitutionality of the conditions of confinement maintained by the Department of Corrections described below, which apply throughout the Vermont prison system.
45. The claims of the plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the class. The named plaintiffs include prisoners currently incarcerated at the six Department of Corrections prison facilities currently in operation. The named plaintiffs also include prisoners with disabilities who have been denied the benefit of programs and services for which they are qualified, because of
- 10 -

their disabilities; and prisoners who have been subjected to the policies and practices of the Defendants regarding the Vermont Treatment Program for Sexual Aggressors and/or the Violent Offender Program.
46. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the class. Moreover, the plaintiffs' counsel are experienced in the protection and enforcement of the constitutional rights of prisoners.
47. The defendants have acted and refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, therefore making appropriate final injunctive relief with respect to the class as a whole.
FACTS GIVING RISE TO THE CAUSE OF ACTION Medical and Mental Health Care
48. Access to physicians in Vermont's prisons is severely limited. The Department and its contractors systematically fail to provide necessary routine and emergency medical treatment to prisoners. Defendants fail to employ sufficient qualified medical personnel to properly treat its prisoner population.
49. Overcrowding, filthy conditions, and lack of adequate air circulation increase the risk of exposure of staff and prisoners to airborne communicable diseases, such as tuberculosis. Overcrowding causes and aggravates a variety of physical and mental illnesses, which are further aggravated by environmental health and safety hazards, grossly inadequate medical and mental health care, and by the defendants' failure to adequately protect prisoners from assault.
- 11 -

Inadequate Screening for Infectious Diseases 50. Prisoners are not properly tested for tuberculosis upon
their admission to Vermont's correctional facilities. Qualified medical personnel fail to administer the PPD test to all newlyadmitted prisoners and to visually inspect the implanted PPD test result on each prisoner to determine the presence of the tuberculosis infection.
51. Defendants fail to provide medical facilities equipped with negative pressure ventilation to isolate plaintiffs suffering from active tuberculosis in accordance with guidelines promulgated by the Centers for Disease Control.
52. There is no systematic, periodic retesting of prisoners or prison staff for tuberculosis; even plaintiffs infected with the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (hereinafter HIV) who may not respond to a PPD test but are at substantially higher risk of contracting tuberculosis, are not systematically retested.
53. When prisoners develop tuberculosis during their incarceration, defendants fail to determine the origin, or "source" cases, or the extent of tuberculosis infection among the plaintiff class. This raises the likelihood of an epidemic affecting correctional staff and prisoners alike. Lack of Intake Physical Examinations
54. Defendants routinely fail to provide adequate intake health evaluations for newly-admitted prisoners, including physical examinations and basic diagnostic testing.
- 12 -

55. Defendants neither offer gynecological examinations to women upon their admission to prison, nor provide women prisoners with necessary gynecological or prenatal follow-up care.
56. Defendants fail to provide adequate treatment for newlyadmitted plaintiffs who are undergoing detoxification from drugs or alcohol. Sick Call
57. The defendants' sick call procedures are defective. Plaintiffs with serious medical conditions are screened in the first instance by inadequately trained, unqualified corrections personnel and/or overburdened nursing staff who fail to diagnose medical problems until grave injury occurs.
58. Plaintiffs routinely experience long delays before being seen by a physician. Sick plaintiffs thus become sicker and suffer unnecessary pain and medical complications.
59. The defendants' doctors and nurses routinely ignore and refuse to treat serious and urgent medical conditions that require consultation, testing or treatment at outside hospitals or specialty clinics.
60. As a matter of practice and policy, defendants fail to treat plaintiffs' ongoing medical conditions that began prior to their incarceration.
61. The effectiveness of outside medical treatment for plaintiffs is further compromised by the defendants' failure to ensure continuity of care and follow-up coordination between the Department and the outside medical providers. Test results and
- 13 -

consultation reports from outside physicians often do not reach plaintiffs' treating physicians for weeks or months. Unnecessary and serious medical complications arise because of defendants' practice of transferring plaintiffs to various facilities across the state to avoid incurring the expense of essential medical procedures, or in wanton disregard of plaintiffs' serious medical needs for such procedures.
62. Defendants fail to monitor or adequately treat plaintiffs who suffer from serious chronic illnesses, such as diabetes, coronary artery disease, hypertension, renal conditions, asthma and other respiratory ailments. Defendants' failure to attend to plaintiffs' chronic illnesses results in needless pain and suffering, the overall deterioration of plaintiffs' health, and avoidable fatalities. Mental Health Care
63. Defendants' facilities, staff, procedures and practices with respect to providing mental health care to prisoners are dangerously deficient.
64. Defendants fail to employ an adequate number of licensed, qualified mental health treatment staff, including psychiatrists and psychologists.
65. Defendants fail to assign qualified mental health practitioners to perform intake evaluations of newly-admitted prisoners for diagnosis, and to determine appropriate treatment and placement for prisoners with acute mental illnesses and mental retardation.
- 14 -

-\
66. Plaintiffs with psychiatric illnesses are not properly classified, housed, or treated. Defendants maintain no special mental health treatment units. Rather, plaintiffs suffering from mental illness are either held in "close custody," punitive segregation housing, or they are double-bunked in the general prison population. Defendants' policy and practice utilize the disciplinary system to control, classify and punish mentally-ill plaintiffs. In effect, defendants punish mentally-ill plaintiffs because they are mentally ill.
67. There is a system-wide lack of access to psychologists and psychiatrists for counseling, evaluation and ongoing treatment of acute psychiatric disorders.
68. Plaintiffs who exhibit acutely suicidal or psychotic behavior, or pose a danger to themselves or others, are not referred to mental health professionals outside the prisons even after they attempt to harm themselves. Defendants fail to establish and maintain an adequate suicide prevention program to avert the incidence of suicides or attempted suicides.
69. Psychotropic medications are routinely distributed by unqualified staff including correctional guards, particularly on evening and weekend shifts. Plaintiffs frequently experience delays in receiving their prescribed psychotropic medications. The defendants do not carry out medication orders by outside psychiatrists.
- 15 -

70. Defendants' failure to provide adequate mental health treatment and care causes severe and needless pain to mentally-ill plaintiffs, and causes their conditions to deteriorate. Withholding Information on Medical Status
71. As a matter of policy and practice, defendants routinely refuse to disclose to prisoner-patients information about the nature and course of their illness. Moreover, defendants prevent outside treating physicians from communicating to prisoner-patients basic medical information, such as test results and outcomes of surgical procedures that may have life-threatening consequences. This policy and practice violates medical ethics and professional standards governing physician care, and causes pain, suffering, and the deterioration of plaintiffs' health. Prescriptions and Medication Distribution
72. Plaintiffs frequently receive their prescribed medications from unlicensed, unqualified correctional personnel, particularly on evening and weekend shifts, resulting in frequent errors in dispensing medications.
73. Plaintiffs suffering from chronic illnesses routinely experience long delays in receiving their medications.
74. Defendants fail to examine prisoners or monitor their levels of medication prior to prescription renewal.
75. Treating physicians fail to prescribe proper diet and medication to prisoners who have, or develop, chronic illnesses and diseases requiring special attention, such as ulcers, diabetes, hypertension, or chronic heart disease. Even when such diet or
- 16 -

medication is ordered, defendants often fail to provide it. As a result of defendants' failure to provide medication in a timely and consistent manner, plaintiffs experience pain and suffering and frequently a deterioration of serious illnesses. Confidentiality of Medical Records
76. Due to defendants' reliance on non-medical correctional personnel, including uniformed staff, to process plaintiffs' sick call requests and dispense medications, prisoner-patients' right to privacy is breached, as is the confidentiality of their medical illnesses. Plaintiffs consequently suffer humiliation and harassment by prison staff and prisoners, and are subject to discriminatory treatment with respect to housing and programming. Record Keeping
77. Inadequate record keeping adversely affects the delivery of health care from diagnosis to treatment. Defendants faii to obtain essential medical records from outside doctors regarding treatment of pre-existing conditions. Dental Care
78. Plaintiffs experience extremely long delays in receiving necessary dental care, resulting in prolonged pain and suffering, permanent tooth loss, and disfigurement.
79. As a precondition to performing extractions and other urgent dental services, the defendants, as a matter of policy and practice, routinely require prisoners to sign written waivers stating that the defendants need not perform prosthetic dental work. Plaintiffs' dental conditions interfere with their ability
- 17 -

to eat or maintain a proper diet, resulting in avoidable deterioration of their health. Sanitation and Environmental Health
80. Defendants fail to provide plaintiffs with ventilation, lighting and sanitation that meet minimal standards of decency. Lighting is too dim to read by in some living quarters; in others it is so intense as to cause chronic headaches. Especially in view of the severe overcrowding in Vermont's prisons, inadequate ventilation seriously aggravates the medical problems of plaintiffs with respiratory diseases, and increases the risk to plaintiffs of airborne communicable diseases, such as tuberculosis. Extreme crowding also causes and contributes to filth, stench, and painfully high noise-levels in the prison facilities.
81. Toilet and shower facilities are so inadequate that it is difficult, if not impossible, for plaintiffs to maintain basic personal hygiene. For example, at Northwest Regional Correctional Facility, fifty men housed in the gym share three toilets, three sinks and three showerheads. The defendants do not administer adequate maintenance or preventive maintenance plans, and fail to provide plaintiffs with necessary cleaning supplies and housekeeping regimes to maintain adequate sanitation in their living quarters. Shower and toilet facilities are filthy, unventilated, in poor repair and often non-functional. Living areas are infested with vermin, and cells in some facilities include broken, cracked and leaking toilets.
- 18 -

82. Defendants do not provide indigent plaintiffs with personal hygiene supplies such as toothpaste, soap and shampoo.
83. Kitchen facilities and food preparation handling are unsanitary.
84. Plaintiffs suffer from respiratory, digestive and other illnesses due to environmental health hazards in Vermont prisons. Fire Safety
85. Plaintiffs are subjected to major fire hazards by the defendants' failure to take reasonable fire safety measures. Defendants fail to conduct regular and adequate fire drills, fail to provide functioning automatic alarm, sprinkler or emergency lighting systems, and fail to provide adequate means of egress or immediate release mechanisms on the cell blocks. Excessive Force
86. Throughout Vermont's prisons, there is a pattern and practice of excessive, malicious, and unjustified use of force by correctional officers against plaintiffs.
87. Defendants have failed to properly train, discipline or otherwise control the abusive actions of correctional officers. Classification/Failure to Protect Prisoners
88. Defendants fail to classify plaintiffs in a rational manner so as to protect them from assault and victimization. The consequences of this failure are exacerbated by the overcrowding in Vermont's prisons.
89. As a matter of policy and practice, defendants house pretrial detainees together with sentenced prisoners, and
- 19 -

adolescent detainees and sentenced prisoners together with adult prisoners. Plaintiffs with no prior criminal record are typically housed together with plaintiffs who have extensive criminal histories including prior incarceration for violent offenses.
90. Defendants' failure to institute a rational classification scheme results in frequent victimization among plaintiffs ranging from harassment to repeated physical and sexual assaults, particularly of plaintiffs who are young and of slight physical stature. Exercise and Air
91. Defendants fail to provide plaintiffs with adequate opportunity for exercise or fresh air. From October through May, the defendants deny many plaintiffs any access whatsoever to fresh air. Even during the summer months, the defendants frequently deny plaintiffs access to fresh air or outdoor exercise for days or even weeks at a time. Opportunity for exercise in general, indoors or outdoors, is unduly limited. Severe overcrowding and poor ventilation heightens plaintiffs' needs for fresh air and exercise. The deprivation of adequate fresh air and exercise results in plaintiffs' physical and mental deterioration, and heightens tensions within the facilities and the risk of provocations and assaults. Treatment of Disabled Prisoners
92. Defendants discriminate against members of the plaintiff class with physical or mental disabilities by excluding them on the basis of these disabilities, from participation in, or denying them
- 20 -

the benefits of, programs, activities and services for which these plaintiffs are otherwise qualified, or for which they would be qualified with reasonable accommodation to their disabilities.
93. Defendants exclude plaintiffs who suffer from such chronic illnesses as heart disease, and those who suffer from mental disabilities, from participation in education, employment, and other programs and services offered to the general population, for which these plaintiffs, with or without reasonable accommodation, are qualified. The defendants also thereby deny these plaintiffs the opportunity enjoyed by non-disabled prisoners, to earn good time credit or release on parole through participation in such programs.
94. Defendants fail to take reasonable measures to make prison facilities accessible to and useable by plaintiffs with impaired mobility and manual dexterity, or whose major life activities are otherwise limited by physical impairments. Defendants fail to remove barriers that block these plaintiffs' access to toilets, showers, living, recreation and program areas, and fail to supply plaintiffs with wheelchairs, prosthetic devices, and other auxiliary aids to enable these plaintiffs to participate in programs and services available to the general population. Sexual Aggressor and Violent Offender Programs
A. PROGRAM FOR SEXUAL AGGRESSORS 95. The defendants single out members of the plaintiff class who have been accused of any kind of sex-related misconduct or "deviant" sexual behavior, characterize these plaintiffs as "sexual
- 21 -

aggressors," and treat them as presumptively ineligible for parole. As a prerequisite to parole eligibility, the defendants require these plaintiffs to gain admission to and satisfy the requirements of the Vermont Treatment Program for Sexual Aggressors (VTPSA), whether or not these plaintiffs have ever been convicted of, or even charged with, a crime of sexual aggression.
96. As a requirement of VTPSA and a prerequisite to parole eligibility, the defendants require plaintiffs periodically to submit to manipulation with a penile plethysmograph. This device is a gauge that records changes in penis size. The defendants claim that by measuring changes in penis size in response to a variety of audio-visual sexual cues, they can evaluate plaintiffs' predilection for "deviant" sex, and predict the likelihood of plaintiffs engaging in criminal sexual activity. VTPSA staff attach plaintiffs by the genitals to the penile plethysmograph, require them to masturbate to achieve a complete erection, and subject them to slide shows and soundtracks portraying diverse sex acts, "acceptable" and "deviant" (e.g.. violent rapes and sex acts involving children.) The defendants use female as well as male employees to administer and monitor the penile plethysmograph sessions.
97. As a further prerequisite to parole eligibility, defendants require plaintiffs in the VTPSA to engage in "masturbatory satiation" sessions. Plaintiffs are required to masturbate until ejaculation while voicing "acceptable" sexual fantasies, and then to continue masturbating for an additional hour
- 22 -

after ejaculation while voicing "deviant" sexual fantasies. Plaintiffs are required to tape-record these masturbation sessions, and to play the tape-recordings to audiences of other inmates and VTPSA staff.
98. VTPSA staff make insatiable, arbitrary and capricious demands on plaintiffs to confess to "deviant" sexual fantasies. VTPSA staff accuse plaintiffs of being "in denial" if they deem plaintiffs' accounts of their sexual fantasies to be insufficiently graphic or lewd, and routinely threaten plaintiffs with serving their maximum sentences if the "quality" of their sexual fantasies is unsatisfactory.
99. As a further prerequisite to VTPSA admission and parole eligibility, the defendants require plaintiffs to abandon any legal challenges to or appeals from their convictions, and to admit guilt. Plaintiffs are likewise required to admit guilt for additional sex crimes, unproven or even uncharged, and without a grant of immunity from prosecution. The defendants dictate the terms of these "confessions," and deem plaintiffs to be "in denial," and their participation in VTPSA unsatisfactory, unless plaintiffs produce confessions which in every detail conform to the "correct" version. The defendants further require plaintiffs to waive their right to confidentiality and permit disclosure of communications obtained from them in the course of treatment.
100. On information and belief, the defendants use agents and employees who are not properly licensed and qualified mental health
- 23 -

care professionals to administer the various VTPSA procedures described above.
101. On information and belief, the defendants mandate plaintiffs' participation in VTPSA not to serve any legitimate correctional goal, but merely to procure federal funding.
102. The practices, procedures, and methods employed by the defendants in VTPSA, as alleged above, are degrading, humiliating, and sadistic; have not been scientifically validated as having therapeutic or rehabilitative value for prisoners; have no significant predictive value; are not reasonably related to a legitimate correctional or governmental goal; wantonly inflict pain on the plaintiffs; and unjustifiably subject them to serious risks of significant psychological injury.
103. Plaintiffs' participation in VTPSA is coerced. The defendants require plaintiffs to choose between submission to practices which violate their fundamental human and constitutional rights, or ineligibility for parole.
B. VIOLENT OFFENDER PROGRAM 104. On information and belief, the defendants require most members of the plaintiff class to participate in the Violent Offender Program (VOP) as a condition of parole eligibility. 105. The defendants require plaintiffs in the VOP to make continual "confessions," in diaries and in group sessions, of violent, angry, or "negative" thoughts. Plaintiffs whose "confessions" do not satisfy the capricious and insatiable demands of prison guards and caseworkers are routinely deemed to be "in
- 24 -

denial," and hence ineligible for parole. Plaintiffs who do "confess" angry or violent thoughts as required by their guards and caseworkers are punished by the withdrawal of good-time and the denial of parole and other benefits and privileges. The defendants characterize VOP as a program for "cognitive self-change."
106. VOP is administered by prison guards and caseworkers, who are not licensed or qualified mental health professionals and are not properly supervised by qualified mental health professionals.
107. On information and belief, the defendants mandate plaintiffs' participation in the VOP not on the basis of a professional mental health evaluation, but on the basis of arbitrary criteria designed to maximize the number of participants in the program. Defendants require participation in the Violent Offender Program regardless of whether or not plaintiffs have been charged with or convicted of an offense involving violence.
108. On information and belief, the defendants arbitrarily mandate plaintiffs' participation in the VOP not to serve any legitimate correctional goal, but merely to procure federal funding.
109. The practices, procedures, and methods employed by the defendants in the VOP, as alleged above, are not reasonably related to a legitimate correctional or governmental goal; wantonly inflict pain on the plaintiffs; and unjustifiably subject them to serious risks of significant psychological injury.
- 25 -

110. Plaintiffs' participation in the VOP is coerced. The defendants require plaintiffs to choose between submission to practices which violate their fundamental rights, or ineligibility for parole and subjection to other penalties.
CAUSES OF ACTION Conditions Claims
111. As alleged above in 5f 48 to 94, the defendants fail to provide plaintiffs with the basic necessities of life, including adequate food, shelter, sanitation, exercise, personal safety and health care. The ill-effects of each deprivation are exacerbated or caused by related conditions, including overcrowding. The resulting conditions at defendants' prisons, taken individually, in combination, or as a whole, are incompatible with contemporary standards of decency, cause unnecessary pain, and are not reasonably related to any legitimate correctional or governmental objective. Defendants' deliberate indifference to plaintiffs' serious medical needs unnecessarily exposes members of the plaintiff class to infectious disease, causes avoidable deterioration of their physical and mental health, and inflicts on them needless pain, suffering, and premature death. Defendants' policies, practices, acts and omissions evidence and constitute deliberate indifference to the rights of sentenced Vermont prisoners and violate the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eighth Amendment, made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pretrial detainees confined in Vermont prisons
- 26 -

are subjected to impermissible punitive conditions and deprivation of the basic necessities of life including those listed above, in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Americans with Disabilities Act Claim
112. As alleged above in 55 92 to 94, defendants have discriminated against members of the plaintiff class with physical or mental disabilities, by excluding them from participation in, or denying them the benefits of, programs, activities and services for which these plaintiffs are qualified, or for which they would be qualified with reasonable accommodation to their disabilities; and by failing to take reasonable measures to make prison facilities readily accessible to and useable by plaintiffs with impaired mobility and other physical disabilities. These acts and omissions violate the rights of disabled plaintiffs under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et. seq. Confidential and Medical Records Claim
113. As alleged above in 55 76 to 77, the defendants' policies, practices, acts and omissions complained of herein with respect to the collection, retention and dissemination of private medical information violate plaintiffs' rights to privacy and substantive due process under the First, Fourth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Excessive Force Claim
114. As alleged above in 55 86 to 87, the defendants have subjected plaintiffs to a pattern and practice of excessive,
- 27 -

malicious, and unjustified use of force by correctional officers, in violation of the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Sexual Aggressor and Violent Offender Programs Claims
115. As alleged above inflfl95 to 110, the defendants coerce plaintiffs' submission to degrading, humiliating, and outrageously intrusive practices in the Vermont Treatment Program for Sexual Aggressors and the Violent Offender Program. These policies and practices of the defendants needlessly inflict pain on the plaintiffs and wantonly expose them to psychological injury, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Further, these practices unjustifiably burden plaintiffs' fundamental rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments, including the right to freedom from coerced speech; freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures and compulsory self-incrimination; freedom from outrageous and shocking intrusions upon bodily integrity; and their rights to privacy and substantive due process.
NO ADEQUATE REMEDY AT LAW 116. As a proximate result of defendants' policies, practices, acts and omissions, plaintiffs have suffered, do suffer and will continue to suffer immediate and irreparable injury, including physical, psychological and emotional injury. Plaintiffs have no plain, adequate or complete remedy at law to redress the wrongs described herein. Injunctive relief sought by plaintiffs is necessary to prevent continued and further injury.
- 28 -

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

117. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all

others similarly situated, request that this Court:

a. Assume jurisdiction of this action;

b. Issue an order certifying this action to proceed as a

class pursuant to Rule 23 (a) and (b) (2) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure;

c. Issue a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2201 and Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that the

policies, practices, acts and omissions complained of herein

violate plaintiffs' rights as set forth above in 5548 to 110; d. Issue permanent injunctive1 relief sufficient to

rectify the unconstitutional and unlawful acts, policies, practices

and conditions complained of herein;

e. Retain jurisdiction over defendants until such time as

the Court is satisfied that their unlawful policies, practices,

acts and omissions complained of herein no longer exist and will

not recur;

f. Award plaintiffs reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and costs of this action;

g. Award such other further relief as to this court seems

just and proper.

Respectfully submitted,

Edward I. Koren, Esq. Marjorie Rifkin, Esq. Margaret Winter, Esq. National Prison Project of the ACLU Foundation 1875 Connecticut Avenue, Suite 410
Washington, D.C. 20009 (202) 234-4830

N.W.,

- 29 -

 
 Goldsmith v. Dean
illlliU

PC-VT-001-002

I.

PREAMBLE

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

WHEREAS, on December 13, 1993, the National Prison Project ("NPP") of the American Civil Liberties Union ("ACLIT) brought an action pursuant to 28 U SC § 1331, §§ 1343(a)(3) and (4), §§2201 and 2202, 42 U.S.C § 1983, and § 12101 et seq to redress the alleged deprivations of rights protected by federal law and by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, Goldsmith, et al. v Dean, et aJ . No 2: 93-CV-383 (D.Vt. filed Dec 13, 1993) (the "lawsuit" or the "litigation"); and
WHEREAS, on March 9, 1994, the plaintiff class was certified as "persons who are now or who will in the future be confined in Vermont prisons and all persons who are now or will in the future be subject to the policies and practices of the Vermont Department of Corrections and the Vermont Parole Board with respect to the Vermont Treatment Program for Sexual Aggressors and the Violent Offender Program," and,

WHEREAS, the named plaintiffs and the class they represent seek to remedy alleged unconstitutional and unlawful conditions of confinement through declaratory and injunctive relief'. and

WHEREAS, the defendants to this lawsuit dispute the standing of the plaintiffs to bnng this suit and the allegations that they have violated plaintiffs' rights and deny any liability, and ha\e asserted various defenses to the plaintiffs' claims, and do not admit or concede by entering into this Agreement that any of the plaintiffs' rights under the United States or Vermont Constitutions or under any law or regulation are or have been violated by the State, and

WHEREAS, nothing in this Agreement is intended to, nor shall be construed as, an

1

- -

' T~

"

admission of liability of or by any party, and

WHEREAS, the plaintiffs and the defendants are involved in the discovery phase of the litigation as of the date of this Agreement, and
WHEREAS, it is mutually advantageous for both parties to settle this dispute without further discovery or a trial;

NOW THEREFORE, m consideration for the mutual covenants contained herein the

parties to this Agreement agree as follows:

n. DEFINITIONS

1. "Facilities" means the facilities of the DOC, which currently are:

a. Northwest State Correctional Facility ("NWSCF* at St. Albans),

b. Northeast Regional Correctional Facility ("NERCF" at St.

Johnsbury);

c. Southeast State Correctional Facility ("SESCF" at Windsor),

d. Chittenden Regional Correctional Facility ("CRCF" at So

Burlington);

e. Marble Valley Regional Correctional Facility ("MVRCF" at

Rutland);

f

Woodstock Regional Correctional Facility ("WRCF" at

Woodstock);

g. Northern State Correctional Facility ("NSCF" at Newport),

h. The Caledonia Community Work Camp ("CCWC" at St.

Johnsbury).

2. "Impartial Expert" or "Experts" shall mean the consultant or consultants chosen bv

the parties whose function shall be to determine whether the State has achieved substantial

compliance with the terms of Section IV of the Agreement for those substantive areas assigned to

that Impartial Expert.

3. The "Parties" shall mean the State and the Plaintiffs.

4. "Plaintiffs' Counsel" shall mean Mitchell L. Pearl, Esq, Langrock, Sperry & Wool.

Vermont, and staff attorneys of the National Pnson Project of the American Civil Liberties L no-
Foundation, Washington, D C

5

"Plaintiffs" shall mean the plaintiff class

6.

"State" shall mean the named defendant(s) to this lawsuit, except the independent

medical care providers named in the December 13, 1993, Complaint

7.

"State's Counsel" shall mean the Attorney General for the State of Vermont or his

designee.

IIL PROCEDURE

A. Dismissal Of Action

8.

Upon signing the Agreement, the Parties shall seek approval of this Agreement

from the Court pursuant to Fed.RCiv P. 23(e)

9.

Upon the District Court's approval, this action shall be dismissed pursuant to

Fed R.Civ P 41(aXlX>0- As to the independent medical care providers named in the December

13, 1993 Complaint, this action shall be dismissed with prejudice.

B. Effective Date Of Agreement

10. This Agreement shall become effective upon: (a) approval of the Agreement by the

Court; and, (b) dismissal of the action as provided above.

C.

Mt'gjfton During 24-Month Compliance Period

11. Except as expressly allowed in U 31, below, in the case of fire safety at WRC F.

from the date of approval of this Agreement and during the 24-month compliance period provided

herein, plaintiffs, individually or as a class, shall not file any action or seek an injunction in either

state or federal court, under any federal or state law cause of action, on the basis of any allegation

3

of fact or claim set forth in the December 13, 1993 Complaint 12 Nothing in ^ 9 or 11 shall preclude an individual from seeking exclusively on his
or her own behalf:_(a) damages for a specific claim based upon operative facts occurring either before or after the effective date of this Agreement, or; (b) equitable relief based upon operame facts existing after the effective date of this Agreement, including but not limited to claims relating to the Vermont Treatment Pfcgram for Sexual Aggressors ("VTPSA"). In addition, paragraph I i shall not preclude any individual or individuals from seeking relief under Vermont State law provided that the relief sought is not based on any allegation of fact or claim set forth in the December 13, 1993 Complaint.
13. In any action brought pursuant to H 12(b), above, for declaratory or injunctive relief relating to VTPSA, the Parties shall not object to the admissiblity of the record of proceeding in the class action Goldsmith, et al. v Dean, et al.. Civ. Action No. 2: 93-CV-293 (D. Vt), except as to relevance. Nothing in this paragraph shall limit a party's right to object on any grounds to the weight a court should give to the record.
D. Determination of Substantial Compliance and Impartial Experts 14. In order to determine whether the State has reached substantial compliance with the terms of Section IV of the Agreement, the parties agree to the appointment of no more than four (4) Impartial Experts as provided herein. 15. An Impartial Expert or Impartial Experts shall: (a) monitor the State's compliance with the specific terms of Section IV of this Agreement; and, (b) at the conclusion of the 24Month Compliance Period decide whether the State is in substantial compliance with Section I v of this Agreement. The 24-Month Compliance Period shall be defined as follows: (a) it shall

begin on the effective date of this Agreement and shall end on the last day of the 24th month following; (b) if the last day of the 24-Month Compliance Penod is not the last business day or :.-<.• month, then the compliance period shall continue through the last business day of the month, and (c) if, because of an Impartial Expert's unavoidable inability to make his or her final determination of substantial compliance as provided for by this Agreement, a determination of substantial compliance has not been made upon the expiration of the 24-Month Compliance Period, the Impartial Expert may extend for a reasonable penod not to exceed sixty days the expiration date of the 24-Month Compliance Period as to the necessary subject areas to allow for the Impartial Expert to make promptly his or her final determination of substantial compliance. The Impartial Expert shall promptly notify the Parties in writing of the extension.
16. Nothing in this Agreement shall change the State's obligation to comply with the specific fire safety provisions relating to the WRCF, as provided infflf38 & 39, below, within n;,~e months from the effective date of this Agreement
17. The Parties agree to the selection of the following Impartial Experts for the corresponding compliance areas: Robert Powitz, Section IV (B) and to select an Impartial Expert acceptable to the Parties as to Section IV (A) as it relates to the WRCF and the SESCF, Allen Breed, Section IV (C); and, Ronald Shansky, M D , Section IV (D) & (E)
18. Except as provided in % 39, below, as it applies to the WRCF, the determination or whether the State is in substantial compliance with the terms of Section IV of this Agreement shall occur on the last day of the 24-Month Compliance Period.
19. Each Impartial Expert's determination of substantial compliance shall take into account the extent to which the State has achieved and sustained compliance during the course or
5

the 24-Month Compliance Period 20 Six months following the effective date of thus Agreement, and every nine months
thereafter during the24-Month Compliance Period, the Impartial Expert(s) shall conduct on-stte tours of the Vermont Facilities. The Impartial Expert assigned to determine compliance with the Fire Safety provisions of Section IV of this Agreement shall conduct an on-site tour of the WRCF nine months following the effective date of this Agreement in addition to his or her regular on-site tours, and shall prepare a report that complies with the provisions of 1J 24, below and includes a statement indicating whether the State is in compliance with the requirements of HIJ 38 & 39. below, as they pertain to the WRCF. The State has a responsibility to permit, but does not ha-, e a responsibility to guarantee, an Impartial Expert's attendance at these agreed-upon intervals Plaintiffs' Counsel and the State's Counsel may each select representatives to accompany the Impartial Experts during these on-site visits. Plaintiffs' Counsel shall not select as representatives any employee, agent, contractor, and/or representative in any capacity of the State of Vermont
21. The State shall pay fees, expenses and costs associated with the work of the Impartial Experts up to, but in no event exceeding, the total aggregate amount of $45,000 00 per year.
22. The Impartial Expert(s) may review all documents not privileged under Vermont State law, speak with any Defendant or staff member at the DOC Facilities, and may engage in private conversations with any class member.
23. Following each of the on-site visits referenced above, each of the Impartial Ex pert s shall prepare a written interim report of his or her findings within thirty (30) days and shall send one copy each to Plaintiffs' and the State's Counsel.

24 Within thirty (30) days following an Impartial Expert's final on-site visit, as to those specific areas to which the Impartial Expert has been assigned, the Impartial Expert shaii prepare a report including a statement indicating whether, in the Impartial Expert's opinion, the State is in .substantial compliance with the specific terms of Section IV of this Agreement
25. An Impartial Expert's determination of substantial compliance shall take into account the extent to which exceptions to compliance are isolated or noncontinuing in nature, or are unintentional, or are the temporary result of actions by members of the plaintiff class, and are addressed by corrective action.
26. A finding of substantial compliance in one or more of the subject areas set forth m Section IV of this Agreement shall not be defeated by findings of non-compliance with any other subject area or areas.
27. In the event that an Impartial Expert learns at any time of conditions that may pose imminent and significant health or safety risks to the plaintiffs, he or she shall immediately report such conditions to the Commissioner of the Department of Corrections and to counsel to the parties.
28. If counsel to either party communicates with an Impartial Expert, counsel shall promptly prepare and produce to counsel to the other party memoranda of conversations and copies of all written communications with the Impartial Expert.
29. The State shall afford the Impartial Experts reasonable access to the States Facilities, documents, staff and inmates and the parties shall provide their full cooperation to the Impartial Experts, to enable them to carry out their responsibilities.

E. Effect Of A Determination Of Substantial Compliance 30 If, upon the expiration of the 24-Month Compliance Penod, or in the case of tire safety at WRCF, foHowing the nine month on-site tour pursuant to 1J 20, above, and ™! 38 & 3Q. below, an Impartial Expen finds that the State is in substantial compliance with any of the subject areas of Section IV of this Agreement, as to any such subject area such a finding shall be a complete defense to any class action complaint by the plaintiffs, having the same effect as a dismissal with prejudice by stipulation of the class action Goldsmith, et al v Dean, et al. Civ Action No. 2: 93-CV-293 (D.Vt), pursuant to Fed R Civ P 41(a)(l)(ii). 31. If, upon the expiration of the 24-Month Compliance Period, or in the case of fire safety at WRCF, following the nine month on-site tour pursuant to K 20, above, and *Hf 38 & 39, below, an Impartial Expert finds that the State is not in substantial compliance with any of the subject areas of Section IV of this Agreement, the plaintiffs may file a complaint seeking relief with respect to those areas for which that Impartial Expert has determined that the State is not m compliance. 32. The parties agree to accept and be bound by the determinations of the Impartial Experts. F. Plaintiffs' Counsel Access To Clients 3 3. During the 24-Month Compliance Penod of this Agreement, Plaintiffs' counsel reserve their right to meet with their clients privately G. Remedies and Expiration Of Agreement 34. Either of the Parties may commence, by and through the Plaintiffs' or the State's Counsel, an action to enforce the terms of Section III and V of this Agreement; provided however
3

that (a) any such action for breach of this Agreement shall be filed in the Washington Supenor Coun in the state of Vermont, and, (b) the exclusive remedy available in any such action shall be limited to specific performance.
35 Prior to filing any such action under the preceding paragraph, the Parties shall make good faith efforts to resolve the dispute.
36. In any such action described in U 34, above, each party shall bear its own costs and fees.
37 Except forffl[26, 30, 31, 32, 89, and Section VI, this Agreement shall expire and be of no force or effect upon the expiration of the 24-Month Compliance Period. IV. COMPLIANCE AREAS
A. Fire Safety 38. The State shall comply with the Vermont Fire Prevention and Building Code. which incorporates by reference and amends relevant portions of the (a) Building Officials and Code Administrators National Building Code; (b) National Fire Prevention Association ("NFPA-) National Fire Prevention Code; and, (c) NFPA Life Safety Code, as it is applied to the Vermont prison system by the State of Vermont Department of Labor and Industry. 39 Within nine months of the effective date of this Agreement the State will make specific physical plant modifications to the WRCF which are necessary to comply with H 38, above, in response to the Department of Labor and Industry Audit for the WRCF dated January 5, 1996, a copy of which shall be provided to the Impartial Expert assigned to determine compliance with the Fire Safety provisions of this Agreement. Prior to the expiration of the 24Month Compliance Period, the State will make specific physical plant modifications to the SESCF
T

which are necessary to compiy with If 38. above, in response to the Depanment of Labor and Industry Audit for the SESCF dated January 5, 1996. a copy of which shall be provided to the Impartial Expert assigned to determine compliance with the Fire Safety provisions of this Agreement
40. If a failure by the State to meet the requirements of 1fl[ 38 & 39, above, is due to unavoidable construction delay(s) beyond the control of the State, and work is otherwise proceeding to completion, the Impartial Expert may, in his discretion, extend for up to sixty (60) days the nine-month compliance period established for the WRCF
B. Environmental Health and Safety 41. The State shall sufficiently maintain and repair, as needed, plumbing at WRCF, CRCF, NERCF, MVRCF, NWSCF, and SESCF 42. The State shall sufficiently maintain and dean, as needed, the ventilation systems it CRCF, NERCF, MVRCF, WRCF, and NWSCF 43. The State shall sufficiently maintain the heating system so that it is capable of regulating temperatures throughout the facilities at WRCF, MVRCF, NERCF, and SESCF 44 The State shall take reasonable measures, including necessary repairs, to avert the backup of sewage at WRCF, CRCF, and SESCF 45. The State shall sanitize mattresses between users and replace or repair, as needed. torn and dirty mattresses at WRCF, CRCF, NERCF. MVRCF, and SESCF 46. The State shall provide mattresses made of fire retardant material at WRCF 47. The State shall provide, as needed, inmates with mattresses that fit the bedframes at MVRCF.
10

48 The State shall maintain a program for vermin and insect control and exterminateT in the kitchen and food storeroom at WRCF

49 50 MVRCF

The State shall require that kitchen workers cover their hair at CRCF The State shall repair, as needed, any leaks to the roof over B and D pods at

51. The State shal^repair, as needed, windows at MVRCF

52. The State shall maintain sufficient food temperatures at MVRCF

53. The Impartial Expert touring the facilities referenced herein, i.e., WRCF, CRCF

MVRCF, NERCF, SESCF, and NWSCF, in addition to monitoring the State's substantial

compliance with the specific items listed herein, shall determine whether the State maintains

sufficient levels of environmental health and safety at these facilities.

C. Crowding and Systemic Correctional Issues

1. Exercise

54. The State shall make available, for those inmates housed in the general population

with a custody and security rating of medium or lower, and with no disciplinary sanction limiting

outside recreation in force, not less than seven hours of outside recreation per week, except in

emergency or adverse weather conditions not conducive to outside recreation. The State shall

provide all prisoners with access to out-of-cell time, during which the prisoners may exercise, no

less than one hour per day, five days per week.

2. Overcrowding of Women Prisoners

55. The State shall provide adequate and safe housing for women prisoners.

II

3. Americans With Disabilities Act 56 The State shaJl ensure, to the extent required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), that inmates with disabilities are not excluded from panicipation in, or denied the benefits of services, programs, or activities because of their disabilities 4. Ust of Force and Restraints 57. The State shall videotape cell extractions and uses of force in accordance with DOC Directive No. 413.02, dated September 22, 1993, and shall maintain these videotape records of any cell extractions and uses of force in the DOC's possession upon the effective date of this settlement agreement and any recorded during the 24-Month Compliance Period for at least as long as necessary to allow reasonable access to the videotapes by the Impartial Experts. 58. The State shall forbid the restraint of inmates by securing an inmate's hands behind his or her back and securing the inmate's ankles to his or her wrists. 5. Areas Not Designed As Living Areas 59 Areas in DOC Facilities not originally designed and built for housing inmates shail not be utilized for the housing of inmates without necessary redesign and remodelling. 0. Medical Care 1. Standard of Care 60. The State shall provide inmates with health care in accordance with constitutional standards Nothing set forth below shall prevent the State from implementing additional procedures which will improve the provision of health care to inmates. 2. Quality Assurance 61. The State shall establish and maintain a system to assure the quality of medical
12

care for inmates. The quality assurance program shall be designed to ensure that the provision >•:'

medical care to inmates meets the standard set forth above in *| 60

3. Medical Administration

62 The State shall employ or otherwise contract for a licensed physician or a team

comprised of a physician and other medical professionals with a Health Care Organization (HCO)

to serve as Medical Director to the State's prison system The Medical Director or HCO shall

institute centralized health care policies and shall review health care staffing levels and operations

at each facility and shall be responsible for overseeing the quality assurance program. In addition.

the Medical Director shall oversee the clinical treatment of prisoners

63. The State shall maintain adequate policies, directives and procedures for medical

care throughout the system, including policies, directives and procedures for the treatment of

inmates with chronic diseases and inmates who require specialty care.

64. The State shall maintain liaisons with local hospitals. The State shall ensure an

adequate and appropriate response for all inmates who need immediate medical attention and shall

maintain 24-hour access to emergency room care

4.

Intake

65 The State shall conduct timely and adequate intake screening for inmates by

qualified medical personnel. The screening shall include an appropriately administered test for

tuberculosis.

66. The State shall use best efforts: (a) to screen newly-admitted female inmates for

sexually-transmitted diseases; and, (b) to provide such inmates with pap tests and urinalysis

pregnancy screening.

13

67 The State shall conduct an intake physical assessment by qualified medical personnel
5. Eyeglasses 68 The State shall provide eyeglasses to inmates in accordance with DOC Procedure No. 412PP, dated March 2, 1992. 6. Dental Care 69 The State shall provide dentaJ care to treat inmates' known serious dental needs 70 The State shall schedule a comprehensive dental screening of all prisoners withm 60 days of admission. 71 The State shall provide toothbrushes, toothpaste, and dental floss for all prisoners. except when reasonably deemed a security, custody, or safety risk by the DOC. 7. Medical Records 72. The State shall maintain a standardized format for medical records including, but not limited to:
a. lab test results, b. medical flow charts, c. medical history, and, d. physical exam information. 73 The State shall protect the confidentiality of medical records and medical information, 8. Therapeutic Dicta 74 The State shall maintain therapeutic diets based upon medical staff orders *. CPR Training 75. The State shall provide CPR training for all medical staff and correctional officers
14

10. Infectious Disease Training 76. The State shall provide training to corrections and medical station infectious diseases such as tuberculosis, hepatitis and AIDS 11. HIV Care 77. The State shall offer voluntary testing for AIDS and shall provide appropriate care to HIV positive inmates 12. Women's Health Care 78. The State shall provide women prisoners access to: (a) gynecological and prenatal care; (b) breast examinations and mammograms for age-appropriate or symptomatic inmates, and (c) routine pap tests. 13. Medication Distribution. 79. The State shall maintain an appropriate medication distribution system The State shall ensure that asthmatic inmates have access to inhalers and inmates with coronary conditions have access to nitroglycerin or other prescribed medication. E. Mental Health Care 80. The State shall provide prisoners with mental health care in accordance with constitutional standards. Nothing shall prevent the State from doing more than what is required in this Agreement. 81. The State shall maintain policies and directives for screening, evaluation, housing. and treatment of inmates whh. serious mental illnesses and those indicating withdrawal from alcohol and drugs. This paragraph does not apply to individuals lodged pursuant to 33 V S A
§708(dXO&(2).

82. A suicide risk assessment shall be conducted by appropriately trained staff dur-«j the admission process utilizing the current Initial Needs Survey form, a copy of which shaJI be provided to the Impartial Expert assigned to evaluate compliance with this Mental Health Section
83 The State shall maintain a system to assure the quality of mental health care tor inmates. The quality assurance program shall be designed to ensure that the provision of mental health care to inmates meets the standard set forth above in If 80
84. All inmates shall be adequately screened for any signs of serious mental illness 85. The State shall maintain liaisons with local hospitals. The State shall ensure an adequate and appropriate response for all inmates who need immediate mental health care, and shall maintain 24-hour access to on-call emergency mental health care. 86. The State shall maintain written policies, directives and procedures for suicide prevention. 87. The State shall maintain appropriate policies, directives, and procedures governing distribution and review of psychoactive medication, informed consent; and, evaluation, observation and treatment of suicidal prisoners 88. The State shall provide a Secure Care Unit ("SCU") and an Intermediate Care I nit ("ICTJ"), to be adequately staffed with qualified mental health professionals and specially trained correctional personnel. V ATTORNEYS* FEES 89. Without any admission, implication, or suggestion by the State of liability or that the plaintiffs are a prevailing party pursuant to 42 U S C §1988, the State agrees to pay and the plaintiffs agree to accept a payment of one hundred ninety five thousand dollars ($195,000 00) to

be made in three payments, the first to occur on or before July I, 1996 in the amount of tu-eru-. five thousand dollars ($25,000 00). the second to occur on or before June 30. 1997 in the amount of $85,000 00 and the third to occur on or before July 31. 1997 in the amount of $85,000 00 to the National Prison Project, in full satisfaction of any and ail claims or demands for any and all fees, costs, and/or expenses that the National Prison Project, its agents, assigns, or those acting m its place, have claimed in the past, have now, or could have in the future, up to and including the expiration of the 24-Month Compliance Period, in full settlement of any and all potential fee and cost demands that have been or could be made by the plaintiffs in the action Goldsmith, et aJ \ Deaa et al.. Civ. Action No. 293-CV-383 (D. Vt.). VL MISCELLANEOUS
90. This Agreement is a document which ail parties have negotiated and drafted and since all parties participated equally in drafting its terms, the general rule of construction interpreting a document against the drafter shall not be applied in future interpretation of thus Agreement.
91. This Agreement represents the entire and only Agreement between the parties in Goldsmith, et al. v. Dean, et al.. Civ. Action No 2: 93-CV-383 (D. V t ) All prior agreements, representations, statements, negotiations, and understandings shall have no effect.
92. No changes, modifications, or amendments to the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall be effective unless reduced to writing, numbered and signed by Plaintiffs' Counsel and the State's Counsel.
93. The law of the State of Vermont regarding the construction of contracts shaJl govern any dispute regarding the construction of this Agreement.
17

94 None of the terms contained in rhis Agreement, such as "agree." "shall.' "wi\.' "establish," "implement," "continue," "maintain," and or any combination or modification of these terms as used in this Agreement, nor the assumption of any obligation contained within the Agreement, imply that the State is not now doing or must do any of the items contained in this Agreement in order to comply with the United States or Vermont Constitutions or any statute or regulation.
95. The Court's approval of the dismissal of this action is sought to comply with Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This Settlement Agreement is not a consent decree nor do the parties intend it to be construed as such. It does not operate as an adjudication of the merits of the litigation.
96. This Agreement shall not be construed as contemplating, requiring or causing the relinquishment or ceding of any control by the State of Vermont over any facility or activity or" the DOC.
97. The terms of this contract are not severable and the finding that any terms contained herein are illegal or void shall work to defeat all of the terms contained herein.
98. By the signatures below and for the consideration contained herein, the Parties
i
agree to be bound by the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
13

VII. Authority

99 The undersigned representatives of each party to this private agreement certify that each is fully authonzed by the party or parties he or she represents to enter into the terms and conditions of this settlement agreement and to execute and bind that party to it

STATE OF VERMONT DEPARMENT OF CORRECTIONS 103 South Main Street Waterbury, Vermont 05671

JEFFREY L AMESTOY ATTORNEY GENERAL 109 State Street MontpeiLer. Vermont 05609

By: JoHn F. Gorczyk, Commissioner For the Defendants
4////4A

By
David M Rocchio Assistant Attorney General For the Defendants

DATED:

II

LDSMITH, ET A*.,

Attorney for Plaintiffs National Prison Project ACLU Foundation 1875 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Suite 410 Washington, D C . 20009

By: >fitchell L. Pearl Attorney for Plaintiffs Langrock Sperry & Wool 15 South Pleasant Street Middlebury, Vermont 05753

DATED:

DATED:

19

 
 Goldsmith v. Dean

PC-VT-001-003
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF VERMONT
-WJ c-.
Robert Goldsmith, et al.,

Plaintiffs, v. Howard Dean, et al.,
Defendants.

Civil Action No."">

2:93-CV-383

f

ORDER AND NOW, this 10th day of June. 1996, upon consideration-of the Stipulation of Dismissal Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(ii), the Proposed Settlement Agreement, Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of Proposed Settlement Agreement, Defendants' Memorandum of Law in Support of the Proposed Settlement Agreement, the objections of class members received by the Court between April 18, 1996, and the date of this Order, following a hearing on June 10, 1996, at which time the Court heard from counsel for the parties, for the reasons summarized below, IT IS ORDERED as follows: 1. Members of the plaintiff class were given adequate notice of the proposed settlement, the proposed dismissal of the action without prejudice, their right to file objections, the manner of filing objections, and the hearing on the proposed settlement scheduled for June 10, 1996, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) and Order of the Court

AO72A (Rev 8/821

<LC

dated April 18, 1996; 2 . The Settlement Agreement fairly, reasonably and
adequately advances and protects the interests of the plaintiff class and is APPROVED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e). The Court's review of the Settlement Agreement was conducted solely to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) and does not convert the Settlement Agreement into an order of the Court or a consent decree;
3. The Stipulation of Dismissal without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(ii), except for plaintiffs' claims regarding independent medical care providers which is dismissed with prejudice, is APPROVED in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that notice of the provisions of the within Order shall be provided by defendants to members of the plaintiff class and other inmates in the state correctional system who are affected by the Order by posting such notice in appropriate places in state correctional institutions.
Dated at Burlington, in the District of Vermont, this day of June, 1996.

me J.

cmeier

United Stat Magistrate Judge

AO72A (Rev. 8/82)

 
 State of Vermont

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
HUMAN SERVICES DIVISION 103 South Main Street
Waterbury, Vermont 05671-0701 Fax: (802) 241-2736

June 14, 1996

Allen F. Breed P.O. Box 698
San Andreas, California 95249
Re: Goldsmith v. Dean Settlement Agreement
Dear Mr. Breed: On June 10, 1996, the Settlement Agreement in theGoldsmith v. Dean case was approved
by theU.S. District Court for theDistrict of Vermont. That date is nowtheeffective date of the Settlement Agreement and, therefore, the start of the 24-Month Compliance Period.
We understand from thebusiness office that thecontract for your work as theImpartial Expert for thesettlement terms relating to crowding andsystemic correctional issues hasbeen completed. Please let us know if you have anyquestions about the contract.
The Settlement Agreement provides for the first site visit to occur sixmonths following the effective date ofthe Agreement. In order to effectuate this visit, it would be helpful if you apprised us now of your availability during themonth of December 1996. Please include an estimate of the amount of time you believe necessary to complete your review. We will then confer with theNational Prison Project andarrive at mutually acceptable dates.
Once again, thank you for agreeing to serve as theImpartial Expert in this matter. We very much look forward to working withyou.
Sincerely,

Renee S. Markus Special Assistant Attorney General
cc: ^Mafjorie Rifkin, Esq.,National Prison Project David M. Rocchio, Esq.

Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services Tel.: (802) 241-2821

Department of Social Welfare
Tel.: (802) 241-2841

Department of Mental Health/Mental Retardation
Tel.: (802) 241-2602/Fax: (802) 241-3052

Department of Corrections
Tel.: (802) 241-2288

State of Vermont

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
HUMAN SERVICES DIVISION 103 South Main Street
Waterbury, Vermont 05671-0701 Fax: (802) 241-2736

April 16, 1996
VIA FIRST-CLASS MAIL Mr. Allen F. Breed P.O. Box 698 San Andreas, CA 95249
Re: Goldsmith v. Dean-Settlement
Dear Mr. Breed:
David Rocchio asked meto write to thank you for agreeing to act as compliance monitor for the corrections portion of the settlement agreement in the Goldsmith v. Dean litigation. Enclosed is a copy of that settlement agreement signed by attorneys for both sides. Of particular importance are Section HI(D) at page 4 (which describes the particulars of the monitoring period and the determination of substantial compliance) and Section IV(C) at page 11 (which describes the corrections compliance area) If you have questions regarding the agreement you may contact Renee Markus.
Thank you again for assuming the role of compliance monitor. I know I speak for both parties when Itell you that we look forward to working with you for the next twoyears.

Sincerely,

cc: Margaret Winter./

seph L. Winn

Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services Tel.: (802) 241-2821

Department of Social Welfare
Tel.: (802) 241-2841

Department of Mental Health/Mental Retardation
Tel.: (W2) 241 -2602/Fax: C802) 241-3052

Department of Corrections
Tel.: (802> 241 -2288

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

L PREAMBLE

WHEREAS, on December 13, 1993, the National Prison Project ("NPP") of the American

Civil Liberties Union ("ACLU") brought an action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, §§ 1343(a)(3)

and (4), §§ 2201 and 2202, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and § 12101 et seq. to redress the alleged

deprivations of rights protected by federal law and by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth and

Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, Goldsmith, et al. v. Dean, et al.. No.

2: 93-CV-383 (D.Vt. filed Dec. 13, 1993) (the "lawsuit" or the "litigation"); and

WHEREAS, on March 9, 1994, the plaintiff class was certified as "persons who are now

or who will in the future be confined in Vermont prisons and all persons who are now or will in

the future be subject to the policies and practices of the Vermont Department of Corrections and

the Vermont Parole Board with respect to the Vennont Treatment Program for Sexual

Aggressors and the Violent Offender Program;" and,

; ;^ -

WHEREAS, the named plaintiffs and the class they represent seek to remedy alleged

unconstitutional and unlawful conditions of confinement through declaratory and injunctive relief;

and

WHEREAS, the defendants to this lawsuit dispute the standing of the plaintiffs to bring

this suit and the allegations that they have violated plaintiffs' rights and deny any liability, and have

asserted various defenses to the plaintiffs' claims, and do not admit or concede by entering into

this Agreement that any of the plaintiffs' rights under the United States or Vermont Constitutions

or under any law or regulation are or have been violated by the State, and

WHEREAS, nothing in this Agreement is intended to, nor shall be construed as, an

1

admission of liability of or by any party; and
WHEREAS, the plaintiflfs and the defendants are involved in the discovery phase of the
litigation as of the date of this Agreement; and
WHEREAS, it is mutually advantageous for both parties to settle this dispute without
further discovery or a trial;
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration for the mutual covenants contained herein the
parties to this Agreement agree as follows:
IL DEFINITIONS
1. "Facilities" means the facilities of the DOC, which currently are:
a. Northwest State Correctional Facility ("NWSCF" at St. Albans); b. Northeast Regional Correctional Facility ("NERCF" at St.
Johnsbury); c. Southeast State Correctional Facility ("SESCF" at Windsor); d. Chittenden Regional Correctional Facility ("CRCF" at So.
Burlington); e. Marble Valley Regional Correctional Facility ("MVRCF" at
Rutland); f. Woodstock Regional Correctional Facility ("WRCF" at
Woodstock); g. Northern State Correctional Facility ("NSCF" at Newport); h. The Caledonia Community Work Camp ("CCWC" at St.
Johnsbury).
2. "Impartial Expert"or "Experts" shall mean the consultant or consultants chosen by
the parties whose function shall be to determine whether the State has achieved substantial
compliance with the terms of Section IV of the Agreement for those substantive areas assigned to
that Impartial Expert.
3. TTie "Parties" shaU mean the State and the Plaintiffs.
4. "Plaintiffs' Counsel" shall mean Mitchell L. Pearl, Esq., Langrock, Sperry & Wool,

Vermont, and staff attorneys of the National Prison Project of the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Washington, D.C.
5. "Plaintiffs" shall mean the plaintiff class. 6. "State" shall mean the named defendants) to this lawsuit, except the independent medical care providers named in the December 13, 1993, Complaint. 7. "State's Counsel" shall mean the Attorney General for the State of Vermont or his designee. HL PROCEDURE A. Dismissal Of Action 8. Upon signing the Agreement, the Parties shall seek approval of this Agreement from the Court pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(e). 9. Upon the District Court's approval, this action shall be dismissed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(aXl)(ii)- As to the independent medical care providers named in the December 13,1993 Complaint, this action shall be dismissed with prejudice. B. Effective Date Of Agreement 10. This Agreement shall become effective upon: (a) approval of the Agreement by the Court; and, (b) dismissal of the action as provided above. C Litigation During 24-Month Compliance Period 11. Except as expressly allowed in ^ 31, below, in the case of fire safety at WRCF, from the date of approval of this Agreement and during the 24-month compliance period provided herein, plaintiffs, individually or as a class, shall not file any action or seek an injunction in either state or federal court, under any federal or state law cause of action, on the basis of any allegation

of fact or claim set forth in the December 13, 1993 Complaint. 12. Nothing in ^ 9 or 11 shall preclude an individual from seeking exclusively on his
or her own behalf: (a) damages for a specific claim based upon operative facts occurring either before or after the effective date of this Agreement, or; (b) equitable relief based upon operative facts existing after the effective date of this Agreement, including but not limited to claims relating to the Vermont Treatment Program for Sexual Aggressors ("VTPSA"). In addition, paragraph 11 shall not preclude any individual or individuals from seeking relief under Vermont State law provided that the relief sought is not based on any allegation of fact or claim set forth in the December 13, 1993 Complaint.
13. In any action brought pursuant to % 12(b), above, for declaratory or injunctive relief relating to VTPSA, the Parties shall not object to the admissiblity of the record of proceeding in the class action Goldsmith, et aL v. Dean, et aL Civ. Action No. 2: 93-CV-293 (D.Vt), except as to relevance. Nothing in this paragraph shall limit a party'srightto object on any grounds to the weight a court should give to the record.
D. Determination of Substantial Compliance and Impartial Experts 14. In order to determine whether the State has reached substantial compliance with the terms of Section IV of the Agreement, the parties agree to the appointment of no more than four (4) Impartial Experts as provided herein. 15. An Impartial Expert or Impartial Experts shall: (a) monitor the State's compliance with the specific terms of Section IV of this Agreement; and, (b) at the conclusion of the 24Month Compliance Period decide whether the State is in substantial compliance with Section IV of this Agreement. The 24-Month Compliance Period shall be defined as follows: (a) it shall

begin on the effective date of this Agreement and shall end on the last day of the 24th month following; (b) if the last day of the 24-Month Compliance Period is not the last business day of the month, then the compliance period shall continue through the last business day of the month; and, (c) if, because of an Impartial Expert's unavoidable inability to make his or her final determination of substantial compliance as provided for by this Agreement, a determination of substantial compliance has not been made upon the expiration of the 24-Month Compliance Period, the Impartial Expert may extend for a reasonable period not to exceed sixty days the expiration date of the 24-Month Compliance Period as to the necessary subject areas to allow for the Impartial Expert to make promptly bis or her final determination of substantial compliance. The Impartial Expert shall promptly notify the Parties in writing of the extension.
16. Nothing in this Agreement shall change the State's obligation to comply with the specific fire safety provisions relating to the WRCF, as provided in ^{ 38 & 39, below, within nine months from the effective date of this Agreement.
17. The Parties agree to the selection of the following Impartial Experts for the corresponding compliance areas: Robert Powitz, Section IV (B) and to select an Impartial Expert acceptable to the Parties as to Section IV (A) as it relates to the WRCF and the SESCF; Allen Breed, Section IV (C); and, Ronald Shansky, M.D., Section IV (D) & (E).
18. Except as provided in f 39, below, as it applies to the WRCF, the determination of whether the State is in substantial compliance with the terms of Section IV of this Agreement shall occur on the last day of the 24-Month Compliance Period.
19. Each Impartial Expert's determination of substantial compliance shall take into account the extent to which the State has achieved and sustained compliance during the course of

the 24-Month Compliance Period. 20. Six months following the effective date of this Agreement, and every nine months
thereafter during the 24-Month Compliance Period, the Impartial Expert(s) shall conduct on-site tours of the Vermont Facilities. The Impartial Expert assigned to determine compliance with the Fire Safety provisions of Section IV of this Agreement shall conduct an on-site tour of the WRCF nine months following the effective date of this Agreement in addition to his or her regular on-site tours, and shall prepare a report that complies with the provisions of ^f 24, below and includes a statement indicating whether the State is in compliance with the requirements of ffl| 38 & 39, below, as they pertain to the WRCF. The State has a responsibility to permit, but does not have a responsibility to guarantee, an Impartial Expert's attendance at these agreed-upon intervals. Plaintiffs' Counsel and the State's Counsel may each select representatives to accompany the Impartial Experts during these on-site visits. Plaintiffs' Counsel shall not select as representatives any employee, agent, contractor, and/or representative in any capacity of the State of Vermont.
21. The State shall pay fees, expenses and costs associated with the work of the Impartial Experts up to, but in no event exceeding, the total aggregate amount of $45,000.00 per year.
22. The Impartial Expert(s) may review all documents not privileged under Vermont State law, speak with any Defendant or staff member at the DOC Facilities, and may engage in private conversations with any class member.
23. Following each of the on-site visits referenced above, each of the Impartial Experts shall prepare a written interim report of his or herfindingswithin thirty (30) days and shall send one copy each to Plaintiffs' and the State's Counsel.

24. Within thirty (30) days following an Impartial Expert's final on-site visit, as to those specific areas to which the Impartial Expert has been assigned, the Impartial Expert shall prepare a report including a statement indicating whether, in the Impartial Expert's opinion, the State is in substantial compliance with the specific terms of Section IV of this Agreement.
25. An Impartial Expert's determination of substantial compliance shall take into account the extent to which exceptions to compliance are isolated or noncontinuing in nature, or are unintentional, or arethe temporary result of actions by members of the plaintiff class, andare addressed by corrective action.
26. A finding of substantial compliance in one or more of the subject areas set forth in Section IV of this Agreement shall not be defeated by findings of non-compliance with any other subject area or areas.
27. In the event that an Impartial Expert learns at any time of conditions that may pose imminent and significant health or safety risks to the plaintifls, he or she shall immediately report such conditions to the Commissioner of the Department of Corrections and to counsel to the parties.
28. If counsel to either party communicates with an Impartial Expert, counsel shall promptly prepare and produce to counsel to the other party memoranda of conversations and copies of all written communications with the Impartial Expert
29. The State shall afford the Impartial Experts reasonable access to the State's Facilities, documents, staff and inmates and the parties shall provide their full cooperation to the Impartial Experts, to enable them to carry out their responsibilities.
7

E. Effect Of A Determination Of Substantial Compliance. 30. If, upon the expiration of the 24-Month Compliance Period, or in the case of fire safety at WRCF, following the nine month on-site tour pursuant to ^ 20, above, and ffi| 38 & 39, below, an Impartial Expert finds that the State is in substantial compliance with any of the subject areas of Section IV of this Agreement, as to any such subject area such a finding shall be a complete defense to any class action complaint by the plaintiffs, having the same effect as a dismissal with prejudice by stipulation of the class action Goldsmith, et al. v. Dean, et al.. Civ. Action No. 2: 93-CV-293 (D.Vt.), pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(l)(ii). 31. If, upon the expiration of the 24-Month Compliance Period, or in the case of fire safety at WRCF, following the nine month on-site tour pursuant to H 20, above, andffl[38 & 39, below, an Impartial Expert finds that the State is not in substantial compliance with any of the subject areas of Section IV of this Agreement, the plaintiffs may file a complaint seeking relief with respect to those areas for which that Impartial Expert has determined that the State is not in compliance. 32. The parties agree to accept and be bound by the determinations of the Impartial Experts. F. Plaintiffs' Counsel Access To Clients 33. During the 24-Month Compliance Period of this Agreement, Plaintiffs1 counsel reserve their right to meet with their clients privately. G. Remedies and Expiration Of Agreement 34. Either ofthe Parties may c o m m e n t by and through the Plaintifis1 or the State's Counsel, an action to enforce the terms of Section m and V of this Agreement; provided however
8

that: (a) any such action for breach of this Agreement shall be filed in the Washington Superior Court in the state of Vermont; and, (b) the exclusive remedy available in any such action shall be limited to specific performance.
35. Prior to filing any such action under the preceding paragraph, the Parties shall make good faith efforts to resolve the dispute.
36. In any such action described in ^34, above, each party shall bear its own costs and fees.
37. Except for ffij 26,30, 31, 32, 89, and Section VI, this Agreement shall expire and be of no force or effect upon the expiration of the 24-Month Compliance Period. IV. COMPLIANCE AREAS
A. Fire Safety 38. The State shall comply with the Vermont Fire Prevention and Building Code, which incorporates by reference and amends relevant portions of die (a) Building Officials and Code Administrators National Building Code; (b) National Fire Prevention Association (MNFPA") National Fire Prevention Code; and, (c) NFPA life Safety Code, as it is applied to the Vermont prison system by the State of Vermont Department of Labor and Industry. 39. Within nine months of the effective date of this Agreement the State will make specific physical plant modifications to the WRCF which are necessary to comply with f 38, above, in response to the Department of Labor and Industry Audit for the WRCF dated January S, 1996, a copy of which shall be provided to the Impartial Expert assigned to determine compliance with the Fire Safety provisions of this Agreement. Prior to the expiration of the 24Month Compliance Period, the State will make specific physical plant modifications to the SESCF

which are necessary to comply with Tf38, above, in response to the Department of Labor and Industry Audit for the SESCF dated January 5, 1996, a copy of which shall be provided to the Impartial Expert assigned to determine compliance with the Fire Safety provisions of this Agreement.
40. If a failure by the State to meet the requirements offfl[38 & 39, above, is due to unavoidable construction delay(s) beyond the control of the State, and work is otherwise proceeding to completion, the Impartial Expert may, in his discretion, extend for up to sixty (60) days the nine-month compliance period established for the WRCF.
B. Environmental Health and Safety 41. The State shall sufficiently maintain and repair, as needed, plumbing at WRCF, CRCF, NERCF, MVRCF, NWSCF, and SESCF. 42. The State shall sufficiently maintain and clean, as needed, the ventilation systems at CRCF, NERCF, MVRCF, WRCF, and NWSCF. 43. The State shall sufficiently maintain the heating system so that it is capable of regulating temperatures throughout the facilities at WRCF, MVRCF, NERCF, and SESCF. 44. The State shall take reasonable measures, including necessary repairs, to avert the backup of sewage at WRCF, CRCF, and SESCF. 45. The State shall sanitize mattresses between users and replace or repair, as needed, torn and dirty mattresses at WRCF, CRCF, NERCF, MVRCF, and SESCF. 46. The State shall provide mattresses made of fire retardant material at WRCF. 47. The State shall provide, as needed, inmates with mattresses that fit the bedframes at MVRCF.
10
TFT

48. The State shall maintain a program for vermin and insect control and extermination in the kitchen and food storeroom at WRCF.
49. The State shall require that kitchen workers cover their hair at CRCF. 50. The State shall repair, as needed, any leaks to the roof over B and D pods at MVRCF. 51. The State shall repair, as needed, windows at MVRCF. 52. The State shall maintain sufficient food temperatures at MVRCF. 53. The Impartial Expert touring the facilities referenced herein, i.e., WRCF, CRCF, MVRCF, NERCF, SESCF, andNWSCF, in addition to monitoring the State's substantial compliance with the specific hems listed herein, shall determine whether the State maintains sufficient levels of environmental health and safety at these facilities. C. Crowding and Systemic Correctional Issues 1. Exercise 54. The State shall make available, for those inmates housed in the general population with a custody and security rating of medium or lower, andwith no disciplinary sanction limiting outside recreation in force, not less than seven hours of outside recreation per week, except in emergency or adverse weather conditions not conducive to outside recreatioa The State shall provide all prisoners with access to out-of-cell time, during which the prisoners mayexercise, no less than one hour per day, five days per week. 2. Overcrowding of Women Prisoners 55. The State shall provide adequate and safe housing for women prisoners.
11

3. Americans With Disabilities Act 56. The State shall ensure, to the extent required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), that inmates with disabilities are not excluded from participation in, or denied the benefits of services, programs, or activities because of their disabilities. 4. Use of Force and Restraints 57. The State shall videotape cell extractions and uses of force in accordance with DOC Directive No. 413.02, dated September 22, 1993, and shall maintain these videotape records of any cell extractions and uses of force in the DOCs possession upon the effective date of this settlement agreement and any recorded during the 24-Month Compliance Period for at least as long as necessary to allow reasonable access to the videotapes by the Impartial Experts. 58. The State shall forbid the restraint of inmates by securing an inmate's hands behind his or her back and securing the inmate's ankles to his or her wrists. 5. Areas Not Designed As Living Areas 59. Areas in DOC Facilities not originally designed and built for housing inmates shall not be utilized for the housing of inmates without necessary redesign and remodelling. D. Medical Care 1. Standard of Care 60. The State shall provide inmates with health care in accordance with constitutional standards. Nothing set forth below shall prevent the State from implementing additional procedures which will improve the provision of health care to inmates. 2. Quality Assurance 61. The State shall establish and maintain a system to assure the quality of medical
12

care for inmates. The quality assurance program shall be designed to ensure that the provision of medical care to inmates meets the standard set forth above in % 60.
3. Medical Administration 62. The State shall employ or otherwise contract for a licensed physician or a team comprised of a physician and other medical professionals with a Health Care Organization (HCO) to serve as Medical Director to the State's prison system. The Medical Director or HCO shall institute centralized health care policies and shall review health care staffing levels and operations at each facility and shall be responsible for overseeing the quality assurance program. In addition, the Medical Director shall oversee the clinical treatment of prisoners. 63. The State shall maintain adequate policies, directives and procedures for medical care throughout the system, including policies, directives and procedures for the treatment of inmates with chronic diseases and inmates who require specialty care. 64. The State shall maintain liaisons with local hospitals. The State shall ensure an adequate and appropriate response for all inmates who need immediate medical attention and shall maintain 24-hour access to emergency room care. 4. Intake 65. The State shall conduct timely and adequate intake screening for inmates by qualified medical personnel. The screening shall include an appropriately administered test for tuberculosis. 66. The State shall use best efforts: (a) to screen newly-admitted female inmates for sexually-transmitted diseases; and, (b) to provide such inmates with pap tests and urinalysis pregnancy screening.
13

67. The State shall conduct an intake physical assessment by qualified medical personnel.
5. Eye2lasses 68. The State shall provide eyeglasses to inmates in accordance with DOC Procedure No. 412PP, dated March 2, 1992. 6. Dental Care 69. The State shall provide dental care to treat inmates' known serious dental needs. 70. The State shall schedule a comprehensive dental screening of all prisoners within 60 days of admission. 71. The State shall provide toothbrushes, toothpaste, and dental floss for all prisoners, except when reasonably deemed a security, custody, or safety risk by the DOC. 7. Medical Records 72. The State shall maintain a standardized format for medical records including, but not limited to:
a. lab test results; b. medical flow charts; c. medical history, and; d. physical exam information. 73. The State shall protect the confidentiality of medical records and medical information. 8. Therapeutic Diets 74. The State shall maintain therapeutic diets based upon medical staff orders. 9. CPR Training 75. The State shall provide CPR training for all medical staff and correctional officers.
14

10. Infectious Disease Training 76. The State shall provide training to corrections and medical staff on infectious diseases such as tuberculosis, hepatitis and AIDS. 11. HIV Care 77. The State shall offer voluntary testing for AIDS and shall provide appropriate care to HIV positive inmates. 12. Women's Health Care 78. The State shall provide women prisoners access to: (a) gynecological and prenatal care; (b) breast examinations and mammograms for age-appropriate or symptomadc inmates; and, (c) routine pap tests. 13. Medication Distribution. 79. The State shall maintain an appropriate medication distribution system. The State shall ensure that asthmatic inmates have access to inhalers and inm^t^s with coronary conditions have access to nitroglycerin or other prescribed medication. £. Mental Health Care 80. The State shall provide prisoners with mental health care in accordance with constitutional standards. Nothing shall prevent the State from doing more than what is required in this Agreement. 81. The State shall maintain policies and directives for screening, evaluation, housing, and treatment of inmates with serious mental illnesses and those indicating withdrawal from alcohol and drugs. This paragraph, does not apply to individuals lodged pursuant to 33 V.S.A! §708(dXl)&(2).
15

82. A suicide risk assessment shall be conducted by appropriately trained staffduring the admission process utilizing the current Initial Needs Survey form, a copy of which shall be provided to the Impartial Expert assigned to evaluate compliance with this Mental Health Section.
83. The State shall maintain a system to assure the quality of mental health care for inmates. The quality assurance program shall be designed to ensure that the provision of mental health care to inmates meets the standard set forth above in ^ 80.
84. All inmates shall be adequately screened for any signs of serious mental illness. 85. The State shall maintain liaisons with local hospitals. The State shall ensure an adequate and appropriate response for all inmates who need immediate mental health care, and shall maintain 24-hour access to on-call emergency mental health care. 86. The State shall maintain written policies, directives and procedures for suicide prevention. 87. The State shall maintain appropriate policies, directives, and procedures governing distribution and review of psychoactive medication; informed consent; and, evaluation, observation and treatment of suicidal prisoners. 88. The State shall provide a Secure Care Unit ("SCUM) and an Intermediate Care Unit ("ICU"), to be adequately staffed with qualified mental health professionals and specially trained correctional personnel. V. ATTORNEYS* FEES 89. Without any admission, implication, or suggestion by the State of liability or that the plaintiffs are a prevailing party pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988, the State agrees to pay and the plaintiffs agree to accept a payment of one hundred ninety five thousand dollars ($195,000.00) to
16

be made in three payments, the first to occur on or before July 1, 1996 in the amount of twenty five thousand dollars ($25,000.00), the second to occur on or before June 30, 1997 in the amount of $85,000.00 and the third to occur on or before July 31, 1997 in the amount of $85,000.00 to the National Prison Project, in full satisfaction of any and all claims or demands for any and all fees, costs, and/or expenses that the National Prison Project, its agents, assigns, or those acting in its place, have claimed in the past, have now, or could have in the future, up to and including the expiration of the 24-Month Compliance Period, in full settlement of any and all potential fee and cost demands that have been or could be made by the plaintiffs in the action Goldsmith, et al. v. Dean, et a!.. Civ. Action No. 2:93-CV-383 (D.Vt). VL MISCELLANEOUS
90. This Agreement is a document which all parties have negotiated and drafted and since all parties participated equally in drafting its terms, the general rule of construction interpreting a document against the drafter shall not be applied in future interpretation of this Agreement
91. This Agreement represents the entire and only Agreement between the parties in Goldsmith, et al. v. Dean, et al.. Civ. Action No. 2:93-CV-383 (D.Vt). All prior agreements, representations, statements, negotiations, and understandings shall have no effect.
92. No changes, modifications, or amendments to the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall be effective unless reduced to writing, numbered and signed by Plaintiffs' Counsel and the State's Counsel.
93. The law of the State of Vermont regarding the construction of contracts shall govern any dispute regarding the construction of this Agreement.
17

-*\
94. None of the terms contained in this Agreement, such as "agree," "shall," "will," "establish," "implement," "continue," "maintain," and/or any combination or modification of these terms as used in this Agreement, nor the assumption of any obligation contained within the Agreement, imply that the State is not now doing or must do any of the items contained in this Agreement in order to comply with the United States or Vermont Constitutions or any statute or regulation.
95. The Court's approval of the dismissal of this action is sought to comply with Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This Settlement Agreement is not a consent decree nor do the parties intend it to be construed as such. It does not operate as an adjudication of the merits of the litigation.
96. This Agreement shall not be construed as contemplating, requiring or causing the relinquishment or ceding of any control by the State of Vermont over any facility or activity of the DOC.
97. The terms of this contract are not severable and thefindingthat any terms contained herein are illegal or void shall work to defeat all of the terms contained herein.
98. By the signatures below and for the consideration contained herein, the Parties agree to be bound by the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
18
i ta i HI • •

VII. Authority

99. The undersigned representatives of each party to this private agreement certify that

each is fully authorized by the party or parties he or she represents to enter into the terms and

conditions of this settlement agreement and to execute and bind that party to it.

STATE OF VERMONT DEPARMENT OF CORRECTIONS 103 South Main Street Waterbury, Vermont 05671

JEFFREY L. AMESTOY ATTORNEY GENERAL 109 State Street MontpeJier, Vermont 05609

By: JoKn F. Gorczyk, xnmissioner For the Defendants
DATED: 4////4b

David M. Rocchio Assistant Attorney General For the Defendants
DATED:

ROBERT GjOLDSMITH, ET
By- VJWUJ WflL Wl JL£S
Attorney for Plaintiffs National Prison Project ACLU Foundation 1875 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Suite 410 Washington, D.C. 20009

By: Mitchell L. Pearl Attorney for Plaintiffs Langrock Sperry & Wool IS South Pleasant Street Middlebury, Vermont 05753

DATED:

DATED:

19

Goldsmith v. Dean PC-VT-001-004

 
 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court - Vermont (LIVE) - Docket Report

Page 1 of 37

U.S. District Court District of Vermont (Burlington) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:93-cv-00383-JJN

CLOSED

Goldsmith, et al v. Dean, et al Assigned to: Magistrate Judge Jerome J. Niedermeier Demand: $0 Cause: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

Date Filed: 12/13/1993 Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff Robert B Goldsmith

represented by Christopher Lee Davis Langrock, Sperry & Wool 210 College Street P.O. Box 721 Burlington, VT 05402-0721 (802) 864-0217 Fax: 98640137 Email: cdavis@langrock.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Edward I. Koren American Civil Liberties Union The National Prison Project 1875 Connecticut Ave., N.W. Suite 410 Washington, DC 20009 (202)234-4830 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eric G. Balaban American Civil Liberties Union The National Prison Project 1875 Connecticut Ave., N.W. Suite 410 Washington, DC 20009 (202)234-4830 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Margaret Winter American Red Cross 17th and D Streets, N.W. Washington, DC 20006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.vtd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?708697843332909-L_923_0-1

9/13/2005

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court - Vermont (LIVE) - Docket Report

Page 2 of 37

Plaintiff Earl Lawrence Squires

Marjorie Rifkin American Civil Liberties Union The National Prison Project 1875 Connecticut Ave., N.W. Suite 410 Washington, DC 20009 (202)234-4830 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mitchell L. Pearl Langrock, Sperry & Wool P.O. Drawer 351 Middlebury, VT 05753-0351 (802)388-6356 Fax: (802)388-6356 Email: mpearl@langrock.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Christopher Lee Davis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Edward I. Koren (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eric G. Balaban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Margaret Winter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marjorie Rifkin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mitchell L. Pearl (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

https://ecf.vtd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?708697843332909-L_923_0-1

9/13/2005

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court - Vermont (LIVE) - Docket Report

Page 3 of 37

Plaintiff Richard Stempel
Plaintiff Roger Blackburn

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Christopher Lee Davis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Edward I. Koren (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eric G. Balaban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Margaret Winter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marjorie Rifkin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mitchell L. Pearl (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Christopher Lee Davis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Edward I. Koren (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eric G. Balaban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Margaret Winter

https://ecf.vtd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?708697843332909-L_923_0-1

9/13/2005

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court - Vermont (LIVE) - Docket Report

Page 4 of 37

Plaintiff Stormy Wright
Plaintiff Jeff Stratton

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marjorie Rifkin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mitchell L. Pearl (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Christopher Lee Davis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Edward I. Koren (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eric G. Balaban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Margaret Winter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marjorie Rifkin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mitchell L. Pearl (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Christopher Lee Davis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.vtd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?708697843332909-L_923_0-1

9/13/2005

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court - Vermont (LIVE) - Docket Report

Page 5 of 37

Plaintiff Edward Bennett

Edward I. Koren (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eric G. Balaban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Margaret Winter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marjorie Rifkin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mitchell L. Pearl (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Christopher Lee Davis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Edward I. Koren (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eric G. Balaban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Margaret Winter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marjorie Rifkin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

https://ecf.vtd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?708697843332909-L_923_0-1

9/13/2005

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court - Vermont (LIVE) - Docket Report

Page 6 of 37

Plaintiff Robert Gokey
Plaintiff Don Paydon

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mitchell L. Pearl (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Christopher Lee Davis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Edward I. Koren (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eric G. Balaban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Margaret Winter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marjorie Rifkin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mitchell L. Pearl (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Christopher Lee Davis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Edward I. Koren (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eric G. Balaban

https://ecf.vtd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?708697843332909-L_923_0-1

9/13/2005

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court - Vermont (LIVE) - Docket Report

Page 7 of 37

Plaintiff David McKeen

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Margaret Winter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marjorie Rifkin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mitchell L. Pearl (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Christopher Lee Davis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Edward I. Koren (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eric G. Balaban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Margaret Winter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marjorie Rifkin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mitchell L. Pearl (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.vtd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?708697843332909-L_923_0-1

9/13/2005

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court - Vermont (LIVE) - Docket Report

Page 8 of 37

Plaintiff Robert Lawton
Plaintiff William Verrinder, III

represented by Christopher Lee Davis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Edward I. Koren (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eric G. Balaban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Margaret Winter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marjorie Rifkin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mitchell L. Pearl (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Christopher Lee Davis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Edward I. Koren (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eric G. Balaban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Margaret Winter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

https://ecf.vtd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?708697843332909-L_923_0-1

9/13/2005

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court - Vermont (LIVE) - Docket Report

Page 9 of 37

Plaintiff Charles Conway
Plaintiff Randy Blodgett

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marjorie Rifkin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mitchell L. Pearl (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Christopher Lee Davis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Edward I. Koren (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eric G. Balaban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Margaret Winter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marjorie Rifkin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mitchell L. Pearl (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Christopher Lee Davis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Edward I. Koren

https://ecf.vtd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?708697843332909-L_923_0-1

9/13/2005

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court - Vermont (LIVE) - Docket Report

Page 10 of 37

Plaintiff Fred Ashworth

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eric G. Balaban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Margaret Winter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marjorie Rifkin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mitchell L. Pearl (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Christopher Lee Davis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Edward I. Koren (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eric G. Balaban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Margaret Winter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marjorie Rifkin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.vtd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?708697843332909-L_923_0-1

9/13/2005

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court - Vermont (LIVE) - Docket Report

Page 11 of 37

Plaintiff Jerome Clement
Plaintiff George Negron on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated

Mitchell L. Pearl (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Christopher Lee Davis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Edward I. Koren (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eric G. Balaban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Margaret Winter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marjorie Rifkin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mitchell L. Pearl (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Christopher Lee Davis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Edward I. Koren (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eric G. Balaban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

https://ecf.vtd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?708697843332909-L_923_0-1

9/13/2005

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court - Vermont (LIVE) - Docket Report

Page 12 of 37

V.
Defendant
Howard B. Dean, III Governor of the State of Vermont

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Margaret Winter (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marjorie Rifkin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mitchell L. Pearl (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David M. Rocchio Vermont Attorney General's Office Pavilion Office Building 109 State Street Montpelier, VT 05609-1001 (802)828-3171 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Stephen Arisman Office of the Attorney General Ladd Hall 103 South Main Street Waterbury, VT 05671-0701 (802) 241-2288 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph Leon Winn Vermont Attorney General's Office Pavilion Office Building 109 State Street Montpelier, VT 05609-1001 (802)828-3171 Fax: 8,8028282154 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Renee Susan Markus Office of the Attorney General

https://ecf.vtd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?708697843332909-L_923_0-1

9/13/2005

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court - Vermont (LIVE) - Docket Report

Page 13 of 37

Defendant John F. Gorczyk Commissioner of the Department of Corrections of the State of Vermont
Defendant Steven Maranville Superintendent of the Northwest State Correctional Facility

Ladd Hall 103 South Main Street Waterbury, VT 05671-0701 (802) 241-2288 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas John Rushford Vermont Department of Corrections 103 South Main Street Waterbury, VT 05671-0701 (802)241-2288 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David M. Rocchio (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Stephen Arisman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph Leon Winn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Renee Susan Markus (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas John Rushford (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David M. Rocchio (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Stephen Arisman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

https://ecf.vtd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?708697843332909-L_923_0-1

9/13/2005

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court - Vermont (LIVE) - Docket Report

Page 14 of 37

Defendant Keith Tallon Superintendent of the Southwest Regional Correctional Facility
Defendant Lawrence McLiverty Superintendent of the Southeast Regional Correctional Facility

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph Leon Winn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Renee Susan Markus (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas John Rushford (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David M. Rocchio (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph Leon Winn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Renee Susan Markus (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas John Rushford (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David M. Rocchio (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph Leon Winn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Renee Susan Markus

https://ecf.vtd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?708697843332909-L_923_0-1

9/13/2005

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court - Vermont (LIVE) - Docket Report

Page 15 of 37

Defendant Stewart K. Robinson Superintendent of the Northwest Regional Correctional Facility
Defendant Celeste M. Girrell Superintendent of the Northeast Regional Correctional Facility

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas John Rushford (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David M. Rocchio (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph Leon Winn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Renee Susan Markus (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas John Rushford (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David M. Rocchio (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph Leon Winn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Renee Susan Markus (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas John Rushford (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.vtd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?708697843332909-L_923_0-1

9/13/2005

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court - Vermont (LIVE) - Docket Report

Page 16 of 37

Defendant T. Michael Coxon Superintendent of the Southeast State Correctional Facility
Defendant William D. Pithers Director of the Vermont Treatment Program for Sexual Aggressors
Defendant M.D. Judith Hill

represented by David M. Rocchio (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph Leon Winn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Renee Susan Markus (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas John Rushford (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David M. Rocchio (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph Leon Winn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Renee Susan Markus (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas John Rushford (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David M. Rocchio (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph Leon Winn

https://ecf.vtd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?708697843332909-L_923_0-1

9/13/2005

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court - Vermont (LIVE) - Docket Report

Page 17 of 37

Defendant Jack Bush Director of the Violent Offender Program
Defendant Immediate Care Health Center

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Renee Susan Markus (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas John Rushford (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David M. Rocchio (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph Leon Winn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Renee Susan Markus (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas John Rushford (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David M. Rocchio (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph Leon Winn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Renee Susan Markus (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.vtd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?708697843332909-L_923_0-1

9/13/2005

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court - Vermont (LIVE) - Docket Report

Page 18 of 37

Defendant Ottauquechee Health Center, Inc.
Defendant Dr. Carleton Stickney
Defendant John Ajamie

Thomas John Rushford (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David M. Rocchio (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph Leon Winn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Renee Susan Markus (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas John Rushford (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David M. Rocchio (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph Leon Winn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Renee Susan Markus (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas John Rushford (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David M. Rocchio

https://ecf.vtd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?708697843332909-L_923_0-1

9/13/2005

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court - Vermont (LIVE) - Docket Report

Page 19 of 37

Defendant Dr. Jeffrey Rothfeld
Defendant Alice Hafner Chairperson of the Vermont Parole Board

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph Leon Winn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Renee Susan Markus (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas John Rushford (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David M. Rocchio (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph Leon Winn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Renee Susan Markus (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas John Rushford (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David M. Rocchio (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph Leon Winn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.vtd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?708697843332909-L_923_0-1

9/13/2005

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court - Vermont (LIVE) - Docket Report

Page 20 of 37

Defendant Ernest Torpey In his official capacity as a member of the Vermont Parole Board
Defendant Arthur Silvester in his official capacity as a member of the Vermont Parole Board

Renee Susan Markus (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas John Rushford (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David M. Rocchio (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph Leon Winn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Renee Susan Markus (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas John Rushford (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David M. Rocchio (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph Leon Winn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Renee Susan Markus (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas John Rushford (See above for address)

https://ecf.vtd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?708697843332909-L_923_0-1

9/13/2005

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court - Vermont (LIVE) - Docket Report

Page 21 of 37

Defendant Lorraine Graham in her official capacity as a member of the Vermont Parole Board
Defendant Elaine Charboneau in her official capacity as a member of the Vermont Parole Board
Defendant Vermont Department of Corrections

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David M. Rocchio (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph Leon Winn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Renee Susan Markus (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas John Rushford (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David M. Rocchio (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph Leon Winn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Renee Susan Markus (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas John Rushford (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David M. Rocchio (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.vtd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?708697843332909-L_923_0-1

9/13/2005

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court - Vermont (LIVE) - Docket Report

Page 22 of 37

Date Filed 12/13/1993 12/13/1993 12/29/1993 12/29/1993 12/29/1993 12/29/1993 12/29/1993 12/29/1993 01/05/1994

Joseph Leon Winn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Renee Susan Markus (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas John Rushford (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT ; filing fee $ 120.00 receipt # 5510 (Summon(es)/waiver (s) Issued) (amn) (Entered: 12/14/1993)

2 MOTION for Edward I.Koren, Marjorie Rifkin and Margaret Winter to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Pltfs. (amn) (Entered: 12/14/1993)

3 RETURN OF SERVICE executed as to defendant John Ajamie on 12/20/93 (jam) (Entered: 12/29/1993)

4 RETURN OF SERVICE executed as to defendant Immediate Care on 12/21/93 (jam) (Entered: 12/29/1993)

5 RETURN OF SERVICE executed as to defendant Jeffrey Rothfeld on 12/22/93 (jam) (Entered: 12/29/1993)

6 RETURN OF SERVICE executed as to defendant Ottauquechee Health on 12/18/93 (jam) (Entered: 12/29/1993)

7 RETURN OF SERVICE executed as to defendant Judith Hill on 12/22/93 (jam) (Entered: 12/29/1993)

8 RETURN OF SERVICE executed as to defendant Carleton Stickney on 12/17/93 (jam) (Entered: 12/29/1993)

9 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SERVICE as to defendant Howard B. Dean III, defendant John Gorczyk, defendant Steven Maranville, defendant Keith Tallon, defendant Lawrence McLiverty, defendant Stewart K. Robinson, defendant Celeste M. Girrell, defendant T. Michael Coxon, defendant William D. Pithers, defendant Jack Bush, defendant Alice Hafner, defendant Ernest Torpey, defendant Arthur Silvester, defendant Lorraine Graham, defendant Elaine Charboneau in their official capacities only and defendant Vt. Dept. of Corr. 1/3/94 by J. Wallace Malley, Jr., Esq. (jam) (Entered: 01/05/1994)

https://ecf.vtd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?708697843332909-L_923_0-1

9/13/2005

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court - Vermont (LIVE) - Docket Report

Page 23 of 37

01/13/1994 01/13/1994 01/13/1994 01/18/1994 01/26/1994
01/27/1994 01/27/1994 03/09/1994
03/09/1994 05/02/1994 05/02/1994 05/02/1994

10 AFFIDAVIT of Edward I. Koren re: [2-1] motion for Edward I.Koren, Marjorie Rifkin and Margaret Winter to Appear Pro Hac Vice (jam) (Entered: 01/13/1994)
11 AFFIDAVIT of Margaret Winter re: [2-1] motion for Edward I.Koren, Marjorie Rifkin and Margaret Winter to Appear Pro Hac Vice (jam) (Entered: 01/13/1994)
12 AFFIDAVIT of Marjorie Rifkin re: [2-1] motion for Edward I.Koren, Marjorie Rifkin and Margaret Winter to Appear Pro Hac Vice (jam) (Entered: 01/13/1994)
13 ORDER granting [2-1] motion for Edward I.Koren, Marjorie Rifkin and Margaret Winter to Appear Pro Hac Vice ( Judge Fred I. Parker ) Cy to parties (jam) (Entered: 01/18/1994)
14 ANSWER to [1-1] complaint by defendant Howard B. Dean III, defendant John Gorczyk, defendant Steven Maranville, defendant Keith Tallon, defendant Lawrence McLiverty, defendant Stewart K. Robinson, defendant Celeste M. Girrell, defendant T. Michael Coxon, defendant William D. Pithers, defendant Judith Hill, defendant Jack Bush, defendant Immediate Care, defendant Ottauquechee Health, defendant Carleton Stickney, defendant John Ajamie, defendant Jeffrey Rothfeld, defendant Alice Hafner, defendant Ernest Torpey, defendant Arthur Silvester, defendant Lorraine Graham, defendant Elaine Charboneau, defendant Vt. Dept. of Corr. (Attorney Thomas John Rushford) ; stipulated discovery schedule due 2/25/94 (jam) (Entered: 01/27/1994)
15 MOTION by plaintiffs to Certify Class (gei) (Entered: 01/28/1994)
16 MEMORANDUM by plaintiffs in support of [15-1] motion to Certify Class (gei) (Entered: 01/28/1994)
17 ORDER granting [15-1] motion to Certify Class; a class is hereby certified in this case to consist of all persons who are now or who will in the future be confined in Vermont prisons and all persons who are now or will in the future be subject to the policies and practices of the Vermont Department of Corrections and the Vermont Parole Board with respect to the Vermont Treatment Program for Sexual Aggressors and the Violent Offender Program. ( Judge Fred I. Parker ) Cy to parties (jam) (Entered: 03/09/1994)
18 STIPULATED DISCOVERY ORDER setting Discovery cutoff 12/29/94 ; ( Judge Fred I. Parker ) Cy to parties (jam) (Entered: 03/09/1994)
19 MOTION by all pltfs to Compel Discovery (kac) (Entered: 05/03/1994)
20 AFFIDAVIT of Marjorie Rifkin re: [19-1] motion to Compel Discovery (kac) (Entered: 05/03/1994)
21 MEMORANDUM by all pltfs in support of [19-1] motion to Compel Discovery with proposed order (kac) (Entered: 05/03/1994)

https://ecf.vtd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?708697843332909-L_923_0-1

9/13/2005

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court - Vermont (LIVE) - Docket Report

Page 24 of 37

05/25/1994 06/01/1994 06/02/1994 06/02/1994 06/09/1994 06/10/1994 06/14/1994 06/17/1994 06/24/1994 06/24/1994 06/27/1994
06/27/1994
06/28/1994

22 MOTION by plaintiffs for expedited discovery conference , and to Compel (jam) (Entered: 05/25/1994)
23 NOTICE OF ADDRESS CHANGE by plaintiff Richard Stempel (jam) (Entered: 06/01/1994)
24 MEMORANDUM by plaintiffs in support of [22-1] motion for expedited discovery conference, [22-2] motion to Compel (gei) (Entered: 06/02/1994)
25 AFFIRMATION of Marjorie Rifkin re: [24-1] support memorandum (gei) (Entered: 06/02/1994)
26 ORDER case referred to Magistrate Judge Jerome J. Niedermeier ; pursuant to 28 USC 636(b)(1)(A) & (B) (Judge Fred I. Parker) Cy to parties (kac) (Entered: 06/09/1994)
27 ORDER granting [19-1] motion to Compel Discovery, and granting [222] motion to Compel ( Magistrate Judge Jerome J. Niedermeier ) Cy to parties (epr) (Entered: 06/10/1994)
28 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendants by Joseph Leon Winn (gei) (Entered: 06/14/1994)
29 DISCOVERY CERTIFICATE: answer to interrogatories filed by defendant Vt. Dept. of Corr. (epr) (Entered: 06/17/1994)
30 MOTION by defendants for Relief from the Court's Order granting pltf's Motions to Compel and for Expedited Discovery (gei) (Entered: 06/24/1994)
31 AFFIDAVIT of Tom Rushford for defendants re: [30-1] motion for Relief from the Court's Order granting pltf's Motions to Compel and for Expedited Discovery (gei) (Entered: 06/24/1994)
32 MOTION by plaintiff Robert B Goldsmith, plaintiff Earl Lawrence Squires, plaintiff Richard Stempel, plaintiff Roger Blackburn, plaintiff Stormy Wright, plaintiff Jeff Stratton, plaintiff Edward Bennett, plaintiff Robert Gokey, plaintiff Don Paydon, plaintiff David McKeen, plaintiff Robert Lawton, plaintiff William Verrinder III, plaintiff Charles Conway, plaintiff Randy Blodgett, plaintiff Fred Ashworth for Contempt ,and for Sanctions (jjj) (Entered: 06/27/1994)
33 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff Robert B Goldsmith, plaintiff Earl Lawrence Squires, plaintiff Richard Stempel, plaintiff Roger Blackburn, plaintiff Stormy Wright, plaintiff Jeff Stratton, plaintiff Edward Bennett, plaintiff Robert Gokey, plaintiff Don Paydon, plaintiff David McKeen, plaintiff Robert Lawton, plaintiff William Verrinder III, plaintiff Charles Conway, plaintiff Randy Blodgett, plaintiff Fred Ashworth in support of [32-1] motion for Contempt, [32-2] motion for Sanctions (jjj) (Entered: 06/27/1994)
34 DISCOVERY CERTIFICATE: first supplemental response to interrogatories and first set of requests for production filed by defendant

https://ecf.vtd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?708697843332909-L_923_0-1

9/13/2005

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court - Vermont (LIVE) - Docket Report

Page 25 of 37

07/06/1994 07/06/1994 07/07/1994 07/18/1994 07/20/1994
07/25/1994 07/25/1994 07/28/1994
08/04/1994 08/04/1994 08/10/1994
08/15/1994

Vt. Dept. of Corr. (epr) (Entered: 06/28/1994)
35 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to [30-1] motion for Relief from the Court's Order granting pltf's Motions Compel and for Expedited Discovery (gei) (Entered: 07/06/1994)
36 AFFIDAVITS of Marjorie Rifkin and Margaret Winter re: [35-1] motion response (gei) (Entered: 07/06/1994)
37 MEMORANDUM by defendants in opposition to [32-1] motion for Contempt (gei) (Entered: 07/07/1994)
38 REPLY by plaintiffs to response to [32-1] motion for Contempt, [32-2] motion for Sanctions (jjj) (Entered: 07/18/1994)
39 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendants Howard B. Dean III, John Gorczyk, Steven Maranville, Keith Tallon, Lawrence McLiverty, Stewart K. Robinson, Celeste M. Girrell, T. Michael Coxon, William D. Pithers, Judith Hill, Jack Bush, Immediate Care, Ottauquechee Health, Carleton Stickney, John Ajamie, Jeffrey Rothfeld, Alice Hafner, Ernest Torpey, Arthur Silvester, Lorraine Graham, Elaine Charboneau and the Vt. Dept. of Corr. by David M. Rocchio (epr) (Entered: 07/20/1994)
40 REPLY by defendants to [32-2] motion for Sanctions (jjj) Modified on 07/27/1994 (Entered: 07/26/1994)
41 AFFIDAVIT of Mary E. Dunster re: [40-1] reply (jjj) Modified on 07/27/1994 (Entered: 07/26/1994)
44 ORDER denying [30-1] motion for Relief from the Court's Order granting pltf's Motions to Compel and for Expedited Discovery; withdrawing [32-1] motion for Contempt and granting [32-2] motion for Sanctions ( Magistrate Judge Jerome J. Niedermeier ) Cy to parties (epr) (Entered: 07/29/1994)
45 MOTION (assented to) by defendants to Amend [18-1] Scheduling order (gei) (Entered: 08/05/1994)
46 MOTION by plaintiff Robert B Goldsmith to Extend Time to 9/30/94 to submit documentation re: monetary sanctions (jjj) (Entered: 08/08/1994)
47 RESPONSE by defendants Howard B. Dean III, John Gorczyk, Steven Maranville, Keith Tallon, Lawrence McLiverty, Stewart K. Robinson, Celeste M. Girrell, T. Michael Coxon, William D. Pithers, Judith Hill, Jack Bush, Immediate Care, Ottauquechee Health, Carleton Stickney, John Ajamie, Jeffrey Rothfeld, Alice Hafner, Ernest Torpey, Arthur Silvester, Lorraine Graham, Elaine Charboneau, and Vt. Dept. of Corr. to [46-1] motion to Extend Time to 9/30/94 to submit documentation re: monetary sanctions (epr) (Entered: 08/10/1994)
48 DISCOVERY CERTIFICATE: First set interrogatories and requests to produce propounded by defendants to plaintiffs (pjd) (Entered: 08/15/1994)

https://ecf.vtd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?708697843332909-L_923_0-1

9/13/2005

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court - Vermont (LIVE) - Docket Report

Page 26 of 37

08/17/1994 08/22/1994 09/02/1994 09/02/1994 09/09/1994 09/28/1994 09/30/1994 10/07/1994 10/07/1994 10/07/1994 11/01/1994
11/02/1994 11/23/1994

49 REPLY by plaintiffs to [40-1] opposition by defts to pltfs' request for leave to document fees (gei) (Entered: 08/17/1994)
50 DISCOVERY CERTIFICATE: 1st set of expert interrogatories and requests to produce propounded by defendants to plaintiffs (pjd) (Entered: 08/22/1994)
51 STIPULATED DISCOVERY ORDER setting Discovery cutoff 12/22/94 ; Deadline for filing of all motions 3/15/95 ; ( Magistrate Judge Jerome J. Niedermeier ) Cy to parties (epr) (Entered: 09/02/1994)
52 DISCOVERY CERTIFICATE: notice of deposition by defendants to Mitchell L. Pearl; ACLU, National Prison Project (gei) (Entered: 09/06/1994)
53 ORDER granting [46-1] motion to Extend Time to 9/30/94 to submit documentation re: monetary sanctions ( Magistrate Judge Jerome J. Niedermeier ) Cy to parties (jam) (Entered: 09/12/1994)
54 MEMORANDUM AND DOCUMENTATION REGARDING THE AMOUNT OF MONETARY SANCTIONS TO BE AWARDED by plaintiffs in support of [44-1] order (pjd) (Entered: 09/28/1994)
55 DISCOVERY CERTIFICATE: second set of interrogatories and requests to produce propounded by defendants to plaintiffs (pjd) (Entered: 10/03/1994)
56 MEMORANDUM by defts in opposition to pltfs' [32-2] motion for Sanctions (kac) (Entered: 10/11/1994)
57 AFFIDAVIT of David M. Rocchio re: [56-1] opposition memorandum (kac) (Entered: 10/11/1994)
58 AFFIDAVIT of Mark J. Di Stefano re: [56-1] opposition memorandum (kac) (Entered: 10/11/1994)
59 DISCOVERY CERTIFICATE response to second set of interrogatories and requests for production of documents by plts Robert B Goldsmith, Earl Lawrence Squires, Richard Stempel, Roger Blackburn, Stormy Wright, Jeff Stratton, Edward Bennett, Robert Gokey, Don Paydon, David McKeen, Robert Lawton, William Verrinder III, Charles Conway, Randy Blodgett, Fred Ashworth, Jerome Clement, George Negron (law) (Entered: 11/01/1994)
60 STIPULATION AND ORDER re: [32-2] motion for Sanctions ( Magistrate Judge Jerome J. Niedermeier ) Cy to parties (law) (Entered: 11/03/1994)
61 DISCOVERY CERTIFICATE supplemental response to first set of interrogatories and request to produce by defendants Howard B. Dean III, John Gorczyk, Steven Maranville, Keith Tallon, Lawrence McLiverty, Stewart K. Robinson, Celeste M. Girrell, T. Michael Coxon, William D. Pithers, Judith Hill, Jack Bush, Immediate Care, Ottauquechee Health, Carleton Stickney, John Ajamie, Jeffrey Rothfeld, Alice Hafner, Ernest

https://ecf.vtd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?708697843332909-L_923_0-1

9/13/2005

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court - Vermont (LIVE) - Docket Report

Page 27 of 37

11/29/1994 11/30/1994 11/30/1994
11/30/1994 11/30/1994

Torpey, Arthur Silvester, Lorraine Graham, Elaine Charboneau, Vt. Dept. of Corr. (law) (Entered: 11/23/1994)
62 MOTION by dfts Howard B. Dean III, John Gorczyk, Steven Maranville, Keith Tallon, Lawrence McLiverty, Stewart K. Robinson, Celeste M. Girrell, T. Michael Coxon, William D. Pithers, Judith Hill, Jack Bush, Immediate Care, Ottauquechee Health, Carleton Stickney, John Ajamie, Jeffrey Rothfeld, Alice Hafner, Ernest Torpey, Arthur Silvester, Lorraine Graham, Elaine Charboneau, Vt. Dept. of Corr. for leave to amend the discovery schedule (law) (Entered: 11/29/1994)
63 MOTION by dfts Howard B. Dean III, John Gorczyk, Steven Maranville, Keith Tallon, Lawrence McLiverty, Stewart K. Robinson, Celeste M. Girrell, T. Michael Coxon, William D. Pithers, Judith Hill, Jack Bush, Immediate Care, Ottauquechee Health, Carleton Stickney, John Ajamie, Jeffrey Rothfeld, Alice Hafner, Ernest Torpey, Arthur Silvester, Lorraine Graham, Elaine Charboneau, and Vt. Dept. of Corr. to Compel Answers to certain Interrogatories , and to Compel The Production of Certain Documents From the Plaintiffs (law) (Entered: 11/30/1994)
64 MEMORANDUM by defendant Howard B. Dean III, defendant John Gorczyk, defendant Steven Maranville, defendant Keith Tallon, defendant Lawrence McLiverty, defendant Stewart K. Robinson, defendant Celeste M. Girrell, defendant T. Michael Coxon, defendant William D. Pithers, defendant Judith Hill, defendant Jack Bush, defendant Immediate Care, defendant Ottauquechee Health, defendant Carleton Stickney, defendant John Ajamie, defendant Jeffrey Rothfeld, defendant Alice Hafner, defendant Ernest Torpey, defendant Arthur Silvester, defendant Lorraine Graham, defendant Elaine Charboneau, defendant Vt. Dept. of Corr. in support of [63-1] motion to Compel Answers to certain Interrogatories, [63-2] motion to Compel The Production of Certain Documents From the Plaintiffs (law) (Entered: 11/30/1994)
65 AFFIDAVIT of David M. Rocchio, Esq. by defendants Howard B. Dean III, John Gorczyk, Steven Maranville, Keith Tallon, Lawrence McLiverty, Stewart K. Robinson, Celeste M. Girrell, T. Michael Coxon, William Pithers, Judith Hill, Jack Bush, Immediate Care, Ottauquechee Health, Carleton Stickney, John Ajamie, Jeffrey Rothfeld, Alice Hafner, Ernest Torpey, Arthur Silvester, Lorraine Graham, Elaine Charboneau, Vt. Dept. of Corr. re: [64-1] support memorandum (law) (Entered: 11/30/1994)
66 AFFIDAVIT of Joseph L. Winn, Asst Atty Gen'l by Howard B. Dean III, John Gorczyk, Steven Maranville, Keith Tallon, Lawrence McLiverty, Stewart K. Robinson, Celeste M. Girrell, T. Michael Coxon, William Pithers, Judith Hill, Jack Bush, Immediate Care, Ottauquechee Health, Carleton Stickney, John Ajamie, Jeffrey Rothfeld, Alice Hafner, Ernest Torpey, Arthur Silvester, Lorraine Graham, Elaine Charboneau, and Vt. Dept. of Corr. re: [64-1] support memorandum (law) (Entered: 11/30/1994)

https://ecf.vtd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?708697843332909-L_923_0-1

9/13/2005

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court - Vermont (LIVE) - Docket Report

Page 28 of 37

11/30/1994
12/19/1994 12/19/1994 12/21/1994
12/21/1994
12/22/1994 12/23/1994 12/23/1994 12/28/1994 01/04/1995 01/04/1995

67 APPENDIX by defendants Howard B. Dean III, John Gorczyk, Steven Maranville, Keith Tallon, Lawrence McLiverty, Stewart K. Robinson, Celeste M. Girrell, T. Coxon, William D. Pithers, Judith Hill, Jack Bush, Immediate Care, Ottauquechee Health, Carleton Stickney, John Ajamie, Jeffrey Rothfeld, Alice Hafner, Ernest Torpey, Arthur Lorraine Graham, Elaine Charboneau, and Vt. Dept. of Corr. in support of [63-1] motion to Compel Answers to certain Interrogatories, [63-2] motion to Compel The Production of Certain Documents From the Plaintiffs (see expandable folder for papers) (law) Modified on 11/30/1994 (Entered: 11/30/1994)
68 MOTION by plaintiff Robert B Goldsmith to Extend Time to resp. to defts' m.to compel (jjj) (Entered: 12/19/1994)
ENDORSED ORDER: granting [68-1] motion to Extend Time to resp. to defts' [63-1] motion to Compel Answers to certain Interrogatories, [63-2] motion to Compel The Production of Certain Documents From the Plaintiffs. New deadline set for 1/4/95 (pjd) (Entered: 12/21/1994)
69 MOTION by defendants Howard B. Dean III, John Gorczyk, Steven Maranville, Keith Tallon, Lawrence McLiverty, Stewart K. Robinson, Celeste M. Girrell, T. Michael Coxon, William D. Pithers, Judith Hill, Jack Bush, Immediate Care, Ottauquechee Health, Carleton Stickney, John Ajamie, Jeffrey Rothfeld, Alice Hafner, Ernest Torpey, Arthur Silvester, Lorraine Graham, Elaine Charboneau, and Vt. Dept. of Corr. to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (law) (Entered: 12/21/1994)
70 MEMORANDUM by defendants Howard B. Dean III, John Gorczyk, Steven Maranville, Keith Tallon, Lawrence McLiverty, Stewart K. Robinson, Celeste M. Girrell, T. Michael Coxon, William D. Pithers, Judith Hill, Jack Bush, Immediate Care, Ottauquechee Health, Carleton Stickney, John Ajamie, Jeffrey Rothfeld, Alice Hafner, Ernest Torpey, Arthur Silvester, Lorraine Graham, Elaine Charboneau, and Vt. Dept. of Corr. in support of [69-1] motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (law) (Entered: 12/21/1994)
71 MOTION by plaintiffs to Extend Time to respond to defts' motion to dismiss (pjd) (Entered: 12/22/1994)
72 MOTION by all defts for Protective Order (kac) (Entered: 12/27/1994)
73 AFFIDAVIT of Joseph L. Winn by all dfts re: [72-1] motion for Protective Order (kac) (Entered: 12/27/1994)
74 RESPONSE with memo in support by all pltfs to defts' [63-1] motion Compel Answers to certain Interrogatories & [63-2] motion to Compel The Production of Certain Documents From the Pltfs (kac) (Entered: 12/28/1994)
75 MOTION by plaintiff Robert B Goldsmith to Extend Time to resp. to defts' m.to dismiss (jjj) (Entered: 01/04/1995)
76 ORDER granting [75-1] motion to Extend Time to resp. to defts' [72-1] motion for Protective Order, response due 1/20/95 ( Magistrate Judge

https://ecf.vtd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?708697843332909-L_923_0-1

9/13/2005

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court - Vermont (LIVE) - Docket Report

Page 29 of 37

01/10/1995 01/12/1995 01/16/1995 01/17/1995 01/20/1995 02/01/1995 02/03/1995
02/03/1995
02/03/1995

Jerome J. Niedermeier ) Cy to parties (pjd) Modified on 01/06/1995 (Entered: 01/04/1995)
77 STIPULATED DISCOVERY ORDER setting Discovery cutoff 4/17/95 ; Deadline for filing of all motions reset to 6/15/95 ; ( Magistrate Judge Jerome J. Niedermeier ) Cy to parties (law) (Entered: 01/10/1995)
78 REPLY by all defendants to memorandum in support of response to [631] motion to Compel Answers to certain Interrogatories, [63-2] motion to Compel The Production of Certain Documents From the Plaintiffs (pjd) (Entered: 01/12/1995)
MINUTE ENTRY:TELELPHONE CONFERENCE conducted before Magistrate Judge Niedermeier. Margaret Winter, Esq. for pltfs; Joseph Winn, Esq. for defts. Stmts by counsel re: deposition of Ms. Fairfeild. ORDERED: Depo to be conducted 1/23/96; preliminary injunction hrg to resume 1/24/96 at 9:30 a.m.. (jjj) (Entered: 01/18/1996)
79 MEMORANDUM IN RESPONSE by plaintiffs to [69-1] motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (pjd) (Entered: 01/17/1995)
80 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to [72-1] motion for Protective Order (pjd) (Entered: 01/20/1995)
81 REPLY by all defendants to response to [69-1] motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (pjd) (Entered: 02/01/1995)
82 REPLY by defendants Howard B. Dean III, John Gorczyk, Steven Maranville, Keith Tallon, Lawrence McLiverty, Stewart K. Robinson, Celeste M. Girrell, T. Michael Coxon, William D. Pithers, Judith Hill, Jack Bush, Immediate Care, Ottauquechee Health, Carleton Stickney, John Ajamie, Jeffrey Rothfeld, Alice Hafner, Ernest Torpey, Arthur Lorraine Graham, Elaine Charboneau and Vt. Dept. of Corr. to response to [72-1] motion for Protective Order (law) (Entered: 02/06/1995)
84 AFFIDAVIT of David M. Rocchio, Esq. by defendants Howard B. Dean III, John Gorczyk, Steven Maranville, Keith Tallon, Lawrence McLiverty, Stewart K. Robinson, Celeste M. Girrell, T. Michael Coxon, William D. Pithers, Judith Hill, Jack Bush, Immediate Care, Ottauquechee Health, Carleton Stickney, John Ajamie, Jeffrey Rothfeld, Alice Hafner, Ernest Torpey, Arthur Silvester, Lorraine Graham, Elaine Charboneau, and Vt. Dept. of Corr. re: [82-1] motion reply (law) (Entered: 02/06/1995)
87 AFFIDAVIT of Thomas A. Powell, Phd. by defendants Howard B. Dean III, John Gorczyk, Steven Maranville, Keith Tallon, Lawrence McLiverty, Stewart K. Robinson, Celeste M. Girrell, T. Michael Coxon, William D. Pithers, Judith Hill, Jack Bush, Immediate Care, Ottauquechee Health, Carleton Stickney, John Ajamie, Jeffrey Rothfeld, Alice Hafner, Ernest Torpey, Arthur Silvester, Lorraine Graham, Elaine Charboneau and Vt. Dept. of Corr. re: [82-1] motion reply (law) (Entered: 02/06/1995)

https://ecf.vtd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?708697843332909-L_923_0-1

9/13/2005

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court - Vermont (LIVE) - Docket Report

Page 30 of 37

02/06/1995
02/06/1995
02/06/1995
02/09/1995 02/13/1995 02/13/1995 02/23/1995 02/23/1995 02/23/1995 02/24/1995

83 ADDENDUM A by defendants Howard B. Dean III, John Gorczyk, Steven Maranville, Keith Tallon, Lawrence McLiverty, Stewart K. Robinson, Celeste M. Girrell, T. Michael Coxon, William D. Pithers, Judith Hill, Jack Bush, Immediate Care, Ottauquechee Health, Carleton Stickney, John Ajamie, Jeffrey Rothfeld, Alice Hafner, Ernest Torpey, Arthur Silvester, Lorraine Graham, Elaine Charboneau and Vt. Dept. of Corr. in support of [82-1] motion reply (law) (Entered: 02/06/1995)
85 AFFIDAVIT of Joseph L. Winn by defendants Howard B. Dean III, John Gorczyk, Steven Maranville, Keith Tallon, Lawrence McLiverty, Stewart K. Robinson, Celeste M. Girrell, T. Michael Coxon, William D. Pithers, Judith Hill, Jack Bush, Immediate Care, Ottauquechee Health, Carleton Stickney, John Ajamie, Jeffrey Rothfeld, Alice Hafner, Ernest Torpey, Arthur Silvester, Lorraine Graham, Elaine Charboneau and Vt. Dept. of Corr. re: [82-1] motion reply (law) (Entered: 02/06/1995)
86 AFFIDAVIT of Renee S. Markus by defendants Howard B. Dean III, John Gorczyk, Steven Maranville, Keith Tallon, Lawrence McLiverty, Stewart K. Robinson, Celeste M. Girrell, T. Michael Coxon, William D. Pithers, Judith Hill, Jack Bush, Immediate Care, Ottauquechee Health, Carleton Stickney, John Ajamie, Jeffrey Rothfeld, Alice Hafner, Ernest Torpey, Arthur Silvester, Lorraine Graham, Elaine Charboneau and Vt. Dept. of Corr. re: [82-1] motion reply (law) (Entered: 02/06/1995)
88 ORDER granting [71-1] motion to Extend Time to respond to defts' motion to dismiss [69-1] motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Nunc pro tunc. ( Magistrate Judge Jerome J. Niedermeier ) Cy to parties (law) Modified on 02/09/1995 (Entered: 02/09/1995)
89 MOTION by plaintiffs for further Sanctions for failure to comply with the Court's 6/10/94 Order (pjd) (Entered: 02/13/1995)
90 MEMORANDUM by plaintiffs in support of [89-1] motion for further Sanctions for failure to comply with the Court's 6/10/94 Order (pjd) (Entered: 02/13/1995)
91 MEMORANDUM by defendant Howard B. Dean III in opposition to [89-1] motion for further Sanctions for failure to comply with the Court's 6/10/94 Order (jjj) (Entered: 02/23/1995)
92 AFFIDAVIT of Joseph Winn, Esq. by defendant Howard B. Dean III, et al re: [91-1] opposition memorandum (jjj) (Entered: 02/23/1995)
93 AFFIDAVIT of David Rocchio, Esq. by defendant Howard B. Dean III, et al re: [91-1] opposition memorandum (jjj) (Entered: 02/23/1995)
MINUTE ENTRY:In court before Magistrate Judge Niedermeier. Margaret Winter, Esq. and Marjorie Rifkin, Esq. for pltfs; Joseph Win, Esq. and david Rocchio, Esq. for defts (taped). Stmts by counsel re: settlement/discovery. ORDERED: denying motion for further Sanctions for failure to comply with the Court's 6/10/94 Order [89-1], denying motion for Protective Order [72-1], denying motion to Compel Answers to certain Interrogatories [63-1], denying motion to Compel The

https://ecf.vtd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?708697843332909-L_923_0-1

9/13/2005

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court - Vermont (LIVE) - Docket Report

Page 31 of 37

06/19/1995 06/19/1995 07/25/1995 08/25/1995 08/25/1995 08/29/1995 08/31/1995 09/01/1995 09/05/1995 09/07/1995 09/08/1995 09/19/1995
09/20/1995

Production of Certain Documents From the Plaintiffs [63-2], denying motion for leave to amend the discovery schedule [62-1] w/leave to refile. All discovery stayed until 5/1/94 w/the exception of document inspection scheduled for 3/6/95. (jjj) (Entered: 02/24/1995)
94 ORDER OF REASSIGNMENT case reassigned to Judge J. G. Murtha ( Judge Fred I. Parker ) Cy to parties (law) (Entered: 06/21/1995)
File sent to Burlington (law) (Entered: 06/21/1995)
95 LETTER by plaintiff Richard Stempel of change of address (pjd) (Entered: 07/25/1995)
96 MOTION by plaintiffs for Preliminary Injunction (pjd) (Entered: 08/25/1995)
97 MEMORANDUM by plaintiffs in support of [96-1] motion for Preliminary Injunction (pjd) (Entered: 08/25/1995)
98 MOTION by defendants to Extend Time to 9/20/95 to oppose pltfs' motion for preliminary injunction and expedited discovery (pjd) (Entered: 08/29/1995)
ENDORSED ORDER: granting defts' [98-1] motion to Extend Time to 9/20/95 to oppose pltfs' motion for preliminary injunction and expedited discovery; cy parties (kac) (Entered: 08/31/1995)
99 LETTER by plaintiffs in response to [98-1] motion to Extend Time to 9/20/95 to oppose pltfs' motion for preliminary injunction and expedited discovery, stating no opposition (pjd) (Entered: 09/05/1995)
100 RETURN OF SERVICE of subpoena to Anita Schlank served 8/30/95 (pjd) (Entered: 09/05/1995)
101 MOTION by defts to Quash Subpoena issued by pltfs to Anita Schlank (kac) (Entered: 09/08/1995)
102 ORDER, case reassigned to Judge William K. Sessions III ( Chief Judge J. G. Murtha ) Cy to parties (epr) (Entered: 09/11/1995)
MINUTE ENTRY: In chambers before Magistrate Judge Niedermeier for a TELEPHONE HEARING. Mitchell Pearl, Esq. and Margaret Winter, Esq. for pltfs; David Roccio, Esq. and Joseph Winn, Esq. for defts (taped). ORDERED: Court deems that because discovery has been stayed that motion to dismiss (p#69) is deemed as withdrawn and that it will be reinstated after 10/1/95. Defts to file response to pltfs' motion for preliminary injunction no later than 9/21/95. All discovery is stayed pending resolution by the court on pending motion for preliminary injunction. Motion to quash (p#101) granted per stay of discovery. (kac) (Entered: 09/22/1995)
103 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendants Howard B. Dean III, John Gorczyk, Steven Maranville, Keith Tallon, Lawrence McLiverty, Stewart K. Robinson, Celeste M. Girrell, T. Michael Coxon, William D. Pithers,

https://ecf.vtd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?708697843332909-L_923_0-1

9/13/2005

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court - Vermont (LIVE) - Docket Report

Page 32 of 37

09/20/1995 09/21/1995
09/21/1995 09/21/1995 09/21/1995 09/21/1995 09/21/1995
09/21/1995 09/21/1995 09/21/1995 09/21/1995
09/21/1995
09/21/1995 09/21/1995
09/21/1995

Judith Hill, Jack Bush, defendant Immediate Care, Ottauquechee Health, Carleton Stickney, John Ajamie, Jeffrey Rothfeld, Alice Hafner, Ernest Torpey, Arthur Silvester, Lorraine Graham, Elaine Charboneau, Vt. Dept. of Corr. by Renee Susan Markus (pjd) (Entered: 09/22/1995)
104 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to [101-1] motion to Quash Subpoena (pjd) (Entered: 09/22/1995)
105 MEMORANDUM by defendants in opposition to [96-1] motion for Preliminary Injunction and for expedited discovery (mek) (Entered: 09/22/1995)
106 AFFIDAVIT of John Bergman by defendants re: [105-1] opposition memorandum (mek) (Entered: 09/22/1995)
107 AFFIDAVIT of Georgia F. Cumming by defendants re: [105-1] opposition memorandum (mek) (Entered: 09/22/1995)
108 AFFIDAVIT of Joan Eckley by defendants re: [105-1] opposition memorandum (mek) (Entered: 09/22/1995)
109 AFFIDAVIT of John F. Gorczyk by defendants re: [105-1] opposition memorandum (mek) (Entered: 09/22/1995)
110 AFFIDAVIT of Stephen A. Maranville, superintendent of Northwest State Correctional Facility by defendants re: [105-1] opposition memorandum (mek) (Entered: 09/22/1995)
111 AFFIDAVIT of John Robie, Casework Supervisor, by defendants re: [105-1] opposition memorandum (mek) (Entered: 09/22/1995)
112 AFFIDAVIT of David M. Rocchio, Esq. by defendants re: [105-1] opposition memorandum (mek) (Entered: 09/22/1995)
113 AFFIDAVIT of Barbara K. Schwartz, Ph.D. by defendants re: [105-1] opposition memorandum (mek) (Entered: 09/22/1995)
114 AFFIDAVIT of Linda Shambo, Executive Director, VT Parole Board by defendants re: [105-1] opposition memorandum (mek) (Entered: 09/22/1995)
115 AFFIDAVIT of Richard A. Smith, Asst Director of Program Svcs, by defendants re: [105-1] opposition memorandum (mek) (Entered: 09/22/1995)
116 AFFIDAVIT of James Spinelli, Director of Program Svcs, by defendants re: [105-1] opposition memorandum (mek) (Entered: 09/22/1995)
117 AFFIDAVIT of Richard Turner, Director of Correctional Svcs, by defendants re: [105-1] opposition memorandum (mek) (Entered: 09/22/1995)
118 AFFIDAVIT of William Young by defendants re: [105-1] opposition memorandum (mek) (Entered: 09/22/1995)

https://ecf.vtd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?708697843332909-L_923_0-1

9/13/2005

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court - Vermont (LIVE) - Docket Report

Page 33 of 37

09/21/1995 09/21/1995 09/21/1995 09/21/1995 09/29/1995 09/29/1995 09/29/1995 09/29/1995 10/02/1995 10/02/1995 10/02/1995 10/04/1995
10/23/1995
10/23/1995 10/25/1995

119 TRANSCRIPT OF 2/24/95 MOTIONS HEARING by defendants in support of [105-1] opposition memorandum (mek) (Entered: 09/22/1995)
120 DEPOSITION of Charles W. Conway re: [105-1] opposition memorandum (mek) (Entered: 09/22/1995)
121 MOTION by defendants to Strike affidavit of Margaret Winter attached to [97-1] support memorandum re: [96-1] motion for Preliminary Injunction (mek) (Entered: 09/22/1995)
122 MEMORANDUM by defendants in support of [121-1] motion to Strike affidavit of Margaret Winter attached to [97-1] support memorandum re: [96-1] motion for Preliminary Injunction (mek) (Entered: 09/22/1995)
123 AFFIDAVIT by plaintiff Robert B Goldsmith re: [79-1] motion response (pjd) (Entered: 09/29/1995)
124 DECLARATION by plaintiff Robert Lawton re: [79-1] motion response (pjd) (Entered: 09/29/1995)
125 DECLARATION by plaintiff William Verrinder III re: [79-1] motion response (pjd) (Entered: 09/29/1995)
126 DECLARATION by plaintiff Charles Conway re: [79-1] motion response (pjd) (Entered: 09/29/1995)
127 MOTION by defendants to Dismiss (Org. filed 12/21/94 P#69) (jjj) Modified on 10/02/1995 (Entered: 10/02/1995)
128 MEMORANDUM by defendant Howard B. Dean III in support of [1271] motion to Dismiss (Org. filed 12/21/94 P#70) (jjj) (Entered: 10/02/1995)
129 MOTION by pltf Robert B Goldsmith for an Enlargement of Time in which to File a Reply to 10/23/95 (epr) (Entered: 10/03/1995)
130 ORDER granting [129-1] motion for an Enlargement of Time in which to File a Reply, reply to mtn for preliminary injunction due 10/23/95 ( Magistrate Judge Jerome J. Niedermeier ) Cy to parties (pjd) Modified on 10/05/1995 (Entered: 10/04/1995)
MINUTE ENTRY:, In chambers before Magistrate Judge Jerome J. Niedermeier for telephone conference re: hearing of 11/8/95. F. Rendol Barlow, Esq. for pltfs; David Roccio, Esq. for defts. (TAPED). Statements by parties/court. ORDERED: Court would like to hear from the state/ACLU together re: hearing of 11/8/95. (gmg) (Entered: 10/23/1995)
131 REPLY BRIEF by plaintiffs to response to [96-1] motion for Preliminary Injunction (pjd) (Entered: 10/24/1995)
MINUTE ENTRY:Telephone status conference before Magistrate Judge Niedermeier. Mitchell Pearl, Esq. and Margaret Winter, Esq. for pltfs; David Rocchio, Esq. for defts (taped). ORDERED:Hrg on pltfs' m.for prel.inj. to commence on 11/8/95. (jjj) (Entered: 10/26/1995)

https://ecf.vtd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?708697843332909-L_923_0-1

9/13/2005

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court - Vermont (LIVE) - Docket Report

Page 34 of 37

11/03/1995 11/03/1995 11/03/1995 11/06/1995
11/06/1995 11/06/1995 11/07/1995 11/08/1995
11/08/1995
11/09/1995
11/15/1995

132 LIST OF POTENTIAL WITNESSES by all defendants (law) (Entered: 11/03/1995)
134 WRIT OF of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum and Ad Prosequendum returned executed (law) (Entered: 11/06/1995)
133 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum by plaintiff Robert B Goldsmith (law) (Entered: 11/06/1995)
135 MOTION by pltfs Robert B Goldsmith, Earl Lawrence Squires, Richard Stempel, Roger Blackburn, Stormy Wright, Jeff Stratton, Edward Bennett, Robert Gokey, Don Paydon, David McKeen, Robert Lawton, William Verrinder III, Charles Conway, Randy Blodgett, Fred Ashworth, Jerome Clement and George Negron for Eric G. Balaban to Appear Pro Hac Vice (epr) (Entered: 11/06/1995)
136 AFFIDAVIT of Eric Balaban, Esq. re: [135-1] motion for Eric G. Balaban to Appear Pro Hac Vice (epr) (Entered: 11/06/1995)
137 WITNESS LIST by all plaintiffs (law) (Entered: 11/06/1995)
138 SURREPLY by defts to pltfs' [96-1] motion for Preliminary Injunction (kac) (Entered: 11/07/1995)
MINUTE ENTRY:In court before Magistrate Judge Niedermeier. Margaret Winter, Esq., Marjorie Rifkin, Esq.and Eric Balaban, Esq. for pltfs; David Rocchio, Esq., Joseph Winn, Esq., James Arisman, Esq. and Renee Markus, Esq. for defts (taped). Oral m. for pro hac vice admission of James Arisman, Esq. ORDERED: granting [135-1] motion for Eric G. Balaban and oral m. for James Arisman to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Hrg held on pltfs' M.FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (P#96). The following witness, sworn by the clerk was examined on behalf of the pltfs: Dr. Fred Berlin. Hrg continued until 11/9/95 at 9:30 a.m.. (jjj) (Entered: 11/09/1995)
Added for defendants Howard B. Dean III, John Gorczyk, Steven Maranville, Keith Tallon, Lawrence McLiverty, Stewart K. Robinson, Celeste M. Girrell, T. Michael Coxon, William D. Pithers, Judith Hill, Jack Bush, Immediate Care, Ottauquechee Health, Carleton Stickney, John Ajamie, Jeffrey Rothfeld, Alice Hafner, Ernest Torpey, Arthur Silvester, Lorraine Graham, Elaine Charboneau, Vt. Dept. of Corr. attorney James Arisman (jjj) Modified on 11/14/1995 (Entered: 11/09/1995)
MINUTE ENTRY: In court before Magistrate Judge Niedermeier for a continuation of Preliminary Injunction Hrg.. (Martel reporter). Same counsel present as 11/8/95 proceeding. The following witnesses, sworn by the clerk, were examined on behalf of the pltfs: Jerry Merrow, Jeremy Nelson, Louis Ducharme, Wayne Hughes and Larry Smith. Hrg continued until 11/20/95 at 9:30 a.m.. (jjj) (Entered: 11/09/1995)
139 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re: [127-1] Recommending that [127-1] motion to Dismiss be DENIED ; Motion(s) referred back to

https://ecf.vtd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?708697843332909-L_923_0-1

9/13/2005

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court - Vermont (LIVE) - Docket Report

Page 35 of 37

11/16/1995 11/20/1995 11/20/1995 11/20/1995 11/20/1995
11/21/1995
11/21/1995
12/01/1995 12/01/1995 12/11/1995

Judge William K. Sessions Objections to R and R due by 12/4/95 Cy to parties (law) (Entered: 11/15/1995)
140 SUPPLEMENTAL WITNESS LIST by all defendants (law) (Entered: 11/16/1995)
141 MOTION by defendant Howard B. Dean III to Seal Affidavit (SEALED) (jjj) Modified on 11/27/1995 (Entered: 11/20/1995)
142 AFFIDAVIT (SEALED) (jjj) Modified on 11/27/1995 (Entered: 11/20/1995)
143 ORDER granting [141-1] motion to Seal Affidavit ( Magistrate Judge Jerome J. Niedermeier ) Cy to parties (jjj) (Entered: 11/20/1995)
MINUTE ENTRY:In court before Magistrate Judge Niedermeier for a continuation of Preliminary Injunction Hrg. (taped). Same counsel present as 11/8/95 and 11/9/95 proceeding.ORDERED: granting [121-1] motion to Strike affidavit of Margaret Winter attached to [97-1] support memorandum re: [96-1] motion for Preliminary Injunction . The following witness, sworn by the clerk, was examined on pltfs behalf: Michael Jacques. The following witnesses, sworn by the clerk, were examined on defts behalf: David Marcoux, Mr.A and Dr. Barbara Schwartz. Hrg. continued until 11/21/95 at 9:30 a.m.. (jjj) (Entered: 11/20/1995)
MINUTE ENTRY:In court before Magistrate Judge Niedermeier (taped). Cont. Hrg on pltfs' MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. Same counsel present as 11/20/95 proceeding. Dr. Barbara Schwartz retakes the stand and cross-examination by Ms. Winters continues. The following witnesses, sworn by the clerk, were examined on behalf of defts: Robert Long-Go and Dr. Anita Schlang . Testimony suspended and direct examination of these witnesses to be be continued at a later date. Counsel to meet in chambers at conclusion of todays proceeding. (jjj) (Entered: 11/21/1995)
MINUTE ENTRY:In chambers conference conducted before Magistrate Judge Niedermeier w/counsel re: settlement. ORDERED: Parties to exchange present settlement positions and submit to the court by 12/15/95. Parties to exchange settlement responses and file w/the court by 1/8/96. Court to contact parties the wk of 1/8/96 to schedule further proceedings. (jjj) (Entered: 11/22/1995)
144 OBJECTION by all defendants to [139-1] report & recommendations (THIS DOCUMENT PART OF NEXT ENTRY) (pjd) (Entered: 12/01/1995)
144 REQUEST by all defendants for oral argument on motion to dismiss (THIS ENTRY PART OF PREVIOUS DOCUMENT) (pjd) (Entered: 12/01/1995)
145 AFFIDAVIT of Brian Bilodeau by all defendants (law) (Entered: 12/11/1995)

https://ecf.vtd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?708697843332909-L_923_0-1

9/13/2005

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court - Vermont (LIVE) - Docket Report

Page 36 of 37

12/21/1995 01/04/1996 01/24/1996
01/24/1996
02/02/1996 03/07/1996
03/08/1996 03/20/1996
03/21/1996 04/18/1996 04/18/1996

146 RESPONSE by all plaintiffs to [144-1] objection to report and recommendation (SEE EXPANDABLE FOLDER FOR EXHIBITS) (law) (Entered: 12/21/1995)
147 REPLY MEMORANDUM by all defendants in support [139-1] report & recommendations re: [127-1] (SEE EXPANDABLE FOLDER FOR EXHIBITS) (law) Modified on 01/05/1996 (Entered: 01/05/1996)
MINUTE ENTRY: In court before Magistrate Judge Niedermeier for CONT. OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION HRG.(taped). Margaret Winter, Esq., Marjorie Rifkin, Esq. and Eric Balaban, Esq. for pltfs; James Arisman, Esq., David Rocchio,Esq., Joseph Winn, Esq. and Renee Markus, Esq. for defts. The following witness, sworn by the clerk, was examined on the defts behalf: Joanne Fairfield. Hrg continued until a later date. (jjj) (Entered: 01/25/1996)
MINUTE ENTRY:In chambers before Magistrate Judge Niedermeier after Pre.Inj.Hrg for status/settlement conf. Counsel in court present in chambers. Pltf's w/d motion for preliminary injunction ORDERED: withdrawing motion for Preliminary Injunction [96-1] Settlement conference set for 3/6 - 3/7/96. (jjj) (Entered: 01/25/1996)
148 NOTICE OF HEARING: settlement conference set for 9:30 3/7/96 Cy to parties (jjj) (Entered: 02/02/1996)
MINUTE ENTRY: In chambers before Magistrate Judge Niedermeier. A SETTLEMENT CONFRENCE was conducted. Marjorie Rifkin, Esq., Margaret Winter, Esq. and David Ballabaum, Esq. for pltfs; David Roccio, Esq., Joseph Winn, Esq., James Arismann, Esq. and Renee Markus, Esq. for defts. Hrg continued until 3/8/96. (jjj) (Entered: 03/18/1996)
MINUTE ENTRY: In chambers before Magistrate Judge Niedermeier a further SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE was conducted. Same attys as 3/7/96 present. Conf. cont. until 3/20/96. (jjj) (Entered: 03/18/1996)
MINUTE ENTRY:In chambers before Magistrate Judge Niedermeier. SETTLEMENT CONF.conducted. Margaret Winter, Esq. and Marjorie Rifkin, Esq. for pltfs; David Roccio, Esq. , Joseph Winn, Esq. and Renee Markus, Esq. for defts. Conf. cont. until 3/21/96. (jjj) (Entered: 03/21/1996)
MINUTE ENTRY: In chambers before Magistrate Judge Niedermeier. Same counsel present as 3/20/96 settlement conference. Cont. until 4/10/96 at 9:30 a.m.. (jjj) (Entered: 03/21/1996)
149 NOTICE to all members of the plaintiff class of proposed settlement agreement (kac) Modified on 04/23/1996 (Entered: 04/19/1996)
150 ORDER objections to proposed settlement agreement (located on case file) must be postmarked by 5/21/96; counsel may file briefs responding to objections by 6/3/96; settlement hearing shall be held on 6/10/96 at 1:30 (Magistrate Judge Jerome J. Niedermeier) Cy to parties (kac)

https://ecf.vtd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?708697843332909-L_923_0-1

9/13/2005

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court - Vermont (LIVE) - Docket Report

Page 37 of 37

06/03/1996 06/03/1996 06/10/1996
06/10/1996 06/10/1996 06/11/1996

(Entered: 04/19/1996)
151 MEMORANDUM by all plaintiffs in support of settlement agreement (pjd) Modified on 06/04/1996 (Entered: 06/03/1996)
152 MEMORANDUM by all defendants in support of settlement agreement (pjd) (Entered: 06/03/1996)
MINUTE ENTRY: In court before Magistrate Judge Niedermeier. Margaret Winter, Esq., Marjorie Rifkin, Esq., Eric Balabaum, Esq., Mitchell Pearl, Esq. for pltfs; Renne Markus, Esq. and David Roccio, Esq. for defts (taped). Stmts by counsel. Counsel advises the court that they will execute a consent form to proceed before the Magistrate Judge. Court advises counsel that the Settlement Agreement will be approved and so ordered upon filing of consent. (jjj) (Entered: 06/10/1996)
153 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. (jjj) (Entered: 06/11/1996)
154 CONSENT TO PROCEED before Magistrate by all parties case reassigned to Magistrate Judge Jerome J. Niedermeier for final disposition (cc: all counsel) (pjd) (Entered: 06/11/1996)
155 ORDER approving proposed settlement, dismissing case without prejudice except for pltfs' claims re: independent medical care providers, which is dismissed with prejudice, dfts are to provide notice of the provisions of this order to pltf class and other inmates affected by this order by posting such notice in appropriate places in state correctional institutions case closed ( Magistrate Judge Jerome J. Niedermeier ) Cy to parties (pjd) (Entered: 06/11/1996)

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt

09/13/2005 17:55:47

PACER Login: hs0328

Client Code:

Description: Docket Report Search Criteria: 2:93-cv-00383-JJN

Billable Pages: 21

Cost:

1.68

https://ecf.vtd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?708697843332909-L_923_0-1

9/13/2005