U.S. District Court Western District of Missouri (Jefferson City) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:16-cv-04219-NKL

Postawko et al v. Corizon Medical Services et al Assigned to: District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey Case in other court: Eighth Circuit, 17-03029 Cause: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

Date Filed: 07/14/2016 Date Terminated: 10/28/2020 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 555 Habeas Corpus (Prison Condition) Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff Michael G Postawko

represented by Amelia Igo Pelly Frenkel Wilkinson Stekloff LLP 2001 M Street NW 10th Floor Washington, DC 20036 202-804-4253 Fax: 202-847-4005 Email: afrenkel@wilkinsonstekloff.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anastasia McLetchie Pastan Wilkinson Stekloff LLP 2001 M Street NW 10th Floor Washington, DC 20036 202-804-4239 Fax: 202-847-4005 Email: apastan@wilkinsonstekloff.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anthony E. Rothert American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri Foundation-StL 906 Olive Street Suite 1130 St. Louis, MO 63101 (314) 652-3114 Fax: (314) 652-3112 Email: trothert@aclu-mo.org

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Lynn Henthorne Wilkinson Stekloff LLP 2001 M Street NW 10th Floor Washington, DC 20036 202-804-4241 Fax: 202-847-4005 Email: bhenthorne@wilkinsonstekloff.com TERMINATED: 10/06/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kieran Gostin Wilkinson Stekloff LLP 2001 M Street NW 10th Floor Washington, DC 20036 202-847-4031 Email: kgostin@wilkinsonstekloff.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mae C Quinn MacArthur Justice Center at St. Louis 3115 South Grand Blvd. Suite 300 St. Louis, MO 63118 314-254-8541 Email: mae.quinn@macarthurjustice.org TERMINATED: 12/07/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY
Megan G Crane MacArthur Justice Center 3115 South Grand Ste 300 St. Louis, MO 63118 314-254-8540 Email: megan.crane@macarthurjustice.org LEAD ATTORNEY

PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Meghan Chambers Cleary Wilkinson Stekloff LLP 130 West 42nd Street Ste 24th Floor New York, NY 10036 212-294-8924 Fax: 202-847-4005 Email: mcleary@wilkinsonstekloff.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tamarra Dion Matthews-Johnson Wilkinson Stekloff LLP 2001 M Street NW 10th Floor Washington, DC 20036 202-847-4015 Email: tmatthewsjohnson@wilkinsonstekloff.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy Elizabeth Breihan MacArthur Justice Center at St. Louis 3115 South Grand Boulevard Suite 300 St. Louis, MO 63118 314-254-8543 Fax: 314-254-8547 Email: amy.breihan@macarthurjustice.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gillian R. Wilcox American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri Foundation-KCMO 406 W. 34th Street Suite 420 Kansas City, MO 64111 816-470-9938 Fax: 314-652-3112 Email: gwilcox@aclu-mo.org

Plaintiff Christopher Baker

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessie Steffan American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri Foundation-StL 906 Olive Street Suite 1130 St. Louis, MO 63101 314-652-3114 Fax: 314-652-3112 Email: jsteffan@aclu-mo.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kayla DeLoach 906 Olive Street Suite 1130 Saint Louis, MO 63101 813-802-8610 Email: kdeloach@aclu-mo.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Omri E Praiss American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri Foundation-StL 906 Olive Street Suite 1130 St. Louis, MO 63101 (314) 652-3114 Fax: 314-652-3112 Email: opraiss@aclu-mo.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amelia Igo Pelly Frenkel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anastasia McLetchie Pastan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Lynn Henthorne

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/06/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE
Kieran Gostin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mae C Quinn (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY
Megan G Crane (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Meghan Chambers Cleary (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tamarra Dion Matthews-Johnson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy Elizabeth Breihan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gillian R. Wilcox (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessie Steffan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Michael Jamerson TERMINATED: 11/20/2019

Kayla DeLoach (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Omri E Praiss (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anthony E. Rothert (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amelia Igo Pelly Frenkel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anastasia McLetchie Pastan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Lynn Henthorne (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/06/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kieran Gostin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mae C Quinn (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY
Megan G Crane (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

V.
Defendant
Corizon Medical Services TERMINATED: 12/15/2016

PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Meghan Chambers Cleary (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tamarra Dion Matthews-Johnson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy Elizabeth Breihan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gillian R. Wilcox (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessie Steffan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Omri E Praiss (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anthony E. Rothert (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by J. Thaddeus Eckenrode Eckenrode-Maupin, Attorneys at Law 11477 Olde Cabin Rd. Suite 110 St. Louis, MO 63141 (314) 726-6670 Fax: (314) 726-2106 Email: jte@eckenrode-law.com

Defendant Missouri Department of Corrections TERMINATED: 08/30/2016
Defendant George Lombardi TERMINATED: 08/30/2016 Defendant Jay Cassady Warden TERMINATED: 08/30/2016

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ryan Lee Bangert Missouri Attorney General's Office-JC P.O. Box 899 Jefferson City, MO 65102 573-751-8828 Fax: 573-751-0774 Email: ryan.bangert@ago.mo.gov TERMINATED: 01/04/2019
represented by Dean John Sauer Missouri Attorney General's Office-JC P.O. Box 899 Jefferson City, MO 65102 573-751-8807 Fax: 573-751-2203 Email: john.sauer@ago.mo.gov TERMINATED: 01/02/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY
Laura E. Elsbury Missouri Ethics Commission 3411A Knipp Drive P.O. Box 1370 Jefferson City, MO 65102 573-751-2020 Fax: 573-522-2226 Email: laura.elsbury@mec.mo.gov TERMINATED: 09/11/2018
Ryan Lee Bangert (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2019
represented by Ryan Lee Bangert (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2019
represented by Ryan Lee Bangert (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2019

Defendant
Missouri Department of Corrections

represented by Amy C Haywood Missouri Attorney General's Office-JC P.O. Box 899 Jefferson City, MO 65102 573-751-8790 Fax: 573-751-2041 Email: amy.haywood@ago.mo.gov TERMINATED: 12/13/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY
Colleen Joern Vetter Missouri Attorney General's Office-StL 815 Olive Street Suite 200 St. Louis, MO 63101 314-340-7861 Fax: 314-340-7029 Email: colleen.vetter@ago.mo.gov TERMINATED: 02/10/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY
David D Dean Missouri Attorney General's Office-StL 815 Olive Street Suite 200 St. Louis, MO 63101 314-340-7950 Fax: 314-340-7957 Email: david.dean@ago.mo.gov TERMINATED: 09/06/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY
Dean John Sauer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/02/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY
H Anthony Relys Missouri Attorney General's Office-StL 815 Olive Street Suite 200 St. Louis, MO 63101 314-340-6816 Fax: 314-340-7957 Email: tony.relys@ago.mo.gov

TERMINATED: 05/25/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY
Jennifer A. Baumann St. Louis County Counselor's Office 41 S. Central, 9th Floor St. Louis, MO 63105 314-615-4682 Email: Jbaumann@stlouisco.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jillian Mueller Jackson Lewis PC - StL Central Ave 222 S. Central Ave. Suite 900 St. Louis, MO 63105 314-746-4816 Fax: 314-827-3940 Email: jillian.mueller@jacksonlewis.com TERMINATED: 10/02/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY
John W Taylor Missouri Petroleum Storage Tank Insurance Fund P.O. Box 104116 Jefferson City, MO 65101 573-522-2352 Email: jtaylor@pstif.org TERMINATED: 10/27/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY
Michael D. Quinlan Missouri Attorney General's Office-JC P.O. Box 899 Jefferson City, MO 65102 573-751-8833 Fax: 573-751-9456 Email: michael.quinlan@ago.mo.gov TERMINATED: 11/30/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY
William R Lunsford 655 Gallatin Street Huntsville, AL 35801

Defendant Corizon, LLC

256-551-0171 Fax: 256-512-0119 Email: blunsford@maynardcooper.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jason Lewis Missouri Attorney General's Office-StL 815 Olive Street Suite 200 St. Louis, MO 63101 314-340-7832 Email: jason.lewis@ago.mo.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Justin D. Smith Missouri Attorney General's Office-JC P.O. Box 899 Jefferson City, MO 65102 573-751-0304 Fax: 573-751-0774 Email: justin.smith@ago.mo.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ryan Lee Bangert (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2019
Zachary T. Buchheit Missouri Attorney General's Office-JC P.O. Box 899 Jefferson City, MO 65102 573-751-3321 Fax: 573-751-9456 Email: zachary.buchheit@ago.mo.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel L. Messeloff Jackson Lewis PC - Cleveland Park Center Plaza I 6100 Oak Tree Blvd. Suite 400 Cleveland, OH 44131 216-750-0404 Email:

daniel.messeloff@jacksonlewis.com TERMINATED: 08/13/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE
Dwight Allan Vermette Eckenrode-Maupin, Attorneys at Law 11477 Olde Cabin Rd. Suite 110 St. Louis, MO 63141 314-726-6670 Fax: 314-726-2106 Email: dav@eckenrode-law.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
J. Thaddeus Eckenrode (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/29/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY
Jessica L. Liss Jackson Lewis PC - StL Central Ave 222 S. Central Ave. Suite 900 St. Louis, MO 63105 314-827-3939 Email: jessica.liss@jacksonlewis.com TERMINATED: 12/20/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY
Matthew B Reeves Mayer & Associates PC 9229 Ward Parkway Suite 260 Kansas City, MO 64114 256-562-1155 Email: mreeves@maynardcooper.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael P Huff 655 Gallatin Street Huntsville, AL 35801 256-551-0171

Defendant George Lombardi TERMINATED: 01/23/2017
Defendant

Fax: 256-512-0119 Email: mhuff@maynardcooper.com TERMINATED: 12/28/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE
William R Lunsford (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy J White Amy J. White 659 Fairview Avenue St. Louis, MO 63109 314-807-9040 Email: amy.white@jacksonlewis.com TERMINATED: 12/20/2018
Carrie L. Kinsella Jackson Lewis PC - StL Central Ave 222 S. Central Ave. Suite 900 St. Louis, MO 63105 (314) 827-3960 Fax: (314) 827-3940 Email: carrie.kinsella@jacksonlewis.com TERMINATED: 12/20/2018
Ryan Lee Bangert (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2019
represented by Colleen Joern Vetter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/10/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ryan Lee Bangert (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2019

Trinidad Aguilera TERMINATED: 06/28/2019
Defendant John Williams TERMINATED: 06/28/2019
Defendant FNU Stamps TERMINATED: 06/28/2019

represented by Daniel L. Messeloff (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/13/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE
Jessica L. Liss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy J White (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carrie L. Kinsella (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ryan Lee Bangert (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2019
represented by Jessica L. Liss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy J White (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carrie L. Kinsella (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ryan Lee Bangert (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2019
represented by Amy J White (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Thomas Pryor TERMINATED: 06/28/2019
Defendant

Daniel L. Messeloff (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/13/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE
Jessica L. Liss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carrie L. Kinsella (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ryan Lee Bangert (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2019
represented by Amy J White (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel L. Messeloff (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/13/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE
Jessica L. Liss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carrie L. Kinsella (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ryan Lee Bangert (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2019

FNU Proctor TERMINATED: 06/28/2019
Defendant FNU Hardman TERMINATED: 06/28/2019

represented by Amy J White (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel L. Messeloff (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/13/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE
Jessica L. Liss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carrie L. Kinsella (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ryan Lee Bangert (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2019
represented by Amy J White (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel L. Messeloff (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/13/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE
Jessica L. Liss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carrie L. Kinsella (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ryan Lee Bangert

Defendant FNU Davison TERMINATED: 06/28/2019
Defendant Paul Jones TERMINATED: 06/28/2019

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2019
represented by Amy J White (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel L. Messeloff (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/13/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE
Jessica L. Liss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carrie L. Kinsella (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ryan Lee Bangert (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2019
represented by Daniel L. Messeloff (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/13/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE
Jessica L. Liss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy J White (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carrie L. Kinsella (See above for address)

Defendant FNU Stieferman TERMINATED: 06/28/2019
Defendant T. Bredeman TERMINATED: 06/28/2019

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ryan Lee Bangert (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2019
represented by Amy J White (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel L. Messeloff (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/13/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE
Jessica L. Liss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carrie L. Kinsella (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ryan Lee Bangert (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2019
represented by Amy J White (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel L. Messeloff (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/13/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE
Jessica L. Liss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Defendant Julie Fipps TERMINATED: 06/28/2019
Defendant FNU Cofield TERMINATED: 06/28/2019

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carrie L. Kinsella (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ryan Lee Bangert (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2019
represented by Amy J White (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel L. Messeloff (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/13/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE
Jessica L. Liss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carrie L. Kinsella (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ryan Lee Bangert (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2019
represented by Amy J White (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel L. Messeloff (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/13/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

Defendant FNU Rucker TERMINATED: 06/28/2019
Defendant Jamie Campbell TERMINATED: 06/28/2019

Jessica L. Liss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carrie L. Kinsella (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ryan Lee Bangert (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2019
represented by Daniel L. Messeloff (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/13/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE
Jessica L. Liss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy J White (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carrie L. Kinsella (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ryan Lee Bangert (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2019
represented by Amy J White (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica L. Liss (See above for address)

Defendant Dawn Baker TERMINATED: 06/28/2019
Defendant Geeneen Wilhite TERMINATED: 06/28/2019

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carrie L. Kinsella (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ryan Lee Bangert (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2019
represented by Amy J White (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel L. Messeloff (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/13/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE
Jessica L. Liss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carrie L. Kinsella (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ryan Lee Bangert (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2019
represented by Daniel L. Messeloff (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/13/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE
Jessica L. Liss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Defendant
Adrienne Hardy TERMINATED: 05/11/2017

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy J White (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carrie L. Kinsella (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ryan Lee Bangert (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2019
represented by Amy C Haywood (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/13/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY
Colleen Joern Vetter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/10/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY
David D Dean (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/06/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY
Dean John Sauer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/02/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY
H Anthony Relys (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/25/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY
Jennifer A. Baumann (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jillian Mueller

Defendant
Bonnie Boley TERMINATED: 06/28/2019

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/02/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY
John W Taylor (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/27/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY
Michael D. Quinlan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/30/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY
Laura E. Elsbury (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/11/2018
Ryan Lee Bangert (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2019
represented by Daniel L. Messeloff (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/13/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE
Jessica L. Liss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy J White (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carrie L. Kinsella (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ryan Lee Bangert (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2019

Defendant Amanda Yates TERMINATED: 06/28/2019
Defendant Julie LNU TERMINATED: 06/28/2019
Defendant J Doe Defendant J Doe

represented by Jessica L. Liss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy J White (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carrie L. Kinsella (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ryan Lee Bangert (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2019
represented by Jessica L. Liss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy J White (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carrie L. Kinsella (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ryan Lee Bangert (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2019
represented by Ryan Lee Bangert (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2019
represented by Ryan Lee Bangert (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2019

Defendant J Doe
Defendant Anne L. Precythe in her official capacity as Director of the Missouri Department of Corrections

represented by Ryan Lee Bangert (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2019
represented by Amy C Haywood (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/13/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY
Colleen Joern Vetter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/10/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY
David D Dean (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/06/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY
Dean John Sauer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/02/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY
H Anthony Relys (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/25/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY
Jennifer A. Baumann (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jillian Mueller (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/02/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY
John W Taylor (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/27/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY

interested party
Edison Hester Register No. 191244 Jefferson City Correctional Center 8200 No More Victims Road Jefferson City, MO 65101
interested party
Darrin S Walker Regsiter No. 512992 Jefferson City Correctional Center (3D-208) 8200 No More Victims Road Jefferson City, MO 65101

Michael D. Quinlan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/30/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY
William R Lunsford (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jason Lewis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Justin D. Smith (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laura E. Elsbury (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/11/2018
Ryan Lee Bangert (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2019
Zachary T. Buchheit (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 07/14/2016 07/14/2016 07/14/2016 07/27/2016 07/29/2016
08/03/2016 08/08/2016 08/08/2016 08/09/2016
08/22/2016

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants filed by Michael G Postawko. (Attachment: # 1 Exhibits 1 - 8)(Thoennes, Cindy) (Entered: 07/28/2016)
2 IFP FINANCIAL AFFIDAVIT filed by Michael G Postawko. (Thoennes, Cindy) (Entered: 07/28/2016)
3 Inmate ACCOUNT STATEMENT filed by Michael G Postawko. (Thoennes, Cindy) (Entered: 07/28/2016)
RECEIPT number KCMO057218 in the amount of $14 issued to Michael Postawko. (Martin, Jan) (Entered: 08/02/2016)
5 ORDER that: (1) Plaintiff is granted provisional leave to proceed in forma pauperis; (2) Plaintiff shall pay to the clerk of the court for the Western District of Missouri, Western Division, an initial partial filing fee of $20.50; and (3) Plaintiff's failure to pay the required initial partial filing fee on or before August 26, 2016, will result in the dismissal of this case without further notice. Signed on 7/29/2016 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. (Doty, Greg) (Entered: 07/29/2016)
7 PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE for preservation of evidence filed by Michael G Postawko. (Thoennes, Cindy) (Entered: 08/12/2016)
RECEIPT number kcmo057484 in the amount of $6.50. (Watson, Olivette) (Entered: 08/08/2016)
8 PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE regarding preservation of evidence filed by Michael G Postawko. (Thoennes, Cindy) (Entered: 08/25/2016)
6 ORDER: ORDERED that: (1) the agency having custody of Plaintiff forward to the Clerk of the Court monthly payments of 20 percent of the preceding month's income credited to Plaintiff's account each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00 until the remainder of the $350.00 filing fee ($329.50) is paid; (2) the Clerk of the Court is directed to send Plaintiff another set of civil rights forms for his use in filing an amended complaint;(3) Plaintiff is directed to file a superseding amended complaint, on or before September 8, 2016, as specifically discussed herein; and (4) failure to amend as directed will result in the dismissal of this case without further notice. Signed on August 9, 2016 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. (CLERK'S NOTE: Civil rights forms mailed to plaintiff with copy of order as directed.) (Thoennes, Cindy) (Entered: 08/09/2016)
9 PLAINTIFF'S SUPERCEDING AMENDED COMPLAINT as directed by 8/9/16 order (Doc. No. 6 ) filed by Michael G Postawko. (Attachment: # 1 Exhibits)(Thoennes, Cindy) (Entered: 08/25/2016)

08/30/2016
09/10/2016 09/12/2016 09/29/2016 09/29/2016 10/05/2016 10/06/2016 10/08/2016 10/13/2016 10/28/2016 11/04/2016 11/04/2016

10 ORDER: ORDERED that: (1) the Clerk of the Court add George Lombardi and Jay Cassady as defendants in this case; (2) Defendants Missouri Department of Corrections, Lombardi, and Cassady are severed and dismissed from this case; (3) Corizon, Inc. notify the Court, in writing, within 30 days from the date of this Order, as to whether they will or will not waive service of process; and (4) Defendant Corizon answer or otherwise respond, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and 12, within 60 days from the date of this Order if service of process is waived, or within 21 days after service of process if service of process is not waived. Signed on August 30, 2016 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. (Thoennes, Cindy) (Entered: 08/30/2016)
RECEIPT number T16271 in the amount of $24.00 issued to MO DOC for Michael Postawko. (Lock, Tania) (Entered: 02/06/2017)
149 PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION to Doc. 10 filed by Michael G Postawko. (CLERK'S NOTE: This document was originally mistakenly filed in plaintiff's case no. 15-4281.)(Davies, Cindy) (Entered: 04/21/2017)
11 NOTICE of appearance by J. Thaddeus Eckenrode on behalf of Corizon Medical Services (Attorney J. Thaddeus Eckenrode added to party Corizon Medical Services(pty:dft))(Eckenrode, J.) (Entered: 09/29/2016)
12 RETURN OF WAIVER OF SERVICE filed by Corizon Medical Services. Waiver sent to Corizon Medical Services on 8/30/2016, answer due 10/31/2016. (Eckenrode, J.) (Entered: 09/29/2016)
13 PLAINTIFF'S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE filed by Michael G Postawko.(Thoennes, Cindy) (Entered: 10/12/2016)
14 PLAINTIFF'S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE filed by Michael G Postawko.(Thoennes, Cindy) (Entered: 10/12/2016)
RECEIPT number T16302 in the amount of $4.00 issued to MO DOC for Michael Postawko. (Lock, Tania) (Entered: 02/07/2017)
15 PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE filed by Michael G Postawko.(Thoennes, Cindy) (Entered: 10/18/2016)
16 ANSWER to 9 Amended Complaint on behalf of Corizon Medical Services.(Eckenrode, J.) (Entered: 10/28/2016)
17 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Corizon Medical Services filed by J. Thaddeus Eckenrode on behalf of Defendant Corizon Medical Services.(Eckenrode, J.) (Entered: 11/04/2016)
18 PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER with motions for summary judgment due on or before June 19, 2017. Signed on 11/04/2016 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. (Casey, Susan) (Entered: 11/04/2016)

11/07/2016 11/12/2016 11/14/2016 11/29/2016
11/29/2016
11/29/2016
11/30/2016
11/30/2016 12/01/2016 12/05/2016

19 NOTICE of appearance by Anthony E. Rothert on behalf of Michael G Postawko (Attorney Anthony E. Rothert added to party Michael G Postawko(pty:pla))(Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 11/07/2016)
RECEIPT number T16335 in the amount of $24.00 issued to MO DOC for Michael Postawko. (Lock, Tania) (Entered: 02/07/2017)
***Remark: Copy of docket sheet mailed to plaintiff upon request for status of e-file submissions. (Thoennes, Cindy) (Entered: 11/14/2016)
20 SCHEDULING ORDER: Discovery due by 5/19/2017. Dispositive Motions due by 6/19/2017. Pretrial Conference set for 10/26/2017at 02:00 PM Courtroom 4A, Jefferson City. Jury Trial set for 11/6/2017 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 4A, Jefferson City (NKL) before District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. Signed on 11/29/16 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. (Attachments: # 1 Memo on PTC) (Matthes Mitra, Renea) Modified on 11/30/2016 to correct the docket entry text, Trial is set 11/6/2017. (Matthes Mitra, Renea). (Entered: 11/29/2016)
21 RULES OF TRIAL. Signed on 11/29/16 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. (Matthes Mitra, Renea) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/29/2016: # 1 Rules of Trial) (Matthes Mitra, Renea). Modified on 11/29/2016 to attach correct document and delete incorrect document.(Matthes Mitra, Renea). (Entered: 11/29/2016)
NOTICE OF DOCKET MODIFICATION. A modification has been made to the document filed on 11/29/16 as Document No. 21, Rules of Trial. The document has been deleted and replaced with correct document. This is a text entry only - no document is attached. (Matthes Mitra, Renea) (Entered: 11/29/2016)
NOTICE OF DOCKET MODIFICATION. A modification has been made to the document filed on 11/29/16 Scheduling Order. Corrected docket entry text: Jury Trial is set 11/06/2017 as set out in the Scheduling Order. This is a text entry only - no document is attached. (Matthes Mitra, Renea) (Entered: 11/30/2016)
22 NOTICE of appearance by Gillian R. Wilcox on behalf of Michael G Postawko (Attorney Gillian R. Wilcox added to party Michael G Postawko(pty:pla))(Wilcox, Gillian) (Entered: 11/30/2016)
23 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Michael G Postawko of Plaintiff's Initial Disclosures filed by Gillian R. Wilcox on behalf of Plaintiff Michael G Postawko.(Wilcox, Gillian) (Entered: 12/01/2016)
24 MOTION to vacate 20 Scheduling Order,, filed by Anthony E. Rothert on behalf of Michael G Postawko. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 12/19/2016 unless service is made pursuant to FRCP 5 or as otherwise

12/05/2016
12/06/2016 12/07/2016 12/14/2016 12/14/2016 12/14/2016 12/15/2016
12/15/2016

directed by the court. (Related document(s) 20 ) (Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 12/05/2016)
25 ORDER entered by Judge Nanette Laughrey. Plaintiff's motion to vacate scheduling order, Doc. 24 , is granted. Plaintiff shall file his motion for leave to amend his complaint on or before 12/14/2016. The Court further orders that on or before 1/14/2017, the parties shall file a proposed scheduling order or arrange for a phone conference with the Court to discuss a Rule 16 conference.This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached.(Specker, Suzanne) (Entered: 12/05/2016)
RECEIPT number T16363 in the amount of $24.00 issued to MO DOC for Michael Postawko. (Lock, Tania) (Entered: 02/07/2017)
26 NOTICE of appearance by Jessie Steffan on behalf of Michael G Postawko (Attorney Jessie Steffan added to party Michael G Postawko(pty:pla))(Steffan, Jessie) (Entered: 12/07/2016)
27 MOTION for leave to file second amended complaint filed by Anthony E. Rothert on behalf of Michael G Postawko. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 12/28/2016 unless service is made pursuant to FRCP 5 or as otherwise directed by the court. (Attachments: # 1 proposed second amended complaint)(Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 12/14/2016)
28 SUGGESTIONS in support re 27 MOTION for leave to file second amended complaint filed by Anthony E. Rothert on behalf of Plaintiff Michael G Postawko. (Related document(s) 27 ) (Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 12/14/2016)
29 ORDER entered by Judge Nanette Laughrey. Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, Doc. 27 , is granted. Plaintiff shall file his second amended complaint on or before 12/21/2016.This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached.(Specker, Suzanne) (Entered: 12/14/2016)
30 AMENDED COMPLAINT against Missouri Department of Corrections, Corizon, LLC, George Lombardi, Trinidad Aguilera, John Williams, FNU Stamps, Thomas Pryor, FNU Proctor, FNU Hardman, FNU Davison, Paul Jones, FNU Stieferman, T. Bredeman, Julie Fipps, FNU Cofield, FNU Rucker, Jamie Campbell, Dawn Baker, Geeneen Wilhite, Adrienne Hardy, Bonnie Boley, Amanda Yates, Julie LNU, J Doe filed by Anthony E. Rothert on behalf of Michael G Postawko, Christopher Baker, Michael Jamerson.(Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 12/15/2016)
31 NOTICE of appearance by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Attorney Amy Elizabeth Breihan added to party Christopher Baker(pty:pla), Attorney Amy Elizabeth Breihan added to party Michael

12/15/2016 12/15/2016
12/16/2016 12/22/2016 12/27/2016
12/28/2016 12/28/2016 12/29/2016 12/29/2016 12/29/2016

Jamerson(pty:pla), Attorney Amy Elizabeth Breihan added to party Michael G Postawko(pty:pla))(Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 12/15/2016)
32 NOTICE of appearance by Jessie Steffan on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Attorney Jessie Steffan added to party Christopher Baker(pty:pla), Attorney Jessie Steffan added to party Michael Jamerson(pty:pla))(Steffan, Jessie) (Entered: 12/15/2016)
33 NOTICE of appearance by Mae C Quinn on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Attorney Mae C Quinn added to party Christopher Baker(pty:pla), Attorney Mae C Quinn added to party Michael Jamerson(pty:pla), Attorney Mae C Quinn added to party Michael G Postawko(pty:pla))(Quinn, Mae) (Entered: 12/15/2016)
34 NOTICE of appearance by Gillian R. Wilcox on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Attorney Gillian R. Wilcox added to party Christopher Baker(pty:pla), Attorney Gillian R. Wilcox added to party Michael Jamerson(pty:pla))(Wilcox, Gillian) (Entered: 12/16/2016)
ELECTRONIC SUMMONS ISSUED as to Corizon, LLC, George Lombardi, Missouri Department of Corrections and emailed to plaintiff's counsel. (Lock, Tania) (Entered: 12/22/2016)
ELECTRONIC SUMMONS ISSUED as to Dawn Baker, Bonnie Boley, Jamie Campbell, FNU Cofield, FNU Davison, Julie Fipps, FNU Hardman, Adrienne Hardy, Paul Jones, Julie LNU, FNU Proctor, Thomas Pryor, FNU Rucker, FNU Stamps, FNU Stieferman, Geeneen Wilhite & Amanda Yates and emailed to plaintiff's counsel. (Lock, Tania) (Entered: 12/27/2016)
35 NOTICE of appearance by Jessica L. Liss on behalf of Corizon, LLC (Attorney Jessica L. Liss added to party Corizon, LLC(pty:dft))(Liss, Jessica) (Entered: 12/28/2016)
36 NOTICE of appearance by Amy J White on behalf of Corizon, LLC (Attorney Amy J White added to party Corizon, LLC(pty:dft))(White, Amy) (Entered: 12/28/2016)
37 RETURN OF SERVICE of complaint executed by Christopher Baker. George Lombardi served on 12/22/2016, answer due 1/12/2017. (Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 12/29/2016)
38 RETURN OF SERVICE of complaint executed by Christopher Baker. Missouri Department of Corrections served on 12/22/2016, answer due 1/12/2017. (Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 12/29/2016)
ELECTRONIC SUMMONS ISSUED as to Trinidad Aguilera, T. Bredeman, John Williams and emailed to plaintiff's counsel. (Lock, Tania) (Entered: 12/29/2016)

12/29/2016 12/29/2016 12/29/2016
01/03/2017 01/04/2017 01/04/2017 01/04/2017 01/05/2017 01/05/2017 01/05/2017

39 ANSWER to 30 Amended Complaint,, on behalf of Corizon, LLC.(Attorney J. Thaddeus Eckenrode added to party Corizon, LLC(pty:dft))(Eckenrode, J.) (Entered: 12/29/2016)
40 MOTION to withdraw as attorney filed by J. Thaddeus Eckenrode on behalf of Corizon, LLC. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 1/12/2017 unless service is made pursuant to FRCP 5 or as otherwise directed by the court. (Eckenrode, J.) (Entered: 12/29/2016)
41 ORDER entered by Judge Nanette Laughrey. Eckenrode-Maupin, Attorneys at Law and J. Thaddeus Eckenrode's motion to withdraw as counsel on behalf of Defendant Corizon, LLC, Doc. 40 , is granted. Defendant Corizon, LLC's new counsel, Jessica L. Liss and Amy J. White of Jackson Lewis PC have already entered their appearances in this matter on behalf of Defendant.This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached.(Specker, Suzanne) (Entered: 12/29/2016)
42 RETURN OF SERVICE of complaint executed by All Plaintiffs. FNU Hardman served on 12/29/2016, answer due 1/19/2017. (Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 01/03/2017)
43 RETURN OF SERVICE of complaint executed by All Plaintiffs. FNU Davison served on 12/30/2016, answer due 1/20/2017. (Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 01/04/2017)
44 RETURN OF SERVICE of complaint executed by All Plaintiffs. FNU Proctor served on 12/30/2016, answer due 1/20/2017. (Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 01/04/2017)
45 RETURN OF SERVICE of complaint executed by All Plaintiffs. Dawn Baker served on 12/30/2016, answer due 1/20/2017. (Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 01/04/2017)
46 RETURN OF SERVICE of complaint executed by All Plaintiffs. Corizon, LLC served on 12/27/2016, answer due 1/17/2017. (Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 01/05/2017)
47 RETURN OF SERVICE of complaint executed by Michael Jamerson, Michael G Postawko, Christopher Baker. Adrienne Hardy served on 12/30/2016, answer due 1/20/2017. (Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 01/05/2017)
48 RETURN OF SERVICE of complaint executed by Michael Jamerson, Michael G Postawko, Christopher Baker. FNU Stamps served on 12/30/2016, answer due 1/20/2017. (Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 01/05/2017)

01/09/2017 01/09/2017 01/09/2017 01/09/2017 01/09/2017 01/09/2017
01/09/2017
01/09/2017 01/10/2017 01/10/2017
01/11/2017

49 RETURN OF SERVICE of complaint executed by Christopher Baker. Thomas Pryor served on 12/30/2016, answer due 1/20/2017. (Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 01/09/2017)
50 RETURN OF SERVICE of complaint executed by Christopher Baker. T. Bredeman served on 12/30/2016, answer due 1/20/2017. (Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 01/09/2017)
51 RETURN OF SERVICE of complaint executed by Christopher Baker. FNU Cofield served on 12/20/2016, answer due 1/10/2017. (Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 01/09/2017)
52 RETURN OF SERVICE of complaint executed by Christopher Baker. Jamie Campbell served on 12/30/2016, answer due 1/20/2017. (Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 01/09/2017)
53 RETURN OF SERVICE of complaint executed by Christopher Baker. FNU Stieferman served on 12/30/2016, answer due 1/20/2017. (Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 01/09/2017)
54 NOTICE of appearance by Colleen Joern Vetter on behalf of George Lombardi, Missouri Department of Corrections (Attorney Colleen Joern Vetter added to party George Lombardi(pty:dft), Attorney Colleen Joern Vetter added to party Missouri Department of Corrections(pty:dft))(Vetter, Colleen) (Entered: 01/09/2017)
55 MOTION for extension of time to file answer re 30 Amended Complaint,, filed by Colleen Joern Vetter on behalf of George Lombardi, Missouri Department of Corrections. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 1/23/2017 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Related document(s) 30 ) (Vetter, Colleen) (Entered: 01/09/2017)
RECEIPT number T1730 in the amount of $4.00 issued to MO DOC for Michael Postawko. (Lock, Tania) (Entered: 02/07/2017)
56 RETURN OF SERVICE of complaint executed by All Plaintiffs. Julie Fipps served on 12/30/2016, answer due 1/20/2017. (Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 01/10/2017)
57 ORDER entered by Judge Nanette Laughrey. Defendants Missouri Department of Corrections and George Lombardi's unopposed motion for extension, Doc. 55 , is granted, and their responses to Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint are due on or before 2/10/2017. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached.(Specker, Suzanne) (Entered: 01/10/2017)
58 NOTICE of appearance by Colleen Joern Vetter on behalf of Adrienne Hardy (Attorney Colleen Joern Vetter added to party Adrienne Hardy(pty:dft))(Vetter, Colleen) (Entered: 01/11/2017)

01/11/2017 01/12/2017 01/14/2017 01/17/2017 01/19/2017
01/19/2017

59 MOTION for extension of time to file answer re 30 Amended Complaint,, filed by Colleen Joern Vetter on behalf of Adrienne Hardy. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 1/25/2017 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Related document(s) 30 ) (Vetter, Colleen) (Entered: 01/11/2017)
60 ORDER entered by Judge Nanette Laughrey. Defendant Adrienne Hardy's unopposed motion for extension, Doc. 59 , is granted. Defendant Hardy shall file her response to Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint on or before 2/10/2017.This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached.(Specker, Suzanne) (Entered: 01/12/2017)
61 Joint MOTION for extension of time to Comply with December 5, 2016 Order filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 1/30/2017 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 01/14/2017)
62 MOTION for extension of time to Comply with December 5, 2016 Order filed by Colleen Joern Vetter on behalf of Adrienne Hardy, George Lombardi, Missouri Department of Corrections. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 1/31/2017 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Vetter, Colleen) (Entered: 01/17/2017)
63 NOTICE of appearance by Jessica L. Liss on behalf of Dawn Baker, T. Bredeman, Jamie Campbell, FNU Cofield, FNU Davison, Julie Fipps, FNU Hardman, FNU Proctor, Thomas Pryor, FNU Stamps, FNU Stieferman (Attorney Jessica L. Liss added to party Dawn Baker(pty:dft), Attorney Jessica L. Liss added to party T. Bredeman(pty:dft), Attorney Jessica L. Liss added to party Jamie Campbell(pty:dft), Attorney Jessica L. Liss added to party FNU Cofield(pty:dft), Attorney Jessica L. Liss added to party FNU Davison(pty:dft), Attorney Jessica L. Liss added to party Julie Fipps(pty:dft), Attorney Jessica L. Liss added to party FNU Hardman(pty:dft), Attorney Jessica L. Liss added to party FNU Proctor(pty:dft), Attorney Jessica L. Liss added to party Thomas Pryor(pty:dft), Attorney Jessica L. Liss added to party FNU Stamps(pty:dft), Attorney Jessica L. Liss added to party FNU Stieferman(pty:dft))(Liss, Jessica) (Entered: 01/19/2017)
64 NOTICE of appearance by Amy J White on behalf of Dawn Baker, T. Bredeman, Jamie Campbell, FNU Cofield, FNU Davison, Julie Fipps, FNU Hardman, FNU Proctor, Thomas Pryor, FNU Stamps, FNU Stieferman (Attorney Amy J White added to party Dawn Baker(pty:dft), Attorney Amy J White added to party T. Bredeman(pty:dft), Attorney Amy J White added to party Jamie Campbell(pty:dft), Attorney Amy J White added to party FNU Cofield(pty:dft), Attorney Amy J White added to party FNU Davison(pty:dft), Attorney Amy J White added to party Julie Fipps(pty:dft), Attorney Amy J White added to party FNU

01/19/2017 01/20/2017
01/20/2017 01/23/2017 01/23/2017 01/23/2017 01/23/2017
01/23/2017 01/23/2017

Hardman(pty:dft), Attorney Amy J White added to party FNU Proctor(pty:dft), Attorney Amy J White added to party Thomas Pryor(pty:dft), Attorney Amy J White added to party FNU Stamps(pty:dft), Attorney Amy J White added to party FNU Stieferman(pty:dft))(White, Amy) (Entered: 01/19/2017)
65 ANSWER to 30 Amended Complaint,, on behalf of Dawn Baker, T. Bredeman, Jamie Campbell, FNU Cofield, FNU Davison, Julie Fipps, FNU Hardman, FNU Proctor, Thomas Pryor, FNU Stamps, FNU Stieferman.(Liss, Jessica) (Entered: 01/19/2017)
66 ORDER. A Rule 16 Telephone Conference is set for 2/1/2017 at 02:00 PM. The parties shall call conference number: 877-336-1828, access code: 8503666 to participate. Signed on 1/20/17 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Matthes Mitra, Renea) (Entered: 01/20/2017)
67 MOTION to substitute party filed by Anthony E. Rothert on behalf of Christopher Baker. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 2/3/2017 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 01/20/2017)
68 RETURN OF SERVICE of complaint executed by Christopher Baker. John Williams served on 1/14/2017, answer due 2/6/2017. (Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 01/23/2017)
69 RETURN OF SERVICE of complaint executed by Christopher Baker. Amanda Yates served on 1/14/2017, answer due 2/6/2017. (Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 01/23/2017)
70 RETURN OF SERVICE of complaint executed by Christopher Baker. Julie LNU served on 1/14/2017, answer due 2/6/2017. (Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 01/23/2017)
71 ORDER entered by Judge Nanette Laughrey. Plaintiffs' motion to substitute a party, Doc. 67 , is granted. Because Anne L. Precythe is Defendant George Lombardi's successor as Director of the Missouri Department of Corrections, Precythe in her official capacity is substituted for Lombardi.This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached.(Specker, Suzanne) (Entered: 01/23/2017)
72 RETURN OF SERVICE of complaint executed by Christopher Baker. FNU Rucker served on 1/10/2017, answer due 1/31/2017. (Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 01/23/2017)
73 RETURN OF SERVICE of complaint executed by Christopher Baker. Geeneen Wilhite served on 1/10/2017, answer due 1/31/2017. (Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 01/23/2017)

01/23/2017 01/23/2017 01/23/2017 01/24/2017 01/24/2017 01/31/2017 01/31/2017
01/31/2017
01/31/2017 02/01/2017

74 RETURN OF SERVICE of complaint executed by Christopher Baker. Trinidad Aguilera served on 1/10/2017, answer due 1/31/2017. (Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 01/23/2017)
75 RETURN OF SERVICE of complaint executed by Christopher Baker. Paul Jones served on 1/10/2017, answer due 1/31/2017. (Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 01/23/2017)
76 RETURN OF SERVICE of complaint executed by Christopher Baker. Bonnie Boley served on 1/10/2017, answer due 1/31/2017. (Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 01/23/2017)
77 MOTION to certify class filed by Anthony E. Rothert on behalf of Christopher Baker, Michael Jamerson, Michael G Postawko. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 2/7/2017 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 01/24/2017)
78 SUGGESTIONS in support re 77 MOTION to certify class filed by Anthony E. Rothert on behalf of Plaintiff Michael G Postawko. (Related document(s) 77 ) (Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 01/24/2017)
79 DISCLOSURE OF CORPORATE INTERESTS filed by Jessica L. Liss on behalf of Defendant Corizon, LLC.(Liss, Jessica) (Entered: 01/31/2017)
80 NOTICE of appearance by Jessica L. Liss on behalf of Trinidad Aguilera, Bonnie Boley, Paul Jones, FNU Rucker, Geeneen Wilhite (Attorney Jessica L. Liss added to party Trinidad Aguilera(pty:dft), Attorney Jessica L. Liss added to party Bonnie Boley(pty:dft), Attorney Jessica L. Liss added to party Paul Jones(pty:dft), Attorney Jessica L. Liss added to party FNU Rucker(pty:dft), Attorney Jessica L. Liss added to party Geeneen Wilhite(pty:dft))(Liss, Jessica) (Entered: 01/31/2017)
81 NOTICE of appearance by Amy J White on behalf of Trinidad Aguilera, Bonnie Boley, Paul Jones, FNU Rucker, Geeneen Wilhite (Attorney Amy J White added to party Trinidad Aguilera(pty:dft), Attorney Amy J White added to party Bonnie Boley(pty:dft), Attorney Amy J White added to party Paul Jones(pty:dft), Attorney Amy J White added to party FNU Rucker(pty:dft), Attorney Amy J White added to party Geeneen Wilhite(pty:dft))(White, Amy) (Entered: 01/31/2017)
82 ANSWER to 30 Amended Complaint,, on behalf of Trinidad Aguilera, Bonnie Boley, Paul Jones, FNU Rucker, Geeneen Wilhite.(Liss, Jessica) (Entered: 01/31/2017)
83 Motion to allow Daniel L. Messeloff to appear pro hac vice (Pro Hac fee $50 receipt number 0866-5158353) filed by Amy J White on behalf of Trinidad Aguilera, Dawn Baker, Bonnie Boley, T. Bredeman, Jamie Campbell, FNU Cofield, Corizon, LLC, FNU Davison, Julie Fipps, FNU

02/01/2017
02/01/2017 02/06/2017

Hardman, Paul Jones, FNU Proctor, Thomas Pryor, FNU Rucker, FNU Stamps, FNU Stieferman, Geeneen Wilhite. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing)(White, Amy) (Entered: 02/01/2017)
84 MINUTE ENTRY. Teleconference held before the Hon. Nanette K. Laughrey on 2/1/2017. The parties were unable to file a proposed scheduling order and requested a Rule 16 Conference with the Court. Mr. Rothert stated that the reason the parties did not file a proposed scheduling order by the 1/14/2017 deadline was because not all of the defendants had been served or filed answers, not that the parties could not agree on deadlines. The parties agreed that they could file a joint proposed scheduling order within ten days. The Court ordered a joint proposed scheduling order to be filed on ECF within ten days. If an agreement cannot be reached by the parties on specific deadlines, each party shall include their respective positions on the deadline within the proposed scheduling order.Appearances: Plaintiff by Anthony Rothert Jessie Steffan and Amy Breihan. Defendants by Jessica Liss and Colleen Vetter. CRD: Renea Matthes Mitra. Court Reporter: None. (Text entry only.) (Matthes Mitra, Renea) (Entered: 02/01/2017)
85 ORDER entered by Judge Nanette Laughrey. In light of the Court's Order on 2/1/2017, Doc. 84 , the parties' motions for extensions, Docs. 61 & 62 , are denied as moot. Signed on 2/1/2017 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached.(Specker, Suzanne) (Entered: 02/01/2017)
86 ORDER granting 83 motion to appear pro hac vice entered by Clerk of Court. Attorney Daniel L. Messeloff for Trinidad Aguilera,Daniel L. Messeloff for Dawn Baker,Daniel L. Messeloff for Bonnie Boley,Daniel L. Messeloff for T. Bredeman,Daniel L. Messeloff for FNU Cofield,Daniel L. Messeloff for Corizon, LLC,Daniel L. Messeloff for FNU Davison,Daniel L. Messeloff for Julie Fipps,Daniel L. Messeloff for FNU Hardman,Daniel L. Messeloff for Paul Jones,Daniel L. Messeloff for FNU Proctor,Daniel L. Messeloff for Thomas Pryor,Daniel L. Messeloff for FNU Rucker,Daniel L. Messeloff for FNU Stamps,Daniel L. Messeloff for FNU Stieferman,Daniel L. Messeloff for Geeneen Wilhite allowed to appear pro hac vice. This entry will serve as authorization for the pro hac participation by the attorney.

Western District of Missouri Local Rule 5.1 requires documents to be filed electronically. If pro hac vice counsel has not already done so, counsel is directed to immediately register for a CM/ECF account. This will enable counsel to electronically file documents and receive electronic notification of filings. Please return the original completed ECF Registration Form to 80 Lafayette Street, Jefferson City, Missouri 65101.

02/06/2017 02/06/2017 02/06/2017 02/06/2017 02/06/2017 02/06/2017
02/08/2017

This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached.(Russel, Jeri) (Entered: 02/06/2017)
87 NOTICE of appearance by Jessica L. Liss on behalf of Julie LNU, John Williams, Amanda Yates (Attorney Jessica L. Liss added to party Julie LNU(pty:dft), Attorney Jessica L. Liss added to party John Williams(pty:dft), Attorney Jessica L. Liss added to party Amanda Yates(pty:dft))(Liss, Jessica) (Entered: 02/06/2017)
88 NOTICE of appearance by Amy J White on behalf of Julie LNU, John Williams, Amanda Yates (Attorney Amy J White added to party Julie LNU(pty:dft), Attorney Amy J White added to party John Williams(pty:dft), Attorney Amy J White added to party Amanda Yates(pty:dft))(White, Amy) (Entered: 02/06/2017)
89 ANSWER to 30 Amended Complaint,, on behalf of Julie LNU, John Williams, Amanda Yates.(Liss, Jessica) (Entered: 02/06/2017)
90 Joint MOTION for extension of time to file response/reply as to 77 MOTION to certify class filed by Jessica L. Liss on behalf of All Defendants. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 2/21/2017 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Related document(s) 77 ) (Liss, Jessica) (Entered: 02/06/2017)
91 NOTICE of appearance by H Anthony Relys on behalf of Adrienne Hardy, Missouri Department of Corrections, Anne L. Precythe (Attorney H Anthony Relys added to party Adrienne Hardy(pty:dft), Attorney H Anthony Relys added to party Missouri Department of Corrections(pty:dft), Attorney H Anthony Relys added to party Anne L. Precythe(pty:dft))(Relys, H) (Entered: 02/06/2017)
92 ORDER entered by Judge Nanette Laughrey. Defendants' joint motion for extension, Doc. 90 , is granted in part and denied in part. Defendants shall file their responses to Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class, Doc. 77 , on or before 2/28/2017. No more extensions will be granted for this deadline absent extraordinary circumstances.Signed on 2/6/2017 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached.(Specker, Suzanne) (Entered: 02/06/2017)
95 ORDER entered by Judge Nanette Laughrey. Plaintiff Christopher Baker's motion requesting medical treatment, Doc. 93 , which he filed pro se, is stricken. Plaintiff Michael Postawko's motion to amend or correct filing fee, Doc. 94 , which he filed pro se, is stricken. Because both Plaintiffs Baker and Postawko are represented by counsel, their pro se motions are improper. Signed on 2/8/2017 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached.(Specker, Suzanne) Modified on 2/9/2017 to show copy of NEF of this order mailed to Christopher Baker, 526350, WESTERN

02/08/2017 02/08/2017 02/09/2017 02/10/2017 02/10/2017
02/10/2017
02/15/2017 02/21/2017

MISSOURI DIAGNOSTIC CENTER, 3401 Faraon Street, St. Joseph, MO 64506 and per Chambers request mailed a copy to Michael G Postawko, 533578,Jefferson City Correctional Center,8200 No More Victims Rd,Jefferson City, MO 65101 (Geiser, Angel). (Entered: 02/08/2017)
96 MOTION for extension of time filed by H Anthony Relys on behalf of Adrienne Hardy, Missouri Department of Corrections, Anne L. Precythe. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 2/22/2017 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Relys, H) (Entered: 02/08/2017)
97 MOTION to withdraw as attorney filed by Colleen Joern Vetter on behalf of Adrienne Hardy, Missouri Department of Corrections, Anne L. Precythe. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 2/22/2017 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Vetter, Colleen) (Entered: 02/08/2017)
RECEIPT number T1740 in the amount of $32.00 issued to MO DOC for Michael Postawko. (Lock, Tania) (Entered: 02/10/2017)
98 Joint PROPOSED SCHEDULING ORDER by Christopher Baker, Michael Jamerson, Michael G Postawko. (Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 02/10/2017)
99 ORDER entered by Judge Nanette Laughrey. Defendants' unopposed motion for extension of time, Doc. 96 , is granted. Defendants Adrienne Hardy, Missouri Department of Corrections, and Anne L. Precythe shall file their responses to Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint on or before 2/21/2017. No further extensions will be granted for these deadlines absent extraordinary circumstances. Signed on 2/10/2017 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached.(Specker, Suzanne) (Entered: 02/10/2017)
100 ORDER entered by Judge Nanette Laughrey. Assistant Attorney General Colleen Joern Vetter's motion to withdraw as counsel on behalf of Defendants Missouri Department of Corrections, Anne L. Precythe, and Adrienne Hardy, Doc. 97 , is granted. Assistant Attorney General H. Anthony Relys has already entered his appearance in this matter on behalf of these defendants. Signed on 2/10/2017 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached.(Specker, Suzanne) (Entered: 02/10/2017)
RECEIPT number KCMO061133 in the amount of $267.50 issued to ACLU of Missouri Foundation fbo Michael Postawko. (Houston, Kiambu) (Entered: 02/15/2017)
101 NOTICE of appearance by Dean John Sauer on behalf of Adrienne Hardy, Missouri Department of Corrections, Missouri Department of Corrections, Anne L. Precythe (Attorney Dean John Sauer added to party Adrienne

02/21/2017
02/21/2017 02/21/2017 02/21/2017 02/23/2017

Hardy(pty:dft), Attorney Dean John Sauer added to party Missouri Department of Corrections(pty:dft), Attorney Dean John Sauer added to party Missouri Department of Corrections(pty:dft), Attorney Dean John Sauer added to party Anne L. Precythe(pty:dft))(Sauer, Dean) (Entered: 02/21/2017)
102 AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER: Discovery due by 2/9/2018. Dispositive Motions due by 3/26/2018. Pretrial Conference set for 8/30/2018 at 10:00 AM Courtroom 4A, Jefferson City. Jury Trial set for 9/10/2018 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 4A, Jefferson City. Signed on 2/21/17 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. (Attachments: # 1 Memo on PTC) (Matthes Mitra, Renea) (Entered: 02/21/2017)
103 MOTION to dismiss case filed by H Anthony Relys on behalf of Adrienne Hardy, Missouri Department of Corrections, Anne L. Precythe. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 3/7/2017 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Relys, H) (Entered: 02/21/2017)
104 SUGGESTIONS in support re 103 MOTION to dismiss case filed by H Anthony Relys on behalf of Defendants Adrienne Hardy, Missouri Department of Corrections, Anne L. Precythe. (Related document(s) 103 ) (Relys, H) (Entered: 02/21/2017)
105 Second MOTION for extension of time to file response/reply as to 77 MOTION to certify class and exceed page limit filed by Jessica L. Liss on behalf of Corizon, LLC. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 3/7/2017 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Related document(s) 77 ) (Liss, Jessica) (Entered: 02/21/2017)
106 ORDER entered by Judge Nanette Laughrey. Defendant Corizon LLC's second motion for extension of time to file, Doc. 105 , is granted in part and denied in part. The motion is granted with respect to Defendant Corizon's request to exceed the 15 page limitation. Therefore, each defendant's response to Plaintiffs' motion to certify shall not exceed 20 pages. The motion is denied with respect to the request for an additional 14-day extension in light of the Court's Order, Doc. 99 , which provided that no further extensions would be granted for this deadline absent extraordinary circumstances. Although Defendant had an opportunity to raise concerns about the motion to certify's briefing schedule during the Court's scheduling phone conference on 2/1, Defendant did not identify any scheduling problems at that time. Now, as support for its requested extension, Defendant states its affiant was out of the country. But, the Court is not persuaded that this constitutes an extraordinary circumstance, and Defendant has failed to convince the Court that there were no other reasonable avenues available to it, which would have allowed it to complete its response within the time permitted. Signed on 2/23/2017 by

02/23/2017 02/23/2017 02/27/2017 02/27/2017
02/28/2017 02/28/2017 02/28/2017 02/28/2017

District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached.(Specker, Suzanne) (Entered: 02/23/2017)
107 Motion to allow William R. Lunsford to appear pro hac vice (Pro Hac fee $50 receipt number 0866-5186182) filed by Amy J White on behalf of Corizon, LLC. (White, Amy) (Entered: 02/23/2017)
108 Motion to allow Michael P. Huff to appear pro hac vice (Pro Hac fee $50 receipt number 0866-5186193) filed by Amy J White on behalf of Corizon, LLC. (White, Amy) (Entered: 02/23/2017)
109 MOTION for leave to file excess pages filed by H Anthony Relys on behalf of Adrienne Hardy, Missouri Department of Corrections, Anne L. Precythe. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 3/13/2017 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Relys, H) (Entered: 02/27/2017)
110 ORDER entered by Judge Nanette Laughrey. Defendants Adrienne Hardy, Anne L. Precythe, and Missouri Department of Corrections' motion for leave to file excess pages, Doc. 109 , is denied as moot. See Doc. 106 , which provides that "each defendant's response to Plaintiffs' motion to certify shall not exceed 20 pages." Signed on 2/27/2017 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached.(Specker, Suzanne) (Entered: 02/27/2017)
112 NOTICE of appearance by Amy C Haywood on behalf of Adrienne Hardy, Missouri Department of Corrections, Anne L. Precythe (Attorney Amy C Haywood added to party Adrienne Hardy(pty:dft), Attorney Amy C Haywood added to party Missouri Department of Corrections(pty:dft), Attorney Amy C Haywood added to party Anne L. Precythe(pty:dft))(Haywood, Amy) (Entered: 02/28/2017)
113 SUGGESTIONS in opposition re 77 MOTION to certify class filed by Amy C Haywood on behalf of Defendants Adrienne Hardy, Missouri Department of Corrections, Anne L. Precythe. Reply suggestions due by 3/14/2017 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A)(Related document(s) 77 ) (Haywood, Amy) (Entered: 02/28/2017)
114 SUGGESTIONS in opposition re 77 MOTION to certify class filed by Jessica L. Liss on behalf of Defendant Corizon, LLC. Reply suggestions due by 3/14/2017 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit A-1, # 3 Exhibit A-2, # 4 Exhibit A-3, # 5 Exhibit A-4)(Related document(s) 77 ) (Liss, Jessica) (Entered: 02/28/2017)
115 Emergency MOTION to seal document 114 Suggestions in Opposition to Motion, filed by Anthony E. Rothert on behalf of Christopher Baker, Michael Jamerson, Michael G Postawko. Suggestions in

03/01/2017 03/01/2017 03/01/2017

opposition/response due by 3/14/2017 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Related document(s) 114 ) (Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 02/28/2017)
116 ORDER entered by Judge Nanette Laughrey. Plaintiff's emergency motion to seal, Doc. 115 , is granted. The Court orders Exhibits A, A-2, A-3, and A-4 [Docs. 114-1, 114-3, 114-4, and 114-5] to be sealed. The Court further orders Defendant Corizon to file a redacted public version of these documents on or before 3/7/2017. Signed on 3/1/2017 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached.(Specker, Suzanne) (Entered: 03/01/2017)
117 ORDER entered by Judge Nanette Laughrey. Plaintiff Christopher Baker's motion requesting medical treatment, Doc. 111 , which he filed pro se, is stricken. Because Plaintiff Baker is represented by counsel, he should not file pro se motions. Signed on 3/1/2017 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached.(Specker, Suzanne) (Entered: 03/01/2017)
118 ORDER granting 107 108 motion to appear pro hac vice entered by Clerk of Court. Attorney Michael P Huff and William R. Lunsford for Corizon, LLC allowed to appear pro hac vice. This entry will serve as authorization for the pro hac participation by the attorney.

03/03/2017 03/07/2017 03/07/2017

Western District of Missouri Local Rule 5.1 requires documents to be filed electronically. If pro hac vice counsel has not already done so, counsel is directed to immediately register for a CM/ECF account. This will enable counsel to electronically file documents and receive electronic notification of filings. Please return the original completed ECF Registration Form to 80 Lafayette Street, Jefferson City, Missouri 65101This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached.(Russel, Jeri) (Entered: 03/01/2017)
119 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by All Plaintiffs for Plaintiffs' First Set of Requests for Production and First Set of Interrogatories filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of Plaintiffs Christopher Baker, Michael Jamerson, Michael G Postawko.(Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 03/03/2017)
120 RESPONSE to order re 116 Order on Motion to Seal Document, Defendant Corizon, LLC's Memorandum to Court with Redacted Exhibits filed by Jessica L. Liss on behalf of Defendant Corizon, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit A-2, # 3 Exhibit A-3, # 4 Exhibit A-4)(Related document(s) 116 ) (Liss, Jessica) (Entered: 03/07/2017)
121 Consent MOTION for leave to file excess pages for suggestions in opposition to motion to dismiss filed by Anthony E. Rothert on behalf of Christopher Baker, Michael Jamerson, Michael G Postawko. Suggestions

03/09/2017
03/09/2017
03/09/2017 03/13/2017

in opposition/response due by 3/21/2017 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Attachments: # 1 proposed suggestions in opposition to motion to dismiss)(Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 03/07/2017)
122 ORDER entered by Judge Nanette Laughrey. Plaintiffs' consent motion for leave to file excess pages, [Doc. 121 ], is granted. Plaintiffs' Suggestions in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, [Doc. 103 ], may not exceed 17 pages. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached.(Farrington, Elizabeth) (Entered: 03/09/2017)
123 SUGGESTIONS in opposition re 103 MOTION to dismiss case filed by Anthony E. Rothert on behalf of Plaintiffs Christopher Baker, Michael Jamerson, Michael G Postawko. Reply suggestions due by 3/23/2017 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Related document(s) 103 ) (Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 03/09/2017)
RECEIPT number T1768 in the amount of $24 issued to DOC for Michael Postawko. (Geiser, Angel) (Entered: 03/10/2017)
124 NOTICE of appearance by Carrie L. Kinsella on behalf of Trinidad Aguilera, Dawn Baker, Bonnie Boley, T. Bredeman, Jamie Campbell, FNU Cofield, Corizon, LLC, FNU Davison, Julie Fipps, FNU Hardman, Paul Jones, Julie LNU, FNU Proctor, Thomas Pryor, FNU Rucker, FNU Stamps, FNU Stieferman, Geeneen Wilhite, John Williams, Amanda Yates (Attorney Carrie L. Kinsella added to party Trinidad Aguilera(pty:dft), Attorney Carrie L. Kinsella added to party Dawn Baker(pty:dft), Attorney Carrie L. Kinsella added to party Bonnie Boley(pty:dft), Attorney Carrie L. Kinsella added to party T. Bredeman(pty:dft), Attorney Carrie L. Kinsella added to party Jamie Campbell(pty:dft), Attorney Carrie L. Kinsella added to party FNU Cofield(pty:dft), Attorney Carrie L. Kinsella added to party Corizon, LLC(pty:dft), Attorney Carrie L. Kinsella added to party FNU Davison(pty:dft), Attorney Carrie L. Kinsella added to party Julie Fipps(pty:dft), Attorney Carrie L. Kinsella added to party FNU Hardman(pty:dft), Attorney Carrie L. Kinsella added to party Paul Jones(pty:dft), Attorney Carrie L. Kinsella added to party Julie LNU(pty:dft), Attorney Carrie L. Kinsella added to party FNU Proctor(pty:dft), Attorney Carrie L. Kinsella added to party Thomas Pryor(pty:dft), Attorney Carrie L. Kinsella added to party FNU Rucker(pty:dft), Attorney Carrie L. Kinsella added to party FNU Stamps(pty:dft), Attorney Carrie L. Kinsella added to party FNU Stieferman(pty:dft), Attorney Carrie L. Kinsella added to party Geeneen Wilhite(pty:dft), Attorney Carrie L. Kinsella added to party John Williams(pty:dft), Attorney Carrie L. Kinsella added to party Amanda Yates(pty:dft))(Kinsella, Carrie) (Entered: 03/13/2017)

03/14/2017 03/14/2017 03/23/2017 03/23/2017 03/24/2017 03/24/2017

125 Consent MOTION for extension of time to file response/reply filed by Anthony E. Rothert on behalf of Christopher Baker. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 3/28/2017 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 03/14/2017)
126 ORDER entered by Judge Nanette Laughrey. Plaintiffs' consent motion for extension of time, Doc. 125 , is granted. Plaintiffs shall file their Reply Suggestions in support of their motion for class certification, Doc. 77 , on or before 3/24/2017. Signed on 3/14/2017 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached.(Specker, Suzanne) (Entered: 03/14/2017)
127 REPLY SUGGESTIONS to motion re 103 MOTION to dismiss case filed by Amy C Haywood on behalf of Defendants Adrienne Hardy, Missouri Department of Corrections, Anne L. Precythe. (Related document(s) 103 ) (Haywood, Amy) Modified on 3/24/2017 to add additional defendant to docket text per counsel's request (Lock, Tania). (Entered: 03/23/2017)
128 Consent MOTION for leave to file excess pages for Reply Suggestions in Support of Motion to Dismiss filed by Amy C Haywood on behalf of Adrienne Hardy, Missouri Department of Corrections, Anne L. Precythe. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 4/6/2017 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Haywood, Amy) (Entered: 03/23/2017)
129 ORDER entered by Judge Nanette Laughrey. Defendants' consent motion for leave to file excess pages, Doc. 128 , is granted. Defendants' Reply Suggestions in support of their motion to dismiss, Doc. 103 , may not exceed 11 pages. Signed on 3/24/2017 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached.(Specker, Suzanne) (Entered: 03/24/2017)
130 MOTION for leave to file excess pages filed by Anthony E. Rothert on behalf of Christopher Baker, Michael Jamerson, Michael G Postawko. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 4/7/2017 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Attachments: # 1 proposed reply, # 2 Ex. 1 P. Loftus & G. Fields, High Cost of New Hepatitis C Drugs Strains Prison Budges, Locks Many Out of Cure, THE WALL STREET J., Sept. 12, 2016, http://www.wsj.com/articles/highcostofnewhepatitiscdrugsstrainsprisonbu dgetslocksmanyoutofcure1473701644, # 3 Ex. 2 A. Beckman et al., New Hepatitis C Drugs Are Very Costly And Unavailable To Many State Prisoners, 35 HEALTH AFFAIRS 1893 (2016), http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/35/10/1893, # 4 Ex. 3 MO. DEPT OF CORRS., Statewide Hepatitis Statistics (2016), # 5 Ex 4 Annual Report of the Joint Committee on Corrections of the Missouri General Assembly (January 2014), http://www.moga.mo.gov/corrections/2014/annual report 2014.pdf, # 6 Ex

03/24/2017 03/24/2017

5 Declaration of Dr. Blair Thedinger, dated March 23, 2017, # 7 Ex 6 Responses to Informal Resolution Requests, Grievances, and Grievance Appeals dated 201517, # 8 Ex 7 CNTRS. FOR DISEASE CONTROL & PREVENTION, CDC Fact Sheet: Viral Hepatitis and Liver Cancer, March 2016, # 9 Ex 8 AM. ASSN FOR THE STUDY OF LIVER DISEASES & INFECTIOUS DISEASES SOCIETY OF AM., Recommendations for Testing, Managing, and Treating Hepatitis C, updated July 6, 2016, http://www.hcvguidelines.org, # 10 Exhibit List)(Rothert, Anthony) (Attachment 2 replaced on 3/28/2017) (Geiser, Angel). (Entered: 03/24/2017)
131 ORDER entered by Judge Nanette Laughrey. Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file excess pages, Doc. 130 , is granted. Plaintiffs' Reply Suggestions in support of their motion for class certification, Doc. 77 , shall not exceed 20 pages. Signed on 3/24/2017 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached.(Specker, Suzanne) (Entered: 03/24/2017)
132 REPLY SUGGESTIONS to motion re 77 MOTION to certify class filed by Anthony E. Rothert on behalf of Plaintiffs Christopher Baker, Michael Jamerson, Michael G Postawko. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit PLTF - 1P. Loftus & G. Fields, High Cost of New Hepatitis C Drugs Strains Prison Budges, Locks Many Out of Cure, THE WALL STREET J., Sept. 12, 2016, http://www.wsj.com/articles/highcostofnewhepatitiscdrugsstrainsprisonbu dgetslocksmanyoutofcure1473701644, # 2 Exhibit PLTF - 2A. Beckman et al., New Hepatitis C Drugs Are Very Costly And Unavailable To Many State Prisoners, 35 HEALTH AFFAIRS 1893 (2016), http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/35/10/1893, # 3 Exhibit PLTF 3MO. DEPT OF CORRS., Statewide Hepatitis Statistics (2016), # 4 Exhibit PLTF - 4Annual Report of the Joint Committee on Corrections of the Missouri General Assembly (January 2014), http://www.moga.mo.gov/corrections/2014/annual report 2014.pdf, # 5 Exhibit PLTF - 5Declaration of Dr. Blair Thedinger, dated March 23, 2017, # 6 Exhibit PLTF - 6Responses to Informal Resolution Requests, Grievances, and Grievance Appeals dated 201517, # 7 Exhibit PLTF 7CNTRS. FOR DISEASE CONTROL & PREVENTION, CDC Fact Sheet: Viral Hepatitis and Liver Cancer, March 2016, # 8 Exhibit PLTF 8AM. ASSN FOR THE STUDY OF LIVER DISEASES & INFECTIOUS DISEASES SOCIETY OF AM., Recommendations for Testing, Managing, and Treating Hepatitis C, updated July 6, 2016, http://www.hcvguidelines.org, # 9 Index list of exhibits)(Related document(s) 77 ) (Rothert, Anthony) Modified on 3/28/2017 to delete blank page on attachment 2(Geiser, Angel). (Attachment 1 replaced on 3/28/2017) (Geiser, Angel). Modified on 3/28/2017 to delete blank page on attachment 1(Geiser, Angel). (Entered: 03/24/2017)

03/30/2017
03/30/2017 03/31/2017 03/31/2017
03/31/2017 03/31/2017 03/31/2017

133 NOTICE of appearance by Michael D. Quinlan on behalf of Adrienne Hardy, Missouri Department of Corrections, Anne L. Precythe (Attorney Michael D. Quinlan added to party Adrienne Hardy(pty:dft), Attorney Michael D. Quinlan added to party Missouri Department of Corrections(pty:dft), Attorney Michael D. Quinlan added to party Anne L. Precythe(pty:dft))(Quinlan, Michael) (Entered: 03/30/2017)
134 NOTICE of filing Defendant Corizon's Motion to Exclude and Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification by Corizon, LLC re 132 Reply Suggestions to Motion,,,,,,, (Liss, Jessica) (Entered: 03/30/2017)
135 STIPULATION Regarding Discovery by Adrienne Hardy, Missouri Department of Corrections, Anne L. Precythe. (Haywood, Amy) (Entered: 03/31/2017)
136 ORDER entered by Judge Nanette Laughrey. Defendant Corizon, LLC's motion for leave, Doc. 134 , is granted. Defendant Corizon, LLC shall file its Sur-Reply of no more than 10 pages on or before 4/12/2017. It is further ordered that the MDOC Defendants are permitted to file the same, if they choose to do so. Signed on 3/31/2017 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Specker, Suzanne) (Entered: 03/31/2017)
137 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF INITIAL RULE 26 DISCLOSURES filed by Amy C Haywood on behalf of Defendants Adrienne Hardy, Missouri Department of Corrections, Anne L. Precythe.(Haywood, Amy) (Entered: 03/31/2017)
138 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF INITIAL RULE 26 DISCLOSURES filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of Plaintiffs Christopher Baker, Michael Jamerson, Michael G Postawko.(Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 03/31/2017)
139 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Trinidad Aguilera, Dawn Baker, Bonnie Boley, T. Bredeman, Jamie Campbell, FNU Cofield, Corizon, LLC, FNU Davison, Julie Fipps, FNU Hardman, Paul Jones, Julie LNU, FNU Proctor, Thomas Pryor, FNU Rucker, FNU Stamps, FNU Stieferman, Geeneen Wilhite, John Williams, Amanda Yates regarding Defendants' Rule 26(a)(1) Initial Disclosures served filed by Jessica L. Liss on behalf of Defendants Trinidad Aguilera, Dawn Baker, Bonnie Boley, T. Bredeman, Jamie Campbell, FNU Cofield, Corizon, LLC, FNU Davison, Julie Fipps, FNU Hardman, Paul Jones, Julie LNU, FNU Proctor, Thomas Pryor, FNU Rucker, FNU Stamps, FNU Stieferman, Geeneen Wilhite, John Williams, Amanda Yates.(Liss, Jessica) (Entered: 03/31/2017)

04/03/2017 04/03/2017 04/12/2017 04/12/2017 04/13/2017
04/13/2017
04/17/2017
04/18/2017 04/18/2017

140 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Corizon, LLC filed by Jessica L. Liss on behalf of Defendant Corizon, LLC.(Liss, Jessica) (Entered: 04/03/2017)
141 NOTICE of change of address by Anthony E. Rothert (Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 04/03/2017)
142 REPLY SUGGESTIONS to motion re 77 MOTION to certify class Defendant Corizon, LLC's Sur-Reply to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification filed by Jessica L. Liss on behalf of Defendant Corizon, LLC. (Related document(s) 77 ) (Liss, Jessica) (Entered: 04/12/2017)
143 REPLY SUGGESTIONS to motion re 77 MOTION to certify class "MDOC Defendants' Sur-Reply in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification" filed by Amy C Haywood on behalf of Defendants Adrienne Hardy, Missouri Department of Corrections, Anne L. Precythe. (Related document(s) 77 ) (Haywood, Amy) (Entered: 04/12/2017)
144 NOTICE of appearance by Jillian Mueller on behalf of Adrienne Hardy, Missouri Department of Corrections, Anne L. Precythe (Attorney Jillian Mueller added to party Adrienne Hardy(pty:dft), Attorney Jillian Mueller added to party Missouri Department of Corrections(pty:dft), Attorney Jillian Mueller added to party Anne L. Precythe(pty:dft))(Mueller, Jillian) (Entered: 04/13/2017)
145 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Adrienne Hardy, Missouri Department of Corrections, Anne L. Precythe "Certificate of Services Defendants Responses and Objections to Plaintiff's First Interrogatories and Request for Production" filed by Amy C Haywood on behalf of Defendants Adrienne Hardy, Missouri Department of Corrections, Anne L. Precythe.(Haywood, Amy) (Entered: 04/13/2017)
146 MOTION for leave to file sur-response regarding motion for class certification filed by Anthony E. Rothert on behalf of Christopher Baker, Michael Jamerson, Michael G Postawko. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 5/1/2017 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Attachments: # 1 proposed sur-response)(Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 04/17/2017)
147 ORDER entered by Judge Nanette Laughrey. Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a sur-response, Doc. 146 , is granted. Plaintiffs shall file their surresponse on or before 4/20/2017. Signed on 4/18/2017 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached.(Specker, Suzanne) (Entered: 04/18/2017)
148 SUGGESTIONS in support re 77 MOTION to certify class (sur-response filed with leave of court) filed by Anthony E. Rothert on behalf of

04/18/2017 04/25/2017 05/01/2017 05/08/2017
05/08/2017 05/08/2017
05/11/2017
05/11/2017

Plaintiffs Christopher Baker, Michael Jamerson, Michael G Postawko. (Related document(s) 77 ) (Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 04/18/2017)
RECEIPT number T17108 in the amount of $24.00 issued to DOC for Michael Postawko. (Geiser, Angel) (Entered: 04/19/2017)
150 NOTICE of change of address by Jessie Steffan (Steffan, Jessie) (Entered: 04/25/2017)
151 PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE of change of address filed by Michael G Postawko. New address is: Eastern Reception Diagnostic Correctional Center. (Davies, Cindy) (Entered: 05/04/2017)
152 MOTION for leave to file supplemental authority filed by Anthony E. Rothert on behalf of Christopher Baker, Michael Jamerson, Michael G Postawko. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 5/22/2017 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Attachments: # 1 Graham v. Parker, No. 16-CV-01954, 2017 WL 1737871, at *1 (M.D. Tenn. May 4, 2017))(Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 05/08/2017)
153 ORDER entered by Judge Nanette Laughrey. Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Submit Supplemental Authority, Doc. 152 , is granted. Plaintiffs shall file their supplemental authority by 5/10/2017. Signed on 5/8/2017 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached.(Specker, Suzanne) (Entered: 05/08/2017)
154 NOTICE of filing of supplemental authority, Graham v. Parker, No. 16CV-01954, 2017 WL 1737871, at *1 (M.D. Tenn. May 4, 2017), by Christopher Baker, Michael Jamerson, Michael G Postawko re 77 MOTION to certify class (Attachments: # 1 Graham v. Parker, No. 16-CV-01954, 2017 WL 1737871, at *1 (M.D. Tenn. May 4, 2017))(Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 05/08/2017)
155 ORDER granting in part and denying in part Defendants MDOC, Adrienne Hardy, and Anne Precythe's motion to dismiss, Doc. 103 . The motion is granted as to Defendant Precythe in her official capacity in Counts III, V, and VII; these claims are dismissed against Precythe in her official capacity with prejudice. The motion is also granted as to Defendant Hardy, only, in Count V. Dismissal is denied for the remainder of Plaintiffs' claims. Signed on 5/11/2017 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. (Specker, Suzanne) (Entered: 05/11/2017)
156 MOTION for leave to file Supplemental Authority in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification filed by Jessica L. Liss on behalf of Corizon, LLC. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 5/25/2017 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit JEM v Tidball)(Liss, Jessica) (Entered: 05/11/2017)

05/11/2017
05/11/2017 05/16/2017
05/25/2017 05/25/2017
05/25/2017 05/26/2017 06/15/2017 06/16/2017

157 ORDER entered by Judge Nanette Laughrey. Defendant Corizon LLC's Motion for Leave to Submit Supplemental Authority, Doc. 156 , is granted. Defendant shall file its supplemental authority by 5/12/2017. Signed on 5/11/2017 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached.(Specker, Suzanne) (Entered: 05/11/2017)
158 NOTICE of filing Supplemental Authority in Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification by Corizon, LLC re 157 Order on Motion for Leave to File, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Liss, Jessica) (Entered: 05/11/2017)
159 NOTICE of appearance by Laura E. Elsbury on behalf of Adrienne Hardy, Missouri Department of Corrections, Anne L. Precythe (Attorney Laura E. Elsbury added to party Adrienne Hardy(pty:dft), Attorney Laura E. Elsbury added to party Missouri Department of Corrections(pty:dft), Attorney Laura E. Elsbury added to party Anne L. Precythe(pty:dft))(Elsbury, Laura) (Entered: 05/16/2017)
160 MOTION to withdraw as attorney filed by H Anthony Relys on behalf of Missouri Department of Corrections, Anne L. Precythe. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 6/8/2017 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Relys, H) (Entered: 05/25/2017)
161 ORDER entered by Judge Nanette Laughrey. Assistant Attorney General Anthony Relys's motion to withdraw as counsel on behalf of Defendants Missouri Department of Corrections and Anne L. Precythe, Doc. 160 , is granted. Signed on 5/25/2017 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached.(Specker, Suzanne) (Entered: 05/25/2017)
162 ANSWER to 30 Amended Complaint,, on behalf of Missouri Department of Corrections, Anne L. Precythe.(Quinlan, Michael) (Entered: 05/25/2017)
163 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by All Plaintiffs filed by Anthony E. Rothert on behalf of Plaintiffs Christopher Baker, Michael Jamerson, Michael G Postawko.(Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 05/26/2017)
164 PRO SE MOTION for reconsideration filed by Michael G Postawko. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 6/29/2017 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Travis, Kendra) (Entered: 06/16/2017)
165 ORDER entered by Judge Nanette Laughrey. Plaintiff Michael Postawko's motion, Doc. 164 , which he filed pro se, is stricken. Because Plaintiff Postawko is represented by counsel, he should not file pro se motions. Signed on 6/16/2017 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. This is a

06/21/2017 06/26/2017
06/27/2017
06/27/2017 06/29/2017 07/13/2017 07/17/2017
07/20/2017

TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached.(Specker, Suzanne) (Entered: 06/16/2017)
166 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Corizon, LLC filed by Carrie L. Kinsella on behalf of Defendant Corizon, LLC.(Kinsella, Carrie) (Entered: 06/21/2017)
167 Joint MOTION for protective order filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 7/10/2017 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (Joint Stipulated Protective Order deleted per administrative procedures regarding proposed orders ))(Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 06/26/2017)
NOTICE OF DOCKET MODIFICATION. A modification has been made to the document filed on 06/26/2017 as Document No. 167-1, Protective Order. The proposed order attached to the motion has been deleted. Per Administrative Procedures any proposed orders are to be emailed to the Courtroom Deputy in Word format. This is a text entry only - no document is attached. (Geiser, Angel) (Entered: 06/27/2017)
168 PROTECTIVE ORDER entered by Judge Nanette Laughrey. The parties' joint motion for protective order, Doc. 167 , is granted. However, prior to filing any document under seal or in redacted form, a party must move for and be granted leave to file it under seal. Signed on 6/27/2017 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. (Specker, Suzanne) (Entered: 06/27/2017)
RECEIPT number T17180 in the amount of $25.00 issued to DOC for Michael Postawko. (Geiser, Angel) (Entered: 06/30/2017)
169 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Corizon, LLC filed by Jessica L. Liss on behalf of Defendant Corizon, LLC.(Liss, Jessica) (Entered: 07/13/2017)
170 ORDER. A Telephone Conference is set for 7/20/2017 at 11:00 AM regarding a discovery dispute. The parties shall email a one page summary of the dispute to Alana_Barragan-Scott@mow.uscourts.gov by 7/18/2017 at 11:00 AM. The parties shall call conference number: 877-336-1828, access code: 8503666 to participate in the conference. Signed on 7/17/17 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Matthes Mitra, Renea) (Entered: 07/17/2017)
171 MINUTE ENTRY. Teleconference held before the Hon. Nanette K. Laughrey on 7/20/2017 regarding discovery disputes raised by Plaintiffs. The Court ruled as follows: (1) As to those privilege objections that do not also involve overbreadth objections, Corizon shall provide a privilege log within 10 days; (2) Corizon shall produce within two weeks the requested data about its Hepatitis C policy, procedures, and protocols from 2011 to

07/25/2017
07/26/2017 07/26/2017 07/28/2017

present; (3) Corizon shall answer within two weeks Interrogatory 13 concerning the cost of the medication, which is protected by trade secret privilege as outlined in the parties' protective order, and this ruling also applies to the Request for Production about medication pricing; (4) As to the Request for Production regarding documents for Hepatitis C positive inmates who died in custody, Corizon shall produce this information within two weeks narrowed to information regarding inmates diagnosed with Hepatitis C who died in custody and the costs of internment; (5) Corizon consented to producing within two weeks all requested CVs and licenses that are in their possession; (6) Corizon's objection is sustained regarding the Request for Production of complaints to the Missouri Board of Registration for the Healing Arts because of the lack of relevance and the value versus intrusiveness; (7) Corizon consented to producing the missing verification pages by the end of the week. Appearances: Plaintiff by Anthony Rothert and Amy Breihan. Defendants by Jillian Mueller, Carrie Kinsella, William R Lunsford and Jessica Liss. CRD: Renea Matthes Mitra. Court Reporter: Katie Wirt. (Text entry only.) To order a transcript of this hearing please contact Katie Wirt, 816-512-5608. (Matthes Mitra, Renea) (Entered: 07/20/2017)
172 ELECTRONIC TRANSCRIPT of Teleconference held 7/20/2017 before Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. Court Reporter: Katie Wirt, 816-512-5608, katie_wirt@mow.uscourts.gov. Number of pages: 25. NOTICE RE: REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: Within 7 calendar days of this filing, each party shall inform the Court, by filing a Notice of Redaction, of the parties' intent to redact personal data identifiers from the electronic transcript of the court proceeding. The policy is located on our website at www.mow.uscourts.gov. Please read this policy carefully. NOTICE: Attorneys must contact the court reporter for copies during this 90 day period. Notice of Intent to File Redaction of Transcripts due by 8/1/2017 unless otherwise directed by the court. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/20/2017.(Wirt, Katie) (Entered: 07/25/2017)
173 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by All Plaintiffs OF NOTICE OF RULE 30(B)(6) DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT CORIZON LLC filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of Plaintiffs Christopher Baker, Michael Jamerson, Michael G Postawko.(Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 07/26/2017)
174 ORDER granting Plaintiffs' motion to certify class, Doc. 77 . Signed on 7/26/2017 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. (Specker, Suzanne) (Entered: 07/26/2017)
175 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Trinidad Aguilera, Dawn Baker, Bonnie Boley, T. Bredeman, Jamie Campbell, FNU Cofield, Corizon, LLC, FNU Davison, Julie Fipps, FNU Hardman, Paul Jones, Julie LNU, FNU Proctor, Thomas Pryor, FNU Rucker, FNU Stamps, FNU Stieferman, Geeneen Wilhite, John Williams, Amanda Yates Corizon Medical

08/09/2017 08/10/2017 08/11/2017 08/25/2017
08/28/2017 09/19/2017

Providers' First Interrogatories and First Requests for Production to Plaintiffs filed by Jessica L. Liss on behalf of Defendants Trinidad Aguilera, Dawn Baker, Bonnie Boley, T. Bredeman, Jamie Campbell, FNU Cofield, Corizon, LLC, FNU Davison, Julie Fipps, FNU Hardman, Paul Jones, Julie LNU, FNU Proctor, Thomas Pryor, FNU Rucker, FNU Stamps, FNU Stieferman, Geeneen Wilhite, John Williams, Amanda Yates.(Liss, Jessica) (Entered: 07/28/2017)
176 Joint MOTION to amend/correct 102 Amended Scheduling Order, filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 8/23/2017 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Related document(s) 102 ) (Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 08/09/2017)
177 *** Appeal Remark: Filing Notice from the Eighth Circuit of Petition for Permission to Appeal (Attachments: # 1 USCA Letter) (Geiser, Angel) (Entered: 08/10/2017)
178 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Adrienne Hardy, Missouri Department of Corrections, Anne L. Precythe filed by Jillian Mueller on behalf of Defendants Adrienne Hardy, Missouri Department of Corrections, Anne L. Precythe.(Mueller, Jillian) Modified on 8/11/2017: Main Document 178 replaced with corrected version at request of filing counsel. NEF regenerated. (Melvin, Greg) (Entered: 08/11/2017)
179 ORDER entered by Judge Nanette Laughrey. The joint motion to amend the scheduling order, Doc. 176 , is granted. Trial is scheduled for January 14, 2019. Discovery motions must be filed on or before May 9, 2018. Plaintiffs' expert witness designations are due on or before December 11, 2017. Plaintiffs' expert reports are due on or before January 17, 2018. Defendants' expert witness designations are due on or before February 9, 2018. Defendants' expert reports are due on or before March 12, 2018. Depositions of all expert witnesses are to be completed on or before April 11, 2018. Pretrial discovery must be completed on or before June 11, 2018. Dispositive motions are due on or before July 26, 2018. An initial pretrial conference is scheduled for January 4, 2019. (Sreeprakash, Netra) (Entered: 08/25/2017)
180 SECOND AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER: Discovery due by 6/11/2018. Dispositive Motions due by 7/26/2018. Pretrial Conference set for 1/3/2019 at 11:00 AM (NOTE: Previously set 1/4/2019) in Courtroom 4A, Jefferson City. Jury Trial set for 1/14/2019 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 4A, Jefferson City. Signed on 8/28/17 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. (Attachments: # 1 Memo on PTC) (Matthes Mitra, Renea) (Entered: 08/28/2017)
181 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 174 Order on Motion to Certify Class by Michael G Postawko. This appeal was filed directly with the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals. (Geiser, Angel) (Entered: 09/20/2017)

09/19/2017 09/19/2017 09/20/2017 09/20/2017
10/04/2017 10/04/2017 10/05/2017 10/06/2017
10/06/2017

182 USCA Case Number from Eighth Circuit is 17-8026 for 181 Notice of Appeal filed by Michael G Postawko. (Geiser, Angel) (Entered: 09/20/2017)
183 USCA REGULAR Case Number from Eighth Circuit is 17-3029 transferred from 17-8026 for 181 Notice of Appeal filed by Michael G Postawko. Briefing schedule entered by the Court of Appeals is attached. (Attachments: # 1 USCA Briefing Schedule)(Geiser, Angel) (Entered: 09/20/2017)
184 USCA Judgment as to 181 Notice of Appeal filed by Michael G Postawko This is a preliminary judgment of U.S. Court of Appeals; jurisdiction is not recovered until the Mandate is issued by the U.S Court of Appeals. (Attachments: # 1 Cover Letter)(Geiser, Angel) (Entered: 09/20/2017)
185 MANDATE of US COURT OF APPEALS as to 181 Notice of Appeal filed by Michael G Postawko with mandate issued on 09/20/2017. (Geiser, Angel) Modified on 12/21/2017 to show mandate associated to case number 17-8026 (Petition for Permission to Appeal) only. Appeal 17-3029 still pending with the Eighth Circuit. (Geiser, Angel). (Entered: 09/20/2017)
186 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by All Plaintiffs of Plaintiffs' Answers and Objections to Corizon Medical Providers' First Interrogatories and Requests for Production filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of Plaintiffs Christopher Baker, Michael Jamerson, Michael G Postawko.(Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 10/04/2017)
190 Appeal Remark re 181 Notice of Appeal : $505 received from appellants for payment on appeal. (Geiser, Angel) (Entered: 10/10/2017)
187 CLERK ORDER of US COURT OF APPEALS (Lock, Tania) (Entered: 10/06/2017)
188 Joint MOTION to stay by Defendants (Unopposed) filed by Jessica L. Liss on behalf of Trinidad Aguilera, Dawn Baker, Bonnie Boley, T. Bredeman, Jamie Campbell, FNU Cofield, Corizon, LLC, FNU Davison, Julie Fipps, FNU Hardman, Paul Jones, Julie LNU, FNU Proctor, Thomas Pryor, FNU Rucker, FNU Stamps, FNU Stieferman, Geeneen Wilhite, John Williams, Amanda Yates. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 10/20/2017 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Liss, Jessica) (Entered: 10/06/2017)
189 RESPONSE to motion re 188 Joint MOTION to stay by Defendants (Unopposed) filed by Anthony E. Rothert on behalf of Plaintiffs Christopher Baker, Michael Jamerson, Michael G Postawko. Reply

10/13/2017
10/27/2017 11/29/2017 11/30/2017 12/06/2017 12/07/2017 12/08/2017

suggestions due by 10/20/2017 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 10/06/2017)
191 RESPONSE to motion re 188 Joint MOTION to stay by Defendants (Unopposed) Reply to Plaintiff's Response to Motion to Say (189) filed by Jillian Mueller on behalf of Defendants Trinidad Aguilera, Dawn Baker, Bonnie Boley, T. Bredeman, Jamie Campbell, FNU Cofield, Corizon, LLC, FNU Davison, Julie Fipps, FNU Hardman, Paul Jones, Julie LNU, Missouri Department of Corrections, Anne L. Precythe, FNU Proctor, Thomas Pryor, FNU Rucker, FNU Stamps, FNU Stieferman, Geeneen Wilhite, John Williams, Amanda Yates. Reply suggestions due by 10/27/2017 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Mueller, Jillian) (Entered: 10/13/2017)
192 ORDER by Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. The defendants' motion, with the plaintiff's consent, to stay all proceedings in this case pending resolution of the appeal currently before the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit is granted. All deadlines and proceedings are stayed. Within two weeks of a decision by the Eighth Circuit, the parties should submit a joint proposed amended scheduling order. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached.(Sreeprakash, Netra) (Entered: 10/27/2017)
193 MOTION to withdraw as attorney filed by Michael D. Quinlan on behalf of Missouri Department of Corrections, Anne L. Precythe. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 12/13/2017 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Quinlan, Michael) (Entered: 11/29/2017)
194 ORDER by Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. In light of the fact that other attorneys continue to represent the defendants in question, the motion by attorney Michael D. Quinlan to withdraw is granted. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached.(Sreeprakash, Netra) (Entered: 11/30/2017)
195 MOTION to withdraw as attorney filed by Mae C Quinn on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 12/20/2017 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Quinn, Mae) (Entered: 12/06/2017)
196 ORDER by Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. In light of the fact that other attorneys continue to represent the plaintiffs, the motion by attorney Mae C. Quinn to withdraw, Doc. 195 , is granted. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached.(Sreeprakash, Netra) (Entered: 12/07/2017)
197 PRO SE MOTION to intervene filed by Edison Hester. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 12/22/2017 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits, # 2 Letter, # 3 Envelope)(Melvin, Greg) (Entered: 12/11/2017)

12/20/2017 12/22/2017 12/22/2017 12/22/2017
12/22/2017

198 Appeal Remark re 181 Notice of Appeal : Letter sent to appellant in regards to request for documents. (Geiser, Angel) (Entered: 12/20/2017)
199 MOTION to withdraw as attorney filed by Michael P Huff on behalf of Corizon, LLC. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 1/5/2018 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Huff, Michael) (Entered: 12/22/2017)
200 SUGGESTIONS in opposition re 197 MOTION to intervene filed by Jessica L. Liss on behalf of Defendant Corizon, LLC. Reply suggestions due by 1/5/2018 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Related document(s) 197 ) (Liss, Jessica) (Entered: 12/22/2017)
201 NOTICE of appearance by Ryan Lee Bangert on behalf of Adrienne Hardy, Missouri Department of Corrections, Anne L. Precythe (Attorney Ryan Lee Bangert added to party Adrienne Hardy(pty:dft), Attorney Ryan Lee Bangert added to party Missouri Department of Corrections(pty:dft), Attorney Ryan Lee Bangert added to party Anne L. Precythe(pty:dft))(Bangert, Ryan) (Entered: 12/22/2017)
202 SUGGESTIONS in opposition re 197 MOTION to intervene filed by Ryan Lee Bangert on behalf of Defendants Trinidad Aguilera, Dawn Baker, Bonnie Boley, T. Bredeman, Jamie Campbell, Jay Cassady, FNU Cofield, Corizon Medical Services, Corizon, LLC, FNU Davison, J Doe, J Doe, J Doe, Julie Fipps, FNU Hardman, Adrienne Hardy, Paul Jones, Julie LNU, George Lombardi, George Lombardi, Missouri Department of Corrections, Missouri Department of Corrections, Anne L. Precythe, FNU Proctor, Thomas Pryor, FNU Rucker, FNU Stamps, FNU Stieferman, Geeneen Wilhite, John Williams, Amanda Yates. Reply suggestions due by 1/5/2018 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Related document(s) 197 ) (Attorney Ryan Lee Bangert added to party Trinidad Aguilera(pty:dft), Attorney Ryan Lee Bangert added to party Dawn Baker(pty:dft), Attorney Ryan Lee Bangert added to party Bonnie Boley(pty:dft), Attorney Ryan Lee Bangert added to party T. Bredeman(pty:dft), Attorney Ryan Lee Bangert added to party Jamie Campbell(pty:dft), Attorney Ryan Lee Bangert added to party Jay Cassady(pty:dft), Attorney Ryan Lee Bangert added to party FNU Cofield(pty:dft), Attorney Ryan Lee Bangert added to party Corizon Medical Services(pty:dft), Attorney Ryan Lee Bangert added to party Corizon, LLC(pty:dft), Attorney Ryan Lee Bangert added to party FNU Davison(pty:dft), Attorney Ryan Lee Bangert added to party J Doe(pty:dft), Attorney Ryan Lee Bangert added to party J Doe(pty:dft), Attorney Ryan Lee Bangert added to party J Doe(pty:dft), Attorney Ryan Lee Bangert added to party Julie Fipps(pty:dft), Attorney Ryan Lee Bangert added to party FNU Hardman(pty:dft), Attorney Ryan Lee Bangert added to party Paul Jones(pty:dft), Attorney Ryan Lee Bangert added to party Julie LNU(pty:dft), Attorney Ryan Lee Bangert added to party George Lombardi(pty:dft), Attorney Ryan Lee Bangert added to

12/28/2017 01/02/2018 01/24/2018 09/11/2018 09/11/2018 09/27/2018
10/02/2018

party George Lombardi(pty:dft), Attorney Ryan Lee Bangert added to party Missouri Department of Corrections(pty:dft), Attorney Ryan Lee Bangert added to party FNU Proctor(pty:dft), Attorney Ryan Lee Bangert added to party Thomas Pryor(pty:dft), Attorney Ryan Lee Bangert added to party FNU Rucker(pty:dft), Attorney Ryan Lee Bangert added to party FNU Stamps(pty:dft), Attorney Ryan Lee Bangert added to party FNU Stieferman(pty:dft), Attorney Ryan Lee Bangert added to party Geeneen Wilhite(pty:dft), Attorney Ryan Lee Bangert added to party John Williams(pty:dft), Attorney Ryan Lee Bangert added to party Amanda Yates(pty:dft))(Bangert, Ryan) (Entered: 12/22/2017)
203 ORDER by Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. In light of the fact that other attorneys continue to represent defendant Corizon, LLC, the motion by attorney Michael P. Huff to withdraw, Doc. 199 , is granted. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached.(Sreeprakash, Netra) (Entered: 12/28/2017)
204 NOTICE of procedural change. Any documents, including proposed orders, that must be emailed to Chambers pursuant to the scheduling order henceforth should be sent to Netra_Sreeprakash@mow.uscourts.gov. (Moore, Terri) (Entered: 01/02/2018)
205 ORDER entered by Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. Motion to intervene, Doc. 197 , is denied. (Sreeprakash, Netra) Modified on 1/25/2018 to show copy mailed to Edison Hester. (Geiser, Angel). (Entered: 01/24/2018)
206 MOTION to withdraw as attorney for Defendant filed by Laura E. Elsbury on behalf of Anne L. Precythe. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 9/25/2018 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Elsbury, Laura) (Entered: 09/11/2018)
207 ORDER entered by Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. Attorney Laura E. Elsbury's motion to withdraw as counsel on behalf of Defendants, Doc. 206 , is granted. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Levy, Lindsey) (Entered: 09/11/2018)
208 NOTICE of appearance by David D Dean on behalf of Adrienne Hardy, Missouri Department of Corrections, Anne L. Precythe (Attorney David D Dean added to party Adrienne Hardy(pty:dft), Attorney David D Dean added to party Missouri Department of Corrections(pty:dft), Attorney David D Dean added to party Anne L. Precythe(pty:dft))(Dean, David) (Entered: 09/27/2018)
209 MOTION to withdraw as attorney filed by Jillian Mueller on behalf of Missouri Department of Corrections, Anne L. Precythe. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 10/16/2018 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Mueller, Jillian) (Entered: 10/02/2018)

10/02/2018
11/30/2018 12/03/2018

210 ORDER entered by Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. In light of the fact that other attorneys continue to represent defendants Missouri Department of Corrections and Anne L. Precythe, the motion by attorney Jillian Mueller to withdraw, Doc. 209 , is granted. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Levy, Lindsey) (Entered: 10/02/2018)
211 Motion to allow Megan G. Crane to appear pro hac vice (Pro Hac fee $100 receipt number AMOWDC-6058141) filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of All Plaintiffs. (Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 11/30/2018)
212 ORDER granting 211 motion to appear pro hac vice entered by Clerk of Court. Attorney Megan G Crane plaintiffs allowed to appear pro hac vice. This entry will serve as authorization for the pro hac participation by the attorney.

12/06/2018 12/06/2018 12/06/2018 12/11/2018

Western District of Missouri Local Rule 5.1 requires documents to be filed electronically. If pro hac vice counsel has not already done so, counsel is directed to immediately register for a WDMO e-filing account for NextGen CM/ECF. This will enable counsel to electronically file documents and receive electronic notification of filings. Register for a WDMO e-filing account at PACER. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Geiser, Angel) (Entered: 12/03/2018)
213 MOTION to lift stay re 192 Order on Motion to Stay,, , MOTION to expedite filed by Anthony E. Rothert on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 12/20/2018 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Related document(s) 192 ) (Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 12/06/2018)
214 SUGGESTIONS in support re 213 MOTION to lift stay re 192 Order on Motion to Stay,, MOTION to expedite filed by Anthony E. Rothert on behalf of Plaintiffs Christopher Baker, Michael Jamerson, Michael G Postawko. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. 1 - opinion from eighth circuit court of appeals, # 2 Exhibit Ex. 2 - proposed notices)(Related document(s) 213 ) (Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 12/06/2018)
215 USCA Judgment and Opinion as to 181 Notice of Appeal filed by Michael G Postawko This is a preliminary judgment and opinion of U.S. Court of Appeals; jurisdiction is not recovered until the Mandate is issued by the U.S Court of Appeals. (Attachments: # 1 USCA Opinion, # 2 USCA Letter to Publishing, # 3 USCA Letter to Attorney General)(Geiser, Angel) (Entered: 12/07/2018)
216 NOTICE of appearance by Omri E Praiss on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Attorney Omri E Praiss added to party Christopher Baker(pty:pla), Attorney Omri E Praiss added to party Michael Jamerson(pty:pla), Attorney Omri E Praiss added to party Michael G Postawko(pty:pla))(Praiss, Omri) (Entered: 12/11/2018)

12/13/2018 12/13/2018 12/13/2018
12/13/2018
12/13/2018 12/14/2018 12/14/2018 12/14/2018 12/17/2018 12/19/2018

217 Amended PROPOSED SCHEDULING ORDER by Christopher Baker, Michael Jamerson, Michael G Postawko. (Breihan, Amy) Modified on 12/13/2018 to delete document pursuant to administrative procedures (Geiser, Angel). (Entered: 12/13/2018)
218 MOTION to withdraw as attorney filed by Amy C Haywood on behalf of Missouri Department of Corrections, Anne L. Precythe. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 12/27/2018 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Haywood, Amy) (Entered: 12/13/2018)
219 ORDER entered by Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. In light of the fact that other attorneys continue to represent defendants Missouri Department of Corrections and Anne L. Precythe, the motion by attorney Amy C. Haywood to withdraw, Doc. 218 , is granted. Signed on 12/13/2018 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Levy, Lindsey) (Entered: 12/13/2018)
NOTICE OF DOCKET MODIFICATION. A modification has been made to the document filed on 12/13/2018 as Document No. 217, Proposed Scheduling Order. The document has been deleted per Administrative Procedures wherein it is stated proposed scheduling orders should not contain a signature line for the presiding judge. The proposed scheduling order should include the electronic signature of both the filing and opposing counsel. This is a text entry only - no document is attached. (Geiser, Angel) (Entered: 12/13/2018)
220 Amended PROPOSED SCHEDULING ORDER by Christopher Baker, Michael Jamerson, Michael G Postawko. (Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 12/13/2018)
221 PRO SE NOTICE of filing Declaration of Class Member by interested party Darrin S. Walker. (Melvin, Greg) (Main Document 221 replaced on 12/14/2018) (Melvin, Greg). Modified on 12/14/2018: Main document 221 replaced. Docket text corrected. NEF regenerated. (Melvin, Greg) (Entered: 12/14/2018)
222 PRO SE MOTION to appoint counsel filed by Darrin S Walker. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 12/28/2018 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Melvin, Greg) (Entered: 12/14/2018)
223 PRO SE MOTION for injunction filed by Darrin S Walker. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 12/28/2018 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Melvin, Greg) (Entered: 12/14/2018)
224 NOTICE of filing Certificate of Service by Darrin S Walker. (Melvin, Greg) (Entered: 12/18/2018)
225 MOTION to withdraw as attorney for Defendant Corizon, LLC filed by Jessica L. Liss on behalf of Corizon, LLC. Suggestions in

12/19/2018 12/19/2018 12/20/2018
12/20/2018
12/21/2018 12/21/2018 12/26/2018 12/26/2018

opposition/response due by 1/2/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Liss, Jessica) (Entered: 12/19/2018)
226 MOTION to withdraw as attorney for Defendant Corizon, LLC filed by Amy J White on behalf of Corizon, LLC. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 1/2/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. (White, Amy) (Entered: 12/19/2018)
227 MOTION to withdraw as attorney for Defendant Corizon, LLC filed by Carrie L. Kinsella on behalf of Corizon, LLC. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 1/2/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Kinsella, Carrie) (Entered: 12/19/2018)
228 ORDER entered by Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. In light of the fact that other counsel continue to represent defendant Corizon, LLC, the motions by Jessica L. Liss, Amy J. White, and Carrie L. Kinsella to withdraw as counsel on behalf of Corizon, LLC, Docs. 225 , 226 , and 227 , are granted. Signed on 12/20/2018 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Levy, Lindsey) (Entered: 12/20/2018)
229 SUGGESTIONS in opposition re 213 MOTION to lift stay re 192 Order on Motion to Stay,, MOTION to expedite filed by Jessica L. Liss on behalf of Defendants Trinidad Aguilera, Dawn Baker, Bonnie Boley, T. Bredeman, Jamie Campbell, FNU Cofield, Corizon, LLC, FNU Davison, Julie Fipps, FNU Hardman, Adrienne Hardy, Paul Jones, Julie LNU, Missouri Department of Corrections, Anne L. Precythe, FNU Proctor, Thomas Pryor, FNU Rucker, FNU Stamps, FNU Stieferman, Geeneen Wilhite, John Williams, Amanda Yates. Reply suggestions due by 1/3/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Related document(s) 213 ) (Liss, Jessica) (Entered: 12/20/2018)
230 REPLY SUGGESTIONS to motion re 213 MOTION to lift stay re 192 Order on Motion to Stay,, MOTION to expedite filed by Anthony E. Rothert on behalf of Plaintiff Michael G Postawko. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Related document(s) 213 ) (Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 12/21/2018)
231 MOTION to withdraw as attorney filed by Ryan Lee Bangert on behalf of All Defendants. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 1/4/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Bangert, Ryan) (Entered: 12/21/2018)
232 NOTICE of filing Supplement by Darrin S Walker. (Melvin, Greg) (Entered: 12/26/2018)
233 ORDER of US COURT OF APPEALS as to 181 Notice of Appeal filed by Michael G Postawko (Geiser, Angel) (Entered: 12/27/2018)

12/27/2018 12/28/2018
01/02/2019 01/03/2019
01/04/2019

236 ORDER of US COURT OF APPEALS as to 181 Notice of Appeal filed by Michael G Postawko (Geiser, Angel) (Entered: 01/02/2019)
234 SUGGESTIONS in opposition re 222 MOTION to appoint counsel, 223 MOTION for order Motion for Injunction and Other Pleadings Filed by Darrin Walker [221-224, 232] filed by Jessica L. Liss on behalf of Defendants Trinidad Aguilera, Dawn Baker, Bonnie Boley, T. Bredeman, Jamie Campbell, FNU Cofield, Corizon, LLC, FNU Davison, Julie Fipps, FNU Hardman, Adrienne Hardy, Paul Jones, Julie LNU, Missouri Department of Corrections, Anne L. Precythe, FNU Proctor, Thomas Pryor, FNU Rucker, FNU Stamps, FNU Stieferman, Geeneen Wilhite, John Williams, Amanda Yates. Reply suggestions due by 1/11/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Related document(s) 222 , 223 ) (Liss, Jessica) (Entered: 12/28/2018)
235 ORDER entered by Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. A Telephone Conference is set for 1/3/2019 at 11:00 AM regarding Plaintiffs' motion to lift stay and expedite limited discovery, Doc. 213 . The parties shall call conference number 877-336-1828, access code: 8503666 to participate. Signed on 1/2/19 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Matthes Mitra, Renea) (Entered: 01/02/2019)
237 MINUTE ENTRY. Teleconference held before the Hon. Nanette K. Laughrey on January 3, 2019. Mr. Rothert requested the stay be lifted so that Plaintiffs can file a motion for preliminary injunction and conduct two Rule 30(b)(6) depositions. The Defendants objected to the request to lift the stay. The Court granted the request and lifted the stay limited to filing a motion for preliminary injunction and discovery on the individual Plaintiffs. Appearances: Plaintiffs by Anthony Rothert and Amy Breihan. Individual Corizon Defendants by Jessica Liss and Carrie Kinsella. Corizon, LLC by William Lunsford. Missouri Department of Corrections Defendants by David Dean. CRD: Renea Matthes Mitra. Court Reporter: Kathy Calvert. (Text entry only.) To order a transcript of this hearing please contact Kathy Calvert, 816-512-5741. (Matthes Mitra, Renea) (Entered: 01/03/2019)
238 ORDER entered by Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. Attorney Ryan Lee Bangert's motion to withdraw as counsel on behalf of all defendants, Doc. 231 , is granted. Pro hac vice counsel for defendant Corizon, LLC must secure local counsel within ten days of the date of this order. Signed on 1/4/2019 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Levy, Lindsey) (Entered: 01/04/2019)

01/07/2019 01/08/2019 01/10/2019
01/11/2019 01/11/2019 01/24/2019
01/29/2019 01/29/2019
01/29/2019 02/11/2019 02/14/2019

239 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Christopher Baker filed by Anthony E. Rothert on behalf of Plaintiff Christopher Baker.(Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 01/07/2019)
240 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by All Plaintiffs filed by Anthony E. Rothert on behalf of Plaintiffs Christopher Baker, Michael Jamerson, Michael G Postawko.(Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 01/08/2019)
241 NOTICE of appearance by John W Taylor on behalf of Adrienne Hardy, Missouri Department of Corrections, Anne L. Precythe (Attorney John W Taylor added to party Adrienne Hardy(pty:dft), Attorney John W Taylor added to party Missouri Department of Corrections(pty:dft), Attorney John W Taylor added to party Anne L. Precythe(pty:dft))(Taylor, John) (Entered: 01/10/2019)
242 NOTICE of appearance by Dwight Allan Vermette on behalf of Corizon, LLC (Attorney Dwight Allan Vermette added to party Corizon, LLC(pty:dft))(Vermette, Dwight) (Entered: 01/11/2019)
243 ORDER of US COURT OF APPEALS as to 181 Notice of Appeal filed by Michael G Postawko (Geiser, Angel) (Entered: 01/14/2019)
244 ORDER entered by Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. The motions for appointment of counsel, Doc. 222 , and for injunctive relief, Doc. 223 , are denied. Signed on 1/24/2019 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. (Filer will mail a copy of this order to Darrin Walker via regular mail.) (Levy, Lindsey) (Entered: 01/24/2019)
245 MANDATE of US COURT OF APPEALS as to 181 Notice of Appeal filed by Michael G Postawko with mandate issued on 01/28/2019. (Lock, Tania) (Entered: 01/29/2019)
246 ORDER entered by Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. A joint proposed amended scheduling order is due on or before February 11, 2019. Signed on 1/29/2019 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Levy, Lindsey) (Entered: 01/29/2019)
247 ORDER entered by Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. This case is referred to the Mediation and Assessment Program (MAP). Signed on 1/29/2019 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Levy, Lindsey) (Entered: 01/29/2019)
248 Joint PROPOSED SCHEDULING ORDER by Christopher Baker, Michael Jamerson, Michael G Postawko. (Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 02/11/2019)
249 NOTICE OF INCLUSION FOR MEDIATION AND ASSESSMENT PROGRAM (MAP). REVIEW NOTICE AND MAP GENERAL

ORDER CAREFULLY FOR IMPORTANT CHANGES, DEADLINES AND REQUIREMENTS.

02/18/2019 02/18/2019 02/19/2019 02/19/2019 02/19/2019 02/26/2019 02/26/2019

Notice of MAP assignment to Program Director. (Attachments: # 1 MAP General Order)(Moore, Terri) (Entered: 02/14/2019)
250 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by All Plaintiffs Plaintiffs' Second Set of Interrogatories to Defendants Missouri Department of Corrections and Anne Precythe filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of Plaintiffs Christopher Baker, Michael Jamerson, Michael G Postawko.(Breihan, Amy) Modified on 2/19/2019 to delete document as incomplete document was filed (Geiser, Angel). (Entered: 02/18/2019)
251 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by All Plaintiffs PLAINTIFFS THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of Plaintiffs Christopher Baker, Michael Jamerson, Michael G Postawko.(Breihan, Amy) Modified on 2/19/2019 to delete document as incomplete document was filed (Geiser, Angel). (Entered: 02/18/2019)
NOTICE OF DOCKET MODIFICATION. A modification has been made to the document filed on 02/18/2019 as Document Nos. 250 and 251, Certificate of Service. The document has been deleted as the incomplete document was filed. Counsel will refile the complete document. This is a text entry only - no document is attached. (Geiser, Angel) (Entered: 02/19/2019)
252 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by All Plaintiffs PLAINTIFFS THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT CORIZON, LLC filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of Plaintiffs Christopher Baker, Michael Jamerson, Michael G Postawko.(Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 02/19/2019)
253 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by All Plaintiffs PLAINTIFFS' SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANTS MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND ANNE PRECYTHE filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of Plaintiffs Christopher Baker, Michael Jamerson, Michael G Postawko.(Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 02/19/2019)
254 SCHEDULING ORDER: Discovery due by 1/21/2020. Dispositive Motions due by 2/21/2020. Pretrial Conference set for 7/30/2020 at 11:00 AM Courtroom 4A, Jefferson City. Jury Trial set for 8/17/2020 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 4A, Jefferson City. Signed on 2/26/19 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. (Attachments: # 1 Memo on PTC) (Matthes Mitra, Renea) (Entered: 02/26/2019)
255 RULES OF TRIAL. Signed on 2/26/19 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. (Matthes Mitra, Renea) (Entered: 02/26/2019)

03/19/2019 03/20/2019 03/20/2019 03/20/2019 03/23/2019 03/25/2019 03/29/2019
04/10/2019 04/11/2019 04/11/2019

256 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Missouri Department of Corrections, Anne L. Precythe for MDOC Defendants' Answers and Objections to Plaintiffs' Second Set of Interrogatories filed by David D Dean on behalf of Defendants Missouri Department of Corrections, Anne L. Precythe.(Dean, David) (Entered: 03/19/2019)
257 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Corizon, LLC filed by William R Lunsford on behalf of Defendant Corizon, LLC.(Lunsford, William) (Entered: 03/20/2019)
258 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by All Plaintiffs Second Set of Requests for Production of Documents to Defendant Corizon, LLC filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of Plaintiffs Christopher Baker, Michael Jamerson, Michael G Postawko.(Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 03/20/2019)
259 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by All Plaintiffs SECOND SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO MDOC filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of Plaintiffs Christopher Baker, Michael Jamerson, Michael G Postawko.(Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 03/20/2019)
260 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Corizon, LLC filed by William R Lunsford on behalf of Defendant Corizon, LLC.(Lunsford, William) (Entered: 03/23/2019)
261 Consent MOTION for protective order filed by Anthony E. Rothert on behalf of Michael G Postawko. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 4/8/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 03/25/2019)
262 PROTECTIVE ORDER entered by Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. Plaintiff Michael G. Postawko's consent motion for entry of a protective order prohibiting disclosure of the location of Mr. Postawko, except as necessary to conduct discovery and mediation in this case, Doc. 261 , is granted. Signed on 3/29/2019 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. (Levy, Lindsey) (Entered: 03/29/2019)
263 MOTION to take deposition from Michael Jamerson and Michael Postawko filed by William R Lunsford on behalf of Corizon, LLC. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 4/24/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Lunsford, William) (Entered: 04/10/2019)
264 ORDER entered by Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. Defendants' unopposed motion for leave to depose incarcerated plaintiffs, Michael Jamerson and Michael Postawko, Doc. 263 , is granted. Signed on 4/11/2019 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Levy, Lindsey) (Entered: 04/11/2019)
265 Motion to allow Matthew B. Reeves to appear pro hac vice (Pro Hac fee $100 receipt number AMOWDC-6267121) filed by Dwight Allan

04/12/2019 04/16/2019

Vermette on behalf of Corizon, LLC. (Vermette, Dwight) (Entered: 04/11/2019)
266 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Corizon, LLC filed by William R Lunsford on behalf of Defendant Corizon, LLC.(Lunsford, William) (Entered: 04/12/2019)
267 ORDER granting 265 motion to appear pro hac vice entered by Clerk of Court. Attorney Matthew B Reeves for Corizon, LLC allowed to appear pro hac vice. This entry will serve as authorization for the pro hac participation by the attorney.

04/19/2019
04/19/2019 04/22/2019 04/23/2019 04/23/2019

Western District of Missouri Local Rule 5.1 requires documents to be filed electronically. If pro hac vice counsel has not already done so, counsel is directed to immediately register for a WDMO e-filing account for NextGen CM/ECF. This will enable counsel to electronically file documents and receive electronic notification of filings. Register for a WDMO e-filing account at PACER. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Geiser, Angel) (Entered: 04/16/2019)
268 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Missouri Department of Corrections, Anne L. Precythe of MDOC Defendants' Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs' Second Requests for Production of Documents filed by David D Dean on behalf of Defendants Missouri Department of Corrections, Anne L. Precythe.(Dean, David) (Entered: 04/19/2019)
269 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Corizon, LLC filed by William R Lunsford on behalf of Defendant Corizon, LLC.(Lunsford, William) (Entered: 04/19/2019)
270 Motion to allow Meghan Chambers Cleary to appear pro hac vice (Pro Hac fee $100 receipt number AMOWDC-6279858) filed by Anthony E. Rothert on behalf of Christopher Baker. (Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 04/22/2019)
271 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by All Plaintiffs filed by Megan G Crane on behalf of Plaintiffs Christopher Baker, Michael Jamerson, Michael G Postawko.(Crane, Megan) (Entered: 04/23/2019)
272 ORDER granting 270 motion to appear pro hac vice entered by Clerk of Court. Attorney Meghan Chambers Cleary for plaintiffs allowed to appear pro hac vice. This entry will serve as authorization for the pro hac participation by the attorney.

Western District of Missouri Local Rule 5.1 requires documents to be filed electronically. If pro hac vice counsel has not already done so, counsel is directed to immediately register for a WDMO e-filing account for NextGen CM/ECF. This will enable counsel to electronically file

04/24/2019 05/02/2019 05/02/2019 05/02/2019
05/06/2019 05/07/2019 05/07/2019

documents and receive electronic notification of filings. Register for a WDMO e-filing account at PACER. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Geiser, Angel) (Entered: 04/23/2019)
273 NOTICE of appearance by Jennifer A. Baumann on behalf of Adrienne Hardy, Missouri Department of Corrections, Anne L. Precythe (Attorney Jennifer A. Baumann added to party Adrienne Hardy(pty:dft), Attorney Jennifer A. Baumann added to party Missouri Department of Corrections(pty:dft), Attorney Jennifer A. Baumann added to party Anne L. Precythe(pty:dft))(Baumann, Jennifer) (Entered: 04/24/2019)
274 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by All Plaintiffs First Requests for Admissions Directed to Defendant Corizon, LLC filed by Gillian R. Wilcox on behalf of Plaintiffs Christopher Baker, Michael Jamerson, Michael G Postawko.(Wilcox, Gillian) (Entered: 05/02/2019)
275 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by All Plaintiffs First Requests for Admissions Directed to Defendants Missouri Department of Corrections and Anne Precythe filed by Gillian R. Wilcox on behalf of Plaintiffs Christopher Baker, Michael Jamerson, Michael G Postawko.(Wilcox, Gillian) (Entered: 05/02/2019)
276 ELECTRONIC TRANSCRIPT of teleconference held January 3, 2019, before Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. Court Reporter: Kathy Calvert, 816512-5741, kathy_calvert@mow.uscourts.gov. Number of pages: 8. NOTICE RE: REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: Within 7 calendar days of this filing, each party shall inform the Court, by filing a Notice of Redaction, of the parties' intent to redact personal data identifiers from the electronic transcript of the court proceeding. The policy is located on our website at www.mow.uscourts.gov. Please read this policy carefully. NOTICE: Attorneys must contact the court reporter for copies during this 90 day period. Notice of Intent to File Redaction of Transcripts due by 5/9/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/29/2019.(Calvert, Kathy) (Entered: 05/02/2019)
277 Motion to allow Amelia Igo Pelly Frenkel to appear pro hac vice (Pro Hac fee $100 receipt number AMOWDC-6300829) filed by Anthony E. Rothert on behalf of All Plaintiffs. (Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 05/06/2019)
278 Motion to allow Anastasia McLetchie Pastan to appear pro hac vice (Pro Hac fee $100 receipt number AMOWDC-6302597) filed by Anthony E. Rothert on behalf of Christopher Baker. (Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 05/07/2019)
279 Motion to allow Elizabeth Lynn Henthorne to appear pro hac vice (Pro Hac fee $100 receipt number AMOWDC-6303148) filed by Anthony E.

05/08/2019

Rothert on behalf of Michael G Postawko. (Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 05/07/2019)
280 ORDER granting 277 motion to appear pro hac vice entered by Clerk of Court. Attorney Amelia Igo Pelly Frenkel for Christopher Baker,Amelia Igo Pelly Frenkel for Michael Jamerson,Amelia Igo Pelly Frenkel for Michael G Postawko allowed to appear pro hac vice. This entry will serve as authorization for the pro hac participation by the attorney.

05/08/2019

Western District of Missouri Local Rule 5.1 requires documents to be filed electronically. If pro hac vice counsel has not already done so, counsel is directed to immediately register for a WDMO e-filing account for NextGen CM/ECF. This will enable counsel to electronically file documents and receive electronic notification of filings. Register for a WDMO e-filing account at PACER. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Russel, Jeri) (Entered: 05/08/2019)
281 ORDER granting 278 & 279 motion to appear pro hac vice entered by Clerk of Court. Attorneys Anastasia McLetchie Pastan and Elizabeth Lynn Henthorne for plaintiffs allowed to appear pro hac vice. This entry will serve as authorization for the pro hac participation by the attorney.

06/03/2019
06/03/2019 06/07/2019

Western District of Missouri Local Rule 5.1 requires documents to be filed electronically. If pro hac vice counsel has not already done so, counsel is directed to immediately register for a WDMO e-filing account for NextGen CM/ECF. This will enable counsel to electronically file documents and receive electronic notification of filings. Register for a WDMO e-filing account at PACER. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Geiser, Angel) (Entered: 05/08/2019)
282 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Missouri Department of Corrections, Anne L. Precythe MDOC Defendants Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs' First Requests for Admission filed by David D Dean on behalf of Defendants Missouri Department of Corrections, Anne L. Precythe.(Dean, David) (Entered: 06/03/2019)
283 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Corizon, LLC filed by William R Lunsford on behalf of Defendant Corizon, LLC.(Lunsford, William) (Entered: 06/03/2019)
284 Consent MOTION for extension of time to review the transcripts from the depositions of the Named Plaintiffs and, if there are changes in form or substance, to sign statements listing the changes and the reasons for making them filed by Anthony E. Rothert on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 6/21/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 06/07/2019)

06/07/2019 06/13/2019 06/17/2019 06/17/2019
06/17/2019 06/17/2019

285 ORDER entered by Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for a two-week extension of time to review the transcripts from the depositions of the Named Plaintiffs, Doc. 284 , is granted. Signed on 6/7/2019 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Levy, Lindsey) (Entered: 06/07/2019)
286 MOTION to dismiss party voluntarily dismissal of individual defendants filed by Anthony E. Rothert on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 6/27/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 06/13/2019)
287 MOTION to seal document file under seal certain exhibits to motion for preliminary injunction filed by Anthony E. Rothert on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 7/1/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 06/17/2019)
288 ORDER entered by Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file under seal, Doc. 287 , is granted. Plaintiffs may file Exhibits 14, 15, 16, and 17 to their suggestions in support of their motion for preliminary injunction under seal, and shall file as public redacted versions of those documents not designated confidential pursuant to the Protective Order. Signed on 6/17/2019 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Levy, Lindsey) (Entered: 06/17/2019)
289 MOTION for preliminary injunction filed by Anthony E. Rothert on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 7/1/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 06/17/2019)
290 SUGGESTIONS in support re 289 MOTION for preliminary injunction filed by Anthony E. Rothert on behalf of Plaintiffs Christopher Baker, Michael Jamerson, Michael G Postawko. (Attachments: # 1 Ex. 1 Missouri Department of Corrections Interrogatory Responses, # 2 Ex. 2 Dr. Bredeman Affidavit, # 3 Ex. 3 - CDC Fact Sheet, # 4 Ex. 4 - Dr. Mosley Declaration, # 5 Ex. 5 - Dr. Thedinger Declaration, # 6 Ex. 6 HCV Guidelines, # 7 Ex. 7 - Beckman 2016, # 8 Ex. 8 - Dr. Olson Declaration, # 9 Ex. 9 - AASLD-IDSA Introductory Statement, # 10 Ex. 10 - MDOC Hepatitis Chart, # 11 Ex. 11 - IRR Responses, # 12 Ex. 12 Mr. Fuller Declaration and Exhibit, # 13 Ex. 13 - Corizon HCV Protocols, # 14 Ex. 14 - Mr. Ritchie Declaration and Exhibits (REDACTED), # 15 Ex. 15 - Missouri Department of Corrections Email Excerpts (REDACTED), # 16 Ex. 16 - Mr. Jamerson Medical Records (REDACTED), # 17 Ex. 17 - Mr. Postakwo Medical Records (REDACTED), # 18 Ex. 18 - Order in Hoffer v. Jones (N.D. Fla.), # 19 Ex. 20 - CDC Press Release, # 20 Ex. 21 - Admonition)(Related document(s) 289 ) (Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 06/17/2019)

06/18/2019 06/18/2019
06/21/2019
06/24/2019 06/25/2019 06/26/2019 06/26/2019

291 NOTICE of filing by Michael G Postawko re 290 Suggestions in Support of Motion,,,, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. 19 to suggestion in support of motion for preliminary injunction - amended contract between missouri department of corrections and corizon)(Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 06/18/2019)
292 NOTICE (SEALED) by Christopher Baker, Michael Jamerson, Michael G Postawko re 290 Suggestions in Support of Motion,,,, 288 Order on Motion to Seal Document,, (Attachments: # 1 unredacted ex. 14 to suggestions in support of motion for preliminary injunction, # 2 unredacted ex. 15 to suggestions in support of motion for preliminary injunction, # 3 unredacted ex. 16 to suggestions in support of motion for preliminary injunction, # 4 unredacted ex. 17 to suggestions in support of motion for preliminary injunction)(Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 06/18/2019)
293 RESPONSE to motion re 286 MOTION to dismiss party voluntarily dismissal of individual defendants filed by Jessica L. Liss on behalf of Defendants Trinidad Aguilera, Dawn Baker, Bonnie Boley, T. Bredeman, Jamie Campbell, FNU Cofield, FNU Davison, Julie Fipps, FNU Hardman, Paul Jones, Julie LNU, FNU Proctor, Thomas Pryor, FNU Rucker, FNU Stamps, FNU Stieferman, Geeneen Wilhite, John Williams, Amanda Yates. Reply suggestions due by 7/5/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Liss, Jessica) (Entered: 06/21/2019)
294 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by All Plaintiffs of Third Set of Requests for Production of Documents to Defendant Missouri Department of Corrections filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of Plaintiffs Christopher Baker, Michael Jamerson, Michael G Postawko.(Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 06/24/2019)
295 MOTION for order Scheduling Order and Request for Status Conference re 289 MOTION for preliminary injunction filed by William R Lunsford on behalf of Corizon, LLC. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 7/9/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Related document(s) 289 ) (Lunsford, William) (Entered: 06/25/2019)
296 ORDER entered by Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. A Telephone Conference is set for 6/28/2019 at 09:00 AM regarding Defendants' motion for scheduling order. The parties shall call conference number 877-336-1274, access code 2707681 to participate. Signed on 6/26/19 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Matthes Mitra, Renea) (Entered: 06/26/2019)
297 SUGGESTIONS in opposition re 295 MOTION for order Scheduling Order and Request for Status Conference re 289 MOTION for preliminary injunction filed by Anthony E. Rothert on behalf of Plaintiffs Christopher Baker, Michael Jamerson, Michael G Postawko. Reply suggestions due by

06/28/2019
06/28/2019 06/28/2019

7/10/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Related document(s) 295 ) (Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 06/26/2019)
298 MINUTE ENTRY. Teleconference held before the Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey on June 28, 2019, regarding Defendants' motion for scheduling order, Doc. 295 . Defendants request to take the depositions of Plaintiffs' experts, Dr. Moseley, Dr. Thedinger, and Dr. Olsen, prior to the hearing on Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs object to delay of the hearing but do not object to the limited discovery requested. The Court, based in large part on Defendants' representation that the preliminary injunction requested is in effect a request for a permanent injunction, granted Defendants' request to depose Plaintiffs' three experts. If, however, Defendants seek to redepose these witnesses at a later date, resulting in duplicative work and costs, reasonable costs will be shifted to the Defendants. The Court, accommodating the schedule of defendant Corizon's lead counsel, set the preliminary injunction hearing for August 12, 2019. Plaintiffs estimate that it will take 1-2 days to present evidence. Defendants estimate 2-3 days to present evidence. All depositions shall be completed in a timely manner so that the parties will be ready for the hearing on August 12, 2019. Defendants shall file their opposition to the motion for preliminary injunction no later than August 8, 2019. Any written reply shall be filed by the hearing date. The Court will take all briefing with the hearing. Appearances: Plaintiffs by Anthony Rothert, Gillian Wilcox, Jessie Steffan, Anastasia Pastan, Amelia Frenkel, and Meghan Cleary. Defendant MDOC by David Dean and Jennifer Baumann. Defendant Corizon by William Lunsford. Defendants Aguilera, Williams, Stamps, Pryor, Proctor, Hardman, Davison, Jones, Stieferman, Bredeman, Fipps, Cofield, Rucker, Campbell, Baker, Wilhite, Boley, Yates, and Julie by Carrie Kinsella. CRD: Renea Matthes Mitra. Court Reporter: None. (Text entry only.) (Matthes Mitra, Renea) (Entered: 06/28/2019)
Set Hearings: A Preliminary Injunction Hearing is set for 8/12/2019 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 4A, Jefferson City (NKL) before District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. (Matthes Mitra, Renea) (Entered: 06/28/2019)
299 ORDER entered by Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to voluntarily dismiss their claims against the defendants named in their individual capacities only, Doc. 286 , is granted. Plaintiffs' claims against defendants Dr. Trinidad Aguilera, Dr. John Williams, Dr. Ruanne Stamps, Dr. Thomas Pryor, Dr. Ronald Proctor, Dr. Rex Hardman, Laurel Davison, Danette Steiferman, Dr. Thomas Bredeman, Julie Fipps, Jewel Cofied, Jamie Donnelli (f/k/a Jamie Campbell), Dawn Baker, Dr. Paul Jones, Georgann Rucker, Geeneen Wilhite, Bonnie Boley, Julie Crego, and Amanda Yates are dismissed without prejudice. Signed on 6/28/2019 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Levy, Lindsey) (Entered: 06/28/2019)

07/03/2019 07/08/2019 07/11/2019 07/16/2019 07/17/2019
07/17/2019

300 Second MOTION for extension of time through July 3, 2019 to submit errata sheet filed by Anthony E. Rothert on behalf of Michael G Postawko. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 7/17/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 07/03/2019)
Set/Reset Hearings: Preliminary Injunction Hearing previously set for 8/12/2019 is reset for 8/13/2019 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 4A, Jefferson City (NKL), before District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. (Sreeprakash, Netra) Modified on 7/15/2019 (Sreeprakash, Netra). (Entered: 07/08/2019)
301 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by All Plaintiffs of Third Set of Requests for Production of Documents to Defendant Corizon, LLC filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of Plaintiffs Christopher Baker, Michael Jamerson, Michael G Postawko.(Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 07/11/2019)
302 MOTION for order Pre-Hearing Expert Disclosure filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 7/30/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 07/16/2019)
303 ORDER entered by Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. A Telephone Conference is set for 7/17/2019 at 02:00 PM regarding Plaintiffs' motion for prehearing expert disclosure, Doc. 302 . The parties shall call conference number 877-336-1274, access code 2707681 to participate. Signed on 7/17/19 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Matthes Mitra, Renea) (Entered: 07/17/2019)
304 MINUTE ENTRY. Teleconference held before the Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey on July 17, 2019 regarding Plaintiffs' motion for pre-hearing expert disclosure, Doc. 302 . The Court ordered Defendants to identify, by July 22, 2019, any witnesses they anticipate calling to offer opinion testimony, as defined by the Federal Rules of Evidence, at the preliminary injunction hearing. The Court ordered Corizon to produce, by July 31, 2019, the medical records responsive to Plaintiffs third set of requests for production of documents. Defendants shall file their opposition to the motion for preliminary injunction no later than August 5, 2019. The parties shall exchange witness and exhibit lists for the preliminary injunction hearing by August 7, 2019. Appearances: Plaintiffs by Amy Breihan. Defendant MDOC by David Dean. Defendant Corizon by Matthew Reeves. CRD: Renea Matthes Mitra. Court Reporter: Judy Moore (Text entry only.) To order a transcript of this hearing please contact Judy Moore, 816-512-5622, judy_moore@mow.uscourts.gov. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Matthes Mitra, Renea) (Entered: 07/17/2019)

07/17/2019 07/18/2019
07/19/2019 07/19/2019 07/22/2019 07/24/2019
07/24/2019 07/24/2019 07/24/2019 07/24/2019

305 PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION HEARING SCHEDULING ORDER. Signed on 7/17/19 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. (Matthes Mitra, Renea) (Entered: 07/17/2019)
306 ORDER entered by Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for a nine-day extension of time to review the transcript from Michael Postawko's deposition, Doc. 300 , is granted. Signed on 7/18/2019 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Levy, Lindsey) (Entered: 07/18/2019)
307 MOTION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum filed by Anthony E. Rothert on behalf of Michael G Postawko. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 8/2/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 07/19/2019)
308 MOTION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum filed by Anthony E. Rothert on behalf of Michael G Postawko. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 8/2/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 07/19/2019)
309 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Corizon, LLC filed by William R Lunsford on behalf of Defendant Corizon, LLC.(Lunsford, William) (Entered: 07/22/2019)
310 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Missouri Department of Corrections re MDOC's Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs' Third Requests for Production filed by David D Dean on behalf of Defendant Missouri Department of Corrections.(Dean, David) Modified on 7/25/2019 to delete document as incorrect document was filed. (Geiser, Angel). (Entered: 07/24/2019)
311 ORDER FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AD TESTIFICANDUM as to Donnie P. Fuller. Signed on 7/24/2019 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. (Levy, Lindsey) (Entered: 07/24/2019)
312 ORDER FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AD TESTIFICANDUM as to John R. Ritchie. Signed on 7/24/2019 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. (Levy, Lindsey) (Entered: 07/24/2019)
Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum issued for Donnie P. Fuller to appear on 08/14/2019 at 8:30 a.m. Writ mailed and faxed to South Central Correction Center. This is a text entry only - no document is attached. (Geiser, Angel) (Entered: 07/24/2019)
Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum issued for John R. Ritchie to appear on August 14, 2019 at 8:30 a.m. Writ mailed and faxed to Jefferson City Correctional Center. This is a text entry only - no document is attached. (Geiser, Angel) (Entered: 07/24/2019)

07/25/2019 07/25/2019 07/29/2019 07/31/2019 07/31/2019 07/31/2019
07/31/2019 07/31/2019 07/31/2019

NOTICE OF DOCKET MODIFICATION. A modification has been made to the document filed on 07/24/2019 as Document No. 310, Certificate of Service. The document has been deleted as the incorrect document was filed. Counsel will refile the correct document. This is a text entry only no document is attached. (Geiser, Angel) (Entered: 07/25/2019)
313 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Missouri Department of Corrections re MDOC's Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs' Third Set of Requests for Production filed by David D Dean on behalf of Defendant Missouri Department of Corrections.(Dean, David) (Entered: 07/25/2019)
314 MOTION for order excluding witnesses filed by Anthony E. Rothert on behalf of Michael G Postawko. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 8/12/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 07/29/2019)
315 MOTION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum filed by Anthony E. Rothert on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 8/14/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 07/31/2019)
316 MOTION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum filed by Anthony E. Rothert on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 8/14/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 07/31/2019)
317 ORDER entered by Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. Plaintiffs' motion to exclude all actual and potential non-party witnesses from the courtroom during the proceedings in this case pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 615, Doc. 314 , is granted. Defendants Missouri Department of Corrections and Corizon, LLC shall designate which officer or employee, if any, will serve as the party's representative at the August 13, 2019 preliminary injunction hearing, on or before August 12, 2019. Signed on 7/31/2019 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Levy, Lindsey) (Entered: 07/31/2019)
318 ORDER FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AD TESTIFICANDUM as to Margaret M. Hodges. Signed on 7/31/2019 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. (Levy, Lindsey) (Entered: 07/31/2019)
319 ORDER FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AD TESTIFICANDUM as to Rene J. Greene. Signed on 7/31/2019 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. (Levy, Lindsey) (Entered: 07/31/2019)
Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum issued for Rene J. Green and Margaret M. Hodges to appear on 08/14/2019 at 8:30 a.m. Faxed and mailed to Chillicothe Correctional Center. This is a text entry only - no document is attached. (Geiser, Angel) Modified on 8/1/2019 to show copy

08/01/2019 08/01/2019 08/02/2019 08/02/2019 08/05/2019
08/07/2019 08/07/2019 08/07/2019 08/08/2019

of writ provided, by email, to USM's Office (Geiser, Angel). (Entered: 07/31/2019)
320 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Corizon, LLC filed by William R Lunsford on behalf of Defendant Corizon, LLC.(Lunsford, William) (Entered: 08/01/2019)
321 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by All Plaintiffs of Subpoena to Appear and Testify Directed to Dr. Thomas Bredeman filed by Gillian R. Wilcox on behalf of Plaintiffs Christopher Baker, Michael Jamerson, Michael G Postawko.(Wilcox, Gillian) (Entered: 08/01/2019)
322 Consent MOTION for leave to file excess pages Consent Motion for Enlargement of Page Limitation filed by William R Lunsford on behalf of Corizon, LLC, Missouri Department of Corrections. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 8/16/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Lunsford, William) (Entered: 08/02/2019)
323 ORDER by Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. Defendants' consent motion for leave to file excess pages, Doc. 322 , is granted. Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction may not exceed 30 pages. (Sreeprakash, Netra) (Entered: 08/02/2019)
324 SUGGESTIONS in opposition re 289 MOTION for preliminary injunction filed by William R Lunsford on behalf of Defendants Corizon, LLC, Missouri Department of Corrections. Reply suggestions due by 8/19/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Declaration of Dr. Jerry Lovelace, # 2 Exhibit 2 - Graham v. Parker - Doc. 181, # 3 Exhibit 3 - Excerpt from Deposition of Michael Postawko, # 4 Exhibit 4 - Excerpt from Deposition of Michael Jamerson, # 5 Exhibit 5 - Declaration of Dr. Lawrence Mendel)(Related document(s) 289 ) (Lunsford, William) (Entered: 08/05/2019)
325 MOTION to quash filed by Anthony E. Rothert on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 8/21/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 08/07/2019)
326 PROPOSED WITNESS LIST by Christopher Baker, Michael Jamerson, Michael G Postawko for Preliminary Injunction Hearing. (Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 08/07/2019)
327 PROPOSED EXHIBIT LIST The State's Witness and Exhibit List for the Preliminary Injunction Hearing by Corizon, LLC, Missouri Department of Corrections, Anne L. Precythe. (Lunsford, William) (Entered: 08/07/2019)
328 ORDER by Judge Nanette K. Laughrey granting motion to quash writ ad testificandum issued for Rena J. Greene, Doc. 325 . Said writ is canceled. (Sreeprakash, Netra) (Entered: 08/08/2019)

08/08/2019 08/08/2019 08/08/2019 08/08/2019 08/08/2019 08/09/2019

329 MOTION for discovery Defendants' Motion for Testimony Via Videoconference filed by William R Lunsford on behalf of Corizon, LLC, Missouri Department of Corrections, Anne L. Precythe. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 8/22/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Lunsford, William) (Entered: 08/08/2019)
330 SUGGESTIONS in opposition re 329 MOTION for discovery Defendants' Motion for Testimony Via Videoconference filed by Anthony E. Rothert on behalf of Plaintiffs Christopher Baker, Michael Jamerson, Michael G Postawko. Reply suggestions due by 8/22/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit disclosure of possible experts)(Related document(s) 329 ) (Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 08/08/2019)
331 REPLY SUGGESTIONS to motion re 329 MOTION for discovery Defendants' Motion for Testimony Via Videoconference The State's Reply Suggestions in Support of Its Motion for Testimony via Videoconference filed by William R Lunsford on behalf of Defendants Corizon, LLC, Missouri Department of Corrections, Anne L. Precythe. (Related document(s) 329 ) (Lunsford, William) (Entered: 08/08/2019)
332 ORDER entered by Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. A Telephone Conference is set for 8/9/2019 at 11:00 AM to discuss the hearing schedule and witnesses. The parties shall call conference number 877-336-1828, access code: 8503666 to participate. Signed on 8/8/19 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Matthes Mitra, Renea) Modified on 8/8/2019 (Sreeprakash, Netra). (Entered: 08/08/2019)
333 MOTION for order Admit Testimony and Suggestions in Support Thereof filed by William R Lunsford on behalf of Corizon, LLC, Missouri Department of Corrections, Anne L. Precythe. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 8/22/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Gerrity Declaration, # 2 Exhibit 2 Graham v. Parker Complaint, # 3 Exhibit 3 - Graham v. Parker Order, # 4 Exhibit 4 - Gerrity Transcript)(Lunsford, William) (Entered: 08/08/2019)
334 RESPONSE to motion re 333 MOTION for order Admit Testimony and Suggestions in Support Thereof filed by Anthony E. Rothert on behalf of Plaintiffs Christopher Baker, Michael Jamerson, Michael G Postawko. Reply suggestions due by 8/23/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Attachments: # 1 Ex 1 - testimony of Koziel, # 2 Ex 2 - declaration of Koziel, # 3 Ex 3 - testimony of Kim, # 4 Ex 4 - testimony of Vuppalanchi, # 5 Ex 5 testimony of Liangpunsakul, # 6 Ex 6 - declaration of Trooskin, # 7 Ex 7 testimony of Trooskin, # 8 Ex 8 testimony of Watson, # 9 Ex 9 declaration of Bick, # 10 Ex 10 Baker deposition,

08/09/2019
08/09/2019 08/09/2019

# 11 Ex 11 Jamerson Deposition, # 12 Ex 12 Postawko deposition)(Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 08/09/2019)
335 MINUTE ENTRY. Teleconference held before the Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey on August 9, 2019. Argument presented on Defendants' Motion for Testimony via Videoconference, Doc. 329 . Mr. Lunsford offered, in the alternative, to produce Dr. Koretz in person on Monday, August 19, 2019. The Court denied Defendants' motion and ordered Defendants to arrange for Dr. Koretz to appear in the courtroom on Friday, August 16, 2019, by noon. The Court stated that another teleconference will be held at 5:00 p.m. if Defendants are unable to arrange for Dr. Koretz to testify in person on Friday. The Court instructed the parties to discuss and plan the order and timing of their witnesses to ensure that there are no gaps in time between any given witnesses. Defendants raised an objection concerning Plaintiffs plan to present the deposition testimony or declarations of seven previously-undisclosed experts. Plaintiffs argued that Defendants' motion to present Dr. Gerrity's testimony prompted their designation of the seven experts' testimony or declarations. The Court ruled that it will permit Plaintiffs to present the testimony or declarations of the previouslyundisclosed experts only insofar as the material is offered for the purpose of rebuttal. However, if Plaintiffs cannot establish that the material is properly presented for the purpose of rebuttal, it will not be allowed because of the timing of Plaintiffs' disclosure. The Court expects to hold Court from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m, except that the Court granted the parties' request to begin at 8:30 a.m. on Wednesday, August 14, 2019, in order to accommodate one expert's schedule conflict that afternoon. Appearances: Plaintiffs by Amy Breihan, Jessie Steffan and Amelia Frenkel. Defendant MDOC by David Dean, Jennifer Baumann and Jason Lewis. Defendant Corizon by William Lunsford and Matthew Reeves. CRD: Renea Matthes Mitra. Court Reporter: Katie Wirt (Text entry only.) To order a transcript of this hearing please contact Katie Wirt, 816-5125608, katie_wirt@mow.uscourts.gov. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Matthes Mitra, Renea) (Entered: 08/09/2019)
336 MOTION to clarify or Modify Preliminary Injunction Scheduling Order filed by David D Dean on behalf of Corizon, LLC, Missouri Department of Corrections, Anne L. Precythe. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 8/23/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Dean, David) (Entered: 08/09/2019)
337 ORDER by Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. Defendants' motion, Doc. 336 , to modify the preliminary injunction scheduling order, Doc. 305 , is granted in part and denied in part. The parties' deadline to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law is extended to August 23, 2019. Signed on August 9, 2019 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Sreeprakash, Netra) Modified on 8/9/2019 (Sreeprakash, Netra). (Entered: 08/09/2019)

08/10/2019 08/12/2019 08/12/2019 08/12/2019 08/12/2019 08/12/2019 08/12/2019
08/13/2019

338 NOTICE of appearance by Jason Lewis on behalf of Missouri Department of Corrections, Anne L. Precythe (Attorney Jason Lewis added to party Missouri Department of Corrections(pty:dft), Attorney Jason Lewis added to party Anne L. Precythe(pty:dft))(Lewis, Jason) (Entered: 08/10/2019)
339 NOTICE of appearance by Justin D. Smith on behalf of Missouri Department of Corrections, Anne L. Precythe (Attorney Justin D. Smith added to party Missouri Department of Corrections(pty:dft), Attorney Justin D. Smith added to party Anne L. Precythe(pty:dft))(Smith, Justin) (Entered: 08/12/2019)
340 DESIGNATION of Party Representative During Preliminary Injunction Proceedings by Missouri Department of Corrections. (Lewis, Jason) (Entered: 08/12/2019)
341 NOTICE of filing Corizon,LLC's Designation of Party Representative by Corizon, LLC re 317 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief,, (Lunsford, William) (Entered: 08/12/2019)
342 Motion to allow Tamarra Dion Matthew-Johnson to appear pro hac vice (Pro Hac fee $100 receipt number AMOWDC-6441274) filed by Anthony E. Rothert on behalf of All Plaintiffs. (Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 08/12/2019)
343 MOTION to seal document Exhibits 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 35 to reply to suggestions in opposition to motion for preliminary injunction filed by Anthony E. Rothert on behalf of Michael G Postawko. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 8/26/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 08/12/2019)
344 MOTION for leave to file excess pages reply to suggestions in opposition to motion for preliminary injunction filed by Anthony E. Rothert on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 8/26/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Attachments: # 1 proposed reply to suggestions in opposition to motion for preliminary injunction, # 2 Ex. 26 - MDOC 11571, # 3 Ex. 31 - Deposition of Dr Olson, # 4 Ex. 32 MDOC 16307, # 5 Ex. 33- Hunter parole decision, # 6 Ex. 34 - MDOC Communications re Hunter, # 7 Ex. 36 - Deposition of Dr. Thedinger, # 8 Ex. 37 - Washington State Health Care Authority, # 9 Ex 38 - Louis. Dept. of Public Health statement, # 10 Ex 39 - Declaration of Dr. Benjamin Linas, # 11 Ex 40 - Notion of MDOC and Corizon Contract Amendment - Dated August 12, 2019)(Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 08/12/2019)
345 ORDER by Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. Plaintiffs' motion for an extension of the page limit, Doc. 344 , is GRANTED. Plaintiffs may file their 12-page reply in support of their motion for preliminary

08/13/2019
08/13/2019 08/13/2019

injunction. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Sreeprakash, Netra) (Entered: 08/13/2019)
346 REPLY SUGGESTIONS to motion re 289 MOTION for preliminary injunction filed by Anthony E. Rothert on behalf of Plaintiffs Christopher Baker, Michael Jamerson, Michael G Postawko. (Attachments: # 1 Ex. 26 - MDOC 11571, # 2 Ex 31 - Deposition of Dr. Olson, # 3 Ex 32 - MDOC 16307, # 4 Ex 33 - Hunter parole decision, # 5 Ex 34 - MDOC Communication re Hunter, # 6 Ex 36 - Deposition of Thedinger, # 7 Ex 37 - Washington State Health Care Authority, # 8 Ex 38 - Louisiana Department of Public Health statement, # 9 Ex 39 - Declaration of Dr. Benjamin Lewis, # 10 Ex 40 - Notice of MDOC and Corizon Contract Amendment - Dated August 12, 2019)(Related document(s) 289 ) (Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 08/13/2019)
347 MOTION to withdraw as attorney filed by Daniel L. Messeloff representing Corizon, LLC. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 8/27/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Kern, Kendra) (Entered: 08/13/2019)
348 ORDER granting 342 motion to appear pro hac vice entered by Clerk of Court. Attorney Tamarra Dion Matthews-Johnson for Michael G Postawko, Christopher Baker, and Michael Jamerson allowed to appear pro hac vice. This entry will serve as authorization for the pro hac participation by the attorney.

08/13/2019 08/13/2019 08/13/2019

Western District of Missouri Local Rule 5.1 requires documents to be filed electronically. If pro hac vice counsel has not already done so, counsel is directed to immediately register for a WDMO e-filing account for NextGen CM/ECF. This will enable counsel to electronically file documents and receive electronic notification of filings. Register for a WDMO e-filing account at PACER. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Geiser, Angel) (Entered: 08/13/2019)
Set Hearings: Preliminary Injunction Hearing set for 8/14/2019, 8/15/2019, and 8/16/2019 at 08:30 AM in Courtroom 4A, Jefferson City. (Entry made for Daily Docket purposes only.) (Matthes Mitra, Renea) (Entered: 08/13/2019)
349 ORDER by Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. The motion by Daniel L. Messeloff to withdraw as attorney, Doc. 347 , is GRANTED in light of the fact that other attorneys continue to represent Corizon, LLC. Attorney Daniel L. Messeloff is terminated. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Sreeprakash, Netra) (Entered: 08/13/2019)
350 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey: PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION HEARING - DAY ONE held on 8/13/2019. To order a transcript of this hearing please contact Katie

08/14/2019 08/14/2019 08/15/2019 08/15/2019 08/15/2019 08/16/2019 08/16/2019 08/19/2019

Wirt, 816-512-5608, katie_wirt@mow.uscourts.gov. (Matthes Mitra, Renea) (Entered: 08/13/2019)
351 MOTION to strike testimony of Plaintiffs' experts Dr. Thedinger and Dr. Olson filed by Jason Lewis on behalf of Corizon Medical Services, Missouri Department of Corrections, Anne L. Precythe. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 8/28/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Lewis, Jason) (Entered: 08/14/2019)
352 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey: PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION HEARING - DAY TWO held on 8/14/2019. To order a transcript of this hearing please contact Katie Wirt, 816-512-5608, katie_wirt@mow.uscourts.gov. (Matthes Mitra, Renea) (Entered: 08/14/2019)
353 MOTION for protective order Corizon, LLC's Motion for Protective Order and Suggestions in Support Thereof filed by William R Lunsford on behalf of Corizon, LLC. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 8/29/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Lunsford, William) (Entered: 08/15/2019)
354 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey: PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION HEARING - DAY THREE held on 8/15/2019. To order a transcript of this hearing please contact Katie Wirt, 816-512-5608, katie_wirt@mow.uscourts.gov. (Matthes Mitra, Renea) (Entered: 08/15/2019)
355 SUGGESTIONS in opposition re 351 MOTION to strike testimony of Plaintiffs' experts Dr. Thedinger and Dr. Olson filed by Meghan Chambers Cleary on behalf of Plaintiffs Christopher Baker, Michael Jamerson, Michael G Postawko. Reply suggestions due by 8/29/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Related document(s) 351 ) (Cleary, Meghan) (Entered: 08/15/2019)
356 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by All Plaintiffs of Plaintiffs Fourth Set of Requests for Production to Defendants Missouri Department of Corrections and Corizon, LLC filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of Plaintiffs Christopher Baker, Michael Jamerson, Michael G Postawko.(Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 08/16/2019)
357 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey: PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION HEARING - DAY FOUR held on 8/16/2019. To order a transcript of this hearing please contact Katie Wirt, 816-512-5608, katie_wirt@mow.uscourts.gov. (Matthes Mitra, Renea) (Entered: 08/19/2019)
358 EXHIBIT INDEX - PLAINTIFFS, Preliminary Injunction Hearing held 8/13/19 to 8/16/19. (Matthes Mitra, Renea) (Entered: 08/19/2019)

08/19/2019 08/23/2019 08/23/2019 08/27/2019 08/28/2019 08/28/2019 08/28/2019 08/29/2019
08/29/2019 09/06/2019

359 EXHIBIT INDEX - DEFENDANTS, Preliminary Injunction Hearing held 8/13/19 to 8/16/19.(Matthes Mitra, Renea) (Entered: 08/19/2019)
360 PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT by Corizon, LLC, Missouri Department of Corrections, Anne L. Precythe . (Lunsford, William) (Entered: 08/23/2019)
361 PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT by Christopher Baker, Michael Jamerson, Michael G Postawko . (Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 08/23/2019)
362 Second MOTION to amend/correct 254 Scheduling Order, and Suggestions in Support filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 9/10/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Related document(s) 254 ) (Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 08/27/2019)
363 MOTION for leave to file Exhibit Under Seal filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 9/11/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 08/28/2019)
364 ORDER granting Plaintiffs' Second Motion to Amend Scheduling Order, (Doc. 362 ). Discovery closes March 23, 2020. Dispositive motions due by April 22, 2020. Signed on 8/28/19 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. (Matthes Mitra, Renea) (Entered: 08/28/2019)
365 ORDER by Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. Plaintiff's motion, Doc. 363 , for leave to file under seal Exhibit 1 to their suggestions in opposition to Corizon's motion for a protective order is GRANTED. Plaintiffs may file the document under seal. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Sreeprakash, Netra) (Entered: 08/28/2019)
366 SUGGESTIONS in opposition re 353 MOTION for protective order Corizon, LLC's Motion for Protective Order and Suggestions in Support Thereof filed by Anthony E. Rothert on behalf of Plaintiffs Christopher Baker, Michael Jamerson, Michael G Postawko. Reply suggestions due by 9/12/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Related document(s) 353 ) (Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 08/29/2019)
367 EXHIBIT (SEALED) to Plaintiffs' suggestions in opposition (Doc. 366 ) to motion for protective order (Doc. 353 ) filed by Anthony E. Rothert on behalf of Plaintiffs Christopher Baker, Michael Jamerson, Michael G Postawko.Modified title of docket entry on 8/29/2019 (Matthes Mitra, Renea). (Entered: 08/29/2019)
368 MOTION to seal document Corizon, LLC's Motion for Leave to File Under Seal filed by William R Lunsford on behalf of Corizon, LLC.

09/06/2019 09/06/2019
09/06/2019 09/09/2019 09/09/2019 09/12/2019

Suggestions in opposition/response due by 9/20/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Lunsford, William) (Entered: 09/06/2019)
369 MOTION to withdraw as attorney filed by David D Dean on behalf of Adrienne Hardy, Missouri Department of Corrections, Anne L. Precythe. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 9/20/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Dean, David) (Entered: 09/06/2019)
370 ORDER by Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. Corizon's motion, Doc. 368 for leave to file under seal its reply suggestions in support of its motion for a protective order, along with the supporting declaration and exhibit thereto, is GRANTED. Corizon may file the reply suggestions, supporting declaration, and exhibit under seal so long as Corizon simultaneously publicly files a redacted version of the reply suggestions and supporting declaration. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Sreeprakash, Netra) (Entered: 09/06/2019)
371 ORDER by Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. Because Mr. Dean is leaving the Missouri Attorney General's office and other attorneys continue to represent the defendants, the motion for withdrawal of attorney David D. Dean, Doc. 369 , is GRANTED. Attorney David D. Dean is terminated as counsel of record for the defendants. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Sreeprakash, Netra) (Entered: 09/06/2019)
372 REPLY SUGGESTIONS to motion (Sealed) re 353 MOTION for protective order Corizon, LLC's Motion for Protective Order and Suggestions in Support Thereof Corizon,LLC's Reply Suggestions in Support of its Motion for Protective Order filed by William R Lunsford on behalf of Defendant Corizon, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit A)(Related document(s) 353 ) (Lunsford, William) (Entered: 09/09/2019)
373 REPLY SUGGESTIONS to motion re 353 MOTION for protective order Corizon, LLC's Motion for Protective Order and Suggestions in Support Thereof Corizon, LLC's Reply Suggestions in Support of its Motion for Protective Order filed by William R Lunsford on behalf of Defendant Corizon, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Related document(s) 353 ) (Lunsford, William) (Entered: 09/09/2019)
374 ELECTRONIC TRANSCRIPT of Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Volume I, held 8/13/2019 before Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. Court Reporter: Katie Wirt, 816-512-5608, katie_wirt@mow.uscourts.gov. Number of pages: 292. NOTICE RE: REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: Within 7 calendar days of this filing, each party shall inform the Court, by filing a Notice of Redaction, of the parties' intent to redact personal data identifiers from the electronic transcript of the court proceeding. The policy is located on our website at www.mow.uscourts.gov. Please read this policy carefully. NOTICE:

09/12/2019 09/12/2019 09/12/2019

Attorneys must contact the court reporter for copies during this 90 day period. Notice of Intent to File Redaction of Transcripts due by 9/19/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/9/2019.(Wirt, Katie) (Entered: 09/12/2019)
375 ELECTRONIC TRANSCRIPT of Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Volume II, held 8/14/2019 before Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. Court Reporter: Katie Wirt, 816-512-5608, katie_wirt@mow.uscourts.gov. Number of pages: 296. NOTICE RE: REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: Within 7 calendar days of this filing, each party shall inform the Court, by filing a Notice of Redaction, of the parties' intent to redact personal data identifiers from the electronic transcript of the court proceeding. The policy is located on our website at www.mow.uscourts.gov. Please read this policy carefully. NOTICE: Attorneys must contact the court reporter for copies during this 90 day period. Notice of Intent to File Redaction of Transcripts due by 9/19/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/9/2019.(Wirt, Katie) Modified on 2/12/2020 to reflect redacted transcript filed on 2/12/2020 as Document 429 (Jones, Robin). (Entered: 09/12/2019)
376 ELECTRONIC TRANSCRIPT of Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Volume III, held 8/15/2019 before Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. Court Reporter: Katie Wirt, 816-512-5608, katie_wirt@mow.uscourts.gov. Number of pages: 303. NOTICE RE: REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: Within 7 calendar days of this filing, each party shall inform the Court, by filing a Notice of Redaction, of the parties' intent to redact personal data identifiers from the electronic transcript of the court proceeding. The policy is located on our website at www.mow.uscourts.gov. Please read this policy carefully. NOTICE: Attorneys must contact the court reporter for copies during this 90 day period. Notice of Intent to File Redaction of Transcripts due by 9/19/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/9/2019.(Wirt, Katie) Modified on 2/12/2020 to reflect redacted transcript filed on 2/12/2020 as Document 430 (Jones, Robin). (Entered: 09/12/2019)
377 ELECTRONIC TRANSCRIPT of Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Volume IV, held 8/16/2019 before Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. Court Reporter: Katie Wirt, 816-512-5608, katie_wirt@mow.uscourts.gov. Number of pages: 230. NOTICE RE: REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: Within 7 calendar days of this filing, each party shall inform the Court, by filing a Notice of Redaction, of the parties' intent to redact personal data identifiers from the electronic transcript of the court proceeding. The policy is located on our website at www.mow.uscourts.gov. Please read this policy carefully. NOTICE:

09/16/2019
09/17/2019 09/17/2019 09/19/2019 09/30/2019
10/02/2019 10/02/2019 10/03/2019

Attorneys must contact the court reporter for copies during this 90 day period. Notice of Intent to File Redaction of Transcripts due by 9/19/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/9/2019.(Wirt, Katie) (Entered: 09/12/2019)
378 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Corizon, LLC, Missouri Department of Corrections, Anne L. Precythe Certificate of Service for the State's Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs' Fourth Set of Requests for Production filed by William R Lunsford on behalf of Defendants Corizon, LLC, Missouri Department of Corrections, Anne L. Precythe.(Attorney William R Lunsford added to party Missouri Department of Corrections(pty:dft), Attorney William R Lunsford added to party Anne L. Precythe(pty:dft))(Lunsford, William) (Entered: 09/16/2019)
379 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by All Plaintiffs filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of Plaintiffs Christopher Baker, Michael Jamerson, Michael G Postawko.(Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 09/17/2019)
380 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by All Plaintiffs filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of Plaintiffs Christopher Baker, Michael Jamerson, Michael G Postawko.(Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 09/17/2019)
381 MOTION to Redact 376 , 375 Electronic Transcript filed by William R Lunsford on behalf of Corizon, LLC. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 10/3/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Related document(s) 376 , 375 ) (Lunsford, William) (Entered: 09/19/2019)
382 ORDER entered by Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. A Telephone Conference is set for 10/3/2019 at 11:00 AM regarding a discovery dispute. The parties shall email a one page summary of the dispute to Netra_Sreeprakash@mow.uscourts.gov by 11:00 AM on 10/2/2019. Signed on 9/30/19 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Matthes Mitra, Renea) (Entered: 09/30/2019)
383 NOTICE of filing Notice of Mediation by Adrienne Hardy, Missouri Department of Corrections, Anne L. Precythe (Baumann, Jennifer) (Entered: 10/02/2019)
384 NOTICE of filing Notice of Supplemental Authority by Corizon, LLC, Missouri Department of Corrections, Anne L. Precythe (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Lunsford, William) (Entered: 10/02/2019)
385 MINUTE ENTRY. Teleconference held before the Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey on October 3, 2019 regarding a discovery dispute as to whether Defendants should provide Plaintiffs with a blood sample for one of the named Plaintiffs, Jamerson, for testing by an independent laboratory to

determine if he has HCV. Defendants objected to the request on several grounds. First, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs should have moved pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35 because Rule 34 cannot be used to request a document that cannot exist. Second, Defendants have already conducted the test and the results twice indicated that Jamerson does not have HCV. Plaintiffs have not suggested that there is any basis to doubt the authenticity or veracity of the test results. Third, the request would lead the parties down a slippery slope. If Plaintiffs ask for additional testing for all of the class members, it would create enormous inefficiencies. Plaintiffs explained that Jamerson was first tested in 2015 and was told at the that time that he had chronic Hepatitis C. Viral load testing was first conducted in 2017, and that testing indicated that he did not have Hepatitis C. Plaintiffs are not asking at this time that the test be conducted for all class members; they are asking only that one of the three named plaintiffs be tested because of the unique circumstances. Plaintiffs argued that Defendants should not be allowed to dictate how Plaintiffs conduct discovery. Plaintiffs argued also that Defendants would not have been content to rely on an opposing experts findings without independently confirming them. Plaintiffs argued that they need not rely on Rule 35 to procure the blood sample because Rule 34 applies to tangible things. Plaintiffs noted that Defendants have not articulated any burden that would arise from providing the requested blood samplePlaintiffs have arranged for the testing and payment. Finally, Plaintiffs noted that the information Plaintiffs seek is relevant to Jamersons status as a class representative and his damagesissues that may be addressed in upcoming mediation. When asked by the Court whether they would prefer to proceed pursuant to Rule 35, with DOC transporting Jamerson to the laboratory of Plaintiffs choosing for testing, waiting while his blood sample is taken, and then transporting him back to the prison, or pursuant to Rule 34, with Corizon drawing a sample of Jamersons blood for transportation to a lab of Plaintiffs choosing, counsel for both Corizon and DOC agreed that, if the Court were to order one of the two measures, the latter would be preferable. The Court ordered Corizon to produce a blood sample from Mr. Jamerson on or before October 11, 2019. Plaintiffs are to arrange for the sample to be collected by the laboratory of their choice. If the parties are unable to reach agreement within 48 hours as to when the sample shall be collected, they are to contact the court on October 7, 2019 to arrange a teleconference. The Court noted that its ruling today is limited to the specific issue of Mr. Jamersons blood sample for HCV testing. Todays ruling does not reflect the Courts position as to whether similar discovery would be available for any other class member, or whether any such discovery would be available under Rule 34 or Rule 35. Appearances: Plaintiffs by Amy Breihan, Amelia Frenkel. Anastasia Pastan, Betsy Henthorne, and Meghan Cleary. Defendant MDOC by Jennifer Baumann. Defendant Corizon by William Lunsford and Matthew Reeves. CRD: Renea Matthes Mitra. Court Reporter: Nancy Wiss (Text

10/07/2019 10/08/2019 10/11/2019 10/11/2019 10/22/2019 10/22/2019 10/28/2019 11/06/2019 11/06/2019
11/06/2019

entry only.) To order a transcript of this hearing please contact Nancy Wiss, 913-735-2340, nancy_wiss@mow.uscourts.gov. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Matthes Mitra, Renea) (Entered: 10/03/2019)
386 NOTICE of filing Joint Notice Regarding Date for Collecting Plaintiff Michael Jamerson's Blood by Corizon, LLC (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Lunsford, William) (Entered: 10/07/2019)
387 NOTICE of filing Response to Notice of Supplemental Authority by Christopher Baker, Michael Jamerson, Michael G Postawko re 384 Notice of filing (Cleary, Meghan) (Entered: 10/08/2019)
388 NOTICE to take deposition of Dr. Robert Schaaf filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of Plaintiffs Christopher Baker, Michael Jamerson, Michael G Postawko.(Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 10/11/2019)
389 NOTICE to take deposition of Dr. Thomas Pryor filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of Plaintiffs Christopher Baker, Michael Jamerson, Michael G Postawko.(Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 10/11/2019)
390 NOTICE to take deposition of Missouri Department of Corrections filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of Plaintiffs Christopher Baker, Michael Jamerson, Michael G Postawko.(Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 10/22/2019)
391 NOTICE to take deposition of Corizon, LLC filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of Plaintiffs Christopher Baker, Michael Jamerson, Michael G Postawko.(Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 10/22/2019)
392 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by All Plaintiffs for Plaintiffs' Disclosure of Expert Testimony filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of Plaintiffs Christopher Baker, Michael Jamerson, Michael G Postawko.(Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 10/28/2019)
393 MOTION for leave to file Motion under Seal filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 11/20/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 11/06/2019)
394 ORDER by Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a motion under seal to protect confidential information, Doc. 393 , is GRANTED. Signed on November 6, 2019 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Sreeprakash, Netra) (Entered: 11/06/2019)
395 MOTION for Order (SEALED) filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 11/20/2019

11/06/2019 11/19/2019 11/19/2019
11/21/2019 11/22/2019 11/22/2019 11/25/2019
11/25/2019

unless otherwise directed by the court. (Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 11/06/2019)
396 MOTION for order court order for examination, etc. re 395 MOTION for Order (SEALED) filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 11/20/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Related document(s) 395 ) (Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 11/06/2019)
397 STIPULATION of dismissal of Plaintiff Michael Jamerson Only by Michael Jamerson. (Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 11/19/2019)
398 Third MOTION to amend/correct 364 Order on Motion to Amend/Correct, 254 Scheduling Order, and Suggestions in Support filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 12/3/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Related document(s) 364 , 254 ) (Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 11/19/2019)
399 ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS' THIRD MOTION TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER. Discovery due by 4/23/2020. Dispositive Motions due by 5/22/2020. Signed on 11/21/19 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. (Matthes Mitra, Renea) (Entered: 11/21/2019)
400 Amended NOTICE to take deposition of Missouri Department of Corrections filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of Plaintiffs Christopher Baker, Michael Jamerson, Michael G Postawko.(Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 11/22/2019)
401 Amended NOTICE to take deposition of Corizon, LLC filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of Plaintiffs Christopher Baker, Michael Jamerson, Michael G Postawko.(Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 11/22/2019)
402 ORDER entered by Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. A Telephone Conference is set for 11/26/2019 at 03:30 PM regarding a discovery dispute. The parties shall email a one page summary of the dispute to Netra_Sreeprakash@mow.uscourts.gov by 3:30 PM on 11/25/2019. The parties shall call conference number 877-336-1828, access code: 8503666 to participate. Signed on 11/25/19 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Matthes Mitra, Renea) (Entered: 11/25/2019)
403 ORDER entered by Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. The Telephone Conference set for 11/26/2019 at 03:30 PM regarding a discovery dispute is cancelled. The parties have resolved the issue. Signed on 11/25/19 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Matthes Mitra, Renea) (Entered: 11/25/2019)

11/25/2019 11/25/2019 11/26/2019 11/29/2019 12/02/2019
12/04/2019 12/18/2019 12/20/2019 12/20/2019

404 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Corizon, LLC Corizon, LLC's Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs' Fifth Set of Requests for Production filed by William R Lunsford on behalf of Defendant Corizon, LLC.(Lunsford, William) (Entered: 11/25/2019)
405 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Missouri Department of Corrections Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs' Fifth Requests for Production of Documents filed by Jennifer A. Baumann on behalf of Defendant Missouri Department of Corrections.(Baumann, Jennifer) (Entered: 11/25/2019)
406 ORDER granting 395 Sealed Motion. (Sreeprakash, Netra) (Entered: 11/26/2019)
407 Joint MOTION to amend/correct 399 Amended Scheduling Order, Terminate Motions filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 12/13/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Related document(s) 399 ) (Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 11/29/2019)
408 ORDER by Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. Pending before the Court is the parties' joint fourth motion to amend scheduling order (Doc. 407 ). Because the parties are in agreement and the six-day extension requested is for a limited purpose and will not affect other deadlines in the scheduling order, the motion is granted, and the February 26, 2019 amended scheduling and jury trial order (Doc. 254 ; see also Doc. 364 ) is amended only to permit the depositions of two of Defendant Corizon's corporate designees, Tonya Mooningham and Dr. Pete Powell, to be conducted by December 19, 2019. Signed on December 2, 2019 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Sreeprakash, Netra) (Entered: 12/02/2019)
409 Amended NOTICE to take deposition of Corizon filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of Plaintiffs Christopher Baker, Michael Jamerson, Michael G Postawko.(Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 12/04/2019)
410 NOTICE of appearance by Zachary T. Buchheit on behalf of Missouri Department of Corrections, Anne L. Precythe (Attorney Zachary T. Buchheit added to party Missouri Department of Corrections(pty:dft), Attorney Zachary T. Buchheit added to party Anne L. Precythe(pty:dft))(Buchheit, Zachary) (Entered: 12/18/2019)
411 Motion to allow Kieran Gostin to appear pro hac vice (Pro Hac fee $100 receipt number AMOWDC-6639221) filed by Anthony E. Rothert on behalf of Michael G Postawko. (Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 12/20/2019)
412 Joint MOTION to amend/correct 364 Order on Motion to Amend/Correct, 254 Scheduling Order, 408 Order on Motion to

12/23/2019

Amend/Correct,,, 399 Amended Scheduling Order, Terminate Motions Joint Motion to Amend Scheduling Order and Suggestions of Support Thereof filed by William R Lunsford on behalf of Corizon, LLC. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 1/3/2020 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Related document(s) 364 , 254 , 408 , 399 ) (Lunsford, William) (Entered: 12/20/2019)
413 ORDER granting 411 motion to appear pro hac vice entered by Clerk of Court. Attorney Kieran Gostin for plaintiffs allowed to appear pro hac vice. This entry will serve as authorization for the pro hac participation by the attorney.

12/31/2019 01/02/2020
01/03/2020 01/03/2020 01/06/2020

Western District of Missouri Local Rule 5.1 requires documents to be filed electronically. If pro hac vice counsel has not already done so, counsel is directed to immediately register for a WDMO e-filing account for NextGen CM/ECF. This will enable counsel to electronically file documents and receive electronic notification of filings. Register for a WDMO e-filing account at PACER. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Geiser, Angel) (Entered: 12/23/2019)
414 MOTION to withdraw as attorney filed by Dean John Sauer on behalf of Missouri Department of Corrections, Anne L. Precythe. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 1/14/2020 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Sauer, Dean) (Entered: 12/31/2019)
415 ORDER by Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. The motion by D. John Sauer to withdraw as attorney, Doc. 414 , is GRANTED in light of the fact that other attorneys continue to represent Defendants Missouri Department of Corrections and Anne L. Precythe. Attorney D. John Sauer is terminated. Signed on 1/2/20 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Matthes Mitra, Renea) (Entered: 01/02/2020)
416 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of notice to take deposition of Dr. Craig Hutchison filed by Gillian R. Wilcox on behalf of Plaintiffs Christopher Baker, Michael Jamerson, Michael G Postawko.(Wilcox, Gillian) Modified on 1/6/2020 to correct docket text(Lock, Tania). (Entered: 01/03/2020)
417 Amended CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of notice to take deposition of Corizon, LLC filed by Gillian R. Wilcox on behalf of Plaintiffs Christopher Baker, Michael Jamerson, Michael G Postawko.(Wilcox, Gillian) Modified on 1/6/2020 to correct docket text(Lock, Tania). (Entered: 01/03/2020)
418 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by All Plaintiffs of notice to take deposition of Ralf Salke filed by Elizabeth Lynn Henthorne on behalf of

01/06/2020 01/17/2020 01/17/2020 01/27/2020 01/30/2020 02/03/2020
02/11/2020

Plaintiffs Christopher Baker, Michael Jamerson, Michael G Postawko.(Henthorne, Elizabeth) (Entered: 01/06/2020)
419 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by All Plaintiffs of Expert Reports of Drs. Bick, Chung, Linas, Olson, and Thedinger filed by Elizabeth Lynn Henthorne on behalf of Plaintiffs Christopher Baker, Michael Jamerson, Michael G Postawko.(Henthorne, Elizabeth) (Entered: 01/06/2020)
420 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by All Plaintiffs for Sixth Set of Requests for Production of Documents to Defendant MDOC filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of Plaintiffs Christopher Baker, Michael Jamerson, Michael G Postawko.(Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 01/17/2020)
421 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by All Plaintiffs for Sixth Set of Requests for Production of Documents and Fourth Set of Interrogatories to Defendant Corizon, LLC filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of Plaintiffs Christopher Baker, Michael Jamerson, Michael G Postawko.(Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 01/17/2020)
422 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SERVICE executed Certificate of Service for The State's Disclosure of Expert Testimony Acknowledgement filed by Corizon, LLC. (Lunsford, William) (Entered: 01/27/2020)
423 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by All Plaintiffs SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS, INFORMATION, OR OBJECTS TO PARMACORR LLC filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of Plaintiffs Christopher Baker, Michael Jamerson, Michael G Postawko.(Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 01/30/2020)
424 ORDER by Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. The parties' fifth joint motion to amend the scheduling order (Doc. 412 ) is GRANTED. The Court permits the parties to complete Corizon, LLC's deposition pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6) on or before January 24, 2020. Plaintiffs may supplement their expert reports on or before February 14, 2020 to address any additional information learned after December 19, 2019 during Corizon, LLC's deposition pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6). Defendants may supplement their expert reports on or before March 13, 2020 to address any opinions contained in Plaintiffs' supplemental expert reports. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Sreeprakash, Netra) (Entered: 02/03/2020)
425 ORDER by Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. Plaintiffs' motion (Doc. 343 ) to file certain documents in connection with their reply in further support of their motion for preliminary injunction is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiffs may file Exhibits 23, 24, 25, 27, 29, 30, and 35 under seal; however, Plaintiffs must contemporaneously publicly file a redacted version of each of these exhibits. Only (1) identifying information for patients whose personal health information is contained in each document

02/11/2020 02/12/2020 02/12/2020 02/12/2020 02/12/2020

and (2) sensitive trade or commercial information may be redacted. Should any dispute concerning whether material should be properly redacted arise, the parties should contact the Court promptly to arrange a teleconference for resolution of the dispute. Plaintiffs may not file Exhibit 28 under seal because it does not contain either personal health information or sensitive commercial information, and therefore the Court sees no basis for limiting public access to the document. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Sreeprakash, Netra) (Entered: 02/11/2020)
426 ORDER by Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. Corizon's motion for a protective order (Doc. 353 ) is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiffs must, within one week, return or destroy, and may not use for any purpose, all copies in their possession of the following documents: Corizon02551517, Corizon02911315, Corizon07596769, and Corizon10064951. The motion for a protective order otherwise is denied. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Sreeprakash, Netra) (Entered: 02/11/2020)
427 Joint MOTION to amend/correct Joint Motion to Amend Scheduling Order and Suggestions in Support Thereof filed by William R Lunsford on behalf of Corizon, LLC. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 2/26/2020 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Lunsford, William) (Entered: 02/12/2020)
428 ORDER by Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. In light of the fact that Plaintiffs do not oppose Defendants' motion to redact the transcript (Doc. 381 ), for purposes of this motion only, the Court GRANTS the motion to redact the following portions of the transcript of the preliminary injunction hearing: Volume II, 365:12-366:20; 367:18-23; 370:2-10; Volume III, 605:21-24; 662:7-664:10. Signed on February 12, 2020 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Sreeprakash, Netra) (Entered: 02/12/2020)
429 REDACTED ELECTRONIC TRANSCRIPT of Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction - Volume II held 8/14/2019 before Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. Court Reporter: Katie Wirt, 816-512-5608, katie_wirt@mow.uscourts.gov. Number of pages: 296. Related document 375 Electronic Transcript. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/9/2019.(Wirt, Katie) (Entered: 02/12/2020)
430 REDACTED ELECTRONIC TRANSCRIPT of Motion for Preliminary Injunction - Volume III held 8/15/2019 before Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. Court Reporter: Katie Wirt, 816-512-5608, katie_wirt@mow.uscourts.gov. Number of pages: 303. Related document 376 Electronic Transcript. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/9/2019.(Wirt, Katie) (Entered: 02/12/2020)

02/14/2020 02/26/2020 02/28/2020
03/12/2020 03/18/2020 03/23/2020 04/03/2020 04/06/2020

431 ORDER ON THE JOINT MOTION TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER, 427 . Discovery will be completed on or before April 23,2020. Dispositive Motions will be filed on or before May 22,2020. Signed on 2/14/20 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. (Matthes Mitra, Renea) (Entered: 02/14/2020)
432 Joint MOTION to amend/correct Joint Motion to Amend Scheduling Order and Suggestions In Support Thereof filed by William R Lunsford on behalf of Corizon, LLC. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 3/11/2020 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Lunsford, William) (Entered: 02/26/2020)
433 ORDER by Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. The parties' join motion (Doc. 432 ) to amend the scheduling order for the sole purpose of extending the deadline for Defendants' expert reports from February 27 to March 12, 2020 is GRANTED in light of the parties' intention to focus their efforts on mediating their disputes. Signed on February 28, 2020 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Sreeprakash, Netra) (Entered: 02/28/2020)
434 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Corizon, LLC filed by William R Lunsford on behalf of Defendant Corizon, LLC.(Lunsford, William) (Entered: 03/12/2020)
435 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by All Plaintiffs of 7th Set of Requests for Production to Defendants, Fifth Set of Interrogatories to Defendant Corizon, LLC, and Third Set of Interrogatories to Defendant MDOC filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of Plaintiffs Christopher Baker, Michael Jamerson, Michael G Postawko.(Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 03/18/2020)
436 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Corizon, LLC filed by William R Lunsford on behalf of Defendant Corizon, LLC.(Lunsford, William) (Entered: 03/23/2020)
437 Joint MOTION to stay Joint Motion to Stay Amended Scheduling Order and Suggestions in Support Thereof filed by William R Lunsford on behalf of Corizon, LLC. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 4/17/2020 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Lunsford, William) (Entered: 04/03/2020)
438 ORDER by Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. In light of the parties' having made progress in their efforts to resolve the dispute through mediation, the Court GRANTS their joint motion for a stay (Doc. 437 ). This action and the deadlines in the scheduling order hereby are STAYED for 60 days. The parties are ORDERED to file a status report on or before June 8, 2020 if no motion for approval of the settlement has been filed before that

05/11/2020 05/11/2020 05/12/2020 05/22/2020
05/22/2020 06/12/2020

date. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Sreeprakash, Netra) (Entered: 04/06/2020)
439 ORDER entered by Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. A Telephone Conference is set for 5/12/2020 at 03:00 PM regarding the status of settlement efforts. The parties shall call conference number 877-336-1274, access code 2707681 to participate. Signed on 5/11/20 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Matthes Mitra, Renea) (Entered: 05/11/2020)
440 ORDER entered by Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. The Telephone Conference previously set for 5/12/2020 is reset for 5/22/2020 at 10:00 AM. The parties shall call conference number 877-336-1274, access code 2707681 to participate. Signed on 5/11/20 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Matthes Mitra, Renea) (Entered: 05/11/2020)
441 NOTICE of appearance by Kayla DeLoach on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Attorney Kayla DeLoach added to party Christopher Baker(pty:pla), Attorney Kayla DeLoach added to party Michael G Postawko(pty:pla))(DeLoach, Kayla) (Entered: 05/12/2020)
442 MINUTE ENTRY. Teleconference held before the Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey on May 22, 2020, regarding the status of settlement. Ms. Breihan informed the Court that the parties have reached a settlement of both the class and individual claims and expect to file a joint motion for preliminary approval of the class and individual claims next week. The Court dismissed without prejudice the motion for preliminary injunction subject to the settlement being finalized. If for any reason the settlement is not finalized, the motion will be reinstated. Appearances: Plaintiffs by Amy Breihan, Amelia Frenkel, Anastasia Pastan, Betsy Henthorne, Kayla DeLoach and Meghan Cleary. Defendant MDOC by Jennifer Baumann. Defendant Corizon by William Lunsford and Matthew Reeves. CRD: Renea Matthes Mitra. Court Reporter: None This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Matthes Mitra, Renea) (Entered: 05/22/2020)
443 ORDER by Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. In light of the fact that the parties have reached a settlement with respect to the individual and class claims, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Defendants' motion to strike the testimony of Plaintiffs' experts (Doc. 351 ) subject to the settlement being finalized. If for any reason the settlement is not finalized, the motion will be reinstated. Signed on May 22, 2020 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Sreeprakash, Netra) (Entered: 05/22/2020)
444 ORDER entered by Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. A Telephone Conference is set for 6/15/2020 at 11:00 AM regarding the status of the case. The

06/15/2020
07/17/2020 07/17/2020 07/22/2020

parties shall call conference number 877-336-1828, access code: 8503666 to participate. Signed on 6/12/20 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Matthes Mitra, Renea) (Entered: 06/12/2020)
445 MINUTE ENTRY. Teleconference held before the Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey on June 15, 2020. Ms. Henthorne informed the Court that the parties have finalized the terms for the class settlement, but they anticipate that it will take until mid-July to finalize the settlement for the named Plaintiffs both because the parties continue to work on one material provision in the written agreements and because of the logistics of procuring the signature of one plaintiff who is incarcerated out of state. The Court ordered the parties to contact the Court within seven days if there are any substantive, material issues that preclude a meeting of the minds. The Court will check back with the parties by the end of July to see if everything has been completed. Appearances: Plaintiff by Anastasia Pastan, Elizabeth Henthorne, Meghan Cleary and Amy Breihan. Defendant MODOC by Jennifer Baumann. Defendant Corizon by Bill Lunsford and Matt Reeves. CRD: Renea Matthes Mitra. Court Reporter: None. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Matthes Mitra, Renea) (Entered: 06/15/2020)
446 NOTICE of change of address by Meghan Chambers Cleary (Cleary, Meghan) (Entered: 07/17/2020)
447 ORDER entered by Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. A Telephone Conference is set for 7/22/2020 at 10:00 AM regarding the status of the case. The parties shall call conference number 877-336-1274, access code 2707681 to participate. Signed on 7/17/20 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Matthes Mitra, Renea) (Entered: 07/17/2020)
448 MINUTE ENTRY. Teleconference held before the Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey on July 22, 2020 regarding the status of the case. Ms. Henthorn informed the Court that, although one named Plaintiff has signed the settlement agreement, counsel are in the process of obtaining a signed agreement from the other named Plaintiff, who is incarcerated outside the state of Missouri. Plaintiffs' counsel anticipates having the settlement papers fully executed during or before the first week of August and will file settlement approval documents forthwith upon receipt of the signed documents. The Court will strike the August, 17, 2020 permanent injunction hearing. The Court will expect to receive the final settlement approval filings on or before August 10, 2020. Plaintiffs by Anastasia Pastan, Elizabeth Henthorne, Meghan Cleary, Kayla DeLoach and Amy Breihan. Defendant MODOC by Jennifer Baumann. Defendant Corizon by Matt Reeves. CRD: Renea Matthes Mitra. Court Reporter: None. This

07/27/2020 07/27/2020 07/27/2020 07/28/2020 08/10/2020 08/21/2020 08/21/2020
08/25/2020 09/08/2020

is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Matthes Mitra, Renea) (Entered: 07/22/2020)
449 Consent MOTION for leave to file Motion Under Seal filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 8/10/2020 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 (proposed motion with redactions))(Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 07/27/2020)
450 ORDER by Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. Plaintiffs' unopposed motion (Doc. 449 ) to file under seal a motion to direct the facility in which Plaintiff Postawko is housed to make him available for a legal call is GRANTED. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Sreeprakash, Netra) (Entered: 07/27/2020)
451 Consent MOTION for Order (SEALED) filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 8/10/2020 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 07/27/2020)
452 ORDER (SEALED) by Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. Plaintiffs' unopposed, sealed motion (Doc. 451 ) for an order is GRANTED. Signed on July 28, 2020 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. (Sreeprakash, Netra) (Entered: 07/28/2020)
453 STATUS REPORT on Settlement by Christopher Baker, Michael G Postawko. (Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 08/10/2020)
454 Joint MOTION for order Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 9/4/2020 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 08/21/2020)
455 SUGGESTIONS in support re 454 Joint MOTION for order Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of Plaintiffs Christopher Baker, Michael Jamerson, Michael G Postawko. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 (Class Action Settlement Agreement), # 2 Exhibit 2 (Proposed Notice to Class), # 3 Exhibit 3 (Proposed Order))(Related document(s) 454 ) (Breihan, Amy) (Attachment 1 replaced on 8/27/2020) (Warren, Melissa). Modified to reflect attachment 1 has been replaced and new NEF has been regenerated(Warren, Melissa). (Entered: 08/21/2020)
456 ORDER by Judge Nanette K. Laughrey granting the parties' joint motion (Doc. 454 ) for preliminary settlement approval (Sreeprakash, Netra) (Entered: 08/25/2020)
457 Joint MOTION for extension of time to Issue Class Notice and Suggestions in Support Thereof filed by Jennifer A. Baumann on behalf of

09/09/2020
09/15/2020
09/15/2020
09/15/2020 09/15/2020
09/15/2020 09/15/2020 09/15/2020 09/15/2020 09/15/2020 09/15/2020 09/15/2020 09/15/2020 09/15/2020

Adrienne Hardy, Missouri Department of Corrections, Anne L. Precythe. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 9/22/2020 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Baumann, Jennifer) (Entered: 09/08/2020)
458 ORDER by Judge Nanette K. Laughrey granting joint motion (Doc. 457 ) for amended order extending deadlines for class notice. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Sreeprakash, Netra) (Entered: 09/09/2020)
459 NOTICE OF FILING OF OBJECTIONS to class settlement by Ronald E. Newlon. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Warren, Melissa) (Entered: 09/15/2020)
460 NOTICE OF FILING OF OBJECTIONS to class settlement by Roy Welch. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Warren, Melissa) (Entered: 09/15/2020)
461 NOTICE of filing of statement in favor of settlement by Tatianna Light. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Warren, Melissa) (Entered: 09/15/2020)
462 NOTICE of filing of statement in favor of settlement by Christoper B. Chrisco. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Warren, Melissa) (Entered: 09/15/2020)
463 NOTICE of filing of statement in favor of settlement by Monty Gravitt. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Warren, Melissa) (Entered: 09/15/2020)
464 NOTICE of filing of objections to class settlement by Avery McCoy. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Warren, Melissa) (Entered: 09/15/2020)
465 NOTICE of filing of objections to class settlement by Michael Bell. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Warren, Melissa) (Entered: 09/15/2020)
466 NOTICE of filing of objections to class settlement by Logan Leavitt. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Warren, Melissa) (Entered: 09/15/2020)
467 NOTICE of filing of statement in favor of settlement by DiAndre McGee. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Warren, Melissa) (Entered: 09/15/2020)
468 NOTICE of filing of statement in favor of settlement by Darrell Felton. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Warren, Melissa) (Entered: 09/15/2020)
469 NOTICE of filing of objections to class settlement by Charles Rentschler. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Warren, Melissa) (Entered: 09/15/2020)
470 NOTICE of filing of objections to class settlement by Jason Leach. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Warren, Melissa) (Entered: 09/15/2020)
471 NOTICE of filing of statement re: settlement by Melinda Vollet. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Warren, Melissa) (Entered: 09/15/2020)

09/15/2020 09/16/2020 09/16/2020 09/16/2020 09/16/2020 09/16/2020 09/16/2020 09/16/2020 09/16/2020 09/16/2020 09/16/2020 09/16/2020 09/16/2020
09/17/2020 09/17/2020 09/17/2020

472 NOTICE of filing of objections to class settlement by Kenny Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Warren, Melissa) (Entered: 09/15/2020)
473 NOTICE of filing of statement in favor of settlement by Larry James. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Warren, Melissa) (Entered: 09/16/2020)
474 NOTICE of filing of objections by Jessie Hopkins. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Warren, Melissa). (Entered: 09/16/2020)
475 NOTICE of filing of objections by Joshua Rupe. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Warren, Melissa) (Entered: 09/16/2020)
476 NOTICE of filing of statement in favor of settlement by Andres Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Warren, Melissa) (Entered: 09/16/2020)
477 NOTICE of filing of objections by Phillip Farley. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Warren, Melissa). (Entered: 09/16/2020)
478 NOTICE of filing of objections by Charles Shattuck-Knaebel. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Warren, Melissa) (Entered: 09/16/2020)
479 NOTICE of filing of statement in favor of settlement by Madatha Walker. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Warren, Melissa) (Entered: 09/16/2020)
480 NOTICE of filing of objections by Ricardo Culpepper. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Warren, Melissa) (Entered: 09/16/2020)
481 NOTICE of filing of objections by Christopher Clay. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Warren, Melissa) (Entered: 09/16/2020)
482 NOTICE of filing of objections by Wayne Sechrest. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Warren, Melissa) (Entered: 09/16/2020)
483 NOTICE of filing of statement re: settlement by Jason Conrad. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Warren, Melissa) (Entered: 09/16/2020)
484 AFFIDAVIT re 456 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief Affidavit of Jeffrey R. Norman Certifying Compliance with Notice Requirements of the Court's August 25, 2020 Court Order by Missouri Department of Corrections. (Related document(s) 456 ) (Baumann, Jennifer) (Entered: 09/16/2020)
485 NOTICE of filing of statement re: settlement by Michael Bell. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Warren, Melissa) (Entered: 09/17/2020)
486 NOTICE of filing of statement re: settlement by Richard Howell. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Warren, Melissa) (Entered: 09/17/2020)
487 NOTICE of filing of statement in favor of settlement by Shenae Boyd. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Warren, Melissa) (Entered: 09/17/2020)

09/17/2020 09/17/2020 09/17/2020 09/17/2020 09/18/2020 09/18/2020 09/18/2020 09/18/2020
09/18/2020 09/18/2020 09/18/2020 09/21/2020 09/21/2020 09/21/2020
09/21/2020 09/21/2020

488 NOTICE of filing of statement in favor of settlement by Quincy Vaughn. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Warren, Melissa) (Entered: 09/17/2020)
489 NOTICE of filing of statement re: settlement by Holly Blankenship. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Warren, Melissa) (Entered: 09/17/2020)
490 NOTICE of filing of objections by Troy Fenton. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Warren, Melissa) (Entered: 09/17/2020)
491 NOTICE of filing of objections by Stephen Morris. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Warren, Melissa) (Entered: 09/17/2020)
492 NOTICE of filing of objections by Joshua McMackin. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Warren, Melissa) (Entered: 09/18/2020)
493 NOTICE of filing of statement in favor of settlement by Kara Miles. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Warren, Melissa) (Entered: 09/18/2020)
494 NOTICE of filing of objections by Ryan McVaughn. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Warren, Melissa) (Entered: 09/18/2020)
495 NOTICE of filing of statement in favor of settlement by Michael G. Baker. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Warren, Melissa) (Entered: 09/18/2020)
496 NOTICE of filing of statement in favor of settlement by Brandon Perry. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Warren, Melissa) (Entered: 09/18/2020)
497 NOTICE of filing of statement in favor of settlement by Ze' Montre Mach. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Warren, Melissa) (Entered: 09/18/2020)
498 NOTICE of filing of objections by Carroll Wayne Meyer. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(James, Carrie) (Entered: 09/19/2020)
499 NOTICE of filing of statement by Shannon Miller. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Berner, Crystal) (Entered: 09/21/2020)
500 NOTICE of filing of statement in favor of settlement by Tommie Cassel. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Warren, Melissa) (Entered: 09/21/2020)
501 NOTICE of filing of statement in favor of settlement by Dakota Cottengim. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Warren, Melissa) (Entered: 09/21/2020)
502 NOTICE of filing of statement in favor of settlement by James Scaggs. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Warren, Melissa) (Entered: 09/21/2020)
503 NOTICE of filing of objections by Ozie B. Collins. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Envelope)(Berner, Crystal) (Entered: 09/21/2020)

09/21/2020 09/21/2020 09/21/2020 09/22/2020 09/23/2020 09/23/2020 09/23/2020 09/24/2020 09/24/2020 09/24/2020 09/24/2020
09/24/2020
09/24/2020 09/28/2020 09/28/2020 09/28/2020

504 NOTICE of filing of objections by Troy Fenton. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Warren, Melissa) (Entered: 09/21/2020)
505 NOTICE of filing of statement in favor of settlement by Robert Lewis. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Warren, Melissa) (Entered: 09/21/2020)
506 NOTICE of filing of objections by Joseph Bowens. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Berner, Crystal) (Entered: 09/21/2020)
507 NOTICE of filing of objection by Robert Roe Anderson. (Warren, Melissa) (Entered: 09/22/2020)
508 NOTICE of filing of statement re: settlement by Richard McCoy. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Warren, Melissa) (Entered: 09/23/2020)
509 NOTICE of filing of objection by Robert Roe Anderson. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Warren, Melissa) (Entered: 09/23/2020)
510 NOTICE of filing of statement in favor of settlement by Gregory Brown. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Warren, Melissa) (Entered: 09/23/2020)
511 NOTICE of filing of objection by Lyle Coffey. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Warren, Melissa) (Entered: 09/24/2020)
512 NOTICE of filing of statement in favor of settlement by Johnny Floyd. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Warren, Melissa) (Entered: 09/24/2020)
513 NOTICE of filing of objection from Hayward Silas Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Warren, Melissa) (Entered: 09/24/2020)
514 NOTICE of filing of statement in favor of settlement by Lisa Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Warren, Melissa) Modified on 9/25/2020 to reflect correct filers name (Warren, Melissa). (Entered: 09/24/2020)
515 NOTICE of filing of statement in favor of settlement by Robert Anderson. (Berner, Crystal) Modified on 9/25/2020 to reflect correct entry in support of settlement(Warren, Melissa). (Entered: 09/24/2020)
516 NOTICE of filing of objection by Ronald Newlon. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Warren, Melissa) (Entered: 09/25/2020)
517 NOTICE of filing of objection by Trevor Lawson. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Berner, Crystal) (Entered: 09/28/2020)
518 NOTICE of filing of objection by Red Jackson. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Berner, Crystal) (Entered: 09/28/2020)
519 NOTICE of filing of objection by Charles J. Moorehead III. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Berner, Crystal) (Entered: 09/28/2020)

09/28/2020 09/28/2020
09/28/2020 09/29/2020
09/30/2020 09/30/2020 09/30/2020 10/01/2020 10/01/2020 10/01/2020 10/01/2020 10/02/2020 10/05/2020 10/06/2020
10/06/2020

520 NOTICE of filing of statement in favor of settlement by Jacob Voshell. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Berner, Crystal) (Entered: 09/28/2020)
521 NOTICE of filing of statement in favor of settlement by Timothy Sweeney. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Berner, Crystal) (Entered: 09/28/2020)
522 NOTICE of filing of statement in favor of settlement by John T. Ratliff. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Berner, Crystal) (Entered: 09/28/2020)
523 PRO SE MOTION to clarify filed by Michael Jamerson. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 10/13/2020 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Houston, Kiambu) (Entered: 09/29/2020)
524 NOTICE of filing of objection by Robert Roe Anderson. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Berner, Crystal) (Entered: 09/30/2020)
525 NOTICE of filing of objection by Robert Roe Anderson received via WMCCs scanner. (Lock, Tania) (Entered: 09/30/2020)
526 NOTICE of filing of objection by George Myers. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Berner, Crystal) (Entered: 09/30/2020)
527 NOTICE of filing of statement in favor of settlement by Nathan Hicks. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Berner, Crystal) (Entered: 10/01/2020)
528 NOTICE of filing of objection by Kurtis Farrow. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Berner, Crystal) (Entered: 10/01/2020)
529 NOTICE of filing of statement in favor of settlement by Aaron Allen. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Berner, Crystal) (Entered: 10/01/2020)
530 NOTICE of filing of statement re: settlement by Chad Koening. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Berner, Crystal) (Entered: 10/01/2020)
531 NOTICE of filing of statement in favor of settlement by Nathan Neth. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Berner, Crystal) (Entered: 10/02/2020)
532 NOTICE of filing of second objection by Ozie Collins. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Warren, Melissa) (Entered: 10/05/2020)
533 MOTION to withdraw as attorney for Elizabeth Lynn Henthorne filed by Amelia Igo Pelly Frenkel on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 10/20/2020 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Frenkel, Amelia) (Entered: 10/06/2020)
534 ORDER entered by Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. In light of the fact that other counsel continue to represent Plaintiffs, Elizabeth Lynn Henthorne is granted leave to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiffs, (Doc. 533 ). Signed on 10/6/20 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. This is a TEXT ONLY

10/06/2020 10/06/2020 10/06/2020 10/07/2020 10/07/2020 10/07/2020 10/09/2020
10/09/2020
10/09/2020 10/09/2020
10/12/2020

ENTRY. No document is attached. (Matthes Mitra, Renea) (Entered: 10/06/2020)
535 NOTICE of filing of objection by Russell McKelvy. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Warren, Melissa) (Entered: 10/06/2020)
536 NOTICE of filing of revised objection by Joshua Rupe. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Warren, Melissa) (Entered: 10/06/2020)
537 NOTICE of filing of objection by Russell Draper.(Berner, Crystal) (Entered: 10/07/2020)
538 NOTICE of filing of statement re: settlement by Anthony Morris. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Warren, Melissa) (Entered: 10/07/2020)
539 NOTICE of filing of statement in favor of settlement by Eric Washington. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Warren, Melissa) (Entered: 10/07/2020)
540 NOTICE of filing of objection by Michael Jones. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Warren, Melissa) (Entered: 10/07/2020)
541 MOTION to seal document petition for writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 10/23/2020 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (Redacted Petition))(Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 10/09/2020)
542 ORDER by Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. Plaintiff's motion (Doc. 541 ) for leave to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum under seal is GRANTED. Plaintiffs may file the petition under seal, but must contemporaneously publicly file a redacted version of the same document. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Sreeprakash, Netra) (Entered: 10/09/2020)
543 Consent MOTION for Order (SEALED) petition for writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 10/23/2020 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 10/09/2020)
544 Consent MOTION for order writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum re 542 Order on Motion to Seal Document, 543 Consent MOTION for Order (SEALED) petition for writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 10/23/2020 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Related document(s) 542 , 543 ) (Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 10/09/2020)
545 STATUS REPORT by Christopher Baker, Michael G Postawko. (Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 10/12/2020)

10/12/2020 10/13/2020
10/13/2020 10/13/2020 10/14/2020
10/14/2020 10/16/2020 10/16/2020 10/16/2020 10/16/2020 10/16/2020 10/16/2020 10/16/2020

546 NOTICE of filing of Statement in Support of Settlement by Michael Postawko by Christopher Baker, Michael G Postawko (Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 10/12/2020)
547 ORDER by Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. Plaintiffs' consent motion (Doc. 544 ) for an order directing the Clerk to issue a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum directing the facility in which he is incarcerated to produce Mr. Postawko before the Court via live video feed on October 28, 2020 is GRANTED. Signed on October 13, 2020 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Sreeprakash, Netra) (Entered: 10/13/2020)
548 WRIT (SEALED) WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AD TESTIFICANDUM. Signed on 10/13/20 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. (Matthes Mitra, Renea) (Entered: 10/13/2020)
549 Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum.(Matthes Mitra, Renea) Modified to reflect the Writ was emailed to the facility on 10/13/20. (Matthes Mitra, Renea). (Entered: 10/13/2020)
550 SUGGESTIONS in opposition re 523 MOTION to clarify filed by Amy Elizabeth Breihan on behalf of Plaintiffs Christopher Baker, Michael Jamerson, Michael G Postawko. Reply suggestions due by 10/28/2020 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Related document(s) 523 ) (Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 10/14/2020)
551 NOTICE of filing of objection by Robert Roe Anderson. (Berner, Crystal) (Entered: 10/14/2020)
552 NOTICE of filing of objection by Joe Beck. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Berner, Crystal) (Entered: 10/16/2020)
553 NOTICE of filing of objection by D.R. Vaughn. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Berner, Crystal) (Entered: 10/16/2020)
554 NOTICE of filing of objection by William Lloyd. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Berner, Crystal) (Entered: 10/16/2020)
555 NOTICE of filing of objection by John Franklin Wright. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Berner, Crystal) (Entered: 10/16/2020)
556 NOTICE of filing of statement in favor of settlement by Likon Edwards. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Berner, Crystal) (Entered: 10/16/2020)
557 NOTICE of filing of statement by Darren Bomar. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Berner, Crystal) (Entered: 10/16/2020)
558 NOTICE of filing of objection by Donald Willen. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A, # 2 Attachment B, # 3 Envelope)(Berner, Crystal) (Entered: 10/16/2020)

10/20/2020
10/21/2020 10/23/2020 10/26/2020 10/26/2020
10/27/2020 10/27/2020
10/27/2020 10/27/2020

559 Order entered by Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. A Fairness Hearing is scheduled by video conference on October 28, 2020, at 10:00 AM. The Court will provide to counsel by email the information needed to connect to the video conference. Any others who would like access to the Fairness Hearing may request the conference information by emailing Renea_Mitra@mow.uscourts.gov. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Matthes Mitra, Renea) (Entered: 10/20/2020)
560 NOTICE of filing of objection by Lamont Franklin (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Lock, Tania) (Entered: 10/21/2020)
561 NOTICE of filing Statements Regarding Settlement Sent Directly to Plaintiffs' Counsel (per Doc #458 at 2(b)) by Christopher Baker, Michael G Postawko (Breihan, Amy) (Entered: 10/23/2020)
562 Joint MOTION for order final approval of class settlement filed by Anthony E. Rothert on behalf of Christopher Baker, Michael G Postawko. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 11/9/2020 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 10/26/2020)
563 MOTION for leave to file excess pages filed by Anthony E. Rothert on behalf of Michael G Postawko. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 11/9/2020 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Attachments: # 1 proposed suggestions in support, # 2 Ex. 1 to SIS, # 3 Ex. 2 to SIS, # 4 Ex. 3 to SIS, # 5 Ex. 4 to SIS)(Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 10/26/2020)
564 ORDER by Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. Plaintiffs' motion (Doc. 563 ) for leave to file excess pages is GRANTED. The suggestions in support of the motion for final approval of the settlement may comprise up to 20 pages. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Sreeprakash, Netra) (Entered: 10/27/2020)
565 SUGGESTIONS in support re 562 Joint MOTION for order final approval of class settlement filed by Anthony E. Rothert on behalf of Plaintiff Michael G Postawko. (Attachments: # 1 Ex. 1 - Settlement Agreement, # 2 Ex. 2 - Comments in Support of Settlment or Taking no Position, # 3 Ex. 3 - Objections, # 4 Ex. 4 - FAQ Document)(Related document(s) 562 ) (Rothert, Anthony) (Entered: 10/27/2020)
566 NOTICE of appearance by Elizabeth Lynn Henthorne on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Henthorne, Elizabeth) (Entered: 10/27/2020)
567 MOTION to withdraw as attorney filed by John W Taylor on behalf of Adrienne Hardy, Missouri Department of Corrections, Anne L. Precythe. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 11/10/2020 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Taylor, John) (Entered: 10/27/2020)

10/27/2020 10/28/2020
10/28/2020
10/28/2020 11/02/2020 11/16/2020 12/09/2020

568 ORDER entered by Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. In light of the fact that other counsel continue to represent Defendants the Missouri Department of Corrections, Anne L. Precythe and Adrienne Hardy, John W. Taylor's motion to withdraw as counsel is granted. Doc. 567 . Signed on 10/27/20 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Matthes Mitra, Renea) (Entered: 10/27/2020)
569 MINUTE ENTRY. Settlement Approval Hearing held by video conference before the Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey on October 28, 2020. Time: 10:00 a.m. 10:53 a.m. Statements presented by counsel. Statements presented by Michael Postawko. The Court approved the settlement agreement. Plaintiffs by: Anthony Rothert, Amy Breihan, Gillian Wilcox, Jessie Steffan, Anastasia Pastan, Amelia Frenkel, Meghan Cleary, Tamarra Matthews-Johnson, Elizabeth Henthorne and Kayla DeLoach. Michael Postawko appeared personally. Defendant MDOC by Jennifer Baumann. Defendant Corizon by William Lunsford and Matthew Reeves. Court Reporter: Kathy Calvert. Courtroom Deputy: Renea Matthes Mitra.To order a transcript of this hearing please contact Kathy Calvert, 816-512-5741, kathy_calvert@mow.uscourts.gov. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Matthes Mitra, Renea) (Entered: 10/28/2020)
570 ORDER by Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. The motion by former named plaintiff and pro se non-party Jamerson (Doc. 523 ) to intervene in order to compel class counsel to seek monetary damages on his behalf is DENIED because Mr. Jamerson, who is not a member of the plaintiff class, has no legally cognizable interest in this action. Signed on October 28, 2020 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. The Clerk's Office shall mail a copy of this order to Mr. Jamerson. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Sreeprakash, Netra) Modified on 10/28/2020, document mailed to Michael C. Jamerson, 179555/1-B-25, M.E.C.C., 18701 Old Hwy 66, Pacific, MO 63069. (James, Carrie). (Entered: 10/28/2020)
571 ORDER entered by Judge Nanette K. Laughrey GRANTING the parties' joint motion (Doc. 562 ) for final approval of the settlement. (Sreeprakash, Netra) (Entered: 10/28/2020)
572 MOTION for injunction filed by Michael Jamerson. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 11/16/2020 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Houston, Kiambu) (Entered: 11/03/2020)
573 NOTICE of change of address by Elizabeth Lynn Henthorne (Henthorne, Elizabeth) (Entered: 11/16/2020)
574 ORDER by Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. The motion by non-party Michael C. Jamerson for injunctive relief, Doc. 572 , is DENIED. As stated in the

03/08/2021

Court's order on Mr. Jamerson's prior motion (Doc. 570 ), Mr. Jamerson is not a class member and as a non-party, has no legally cognizable interest in this action. The Clerk's Office shall mail a copy of this order to Mr. Jamerson. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Sreeprakash, Netra) (Entered: 12/09/2020)
576 MOTION to enforce settlement filed by Ozie B. Collins, Jr. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 3/22/2021 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Lock, Tania) (Entered: 03/08/2021)

PACER Service Center Transaction Receipt

03/19/2021 13:38:16

PACER Login:

CRClearinghouse Client Code:

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

Billable Pages: 30

Cost:

Exempt flag: Not Exempt

Exempt reason:

Poortenga
2:16-cv-04219NKL 3.00
Not Exempt

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI CENTRAL DIVISION

MICHAEL POSTAWKO,

)

)

CHRISTOPHER BAKER, and

)

)

MICHAEL JAMERSON,

)

on behalf of themselves and a class of

)

similarly situated individuals,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF

)

CORRECTIONS,

)

)

CORIZON, LLC,

)

)

GEORGE LOMBARDI, in his official capacity )

as Director of the Missouri Department

)

of Corrections,

)

)

DR. TRINIDAD AGUILERA, in his individual )

capacity,

)

)

DR. JOHN WILLIAMS, in his individual

)

capacity

)

)

DR. UNKNOWN STAMPS, in her individual )

capacity,

)

)

DR. THOMAS PRYOR, in his individual

)

capacity,

)

)

DR. UNKNOWN PROCTOR, in his individual )

capacity,

)

)

DR. UNKNOWN HARDMAN, in his individual )

capacity,

)

)

DR. UNKNOWN DAVISON, in his individual )

capacity,

)

)

No. 16-CV-4219-NKL-P JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

1 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 30 Filed 12/15/16 Page 1 of 35

DR. PAUL JONES, in his individual

)

capacity,

)

)

UNKNOWN STIEFERMAN, in her individual )

capacity,

)

)

DR. T. BREDEMAN, in his individual capacity, )

)

JULIE FIPPS, in her individual capacity,

)

)

UNKNOWN COFIELD, in his or her individual )

capacity,

)

)

UNKNOWN RUCKER, in her individual capacity, )

)

JAMIE CAMPBELL, in her individual

)

capacity,

)

)

DAWN BAKER, in her individual capacity,

)

)

GEENEEN WILHITE, in her individual

)

capacity,

)

)

ADRIENNE HARDY, in her individual

)

capacity,

)

)

BONNIE BOLEY, in her individual capacity, )

)

AMANDA YATES, in her individual capacity, )

)

JULIE UNKNOWN, in her individual capacity, )

)

JOHN OR JANE DOE I–III, in their individual )

capacities,

)

)

Defendants.

)

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT INTRODUCTION
1. The Missouri Department of Corrections (MDOC) and Corizon, LLC have created and maintained a policy or custom and practice of systematically denying necessary medical care to inmates diagnosed with Hepatitis C viral infections (HCV), thereby

2 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 30 Filed 12/15/16 Page 2 of 35

discriminating against them and placing them at substantial and unnecessary risk for severe pain, illness, injury, and death. The individual defendants have denied necessary medical care to Plaintiffs, who have been diagnosed with chronic HCV, and have caused them unnecessary pain and suffering and irreversible liver damage.
2. Plaintiffs bring this action seeking prospective relief on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated individuals to remedy the ongoing deprivation of their rights guaranteed by the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution (as incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment) and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. In addition, the named Plaintiffs seek an award of damages for the harm caused to them by the violation of their constitutional and statutory rights to life-saving treatment.
3. Plaintiffs Michael Postawko, Christopher Baker, and Michael Jamerson are incarcerated in the Missouri Department of Corrections with serious health complications stemming from their chronic Hepatitis C viral infections. Defendants have refused to provide medical treatment to Plaintiffs and others with HCV that is consistent with current and prevailing medical standards. As a result, Defendants have harmed, and continue to harm, Plaintiffs.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4. Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. § 1331, and 42 U.S.C. § 1343. 5. Venue is appropriate in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(g) and L.R. 3.1(a)(2) because substantial events at issue in this litigation occurred in the Western District of Missouri and in the County of Cole, Missouri.
3 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 30 Filed 12/15/16 Page 3 of 35

PARTIES 6. Plaintiff Michael Postawko is an adult individual currently incarcerated at Jefferson City Correctional Center in Jefferson City, Missouri (JCCC). Postawko seeks injunctive and declaratory relief on behalf of himself and on behalf of a class of plaintiffs who are currently or will in the future be subject to the discriminatory and unconstitutional policy of Defendants MDOC, Lombardi, and Corizon for treating individuals with Hepatitis C infections, as well as damages on his individual claims. 7. Plaintiff Christopher Baker is an adult individual currently incarcerated at Algoa Correctional Center in Jefferson City, Missouri (Algoa). Baker seeks injunctive and declaratory relief on behalf of himself and on behalf of a class of plaintiffs who are currently or will in the future be subject to the discriminatory and unconstitutional policy of Defendants MDOC, Lombardi, and Corizon for treating individuals with Hepatitis C infections, as well as damages on his individual claims. 8. Plaintiff Michael Jamerson is an adult individual currently incarcerated at Missouri Eastern Correctional Center in Pacific, Missouri (MECC). Jamerson seeks injunctive and declaratory relief on behalf of himself and on behalf of a class of plaintiffs who are currently or will in the future be subject to the discriminatory and unconstitutional policy of Defendants MDOC, Lombardi, and Corizon for treating individuals with Hepatitis C infections, as well as damages on his individual claims. 9. Defendant Missouri Department of Corrections (MDOC) is a state executive agency that has the power to sue and be sued pursuant to Mo. Rev. Stat. § 217.020. MDOC is responsible for providing treatment for the serious medical needs of individuals in its custody.
4 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 30 Filed 12/15/16 Page 4 of 35

10. Defendant George Lombardi is the Director of MDOC. He is responsible for the operations of MDOC, including adopting, approving, and implementing the policies applicable to the prisons that MDOC operates throughout the State of Missouri. Upon information and belief, Director Lombardi is the final policymaker for MDOC. He is sued in his official capacity.
11. Defendant Corizon, LLC is the health care provider for all MDOC facilities. Corizon, LLC is a Missouri limited liability company with its principal place of business located in Brentwood, Tennessee.
12. Defendant Trinidad Aguilera was, at all times relevant to this complaint, a doctor at Moberly Correctional Center who was a treating physician of Baker and exhibited deliberate indifference by failing to provide Baker with any HCV treatment and failing to conduct proper testing, monitoring, and consulting. He is sued in his individual capacity.
13. Defendant John Williams was, at all times relevant to this complaint, a doctor at MECC who was a treating physician of Jamerson and exhibited deliberate indifference by failing to provide Jamerson with any HCV treatment and failing to conduct proper testing, monitoring, and consulting. He is sued in his individual capacity.
14. Defendant Unknown Stamps was, at all times relevant to this complaint, a doctor at Algoa who was a treating physician of Baker and exhibited deliberate indifference by failing to provide Baker with any HCV treatment and failing to conduct proper testing, monitoring, and consulting. She is sued in her individual capacity.
15. Defendant Thomas Pryor was, at all times relevant to this complaint, a doctor at JCCC who was a treating physician of Postawko and exhibited deliberate indifference by failing to provide Postawko with any HCV treatment and failing to conduct proper testing, monitoring, and consulting. He is sued in his individual capacity.
5 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 30 Filed 12/15/16 Page 5 of 35

16. Defendant Unknown Proctor was, at all times relevant to this complaint, a doctor at JCCC who was a treating physician of Postawko and exhibited deliberate indifference by failing to provide Postawko with any HCV treatment and failing to conduct proper testing, monitoring, and consulting. He is sued in his individual capacity.
17. Defendant Unknown Hardman was, at all times relevant to this complaint, a doctor at JCCC who was a treating physician of Postawko and exhibited deliberate indifference by failing to provide Postawko with any HCV treatment and failing to conduct proper testing, monitoring, and consulting. He is sued in his individual capacity.
18. Defendant Unknown Davison was, at all times relevant to this complaint, a doctor at JCCC who was a treating physician of Postawko and exhibited deliberate indifference by failing to provide Postawko with any HCV treatment and failing to conduct proper testing, monitoring, and consulting. He is sued in his individual capacity.
19. Defendant Paul Jones, M.D., was, at all times relevant to this complaint, a doctor at Moberly Correctional Center who was a treating physician of Baker and exhibited deliberate indifference by failing to provide Baker with any HCV treatment and failing to conduct proper testing, monitoring, and consulting. He is sued in his individual capacity.
20. Defendant Unknown Stieferman was, at all times relevant to this complaint, a nurse practitioner at JCCC who was a medical treater of Postawko and exhibited deliberate indifference by failing to provide Postawko with any HCV treatment and failing to conduct proper testing, monitoring, and consulting. She is sued in her individual capacity.
21. Defendant T. Bredeman, D.O., was, at all times relevant to this complaint, a physician and associate regional medical director who reviewed and denied grievances related to treatment for Hepatitis C viral infection from the three Plaintiffs and exhibited deliberate
6 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 30 Filed 12/15/16 Page 6 of 35

indifference by failing to direct their treaters to provide HCV treatment or and to conduct proper testing, monitoring, and consulting. He is sued in his individual capacity.
22. Defendant Julie Fipps was, at all times relevant to this complaint, a registered nurse, health services administrator, and medical director who reviewed and denied a grievance related to treatment for Hepatitis C viral infection from Jamerson and exhibited deliberate indifference by failing to direct Jamerson’s treaters to provide HCV treatment or to conduct proper testing, monitoring, and consulting. She is sued in her individual capacity.
23. Defendant J. Cofield was, at all times relevant to this complaint, director of operations of constituent services over JCCC and Moberly Correctional Center, knew of Postawko’s and Baker’s chronic HCV, denied HCV-related grievances by Postawko and Baker, and exhibited deliberate indifference by failing to direct Postawko and Baker’s treaters to provide HCV treatment or to conduct proper testing, monitoring, and consulting. She is sued in her individual capacity.
24. Defendant Unknown Rucker was, at all times relevant to this complaint, a nurse and treating health care provider at Moberly Correctional Center, where she exhibited deliberate indifference by denying HCV treatment to Baker and failing to conduct proper testing, monitoring, and consulting. She is sued in her individual capacity.
25. Defendant Geeneen Wilhite was, at all times relevant to this complaint, a registered nurse and director of nursing at Moberly Correctional Center, knew of Baker’s chronic HCV, denied HCV-related grievances by Baker, and exhibited deliberate indifference by failing to direct Baker’s treaters to provide HCV treatment or to conduct proper testing, monitoring, and consulting.
7 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 30 Filed 12/15/16 Page 7 of 35

26. Defendant Bonnie Boley was, at all times relevant to this complaint, a registered nurse and health services administrator at Moberly Correctional Center who knew Baker complained of liver pain, denied his liver pain-related grievance, and exhibited deliberate indifference by failing to direct Baker’s treaters to provide HCV treatment or to conduct proper testing, monitoring, and consulting. She is sued in her individual capacity.
27. Defendant Adrienne Hardy was, at all times relevant to this complaint, a registered nurse and medical contract monitor at JCCC, who was aware of Baker’s chronic HCV and denied an HCV-related grievance by Baker on the grounds that he was being seen by a doctor and was enrolled in the Chronic Care Clinic, although she knew he was not receiving HCV treatment, and exhibited deliberate indifference by failing to direct Baker’s treaters to provide HCV treatment or to conduct proper testing, monitoring, and consulting. She is sued in her individual capacity.
28. Defendant Jamie Campbell was, at all times relevant to this complaint, a nurse and the Chronic Care Clinic nurse at MECC, where she exhibited deliberate indifference by failing to treat Jamerson’s HCV and failing to conduct proper testing, monitoring, and consulting. She is sued in her individual capacity.
29. Defendant Dawn Baker was, at all times relevant to this complaint, a registered nurse and the director of nursing, who was aware of Jamerson’s complaint related to failure to provide HCV treatment, denied his HCV-related informal resolution request, and exhibited deliberate indifference by failing to direct Jamerson’s treaters to provide treatment or to conduct proper testing, monitoring, and consulting. She is sued in her individual capacity.
30. Defendant Amanda Yates was, at all times relevant to this complaint, a nurse and treating health care provider at MECC, where she exhibited deliberate indifference by denying
8 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 30 Filed 12/15/16 Page 8 of 35

HCV treatment to Jamerson and failing to conduct proper testing, monitoring, and consulting. She is sued in her individual capacity.
31. Defendant Julie Unknown was, at all times relevant to this complaint, a nurse and the Chronic Care Clinic nurse at MECC, where she exhibited deliberate indifference by failing to treat Jamerson’s HCV and to conduct proper testing, monitoring, and consulting. She is sued in her individual capacity.
32. Defendants Jane or John Doe I–III are additional health care providers working within the MDOC who exhibited deliberate indifference to the serious medical needs of Postawko, Baker, or Jamerson by failing to provide HCV treatment or to conduct proper testing, monitoring, and consulting. They are sued in their individual capacities.
33. At all times relevant, Defendants acted under color of state law. FACTS
Chronic Hepatitis C Virus 34. HCV is a viral infection that attacks the liver and causes hepatitis, or liver
inflammation. It is spread primarily through contact with infected blood. 35. Liver inflammation caused by HCV can significantly impair liver function and
damage its crucial role in digesting nutrients, filtering toxins from the blood, preventing disease, and making possible essentially all metabolic processes in the body.
36. Liver impairment can cause severe pain, abdominal and gastrointestinal problems, fatigue, weakness, and muscle wasting, difficulty or pain with urination, increased risk of heart attacks, and other side effects.
37. HCV can be either acute or chronic. A small percentage of people who are exposed to infected blood develop an acute infection that their body resolves without treatment.
9 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 30 Filed 12/15/16 Page 9 of 35

But a significant majority (75% to 85%) of people who develop acute HCV go on to develop chronic HCV.
38. People with chronic HCV develop fibrosis of the liver, which is a process by which healthy liver tissue is replaced with scarring. Scar tissue cannot perform any of the jobs of normal liver cells, so fibrosis reduces liver function.
39. When scar tissue begins to take over most of the liver, this extensive fibrosis is termed cirrhosis.
40. Cirrhosis is irreversible. It can, and often does, cause additional painful complications, including widespread itching, arthritic pain throughout the body, kidney disease, jaundice, fluid retention with edema, internal bleeding, easy bruising, abdominal ascites, mental confusion, lymph disorders, and even more extreme fatigue.
41. In part because it can be difficult to determine exactly when significant hepatitic fibrosis becomes cirrhosis, most of these complications can occur before cirrhosis. If these complications go untreated, some can cause death.
42. Health care providers who provide care to people with chronic HCV need to be aware of how drugs they prescribe can cause or exacerbate stress to the liver and need to counsel their HCV-positive patients appropriately about prescription and over-the-counter medications that affect the liver, including ibuprofen, naproxen, large doses of acetaminophen, and others.
43. In addition to causing day-to-day pain and other problems, chronic HCV also dramatically increases a person’s risk of developing cirrhosis and liver cancer.
44. Of those with chronic HCV, at least half will develop cirrhosis or liver cancer, and almost everyone (70% to 95%) will develop chronic liver disease.
10 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 30 Filed 12/15/16 Page 10 of 35

45. Some 19,000 people die of HCV-caused liver disease every year in the United States. HCV is the leading indication for liver transplants in the United States.
46. Hepatitis C virus is rampant in correctional facilities, including within the facilities of the Missouri Department of Corrections.
47. At least 10% to 15% of the population under the supervision, care, and custody of the Missouri Department of Corrections is infected with HCV.
48. Since more than 90% of persons who are incarcerated are eventually released into the community, most of this population will return to the general population.
49. Each day without treatment increases a person’s likelihood of developing chronic liver disease, fibrosis, cirrhosis, liver cancer, painful complications, death from liver failure, and the risk of transmitting HCV to others.
50. For persons with cirrhosis, each day without treatment causes additional irreversible scarring and permanently reduces the function of the liver.
51. As of January 2015, MDOC reported that it was treating 0.11 percent of HCVpositive inmates under its supervision, or 5 inmates out of 4,736 inmates with known HCV infections. Standard of Care for HCV
52. HCV treatment is successful when it results in a sustained virologic response (SVR) for three months following the end of treatment. SVR occurs when a person’s blood has no detectable genetic material of the Hepatitis C virus. The medical community recognizes SVR as tantamount to a cure.
53. For many years, finding and establishing an effective and safe treatment for Hepatitis C infections was a highly elusive goal. The standard treatment, which included the use
11 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 30 Filed 12/15/16 Page 11 of 35

of interferon and ribavirin medications, failed to cure most patients and was associated with painful and other adverse side effects, including psychiatric and autoimmune disorders, flulike symptoms, and gastrointestinal distress.
54. In the past four years, the Federal Drug Administration has approved new medications, called direct-acting antiviral drugs (DAA drugs), which have proven to work more quickly, cause fewer side effects, and treat chronic HCV much more effectively.
55. In 2011, the FDA approved the use of protease inhibitors called boceprevir (under brand name Victrelis) and telaprevir (under brand name Incivek), and the standard of care developed into a “triple therapy” to include the combination of either boceprevir or telaprevir, plus ribavirin and interferon. The triple therapy improved results for many patients, but continued to produce painful and adverse side effects, and the treatment could take 48 weeks to complete. Manufacturing of these drugs for the United States was discontinued between 2014 and 2015 because later treatments are superior.
56. In 2013, the FDA approved DAA medications called simeprevir (under brand name Olysio) and sofosbuvir (under brand name Sovaldi). At this time, the recommended treatment was a DAA drug such as Sovaldi combined with either ribavirin or interferon, depending on the patient’s other symptoms and medical diagnoses.
57. In late 2014, the FDA approved the use of Sovaldi in combination with Olysio for the treatment of Hepatitis C.
58. On October 10, 2014, the FDA approved a DAA drug called Harvoni, which is a pill that is taken once a day and combines sofosbuvir and ledipasvir.
12 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 30 Filed 12/15/16 Page 12 of 35

59. On December 19, 2014, the FDA approved a DAA drug under the brand name Viekira Pak, which combines a multi-ingredient tablet with ombitasvir, paritaprevir, and ritonavir and a tablet with dasabuvir.
60. In July 2015 and later expanded in February 2016, the FDA approved daclatasvir (under brand name Daklinza) for use with or without ribavirin for patients with one of two variations of chronic HCV, including the most common genotype in the United States.
61. Also in July 2015, the FDA approved a pill that combines ombitasvir, paritaprevir, and ritonavir (under brand name Technivie), for use with ribavirin, for treatment of one variation of chronic HCV for patients without cirrhosis.
62. In January 2016, the FDA approved a pill that combines elbasvir and grazoprevir (under brand name Zepatier) for the treatment of two variations of chronic HCV, including the most common genotype in the United States.
63. On June 28, 2016, the FDA approved Epclusa, another new DAA drug that combines sofosbuvir and velpatasvir. It is the first drug approved to treat all six major variations, or genotypes, of HCV.
64. Sovaldi (sofosbuvir), Olysio (simeprevir), Harvoni (sofosbuvir/ledipasvir), Viekira Pak (ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir/dasabuvir), Daklinza (daclatasvir), Technivie (ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir), Zepatier (elbasvir/grazoprevir), and Epclusa (sofosbuvir/velpatasvir) have few side effects, dramatically greater efficacy, can reduce treatment duration by up to 75 percent (from 48 weeks to 12 weeks in many cases), and are administered orally rather than by injections.
65. These eight drugs are manufactured by five different drug companies: a. Sovaldi, manufactured by Gilead Sciences
13 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 30 Filed 12/15/16 Page 13 of 35

b. Olysio, manufactured by Janssen Research & Development c. Harvoni, manufactured by Gilead Sciences d. Viekira Pak, manufactured by AbbVie e. Daklinza, manufactured by Bristol-Myers Squibb f. Technivie, manufactured by AbbVie g. Zepatier, manufactured by Merck & Co., Inc. h. Epclusa, manufactured by Gilead Sciences 66. Over 90 percent of patients treated with any of these DAA drugs are cured. 67. Because of the obvious advantages of the DAA drugs, the medical standard of care for HCV is now well-established. The CDC encourages health care professionals to follow the evidence-based standard of care developed by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD). 68. The IDSA/AASLD guidelines are the medical standard of care. 69. Under the IDSA/AASLD guidelines, some groups of people should be routinely tested for HCV, including all persons born between 1945 and 1965 and all persons who were ever incarcerated. 70. As of January 2015, MDOC did not have a policy of routine opt-out testing for inmates under its supervision and care. 71. When the CDC/IDSA/AASLD standard of care was updated immediately after the first DAA drug was approved, these organizations provided “prioritization tables” and guidance on selecting patients with the greatest need because the “infrastructure . . . did not yet exist to treat all patients immediately.”
14 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 30 Filed 12/15/16 Page 14 of 35

72. But on July 6, 2016, these organizations updated the standard of care in recognition of the fact that continuing medical research has demonstrated the safety, tolerability, and dramatic benefits of treating all persons with chronic HCV.
73. The benefits demonstrated through vigorous research include: immediate decrease in liver inflammation, reduction in the rate of progression of liver fibrosis, improvement in necrosis and cirrhosis, reduction in portal hypertension and spleen enlargement, reduction in severe side effects including cryoglobulinemic vasculitis, a 70% reduction in the river of liver cancer, a 90% reduction in the risk of liver-related mortality, and a dramatic increase in quality of life.
74. Other studies show treatment delay decreases the benefits associated with cure. 75. Under the current prevailing standard of care, treatment with DAA drugs “is expected to benefit nearly all chronically infected persons” and the CDC, AASLD, and ISDA recommend treatment for all patients with chronic HCV infection. Methods for Determining Progression of Fibrosis/Cirrhosis 76. A person is generally diagnosed with HCV through a rapid blood test in which the blood is examined for HCV antibodies. A follow-up blood test determines whether the genetic material (RNA) of the Hepatitis C virus remains in the blood. Finally, a third blood test can determine which variation, or genotype, of HCV a person has. 77. These diagnostic tests are different from the test(s) used to determine the progression of a person’s fibrosis or cirrhosis. 78. The severity of a person’s fibrosis or cirrhosis should never be used to determine whether a person should be treated.
15 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 30 Filed 12/15/16 Page 15 of 35

79. Although the standard of care is to treat all persons with chronic HCV with DAA drugs, it is still useful to determine the progression (staging) of fibrosis and/or cirrhosis in the liver to choose among the DAA drugs for the most appropriate treatment module for HCV, to treat other conditions or complications a person may be experiencing, and to advise patients about contraindications and drugs to avoid.
80. Health care providers use several methods to determine the advancement of a HCV-positive person’s cirrhosis or fibrosis. These methods include, but are not limited to:
a. Liver biopsy – a surgery where a provider removes a small sample of liver tissue and undertakes a histological assessment
b. APRI (AST to Platelet Ratio Index) – using a blood sample, a ratio derived using the level of a certain enzyme in the blood, aspartate aminotransferase (AST), and comparing it to (1) usual amount of AST in the blood of a healthy person and (2) the number of platelets in the affected person’s blood
c. FIB-4 – using a blood sample, a ratio derived using the level of two enzymes in the blood, AST and alanine aminotransferase (ALT), as well as platelet count and the person’s age
d. FibroScan – a type of ultrasound known as transient elastography, which images a several-centimeter mass of liver tissue
81. When an APRI score is extremely high, it has good diagnostic utility in predicting severe fibrosis or cirrhosis, but low and mid-range scores miss many people who have significant fibrosis or cirrhosis.
16 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 30 Filed 12/15/16 Page 16 of 35

82. For instance, in more than 90% of cases, an APRI score of at least 2.0 indicates that a person has cirrhosis. But more than half of people with cirrhosis will not have an APRI score of at least 2.0.
83. Where a person has been diagnosed with cirrhosis through some other means, an APRI score is irrelevant and using an APRI score to measure the progression of fibrosis is unnecessary.
84. In addition, because the levels of AST and ALT fluctuate from day to day, a decreased or normalized level does not mean the condition has improved, and even a series of normal readings over time may fail to accurately show the level of fibrosis or cirrhosis.
85. Furthermore, not only do the levels of elevation of AST and ALT often fail to show the current level of fibrosis or cirrhosis, they also often fail to predict the eventual outcomes of a failure to treat the disease in a specific person.
86. Moreover, an APRI score relies only on AST and fails to take into account ALT, even though—because ALT is found predominately in the liver and not all over the body like AST—ALT is a more specific indicator of liver inflammation than AST.
87. For all these reasons, using APRI score alone to determine the severity of a person’s fibrosis or cirrhosis is not adequate or appropriate. HCV Treatment Policy of Defendants Lombardi, MDOC, and Corizon
88. Defendants Lombardi, MDOC, and Corizon have a policy or custom of not providing DAA drug treatment to all inmates with HCV, or even all inmates with chronic HCV, in contravention of the prevailing standard of care and in deliberate indifference to the serious medical need for treatment.
17 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 30 Filed 12/15/16 Page 17 of 35

89. Defendants Lombardi, MDOC, and Corizon have a policy or custom of using an APRI score—which measures the progression of fibrosis or cirrhosis—to determine whether a person should be treated, in contravention of the prevailing standard of care and in deliberate in difference to serious medical need.
90. Defendants Lombardi, MDOC, and Corizon have a policy or custom of not undertaking liver biopsies, FIB-4, FibroScan, or other methods of determining the stage of fibrosis or cirrhosis and relying exclusively on APRI score to determine that stage, in contravention of the prevailing standard of care and in deliberate indifference to serious medical need.
91. Defendants Lombardi, MDOC, and Corizon have a policy or custom of failing to even consider providing treatment to HCV-positive inmates unless they have an “APRI score” above 2.0 that persists for several months, even though more than half of persons with cirrhosis will not have an APRI score at or above 2.0 and they know that AST levels are transient, in contravention of the prevailing standard of care and in deliberate indifference to serious medical need.
92. Defendants Lombardi, MDOC, and Corizon have a policy or custom of disregarding independent diagnoses of cirrhosis or significant hepatitic fibrosis in making treatment decisions, in contravention of the prevailing standard of care and in deliberate indifference to serious medical need.
93. Defendants Lombardi, MDOC, and Corizon have a policy or custom of basing treatment decisions on cost, rather than on need for treatment, in contravention of the prevailing standard of care and in deliberate indifference to serious medical need.
18 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 30 Filed 12/15/16 Page 18 of 35

94. These policies or customs have caused, and continue to cause, unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain and an unreasonable risk of serious damage to the health of HCVpositive inmates.
95. Contrary to the proper and necessary medical procedures and the community standard of care, Defendants Lombardi, MDOC, and Corizon have repeatedly denied requests by Plaintiffs Postawko, Baker, and Jamerson, and by other members of the class, for the appropriate and medically necessary direct-acting antiviral treatment for their Hepatitis C infections.
96. Instead, Defendants Lombardi, MDOC, and Corizon classify inmates with known HCV infection as “Chronic Care Clinic Offenders.” Instead of receiving treatment, these inmates receive a blood draw every six months and, at times, minimal counseling.
97. Defendants Lombardi, MDOC, and Corizon have a policy or custom of failing to require appropriate counsel of HCV-positive patients, and continuity of care across the DOC system, related to contraindications for other medications that exacerbate liver damage, in contravention of the prevailing standard of care and in deliberate indifference to serious medical need.
98. Defendants Lombardi, MDOC, and Corizon have a policy or custom of permitting “Chronic Care Clinic” visits with HCV-positive inmates to be conducted by videoconference, so a visual and physical inspection of the liver cannot be undertaken, in contravention of the prevailing standard of care and in deliberate indifference to serious medical need.
99. Upon information and belief, MDOC receives additional funding from the State of Missouri for inmates classified as “Chronic Care Clinic Offenders” even though the additional monitoring HCV-positive inmates receive is minimal and, in most cases, they receive no additional treatment.
19 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 30 Filed 12/15/16 Page 19 of 35

Plaintiff Michael Postawko 100. Postawko became infected with HCV while under the care and supervision of
MDOC, in or around 2012. 101. Postawko was asymptomatic for approximately one-and-one half to two years and
signed paperwork indicating that he refused treatment for HCV. 102. Sometime in 2014, he began experiencing adverse symptoms and requested
treatment at a Chronic Care visit with Defendant Davison. 103. Defendants Davison and every other treater Postawko has seen at MDOC or who
has reviewed his HCV-related complaints, including Defendants Pryor, Proctor, Hardman, Jones, Stieferman, Bredeman, Cofield and Does I–III, have acted with deliberate indifference and have refused to treat Postawko with DAA drugs in contravention of the prevailing standard of care.
104. Postawko is experiencing serious symptoms consistent with HCV symptoms. He is thoroughly racked with fatigue to the point that brushing his teeth causes intense aching in his arm muscles; he also experiences fever, abdominal pain, severe headaches, almost constant joint pain, and has dark urine with what appears to be traces of blood. Medications he receives for his severe headaches, sumatriptan and propranolol HCL, are only about 50% to 60% effective.
105. To date, Postawko has received no treatment for HCV. 106. Although Postawko has requested treatment multiple times and has submitted substantial evidence of his attempts to complete the MDOC grievance process, this Court found that “he has either not received timely responses or received responses that violated prison policy,” so he has exhausted his administrative remedies. Plaintiff Christopher Baker 107. In 2005, Plaintiff Christopher Baker was diagnosed with HCV.
20 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 30 Filed 12/15/16 Page 20 of 35

108. In 2007, Baker underwent a liver biopsy and was diagnosed with cirrhosis at the University of Missouri Hospital in Columbia, Missouri.
109. In 2008, Baker was sentenced to ten years in MDOC for a repeat offense of driving while intoxicated.
110. In 2009, MDOC began treating Baker with the then-prevailing treatment, interferon and ribavirin, and it appeared to be working.
111. However, after five months of treatment, MDOC—through a provider named Dr. McKinney—informed Baker that MDOC was no longer treating HCV-positive inmates with interferon and ribavirin and discontinued Baker’s course of treatment.
112. Since early 2010, Baker has received no further treatment for HCV and has received no treatment at any time with a DAA drug.
113. Each treater Baker has seen at MDOC or who has denied his HCV-related complaints, including Defendants Stamps, Jones, Aguilera, Bredeman, Cofield, Rucker, Wilhite, Boley, Hardy, and Does I–III, has acted with deliberate indifference and has refused to treat Baker with DAA drugs in contravention of the prevailing standard of care.
114. On March 2, 2016, while Baker was incarcerated at Jefferson City Correctional Center, an Informal Resolution Request response to Baker indicates that he was “placed on spreadsheet” because he had an APRI score above 1.0 (without regard for his independent diagnosis of cirrhosis by liver biopsy before incarceration).
115. However, no treatment resulted. 116. In July, Baker was transferred from JCCC to Algoa Correctional Center, where he no longer appears even on any list for treatment.
21 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 30 Filed 12/15/16 Page 21 of 35

117. Baker is experiencing serious symptoms consistent with HCV symptoms. He has nausea, severe joint pain, extreme fatigue, back and chest pain, tenderness in the area of his liver, and dark urine.
118. Baker has completed the grievance process several times. He has exhausted his administrative remedies. Plaintiff Michael Jamerson
119. Plaintiff Michael Jamerson became infected with HCV while under the care and supervision of MDOC.
120. In 2015, at his request, Jamerson was tested for HCV. 121. Jamerson has repeatedly requested treatment with DAA drugs, including Harvoni. 122. Although Jamerson is enrolled in the Hepatitis C Chronic Care Clinic, he has not received treatment with any DAA drug. 123. Defendants Williams, Campbell, Fipps, Baker, Bredeman, Yates, Julie Unknown, Does I-III, and every other medical provider Jamerson has seen at MDOC or who has directed his course of treatment, have acted with deliberate indifference and have refused to treat Jamerson with DAA drugs in contravention of the prevailing standard of care. 124. Jamerson is currently experiencing serious symptoms consistent with HCV symptoms, including fatigue, muscle and joint pain, pain in his stomach and liver area, and chest pain. He has severe joint pain and extreme fatigue, back and chest pain, tenderness in the area of his liver 125. To date, Jamerson has not received any treatment for his HCV. 126. Jamerson has exhausted his administrative remedies.
22 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 30 Filed 12/15/16 Page 22 of 35

Class Action Allegations 127. Plaintiffs bring their class for prospective relief against MDOC, Corizon, and Lombardi as a class action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(2). 128. Plaintiffs seek to represent the following class on claims for declaratory and injunctive relief: individuals in the custody of MDOC who have been or will be diagnosed with HCV but who are not provided treatment with DAA drugs. 129. As a result of Defendants MDOC, Lombardi, and Corizon’s deliberate indifference to the serious medical needs of the class, members of the class are or will be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment and deprived of their constitutional and statutory rights. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief to remedy Defendants’ illegal and unconstitutional actions, policies and customs, and practices. 130. The information as to the precise size of the class and the identity of the inmates who are in the class is in the exclusive control of Defendants MDOC, Lombardi, and Corizon. The class encompasses thousands of individuals under the custody of MDOC, who are geographically dispersed throughout the State of Missouri. The number of persons who are members of the class described above are so numerous that joinder of all members in one action is impracticable. 131. Because the Class seeks prospective relief only, questions of law and fact that are common to the entire Class predominate over individual questions because the actions of Defendants MDOC, Lombardi, and Corizon complained of herein were generally applicable to the entire class. These legal and factual questions include, but are not limited to:
23 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 30 Filed 12/15/16 Page 23 of 35

A. Whether Defendants MDOC, Lombardi, and Corizon maintain a policy or custom of withholding treatment with DAA drugs from individuals in the custody of MDOC who have been or will be diagnosed with HCV;
B. Whether the policy and custom of MDOC, Lombardi, and Corizon of withholding treatment with DAA drugs from individuals in the custody of MDOC who have been diagnosed with HCV constitutes deliberate indifference to a serious medical need; and
C. Whether the policy and custom of MDOC, Lombardi, and Corizon of withholding treatment with DAA drugs from individuals in the custody of MDOC who have been diagnosed with HCV discriminates based on their diagnosis in that MDOC, Lombardi, and Corizon do not have a custom or policy of withholding life-saving treatment from inmates with illnesses other than HCV.
132. Plaintiffs’ claims for prospective relief are typical of the members of the class because Plaintiffs and all class members are subject to ongoing harm by the same wrongful policy and custom of Defendants MDOC, Lombardi, and Corizon of withholding treatment from them. Plaintiffs’ claims arise from the same practices and course of conduct that give rise to the claims of the class members, and they are based on the same legal theories.
133. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class. Plaintiffs have no interests that are contrary to or in conflict with those of the Class they seek to represent. Plaintiffs are represented by competent and skilled counsel whose interests are fully aligned with the interests of the Class.
134. Relief concerning Plaintiffs’ rights under the laws herein alleged and with respect to the Class would be proper. Defendants MDOC, Lombardi, and Corizon have acted or refused
24 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 30 Filed 12/15/16 Page 24 of 35

to act on grounds generally applicable to the Class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with regard to Class Members as a whole and certification of the Class under Rule 23(b)(2) proper.
CLAIMS COUNT I Class-Action Claim for Prospective Relief for Deprivation of Eighth Amendment Right to Medical Care (Plaintiff Class against Defendants Lombardi and Corizon) 135. Plaintiffs incorporate all preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 136. Defendants’ acts and omissions in failing to provide adequate medical care, and delaying care, constitute deliberate indifference to the serious medical needs of prisoners infected with HCV, and they thereby violate the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray this Court: A. Issue a declaratory judgment that Defendants Lombardi and Corizon’s policy of withholding treatment with DAA drugs from inmates diagnosed with HCV violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution; B. Enter preliminary and permanent injunctions directing that: (a) Defendants Lombardi and Corizon formulate and implement an HCV treatment policy that meets the prevailing standard of care, including identifying persons with HCV; (b) Defendants Lombardi and Corizon treat members of the Class with appropriate DAA drugs; and (c) Defendants Lombardi and Corizon provide members of the class an appropriate and accurate assessment of the level of fibrosis or cirrhosis they have, counseling on drug-drug interactions, and
25 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 30 Filed 12/15/16 Page 25 of 35

ongoing medical care for complications and symptoms of HCV; and (d) any further appropriate injunctions to prevent the future deprivation of rights of members of the plaintiff class; C. Award Plaintiffs’ costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and other relevant provisions of law; and D. Allow such other and further relief to which Plaintiffs may be entitled.
COUNT II Class-Action Claim for Prospective Relief for Violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (Plaintiff Class against Defendant MDOC) 137. Paragraphs 1–136 are incorporated as if fully set forth herein. 138. Subtitle A of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits public entities from discriminating against persons with disabilities in their programs, services, and activities. 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131–12134. Regulations implementing subtitle A are codified at 28 C.F.R. part 35. 139. Title II’s definition of “public entity” includes any state or local government or “any department, agency . . . or other instrumentality” of a state or local government. 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1)(A), (B). 140. Defendant MDOC is a “public entity” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1)(A) and 28 C.F.R. § 35.104. 141. Each member of the Class has a disability within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1) and 28 C.F.R. § 35.104. 142. Each member of the Class is “a qualified individual with a disability” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 12131(2) and 28 C.F.R. § 35.104 because they meet the essential eligibility requirements for the receipt of services or the participation in programs or activities
26 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 30 Filed 12/15/16 Page 26 of 35

provided by MDOC other than the fact that they require reasonable modifications to rules, policies, or practices, the removal of barriers, or the provision of auxiliary aids and services.
143. MDOC subjects members of the Class to discrimination by withholding medically appropriate treatment that will likely cure their disability, although MDOC does not without lifesaving treatments from individuals with different disabilities. This denial of treatment and discrimination violates 42 U.S.C. § 12132 (and the regulations promulgated under it - 28 C.F.R. Part 35) which states: “Subject to the provisions of this subchapter, no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.”
144. As a result of Defendant MDOC’s violations of the ADA and its implementing regulations, Defendant MDOC is liable to Plaintiffs for injunctive and declaratory relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12133.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray this Court: A. Issue a declaratory judgment that Defendant MDOC’s policy of withholding treatment with DAA drugs from inmates diagnosed with HCV violates the Americans with Disabilities Act; B. Enter preliminary and permanent injunctions directing that: (a) Defendant MDOC formulate and implement an HCV treatment policy that meets the prevailing standard of care, including identifying persons with HCV; (b) Defendant MDOC treat members of the Class with appropriate DAA drugs; and (c) Defendant MDOC provide members of the class an appropriate and accurate assessment of the level of fibrosis or cirrhosis they have, counseling
27 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 30 Filed 12/15/16 Page 27 of 35

on drug-drug interactions, and ongoing medical care for complications and symptoms of HCV; and (d) any further appropriate injunctions to prevent the future deprivation of rights of members of the plaintiff class. C. Award Plaintiffs’ costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees under 29 U.S.C. § 794a and other relevant provisions of law; and D. Allow such other and further relief to which Plaintiffs may be entitled.

COUNT III Claim for Damages for Deprivation of Eighth Amendment Right to Medical Care (Plaintiff Postawko against Defendants Lombardi, Corizon, Pryor, Proctor, Hardman, Davison, Stieferman, Bredeman, Cofield, and Does I-III)

145.

Paragraphs 1–106 and 135–136 are incorporated as if fully set forth herein.

146.

The acts and omissions of Defendants Pryor, Proctor, Hardman, Davison,

Stieferman, Bredeman, Cofield, and Does I-III in failing to provide adequate medical care, and

delaying care, to Plaintiff Postawko constitute deliberate indifference to the serious medical

needs of prisoners infected with HCV, and they thereby violate the Eighth Amendment to the

United States Constitution.

147.

At all times relevant, Plaintiff Postawko had a serious medical need for

treatment of his HCV with DAA drugs.

148.

At all times relevant, Defendants Pryor, Proctor, Hardman, Davison,

Stieferman, Bredeman, Cofield, and Does I-III were aware of Plaintiff Postawko’s serious need

for medical care.

149.

At all times relevant, Defendants Pryor, Proctor, Hardman, Davison,

Stieferman, Bredeman, Cofield, and Does I-III acted with deliberate indifference, failed to

provide the medical care, or failed to direct that the medical care be provided.

28 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 30 Filed 12/15/16 Page 28 of 35

150.

As a direct result of the failure of Defendants Pryor, Proctor, Hardman,

Davison, Stieferman, Bredeman, Cofield, and Does I-III to provide care or direct that care be

given, Plaintiff Postawko was harmed.

151.

In addition, in their actions described herein, Defendants Pryor, Proctor,

Hardman, Davison, Stieferman, Bredeman, Cofield, and Does I-III acted pursuant to and in

accordance with the policy and custom of Defendants Lombardi and Corizon to withhold

treatment with DAA drugs from persons diagnosed with HCV.

WHEREFORE Plaintiff Postawko prays this Court:

A. Award him compensatory damages;

B. Award his costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1988 and other relevant provisions of law; and

C. Allow such other and further relief to which he may be entitled.

COUNT IV Claim for Damages for Violation of Americans with Disabilities Act (Plaintiff Postawko against Defendant Missouri Department of Corrections)

152. Paragraphs 1–106 and 135–151 are incorporated as if fully set forth herein.

WHEREFORE Plaintiff Postawko prays this Court:

A. Award him compensatory damages;

B. Award Plaintiffs’ costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees under 29

U.S.C. § 794a and other relevant provisions of law; and

C. Allow such other and further relief to which he may be entitled.

29 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 30 Filed 12/15/16 Page 29 of 35

COUNT V Claim for Damages for Deprivation of Eighth Amendment Right to Medical Care (Plaintiff Baker against Defendants Lombardi, Corizon, Aguilera, Stamps, Jones, Bredeman, Cofield, Rucker, Wilhite, Boley, Hardy, and Does I-III)

153.

Paragraphs 1–99, 107–118, and 135–136 are incorporated as if fully set forth

herein.

154.

The acts and omissions of Defendants Aguilera, Stamps, Jones, Bredeman,

Cofield, Rucker, Wilhite, Boley, Hardy, and Does I-III in failing to provide adequate medical

care, and delaying care, to Plaintiff Baker constitute deliberate indifference to the serious

medical needs of prisoners infected with HCV, and they thereby violate the Eighth Amendment

to the United States Constitution.

155.

At all times relevant, Plaintiff Baker had a serious medical need for treatment

of his HCV with DAA drugs.

156.

At all times relevant, Defendants Aguilera, Stamps, Jones, Bredeman, Cofield,

Rucker, Wilhite, Boley, Hardy, and Does I-III were aware of Plaintiff Baker’s serious need for

medical care.

157.

At all times relevant, Defendants Aguilera, Stamps, Jones, Bredeman, Cofield,

Rucker, Wilhite, Boley, Hardy, and Does I-III acted with deliberate indifference, failed to

provide the medical care, or failed to direct that the medical care be provided.

158.

As a direct result of the failure of Defendants Aguilera, Stamps, Jones,

Bredeman, Cofield, Rucker, Wilhite, Boley, Hardy, and Does I-III to provide care or direct that

care be given, Plaintiff Baker was harmed.

159.

In addition, in their actions described herein, Defendants Aguilera, Stamps,

Jones, Bredeman, Cofield, Rucker, Wilhite, Boley, Hardy, and Does I-III acted pursuant to and

30 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 30 Filed 12/15/16 Page 30 of 35

in accordance with the policy and custom of Defendants Lombardi and Corizon to withhold treatment with DAA drugs from persons diagnosed with HCV. WHEREFORE Plaintiff Baker prays this Court:
A. Award him compensatory damages; B. Award his costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1988 and other relevant provisions of law; and C. Allow such other and further relief to which he may be entitled.
COUNT VI Claim for Damages for Violation of Americans with Disabilities Act (Plaintiff Baker against Defendant Missouri Department of Corrections) 160. Paragraphs 1–99, 107–118, 135–144, and 153–159 are incorporated as if fully set forth herein. WHEREFORE Plaintiff Baker prays this Court: A. Award him compensatory damages; B. Award Plaintiffs’ costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees under 29 U.S.C. § 794a and other relevant provisions of law; and C. Allow such other and further relief to which he may be entitled.

COUNT VII Claim for Damages for Deprivation of Eighth Amendment Right to Medical Care (Plaintiff Jamerson against Defendants Lombardi, Corizon, Williams, Bredeman, Fipps, Campbell, Baker, Yates, Julie Unknown, and Does I-III)

161.

Paragraphs 1–99, 119–126, and 135–136 are incorporated as if fully set forth

herein.

162.

The acts and omissions of Defendants Williams, Bredeman, Fipps, Campbell,

Baker, Yates, Julie Unknown, and Does I-III in failing to provide adequate medical care, and

31 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 30 Filed 12/15/16 Page 31 of 35

delaying care, to Plaintiff Jamerson constitute deliberate indifference to the serious medical

needs of prisoners infected with HCV, and they thereby violate the Eighth Amendment to the

United States Constitution.

163.

At all times relevant, Plaintiff Jamerson had a serious medical need for

treatment of his HCV with DAA drugs.

164.

At all times relevant, Defendants Williams, Bredeman, Fipps, Campbell,

Baker, Yates, Julie Unknown, and Does I-III were aware of Plaintiff Jamerson’s serious need for

medical care.

165.

At all times relevant, Defendants Williams, Bredeman, Fipps, Campbell,

Baker, Yates, Julie Unknown, and Does I-III acted with deliberate indifference, failed to provide

the medical care, or failed to direct that the medical care be provided.

166.

As a direct result of the failure of Defendants Williams, Bredeman, Fipps,

Campbell, Baker, Yates, Julie Unknown, and Does I-III to provide care or direct that care be

given, Plaintiff Jamerson was harmed.

167.

In addition, in their actions described herein, Defendants Williams, Bredeman,

Fipps, Campbell, Baker, Yates, Julie Unknown, and Does I-III acted pursuant to and in

accordance with the policy and custom of Defendants Lombardi and Corizon to withhold

treatment with DAA drugs from persons diagnosed with HCV.

WHEREFORE Plaintiff Jamerson prays this Court:

A. Award him compensatory damages;

B. Award his costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1988 and other relevant provisions of law; and

C. Allow such other and further relief to which he may be entitled.

32 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 30 Filed 12/15/16 Page 32 of 35

COUNT VIII Claim for Damages for Violation of Americans with Disabilities Act (Plaintiff Jamerson against Defendant Missouri Department of Corrections)
168. Paragraphs 1–99, 119–126, 135–144, and 161–67 are incorporated as if fully set
forth herein.
WHEREFORE Plaintiff Jamerson prays this Court:
A. Award him compensatory damages;
B. Award Plaintiffs’ costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees under 29
U.S.C. § 794a and other relevant provisions of law; and
C. Allow such other and further relief to which he may be entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Anthony E. Rothert Anthony E. Rothert, #44827 Jessie Steffan, #64861 American Civil Liberties Union
of Missouri Foundation 454 Whittier Street St. Louis, Missouri 63108 Phone: 314/652-3114 Fax: 314/652-3112 trothert@aclu-mo.org jsteffan@aclu-mo.org
Gillian R. Wilcox, #61278 American Civil Liberties Union
of Missouri Foundation 406 West 34th Street, Suite 420 Kansas City, Missouri 64111 Phone: (816) 470-9938 Facsimile: (314) 652-3112 gwilcox@alcu-mo.org
33 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 30 Filed 12/15/16 Page 33 of 35

Mae C. Quinn, #61584 Amy E. Breihan, #65499 MACARTHUR JUSTICE CENTER AT ST. LOUIS 3115 South Grand Blvd., Suite 300 St. Louis, MO 63118 Phone: (314) 254-8540 Fax: (314) 254-8547 mae.quinn@macarthurjustice.org amy.breihan@macarthurjustice.org
34 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 30 Filed 12/15/16 Page 34 of 35

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing was filed electronically and served by operation of the CM/ECF system on all counsel of record on December 15, 2016.
/s/ Anthony E. Rothert
35 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 30 Filed 12/15/16 Page 35 of 35

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI CENTRAL DIVISION

MICHAEL POSTAWKO, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 2:16-cv-04219-NKL

)

)

)

)

)

ORDER Defendants Missouri Department of Corrections, Adrienne Hardy, and Anne L. Precythe move to dismiss all of Plaintiffs’ claims against them. [Doc. 103]. For the following reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part. I. Background1 Plaintiffs Michael Postawko, Christopher Baker, and Michael Jamerson are incarcerated in the Missouri Department of Corrections (“MDOC”). [Doc. 30, p. 3]. They filed this putative class action for claims arising out of what they allege to be inadequate medical care for their chronic Hepatitis C (“HCV”) viral infections. [Id.]. They bring claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) against numerous defendants, including their prison treating physicians and nurses; prison officials who reviewed their

1 At the motion to dismiss stage, all of the plaintiffs’ allegations are accepted as true and construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs. Stodghill v. Wellston Sch. Dist., 512 F.3d 472, 476 (8th Cir. 2008).
Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 155 Filed 05/11/17 Page 1 of 33

grievances and requests for treatment; the MDOC; and Corizon, LLC, the healthcare provider for all MDOC facilities. [Id. at p. 4-9].
A. Hepatitis C HCV is a viral infection that attacks the liver and causes its inflammation, referred to as hepatitis. [Id. at p. 9]. Hepatitis caused by HCV can significantly impair liver function and damage its crucial role in digesting nutrients, filtering toxins from the blood, and preventing disease. [Id.]. In turn, liver impairment can cause severe pain, fatigue, muscle wasting, difficulty or pain with urination, an increased risk of heart attacks, and other side effects. [Id.]. HCV can be either acute or chronic. [Id.]. A small percentage of people who are exposed to infected blood develop an acute infection that their body resolves without treatment. [Id.]. However, the majority of people who develop acute HCV, approximately 75 to 85 percent, go on to develop chronic HCV. [Id. at p. 10]. People with chronic HCV develop fibrosis of the liver, which is a process by which healthy liver tissue is replaced with scarring. [Id.]. Because scar tissue cannot perform the jobs of normal liver cells, fibrosis reduces liver function. [Id.]. When scar tissue begins to take over most of the liver, this extensive fibrosis is termed cirrhosis. [Id.]. Cirrhosis is irreversible, and it often causes additional painful complications, including arthritic pain throughout the body, kidney disease, jaundice, fluid retention with edema, internal bleeding, easy bruising, abdominal ascites, mental confusion, lymph disorders, widespread itching, and even more extreme fatigue. [Id.]. Because it can be difficult to determine exactly when significant hepatitis fibrosis becomes cirrhosis, most of these complications can occur before cirrhosis. [Id.]. Further, if these complications go untreated, some can cause death. [Id.]. At least half of all persons diagnosed with chronic HCV will develop cirrhosis or liver cancer, and between 70 and 90 percent will develop chronic liver
2 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 155 Filed 05/11/17 Page 2 of 33

disease. [Id.]. Each day without treatment increases a person’s likelihood of developing chronic liver disease, fibrosis, cirrhosis, liver cancer, and death from liver failure. [Id.].
At least 10 to 15 percent of the population under the supervision, care, and custody of the MDOC are infected with HCV. [Id. at p. 11]. As of January 2015, the MDOC reported that it was treating 0.11 percent of HCV-positive inmates under its supervision, or 5 inmates out of 4,736 inmates with known HCV infections. [Id.].
B. Standard of Care for HCV For many years, there was no effective and safe treatment for HCV. [Id.]. The standard treatment, which included the use of interferon and ribavirin medications, failed to cure most patients and was associated with adverse side effects, including psychiatric and autoimmune disorders. [Id. at p. 12]. However, over the past four years, the Federal Drug Administration (“FDA”) has approved eight new medications, called direct-acting antiviral drugs (“DAA drugs”), which work faster, cause fewer side effects, and are more effective. [Id.]. Over 90 percent of patients treated with a DAA drug are cured. [Id. at p. 14]. The CDC encourages health professionals to follow the evidence-based standard of care developed by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (“IDSA”) and the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (“AASLD”), which constitutes the medical standard of care. [Id.]. On July 6, 2016, these organizations updated the standard of care to recommend treating all persons with chronic HCV with DAA drugs. [Id. at p. 15]. Benefits of treatment include an immediate decrease in liver inflammation, reduction in the progression of liver fibrosis and improvement in cirrhosis, a 70 percent reduction in the risk of liver cancer, and a 90 percent reduction in the risk of liver-related mortality. [Id.]. Studies show that a delay in DAA drug treatment for HCV decreases the benefits associated with cure. [Id.].
3 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 155 Filed 05/11/17 Page 3 of 33

C. Methods for Determining Progression of Fibrosis/Cirrhosis Health care providers use several methods to determine the advancement of an HCVpositive person’s cirrhosis or fibrosis, including liver biopsy and APRI (AST to Platelet Ratio Index). [Id. at p. 16]. APRI is the use of a blood sample to determine the ratio of a certain enzyme in the blood, aspartate aminotransferase (AST), with (1) the usual amount of AST in the blood of a healthy person and (2) the number of platelets in the affected person’s blood. [Id.]. When an APRI score is very high, it has good diagnostic utility in predicting severe fibrosis or cirrhosis, but low and mid-range scores miss many people who have significant fibrosis or cirrhosis. [Id.]. For example, in more than 90 percent of cases, an APRI score of at least 2.0 indicates that a person has cirrhosis. [Id. at p. 17]. However, more than half of all people with cirrhosis will not have an APRI score of at least 2.0. [Id.]. If a person has already been diagnosed with cirrhosis through some other means, such as liver biopsy, an APRI score is irrelevant and not necessary for measuring the progression of fibrosis. [Id.]. In addition, because the levels of AST and ALT in one’s blood fluctuate from day to day, a decreased or normalized level does not mean the condition has improved, and even a series of normal readings over time may fail to accurately show the level of fibrosis or cirrhosis. [Id.]. Furthermore, the elevation levels of AST and ALT often fail to show an individual’s current level of fibrosis or cirrhosis, and they often fail to predict the consequences of not treating that individual. [Id.]. Although ALT is found predominately in the liver and not all over the body like AST, and ALT is a more specific indicator of liver inflammation than AST, an APRI score relies only on AST without taking ALT into account. [Doc. 30, p. 17]. For all of these reasons, using an APRI score alone to determine the severity of a person’s fibrosis or cirrhosis is not adequate or appropriate. [Id.].
4 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 155 Filed 05/11/17 Page 4 of 33

D. Defendants’ HCV Treatment Policy within the MDOC Plaintiffs allege that Defendants Precythe, MDOC, and Corizon, LLC have the following policies or customs, all of which are contrary to the prevailing standard of care: (1) not providing DAA drug treatment to all inmates with HCV, or even all inmates with chronic HCV; (2) using an APRI score, which measures the progression of fibrosis or cirrhosis, to determine whether a person should be treated; (3) relying exclusively on APRI score to determine the stage of fibrosis or cirrhosis, rather than using other more accurate methods of determining its progression through liver biopsies, FIB-4, or FibroScan; (4) failing to consider providing treatment to HCVpositive inmates unless they have an APRI score above 2.0 that persists for several months, even though more than half of persons with cirrhosis will not have an APRI score at or above 2.0, and they know that AST levels are transient; (5) disregarding independent diagnoses of cirrhosis or significant hepatitis fibrosis in making their treatment decisions; and (6) basing treatment decisions on cost, rather than on need for treatment. [Id. at p. 17-18]. Plaintiffs further allege that these policies or customs have caused, and continue to cause, unnecessary pain and an unreasonable risk of serious damage to the health of HCV-positive inmates. [Id. at p. 18]. Contrary to the proper and necessary medical procedures and the standard of care, Defendants have repeatedly denied requests by Plaintiffs Postawko, Baker, and Jamerson, as well as by other members of the putative class, for DAA drug treatment for their HCV infections. [Id. at p. 19]. It is the policy of Defendants to classify inmates with known HCV infection as “Chronic Care Clinic Offenders.” [Id.]. Rather than receiving treatment, these inmates receive a blood draw every six months and, at times, minimal counseling. [Id.]. Defendants also have a policy or custom of permitting “Chronic Care Clinic” visits with HCV-positive inmates to be
5 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 155 Filed 05/11/17 Page 5 of 33

conducted by video so that there cannot be a visual and physical inspection of the liver, which is contrary to the prevailing standard of care. [Id.].
E. Plaintiffs Postawko, Baker, and Jamerson’s Claims Plaintiff Michael Postawko became infected with HCV while under the care and supervision of the MDOC in or around 2012. [Id. at p. 20]. Every Defendant treater who Postawko has seen at the MDOC or who has reviewed his HCV-related complaints has refused to treat Postawko with DAA drugs, contrary to the prevailing standard of care. [Id.]. Postawko has symptoms consistent with HCV, including extreme fatigue to the point that brushing his teeth causes intense aching in his arm muscles; fever; abdominal pain; severe headaches; almost constant joint pain; and dark urine with what appear to be traces of blood. [Id.]. Postawko receives two medications for his severe headaches, sumatriptan and propranolol HCL, which are only about 60 percent effective. [Id.]. Postawko has not received any HCV treatment. [Id.]. In 2005, Plaintiff Christopher Baker was diagnosed with HCV, and in 2007, he underwent a liver biopsy and was diagnosed with cirrhosis. [Id. at p. 21]. In 2008, Baker was sentenced to ten years in the MDOC. [Id.]. In 2009, the MDOC began treating Baker with the then-prevailing treatment, interferon and ribavirin, which appeared to be working. [Id.]. However, after five months of treatment, the MDOC, through a provider named Dr. McKinney, informed Baker that the MDOC was no longer treating HCV-positive inmates with those drugs and discontinued Baker’s course of treatment. [Id.]. Since early 2010, Baker has received no further treatment for HCV and has received no treatment at any time with a DAA drug. [Id.]. Each treater who Baker has seen at the MDOC or who has denied his HCV-related complaints, including Defendant Adrienne Hardy, has refused to treat him with DAA drugs, contrary to the prevailing standard of care. [Id.].
6 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 155 Filed 05/11/17 Page 6 of 33

On March 2, 2016, while Baker was incarcerated at JCCC, an Informal Resolution Request response to Baker indicates that he was “placed on a spreadsheet” because he had an APRI score above 1.0, without regard to his pre-incarceration cirrhosis diagnosis, which was made based on a liver biopsy. [Id.]. Baker did not receive any treatment as a result of either his independent cirrhosis diagnosis or his placement on a spreadsheet. [Id.]. In July 2016, Baker was transferred from JCCC to Algoa Correctional Center where he no longer even appears on a list for treatment. [Id.]. Baker has symptoms consistent with HCV, including nausea, severe joint pain, fatigue, back and chest pain, tenderness in his liver area, and dark urine. [Id. at p. 22].
Plaintiff Michael Jamerson became infected with HCV while incarcerated at the MDOC. [Id.]. Jamerson has repeatedly requested treatment with DAA drugs. [Id.]. Although Jamerson is enrolled in the Chronic Care Clinic, he has not received any treatment with any DAA drug. [Id.]. Every medical provider Jamerson has seen at the MDOC or who has directed his course of treatment, has refused to treat him with DAA drugs, contrary to the standard of care. [Id.]. Jamerson has symptoms consistent with HCV, including fatigue; muscle and joint pain; stomach, liver, and chest pain; and tenderness in his liver area. [Id.].
Plaintiffs bring claims under the Eighth Amendment and the ADA, individually and on behalf of a putative class. Plaintiffs bring two claims on behalf of a putative class:
 Count I for prospective relief for deprivation of their Eighth Amendment rights against Precythe, in her official capacity, and Corizon, LLC; and
 Count II for prospective relief for violation of the ADA against the MDOC. In addition, Plaintiffs Postawko, Baker, and Jamerson bring the following individual claims:
 Count III brought by Postawko for damages for deprivation of his Eighth Amendment rights against Precythe, in her official capacity; Corizon, LLC; and ten medical employees;
 Count IV brought by Postawko for damages for violation of the ADA against the MDOC.
7 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 155 Filed 05/11/17 Page 7 of 33

 Count V brought by Baker for damages for deprivation of his Eighth Amendment rights against Precythe, in her official capacity; Corizon, LLC; and twelve medical employees, including Adrienne Hardy, a registered nurse and the director of nursing at JCCC;
 Count VI brought by Baker for damages for violation of the ADA against the MDOC.
 Count VII brought by Jamerson for damages for deprivation of his Eighth Amendment rights against Precythe, in her official capacity; Corizon, LLC; and ten medical employees; and
 Count VIII brought by Jamerson for damages for violation of the ADA against the MDOC.
II. Discussion
Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ Eighth Amendment claims (Counts I, III, V, and VII)
should be dismissed because Plaintiffs fail to state a claim. In the alternative, Defendants
contend that Plaintiffs’ Eighth Amendment claims against MDOC Director Precythe (Counts III,
V, and VII) are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. As to Baker’s Eighth Amendment claim
against Defendant Hardy (Count V), Defendants contend that Hardy is entitled to qualified
immunity. Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ ADA claims (Counts II, IV, VI, and VIII) should be
dismissed because they fail to state a claim. Additionally, Defendants contend that these claims
are also barred by the Eleventh Amendment.
At the pleading stage, a plaintiff is not required to present detailed factual allegations.
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). “A claim has facial plausibility when the
pleaded factual content allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 663 (2009).
A. Eighth Amendment Claims: Counts I, III, V, and VII
In Counts I, III, V, and VII, Plaintiffs bring Eighth Amendment claims for deliberate
indifference to their serious medical needs against the MDOC; MDOC Director Anne Precythe;
Corizon, LLC; numerous individual medical staff, including doctors and nurses; and Adrienne
8
Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 155 Filed 05/11/17 Page 8 of 33

Hardy, a medical contract monitor and nurse. Defendants MDOC and Precythe move to dismiss these counts against them, arguing that Plaintiffs fail to state a claim under the Eighth Amendment because they have no constitutional right to obtain the particular course of Hepatitis C treatment that they demand.
The Eighth Amendment requires prison officials to provide inmates with proper medical care. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 103 (1976); see also Crooks v. Nix, 872 F.2d 800, 804 (8th Cir. 1989) (“Where a prisoner needs medical treatment prison officials are under a constitutional duty to see that it is furnished.”). To prevail on a claim of constitutionally inadequate medical care, the plaintiff inmate must show that the defendants “act[ed] with deliberate indifference to the prisoner’s serious medical needs.” Bender v. Regier, 385 F.3d 1133, 1137 (8th Cir. 2005) (quoting Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104). Such claims have both an objective component and a subjective component. Dulaney v. Carnahan, 132 F.3d 1234, 1239 (8th Cir. 1997). Specifically, the plaintiff must show (1) that he had an objectively serious medical need and (2) that prison officials subjectively knew of, but deliberately disregarded, that need. Id.
1. Serious Medical Need Plaintiffs plausibly allege that they have a serious medical need, the first requirement for their Eighth Amendment claims. A “serious medical need” is “one that has been diagnosed by a physician as requiring treatment, or one that is so obvious that even a layperson would easily recognize the necessity for a doctor’s attention.” Coleman v. Rahija, 114 F.3d 778, 784 (8th Cir. 1997) (quoting Cambreros v. Branstad, 73 F.3d 174, 176 (8th Cir. 1995)). “When an inmate alleges that a delay in medical treatment constituted a constitutional deprivation, ‘the objective seriousness of the deprivation should also be measured by reference to the effect of delay in treatment.’” Id. (citing Crowley v. Hedgepeth, 109 F.3d 500, 502 (8th Cir. 1997)).
9 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 155 Filed 05/11/17 Page 9 of 33

In their Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that they have been diagnosed with HCV, which the Eighth Circuit has characterized as being “unquestionably a serious medical problem.” Bender v. Regier, 385 F.3d 1133, 1137 (8th Cir. 2004). Plaintiffs allege that left untreated, HCV causes pain and lasting bodily harm, including fibrosis and cirrhosis of the liver and, in the vast majority of cases, chronic liver disease. The Complaint further provides that cirrhosis is irreversible and can cause additional painful complications, including among other complications, kidney disease, jaundice, internal bleeding, fluid retention with edema, mental confusion, and extreme fatigue.
Defendants respond by citing Bender v. Regier, 385 F.3d 1133, 1137 (8th Cir. 2004), which held that “the Eighth Amendment issue is not whether the infection itself is a ‘serious medical need,’ but rather whether [the plaintiffs] had a serious medical need for prompt [treatment with DAAs].” As to this issue, Plaintiffs allege that treatment with direct-acting antiviral drugs, which were first made available in 2013, produces more than a 90 percent cure rate. They further allege that the current prevailing standard of care, as established by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (“IDSA”) and American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (“AASLD”), mandates treatment of all persons with chronic HCV with a DAA drug. Plaintiffs plead that despite their HCV diagnoses, they do not receive any treatment for their HCV infections, aside from a blood draw every six months and at times, minimal counseling. Furthermore, they plead that delay in treatment with one of the available DAA drugs increases their likelihood of developing chronic liver disease, fibrosis, cirrhosis, liver cancer, painful complications, and death from liver failure. Finally, Plaintiffs allege that they suffer individual complications from their chronic HCV infections, including extreme fatigue, abdominal pain, severe headaches, dark urine with what appear to be traces of blood, severe joint
10 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 155 Filed 05/11/17 Page 10 of 33

pain, back and chest pain, and tenderness in the area of their livers. In addition, Plaintiff Baker alleges that despite being independently diagnosed with cirrhosis in 2010 via liver biopsy, a more accurate indicator than APRI score, he does not receive any HCV treatment. In light of these assertions, Plaintiffs’ Complaint plausibly alleges that Plaintiffs have a serious medical need for prompt treatment with DAAs.
2. Deliberate Indifference Plaintiffs also plausibly allege the second requirement that Defendants subjectively knew of, but deliberately disregarded, their serious medical need for treatment. “Deliberate indifference entails a level of culpability equal to the criminal law definition of recklessness: disregarding a known risk to the inmate’s health.” Allard v. Baldwin, 779 F.3d 768, 772 (8th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks removed). Mere malpractice of medicine in prison does not amount to an Eighth Amendment violation. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). In other words, “an inadvertent failure to provide adequate medical care,” such as “a complaint that a physician has been negligent in diagnosing or treating a medical condition does not state a claim.” Id. (emphasis added); see also, Harrison v. Barkley, 291 F.3d 132, 139 (2d Cir. 2000) (explaining that “[t]his principle [from Estelle] may cover a delay in treatment based on a bad diagnosis or erroneous calculus of risks and costs, or a mistaken decision not to treat based on an erroneous view that the condition is benign or trivial or hopeless, or that treatment is unreliable, or that the cure is as risky or painful or bad as the malady.”). In contrast, “refus[ing] treatment of a properly diagnosed condition that [i]s progressively degenerative, potentially dangerous and painful, and that could be treated easily and without risk . . . is not ‘mere medical malpractice.’” Harrison, 219 F.3d at 139.
11 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 155 Filed 05/11/17 Page 11 of 33

“A plaintiff can show deliberate indifference in the level of care provided in different ways, including by showing grossly incompetent or inadequate care,” Smith v. Jenkins, 919 F.2d 90, 93 (8th Cir. 1990), showing a defendant’s decision to take an easier and less efficacious course of treatment, id., or showing a defendant intentionally delayed or denied access to medical care, Meloy v. Bachmeier, 302 F.3d 845, 849 (8th Cir. 2002).” Allard v. Baldwin, 779 F.3d 768, 772 (8th Cir. 2015). Although mere medical negligence—an inadvertent failure to provide adequate medical care—does not violate the Eighth Amendment, “medical treatment may so deviate from the applicable standard of care as to evidence a physician’s deliberate indifference” in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Moore v. Duffy, 255 F.3d 543 (8th Cir. 2001). In addition, “[i]n institutional level challenges to prison health care . . . systemic deficiencies can provide the basis for a finding of deliberate indifference.” Harris v. Thigpen, 941 F.2d 1495, 1505 (11th Cir. 1991). For example, “a series of incidents closely related in time may disclose a pattern of conduct amounting to deliberate indifference.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). Further, “[r]epeated examples of delayed or denied medical care may indicate a deliberate indifference by prison authorities to the suffering that results.” Id.
In this case, Plaintiffs’ Complaint plausibly alleges that Defendants deliberately disregarded and continue to disregard Plaintiffs’ serious medical need for DAA drug treatment. Defendants are aware of the availability and efficacy of DAA drugs. Defendants know that the applicable standard of care calls for treating all patients suffering from chronic HCV with those DAA drugs, regardless of their cirrhosis/fibrosis progression or APRI score, and that a delay in treatment with DAA drugs increases the risks of HCV progression as well as decreases the benefits of DAA treatment. However, despite this awareness, Defendants follow a policy or custom that categorically denies DAA drug treatment to inmates with chronic HCV. Under this
12 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 155 Filed 05/11/17 Page 12 of 33

policy, Defendants do not even consider treating inmates with chronic HCV with DAA drugs unless and until those inmates have APRI scores above 2.0 that persist for several months.2
Defendants follow this policy despite the following alleged facts: more than half of all people
with cirrhosis will not have an APRI score of at least 2.0; APRI scores fluctuate from day to day,
and an improvement in APRI score does not mean the condition has improved; an APRI score
obtained from a blood draw is only one of several methods used to determine the progression of
an individual’s fibrosis/cirrhosis; and the standard of care is to treat an individual with chronic
HCV with a DAA drug, regardless of his APRI score. As a result of this policy, Plaintiffs’
Complaint further alleges that as of January 2015, the MDOC reported that it was treating with
DAA drugs only 0.11 percent of all of its HCV-positive inmates, which equates to approximately
five inmates out of 4,736 inmates with known HCV infections.
As alleged in Plaintiffs’ Complaint, this “wait and see” policy of relying solely on APRI
scores and delaying DAA treatment until the disease has progressed to a far more serious level contravenes the applicable medical standard of care without any medical justification.3 See,
e.g., Abu-Jamal v. Wetzel, 2017 WL 34700, at *15, quoting Monmouth Cty. Corr. Ins. Inmates v.
Lanzaro, 834 F.2d 326, 347 (3d Cir. 1987) (“Deliberate indifference is also evidenced where
prison officials erect arbitrary and burdensome procedures that result in interminable delays and
2 As alleged in Plaintiffs’ Complaint and discussed in Section I.C., an APRI score is obtained from a blood sample and provides the ratio of a particular enzyme with platelets in the affected person’s blood. Measuring one’s APRI score is one method used to determine the progression of a person’s fibrosis/cirrhosis. The APRI score method has good diagnostic utility in predicting severe fibrosis or cirrhosis when the APRI score is very high. However, the test is underinclusive in that low and mid-range APRI scores miss many people who have significant fibrosis or cirrhosis. For example, more than half of all people with cirrhosis will not have an APRI score of at least 2.0. 3 In addition to this policy or custom lacking any medical justification, Plaintiffs also allege that it results in treatment decisions based on cost, rather than on medical need, which only further suggests that the condition imposed on treatment is likely an arbitrary and unreasonable one.
13
Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 155 Filed 05/11/17 Page 13 of 33

outright denials of medical care to suffering inmates.”). Because chronic HCV is a progressive disease and delay in treatment with DAA drugs reduces the benefits associated with treatment, Defendant’s policy causes unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain and increases the risk of serious damage to the health of those inmates suffering from chronic HCV. Taken as true, these facts plausibly allege a deliberate disregard for Plaintiffs’ serious medical needs for DAA treatment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. See, e.g., Abu-Jamal v. Wetzel, 2017 WL 34700, at *15 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 3, 2017) (finding reasonable likelihood of success on deliberate indifference prong where defendant prison followed policy of choosing a course of monitoring over DAA treatment for non-medical reasons and allowing the HCV-positive inmate’s condition to worsen while his liver function and health continued to deteriorate before even considering treatment with DAA drugs); Harrison v. Barkley, 219 F.3d 132, 138 (2d Cir. 2000) (holding that both “outright refusal of any treatment for a degenerative condition that tends to cause acute infection and pain if left untreated” and the “imposition of a seriously unreasonable condition on such treatment” constitute deliberate indifference by prison officials).
Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged more than mere medical malpractice—an inadvertent failure to provide adequate medical care. For instance, their denied access to DAA treatment is not the result of a misdiagnosis; they have been properly diagnosed with chronic HCV, for which the medical standard of care calls for DAA drug treatment. Cf. Allard v. Baldwin, 779 F.3d 768, 772 (8th Cir. 2015) (finding inmate who was misdiagnosed with constipation and given extensive treatment for that diagnosis but where his proper diagnosis was for a bowel obstruction did not show deliberate indifference by prison because the delay in proper treatment was the result of negligent misdiagnosis, not actual knowledge of his condition coupled with denial of proper treatment). Further, Defendants’ decision to deny DAA treatment to Plaintiffs is not
14 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 155 Filed 05/11/17 Page 14 of 33

“based on an erroneous view that the condition is benign or trivial or hopeless, or that treatment is unreliable, or that the cure is as risky or painful or bad as the malady.” Harrison v. Barkley, 291 F.3d 132, 139 (2d Cir. 2000). Plaintiffs’ chronic HCV condition is a serious and harmful medical condition, which risks increasingly serious liver damage, among other bodily harms, to those who have it. Plaintiffs are not denied DAA treatment “based on an erroneous view that . . . treatment is as risky or painful or bad as the malady” because DAA drug treatment is reliable, safe, and highly effective with a 90 percent cure rate for those infected with HCV. Id. Finally, Plaintiffs do not allege entitlement to some novel or cutting-edge course of treatment that constitutes something more than that required by the applicable standard of care. Instead, they have alleged that they are categorically denied access to the proper treatment for their HCV— DAA drug treatment—which is the medical standard of care as recommended by the CDC, IDSCA, and AASLD. See also Abu-Jamal v. Wetzel, 2017 WL 34700, at *15 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 3, 2017) (“[T]he standard of care as established by the CDC and AASLD for treatment of patients with hepatitis C is the use of DAA medications. . . . The DOC’s own expert [] agreed that the same standard of care as to hepatitis C treatment that is applicable to the community at large should apply in a correctional setting . . . and [t]hus, the standard of care for treating Plaintiff is to administer DAA medications”).
Defendants respond in part by asking the Court to take judicial notice of what they qualify as “indisputable facts,” including that HCV is “typically an extremely slow-acting disease” and that “the large majority of HCV-positive persons will never suffer any serious adverse effects from the disease.” [Doc. 127, p. 3, n.1]. However, even if true, these facts do not justify as a matter of law Defendants’ policy of categorically denying the proper treatment to inmates with chronic HCV by imposing an arbitrary condition on that treatment unsupported by
15 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 155 Filed 05/11/17 Page 15 of 33

medical justification. Defendants appear to suggest that because not every inmate infected with chronic-HCV will definitely suffer “serious adverse effects” from the disease, then treatment is not warranted. But, in contrast to Defendants’ contention, Plaintiffs are not required to suffer “imminent, life threatening circumstances” in order to allege deliberate indifference. See, e.g., Harrison v. Barkley, 219 F.3d 132, 139 (2d Cir. 2000) (denying qualified immunity for prison doctor who refused to treat cavity in one tooth unless inmate consented to extraction of another infected tooth, which was also diseased but which he wished to keep) (characterizing the doctor’s refusal of treatment as more than mere medical malpractice because he had “refuse[d] treatment of a properly diagnosed condition that was progressively degenerative, potentially dangerous and painful, and that could be treated easily and without risk”). Merely “opting for an easier and less efficacious treatment of the inmate’s condition” by adopting a monitoring policy instead of treatment and waiting to see just how much the inmate’s health may deteriorate is not permissible. See, e.g., Abu-Jamal, 2017 WL 34700, at *14 (rejecting prison’s HCV fibrosis/cirrhosis monitoring and prioritization policy and stating that defendants “may not, with deliberate indifference to the serious medical needs of the inmate, opt for an easier and less efficacious treatment of the inmate’s condition”) (quoting Monmouth Cty. Corr. Inst. Inmates v. Lanzaro, 834 F.2d 326, 347 (3d Cir. 1987)); see also Smith v. Jenkins, 919 F.2d 90, 93 (8th Cir. 1990) (quoting same).
Next, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ Eighth Amendment claims must fail because Defendants do monitor and “treat” inmates with HCV, as well as provide “clinical care.” [Doc. 104, p. 13 of 19]. However, as discussed above, Plaintiffs’ Complaint plausibly alleges that the medical care they have received is inadequate: what Defendants have categorized as “medical care” is limited to a policy of monitoring through blood draws every six months in order to track
16 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 155 Filed 05/11/17 Page 16 of 33

Plaintiffs’ APRI scores, as well as the provision of “minimal counseling” and classification of Plaintiffs as “Chronic Care Clinic Offenders.” Any additional medical treatment alleged in the Complaint is limited to Defendants having prescribed two medications for Plaintiff Postawko’s severe headaches, not his HCV. The previous medical treatment pointed to by Defendants is akin to “mere proof of medical care,” which is not enough to disprove deliberate indifference. See Smith v. Jenkins, 919 F.2d 90, 93 (8th Cir. 1990). Because Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that the medical care they receive falls well below the applicable standard of care without any medical justification, they are “entitled to prove their case by establishing [the] course of treatment, or lack thereof, so deviated from professional standards that it amounted to deliberate indifference.” Id.
Furthermore, at least one district court has already considered and rejected as inadequate a similar monitoring policy for inmates with chronic HCV, but in the context of an inmate plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction. Abu-Jamal v. Wetzel, 2017 WL 34700, at *16 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 3, 2017). In Abu-Jamal, a district court in the Third Circuit granted the plaintiff inmate’s motion for preliminary injunction to require the prison defendants to immediately treat his HCV with DAA drugs. Id. at *20. Similar to the case before this Court, the Abu-Jamal prison defendants followed a policy of barring from consideration for DAA treatment those inmates with chronic HCV who did not have severe fibrosis or cirrhosis. Id. at *15. Specifically, if an HCV positive inmate was considered for treatment, the prison would order shear wave elastography to determine the inmate’s fibrosis progression. Id. If the test indicated a fibrosis level of F0, F1, or F2, the policy required the inmate to receive monitoring but did not permit treatment with DAAs. Id. Accordingly, inmates with mild or moderate fibrosis had no
17 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 155 Filed 05/11/17 Page 17 of 33

chance of receiving DAA drugs until their HCV had worsened, which effectively meant that their HCV had to worsen before they would even be considered for treatment. Id.
The Abu-Jamal court found the plaintiff inmate had a reasonable likelihood for success on the merits as to his Eighth Amendment claim. Id. at *18. In analyzing the deliberate indifference prong, the district court characterized the prison’s policy as suffering from a “fatal flaw”: “refus[ing] without medical justification to provide treatment for certain inmates with hepatitis C and also impos[ing] an unreasonable condition—having vast fibrosis or cirrhosis—on treatment.” Id. The district court further reasoned that this case was not a mere disagreement with the course of care, nor was it an inadvertent failure to provide adequate medical care. Id. Instead, the court concluded that the plaintiff “has shown that the DOC has implemented a policy that categorically denies certain inmates with chronic hepatitis C from receiving the curative treatment that the DOC’s own expert testified he would recommend for a non-prisoner with the same condition.” Id. The court went on to conclude that the plaintiff had shown that the defendants deliberately denied providing treatment to inmates with a serious medical condition and choosing a course of monitoring instead “with the knowledge that (1) the standard of care is to administer DAA medications regardless of the disease’s stage, (2) inmates would likely suffer from hepatitis C complications and disease progress without treatment, and (3) the delay in receiving DAA medications reduces their efficacy.” Id.
Like in Abu-Jamal, the Plaintiffs in this case have alleged facts indicating that Defendants refuse to treat the vast majority of inmates suffering from chronic HCV and that they have imposed an unreasonable condition on qualification for treatment: advanced fibrosis/cirrhosis sufficient to indicate an APRI score of over 2.0 for several months. Despite an effective and near-certain cure in the form of DAA drugs, Defendants follow a prioritization and
18 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 155 Filed 05/11/17 Page 18 of 33

monitoring policy, which prolongs the suffering of those diagnosed with chronic HCV and allows the progression of the disease to accelerate. As in Abu-Jamal, such a policy is enough to show deliberate indifference, particularly at the current pleading stage.
Defendants also argue that Plaintiffs fail to state a claim because they fail to “allege that no other course of treatment for HCV would meet the minimal standards of the Eighth Amendment” and thus, “they have not alleged a ‘serious medical need’ for DAA drugs in particular.” [Doc. 104, p. 11 of 19]. Although it is true that inmates “have no constitutional right to receive a particular course of treatment” so long as they receive adequate treatment, Defendants’ characterization of Plaintiffs’ claims as being a mere disagreement over their particular course of treatment fails to take into account Plaintiffs’ allegations. [Doc. 127, p. 2, citing Dulaney v. Carnahan, 132 F.3d 1234, 1239 (8th Cir. 1997)]; see also, Warren v. Fanning, 950 F.2d 1370, 1373 (8th Cir. 1991) (“[A] mere disagreement with the course of the inmate’s medical treatment does not constitute an eighth amendment claim of deliberate indifference.”).
As already discussed, Plaintiffs allege that they are not receiving any “course of medical treatment” for their HCV, except for monitoring through blood draws and minimal counseling. Plaintiffs do not allege a mere dispute about which HCV medication they receive, but instead, they allege that they do not receive any HCV medication. Nor, for example, do Plaintiffs allege a mere disagreement with a physician’s decision to not provide a particular treatment for an individual inmate due to contraindications particular to that inmate. Cf. Holloway v. Correctional Med. Svcs., 2010 WL 908491, at *6-7 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 9, 2010) (finding no deliberate indifference where prison doctor’s decision to deny HCV-positive inmate interferon treatment until he completed a drug treatment program was consistent with NIH and FBOP guidelines at the time and represented mere disagreement with the course of his treatment).
19 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 155 Filed 05/11/17 Page 19 of 33

Instead, as discussed at length above, the import of Plaintiffs’ Complaint is that Defendants do not have a medical reason for deviating from the applicable standard of care, which calls for treating them with DAA drugs.
Moreover, whether the medical “care” Plaintiffs receive is constitutionally adequate is a merits issue and accordingly, a determination more appropriate for summary judgment or trial, not a motion to dismiss. For this reason, too, the cases cited by Defendants are not persuasive because they each involve a court’s decision as to the merits of the plaintiff inmate’s Eighth Amendment claims on summary judgment. See, e.g., Long v. Nix, 86 F.3d 761 (8th Cir. 1996) (appeal on summary judgment); Harris v. Thigpen, 941 F.2d 1495 (11th Cir. 1991) (same).
The Court also rejects Defendants’ separate contention that the Eighth Circuit and other federal courts “routinely dismiss[] claims by prisoners demanding a specific course of drug treatment for HCV, as well as similar infections.” [Doc. 104, p. 12 of 19]. The cases cited by Defendants are distinguishable because at the time they were decided, there was no effective, safe treatment for HCV, and DAA drugs were not yet available. According to Plaintiffs’ Complaint, until the recent advent and approval of DAA drugs, there was no effective and safe treatment for HCV. Historically, treatment generally included the use of interferon and ribavirin medications, which failed to cure most patients and were contraindicated for patients with psychiatric and autoimmune disorders. Therefore, Defendants’ remaining cases are distinguishable because they were decided prior to the approval of DAA drugs for HCV treatment when the only HCV treatments available were far less effective, as well as when the medical standard of care was different from the one applicable today. See generally Bender v. Regier, 385 F.3d 1133 (8th Cir. 2004) (ruling only as to qualified immunity, describing treatments available in 2004 and intervening changes to the state department of health protocol,
20 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 155 Filed 05/11/17 Page 20 of 33

commenting that individual HCV-positive inmate was not eligible for treatment because of other factors, and declining to address the district court’s holding that inmate had “serious medical need for prompt interferon treatment”); Black v. Ala. Dep’t of Corrs., 578 F. App’x 794 (11th Cir. 2014) (per curiam) (affirming summary judgment for prison officials in pro se case where it was undisputed that inmate had “not suffer[ed] any negative health consequences from not being in the Hepatitis C Treatment Program”); Free v. Unknown Officers of the Bureau of Prisons, 103 F. App’x 334 (10th Cir. 2004) (long before DAA drugs were available, holding that pro se prisoner had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies but alternatively affirming, in dictum, that prison officials had followed recommendations from National Institutes of Health); Edmonds v. Robbins, 67 F. App’x 872 (6th Cir. 2003) (unpublished) (holding that prison official was not liable under Eighth Amendment where pro se HCV-positive inmate was examined monthly, sent to hospital for outside testing, and the outside medical doctors and submitted medical literature all agreed that medication was not necessary); Hollis v. Dep’t of Corrs., 560 F. Supp. 2d 920 (C.D. Cal. 2008) (holding in individual case where no symptoms were present that pro se HCV-positive inmate was not entitled to interferon/ribavirin in part because “therapy is not universally effective”); Dotson v. Wilkinson, 477 F. Supp. 2d 838 (N.D. Ohio 2007) (holding in an individual case that pro se HCV-positive inmate was not entitled to interferon/ribavirin because he had high blood pressure and elevated creatinine levels that rendered him ineligible for treatment under medical protocols).
Finally, the Court also rejects Defendants’ separate argument that Plaintiffs fail to state a claim because they “do not allege the MDOC Defendants are personally responsible for treating them or for managing their HCV” and thus, “fail to state any plausible claim of individual indifference to their HCV.” [Doc. 104, p. 11 of 19]. “Where a prisoner needs medical treatment
21 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 155 Filed 05/11/17 Page 21 of 33

prison officials are under a constitutional duty to see that it is furnished.” Crooks v. Nix, 872 F.2d 800, 804 (8th Cir. 1989) (citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 103 (2006)). In their Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants who have moved to dismiss—the MDOC and MDOC Director Precythe—implemented, authorized, or condoned the treatment policies described previously, which plausibly makes them liable despite the fact that these Defendants did not personally treat or manage Plaintiffs’ HCV. See id. (“[A] § 1983 claimant may maintain a theory of direct liability against a prison or other official if that official fails to properly train, supervise, direct or control the actions of a subordinate who causes the injury.”). Therefore, Plaintiffs’ Complaint “sufficiently allege[s] inadequate prison policies or medical supervision which, if true, would result in these defendants being held liable just as if they had refused to deliver those services themselves.” Id.
For the previous reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is denied with respect to Plaintiffs’ Eighth Amendment claims, Counts I, III, V, and VII.
B. Eighth Amendment Claims against Precythe: Counts III, V, and VII In Counts III, V, and VII, Plaintiffs bring claims for damages under the Eighth Amendment against Defendant MDOC Director Anne Precythe in her official capacity. However, the Eleventh Amendment bars claims against the State of Missouri and its agencies in federal courts. Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 337 (1979); Murphy v. State of Arkansas, 127 F.3d 750, 754 (8th Cir. 1997). Claims alleged against state officials in their official capacity are analyzed as claims against the state. Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 169 (1985). Defendants argue that because these claims for damages are brought against Director Precythe in her official capacity, they are claims against the state and are therefore barred. Plaintiffs concede that the Eleventh Amendment bars these claims and abandon them against
22 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 155 Filed 05/11/17 Page 22 of 33

Precythe, only, without prejudice to later filing such claims against Precythe in her individual capacity. Therefore, the Court dismisses with prejudice Counts III, V, and VII, only as against Director Precythe in her official capacity.
C. Eighth Amendment Claim against Hardy: Count V Plaintiff Baker’s Count V asserts a claim for damages under the Eighth Amendment against several defendants, including MDOC Defendant Adrienne Hardy. Defendants contend that this claim must be dismissed against Hardy because she is entitled to qualified immunity. “To overcome the defense of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show: (1) the facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, demonstrate the deprivation of a constitutional or statutory right; and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the deprivation.” Howard v. Kansas City Police Dep’t, 570 F.3d 984, 988 (8th Cir. 2009). The Court may exercise its “sound discretion in deciding which of the two prongs of the qualified immunity analysis should be addressed first in light of the circumstances in the particular case at hand.” McRaven v. Sanders, 577 F.3d 974, 980 (8th Cir. 2009) (quoting Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 235 (2009)). In support of his claim against Hardy, Baker alleges the following facts, which must be construed in his favor. Defendant Hardy is a registered nurse working as a medical contract monitor at Jefferson City Correctional Center. Hardy knew that Baker suffered from chronic HCV, that he was not receiving HCV treatment, and that he required treatment with a DAA drug. Hardy did not intervene, provide care, or direct that care be given to Baker. Instead, Hardy denied Baker’s grievance to her for DAA treatment for his chronic HCV on the grounds that he was being seen by a doctor and was enrolled in the Chronic Care Clinic.
23 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 155 Filed 05/11/17 Page 23 of 33

Defendants argue that Hardy is entitled to qualified immunity because she reasonably relied on Baker’s treating physician’s opinion, and “[a] prison official may rely on a medical professional's opinion if such reliance is reasonable.” McRaven v. Sanders, 577 F.3d 974, 981 (8th Cir. 2009) (citing Meloy v. Bachmeier 302 F.3d 845, 849 (8th Cir. 2002) (“The law does not clearly require an administrator with less medical training to second-guess or disregard a treating physician's treatment decision.”); see also Johnson v. Doughty, 433 F.3d 1001, 1010 (7th Cir. 2006) (“Except in the unusual case where it would be evident to a layperson that a prisoner is receiving inadequate or inappropriate treatment, prison officials may reasonably rely on the judgment of medical professionals.”)).
The Eighth Circuit addressed a similar situation in Meloy v. Bachmeier, 302 F.3d 845 (8th Cir. 2002). In Meloy, an inmate brought an Eighth Amendment claim against Bachmeier, a nurse who worked as the prison’s director of medical services. Id. at 847. The inmate alleged that despite his request for treatment for his obstructive sleep apnea, treatment which Bachmeier knew he was not receiving, Bachmeier denied his request because she relied on his treating doctor’s orders that the requested treatment was unnecessary. Id.
The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity, holding that Bachmeier’s reliance on the treating doctor’s order was objectively reasonable. Id. at 849. The Eighth Circuit concluded that although Bachmeier had training as a nurse, she was functioning in an administrative role and was not personally responsible for examining and treating the inmate. Id. Although the inmate told Bachmeier about his condition and need for the specific treatment, Bachmeier relied on the opinion of his treating physicians, who had more medical training about the necessary treatment for the inmate’s condition. Id. The Eighth Circuit reasoned that this meant Bachmeier was not personally involved in an Eighth Amendment violation. Id. As to her
24 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 155 Filed 05/11/17 Page 24 of 33

liability as a supervisor, the Eighth Circuit concluded that the law “does not clearly require an administrator with less medical training to second-guess or disregard a treating physician’s treatment decision.” Id.
In the same way, Defendant Hardy is a nurse by training but is alleged to have been functioning in an administrative role as a medical contract monitor. Baker does not allege that Hardy personally treated him for his chronic HCV or that she was responsible for treating him.4 Rather, the Complaint alleges that in failing to intervene as well as denying Baker’s grievance for DAA treatment, Hardy knew Baker was enrolled in the Chronic Care Clinic, and that she deferred to the orders of Baker’s doctors. As in Meloy, “the law does not clearly require an administrator [like Hardy] with less medical training to second-guess or disregard a treating physician’s treatment decision.” Meloy, 302 F.3d at 849. Therefore, Hardy is entitled to qualified immunity.
Although Plaintiffs cite McRaven v. Sanders, 577 F.3d 974 (8th Cir. 2009), in support of their contention that Hardy’s deference to Baker’s treating physicians does not excuse her from liability, McRaven does not support Plaintiffs’ position. In McRaven, defendant jail officials who denied treatment to an inmate claimed that they were entitled to qualified immunity because they had relied on a nurse’s assessment in denying the inmate treatment. Id. at 980-82. Although the jail officials deferred to the nurse’s medical assessment, the jail officials were aware of a cocktail of potent drugs that the inmate had consumed; that the circumstances strongly suggested the inmate did not consume them in prescribed dosages; that the inmate
4 Plaintiffs note, “Defendants assert that Hardy was not responsible for treating Plaintiff Baker, [but] . . . [t]his fact is outside the pleadings, and therefore should not be considered by the Court in ruling on the pending motion.” [Doc. 123, p. 15 of 24]. Although Plaintiffs’ argument is technically correct, Plaintiffs do not allege that Hardy was responsible for personally treating Baker anywhere in their Complaint, and therefore, this fact was not pled, which the Court can take into account in ruling on the pending motion.
25 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 155 Filed 05/11/17 Page 25 of 33

exhibited symptoms of extreme intoxication; and that the nurse based her assessment of the inmate on the assumption that he was under the influence of alcohol, not drugs. Id. The Eighth Circuit held that because the jail officials had such relevant personal knowledge about the inmate’s condition, knowledge which they knew the nurse did not have, the jail officials’ reliance on the nurse’s assessment was not objectively reasonable, and thus, they were not entitled to qualified immunity. Id.
Unlike in McRaven, Baker’s Complaint does not allege that Hardy had any personal knowledge superior to or different from the knowledge of Baker’s treating doctors or the professionals seeing Baker in the Chronic Care Clinic. Therefore, the fact that Hardy is alleged to have denied Baker’s grievance in reliance on the opinion of Baker’s doctors was objectively reasonable and not a clearly established violation of Baker’s constitutional rights. Accordingly, Count V is dismissed with respect to Defendant Hardy because she is entitled to qualified immunity.5
D. ADA Claims: Counts II, IV, VI, and VIII Defendants argue that Counts II, IV, VI, and VIII should be dismissed for failure to state a claim because medical treatment decisions cannot be challenged under the ADA. In addition, they contend that Counts IV, VI, and VIII are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. 1. Medical Treatment Decisions under the ADA Plaintiffs allege that Defendant MDOC discriminates against inmates with chronic HCV in violation of the ADA by withholding medically appropriate treatment that will likely cure their disability while, at the same time, Defendant does not withhold lifesaving treatments from individuals with disabilities other than chronic HCV. [Doc. 30, p. 27, ¶ 143]. Under Title II of
5 Count V is the only claim asserted against Defendant Adrienne Hardy. 26
Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 155 Filed 05/11/17 Page 26 of 33

the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq., a qualified individual with a disability may not be excluded from participation in or be denied benefits of services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by that entity, because of the individual's disability. A qualified individual with a disability is a person who “meets the essential eligibility requirements for the receipt of services or the participation in programs or activities provided by the public entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12131(2).
To prevail on a Title II ADA claim, a plaintiff must establish: (1) that he is a person with a disability as defined by statute; (2) that he is otherwise qualified for the benefit in question; and (3) that he was excluded from the benefit because of discrimination based upon his disability. See 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq.; Randolph v. Rodgers, 170 F.3d 850, 857 (8th Cir. 1999). Defendants focus solely on the third factor and argue that within the Eighth Circuit, claims under the ADA “cannot be based on medical treatment decisions,” which Defendants contend is all that Plaintiffs’ claims allege. Burger v. Bloomberg, 418 F.3d 882, 883 (8th Cir. 2006). In McElroy v. Patient Selection Committee, 2007 WL 4180695, at *2 (D. Neb. Nov. 21, 2007), aff'd per curiam, 2009 WL 50176 (8th Cir. Jan. 9, 2009), the district court cited this principle in granting summary judgment for defendants on the inmate plaintiff’s ADA claim. The court found that the evidence undisputedly showed that the inmate, who had a history of mental illness, was denied a kidney transplant for a legitimate medical reason: his mental illness was a contraindication for transplants. Id.
Plaintiffs concede that medical treatment decisions cannot be challenged under the ADA, but they argue that they are not challenging mere inadequate medical treatment decisions. Rather, Plaintiffs contend that they challenge Defendant MDOC’s policy or custom of denying DAA drug treatment to most inmates suffering chronic HCV, which effectively prohibits
27 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 155 Filed 05/11/17 Page 27 of 33

medical professionals from making independent medical decisions about whether to provide such treatment. Plaintiffs argue that this policy or custom discriminates against them by denying them lifesaving treatments for HCV where Defendant MDOC does provide lifesaving treatments to inmates with disabilities other than HCV. Cf. Bryant v. Madigan, 84 F.3d 246, 249 (7th Cir. 1996) (finding inmate failed to state an ADA claim where inmate alleged prison failed to adequately attend to his medical needs but where inmate did not allege discrimination or that he was treated worse “because of” his disability); Moore v. Kohl, 2005 WL 2002084, at *2-3 (dismissing inmate’s ADA claims against two doctors and their assistant because his claims related only to the refusal of those defendants to exercise their professional judgment in accordance with the plaintiff’s views of his medical needs).
The Court agrees. Claims of inadequate medical treatment for a disability are distinguishable from claims that a prisoner was denied access to medical services because of his disability. Although not directly on point, McNally v. Prison Health Services, 46 F. Supp. 2d 49 (D. Me. 1999), illustrates this distinction. In McNally, an HIV-positive individual was arrested and held in jail. Id. at 51. He alleged that he informed jail personnel that he needed his HIV medication, but they denied his access to it. Id. McNally brought an ADA claim alleging that the jail’s policy regarding providing prescribed medications to inmates was different for inmates with HIV. Id. at 58-59. The jail argued that this claim failed as a matter of law because it alleged only that the inmate received poor medical treatment, which could not be challenged under the ADA. Id. at 58. However, the district court rejected this argument, noting, “Plaintiff has contended that Cumberland County Jail discriminated against Plaintiff because of his HIVpositive status, not by providing him with inadequate care, but by denying him immediate access to prescribed medications, a service provided to detainees in need of prescriptions for other
28 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 155 Filed 05/11/17 Page 28 of 33

illnesses.” Id. The court continued by noting that the record before it showed that the jail had one policy for detainees taking HIV medication and one for detainees on medication for maladies other than HIV. Id. at 58-59.
Similarly, Plaintiffs in this case allege that they are denied access to lifesaving medications, a service provided to inmates with other illnesses. Construing the Plaintiffs’ Complaint in the light most favorable to them, Plaintiffs do not merely allege inadequate medical treatment, but instead, they allege that Defendant MDOC follows one policy for inmates with chronic HCV and another policy for inmates with other disabilities under which they do receive lifesaving medications. Defendant MDOC contends that McNally is distinguishable because Plaintiffs challenge the “treatment protocols themselves” and “are not challenging discriminatory access to a prison service that provides them with already prescribed medication as in McNally.” [Doc. 127, p. 10 (emphasis in original)]. The Court is not persuaded that the medications having already been prescribed in McNally makes McNally less applicable to the facts at hand. Furthermore, by virtue of challenging the “treatment protocols themselves,” as Defendant MDOC contends, Plaintiffs do challenge discriminatory access to the prison’s services because they allege a policy under which they are not provided access to lifesaving medications for their disability while inmates with other disabilities do have access to lifesaving medications.
Therefore, at least, at the present motion to dismiss stage, Plaintiffs’ Complaint plausibly alleges claims under the ADA. See also, e.g., Rogers v. Mo. Dep’t of Corrections, 2011 WL 13051907 (W.D. Mo. Aug. 2, 2011) (rejecting prison’s argument that disabled inmate’s ADA claims for prison’s refusal to provide him with an electric wheelchair “must be dismissed to the extent that they are based on a medical treatment decision” because the Complaint alleged a policy decision by the prison, not a medical treatment decision, and it would be improper for the
29 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 155 Filed 05/11/17 Page 29 of 33

court to assume that fact); Madden v. Mo. Dep’t of Corrs., 2011 WL 3101926, at *2 (W.D. Mo. July 25, 2011) (denying motion to dismiss ADA claim in part because the record lacked allegations that the defendants’ decision to deny inmate the use of an electric wheelchair was a medical treatment decision).
Authorities cited by Defendants are distinguishable from the facts before this Court. Defendants’ authorities involve situations where individual plaintiffs simply disagreed with medical treatment decisions and did not challenge a prison’s general policy or custom, as Plaintiffs do here. See, e.g., Dinkins v. Mo. Dep’t of Corrs., 743 F.3d 633, 634 (8th Cir. 2014) (affirming dismissal of inmate’s ADA claims where inmate did not challenge a general policy but rather challenged individual medical treatment decisions, including not properly diagnosing and treating his pernicious anemia).
Other cases cited by Defendants are also distinguishable because they were not decided at the motion to dismiss stage, and in contrast to the present case, the courts in Defendants’ cases were presented with actual evidence as to whether the plaintiffs were discriminated against “because of” their alleged disabilities. In each of these cases, the defendants had an opportunity to present evidence contrary to the allegations made by the plaintiffs, which in turn, empowered the court to consider the record as a whole and whether a question remained for the jury. However, at the current stage of the litigation, this Court is bound by the allegations in Plaintiffs’ Complaint and does not yet have any contrary evidence to consider that would contradict Plaintiffs’ allegations. Cf., Simmons v. Navajo Cty., Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1021-22 (9th Cir. 2010) (affirming district court’s granting of summary judgment for prison where there was no evidence that inmate’s exclusion from outdoor recreation was “because of” his depression, as an alleged disability, and therefore, his exclusion did not support ADA claim); Jordan v. Delaware,
30 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 155 Filed 05/11/17 Page 30 of 33

433 F. Supp. 2d 433, 438-443 (D. Del. 2006) (granting summary judgment for prison on inmate’s ADA claim for denial of a liver biopsy where evidence did not show that inmate was treated differently “because of” his HCV status and where evidence showed the prison followed screening and treatment guidelines developed by the Federal Bureau of Prisons and the NIH); Iseley v. Beard, 200 F. App’x 137, at *4 (3rd Cir. 2006) (affirming district court’s granting of summary judgment for pro se prison on inmate’s ADA claim where inmate “claim[ed] that he was denied medical treatment for his disabilities, which is not encompassed by the ADA’s prohibitions” and where he did not argue that he was excluded from any program “because of” his disability).
2. Sovereign Immunity under the Eleventh Amendment Defendant MDOC contends that Plaintiffs Postawko, Baker, and Jamerson’s individual ADA claims against it for monetary damages in Counts IV, VI, and VIII must additionally be dismissed because these claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.6 Plaintiffs contend that with respect to their ADA claims for damages against MDOC, Congress has validly abrogated Missouri’s Eleventh Amendment immunity. Generally, sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment applies to bar damage suits against the State and its agencies unless Congress abrogates sovereign immunity through its ability to enforce the substantive provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment. United States v. Georgia, 546 U.S. 151, 158 (2006). The Supreme Court has held that Title II of the ADA validly abrogates sovereign immunity for conduct that is in itself unconstitutional. Klingler v. Director, Dep’t of Revenue, 455 F.3d 888, 93 (8th Cir. 2006) (citing United States v. Georgia,
6 Plaintiffs first respond that they also seek prospective relief in these counts and that there is no basis for dismissing their claims insofar as they seek prospective relief. However, Plaintiffs’ Complaint states only that it is a “Claim for Damages,” not prospective relief. See [Doc. 30, p. 29, 31, and 33].
31 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 155 Filed 05/11/17 Page 31 of 33

546 U.S. 151, 158 (2006)). Therefore, “insofar as Title II [of the ADA] creates a private cause of action for damages against the States for conduct that actually violates the Fourteenth Amendment, Title II validly abrogates state sovereign immunity.” Id.
Under the framework set out by the Supreme Court in Georgia, whether sovereign immunity bars claims under Title II of the ADA is addressed on a “claim-by-claim basis” and requires an assessment of “(1) which aspects of the State’s alleged conduct violated Title II; (2) to what extent such misconduct also violated the Fourteenth Amendment; and (3) insofar as such misconduct violated Title II, but did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment, whether Congress’s purported abrogation of sovereign immunity as to that class of conduct is nevertheless valid.” Id. at 892 (citing Georgia, 546 U.S. at 159).
First, the Court considers which aspects of the State of Missouri’s alleged conduct violated Title II and to what extent this misconduct also violated the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment commands that “all persons similarly situated should be treated alike.” Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509, 522 (internal citations omitted). As to their ADA claims, Plaintiffs allege that they have been treated differently than inmates who do not have HCV. Specifically, by denying Plaintiffs the opportunity to access medical services on an equal basis as persons who are not diagnosed with HCV, the State of Missouri denies them equal protection in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
In addition, and as already addressed, Plaintiffs plausibly allege deliberate indifference to their serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment, which is incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment. See Georgia, 546 U.S. at 157 (holding that plaintiff’s claims for money damages against the State under Title II of the ADA were largely based on conduct that independently violated the Eighth Amendment). Therefore, as in Georgia, Defendant MDOC’s
32 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 155 Filed 05/11/17 Page 32 of 33

alleged violations of Plaintiffs’ Eighth Amendment rights also state a claim for violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, actionable through Title II of the ADA. Georgia, 546 U.S. at 159 (“[I]nsofar as Title II creates a private cause of action for damages against the States for conduct that actually violates the Fourteenth Amendment, Title II validly abrogates state sovereign immunity.”). Because Plaintiffs have alleged Title II claims that are based on actual violations of the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress validly authorized their ADA claims for damages using its power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. III. Conclusion
For the previous reasons, Defendants MDOC, Adrienne Hardy, and Anne Precythe’s motion to dismiss, Doc. 103, is granted in part and denied in part. The motion is granted as to Defendant Precythe in her official capacity in Counts III, V, and VII; these claims are dismissed against Defendant Precythe in her official capacity with prejudice. The motion is also granted as to Defendant Hardy, only, in Count V. Dismissal is denied for the remainder of Plaintiffs’ claims.

Dated: May 11, 2017 Jefferson City, Missouri

/s/ Nanette K. Laughrey NANETTE K. LAUGHREY United States District Judge

33 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 155 Filed 05/11/17 Page 33 of 33

 
 • ..

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

_M_(f_u_klh__lan__ea__.m]__eG)__. F__h__s__ia__w__ka____:r__r~__, ____S(R__3e__g3__is5__teJ__r Ni__o__).__

) ) )
)

)

Plaintiff{s).

)

)

v.

)

)

C.ori1.on Mtdieal Services (c.~

(Full name)

)

~M~i=~=~a~Yt~l~O~e~p~or~t~Me~n~+~o~r~_)

) .....,c"'"""'o· =1:'-'_r._e"""._c.t:r:....li'-"'o'""'n,_.s......___...(........,~c.....:....=.a"-'D~ "'""·--"'0'----'..e....'-'l~-

Defendant(s).

Case No.-----------------

COMPLAINT UNDER THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 42 U.S.C. § 1983 I.

II. Parties to this civil action: Please give your commitment name and any another name(s) you have used while incarcerated.

1 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 1 Filed 07/14/16 Page 1 of 23

'
I'

III. Do your claims involve medical treatment? IV. Do you request a jury trial?

Yes _L Yes

No - -
No_x_

v. Do you request money damages?

Yes__x_ No

State the amount claimed?d~~err eel to the:. Co\.I rt $

I

(actual/punitive)

VI. Are the wrongs alleged in your complaint continuing to occur? Yes_K_No_

VII. Grievance procedures:

A. Does your institution have an administrative or grievance procedure? Yes_x__ No _ __

B. Have the claims in this case been presented through an administrative or grievance

procedure within the institution?

Yes~ No_ __

VIII. Previous civil actions:

to A. Have you begun other cases in state or federal courts dealing with the same facts

involved in this case?(St:E A-ftachft'\~\+

Yes X

No....LX..ll-.._

p~·'l. )

B. Have you begun otlier cases in state or federal courts relating to the conditions of or

treatment while incarcerated?

Yes X No_ __

C. If your answer is "Yes," to either of the above questions, provide the following information for each case.

2 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 1 Filed 07/14/16 Page 2 of 23

r: (t Lv sf (3) Court where filed: ll.S• D·, Court eskr Q D\st. &1 o&

-c (4) Case Number and citation: IS- L\ l~ f V-C... N t\ L

(5) Basic claim made: fxto~urs to fcwirob m.~d:a\ T~bac..to SrAok~

(6) Date ofdisposition:

CO.se. ~i i \\ pe.0 cl in ~

(7) Disposition: _ _ _ _ _ _1_1 ___11_____11_ _ _ _ _ _ __
(8) If resolved, state wh(Peethnedrinfogr:)-.:(1o'1n~'/a.:p..p.-e.La.JlA).._(_ res_ olv_ ed)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ (Plaintiffor Defendant)

For additional cases, provide the above information in the same format on a separate page. IX. Statement of claim:

A. State here as briefly as possible the facts ofyour claim. Describe how each named defendant

is involved. Include the names of other persons involved, dates and places. Describe

specifically the injuries incurred. Do not give legal arguments or cite cases or statutes. You

may do that in Item "B" below. Ifyou allege related claims, number and set forth each claim

in a separate paragraph. Use as much space as you need to state the facts. Attach extra

e. t· sheets, if necessary. T,.Tnrelated separate
t l\.S ·li!.s e.d 5• • a b·

claims should
·o e '
" es

be

raised
~ s

in

a

sepa"r~ateac\'vil c io/

action.
ear:s

B.

3
Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 1 Filed 07/14/16 Page 3 of 23

'

X. Relief: State briefly exactly what you want the court to do for you. Make no legal arguments. ,
i '

XI. Counsel:

A. If someone other than a lawyer is assisting you in preparing this case, state the person's name.--N~~------------------------------------------------

B. Have you made any effort to contact a private lawyer to determine if he or she would

represent you in this civil action?

Yes_.:x_ No___

C. Have you previously had a lawyer representing you in a civil action in this court?

Yes

No_x_

/A Ifyour answer is ''Yes," state the name and address ofthe lawyer. tJ

t j I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, an cl i
i4 o.-\ta.c.h l'f\Q.C\iS, I
Executed (signed) this th
Signature(s) ofPiaintims)
1/lfc/,qe/G. Posfawko rc, •.,#533578
Jefferso,1 crty Correct'cm.a{ Ctc
~;J..OD Nb ffl ore. V; cfi m5 R.J-
"J~~rSDn Crty) mo. GS/01- 453Cf
4
Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 1 Filed 07/14/16 Page 4 of 23

+ A+f-ac.h me. n to pq . 1
s cci· ion I I ( B) b D e.f e."'dar'\t .s : And, +he. m;ssouf''i Oe-partt'V\en+ of Corre.c.+iortS and
OY\'{ a't\ rl e.ve.r~'/ e.M ~1oy e. e of said De par+n~ e tYt -l-t1clt f5
in any anti e....ve.r·y way re.spo1""sihle. .fo('1 in c..har9e. a-B
ov~r·s~es) or i~' any et1\cl e..ve.rY re.la.tiv-t: uJo~V has any thif\9 whr.d·-sc-e.vef' to do wi+h +he hrl'tf\9 c.nJ Dr .f;tVI'\g of, Ol\cl or appointl1\~, or· M'tVaf'tJ~-m·P. awa.rdivt!j
ot'~ i 1\ GV\'1 \No.:y ) +kt. C.on +rc~ (_t OV\d Q H l'el at·e.J busi-
neSS c-t' th~ Me.dic.a.l C.O\'\tl'tt~t trl +he. mis~our;
Derar+l\tl~n+ of C.orrectiO\").S # A~ch Me.n+ t·o pq. 2.
Secfion VII. (c.) J Grit~VClnc.e. F;tecl ~
- +he f3ti e vane.e.. nuM.be.,.. is 'J""CC.C. I5 "-"- 8q&
-1.s a. Cntef1or-y 5 ( ll'\ecf.'co' ;s5L\e)J refusal +o treat
~ser-Ious Medical ne.eJ, nl1me..ly He.pQ·Ht/.s C <Hcv).
- +he .rrr.sf- stage of +he. qt\ eVaV\ c..e pro c.e ss ( t RR}) W(.n+ ut\r~s~ci'\Je.d +o by medlca.l Staff. anJ
P"ison. sta-ff&
- +ne. secol'\J sta9e. of' +-he. qri~VlAt'\ LQ.. process also
we.rtf U(\ re.s po't\ de d fo -. ( GrieVctt\c.e).
- +h~ +h;,"J nV\d f•"i\cd st·o.ge. o-f.' the. grtevar.ce pro 4 •
c..e.ss ( Ctr-ie. Vat'\ ce. Appeaf ) to dat~ [ +hlAr:sdo.y :rL.~ \y
l)lOI6)is a.lso Uhrespo!\(Je.J to at'\d +he e.nftre. ~roce. $5 is sort'\~ fift·y pfus dn.ys beyond f-h e..
5
Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 1 Filed 07/14/16 Page 5 of 23

mCAXimuW\ allowable. tifhe ~Dr res.ponse..s » wMch is 130
do.ys +-ota' 1 ~s per· +he. De par+ me.n-b; oVJh Policy no..
soP D5-3. A Offenr.le.r Grie.Vance. • Effectlve.. Dat(. march to.~oo8; Det\/e. Dormire ( signo"t·ure ct'1 f;Je),

Attac.h Me..n+ f ·o p g~ l.

Sec.+lol1 VI I I { A ) : Previous civil nct·i of\ 5 ~

Yes l h ec.au s e +hert. ; s o. pre vious fy fi I eJ 41. £1 ,S,e.
Ss lq~3, how~\1~(· , m~ Hap~ti+us i:i not +\-\e. sub-
\ j t c:.t of +·he. o+he.r .s u ~+ En v1rof\ M ~ t'\ to I T ~ hQ c.c. o

Smoke. i.s lt)s subje.d,at'\d +~\e. H<?.fat:f\5 ,'s only

a" e)(fltutatif\.!j cir-curAstar~c..e ·,n +~is action, Alo"l be-
+ne... Mct\n i ssv,e.s in i-hctT ac...tio1'1 Qr.J f.kis on-e Of'~ +wo d~ f-f'e. re.n-+ 1ss u e s,
Attac.hMe.n+ +o p9· ~ l State.m~nt of ciQi~.,cont'J.:

- l ~. e: l'le.., JruEt s fu P m.P. Se.cfio h .IX { A l :

-th~ r.ew drugs RQr -tre..at4\'\~ He.pafi+is are. re.por+ed

by +h~. Ad\e..r·a c.a\"\ Ass ocia+'lon +ot' +~e. s+\.lrly of' Liver

Dise.o. se.
Arl\~. rica.

Clr'\d 1-h~ l" ~·e. c..+ i aus Dis e.as e Sa c:.i e+ y o~
to ~a.ve. a.n e.x+re.m~\'1 ha9h ra.+e. &)f cer~._f..

c.urir's "~~at· iti s but t\'\e.v a~e. also V~(l~ ex-

p e.rvs i v e.,.

- ther~ ~as bee.i'\ of\e excuse. a·fte.r +~ ~ a-l-h€r by
co r i z.. ~ t'\ M e. ci i c.a\ 5 e r v;c e.s , bu t t o d at· e ( T u Iy
11 J.Olh1 n() +..-e.atMe..n+ has heel) .s tar-ted aV\J
+o +hQ.. he.st ~{: 1'1\'( 1-'\rlowledge.. no plaV\.S eith~r- fo
s to.r+ al"\Y Sltc. ~ +r e. a+ Me n t .

&

Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 1 Filed 07/14/16 Page 6 of 23

-1-he.. contit\tAa~ce.. o~ r~.tustV\~ to

l't'eC\t a1\A +·\\e. proc.ras+ir\a+;ot\

t rto.t le.a.J.

rJ. e. nt ar~ J.~ l'lh ~.-ate. to -t~t. worst.l'\tt\~ of

i

t\d i{f
+he

:sl.\ppl\f +·his trefit D~ s.+arti"~ -\.\,\5
y e.r,c..~. G\f\ J cat\ of\ l
dise.ase.s e.~e.cis.

-

-on we.~f\esdo.y "3"uly 6, J..Oib \
(o.itG\dM~nt itl. > ~ EX Kl~\-r-.1. Co. -\- o ~h~ ·~ t\.St it uti Ctna\ ~d e..va~c..t

S~n-+ +h~ te:tte r W\nr ke.J
notori.z.e.J 'e.th:.r / af.fo.Ja11if)
o.ffi Ct.t· , :ro.s~p~ .St~inf •

-on f"id<Ay '"S'"\,l\y 8) a.Olb rl,..e t rccc.ived +h~ response. to

th~ ~~'e..Vo.l'\ ce
a.""-t~<· t'i\a1lit\3

a p~ta l ( at approx" 10: 35 A./h. J , only 1.. d~ys -t\tle. Qbc>Vt. cite.d notori -z.ed I e.fter illforrAih~

rl\ r~ 5 aln t +\\~t +h~· ~r'itvo.n c...t.. pro c,ess hoct goLn.e we.ll

be.~onA (\·s 4-ilht.. tor ~ .f\"Q\ res~on-sQ..~ a.s p~r pollcy

SO'PD5-3.l ) sec+io·n .tti ; M.f~"d~r Grie-JaV\c...e Policy. Ahr1

-fhe.rJ,y pla.d"lj C~fl\ o5~ and 4-'h~- ff\t;. D.Q.e.. ir\ viol rAti·on

o.f. 4-h€.. Poli<.y af\d sh0lv5 +~cd- ·H,e.~ cc~Uec. ti~ly hcwe

aba1'\ctoV1 o' ~at\~1\,

O..V\y
-t·o

cle.fe.r.se. of. +heit" d~libe.ra+e ;"d!ffe.ren<f
tre.a't q .se rioa~ ~eJi c.a I n eeJ .

+ -as o-t' T'vs. \y CO ., ';kO!b re.ettrAILl\t -tor tV\'2- H<:V ( H~paf;t\s)

tS t\Ot 1ftif-icrh~. ci) a~A 4-~.e.. ~rieVo.l'\C..~ o.pf~at

a.s by

~e.r +h~ (,Mc 5.

r·eJ~ot\S~ to +h~.
pe.rsoY\nel lf- suceJy

se..e..rr5 ..thcd· ~o p\r-t¥\S I;o,. o..ny SlAC~ cJ\o ex.ist'

,....fla~ntit' cloe.s a'lf'e(. +~ta+ h~ do es infac+ aiten(f

-tne.. Chron.'tc.. Care. vis its foe'" H:C'.V o.r.d Ro..yn(Aud~ Dis-

e..as e. e..ver-y

-rh ese.. c.o n sis t ot
Si)(. mo~~hs Cn\ct a

ho.ui 'C) b looJ draw f\

~·ollo\PJ-up
1

uis:i+

by

on Gf.
0.

Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 1 Filed 07/14/16 Page 7 of 23

Ooctor· or (:\ fJv.r-se Prc(c+ione.r. \-\owe..ue.r} t\tis j 1\ no wa.y
CO~StLtu.i"~.s tre.c.ti~t\tf\+., bu.t ra+ht.r c5 Q MOAiforiY\!1
o~ -\-h~ ctiSt:.O\Se.~
- ff\~ bocly 1s +\\orolAgh\y racke..d w•th ~a.tiqv.t:, Of\A
o.~rl my uri 1\ Q.. 1S b{+~r, II ~ry tlaf' k 1 I co l'\.5 +an+ ly 5p it
lAP -tntr-k phle..~W\ , a.nc\ S\.f~·te..r- clC\i ly t roM ab cAl) M i 1\ ol
pain~ l""he.5e. up~n ;tl\rorMcftion c<~<l be.lle:-f' are. oil
-sym p-t6m5 of HC.V. lhe..se. also q[J ltave been bt""DU!Jh+
tc thE:.. a-th..~t loA o\ Me.J Ic.nl st o.f.f ~v e.r cd i-t rl\es af
-the.. C.\\roflic C.od'f. Vi'5 Hs-,
+ Att G\c ~ M e.. n +· o p'l ~ 3
S~c\:'ie,r" l'/.. ( 8>) ~ coNT., D" ~
DeShaAey Vt Winn~ha9o Cotmty D~f)t. of 5oc.ietl S~rvs.,
"r 4 s9 u~ s' Ig '\ \ I qq-"'0() ( I qgq) ; ~ st eIIe G Q*Me ~ Lf ~, u~ 5o
~~ , I 04 l I q16) (It iS but just HHtt +ht pu.blic he re -
'\,.Uii'€d fo co.r e ror fh~ pri.Son~t' 1 uJ ko C{Jt\(\ ot by re.a5ot'\ of -the. clepdv~tiot\ of hl.s li.b~r+y) care tor h\mse.lf'.>))
A"rl a IV\e..J.ical Ccr.ditiot'\ nee.~ 1\o+ b~ life -threo:ttllin_9
fo he. C~nsiJe.r-e.J se.riouSJ t:nis V. ~u+kr1 aqo F.lJ /OO/}/OIJ3 &
n.l ( ~-"h Cir. /98'1) o
Th{t Sv.preme. Court uJ rote +hc.tf- f-he. C ons+if-utiori pro<P
hibit.s offic..ials f'roM 11 intetrfiM\ally de.nylr.E{ or delo.ying.
+ uce.ss +c. me,dicc\l cnre or ·atttt. oti()(\a II y in+t r fe.r ;.,~ w i+h
th~ rto.t Me.n+ once. pre sc r i h~£t:' E. ste.lit J Y~q u.s_ of
104 ~o5.
8
Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 1 Filed 07/14/16 Page 8 of 23

frisone.r..5" who a.r-e. d~nte.r1 a.d-e.q_,t...trtte. metlic.al c:ar~ and
are. lr'\ st·nte. or ioc.ul it"\stitv~fion.S fhCty U.Se ~.2. ll.S~C.. 3;
\C\~3 +o sue. private cord··rctctors , w~stv.. A±kit1~, l/87 lLS.
~~,toea S~Ct~ ll.SO ( l'i9g ).
'fhe 5to.r.c.lnrd fDt' de.llbe.roJe it)chft.er·e.r~cQ.. il\ C~i\
E.i<j~+h t\m~I\()Y\1\Q.,'\t C\n\~ U5 proSCribe.J in far-f'AQ:J' V.,
&reor\Ct'rl, 511 u.S. 8'--5 • S37l lllf S.c.+. {q10 ( iqqL.f l1 j5 rr.et in. +h; s Cl ai W'\ n s C •n'\ ..S Q, and 1\'\ l> ~ D.. () ~ C, w e. l' e. o t1 M ml e.
+ a w ct rt- of +hl.s ~e. ~cl f"o r· re.af me.nf a+ 1-he. urc. r y
le.a:s+ by wo.v cf the Of.f~n d~r G de..vat\cE. Proce:ss+l\(tt oict:s t\n"~ly fil~~ crt f!..VQ.r'y sta~~ o,'t\J elhruAsfeJ .
He..po.+i+is C., [ ~ c.v) is c\ ear\y ~ s er i ,,vs: tnedic.a\ pro-
ble.rt1. B~nJe.r v. Re.gie..r, 3~5 F~3cl II~~ , 1131 (~+h crrQ lo04 L
The ArnE:r·ic.o.n5 With 01sabilit-:es Ac.t ( AOA) and Set·
+ion 5o4 of +he Reha brl tfqfion Ac+ a(so apply on inf'ec+-
lous d;seo.se.s and MeJ;c.al care Far pr1.sof\e..rs :" _9en-
er-nl, Ves ke.y v. Pe.nn. De.p't, of C..orrs., 51..'-l u.s. 206 , /IS s. c.f,
( lq(\tg).
42.. u.s.c.% lllO~ (") r B) coVers mqjor bodily fLAncft'on ~ Qn&, baf no+ limited to, +he liver, and Hepaf·itis i.s in fac.r o dts.ease
of +he. live.r. lhe. Revise.~ Stat·ute.s of /Ylo. chapter- 2.17.0~0.115,3J.O also
provid~s +kat adeqy.o.t'e. IY!e.dical care he jille.l'\ fo at/
presoners,
Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 1 Filed 07/14/16 Page 9 of 23

C.nse.s where HepcttiHs C are valt~ly state.J clcdrn S urtder
11 deltbe.rate 1ndt.f.fe.rence..>) cla~ese are T6hf\son v. WH9~+1
"+, 4tJ.. F. 3d 3qg (,._oo5); Mckenna. v. Wri9 .SR6 F:3d 43t(,.o04J;
Rosado V. AlgMtido, 3~q F. S~pp· lei 13~o ( ~ooL.f ),
Couits hGve de.f/neduadeq_uate.,. medical service. QS u servic.e.s ata le.ve.l reasonabl y coMm~nsul\ate with mo-
clern m~cl& eal Selene~ and of a q_ualit y acceptable within prud e.ot p~of~ssiona I sta"dard s !'Ferngod e:z. V. U•S· ~ q41 F.i.. J l'i 88) lLf'\3 ( 1q(u >;u.s. v. Oe.Colo9e.ro, 81.1 F.2d 3'},'13 c1Cf87L
The. SupreO\e Court hcul~ that a doctor providin!J m&d-
ic.o\ s~rvice.s uode.r c.ontrac.t aci'ed und e.r color of
v. stat e. Ia w. \Je.s± At k1°fl S , Lf 81 U.S. 41.. \ 5'1-51 Ji()8 s. tt.
2..2so <rq88).
T·he Suprtl-tnCll C.ourt state.dustQta prisoners enjoy a
right of actt'on agai,st private. correct,'onol providers
under 41.. u.s. c.~ l'lca3 !, Corcectiongl Services corP. v.
Mgle.sko )534 u.s. l/,11 n~5 "111. S.Ct. 515 (1-00IJ ..
Cost of treatfllent not justi.Piobl e reason to wN-h hold tre.otme.nt ~ Qnd such omissions support dQ..Iihe.rate in clif-
f e.r en c.er claims.. Kru~ e.r V. J e.no e. , 164 F. Su~, l. cJ 1330s 1334
tl.oool; RosQdo v. Alnme.icig,. 3'iq F. Supp' ld 13Lfo ('1oolfJ. ( al\e~ation +hat HIV m<tdiCQtion was ch<tnge.d solely
~or reason of cost\ wi+hout medic. a I reason, stated a de.-
10
Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 1 Filed 07/14/16 Page 10 of 23

liberate ind:f.f'erenc e c.la:m), Taylor V. Barne.1t
2.d Lf ff3, 4S q & fl.l. ( ~ooo>.

, 105 F. Supp.

Th ~ Court held +hat costs alone. should not impe.de

the. provision of ne.cessQry care, and added that tt+he.

Ninth Circ.ult e.xpec.f5 lowtLr C.ourts to protect ph;tsic.al
h.al"m (sic] to Qn individual over monetary c.osts to gov-
ernment entitle.s!., RosQdo v.. Alame.idg., 3Ltq F.Supp. 2.cl 13'1o,

t3Y8 (20ol.f),

The. de.fe.nse af' 'lunt:fie.d ilflmunity not <lVailahle. to em-

ploy C!.(l.S of a pri" at e. c.orp orotion or o+h e.r prl11ate defend ...

ants l lUchardson v. Me krliCJh.tl 51..1 u.s~3qq ,41ls117 s.C.t.(fqq7).

1.1
Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 1 Filed 07/14/16 Page 11 of 23

JNIH£ UNiTED STATES DfSIRitT COURT FOR

WESTERN D\STRitT oF MISSOURI

M:C.haeJ G. Postaw Ko ~r. 53357 8

Pial nt I.Pf

REGISTER tJOe

v. \
Cortz.on Medica\ Servlte.s(cMS)
Defeo(\ onts,
.Missouri Oe.~Clrtvne.nt of Corrections (Mo.o.o.c.}
De.f'endonts -

case no.

THE

COM PLAINT
The.s~ c\o.imS ore. a. Civ\t Ac+ion uncle.r Lfl. Uus. C •
~ \'\ S 3.An De.Fe..n clQnts ho.ve acted"under color of state -/ow.n
I. :rur·i s J i c.tl on
l.lThis Court hns jul'isdic.tion ovet' Ptotrrtiff>s tederal cto.\yns pv.rsu.a"+ to :t8 u,s.c. !5 SS 1331 and 1343 (a) (.3).
2.,.l This C.ourt hns jurisdic.+ion over Plainiiff•s s+Q+e-low
+ c\ ai "' s p ur sua nt o "'8 U.5. C, , I3 t>7 • II. VE.NU£
~.) 1h~ Weste.rf\ District of Missouri is an Qppro pri ett·e. venue. und~r 2. 8 u.s. c, 5s 13 cu ( b l be.c.au.s e. a substantia I
part of the.. e..ve"ts of' om;ssions <3ivin~ rise. +o +h~
cJa.ilnS oc.curr~d in +his distrir-io
III~ PARTl E.S
li.l Plaintift is tnic.hael Glenn Postawko :rr.. , 1f 533518
c.urre.n-tly on inmate.. at :r._ff'e.rson City Corre.ctlonal
c.e..nte.~ .

Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 1 Filed 07/14/16 Page 12 of 23

5.) De.f~nda"'ts ar~ Cori2..on Medical Se.rviees ( c.MS) '
a\so known <lS C~rcctciionc.d Medical Servic.es (eMS))
upon informa.iiol\ and bQ.lief a~so known as Horlz.on
Medic.n\ Service~ ( HMS). C.!Vla5.ls a rnedit:.nl ser·vic..~s provide.r- c.ontrac+e.d to +hE. mo. De.partmer\f of Corr~c.tioos to provide. o.H o-f +he.. medit.af c.Qre... Also,any ~nd e..very :ran e. anJ or :rohn Doe. +hat is em-
\)loy ~ by c.M. 5. that is or has b e.~n, i r\ ar\'I wo.y involve,cl in any portio() ot tny medical +rentm e,(lf Qnd +he \o.c\< of' tre.atrt\e.o+ +hot is iC\ a.r.y wa.y relafitet to -the.c.lo;ms In this Cfvil Ac.tions.ln th~ir ind:vidual
capoc.itie.s .for Jama~e.s onJ in the.ir of.Pic.ial capaci+i~s tor injunct·ive. relie-f.
6o1 The Missouri {) epart ment of Corrections a~m.r. are a\so name2.d as clcz.fe.nclants \and at\y and e.ve.ry :fane. Qf\d or ·rohn Doe. +hat is e..mployed by +he. MooD.o.c~•
and ah V aV\d eve.t~y ov e.r- s ~e.r of tY\ o. D.o. C; fh at is
in any woy r~sportsHJe. when +he .De.partm~nt of
Co~rec.tion's MQ..d,c.a\ .Servic..~s Contractor does oot pr-ovide. the. req_uir~d or adeq_uote medical c.areolo
+-h~ir individuo.\ c.apac.tties ~or damages 1 an~ in -1-heif' oftidal co.pac..i+ie.s fo~ i(ljunctive relief.
IV. F"A~TUAL ALLEGATIONS
1,)Th~re.. is o. su.bs+an+~~l dsk of se.rious harm even
pote:.nt\oJ f'G.+Giity f"rom inode.ct,uote. medlc.al trea+me..nf.
'l
Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 1 Filed 07/14/16 Page 13 of 23

+ l.l S e.v e..r al years a ~o pi air, +if..f e.st ed positive f" or
HQ..patitis C C HcvL Do not· recalt e)(ac.+ date .
<t) tni+iolly Pfair.+H'-t voluntarily si9ned o. refusal +o re-
c.etve. +te.afment -for' Hc.V as at +he. +ime I w·as
ve~y SurpriseJ by +h1s n~ws a.l'\d +here were no obvious s ym.ptort\S.
lo.) ~\aintlff was -1-he.n ~\o.c:.e.d Ol'\ Chronic. Co.r·e. for Mo"itodn~ af\& ~~ve.£\ +h~ injections +o (<eep from
c.on't·rac+in g He.~ a+itis Aan cl B•
1\.) The,rQ. is a ver-y fa.r-ge. ntlmbe.r- of HC.\1 po'Sf+ive.. pe.op~ e. i n +his ~r \ s o n , a n d up on i(\ f o ' IY\ at· .'on and be.-
lie.~ olso a very large humber +htoughou+ rl\i.ssour-i~
Prison Population.
11.) Some f"e.w years loJe.r- sy mp+orns COt\sis+e.nt with
Hc.V be.c.arn~ e.v:d~n+ an& +r-eafme..n+ was the.o
re'lu es-t·e.A by +he, tl\eA·hods prt.scr-rh~J ;n Pot:cy tC> obt o\l\ +rea{ m~~+ om c\ q t +he. C.hro(\i c_ Core
visits.
t3.) I" +he. PlQ•n.+~ft•s pre.se.nc. e Dr. Davis did catn -
p\e.t-e +he paperwork for tre.atme.ht and ~o.ve.
me. some. p"per.s exp\Qst'\lf\ ~ the se.rfousness of
thi5 +reatf\'\ei\+ and +he. cornmrt·ment· ~q_ui'l''ed .for- :t.
1~ .1'lh~ f\e.w ora.\ Jru9s f'o(~ tre.CAfi"g l-lcV· ore. re.porte.J by +he Ame.ric.at\ A~sodation for -1-be. Study o-t Live:r
D\seasQ and +h~ ln.fec.t,"ouS Oise.ase 5ocjtf-'{ of
Am~rica +o ha.ve. Or\ extt~wudy hiqh rate of curi"g
3
Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 1 Filed 07/14/16 Page 14 of 23

HepQti"\·is C. but th~y or~ also ve.r-y ex·pe.nsive.
t5. ) lh~re hQ.s be.~" onQ... ~xcuse a·fte.r the other by
C.H\.5. +o not 1-reQi- or +o c1e.\<Ay this tre.et+me.·n+ StAch
Q.S <t \ ow A•P. R•t, nu"'he.r , an 1s olat ed h\9h A. P. RJ.. nu.Th\b~") ur. d ''we oon on~y do 5 pQfie.n+s Clt o +ime;> bu-t to date. ( J""uly q 1.lOl6 o.nJ c.ourrtil\g) no ac.ft.\cd tr·e.ntment hct5 b te.r'\ stQrte.d .
l6o)\h e.re i 5 nothing to date +hat would reasonably e s~ q~
+h -4-h(lt thi5 tr~crl- ~e..nt will be .forth coming Qny tlm e
so of\ ei ef' ( toJ o.y i:s :r'uly '\ , 'l.O 16).
li.) Refusal o~'A or pro crasHnat·ion of startinq +hi5 treatMent c.an only worsen +he. diseQses effects ond ;s
text bt)ok c\eHbe.rate indifference,.
18.)\.Jedne.sda'i :ruly 6\2016 th~ Ie:tter marke.d (Q#Qchment ttl) EXI-\IBlT-1 wns sent ( notori~ecl l~tte.r to :Josep h
,,.'l5 n\{{\- 1 omstHu.t lonct\ CJ r \e. vance. o.P.fli cer ). Fric!ay ~u\y8,20I6 PlaitdiFF t-e.ce.ive,d t·he 9rievanc e app~a\ r~sponse -2 days after 5enclin~ +he. obove cited let+er ( ISo ), il\ wh~ch I it\f'ormed Mr. Saint .fhat +he grie.vanc.e p(ocess ho.cl ~one w~ll bt.yon& itls +ime f'or a final re..sponst.l as per Po,k.y .SOPD5-~.2 • sect/on III OFFE.NDE.R GRlEVAtJ c E. PoLlc.v. A{onq uH +k a lis+ a.f' other Polfc..y vio· lations dudng +he.if' hat"dltt"~t;! o-t' grie.vanc...e. no . '3""c.C.C. 15
2.1.84 -5~£ Hst U(\de.r Q(\Swer +o se.c:tion VII (c.). And
1-h<lt -\-he.s~ vio\otions p\qce.. C. tY'•• S. al'\d mo~ O,o.C. outside. of rneetin~ -the. c.ri+~rla for proc.essiog -tnis gr'ievanc,e and
'i
Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 1 Filed 07/14/16 Page 15 of 23

Shows +h~y've. coli ec+fve.ly Clhonclon Qny defens e of
+heir d~liherote. ind1f+e.rel'tQ. of ~Qi\ing -to prof>e.r-{y
tTectt a serious rrtedrcal need.
2.0o) Plcllltiff doe:s crltel\d C.hronic. Care. Vtsi+s for HCV Ql" c\ Ray nQv.ds D iso., QS e • Th e.s e cot'IS ist ot havtnlJ
b\ood drowr. ~ve.ry stx months o"d a f'oHow-up vtsif
by a doctor or nlirSe practione.r. This i.:s. no+ treot -
rnent, but ro+her, a monlfodn.3 of +he. c:Use.QS e. 2t~) My body is +h()rough\y racked wt+h .r~+lgue • Qnd my
urifl e. is o.f+en v 'J.ry dark Oft c\ ot titn e..s op p e. a rs +o
have +races of blood in If, I hDve. mild .fe..ve.r once
or +wic..e.. ''eve_rydo.y,1J I hove o..bdoMcna.l paif\ onol joint
pQif'\ .\-he.se sy¥Y\ptotn5 are. consis+f!Jnf with Hc.V > 5Qy.5 Cerrt~r for Disease. C.ootro( ah cl PreVe.nfj Of\ ( C n C) ..
11.) Plai('tiff Is a whit~ 1!'\al~'l o.9e 55. S<A.ffe..rs also
from Ro.yf\ etlAd1s Di .:s e.as e. - re. ce.i ve.s pills for' +his >ahd £sophtHje..al Re.-flu.~- re.c..e.ive.s pills f'or +hi5, and Chronic Severe TC)ha cc.o A lle..~'<3Y - rec.e.ive..> se.ve.ra( M e.d.; co.f1'on5 for +his • has o.l.so be.~" d.ia~l\o:se.d to hnve. .l~fe."+
T uberc.u\osis. f't1~cH ca( files shout J CO(\ firn'l +he :se.
13.) A nurse. d~J coil tr~Cl in oi'\Q.. d.o..y +o aite.mpf a. disc.CA5Sion for ~tlr.f \n forMal Resolu+iol\ 1\e.q_ues+ bu.+ +h~ gri e.va"c.e.
hnA o\re.ncl.y been .r;l~ a5 she. inclicafe.J +-his state.-
M€-nt of\ .t-hSL t.R.. tL -\hi.:s i:s why if\ one par+ o~ +hi-5
dai m I've. .said. '' I a UouJ +ht Ia R~ R. to ho.v e.. bQ..£..r\ Qt'\.S we..red ~' 5
Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 1 Filed 07/14/16 Page 16 of 23

yc.-t in o+he.r- po.r+..s Pve. jtatecl +he I. R. R, was nor respol\&eJ. to, tech nic<dl~ the t.R.R, c..olAld no+ hctve be.en
res-PonJ.~ +o sin(;e, +he qrie..vanc:e had alr~aJ.y be'<-n tt\e.~ as ct re~u.lt of +h~ I.R.R. be.i1\~ Jcttt Ch'\cA t;me
~o.rre.d by po\ic..y tor itS re~p6t\5~ - If\ ~air h<!.S.S
so.brnit +he.se.. tac.ts as t Kf\bW +he..W\ +o be.,
l.LI ..ll'n~ qrie.va.nc..~ itse.\F wa.s not responrle.d f.o and l
pres-um~ it- to ho.v~ be..~J\ l'-'s+ si"c.~ { was not giver'\ o. co P'l t>-\ it e..v12.n a-t+-~r I re. q_u e. s+e.d such
se.e. (Qtfo.chi\1\IUits :tl~ \ 5\b) &;X~lBITS- ~)SJG, ·rh~se
are 'l. more (>tolo.fions of' +he G-RlEVAt.LC£ PoL\c. Y.
lS.) T~ whole.. qrie..Vo.t'\cf. proceSS w~nt sol')le 5"0 plt.tS
du.y.s bt.y onJ f. he. liO dety.s a ll 6w eJ., 7nis 1s
cornp\e:~..\y be.y ond re.a SOr\ un& eX pl ~ natto\'\ •

lG.) 0 n '3""a.nuary l, '-010 PI Ctin+iff' ~poke +o Dr. P('oc.for wh 0
o.\so + s ctid \--R. ne.w ofa l d.rtA3 tre.at ~ ~n t was go i A!j 1-o
ho.r~e..n- +ha+ was s11-veto Mon+-ks 090 o.9aiY\ flo -trec.JM~n+ ytt- SEE: CAihlchMU\+ tt:&) €XHt,8!T-~ - whtt~ ~QSS
+h 't s proo" o-\ ~m~P. i-.3 m~e.ftt'\~.

Oe.fe..od.cn+'s Dl?..libera+e l "' Jiffe.re.f\ce I (A odeq_ua+e.
m~d.\ co\ C..o.re. ~

~~ .. ) Oe. fe.(\d.an+.s are re.~tASif\~ I ddcxyi f\ ~ treQtMe.nt

of HcV ) a se.r\o\lS'

ed ~ f\'\

(,Cl.\

A e.e..J.

Q hct a dis ease

ccue.reJ uf\de..r +-he. AMt.ric.uns Wit-h Oisa1ilt+;es

Act C 1\.0.A,) .

Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 1 Filed 07/14/16 Page 17 of 23

1..8.1 C.MoS. hns be.~" QuJore of +n'\:s Concl.it:or. t-or years e..vec- si"'c..e t-'ne.y +olJ Me. l wa.s posirive. of\d has
nD basTs ~or-o. p\e..adin~ tkctt +-~~'{ h~d no pr-ior
k"Dwte.J.c;e o-\. t~t:s SerioL~S Me.Jic.a( l\e..ed, lq,) I'Y\o, D,o.c~ has kttoulV\ o{ +hts Col\ditiDn at f eQst
s:+ +hro~ h +\, tir ow t\ ~ri~vanc.e.. s ys+e..l\'\ C!t'\d ill has
r\O+ orc!~ed +hts +rent M e..1\+ to ~ f1iVe.n ) 1-h~ +-h~Y
also ho..tte no bqsis f'or a p(ea.di~9 of t\o pf'iof'
know\ed.ge. ()f +his seriou.s rne.dic.ol f\ted .
+ ?.O~) """h~t. r\e.e.d tor- 4-nis +reat Y\1\e..n iS Oi\C1oiY\ (1 ctV\d
worse.l'\if\~~ ""Su\y C\1 :J..OlG.
31. ) \h~ Very hiqh c.os+ o~ +he5e clf'lAgs- is in f\o WCAf
+ Of\~ ~ o.v.l+ t>f m\n~ UI'\J I s hov.lt:k no+ be. Made o
suffe.f' as a. re.st.dt o{ cost. -rht~ cost is an ob-
n v i oU.S a V\ d I o~tca.\ r eCl S on f'or t iS d ~f\ i 0 l Df M e.d \ ca\ +re.a-t M ~n+~
3l.)Thi.s cie.la.y anJ. {.)r re.t'usa.l +o +r-ea.+ poses o.t\ Or"~in_g
.sub s+at\+ia.l rt s ~ of S e.rf t,l.\S ho.r M c
33.) \1cV ') R.CAy no.V\tk">.s Disease.) E sopha<jeal Ret/<AX 1 Chrol'\ic.
Al\e..,gie.s ( re~pil'a.tory ailMLt\t5) -ihQt Plctii\ tiff Joes
su.ffe.r troN\ are. aU covef-e.J uncl~r f-he.. A.o.A.
3~.1Th~ F~clero( A.D.A. tmd .Sec+io" 504 of t-ht. Re~o.b ­
ilit·atron Ac.+ do o.pply to pdsone.rs nnd -1-h~ Pef~nd­
Ol\ts o\so de.ny any riqhts +he.51l. Qfford. An~ Pla{ntiff is de..cre.~d pe.rMllh+ly p~4'+tal dischfed See rflo~
Wor-\<t.t"S (o'Mp. CQ'Sf.. I'\O·q5-t'g/~5~, cla:ft. II - Iii -qs •
1
Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 1 Filed 07/14/16 Page 18 of 23

This Coul"+ doe.s have. Supple.mtnfn( :furiscl.icfiol1 o\/e.r Platn -
tiff,s AM~ri c.ons With Di.s ah~lifi€. S Acf claifk,T ~ -r~tt -f o II owing is but Q. 50.M~l~ -From a lotH3 lfst of A.a.A. c.ase.s heard in
q: lA. s. Dls t ric+ Court..s : ArM.s+roY\~ v. Oo.vis \ ~15 F.3J df R5
Ar\t v. Missol.l.ri OC2..pt. of Corre.cti"n .'l.lq F.S1App.lcl q~~ C1.oo~l;
k ru ge.r· v. :re.n 1\e. , fc,.4 f, Su.pp. 'l.d 133 0 C :l. ooo); W': lliaMS v. ILL-
; t\o\ S Cept. ~ Correci·;on5, l(\q 1 WL 106 SG''t C \<l'trt) \ Masot\ v.
C.orrecfiona\ IV\e.dic.<t\ .Se.rvic.es doc.,l 55q f.3J 8SO (S~ Cir.
"l.Ooq); CClhe.l\ v. Multl\omah Coun~ys 1~1 ~.Supp, 2.J lo46(l.ooll )
G\oJ. e.tc,, etc..
Aukhorrties qove.rnil\~ +he A.Q.A, ~41 u.s.e , ~lilO' et seq_. \~ u. s. C, % ll.lo?.. ( 1") ( A) ; 41. tl. S, c. ~ Ill 3 l. ; 2.'t Ur S. C.. <i5 7 q4 ; S e c+ion 5o 4 R.eh abHitQ+iOf\ Ac.+~ an r,l e..t c ~

V. EXHAUSTION
35.1 Plainti-ff has e.'lchn~.tsted all a.va~l able aJM !ni s.fraf1\/e reiYIe.Ai~s regar-Ai~q -\-h~ i55V.e.s cle.scrihe..J an +his con1-
pln:nt., a1\A pV\rsuo.n-t +o +\-.~ Mo. Q. O.C.?s. oFF£ ND£R.
GR\£VAtJC.E: Pol-IC.Y soPo5·3-'l. tAttac.hMrt-nt~l} fXHIBIT-:l.
is <.t cC'py o-t -4-he.. lt\~orMal Res~lu.-tio" R.eq_uerl ar1d +he

Gri(.\lal\c.e Appe.a\. "fhe. qdevcu\C.e.. wa-:s re.ff.AsecJ. -1-o h!

ana Supp\teA

ts pre 5U.M eJ lost by +he. Prtson. HowetJ~f',

+he.. +ext. of f-hCL C1t-ie..vanc:.e.. i 5 vt.r-y similar t-o tit~ +e:~t

of +he. n pp e.a.l.,

VI. C.AUSE..S OF ACTION

3b. l Plalntif.f supforts +h€... +ollowin~ c\QiMj by re.fetenc.e to }he, pt-eviou5 paraqraph5 of thiS complain+-

8

Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 1 Filed 07/14/16 Page 19 of 23

coutJr otJE
'31.1 The. cte.libe.ra+e.. indifferenc.e. of au Oe.f~ndant.s of not
tre.a.tit'\~ ct se.ri ous ~e.dic.nl f\ e.eJ CHepcttitis C),
COUtJT TWo 38.) lhe.. C.Ol\tin~eA dtli~e.ro.te.. ',(\di{'f~fQJ\c..e. of all Defe.nd-
+ o."ts o-f a llouJ il\ q th~ Me.d l ca.l 1\ e..e..d o l'e..t'i\ ail\ ut\ -
+re.o.te.! ot\,l +o worse.n , poss-rbly ~ve.n bec.oMe. -t'afaL
couNT TI-/R££
3~~, \'he. d.e.l:bera+e i odiffer nee o-f a II De-f'e"J an.+s of
Ae..priv i r\~ +n Q. Pla~ rd-i u~ of Qll nr nf\y ri ~ kt3 qffo{'cleJ
"'""' ur\~€.-t' +he. Ame.r-ic.a1\S Wi4-h Oi~a..bilities Act
ttl\! Sec.+io·f\ 5 o4 of -rhe. R~~ o..b il ifa+ ion Act.
VII. FRAV£R FoR RE:LI EF
W'HE.REFORE., Plaintiff respectfully pro.ys +hrt +hi.s Cou.r+:
1.) De.c-1a.re +ho.t +h e. o.c.t3 at\cl omis5ion.5 J.e.sc.ri b~J he.rei r\
v\o\atecl +he. P\a.\rJ·iff.,.5 rish.ts unde.r i-h~ u.s. (oo':>+i+util:\n
a" A lnws o"' +he. lA nit·er.l st at~s. 1.~) £ nte.r pre. lim in dry and permanent fnjun~i ions ordering the.
Oefe.nc\ants to imrt\ e.diately be.qin tre.Q+Me.n+ o-F +he.. Plaintif-t',.s "e...pa+i+is ~. PurSUClo+ to Fe!. R.Civ.P. 65 (o) ·
3.1 E:ote.t prefirn~nary Ohd perrf\one.l\t injuf\c..frons orde..rin~ t/eP.
+o iostoU an& monitor, contr-ol rV\t.ctsure.s +hat w1ll pre.ven+
chdc~y and or de..n\al at tre.Clt M~n+· .for i t\fe.c.+ ious diseases,
by +ll~ D'l.-t~llc! Ol'\ts ·,n -4--h~ t uture..
4.~ Plairr\-if-t re_:spe.dfully re.q_<Ae.~t:s +his Cov..r+ ac.+ proMp·Hy
anA swi-ftly on -4-h~ it\junc.i-iVQ. re.lie.f's as they a.r<!. Molter·.s of ?\a.in+ltf',s wo~enin 9 he.nl+h.
~
Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 1 Filed 07/14/16 Page 20 of 23

s.)Ente..r jt.t&ge.rne.n+ in fQvor o-f Plaint!++ f'or norllinoll com -
pensatory l aocl punitive. damages ,as allowe.d by taw,a9ains+
e.o.c.h De.fendant·,Jaintly and severally.
6.)0rde.r such additional relie.f as this Court may dee.m just and proper.
Pursuan+ +o 2.B u.s. c.% 11~ 6. l dec.\ are and \1 (;!.ti fy uo d er
pe.1\o.\+y of pe..tju('y under -t-hQ.. laws of the Unlte.J State.s of America thn+ +he. f'ore.C,!o1f\~ is true. an A corre.ct as I
CQY\ po S :S j bl}' ma k(t it to b e. • E X e cut ~ d ol\ "J;jI V I! ' t M;oi... t\~
lrwl y l c.ttf...- )2.0/6 •
1ft~.WY2-
m;chae.l G·. Posta.wl<o :rr.
:#r~5ff3e.3C'5So1l\8Ci+y Cor('e.c.+tonal Ctr.
~l.OO No More. Vrc..+im.s Rei..
StttEU':s·on Citv '\ ffio~C5/0{ .... 453q
· •::..·•~~•~.'..P'~'I:Y!•JA•!'!~yf't.'w~•~;*.~,•
... :" '~,,~'.w. t.·'..~ t..'..~.~AI•:: • t.
10
Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 1 Filed 07/14/16 Page 21 of 23

..Certlfjcat~ of S~rvic e..
f he.re.by cer t i.f'y that on :ru Iy I~ th " l o16

1 d;J

submit o. co-py o-f the f'orqoin~ 37 pa_ge.s wi+h +h-e

!\brad on of -thfs pri:sol\ +o be +tied with +ne. C le..r· k. of
+he Court usi{\<j the. C/V\ /EC.f ele.cfroni c. no+i.fi(a+ion
sy5te..m , ar~d .:s~n+ copie.:s o{' the fotgoii\g by wCAy of

+he prison's marl box .for- u.s. Posta{ Se.I"Vi ce.. to:

Corjzon, misSOl\ri R~~ionnl 0-t.fice.

·~101.. W. TrumaA • 5utte. /04
:r e f'f' ersol' City, n'\ o4 G5 I0 9

Ql'\d

rY\i5souri De.partl'l\\tf\t ot Corr~cti ons

2.1:Aq PI az.a Or..

P.o. Bo)( 2 3 ~
::ref.f~r-soi\ Cit-y, Mo. (;51 Ol.

C Ce.ni-t-Q l 0 f fi ce.)

1J!Mil!i 1/$~
* I mfchae.l (}-, Posfawkoi.
.:r~fs'f3!3er5so/8n City Co rre.c+to"a Ctr, ~:2.00 No More. Vi c+1 m.s Rd. :Je.t-fe..t·Son Cit·y, ll\o. G5J0{-~53~

Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 1 Filed 07/14/16 Page 22 of 23

•

,:;·1. CGUft"i

:,.,_. MO '"L~ \if'

Mil I I'..J.

\.l

• I I.

.-,.
:_.,
(
Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 1 Filed 07/14/16 Page 23 of 23

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
CENTRAL DIVISION

Michael G. Postawko, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. Missouri Department of Corrections, et al.
Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) No. ) ) ) ) )

16-CV-4219-NKL-P

MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Come now Plaintiffs, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, and move this

Court for certification of a Plaintiff Class on the claims for prospective relief set forth in Counts I

and II of the second amended complaint, ECF No. 30. In support, they state:

1. In this action, Plaintiffs challenge the custom or policy Defendants Missouri

Department of Corrections (MDOC), Anne L. Precythe (in her official capacity), and

Corizon to refused medical treatment that is consistent with current and prevailing

medical standards in a manner that is deliberately indifferent to Plaintiffs’ serious

medical needs. In particular, while a cure is available for Hepatitis C viral infection in

the form of direct-acting antiviral drugs, these Defendants withhold that treatment

from inmates who should receive it—leaving them to develop serious illnesses,

spread Hepatitis C viral infections to other inmates, and, in some cases, die.

2. For the reasons set forth in the accompanying suggestions, Plaintiffs meet the

numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy requirements to justify a Class of

all individuals, like them, who are now, or will in the future be, in the custody of the

Missouri Department of Correction and have been, or will be, diagnosed with HCV

1 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 77 Filed 01/24/17 Page 1 of 4

but are not provided treatment with DAA drugs. Moreover, the proposed Plaintiff Class also meets the requirements of Rule 23(b). WHEREFORE Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court certify a Plaintiff Class of all those individuals in the custody of MDOC, now or in the future, who have been, or will be, diagnosed with HCV but who are not provided treatment with DAA drugs; appoint Michael Postawko, Christopher Baker, and Michael Jamerson as class representatives; and appoint Mae C. Quinn, Amy E. Breihan, Gillian R. Wilcox, Jessie Steffan, and Anthony E. Rothert as class counsel.
Respectfully submitted, /s/ Anthony E. Rothert Anthony E. Rothert, #44827 Jessie Steffan, #64861 American Civil Liberties Union
of Missouri Foundation 454 Whittier Street St. Louis, Missouri 63108 Phone: 314/652-3114 Fax: 314/652-3112 trothert@aclu-mo.org jsteffan@aclu-mo.org
2 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 77 Filed 01/24/17 Page 2 of 4

Gillian R. Wilcox, #61278 American Civil Liberties Union
of Missouri Foundation 406 West 34th Street, Suite 420 Kansas City, Missouri 64111 Phone: (816) 470-9938 Facsimile: (314) 652-3112 gwilcox@alcu-mo.org Mae C. Quinn, #61584 Amy E. Breihan, #65499 MACARTHUR JUSTICE CENTER AT ST. LOUIS 3115 South Grand Blvd., Suite 300 St. Louis, MO 63118 Phone: (314) 254-8540 Fax: (314) 254-8547 mae.quinn@macarthurjustice.org amy.breihan@macarthurjustice.org
3 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 77 Filed 01/24/17 Page 3 of 4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing was filed electronically and served by operation of the CM/ECF system on all counsel of record on January 24, 2017.
/s/ Anthony E. Rothert
4 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 77 Filed 01/24/17 Page 4 of 4

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI CENTRAL DIVISION

MICHAEL POSTAWKO, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants.

) ) ) ) Case No. 16-04219-CV-C- NKL ) ) ) ) ) )

MDOC DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLANT

Plaintiffs Michael Postawko, Christopher Baker and Michael Jamerson bring a putative

class action on behalf of themselves and other inmates within the Missouri Department of

Corrections (“MDOC”) infected with the Hepatitis C virus (“HCV”). Plaintiffs claim that they

and all other inmates infected with HCV are entitled, under the Eighth Amendment and the

Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), to receive a novel course of drugs as treatment.

However, Plaintiffs’ claims against MDOC, MDOC Director Anne L. Precythe, and MDOC

employee Adrienne Hardy (collectively the “MDOC Defendants”) should be dismissed for the

following reasons:

1. Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim under the Eighth Amendment against the

MDOC Defendants because Plaintiffs have no constitutional right to obtain the particular course

of treatment they demand.

2. Plaintiffs’ Eighth Amendment claims for damages against MDOC Director

Precythe are not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

3. Plaintiff Baker fails to state a claim against Defendant Hardy for violation of the

Eighth Amendment, and any such claim is barred by qualified immunity.

Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 103 Filed 02/21/17 Page 1 of 3

4. Plaintiffs fail to state a claim under the ADA because an ADA claim cannot be based on medical treatment decisions.
5. Plaintiffs’ ADA claims alleged against MDOC in Counts IV, VI, and VIII are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.
6. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.0(a), the MDOC Defendants have filed herewith suggestions in support of this motion, setting forth the authorities and arguments relied upon.
WHEREFORE, for all the foregoing reasons and for the reasons set forth in the suggestions filed herewith, the MDOC Defendants respectfully request the Court to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims against them, and grant the MDOC Defendants any such other and further relief the Court deems fair and appropriate.
Respectfully submitted, JOSHUA D. HAWLEY Attorney General /s/ H. Anthony Relys H. Anthony Relys, #63190 Assistant Attorney General Post Office Box 861 St. Louis, MO 63188 Tel: (314) 340-7861 Fax: (314) 340-7029 E-mail: Tony.Relys@ago.mo.gov Attorneys for the Missouri Department of Corrections, Anne L. Precythe, and Adrienne Hardy
2 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 103 Filed 02/21/17 Page 2 of 3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on February 21, 2017, the foregoing was served via the Court’s electronic filing system upon all counsel of record.
/s/ H. Anthony Relys H. Anthony Relys Assistant Attorney General
Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 103 Filed 02/21/17 Page 3 of 3

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI CENTRAL DIVISION

MICHAEL POSTAWKO, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants.

) ) ) ) Case No. 16-04219-CV-C- NKL ) ) ) ) ) )

MDOC DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLANT
Defendants Missouri Department of Corrections and Ann L. Precythe1 (“MDOC”), hereby answer Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint as follows:
INTRODUCTION 1. MDOC denies the allegations in Paragraph 1. 2. Paragraph 2 is a recitation of Plaintiffs’ causes of action, to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, MDOC denies that Plaintiffs state causes of action upon which they can prevail and deny any factual allegations in Paragraph 2. 3. MDOC denies the allegations in Paragraph 3.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4. The allegations in this paragraph constitute a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, MDOC denies the allegations in Paragraph 4.

1 Adrienne Hardy and Anne L. Precythe (substituted for George Lombardi) were dismissed pursuant to the Court’s Order of May 11, 2017. Inasmuch as Anne L. Precythe remains a defendant in Count I, her answer to the Second Amended Complaint is coextensive with the answer of the Missouri Department of Corrections.
Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 162 Filed 05/25/17 Page 1 of 18

5. The allegations in this paragraph constitute a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, MDOC denies the allegations in Paragraph 5.
6. MDOC admits that Michael Postawko is an adult individual and is currently incarcerated at the Jefferson City Correctional Center in Jefferson City, Missouri. MDOC denies that Mr. Postawko states any cognizable claim for relief, deny that Mr. Postawko has set forth sufficient allegations to meet his burden for certification of a class, and deny any remaining allegations in Paragraph 6.
7. MDOC admits that Christopher Baker is an adult individual and is currently incarcerated at a State of Missouri correctional center. According to current MDOC records, Mr. Baker is incarcerated at Western Reception and Diagnostic Center in St. Joseph, Missouri. MDOC denies that Mr. Baker states any cognizable claim for relief, deny that Mr. Baker has set forth sufficient allegations to meet his burden for certification of a class, and deny any remaining allegations in Paragraph 7.
8. MDOC admits that Michael Jamerson is an adult individual and is currently incarcerated at Missouri Eastern Correctional Center in Pacific, Missouri. MDOC denies that Mr. Jamerson states any cognizable claim for relief, deny that Mr. Jamerson has set forth sufficient allegations to meet his burden for certification of a class, and deny any remaining allegations in Paragraph 8.
9. The allegations in this paragraph constitute a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, MDOC denies the allegations in Paragraph 9.
10. MDOC admits that around the time of the filing of the Second Amended Complaint George Lombardi was the Director of MDOC. Anne Precythe is the current Director of MDOC and was substituted in for Lombardi on January 23, 2017. Lombardi was sued in
2 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 162 Filed 05/25/17 Page 2 of 18

official capacity only, and Ms. Precythe is sued in her official capacity only. The remaining statements in Paragraph 10 constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, MDOC denies and all remaining allegations in Paragraph 10.
11. Admitted. 12. MDOC lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 12, and therefore denies them. 13. MDOC lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 13, and therefore denies them. 14. MDOC lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 14, and therefore denies them. 15. MDOC lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 15, and therefore denies them. 16. MDOC lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 16, and therefore denies them. 17. MDOC lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 17, and therefore denies them. 18. MDOC lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 18, and therefore denies them. 19. MDOC lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 19, and therefore denies them. 20. MDOC lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 20, and therefore denies them.
3 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 162 Filed 05/25/17 Page 3 of 18

21. MDOC lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 21, and therefore denies them.
22. MDOC lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 22, and therefore denies them.
23. MDOC lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 23, and therefore denies them.
24. MDOC lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 24, and therefore denies them.
25. MDOC lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 25, and therefore denies them.
26. MDOC lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 26, and therefore denies them.
27. MDOC admits that Defendant Adrienne Hardy is a registered nurse. MDOC denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 27.
28. MDOC lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 28, and therefore denies them.
29. MDOC lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 29, and therefore denies them.
30. MDOC lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 30, and therefore denies them.
31. MDOC lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 31, and therefore denies them.
4 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 162 Filed 05/25/17 Page 4 of 18

32. MDOC lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 32, and therefore denies them.
33. The allegations in this paragraph constitute a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, MDOC denies the allegations in Paragraph 33.
FACTS Chronic Hepatitis C Virus
34. MDOC lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 34, and therefore denies them.
35. MDOC lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 35, and therefore denies them.
36. MDOC lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 36, and therefore denies them.
37. MDOC lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 37, and therefore denies them.
38. MDOC lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 38, and therefore denies them.
39. MDOC lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 39, and therefore denies them.
40. MDOC lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 40, and therefore denies them.
41. MDOC lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 41, and therefore denies them.
5 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 162 Filed 05/25/17 Page 5 of 18

42. MDOC lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 42, and therefore denies them.
43. MDOC lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 43, and therefore denies them.
44. MDOC lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 44, and therefore denies them.
45. MDOC lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 45, and therefore denies them.
46. MDOC lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 46, and therefore denies them.
47. MDOC lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 47, and therefore denies them.
48. MDOC lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 48, and therefore denies them.
49. MDOC lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 49, and therefore denies them.
50. MDOC lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 50, and therefore denies them.
51. MDOC lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 51, and therefore denies them.
52. MDOC lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 52, and therefore denies them.
6 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 162 Filed 05/25/17 Page 6 of 18

53. MDOC lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 53, and therefore denies them.
54. MDOC lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 54, and therefore denies them.
55. MDOC lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 55, and therefore denies them.
56. MDOC lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 56, and therefore denies them.
57. MDOC lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 57, and therefore denies them.
58. MDOC lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 58, and therefore denies them.
59. MDOC lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 59, and therefore denies them.
60. MDOC lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 60, and therefore denies them.
61. MDOC lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 61, and therefore denies them.
62. MDOC lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 62, and therefore denies them.
63. MDOC lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 63, and therefore denies them.
7 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 162 Filed 05/25/17 Page 7 of 18

64. MDOC lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 64, and therefore denies them.
65. MDOC lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 65, including subparagraphs (a) through (h) and therefore denies them.
66. MDOC lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 66, and therefore denies them.
67. MDOC denies the allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 67. With regard to the allegations in the second sentence of Paragraph 67, MDOC is without sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the allegations and therefore denies them.
68. MDOC denies the allegations in Paragraph 68. 69. MDOC lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 69, and therefore denies them. 70. MDOC lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 70, and therefore denies them. 71. MDOC lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 71, and therefore denies them. 72. MDOC lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 72, and therefore denies them. 73. MDOC lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 73, and therefore denies them. 74. MDOC lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 74, and therefore denies them.
8 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 162 Filed 05/25/17 Page 8 of 18

75. MDOC lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 75, and therefore denies them. Methods for Determining Progression of Fibrosis/Cirrhosis
76. MDOC lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 76, and therefore denies them.
77. MDOC lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 77, and therefore denies them.
78. MDOC lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 78, and therefore denies them.
79. MDOC lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 79, and therefore denies them.
80. MDOC lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 80, including subparts (a)-(d), and therefore denies them.
81. MDOC lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 81, and therefore denies them.
82. MDOC lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 82, and therefore denies them.
83. MDOC lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 83, and therefore denies them.
84. MDOC lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 84, and therefore denies them.
85. MDOC lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 85, and therefore denies them.
9 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 162 Filed 05/25/17 Page 9 of 18

86. MDOC lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 86, and therefore denies them.
87. MDOC lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 87, and therefore denies them. HCV Treatment Policy of Defendants Lombardi, MDOC, and Corizon
88. MDOC denies the allegations in Paragraph 88. 89. MDOC denies the allegations in Paragraph 89. 90. MDOC denies the allegations in Paragraph 90. 91. MDOC denies the allegations in Paragraph 91. 92. MDOC denies the allegations in Paragraph 92. 93. MDOC denies the allegations in Paragraph 93. 94. MDOC denies the allegations in Paragraph 94. 95. MDOC denies the allegations in Paragraph 95. 96. MDOC denies the allegations in Paragraph 96. 97. MDOC denies the allegations in Paragraph 97. 98. MDOC denies the allegations in Paragraph 98. 99. MDOC denies the allegations in Paragraph 99. 100. MDOC lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 100, and therefore denies them. 101. MDOC lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 101, and therefore denies them. 102. MDOC lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 102, and therefore denies them.
10 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 162 Filed 05/25/17 Page 10 of 18

103. MDOC denies the allegations in Paragraph 103. 104. MDOC lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 100, and therefore denies them. 105. MDOC lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 102, and therefore denies them. 106. MDOC lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 102, and therefore denies them. Plaintiff Christopher Baker 107. MDOC lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 107, and therefore denies them. 108. MDOC lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 108, and therefore denies them. 109. MDOC lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 109, and therefore denies them. 110. MDOC lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 110, and therefore denies them. 111. MDOC lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 111, and therefore denies them. 112. MDOC lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 112, and therefore denies them. 113. MDOC denies the allegations in Paragraph 113. 114. MDOC lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 114, and therefore denies them.
11 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 162 Filed 05/25/17 Page 11 of 18

115. MDOC lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 115, and therefore denies them.
116. MDOC admits that in July, Baker was transferred from JCCC to Algoa Correctional Center. MDOC lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations of Paragraph 116, and therefore denies them.
117. MDOC lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 117, and therefore denies them.
118. To the extent Paragraph 118 calls for a legal conclusion, no response is required. To the extent a response is required, MDOC denies the allegations in Paragraph 118. Plaintiff Michael Jamerson
119. MDOC lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 119, and therefore denies them.
120. MDOC lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 120, and therefore denies them.
121. MDOC lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 121, and therefore denies them.
122. MDOC lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 122, and therefore denies them.
123. MDOC denies the allegations in Paragraph 123. 124. MDOC lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 124, and therefore denies them. 125. MDOC denies the allegatlack knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 125, and therefore denies them.
12 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 162 Filed 05/25/17 Page 12 of 18

126. To the extent Paragraph 126 calls for a legal conclusion, no response is required. To the extent a response is required, MDOC denies the allegations in Paragraph 126.
Class Action Allegations 127. MDOC admits that Plaintiffs purport to bring a class action under Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(2), but deny that a class should be certified under Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(2). MDOC denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 127. 128. Paragraph 128 contains Plaintiffs’ recitation of the proposed class definition, and contains no facts to which a response is required. To the extent a response is required, MDOC denies that certification of a class is proper and deny any remaining allegations in Paragraph 128. 129. MDOC denies the allegations in Paragraph 129. 130. MDOC denies the allegations in Paragraph 130. 131. MDOC denies the allegations in Paragraph 131, including each subparagraph AC. 132. MDOC denies the allegations in Paragraph 132. 133. MDOC denies the allegations in Paragraph 133. 134. MDOC denies the allegations in Paragraph 134.
Count I 135. MDOC incorporates all preceding paragraphs of their Answer as if fully set forth herein. 136. MDOC denies the allegations in Paragraph 136. WHEREFORE, MDOC requests that this Court dismiss Count I with prejudice, award MDOC its costs and attorneys’ fees, and order such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.
13 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 162 Filed 05/25/17 Page 13 of 18

Count II 137. MDOC incorporates Paragraphs 1-136 of their Answer as if fully set forth herein. 138. Paragraph 138 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, MDOC denies that Plaintiffs have stated a claim under the ADA and deny and remaining allegations in Paragraph 138. 139. Paragraph 139 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, MDOC denies that Plaintiffs have stated a claim under the ADA and deny and remaining allegations in Paragraph 139. 140. Paragraph 140 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, MDOC denies that Plaintiffs have stated a claim under the ADA and deny and remaining allegations in Paragraph 140. 141. MDOC denies the allegations in Paragraph 141. 142. MDOC denies the allegations in Paragraph 142. 143. MDOC denies the allegations in Paragraph 143. 144. MDOC denies the allegations in Paragraph 144. WHEREFORE, MDOC requests that this Court dismiss Count II with prejudice, award MDOC its costs and attorneys’ fees, and order such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.
Count III 145. MDOC incorporates Paragraphs 1-106 and 135-136 of their Answer as if fully set forth herein. 146. MDOC denies the allegations in Paragraph 146. 147. MDOC denies the allegations in Paragraph 147.
14 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 162 Filed 05/25/17 Page 14 of 18

148. MDOC denies the allegations in Paragraph 148. 149. MDOC denies the allegations in Paragraph 149. 150. MDOC denies the allegations in Paragraph 150. 151. MDOC denies the allegations in Paragraph 151. WHEREFORE, MDOC requests that this Court dismiss Count III with prejudice, award MDOC its costs and attorneys’ fees, and order such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.
Count IV 152. MDOC incorporates Paragraphs 1-106 and 135-151 of their Answer as if fully set forth herein. WHEREFORE, MDOC requests that this Court dismiss Count IV with prejudice, award MDOC its costs and attorneys’ fees, and order such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.
Count V 153. MDOC incorporates Paragraphs 1-99, 107-118, and 135-136 of their Answer as if fully set forth herein. 154. MDOC denies the allegations in Paragraph 154. 155. MDOC denies the allegations in Paragraph 155. 156. MDOC denies the allegations in Paragraph 156. 157. MDOC denies the allegations in Paragraph 157. 158. MDOC denies the allegations in Paragraph 158. 159. MDOC denies the allegations in Paragraph 159.
15 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 162 Filed 05/25/17 Page 15 of 18

WHEREFORE, MDOC requests that this Court dismiss Count V with prejudice, award MDOC its costs and attorneys’ fees, and order such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.
Count VI 160. MDOC incorporates Paragraphs 1-99, 107-118, 135-144 and 153-159 of their Answer as if fully set forth herein. WHEREFORE, MDOC requests that this Court dismiss Count VI with prejudice, award MDOC its costs and attorneys’ fees, and order such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.
Count VII 161. MDOC incorporates Paragraphs 1-99, 119-126, and 135-136 of their Answer as if fully set forth herein. 162. MDOC denies the allegations in Paragraph 162. 163. MDOC denies the allegations in Paragraph 163. 164. MDOC denies the allegations in Paragraph 165. 165. MDOC denies the allegations in Paragraph 165. 166. MDOC denies the allegations in Paragraph 166. 167. MDOC denies the allegations in Paragraph 167. WHEREFORE, MDOC requests that this Court dismiss Count VII with prejudice, award MDOC its costs and attorneys’ fees, and order such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.
Count VIII
16 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 162 Filed 05/25/17 Page 16 of 18

168. MDOC incorporates Paragraphs 1-99, 119-126, 135-144 and 161-67 of their Answer as if fully set forth herein.
WHEREFORE, MDOC requests that this Court dismiss Count VIII with prejudice, award MDOC its costs and attorneys’ fees, and order such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.
Jury Trial Demand MDOC respectfully demands a jury trial on any claims and issues so triable.
Affirmative Defenses 1. Plaintiffs’ claims in their Second Amended Complaint fail, because Plaintiffs fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) and Rule 12(c). 2. Plaintiffs’ claims against MDOC is barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity. 3. To the extent Plaintiffs purport to assert claims against MDOC employees in their individual capacities, such claims are barred by qualified immunity. Qualified immunity is applicable, because no Plaintiff has alleged or can prove that his clearly established rights were violated. 4. Plaintiffs’ claims fail, because Plaintiffs have failed to exhaust their administrative remedies, including the grievance procedure available to him at the Missouri Department of Corrections. 5. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. 6. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred in whole or in part because Plaintiffs’ own negligence contributed to the injuries alleged in the Second Amended Complaint. 7. Plaintiffs’ ADA claims fail, because Defendants had a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for their actions.
17 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 162 Filed 05/25/17 Page 17 of 18

8. To the extent Plaintiffs make any claim for punitive damages, such damages are not available in this case.
9. MDOC denies that class certification for Plaintiffs’ proposed class is proper and assert that Plaintiffs’ proposed class fails to meet the requirements set forth in Rule 23.
10. MDOC reserves any and all rights to assert additional affirmative defenses as they become known during the course of the litigation.
Respectfully submitted, JOSHUA D. HAWLEY, Attorney General
/s/ Michael D. Quinlan Michael D. Quinlan, #35314 Assistant Attorney General Post Office Box 861 St. Louis, MO 63188 Tel: (314) 340-7861 Fax: (314) 340-7029 E-mail: Michael.Quinlan@ago.mo.gov Attorneys for the Missouri Department of Corrections
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on May 25, 2017, the foregoing was served via the Court’s electronic filing system upon all counsel of record.
/s/ Michael D.Quinlan Michael D. Quinlan Assistant Attorney General
18 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 162 Filed 05/25/17 Page 18 of 18

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI CENTRAL DIVISION

MICHAEL POSTAWKO, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 2:16-cv-04219-NKL

)

)

)

)

)

ORDER

Plaintiffs Michael Postawko, Christopher Baker, and Michael Jamerson move for class

certification. [Doc. 77]. For the following reasons, the motion is granted.

I. Background

Named Plaintiffs Michael Postawko, Christopher Baker, and Michael Jamerson are

incarcerated in the Missouri Department of Corrections (“MDOC”). [Doc. 30, p. 3]. They filed

this putative class action for claims arising out of what they allege to be inadequate medical care

for their chronic Hepatitis C (“HCV”) viral infections. [Id.]. They bring claims under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 and the Eighth Amendment, as well as Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act

(ADA). [Id. at p. 4-9]. They named numerous defendants, including their prison treating

physicians and nurses; prison officials who reviewed their grievances and treatment requests; the

MDOC; and Corizon, LLC, the healthcare provider for all MDOC facilities. [Id.].

A. Hepatitis C

HCV is a viral infection that attacks the liver and causes its inflammation, referred to as

hepatitis. [Id. at p. 9]. Hepatitis caused by HCV can significantly impair liver function and

Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 174 Filed 07/26/17 Page 1 of 35

damage its crucial role in digesting nutrients, filtering toxins from the blood, and preventing disease. [Id.]. In turn, liver impairment can cause severe pain, fatigue, muscle wasting, difficulty or pain with urination, an increased risk of heart attacks, and other side effects. [Id.].
HCV can be either acute or chronic. [Id.]. Some people who are exposed to infected blood develop an acute infection that their body resolves without treatment, while others who develop acute HCV go on to develop chronic HCV. [Id. at p. 10]. People with chronic HCV develop fibrosis of the liver, which is a process by which healthy liver tissue is replaced with scarring. [Id.]. Because scar tissue cannot perform the jobs of normal liver cells, fibrosis reduces liver function. [Id.].
When scar tissue begins to take over most of the liver, this extensive fibrosis is termed cirrhosis. [Id.]. Cirrhosis is irreversible, and it often causes additional painful complications, including arthritic pain throughout the body, kidney disease, jaundice, fluid retention with edema, internal bleeding, easy bruising, abdominal ascites, mental confusion, lymph disorders, widespread itching, and even more extreme fatigue. [Id.]. Because it can be difficult to determine exactly when significant hepatitis fibrosis becomes cirrhosis, most of these complications can occur before cirrhosis. [Id.]. Further, if these complications go untreated, some can cause death. [Id.]. At least half of all persons diagnosed with chronic HCV will develop cirrhosis or liver cancer, and between 70 and 90 percent will develop chronic liver disease. [Id.]. Each day without treatment increases a person’s likelihood of developing chronic liver disease, fibrosis, cirrhosis, liver cancer, and death from liver failure. [Id.].
At least 10 to 15 percent of the population under the supervision, care, and custody of the MDOC are infected with HCV. [Id. at p. 11]. As of January 2015, the MDOC reported that it
2 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 174 Filed 07/26/17 Page 2 of 35

was treating 0.11 percent of HCV-positive inmates under its supervision, or 5 inmates out of 4,736 inmates with known HCV infections. [Id.].
B. Standard of Care for HCV For many years, there was no effective and safe treatment for HCV. [Id.]. The standard treatment, which included the use of interferon and ribavirin medications, failed to cure most patients and was associated with adverse side effects, including psychiatric and autoimmune disorders. [Id. at p. 12]. However, over the past four years, the Federal Drug Administration (“FDA”) has approved eight new medications, called direct-acting antiviral drugs (“DAA drugs”), which work faster, cause fewer side effects, and are more effective. [Id.]. Over 90 percent of patients treated with a DAA drug are cured. [Id. at p. 14]. The CDC encourages health professionals to follow the evidence-based standard of care developed by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (“IDSA”) and the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (“AASLD”), which constitutes the medical standard of care. [Id.]. On July 6, 2016, these organizations updated the standard of care to recommend treating all persons with chronic HCV with DAA drugs. [Id. at p. 15]. Benefits of treatment include an immediate decrease in liver inflammation, reduction in the progression of liver fibrosis and improvement in cirrhosis, a 70 percent reduction in the risk of liver cancer, and a 90 percent reduction in the risk of liver-related mortality. [Id.]. Studies show that a delay in DAA drug treatment for HCV decreases the benefits associated with cure. [Id.]. C. Methods for Determining Progression of Fibrosis/Cirrhosis Health care providers use several methods to determine the advancement of an HCVpositive person’s cirrhosis or fibrosis, including liver biopsy and APRI (AST to Platelet Ratio Index). [Id. at p. 16]. APRI is the use of a blood sample to determine the ratio of a certain
3 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 174 Filed 07/26/17 Page 3 of 35

enzyme in the blood to the number of platelets. [Id.]. When an APRI score is very high, it has good diagnostic utility in predicting severe fibrosis or cirrhosis, but low and mid-range scores miss many people who have significant fibrosis or cirrhosis. [Id.]. For example, in more than 90 percent of cases, an APRI score of at least 2.0 indicates that a person has cirrhosis, but more than half of all people with cirrhosis will not have an APRI score of at least 2.0. [Id. at 17].
If a person has already been diagnosed with cirrhosis through some other means, such as liver biopsy, an APRI score is irrelevant and not necessary for measuring the progression of fibrosis. [Id.]. In addition, because the levels of AST and ALT in one’s blood fluctuate from day to day, a decreased or normalized level does not mean the condition has improved, and even a series of normal readings over time may fail to accurately show the level of fibrosis or cirrhosis. [Id.]. Furthermore, the elevation levels of AST and ALT often fail to show an individual’s current level of fibrosis or cirrhosis, and they often fail to predict the consequences of not treating that individual. [Id.]. Although ALT is found predominately in the liver and not all over the body like AST, and ALT is a more specific indicator of liver inflammation than AST, an APRI score relies only on AST without taking ALT into account. [Doc. 30, p. 17]. For all of these reasons, using an APRI score alone to determine the severity of a person’s fibrosis or cirrhosis is not adequate or appropriate. [Id.].
D. Defendants’ HCV Treatment Policy within the MDOC Plaintiffs further allege that Defendants Precythe, MDOC, and Corizon, LLC have the following policies or customs, all of which are contrary to the prevailing standard of care: (1) not providing DAA drug treatment to all inmates with chronic HCV; (2) using an APRI score, which measures the progression of fibrosis or cirrhosis, to determine whether a person should be treated; (3) relying exclusively on APRI score to determine the stage of fibrosis or cirrhosis,
4 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 174 Filed 07/26/17 Page 4 of 35

rather than using other more accurate methods of determining its progression through liver biopsies, FIB-4, or FibroScan; (4) failing to consider providing treatment to HCV-positive inmates unless they have an APRI score above 2.0 that persists for several months, even though more than half of persons with cirrhosis will not have an APRI score at or above 2.0, and they know that AST levels are transient; (5) disregarding independent diagnoses of cirrhosis or significant hepatitis fibrosis in making their treatment decisions; and (6) basing treatment decisions on cost, rather than on need for treatment. [Id. at p. 17-18]. Plaintiffs allege that these policies or customs have caused, and continue to cause, unnecessary pain and an unreasonable risk of serious damage to the health of HCV-positive inmates. [Id. at p. 18]. As evidence of some of these policies, Plaintiffs submitted eight grievance and informal resolution request (“IRR”) responses to inmates’ requests for DAA treatment. [Doc. 132-6]. These IRR responses reflect that DAA treatment was denied to each inmate due to their individual APRI scores, including to Named Plaintiff Chris Baker, despite his independent diagnosis of cirrhosis.1 [Id.].
Defendants have repeatedly denied the requests of the Named Plaintiffs and other members of the putative class for DAA drug treatment for their HCV infections. [Id. at p. 19]. It is the policy of Defendants to classify inmates with known HCV infection as “Chronic Care Clinic Offenders.” [Id.]. Rather than receiving DAA treatment, these inmates receive a blood draw every six months and, at times, minimal counseling. [Id.].
E. Named Plaintiffs Postawko, Baker, and Jamerson’s Claims Named Plaintiff Michael Postawko became infected with HCV while under the care and supervision of the MDOC in or around 2012. [Id. at p. 20]. Every Defendant treater who
1 For this reason, the Court rejects Defendant Corizon’s unsupported contention within a footnote in its sur-reply that these grievance records are somehow “immaterial.” [Doc. 142, p. 7 of 16, n. 1].
5 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 174 Filed 07/26/17 Page 5 of 35

Postawko has seen at the MDOC or who has reviewed his HCV-related complaints has refused to treat Postawko with DAA drugs. [Id.].
In 2005, Named Plaintiff Christopher Baker was diagnosed with HCV, and in 2007, he underwent a liver biopsy and was diagnosed with cirrhosis. [Id. at p. 21]. In 2008, Baker was sentenced to ten years in the MDOC. [Id.]. In 2009, the MDOC began treating Baker with the then-prevailing treatment, interferon and ribavirin, which appeared to be working. [Id.]. However, after five months of treatment, the MDOC, through a provider named Dr. McKinney, informed Baker that the MDOC was no longer treating HCV-positive inmates with those drugs and discontinued Baker’s course of treatment. [Id.]. Since early 2010, Baker has received no further treatment for HCV and has received no treatment at any time with a DAA drug. [Id.].
On March 2, 2016, while Baker was incarcerated at JCCC, an Informal Resolution Request response to Baker indicates that he was “placed on a spreadsheet” because he had an APRI score above 1.0, without regard to his pre-incarceration cirrhosis diagnosis, which was made based on a liver biopsy. [Id.]. Baker did not receive any treatment as a result of either his independent cirrhosis diagnosis or his placement on a spreadsheet. [Id.]. In July 2016, Baker was transferred from JCCC to Algoa Correctional Center where he no longer even appears on a list for treatment. [Id.].
Named Plaintiff Michael Jamerson became infected with HCV while incarcerated at the MDOC. [Id.]. Jamerson has repeatedly requested treatment with DAA drugs. [Id.]. Although Jamerson is enrolled in the Chronic Care Clinic, he has not received any DAA treatment. [Id.].
F. The Proposed Class The Named Plaintiffs seek certification of a class of similarly situated individuals in the custody of the Missouri Department of Corrections, defined as:
6 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 174 Filed 07/26/17 Page 6 of 35

All those individuals in the custody of MDOC, now or in the future, who have been, or will be, diagnosed with chronic HCV,2 as that term is defined medically, but who are not provided treatment with direct acting antiviral drugs.
Plaintiffs bring two claims on behalf of the putative class: Count I for prospective relief
for deprivation of their Eighth Amendment rights against Precythe, in her official capacity, and Corizon, LLC, and Count II for prospective relief for violation of the ADA against the MDOC.3
Specifically, Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that Defendants’ “policy of withholding
treatment with DAA drugs from inmates diagnosed with HCV violates the Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendments” and the Americans with Disabilities Act. [Doc. 30, p. 25 and 27 ¶¶ 136, 144
(Second Amended Complaint)]. Plaintiffs seek injunctions that (1) direct Defendants to
“formulate and implement an HCV treatment policy that meets the prevailing standard of care,
including identifying persons with HCV”; (2) direct Defendants to “treat members of the class
with appropriate DAA drugs”; and (3) direct Defendants to “provide members of the class an
appropriate and accurate assessment of the level of fibrosis or cirrhosis they have, counseling on
drug-drug interactions, and ongoing medical care for complications and symptoms of HCV.” Id.
II. Discussion
A. Class Certification Standard
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, a motion for class certification involves a two-
part analysis. First, under Rule 23(a), the proposed class must satisfy the requirements of
2 Because Plaintiffs concede that some minority of persons exposed to the Hepatitis C virus clear the virus without treatment, they “do not oppose amending their proposed definition of the putative Class to include only persons with chronic Hepatitis C as that term is defined medically.” [Doc. 148, p. 3 (emphasis added)]. Accordingly, the Court considers this narrower class definition in its Rule 23 analysis, rather than Plaintiffs’ original class definition for “all individuals . . . diagnosed with HCV . . .” 3 Plaintiffs also bring individual claims (Counts III-VIII) for damages under the Eighth Amendment and the ADA.
7 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 174 Filed 07/26/17 Page 7 of 35

“numerosity, commonality, typicality, and fair and adequate representation.” Luiken v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, 705 F.3d 370, 372 (8th Cir. 2013). Second, the proposed class must meet at least one of the three requirements of Rule 23(b). Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S.Ct. 1426, 1432 (2013).
Plaintiffs carry the burden to show the class should be certified. See Luiken, 705 F.3d at 372. This burden is met only if, “after a rigorous analysis,” the Court is convinced the Rule 23 requirements are satisfied. Comcast, 133 S.Ct. at 1432 (quoting Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 341 (2011)). Rigorous analysis may further “entail some overlap with the merits of the plaintiff’s underlying claim,” because “[t]he class determination generally involves considerations that are enmeshed in the factual and legal issues comprising the plaintiff’s cause of action.” Id. (quoting Gen. Tel. Co. of Sw. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 160 (1982)). However, the Court’s inquiry on a motion for class certification is “tentative,” “preliminary,” and “limited.” In re Zurn Pex Plumbing Prod. Liab. Litig., 644 F.3d 604, 613 (8th Cir. 2011). “Rule 23 grants courts no license to engage in free-ranging merits inquiries at the certification stage.” Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Ret. Plans & Trust Funds, 133 S.Ct. 1184, 1194-95 (2013). “Merits questions may be considered to the extent—but only to the extent—that they are relevant to determining whether the Rule 23 prerequisites for class certification are satisfied.” Id.
At the outset, Defendants contend that certification should be denied because Plaintiffs failed to submit any evidence in support of class certification and rely entirely on their Complaint. The Court rejects this argument because Plaintiffs have submitted evidence to support their class certification request. Further, there is no rule that requires admissible evidence be submitted to support a class certification motion.
While Rule 23 “does not set forth a mere pleading standard,” Comcast Corp. v. Behrend,
8 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 174 Filed 07/26/17 Page 8 of 35

133 S.Ct. 1426, 1432 (2013), there is nothing in the rule that mandates evidence must be submitted to support a request for class certification. The Rules Enabling Act is the method for changing the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Court declines to create an evidentiary burden that is clearly not contemplated by Rule 23. Such a significant requirement would not have been included without debate, and without any explicit reference, particularly because far more mundane things are explicitly included in the Rules. While a plaintiff must “be prepared to prove that there are in fact sufficiently numerous parties, common questions of law or fact, typicality of claims or defenses, and adequacy of representation, as required by Rule 23(a),” id., the operative word is “be prepared” to prove the requirements of the Rule. It would be a leap to construe “be prepared” to mean that the party seeking class certification in fact must submit evidence and that the Court must resolve every potential evidentiary dispute before addressing the issue of class certification.
To create a rule that required evidence, much less admissible evidence, to be submitted at the class certification stage, would turn a class certification motion into something akin to a motion for summary judgment, which would be inconsistent with an expeditious resolution of class certification. While Rule 23 was changed to say class certification motions should be resolved as early as “practicable,” a full evidentiary hearing to resolve disputed issues of fact would effectively result in class certification being resolved at the same time as the merits, and only after discovery. It would never be “practical” to resolve the issue expeditiously or early.
Such a requirement would also increase the risk for inconsistent factual findings. For example, if in this case the Court were to find as a matter of fact that there was a policy concerning Hepatitis C drugs, and the jury later found that there was no such policy, the inconsistent factual findings would undermine confidence in the judicial process. Our rules of
9 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 174 Filed 07/26/17 Page 9 of 35

procedure, both modern and ancient, were designed to avoid factual inconsistencies. While the issue of subject matter and personal jurisdiction disputes might require a court to resolve facts, rarely will those issues be intertwined with the merits of the case.
Finally, it may increase the work of the parties and the court unnecessarily. A court cannot grant a motion for class certification without a rigorous analysis of each of the requirements of Rule 23. If plaintiffs are required to introduce evidence as to each Rule 23 factor, even though the dispute eventually deals with a legal question or narrow factual issue, the burden is substantially increased. Producing evidence and resolving evidentiary disputes is time consuming. That is particularly difficult at the beginning of a lawsuit when the parameters of the dispute are undeveloped. In many cases, such as the one before the Court, there is enough in the Complaint to make it plausible that the plaintiff will be able to produce evidence to prove the allegations contained in the Complaint. Requiring the plaintiff to go further and actually submit evidence and have the Court resolve any evidentiary disputes is a burden to the system without any suggestion of how the benefit outweighs that burden. There may be circumstances when a court concludes that it cannot meet its obligation to conduct a rigorous analysis without evidence or an evidentiary hearing. Such circumstances do not exist here. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiffs were not required to produce evidence to support their motion. Nonetheless, the Plaintiffs did produce evidence and the Court therefore turns to that evidence.4
4 Although Plaintiffs did not initially support their motion with attached evidence, they did submit evidence in their reply brief. As a general rule, the Court does not consider arguments or evidence raised for the first time in a reply brief. Bearden v. Lemon, 475 F.3d 926, 930 (8th Cir. 2007). However, because the Court granted Defendants leave to file sur-replies, Defendants had an adequate opportunity to respond to this newly submitted evidence. Therefore, the Court considers this evidence in conjunction with Plaintiffs’ motion rather than striking it, as Defendants suggest.
10 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 174 Filed 07/26/17 Page 10 of 35

C. Rule 23(a) 1. Numerosity
Rule 23(a)(1) requires that the class be sufficiently numerous such that joinder of all members would be impracticable. In assessing whether the numerosity requirement has been met, courts examine factors such as the number of persons in the proposed class, the nature of the action, the size of the individual claims, and the inconvenience of trying individual claims. Paxton v. Union Nat’l Bank, 688 F.2d 552, 561 (8th Cir. 1982). Joinder of all members may be impracticable where the class includes individuals who may become members in the future but who are currently unidentifiable. See, e.g., Phillips v. Joint Legis. Committee, 637 F.2d 1014, 1022 (5th Cir. 1981) (finding that “joinder of unknown individuals is certainly impracticable”).
Plaintiffs estimate that there are at least 5,000 inmates incarcerated in the MDOC and diagnosed with HCV but who have not received DAA drug treatment. As evidence of their estimate, Plaintiffs cite a 2016 article from The Wall Street Journal, which estimates that there are approximately 5,146 HCV positive persons in the MDOC as of mid-2016, but less than 0.3 percent (or 18 total inmates) are receiving HCV treatment.5 [Doc. 132-1, p. 6 of 8]. In addition, Plaintiffs provide a medical journal article from Health Affairs, which is consistent with Plaintiffs’ estimate. [Doc. 132-2, p. 5 of 20 (reflecting that between 0.00 and 0.12 percent of all Missouri state prisoners with known HCV infections as of January 1, 2015 had received any treatment for HCV, according to an analysis of data from the Hepatitis C and State Prisons Survey)]. The MDOC’s own documents responsive to a 2016 Sunshine Request also reflect numbers consistent with Plaintiffs’ estimate, including that, as of November 2016, there were 5,200 MDOC inmates in Hepatitis C Chronic Care with only 9 of those inmates started on a
5 Again, the Court rejects Defendant Corizon’s unsupported assertion within a footnote that this article “does not merit consideration of class certification.” [Doc. 142, p. 7 of 16, n. 1].
11 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 174 Filed 07/26/17 Page 11 of 35

DAA drug (Harvoni or Viekira) and a total of only 12 inmates who completed a course of Harvoni or Viekira in 2016. [Doc. 132-3, p. 8-9 (“MDOC Statewide Hepatitis C Statistics 2016”)].
Even with a conservative estimate, there are likely at least 2,000 members of the class: those MDOC inmates with chronic HCV who have not received DAA drug treatment.6 Although this evidence does not establish exactly how many class members exist, Plaintiffs are not required to “specify an exact number or to prove the identity of each class member, rather, ‘the plaintiffs must only show a reasonable estimate of the number of class members.’” Halbach v. Great-West Life & Annuity Ins. Co., 2007 WL 1018658, at *3 (E.D. Mo. Apr. 2, 2007) (quoting Morgan v. United Parcel Serv. of Am., 169 F.R.D. 349, 355 (E.D. Mo. 1996)). Here, Plaintiffs have demonstrated a reasonable estimate.
Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ evidence of numerosity would be inadmissible at trial, but the admissibility of Plaintiffs’ evidence is immaterial at this stage, particularly where Defendants have not identified any contrary evidence to refute that Plaintiffs’ proposed class satisfies the numerosity requirement. See In re Zurn Pex Plumbing Products Liab. Litig., 644 F.3d 604, 611 (8th Cir. 2011) (“We have never required a district court to decide conclusively at the class certification stage what evidence will ultimately be admissible at trial.”). Furthermore, whatever the evidentiary burden to Plaintiffs, the Eighth Circuit has made clear that this burden is something less than the presentation of trial-admissible evidence. Id. at 613-14 (“Because a decision to certify a class is far from a conclusive judgment on the merits of the case, it is of
6 The Court arrived at this figure by applying the estimates of Defendant Corizon’s own expert, Dr. Thomas Bredeman, to the approximately 5,000 MDOC inmates with HCV who are not receiving DAA drug treatment. Dr. Bredeman stated that between 50 and 80 percent of individuals infected with HCV become chronic. [Doc. 114-1, p. 2 of 9, ¶ 6]. Therefore, applying the conservative end of that estimate—50 percent—to the estimated 5,000 MDOC inmates with HCV not receiving DAA treament equates to an estimated 2,500 class members.
12 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 174 Filed 07/26/17 Page 12 of 35

necessity . . . not accompanied by the traditional rules and procedure applicable to civil trials.”) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
The inmate populations at these facilities are constantly revolving. Even with a conservative estimate of one thousand class members, the number of individual claims, as well as the inherently fluid nature of this class, would make it impracticable to require individual lawsuits. Numerosity is satisfied.
2. Commonality Rule 23(a)(2) requires that there be “questions of law or fact common to the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2). Plaintiffs must show that their class claims “depend upon a common contention” that “is capable of class wide resolution,” such that “determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke.” Wal–Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 350 (2011). But, commonality “‘does not require that every question of law or fact be common to every member of the class . . . and may be satisfied, for example, where the question of law linking the class members is substantially related to the resolution of the litigation even though the individuals are not identically situated.’” Downing v. Goldman Phipps PLLC, 2015 WL 4255342, at *4 (E.D. Mo. July 14, 2015) (quoting Paxton v. Union Nat’l Bank, 688 F.2d 552, 561 (8th Cir. 1982). In Ebert v. General Mills, Inc., 823 F.3d 472 (8th Cir. 2016), the Eighth Circuit reaffirmed that “a single common question ‘will do’ for purposes of Rule 23(a)(2).” Id. at 478 (contrasting the commonality requirement with the predominance prong of Rule 23(b)(3)). Although commonality was not challenged on appeal in that environmental-contamination case, the Eighth Circuit noted in dicta that it “d[id] not necessarily disagree” with the district court’s holding that the defendant’s “standardized conduct of alleged contamination and the remedies
13 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 174 Filed 07/26/17 Page 13 of 35

sought by the class [were] common to all plaintiffs” for purposes of 23(a)(2). Id.; DeBoer v. Mellon Mortg. Co., 64 F.3d 1171, 1174 (8th Cir. 1995) (rejecting defendants’ contention in mortgage case that, because class members had “claims of differing strengths,” class failed commonality, and holding instead that because “all class members of the class [were] interested in a satisfactory common course of conduct in the future servicing of their loans,” there was “declaratory and injunctive nexus . . . sufficient to establish the requisite commonality”). Therefore, even “where the circumstances of each particular class member vary but retain a common core of factual or legal issues with the rest of the class, commonality exists.” Parsons v. Ryan, 754 F.3d 657, 675 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Commonality is satisfied here. Plaintiffs seek class certification of whether Defendants’ policy of withholding HCV treatment, including DAA drugs, violates the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Eighth Amendment. To prove their ADA claim, Plaintiffs must show (1) that they have a disability as defined by statute; (2) that they are otherwise qualified for the benefit in question—treatment for their HCV; and (3) that they were excluded from the benefit because of discrimination based upon their disability. See 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq.; Randolph v. Rodgers, 170 F.3d 850, 857 (8th Cir. 1999). As to Plaintiffs’ Eighth Amendment claim, they must show that Defendants “act[] with deliberate indifference to the prisoner’s serious medical needs.” Bender v. Regier, 385 F.3d 1133, 1137 (8th Cir. 2005) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104) (1976)). Specifically, Plaintiffs must show (1) that they have an objectively serious medical need and (2) that prison officials subjectively know of, but deliberately disregard, that need through the HCV treatment policies and practices alleged by Plaintiffs. Dulaney v. Carnahan, 132 F.3d 1234, 1239 (8th Cir. 1997). “A plaintiff can show deliberate indifference in the level of care provided in different ways, including by showing grossly
14 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 174 Filed 07/26/17 Page 14 of 35

incompetent or inadequate care,” Smith v. Jenkins, 919 F.2d 90, 93 (8th Cir. 1990), showing a defendant’s decision to take an easier and less efficacious course of treatment, id., or showing a defendant intentionally delayed or denied access to medical care, Meloy v. Bachmeier, 302 F.3d 845, 849 (8th Cir. 2002).” Allard v. Baldwin, 779 F.3d 768, 772 (8th Cir. 2015). In addition, “[i]n institutional level challenges to prison health care such as this one, systemic deficiencies can provide the basis for a finding of deliberate indifference.” Harris v. Thigpen, 941 F.2d 1495, 1505 (11th Cir. 1991). For example, “[d]eliberate indifference to inmates’ health needs may be shown . . . by proving that there are ‘such systemic and gross deficiencies in . . . procedures that the inmate population is effectively denied access to adequate medical care.’” Id. In addition, “a series of incidents closely related in time may disclose a pattern of conduct amounting to deliberate indifference.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). Further, “[r]epeated examples of delayed or denied medical care may indicate a deliberate indifference by prison authorities to the suffering that results.” Id.
Both of these claims necessarily involve common questions. For instance, as to the Eighth Amendment claim, all class members share the common question of whether the Defendants’ policy or custom of withholding treatment with DAA drugs from individuals who have been or will be diagnosed with chronic HCV constitutes deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. As to the ADA claim, all class members share the common mixed factual and legal question of whether Defendants use the alleged policies to discriminate against inmates in need of medical treatment based on their chronic HCV diagnoses. Defendant MDOC briefly contends that because Plaintiffs challenge medical treatment decisions, they have failed to state a
15 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 174 Filed 07/26/17 Page 15 of 35

claim under the ADA.7 [Doc. 113, p. 22 of 25]. The Court rejects this argument as going only to the merits of the ADA claim, not to the requirements of Rule 23. See, e.g., Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Ret. Plans & Trust Funds, 568 U.S. 455, 133 S.Ct. 1184, 1194-95 (2013) (“Merits questions may be considered to the extent—but only to the extent—that they are relevant to determining whether the Rule 23 prerequisites for class certification are satisfied.”) The Court is satisfied that the commonality requirement is met because the alleged HCV-treatment policies or customs are the “glue” that holds together the putative class; either these policies are unlawful as to all inmates or they are not. See Parsons v. Ryan, 754 F.3d 657, 678 (9th Cir. 2014).
The Court is not persuaded by Defendants’ interpretation of Wal-Mart v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011), as prohibiting class certification in this case. Specifically, Defendants contend that Wal-Mart prevents Plaintiffs from showing that the requisite “common answer” exists to satisfy commonality because the treatment of HCV inmates is “highly individualized.” In support, Defendants emphasize that DAA medications are not recommended for everyone and that the Named Plaintiffs, alone, allege different symptoms and conditions, as well as different treating physicians and healthcare providers. However, Defendants’ argument depends on their contention that inmate medical decisions always involve individualized treatment decisions that are, by their very nature, unsuitable for class treatment even when all are attributable to an overarching policy or protocol. The Court rejects this theory, which “amounts to a sweeping assertion that, after Wal-Mart, Eighth Amendment claims can never be brought in the form of a class action.” Parsons v. Ryan, 754 F.3d 657, 675-76 (9th Cir. 2014).
7 Defendant MDOC also states without support that the circumstances giving rise to each class member’s purported claim of discrimination are “unique,” defeating commonality. [Doc. 113, p. 22 of 25]. The Court rejects this argument for the same reasons that it rejects this argument as to Plaintiffs’ Eighth Amendment class claim: Plaintiffs are alleging a discriminatory policy that is applied to all class members, not individualized acts of discrimination. See also infra, p. 19-20.
16 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 174 Filed 07/26/17 Page 16 of 35

Furthermore, a comparison of Wal-Mart to this case supports class certification, rather than undermines it. Wal-Mart clarified that class certification is appropriate only where the plaintiffs’ claims rest on a “common contention” whose “truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke.” Wal-Mart, 564 U.S. at 350. Wal-Mart concluded that a proposed Title VII class of millions of female employees, challenging discretionary decisions made by managers in 3,400 stores across the country, did not satisfy Rule 23’s commonality requirement. Id. at 350-61. The Wal-Mart court reasoned that the plaintiffs, who alleged a general corporate policy of allowing discretion by local managers, lacked “a common answer to the crucial question why was I disfavored.” Id. at 352. It concluded that the plaintiffs’ effort to “sue about literally millions of employment decisions at once” did not satisfy commonality because “demonstrating the invalidity of one manager’s use of discretion will do nothing to demonstrate the invalidity of another’s.” Id. at 355-56.
Unlike in Wal-Mart, where the plaintiffs failed to identify “a common mode of exercising discretion that pervades the entire company,” the policies alleged by Plaintiffs in this case prevent individual treaters from using their discretion to make appropriately individualized treatment decisions. Moreover, to the extent that treaters do use their discretion in denying DAA drug treatment to inmates with chronic HCV, unlike in Wal-Mart, Plaintiffs in this case have identified “a common mode of exercising [that] discretion”: in the form of policies applied to all inmates with chronic HCV, e.g., not considering DAA drug treatment unless and until an inmate’s APRI score is above 2.0 for several months.
In contrast to Defendants’ characterizations, Plaintiffs are not merely aggregating many claims of individual mistreatment. Instead, they are alleging that the policies and practices in place for HCV treatment generally expose all inmates with chronic HCV to a substantial risk of
17 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 174 Filed 07/26/17 Page 17 of 35

serious harm in violation of the Eighth Amendment. In other words, the unconstitutional
treatment decisions alleged by Plaintiffs are attributable to an overarching policy to which all
class members are exposed, satisfying the commonality requirement. To be sure, there may be
variance in symptoms, contraindications for treatment, and differing levels of physical health
from inmate to inmate, but “every inmate suffers exactly the same constitutional injury when he
is exposed to a single statewide [MDOC] policy or practice that creates a substantial risk of
serious harm,” despite the fact that “a presently existing risk may ultimately result in different
future harm for different inmates ranging from no harm at all to death.” See Parsons v. Ryan, 754 F.3d 657, 679 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834 and Helling, 509 U.S. at 33).8
In this case, the putative class sets forth a common contention whose truth or falsity can be
determined in one stroke: whether the specified policies and practices to which they are all
subjected by Defendants constitute constitutionally adequate or inadequate care.
Next, Defendants argue commonality is lacking by mischaracterizing Plaintiffs’ proposed
class as “rely[ing] upon a false assumption: that every inmate with HCV should receive DAA medications.”9 [Doc. 114, p. 16 of 28]. But this is not the case. Instead, the assumption
underlying Plaintiffs’ class is that Defendants’ systematic policies or customs related to HCV
treatment, which are applied to all class members, are constitutionally inadequate. These alleged
policies include:
(1) “using an APRI score—which measures the progression of fibrosis or cirrhosis—to determine whether a person should be treated”;
8 The Court also rejects Defendant MDOC’s contention that Parsons somehow “erroneously departs from long-standing Eighth Amendment precedent.” [Doc. 142, p. 11 of 16]. 9 Furthermore, although Defendants acknowledge that “DAA medications are appropriate for some,” they do not challenge Plaintiffs’ allegation that Defendants have provided DAA medications to less than one-half of one percent of inmates in their custody with a known HCV infection. When a defendant makes the same decision for the same reason as to 99 percent of a group of thousands of people, that is a common policy that should be litigated at one time.
18 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 174 Filed 07/26/17 Page 18 of 35

(2) “not undertaking liver biopsies, FIB-4, FibroScan, or any other methods of determining the stage of fibrosis or cirrhosis and relying exclusively on APRI score to determine that stage”;
(3) “failing to even consider providing treatment to HCV-positive inmates unless they have an APRI score above 2.0 that persists for several months, even though more than half of persons with cirrhosis will not have an APRI score at or above 2.0 and they know that AST levels are transient in contravention of the prevailing standard of care and in deliberate indifference to serious medical need”;
(4) “disregarding independent diagnoses of cirrhosis or significant hepatitis fibrosis in making treatment decisions”; and
(5) “basing treatment decisions on cost, rather than on need for treatment.” [Doc. 30, p. 18-19]. Such policy-based claims will lead to common answers, as required for commonality, including potentially enjoining Defendants from delaying treatment with a DAA drug to the class members for any nonmedical reason or enjoining Defendants to revise their treatment policies so that they comply with the standard of care. [Doc. 132, p. 17 of 28].
As a separate argument, Defendants again argue that Plaintiffs have not carried their burden of proving by a “preponderance of the evidence” that Defendants adopted any systemwide policy of withholding treatment with DAA medications. As already discussed, the Eighth Circuit has never articulated a particular evidentiary burden, much less a “preponderance of the evidence” standard. Rather, to establish Rule 23(a)(2)’s commonality requirement, the Supreme Court has described Plaintiffs’ burden as requiring Plaintiffs to “be prepared to prove that there are in fact sufficiently . . . common questions of law or fact.” Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S.Ct. 1426, 1432 (2013). As discussed above, Plaintiffs’ uncontroverted allegations alone satisfy this burden because Defendants have failed to challenge the common questions set forth by Plaintiffs.
Still, to the extent that any question arguably remains about the existence of standardized
19 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 174 Filed 07/26/17 Page 19 of 35

conduct common to all class members, Plaintiffs have submitted supportive evidence, including grievance and informal resolution request (“IRR”) responses to inmates’ requests for DAA treatment. [Doc. 132-6]. These IRR responses repeatedly acknowledge the existence and nature of some of the policies Plaintiffs set forth in their Complaint, which Defendants appear to rely upon to deny treatment. [Id.]. For example, the Informal Resolution Request Response dated October 27, 2016 provides:
Your concern is understood to be: you would like your hepatitis treated “before it gets worse. . . . [Y]ou were seen by the medical provider . . . At that time your score did not indicate that you qualified for the treatment. [Doc. 132-6, p. 1]. Another IRR similarly provides, “[Y]our APRI score is 0.314. APRI scores higher than 2 are being considered for Hepatitis C treatment. At this time you do not meet criteria for treatment. You will continue to [be][sic] monitored in infectious disease clinic for your Hepatitis C.” [Id. at p. 2]. Another provides, “You do not currently meet the criteria for Harvoni treatment. You are enrolled in chronic care for your condition and your lab levels are monitored and you are seen by a medical provider every 6 months.” [Id. at p. 3]. Another provides, “The results of your test noted that your APRI score does not support treatment at this time.” [Id. at p. 5]. Another IRR directed to Plaintiff Chris Baker, whose severe cirrhosis was independently diagnosed prior to incarceration through a liver biopsy, responds, “Your APRI score is 0.562 and per protocol the APRI score needs to be greater than 2 to be considered for treatment.” [Id. at p. 6]. Although not required, this evidence further buttresses Plaintiffs’ commonality argument by showing that Defendants do in fact have a policy or custom—not considering DAA treatment without an “adequate” APRI score greater than 2—that does not require individualized determinations and is applied to inmates with chronic HCV. Defendants
20 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 174 Filed 07/26/17 Page 20 of 35

have not identified any evidence to the contrary.10
As an additional argument against commonality, Defendants repeatedly emphasize the
“individual” circumstances that must be considered to determine whether DAA drug treatment is
appropriate for an HCV-positive inmate. As identified by Defendants, these considerations
include that people with acute HCV should not receive DAA treatment because they may selfresolve;11 some persons may be allergic to or have significant drug interactions with the
components of the treatment; pregnant patients or patients who lack sufficient time in their
sentence should not receive it; and patients who do not demonstrate a willingness to adhere to the
treatment regimen and abstain from high-risk activities should not receive it. [Doc. 114, p. 10-11
(citing Dr. Bredeman’s affidavit)]. However, the reality that DAA drug treatment may not be
appropriate for every inmate diagnosed with chronic HCV does nothing to undermine the
existence of the common questions alleged by Plaintiffs and discussed previously. The Court
recognizes that some members of the class may not be good candidates for DAA drug treatment
based on individual characteristics and contraindications. Nonetheless, at least one common
question remains: whether Defendants’ classwide policy of not even considering DAA drug
treatment in the first place unless an inmate has an “adequate” APRI score is lawful or unlawful.
For the previous reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ putative class satisfies the
commonality requirement.
10 Even if Defendants had identified evidence to the contrary, Plaintiffs also allege that Defendants’ written policies are, in practice, aspirational: that Defendants deviate from their written HCV protocols for the purpose of delaying and denying treatment even to persons who might qualify for treatment. Indeed, it is difficult for the Court to believe that less than one half of one percent of HCV-positive inmates—the percentage who have received DAA treatment— have an APRI score of more than 2 when the overall rate of cirrhosis among HCV-positive persons is alleged to be somewhere in the range of 20 percent. [Doc. 132-7 (“CDC Fact Sheet”)]. 11 Furthermore, this contraindication is not relevant to Plaintiffs’ class, which is limited to only those inmates with chronic HCV, not acute HCV.
21
Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 174 Filed 07/26/17 Page 21 of 35

3. Typicality The typicality requirement is met when the claims or defenses of the representative party are typical of those of the class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3). The requirement “is fairly easily met so long as other class members have claims similar to the named plaintiff.” DeBoer v. Mellon Mortg. Co., 64 F.3d 1171, 1174 (8th Cir. 1995). In determining typicality, courts consider whether the named plaintiff’s claim “arises from the same event or course of conduct as the class claims, and gives rise to the same legal or remedial theory.” Alpern v. UtiliCorp United, Inc., 84 F.3d 1525, 1540 (8th Cir. 1996). The Named Plaintiffs’ claims and the claims of the remainder of the putative class arise from the same course of conduct: Defendants’ policies surrounding their treatment of inmates with chronic HCV, including their policy of denying DAA drug treatment to individuals with HCV due to APRI score. Plaintiffs allege these policies are discriminatory based on HCV status and are violative of their Eighth Amendment rights. These claims are identical to the claims that could be raised by any member of the class. In addition, all putative class members share a common injury of having these policies applied to them and as a result, suffering a significant risk of harm. Therefore, the Named Plaintiffs are typical because they, too, are exposed to the same risk. Like the remainder of the class, they are HCV-positive inmates to which the alleged policy has been applied and who have not been treated with DAA drugs. See Alpern v. UtiliCorp United, Inc., 84 F.3d 1525, 1540 (8th Cir. 1996) (holding that typicality means that there are “other members of the class who have the same or similar grievances as the plaintiff” and that “[f]actual variations in the individual claims will not normally preclude class certification if the claim arises from the same event or course of conduct as the class claims, and gives rise to the same legal or remedial theory”).
22 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 174 Filed 07/26/17 Page 22 of 35

Defendants argue that there is no typicality because Plaintiffs have not offered evidence “of their alleged entitlement to such medications” or “that they themselves were injured” because of their failure to receive DAA medications. [Doc. 114, p. 19 of 28]. First, the Court has already rejected Defendants’ arguments as to Plaintiffs’ evidentiary burden for proving the Rule 23(a) requirements. Furthermore, Defendants’ own evidence buttresses Plaintiffs’ typicality because this evidence confirms Plaintiffs’ allegations that (1) they have been diagnosed with chronic HCV and (2) they have not been treated with DAA drugs. See, e.g., [Docs. 114-3, 114-4, and 114-5 (Medical Records for Postawko, Baker, and Jamerson)]. Second, the typicality inquiry does not require Plaintiffs to show “their alleged entitlement” to DAA drugs or that they, themselves, were injured. Instead, such inquiries are relevant only to the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims and cannot be resolved at the class certification stage. See Golan v. Veritas Entm’t, LLC, 788 F.3d 814, 821 (8th Cir. 2015) (reversing district court and holding that even where named plaintiffs were potentially subject to defense, because that defense was a “critical issue in this case,” their claims were typical); Blades v. Monstanto Co., 400 F.3d 562, 567 (8th Cir. 2005) (holding, as to Rule 23(b)(3), that “disputes may be resolved only insofar as resolution is necessary to determine the nature of the evidence that would be sufficient, if the plaintiff’s general allegations were true, to make out a prima facie case for the class” and that “[t]he closer any dispute at the class certification stage comes to the heart of the claim, the more cautious the court should be in ensuring that it must be resolved in order to determine the nature of the evidence the plaintiff would require”).
Next, Defendants argue there is no typicality by again contending that Plaintiffs’ claims turn on individualized medical treatment decisions, an argument this Court has already rejected. The Court further rejects Defendants’ arguments that Plaintiffs “will require individualized proof
23 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 174 Filed 07/26/17 Page 23 of 35

by expert testimony” of “[t]he effect that a lack of DAA medications has had on them.” [Doc. 114, p. 20-21 of 28 (emphasis added)]. Individualized proof and analysis might be required if Plaintiffs were seeking money damages for their particular injuries caused by Defendants’ policies and customs, including the denial of DAA treatment. However, in this case, Plaintiffs do not seek classwide monetary relief. Instead, they seek injunctive and declaratory relief regarding Defendants’ policies and practices that are applicable to all inmates with chronic HCV and thus, do not require individualized proof by expert testimony.
Although Defendants also cite a number of HCV inmate cases, none of these cases demonstrate that the Named Plaintiffs are atypical. See also Graham v. Parker, 2017 WL 1737871, at *1 (M.D. Tenn. May 4, 2017) (certifying Rule 23(b)(2) class of Tennessee inmates with Hepatitis C with similar Eighth Amendment class claim). Not only do Defendants’ cases not involve motions for class certification, but they also predate the FDA’s approval of DAA drugs when the medical standard of care was different than the one applicable to Plaintiffs’ claims. Prior to DAA drugs, there was no effective and safe treatment for HCV; the standard treatment, which included the use of interferon and ribavirin medications, failed to cure most patients; and this treatment was associated with severe side effects and contraindications, including psychiatric and autoimmune disorders. See [Doc. 114, p. 21 of 28, n. 9 (citing cases prior to approval of DAA drugs that do not involve class certification)]. Therefore, to the extent that Defendants contend these cases somehow demonstrate the Named Plaintiffs are not typical of the class, these cases are also distinguishable.
For the previous reasons, Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the class. 4. Adequacy Rule 23(a)(4) requires that the class representative and class counsel will “fairly and
24 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 174 Filed 07/26/17 Page 24 of 35

adequately protect the interests of the class.” The adequacy requirement is met where: “(1) the representatives and their attorneys are able and willing to prosecute the action competently and vigorously; and (2) each representative’s interests are sufficiently similar to those of the class that it is unlikely that their goals and viewpoints will diverge.” Carpe v. Aquila, Inc., 224 F.R.D. 454, 458 (W.D.Mo. 2004) (internal quotes omitted). This requirement “serves to uncover conflicts of interest between named parties and the class they seek to represent.” Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 625 (1997).
First, Defendants do not dispute that Plaintiffs’counsel can adequately represent the putative class members. The proposed class counsel has extensive experience prosecuting complex litigation. One attorney has significant experience as class counsel in civil rights class actions seeking prospective relief, and the remaining two attorneys have experience litigating complex civil rights matters in federal court, including prisoners’ rights cases. The proposed class counsel will vigorously represent the plaintiffs in this action.
In addition, Defendants do not dispute that Plaintiffs have common interests with the putative class—namely, getting prompt, medically appropriate consideration for treatment with a DAA drug. Contrary to Defendants’ contentions, a named plaintiff’s individual claim for individual damages does not disqualify that named plaintiff from being an adequate class representative. See Stewart v. Winter, 669 F.2d 328, 334-335 (5th Cir. 1982) (“An individual claim for large damages does not necessarily make a putative representative’s interests ‘antagonistic’ to those of the class; to the contrary, the courts have often viewed the assertion of such a claim as an indication that the representative will prosecute the action vigorously.”). Aside from raising the Named Plaintiffs’ individual monetary claims as a “potential conflict,” Defendants have not identified anything “in the record to indicate that [their] claims for
25 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 174 Filed 07/26/17 Page 25 of 35

damages are in any way ‘antagonistic’ to the class claims for injunctive relief.” Id. The Court is satisfied that the Named Plaintiffs’ interests are aligned with those of the class because as discussed above, their claims arise out of the same common course of conduct and are based upon the same legal theories as the class members’ claims. See Wal-Mart v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 349, n. 5 (2011) (noting that the two requirements of typicality and adequacy “tend to merge”). The adequacy requirement is satisfied.
D. Rule 23(b)(2) To certify the class, Plaintiffs must further prove satisfaction of the Rule 23(b)(2) requirements: that the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). Although a Rule 23(b)(2) class is not required to satisfy the additional predominance and superiority requirements of Rule 23(b)(3), “the class claims must be cohesive.” Ebert v. General Mills, Inc., 823 F.3d 472, 480 (8th Cir. 2016) (quoting Barnes v. Am. Tobacco Co., 161 F.3d 127, 143 (3d Cir. 1998). For purposes of 23(b)(2), cohesiveness requires that “the relief sought must perforce affect the entire class at once.” Id. In contrast, cohesiveness is lacking where “each individual class member would be entitled to a different injunction or declaratory judgment against the defendant.” Id. at 480-81. The Court finds that the putative class satisfies Rule 23(b)(2) because Defendants’ policies apply generally to the class so that the requested injunctive and declaratory relief would provide relief to all class members. As discussed previously, Plaintiffs challenge policies and practices through which Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to all inmates with chronic HCV. The existence of at least one policy or custom—refusing to
26 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 174 Filed 07/26/17 Page 26 of 35

even consider DAA treatment for an inmate without an “adequate” APRI score greater than 2— was additionally supported with evidence, including grievance and informal resolution request responses to various inmates’ requests for DAA treatment. See supra Section II.C.2. p. 20-21 and [Doc. 132-6]. Rather than controverting the existence of these classwide policies, Defendant Corizon’s own evidence confirms their existence, including referencing standardized “protocols” relied upon by Corizon for the management and treatment of chronic HCV. See, e.g., [Doc. 114, p. 9 of 28 (citing Dr. Bredeman’s affidavit)]. Although Corizon’s expert12 states that HCV medication decisions are based upon the individual patient’s medical need and made on a “caseby-case basis,” Corizon does not identify any specific evidence contradicting the existence of the HCV-treatment policies alleged by Plaintiffs. These systemwide policies preclude all class members from even being considered for DAA treatment without the requisite APRI score, which, in turn, prevents treaters from making “case-by-case” DAA decisions based on individual criteria because the policies do not permit DAA consideration in the first place.
As required for cohesiveness, all class members seek precisely the same declaratory and injunctive relief. They seek a declaratory judgment that Defendants’ current “policy of withholding treatment with DAA drugs from inmates diagnosed with [chronic] HCV violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.” As to injunctive relief, they seek to enjoin Defendants:
(1) to formulate and implement an HCV treatment policy that meets the prevailing standard of care, including identifying persons with HCV;
(2) to provide members of the class an appropriate and accurate assessment of the level of fibrosis or cirrhosis they have, counseling on drug-drug interactions, and ongoing medical care for complications and symptoms of HCV; and
12 Plaintiffs also submitted their own expert affidavit, which Corizon challenged under Daubert. [Doc. 132-5 (“Declaration of Dr. Blair Thedinger”)]. However, even to the extent that Corizon’s Daubert challenge is valid, the Court need not address it because the Court found Plaintiffs’ affidavit unnecessary for deciding the current motion.
27 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 174 Filed 07/26/17 Page 27 of 35

(3) from delaying or denying DAA drug treatment to class members for any nonmedical reason.13
[Docs. 30, p. 25 and 27 ¶¶ 136, 144 (Second Amended Complaint) and Doc. 132, p. 17 of 28 (Plaintiffs’ Reply Suggestions describing the injunctive relief the Court could give as “includ[ing] enjoining Defendants from delaying treatment with a DAA drug to the putative Class members for any nonmedical reason”)]. Therefore, if Plaintiffs are successful, “a single injunction or declaratory judgment would provide relief to each member of the class” because it would address the HCV treatment policies that apply generally to all class members. Ebert v. General Mills, Inc., 823 F.3d 472, 480 (8th Cir. 2016) (quoting Wal-Mart v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011)).
The Court is not persuaded by Defendant Corizon’s reliance on an environmentalcontamination case, Ebert v. General Mills, Inc., 823 F.3d 472 (8th Cir. 2016), to argue that Plaintiffs fail to satisfy the cohesiveness requirement. See id. at 480–81 (discussing “stringent” cohesiveness standard). In Ebert, neighborhood property owners sued General Mills for remediation for dumping toxic waste and exposing their neighborhood to toxic vapors. Id. at 474. The Eighth Circuit held that the class of property owners was not cohesive because the remediation sought was “not even universal” and remediation, if awarded, would have been “unique” to “each of the affected properties.” Id. at 480-81. Indeed, some of the class members had already received vapor migration systems customized to their properties and some had not; some members’ properties had been tested and no vapors were detectible; and of those homes affected by the vapors, their test results showed “widely varying levels.” Id. at 481. Further, because the class sought “hybrid certification” with (b)(2) and (b)(3) classes, there were “myriad
13 The Court’s Order granting class certification is based on the equitable relief discussed herein. To the extent that Plaintiffs seek an alternative injunctive remedy, the motion for class certification may be reconsidered.
28 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 174 Filed 07/26/17 Page 28 of 35

considerations” about the individual proof needed to show causation and damages for each class member. Id. at 481; see also id. at 479–80.
The case before this Court is different. There is a straightforward causal relationship between Defendants’ policies relating to HCV medical care and the putative class members’ lack of treatment and exposure to substantial risk. In contrast to Ebert, there are no classwide issues relating to damages because the class seeks only equitable relief. Also unlike the Ebert plaintiff class where some properties had been fully or partially remediated so that class members sought different levels of remediation relief, none of the members of the proposed class in this case has received treatment with any DAA drug. As a result, the plaintiffs in this class are not seeking differing levels of injunctive relief, as they were in Ebert.
Defendants again argue that the Eighth Amendment claim central to this case requires individualized inquiries with respect to every class member, making it impermissible under Rule 23(b)(2). Defendants contend that the proof for Plaintiffs’ claims rests on whether each individual class member’s treatment was constitutionally inadequate. Again, according to this logic, class certification would never be appropriate for Eighth Amendment claims, a sweeping conclusion that this and other courts have long rejected. See, e.g., Graham v. Parker, 2017 WL 1737871, *1 (M.D. Tenn. May 4, 2017) (certifying Rule 23(b)(2) inmate class against state prison for Eighth Amendment claims based on the prison’s allegedly unconstitutional treatment protocols, policies, and practices regarding HCV treatment); Parsons v. Ryan, 754 F.3d 657 (9th Cir. 2014) (affirming district court’s certification of Rule 23(b)(2) inmate class against state prison for Eighth Amendment claims based on allegedly serious systemic deficiencies in conditions of confinement in isolation cells and in the provision of privatized medical, dental, and mental health care services).
29 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 174 Filed 07/26/17 Page 29 of 35

According to Defendants, the inquiry is individualized because not every inmate with HCV will go on to develop serious complications from HCV, and not every inmate will be an appropriate candidate for DAA drug treatment. However, such arguments repeatedly misconstrue Plaintiffs’ class claims as demands for individual treatment dependent on individualized factors. See, e.g., [Doc. 113, p. 10-12 of 25]. As the Court has already explained in analyzing and rejecting Defendants’ similar arguments against commonality, Plaintiffs are not seeking adjudication of demands for particular individualized treatment. Instead, the challenge they are actually bringing—to customs or policies dictating the way that the entire putative class’s chronic HCV is treated generally—is well recognized. Indeed, a case like this one in which a group of prisoners seeks to challenge the constitutionality of a prison policy is so well suited for Rule 23(b)(2) class treatment that the leading class-action and federal-practice treatises both use it as the exemplar of a case fitting within that subsection: “For example, if a prisoner in a prison conditions lawsuit secures a ruling that a prison policy violates the Constitution, the court-ordered injunctive relief will necessarily apply to all other prisoners.” 1 H. Newberg & A. Conte, Newberg on Class Actions § 4.34 (5th ed. 2016 update); see also Wright & Miller, 7AA Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 1776 (3d ed. 2017 update) (“[I]t should be noted that a common use of Rule 23(b)(2) is in prisoner actions brought to challenge various practices or rules in the prisons on the ground that they violate the constitution. For example, Rule 23(b)(2) class actions have been utilized to challenge prison policies or procedures alleged to . . . violate the prisoners’ Eighth Amendment rights to be free from cruel and unusual punishment.”).
Defendants’ reliance on Avritt v. Reliastar Life Ins. Co., 615 F.3d 1023 (8th Cir. 2010) to show that Plaintiffs’ Eighth Amendment claim cannot be certified does not require a different result. In Avritt, purchasers of annuities alleged that the seller engaged in unfair business
30 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 174 Filed 07/26/17 Page 30 of 35

practices by systematically crediting higher interest to the most recent deposits in customers’ annuity accounts and crediting lower interest to older deposits. The Eighth Circuit found the case to be inappropriate for injunctive or declaratory relief under Rule 23(b)(2) because the plaintiffs conceded that the case was primarily about money damages, and “the level of disclosure—as well as the extent of each individual’s reliance—varied between plaintiffs.” Id. at 1036. Accordingly, the Eighth Circuit reasoned, injunctive or declaratory relief would be inappropriate because resolution of the plaintiffs’ claims would require numerous individual determinations regarding the defendant’s representations and each purchaser’s reliance. Id.
The Eighth Amendment claim in this case is different from the claims in Avritt. Unlike in Avritt, the plaintiff class in this case does not even seek monetary relief, and members of the class are not required to prove individualized elements, such as their individual reliance on a particular representation made, as in Avritt. In fact, this case is more comparable to DeBoer v. Mellon Mortgage Co., 64 F.3d 1171 (8th Cir. 1995), also cited by Defendants. In DeBoer, the Eighth Circuit approved a class action settlement under Rule 23(b)(2) where the plaintiffs were mortgagees seeking to enjoin a mortgage servicer from requiring them to maintain unreasonably high balances in an escrow account. Id. at 1175. The DeBoer mortgage servicer’s liability turned on a single question that uniformly applied to all class members: whether the mortgage servicer was required to use aggregate or individual-item accounting in determining the amount of money to hold in an escrow account. Id. at 1173. Resolution of that question as to one of the plaintiffs necessarily resolved the issue for the entire class. In the same way, Defendants’ liability in this case turns on a single question that uniformly applies to all class members: whether Defendants’ policies for diagnosing and treating inmates with chronic HCV, including refusing to consider DAA drug treatment based on APRI score, constitute constitutionally
31 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 174 Filed 07/26/17 Page 31 of 35

adequate or inadequate care in violation of the Eighth Amendment. As in DeBoer, the central issue in this case is one that can be decided uniformly with respect to all plaintiffs.
The Court is also not persuaded by Defendants’ contention that certifying Plaintiffs’ class would force them to adopt a “one-size-fits-all policy” for treating inmates with HCV. Rather, a finding of liability may instead force MDOC to revise what is already alleged to be a one-sizefits-all policy to reflect the current medical standard of care. These revisions could include requiring Defendants to individually consider class members for DAA treatment rather than, as a matter of policy, denying this treatment exclusively based on APRI score or for nonmedical reasons such as cost.
As a separate argument against cohesiveness, Defendant MDOC quotes Elizabeth M. v. Montenez, 458 F.3d 779 (8th Cir. 2006), to “caution” the Court to be “mindful of the special delicacy of the adjustment to be preserved between federal equitable power and State administration of its own law.” Id. at 784. Although Defendant MDOC cites to Elizabeth M. while emphasizing the potential financial cost of treating putative class members with DAA drugs, the cost of the class’s requested relief was never considered or discussed by the Elizabeth M. court, nor is cost a factor requiring consideration under Rule 23.
In Elizabeth M., the Eighth Circuit vacated the district court’s certification of an unwieldy class of patients at three state mental health facilities due to the named plaintiffs’ lack of standing and the class definition’s inclusion of both current and former patients. Unlike the case before this Court, the Elizabeth M. class brought numerous claims and sought “sweeping injunctive relief,” which “would require the district court to mandate and monitor detailed programs governing nearly every facet of the State’s operation of the three facilities—patient risk assessment, placement, and discipline; staff leadership structure; prehire procedures and
32 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 174 Filed 07/26/17 Page 32 of 35

training for staff; sex education;” and more. Id. at 783-84 (emphasis added). Defendant MDOC appears to cite Elizabeth M. for its contention that certifying Plaintiffs’ class would produce such sweeping financial implications that there must be a clear showing that the Rule 23 requirements have been met. However, the Court does not disagree with this principle, a principle that is unrelated to the financial implications of a putative class’s requested injunctive relief. Rather, every motion for class certification requires the Court to conduct a “rigorous analysis,” which this Court has undertaken. See id. at 784.
Defendants next contend that because the Named Plaintiffs bring individual claims for monetary damages, Wal-Mart v. Dukes precludes certification under Rule 23(b)(2). The Court rejects this argument as a misinterpretation of Wal-Mart, which did not hold that a plaintiff’s individual claim for damages separate from the claims of the class somehow defeats certification under Rule 23(b)(2).14 See Wal-Mart v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011). Furthermore, the Eighth Circuit in Ebert contradicted this argument by implication because it observed that a court may bifurcate a class action into two phases, insulating the (b)(2) class from the money damage portion of the case in a (b)(3) class. Defendant’s citation to Rouse v. Caruso, 2013 WL 588916, at *5 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 7, 2013), also does not require a different result because Rouse involved a (b)(2) injunctive relief class claim for compensatory damages of $10 million dollars. Unlike Rouse, Plaintiffs’ class claims do not seek any monetary damages.
Defendants’ remaining arguments, some of which are mischaracterized as demonstrating that the class is “overbroad,” are again merits arguments not relevant to class certification: that Plaintiffs have not established that everyone with HCV actually “needs” DAA drug treatment or
14 In addition, it would be unreasonable to interpret Wal-Mart as holding that if individual class members could make claims for monetary damages, then the class could not be certified under Rule 23(b)(2) because such an interpretation would preclude the vast majority of Rule 23(b)(2) classes.
33 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 174 Filed 07/26/17 Page 33 of 35

that all patients diagnosed with HCV have suffered an injury due to Defendants’ policies. These are not the issues presented at the class certification stage. The cases that Defendants cite relate to summary judgment motions or cases in which the courts reached the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims—whether the defendants were deliberately indifferent to an inmate’s particular medical needs and whether certain treatments were warranted. Again, Plaintiffs are not challenging individualized treatment decisions related to their own unique characteristics or contraindications. Rather, they are challenging Defendants’ systemwide policies of denying consideration for DAA drug treatment based on allegedly arbitrary and/or nonmedical reasons, and these policies apply generally to all members of the class. Plaintiffs are not merely disagreeing with a doctor’s course of treatment or medical decision as to a particular person. They are attacking the constitutionality of Defendants’ MDOC-wide policies and procedures applicable to all inmates with chronic HCV.
Regardless, such arguments are premature. “In determining the propriety of a class action, the question is not whether the plaintiff or plaintiffs have stated a cause of action or will prevail on the merits, but rather whether the requirements of Rule 23 are met.” Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 178 (1974). Arguments about the appropriateness of certain treatments or how these policies are, in fact, applied to class members may be relevant to a future motion for summary judgment or at trial. But, these arguments have no impact on the availability of class certification, as they do not go to the Rule 23(b)(2) inquiry or establish that the class is somehow overbroad.
For the previous reasons, the putative class is appropriate for certification under Rule 23(b)(2).
34 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 174 Filed 07/26/17 Page 34 of 35

III. Conclusion Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, Doc. 77, is granted, and the class is defined as
discussed above. /s/ Nanette K. Laughrey NANETTE K. LAUGHREY United States District Judge
Dated: July 26, 2017 Jefferson City, Missouri
35 Case 2:16-cv-04219-NKL Document 174 Filed 07/26/17 Page 35 of 35

 
 United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________
No. 17-3029 ___________________________
Michael Postawko; Christopher Baker; Michael C. Jamerson
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiffs - Appellees
v.
Missouri Department of Corrections; Corizon LLC; Trinidad Aguilera; John Williams; FNU Stamps; Thomas Pryor; FNU Proctor; FNU Hardman; FNU Davison; Paul Jones; FNU Stieferman; T. Bredeman; Julie Fipps; FNU Cofield; FNC Rucker; Jamie Campbell; Dawn Baker; Geeneen Wilhite; Adrienne Hardy; Bonnie Boley; Amanda Yates; Julie LNU; J. Doe; Anne Precythe, in her official
capacity as Director of the Missouri Department of Corrections
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellants
------------------------------
The Arc of the United States; Center for Children’s Law and Policy; Judge David L. Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law; Disability Rights Arkansas, Inc.;
Human Rights First; Impact Fund; National Disability Rights Network; National Immigrant Justice Center; National Juvenile Defender Center; Missouri Protection
& Advocacy Services; Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law
lllllllllllllllllllllAmici on Behalf of Appellee(s) _____________
Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Jefferson City
____________
Appellate Case: 17-3029 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/06/2018 Entry ID: 4733057

Submitted: September 27, 2018 Filed: December 6, 2018 ____________
Before WOLLMAN, KELLY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. ____________
ERICKSON, Circuit Judge.
Michael Postawko, Christopher Baker, and Michael Jamerson sought class certification for their claims alleging that the Missouri Department of Corrections (“MDOC”) and various related defendants violated the Eighth Amendment and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) by providing inadequate medical screening and care for chronic Hepatitis C (“HCV”) viral infections. In particular, they claim the MDOC’s policies expose the class to a substantial risk of serious harm. The district court1 granted class certification. We granted the Defendants’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f) petition for interlocutory appeal of the grant of class certification, and now affirm.
I. Background
Postawko, Baker, and Jamerson (the Named Plaintiffs) are each incarcerated in the MDOC. They filed an action asserting that they received inadequate medical care for their HCV infections and sought class certification. The following facts were contained in the Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint. HCV is a viral infection that can cause liver damage and other extremely serious side effects. Those who contract HCV may suffer inflammation of the liver, known as hepatitis. In turn, those with hepatitis may suffer significantly impaired liver functioning. A decrease in liver
1The Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
-2-
Appellate Case: 17-3029 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/06/2018 Entry ID: 4733057

function may result in symptoms such as severe pain, fatigue, difficulty or pain with urination, and an increased risk of heart attacks.
HCV may be either acute or chronic. While some acute HCV infections are resolved naturally, others develop into chronic HCV. Individuals suffering from chronic HCV develop fibrosis of the liver, in which healthy liver tissue is replaced with scar tissue. Patients are said to suffer from cirrhosis when a significant portion of the liver has been converted into scar tissue. Cirrhosis is irreversible. Determining exactly when significant fibrosis amounts to cirrhosis is not always an easy task, complicating treatment. Cirrhosis often causes “painful complications, including arthritic pain throughout the body, kidney disease, jaundice, fluid retention with edema, internal bleeding, easy bruising, abdominal ascites, mental confusion, lymph disorders, widespread itching, and even more extreme fatigue.” Some of these complications can cause death if left untreated.
At least half of all those who suffer from chronic HCV will develop either cirrhosis or liver cancer. Each day without treatment increases the risk that an HCV infection will either develop into a serious condition such as chronic liver disease, fibrosis, cirrhosis, or liver cancer, or cause death from liver failure. HCV causes the death of more American citizens than any other infectious disease.
In recent years, significant medical advancements have been made in the treatment of HCV, which gives rise to the Plaintiffs’ case. While previous treatments demonstrated only low rates of success and often caused substantial side effects, new direct-acting antiviral drugs (“DAA drugs”) are estimated to cure over 90% of patients who receive them as treatment. DAA drugs are also estimated to cause a 90% reduction in the risk of liver-related mortality. Those effects, however, may diminish if treatment is delayed. The medical standard of care put forward by organizations such as the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the American Association for
-3-
Appellate Case: 17-3029 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/06/2018 Entry ID: 4733057

the Study of Liver Diseases now recommends that almost all persons with chronic HCV receive DAA drug treatment.2
To know whether or not treatment is required, patients must undergo reliable screening for liver fibrosis or cirrhosis. One method for determining the presence and degree of cirrhosis or fibrosis is the AST to Platelet Ratio Index, or APRI. The APRI is derived by analyzing a blood sample of the patient and determining the ratio of a particular enzyme to the number of platelets. While a high APRI score (above 2.0) reliably indicates the presence of cirrhosis or severe fibrosis, a low APRI does not provide conclusive evidence in the other direction; in fact, over half of all patients suffering from cirrhosis will not have an APRI score of 2.0. For this reason, the use of other methods (such as liver biopsies) may be required to reliably determine whether an individual is suffering from fibrosis or cirrhosis.
The rate of HCV infection among the population of the MDOC is estimated to be at least 10% to 15%. As a highly communicable disease, HCV often spreads among the incarcerated population. The MDOC has provided DAA medications to less than one-half of one percent of inmates in their custody with a known HCV infection.
Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants Precythe, MDOC, and Corizon, LLC have the following policies or customs:
(1) not providing DAA drug treatment to all inmates with chronic HCV; (2) using an APRI score, which measures the progression of fibrosis or cirrhosis, to determine whether a person should be treated;
2In cases where a patient has a life expectancy that is confidently estimated to be less than 12 months and treatment of HCV cannot alter that prognosis, the standard of care recognizes that it is reasonable to refrain from treatment and focus on palliative care.
-4-
Appellate Case: 17-3029 Page: 4 Date Filed: 12/06/2018 Entry ID: 4733057

(3) relying exclusively on APRI score to determine the stage of fibrosis or cirrhosis; rather than using other more accurate methods of determining its progression through liver biopsies, FIB-4, or FibroScan; (4) failing to consider providing treatment to HCV-positive inmates unless they have an APRI score above 2.0 that persists for several months, even though more than half of persons with cirrhosis will not have an APRI score at or above 2.0, and they know that AST levels are transient; (5) disregarding independent diagnoses of cirrhosis or significant hepatitis fibrosis in making their treatment decisions; and (6) basing treatment decisions on cost, rather than on need for treatment.
Plaintiffs alleged that instead of receiving DAA treatment, inmates with HCV but who have an APRI score below 2.0 are given a blood draw every six months and potential counseling.
The Defendants in this case opposed class certification, arguing in part that the Plaintiffs had not submitted sufficient evidence in conjunction with their motion for certification to allow the district court to conduct the “rigorous analysis” that is required under Rule 23. See Gen. Tel. Co. of Sw. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 161 (1982) (explaining that district courts must engage in a “rigorous analysis” to determine whether the requirements of Rule 23 have been satisfied); see also Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27, 33 (2013) (explaining that a party seeking class certification must “be prepared to prove” the requirements of Rule 23(a) and “must also satisfy through evidentiary proof at least one of the provisions of Rule 23(b)”). In response, Plaintiffs attached evidence to their reply to the Defendants’ opposition to class certification supporting their compliance with Rule 23’s requirements. That evidence included multiple records indicating that inmates were denied DAA drug treatment exclusively due to their low APRI scores—even when a Plaintiff had received an independent diagnosis of cirrhosis. For example, one record stated, “Your APRI score is 0.562 and per protocol the APRI score needs to be greater than 2 to be considered for treatment.” The district court granted the Defendants leave to file sur-replies to address the Plaintiffs’ new evidence.
-5-
Appellate Case: 17-3029 Page: 5 Date Filed: 12/06/2018 Entry ID: 4733057

The district court granted certification of a class comprised of the following:
All those individuals in the custody of MDOC, now or in the future, who have been, or will be, diagnosed with chronic HCV, as that term is defined medically, but who are not provided treatment with direct acting antiviral drugs.
The district court relied on evidence submitted by both the Plaintiffs and the Defendants to support its certification decision. For example, the court found that the size of the proposed class was likely to number at least 2,000 persons, relying on evidence from one of the Defendants’ experts to determine how many of the roughly 5,000 inmates with HCV were likely to develop chronic HCV. The court found that evidence submitted by the Defendants bolstered Plaintiffs’ typicality arguments by confirming the Named Plaintiffs’ allegations that they were diagnosed with chronic HCV and had not received treatment with DAA drugs. After closely examining the evidence put forward by both sides regarding the existence of a class wide policy, the court concluded that the records submitted by the Plaintiffs showing that they were rejected for DAA treatment and the Defendants’ own evidence referencing standardized “protocols” for the treatment of chronic HCV satisfied the requirement that Plaintiffs be able to show that the party opposing the class acted or refused to act on grounds applying generally to the class. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2).
Plaintiffs initially sought injunctions that would require Defendants to: (1) “formulate and implement an HCV treatment policy that meets the prevailing standard of care, including identifying persons with HCV”; (2) “treat members of the class with appropriate DAA drugs”; and (3) “provide members of the class an appropriate and accurate assessment of the level of fibrosis or cirrhosis they have, counseling on drug-drug interactions, and ongoing medical care for complications and symptoms of HCV.” The district court modified the scope of those proposed injunctions, replacing the direction to “treat members of the class with appropriate DAA drugs” with a prohibition on “delaying or denying DAA drug treatment to class members for any
-6-
Appellate Case: 17-3029 Page: 6 Date Filed: 12/06/2018 Entry ID: 4733057

nonmedical reason,” due to the court’s recognition that DAA treatment might conflict with other medical indicators. Plaintiffs also seek a declaratory judgment that the Defendants’ policy of withholding treatment with DAA drugs from inmates diagnosed with HCV violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments and the ADA. We granted the Defendants’ Rule 23(f) petition for interlocutory appeal of the district court’s grant of class certification.
II. Discussion
“To be certified as a class, plaintiffs must meet all of the requirements of Rule 23(a) and must satisfy one of the three subsections of Rule 23(b).” In re St. Jude Med., Inc., 425 F.3d 1116, 1119 (8th Cir. 2005) (citing Amchem Prod., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 614 (1997); Blades v. Monsanto Co., 400 F.3d 562, 568-69 (8th Cir. 2005)). Plaintiffs carry the burden of showing that they have met those requirements. See Luiken v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, 705 F.3d 370, 372 (8th Cir. 2013) (quoting Coleman v. Watt, 40 F.3d 255, 258 (8th Cir. 1994)). District courts must engage in a “rigorous analysis” to determine whether the requirements of Rule 23 have been satisfied. Falcon, 457 U.S. at 161 (1982). We will “reverse a certification where there has been an abuse of discretion.” Ebert v. Gen. Mills, Inc., 823 F.3d 472, 477 (8th Cir. 2016) (quoting Smith v. ConocoPhillips Pipe Line Co., 801 F.3d 921, 925 (8th Cir. 2015)). A district court abuses its discretion if it commits an error of law. Sandusky Wellness Ctr., LLC v. Medtox Sci., Inc., 821 F.3d 992, 995 (8th Cir. 2016) (citing In re Zurn Pex Plumbing Prods. Liab. Litig., 644 F.3d 604, 616 (8th Cir. 2011)). “[T]he district court’s factual findings underlying the certification ruling are reviewed under the ‘clearly erroneous’ standard.” Ebert, 823 F.3d at 477 (quoting Blades, 400 F.3d at 566).
“[A] decision to certify a class is far from a conclusive judgment on the merits of the case.” In re Zurn Pex Plumbing Prod. Liab. Litig., 644 F.3d at 613. For that reason, “Rule 23 grants courts no license to engage in free-ranging merits inquiries at
-7-
Appellate Case: 17-3029 Page: 7 Date Filed: 12/06/2018 Entry ID: 4733057

the certification stage.” Amgen Inc. v. Conn. Ret. Plans & Trust Funds, 568 U.S. 455, 466 (2013). “Merits questions may be considered to the extent—but only to the extent—that they are relevant to determining whether the Rule 23 prerequisites for class certification are satisfied.” Id. Our primary task is not to determine the final disposition of a plaintiff’s claims, but instead to examine whether those claims are appropriate for class resolution. See In re Zurn Pex Plumbing Prod. Liab. Litig., 644 F.3d at 613 (quoting Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 469 n. 11 (1978)) (explaining that the “tentative” nature of inquiry on a motion for class certification means that a court “must determine only” if Rule 23’s requirements have been met).
Before considering whether the district court abused its discretion in certifying the class, we address the Defendants’ argument that the district court treated Rule 23 as a mere “pleading standard” by failing to require additional evidence in support of the Plaintiffs’ allegations.3 See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 350 (2011) (“Rule 23 does not set forth a mere pleading standard.”). While the district court’s order contained dicta stating that it believed the Defendants proposed an overly stringent evidentiary requirement, the court noted that it would consider the evidence produced by the parties. Postawko v. Missouri Dep’t of Corr., No. 2:16-CV-04219-NKL, 2017 WL 3185155, at *5 (W.D. Mo. July 26, 2017) (“Nonetheless, the Plaintiffs did produce evidence and the Court therefore turns to that evidence.”). The court’s consideration of that evidence makes clear that it did not treat Rule 23’s requirements as a mere “pleading standard.” The evidence submitted by both parties was sufficient to permit the district court to conduct a “rigorous analysis” into whether or not class certification was appropriate. We therefore turn to the question of class certification.
3The Defendants also argue that the district court improperly relied on evidence attached to Plaintiffs’ reply in support of class certification. Admitting the evidence in the Plaintiffs’ reply and allowing the Defendants the opportunity to file a sur-reply was an appropriate exercise of discretion in a matter of case management left to the district court.
-8-
Appellate Case: 17-3029 Page: 8 Date Filed: 12/06/2018 Entry ID: 4733057

A. Rule 23(a)
Rule 23(a) requires plaintiffs to show that the class satisfies the requirements of “numerosity, commonality, typicality, and fair and adequate representation.” Luiken, 705 F.3d at 372. The Defendants challenge the district court’s conclusion that the numerosity, commonality, and typicality requirements were satisfied.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the numerosity requirement was satisfied. Given the evidence before the district court on the number of people suffering from chronic HCV under the MDOC’s care, the district court’s finding that the class was likely to include at least 2,000 people was not clearly erroneous. A class of that size would make “joinder of all members . . . impracticable.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1); see Paxton v. Union Nat. Bank, 688 F.2d 552, 559-60 (8th Cir. 1982).
Nor did the district court abuse its discretion in finding that the commonality requirement was satisfied. To satisfy Rule 23(a)(2), plaintiffs must show their claims involve a common question or contention “of such a nature that it is capable of classwide resolution—which means that determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke.” Sandusky Wellness Ctr., LLC, 821 F.3d at 998 (quoting Wal-Mart, 564 U.S. at 350); see also Ebert, 823 F.3d at 478 (quoting Wal-Mart, 564 U.S. at 359)). The mere presence of one or more common questions is not enough; rather, the district court must examine “the capacity of a class-wide proceeding to generate common answers apt to drive the resolution of the litigation.” Yates v. Collier, 868 F.3d 354, 361 (5th Cir. 2017) (emphasis omitted in original) (quoting Wal-Mart, 564 U.S. at 350).
Here the district court ably identified common questions whose answers were “apt to drive the resolution of the litigation.” For example, the members of the proposed class must show the Defendants acted “with ‘deliberate indifference to [an
-9-
Appellate Case: 17-3029 Page: 9 Date Filed: 12/06/2018 Entry ID: 4733057

inmate’s] serious medical needs’” to succeed on their Eighth Amendment claim. Bender v. Regier, 385 F.3d 1133, 1137 (8th Cir. 2004) (alteration in original) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976)). As the district court noted, “[A]ll class members share the common question of whether the Defendants’ policy or custom of withholding treatment with DAA drugs from individuals who have been or will be diagnosed with chronic HCV constitutes deliberate indifference to a serious medical need.” Answering that question will resolve an issue “central to the validity” of each of the class members’ claims.4
The Defendants argue that the unique medical condition of each member of the class means that resolving their claims will require a “highly individualized” inquiry. This misunderstands the nature of the class’s claims. Plaintiffs assert that the failure of the Defendants to screen properly for a life-threatening disease and provide appropriate treatment exposes all inmates suffering from chronic HCV to the same unconstitutional injury. Cf. Allard v. Baldwin, 779 F.3d 768, 772 (8th Cir. 2015) (citations omitted) (“A plaintiff can show deliberate indifference in the level of care provided in different ways, including showing grossly incompetent or inadequate care, showing a defendant’s decision to take an easier and less efficacious course of treatment, or showing a defendant intentionally delayed or denied access to medical care.”). While a putative class seeking damages for such claims might struggle to satisfy Rule 23(a)(2), a class certified under Rule 23(b)(2) seeking only injunctive and declaratory relief suffers no such difficulty.5 Here the physical symptoms eventually
4Plaintiffs’ ADA claim clears the same hurdle. As the district court stated, “[A]ll class members share the common mixed factual and legal question of whether Defendants use the alleged policies to discriminate against inmates in need of medical treatment based on their chronic HCV diagnoses.”
5The Defendants’ comparison to Wal-Mart supports, rather than weakens, Plaintiffs’ claims. In Wal-Mart, the plaintiffs’ discrimination claims included damages and involved the exercise of discretion by different managers all over the country. See Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, 136 S. Ct. 1036, 1048 (2016)
-10-
Appellate Case: 17-3029 Page: 10 Date Filed: 12/06/2018 Entry ID: 4733057

suffered by each class member may vary, but the question asked by each class member is susceptible to common resolution. See Yates, 868 F.3d at 363 (affirming class certification even where no two class members had “the exact same risk,” as the relevant policy was alleged to pose an unconstitutional risk of serious harm to all class members); Parsons v. Ryan, 754 F.3d 657, 678 (9th Cir. 2014) (explaining that “although a presently existing risk may ultimately result in different future harm for different inmates . . . every inmate suffers exactly the same constitutional injury when he is exposed to a single . . . policy or practice that creates a substantial risk of serious harm”).
The typicality requirement was also satisfied. Typicality “is fairly easily met so long as other class members have claims similar to the named plaintiff.” DeBoer v. Mellon Mortg. Co., 64 F.3d 1171, 1174 (8th Cir. 1995) (citing Paxton, 688 F.2d at 562). “Factual variations in the individual claims will not normally preclude class certification if the claim arises from the same event or course of conduct as the class claims, and gives rise to the same legal or remedial theory.” Alpern v. UtiliCorp United, Inc., 84 F.3d 1525, 1540 (8th Cir. 1996) (citing Donaldson v. Pillsbury Co., 554 F.2d 825, 831 (8th Cir. 1977)). The Defendants argue that the Named Plaintiffs’ claims require individualized inquiries, such that their claims are not typical of the class. This argument overlaps significantly with their arguments on commonality. See Wal-Mart, 564 U.S. at 349 n.5 (quoting Falcon, 457 U.S. at 157-158 n.13) (explaining that the “commonality and typicality requirements of Rule 23(a) tend to merge”). We therefore reject the argument for similar reasons. In this suit for
(explaining that the plaintiffs in Wal-Mart “did not provide significant proof of a common policy of discrimination to which each employee was subject”). By contrast, here the Plaintiffs allege the existence of a single policy related to HCV treatment and APRI scores that involves no discretionary decision-making. Cf. Bouaphakeo v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 765 F.3d 791, 797 (8th Cir. 2014), aff’d and remanded, 136 S. Ct. 1036 (2016) (“Unlike [in Wal-Mart], Tyson had a specific company policy . . . that applied to all class members.”).
-11-
Appellate Case: 17-3029 Page: 11 Date Filed: 12/06/2018 Entry ID: 4733057

prospective injunctive and declaratory relief, the potential for minor “factual variations” does not undermine the district court’s conclusion that the violation allegedly suffered by the Named Plaintiffs is typical of that suffered by the class as a whole. See DeBoer, 64 F.3d at 1174–75 (explaining that claims may be “typical of the remainder of the class given the nature of the injunctive relief sought,” even when the amount of harm might differ if plaintiffs had instead brought a suit for damages). The district court did not clearly err in finding that the Named Plaintiffs are exposed to the same alleged risk under the Defendants’ policies as all other inmates suffering from HCV. The Named Plaintiffs’ claims are therefore typical of the class.
B. Rule 23(b)(2)
Plaintiffs must demonstrate that “the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). For certification to be appropriate, the class claims must be “cohesive.” Avritt v. Reliastar Life Ins. Co., 615 F.3d 1023, 1035 (8th Cir. 2010) (quoting In re St. Jude Med., Inc., 425 F.3d at 1121). “Rule 23(b)(2) applies only when a single injunction or declaratory judgment would provide relief to each member of the class.” Wal-Mart, 564 U.S. at 360.
This case involves claims that the Defendants uniformly applied a screening and treatment policy for HCV that was so inadequate that it amounted to a constitutional violation as to each and every incarcerated person who either suffered or will suffer from HCV. If those claims are true, they describe a party acting “on grounds generally applicable to the class.” The district court engaged in a “rigorous analysis” of the evidence put forward by both Plaintiffs and Defendants before concluding that there was sufficient evidence that the party opposing the class “acted or refused to act” on grounds that apply generally to the class. As part of its analysis, the court closely examined the medical records submitted by the plaintiffs and considered
-12-
Appellate Case: 17-3029 Page: 12 Date Filed: 12/06/2018 Entry ID: 4733057

inconsistencies within the Defendants’ evidence concerning the existence of a uniform policy.
Whether or not the class will be able to show that each proposed injunction is warranted on the merits is not before us. Rather, we are tasked only with determining whether the district court abused its discretion by holding that the proposed class action satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(b)(2). The district court’s modified proposed injunctions identify relief that would respond to the alleged harm on a uniform, generally applicable basis. Cf. Yates, 868 F.3d at 368 (affirming class certification under Rule 23(b)(2) for claims seeking injunctive relief where “[a]ll inmates, regardless of age or health,” were subject to the same policy on climate control and were “(allegedly) harmed in essentially the same way—i.e., by exposure to a substantial risk of serious harm because of exposure to excessive heat”). While the Defendants may continue to challenge the existence and parameters of the alleged policy at trial, at this stage they are unable to show that the district court abused its discretion in holding that sufficient evidence of a common policy existed to comply with Rule 23(b)(2).
C. Federalism Interests
The Defendants urge us to hold that this class certification decision implicates principles of federalism regarding the authority of a state to administer its own prisons. We are mindful “of the special delicacy of the adjustment to be preserved between federal equitable power and State administration of its own law.” Elizabeth M. v. Montenez, 458 F.3d 779, 784 (8th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation mark omitted) (citing Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 378 (1976)). But see Brown v. Plata, 563 U.S. 493, 511 (2011) (“Courts may not allow constitutional violations to continue simply because a remedy would involve intrusion into the realm of prison administration.”). For that reason, in Elizabeth M. we stated that a certification decision did not pay “sufficient heed” to federalism interests where the class action sought “sweeping
-13-
Appellate Case: 17-3029 Page: 13 Date Filed: 12/06/2018 Entry ID: 4733057

injunctive relief which, if granted, would require the district court to mandate and monitor detailed programs governing nearly every facet of the State’s operation” of three residential facilities. 458 F.3d at 783, 788. The injunctions sought in this case are not nearly so broad and relate only to a single policy regarding one particular illness. As we are satisfied that the Plaintiffs have satisfied Rule 23’s requirements, we may wait to consider any further concerns about the balance between state and federal authority until (and if) the district court imposes an equitable remedy.
D. Plaintiffs’ Claim under the ADA
The Defendants also challenge the district court’s ruling on the sufficiency of the Plaintiffs’ ADA pleadings. The limited nature of our review of class certification under Rule 23(f) does not allow a defendant to make expansive arguments on the merits of the underlying appeal. See Mims v. Stewart Title Guar. Co., 590 F.3d 298, 306 (5th Cir. 2009) (“Given our limited jurisdiction in this Rule 23(f) appeal, we have no authority to review the district court’s conclusion that the plaintiffs have stated a claim for these alleged overcharges under this theory.”); In re Delta Airlines, 310 F.3d 953, 960 (6th Cir. 2002) (“The Rule 23(f) appeal should not become a vehicle for early review of a legal theory that underlies the merits of a class action.”). A careful review of the Defendants’ ADA-related arguments reveals that they do not relate to the propriety of certification under Rule 23. Instead, they present merits challenges to the Plaintiffs’ claims (arguing that under the ADA plaintiffs may not challenge the inadequacy of the medical services offered). Whatever the merits of the Defendants’ arguments, they do not clearly relate to whether class certification is appropriate under Rule 23. We therefore conclude that Defendants’ ADA arguments lie outside our jurisdiction on this Rule 23(f) appeal.
III. Conclusion
We affirm the certification decision of the district court. ______________________________
-14-
Appellate Case: 17-3029 Page: 14 Date Filed: 12/06/2018 Entry ID: 4733057

 
 PLAINTIFFS Michael Postawko and Christopher Baker, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, by and through their attorneys,
thony thert, ACLU of Missouri
Amy E. Breihan, Roderick & Solange MacArthur Justice Center
Bets Henthorne, Wilkinson Walsh LLP Counselfor Plaintiffs and the Class
MDOC
By: -------------­ Its:
MDOC DIRECTOR, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY
By: Anne L. Precythe, as Director of the Missouri Department of Corrections
CORIZON, LLC
By: -J.-Sco-tt - Kin-g --------­ Its: Executive VP, Chief Legal Officer
18

Postawko, et al. v. Missouri Department of Corrections, et al. Case No. 2:16-cv-04219-NKL
Exhibit A to Private Settlement Agreement

HEPATITIS C WHAT IS HEPATITIS C (HCV)?

IN MISSOURI PRISONS

Hepatitis C, also called

“HCV,” is a virus that

can hurt your liver. It is

spread through infected

blood. Most people

do not have symptoms

from HCV right away, but
HOW DO I GET HEPATITIS C (HCV)? without treatment, HCV

You get HCV when the blood of someone who has HCV gets into your body through an open cut or an open sore.

can cause severe liver damage called cirrhosis.

MOST COMMON WAYS TO GET HEPATITIS C (HCV):
Sharing needles, cookers, cottons, water and other injection drug equipment *Boiling, burning, or rinsing needles with water or bleach does NOT fully protect against HCV transmission!

There are medications that can cure HCV. Many people in prison in the USA have HCV.

Sharing tattoo needles, tattoo ink, tattoo guns, or piercing equipment

Blood transfusions that occurred before 1992 OTHER WAYS TO GET HEPATITIS C (HCV):
Sharing straws or dollars for snorting drugs Sharing hygiene equipment such as razors, toothbrushes, and clippers Getting into fights Unsafe, unprotected, or rough sexual activity especially if blood is present or if one partner has HIV Blood spills that are not well cleaned IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO GET HEPATITIS C (HCV) BY: Casual contact such as hugging, kissing, or sharing food or drinks Simply living in a cell or unit with others Eating or drinking in the chow hall Sharing a toilet or shower Playing sports in the yard or gym
MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Improving Lives for Safer Communities

HOW TO DETERMINE WHETHER YOU HAVE HCV:
Ask to get tested. There are two parts to HCV testing: 1. An Antibody Test is usually done
first, and can detect exposure to the virus. 1. The second test is called a Viral Load Test, and it confirms whether or not you have a current HCV infection. Talk to your doctors and nurses about what testing is appropriate for you.
HOW TO STAY AS HEALTHY AS POSSIBLE IF YOU HAVE HCV:
Things you should do: 33 See your health provider often 33 Eat well and exercise when
possible 33 Learn as much as you can about
HCV Things you should avoid: ³³ Alcoholic beverages (beer, wine,
liquor) ³³ Non-prescribed drugs (also
marijuana) ³³ Over-the-counter drugs with
acetaminophen (Tylenol)

HEPATITIS C ¿QUÉ ES LA HEPATITIS C (VHC)?

en Prisiónes de Missouri

La Hepatitis C o “VHC,” es

un virus que puede afectar

su hígado. Se transmite

a través del contacto con

sangre infectada. La

mayoría de las personas

no presentan síntomas ¿CÓMO SE CONTAGIA LA HEPATITIS C (VHC)? del VHC de inmediato. Sin

El VHC se contrae cuando la sangre de alguien con el VHC ingresa en su cuerpo a través de una cortada o llaga abierta.

embargo, si no reciben tratamiento, el VHC puede

Las formas más comunes de contraer la Hepatitis C (VHC):

causar graves daños

Compartir agujas, calentadoras, algodón, agua y otros materiales de inyección *Hervir, quemar o enjuagar agujas con agua o cloro NO lo proteger completamente contra la transmisión del VHC

al hígado, enfermedad conocida como cirrosis. Hay medicamentos que

Compartir agujas, tinta, y pistolas de tatuaje, o equipo de perforación

pueden curar el VHC.

Transfusiones de sangre recibidas antes de 1992 Otras formas de contraer la Hepatitis C (VHC):

Muchas personas en las prisiones de Estados Unidos tienen el VHC.

Compartir popotes o dólares para inhalar drogas

Compartir artículos de higiene como rastrillos, cepillos de dientes, y cortaúñas Meterle una pelea con contacto físico Mantener relaciones sexuales sin proteccion o sexo rudo, especialmente si está presente la sangre o si una de las parejas tiene VIH Derrames de sangre que no se limpian bien NO es posible contraer la Hepatitis C (VHC) por medio: Contacto casual como abrazar, besar, o compartir alimentos o bebidas Simplemente vivir en una celda o unidad con otros Comer o beber en el comedor Compartir un baño o ducha Hacer deportes en el patio o gimnasio
MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Improving Lives for Safer Communities

CÓMO DETERMINAR SI TIENE VHC:
Pida hacerse la prueba. Hay dos partes para las pruebas de VHC: 1. Una prueba de anticuerpos
generalmente se realiza primero y puede detectar la exposición al virus. 2. La segunda prueba se llama Prueba de carga viral, y confirma si usted tiene o no una infección actual de VHC. Hable con sus médicos y enfermeras sobre qué pruebas son apropiadas para usted.
CÓMO PUEDE MANTENERSE LO MÁS SALUDABLE POSIBLE SI TIENE EL VHC:
Lo que debe hacer: 33 Visite a su proveedor de salud a menudo 33 Coma de forma saludable y haga
ejercicio cuando sea posible 33 Aprenda todo lo pueda sobre el VHC Lo que debe evitar: ³³ Bebidas alcohólicas (cerveza, vino, licor) ³³ Medicamentos sin receta (incluso la
marihuana) ³³ Medicamentos de venta libre con
acetaminofén (Tylenol)

Postawko, et al. v. Missouri Department of Corrections, et al. Case No. 2:16-cv-04219-NKL
Exhibit B to Private Settlement Agreement

If you can’t get treated for HCV while you’re locked up...
There may be limitations on who is eligible for treatment in prison. Doctors will consider many factors, including your current liver health, the length of your sentence, and your medical history.
If you have been told that you are not eligible for HCV treatment or you have to wait:
33 Treatment may be delayed because of prioritization based on severity of disease progression based on prison medical standards. Follow procedures at your facility to get more answers.
33 Continue to see your nurses and doctors regularly to stay healthy, monitor your liver, catch any problems early, and prepare for treatment in the future.
33 Make sure you get copies of your medical records during release so you can follow up with your doctor.
33 Ask your facility to help you sign up for health insurance or Medicaid when you are released from custody.
33 After release, consider enrolling in patient assistance programs offered by drug companies or ask about clinical trials.
While it may be frustrating to wait for treatment, know that many people live with hepatitis C for years without problems. Ask your doctor or someone you trust for more information.

HEPATITIS C
IN MISSOURI PRISONS

MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Improving Lives for Safer Communities

WHAT IS HEPATITIS C (HCV)? Hepatitis C, also called “HCV,” is a virus that can hurt your liver. It is spread through infected blood. Most people do not have symptoms from HCV right away, but without treatment, HCV can cause severe liver damage called cirrhosis. There are medications that can cure HCV. Many people in prison in the USA have HCV. HOW DO I GET HEPATITIS C (HCV)? You get HCV when the blood of someone who has HCV gets into your body through an open cut or an open sore. MOST COMMON WAYS TO GET HEPATITIS C (HCV):
Sharing needles, cookers, cottons, water and other injection drug equipment *Boiling, burning, or rinsing needles with water or bleach does NOT fully protect against HCV transmission!
Sharing tattoo needles, tattoo ink, tattoo guns, or piercing equipment
Blood transfusions that occurred before 1992
OTHER WAYS TO GET HEPATITIS C (HCV):
Sharing straws or dollars for snorting drugs
Sharing hygiene equipment such as razors, toothbrushes, and clippers
Getting into fights
Unsafe, unprotected, or rough sexual activity especially if blood is present or if one partner has HIV
Blood spills that are not well cleaned
IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO GET HEPATITIS C (HCV) BY:
Casual contact such as hugging, kissing, or sharing food or drinks
Simply living in a cell or unit with others
Eating or drinking in the chow hall
Sharing a toilet or shower
Playing sports in the yard or gym

ARE HEPATITIS SERVICES PROVIDED IN PRISONS? In prison, you may have access to medical services for hepatitis. Remember, every prison is different, meaning some services may not be available. Ask your doctors and nurses about what testing and treatments are available, and follow up regularly.
Hepatitis C is curable:
HCV is treatable and it is curable for most people. Since 2013, many new medications have been released to treat HCV. Treatment can be complicated and your doctor will help you decide which treatment is right for you.
Hepatitis C testing:
There are two parts to HCV testing: an Antibody Test is usually done first, and can detect exposure to the virus. The second test is called a Viral Load Test, and it confirms whether or not you have a current HCV infection. Talk to your doctors and nurses about what testing is appropriate for you.
Monitoring your liver:
Doctors can monitor your liver’s health. Some tests include APRI score, liver function tests, fibroscan, and biopsy. Ask your doctor which tests are available.
! If you get cured: Even if your HCV infection is cured it is possible to get reinfected. Stay safe and healthy even after treatment.
Vaccines for hepatitis A and B:
Getting vaccinated prevents you from getting a virus even if you are exposed. You can’t be vaccinated for hepatitis C, but you can be vaccinated for hepatitis A and hepatitis B. For people with hepatitis C, it’s very important to be vaccinated for hepatitis A and B.

HOW TO STAY AS HEALTHY AS POSSIBLE IF YOU HAVE HCV:

Things you should do:

Things you should avoid:

33 See your health provider often
33 Eat well and exercise when possible
33 Learn as much as you can about HCV

³³ Alcoholic beverages (beer, wine, liquor)
³³ Non-prescribed drugs (also marijuana)
³³ Over-the-counter drugs with acetaminophen (Tylenol)

Si no puede recibir tratamiento para el VHC mientras está encarcelado Pueden existir limitaciones en cuanto quién es elegible para el tratamiento en la prisión. Los médicos tomarán en cuenta muchos factores, entre ellos, el estado de salud actual de su hígado, el período de su sentencia, y su historial médico.
Si le han informado que no es elegible para el tratamiento del VHC o que tiene que esperar:
33 El tratamiento puede retrasarse debido a la priorización basada en la gravedad de la progresión de la enfermedad según los estándares médicos de la prisión. Siga los procedimientos de sus instalaciones para obtener más respuestas.
33 Continúe visitando a su enfermero y médico de manera regular para mantenerse sano, vigilar su hígado, detectar cualquier problema a tiempo y prepararse para el tratamiento en el futuro.
33 Asegúrese de obtener copias de sus registros médicos a la hora de salir en libertad para que pueda hacer seguimiento con su médico.
33 Cuando sea liberado de la cárcel, pida ayuda para inscribirse en un plan de seguro médico o Medicaid.
33 Después de ser liberado de la cárcel, considere inscribirse en programas de asistencia al paciente ofrecidos por las compañías farmacéuticas o pregunte sobre los estudios clínicos.
Aunque puede ser frustrante esperar para recibir tratamiento, tenga presente que muchas personas viven con Hepatitis C sin problemas durante años. Pida a su médico o a alguien de confianza más información.

HEPATITIS C
EN LAS PRISIONES MISSOURI

MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Improving Lives for Safer Communities

¿QUÉ ES LA HEPATITIS C (VHC)? La Hepatitis C o “VHC,” es un virus que puede afectar su hígado. Se transmite a través del contacto con sangre infectada. La mayoría de las personas no presentan síntomas del VHC de inmediato. Sin embargo, si no reciben tratamiento, el VHC puede causar graves daños al hígado, enfermedad conocida como cirrosis. Hay medicamentos que pueden curar el VHC. Muchas personas en las prisiones de Estados Unidos tienen el VHC.
¿CÓMO SE CONTAGIA LA HEPATITIS C (VHC)? El VHC se contrae cuando la sangre de alguien con el VHC ingresa en su cuerpo a través de una cortada o llaga abierta.
Las formas más comunes de contraer la Hepatitis C (VHC):
Compartir agujas, calentadoras, algodón, agua y otros materiales de inyección *Hervir, quemar o enjuagar agujas con agua o cloro NO lo proteger completamente contra la transmisión del VHC
Compartir tagujas, tinta, y pistolas de tatuaje, o equipo de perforación
Transfusiones de sangre recibidas antes de 1992
Otras formas de contraer la Hepatitis C (VHC):
Compartir popotes o dólares para inhalar drogas
Compartir artículos de higiene como rastrillos, cepillos de dientes, y cortaúñas
Mantener una pelea con contacto físico
Mantener relaciones sexuales sin protección o toscas, especialmente si está presente la sangre o si una de las parejas tiene VIH
Derrames de sangre que no se limpian bien
NO es posible contraer la Hepatitis C (VHC) por medio:
Contacto casual como abrazar, besar, o compartir alimentos o bebidas
Simplemente vivir en una celda o unidad con otros
Comer o beber en el comedor
Compartir un baño o ducha
Hacer deportes en el patio o gimnasio

¿SE PROPORCIONAN SERVICIOS DE HEPATITIS EN LAS PRISIONES? Es posible que tenga acceso a servicios médicos para la Hepatitis en las prisiones. Recuerde que cada prisión y cárcel es diferente. Por eso, es posible que algunos servicios no estan disponibles. Pregúnteles a sus médicos y enfermeras qué pruebas y tratamientos están disponibles y realice un seguimiento con regularidad.
La Hepatitis C es curable: El VHC es tratable y curable en la mayoría de las personas. Desde 2013, han salido al mercado muchos medicamentos nuevos para tratar el VHC. El tratamiento puede ser complicado y su médico le ayudará a decidir qué tratamiento es adecuado para usted.

Pruebas para detectar la Hepatitis C:

La prueba del VHC consiste de dos partes: primero se realiza una

prueba de anticuerpos, la cual detecta su exposición al virus. La

segunda prueba se llama prueba de carga viral, y confirma si usted

actualmente tiene o no una infección del VHC. Hable con sus

médicos y enfermeras sobre qué pruebas son apropiadas para

usted.

Monitoreo de su hígado:

Los médicos pueden monitorear el estado de salud de su hígado.

Algunas pruebas incluyen: resultado APRI, pruebas de función

hepática, “fibroscan” y la biopsia. Pregunte a su médico qué pruebas

están disponibles.

!

Si se cura: Es posible que vuelva a infectarse, incluso después de haberse curado del VHC. Por lo tanto, practique hábitos seguros y saludables,

aun después del tratamiento.

Vacunas para la Hepatitis A y B:

Las vacunas le ayudan a prevenir que adquiera un virus, incluso si

usted es expuesto. No existe vacuna contra la Hepatitis C, pero sí

contra la Hepatitis A y B. Es de suma importancia que las personas

con Hepatitis C, se vacunen contra la Hepatitis A y B.

CÓMO PUEDE MANTENERSE LO MÁS SALUDABLE POSIBLE SI TIENE EL VHC:

Lo que debe hacer: 33 Visite a su proveedor de salud a
menudo 33 Coma de forma saludable y haga
ejercicio cuando sea posible 33 Aprenda todo lo pueda sobre el
VHC

Lo que debe evitar: ³³ Bebidas alcohólicas (cerveza,
vino, licor) ³³ Medicamentos sin receta (incluso
la marihuana) ³³ Medicamentos de venta libre con
acetaminofén (Tylenol)