1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
672\1\PLEADING\ COMPL-6.731

ROSEN, BIEN & ASARO MICHAEL W. BIEN - 096891 DONNA PETRINE - 154833 M.J. TONY PAIKEDAY - 176051 155 Montgomery Street, 8th Floor San Francisco, California 94104 Telephone (415) 433-6830
LAW OFFICES OF GERI L. GREEN GERI L. GREEN - 127709 629 Bryant St. San Francisco, California 94107 Telephone (415) 777-9990
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Robin Lucas, Valerie Mercadel, Raquel Douthit

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBIN LUCAS, VALERIE

)

MERCADEL,and RAQUEL DOUTHIT, )

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

vs.

)

)

O. IVAN WHITE, WARDEN LOY

)

HAYES, CAPTAIN DENNIS SMITH, )

OFFICER _________ GILLETTE, )

LIEUTENANT

GILLETTE, )

LIEUTENANT SHEILA YARBOROUGH, )

LIEUTENANT WAYNE ERNST,

)

OFFICER GARFIELD SAMUELS, and )

DOES 1 through 15, inclusive, )

)

Defendants.

)

)

No. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED [Civil Rights]

Plaintiffs ROBIN LUCAS, VALERIE MERCADEL and RAQUEL DOUTHIT hereby allege as follows:
INTRODUCTION 1. Plaintiffs ROBIN LUCAS, VALERIE MERCADEL and RAQUEL DOUTHIT seek damages for injuries causes while incarcerated in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons at Camp Parks
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Lucas v. White, et al.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
672\1\PLEADING\ COMPL-6.731

minimum security facility ("Camp Parks"), the Federal Detention Center -- Pleasanton ("FDC-Pleasanton") and the Federal Correction Institution -- Dublin ("FCI-Dublin") in or around the time period between August and November 1995. During that time Plaintiffs ROBIN LUCAS, VALERIE MERCADEL and RAQUEL DOUTHIT were sexually assaulted, physically and verbally sexually abused and harassed, subjected to repeated invasions of privacy and subjected to threats, retaliation and harassment when they complained about this wrongful treatment.
2. In their acts and omissions as alleged herein, Defendants have violated Plaintiffs' rights under the federal Constitution and federal law to be from cruel and unusual punishment and have deprived Plaintiffs of their privacy, due process, equal protection and free speech rights. As a result of Defendants' wrongful conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered, and continue to suffer, severe physical and emotional injury, and hereby seek damages in an amount to be determined, and injunctive relief.
JURISDICTION 3. This lawsuit is brought under the United States Constitution for damages pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and for injunctive relief. Jurisdiction is based on 28 U.S.C. §1331. 4. The acts and omissions complained of herein also give rise to various tort claims over which this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§1346(b), 2671 et seq. (This Court also has supplemental jurisdiction over claims arising under state law, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367.) Plaintiffs have filed timely administrative

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Lucas v. White, et al.

2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
672\1\PLEADING\ COMPL-6.731

claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act; however, because claims have not yet been denied, nor has a six month time period elapsed, plaintiffs do not assert those claims here. Plaintiffs intend to assert any and all such claims at such time as they may properly be asserted and joined in this lawsuit.
VENUE 5. The events or omissions giving rise to the claims alleged in this Complaint arose in the Northern District of California. Therefore, venue lies in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. 28 USC §§84(a); 1391(b)(2).
INTRA-DISTRICT ASSIGNMENT 6. All events giving rise to the causes of action contained herein occurred in the County of Alameda and thus this case should be assigned to the San Francisco Division or the Oakland Division of the Northern District of California pursuant to Rule 3-2(c) of the Local Rules of the Northern District.
PARTIES 7. Plaintiff ROBIN LUCAS is a citizen of the State of California. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff LUCAS was incarcerated in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons at the FDC-Pleasanton facility and/or at the FCI-Dublin facility and/or at Camp Parks facility. Plaintiff LUCAS was released from prison in or around July 1996. Plaintiff LUCAS is an AfricanAmerican woman. 8. Plaintiff VALERIE MERCADEL currently is incarcerated in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff MERCADEL was incarcerated in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons at the FDC-Pleasanton

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Lucas v. White, et al.

3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
672\1\PLEADING\ COMPL-6.731

facility and/or at the FCI-Dublin facility. Plaintiff MERCADEL is an African-American woman.
9. Plaintiff RAQUEL DOUTHIT currently is incarcerated in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff DOUTHIT was incarcerated in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons at the FDC-Pleasanton facility and/or at the FCI-Dublin facility. Plaintiff DOUTHIT is an African-American woman.
10. Defendant O. IVAN WHITE is, and was at all times relevant herein, the Western Regional Director for the Federal Bureau of Prisons, acting under color of federal law. As such, he was responsible for the security and safety of persons incarcerated within the Western Region, including Plaintiffs, and the supervision, training and administration of the correctional staff in the Western Region. As to all claims presented herein, except for the claim for injunctive relief, Defendant WHITE is being sued in his individual capacity. As for Plaintiffs' injunctive relief claim only, Defendant WHITE is being sued in his official capacity.
11. Defendant WARDEN LOY HAYES, based on information and belief, is, and was at all times relevant herein, the Warden at the FCI-Dublin, FDC-Pleasanton and Camp Parks facilities, acting under color of federal law. As such, he was responsible for the security and safety of persons incarcerated within these facilities, including Plaintiffs, and the supervision, training, administration and placement of the correctional staff at these facilities. He also was directly responsible for making decisions as to which facility would house particular inmates, including Plaintiffs, and knew or should have known that

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Lucas v. White, et al.

4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
672\1\PLEADING\ COMPL-6.731

Plaintiffs were housed at the J-2 SHU. As to all claims presented herein, except for the claim for injunctive relief, Defendant HAYES is being sued in his individual capacity. As to Plaintiffs' injunctive relief claim only, Defendant HAYES is begin sued in his official capacity.
12. Defendant CAPTAIN DENNIS SMITH was at all times relevant herein a high-ranking correctional officer at the FDCPleasanton FCI-Dublin and Camp Parks facilities, acting under color of federal law. As such, he was responsible for the security and safety of persons incarcerated within these facilities, including Plaintiffs, and the supervision, training and administration of the correctional staff in these facilities.
He is being sued in his individual capacity. 13. Defendant OFFICER ______ GILLETTE is, and was at all
times relevant herein, a correctional officer at the J-2 SHU at the FDC-Pleasanton facility, acting under color of federal law. As such, he was responsible for the security and safety of persons incarcerated within FDC-Pleasanton, including Plaintiffs.
He is being sued in his individual capacity. 14. Defendant LIEUTENANT ______ GILLETTE is, and was at all
times relevant herein, a Special Investigative Section ("SIS") Officer at the FDC-Pleasanton, FCI-Dublin facilities, acting under color of federal law. As such, he was responsible for the investigation and prosecution of inappropriate or unlawful behavior of correctional officers within these facilities, and for the security and safety of persons incarcerated within these facilities, including Plaintiffs. He is being sued in his individual capacity.

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Lucas v. White, et al.

5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
672\1\PLEADING\ COMPL-6.731

15. Defendant LIEUTENANT SHEILA YARBOROUGH is, and was at all times relevant herein, an SIS officer at the FDC-Pleasanton, FCI-Dublin and Camp Parks facilities, acting under color of federal law. As such, she was responsible for the investigation and prosecution of inappropriate or unlawful behavior of correctional officers within these facilities, and for the security and safety of persons incarcerated within these facilities, including Plaintiffs. She is being sued in her individual capacity.
16. Defendant LIEUTENANT WAYNE L. ERNST is, and was at all times relevant herein, a corrections officer at the FCI-Dublin, FDC-Pleasanton and Camp Parks facilities, acting under color of federal law. As such, he was responsible for the security and safety of persons incarcerated within these facilities, including Plaintiffs, and the supervision, training and administration of the correctional staff in these facilities. He is being sued in his individual capacity.
17. Defendant OFFICER GARFIELD SAMUELS was at all times relevant herein, a corrections officer at the J-SHU at the FDCPleasanton facility, acting under color of federal law. As such, he was responsible for the security and safety of persons incarcerated within FDC-Pleasanton, including Plaintiffs. He is being sued in his individual capacity.
18. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of Defendants sued herein as Does 1 through 15, inclusive, and therefore sues said Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and therefore alleges, that each of Does 1 through 15 is responsible in some manner for the injuries and damages alleged herein. Plaintiff therefore sues

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Lucas v. White, et al.

6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
672\1\PLEADING\ COMPL-6.731

Does 1 through 15, inclusive, by such fictitious names and will seek leave to amend this Complaint to add their true names and capacities when they have been ascertained.
19. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that at all times relevant herein, Defendants, and each of them, were employees and agents of the government of the United States of America.
20. Plaintiffs allege that at all times relevant to this action, Defendants, and each of them, acted in the course and scope of their employment and under color of federal law.
21. While acting and failing to act as alleged herein, Defendants, and each of them, had complete custody and total control of Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs were dependent upon Defendants, and each of them, for their personal security.
22. In performing the acts and/or omissions complained of herein, Defendants, and each of them, acted under color of federal law, and Plaintiffs are informed and believe each acted maliciously, callously, intentionally, recklessly, with gross negligence, and with deliberate indifference to the rights and personal security of Plaintiffs. Each of them knew or should have known that their conduct, attitudes, actions and/or omissions were, and are, a threat to Plaintiffs and to their Constitutionally-protected rights. Despite this knowledge, Defendants, and each of them, failed to take steps to protect Plaintiffs, and to ensure their Constitutional rights while they were in Defendants' care and custody.

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Lucas v. White, et al.

7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
672\1\PLEADING\ COMPL-6.731

FACTS 23. Plaintiffs ROBIN LUCAS, VALERIE MERCADEL and RAQUEL DOUTHIT are, or were, female inmates incarcerated in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons and housed at the FDC-Pleasanton facility and the FCI-Dublin facility, who were subjected to a pattern and practice of sexual assaults, intimidation, physical, sexual and verbal abuse, threats of violence, sexual harassment, invasions of privacy, and other violations of law by Defendants, and were retaliated against by Defendants for their complaints regarding this unlawful conduct, as set forth herein.
ROBIN LUCAS 24. On or about April 2, 1995, Plaintiff ROBIN LUCAS was incarcerated at Camp Parks, in Dublin, California, a minimum security facility for women. 25. On or about August 14, 1995, after an alleged altercation with another prisoner, Plaintiff LUCAS was moved to the J-2 SHU (Special Housing Unit) at FDC-Pleasanton. 26. Plaintiff LUCAS is informed and believes that FDCPleasanton is a detention facility regularly used for the housing of men only. The J-2 SHU is a 24-hour lockdown facility, in which inmates are locked in their single cells at all times (except for very limited activities, such as showers). At the time Plaintiff LUCAS was placed in the J-2 SHU, she was one of only a handful of women housed there among an otherwise all-male prisoner population. 27. Plaintiff LUCAS is informed and believes and therefore alleges that Defendant Warden HAYES directly approved her placement at the J-2 SHU and/or immediately ratified her transfer to the J-2 SHU, and was responsible for deciding whether she

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Lucas v. White, et al.

8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
672\1\PLEADING\ COMPL-6.731

would be moved from that unit. Plaintiff is further informed and believes that Defendant WHITE approved the policy of housing female inmates in the men's SHU unit, and approved Plaintiff LUCAS' placement at the J-2 SHU.
28. Plaintiff LUCAS' placement at FDC-Pleasanton, and her placement in the J-2 SHU in particular, exposed all aspects of her private life, including changing of clothes, showering and use of the cell toilet, to the supervision and observation of male custody staff, as well as exposing her to a male inmate environment pervaded by sexual attention and animus directed at the few women in the facility. Few, if any, female officers were assigned to the J-2 SHU during the time Plaintiff was placed there. Moreover, because the facilities were designed for single-sex use, the cell windows and showers were in plain view of the male guards and inmates.
29. As a result of her placement on an all male tier, under constant supervision of male prison staff and constant exposure to the male inmate environment, Plaintiff LUCAS suffered severe emotional and psychological distress and invasions of her privacy.
30. Shortly after Plaintiff LUCAS' arrival at the J-2 SHU, she became the victim of a pattern of serious sexual harassment and unwelcome sexual advances orchestrated and facilitated by prison officials including, but not limited to the following:
(a) Male prisoners were allowed by guards to roam the J-2 SHU corridor and harass women prisoners, including Plaintiff LUCAS, through the food port or other opening in the cell doors.
On several occasions, male prisoners propositioned Plaintiff

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Lucas v. White, et al.

9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
672\1\PLEADING\ COMPL-6.731

LUCAS with offers of alcohol, drugs, condoms and other contraband in return for sexual favors.
(b) Male prisoners repeatedly taunted and threatened to assault Plaintiff LUCAS.
(c) Male prisoners were provided access to Plaintiff LUCAS' cell without her consent by one or more correctional officers, who would open the locked cell door to admit them. Plaintiff LUCAS is informed and believes some of the prisoners who were admitted to her cell were from other parts of the detention center.
(d) One male prisoner entered Plaintiff LUCAS' cell and climbed into bed with her while she was asleep and without her consent, for the purpose of having sexual contact with her.
31. Plaintiff LUCAS is informed and believes, and therefore alleges, that Defendant SAMUELS (otherwise known as "Dude"), an officer regularly on duty at the J-2 SHU between midnight and 8:00 a.m., unlocked Plaintiff LUCAS' cell door to permit male prisoners to enter her cell at night without her consent, for the purposes of perpetrating such assaults, abuse and harassment.
32. Plaintiff LUCAS is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that other correctional officers, whose identities are unknown to Plaintiff LUCAS, and who are sued herein as DOE Defendants 4 through 15, also allowed male inmates to access Plaintiff LUCAS' cell at the J-2 SHU for purposes of perpetrating such assaults, abuse and harassment, or otherwise participated in the assaults, abuse and harassment.
33. During this time period, Plaintiff LUCAS repeatedly asked prison personnel, including Defendant SAMUELS to stop letting male prisoners into her cell and asked other correctional

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Lucas v. White, et al.

10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
672\1\PLEADING\ COMPL-6.731

staff at the J-2 SHU to intervene to stop this harassment, to no avail.
34. Throughout the time she was housed in the J-2 SHU, and as a result of the unwelcome encounters with male prisoners and correctional staff as herein alleged, Plaintiff LUCAS was severely emotionally and psychologically distraught and in constant fear of further attacks. This fear and emotional and psychological distress was exacerbated by the fact that she could not seek assistance from the correctional staff, as they were involved in the wrongdoing.
35. In or around August 1995, after her requests for help to the J-2 SHU staff went unanswered, and fearing for her physical safety there, Plaintiff LUCAS contacted Defendant CAPTAIN SMITH, and asked to be transferred to a SHU in a female facility. Plaintiff LUCAS spoke with Defendant CAPTAIN SMITH several times in late August 1995, and informed him about what was taking place at the J-2 SHU, including the fact that correctional officers were unlocking her cell door to allow inmates to enter at night, and about Defendant Officer SAMUELS' involvement. Despite the fact that Plaintiff LUCAS provided this information, Defendant SMITH refused to remove her from the J-2 SHU. During one of her conversations with Defendant SMITH, Plaintiff LUCAS identified some of the inmates who had been let into her cell from a photographic line-up shown to her by Defendant CAPTAIN SMITH. After this identification, Defendant CAPTAIN SMITH requested that Plaintiff LUCAS provide an affidavit to the authorities.
36. On or about September 5, 1995, pursuant to Defendant SMITH'S request, Plaintiff LUCAS gave a verbal statement and a

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Lucas v. White, et al.

11

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
672\1\PLEADING\ COMPL-6.731

written affidavit to SIS Investigators, Defendants LIEUTENANTS YARBOROUGH and GILLETTE, including a detailed written statement regarding her treatment at the J-2 SHU. Plaintiff LUCAS is informed and believes that the SIS is the Internal Affairs Bureau for all three facilities -- FDC-Pleasanton, FCI-Dublin and Camp Parks. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendants LIEUTENANTS YARBOROUGH and GILLETTE communicated the substance of her detailed statement to Defendant CAPTAIN SMITH. Despite her provision of this detailed statement, Defendant CAPTAIN SMITH again refused to move Plaintiff from the J-2 SHU.
37. Plaintiff LUCAS is informed and believes, and therefore alleges, that Defendants LIEUTENANTS YARBOROUGH and GILLETTE and CAPTAIN SMITH leaked, or caused the release of, the substance of her detailed statement to personnel and inmates at FCI-Dublin and/or FDC-Pleasanton, knowing that the release of that information to FCI-Dublin and/or FDC-Pleasanton personnel and inmates would brand Plaintiff as a "snitch" and place her safety and security at risk.
38. Within days after making her detailed statement, the substance of Plaintiff LUCAS' detailed statement and the fact that Plaintiff LUCAS had "snitched" were common knowledge among the male prisoners and correctional personnel in the J-2 SHU. During this time, Plaintiff LUCAS remained housed in the J-2 SHU despite obvious and severe risk to her personal security, her receipt of threats, and her repeated requests for transfer and protection.
39. On or about September 22, between midnight and 5:00 a.m., while she was asleep, Plaintiff LUCAS' cell door was opened. Three men, whose identities are unknown to Plaintiff and

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Lucas v. White, et al.

12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
672\1\PLEADING\ COMPL-6.731

who are sued here as DOES 1 through 3, entered her cell and forcibly restrained her and handcuffed her from behind. Plaintiff LUCAS was brutally beaten, her life was repeatedly threatened, and she was savagely raped and sodomized. During this attack, Defendants DOES 1 through 3 informed Plaintiff LUCAS that the attack was in retaliation for her providing a statement to the SIS investigators, including, but not limited to, calling her a "snitch" and advising her to "keep her mouth shut". Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges that one or more of Defendant Does 1 through 3 are, or were, correctional personnel.
40. This violent attack resulted in serious physical injury to Plaintiff LUCAS, including injuries to her neck, back, ribs, shoulder, arms, wrists, anus and private areas, as well as severe emotional and psychological trauma.
41. Following the attack, Plaintiff LUCAS requested medical attention from the prison staff. Despite her requests for such attention, Plaintiff LUCAS was denied any medical attention until several weeks after the attack.
42. During the time period following the attack, male inmates continued to threaten to physically harm Plaintiff LUCAS, including making statements to the effect that she would be found hanging dead in her cell.
43. On or about, October 5, 1995, Plaintiff LUCAS was transferred to the women's SHU facility at FCI-Dublin.
44. In or around late October or early November 1995, Plaintiff LUCAS gave another statement to Defendant LIEUTENANT ERNST, this time concerning the September 22nd attack.

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Lucas v. White, et al.

13

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
672\1\PLEADING\ COMPL-6.731

45. Subsequent to her second statement to the authorities, Defendant CAPTAIN SMITH attempted to intimidate Plaintiff LUCAS into withdrawing her complaints, including by making statements advising her to "drop the issue."
46. Plaintiff LUCAS has suffered, and continues to suffer, in addition to physical injury, severe psychological and emotional trauma, including extraordinary fear, anxiety, and depression as a consequence of the harassment, abuse, discrimination and retaliation Plaintiff LUCAS encountered at the hands of male staff and prisoners at FDC-Pleasanton and FCIDublin.
47. These actions and inactions by prison officials and inmates, along with the complete failure of prison officials to take any action to protect Plaintiff LUCAS, or to provide her with requested and much needed medical attention, as herein alleged, not only allowed her physical injuries to worsen, but also intensified her severe emotional and psychological trauma.
48. Plaintiff LUCAS is informed and believes and therefore alleges that, in or around the period of her incarceration at the J-2 SHU, other women prisoners were also sexually harassed and assaulted after correctional officers, including Defendant SAMUELS, unlocked their cell doors to admit male inmates. Among the other women prisoners who were subject to this harassment were two other African-American women (Plaintiffs Valerie MERCADEL and Raquel DOUTHIT), and three White women.
49. Plaintiff is informed and believes that other women housed at the J-2 SHU also complained to prison officials about sexual harassment and assault, including rape. Plaintiff is further informed and believes that a complaint by one of the

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Lucas v. White, et al.

14

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
672\1\PLEADING\ COMPL-6.731

White women resulted in the removal of the White women from the J-2 SHU on or about September 25, 1995. (The three AfricanAmerican women, including Plaintiff LUCAS, were not removed until on or about October 5, 1995.)
50. On or about November 17, 1995, after the intervention of her attorneys, Plaintiff LUCAS was transferred to the Alameda County Jail, Santa Rita.
51. Plaintiff LUCAS, on her own, and by and through her attorneys, has submitted all grievances alleged herein, to personnel at the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and has cooperated fully in any and all formal internal investigations of the events complained of herein, thereby fully exhausting all applicable internal grievance mechanisms.
52. Plaintiff LUCAS has filed a timely tort claim against Defendants, and each of them, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
VALERIE MERCADEL 53. On or about June 8, 1995, Plaintiff VALERIE MERCADEL was housed at FCI-Dublin, a federal correctional facility for women. 54. On or about September 20, 1995, after an altercation with another prisoner, Defendant Captain SMITH and other correctional personnel moved Plaintiff MERCADEL and Plaintiff Raquel DOUTHIT, another female prisoner, to the J-2 SHU (Special Housing Unit) at FDC-Pleasanton. 55. Plaintiff MERCADEL is informed and believes that FDCPleasanton is a detention facility regularly used for the housing of men only. The J-2 SHU is a 24-hour lockdown facility, in which inmates are locked in their single cells at all times

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Lucas v. White, et al.

15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
672\1\PLEADING\ COMPL-6.731

(except for very limited activities, such as showers). At the time Plaintiff MERCADEL was placed in the J-2 SHU, she was one of only a handful of women housed there among an otherwise all-male prisoner population.
56. Plaintiff MERCADEL is informed and believes and therefore alleges that Defendant Warden HAYES directly approved her placement at the J-2 SHU and/or immediately ratified her transfer to the J-2 SHU, and was responsible for deciding whether she would be moved from that unit. Plaintiff is further informed and believes that Defendant WHITE approved the policy of housing female inmates in the men's SHU unit, and approved Plaintiff MERCADEL's placement at the J-2 SHU.
57. Plaintiff MERCADEL's placement at FDC-Pleasanton, and her placement in the J-2 SHU in particular, exposed all aspects of her private life, including changing of clothes, showering and use of the cell toilet, to the supervision and observation of male custody staff. She was further exposed to a male inmate environment pervaded by sexual attention and animus directed at the few women in the facility. Few, if any, female officers were assigned to the J-2 SHU during the time Plaintiff was placed there. In addition, because the facilities were designed for single-sex use, the cell windows and showers were in plain view of the male guards and inmates. Moreover, as Plaintiff was supplied only one set of clothing upon transfer to the J-2 SHU, she was forced to sleep in her undergarments.
58. As a result of her placement on an all male tier, under the constant supervision of male prison staff and constant exposure to the male inmate environment, Plaintiff MERCADEL

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Lucas v. White, et al.

16

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
672\1\PLEADING\ COMPL-6.731

suffered severe emotional and psychological distress and invasions of her privacy.
59. Shortly after Plaintiff MERCADEL's arrival at the J-2 SHU, she became the victim of a pattern of serious sexual harassment and unwelcome sexual advances orchestrated and facilitated by prison officials including, but not limited to the following:
(a) Male prisoners were allowed by guards to roam the J-2 SHU corridor and harass women prisoners, including Plaintiff MERCADEL, through the food port or other opening in the cell doors.
(b) On at least one occasion, a male inmate grabbed Plaintiff MERCADEL through her cell door and made statements to the effect that he had paid for her services and would "collect" whether she consented or not. He then proceeded to physically assault her by striking a strong blow to her head.
(c) Male prisoners repeatedly propositioned Plaintiff MERCADEL for sex, both in writing and while standing outside her cell.
(d) Male prisoners were provided access to Plaintiff MERCADEL's cell without her consent by one or more correctional officers, who would open the locked door to admit them. On these occasions, Plaintiff was locked in her cell with the male inmates until such time as the correctional officer(s) returned to unlock the cell. Plaintiff MERCADEL is informed and believes some of the prisoners who were admitted to her cell were from other parts of the detention center.
(e) At least one male inmate who was provided access to Plaintiff MERCADEL's cell without her consent forcibly molested

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Lucas v. White, et al.

17

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
672\1\PLEADING\ COMPL-6.731

and abused her, fondling her breasts and attempting to orally copulate her.
60. Plaintiff MERCADEL is informed and believes, and therefore alleges, that Defendant SAMUELS (otherwise known as "Dude"), an officer regularly on duty at the J-2 SHU between midnight and 8:00 a.m., unlocked Plaintiff MERCADEL's cell door to permit male prisoners to enter her cell at night without her consent, for the purposes of perpetrating such assaults, abuse and harassment.
61. Plaintiff MERCADEL is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that other correctional officers, whose identities are unknown to Plaintiff MERCADEL, and who are sued herein as DOE Defendants 4 through 15, also allowed male inmates to access Plaintiff MERCADEL's cell at the J-2 SHU for purposes of perpetrating such assaults, abuse and harassment, or otherwise participated in the assaults, abuse and harassment.
62. During this time period, Plaintiff MERCADEL asked prison personnel, including Defendant SAMUELS to stop letting male prisoners into her cell. Defendant SAMUELS acknowledged his participation in the unwelcome sexual advances.
63. During the time Plaintiff MERCADEL was housed at the J2 SHU, Defendant Officer GILLETTE sexually harassed and assaulted Plaintiff MERCADEL, including, without limitation, by making sexual remarks and comments to her, by demanding that Plaintiff MERCADEL show him her breasts or genitals in order to receive a prison issued t-shirt, and by attempting to grab Plaintiff MERCADEL's buttocks while she was on her way to the shower. Plaintiff MERCADEL refused to comply with Defendant Officer

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Lucas v. White, et al.

18

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
672\1\PLEADING\ COMPL-6.731

GILLETTE's demands to show her breasts and/or genitals and did not receive a t-shirt from him.
64. Throughout the time she was housed in the J-2 SHU, and as a result of the unwelcome encounters with male prisoners and correctional staff as herein alleged, Plaintiff MERCADEL was severely emotionally and psychologically distraught and in constant fear of further attacks. This fear and emotional and psychological distress was exacerbated by the fact that she could not seek assistance from the correctional staff, as they were involved in the wrongdoing. Moreover, as a result of her constant fear of further attacks, and in an effort to protect herself from these attacks, Plaintiff MERCADEL moved her mattress to block the cell door and attempted to stay awake during the night.
65. On or about October 5, 1995, correctional staff moved Plaintiff MERCADEL and two other African-American female prisoners, Plaintiffs Robin LUCAS and Raquel DOUTHIT, to the SHU at the nearby FCI-Dublin.
66. Plaintiffs MERCADEL and Raquel DOUTHIT were placed in a cell together at FCI-Dublin.
67. On or about October 11, 1995, Plaintiff MERCADEL appeared before E. Porter, a Disciplinary Hearing Officer, for a disciplinary hearing pertaining to her initial SHU placement. Plaintiff MERCADEL complained to Officer Porter about the problems she had encountered. Officer Porter refused to listen to her complaints, cautioned her that her allegations were "dangerous," and informed her that she had to write to his superior, Defendant O. Ivan WHITE, the Western Regional Director of the Bureau of Prisons, in order to initiate a complaint.

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Lucas v. White, et al.

19

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
672\1\PLEADING\ COMPL-6.731

68. On or about October 15, 1995, Plaintiff MERCADEL wrote a letter to Defendant WHITE, which she and Plaintiff DOUTHIT both signed. In the letter they informed Defendant WHITE that their personal safety and security had been violated by correctional officers at the J-2 SHU at FDC-Pleasanton, and requested that an official from outside FCI-Dublin be sent to investigate these problems. Defendant WHITE failed to respond appropriately to this letter; instead, he sent a copy of the letter to officials at FDC-Pleasanton and/or FCI-Dublin, some of whom were the officials accused of misconduct. Plaintiff MERCADEL is informed and believes that Defendant Lieutenant ERNST at FCI-Dublin was assigned to investigate their complaints.
69. On or about October 16, 1995, Defendant Lieutenant ERNST spoke with Plaintiffs MERCADEL and DOUTHIT separately about the problems they had encountered at FDC-Pleasanton, promising to treat their interviews as confidential.
70. Plaintiff MERCADEL is informed and believes, and therefore alleges, that Defendant LIEUTENANT ERNST and/or Defendant WHITE leaked, or caused the release of, the substance of her complaints to personnel and inmates at FCI-Dublin and/or FDC-Pleasanton, knowing that such release would brand Plaintiff MERCADEL as a "snitch" and place her safety and security at risk.
71. Within days after making these complaints, the substance of Plaintiff MERCADEL'S complaint and the fact that Plaintiff MERCADEL had "snitched" were common knowledge among the correctional staff. During this time, Plaintiff MERCADEL remained housed at FCI-Dublin.
72. Following the meeting with Defendant Lieutenant ERNST, Plaintiff MERCADEL was threatened and harassed by the

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Lucas v. White, et al.

20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
672\1\PLEADING\ COMPL-6.731

correctional staff at FCI-Dublin, including without limitation the following:
(a) On or about October 19, 1995, Defendant Captain SMITH approached Plaintiffs MERCADEL and DOUTHIT at their cell, and threatened to close the investigation regarding their complaints of treatment at the J-2 SHU in order to intimidate them.
(b) Subsequent to his threats to close the investigation altogether, Defendant CAPTAIN SMITH threatened Plaintiff MERCADEL's physical safety and security, including, but not limited to, threats to tell the other prisoners that Plaintiff MERCADEL was a "snitch", which Defendant SMITH knew would endanger Plaintiff MERCADEL's physical safety and security.
(c) Defendant Officer GILLETTE also came to Plaintiffs MERCADEL and DOUTHIT's cell at FCI-Dublin and attempted to intimidate them into dropping their complaint.
73. Plaintiff MERCADEL is informed and believes that the conduct as alleged herein was part of an effort by Defendants WHITE, ERNST, SMITH and Officer GILLETTE to retaliate against her for her complaints about her treatment in the J-2 SHU, and at FCI-Dublin, and to intimidate her into withdrawing said complaints, or to suppress evidence, obstruct justice, and/or intimidate witnesses with regard to said complaints.
74. On or about November 1, 1995, Plaintiff MERCADEL filled out a request to speak with Defendant Warden HAYES concerning what had happened to her, and wrote a second letter to Defendant WHITE informing him of the continuing threat to her safety and requesting investigation by someone from outside FCI-Dublin.

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Lucas v. White, et al.

21

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
672\1\PLEADING\ COMPL-6.731

Plaintiff MERCADEL was not moved or provided protection pursuant to these requests.
75. Plaintiff MERCADEL has suffered, and continues to suffer, in addition to physical injury, severe psychological and emotional trauma, including extraordinary fear, anxiety, and depression as a consequence of the harassment, abuse, discrimination and retaliation Plaintiff MERCADEL encountered at the hands of male staff and prisoners at FDC-Pleasanton and FCIDublin.
76. These actions and inactions by prison officials and inmates, along with the complete failure of prison officials to take any action to protect Plaintiff MERCADEL intensified her severe emotional and psychological trauma.
77. Plaintiff MERCADEL is informed and believes and therefore alleges that, in or around the period of her incarceration at the J-2 SHU, other women prisoners were also sexually harassed and assaulted after correctional officers, including Defendant SAMUELS, unlocked their cell doors to admit male inmates. Among the other women prisoners who were subject to this harassment were two other African-American women (Plaintiffs Robin LUCAS and Raquel DOUTHIT), and three White women.
78. Plaintiff MERCADEL is informed and believes that other women housed at the J-2 SHU also complained to prison officials about sexual harassment and assault, including rape. Plaintiff MERCADEL is further informed and believes that a complaint by one of the White women resulted in the removal of the White women from the J-2 SHU on or about September 25, 1995. (The three

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Lucas v. White, et al.

22

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
672\1\PLEADING\ COMPL-6.731

African-American women, including Plaintiff MERCADEL, were not removed until on or about October 5, 1995.)
79. On or about November 16, 1995, after the intervention of her attorneys, Plaintiff MERCADEL was transferred to the Alameda County Jail, Santa Rita.
80. Plaintiff since was moved to the Alameda County Jail, North County. She currently is housed at the Federal Correctional Institute in Danbury, Connecticut.
81. Plaintiff MERCADEL, on her own, and by and through her attorneys, has submitted all grievances alleged herein, to personnel at the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and has cooperated fully in any and all formal internal investigations of the events complained of herein, thereby fully exhausting all applicable internal grievance mechanisms.
82. Plaintiff MERCADEL has filed a timely tort claim against Defendants, and each of them, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
RAQUEL DOUTHIT 83. On or about June 2, 1995, Plaintiff RAQUEL DOUTHIT was housed at FCI-Dublin, a federal correctional facility for women. 84. On or about September 20, 1995, after an altercation with another prisoner, Defendant Captain SMITH and other correctional personnel moved Plaintiff DOUTHIT and Plaintiff Valerie MERCADEL, another female prisoner, to the J-2 SHU (Special Housing Unit) at FDC-Pleasanton. 85. Plaintiff DOUTHIT is informed and believes that FDCPleasanton is a detention facility regularly used for the housing of men only. The J-2 SHU is a 24-hour lockdown facility, in which inmates are locked in their single cells at all times

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Lucas v. White, et al.

23

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
672\1\PLEADING\ COMPL-6.731

(except for showers). At the time Plaintiff DOUTHIT was placed in the J-2 SHU, she was one of only a handful of women housed there among an otherwise all-male prisoner population.
86. Plaintiff DOUTHIT is informed and believes and therefore alleges that Defendant Warden HAYES directly approved her placement at the J-2 SHU and/or immediately ratified her transfer to the J-2 SHU, and was responsible for deciding whether she would be moved from that unit. Plaintiff is further informed and believes that Defendant WHITE approved the policy of housing female inmates in the men's SHU unit, and approved Plaintiff DOUTHIT's placement at the J-2 SHU.
87. Plaintiff DOUTHIT's placement at FDC-Pleasanton, and her placement in the J-2 SHU in particular, exposed all aspects of her private life, including changing of clothes, showering and use of the cell toilet, to the supervision and observation of male custody staff. She was further exposed to a male inmate environment pervaded by sexual attention and animus directed at the few women in the facility. Few, if any, female officers were assigned to the J-2 SHU during the time Plaintiff was placed there. In addition, because the facilities were designed for single-sex use, the cell windows and showers were in plain view of the male guards and inmates. Moreover, as Plaintiff DOUTHIT was supplied only one set of clothing upon transfer to the J-2 SHU, she was forced to sleep in her undergarments.
88. As a result of her placement on an all male tier, under constant supervision of male prison staff and constant exposure to the male inmate environment, Plaintiff DOUTHIT suffered severe emotional and psychological distress and invasions of her privacy.

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Lucas v. White, et al.

24

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
672\1\PLEADING\ COMPL-6.731

89. Shortly after Plaintiff DOUTHIT's arrival at the J-2 SHU, she became the victim of a pattern of serious sexual harassment and unwelcome sexual advances orchestrated and facilitated by prison officials including, but not limited to the following:
(a) Male prisoners were allowed by guards to roam the J-2 SHU corridor and harass women prisoners, including Plaintiff DOUTHIT, through the food port or other opening in the cell doors. On several occasions, male prisoners propositioned Plaintiff MERCADEL with offers of alcohol, and other contraband in return for sexual favors.
(b) Male prisoners repeatedly propositioned Plaintiff DOUTHIT for sex, both in highly offensive letters and while standing outside her cell.
(c) Male prisoners were provided access to Plaintiff DOUTHIT's cell without her consent by one or more correctional officers, who would open the locked cell door to admit them. On these occasions, Plaintiff DOUTHIT was locked in her cell with the male inmates until such time as the correctional officer(s) returned to unlock the cell. Plaintiff DOUTHIT is informed and believes some of the prisoners who were admitted to her cell were from other parts of the detention center.
(d) On several occasions, male prisoners entered Plaintiff DOUTHIT's cell without her consent, where they sexually harassed and sexually and verbally abused her.
(e) On one occasion, a male inmate who was given access to her cell without her consent, held Plaintiff DOUTHIT down while he forcibly molested, orally copulated, and abused Plaintiff DOUTHIT. On a separate occasion, this male inmate

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Lucas v. White, et al.

25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
672\1\PLEADING\ COMPL-6.731

entered Plaintiff DOUTHIT's cell and, when Plaintiff DOUTHIT refused to have sex with him, he sat directly in front of her and masturbated.
90. Plaintiff DOUTHIT is informed and believes, and therefore alleges, that Defendant SAMUELS (otherwise known as "Dude"), a officer regularly on duty at the J-2 SHU between midnight and 8:00 a.m., unlocked Plaintiff DOUTHIT'S cell door to permit male prisoners to enter her cell at night without her consent, for the purposes of perpetrating such assaults, abuse and harassment.
91. Plaintiff DOUTHIT is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that other correctional officers, whose identities are unknown to Plaintiff DOUTHIT, and who are sued herein as DOE Defendants 4 through 15, also allowed male inmates to access Plaintiff DOUTHIT'S cell at the J-2 SHU for purposes of perpetrating such assaults, abuse and harassment, or otherwise participated in the assaults, abuse and harassment.
92. Throughout her stay on the J-2 SHU, Plaintiff continually feared for her personal safety, and suffered extreme emotional and psychological distress. This fear and emotional and psychological distress was exacerbated by the fact that she could not seek assistance from the correctional staff as they were involved with the wrongdoing.
93. On or about October 5, 1995, correctional staff moved Plaintiff DOUTHIT and two other African-American female prisoners, Plaintiffs Robin LUCAS and Valerie MERCADEL, to the SHU at the nearby FCI-Dublin.
94. Plaintiffs DOUTHIT and Valerie MERCADEL were placed in a cell together at FCI-Dublin.

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Lucas v. White, et al.

26

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
672\1\PLEADING\ COMPL-6.731

95. On or about October 11, 1995, Plaintiff DOUTHIT appeared before E. Porter, a Disciplinary Hearing Officer, for a disciplinary hearing pertaining to her initial SHU placement. Plaintiff DOUTHIT complained to Officer Porter about the problems she had encountered. Officer Porter refused to listen to her complaints, cautioned her that her allegations were "dangerous," and informed her that she had to write to his superior, Defendant O. Ivan WHITE, the Western Regional Director of the Bureau of Prisons, in order to initiate a complaint.
96. On October 15, 1995, Plaintiff MERCADEL wrote a letter to Defendant WHITE, which she and Plaintiff DOUTHIT both signed.
In the letter they informed Defendant WHITE that their personal safety and security had been violated by correctional officers at the J-2 SHU at FDC-Pleasanton, and requested that an official from outside FCI-Dublin be sent to investigate these problems. Defendant WHITE failed to respond appropriately to this letter; instead, he sent a copy of the letter to officials at FDCPleasanton and/or FCI-Dublin, some of whom were the officials accused of misconduct. Plaintiff DOUTHIT is informed and believes that Defendant Lieutenant ERNST at FCI-Dublin was assigned to investigate their complaints.
97. On or about October 16, 1995, Defendant Lieutenant ERNST spoke with Plaintiff DOUTHIT and MERCADEL separately about the problems they had encountered at FDC-Pleasanton, promising to treat their interviews as confidential.
98. Plaintiff DOUTHIT is informed and believes, and therefore alleges, that Defendant LIEUTENANT ERNST and/or Defendant WHITE leaked, or caused the release of, the substance of her statement to personnel and inmates at FCI-Dublin and/or

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Lucas v. White, et al.

27

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
672\1\PLEADING\ COMPL-6.731

FDC-Pleasanton, knowing that such release would brand Plaintiff as a "snitch" and place her safety and security at risk.
99. Within days after making these complaints, the substance of Plaintiff DOUTHIT'S statement and the fact that Plaintiff DOUTHIT had "snitched" were common knowledge among the correctional staff. During this time, Plaintiff DOUTHIT remained housed at FCI-Dublin.
100. Following the meeting with Defendant Lieutenant ERNST, Plaintiff DOUTHIT was threatened and harassed by the correctional staff at FCI-Dublin, including without limitation the following:
(a) On or about October 19, 1995, Defendant Captain SMITH approached Plaintiffs DOUTHIT and MERCADEL at their cell, and threatened to close the investigation regarding their complaints of treatment at the J-2 SHU in order to intimidate them.
(b) Subsequent to his threats to close the investigation altogether, Defendant CAPTAIN SMITH threatened Plaintiff DOUTHIT's physical safety and security, including, but not limited to, threats to tell the other prisoners that Plaintiff DOUTHIT was a "snitch", which Defendant SMITH knew would endanger Plaintiff DOUTHIT's physical safety and security.
(c) Defendant Officer GILLETTE also came to Plaintiffs DOUTHIT's and MERCADEL's cell at FCI-Dublin and attempted to intimidate them into dropping their complaint.
101. Plaintiff is informed and believes that the conduct as alleged herein was part of an effort by Defendants WHITE, ERNST, SMITH and Officer GILLETTE to retaliate against her for her complaints about her treatment in the J-2 SHU, and to intimidate her into withdrawing said complaints, or to suppress evidence,

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Lucas v. White, et al.

28

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
672\1\PLEADING\ COMPL-6.731

obstruct justice, and/or intimidate witnesses with regard to said complaints.
102. Plaintiff DOUTHIT has suffered, and continues to suffer, in addition to physical injury, severe psychological and emotional trauma, including extraordinary fear, anxiety, and depression as a consequence of the harassment, abuse, discrimination, and retaliation Plaintiff DOUTHIT encountered at the hands of male staff and prisoners at FDC-Pleasanton and FCIDublin.
103. These actions and inactions by prison officials and inmates, along with the complete failure of prison officials to take any action to protect Plaintiff DOUTHIT intensified her severe emotional and psychological trauma.
104. Plaintiff DOUTHIT is informed and believes and therefore alleges that, in or around the period of her incarceration at the J-2 SHU, other women prisoners were also sexually harassed and assaulted after correctional officers, including Defendant SAMUELS, unlocked their cell doors to admit male inmates. Among the other women prisoners who were subject to this harassment were two other African-American women (Plaintiffs Robin LUCAS and Valerie MERCADEL), and three White women.
105. Plaintiff DOUTHIT is informed and believes that other women housed at the J-2 SHU also complained to prison officials about sexual harassment and assault, including rape. Plaintiff DOUTHIT is further informed and believes that a complaint by one of the White women resulted in the removal of the White women from the J-2 SHU on or about September 25, 1995. (The three

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Lucas v. White, et al.

29

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
672\1\PLEADING\ COMPL-6.731

African-American women, including Plaintiff DOUTHIT, were not removed until on or about October 5, 1995.)
106. On or about November 16, 1995, after the intervention of her attorneys, Plaintiff DOUTHIT was transferred to the Alameda County Jail, Santa Rita.
107. Plaintiff since was moved to the Alameda County Jail, North County. She currently is housed at the Federal Correctional Institute in Tallahassee, Florida.
108. Plaintiff DOUTHIT, on her own, and by and through her attorneys, has submitted all grievances alleged herein, to personnel at the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and has cooperated fully in any and all formal internal investigations of the events complained of herein, thereby fully exhausting all applicable internal grievance mechanisms.
109. Plaintiff DOUTHIT has filed a timely tort claim against Defendants, and each of them, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
COMMON FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 110. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that, in addition to the complaints they brought themselves, during the period they were housed on the J-2 SHU, and during the period when the acts complained of herein took place, certain of Plaintiffs' family and friends made requests to visit Plaintiffs, and/or attempted to lodge complaints with prison personnel on Plaintiffs' behalf, to no avail. Moreover, certain of these family members and/or friends were incorrectly informed by correctional personnel that women prisoners were not housed at the men's J-2 SHU facility. 111. Defendants, and each of them, subjected Plaintiffs, as well as other female inmates within their custody and control, to

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Lucas v. White, et al.

30

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
672\1\PLEADING\ COMPL-6.731

the constant supervision and observation of male custody staff, as alleged herein, by placing Plaintiffs, or directing or approving placement of Plaintiffs, on the J-2 SHU at FDCPleasanton, an all-male tier, by failing to remove Plaintiffs from the J-2 SHU after complaints were made by other prisoners, and by failing to remove Plaintiffs from the J-2 SHU after complaints were made by Plaintiffs.
112. Defendants, and each of them, subjected Plaintiffs, as well as other female inmates within their custody and control, to sexual assaults, abuse and harassment, as herein alleged, by placing Plaintiffs, or directing or approving placement of Plaintiffs, on the J-2 SHU at FDC-Pleasanton, an all-male tier, by failing to remove Plaintiffs from the J-2 SHU after complaints were made by other prisoners, and by failing to remove Plaintiffs from the J-2 SHU after complaints were made by Plaintiffs.
113. Defendants, and each of them, subjected Plaintiffs, as well as other female prisoners within their custody and control, to sexual assaults, abuse and harassment by failing to enact, maintain and properly implement and enforce appropriate policies and procedures concerning security for female prisoners and the prevention and handling of sexual assaults, abuse and harassment of female prisoners confined within the Western Region of the Bureau of Prisons, and especially Camp Parks, FCI-Dublin and FDCPleasanton.
114. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege, that Defendant SAMUELS, and DOE defendants 1 through 15, subjected Plaintiffs to sexual assaults, abuse and harassment by directly encouraging, facilitating and cooperating with male prisoners by unlocking their cell doors to permit male prisoners

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Lucas v. White, et al.

31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
672\1\PLEADING\ COMPL-6.731

to enter their cells at night without their consent, for the purposes of perpetrating such assaults, abuse and harassment.
115. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and therefore allege that certain correctional personnel, including but not limited to, some or all of the Defendants in this action, received money and/or other favors or benefits from male inmates, and/or other correctional personnel, in return for providing access to Plaintiffs' cells, and/or the cells of other female inmates.
116. Defendants, and each of them, retaliated against Plaintiffs, through intimidation, threats, sexual and other physical assaults, abuse and harassment, as herein alleged, after Plaintiffs' complained about their treatment on the J-2 SHU.
117. Defendants, and each of them, once they received actual notice of sexual assaults, abuse and harassment against Plaintiffs, as herein alleged, failed to adequately investigate and take reasonable measures to protect Plaintiffs, including, but not limited to their failure to keep obviously sensitive information confidential, and to remove Plaintiffs from the men's unit and/or to remove them from the facilities controlled by the correctional personnel implicated in their complaints.
118. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereupon allege that Defendants, and each of them, failed to properly evaluate, train, discipline and supervise subordinate correctional personnel. Defendants' failure to supervise, train, discipline and evaluate subordinate correctional personnel resulted in the acts complained of herein.
119. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that weeks or months prior to the events complained of herein, female inmates

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Lucas v. White, et al.

32

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
672\1\PLEADING\ COMPL-6.731

were housed at the J-2 unit and subjected to harassment similar to that alleged herein. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe that Defendants, and each of them, knew, or should have known of these prior instances of harassment. Notwithstanding the foregoing knowledge, Defendants failed to take action to prevent similar harm to Plaintiffs. By permitting such activities to continue unabated, Defendants, and each of them, adopted a de facto policy of deliberate indifference to the wrongful acts complained of herein and adopted, authorized, ratified and approved a policy and practice of permitting illegal sexual activity, sexual assault, sexual harassment, sexual battery, molestation and retaliation against female inmates.
120. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Defendants, and each of them, failed to investigate the complaints received from the White women housed on J-2 SHU concerning Defendant SAMUELS, and/or other complaints regarding the J-2 SHU, as herein alleged, and failed to take other action to protect Plaintiffs, despite the fact that the information they received regarding Defendant SAMUELS clearly indicated that he was unfit for his position and that he was a threat to the safety and rights of female inmates. Had Defendants investigated the information they received about Defendant SAMUELS, Defendants could have prevented the conduct alleged herein.
121. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe and thereupon allege that Defendants WHITE, HAYES, SMITH, Officer GILLETTE, Lieutenant GILLETTE, YARBOROUGH, ERNST and DOES 1 through 15, knew or should have known that Defendant SAMUELS was unfit for the position of correctional officer and that Defendant SAMUELS was a threat to the safety and rights of female inmates.

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Lucas v. White, et al.

33

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
672\1\PLEADING\ COMPL-6.731

Notwithstanding the foregoing knowledge, Defendants failed to take action to prevent Defendant SAMUELS from committing the illegal acts complained of by the Plaintiffs herein. By permitting such activity to continue unabated, Defendants, and each of them, adopted a de facto policy of deliberate indifference to the wrongful acts complained of herein and adopted, authorized, ratified and approved a policy and practice of permitting illegal sexual activity, sexual assault, sexual harassment, sexual battery, molestation and retaliation against female inmates.
122. The actions, conduct and inactions of Defendants, and each of them, demonstrates a practice, custom, or policy of reckless and deliberate indifference to instances of known or suspected sexual assaults, intimidation, abuse, threats of violence, sexual harassment, retaliation and other violations of law violating Plaintiffs' Constitutional rights.
123. An actual controversy exists between Plaintiffs and Defendants concerning their rights, privileges and obligations.
124. No adequate remedy at law exists which will completely safeguard the Plaintiffs' legal rights and make the Plaintiffs whole; the Plaintiffs, other female prisoners and the general public will continue to be harmed and suffer irreparable loss and injury, including the sexual harassment and sexual battery of female inmates housed in men's prisons unless the Federal Bureau of Prisons is ordered to: (1) cease and desist from failing to investigate complaints of sexual harassment and sexual battery; (2) implement policies and procedures for properly supervising, training and disciplining its employees and agents with respect to sexual harassment and sexual battery of female inmates; and

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Lucas v. White, et al.

34

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
672\1\PLEADING\ COMPL-6.731

(3) to cease and desist from housing female inmates on primarily male units.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Bivens -- Eighth Amendment Cruel and Unusual Punishment -- Deliberate Indifference to Prisoners' Personal Security Interests; All Defendants) 125. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each allegation of paragraphs 1 through 124 above. 126. In acting and failing to act as alleged above, Defendants, and each of them, through their pattern and practice of permitting, facilitating and/or perpetrating sexual assaults, intimidation, physical, sexual and verbal abuse, threats of violence, sexual harassment, retaliation, and other violations of law against Plaintiffs, and failing to properly investigate such violations, as set forth herein, subjected Plaintiffs to unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain and physical injury, thereby violating the Plaintiffs' right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 127. As a proximate, direct and foreseeable result of the Defendants' failure to ensure freedom from sexual assaults, intimidation, physical, sexual and verbal abuse, threats of violence, sexual harassment, retaliation and other violations of law against Plaintiffs, and in failing to properly investigate such violations, as set forth herein, Plaintiffs have suffered, are suffering, and will continue to suffer irreparable harm and damages in the form of pain and suffering, shame, humiliation, degradation, emotional distress, embarrassment, mental distress and other damages.

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Lucas v. White, et al.

35

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
672\1\PLEADING\ COMPL-6.731

128. Defendants' acts and/or omissions were knowing, willful, intentional, malicious, unnecessary, wanton, and despicable, with reckless, callous or conscious disregard of the rights of the Plaintiffs, entitling the Plaintiffs to an award of exemplary damages.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Bivens -- Eighth Amendment Failure to Train and Supervise-- Deliberate Indifference to Prisoners' Personal Security Interests; All Defendants) 129. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each allegation of paragraphs 1 through 124 above. 130. In acting and failing to act as alleged above, Defendants, and each of them, through their failure to properly evaluate, train, discipline and supervise subordinate custodial personnel to prevent physical harm to, and/or sexual harassment of, inmates, to investigate allegations of physical harm to and/or sexual harassment of inmates, and to prevent retaliation against inmates for complaints of such abuse, subjected Plaintiffs to unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain and physical and emotional injury, thereby violating their rights under the Eight Amendment to the Constitution. 131. As a proximate, direct and foreseeable result of the Defendants' failure to properly evaluate, train, discipline and supervise subordinate custodial personnel as set forth herein, Plaintiffs have suffered, are suffering, and will continue to suffer irreparable harm and damages in the form of pain and suffering, shame, humiliation, degradation, emotional distress, embarrassment, mental distress and other damages.

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Lucas v. White, et al.

36

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
672\1\PLEADING\ COMPL-6.731

132. Defendants' acts and/or omissions were knowing, willful, intentional, malicious, unnecessary, wanton, and despicable, with reckless, callous or conscious disregard of the rights of the Plaintiffs, entitling the Plaintiffs to an award of exemplary damages.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Bivens -- Fifth Amendment Substantive Due Process -Deliberate Indifference to Prisoners' Personal Security Interests; All Defendants) 133. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each allegation of paragraphs 1 through 124 above. 134. In acting and failing to act as alleged above, Defendants, and each of them, violated the Plaintiffs' right to personal security, subjecting Plaintiffs to unnecessary and wanton infliction of serious pain and physical and extraordinary emotional and psychological injury in violation of their substantive due process rights under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 135. As a proximate, direct and foreseeable result of the Defendants' failure to ensure Plaintiffs' due process rights, Plaintiffs have suffered, are suffering, and will continue to suffer irreparable harm and damages in the form of pain and suffering, shame, humiliation, degradation, emotional distress, embarrassment, mental distress and other damages. 136. Defendants' acts were knowing, willful, intentional, malicious, unnecessary, wanton, and despicable, with reckless, callous or conscious disregard of the rights of the Plaintiffs, entitling the Plaintiffs to an award of exemplary damages.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Lucas v. White, et al.

37

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
672\1\PLEADING\ COMPL-6.731

(Bivens -- Fifth Amendment Equal Protection -- Gender Discrimination; All Defendants) 137. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each allegation of paragraphs 1 through 124 above. 138. Defendants, and each of them, subjected Plaintiffs to sexual assaults, abuse and harassment by placing Plaintiffs, directing or approving placement of Plaintiffs, or failing to remove Plaintiffs from placement on the J-2 SHU at FDCPleasanton, an all-male tier under the constant supervision of male custody staff, by subjecting Plaintiffs to sexual assaults, abuse and harassment, and by failing to properly investigate Plaintiffs' complaints, as set forth herein. 139. Plaintiff are informed and believe and therefore allege that male prisoners within the custody and control of Defendants were not similarly subjected to constant supervision and observation by custody staff of the opposite gender, nor to the sexual assaults, abuse and harassment experienced by plaintiffs as alleged herein. 140. Defendants, and each of them, in acting or failing to act as alleged above, did so intentionally. Their actions and inactions did not serve important governmental objectives, nor were the means they employed substantially related to the achievement of important governmental objectives. 141. Defendants, and each of them, thereby subjected Plaintiffs to sexual assaults, abuse and harassment, causing Plaintiffs unnecessary and wanton infliction of serious physical injury and pain and extraordinary emotional and psychological injury, on account of their gender, in violation of their rights

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Lucas v. White, et al.

38

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
672\1\PLEADING\ COMPL-6.731

under the Equal Protection component of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
142. As a proximate, direct and foreseeable result of the Defendants' failure to ensure Plaintiffs' right to equal protection, the Plaintiffs have suffered, are suffering, and will continue to suffer irreparable harm and damages in the form of pain and suffering, shame, humiliation, degradation, emotional distress, embarrassment, mental distress and other damages.
143. Defendants' acts were knowing, willful, intentional, malicious, unnecessary, wanton, and despicable, with reckless, callous or conscious disregard of the rights of the Plaintiffs, entitling the Plaintiffs to an award of exemplary damages.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Bivens -- Fifth Amendment Equal Protection -- Race Discrimination; All Defendants) 144. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each allegation of paragraphs 1 through 124 above. 145. Defendants, and each of them, subjected Plaintiffs to ongoing sexual abuse and harassment by failing to immediately remove Plaintiffs from the J-2 SHU or otherwise take measures to protect them or properly investigate after receiving actual notice of sexual assaults, abuse and harassment against female prisoners on the J-2 SHU. 146. Plaintiffs, who are African American, are informed and believe that they were left confined at the J-2 SHU, and subjected to further, unnecessary risk of sexual assaults, abuse and harassment, for several days after White, female prisoners confined at the J-2 SHU were moved out of that tier and housed in

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Lucas v. White, et al.

39

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
672\1\PLEADING\ COMPL-6.731

a prison or tier designated for female prisoners because of known sexual assaults, abuse and harassment.
147. Defendants, and each of them, in acting or failing to act as alleged above, did so intentionally. Their actions and inactions did not serve compelling governmental objectives, nor were the means they employed narrowly tailored to achieve such governmental objectives.
148. Defendants, and each of them, thereby subjected Plaintiffs to additional sexual assaults, abuse and harassment, causing Plaintiffs unnecessary and wanton infliction of serious physical injury and pain and extraordinary emotional and psychological injury, on account of their race, in violation of their rights under the Equal Protection component of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
149. As a proximate, direct and foreseeable result of the defendants' failure to ensure Plaintiffs' right to equal protection, the Plaintiffs have suffered, are suffering, and will continue to suffer irreparable harm and damages in the form of pain and suffering, shame, humiliation, degradation, emotional distress, embarrassment, mental distress and other damages.
150. Defendants' acts were knowing, willful, intentional, malicious, unnecessary, wanton, and despicable, with reckless, callous or conscious disregard of the rights of the Plaintiffs, entitling the Plaintiffs to an award of exemplary damages.
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Bivens -- Retaliation For Exercise of First Amendment Rights; All Defendants) 151. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each allegation of paragraphs 1 through 124 above.

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Lucas v. White, et al.

40

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
672\1\PLEADING\ COMPL-6.731

152. Defendants, and each of them, subjected Plaintiffs to sexual assaults, abuse and harassment, and/or failed to adequately investigate and take reasonable measures to protect Plaintiffs, as described herein, in retaliation for Plaintiffs' complaints to prison authorities regarding such unlawful conduct.
153. In acting and failing to act as alleged above, Defendants, and each of them, acted or failed to act intentionally. They thereby subjected Plaintiffs to sexual assaults, abuse and harassment which caused Plaintiffs unnecessary and wanton infliction of serious physical injury and pain and extraordinary emotional and psychological injury in violation of their rights under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
154. As a proximate, direct and foreseeable result of the defendants' failure to ensure Plaintiffs' First Amendment rights, the Plaintiffs have suffered, are suffering, and will continue to suffer irreparable harm and damages in the form of pain and suffering, shame, humiliation, degradation, emotional distress, embarrassment, mental distress and other damages.
155. Defendants' acts were knowing, willful, intentional, malicious, unnecessary, wanton, and despicable, with reckless, callous or conscious disregard of the rights of the Plaintiffs, entitling the Plaintiffs to an award of exemplary damages.
SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Bivens -- Fourth Amendment Privacy; All Defendants) 156. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 124 of the Complaint are hereby realleged and incorporated by reference.

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Lucas v. White, et al.

41

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
672\1\PLEADING\ COMPL-6.731

157. Through their pattern and practice of sexual assaults, intimidation, abuse, threats of violence, sexual harassment, and other violations of law against Plaintiffs, and failure to properly investigate Plaintiffs' claims, as alleged herein, Defendants, and each of them, have violated the right of privacy, right to bodily integrity and right to bodily privacy guaranteed to the Plaintiffs by the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
158. As a proximate, direct and foreseeable result of the Defendants' failure to ensure the privacy rights, right to bodily integrity and right to bodily privacy of Plaintiffs, they have suffered, are suffering, and will continue to suffer irreparable harm and damages in the form of pain and suffering, shame, humiliation, degradation, emotional distress, embarrassment, mental distress and other damages.
159. Defendants' acts were willful, intentional, malicious, wanton, and despicable in conscious disregard of the rights of the Plaintiffs, entitling the Plaintiffs to an award of exemplary damages.
EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Bivens -- Fifth Amendment Privacy; All Defendants) 160. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 124 of the Complaint are hereby realleged and incorporated by reference. 161. Through their pattern and practice of sexual assaults, intimidation, abuse, threats of violence, sexual harassment, and other violations of law against Plaintiffs, and failure to properly investigate Plaintiffs' claims, as alleged herein, Defendants, and each of them, have violated the right of privacy

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Lucas v. White, et al.

42

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
672\1\PLEADING\ COMPL-6.731

guaranteed to the Plaintiffs by the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
162. As a proximate, direct and foreseeable result of Defendants' failure to ensure the privacy rights of Plaintiffs, they have suffered, are suffering, and will continue to suffer irreparable harm and damages in the form of pain and suffering, shame, humiliation, degradation, emotional distress, embarrassment, mental distress and other damages.
163. Defendants' acts were willful, intentional, malicious, wanton, and despicable in conscious disregard of the rights of the Plaintiffs, entitling the Plaintiffs to an award of exemplary damages.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 164. Plaintiffs hereby demand a jury trial as provided by Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as follows: 1. Compensatory damages for each Plaintiff according to proof; 2. Punitive damages for each Plaintiff according to proof; 3. As against Defendants WHITE and HAYES, injunctive relief for Plaintiffs MERCADEL and DOUTHIT, and on behalf of all female inmates, including but not limited to: (1) an order that Defendants cease and desist from failing to investigate complaints of sexual harassment and sexual battery; (2) an order that Defendants implement policies and procedures for properly supervising, disciplining and training its employees and agents with respect to sexual harassment and sexual assault of female

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Lucas v. White, et al.

43

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
672\1\PLEADING\ COMPL-6.731

inmates; and (4) an order that Defendants cease and desist from

housing Plaintiffs MERCADEL, DOUTHIT and/or other female inmates

on primarily male units.

4. For costs and attorneys' fees; and

5. For such additional relief as may be just and proper.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Dated: August ___, 1996

ROSEN, BIEN & ASARO

By Donna Petrine Attorneys for Plaintiffs
LAW OFFICES OF GERI L. GREEN

By Geri L. Green Attorneys for Plaintiffs

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Lucas v. White, et al.

44

 
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
672\1\PLEADING\ COMPLT-7.815

ROSEN, BIEN & ASARO MICHAEL W. BIEN - 096891 155 Montgomery Street, 8th Floor San Francisco, California 94104 Telephone (415) 433-6830
LAW OFFICES OF GERI L. GREEN GERI L. GREEN - 127709 368 Hayes Street San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone (415) 575-3235
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Robin Lucas, Valerie Mercadel, Raquel Douthit

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBIN LUCAS, VALERIE

) No. C 96-2905 TEH

MERCADEL,and RAQUEL DOUTHIT, )

) AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Plaintiffs,

) AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

)

vs.

)

)

O. IVAN WHITE, DR. PETER M. )

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

CARLSON, LOY HAYES, UNITED

)

STATES OF AMERICA, KATHLEEN )

[Civil Rights]

HAWK, CONSTANCE REESE,

)

MARGARET L. HARDING, L.R.

)

GREER, DENNIS SMITH, DENNIS )

GILLETTE, CHARLES GILLETTE, )

SHEILA YARBOROUGH, WAYNE

)

ERNST, GARFIELD SAMUELS, and )

DOES 1 through 15, inclusive, )

)

Defendants.

)

)

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Lucas v. White, et al.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
672\1\PLEADING\ COMPLT-7.815

Plaintiffs ROBIN LUCAS, VALERIE MERCADEL and RAQUEL DOUTHIT hereby allege as follows:
INTRODUCTION 1. Plaintiffs ROBIN LUCAS, VALERIE MERCADEL and RAQUEL DOUTHIT seek damages for injuries causes while incarcerated in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons at Camp Parks minimum security facility ("Camp Parks"), the Federal Detention Center -- Pleasanton ("FDC-Pleasanton") and the Federal Correction Institution -- Dublin ("FCI-Dublin") in or around the time period between August and November 1995. During that time Plaintiffs ROBIN LUCAS, VALERIE MERCADEL and RAQUEL DOUTHIT were sexually assaulted, physically and verbally sexually abused and harassed, subjected to repeated invasions of privacy and subjected to threats, retaliation and harassment when they complained about this wrongful treatment. 2. In their acts and omissions as alleged herein, Defendants have violated Plaintiffs' rights under the federal Constitution and federal law to be from cruel and unusual punishment and have deprived Plaintiffs of their privacy, due process, equal protection and free speech rights. As a result of Defendants' wrongful conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered, and continue to suffer, severe physical and emotional injury, and hereby seek damages in an amount to be determined, and injunctive relief.

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Lucas v. White, et al.

2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
672\1\PLEADING\ COMPLT-7.815

JURISDICTION 3. This lawsuit is brought under the United States Constitution for damages pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and for injunctive relief. Jurisdiction is based on 28 U.S.C. §1331. This lawsuit is also brought under, and this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to, the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§1346(b), 2671 et seq. (This Court also has supplemental jurisdiction over claims arising under state law, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367.)

VENUE 4. The events or omissions giving rise to the claims alleged in this Complaint arose in the Northern District of California. Therefore, venue lies in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. 28 USC §§84(a); 1391(b)(2).

INTRA-DISTRICT ASSIGNMENT 5. All events giving rise to the causes of action contained herein occurred in the County of Alameda and thus this case should be assigned to the San Francisco Division or the Oakland Division of the Northern District of California pursuant to Rule 3-2(c) of the Local Rules of the Northern District.

PARTIES 6. Plaintiff ROBIN LUCAS is a citizen of the State of California. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff LUCAS was incarcerated in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons at

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Lucas v. White, et al.

3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
672\1\PLEADING\ COMPLT-7.815

the FDC-Pleasanton facility and/or at the FCI-Dublin facility and/or at Camp Parks facility. Plaintiff LUCAS was released from prison in or around July 1996. Plaintiff LUCAS is an AfricanAmerican woman.
7. Plaintiff VALERIE MERCADEL currently is incarcerated in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff MERCADEL was incarcerated in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons at the FDC-Pleasanton facility and/or at the FCI-Dublin facility. Plaintiff MERCADEL is currently incarcerated in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prison at the FCI-Danbury facility. Plaintiff MERCADEL is an African-American woman.
8. Plaintiff RAQUEL DOUTHIT currently is incarcerated in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff DOUTHIT was incarcerated in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons at the FDC-Pleasanton facility and/or at the FCI-Dublin facility. Plaintiff DOUTHIT is currently incarcerated in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons at FCI-Tallahassee. Plaintiff DOUTHIT is an AfricanAmerican woman.
9. Defendant KATHLEEN M. HAWK, upon information and belief, is, and was at all times relevant herein, the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, acting under color of federal law. As such, she was and is responsible for the security and safety of all persons incarcerated in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons, including all female inmates. Defendant HAWK also was and is responsible for the supervision, training and administration of all staff employed by, or who work as independent contractors with, the Bureau of Prisons. As to all claims presented herein

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Lucas v. White, et al.

4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
672\1\PLEADING\ COMPLT-7.815

against her, Defendant HAWK is being sued in her official capacity and only injunctive relief is sought.
10. Defendant O. IVAN WHITE was the Western Regional Director for the Federal Bureau of Prisons, acting under color of federal law. As such, he was responsible for the security and safety of persons incarcerated within the Western Region, including Plaintiffs, and the supervision, training and administration of the correctional staff in the Western Region. As to all claims presented herein against him, Defendant WHITE is being sued in his individual capacity.
11. Defendant DR. PETER M. CARLSON, upon information and belief, is the current Western Regional Director for the Federal Bureau of Prisons, acting under color of federal law. As such, he is responsible for the security and safety of persons incarcerated within the Western Region, and the supervision, training and administration of the correctional staff in the Western Region. As to all claims presented herein against him, Defendant WHITE is being sued in his official capacity and only injunctive relief is sought.
12. Defendant LOY HAYES was the Warden at the FCI-Dublin, FDC-Pleasanton and Camp Parks facilities, acting under color of federal law. As such, he was responsible for the security and safety of persons incarcerated within these facilities, including Plaintiffs, and the supervision, training, administration and placement of the correctional staff at these facilities. He also was directly responsible for making decisions as to which facility would house particular inmates, including Plaintiffs, and knew or should have known that Plaintiffs were housed at the J-2 SHU. As to all claims presented herein against him,

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Lucas v. White, et al.

5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
672\1\PLEADING\ COMPLT-7.815

Defendant HAYES is being sued in his individual capacity. 13. Defendant CONSTANCE REESE, upon information and belief,
is the current Warden at the FCI-Dublin, FDC-Pleasanton and Camp Parks facilities, acting under color of federal law. As such, she is responsible for the security and safety of persons incarcerated within these facilities, and the supervision, training, administration and placement of the correctional staff at these facilities. She is also directly responsible for making decisions as to which facility, including the J-2 SHU, will house particular inmates. As to all claims presented herein against her, Defendant REESE is being sued in her official capacity and only injunctive relief is sought.
14. Defendant MARGARET L. HARDING, upon information and belief, is the current Warden at the FCI-Danbury facility, acting under color of federal law. As such, she is responsible for the security and safety of persons incarcerated within this facility, and the supervision, training, administration and placement of the correctional staff at this facility. As to all claims presented herein against her, Defendant HARDING is being sued in her official capacity and only injunctive relief is sought.
15. Defendant L.R. GREER, upon information and belief, is the current Warden at the FCI Tallahassee facility, acting under color of federal law. As such, he is responsible for the security and safety of persons incarcerated within this facility, and the supervision, training, administration and placement of the correctional staff at this facility. He is also directly responsible for making decisions as to which units of the facility will house particular inmates. As to all claims presented herein against him, Defendant GREER is being sued in

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Lucas v. White, et al.

6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
672\1\PLEADING\ COMPLT-7.815

his official capacity and only injunctive relief is sought. 16. Defendant DENNIS SMITH was at all times relevant herein
a Captain and high-ranking correctional officer at the FDCPleasanton, FCI-Dublin and Camp Parks facilities, acting under color of federal law. As such, he was responsible for the security and safety of persons incarcerated within these facilities, including Plaintiffs, and the supervision, training and administration of the correctional staff in these facilities.
He is being sued in his individual capacity. 17. Defendant DENNIS GILLETTE was at all times relevant
herein a correctional officer at the J-2 SHU at the FDCPleasanton facility, acting under color of federal law. As such, he was responsible for the security and safety of persons incarcerated within FDC-Pleasanton, including Plaintiffs. He is being sued in his individual capacity.
18. Defendant CHARLES GILLETTE is, and was at all times relevant herein, a Lieutenant and Special Investigative Section ("SIS") Officer at the FDC-Pleasanton, FCI-Dublin facilities, acting under color of federal law. As such, he was responsible for the investigation and prosecution of inappropriate or unlawful behavior of correctional officers within these facilities, and for the security and safety of persons incarcerated within these facilities, including Plaintiffs. He is being sued in his individual capacity.
19. Defendant SHEILA YARBOROUGH is, and was at all times relevant herein, a Lieutenant and SIS officer at the FDCPleasanton, FCI-Dublin and Camp Parks facilities, acting under color of federal law. As such, she was responsible for the investigation and prosecution of inappropriate or unlawful

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Lucas v. White, et al.

7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
672\1\PLEADING\ COMPLT-7.815

behavior of correctional officers within these facilities, and for the security and safety of persons incarcerated within these facilities, including Plaintiffs. She is being sued in her individual capacity.
20. Defendant WAYNE L. ERNST is, and was at all times relevant herein, a Lieutenant at the FCI-Dublin, FDC-Pleasanton and Camp Parks facilities, acting under color of federal law. As such, he was responsible for the security and safety of persons incarcerated within these facilities, including Plaintiffs, and the supervision, training and administration of the correctional staff in these facilities. He is being sued in his individual capacity.
21. Defendant GARFIELD SAMUELS was at all times relevant herein, a corrections officer at the J2-SHU at the FDC-Pleasanton facility, acting under color of federal law. As such, he was responsible for the security and safety of persons incarcerated within FDC-Pleasanton, including Plaintiffs. He is being sued in his individual capacity.
22. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of Defendants sued herein as Does 1 through 15, inclusive, and therefore sues said Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and therefore alleges, that each of Does 1 through 15 is responsible in some manner for the injuries and damages alleged herein. Plaintiff therefore sues Does 1 through 15, inclusive, by such fictitious names and will seek leave to amend this Complaint to add their true names and capacities when they have been ascertained.
23. Defendant UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is sued directly under the Federal Tort Claims Act.

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Lucas v. White, et al.

8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
672\1\PLEADING\ COMPLT-7.815

24. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that at all times relevant herein, Defendants, and each of them, were employees and agents of the government of the United States of America.
25. Plaintiffs allege that at all times relevant to this action, Defendants, and each of them, acted in the course and scope of their employment and under color of federal law.
26. While acting and failing to act as alleged herein, Defendants, and each of them, had complete custody and total control of Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs were dependent upon Defendants, and each of them, for their personal security.
27. In performing the acts and/or omissions complained of herein, Defendants, and each of them, acted under color of federal law, and Plaintiffs are informed and believe each acted maliciously, callously, intentionally, recklessly, with gross negligence, and with deliberate indifference to the rights and personal security of Plaintiffs. Each of them knew or should have known that their conduct, attitudes, actions and/or omissions were, and are, a threat to Plaintiffs and to their Constitutionally-protected rights. Despite this knowledge, Defendants, and each of them, failed to take steps to protect Plaintiffs, and to ensure their Constitutional rights while they were in Defendants' care and custody.

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Lucas v. White, et al.

9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
672\1\PLEADING\ COMPLT-7.815

FACTS 28. Plaintiffs ROBIN LUCAS, VALERIE MERCADEL and RAQUEL DOUTHIT are, or were, female inmates incarcerated in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons and housed at the FDC-Pleasanton facility and the FCI-Dublin facility, who were subjected to a pattern and practice of sexual assaults, intimidation, physical, sexual and verbal abuse, threats of violence, sexual harassment, invasions of privacy, and other violations of law by Defendants, and were retaliated against by Defendants for their complaints regarding this unlawful conduct, as set forth herein.

ROBIN LUCAS 29. On or about April 2, 1995, Plaintiff ROBIN LUCAS was incarcerated at Camp Parks, in Dublin, California, a minimum security facility for women. 30. On or about August 14, 1995, after an alleged altercation with another prisoner, Plaintiff LUCAS was moved to the J-2 SHU (Special Housing Unit) at FDC-Pleasanton. 31. Plaintiff LUCAS is informed and believes that FDCPleasanton is a detention facility regularly used for the housing of men only. The J-2 SHU is a 24-hour lockdown facility, in which inmates are locked in their single cells at all times (except for very limited activities, such as showers). At the time Plaintiff LUCAS was placed in the J-2 SHU, she was one of only a handful of women housed there among an otherwise all-male prisoner population. 32. Plaintiff LUCAS is informed and believes and therefore alleges that Defendant Warden HAYES directly approved her

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Lucas v. White, et al.

10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
672\1\PLEADING\ COMPLT-7.815

placement at the J-2 SHU and/or immediately ratified her transfer to the J-2 SHU, and was responsible for deciding whether she would be moved from that unit. Plaintiff is further informed and believes that Defendant WHITE approved the policy of housing female inmates in the men's SHU unit, and approved Plaintiff LUCAS' placement at the J-2 SHU.
33. Plaintiff LUCAS' placement at FDC-Pleasanton, and her placement in the J-2 SHU in particular, exposed all aspects of her private life, including changing of clothes, showering and use of the cell toilet, to the supervision and observation of male custody staff, as well as exposing her to a male inmate environment pervaded by sexual attention and animus directed at the few women in the facility. Few, if any, female officers were assigned to the J-2 SHU during the time Plaintiff was placed there. Moreover, because the facilities were designed for single-sex use, the cell windows and showers were in plain view of the male guards and inmates.
34. As a result of her placement on an all male tier, under constant supervision of male prison staff and constant exposure to the male inmate environment, Plaintiff LUCAS suffered severe emotional and psychological distress and invasions of her privacy.
35. Shortly after Plaintiff LUCAS' arrival at the J-2 SHU, she became the victim of a pattern of serious sexual harassment and unwelcome sexual advances orchestrated and facilitated by prison officials including, but not limited to the following:
(a) Male prisoners were allowed by guards to roam the J-2 SHU corridor and harass women prisoners, including Plaintiff LUCAS, through the food port or other opening in the cell doors.

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Lucas v. White, et al.

11

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
672\1\PLEADING\ COMPLT-7.815

On several occasions, male prisoners propositioned Plaintiff LUCAS with offers of alcohol, drugs, condoms and other contraband in return for sexual favors.
(b) Male prisoners repeatedly taunted and threatened to assault Plaintiff LUCAS.
(c) Male prisoners were provided access to Plaintiff LUCAS' cell without her consent by one or more correctional officers, who would open the locked cell door to admit them. Plaintiff LUCAS is informed and believes some of the prisoners who were admitted to her cell were from other parts of the detention center.
(d) One male prisoner entered Plaintiff LUCAS' cell and climbed into bed with her while she was asleep and without her consent, for the purpose of having sexual contact with her.
36. Plaintiff LUCAS is informed and believes, and therefore alleges, that Defendant SAMUELS (otherwise known as "Dude"), an officer regularly on duty at the J-2 SHU between midnight and 8:00 a.m., unlocked Plaintiff LUCAS' cell door to permit male prisoners to enter her cell at night without her consent, for the purposes of perpetrating such assaults, abuse and harassment.
37. Plaintiff LUCAS is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that other correctional officers, whose identities are unknown to Plaintiff LUCAS, and who are sued herein as DOE Defendants 4 through 15, also allowed male inmates to access Plaintiff LUCAS' cell at the J-2 SHU for purposes of perpetrating such assaults, abuse and harassment, or otherwise participated in the assaults, abuse and harassment.
38. During this time period, Plaintiff LUCAS repeatedly asked prison personnel, including Defendant SAMUELS to stop

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Lucas v. White, et al.

12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
672\1\PLEADING\ COMPLT-7.815

letting male prisoners into her cell and asked other correctional staff at the J-2 SHU to intervene to stop this harassment, to no avail.
39. Throughout the time she was housed in the J-2 SHU, and as a result of the unwelcome encounters with male prisoners and correctional staff as herein alleged, Plaintiff LUCAS was severely emotionally and psychologically distraught and in constant fear of further attacks. This fear and emotional and psychological distress was exacerbated by the fact that she could not seek assistance from the correctional staff, as they were involved in the wrongdoing.
40. In or around August 1995, after her requests for help to the J-2 SHU staff went unanswered, and fearing for her physical safety there, Plaintiff LUCAS contacted Defendant CAPTAIN SMITH, and asked to be transferred to a SHU in a female facility. Plaintiff LUCAS spoke with Defendant CAPTAIN SMITH several times in late August 1995, and informed him about what was taking place at the J-2 SHU, including the fact that correctional officers were unlocking her cell door to allow inmates to enter at night, and about Defendant Officer SAMUELS' involvement. Despite the fact that Plaintiff LUCAS provided this information, Defendant SMITH refused to remove her from the J-2 SHU. During one of her conversations with Defendant SMITH, Plaintiff LUCAS identified some of the inmates who had been let into her cell from a photographic line-up shown to her by Defendant CAPTAIN SMITH. After this identification, Defendant CAPTAIN SMITH requested that Plaintiff LUCAS provide an affidavit to the authorities.
41. On or about September 5, 1995, pursuant to Defendant

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Lucas v. White, et al.

13

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
672\1\PLEADING\ COMPLT-7.815

SMITH'S request, Plaintiff LUCAS gave a verbal statement and a written affidavit to SIS Investigators, Defendants LIEUTENANTS YARBOROUGH and GILLETTE, including a detailed written statement regarding her treatment at the J-2 SHU. Plaintiff LUCAS is informed and believes that the SIS is the Internal Affairs Bureau for all three facilities -- FDC-Pleasanton, FCI-Dublin and Camp Parks. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendants LIEUTENANTS YARBOROUGH and GILLETTE communicated the substance of her detailed statement to Defendant CAPTAIN SMITH. Despite her provision of this detailed statement, Defendant CAPTAIN SMITH again refused to move Plaintiff from the J-2 SHU.
42. Plaintiff LUCAS is informed and believes, and therefore alleges, that Defendants LIEUTENANTS YARBOROUGH and GILLETTE and CAPTAIN SMITH leaked, or caused the release of, the substance of her detailed statement to personnel and inmates at FCI-Dublin and/or FDC-Pleasanton, knowing that the release of that information to FCI-Dublin and/or FDC-Pleasanton personnel and inmates would brand Plaintiff as a "snitch" and place her safety and security at risk.
43. Within days after making her detailed statement, the substance of Plaintiff LUCAS' detailed statement and the fact that Plaintiff LUCAS had "snitched" were common knowledge among the male prisoners and correctional personnel in the J-2 SHU. During this time, Plaintiff LUCAS remained housed in the J-2 SHU despite obvious and severe risk to her personal security, her receipt of threats, and her repeated requests for transfer and protection.
44. On or about September 22, between midnight and 5:00 a.m., while she was asleep, Plaintiff LUCAS' cell door was

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Lucas v. White, et al.

14

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
672\1\PLEADING\ COMPLT-7.815

opened. Three men, whose identities are unknown to Plaintiff and who are sued here as DOES 1 through 3, entered her cell and forcibly restrained her and handcuffed her from behind. Plaintiff LUCAS was brutally beaten, her life was repeatedly threatened, and she was savagely raped and sodomized. During this attack, Defendants DOES 1 through 3 informed Plaintiff LUCAS that the attack was in retaliation for her providing a statement to the SIS investigators, including, but not limited to, calling her a "snitch" and advising her to "keep her mouth shut". Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges that one or more of Defendant Does 1 through 3 are, or were, correctional personnel.
45. This violent attack resulted in serious physical injury to Plaintiff LUCAS, including injuries to her neck, back, ribs, shoulder, arms, wrists, anus and private areas, as well as severe emotional and psychological trauma.
46. Following the attack, Plaintiff LUCAS requested medical attention from the prison staff. Despite her requests for such attention, Plaintiff LUCAS was denied any medical attention until several weeks after the attack.
47. During the time period following the attack, male inmates continued to threaten to physically harm Plaintiff LUCAS, including making statements to the effect that she would be found hanging dead in her cell.
48. On or about, October 5, 1995, Plaintiff LUCAS was transferred to the women's SHU facility at FCI-Dublin.
49. In or around late October or early November 1995, Plaintiff LUCAS gave another statement to Defendant LIEUTENANT ERNST, this time concerning the September 22nd attack.

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Lucas v. White, et al.

15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
672\1\PLEADING\ COMPLT-7.815

50. Subsequent to her second statement to the authorities, Defendant CAPTAIN SMITH attempted to intimidate Plaintiff LUCAS into withdrawing her complaints, including by making statements advising her to "drop the issue."
51. Plaintiff LUCAS has suffered, and continues to suffer, in addition to physical injury, severe psychological and emotional trauma, including extraordinary fear, anxiety, and depression as a consequence of the harassment, abuse, discrimination and retaliation Plaintiff LUCAS encountered at the hands of male staff and prisoners at FDC-Pleasanton and FCIDublin.
52. These actions and inactions by prison officials and inmates, along with the complete failure of prison officials to take any action to protect Plaintiff LUCAS, or to provide her with requested and much needed medical attention, as herein alleged, not only allowed her physical injuries to worsen, but also intensified her severe emotional and psychological trauma.
53. Plaintiff LUCAS is informed and believes and therefore alleges that, in or around the period of her incarceration at the J-2 SHU, other women prisoners were also sexually harassed and assaulted after correctional officers, including Defendant SAMUELS, unlocked their cell doors to admit male inmates. Among the other women prisoners who were subject to this harassment were two other African-American women (Plaintiffs Valerie MERCADEL and Raquel DOUTHIT), and three White women.
54. Plaintiff is informed and believes that other women housed at the J-2 SHU also complained to prison officials about sexual harassment and assault, including rape. Plaintiff is further informed and believes that a complaint by one of the

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Lucas v. White, et al.

16

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
672\1\PLEADING\ COMPLT-7.815

White women resulted in the removal of the White women from the J-2 SHU on or about September 25, 1995. (The three AfricanAmerican women, including Plaintiff LUCAS, were not removed until on or about October 5, 1995.)
55. On or about November 17, 1995, after the intervention of her attorneys, Plaintiff LUCAS was transferred to the Alameda County Jail, Santa Rita.
56. Plaintiff LUCAS, on her own, and by and through her attorneys, has submitted all grievances alleged herein, to personnel at the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and has cooperated fully in any and all formal internal investigations of the events complained of herein, thereby fully exhausting all applicable internal grievance mechanisms.

VALERIE MERCADEL 57. On or about June 8, 1995, Plaintiff VALERIE MERCADEL was housed at FCI-Dublin, a federal correctional facility for women. 58. On or about September 20, 1995, after an altercation with another prisoner, Defendant Captain SMITH and other correctional personnel moved Plaintiff MERCADEL and Plaintiff Raquel DOUTHIT, another female prisoner, to the J-2 SHU (Special Housing Unit) at FDC-Pleasanton. 59. Plaintiff MERCADEL is informed and believes that FDCPleasanton is a detention facility regularly used for the housing of men only. The J-2 SHU is a 24-hour lockdown facility, in which inmates are locked in their single cells at all times (except for very limited activities, such as showers). At the time Plaintiff MERCADEL was placed in the J-2 SHU, she was one of

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Lucas v. White, et al.

17

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
672\1\PLEADING\ COMPLT-7.815

only a handful of women housed there among an otherwise all-male prisoner population.
60. Plaintiff MERCADEL is informed and believes and therefore alleges that Defendant Warden HAYES directly approved her placement at the J-2 SHU and/or immediately ratified her transfer to the J-2 SHU, and was responsible for deciding whether she would be moved from that unit. Plaintiff is further informed and believes that Defendant WHITE approved the policy of housing female inmates in the men's SHU unit, and approved Plaintiff MERCADEL's placement at the J-2 SHU.
61. Plaintiff MERCADEL's placement at FDC-Pleasanton, and her placement in the J-2 SHU in particular, exposed all aspects of her private life, including changing of clothes, showering and use of the cell toilet, to the supervision and observation of male custody staff. She was further exposed to a male inmate environment pervaded by sexual attention and animus directed at the few women in the facility. Few, if any, female officers were assigned to the J-2 SHU during the time Plaintiff was placed there. In addition, because the facilities were designed for single-sex use, the cell windows and showers were in plain view of the male guards and inmates. Moreover, as Plaintiff was supplied only one set of clothing upon transfer to the J-2 SHU, she was forced to sleep in her undergarments.
62. As a result of her placement on an all male tier, under the constant supervision of male prison staff and constant exposure to the male inmate environment, Plaintiff MERCADEL suffered severe emotional and psychological distress and invasions of her privacy.
63. Shortly after Plaintiff MERCADEL's arrival at the J-2

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Lucas v. White, et al.

18

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
672\1\PLEADING\ COMPLT-7.815

SHU, she became the victim of a pattern of serious sexual harassment and unwelcome sexual advances orchestrated and facilitated by prison officials including, but not limited to the following:
(a) Male prisoners were allowed by guards to roam the J-2 SHU corridor and harass women prisoners, including Plaintiff MERCADEL, through the food port or other opening in the cell doors.
(b) On at least one occasion, a male inmate grabbed Plaintiff MERCADEL through her cell door and made statements to the effect that he had paid for her services and would "collect" whether she consented or not. He then proceeded to physically assault her by striking a strong blow to her head.
(c) Male prisoners repeatedly propositioned Plaintiff MERCADEL for sex, both in writing and while standing outside her cell.
(d) Male prisoners were provided access to Plaintiff MERCADEL's cell without her consent by one or more correctional officers, who would open the locked door to admit them. On these occasions, Plaintiff was locked in her cell with the male inmates until such time as the correctional officer(s) returned to unlock the cell. Plaintiff MERCADEL is informed and believes some of the prisoners who were admitted to her cell were from other parts of the detention center.
(e) At least one male inmate who was provided access to Plaintiff MERCADEL's cell without her consent forcibly molested and abused her, fondling her breasts and attempting to orally copulate her.
64. Plaintiff MERCADEL is informed and believes, and

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Lucas v. White, et al.

19

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
672\1\PLEADING\ COMPLT-7.815

therefore alleges, that Defendant SAMUELS (otherwise known as "Dude"), an officer regularly on duty at the J-2 SHU between midnight and 8:00 a.m., unlocked Plaintiff MERCADEL's cell door to permit male prisoners to enter her cell at night without her consent, for the purposes of perpetrating such assaults, abuse and harassment.
65. Plaintiff MERCADEL is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that other correctional officers, whose identities are unknown to Plaintiff MERCADEL, and who are sued herein as DOE Defendants 4 through 15, also allowed male inmates to access Plaintiff MERCADEL's cell at the J-2 SHU for purposes of perpetrating such assaults, abuse and harassment, or otherwise participated in the assaults, abuse and harassment.
66. During this time period, Plaintiff MERCADEL asked prison personnel, including Defendant SAMUELS to stop letting male prisoners into her cell. Defendant SAMUELS acknowledged his participation in the unwelcome sexual advances.
67. During the time Plaintiff MERCADEL was housed at the J2 SHU, Defendant Officer GILLETTE sexually harassed and assaulted Plaintiff MERCADEL, including, without limitation, by making sexual remarks and comments to her, by demanding that Plaintiff MERCADEL show him her breasts or genitals in order to receive a prison issued t-shirt, and by attempting to grab Plaintiff MERCADEL's buttocks while she was on her way to the shower. Plaintiff MERCADEL refused to comply with Defendant Officer GILLETTE's demands to show her breasts and/or genitals and did not receive a t-shirt from him.
68. Throughout the time she was housed in the J-2 SHU, and as a result of the unwelcome encounters with male prisoners and

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Lucas v. White, et al.

20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
672\1\PLEADING\ COMPLT-7.815

correctional staff as herein alleged, Plaintiff MERCADEL was severely emotionally and psychologically distraught and in constant fear of further attacks. This fear and emotional and psychological distress was exacerbated by the fact that she could not seek assistance from the correctional staff, as they were involved in the wrongdoing. Moreover, as a result of her constant fear of further attacks, and in an effort to protect herself from these attacks, Plaintiff MERCADEL moved her mattress to block the cell door and attempted to stay awake during the night.
69. On or about October 5, 1995, correctional staff moved Plaintiff MERCADEL and two other African-American female prisoners, Plaintiffs Robin LUCAS and Raquel DOUTHIT, to the SHU at the nearby FCI-Dublin.
70. Plaintiffs MERCADEL and Raquel DOUTHIT were placed in a cell together at FCI-Dublin.
71. On or about October 11, 1995, Plaintiff MERCADEL appeared before E. Porter, a Disciplinary Hearing Officer, for a disciplinary hearing pertaining to her initial SHU placement. Plaintiff MERCADEL complained to Officer Porter about the problems she had encountered. Officer Porter refused to listen to her complaints, cautioned her that her allegations were "dangerous," and informed her that she had to write to his superior, Defendant O. Ivan WHITE, the Western Regional Director of the Bureau of Prisons, in order to initiate a complaint.
72. On or about October 15, 1995, Plaintiff MERCADEL wrote a letter to Defendant WHITE, which she and Plaintiff DOUTHIT both signed. In the letter they informed Defendant WHITE that their personal safety and security had been violated by correctional

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Lucas v. White, et al.

21

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
672\1\PLEADING\ COMPLT-7.815

officers at the J-2 SHU at FDC-Pleasanton, and requested that an official from outside FCI-Dublin be sent to investigate these problems. Defendant WHITE failed to respond appropriately to this letter; instead, he sent a copy of the letter to officials at FDC-Pleasanton and/or FCI-Dublin, some of whom were the officials accused of misconduct. Plaintiff MERCADEL is informed and believes that Defendant Lieutenant ERNST at FCI-Dublin was assigned to investigate their complaints.
73. On or about October 16, 1995, Defendant Lieutenant ERNST spoke with Plaintiffs MERCADEL and DOUTHIT separately about the problems they had encountered at FDC-Pleasanton, promising to treat their interviews as confidential.
74. Plaintiff MERCADEL is informed and believes, and therefore alleges, that Defendant LIEUTENANT ERNST and/or Defendant WHITE leaked, or caused the release of, the substance of her complaints to personnel and inmates at FCI-Dublin and/or FDC-Pleasanton, knowing that such release would brand Plaintiff MERCADEL as a "snitch" and place her safety and security at risk.
75. Within days after making these complaints, the substance of Plaintiff MERCADEL'S complaint and the fact that Plaintiff MERCADEL had "snitched" were common knowledge among the correctional staff. During this time, Plaintiff MERCADEL remained housed at FCI-Dublin.
76. Following the meeting with Defendant Lieutenant ERNST, Plaintiff MERCADEL was threatened and harassed by the correctional staff at FCI-Dublin, including without limitation the following:
(a) On or about October 19, 1995, Defendant Captain SMITH approached Plaintiffs MERCADEL and DOUTHIT at their cell,

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Lucas v. White, et al.

22

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
672\1\PLEADING\ COMPLT-7.815

and threatened to close the investigation regarding their complaints of treatment at the J-2 SHU in order to intimidate them.
(b) Subsequent to his threats to close the investigation altogether, Defendant CAPTAIN SMITH threatened Plaintiff MERCADEL's physical safety and security, including, but not limited to, threats to tell the other prisoners that Plaintiff MERCADEL was a "snitch", which Defendant SMITH knew would endanger Plaintiff MERCADEL's physical safety and security.
(c) Defendant Officer GILLETTE also came to Plaintiffs MERCADEL and DOUTHIT's cell at FCI-Dublin and attempted to intimidate them into dropping their complaint.
77. Plaintiff MERCADEL is informed and believes that the conduct as alleged herein was part of an effort by Defendants WHITE, ERNST, SMITH and Officer GILLETTE to retaliate against her for her complaints about her treatment in the J-2 SHU, and at FCI-Dublin, and to intimidate her into withdrawing said complaints, or to suppress evidence, obstruct justice, and/or intimidate witnesses with regard to said complaints.
78. On or about November 1, 1995, Plaintiff MERCADEL filled out a request to speak with Defendant Warden HAYES concerning what had happened to her, and wrote a second letter to Defendant WHITE informing him of the continuing threat to her safety and requesting investigation by someone from outside FCI-Dublin. Plaintiff MERCADEL was not moved or provided protection pursuant to these requests.
79. Plaintiff MERCADEL has suffered, and continues to suffer, in addition to physical injury, severe psychological and emotional trauma, including extraordinary fear, anxiety, and

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Lucas v. White, et al.

23

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
672\1\PLEADING\ COMPLT-7.815

depression as a consequence of the harassment, abuse, discrimination and retaliation Plaintiff MERCADEL encountered at the hands of male staff and prisoners at FDC-Pleasanton and FCIDublin.
80. These actions and inactions by prison officials and inmates, along with the complete failure of prison officials to take any action to protect Plaintiff MERCADEL intensified her severe emotional and psychological trauma.
81. Plaintiff MERCADEL is informed and believes and therefore alleges that, in or around the period of her incarceration at the J-2 SHU, other women prisoners were also sexually harassed and assaulted after correctional officers, including Defendant SAMUELS, unlocked their cell doors to admit male inmates. Among the other women prisoners who were subject to this harassment were two other African-American women (Plaintiffs Robin LUCAS and Raquel DOUTHIT), and three White women.
82. Plaintiff MERCADEL is informed and believes that other women housed at the J-2 SHU also complained to prison officials about sexual harassment and assault, including rape. Plaintiff MERCADEL is further informed and believes that a complaint by one of the White women resulted in the removal of the White women from the J-2 SHU on or about September 25, 1995. (The three African-American women, including Plaintiff MERCADEL, were not removed until on or about October 5, 1995.)
83. On or about November 16, 1995, after the intervention of her attorneys, Plaintiff MERCADEL was transferred to the Alameda County Jail, Santa Rita.
84. Plaintiff since was moved to the Alameda County Jail,

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Lucas v. White, et al.

24

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
672\1\PLEADING\ COMPLT-7.815

North County. She currently is housed at the Federal Correctional Institute in Danbury, Connecticut.
85. Plaintiff MERCADEL, on her own, and by and through her attorneys, has submitted all grievances alleged herein, to personnel at the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and has cooperated fully in any and all formal internal investigations of the events complained of herein, thereby fully exhausting all applicable internal grievance mechanisms.

RAQUEL DOUTHIT 86. On or about June 2, 1995, Plaintiff RAQUEL DOUTHIT was housed at FCI-Dublin, a federal correctional facility for women. 87. On or about September 20, 1995, after an altercation with another prisoner, Defendant Captain SMITH and other correctional personnel moved Plaintiff DOUTHIT and Plaintiff Valerie MERCADEL, another female prisoner, to the J-2 SHU (Special Housing Unit) at FDC-Pleasanton. 88. Plaintiff DOUTHIT is informed and believes that FDCPleasanton is a detention facility regularly used for the housing of men only. The J-2 SHU is a 24-hour lockdown facility, in which inmates are locked in their single cells at all times (except for showers). At the time Plaintiff DOUTHIT was placed in the J-2 SHU, she was one of only a handful of women housed there among an otherwise all-male prisoner population. 89. Plaintiff DOUTHIT is informed and believes and therefore alleges that Defendant Warden HAYES directly approved her placement at the J-2 SHU and/or immediately ratified her transfer to the J-2 SHU, and was responsible for deciding whether she would be moved from that unit. Plaintiff is further informed

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Lucas v. White, et al.

25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
672\1\PLEADING\ COMPLT-7.815

and believes that Defendant WHITE approved the policy of housing female inmates in the men's SHU unit, and approved Plaintiff DOUTHIT's placement at the J-2 SHU.
90. Plaintiff DOUTHIT's placement at FDC-Pleasanton, and her placement in the J-2 SHU in particular, exposed all aspects of her private life, including changing of clothes, showering and use of the cell toilet, to the supervision and observation of male custody staff. She was further exposed to a male inmate environment pervaded by sexual attention and animus directed at the few women in the facility. Few, if any, female officers were assigned to the J-2 SHU during the time Plaintiff was placed there. In addition, because the facilities were designed for single-sex use, the cell windows and showers were in plain view of the male guards and inmates. Moreover, as Plaintiff DOUTHIT was supplied only one set of clothing upon transfer to the J-2 SHU, she was forced to sleep in her undergarments.
91. As a result of her placement on an all male tier, under constant supervision of male prison staff and constant exposure to the male inmate environment, Plaintiff DOUTHIT suffered severe emotional and psychological distress and invasions of her privacy.
92. Shortly after Plaintiff DOUTHIT's arrival at the J-2 SHU, she became the victim of a pattern of serious sexual harassment and unwelcome sexual advances orchestrated and facilitated by prison officials including, but not limited to the following:
(a) Male prisoners were allowed by guards to roam the J-2 SHU corridor and harass women prisoners, including Plaintiff DOUTHIT, through the food port or other opening in the cell

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Lucas v. White, et al.

26

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
672\1\PLEADING\ COMPLT-7.815

doors. On several occasions, male prisoners propositioned Plaintiff MERCADEL with offers of alcohol, and other contraband in return for sexual favors.
(b) Male prisoners repeatedly propositioned Plaintiff DOUTHIT for sex, both in highly offensive letters and while standing outside her cell.
(c) Male prisoners were provided access to Plaintiff DOUTHIT's cell without her consent by one or more correctional officers, who would open the locked cell door to admit them. On these occasions, Plaintiff DOUTHIT was locked in her cell with the male inmates until such time as the correctional officer(s) returned to unlock the cell. Plaintiff DOUTHIT is informed and believes some of the prisoners who were admitted to her cell were from other parts of the detention center.
(d) On several occasions, male prisoners entered Plaintiff DOUTHIT's cell without her consent, where they sexually harassed and sexually and verbally abused her.
(e) On one occasion, a male inmate who was given access to her cell without her consent, held Plaintiff DOUTHIT down while he forcibly molested, orally copulated, and abused Plaintiff DOUTHIT. On a separate occasion, this male inmate entered Plaintiff DOUTHIT's cell and, when Plaintiff DOUTHIT refused to have sex with him, he sat directly in front of her and masturbated.
93. Plaintiff DOUTHIT is informed and believes, and therefore alleges, that Defendant SAMUELS (otherwise known as "Dude"), a officer regularly on duty at the J-2 SHU between midnight and 8:00 a.m., unlocked Plaintiff DOUTHIT'S cell door to permit male prisoners to enter her cell at night without her

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Lucas v. White, et al.

27

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
672\1\PLEADING\ COMPLT-7.815

consent, for the purposes of perpetrating such assaults, abuse and harassment.
94. Plaintiff DOUTHIT is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that other correctional officers, whose identities are unknown to Plaintiff DOUTHIT, and who are sued herein as DOE Defendants 4 through 15, also allowed male inmates to access Plaintiff DOUTHIT'S cell at the J-2 SHU for purposes of perpetrating such assaults, abuse and harassment, or otherwise participated in the assaults, abuse and harassment.
95. Throughout her stay on the J-2 SHU, Plaintiff continually feared for her personal safety, and suffered extreme emotional and psychological distress. This fear and emotional and psychological distress was exacerbated by the fact that she could not seek assistance from the correctional staff as they were involved with the wrongdoing.
96. On or about October 5, 1995, correctional staff moved Plaintiff DOUTHIT and two other African-American female prisoners, Plaintiffs Robin LUCAS and Valerie MERCADEL, to the SHU at the nearby FCI-Dublin.
97. Plaintiffs DOUTHIT and Valerie MERCADEL were placed in a cell together at FCI-Dublin.
98. On or about October 11, 1995, Plaintiff DOUTHIT appeared before E. Porter, a Disciplinary Hearing Officer, for a disciplinary hearing pertaining to her initial SHU placement. Plaintiff DOUTHIT complained to Officer Porter about the problems she had encountered. Officer Porter refused to listen to her complaints, cautioned her that her allegations were "dangerous," and informed her that she had to write to his superior, Defendant O. Ivan WHITE, the Western Regional Director of the Bureau of

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Lucas v. White, et al.

28

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
672\1\PLEADING\ COMPLT-7.815

Prisons, in order to initiate a complaint. 99. On October 15, 1995, Plaintiff MERCADEL wrote a letter
to Defendant WHITE, which she and Plaintiff DOUTHIT both signed. In the letter they informed Defendant WHITE that their personal
safety and security had been violated by correctional officers at the J-2 SHU at FDC-Pleasanton, and requested that an official from outside FCI-Dublin be sent to investigate these problems. Defendant WHITE failed to respond appropriately to this letter; instead, he sent a copy of the letter to officials at FDCPleasanton and/or FCI-Dublin, some of whom were the officials accused of misconduct. Plaintiff DOUTHIT is informed and believes that Defendant Lieutenant ERNST at FCI-Dublin was assigned to investigate their complaints.
100. On or about October 16, 1995, Defendant Lieutenant ERNST spoke with Plaintiff DOUTHIT and MERCADEL separately about the problems they had encountered at FDC-Pleasanton, promising to treat their interviews as confidential.
101. Plaintiff DOUTHIT is informed and believes, and therefore alleges, that Defendant LIEUTENANT ERNST and/or Defendant WHITE leaked, or caused the release of, the substance of her statement to personnel and inmates at FCI-Dublin and/or FDC-Pleasanton, knowing that such release would brand Plaintiff as a "snitch" and place her safety and security at risk.
102. Within days after making these complaints, the substance of Plaintiff DOUTHIT'S statement and the fact that Plaintiff DOUTHIT had "snitched" were common knowledge among the correctional staff. During this time, Plaintiff DOUTHIT remained housed at FCI-Dublin.
103. Following the meeting with Defendant Lieutenant ERNST,

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Lucas v. White, et al.

29

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
672\1\PLEADING\ COMPLT-7.815

Plaintiff DOUTHIT was threatened and harassed by the correctional staff at FCI-Dublin, including without limitation the following:
(a) On or about October 19, 1995, Defendant Captain SMITH approached Plaintiffs DOUTHIT and MERCADEL at their cell, and threatened to close the investigation regarding their complaints of treatment at the J-2 SHU in order to intimidate them.
(b) Subsequent to his threats to close the investigation altogether, Defendant CAPTAIN SMITH threatened Plaintiff DOUTHIT's physical safety and security, including, but not limited to, threats to tell the other prisoners that Plaintiff DOUTHIT was a "snitch", which Defendant SMITH knew would endanger Plaintiff DOUTHIT's physical safety and security.
(c) Defendant Officer GILLETTE also came to Plaintiffs DOUTHIT's and MERCADEL's cell at FCI-Dublin and attempted to intimidate them into dropping their complaint.
104. Plaintiff is informed and believes that the conduct as alleged herein was part of an effort by Defendants WHITE, ERNST, SMITH and Officer GILLETTE to retaliate against her for her complaints about her treatment in the J-2 SHU, and to intimidate her into withdrawing said complaints, or to suppress evidence, obstruct justice, and/or intimidate witnesses with regard to said complaints.
105. Plaintiff DOUTHIT has suffered, and continues to suffer, in addition to physical injury, severe psychological and emotional trauma, including extraordinary fear, anxiety, and depression as a consequence of the harassment, abuse, discrimination, and retaliation Plaintiff DOUTHIT encountered at the hands of male staff and prisoners at FDC-Pleasanton and FCI-

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Lucas v. White, et al.

30

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
672\1\PLEADING\ COMPLT-7.815

Dublin. 106. These actions and inactions by prison officials and
inmates, along with the complete failure of prison officials to take any action to protect Plaintiff DOUTHIT intensified her severe emotional and psychological trauma.
107. Plaintiff DOUTHIT is informed and believes and therefore alleges that, in or around the period of her incarceration at the J-2 SHU, other women prisoners were also sexually harassed and assaulted after correctional officers, including Defendant SAMUELS, unlocked their cell doors to admit male inmates. Among the other women prisoners who were subject to this harassment were two other African-American women (Plaintiffs Robin LUCAS and Valerie MERCADEL), and three White women.
108. Plaintiff DOUTHIT is informed and believes that other women housed at the J-2 SHU also complained to prison officials about sexual harassment and assault, including rape. Plaintiff DOUTHIT is further informed and believes that a complaint by one of the White women resulted in the removal of the White women from the J-2 SHU on or about September 25, 1995. (The three African-American women, including Plaintiff DOUTHIT, were not removed until on or about October 5, 1995.)
109. On or about November 16, 1995, after the intervention of her attorneys, Plaintiff DOUTHIT was transferred to the Alameda County Jail, Santa Rita.
110. Plaintiff since was moved to the Alameda County Jail, North County. She currently is housed at the Federal Correctional Institute in Tallahassee, Florida.
111. Plaintiff DOUTHIT, on her own, and by and through her

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Lucas v. White, et al.

31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
672\1\PLEADING\ COMPLT-7.815

attorneys, has submitted all grievances alleged herein, to personnel at the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and has cooperated fully in any and all formal internal investigations of the events complained of herein, thereby fully exhausting all applicable internal grievance mechanisms.
COMMON FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 112. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that, in addition to the complaints they brought themselves, during the period they were housed on the J-2 SHU, and during the period when the acts complained of herein took place, certain of Plaintiffs' family and friends made requests to visit Plaintiffs, and/or attempted to lodge complaints with prison personnel on Plaintiffs' behalf, to no avail. Moreover, certain of these family members and/or friends were incorrectly informed by correctional personnel that women prisoners were not housed at the men's J-2 SHU facility. 113. Defendants, and each of them, subjected Plaintiffs, as well as other female inmates within their custody and control, to the constant supervision and observation of male custody staff, as alleged herein, by placing Plaintiffs, or directing or approving placement of Plaintiffs, on the J-2 SHU at FDCPleasanton, an all-male tier, by failing to remove Plaintiffs from the J-2 SHU after complaints were made by other prisoners, and by failing to remove Plaintiffs from the J-2 SHU after complaints were made by Plaintiffs. 114. Defendants, and each of them, subjected Plaintiffs, as well as other female inmates within their custody and control, to sexual assaults, abuse and harassment, as herein alleged, by placing Plaintiffs, or directing or approving placement of Plaintiffs, on the J-2 SHU at FDC-Pleasanton, an all-male tier,

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Lucas v. White, et al.

32

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
672\1\PLEADING\ COMPLT-7.815

by failing to remove Plaintiffs from the J-2 SHU after complaints were made by other prisoners, and by failing to remove Plaintiffs from the J-2 SHU after complaints were made by Plaintiffs.
115. Defendants, and each of them, subjected Plaintiffs, as well as other female prisoners within their custody and control, to sexual assaults, abuse and harassment by failing to enact, maintain and properly implement and enforce appropriate policies and procedures concerning security for female prisoners and the prevention and handling of sexual assaults, abuse and harassment of female prisoners confined within the Bureau of Prisons, and especially the Western Region, including Camp Parks, FCI-Dublin and FDC-Pleasanton.
116. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege, that Defendant SAMUELS, and DOE defendants 1 through 15, subjected Plaintiffs to sexual assaults, abuse and harassment by directly encouraging, facilitating and cooperating with male prisoners by unlocking their cell doors to permit male prisoners to enter their cells at night without their consent, for the purposes of perpetrating such assaults, abuse and harassment.
117. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and therefore allege that certain correctional personnel, including but not limited to, some or all of the Defendants in this action, received money and/or other favors or benefits from male inmates, and/or other correctional personnel, in return for providing access to Plaintiffs' cells, and/or the cells of other female inmates.
118. Defendants, and each of them, retaliated against Plaintiffs, through intimidation, threats, sexual and other physical assaults, abuse and harassment, as herein alleged, after

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Lucas v. White, et al.

33

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
672\1\PLEADING\ COMPLT-7.815

Plaintiffs' complained about their treatment on the J-2 SHU. 119. Defendants, and each of them, once they received actual
notice of sexual assaults, abuse and harassment against Plaintiffs, as herein alleged, failed to adequately investigate and take reasonable measures to protect Plaintiffs, including, but not limited to their failure to keep obviously sensitive information confidential, and to remove Plaintiffs from the men's unit and/or to remove them from the facilities controlled by the correctional personnel implicated in their complaints.
120. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereupon allege that Defendants, and each of them, failed to properly evaluate, train, discipline and supervise subordinate correctional personnel. Defendants' failure to supervise, train, discipline and evaluate subordinate correctional personnel resulted in the acts complained of herein.
121. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that weeks or months prior to the events complained of herein, female inmates were housed at the J-2 unit and subjected to harassment similar to that alleged herein. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe that Defendants, and each of them, knew, or should have known of these prior instances of harassment. Notwithstanding the foregoing knowledge, Defendants failed to take action to prevent similar harm to Plaintiffs. By permitting such activities to continue unabated, Defendants, and each of them, adopted a de facto policy of deliberate indifference to the wrongful acts complained of herein and adopted, authorized, ratified and approved a policy and practice of permitting illegal sexual activity, sexual assault, sexual harassment, sexual battery, molestation and retaliation against female inmates.

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Lucas v. White, et al.

34

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
672\1\PLEADING\ COMPLT-7.815

122. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Defendants, and each of them, failed to investigate the complaints received from the White women housed on J-2 SHU concerning Defendant SAMUELS, and/or other complaints regarding the J-2 SHU, as herein alleged, and failed to take other action to protect Plaintiffs, despite the fact that the information they received regarding Defendant SAMUELS clearly indicated that he was unfit for his position and that he was a threat to the safety and rights of female inmates. Had Defendants investigated the information they received about Defendant SAMUELS, Defendants could have prevented the conduct alleged herein.
123. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe and thereupon allege that Defendants WHITE, HAYES, SMITH, Officer GILLETTE, Lieutenant GILLETTE, YARBOROUGH, ERNST and DOES 1 through 15, knew or should have known that Defendant SAMUELS was unfit for the position of correctional officer and that Defendant SAMUELS was a threat to the safety and rights of female inmates.
Notwithstanding the foregoing knowledge, Defendants failed to take action to prevent Defendant SAMUELS from committing the illegal acts complained of by the Plaintiffs herein. By permitting such activity to continue unabated, Defendants, and each of them, adopted a de facto policy of deliberate indifference to the wrongful acts complained of herein and adopted, authorized, ratified and approved a policy and practice of permitting illegal sexual activity, sexual assault, sexual harassment, sexual battery, molestation and retaliation against female inmates.
124. The actions, conduct and inactions of Defendants, and each of them, demonstrates a practice, custom, or policy of

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Lucas v. White, et al.

35

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
672\1\PLEADING\ COMPLT-7.815

reckless and deliberate indifference to instances of known or suspected sexual assaults, intimidation, abuse, threats of violence, sexual harassment, retaliation and other violations of law violating Plaintiffs' Constitutional rights.
125. An actual controversy exists between Plaintiffs and Defendants concerning their rights, privileges and obligations.
126. No adequate remedy at law exists which will completely safeguard the Plaintiffs' legal rights and make the Plaintiffs whole; the Plaintiffs, other female prisoners and the general public will continue to be harmed and suffer irreparable loss and injury, unless the Court orders appropriate injunctive relief.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Bivens -- Eighth Amendment Cruel and Unusual Punishment -- Deliberate Indifference to Prisoners' Personal Security Interests; All Defendants) 127. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each allegation of paragraphs 1 through 126 above. 128. In acting and failing to act as alleged above, Defendants, and each of them, through their pattern and practice of permitting, facilitating and/or perpetrating sexual assaults, intimidation, physical, sexual and verbal abuse, threats of violence, sexual harassment, retaliation, and other violations of law against Plaintiffs, and failing to properly investigate such violations, as set forth herein, subjected Plaintiffs to unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain and physical injury, thereby violating the Plaintiffs' right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 129. As a proximate, direct and foreseeable result of the

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Lucas v. White, et al.

36

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
672\1\PLEADING\ COMPLT-7.815

Defendants' failure to ensure freedom from sexual assaults, intimidation, physical, sexual and verbal abuse, threats of violence, sexual harassment, retaliation and other violations of law against Plaintiffs, and in failing to properly investigate such violations, as set forth herein, Plaintiffs have suffered, are suffering, and will continue to suffer irreparable harm and damages in the form of pain and suffering, shame, humiliation, degradation, emotional distress, embarrassment, mental distress and other damages.
130. Defendants' acts and/or omissions were knowing, willful, intentional, malicious, unnecessary, wanton, and despicable, with reckless, callous or conscious disregard of the rights of the Plaintiffs, entitling the Plaintiffs to an award of exemplary damages.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Bivens -- Eighth Amendment Failure to Train and Supervise-- Deliberate Indifference to Prisoners' Personal Security Interests; All Defendants) 131. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each allegation of paragraphs 1 through 126 above. 132. In acting and failing to act as alleged above, Defendants, and each of them, through their failure to properly evaluate, train, discipline and supervise subordinate custodial personnel to prevent physical harm to, and/or sexual harassment of, inmates, to investigate allegations of physical harm to and/or sexual harassment of inmates, and to prevent retaliation against inmates for complaints of such abuse, subjected Plaintiffs to unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain and

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Lucas v. White, et al.

37

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
672\1\PLEADING\ COMPLT-7.815

physical and emotional injury, thereby violating their rights under the Eight Amendment to the Constitution.
133. As a proximate, direct and foreseeable result of the Defendants' failure to properly evaluate, train, discipline and supervise subordinate custodial personnel as set forth herein, Plaintiffs have suffered, are suffering, and will continue to suffer irreparable harm and damages in the form of pain and suffering, shame, humiliation, degradation, emotional distress, embarrassment, mental distress and other damages.
134. Defendants' acts and/or omissions were knowing, willful, intentional, malicious, unnecessary, wanton, and despicable, with reckless, callous or conscious disregard of the rights of the Plaintiffs, entitling the Plaintiffs to an award of exemplary damages.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Bivens -- Fifth Amendment Substantive Due Process -Deliberate Indifference to Prisoners' Personal Security Interests; All Defendants) 135. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each allegation of paragraphs 1 through 126 above. 136. In acting and failing to act as alleged above, Defendants, and each of them, violated the Plaintiffs' right to personal security, subjecting Plaintiffs to unnecessary and wanton infliction of serious pain and physical and extraordinary emotional and psychological injury in violation of their substantive due process rights under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 137. As a proximate, direct and foreseeable result of the

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Lucas v. White, et al.

38

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
672\1\PLEADING\ COMPLT-7.815

Defendants' failure to ensure Plaintiffs' due process rights, Plaintiffs have suffered, are suffering, and will continue to suffer irreparable harm and damages in the form of pain and suffering, shame, humiliation, degradation, emotional distress, embarrassment, mental distress and other damages.
138. Defendants' acts were knowing, willful, intentional, malicious, unnecessary, wanton, and despicable, with reckless, callous or conscious disregard of the rights of the Plaintiffs, entitling the Plaintiffs to an award of exemplary damages.

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Bivens -- Fifth Amendment Equal Protection -- Gender Discrimination; All Defendants) 139. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each allegation of paragraphs 1 through 126 above. 140. Defendants, and each of them, subjected Plaintiffs to sexual assaults, abuse and harassment by placing Plaintiffs, directing or approving placement of Plaintiffs, or failing to remove Plaintiffs from placement on the J-2 SHU at FDCPleasanton, an all-male tier under the constant supervision of male custody staff, by subjecting Plaintiffs to sexual assaults, abuse and harassment, and by failing to properly investigate Plaintiffs' complaints, as set forth herein. 141. Plaintiff are informed and believe and therefore allege that male prisoners within the custody and control of Defendants were not similarly subjected to constant supervision and observation by custody staff of the opposite gender, nor to the sexual assaults, abuse and harassment experienced by plaintiffs as alleged herein.

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Lucas v. White, et al.

39

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
672\1\PLEADING\ COMPLT-7.815

142. Defendants, and each of them, in acting or failing to act as alleged above, did so intentionally. Their actions and inactions did not serve important governmental objectives, nor were the means they employed substantially related to the achievement of important governmental objectives.
143. Defendants, and each of them, thereby subjected Plaintiffs to sexual assaults, abuse and harassment, causing Plaintiffs unnecessary and wanton infliction of serious physical injury and pain and extraordinary emotional and psychological injury, on account of their gender, in violation of their rights under the Equal Protection component of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
144. As a proximate, direct and foreseeable result of the Defendants' failure to ensure Plaintiffs' right to equal protection, the Plaintiffs have suffered, are suffering, and will continue to suffer irreparable harm and damages in the form of pain and suffering, shame, humiliation, degradation, emotional distress, embarrassment, mental distress and other damages.
145. Defendants' acts were knowing, willful, intentional, malicious, unnecessary, wanton, and despicable, with reckless, callous or conscious disregard of the rights of the Plaintiffs, entitling the Plaintiffs to an award of exemplary damages.

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Bivens -- Fifth Amendment Equal Protection -- Race Discrimination; All Defendants) 146. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each allegation of paragraphs 1 through 126 above. 147. Defendants, and each of them, subjected Plaintiffs to

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Lucas v. White, et al.

40

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
672\1\PLEADING\ COMPLT-7.815

ongoing sexual abuse and harassment by failing to immediately remove Plaintiffs from the J-2 SHU or otherwise take measures to protect them or properly investigate after receiving actual notice of sexual assaults, abuse and harassment against female prisoners on the J-2 SHU.
148. Plaintiffs, who are African American, are informed and believe that they were left confined at the J-2 SHU, and subjected to further, unnecessary risk of sexual assaults, abuse and harassment, for several days after White, female prisoners confined at the J-2 SHU were moved out of that tier and housed in a prison or tier designated for female prisoners because of known sexual assaults, abuse and harassment.
149. Defendants, and each of them, in acting or failing to act as alleged above, did so intentionally. Their actions and inactions did not serve compelling governmental objectives, nor were the means they employed narrowly tailored to achieve such governmental objectives.
150. Defendants, and each of them, thereby subjected Plaintiffs to additional sexual assaults, abuse and harassment, causing Plaintiffs unnecessary and wanton infliction of serious physical injury and pain and extraordinary emotional and psychological injury, on account of their race, in violation of their rights under the Equal Protection component of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
151. As a proximate, direct and foreseeable result of the defendants' failure to ensure Plaintiffs' right to equal protection, the Plaintiffs have suffered, are suffering, and will continue to suffer irreparable harm and damages in the form of pain and suffering, shame, humiliation, degradation, emotional

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Lucas v. White, et al.

41

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
672\1\PLEADING\ COMPLT-7.815

distress, embarrassment, mental distress and other damages. 152. Defendants' acts were knowing, willful, intentional,
malicious, unnecessary, wanton, and despicable, with reckless, callous or conscious disregard of the rights of the Plaintiffs, entitling the Plaintiffs to an award of exemplary damages.

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Bivens -- Retaliation For Exercise of First Amendment Rights; All Defendants) 153. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each allegation of paragraphs 1 through 126 above. 154. Defendants, and each of them, subjected Plaintiffs to sexual assaults, abuse and harassment, and/or failed to adequately investigate and take reasonable measures to protect Plaintiffs, as described herein, in retaliation for Plaintiffs' complaints to prison authorities regarding such unlawful conduct. 155. In acting and failing to act as alleged above, Defendants, and each of them, acted or failed to act intentionally. They thereby subjected Plaintiffs to sexual assaults, abuse and harassment which caused Plaintiffs unnecessary and wanton infliction of serious physical injury and pain and extraordinary emotional and psychological injury in violation of their rights under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. 156. As a proximate, direct and foreseeable result of the defendants' failure to ensure Plaintiffs' First Amendment rights, the Plaintiffs have suffered, are suffering, and will continue to suffer irreparable harm and damages in the form of pain and suffering, shame, humiliation, degradation, emotional distress,

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Lucas v. White, et al.

42

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
672\1\PLEADING\ COMPLT-7.815

embarrassment, mental distress and other damages. 157. Defendants' acts were knowing, willful, intentional,
malicious, unnecessary, wanton, and despicable, with reckless, callous or conscious disregard of the rights of the Plaintiffs, entitling the Plaintiffs to an award of exemplary damages.

SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Bivens -- Fourth Amendment Privacy; All Defendants) 158. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 126 of the Complaint are hereby realleged and incorporated by reference. 159. Through their pattern and practice of sexual assaults, intimidation, abuse, threats of violence, sexual harassment, and other violations of law against Plaintiffs, and failure to properly investigate Plaintiffs' claims, as alleged herein, Defendants, and each of them, have violated the right of privacy, right to bodily integrity and right to bodily privacy guaranteed to the Plaintiffs by the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 160. As a proximate, direct and foreseeable result of the Defendants' failure to ensure the privacy rights, right to bodily integrity and right to bodily privacy of Plaintiffs, they have suffered, are suffering, and will continue to suffer irreparable harm and damages in the form of pain and suffering, shame, humiliation, degradation, emotional distress, embarrassment, mental distress and other damages. 161. Defendants' acts were willful, intentional, malicious, wanton, and despicable in conscious disregard of the rights of the Plaintiffs, entitling the Plaintiffs to an award of exemplary

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Lucas v. White, et al.

43

damages.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
672\1\PLEADING\ COMPLT-7.815

EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Bivens -- Fifth Amendment Privacy; All Defendants) 162. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 126 of the Complaint are hereby realleged and incorporated by reference. 163. Through their pattern and practice of sexual assaults, intimidation, abuse, threats of violence, sexual harassment, and other violations of law against Plaintiffs, and failure to properly investigate Plaintiffs' claims, as alleged herein, Defendants, and each of them, have violated the right of privacy guaranteed to the Plaintiffs by the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 164. As a proximate, direct and foreseeable result of Defendants' failure to ensure the privacy rights of Plaintiffs, they have suffered, are suffering, and will continue to suffer irreparable harm and damages in the form of pain and suffering, shame, humiliation, degradation, emotional distress, embarrassment, mental distress and other damages. 165. Defendants' acts were willful, intentional, malicious, wanton, and despicable in conscious disregard of the rights of the Plaintiffs, entitling the Plaintiffs to an award of exemplary damages.
NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Federal Tort Claims Act; Defendant United States of America)
166. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each allegation of paragraphs 1 through 126 above.
167. All Defendants are or were at all pertinent times

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Lucas v. White, et al.

44

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
672\1\PLEADING\ COMPLT-7.815

employees of the United States of America employed within the United States Bureau of Prisons.
168. By way of the actions and inactions of Defendants within the scope of their employment, as alleged above, the United States of America tortiously subjected Plaintiffs to physical injury, and emotional and psychological injury resulting from the physical injury, under circumstances where the United States of America, if a private person, would be liable to Plaintiffs in accordance with the law of the State of California.
169. The United States of America, by way of Defendants owed Plaintiffs a duty of care including, but not limited to, the duty arising from Plaintiffs' involuntary status as prisoners in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons, as set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 4042.

170. The United States of America, by way of the actions and inactions of the Defendants, negligently breached the duty of care owed to Plaintiffs in the following respects, among others:
by placing Plaintiffs in the J-2 SHU, a male unit, in the FDC Pleasanton, a male institution; by failing to promptly remove Plaintiffs from the J-2 SHU and FDC Pleasanton once they were housed there; by failing, despite knowledge or reason to know of prior sexual assaults and harassment against female inmates housed on the J-2 SHU or at FDC Pleasanton, to take measures to protect Plaintiffs or promptly remove them once they were housed there; by participating in, facilitating, or allowing sexual assaults, harassment and threats against Plaintiffs, including conduct perpetrated by male prisoners; by failing to investigate or adequately investigate Plaintiffs' complaints that they had

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Lucas v. White, et al.

45

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
672\1\PLEADING\ COMPLT-7.815

been sexually assaulted, harassed, and threatened while housed on the J-2 SHU at FDC Pleasanton; by failing to immediately move Plaintiffs or take measures to protect Plaintiffs in response to Plaintiffs' complaints that they had been sexually assaulted, harassed and threatened while housed on the J-2 SHU at FDC Pleasanton; by failing to promptly provide plaintiffs with adequate medical and mental health care once they learned Plaintiffs had been sexually assaulted, harassed, and threatened; by failing to adequately train supervisory and subordinate employees regarding the prevention of, intervention in, and response to sexual assaults and harassment against female inmates; by failing to adequately supervise subordinate employees regarding the prevention of, intervention in, and response to sexual assaults and harassment against female inmates; by failing, in the hiring of new employees for positions involving regular interaction with female inmates, to adequately screen prospective employees; by retaining employees in, or failing to reassign employees from, positions involving regular interaction with female inmates, despite knowledge or reason to know that such employees had engaged in or facilitated or condoned sexual misconduct against female inmates; by sexually assaulting and battering Plaintiff LUCAS and by facilitating and/or participating in assault and battery, including sexual assault and battery, against all Plaintiffs; by harassing and sexually harassing all Plaintiffs by failing to protect Plaintiffs from sexual and physical assaults; by failing to provide appropriate medical and mental health care to all Plaintiffs.
171. As a proximate, direct and foreseeable result of the actions and inactions of the United States of America by way of

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Lucas v. White, et al.

46

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
672\1\PLEADING\ COMPLT-7.815

its employees, Defendants and DOES 1-15, as set forth above, Plaintiffs have suffered, are suffering, and will continue to suffer irreparable harm and damages in the form of physical injuries, and emotional and psychological injuries resulting from the physical injuries.
172. Each Plaintiff presented her claims to the United States Bureau of Prisons, in compliance with the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2675, on or about August 13, 1996, by serving upon the United States Bureau of Prisons a completed and properly documented administrative claim form.
173. The United States Bureau of Prisons denied each Plaintiff's administrative claims by way of letters dated July 25, 1997.
174. Plaintiffs have exhausted all administrative claim requirements of the Federal Tort Claims Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b) and 2671, et seq., and may institute this timely action against the United States of America for the actions and inactions of its employees, Defendants and DOES 1-15, as alleged above.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 175. Plaintiffs hereby demand a jury trial as provided by Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as follows: 1. Compensatory damages for each Plaintiff according to proof; 2. Punitive damages for each Plaintiff according to proof;

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Lucas v. White, et al.

47

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
672\1\PLEADING\ COMPLT-7.815

3. As against Defendants HAWK, CARLSON, REESE, HARDING and GREER in their official capacities, appropriate injunctive relief for Plaintiffs MERCADEL and DOUTHIT, and on behalf of all female inmates in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons.
4. For costs and attorneys' fees; and 5. For such additional relief as may be just and proper.

Dated: October __, 1997

ROSEN, BIEN & ASARO

By Michael W. Bien Attorneys for Plaintiffs
LAW OFFICES OF GERI L. GREEN

By Geri L. Green Attorneys for Plaintiffs

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Lucas v. White, et al.

48

 
 63 F.Supp.2d 1046 (1999)
Robin LUCAS, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
O. Ivan WHITE, et al., Defendants.
No. C96-2905 TEH.
United States District Court, N.D. California.
April 14, 1999.
10457890 *1047 *1048 *1049 *1050 Michael W. Bien, Donna Petrine, M.J. Tony Paikeday, Rosen, Bien & Asaro, Geri L. Green, Law Offices of Geri Lynn Green, San Francisco, CA, for plaintiffs.
John H. Hemann, U.S. Attorney's Office, San Francisco, CA, Nina S. Pelletier, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendants.
ORDER
HENDERSON, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on the plaintiffs' Motion for Interim Attorneys' Fees, Litigation Expenses and Costs under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2412(d) of the Equal Access to Justice Act ("EAJA"). Having carefully considered the parties' written and oral arguments, the supporting documentation before the Court, and the record herein, the Court grants plaintiffs' request for interim attorneys' fees and costs consistent with this Order.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs Robin Lucas, Valerie Mercadel, and Raquel Douthit, filed this action on August 13, 1996, seeking damages and injunctive relief from present and former officials of the United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Prison ("BOP"). The complaint alleges that BOP officials violated their constitutional rights by subjecting them to a pattern of serious sexual assaults, sexual harassment and unwelcome sexual advances orchestrated and facilitated by prison officials. Amended Complaint ¶¶ 33-35, 61-63, 90-92, 127-165.
Specifically, plaintiffs allege the following: In August and September of 1995, they were each transferred to the J-2 Special Housing Unit ("SHU") at Federal Detention Center ("FDC") Pleasanton. FDC Pleasanton, located in Pleasanton, California, is generally used to confine male inmates, and at the time of plaintiffs' transfers, there were only a few women housed there among the otherwise all-male prisoner population. Amended Complaint ¶¶ 29-31, 57-59, 86-88. Correctional officers allowed the male prisoners to roam the corridors and harass plaintiffs through the food port or other opening in the cell doors. Male prisoners repeatedly propositioned plaintiffs for sex and one plaintiff was physically assaulted on the head. Amended Complaint ¶¶ 35, 63, 92. The correctional officers also gave male prisoners access to plaintiffs' cells without their consent in the middle of the night, which resulted in several sexual assaults. Amended Complaint ¶¶ 35, 63, 92. The plaintiffs were also sexually harassed by correctional officers. For example, on one occasion, an officer demanded that plaintiff Mercadel show him her breasts or genitals in order to receive a prison issued t-shirt. When she refused to do so, she was not given the tshirt. Amended Complaint ¶ 67.
Plaintiffs repeatedly asked prison personnel to stop the above conduct and in late August 1995, Lucas made an official complaint regarding the practice of allowing male inmates into her cell in the middle of the night. Within days, her complaint became common knowledge among the male prisoners and correctional personnel; nonetheless, she was not transferred to another place of confinement. Amended Complaint ¶¶ 38, 40-43, 66. On or about September 22, 1995, Lucas' cell door was opened while she was asleep and three men entered her cell, and restrained and handcuffed her from behind. She was then brutally beaten, raped, and sodomized. Her life

was also threatened and she was informed that the attack was in retaliation for her complaint. Amended Complaint ¶ 44. On or about November 17, 1995, after the intervention of their attorneys, plaintiffs were transferred to Alameda County Jail, Santa Rita. Federal authorities subsequently conducted a criminal investigation in which plaintiffs cooperated. Amended Complaint ¶¶ 48,83, 109. Plaintiffs further alleged that the above conduct, and the lack of appropriate training, policies, and procedures that allowed such conduct to occur, 1051 violated their rights *1051 under the First, Fourth, Fifth and Eighth amendments of the United States Constitution.
Shortly after the action was filed, the parties agreed to mediate the case through this court's ADR program. The mediator, Douglas R. Young, held five mediation sessions over several months, beginning in December 1996 and concluding in June 1997. On October 31, 1997, at the suggestion of defendants, plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint adding a claim against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act in order to facilitate resolution of the claim for damages.[1] Thereafter, the parties continued to negotiate the substantive and procedural terms of the settlement over the next several months. One factor that complicated the settlement of the matter was the passage of the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"), 18 U.S.C. § 3626 et seq., and its provisions pertaining to consent decrees in particular. The parties ultimately entered into a private settlement agreement in February 1998.
The agreement requires the BOP to implement a wide range of reforms affecting every federal prison. The reforms involve changes to policies, procedures, and personnel training that are designed to reduce the risk to female prisoners of sexual assaults and harassment by correctional staff and male prisoners, and to provide appropriate programming, counseling, and services to female prisoners who are victims of sexual assault. Specifically, defendants agreed to the following reforms on a national level: (1) establishment of a national training program to prevent the sexual assault of female prisoners, (2) provision of psychological and medical services for victims of sexual assault, (3) revision and amendment of the program statement for victims of sexual assault, and (4) adoption of measures to protect victim confidentiality. The government also agreed to the comprehensive monitoring of these reforms.
At the local level, defendants agreed to make the following changes at FCI Pleasanton: (1) discontinue housing women prisoners in the J-2 SHU where plaintiffs were housed, (2) establish a confidential mechanism for inmates to report sexual assaults, and (3) establish a specialized training program at FCI Dublin to prevent further sexual assaults. Finally, defendants agreed to pay plaintiffs a total of $500,000 in damages. Pursuant to their contingency fee agreement with plaintiffs, counsel for plaintiffs received a fee of 25 percent of this recovery, or $125,000. Bien Decl. ¶ 47. Since finalization of the settlement, plaintiffs' counsel have been monitoring compliance with the agreement. As part of this function, plaintiffs' counsel review progress reports and drafts of new policies, procedures, and training materials. Bien Decl. ¶ 28 and Exh. C.
On November 3, 1998, plaintiffs filed the instant motion seeking interim fees under the EAJA for time expended on the claims for injunctive relief against BOP officials in their official capacity. Ramon by Ramon v. Soto, 916 F.2d 1377, 1382-83 (9th Cir.1989) (party prevailing in suit against governmental officials acting in their official capacity may recover fees under EAJA). They do not seek fees for any time expended on their claim for damages. Specifically, plaintiffs seek the following amounts (after billing judgment) for time and expenses relating to the claims for injunctive relief:

Work on the merits (through March 23, 1998)

Fees: costs

$544,703.06 31,384.85

Work on monitoring (through March 24, 1998)

Fees:$ 34,828.25 costs:

2,955.73

1052 *1052 Work on fees (through October 23, 1998)

Fees: costs:

$ 58,511.16 $ 652.94

Total fees Total costs

$638,042.47 34,993.52

TOTAL:

$673,035.52

II. DISCUSSION

Under the EAJA, prevailing plaintiffs are entitled to recover their attorneys' fees and costs unless the government's position was substantially justified, special circumstances would make an award unjust, or the application for fees is not timely filed. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2412(d)(1)(A), (1)(B); Commissioner, I.N.S. v. Jean, 496 U.S. 154, 158, 110 S.Ct. 2316, 2319, 110 L.Ed.2d 134 (1990); Oregon Natural Resources Council v. Madigan, 980 F.2d 1330, 1331 (9th Cir.1992); Thomas v. Peterson, 841 F.2d 332, 335 (9th Cir.1988) ("EAJA creates a presumption that fees will be awarded unless the government's position was substantially justified"). Once a court finds that a party is entitled to attorneys' fees, it must then determine a reasonable fee. This latter inquiry focuses on the reasonable number of hours expended and the appropriate hourly rate. We first address plaintiffs' entitlement to fees, and then the issue of a reasonable fee.
A. Entitlement to Fees

(1) Sovereign Immunity

Defendants argue that because the United States has not waived its sovereign immunity for fee awards in tort actions, and this action sounds in tort, that plaintiffs' application for fees is barred by sovereign immunity. See 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A)[2]; Campbell v. United States, 835 F.2d 193, 195-96 (9th Cir.1987) (tort actions excluded from EAJA because Congress believed legal remedies available in tort cases were adequate to encourage meritorious suits).
This action sounds in tort, defendants contend, because certain of the factual allegations in the complaint implicate tortious conduct and plaintiffs sought money damages in compensation. We are not persuaded, however, that a plaintiff is automatically ineligible for fees under the "cases sounding in tort" exception any time the factual allegations involve conduct that could be tortious and the complaint includes a claim for damages. The case of Ramon by Ramon v. Soto, 916 F.2d 1377 (9th Cir.1989), is instructive on this point. There, the plaintiffs, a class of students at Phoenix Indian High School, alleged that two students were sent home from school after breaking into the school kitchen to make sandwiches. Id. at 1379-80. Upon their readmittance to the school, both students allegedly were "harassed, intimidated, and physically abused by defendants ..." One defendant was also accused of handcuffing a student to a fence for three hours. Id. at 1380. Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants' disciplinary policies that led to these and other incidents were unconstitutional, and sought damages under Bivens and injunctive relief under the Fifth Amendment. Id. at 1380. The Bivens claims were subsequently dismissed but plaintiffs entered into a settlement agreement which provided for injunctive relief to remedy the Fifth Amendment violations. Id. at 1380, 1382-83. While certain of the underlying alleged misconduct clearly involved tortious acts, and the plaintiffs had sued for damages in addition to injunctive relief, the Court nowhere suggested that plaintiffs were thereby automatically ineligible for fees under EAJA because the case "sounded in 1053 tort." Notably, however, the Court expressly observed *1053 that "[p]laintiffs' complaint was aimed primarily at

obtaining equitable relief against the United States in order to put an end to official practices believed to violate BIA regulations and the Fifth Amendment." Id. at 1382-83 (emphasis added).[3]
The same situation is present here. Although defendants' alleged unconstitutional practices[4] led to tortious conduct, and plaintiffs' complaint included Bivens claims for damages, plaintiffs' action was clearly "aimed primarily at" obtaining equitable relief against government officials to end practices in the federal prison system that violated the plaintiffs' constitutional rights under the Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth Amendments. As such, it would be inaccurate, as in the case of Ramon, to label the plaintiffs' entire action as a "case sounding in tort" simply because the alleged unconstitutional conduct manifested itself in actions that can be described as tortious[5] and plaintiffs' complaint included a secondary claim for damages.[6]
Defendants alternatively argue that plaintiffs' complaint should be categorized entirely as a tort action because the claims for injunctive relief can not stand alone but instead are instead "wholly dependent on their claims for [tort] damages." The Court, however, finds no basis for concluding that plaintiffs' constitutional claims for injunctive relief are simply derivative of a tort damage claim and could not stand alone.[7] Nor have defendants offered any such basis. Finally, we are not convinced that plaintiffs lacked standing for their injunctive relief claims under City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 75 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983).
1054 As defendants note, Congress passed the EAJA to diminish the deterrent *1054 effect of seeking review of unreasonable government action because of the expense involved in securing the vindication of important rights. See Defs' Oppo. at 9; Sullivan v. Hudson, 490 U.S. 877, 883, 109 S.Ct. 2248, 2253, 104 L.Ed.2d 941 (1989). While defendants do not dispute that the settlement in this case vindicated important rights, they suggest that plaintiffs' contingency agreement should have provided counsel with sufficient incentive to litigate this case. This agreement, however, which pertained only to the claim for damages, can not fairly be said to have provided an incentive to take on the much more difficult and involved task of seeking comprehensive, nation-wide reforms, and then monitoring those reforms. Indeed, absent the EAJA, plaintiffs' counsel would have had little incentive to dedicate hundreds of hours to this additional effort which has benefitted not only the plaintiffs but all women incarcerated in federal prisons.
Accordingly, we conclude that plaintiffs' request for fees with respect to time spent on their constitutionally-based claims for injunctive relief against federal defendants in their official capacity is not barred by sovereign immunity.
(2) Prevailing Party
A plaintiff qualifies as a prevailing party if she succeeds on "`any significant issue in the litigation which achieve[d] some of the benefit the parties sought in bringing the suit.'" Texas State Teachers Ass'n v. Garland Independent School District, 489 U.S. 782, 109 S.Ct. 1486, 1493, 103 L.Ed.2d 866 (1989). In this case, defendants do not dispute that plaintiffs qualify as prevailing parties for purposes of a fee award under the EAJA. As discussed above, plaintiffs achieved a broad settlement that involves extensive injunctive relief designed to redress the claims raised in their complaint. See also Settlement Agreement at § I(C), Pls' Mtn, Exh.4 ("The Bureau of Prison's agreement to the terms in this settlement is undertaken in good faith to redress plaintiffs' concerns arising from certain actions alleged to have occurred ...") (emphasis added); see also Parker Decl. ¶ 14 (relief achieved is "exceptional, particularly without going to trial"); George Decl. ¶ 7 (plaintiffs obtained "extraordinary" injunctive relief).
(3) Substantial Justification
When a private litigant prevails in a civil action against the United States, "the prevailing party must be awarded fees and expenses `unless the Court finds that the position of the United States was substantially justified.'" Meinhold v. U.S. Dep't of Defense, 123 F.3d 1275, 1277, amended by, 131 F.3d 842 (9th Cir.1997); Oregon Natural Resources Council, 980 F.2d at 1331. Thus, once a party establishes its status as a prevailing party under the EAJA, a rebuttable presumption arises that it is entitled to an award of fees. Id.

The "position" of the United States refers to the agency's underlying position 0907i.e. the agency action or inaction upon which the litigation is based 0907 and the agency's litigation position. Oregon Natural Resources Council, 980 F.2d at 1331; Thomas, 841 F.2d at 334-35. Thus, a finding that "either the government's underlying conduct or its litigation position was not substantially justified is sufficient to support an award of EAJA fees." Cervantez v. Sullivan, 739 F.Supp. 517, 521 (E.D.Cal.1990); see also Jean, 496 U.S. 154, 110 S.Ct. at 2319, n. 7 (congressional intent is to provide for fees when unjustifiable agency action forces litigation, but then the agency tries to avoid liability by reasonable behavior during litigation); Wilderness Society v. Babbitt, 5 F.3d 383, 388 (9th Cir.1993)(fact that government's litigation position may have been justified is not sufficient because court must also consider underlying government conduct); Andrew v. Bowen, 837 F.2d 875, 880 (9th Cir.1988); see also Marcus v. Shalala, 17 F.3d 1033, 1036 (7th Cir.1994); Jones v. Lujan, 887 F.2d 1096, 1098 and n. 2 (C.A.D.C.1989).
1055 *1055 The term "substantial justification" requires the agency to "show that its position has a reasonable basis in law and fact." Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 565, 108 S.Ct. 2541, 2550, 101 L.Ed.2d 490 (1988); Abela v. Gustafson, 888 F.2d 1258, 1264 (9th Cir.1989). While this means less than "justified to a high degree," it also means "more than merely undeserving of sanctions for frivolousness.'" Jean, 496 U.S. at 158, 110 S.Ct. at 2319, n. 6; Pierce, 487 U.S. at 565, 108 S.Ct. 2541. Rather it means "justified in substance or in the main" that is, justified to a degree that would satisfy a reasonable person. Id. It is the government's burden to show that such a reasonable basis exists. Meinhold, 123 F.3d at 1277.
As described above, the alleged conduct underlying the instant lawsuit consisted of placing women in an otherwise all-male security housing unit, opening plaintiffs' cell doors for male prisoners' access, allowing for the physical and sexual harassment of plaintiffs, allowing correctional officers and male prisoners to assault and rape plaintiffs in retaliation for previous claims of wrongdoing, and failing to properly evaluate, train, discipline, and supervise custodial personnel so as to prevent such occurrences.
Defendants primarily argue that we should find they were substantially justified with respect to the underlying conduct because the United States never admitted any wrongdoing and plaintiffs' never proved their allegations. See Defs' Oppo. at 16 ("The conduct allegedly giving rise to this actions has been neither proven or admitted"). Rather, defendants repeatedly argue, the record is "bereft" of any evidence to support the plaintiffs' charges. See e.g. id. at 16. Moreover, they emphasize, no criminal charges were ever brought despite a criminal investigation.
Defendants' arguments lack both legal and factual support. First, the fact that the government never admitted to any wrongdoing hardly demonstrates that its underlying conduct was substantially justified, and defendants cite no authority to support this novel proposition. Indeed, defendants routinely deny liability when they settle cases; such self-serving denials, however, can not substitute for a showing that the underlying conduct was justified to a degree that would satisfy a reasonable person. Second, the fact that the Department of Justice decided not to press criminal charges does not indicate that the underlying factual allegations lack merit given the different legal standards that govern criminal cases. Moreover, a decision whether or not to prosecute can rest on any number of variables other than the factual merits of a case. Here, for example, the BOP's internal investigation may have compromised the criminal investigation.[8]
Third, the court is aware of no authority, and defendants cite none, that requires a plaintiff to definitively "prove" the factual allegations in the complaint in order to recover fees under the EAJA, particularly where the case has been resolved through settlement. Indeed such a requirement would be inimical to encouraging settlement. On the contrary, it is the government's burden to demonstrate that its underlying conduct was reasonable. Meinhold, 123 F.3d at 1277. Here, however, defendants have declined to submit any evidence to support its conclusory assertions that BOP official policies were adequate and that plaintiff's allegations were false or unfounded. 1056 Rather, the only evidence before the Court supports the validity of plaintiffs' claims. See Bien Reply *1056 Decl. ¶ 8 and Exh, D.[9] Accordingly, this Court concludes that the government has failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that the underlying conduct giving rise to the claims for injunctive relief was substantially justified.
The government also points to its litigation position as evidence of substantial justification, emphasizing that it agreed to mediate the case, and ultimately agreed to comprehensive relief. This factor alone, however, does not

warrant a denial of fees. Jean, 496 U.S. at 159, n. 7, 110 S.Ct. at 2319. Rather, the fact that the government settles a case demonstrates neither that the position of the government was reasonable or unreasonable. Hanson v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 975 F.2d 1150, 1155-56 (5th Cir. 1992). Defendants also state that they were "cooperative, sympathetic and helpful" throughout the pendency of the action. Defs' Oppo. at 16. They again fail, however, to support this assertion with any declarations or other evidence, and it is contradicted by the declarations of plaintiffs' counsel which state that while counsel for defendants were cordial and professional, the litigation, including the mediation process, was hard fought and BOP officials were less than cooperative. See Bien Reply Decl. at ¶ 14; Green Reply Decl. ¶¶ 4-5. In any event, a reasonable litigation position, alone, would not justify a denial of fees in this case given the government's failure to justify its underlying conduct and the particularly egregious nature of the conduct.
Accordingly, the Court concludes that defendants have not met their burden of demonstrating that plaintiffs should be denied fees because the position of the government was "substantially justified."
(4) Special Circumstances
A court may deny fees to a prevailing party even where the government's position was not substantially justified, if special circumstances would make an award unjust. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). This provision, however, should only be invoked with caution. J & J Anderson, Inc. v. Town of Erie, 767 F.2d 1469, 1474 (10th Cir.1985); Martin v. Heckler, 773 F.2d 1145, 1150 (11th Cir.1985) (special circumstances exception should be narrowly construed).
Here, defendants contend that two "special circumstances" would make a fee award unjust. First they argue that because plaintiffs' counsel already recovered fees under their contingency fee arrangement (governing the damage claims), any additional award of fees on the injunctive relief claims would be unjust. Defendants cite no authority for this assertion, and fail to acknowledge Venegas v. Mitchell, 495 U.S. 82, 90, 110 S.Ct. 1679, 1684, 109 L.Ed.2d 74 (1990), which recognizes that a party may collect statutory fees in addition to a contingency fee. Moreover, since plaintiffs are not recovering any fees for time expended on the claims covered by the contingency fee agreement, there is no potential for double recovery. Nor is this an instance in which plaintiffs' counsel recovered an unusual windfall under a contingency agreement that might create some special circumstance or specter of unfairness.
Second, defendants argue that because this matter involved "no litigation, no thicket of regulations, no motion practice or pre-trial preparation and no obstreperous opposing counsel," plaintiffs' request for fees should be 1057 denied as "unconscionable." Defs' Oppo. at 17. This borderline frivolous argument 0907 asserted *1057 without any supporting evidence 0907 is contradicted by the record which amply reflects that plaintiffs' were required to engage in an intensive and often complex litigation effort to obtain the comprehensive, nation-wide settlement agreement achieved in 1998. Defendants ignore, for example, the formal and informal discovery efforts by plaintiffs' counsel that resulted in the production of approximately five thousand pages of documents. Plaintiffs' counsel also engaged in substantial pretrial preparation, including obtaining expert witnesses and having their clients examined, undertaking extensive witnesses interviews, and conducting extensive legal research and analysis. See e.g. Bien Reply Decl. ¶¶ 5-7; Green Reply Decl. ¶¶ 4-9. Motions were also drafted in connection with the mediation. Indeed, defendants' suggestion that the agreement somehow magically appeared after 18 months, without much, if any, litigation effort on plaintiffs' behalf can perhaps best be characterized as fanciful.
Accordingly, the Court concludes that defendants have not identified any special circumstances that would make an award of fees unjust.
B. Calculation of a Reasonable Fee
Once a plaintiff satisfies the conditions for recovering attorneys' fees under § 2412(d), the Court must determine what fee is "reasonable." The process for determining a reasonable fee under 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) is the same as that followed in cases awarding fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Jean, 496 U.S. at 160, 110 S.Ct. at 2320 ("once a private litigant has met the multiple conditions for eligibility for EAJA fees, the district court's task of determining

what fee is reasonable is essentially the same as that described in Hensley [v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983) ]").
Accordingly, we must determine the number of hours reasonably expended in the litigation and multiply that figure by a reasonable hourly rate. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433-34, 103 S.Ct. 1933; Gates v. Deukmejian, 987 F.2d 1392, 1397 (9th Cir. 1992). This figure, which is commonly referred to as the lodestar, may then be increased or decreased based on certain factors that are not subsumed within the initial calculation of the lodestar. D'Emanuele v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., 904 F.2d 1379, 1383 (9th Cir.1990). However, such upward or downward adjustments are "the exception rather than the rule since the lodestar amount is presumed to constitute a reasonable fee." Id.; Gates, 987 F.2d at 1397.
(1) Number of Reasonable Hours Expended
It is plaintiffs' burden to "`document[] the appropriate hours expended in the litigation' by submitting evidence in support of those hours worked." Gates, 987 F.2d at 1397. The appropriate number of hours includes all time "reasonably expended in pursuit of the ultimate result achieved, in the same manner that an attorney traditionally is compensated by a fee-paying client for all time reasonably expended on a matter." Hensley, 461 U.S. at 431, 103 S.Ct. 1933. However, it does not include hours that are "excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary because, for example, the case is overstaffed." Id. at 433, 437, 103 S.Ct. 1933.
The party opposing the fee application "has a burden of rebuttal that requires submission of evidence to the district court challenging the accuracy and reasonableness of the hours charged or the facts asserted by the prevailing party in its submitted affidavits." Gates v. Rowland, 39 F.3d 1439, 1449 (9th Cir.1994)(quoting Gates v. Deukmejian, 987 F.2d 1392, 1397-98 (9th Cir.1992)); United Steelworkers of America v. Phelps Dodge Corp., 896 1058 F.2d 403, 407 (9th Cir.1990); N.D. Cal. L.R. 7-5.[10] Conclusory and unsubstantiated objections *1058 are not sufficient to warrant a reduction in fees. Gates, 987 F.2d at 1397-98.
Plaintiffs' counsel have submitted detailed time sheets and supporting declarations demonstrating that they have spent the following hours on this action, after billing judgments[11]:

Time spent on the merits (through 3/23/98)

2,635.25

Time spent on monitoring (through 3/24/98)

130.55

Time spent on fees (through 10/23/98)

438.60

TOTAL:

3,204.40

Defendants raise no objection to the thorough documentation of the hours; nor do they dispute plaintiffs' allocation of hours between the injunctive and damages portions of the case. They do, however, contend that the number of hours for which reimbursement is sought is unreasonable for a variety of other reasons. Since defendants have not supported these objections (save one), with any declaration or other supporting evidence, they fail on this ground alone. Gates, 39 F.3d at 1449. As discussed below, however, they also fail on the merits given the record before the Court.

First, defendants argue that plaintiffs should not recover for time spent in connection with the parallel criminal investigation because it was unnecessary to the civil action. Rather, they characterize this effort as analogous to discretionary lobbying which is not compensable. See Portland Audubon Society v. Lujan, 865 F.Supp. 1464, 1475 (D.Or.1994). Plaintiffs, however, convincingly demonstrate that the ongoing criminal investigation and the civil case were sufficiently intertwined that it was entirely reasonable for plaintiffs' counsel in the civil action to get involved in the criminal investigation in order to ensure that their clients' rights in the civil action were adequately

protected and not compromised by that investigation.[12]See also Bien Reply Decl. at ¶ 10 (representation of clients in connection with the criminal investigation contributed directly to success in the civil litigation). See also Green Decl. ¶¶ 13-18; Green Reply Decl. ¶ 11. Although no criminal charges were ever brought, plaintiffs' counsel and the Assistant U.S. Attorney representing the government in the civil case were given access to the full criminal investigative files. Bien Decl. ¶¶ 17-18; Green Decl. ¶¶ 13-14, 17.[13]
Second, defendants argue that plaintiffs should not recover for any time spent prior to the date of entries stating "research and drafting complaint." However, time reasonably spent on pre-complaint investigation, legal research and informal discovery relevant to developing the theory of the case is properly recoverable, see e.g. Hill v. 1059 Southside Public *1059 Schools, 688 F.Supp. 493, 500 (E.D.Ark. 1988), and defendants cite no authority to the contrary. Indeed, Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 requires that counsel undertake sufficient pre-complaint investigation such that they can properly represent that all claims asserted are "warranted by existing law or a nonfrivolous argument for [its extension or modification]," and that the factual allegations in the complaint have "evidentiary support" or are likely to have evidentiary support after reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery.
Third, defendants argue that time spent on disciplinary and transfer issues relating to plaintiff Valerie Mercadel are non-compensable because they concern issues that arose after the settlement agreement and are not part of this action. However, the disciplinary issue arose when plaintiff refused to cooperate with a cross-gender pat search that was directly covered by the settlement agreement, and raised general issues relating to this policy. As such, these hours are properly related to the monitoring of the settlement agreement. The Court is also satisfied that time spent on the related transfer issues also falls within the monitoring of the settlement given the record presently before the Court.
Fourth, defendants object to numerous monitoring phase hours relating to communications with members of the Yale Prison Law Project or inmates on the ground that such time is not connected to this action. However, as the declarations of counsel explain, the Yale Law School clinic which is located near FCI Danbury has been utilized to assist in the monitoring at that site, which saves the cost of travel to Danbury, Connecticut. Bien Reply Decl. ¶ 12.[14] Nor is there any reason to assume, as a general matter, that communications with inmates are not related to plaintiffs' monitoring functions since assessing defendants' compliance with their settlement obligations may well require communicating with those inmates affected by the settlement. Finally, defendants' assertion that plaintiffs' counsel substantially inflated their time spent on monitoring is a conclusory, unsupported allegation that does not justify a reduction in fees. Gates, 987 F.2d at 1397-98.[15]
Fifth, and last, defendants argue that the overall number of hours claimed is excessive because (a) this matter involved no litigation, discovery, motion practice or pretrial activity, and (b) plaintiffs achieved only limited success because most of the policy changes agreed to in the settlement agreement were already underway. With respect to the former assertion, while perhaps rhetorically dramatic, it is, as discussed above, unsupported and factually wrong. See also Wolinsky Decl. ¶ 8 ("reaching a negotiated settlement with a government agency without going to trial can be as complex as going through trial").
With respect to the latter, defendants have submitted a declaration from Teresa Katsel, who is a Special Needs Offender Coordinator for the BOP's Correctional Programs division. She states that the BOP recognized sexual abuse of inmates as a significant correctional management issue in 1996 and that "recommendations" were presented to the Director of the BOP in November 1996, and that in early 1997 she began developing a "plan" for the BOP to address "systemically female offender issues and sexual misconduct issues" which was approved in 1060 April 1997. Actual training *1060 plans were developed later in the year and training began in 1998. She further states that training on these subjects including sexual misconduct, investigation of allegations of sexual misconduct and cross-gender searches, were "developed separate and apart from the settlement of this litigation." Katsel Decl. ¶¶ 5-8.
While defendants rely on this declaration to demonstrate that plaintiffs' action was largely irrelevant, the Court is not so persuaded. First, plaintiffs' counsel initially communicated with BOP and Department of Justice officials regarding the allegations underlying the complaint in November and December 1995. Bien Reply Decl ¶ 13, and Exh. E. Thus, while Ms. Katsel states that the BOP recognized sexual abuse of inmates as a significant issue in 1996, this is entirely consistent with plaintiffs having highlighted this issue in 1995. Moreover, while Ms. Katsel

started developing training plans in 1997, this is the exact same period in which the parties were participating in the formal mediation sessions (December 1996 0907 June 1997), and Ms. Katsel personally participated in one of the June sessions. Given this larger context, the Court finds it difficult to believe that the entirety of the training outlined in Ms. Katsel's declaration occurred in a vacuum unrelated to the plaintiffs' action and the extensive ongoing mediation efforts. The settlement also had the additional effect of making the training policies binding upon the BOP and subjecting them to monitoring and enforcement.
In sum, the Court rejects defendants' contention that the overall hours spent on the merits were excessive because there was no "litigation" involved and because plaintiffs' success was limited. On the contrary, the unrebutted record indicates that the relief achieved by plaintiffs was extraordinary, particularly given that it was obtained without a trial. See e.g. Parker Decl. ¶¶ 11, 14; George Decl. ¶ 7. For this, and all the other reasons discussed above, we conclude that the number of hours requested on the merits and monitoring phase is reasonable. See Parker Decl. ¶ 12; George Decl. ¶ 15, Wolinsky Decl. ¶ 16.
The Court does find, however, that the number of hours expended in connection with this fee application is excessive. While plaintiffs' reasonably (and accurately) anticipated that this fee application would be vigorously opposed, the total of 438.60 hours appears high, particularly considering that it does not include time spent on the reply and argument. While defendants have not objected to the number of hours expended on the fees matter, the Court has an independent obligation to ensure that the fee award is reasonable. See e.g. Clarke v. Frank, 960 F.2d 1146, 1153 (2nd Cir.1992) (district court may use its own familiarity with the case and its experience with the case in calculating the number of reasonable hours). Accordingly, the Court will reduce the number of hours in this category by 10 percent.
(2) Reasonable Hourly Rate
The EAJA provides that attorneys' fees shall not be awarded in excess of $75.00/ hour unless the court determines that "an increase in the cost of living or a special factor, such as the limited availability of qualified attorneys for the proceedings involved justifies a higher fee." 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A)(ii). Defendants do not object to a cost of living increase, acknowledging that such increases are "almost always awarded." Defs' Oppo. at 23. See e.g., Rueda-Menicucci v. I.N.S., 132 F.3d 493, 496 (9th Cir.1997). They do, however, contend that no other special factor warrants a higher hourly rate and object to paying more than the statutory $75.00/ hour rate for lead counsel Michael Bien and Geri Green.[16]
1061 *1061 In referring to "special factors," "`Congress intended for courts to deviate from the statutory cap only if there was limited availability of attorneys having some distinctive knowledge or specialized skill needful for the litigation in question.'" Rueda-Menicucci, 132 F.3d at 496 (quoting Pirus v. Bowen, 869 F.2d 536, 540 (9th Cir.1989)). To obtain a departure from the statutory cap under this standard, the plaintiff must demonstrate that (1) plaintiffs' attorney has a "distinctive knowledge or specialized skill," (2) such knowledge and skills are necessary to the litigation, and (3) similar knowledge and skills could not have been obtained at the statutory rate. Pirus, 869 F.2d at 541-42.
With respect to the first factor, a lawyer who has outstanding skills as a litigator does not have a distinctive knowledge or specialized skill as contemplated by the EAJA. See Jean v. Nelson, 863 F.2d 759, 774 (11th Cir.1988), aff'd 496 U.S. 154, 110 S.Ct. 2316, 110 L.Ed.2d 134 (1990). Rather, courts look for a genuine expertise in a specific area that is both discrete and complex. See e.g. Rueda-Menicucci, 132 F.3d at 496 ("[w]e believe that a speciality in immigration law could be a special factor warranting an enhancement of the statutory rate"); Pirus, 869 F.2d at 542 (specialization in social security law); Animal Lovers Volunteer Ass'n, Inc. v. Carlucci, 867 F.2d 1224, 1226 (9th Cir.1989) (plaintiffs not entitled to exceed statutory cap absent showing that attorney had specialized in environmental work); Sneede by Thompson v. Coye, 856 F.Supp. 526 (N.D.Cal.1994) (Medicaid law); U.S. v. Knote, 879 F.Supp. 89 (E.D.Mo.1995) (environmental law); Farmers Cooperative Dairy, Inc. v. Block, 703 F.Supp. 379 (E.D.Pa.1989) (agricultural law).

(a) Michael Bien
The record before the Court amply demonstrates that plaintiffs' counsel Michael Bien is a genuine expert in the area of complex, institutional prison reform litigation. He has 15 years experience in this specialty and has handled numerous such cases either as lead or co-lead counsel. See Bien Decl ¶¶ 4-8.; Parker Decl. ¶ 13, George Decl., ¶ 6, Wolinsky Decl. ¶ 7; Perl Decl. ¶ 7. While defendants acknowledge that Bien is skilled in this "specialty," see Defs' Oppo. at 23, they argue against a higher hourly rate on the ground that no court has recognized this speciality as qualifying for a departure from the statutory cap. While no court has apparently ruled on the matter either way, this factor alone is not dispositive. We further conclude that a lawyer with genuine expertise in the specialty of complex institutional prison reform litigation has a distinctive skill or specialized knowledge for purposes of the EAJA. In particular, the Court's extensive experience with two cases involving institutional prison reform litigation, Cherco v. County of Sonoma, C80-334, and Madrid v. Gomez, 946 F.Supp. 1146 (N.D.Cal.1995), convinces it that the area of institutional prison reform litigation involves distinctive knowledge and specialized skills well beyond those possessed by lawyers who are otherwise highly experienced and talented. It involves, for example, special expertise in understanding prison bureaucracies and policies, and other intricacies of prison systems, as well as the experience and ability to effectively communicate with inmates and evaluate their claims and needs. See also Gates, 987 F.2d at 1405 (acknowledging that "the requisite expertise and experience" necessary to undertake "complex institutional prison reform litigation" was not 1062 available from law firms in the *1062 Sacramento, California area). Clearly, if only general legal experience and outstanding legal skills were necessary, the Gates court would not have reached this conclusion. See also George Decl. ¶¶ 13-14. We are thus satisfied that plaintiffs' counsel Michael Bien possesses the type of distinctive knowledge and specialized skills that Congress contemplated would warrant a deviation from the $75.00/hour statutory cap.
The court also finds that Mr. Bien's distinctive knowledge and specialized skills in complex institutional prison reform litigation was necessary to this litigation, and defendants have failed to rebut the evidence in the record on this point. See e.g. Parker Decl., ¶ 14 (case of this nature could not have been effectively litigated without Bien's specialized skill and distinctive knowledge); George Decl., ¶ 7; Wolinsky Decl. ¶ 7; Tamburello Decl. ¶ 6; Perl Decl., ¶ 8. Nor have defendants disputed the considerable evidence in the record that plaintiffs could not have obtained lawyers with Mr. Bien's qualifications who would have been willing to take this case at the $75.00/hour statutory rate. See e.g. Parker Decl. ¶ 15; Tamburello Decl. ¶ 11; George Decl., ¶ 8; Wolinsky Decl., ¶ 9. Indeed, very few attorneys in California practice in the area of institutional prison reform litigation, and even fewer that can afford to advance the substantial costs required to prosecute such an action. Wolinsky Decl. ¶ 9; George Decl. ¶ 8; Parker Decl. ¶ 15.
Accordingly, we conclude that plaintiffs' counsel Michael Bien should be compensated at "prevailing market rates for the kind and quality of the services furnished," 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A), rather than at the statutory hourly rate cap of $75.00/ hour. In this regard, plaintiffs have submitted numerous declarations that provide persuasive evidence of the market rate in the Bay Area for litigators with experience equivalent to that possessed by plaintiffs' counsel. The hourly rate requested by Michael Bien ($325.00) is consistent with the market rate for attorneys with 18 years experience and similar qualifications. See Parker Decl. ¶ 16; George Decl. ¶ 9; Wolinsky Decl. ¶¶ 10, 12. While defendants have not disputed that the requested hourly rates reflect "prevailing market rates of the kind and quality of the services furnished," we must nonetheless make an independent finding that such rates are reasonable before any award is made. Intel Corp. v. Terabyte Int'l, Inc., 6 F.3d 614, 622 (9th Cir.1993); Dease v. City of Anaheim, 838 F.Supp. 1381 (C.D.Cal. 1993). The Court is amply satisfied, given its familiarity with prevailing market rates in this area, and the record presented, that the requested hourly rate for Bien is reasonable, and represents the "prevailing market rates for the kind and quality of the services furnished." 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A).

(b) Geri Green
While Ms. Green is not an expert in institutional prison litigation, she has approximately 12 years experience, primarily in criminal law, with a particular expertise in criminal sexual assault. She also has some civil law experience. Green Decl. ¶¶ 4-8. While the Court would agree that an experienced criminal law attorney with a specific expertise in criminal sexual assault has a "specialized skill," it can not say that Green's particular expertise was "necessary to the litigation." Pirus, 869 F.2d at 541-42. While certain criminal law issues were implicated by the overlapping criminal investigation and the nature of the underlying allegations, this was not a criminal action but a civil action alleging violation of constitutional rights. Thus while Green's particular experience in criminal law was no doubt helpful to the civil case, the Court is not persuaded that it was necessary to the successful litigation of this particular action. As such, the Court declines to find that Green is entitled to an hourly rate that exceeds the statutory cap based on "special factors."
(c) Fees on fees
1063 Nor are plaintiffs entitled to recover the prevailing market rate for time spent in connection with this fee petition. *1063 Preparation of an application for attorney fees does not require specialized or distinctive knowledge within the meaning of the EAJA. Douglas v. Baker, 809 F.Supp. 131 (D.D.C.1992); cf. Gates, 39 F.3d at 1449 (court did not abuse discretion in concluding that specialized knowledge and experience were not required to litigate fee request and therefore local, rather than San Francisco, market rates would be used in determining section 1988 fee request).
(3) Adjustment of the Lodestar
The lodestar is a presumptively reasonable rate and neither plaintiffs nor defendants seek an adjustment upward or downward. The Court is also independently satisfied that the lodestar represents a reasonable fee in this case. See Gates v. Deukmejian, 977 F.2d 1300, 1305 (9th Cir. 1992).
(4) Costs
Plaintiffs request reimbursement of their out-of-pocket costs in the amount of $34,993.52. It is well established that such costs are recoverable as part of a fee award, and defendants have registered no objection to the amount of costs requested in plaintiffs' opening memorandum. Accordingly, plaintiffs shall be awarded their costs in this amount. Chalmers v. City of Los Angeles, 796 F.2d 1205, 1216, n. 7 (9th Cir.1986), amended, 808 F.2d 1373 (9th Cir.1987).
III. CONCLUSION
For all of the reasons set forth above, the Court finds that plaintiffs are entitled to recover their interim attorneys' fees and costs under the EAJA. Plaintiffs are prevailing parties and the position of the United States was not substantially justified. Nor have defendants demonstrated that special circumstances would make an award unjust. The Court further concludes that plaintiffs' counsel have reasonably expended the following number of hours on this matter through March 24, 1998 (with respect to the merits and monitoring) and October 23, 1998 (with respect to the application for fees), and are entitled to recover for this time at the following hourly rates[17]:

Rosen Bien & Asaro
Bien (merits/monitoring) (fees)

Hours
616.55 39.06

Hourly Rate
$325.00 131.34

Subtotal
$200,378.75 5,130.14

Petrine Paikeday Fernholz Margolis Bunker (law clerk) Plunkett (Sr.paralegal) Derrico (Sr.paralegal) Hollar (paralegal)

79.20 611.75
17.30 166.03 127.80 161.00
43.92 211.54

131.34 131.34 131.34 131.34 100.00 110.00 110.00
90.00

10,402.12 80,347.25
2,272.18 21,806.38 12,780.00 17,710.00
4,831.20 19,038.60

Law Office of Geri Green

Green Goering (paralegal)

967.33 102.18

$131.34 70.00

$127,049.12 7,152.60

Total: $508,898.34
1064 *1064 Accordingly, and good cause appearing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs are awarded interim attorneys' fees in the amount of $508,898.34, and interim expenses and costs in the amount of $34,993.52 for a total interim award of $ 543,891.86.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

[1] Additional BOP defendants in their official capacities were also added. Bien Decl. ¶¶ 18-19
[2] This section provides in part that "Except as otherwise specifically provided by statute, a court shall award to a prevailing party other than the United States fees and other expenses, in addition to any costs awarded...., incurred by that party in any civil action (other than cases sounding in tort)....unless the court finds that the position of the United States was substantially justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust."
[3] See also id. at 1382, n. 6 (fact that Bivens damages claims were "extinguished" did not significantly reduce fees to which plaintiffs were entitled under EAJA because plaintiffs' Bivens theory was "a subsidiary part of their case").
[4] The unconstitutional practices alleged include a failure to properly evaluate, train, discipline and supervise custodial personnel and to investigate claims, and protect the personal security interests of the plaintiffs in violation of the Fourth, Fifth and Eighth Amendments. See plaintiffs' complaint at ¶¶ 127-165.
[5] Indeed, it is not uncommon for constitutional claims to implicate tortious conduct. For example, a claim seeking injunctive relief on the ground that federal prison officials are violating the Eighth Amendment by engaging in a pattern of excessive force (e.g. unjustified assaults) against inmates is not transformed into a "case sounding in tort" because the underlying factual allegations involve tortious acts. See also Kreines v. U.S., 33 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.1994) (EAJA's legislative history, which states that "sounding in tort" exception does not encompass "constitutional torts," may have been intended to make clear that the "sounding in tort" exception does not apply to injunction actions against government employees in their official capacity for tortious conduct).
[6] See also Andrews v. U.S., 122 F.3d 1367, 1374-75 (11th Cir.1997) (awarding fees under EAJA for prevailing on CERCLA claim where facts of CERCLA claim overlapped with tort claim for damages); G. Sisk, The Essentials of the Equal Access to Justice Act: Court Awards of Attorney's Fees for Unreasonable Government Conduct (Part One), 55 Louisiana Law Review (Nov.1994) at 248 ("The statutory exception [for tort actions] reasonably applies only to preclude an award of attorney's fees for legal expenses incurred with respect to a claim seeking relief under principles of tort law, not for separable claims seeking distinct non-tort relief that are merely joined to a tort claim in a single lawsuit assigned a single court docket number").
[7] The case of Campbell, supra, 835 F.2d 193, cited by defendants is readily distinguishable. In that case, the plaintiff successfully sued the government to recover interest on a judgment previously obtained under the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"). The plaintiff then sought to recover fees under EAJA for time spent in the

action to recover interest. The Court denied the fee claim on the ground that the action to recover interest on the FTCA judgment was essentially an extension of the underlying FTCA claim. Id. at 196. Here, the plaintiffs' claims for injunctive relief are based on independent constitutional theories, not the FTCA. Hence, they are not simply an extension of plaintiffs' claim under the FTCA or Bivens.
[8] According to a declaration filed by plaintiffs' counsel, they were informed in a meeting with Michael Yamaguchi and Bert Glenn of the U.S. Attorney's Office on April 23, 1997, that the pending criminal investigation had been compromised by the administrative investigation that the Internal Affairs for the Bureau of Prisons had previously conducted. In particular, officers who had been questioned and provided incriminating statements had been immunized. Reply Decl. of Green at ¶ 10.
[9] Plaintiffs also represent that there is additional extensive evidence including, but not limited to statements by Mercadel and Douthit, medical and mental health reports, and prison records. Bien Reply Decl. at ¶ 8. However, because Mercadel and Douthit remain incarcerated, and thus at risk of additional threats and retaliation, plaintiffs request that the Court review this evidence, if it finds it necessary to do so, under seal or in camera. The Court concludes that such review is not necessary to resolve this motion.
[10] N.D. Cal. L.R. 7-5 provides that "The party opposing a fee application has a burden of rebuttal that requires submission of evidence to the district court challenging the accuracy and reasonableness of the hours charged or the facts asserted by the prevailing party in its submitted affidavits."
[11] In the exercise of billing judgment counsel Michael Bien (1) made discrete write-downs of time based upon the same careful review of billing records conducted prior to sending a final bill to a fee-paying client, (2) deducted all time related to contacts with the media, and (3) deducted all time for any timekeeper who billed less than ten hours on the case. As previously noted, counsel also eliminated any time specifically expended on damages issues. These billing judgment reductions amounted to 674.89 hours or approximately 15.5% of the fee claim. Bien Decl. at ¶¶ 47-48; see also Green Decl. at ¶¶ 28, 29-30.
[12] Plaintiffs' counsel represented plaintiffs in connection with polygraph examinations, and in interviews and meetings with the FBI, OIG (Office of Inspector General) and the United States Attorney.
[13] The Court also notes that plaintiffs' counsel states that "in an effort not to interfere with the pending criminal case, [they] requested that the United States enter into a tolling agreement to preserve any civil causes of action and delay[] filing the civil case as long as possible. The United States refused to do so." Bien Reply Decl. ¶ 11.
[14] Plaintiffs' fee request does not, however, seek to recover for any time spent on monitoring by the Yale Law Clinic.
[15] Plaintiffs have, however, identified an additional 2.76 hours expended by Green and Goering during the monitoring phase which they have deleted from their fee request in the exercise of billing judgment, along with a typographical error that resulted in the inadvertent inclusion of 14.12 hours expended by Green on 4/29/98. See Green Reply Decl. ¶¶ 16-18; plaintiffs' letter of January 5, 1999. Their declarations persuasively indicate that the remainder of the time at issue was properly expended on monitoring functions. Bien Reply Decl. ¶ 12; Green Reply Decl. ¶¶ 16-18.
[16] Plaintiffs request the statutory hourly rate (plus cost of living) of $131.34 for all other attorneys that worked on the case (in excess of ten hours). Plaintiffs further seek compensation for hours spent by law clerks at $100.00 hour and paralegals at $70.00, 90.00 and $110.00 per hour depending on experience. See Jean v. Nelson, 863 F.2d 759, 778 (11th Cir.1988), aff'd, 496 U.S. 154, 110 S.Ct. 2316, 110 L.Ed.2d 134 (1990)(usual billing rates for law clerks and paralegals appropriate in EAJA case in order to minimize fees where work is of type that would otherwise be performed by an attorney and thus billed at higher rate). Defendants have not objected to these rates.
[17] The following calculations are based on the summary charts attached to Bien's declaration with the following adjustments: (1) hourly rate for Green is limited to $131.34, (2) hourly rate for Bien is limited to $131.34 for time expended on fees, (3) hours expended on fees is reduced by 10% for each person claiming such hours, and (4)

hours expended on monitoring are reduced for Green and Goering consistent with Green's Reply Decl. at ¶¶ 16-18 and counsels' letter of 1/5/99.
Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.

 
 i v. White

•

•••• ••!!• H

•

H

1

PC-CA-009-001

2

3

4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

7 ROBIN LUCAS, ET AL.,

8

Plaintiffs,

) Case No. C 96-02905 THE ) PRIVATE' SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

9 vs. )
10 0. IVAN WHITE, ET AL.,

11

Defendants.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

INTRODUCTION

2

Former and current Bureau of Prisons inmates Robin Lucas,

Register Number 87132-011, Valerie Mercadel, Register Number

08463-085, and Raquel Douthit, Register Number 15004-057, filed

this action on August 13, 1996 seeking damages and injunctive

relief from present and former Bureau of Prisons officials. On

or about August 13, 1996, each plaintiff also filed an

8 administrative claim for damages against the United States under

the Federal Torts Claim Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346 (b) and 2671 e_£.

10 seq.. which was denied on July 25, 1997. On October 1, 19 97,

11 plaintiffs amended their complaint to add a claim for damages

12 against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act and

13 to add the following defendants in their official capacities

14 only: Kathleen M. Hawk, Director, BOP; Constance Reese, Warden,

15 FCI Dublin, substituting for Warden Hayes in his official

16 capacity, only; Margaret Harding, Warden, FCI-Danbury; L.R.

17 Greer, Warden, FCI Tallahassee; and Dr. Peter M. Carlson,

18 Director, Western Region, substituting for O. Ivan White in his

19 official capacity.

20

Plaintiffs allege, inter alia, that while they were in the

21 custody of the Bureau of Prisons and incarcerated at the Federal

22 Detention Center, Dublin, California and Federal Correctional

23 Institution, Dublin, California, they were subjected to a

24 "pattern and practice of sexual assaults, intimidation, physical,

25 sexual, and verbal abuse, threats of violence, sexual harassment,

26 invasions of privacy, and other violations of law," including

27 retaliation for their complaints of unlawful conduct. The

28 parties have participated in mediation since December 16, 1996;

it is pursuant to that process that this agreement arises. By

stipulation of the parties and order of the Court, defendants

have not answered the Complaint or the Amended Complaint pending

the final outcome of the mediation process.

5

I. CONDITIONS

6

A. The parties recognize that 18 U.S.C. § 3626 limits

prospective relief via consent decree to that necessary to

redress particular inmates' rights. The parties agree that this

settlement agreement is not a consent decree qualifying under the

10 Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 for judicial enforcement.

11

B. The parties agree that this settlement does not

12 constitute an admission by either the United States or the

13 individual defendants of the truth of the allegations contained

14 in the complaint.

15

C. The Bureau of Prisons' agreement to the terms in this

16 settlement is undertaken in good faith to redress plaintiffs'

17 concerns arising from certain actions alleged to have occurred at

18 FCI Dublin. This document embodies the following agreement: The

19 Bureau of Prisons promises to adopt and implement certain

20 policies and procedures designed to reduce the risk to female

21 prisoners of sexual assaults and harassment by correctional staff

22 and male prisoners and to provide appropriate programming,

23 counseling and services to female prisoners who are victims of

24 sexual assault. The United States agrees to pay damages to

25 Plaintiffs in settlement of each of their FTCA claims, as

26 described in Section IV of this agreement. In return, Plaintiffs

27 agree to dismiss the FTCA claims with prejudice, to release all

28 claims against the individual capacity defendants for damages

alleged to arise out of the incidents described in the complaint,

and to dismiss their injunctive relief claims subject to 18

U.S.C. § 3626 (c) (2) (a), pending BOP's performance of its

obligations in this Agreement which are to be completed by or

before June 30, 1999, at which time the injunctive claims shall

be dismissed with prejudice.

D. The parties understand and agree that to the extent that

this Agreement requires changes in BOP policy affecting

bargaining unit employees, such changes are subject to

10 negotiation with the labor union representing the affected

11 employees.

12

II. CHANGES IN BOP POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

13

A. Introduction And Procedures

14

1. This agreement is not a consent decree qualifying

15 under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 for judicial

16 enforcement but is instead a private settlement agreement, as

17 described in 18 U.S.C. § 3626 (c), and defined in 18 U.S.C. §

18 3626(g)(6). As such, the parties agree that the "terms of [the]

19 agreement are not subject to court enforcement other than the

20 reinstatement of the civil proceeding that [this] agreement

21 settled." 18 U.S.C. § 3626(c)(2)(A). In conformance with the

22 PLRA, the parties agree jointly to inform the Court that they

23 have entered into a "PLRA private settlement agreement" and to

24 request that the Court issue an order dismissing this action.

25

2. This agreement is undertaken in good faith to

26 resolve the concerns of Plaintiffs in respect of the effects that

27 operations at FCI Dublin will have upon other inmates at that

28 facility, and the BOP Official Capacity Defendants (hereinafter

"BOP") undertake in good faith to ameliorate those concerns.

This agreement also seeks to address the concerns of the two

Plaintiffs who remain in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons in

respect of their requests for injunctive relief.

5

E. The J-2 Special Housing Unit At FCI Dublin

6

1. Female inmates will not be housed in the J-2

Special Housing Unit of the Federal Detention Center in Dublin

absent circumstances which would require the Warden temporarily

to make such housing assignments during a correctional or law

10 enforcement emergency, natural disaster, or any other emergency

11 situation in which such assignments are approved by the Regional

12 Director.

13

2. In each report provided pursuant to paragraph IX

14 of this Agreement, BOP will indicate whether or not female

15 inmates were housed in the J-2 Special Housing Unit at FCI Dublin

16 during the period since the previous report and will indicate

17 whether male inmates were simultaneously housed in the J-2 SHU at

18 the time.

19

C. Confidential Mechanism to Report Sexual Assaults

20

FCI Dublin inmates, and plaintiffs Mercadel and

21 Douthit, will have the telephone number of the Office of

22 Inspector General of the Department of Justice added to their

23 Inmate Telephone monitored calling lists, without affecting their

24 currently approved lists.

25

D. Independent Consultant for Training Purposes

26

1. In order to assist with the review and development

*
27

of training programs, the BOP may consult with Andie Moss,
28

Correctional Programs Specialist, National Institute of

Corrections. If the BOP elects not to consult with Ms. Moss, the

BOP will retain an independent consultant with substantial

expertise regarding: (1) sexual assault and harassment against

female inmates; and (2) privacy concerns of female inmates. The

BOP will consult with plaintiffs' Counsel with regard to the

selection of that consultant.

7

E. Training Programs

8

1. National Training

9

A Bureau Training Program will be developed for annual

10 Refresher Training for 1998, which will address Bureau policies

11 and procedures concerning sexual assaults, sexual contacts,

12 sexual misconduct, confidential reporting, sexual harassment and

13 other issues arising out of the special needs of female

14 prisoners. BOP agrees to provide such training and information,

15 including a review of Bureau policy, to new employees as part of

16 the Introduction to Correctional Techniques training at the

17 Federal Law Enforcement Training Center at Glynco, Georgia.

18 Specialized training will also be available for staff most likely

19 to be involved in treatment or management of sexually assaulted

20 inmates.

21

With the assistance of the Consultant, BOP shall review

22 and revise its training program to assure that appropriate

23 training and information is provided to all employees who work

24 with female prisoners concerning the following topics:

25

a. BOP policies and procedures concerning sexual

26

assaults of prisoners by prisoners, or BOP staff, sexual

27

contact between prisoners, sexual contact between prisoners

28

and BOP staff, sexual misconduct, confidential reporting and

6

1

investigation of allegations of sexual misconduct and

2

protection of inmate complainants, duty of staff to report

3

and testify concerning sexual misconduct;

4

b. Program Statement 5324.02 (and any successor

5

statements), including, but not limited to, the Staff

6

Training in Part 7.b, staff sensitivity training in Part 8,

7

and successor training provisions;

8

c. Sexual harassment, including inappropriate

9

speech, hostile environment, and verbal or non-verbal

10

propositions;

11

d. Privacy rights of female prisoners,

12

including, but not limited to, cross-gender supervision,

13

cross-gender searches, prurient viewing of females changing

14

clothes or using showers and toilet facilities; and

15

e. Special needs of female prisoners, including,

16

but not limited to, sexual and spousal abuse, menstruation,

17

pregnancy, child-rearing, medical and psychological needs.

18

2. FCI Dublin Training

19

FCI Dublin shall be responsible for devising and

20 providing specialized training to assure that all staff receive

21 training in local procedures and implementation of national BOP

22 policy on the local level. For example, staff should, be trained

23 in the local Institution Supplement to Program Statement 5324.02,

24 including the identity of the Sexual Assault Coordinator and

25 local procedures.

26

3. Specialized Training

27

The BOP shall develop specialized training programs for

28 employees with particular responsibilities under Program

Statement 5324.02, or successor provisions of BOP policy,

including, but not limited to, the Sexual Assault Coordinator,

Medical and Psychological staff, SIS staff and employees with the.

rank of Lieutenant or higher.

5

4. Frequency of Training at D\iblin

6

a. All existing FCI Dublin employees shall complete

the revised training program no later than the end of the second

quarter of 1998. Employees who qualify for specialized training

shall, as applicable, complete the specialized training programs

10 no later than six months after this agreement becomes final.

11

b. New employees will be provided with and instructed

12 to read applicable policies during Institution Familiarization,

13 and will, subject to the physical limitations of individual

14 employees, attend Introduction to Correctional Techniques

15 training at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, Glynco,

16 Georgia, and will receive the local training program described

17 above within six months of beginning work at FCI Dublin.

18

5. Refresher Training:

19

Bureau of Prisons' staff shall provide refresher training at

20 appropriate intervals to staff, including annual local and

21 specialized refresher training.

22

F. Inmate Orientation

23

1. Bureau of Prisons' inmates will be provided with

24 literature on topics concerning sexual assault and harassment,

25 including recognition and reporting, during the admission and

26 orientation period following arrival at the institution. Posters 27 with similar information will be placed in the institution.

28

2. As required by Program. Statement 5324.02, part 7c, BOP

8

shall develop technical assistance, training materials and

information for distribution to all BOP inmates concerning

preventing and avoiding sexual assault. These materials should

include information for victims of sexual assaults concerning

their rights under BOP policies, how to make a confidential

report to prison staff or the OIG Hotline and seek protection in

the unlikely event of a sexual assault or if they receive

threats, etc. . BOP shall also prepare a candid and complete

presentation that covers the written materials, which

10 presentation shall be given as part of the HIV-AIDS discussion in

11 the Institution Admission and Orientation Program.

12

3. BOP shall also develop specialized training materials

13 and information for distribution in the Institution Admission and

14 Orientation Program to female inmates, including their rights to

15 privacy in prison.

16

6. Psychological and Medical Services for Victims

17

1. The Bureau of Prisons will assure that any .inmate

18 who claims to be the victim of a sexual assault is promptly

19 provided with appropriate medical and psychological-care in an

20 environment that meets both the inmate's safety and therapeutic

21 needs.

22

2. With regard to the provision of mental- health

23 services, the following is a guideline for a suggested protocol:

24

a. Psychology Services or other mental health

25 staff should be notified immediately after the initial report by

26 an inmate of an allegation of sexual abuse/assault of an inmate.

27

b. Any alleged victim(s) will be seen, as soon

28 as possible, and preferably no later than 24 hours following such

9

notification, by a mental health clinician to provide crisis intervention and to assess any immediate and subsequent treatment needs.

c. The findings of the initial crisis/evaluation

session and the additional follow-up evaluation, assessment and

file review should be reduced to writing within one week of the

initial session and, once drafted, placed in the appropriate

treatment record, with a copy provided to the Clinical Director

and institution staff responsible for oversight of sexual assault

10 prevention and intervention procedures.

11

d. Additional psychological or psychiatric

12 treatment, as well as continued assessment of mental health

13 status and treatment needs, should be provided as needed and only

14 with the patient's full consent and collaboration except when

15 there is a need for immediate emergency psychiatric care of the

16 type addressed by the BOP Health Services Manual, the BOP

17 Psychology Services Manual, and by 28 C.F.R §§ 54 9.90 et seq.,

18 concerning psychiatric treatment and medication. Decisions

19 regarding the need for continued treatment and/or assessment will

20 be made by qualified clinicians according to established

21 professional standards, and should be made in full recognition of

22 the potential impact, in terms of immediate and delayed 23 psychiatric or emotional symptoms, commonly experienced by

24 victims of sexual abuse/assault. If the patient chooses to

25 decline further treatment services, he or she will be,asked to

26 sign a statement to that effect. If the patient chooses to

27 continue to pursue treatment, the clinician will facilitate

28 referral of the patient to the appropriate treatment options.

10

This may include individual therapy, group therapy, further

psychological assessment, assignment to a mental health case

load, referral to a psychiatrist and/or other treatment options.

Pending referral, mental health services will continue unabated.

e. All additional treatment and evaluation

sessions will be properly documented and placed in the

appropriate treatment record to ensure continuity of care within,

between, or outside BOP facilities.

f. Should the patient be released from custody

10 during the course of treatment, the patient will be advised of

11 community mental health resources in his/her area.

12

H. Program Statement Revisions (National)

13

1. Subject to the APA requirements of notice and

14 comment, the Bureau of Prisons will make the following revisions

15 to Program Statement 5324.02 and its successor Program

16 Statements.

17

2. The "Purpose and Scope" section will be revised to

18 reference BOP employees as possible assailants.

19

a. The definition of "sexual assault" has been

20 revised to read as follows:

21

Definition: Inmate-on-Inmate Sexual Abuse/Assault:

22 One or more inmates engaging in, or attempting to engage in a 23 sexual, act with another inmate or the use of threats, 24 intimidation, inappropriate touching, or other actions and/or

25 communications by one or more inmates aimed at coercing and/or

26 pressuring another inmate to engage in a sexual act. Sexual acts

27 or contacts between inmates, even when no objections are raised, 28 are prohibited acts.

11

Staff-on-Inmate Sexual Abuse/Assault:

Engaging in, or attempting to engage in a sexual act with any

inmate or the intentional touching of an inmate's genitalia,

anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks with the intent to

abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, arouse, or gratify the sexual

desire of any person. Sexual acts or contacts between an inmate

and a staff member, even when no objections are raised, are

always illegal.

.

3. The BOP will continue to refer allegations of staff

10 misconduct to the Department of Justice, Office of Inspector 11 General for further referral, when appropriate, to the FBI.

12 The notification procedures require that all complaints of

13 possible criminal sexual misconduct by prisoners or BOP staff be

14 reported to the Office of Internal Affairs, and that the Office 15 of Internal Affairs report in turn to the Office of Inspector

16 General, which refers such complaints, when appropriate, to the

17 FBI.

18

4. The Bureau Of Prisons will ensure that the all

19 Institution Supplements concerning Inmate Sexual Assault

20 Prevention/Intervention Programs reference Program Statement 21 1330.13 §8(d) and its successor provisions, which allows the

22 submission of Requests for Administrative Remedy concerning

23 sensitive issues directly to the appropriate Regional Director.

24

5. A new section 4(e) to all Institution Supplements

25

to Program Statement 5324.02 and its successor provisions

26

shall include the following provision:

27

Confidentiality: Information concerning the identity

28

of an inmate-victim reporting a sexual assault, and the

12

1

fact of the report itself, shall be limited to those

2

who have a "need to know" in order to make decisions

3

concerning the inmate-victim's welfare and for law

4

enforcement/investigative purposes.

5

Ill. MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT

6

A. Progress Reports

7

Counsel for the government will provide at least three

reports to plaintiffs' counsel detailing BOP's progress in

fulfilling all obligations promised as part of this settlement

10 agreement. The first progress report will cover the period

11 between the date this agreement is signed by all parties and June 12 30, 1998. Subsequent reports will cover six month intervals.

13 Each report will be provided to plaintiffs' counsel within 45

14 days following the end of the period, with the final report

15 covering the period ending June 30, 1999. The progress reports

16 will address each issue addressed in HU II.B through II.H, above,

17 and counsel will attach copies of policies, procedures, training

18 materials or other applicable documents referenced in those

19 sections. The progress reports will be made, under penalty of

20 perjury, by counsel for the United States.

21

B. Policies, Procedures And Training Materials

22

To the extent that BOP has not already implemented certain

23 policies, procedures and training materials consistent with this

24 Agreement prior to the execution of this Agreement, BOP will

25 provide Plaintiffs' Counsel with drafts of policies, procedures

26 and training materials prepared in connection with this

27 settlement agreement before these documents are finalized, for

28 comments and suggestions. Plaintiffs' Counsel will provide

13

written comments no later than 3 0 calendar days after receipt of

any draft. With respect to policies, procedures and training

materials already in place at the time this Agreement is signed,

BOP will provide such materials to plaintiffs' counsel. BOP

agrees to consider plaintiffs' counsel's comments and suggestions

concerning such materials.

7

C. Dispute Resolution And Reinstatement

8

Pursuant to the PLRA, the only remedy available to

plaintiffs in the event of a breach of this agreement is to

10 reinstate the underlying action. 18 U.S.C. §3626(g)(6). The

11 parties agree that before plaintiffs request reinstatement of the

12 underlying action, they will negotiate in good faith concerning

13 the issue in dispute and may participate in a face-to-face

14 mediation session supervised by a mediator appointed by the Court

15 or otherwise agreed to by the parties. In the event that the

16 dispute is not resolved through mediation, the parties agree to

17 submit the issue to the mediator for an evaluation of the merits

18 of the parties' stance on the issue. If the United States agrees

19 that the dispute warrants face-to-face mediation, it will pay the

20 mediator's fees incurred.

21

D. Termination

22

The Bureau of Prisons agrees to perform all the obligations

23 contained in this agreement on or before June 30, 1999. When all

24 agreed obligations are fulfilled, counsel for the BOP will send a

25 final advisory to that effect along with the last of the three

26 progress reports it has agreed to provide to Plaintiffs' counsel,

27 under penalty of perjury. At that time, the United States will

28 seek an order dismissing the injunctive relief claims with

14

1 prejudice.

2

IV. DAMAGES AND DISMISSAL

3

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2677, in settlement of the

4 Plaintiffs' Federal Tort Claims Act claim and all other claims of

5 Plaintiffs against the United States and any current or former

6 employee of the Bureau of Prisons arising out of the incidents

7 alleged in the complaint, the United States agrees to pay a'total
8 of $500,000.00. The check, or Electronic Funds Transfer, shall

9 be made payable to "Rosen, Bien & Asaro Trust Account." In 10 return solely for the payment of this financial settlement 11 Plaintiffs agree to dismiss the Federal Tort Claims Act cause of

12 action with prejudice and to release all claims arising out. of 13 the incidents alleged in the complaint against the defendants in

14 their individual capacities. The Request for Dismissal shall be 15 filed with the Court within two Court days of receipt of the

16 payments from the United States. Without admitting liability,

17 the United States agrees that the monetary payment made to each

18 Plaintiff is to compensate her for physical injuries and 19 resulting emotional injuries alleged in the complaint. This 20 monetary settlement is undertaken pursuant to the provisions

21 contained in 28 U.S.C. § 2672, the acceptance of which "shall

22 constitute a complete release of any claim against the United

23 States:,and against the employee of the government whose act or

24 omission gave rise to the claim, by reason of the same subject

25 matter." The monetary settlement shall be complete and final and

26 binding upon the receipt of the payment and the execution of the

27 dismissal with prejudice.

28

15

1

V. ATTORNEYS' FEES, COSTS AND LITIGATION EXPENSES

2

Counsel for the parties agree that plaintiffs' counsel are

3 entitled to apply for an award of reasonable attorneys' fees and

4 costs in an amount to be determined. Pursuant to Local Rule 54-5

5 counsel will meet and confer in good faith in an attempt to

6 resolve the amount of the award prior to filing a motion with the

7 court.

8

VI. COOPERATION

9

The parties and their attorneys agree to use their best

10 efforts and to act in good faith to effectuate and carry out the

11 terms of this Agreement.

12

VII. COUNTERPARTS

13

This Agreement may be executed in any number of

14 counterparts, all of which taken together shall constitute one

15 and the same instrument, and any of the parties may execute this

16 Agreement by signing any such counterpart.

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24 Dated:

25 Dated:.
26
27 Dated:
28

Valerie Mercadel

R,

it

16

1

DEFENDANT UNITED STATES:

2
Dated:>
3
4
5
6
7

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
FRANK W. HUNGER Assistant Attorney General Civil Division
HELENE M. GOLDBERG Director, Torts Branch
ril Divisior

8

9

y

SHER

Senior Trial Counsel

10

Torts Branch

Civil Divi11

12

ia"r*"Attorney, Torts Branch

13

Civil Division

U.S. Department of Justice

14

P.O. Box 7146

Washington, DC 20044

15

Telephone: (202)616-4199

16

Attorneys for the United States

17

18 APPROVED AS TO FORM:

19 Dated:

ROSEN, BIEN & ASARO

20

By:

21

Michael W.^Bi-e'n

22 Datedi

VW^OFFfiCES OF GERI L. GREEN

23

24

25

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

26

27

28

17

 
 CAND-ECF - Docket Report

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?828048272126688-L_2...

CLOSED, ICMS, MEDIATION, REFDIS
U.S. District Court California Northern District (San Francisco) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:96-cv-02905-TEH

Lucas, et al v. White, et al Assigned to: Judge Thelton E. Henderson Referred to: Mag. Judge Bernard Zimmerman Demand: $1,000,000 Cause: 28:1983 Civil Rights Plaintiff Robin Lucas
Plaintiff Valerie Mercadel

Date Filed: 08/13/1996 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant
represented by Donna Petrine Rosen Bien & Asaro 155 Montgomery St 8th Flr San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) 433-6830 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Geri L. Green Law Offices of Geri Lynn Green 5214-F Diamond Heights Blvd. #332 San Francisco, CA 94131 415-575-3235 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
M.J. Tony Paikeday Rosen Bien & Asaro 155 Montgomery St 8th Flr San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) 433-6830 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael W. Bien Rosen Bien & Asaro 155 Montgomery St 8th Flr San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) 433-6830 Email: mbien@rbalaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Donna Petrine (See above for address)

1 of 11

4/14/2006 2:24 PM

CAND-ECF - Docket Report
Plaintiff Raquel Douthit
V. Defendant O. Ivan White Defendant
2 of 11

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?828048272126688-L_2...
LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Geri L. Green (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
M.J. Tony Paikeday (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael W. Bien (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Donna Petrine (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Geri L. Green (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
M.J. Tony Paikeday (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael W. Bien (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by John H. Hemann U.S. Attorney's Office 450 Golden Gate Avenue P.O. Box 36055 San Francisco, CA 94102 (415)436-7200 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
4/14/2006 2:24 PM

CAND-ECF - Docket Report
Loy Hayes
Defendant Dennis Smith
Defendant Correctional Officer Gillette TERMINATED: 10/01/1997
Defendant Sheila Yarborough
Defendant Wayne Ernst
Defendant Garfield Samuels
Defendant Dr. Peter M. Carlson Defendant USA
Defendant
3 of 11

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?828048272126688-L_2...
represented by John H. Hemann (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by John H. Hemann (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by John H. Hemann (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/01/1997 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by John H. Hemann (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by John H. Hemann (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by John H. Hemann (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Nina S. Pelletier US Department of Justice Ben Franklin Station/P.O. Box 7146 Washington, DC 20044 (202) 616-4199 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
4/14/2006 2:24 PM

CAND-ECF - Docket Report

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?828048272126688-L_2...

Kathleen Hawk
Defendant Warden Constance Reese
Defendant Margaret Harding
Defendant L. R. Greer
Defendant Dennis Gillette
Defendant Charles Gillette

Date Filed 08/13/1996 08/13/1996
08/15/1996 09/26/1996
09/26/1996 10/23/1996 11/08/1996

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT (no process) Fee status pd entered on 8/13/96 in the amount of $ 120.00 (Receipt No. 40305); jury demand [3:96-cv-02905] (scu, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/15/1996)
2 ORDER RE COURT PROCEDURE and SCHEDULE (ADR Pilot) by Chief Judge Thelton E. Henderson: Proof of service to be filed by 9/27/96; counsels' case management statement to be filed by 12/9/96; initial case management conference will be held 3:00 12/17/96. (cc: all counsel) [3:96-cv-02905] (scu, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/15/1996)
SUMMONS issued as to defendants O. Ivan White, Loy Hayes, Dennis Smith, Gillette, Sheila Yarborough, Wayne Ernst, Garfield Samuels [3:96-cv-02905] (scu, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/15/1996)
3 RETURN OF SERVICE (Original Summons returned) executed upon defendant O. Ivan White (sub-served on Tiffany Chiu, Legal Tech.) on 8/29/96, defendant Loy Hayes (sub-served on James C. Wills) on 9/13/96, defendant Lieutenant Gillette on 9/3/96, defendant Sheila Yarborough (sub-served on James C. Wills) on 9/13/96, defendant Wayne Ernst on 9/5/96 [3:96-cv-02905] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/27/1996)
4 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiff of complaint [1-1], ADR - Multi-Option Pilot order [2-1] served upon Janet Reno [3:96-cv-02905] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/27/1996)
5 RETURN OF SERVICE executed upon defendants O. Ivan White, Dennis Smith on 10/23/96 [3:96-cv-02905] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/25/1996)
6 CLERK'S NOTICE of ADR phone conference set 11/26/96 9:45 a.m. [3:96-cv-02905] (ab, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/08/1996)

4 of 11

4/14/2006 2:24 PM

CAND-ECF - Docket Report
11/15/1996
11/15/1996 11/18/1996 11/27/1996 11/27/1996 12/02/1996 12/05/1996 12/30/1996
01/16/1997 02/04/1997 02/07/1997 02/11/1997
02/13/1997 03/13/1997 03/26/1997

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?828048272126688-L_2...
7 STIPULATION and ORDER by Chief Judge Thelton E. Henderson: Case Management Statement is due 2/7/97; Case Management Conference set for 3:00 2/18/97 (cc: all counsel) [3:96-cv-02905] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/18/1996)
8 STIPULATION and ORDER by Chief Judge Thelton E. Henderson: Mediation ADR option selected. (cc: all counsel) [3:96-cv-02905] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/18/1996)
9 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendant of stipulation, request and scheduling order [3:96-cv-02905] (ab, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/20/1996)
10 CLERK'S NOTICE referring case to MED program. [3:96-cv-02905] (ab, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/27/1996)
11 CLERK'S NOTICE of appointment of mediator, Douglas R. Young [3:96-cv-02905] (ab, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/27/1996)
12 LETTER to the Mediator dated 11/27/96 from Michael W. Bien confirming appointment of mediator and session set 12/16/96 9 a.m. [3:96-cv-02905] (ab, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
13 MEDIATOR'S Letter to Counsel MED hearing will be held 9:00 12/16/96 [3:96-cv-02905] (ab, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/05/1996)
14 ORDER by Chief Judge Thelton E. Henderson Case Management Statement is due 3/21/97 ; Mediation ADR process will conclude by 2/10/97 ; Case Management Conference set for 3:00 4/1/97; defendants to respond before 2/17/97 ( Date Entered: 1/3/97) (cc: all counsel) [3:96-cv-02905] (ab, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/03/1997)
15 CERTIFICATION OF ADR SESSION filed by neutral Mediator Douglas R. Young (ab, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/16/1997)
16 RETURN OF SERVICE executed upon defendant Gillette on 1/24/97 and, defendant Garfield Samuels on 12/13/96 [3:96-cv-02905] (ab, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/05/1997)
RECEIVED stipulation and proposed order re scheduling order [3:96-cv-02905] (ab, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/10/1997)
18 STIPULATION and ORDER by Chief Judge Thelton E. Henderson : MED hearing set for 3/10/97 ; , sched. Case Management Statement is due 4/25/97 ; Case Management Conference set for 2:00 5/6/97 ; (cc: all counsel) [3:96-cv-02905] (ga, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/19/1997)
17 CERTIFICATION OF ADR SESSION Mediation hearing held on 2/3/97, further session set for 3/10/97 filed by neutral Mediator Douglas R. Young (bt, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/13/1997)
19 CERTIFICATION OF ADR SESSION filed by neutral Mediator Douglas R. Young. Session held on 3/10/97. another session set for April (bt, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/13/1997)
20 STIPULATION and ORDER by Chief Judge Thelton E. Henderson : MED hearing set for 10:00 4/28/97 ; , Case Management Statement is due 6/27/97 ;

5 of 11

4/14/2006 2:24 PM

CAND-ECF - Docket Report
05/14/1997 05/19/1997 05/27/1997 05/27/1997 06/24/1997 08/06/1997
09/16/1997 09/24/1997
10/01/1997 10/08/1997

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?828048272126688-L_2...
Case Management Conference set for 3:00 7/8/97 ; (cc: all counsel) [3:96-cv-02905] (ga, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/31/1997)
21 STIPULATION and ORDER by Chief Judge Thelton E. Henderson : extending MED deadline to 6/16/97 , Case Management Statement is due 7/28/97 ; Case Management Conference set for 3:00 8/8/97 ; , extending time to answer by 6/23/97; (cc: all counsel) [3:96-cv-02905] (ga, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/16/1997)
22 CLERK'S NOTICE Case Management Statement is due 8/1/97 ; Case Management Conference set for 3:00 8/12/97 ; [3:96-cv-02905] (ga, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/20/1997)
23 STIPULATION and ORDER by Chief Judge Thelton E. Henderson : to file attached document UNDER SEAL; (cc: all counsel) [3:96-cv-02905] (ga, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/27/1997)
24 SEALED document Protective Order by USA (ga, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/27/1997)
25 STIPULATION and ORDER by Chief Judge Thelton E. Henderson : Case Management Statement is due 9/22/97 ; Case Management Conference set for 3:00 9/30/97 ; ADR process will conclude by 7/28/97; extending time to answer by 8/11/97. (cc: all counsel) [3:96-cv-02905] (jm, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/24/1997)
26 STIPULATION and ORDER by Chief Judge Thelton E. Henderson : The Mediation pursuant to the Alternative Dispute Resolution program shall be completed no later than 9/8/97 ; defendants shall answer by 9/22/97 ; Case Management Statement is due 10/27/97 ; Case Management Conference set for 3:00 11/4/97 ; (cc: all counsel) [3:96-cv-02905] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/12/1997)
27 NOTICE by Plaintiff Robin Lucas of change of address Geri Lynn, 368 Hayes Street, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 575-3235 [3:96-cv-02905] (ga, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/17/1997)
28 STIPULATION and ORDER by Chief Judge Thelton E. Henderson : meet and confer re case management 12/12/97; initial disclosures 12/19/97; Case Management Statement is due 1/2/98 ; Case Management Conference set for 3:00 1/13/98 ; , extending time to answer by 11/28/97; extend MED deadline to 11/14/97 (cc: all counsel) [3:96-cv-02905] (ga, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/26/1997)
29 AMENDED COMPLAINT [1-1] by Plaintiffs Robin Lucas, Valerie Mercadel, Raquel Douthit; jury demand ; adding Peter M. Carlson, USA, Kathleen Hawk, Constance Reese, Margaret Harding, L. R. Greer, Dennis Gillette, Charles Gillette [3:96-cv-02905] (ga, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/08/1997)
SUMMONS issued as to defendant O. Ivan White, defendant Loy Hayes, defendant Dennis Smith, defendant Sheila Yarborough, defendant Wayne Ernst, defendant Garfield Samuels, defendant Peter M. Carlson, defendant USA, defendant Kathleen Hawk, defendant Constance Reese, defendant Margaret Harding, defendant L. R. Greer, defendant Dennis Gillette, defendant Charles

6 of 11

4/14/2006 2:24 PM

CAND-ECF - Docket Report
10/30/1997 10/30/1997 10/30/1997 10/30/1997 11/24/1997
11/25/1997 01/30/1998
02/27/1998 03/04/1998 03/23/1998 04/01/1998 04/23/1998 04/23/1998

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?828048272126688-L_2...
Gillette [3:96-cv-02905] (ga, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/08/1997)
30 RETURN OF SERVICE unexecuted - original summons [3:96-cv-02905] (ga, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/04/1997)
31 RETURN OF SERVICE executed upon defendant Peter M. Carlson, defendant Kathleen Hawk, defendant Constance Reese, defendant Margaret Harding, defendant L. R. Greer on 10/16/97 [3:96-cv-02905] (ga, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/04/1997)
32 RETURN OF SERVICE executed upon defendant Garfield Samuels, defendant USA on 10/6/97 [3:96-cv-02905] (ga, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/04/1997)
33 RETURN OF SERVICE executed upon defendant Peter M. Carlson, defendant Constance Reese, defendant Margaret Harding, defendant Kathleen Hawk, defendant L. R. Greer on 10/20/97 [3:96-cv-02905] (ga, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/04/1997)
34 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson : Case Management Statement is due 3/6/98 ; Case Management Conference set for 3:00 3/13/98 ; supplemental disclosure is due 2/20/98 ; ADR process will conclude by 1/16/98 ; , extending time to answer by 1/30/98 (cc: all counsel) [3:96-cv-02905] (ga, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/01/1997)
35 PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiff Robin Lucas of summons [0-0], complaint [29-1] [3:96-cv-02905] (ga, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/05/1997)
36 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson : Status conference set for 3:00 3/3/98 ; vacating [34-1] Scheduling order Case Management Statement is due 3/6/98 ; Case Management Conference set for 3:00 3/13/98 ; supplemental disclosure is due 2/20/98 ; ADR process will conclude by 1/16/98 ; (cc: all counsel) [3:96-cv-02905] (ga, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/03/1998)
37 STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT by Plaintiff Robin Lucas [3:96-cv-02905] (ga, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/03/1998)
38 MINUTES: (C/R not reported) (Hearing Date: 3/3/98) Status conference held; parties report that this matter has been settled; Counsel to submit an order [3:96-cv-02905] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/05/1998)
39 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson : dismissing case with prejudice; claims for injunctive relief are dismissed without prejudice; (cc: all counsel) [3:96-cv-02905] (ga, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/25/1998)
40 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson : extending time to file motion for attorneys fees and costs for 60 days after the dismissal was entered; (cc: all counsel) [3:96-cv-02905] (ga, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/02/1998)
41 PROTECTIVE ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson : (cc: all counsel) [3:96-cv-02905] (ga, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/28/1998)
42 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION before Judge Thelton E. Henderson by Plaintiff Robin Lucas for attorney fees and costs with Notice set for 6/29/98 at 10:00am [3:96-cv-02905] (ga, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/28/1998)

7 of 11

4/14/2006 2:24 PM

CAND-ECF - Docket Report
04/23/1998 04/23/1998 04/23/1998 05/20/1998 06/04/1998 07/10/1998
07/23/1998 09/09/1998 09/18/1998 10/01/1998 10/07/1998
11/03/1998
11/03/1998 11/03/1998
8 of 11

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?828048272126688-L_2...
43 MEMORANDUM by Plaintiff Robin Lucas in support of motion for attorney fees and costs [42-1] [3:96-cv-02905] (ga, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/28/1998)
44 SEALED document by Plaintiff Robin Lucas (declaration of Geri L. Green) (ga, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/28/1998)
45 SEALED document by Plaintiff Robin Lucas (declaration of Michael W. Bien) (ga, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/28/1998)
46 NOTICE of hearing by Plaintiff Robin Lucas setting motion for attorney fees and costs [42-1] ; hearing set for 10:00 7/20/98 [3:96-cv-02905] (ga, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/22/1998)
47 NOTICE of hearing by Plaintiff Robin Lucas setting motion for attorney fees and costs [42-1] ; hearing set for 10:00 8/3/98 [3:96-cv-02905] (ga, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/05/1998)
48 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson : referring case for settlement to Mag. Judge Bernard Zimmerman vacating [42-1] motion for attorney fees and costs pending completion of the settlement conference; (cc: all counsel) [3:96-cv-02905] (ga, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/15/1998)
49 SCHEDULING ORDER by Mag. Judge Bernard Zimmerman : ; stlmnt conf set for 1:30 9/17/98 BZ (cc: all counsel) [3:96-cv-02905] (ga, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/24/1998)
50 ORDER by Mag. Judge Bernard Zimmerman excusing attendance at settlement conference. (cc: all counsel) [3:96-cv-02905] (slh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/16/1998)
51 SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE MINUTES: ( C/R JC98-22) ( Hearing Date: 9/17/98) Settlement conference held [3:96-cv-02905] (ga, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/23/1998)
52 SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE MINUTES: ( C/R none) ( Hearing Date: 10/1/98) case not settled; [3:96-cv-02905] (ga, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/08/1998)
53 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson : setting hearing on motion for attorney fees and costs [42-1] 12/14/98; plaintiffs to file amended motion on 11/2/98 ; opposition due 11/17/98 and reply 11/24/98; (cc: all counsel) [3:96-cv-02905] (ga, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/13/1998)
54 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION before Judge Thelton E. Henderson by Raquel Douthit, Robin Lucas, Valerie Mercadel for attorney fees, litigation expense and costs; with Notice set for 12/14/98 at 10:00am [3:96-cv-02905] (ga, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/04/1998)
55 MEMORANDUM by Raquel Douthit, Robin Lucas, Valerie Mercadel in support of motion for attorney fees, litigation expense and costs; [54-1] [3:96-cv-02905] (ga, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/04/1998)
56 DECLARATION by Warren E. George re motion for attorney fees, litigation expense and costs; [54-1] [3:96-cv-02905] (ga, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/04/1998)
4/14/2006 2:24 PM

CAND-ECF - Docket Report
11/03/1998 11/03/1998 11/03/1998 11/03/1998 11/03/1998 11/03/1998 11/03/1998 11/06/1998 11/17/1998 11/24/1998 11/24/1998 11/24/1998 12/14/1998 01/05/1999 01/05/1999

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?828048272126688-L_2...
57 DECLARATION by Tony Tamburello re motion for attorney fees, litigation expense and costs; [54-1] [3:96-cv-02905] (ga, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/04/1998)
58 DECLARATION by Sidney M. Wolinsky re motion for attorney fees, litigation expense and costs; [54-1] [3:96-cv-02905] (ga, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/04/1998)
59 DECLARATION by Beth H. Parker re motion for attorney fees, litigation expense and costs; [54-1] [3:96-cv-02905] (ga, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/04/1998)
60 DECLARATION by Doron Weinberg re motion for attorney fees, litigation expense and costs; [54-1] [3:96-cv-02905] (ga, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/04/1998)
61 DECLARATION by Richard M Pearl re motion for attorney fees, litigation expense and costs; [54-1] [3:96-cv-02905] (ga, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/04/1998)
62 DECLARATION by Geri L. Green re motion for attorney fees, litigation expense and costs; [54-1] [3:96-cv-02905] (ga, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/04/1998)
63 DECLARATION by Michael W. Bien re motion for attorney fees, litigation expense and costs; [54-1] [3:96-cv-02905] (ga, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/04/1998)
64 NOTICE by Plaintiff Robin Lucas, Plaintiff Valerie Mercadel of change of address [3:96-cv-02905] (ga, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/09/1998)
65 MEMORANDUM by defendant USA in opposition to motion for attorney fees, litigation expense and costs; [54-1] [3:96-cv-02905] (ga, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/19/1998)
66 REPLY by Plaintiff Robin Lucas, Plaintiff Valerie Mercadel re motion for attorney fees, litigation expense and costs; [54-1] [3:96-cv-02905] (ga, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/30/1998)
67 DECLARATION by Geri Lynn Green on behalf of Plaintiff Robin Lucas, Plaintiff Valerie Mercadel re reply [66-1] [3:96-cv-02905] (ga, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/30/1998)
68 DECLARATION by Michael W. Bien on behalf of Robin Lucas, Valerie Mercadel re reply [66-1] [3:96-cv-02905] (ga, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/30/1998)
69 MINUTES: ( C/R Rhonda Aquilina) ( Hearing Date: 12/14/98) that the motion for attorney fees, litigation expense and costs; [54-1] is submitted. [3:96-cv-02905] (RS, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/16/1998)
70 LETTER dated 12/31/98 from USA re meet and confer [3:96-cv-02905] (ga, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/08/1999)
71 REPLY by Plaintiff Raquel Douthit re letter [70-1] [3:96-cv-02905] (ga, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/08/1999)

9 of 11

4/14/2006 2:24 PM

CAND-ECF - Docket Report
04/14/1999
06/11/1999 06/18/1999 06/28/1999 06/28/1999 07/01/1999 07/08/1999 07/29/1999 08/05/1999 10/18/1999 03/15/2000 03/20/2000
03/22/2000

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?828048272126688-L_2...
72 ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson granting motion for attorney fees, litigation expense and costs; plaintiffs are awarded interim attorneys fee in the amount of $508,898.34 and interim expenses and cost in the amount of $34,993.52 for a total interim award of $543,891.86 [54-1] ( Date Entered: 4/16/99) (cc: all counsel) [3:96-cv-02905] (ga, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/16/1999)
73 NOTICE OF APPEAL by defendant USA from Dist. Court decision order [72-1] Fee status ex [3:96-cv-02905] (ga, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/18/1999)
Copy of notice of appeal and docket sheet to all counsel [3:96-cv-02905] (ga, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/18/1999)
NOTIFICATION by Circuit Court of Appellate Docket Number 99-16279 [3:96-cv-02905] (ga, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/28/1999)
74 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION and Ordering Form filed by defendant USA for dates none ordered ; ; [3:96-cv-02905] (db, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/02/1999)
75 NOTICE by Plaintiff Valerie Mercadel of change of address to 1231 Market Street, Penthouse West, San Francisco CA 94103 , (415) 575-3235 [3:96-cv-02905] (ga, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/12/1999)
76 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION and Ordering Form filed by defendant USA for dates 12/14/98 ; C/R: Rhonda Aquilina; [3:96-cv-02905] (db, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/14/1999)
77 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 12/14/98 (C/R: Rhonda L. Aquilina) [3:96-cv-02905] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/05/1999)
CERTIFICATE of Record mailed to USCA, counsel notified. [3:96-cv-02905] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/05/1999)
78 CERTIFIED COPY of USCA Order: a further settlement conference will be held by telephone on 10/25/99 at 11:00am Pacific (San Francisco) time [3:96-cv-02905] (bug, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/22/1999)
79 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson : dismissing case with prejudice (cc: all counsel) [3:96-cv-02905] (db, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/15/2000)
80 CERTIFIED COPY of USCA Order: dismissing the appeal [73-1]99-16279. Appellant's letter is construed as a motion to dismiss. The appeal is dismissed and each to bear own costs on appeal. [3:96-cv-02905] (db, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/22/2000)
81 CLERK's letter spreading the mandate to counsel. re appeal [73-1] [3:96-cv-02905] (db, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/22/2000)

10 of 11

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt

4/14/2006 2:24 PM

CAND-ECF - Docket Report

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?828048272126688-L_2...

04/14/2006 12:24:47

PACER Login:

hs0328

Client Code:

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

Billable Pages: 6

Cost:

3:96-cv-02905-TEH 0.48

11 of 11

4/14/2006 2:24 PM

 
 POLICY AND PROCEDURE Lucas v. White Specialty Training
Materials Volume 1
Specialized Training Federal Bureau of Prisons Sexual Abuse/Assault Prevention and Intervention

Date 7/21/98 7/21/98 7/21/98 7/21/98 7/21/98 11/96
11/96

Description
Lesson Plan: Sexual Abuse Program Coordinator Training
Lesson Plan: General Training for GS-09 and Above Staff
Lesson Plan: Lieutenants Training
Lesson Plan: Health Services Staff Training
Lesson Plan: Mental Health Staff Training
National Women's Law Center: Fifty State Surveys of State Criminal Laws Prohibiting Sexual Abuse of Prisoners by Brenda V. Smith , Director Women In Prison Project
U.S. Dept. of Justice, NIC: Sexual Misconduct in Prisons: Law, Agency Response, And Prevention

Tab Number 1 2 3 4 5 6
7

U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Prisons
Specialty Training Federal Bureau of Prisons Sexual Abuse/Assault Prevention and Intervention Program
J`jfîy 2 1 ,

Contents

1.

Lesson Plan - Program Coordinators

2.

Lesson Plan - Gs 9 and above

3.

Lesson Plan - Lieutenants

4.

Lesson Plan - Health Services

5.

Lesson Plan - Psychology Services

6.

Handouts

7.

Briefing Materials

SPECIALIZED TRAINING SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION

LESSON PLAN: TIME FRAME: PURPOSE:
OBJECTIVES:

Sexual Abuse Program Coordinator Training
2 Hours minimum
To provide guidelines for Sexual Abuse Coordinators who are responsible for ensuring the coordinated, interdisciplinary efforts at each institution in: • preventing sexual abuse/assault
intervening when sexual assaults occur • investigating allegations of sexual assault
disciplining/prosecuting perpetrators of sexual abuse/assault educating and training staff and inmates • safeguarding, assessing, treating, and managing sexually assaulted inmates
At the end of this session each Program Coordinator will be able to:
A. List the key aspects of the Sexual Abuse/Assault Prevention and Intervention Program.
B. State staff and supervisory intervention strategies to minimize instances of inappropriate staff/inmate relationships.
C. State the identification and referral process when an alleged staff/inmate sexual assault occurs.

STUDENT MATERIALS: INSTRUCTOR MATERIALS:
REFERENCES:
COORDINATED AND DEVELOPED BY:
APPROVED BY:

Handouts Program Statement 5324.04
Lesson Plan Briefing Materials from NIC Flipchart
Program Statement, 5324.04, Sexual Abuse/Assault Prevention and Intervention Program and local institution supplement Program Statement 3420.08, Standards of Employee Conduct.
Teresa Hunt Katsel, Central Office Gloria Lucero, MSTC
Dennis R. Bidwell, Senior Deputy Assistant Director, Correctional Programs Division, Central Office

PROGRAM COORDINATOR SPECIALTY TRAINING -SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVTNTION AND INTERVENTION-

INSTRUCTOR GUIDE

INSTRUCTOR NOTES

I. INTRODUCTION
The sexual abuse of inmates has been identified across correctional systems as a major correctional management issue of the l99O!s. A coordinated strategy that involves law and policy development, training of prisoners and correctional staff, and public education is being examined and pursued by most states. A federal law, the Sexual Abuse Act of 1986 (18 U.S.C. 2242-44) provides severe penalties for sexual abuse of inmates. If the abuse involves coercion, it is usually presented as a felony offense. The maximum penalty for an offense of this type is life in prison. If the abuse does not involve coercion, it is usually prosecuted as a misdemeanor. The penalties for this type of offense are still severe. Incidentally, there is no such thing as "consensual sex." In 1990, only 17 states and the federal government had laws prohibiting the sexual abuse of inmates. Today, sexual misconduct has been recognized as a national issue, and:
• 35 states, the District of Columbia, and the federal government have laws that specifically criminalizing sexual abuse in prisons.
• 28 states and the District of Columbia define sexual misconduct in prisons as a felony.
• 4 states define sexual misconduct in prisons as a misdemeanor. • 3 states and the federal government define sexual misconduct in
prisons as either a felony or a misdemeanor depending on the nature and severity of the assault. • 3 states criminalize the conduct of both the prisoner and the corrections employee in "consensual" cases of sexual misconduct. • 13 states and the District of Columbia specifically provide that even if a prisoner "consents:" to or voluntarily engages in sex with a corrections staff person, the staff member is criminally liable. • 9 states, the District of Columbia and federal government provide that marriage is a defense to a charge of sexual misconduct. • 15 states have no laws criminalizing sexual misconduct in prisons.

Handout - 50 State Survev

The National Institute of Corrections (NIC), (the component of the BOP which provides direct assistance to states and local correctional systems), has been pro active and responsive in providing direct technical assistance to states who have experienced instances of sexual misconduct. NIC has worked directly with 24 states and the BOP in developing action plans to provide remedies for correctional systems in responding to the issue of sexual misconduct.

The BOP has a zero tolerance stance regarding inappropriate conduct between staff and inmates, particularly that of a sexual nature. There are currently 30,000 employees who work for the BOP. There were 15 cases sustained against BOP staff for sexual abuse of an inmate in 1997. With zero tolerance, the BOP strives to prosecute any instance of sexual misconduct and obtained 8 prosecutions in 1997. The BOP has very clear policy and training programs for staff and inmates.

The BOP increased its focus on the issue of sexual abuse of inmates in July of 1996 after several incidents occurred at a facility for female offenders. The BOP, with assistance from the National Institute of Corrections (NIC), conducted focus groups with staff and inmates at four facilities to assess staff attitudes toward women offenders, BOP philosophy on the management of female offenders and training needs. Issues were identified and presented to a BOP Workgroup who formulated recommendations for refining BOP policy and training which were approved by the Executive Staff in December of 1996. Objectives and action steps were identified and target dates established for implementation beginning in April of 1997.

In December of 1997, the revised Program Statement entitled Sexual

Abuse/Assault Prevention and Intervention Program was issued and

included for the first time discussion of the protocol to follow to

ensure:

•

effective procedures to prevent sexually assaultive behavior

will be operative in each Bureau institution

•

medical, psychological, safety, and social needs ofvictims will

be promptly and effectively met

•

all allegations of sexual abuse/assault will be promptly and

effectively reported and investigated

•

an, assailants, once identified, will be controlled, disciplined,

and/or prosecuted

All staff received training on Sexual Misconduct, Sexual Assault Prevention and Intervention during Annual Refresher Training in 1998, and new employees received training beginning in March of 1998 as part of their basic training at the Staff Training Academy at Glynco. Specialized training has been developed for staff who have been appointed by the Warden [herein after referred to as Program

Handout: "Assumptions" from NIC
Handout: BOP cases Eleven of those cases involved male staff and female inmates. three involved female staff and male inmates and one case involved a female staff and a female inmate. Discuss cases and how the dynamics between male staff and female inmates, male staff and male inmates, female staff and male inmates, and female staff and female inmates differ.
Handout - Program Statement 5324.4, Sexual Abuse Assault Prevention and Intervention Program

PROGRAM COORDINATOR SPECIALTY TRAINING -SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION-

INSTRUCTOR GUIDE
Coordinators] to ensure that all elements of the program statement are met in a coordinated, interdisciplinary fashion to include:

INSTRUCTOR NOTES

•

educating and training staff and inmates

safeguarding, assessing, treating, and managing sexually

assaulted inmates

•

investigating disciplining, and/or prosecuting perpetrators of

sexual assault

Specialty training has also been developed for medical and mental health staff, correctional supervisors (lieutenants), and other staff who are at the GS9 and above level to ensure all staff with management responsibilities are aware of their responsibilities in preventing sexual abuse/assault and intervening appropriately when allegations are brought to their attention by inmates.

In the near future, each institution will begin providing training for inmates on sexual abuse/assault prevention and intervention. Therefore, it is very important the Program Coordinator understand the dynamics involved when presenting this topic to staff and inmates. This training module is to be completed by the Program Coordinator and any staff responsible for conducting sexual abuse/assault training for staff and inmates.

II. OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this training is to ensure Program Coordinators are aware of behaviors that constitute sexual abuse, sexual assault, or sexual misconduct, as defined by Bureau of Prisons policy and the law. As Program Coordinators, you are the local expert on this issue and should be very familiar with:

•

the key aspects of the Sexual Assault/Prevention and

Intervention Program Statement.

•

effective intervention procedures to prevent sexually assaultive

behaviors.

•

methods to meet the medical, psychological, safety, and social

needs of victims of sexual assault.

Handout: Objectives

PROGRAM COORDINATOR SPECIALTY TRAINING -SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION-

INSTRUCTOR GUIDE
III. LESSON PLAN
A. DEFINITIONS

INSTRUCTOR NOTES
Handout: Definitions

The Program Statement on Sexual Abuse/Assault Prevention and Intervention Program defines two types of sexual assault and the Employee Standards ofConduct describes prohibited sexual behavior:

1. Inmate on inmate sexual abuse/assault: One or more inmates engaging in, or attempting to engage in a sexual act with another inmate or the use of threats, intimidation, inappropriate touching, or other actions and/or communications by one or more inmates aimed at coercing and/or pressuring another inmate to engage in a sexual act. Sexual acts or contacts between inmates, even when no objections are raised, are prohibited.

2. Staff on inmate sexual abuse/assault: Engaging in, or attempting to engage in a sexual act with any inmate. The intentional touching of an inmate's genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks with the intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, arouse, or gratify the sexual desire of any person. Sexual acts or contacts between an inmate and a staff member, even when no objections are raised, are always illegal.

3. From the Employee Standards of Conduct
Staff-on-inmate sexual behavior that does not rise to the level of a criminal violation is covered by the Employee Standards of Conduct which states "an employee may not engage in, or allow another person to engage in sexual behavior with an inmate."
Employees are subject to administrative action, up to and including removal, for any inappropriate contact or relationship with inmates, regardless of whether such contact constitutes a prosecutable crime. Physical contact is not required to subject an employee to sanctions for sexual misconduct.

This type of behavior includes. and is not limited to. indecent. profane or abuse language or gestures, and inappropriate visual surveillance of inmates. Emphasize these actions which are more passive in nature are not specifically covered by the sexual abuse statute, but are still wrong, harassing in nature, and prohibited by the Employee Standards of conduct.

PROGRAM COORDINATOR SPECIALTY TRAINING -SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION-

INSTRUCTOR GUIDE
Staff must understand they are obligated by the Standards of Conduct to report any allegation of sexual assault/abuse by other inmates or staff.

INSTRUCTOR NOTES

B. INDICATORS OF INAPPROPRIATE STAFF/INMATE RELATIONSHIPS

There are several warning signs/indicators that may let staff/supervisors know when someone may be involved in an inappropriate relationship with an inmate:

Discussion: Ask for other examples.

spending too much time with one inmate exchange of personal items, notes, letters playing favorites idle conversation referring to relationships attempts by inmates' family/friends to contact a staff member unusual personal inquiries about an inmate. unexplained gestures or body language between inmates and staff accessing inmate living areas after regular work hours

C. MANAGERIAL INTERVENTIONS

As the Program Coordinator, you are responsible for assisting your Executive Staff in creating an environment that helps prevent staff involvement in inappropriate inmate relationships. The BOP also has a zero tolerance stance toward sexual harassment of staff. Now, how do the two relate? Maintaining professional relationships and appropriate boundaries with other staff and inmates is imperative when working in corrections. When staff are interacting inappropriately with each other, it is usually an indicator they are acting inappropriately with inmates.

•

Does your institution culture promote overall human

dignity that serve both staff and inmates?

•

Have there been instances where violation of staff-

offender boundaries have occurred?

PROGRAM COORDINATOR SPECIALTY TRAINING -SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION-

INSTRUCTOR GUIDE

•

Does your institution have programs in place for staff

and inmates to develop more positive relationships

with others?

INSTRUCTOR NOTES

Do staff know who to contact if they feel a relationship established with a co-worker or inmates has become too informal and uncomfortable?

1. What interventions are available at your facility, and are staff aware of them? The following are some examples:

a. Have you publicized ìhe accessibility to support programs - local EAP and those in the community (nocost and confidential)? This may divert employees who are encountering difficulties with their personal/family life from becoming involved with inmates.

This assistance through EAP is confidential and no-cost

b. Have you enhanced the surveillance process by installing video recording devices in SHU, remote areas of the institution, and female housing units? Has telephone monitoring been considered? This may not only detect misconduct, but it may also protect staff from false allegations.

Consult with the facilities manager, captain and SIS

c. Have windows been installed in office and closet doors?

d. Are the inmates kept busy? Idleness creates problems.

e. Has this issue been discussed with the union?

f. Have you ensured that staff understand their responsibility for ensuring confidentiality is maintained as instances of inappropriate staff-inmate relationships are reported and investigated?

Privacy for staff and inmates must be preserved throughout the investigation.

g. Are staff aware it is against the code of conduct to retaliate against staff or inmates who make allegations of sexual abuse/assault?

Instances of retaliation must be reported.

PROGRAM COORDINATOR SPECIALTY TRAINING -SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION-

INSTRUCTOR GUIDE
h. It is every supervisor's responsibility to exercise proper supervision over staff and inmates, to take corrective action when warranted, and guard against retaliation by either staff or inmates.

INSTRUCTOR NOTES

Is there a clear action plan established for dealing with employees when allegations of sexual abuse/assault have been made?

Consult with your Regional Director to consider the options, e.g., home duty status or assignment to posts/shifts which keep them separated from the accusing inmate or staff member

Is there a plan to provide on-going training for all staff in the institution on what to do if they become inappropriately involved with an inmate, or what their responsibilities are if they become aware, or witness another staff member becoming inappropriately involved with an inmate?
k. Supervisors must ensure staff understand it is against the code of conduct to noj come forward and report occurrences of sexual abuse/assault. Staff must make their report to a supervisor and must be clear that by following the appropriate procedures they are not rumor mongering or gossiping.
2. Ensure institution supervisors are creating an environment that provides interventions for staff by:
a. Rotation of inmate workers on work details in remote or isolated locations.
b. Consistent discipline of violators.
c. Acknowledging the problem and not ignoring inappropriate behavior based on someone's age or position in the department.

All staff should have been trained at ART 1998, or at Glynco STA, beginning in March of 1998; specialized training is held for Program Coordinator. GS9 and above staff. Lieutenants, Health Services and Mental Health staff and is required for all incumbents within 120 days of appointment in any of the previously described positions, as outlined in the EDM Manual
Recognize that where the work environment is coercive or repressive, there will be a fear to bring forward complaints
Check all details for longe\ T\ of inmates assigned

PROGRAM COORDINATOR SPECIALTY TRAINING -SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION-

INSTRUCTOR GUIDE

INSTRUCTOR NOTES

d. Avoiding enabling behaviors which removes or cushions an employee from the consequences of their action.

e. Correcting staff who show signs of inappropriate relationships with inmates and taking action as early as possible; ensuring that every complaint is taken seriously.

f. Knowing the inmates.

g. Watching for staff who withdraw from the administration, or who come to work on off days, or arrive early and leave late.

h. Maintaining high visibility and managing by walking around.

D. PROGRAM COORDINATION

Managing sexual misconduct requires an interdisciplinary approach. Each institution should have a local institution supplement, approved by the Regional Director, that outlines their procedures and staff responsibilities for sexual abuse/assault intervention.

Preventing sexual assault, intervening when sexual assaults do occur, investigating allegations of sexual assault, and disciplining/prosecuting perpetrators of sexual assault/abuse involves the coordinated efforts of several institution departments.

•

Correctional Services: influences the culture of the institution

environment; manages protection and investigation

Psychology Services: provides clinical assessment of

psychological trauma and provides mental health aftercare and

treatment plan

Health Services: provides initial clinical assessment and

treatment of physical trauma; certified medical professionals

gather evidence

•

Legal: manages case once referred for prosecution

Discuss roles of each member (see policy) and local institution supplement which outlines their responsibilities.
Specialized training for these staff has been developed and you should familiarize yourself with the lesson plans, if you are not the primary instructor. It is recommended that the Program Coordinator monitor the training conducted for all disciplines. It is also important to ensure the appropriate staff are making the presentations.

PROGRAM COORDINATOR SPECIALTY TRAINING -SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION-

INSTRUCTOR GUIDE

•

Unit Management; manages all inmate movement to include

release

Religious Services: provides spiritual assistance to traumatized

inmate victims

INSTRUCTOR NOTES

Ordinarily an Associate Warden has overall responsibility for ensuring the program requirements are met.

E. INMATE EDUCATION

As part ofthe institution's Admission and Orientation Program, a staff member, designated by the Warden shall include a brief, candid presentation about the Sexual Abuse/Assault Prevention and Intervention Program that includes:

1. How inmates can protect themselves from becoming victims while incarcerated,
2. Treatment options available to victims of sexual assault, and
3. Methods of reporting incidents of sexual abuse/assault
The presentation also includes information on services and programs available for victims of sexual abuse/assault and for sexually assaultive or aggressive inmates. Each inmate will also receive a brochure summarizing key elements.

Discuss how to file an administrative remedy directly to the Regional Office when the issue is considered sensitive in accordance with the program statement, Administrative Remedy Program must be emphasized. Also discuss method inmates can report to Office of Inspector General. Inmates are also advised they are obligated to report such incidents.

Inmates who do not participate in the formal A&O program (e.g., inmates in the hospital, or SHU units, or pre-trial and/or detention units), will be provided with the pamphlet. Posters will be placed in the inmate housing units and the law library.

F. PROTECTION
Prompt and effective intervention must be provided to victims of sexual assault/abuse. Staff shall take seriously all statements from inmates that they have been victims of sexual assaults and respond supportively and non-judgementally. Any inmate who alleges that he or she has been sexually assaulted, shall be offered immediate protection from the assailant, will be referred for a medical

PROGRAM COORDINATOR SPECIALTY TRAINING -SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION-

INSTRUCTOR GUIDE
examination from a certified medical professional, as well as to a mental health professional, for a clinical assessment of the potential for suicide or other symptomology.

INSTRUCTOR NOTES

G. CONFIDENTIALITY
Staff shall provide services and conduct investigations of sexual abuse/assault incidents, maintaining strict confidentiality for the staff member, and inmate victims. Information concerning the identity of an inmate victim reporting a sexual assault, and the facts of the report itself, shall be limited to those who have a "need to know" in order to make decisions concerning the inmate-victim's welfare and for law enforcement/investigative purposes.

H. VICTIM IDENTIFICATION
1. The following are primary ways staff learn that a sexual assault has occurred during confinement:
a. Staff discover an assault in progress. b. Victim reports an assault to a staff member. c. An assault is reported to staff by another
inmate, or is the subject of inmate rumors. d. Medical evidence.
While some victims will be clearly identified, most will probably not come forward directly with information about the event. In some circumstances, staff may hear of an inmate being threatened with sexual abuse/assault or rumored to be a victim. Some victims may be identified through unexplained injuries. changes in physical behavior due to injuries, or abrupt personality changes such as withdrawal or suicidal behavior.
2. The following guidelines may help staff in responding appropriately to a suspected victim:
a. The staff member who first identifies that an
10

For all staff Handout: Victim Identification
Intake screening now requests history of abuse/assault

PROGRAM COORDINATOR SPECIALTY TRAINING -SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION-

INSTRUCTOR GUIDE

INSTRUCTOR NOTES

assault may have occurred should refer the matter to the institution's Operations Lieutenant or SIS.

If it is suspected that the inmate was sexually assaulted, the inmate should be advised of the importance of getting help to deal with the assault, that he/she may be evaluated medically for sexually transmitted diseases and other injuries, and that trained staff are available to assist. The inmate must immediately be safeguarded and removedfromthe alleged staff or inmate perpetrator..

Appropriate staff should review the background of a suspected victim, and the circumstances surrounding the incident, without jeopardizing the inmate's safety, identity, and privacy. Inmate identity and background must be kept confidential and is limited to those with a need to know.

If staff discover an assault in progress, the suspected victim should be removed from the immediate area for care and for interviewing by appropriate staff.
If the suspected victim is fearful of being labeled an informer, the inmate should be advised that the identity of the assailant(s) is (are) not needed to receive assistance.

Discuss how victim may be traumatized and be unable to give much detail. There will be opportunities to secure more details later.

PROCEDURES FOR STAFF INTERVENTION
The following procedures may apply for reported or known victims of sexual assault. If the inmate was threatened with sexual assault or was assaulted on an earlier occasion, some
steps may not be necessary.

For all staff

11

PROGRAM COORDINATOR SPECIALTY TRAINING -SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION-

INSTRUCTOR GUIDE
1. Early Intervention Techniques a. It is important that all contact with a sexual assault victim be sensitive, supportive, and non-judgmental.

INSTRUCTOR NOTES
Handout: Early Intervention Techniques
Discuss how critical staff sensitivity is at this time.

b. It is not necessary to make a judgment about whether or not a sexual assault occurred.

c. Identify the inmate victim(s) and remove them from the immediate area;

d. To facilitate evidence collection, the victim should Qot shower, wash, drink, eat, defecate or change any clothing until examined.

e. Alert medical staff immediately and escort the victim to the Health Services Unit for a medical evaluation as soon as possible. If necessary, medical staff shall refer the victim to a local emergency facility.
f. Appropriate staff shall coordinate other services to do follow-up (e.g, housing, suicide assessment).

Medical exam and clinical assessment of potential for suicide or other related symptomology must be addressed. Staff must be sensitive to the family concerns of the inmate victim.

g. A brief statement about the assault should be obtained from the inmate. (The victim may be in shock, and unable to give much detail. It is important to be understanding and responsive. Opportunities to secure more details will occur later.)

h. Following medical evaluation/treatment, the victim may need to be reassigned to protective custody or to another secure area of the facility. Ensure that the alleged assailant(s) have no access to the area.
2. Collect Evidence from Victim
a. Use HIV infection precautions and procedures.

Discuss how appropriate staff will coordinate other ser% ices such as housing.
Refer to local polic>
For Correctional Services SIS staff

12

PROGRAM COORDINATOR SPECIALTY TRAINING -SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION-

INSTRUCTOR GUIDE
Contact medical staff to determine how to preserve medical indications of sexual assault. In the crime scene area, look for the presence of body fluids, pubic hair, or semen that can be used as evidence. For example, blankets and sheets should be collected.

INSTRUCTOR NOTES
Handout: Collect Evidence from Victim

b. Use standard evidence collection procedures (photographs, etc.) identified in the SIS Manual.

3. Collect Evidence from Assailant
a. Identify and isolate the assailant, pending further investigation.
b. Use the standard evidence gathering procedures identified in the SIS Manual.
c. Report the incident to the appropriate law enforcement agency.
d. If institution medical staff attempt to examine the alleged assailant, findings should be documented both photographically and in writing. A written summary of all medical evidence and findings should be completed and maintained in the inmate's medical record. Copies of this written summary should also be provided to the SIS and appropriate law enforcement officials.
J. MEDICAL ASSESSMENT OF VICTIM
1. If trained medical staff are available in the institution, render treatment locally whenever feasible.
2. If the alleged victim is examined in the institution (see the Health Services Manual, Sexual Assault) to determine the extent of injuries, all findings should be documented both photographically and in writing. An
13

For Correctional Seryices/SIS Stañ/Health Services staff Handout: Collect Evidence from Assailant
For Health Services staff Handout: Medical Assessment of Victim Refer to local policy which specifies the certification requirements for the jurisdiction in which your institution is

PROGRAM COORDINATOR SPECIALTY TRAINING -SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION-

INSTRUCTOR GUIDE
original Inmate Injury Assessment and Follow-up form (BP-S362) should be filed in the inmate's medical record. A copy of BP-S362 should be provided to the SIS or appropriate law enforcement official.

INSTRUCTOR NOTES
located and determine where and who will conduct the medical examination.

If deemed necessary by the examining physician, follow established procedures for use of outside medical consultants or for an escorted trip to an outside medical facility.

Notify staff at the community medical facility and alert them to the inmate's condition.

5. When necessary, conduct STD and HIV testing.

6. Refer the inmate for crisis counseling as appropriate.

K. MEDICAL TRANSFERS FOR EXAMINATION AND TREATMENT
1. If determined appropriate by the institution physician and if approved by the Warden or designee. the inmate may be examined by medical personnel from the community. A contractual arrangement may be developed with a rape crisis center or other medical service if available in the community' and should be utilized to enhance institution medical services as deemed appropriate by institution medical staff and the Warden. The contract should provide for clinical examination, for assessing physical injuries, and for the collection of any physical evidence of sexual assault. It should also allow for contract medical personnel to come into the institution and for the escorting of inmates to the contract facility (e.g., crisis care center, medical clinic, hospital, etc.).
2. Escorting staff should treat the victim in a supportive and non-judgmental way.
3. Information about the assault is confidential, and should be given only to those directly involved in the
14

For all staff and Correctional and Health Services staff
Handout: Medical Transfers for Examination and Treatment
Refer to local supplement

PROGRAM COORDINATOR SPECIALTY TRAINING -SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION-

INSTRUCTOR GUIDE

INSTRUCTOR NOTES

investigation and/or treatment of the victim.

L. MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES
Psychology Services or other mental health staff shall be notified immediately after the initial report of an allegation of sexual abuse/assault of an inmate.
Any alleged victim(s) shall be seen, within 24 hours following such notification, by a mental health clinician to provide crisis intervention and to assess any immediate and subsequent treatment needs.
The findings of this initial crisis/evaluation session shall be summarized in a written format within one week of the initial session and, once completed, shall be placed in the appropriate treatment record, with a copy provided to the Clinical Director and other staff responsible for oversight of sexual abuse/assault prevention and intervention procedures.
Additional psychological or psychiatric treatment, as well as continued assessment of mental health status and treatment needs, shall be provided as needed and only with the victim's full consent and collaboration. Decisions regarding the need for continued treatment and/or assessment shall be made by qualified clinicians according to established professional standards, and shall be made with an awareness that victim(s) of sexual abuse/assault commonly experience both immediate and delayed psychiatric and/or emotional symptoms.
If the victim(s) choose to continue to pursue treatment, the clinician will either provide appropriate treatment or facilitate referral of the victim(s) to the appropriate treatment option(s) including individual therapy, group therapy, further psychological assessment, assignment to a mental health case load and/or facility, referral to a psychiatrist, and/or other treatment options. Pending referral, mental health services shall continue unabated. If the victim(s) chooses to decline further

For Psychology Services Handout: Mental Health Services

PROGRAM COORDINATOR SPECIALTY TRAINING -SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION-

INSTRUCTOR GUIDE
treatment services, he or she shall be asked to sign a statement to that effect.

INSTRUCTOR NOTES

All treatment and evaluation sessions shall be properly documented and placed in the appropriate treatment record to ensure continuity of care within, between, or outside Bureau facilities.

Should the victim be released from custody during the course of treatment, the victim will be advised of community mental health resources in their release area.

M. INVESTIGATION
In any case of alleged, or suspected, sexual misconduct or sexual assault by a staff member, the Chief Executive Officer must be notified immediately and s/he must telephonically report the allegation to the Office of Internal Affairs (OIA). Even though OIG and/or the Civil Rights Division (CRD) will notify the FBI, to help expedite the investigative process, the Warden may also notify the FBI.
Remember, if you were the reporting staff member, to minimize your involvement in the investigation procedures you should not speak to other staff members concerning the allegation. Furthermore, you are obligated to maintain confidentiality of the allegations to protect both the staff member and the inmate.
1. Institution staff, i.e., SIA, SIS, or Executive Staff, will not investigate allegations of staff sexual misconduct and/or assault beyond interviewing the inmate victim to discern what happened and then report their findings to the Warden.
a. Statistics show this interview should ideally be conducted by a staff member who the inmate trusts, since more information could possibly be obtained. The Psychologist or Chaplain may be considered for this interview as they are
16

For all staff. Handouts: Investigations

PROGRAM COORDINATOR SPECIALTY TRAINING -SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION-

INSTRUCTOR GUIDE
frequently trusted by inmates. Staff should recognize that inmates do not always lie. All such incidents/allegations will be thoroughly investigated. The incident will be documented and maintained in the SIS file tracking systems. Ordinarily, the inmate will not be subject to disciplinary action, even if the allegation is not sustained. However, based on the outcome of the investigation, it is possible the inmate could be charged with a prohibited act, such as lying.

INSTRUCTOR NOTES

b. Statistics also indicate many female offenders have been victimized by men before coming to prison and some may prefer to talk to a female staff member rather than a male because of this prior trauma.

N. MONITORING AND FOLLOW-UP
1. Arrange with the unit team and Correctional Services to place the inmate in appropriate housing.
2. Monitor the physical and mental health of the victim and coordinate the continuation of necessary services.
3. Dispense medication, provide routine examinations and STD and HIV follow-up.
4. Conduct post-crisis counseling and arrange for psychiatric care if necessary.
5. Psychology staff should watch for reaction stages and provide support as needed during critical stages.
6. Determine the risk of keeping the victim at the same facility where the incident occurred.
O. RELEASE PREPARATION AND CONTINUING CARE
1. Psychology staff shall ordinarily determine the need for
17

For all staff and Psychology and Health Services staff Handout: Monitoring and Follow-up
For all staff and Psychology and Unit Management staff

PROGRAM COORDINATOR SPECIALTY TRAINING -SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION-

INSTRUCTOR GUIDE
aftercare and transitional treatment services, and notify the Case Manager of their recommendations.
2. The willingness of the victim to participate in treatment in the community should be determined.

INSTRUCTOR NOTES
Handout: Release Preparation and Continuing Care

3. For those cases that will use continuing care services, efforts to facilitate them should begin about 12 months prior to their release.

4. If CCC services are used, mental health counseling and other transitional services that facilitate the victim's healthy reintegration into the community and with the family may be necessary.

5. The responsibilities of the victim in the treatment process should be identified.
6. Arrangements should be made through the U.S. Probation Office for psychological, medical, or other support services in the victim's release district.

Refer to local procedures for specific follow-up procedures.

7. The victim should be encouraged to participate in support groups in the community.

P. AFTERMATH
Taking the proper steps after a reported incident of sexual assault/abuse is critical. As you can see, this issue is taken seriously and can lead to the prosecution, conviction and incarceration of staff. If staff feel the investigation process is a witch hunt, or they never hear of the results, problems can result.
Therefore, management has a responsibility to staff to take appropriate action when a staff member is accused of sexual misconduct or sexual assault. To protect all persons involved, institution staff must understand they will not be advised of the details of the case, or the outcome of the investigation, until such information is made a matter ofpublic record and is available to the general public.
18

Handout: Aftermath

PROGRAM COORDINATOR SPECIALTY TRAINING -SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION-

INSTRUCTOR GUIDE

INSTRUCTOR NOTES

After an incident of sexual misconduct, there is an aftermath that must be managed by staff at all levels. The following can
occur:
Polarization: staff take sides Placing blame on others Gossip and stories Heightened awareness and fear of maintaining professional, appropriate relationships with inmates Staff may want "witnesses" when talking to an inmate of the opposite gender ^ Thoughts about "what more could I have done?" Feelings of anger, guilt, betrayal

When backlash occurs, staff are frozen. Staff may feel a need to talk about their feelings and may seek out a trusted person, such as a psychologist, chaplain, supervisor, or executive staff member for further guidance
Discussion

Until a prosecution occurs, the information that is provided staff will be very limited and this could further serve to alienate staff. The information will be limited due to privacy issues and possible pending future legal actions.
IV. SUMMARY
We have talked today about the types of staff behaviors that are against the law and/or against the code of conduct as outlined by the Sexual Abuse/Assault Prevention Program. We have outlined the obligations of both staff and inmates in reporting inappropriate behavior, discussed possible staff reactions to an incident of this type, and have given you the appropriate steps to take if such an incident is alleged or known to have occurred.
In summary, ensuring your institution has an action plan in place to prevent sexual abuse/assaults between inmates, and between staff and inmates, and that staff understand the appropriate intervention to take when instances occur, is your responsibility as Program Coordinator. Ignoring the issue or inappropriate handling of an allegation may increase your risk of legal liability.

19

20

LESSON PLAN: TIME FRAME: PURPOSE:
OBJECTIVES:

SPECIALIZED TRAINING SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION
General Training for GS-09 and Above Staff
2 Hours
To provide guidelines for staff at the mid management and management levels to better understand local procedures for preventing sexual abuse/assault, intervening when sexual assaults occur by addressing the safety and treatment needs of inmate victims, investigating allegations of sexual assault, and disciplining/prosecuting perpetrators of sexual abuse/assault.

At the end of this session each staff member will be able to:

A.

List the key aspects of the Sexual Abuse/Assault Prevention

and Intervention Program.

B.

State staff and supervisory intervention strategies to minimize

instances of inappropriate staff/inmate relationships.

C.

State the identification and referral process when an alleged

staff/inmate sexual assault occurs.

STUDENT MATERIALS: INSTRUCTOR MATERIALS:
REFERENCES:
CLASS SIZE: INSTRUCTOR:
COORDINATED AND DEVELOPED BY: APPROVED BY:

Handouts
Lesson Plan Briefing Materials from NIC Flipchart
Program Statement, 5324.04, Sexual Abuse/Assault Prevention and Intervention Program and corresponding institution supplement Program Statement 3420.08, Standards of Employee Conduct.
No more than IS participants A staff member who is recognized as a good communicator, serves in a managerial role, and whose experience demonstrates an understanding of the Sexual Abuse/Assault Intervention and Prevention Program.
Teresa Hunt Katsel, Central Office Gloria Lucero, MSTC
Dennis R. Bidwell, Senior Deputy Assistant Director Correctional Programs Division

GENERAL SPECIALTY TRAINING FOR GS 9 AND ABOVE STAFF -SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION-

INSTRUCTOR GUIDE

INSTRUCTOR NOTES

I. INTRODUCTION
The sexual abuse of inmates has been identified across correctional systems as a major correctional management issue of the 1990'.s. A coordinated strategy that involves law and policy development, training of prisoners and correctional staff, and public education is being examined and pursued by most states. A federal law, the Sexual Abuse Act of 1986 (18 U.S.C. 2242-44) provides severe penalties for sexual abuse of inmates. If the abuse involves coercion, it is usually presented as a felony offense. The maximum penalty for an offense of this type is life in prison. If the abuse does not involve coercion, it is usually prosecuted as a misdemeanor. The penalties for this type of offense are still severe. Incidentally, there is no such thing as "consensual sex." In 1990, only 17 states and the federal government had laws prohibiting the sexual abuse of inmates. Today, sexual misconduct has been recognized as a national issue, and:
• 35 states, the District of Columbia, and the federal government have laws that specifically criminalizing sexual abuse in prisons.
• 28 states and the District of Columbia define sexual misconduct in prisons as a felony.
• 4 states define sexual misconduct in prisons as a misdemeanor. • 3 states and the federal government define sexual misconduct in
prisons as either a felony or a misdemeanor depending on the nature and severity of the assault. • 3 states criminalize the conduct of both the prisoner and the corrections employee in "consensual" cases of sexual misconduct. • 13 states and the District of Columbia specifically provide that even if a prisoner "consents:" to or voluntarily engages in sex with a corrections staff person, the staff member is criminally liable. • 9 states, the District of Columbia and federal government provide that marriage is a defense to a charge of sexual misconduct. • 15 states have no laws criminalizing sexual misconduct in prisons.

Handout - 50 State Survey

The National Institute of Corrections (NIC), (the component of the BOP which provides direct assistance to states and local correctional systems), has been pro active and responsive in providing direct technical assistance to states who have experienced instances of sexual misconduct. NIC has worked directly with 24 states and the BOP in developing action plans to provide remedies for correctional systems in responding to the issue of sexual misconduct.

The BOP has a zero tolerance stance regarding inappropriate conduct between staff and inmates, particularly that of a sexual nature. There are currently 30,000 employees who work for the BOP. There were 15 cases sustained against BOP staff for sexual abuse of an inmate in 1997. With zero tolerance, the BOP strives to prosecute any instance of sexual misconduct and obtained 8 prosecutions in 1997. The BOP has very clear policy and training programs for staff and inmates.

The BOP increased its focus on the issue of sexual abuse of inmates in July of 1996 after several incidents occurred at a facility for female offenders. The BOP, with assistance from the National Institute of Corrections (NIC), conducted focus groups with staff and inmates at four facilities to assess staff attitudes toward women offenders, BOP philosophy on the management offemale offenders and training needs. Issues were identified and presented to a BOP Workgroup who formulated recommendations for refining BOP policy and training which were approved by the Executive Staff in December of 1996. Objectives and action steps were identified and target dates established for implementation beginning in April of 1997.

In December of 1997, the revised Program Statement entitled Sexual

Abuse/Assault Prevention and Intervention Program was issued and

included for the first time discussion of the protocol to follow to

ensure:

•

effective procedures to prevent sexually assaultive behavior

will be operative in each Bureau institution

•

medical, psychological, safety, and social needs ofvictims will

be promptly and effectively met

•

all allegations of sexual abuse/assault will be promptly and

effectively reported and investigated

an, assailants, once identified, will be controlled, disciplined,

and/or prosecuted

All staff received training on Sexual Misconduct, Sexual Assault Prevention and Intervention during Annual Refresher Training in 1998, and new employees received training beginning in March of 1998 as part of their basic training at the Staff Training Academy at Glynco. Specialized training has been developed for staff who have been appointed by the Warden [herein after referred to as Program

Handout: "Assumptions" from NIC
Handout: BOP cases Eleven of those cases involved male staff and female inmates, three involved female staff and male inmates and one case involved a female staff and a female inmate. Discuss cases and how the dynamics between male staff and female inmates, male staff and male inmates, female staff and male inmates, and female staff and female inmates differ.
Handout - Program Statement 5324.4, Sexual Abuse/Assault Prevention and Intervention Program

GENERAL SPECIALTY TRAINING FOR GS 9 AND ABOVE STAFF -SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION-

INSTRUCTOR GUIDE
Coordinators] to ensure that all elements of the program statement are met in a coordinated, interdisciplinary fashion to include:

INSTRUCTOR NOTES

•

educating and training staff and inmates

•

safeguarding, assessing, treating, and managing sexually

assaulted inmates

•

investigating disciplining, and/or prosecuting perpetrators of

sexual assault

Specialty training has also been developed for medical and mental health staff, correctional supervisors (lieutenants), and other staff who are at the GS9 and above level to ensure ail staff with management responsibilities are aware of their responsibilities in preventing sexual abuse/assault and intervening appropriately when allegations are brought to their attention by inmates.

In the near future, each institution will begin providing training for inmates on sexual abuse/assault prevention and intervention. Therefore, it is very important that staff at the GS9 and above level understand the dynamics involved, as you may be required to manage a situation when you are duty officer, and at a minimum, you must be aware of the appropriate intervention to take if staff or inmates report that sexual abuse/assault has occurred between inamtes, or between staff and an inmate. This training module is to be completed by the all staff at the GS 9 and above level.

II. OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this training is to ensure Program Coordinators are aware of behaviors that constitute sexual abuse, sexual assault, or sexual misconduct, as defined by Bureau of Prisons policy and the law. As Program Coordinators, you are the local expert on this issue and should be very familiar with:

•

the key aspects of the Sexual Assault/Prevention and

Intervention Program Statement.

•

effective intervention procedures to prevent sexually assaultive

behaviors.

•

methods to meet the medical, psychological, safety, and social

needs of victims of sexual assault.

Handout: Objectives

GENERAL SPECIALTY TRAINING FOR GS 9 AND ABOVE STAFF -SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION-

INSTRUCTOR GUIDE

INSTRUCTOR NOTES

III. LESSON PLAN
A. DEFINITIONS
The Program Statement on Sexual Abuse/Assault Prevention and Intervention Program defines two types of sexual assault and the Employee Standards ofConduct describes prohibited sexual behavior:
1. Inmate on inmate sexual abuse/assault: One or more inmates engaging in, or attempting to engage in a sexual act with another inmate or the use of threats, intimidation, inappropriate touching, or other actions and/or communications by one or more inmates aimed at coercing and/or pressuring another inmate to engage in a sexual act. Sexual acts or contacts between inmates, even when no objections are raised, are prohibited.
2. Staff on inmate sexual abuse/assault: Engaging in, or attempting to engage in a sexual act with any inmate. The intentional touching of an inmate's genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks with the intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, arouse, or gratify the sexual desire of any person. Sexual acts or contacts between an inmate and a staff member, even when no objections are raised, are always illegal.
3. From the Employee Standards of Conduct
Staff-on-inmate sexual behavior that does not rise to the level of a criminal violation is covered by the Employee Standards of Conduct which states "an employee may not engage in, or allow another person to engage in sexual behavior with an inmate."
Employees are subject to administrative action, up to and including removal, for any inappropriate contact or relationship with inmates, regardless of whether such contact constitutes a prosecutable crime. Physical contact is not required to subject an employee to sanctions for sexual misconduct.

Handout: Definitions
This type of behavior includes, and is not limited to, indecent, profane or abuse language or gestures, and inappropriate visual surveillance of inmates. Emphasize these actions which are more passive in nature are not specifically covered by the sexual abuse statute, but are still wrong, harassing in nature, and prohibited by the Employee Standards of conduct.

GENERAL SPECIALTY TRAINING FOR GS 9 AND ABOVE STAFF -SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION-

INSTRUCTOR GUIDE
Staff must understand they are obligated by the Standards of Conduct to report any allegation of sexual assault/abuse by other inmates or staff.

INSTRUCTOR NOTES

B. INDICATORS OF INAPPROPRIATE STAFF/INMATE
RELATIONSHIPS

There are several warning signs/indicators that may let staff/supervisors know when someone may be involved in an inappropriate relationship with an inmate:

•

spending too much time with one inmate

•

exchange of personal items, notes, letters

•

playing favorites

•

idle conversation referring to relationships

•

attempts by inmates' family/friends to contact a staff

member

•

unusual personal inquiries about an inmate

•

unexplained gestures or body language between

inmates and staff

•

accessing inmate living areas after regular work hours

Discussion: Ask for other examples.

C. MANAGERIAL INTERVENTIONS

As most of you are first line supervisors, you are responsible for assisting your Executive Staff in creating an environment that helps prevent staff involvement in inappropriate inmate relationships. The BOP also has a zero tolerance stance toward sexual harassment of staff. Now, how do the two relate? Maintaining professional relationships and appropriate boundaries with other staff and inmates is imperative when working in corrections. When staff are interacting inappropriately with each other, it is usually an indicator they are acting inappropriately with inmates.

•

Does your institution culture promote overall human

dignity that serve both staff and inmates?

•

Have there been instances where violation of staff-

offender boundaries have occurred?

GENERAL SPECIALTY TRAINING FOR GS 9 AND ABOVE STAFF -SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION-

INSTRUCTOR GUIDE

•

Does your institution have programs in place for staff

and inmates to develop more positive relationships

with others?

INSTRUCTOR NOTES

Do staff know who to contact if they feel a relationship established with a co-worker or inmates has become too informal and uncomfortable?

1. What interventions are available at your facility, and are staff aware of them? The following are some examples:

a. Have you publicized the accessibility to support programs - local EAP and those in the community (nocost and confidential)? This may divert employees who are encountering difficulties with their personal/family life from becoming involved with inmates.

This assistance through EAP is confidential and no-cost

b. Have you enhanced the surveillance process by installing video recording devices in SHU, remote areas of the institution, and female housing units? Has telephone monitoring been considered? This may not only detect misconduct, but it may also protect staff from false allegations.

c. Have windows been installed in office and closet doors?

d. Are the inmates kept busy? Idleness creates problems.

e. Has this issue been discussed with the union?

f. Have you ensured that staff understand their responsibility for ensuring confidentiality is maintained as instances of inappropriate staff-inmate relationships are reported and investigated?
g. Are staff aware it is against the code of conduct to retaliate against staff or inmates who make allegations of sexual abuse/assault?

Privacy for staff and inmates must be preserved throughout the investigation.
Instances of retaliation must be reported.

GENERAL SPECIALTY TRAINING FOR GS 9 AND ABOVE STAFF -SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION-

INSTRUCTOR GUIDE
h. It is every supervisor's responsibility to exercise proper supervision over staff and inmates, to take corrective action when warranted, and guard against retaliation by either staff or inmates.

INSTRUCTOR NOTES

Is there a clear action plan established for dealing with employees when allegations of sexual abuse/assault have been made?
Is there a plan to provide on-going training for all staff in the institution on what to do if they become inappropriately involved with an inmate, or what their responsibilities are if they become aware, or witness another staff member becoming inappropriately involved with an inmate?

Your Warden will consult with your Regional Director to consider the options, e.g., home duty status or assignment to posts/shifts which keep them separated from the accusing inmate or staff member.
AH staff should have been trained at ART 1998,. or at Glynco STA, beginning in March of 1998; specialized training is held for Program Coordinator, GS9 and above staff, Lieutenants, Health Services and Mental Health staff and is required for all incumbents within 120 days of appointment in any of the previously described positions, as outlined in the EDM Manual

k. Supervisors must ensure staff understand it is against the code of conduct to not come forward and report occurrences of sexual abuse/assault. Staff must make their report to a supervisor and must be clear that by following the appropriate procedures they are not rumor mongering or gossiping.
2. Ensure institution supervisors are creating an environment that provides interventions for staff by:
a. Rotation of inmate workers on work details in remote or isolated locations.
b. Consistent discipline of violators.
c. Acknowledging the problem and not ignoring inappropriate behavior based on someone's age or position in the department.

Recognize that where the work environment is coercive or repressive, there will be a fear to bring forward complaints.
Check all details for longevity of inmates assigned

GENERAL SPECIALTY TRAINING FOR GS 9 AND ABOVE STAFF -SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION-

INSTRUCTOR GUIDE
d. Avoiding enabling behaviors which removes or cushions an employee from the consequences of their action.

INSTRUCTOR NOTES

e. Correcting staff who show signs of inappropriate relationships with inmates and taking action as early as possible; ensuring that every complaint is taken seriously.

f. Knowing the inmates.

g. Watching for staff who withdraw from the administration, or who come to work on off days, or arrive early and leave late.

h. Maintaining high visibility and managing by walking around.

D. PROGRAM COORDINATION

Managing sexual misconduct requires an interdisciplinary approach. Each institution should have a local institution supplement, approved by the Regional Director, that outlines their procedures and staff responsibilities for sexual abuse/assault intervention.

Preventing sexual assault, intervening when sexual assaults do occur, investigating allegations of sexual assault, and disciplining/prosecuting perpetrators of sexual assault/abuse involves the coordinated efforts of several institution departments.

•

Correctional Services: influences the culture of the institution

environment; manages protection and investigation

•

Psychology Services: provides clinical assessment of

psychological trauma and provides mental health aftercare and

treatment plan

•

Health Services: provides initial clinical assessment and

treatment of physical trauma; certified medical professionals

gather evidence

•

Legal: manages case once referred for prosecution

Discuss roles of each member (see policy) and local institution supplement which outlines their responsibilities.
Specialized training for these staff has been developed!

GENERAL SPECIALTY TRAINING FOR GS 9 AND ABOVE STAFF -SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION-

INSTRUCTOR GUIDE

INSTRUCTOR NOTES

•

Unit Management: manages all inmate movement to include

release

•

Religious Services: provides spiritual assistance to traumatized

inmate victims

Ordinarily an Associate Warden has overall responsibility for ensuring the program requirements are met.

E. INMATE EDUCATION

As part ofthe institution's Admission and Orientation Program, a staff member, designated by the Warden shall include a brief, candid presentation about the Sexual Abuse/Assault Prevention and Intervention Program that includes:

1. How inmates can protect themselves from becoming victims while incarcerated,

2. Treatment options available to victims of sexual assault, and

3. Methods of reporting incidents of sexual abuse/assault
The presentation also includes information on services and programs available for victims of sexual abuse/assault and for sexually assaultive or aggressive inmates. Each inmate will also receive a brochure summarizing key elements.
Inmates who do not participate in the formal A&O program (e.g., inmates in the hospital or SHU units, or pre-trial and/or detention units), will be provided with the pamphlet. Posters will be placed in the inmate housing units and the law library.

Discuss how to file an administrative remedy directly to the Regional Office when the issue is considered sensitive in accordance with the program statement, Administrative Remedy Program must be emphasized. Also discuss method inmates can report to Office of Inspector General. Inmates are also advised they are obligated to report such incidents.

F. PROTECTION
Prompt and effective intervention must be provided to victims of sexual assault/abuse. Staff shall take seriously all statements from inmates that they have been victims of sexual assaults and respond supportively and non-judgementally. Any inmate who alleges that he or she has been sexually assaulted, shall be offered immediate protection from the assailant, will be referred for a medical

GENERAL SPECIALTY TRAINING FOR GS 9 AND ABOVE STAFF -SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION-

INSTRUCTOR GUIDE

INSTRUCTOR NOTES

examination from a certified medical professional, as well as to a mental health professional, for a clinical assessment of the potential for suicide or other symptomology.

G. CONFIDENTIALITY
Staff shall provide services and conduct investigations of sexual abuse/assault incidents, maintaining strict confidentiality for the staff member, and inmate victims. Information concerning the identity of an inmate victim reporting a sexual assault, and the facts of the report itself, shall be limited to those who have a "need to know" in order to make decisions concerning the inmate-victim's welfare and for law enforcemerit/investigative purposes.

H. VICTIM IDENTIFICATION
The following are primary ways staff learn that a sexual assault has occurred during confinement:
a. Staff discover an assault in progress. b. Victim reports an assault to a staff member. c. An assault is reported to staff by another
inmate, or is the subject of inmate rumors. d. Medical evidence.
While some victims will be clearly identified, most will probably not come forward directly with information about the event. In some circumstances, staff may hear of an inmate being threatened with sexual abuse/assault or rumored to be a victim. Some victims may be identified through unexplained injuries, changes in physical behavior due to injuries, or abrupt personality changes such as withdrawal or suicidal behavior.
The following guidelines may help staff in responding appropriately to a suspected victim:
a. The staff member who first identifies that an
10

For all staff Handout: Victim Identification
Intake screening now requests history of abuse/assault

GENERAL SPECIALTY TRAINING FOR GS 9 AND ABOVE STAFF -SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION-

INSTRUCTOR GUIDE

INSTRUCTOR NOTES

assault may have occurred should refer the matter to the institution's Operations Lieutenant or SIS.

b. If it is suspected that the inmate was sexually assaulted, the inmate should be advised of the importance of getting help to deal with the assault, that he/she may be evaluated medically for sexually transmitted diseases and other injuries, and that trained staff are available to assist. The inmate must immediately be safeguarded and removedfromthe alleged staff or inmate perpetrator..

c. Appropriate staff should review the background of a suspected victim, and the circumstances surrounding the incident, without jeopardizing the inmate's safety, identity, and privacy. Inmate identity and background must be kept confidential and is limited to those with a need to know.

d. If staff discover an assault in progress, the suspected victim should be removed from the immediate area for care and for interviewing by appropriate staff.
e. If the suspected victim is fearful of being labeled an informer, the inmate should be advised that the identity of the assailant(s) is (are) not needed to receive assistance.

Discuss how victim may be traumatized and be unable to give much detail. There will be opportunities to secure more details later.

PROCEDURES FOR STAFF INTERVENTION
The following procedures may apply for reported or known victims of sexual assault. If the inmate was threatened with sexual assault or was assaulted on an earlier occasion, some steps may not be necessary.
1. Early Intervention Techniques
11

For all staff

GENERAL SPECIALTY TRAINING FOR GS 9 AND ABOVE STAFF -SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION-

INSTRUCTOR GUIDE
It is important that all contact with a sexual assault victim be sensitive, supportive, and non-j udgmental.

INSTRUCTOR NOTES
Handout: Early Intervention Techniques

b. It is not necessary to make a judgment .about whether or not a sexual assault occurred.

Discuss how critical staff sensitivity is at this time.

c. Identify the inmate victim(s) and remove them from the immediate area;

d. To facilitate evidence collection, the victim should not shower, wash, drink, eat, defecate or change any clothing until examined.

e. Alert medical staff immediately and escort the victim to the Health Services Unit for a medical evaluation as soon as possible. If necessary, medical staff shall refer the victim to a local emergency facility.
Appropriate staff shall coordinate other services to do follow-up (e.g, housing, suicide assessment).

Medical exam and ¯ clinical assessment of potential for suicide or other related symptomology must be addressed. Staff must be sensitive to the family concerns of the inmate victim.

A brief statement about the assault should be obtained from the inmate. (The victim may be in shock, and unable to give much detail. It is important to be understanding and responsive. Opportunities to secure more details will occur later.)

Following medical evaluation/treatment, the victim may need to be reassigned to protective custody or to another secure area of the facility. Ensure that the alleged assailant(s) have no access to the area.

Discuss how appropriate staff will coordinate other services such as housing.
Refer to local policy.

J. INVESTIGATION In any case of alleged, or suspected, sexual misconduct or sexual assault by a staff member, the Chief Executive Officer
12

For all staff
Staff need to be familiar with the process.

GENERAL SPECIALTY TRAINING FOR GS 9 AND ABOVE STAFF -SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION-

INSTRUCTOR GUIDE

INSTRUCTOR NOTES

must be notified immediately and s/he must telephonically report the allegation to the Office of Internal Affairs (OIA). Even though OIG and/or the Civil Rights Division (CRD) will notify the FBI, to help expedite the investigative process, the Warden may also notify the FBI.

Handout: Investigations

Remember, if you were the reporting staff member, to minimize your involvement in the investigation procedures you should not speak to other staff members concerning the allegation. Furthermore, you are obligated to maintain confidentiality of the allegations to protect both the staff member and the inmate.

1. Institution staff, i.e., SIA, SIS, or Executive Staff, will not investigate allegations of staff sexual misconduct and/or assault beyond interviewing the inmate victim to discern what happened and then report their findings to the Warden.

a. Statistics show this interview should ideally be conducted by a staff member who the inmate trusts, since more information could possibly be obtained. The Psychologist or Chaplain may be considered for this interview as they are frequently trusted by inmates. Staff should recognize that inmates do not always lie. All such incidents/allegations will be thoroughly investigated. The incident will be documented and maintained in the SISfiletracking systems. Ordinarily, the inmate will not be subject to disciplinary action, even if the allegation is not sustained. However, based on the outcome of the investigation, it is possible the inmate could be charged with a prohibited act, such as lying.

b. Statistics also indicate many female offenders have been victimized by men before coming to prison and some may prefer to talk to a female staff member rather than a male because of this prior trauma.

13

GENERAL SPECIALTY TRAINING FOR GS 9 AND ABOVE STAFF -SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION-

INSTRUCTOR GUIDE

INSTRUCTOR NOTES

K. MEDICAL TRANSFERS FOR EXAMINATION AND
TREATMENT
1. If determined appropriate by the institution physician and if approved by the Warden or designee, the inmate may be examined by medical personnel from the community. A contractual arrangement may be developed with a rape crisis center or other medical service if available in the community and should be utilized to enhance institution medical services as deemed appropriate by institution medical staff and the Warden. The contract should provide for clinical examination, for assessing physical injuries, and for the collection of any physical evidence of sexual assault. It should also allow for contract medical personnel to come into the institution and for the escorting of inmates to the contract facility (e.g., crisis care center, medical clinic, hospital, etc.).

For all stafrf and Correctional and Health Services staff
Handout: Medical Transfers for Examination and Treatment
Refer to local supplement

2. Escorting staff should treat the victim in a supportive and non-judgmental way.

3. Information about the assault is confidential, and should be given only to those directly involved in the investigation and/or treatment of the victim.

L. MONITORING AND FOLLOW-UP
1. Arrange with the unit team and Correctional Services to place the inmate in appropriate housing.
2. Monitor the physical and mental health of the victim and coordinate the continuation of necessary services.
3. Dispense medication, provide routine examinations and STD and HIV follow-up.
4. Conduct post-crisis counseling and arrange for psychiatric care if necessary.
5. Psychology staff should watch for reaction stages and provide support as needed during critical stages.
14

For all staff and Psychology and Health Services staff
Handout: Monitoring and Follow-up

GENERAL SPECIALTY TRAINING FOR GS 9 AND ABOVE STAFF -SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION-

INSTRUCTOR GUIDE

INSTRUCTOR NOTES

6. Determine the risk of keeping the victim at the same facility where the incident occurred.
M. RELEASE PREPARATION AND CONTINUING CARE
1. Psychology staff shall ordinarily determine the need for aftercare and transitional treatment services, and notify the Case Manager of their recommendations.
2. The willingness of the victim to participate in treatment in the community should be determined.
3. For those cases that will use continuing care services, efforts to facilitate them should begin about 12 months prior to their release.
4. If CCC services are used, mental health counseling and other transitional services that facilitate the victim's healthy reintegration into the community and with the family may be necessary.
5. The responsibilities of the victim in the treatment process should be identified.
6. Arrangements should be made through the U.S. Probation Office for psychological, medical, or other support services in the victim's release district.
7. The victim should be encouraged to participate in support groups in the community.

For all staff and Psychology and Unit Management staff Handout: Release Preparation and Continuing Care
Refer to local procedures for specific follow-up procedures.

N. AFTERMATH
Taking the proper steps after a reported incident of sexual assault/abuse is crunderl. As you can see, this issue is taken seriously and can lead to the prosecution, conviction and incarceration of staff. If staff feel the investigation process is a witch hunt, or they never hear of the results, problems can result.
15

For all staff
Handout: Aftermath
When backlash occurs, staff are frozen. Staff may feel a need to talk about their feelings and may

GENERAL SPECIALTY TRAINING FOR GS 9 AND ABOVE STAFF -SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION-

INSTRUCTOR GUIDE
Therefore, management has a responsibility to staff to take appropriate action when a staff member is accused of sexual misconduct or sexual assault. To protect all persons investigation, until such information is made a matter of public record and is available to the general public.
After an incident of sexual misconduct, there is an aftermath that must be managed by staff at all levels. The following can occur:

INSTRUCTOR NOTES
seek out a trusted person, such as
a psychologist, chaplain, supervisor, or executive staff member for further guidance
Discussion

Polarization: staff take sides Placing blame on others Gossip and stories Heightened awareness and fear of maintaining professional, appropriate relationships with inmates Staff may want "witnesses" when talking to an inmate of the opposite gender Thoughts about "what more could I have done?" Feelings of anger, guilt, betrayal

Until a prosecution occurs, the information that is provided staff will be very limited and this could further serve to alienate staff. The information will be limited due to privacy issues and possible pending future legal actions.
IV. SUMMARY
We have talked today about the types of staff behaviors that are against the law and/or against the code of conduct as outlined by the Sexual Abuse/Assault Prevention Program. We have outlined the obligations of both staff and inmates in reporting inappropriate behavior, discussed possible staff reactions to an incident of this type, and have given you the appropriate steps to take if such an incident is alleged or known to have occurred.
In summary, ensuring you understand the critical role all staff have in preventing sexual abuse/assaults between inmates, and between staff and inmates, and in taking the appropriate intervention when instances occur. Ignoring the issue or inappropriate handling of an allegation may increase your risk of legal liability.

16

LESSON PLAN: TIME FRAME: PURPOSE:
OBJECTIVES:

SPECIALIZED TRAINING SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION

Lieutenants Training 2 Hours minimum

To provide guidelines for supervisory correctional services staff to better understand local procedures for preventing sexual abuse/assault, intervening when sexual assaults occur by addressing the safety and treatment needs of inmate victims, investigating allegations of sexual assault, and disciplining/prosecuting perpetrators of sexual abuse/assault.

At the end of this session each staff member will be able to:

A

List the key aspects of the Sexual Abuse/Assault Prevention

and Intervention Program.

B

State staff and supervisory intervention strategies to minimize

instances of inappropriate staff/inmate relationships

C.

State the identification and referral process when an alleged

staff/inmate sexual assault occurs.

D.

State why the lieutenants leadership role is critical in

managing the culture of the institution, and in the prevention

and intervention of Sexual Abuse and Assault.

STUDENT MATERIALS:
INSTRUCTOR MATERIALS:
REFERENCES:
CLASS SIZE: INSTRUCTOR:
COORDINATED AND DEVELOPED BY: APPROVED BY:

Handouts
Lesson Plan Briefing Materials from NIC Flipchart
Program Statement. 5324.04. Sexual Abuse/Assault Prevention and Intervention Program Program Statement 3420.08. Standards of Employee Conduct.
No more than IS participants
A staff member who is recognized as a good communicator, serves in a managerial role, and whose experience demonstrates an understanding of the Sexual Abuse/Assault Intervention and Prevention Program.
Teresa Hunt Katsel. Central Office Gloria Lucero. MSTC
Scott Dodnll. Administrator Correctional Services. Central Office

LIEUTENANTS SPECIALTY TRAINING -SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION-

INSTRUCTOR GUIDE

I. INTRODUCTION

The sexual abuse of inmates has been identified across correctional systems as a major correctional management issue of the 1990's. A

coordinated strategy that involves law and policy development,

training of prisoners and correctional staff, and public education is

being examined and pursued by most states. A federal law, the Sexual

Abuse Act of 1986 (18 U.S.C. 2242-44) provides severe penalties for

sexual abuse of inmates. If the abuse involves coercion, it is usually

presented as a felony offense. The maximum penalty for an offense of this type is life in prison. If the abuse does not involve coercion, it is

usually prosecuted as a misdemeanor. The penalties for this type of offense are still severe. Incidentally, there is no such thing as

"consensual sex." In 1990, only 17 states and the federal government

had laws prohibiting the sexual abuse of inmates. Today, sexual

misconduct has been recognized as a national issue, and:

•

35 states, the District of Columbia, and the federal government

have laws that specifically criminalizing sexual abuse in

prisons.

•

28 states and the District of Columbia define sexual

misconduct in prisons as a felony.

• 4 states define sexual misconduct in prisons as a misdemeanor. 3 states and the federal government define sexual misconduct

in prisons as either a felony or a misdemeanor depending on the nature and severity of the assault.

• 3 states criminalize the conduct of both the prisoner and the

corrections employee in "consensual" cases of sexual

misconduct.

•

13 states and the District of Columbia specifically provide that

even if a prisoner "consents:" to or voluntarily engages in sex

with a corrections staff person, the staff member is criminally liable.

• 9 states, the District of Columbia and federal government provide that marriage is a defense to a charge of sexual

misconduct.

•

15 states have no laws criminalizing sexual misconduct in

prisons.

INSTRUCTOR NOTES
Handout: 50 State Survey

The National Institute of Corrections (NIC), (the component of the BOP which provides direct assistance to states and local correctional systems), has been pro active and responsive in providing direct

Handout: Assumptions from NIC

LIEUTENANTS SPECIALTY TRAINING
-SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION-

INSTRUCTOR GUIDE
technical assistance to states who have experienced instances of sexual misconduct. NIC has worked directly with 24 states and the BOP in developing action plans to provide remedies for correctional systems in responding to the issue of sexual misconduct.

INSTRUCTOR NOTES

The BOP has a zero tolerance stance regarding inappropriate conduct between staff and inmates, particularly that of a sexual nature. There are currently 30,000 employees who work for the BOP. There were 15 cases sustained against BOP staff for sexual abuse of an inmate in 1997. With zero tolerance, the BOP strives to prosecute any instance of sexual misconduct and obtained 8 prosecutions in 1997. The BOP has very clear policy and training programs for staff and inmates.
The BOP increased its focus on the issue of sexual abuse of inmates in July of 1996 after several incidents occurred at a facility for female offenders. The BOP, with assistance from the National Institute of Corrections (NIC), conducted focus groups with staff and inmates at four facilities to assess staff attitudes toward women offenders, BOP philosophy on the management of female offenders and training needs. Issues were identified and presented to a BOP Workgroup who formulated recommendations for refining BOP policy and training which were approved by the Executive Staff in December of 1996. Objectives and action steps were identified and target dates established for implementation beginning in April of 1997.

Handout: BOP Cases
Eleven of those cases involved male staff and female inmates, three involved female staff and male inmates and one case involved female staff and a female inmate. Two of these cases involved contract male staff and' female inmates and two involved female contract staff, one with a male inmate and one with a female inmate.

In December of 1997, the revised Program Statement entitled Sexual

Abuse/Assault Prevention and Intervention Program was issued and

included for the first time discussion of the protocol to follow to ensure:

•

effective procedures to prevent sexually assaultive behavior will

be operative in each Bureau institution

•

medical, psychological, safety, and social needs ofvictims will be

promptly and effectively met

•

all allegations of sexual abuse/assault will be promptly and

effectively reported and investigated

•

an, assailants, once identified, will be controlled, disciplined,

and/or prosecuted

Handout: Program Statement 5324.04, Sexual Abuse/ Assault Prevention and Intervention Program

All staff received training on Sexual Misconduct, Sexual Assault Prevention and Intervention during Annual Refresher Training in 1998, and new employees received training beginning in March of 1998 as part of their basic training at the Staff Training Academy at Glynco. Specialized training has been developed for staff who have been appointed by the Warden [herein after referred to as Program

LIEUTENANTS SPECIALTY TRAINING
-SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION-

INSTRUCTOR GUIDE
Coordinators] to ensure that all elements of the program statement are met in a coordinated, interdisciplinary fashion to include:

•

educating and training staff and inmates

safeguarding, assessing, treating, and managing sexually assaulted

inmates

•

investigating disciplining, and/or prosecuting perpetrators of

sexual assault

Specialty training has also been developed for medical and mental health staff, correctional supervisors (lieutenants), and other staff who are at the GS9 and above level to ensure all staff withjnanagement responsibilities are aware of their responsibilities in preventing sexual abuse/assault and intervening appropriately when allegations are brought to their attention by inmates.

In the near future, each institution will begin providing training for inmates on sexual abuse/assault prevention and intervention. Therefore, it is very important that Lieutenants understand the dynamics involved in managing sexual abuse/assault and misconduct. Lieutenants are perhaps the most influential group of supervisors in an institution. They set the tone for the vast majority of the institution workforce, who are the correctional officers they supervise. But even more importantly, Lieutenants are the supervisory contact for staff or inmates who need assistance at any time ofthe day. It is critical that Lieutenants understand and appreciate the tremendous influence they have on the institution culture. Their role in managing an incident of sexual abuse/asšault and understanding the roles of the other staff involved cannot be over emphasized.

INSTRUCTOR NOTES

II. OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this training is to ensure Lieutenants are aware of behaviors that constitute sexual abuse, sexual assault, or sexual misconduct, as defined by Bureau of Prisons policy and the law. As supervisors, you should be familiar with:

•

the key aspects ofthe Sexual Assault/Prevention and Intervention

Program Statement.

•

effective staff/supervisory procedures to prevent sexually

assaultive behaviors.

Handout: Objectives

LIEUTENANTS SPECIALTY TRAINING
-SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION-

INSTRUCTOR GUIDE

•

effective methods to meet the medical, psychological, safety and

social needs of victims of sexual assault.

INSTRUCTOR NOTES

III. LESSON PLAN

A. DEFINITIONS

The Program Statement on Sexual Abuse/Assault Prevention and Intervention Program defines two types of sexual assault and the Employee Standards of Conduct describes prohibited sexual behavior:

Handout: Definitions

1. Inmate on inmate sexual abuse/assault: One or more inmates engaging in, or attempting to engage in a sexual act with another inmate or the use ofthreats, intimidation, inappropriate touching, or other actions and/or communications by one or more inmates aimed at coercing and/or pressuring another inmate to engage in a sexual act. Sexual acts or contacts between inmates, even when no objections are raised, are prohibited.

2. Staff on inmate sexual abuse/assault: Engaging in, or attempting to engage in a sexual act with any inmate. The intentional touching of an inmate's genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks with the intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, arouse, or gratify the sexual desire of any person. Sexual acts or contacts between an inmate and a staff member, even when no objections are raised, are always illegal.

3. From the Employee Standards of Conduct

Staff-on-inmate sexual behavior that does not rise to the level of a criminal violation is covered by the Employee Standards of Conduct which states "an employee may not engage in, or allow another person to engage in sexual behavior with an inmate."
Employees are subject to administrative action, up to and including removal, for any inappropriate contact or relationship with inmates, regardless of whether such contact constitutes a prosecutable crime. Physical

This type of b3ehavior includes, and is not limited to, indecent, profane or abusive language or gestures, and inappropriate visual surveillance of inmates. Emphasize these actions which are more passive in nature are not

LIEUTENANTS SPECIALTY TRAINING
-SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION-

INSTRUCTOR GUIDE
contact is not required to subject an employee to sanctions for sexual misconduct.
Staff must understand they are obligated by the Standards of Conduct to report any allegation of sexual assault/abuse by other inmates or staff.

INSTRUCTOR NOTES
specifically covered by the sexual abuse state, but are still wrong, harassing in nature, and prohibited by the Employee Standards of Conduct.

B. INDICATORS OF INAPPROPRIATE STAFF/INMATE RELATIONSHIPS

There are several warning signs/indicators that may let staff/supervisors know when someone may be involved in an inappropriate relationship with an inmate:

•

spending too much time with one inmate

•

exchange of personal items, notes, letters

Discussion: ask for other examples

•

playing favorites

•

idle conversation referring to relationships

•

attempts by inmates' family/friends to contact a staff

member

•

unusual personal inquiries about an inmate

•

unexplained gestures or body language between inmates

and staff

•

accessing inmate living areas after regular work hours

C. MANAGERIAL INTERVENTIONS

The BOP also has a zero tolerance stance toward sexual harassment of staff. Now, how do the two relate? Maintaining professional relationships and appropriate boundaries with other staff and inmates is imperative when working in corrections. When staff are interacting inappropriately with each other, it is usually an indicator they are acting inappropriately with inmates.

•

Does your institution culture promote overall human

dignity that serve both staff and inmates?

•

Have there been instances where violation of staff-

offender boundaries have occurred?

LIEUTENANTS SPECIALTY TRAINING
-SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION-

INSTRUCTOR GUIDE
Does your institution have programs in place for staff and inmates to develop more positive relationships with others?
Do staff know who to contact if they feel a relationship established with a co-worker or inmates has become too informal and uncomfortable?

INSTRUCTOR NOTES Discussion: ask for other examples
This may have some impact on preventing over-familiarity with individual inmates.

1. What interventions are available at your facility, and are staff aware of them? The following are some examples:

a. Have you publicized the accessibility to support programs

- local EAP and those in the community (no-cost and

confidential)? This may divert employees who are

encountering difficulties with their personal/family life from becoming involved with inmates.

This assistance through EAP is confidential and no-cost.

b. Have you enhanced the surveillance process by installing video recording devices in SHU, remote areas of the institution, and female housing units? Has telephone monitoring been considered? This may not only detect misconduct, but it may also protect staff from false allegations.

c. Have windows been installed in office and closet doors?

d. Are the inmates kept busy? Idleness creates problems.

e. Has this issue been discussed with the union?

f. Have you ensured that staff understand their responsibility for ensuring confidentiality is maintained as instances of inappropriate staff-inmate relationships are reported and investigated?

Are staff aware it is against the code of conduct to retaliate against staff or inmates who make allegations of sexual abuse/assault?
It is every supervisor's responsibility to exercise proper supervision over staff and inmates, to take corrective

Privacy for staff and inmates must be preserved throughout the investigation. Lieutenants can assist staff in better understanding the investigative process and why information is so limited -– to protect the privacy rights of staff and inmates. Instances of retaliation must be reported.

LIEUTENANTS SPECIALTY TRAINING
-SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION-

INSTRUCTOR GUIDE
action when warranted, and guard against retaliation by either staff or inmates.
Is there a clear action plan established for dealing with employees when allegations of sexual abuse/assault have been made?

INSTRUCTOR NOTES

Consult with your Regional

Director to consider the options,

e.g., home duty status or

j.

Is there a plan to provide on-going training for all staff in assignment to post/shifts which

the institution on what to do if they become keep victims separated from the

inappropriately involved with an inmate, or what their responsibilities are if they become aware, or witness

perpetrating inmate or staff member.

another staff member becoming inappropriately involved with an inmate?

All staff should have been trained at ART 1998, or at Glynco STA,

beginning in March of 1998;

specialized training is held for

Program Coordinators, GS9 and

above staff, lieutenants, Health

Services and Mental health staff

and is required for all incumbents

within 120 days of appointment in

any of the previously described

k. Supervisors must ensure staff understand it is against the positions, as outlined in the EDM code of conduct to not come forward and report Manual.

occurrences of sexual abuse/assault. Staff must make

their report to a supervisor and must be clear that by

following the appropriate procedures they are not rumor

mongering or gossiping.

Recognized that where the work

environment is coercive or

2. Ensure institution supervisors are creating an environment that repressive, there will be a fear to

provides interventions for staff by:

bring forward complaints.

a. Rotation of inmate workers on work details in remote or isolated locations.

b. Consistent discipline of violators.

c.

Acknowledging the problem and not ignoring

Check all details for longevity of inmates assigned.

inappropriate behavior based on someone's age or

position in the department.

LIEUTENANTS SPECIALTY TRAINING -SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION-

INSTRUCTOR GUIDE
d. Avoiding enabling behaviors which removes or cushions an employee from the consequences of their action.
e. Correcting staff who show signs of inappropriate relationships with inmates and taking action as early as possible; ensuring that every complaint is taken Seriously.
f. Knowing the inmates.

INSTRUCTOR NOTES

g. Watching for staff who withdrawfromthe administration,

or who come to work on off days, or arrive early and Identify those that are manipulative

leave late.

or sexually assaultive so you can track their daily routines,.activities,

and contacts with staff.

h. Maintaining high visibility and managing by walking around.
C. PROGRAM COORDINATION
Managing sexual misconduct requires an interdisciplinary approach. Each institution should have a local institution supplement, approved by the Regional Director, that outlines their procedures and staff responsibilities for sexual abuse/assault intervention.

The earlier potentially compromising situations/conditions are dealt with, the more likely an inappropriate relationship will be prevented.
Make frequent, unscheduled visits to ALL work sites and housing areas.

Preventing sexual assault, intervening when sexual assaults do occur, investigating allegations of sexual assault, and disciplining/prosecuting perpetrators of sexual assault/abuse involves the coordinated efforts of several institution departments.

•

Correctional Services: influences the culture of the institution

environment; manages protection and investigation

•

Psychology Services: provides clinical assessment of

psychological trauma and provides mental health aftercare and

treatment plan

•

Health Services: provides initial clinical assessment and treatment

of physical trauma; certified medical professionals gather

evidence

Discuss roles of each member (see policy) and local institution supplement which outlines their responsibilities. Discuss how Lieutenants interact with each of these areas in managing the overall program.

8

LIEUTENANTS SPECIALTY TRAINING -SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION-

INSTRUCTOR GUIDE

•

Legal: manages case once referred for prosecution

Unit Management: manages all inmate movement to include

release

•

Religious Services: provides spiritual assistance to traumatized

inmate victims

INSTRUCTOR NOTES

Ordinarily an Associate Warden has overall responsibility for ensuring the program requirements are met.

D. INMATE EDUCATION

As part of the institution's Admission and Orientation Program, a staff member, designated by the Warden shall include a brief, candid presentation about the Sexual Abuse/Assault Prevention and Intervention Program that includes:

1. How inmates can protect themselves from becoming victims while incarcerated,

2. Treatment options available to victims of sexual assault, and

3. Methods of reporting incidents of sexual abuse/assault

The presentation also includes information on services and programs available for victims of sexual abuse/assault and for sexually assaultive or aggressive inmates. Each inmate will also receive a brochure summarizing key elements.

Inmates who do not participate in the formal A&O program (e.g., inmates in the hospital or SHU units, or pre-trial and/or detention units), will be provided with the pamphlet. Posters will be placed in the inmate housing units and the law library.
E. PROTECTION
Prompt and effective intervention must be provided to victims of sexual assault/abuse. Staff shall take seriously all statements from inmates that they have been victims of sexual assaults and respond supportively and non-judgementally. Any inmate who alleges that he or she has been sexually assaulted, shall be offered immediate protection from the assailant, will be referred for a medical examination from a certified

Discuss how to file an administrative remedy directly to the Regional Office when the issue is considered sensitive in accordance with the program statement, Administrative Remedy Program. Inmates are also advised reporting such an incident is a responsibility and they are obligated to report it in order to maintain a safe and secure environment.

LIEUTENANTS SPECIALTY TRAINING
-SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION-

INSTRUCTOR GUIDE
medical professional, as well as to a mental health professional, for a clinical assessment of the potential for suicide or other symptomology.

INSTRUCTOR NOTES

F. CONFIDENTIALITY
Staff shall provide services and conduct investigations of sexual abuse/assault incidents, maintaining strict confidentiality for the staff member, and inmate victims. Information concerning the identity of an inmate victim reporting a sexual assault, and the facts of the report itself, shall be limited to those who have a "need to know" in order to make decisions concerning the inmate-victim's welfare and for law enforcement/investigative purposes.

G. VICTIM IDENTIFICATION

1. The following are primary ways staff learn that a sexual assault has occurred during confinement:

a. Staff discover an assault in progress. b. Victim reports an assault to a staff member. c. An assault is reported to staff by another inmate, For all staff
or is the subject of inmate rumors. d. Medical evidence.

While some victims will be clearly identified, most will . probably not come forward directly with information
about the event. In some circumstances, staff may hear of an inmate being threatened with sexual abuse/assault or rumored to be a victim. Some victims may be identified through unexplained injuries, changes in physical behavior due to injuries, or abrupt personality changes such as withdrawal or suicidal behavior.

Intake screening now requests history of abuse/assault

2. The following guidelines may help staff in responding appropriately to a suspected victim:

a. The staff member who first identifies that an assault may have occurred should refer the matter to the institution's Operations Lieutenant or SIS.

10

LIEUTENANTS SPECIALTY TRAINING
-SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION-

INSTRUCTOR GUIDE
b. If it is suspected that the inmate was sexually assaulted, the inmate should be advised of the importance of getting help to deal with the assault, that he/she may be evaluated medically for sexually transmitted diseases and other injuries, and that trained staff are available to assist. They must immediately be safeguarded and removed from the alleged staff or inmate perpetrator.
c. Appropriate staff should review the background of a suspected victim, and the circumstances surrounding the incident, without jeopardizing the inmate's safety, identity, and privacy. Inmate identity and background must be kept confidential and is limited to those with a need to know.
d. If staff discover an assault in progress, the suspected victim should be removed from the immediate area for care and for interviewing by appropriate staff.
e. If the suspected victim is fearful of being labeled an informer, the inmate should be advised that the identity of the assailant(s) is (are) not needed to receive assistance.

INSTRUCTOR NOTES

H. PROCEDURES FOR STAFF INTERVENTION AND

INVESTIGATION

Discuss how victim may be traumatized and be unable to

The following procedures may apply for reported or known victims of sexual assault. If the inmate was threatened with sexual assault or was assaulted on an earlier occasion, some steps

provide much detail. There will be opportunities to secure more details later.

may not be necessary.

1. Early Intervention Techniques

a. It is important that all contact with a sexual assault victim be sensitive, supportive, and nonjudgmental.

11

LIEUTENANTS SPECIALTY TRAINING
-SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION-

INSTRUCTOR GUIDE
b. It is not necessary to make a judgment about whether or not a sexual assault occurred.
c. Identify the inmate victim(s) and remove them from the immediate area;

INSTRUCTOR NOTES
For ail staff Handout: Early Intervention Techniques

To facilitate evidence collection, the victim should not shower, wash, drink, eat, defecate or change any clothing until examined.

Discuss how critical staff sensitivity is at this time.

e. Alert medical staff immediately and escort the victim to the Health Services Unit for a medical evaluation as soon as possible. If necessary, medical staff shall refer the victim to a local emergency facility.

Appropriate staff shall coordinate other services to do follow-up (e.g, housing, suicide assessment).

A brief statement about the assault should be obtained from the inmate. (The victim may be in shock, and unable to give much detail. It is important to be understanding and responsive. Opportunities to secure more details will occur later.)

Following medical evaluation/treatment, the

victim may need to be reassigned to protective Medical exam and clinical custody or to another secure area of the facility. assessment of potential for suicide

Ensure that the alleged assailant(s) have no access or other related symptomology

to the area.

must be addressed. Staff must be sensitive to the family concerns of

2. Collect Evidence from Victim

the inmate victim.

a. Use HIV infection precautions and procedures. Discuss how to coordinate other

Contact medical staff to determine how to services such as housing.

preserve medical indications of sexual assault. In

the crime scene area, look for the presence of

body fluids, pubic hair, or semen that can be used

as evidence. For example, blankets and sheets

should be collected.

For Correctional Services/SIS staff

12

LIEUTENANTS SPECIALTY TRAINING
-SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION-

INSTRUCTOR GUIDE
b. Use standard evidence collection procedures (photographs, etc.) identified in the SIS Manual.

INSTRUCTOR NOTES
Handout: Collect Evidence from Victim

3. Collect Evidence from Assailant

a. Identify and isolate the assailant, pending further investigation.

b. Use the standard evidence gathering procedures identified in the SIS.Manual.

•\
c. Report the incident to the appropriate law enforcement agency.

For Correctional Services/SIS
d. If institution medical staff attempt to examine the Stan/Health Services Staff

alleged assailant, findings should be documented

both photographically and in writing. A written summary of all medical evidence and findings

Handout: Collect Evidence from Assailant

should be completed and maintained in the

inmate's medical record. Copies of this written

summary should also be provided to the SIS and

appropriate law enforcement officials.

MEDICAL ASSESSMENT OF VICTIM

If trained medical staff are available in the institution, render treatment locally whenever feasible.

If the alleged victim is examined in the institution (see the Health Services Manual, Sexual Assault) to determine the extent of injuries, all findings should be documented both photographically and in writing. An original Inmate Injury Assessment and Follow-up form (BP-S362) should be filed in the inmate's medical record. A copy of BPS362 should be provided to the SIS or appropriate law enforcement official.
If deemed necessary by the examining physician, follow established procedures for use of outside medical consultants or for an escorted trip to an outside medical facility.

For Health Services staff
Handout: Medical Assessment of Victim

13

LIEUTENANTS SPECIALTY TRAINING
-SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION-

INSTRUCTOR GUIDE

INSTRUCTOR NOTES

4. Notify staff at the community medical facility and alert them to the inmate's condition.

5. When necessary, conduct STD and HIV testing. 6. Refer the inmate for crisis counseling as appropriate.
J. MEDICAL TRANSFERS FOR EXAMINATION AND TREATMENT

Refer to local policy which specifies the certification requirements for the jurisdiction in which your institution is located to determine who will conduct the medical examination.

1. If determined appropriate by the institution physician and

if approved by the Warden or designee, the inmate may be

examined by medical personnel from the community. A

contractual arrangement may be developed with a rape

crisis center or other medical service if available in the

community and should be utilized to enhance institution

medical services as deemed appropriate by institution

medical staff and the Warden. The contract should provide for clinical examination, for assessing physical

For Correctional Services and Health Services Staff

injuries, and for the collection of any physical evidence of

sexual assault. It should also allow for contract medical personnel to come into the institution and for the

Handout: Medical Transfers for examination and Treatment

escorting of inmates to the contract facility (e.g., crisis

care center, medical clinic, hospital, etc.).

Refer to local supplement

2. Escorting staff should treat the victim in a supportive and non-judgmental way.

3. Information about the assault is confidential, and should be given only to those directly involved in the investigation and/or treatment of the victim.

K. SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT CRISIS INTERVENTION PROTOCOL
Let's look at reporting procedures when an inmate reports they have been assaulted or is rumored to be a victim. Preventing
14

LIEUTENANTS SPECIALTY TRAINING
-SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION-

INSTRUCTOR GUIDE
sexual abuse, intervening when sexual assaults do occur, investigating allegations, disciplining and prosecuting perpetrators involves the coordinated efforts of several departments..

INSTRUCTOR NOTES

Preventing sexual abuse suggests that staff should attempt to identify sexually assaultive inmates.
Any inmate who alleges that he or she has been sexually assaulted shall be offered immediate protection from the assailant and will be referred for a medical examination as well as a clinical assessment of the potential for suicide or other related symptoms.

All staff
Handout: Sexual Abuse/Assault Crisis Intervention Protocol

During Business Hours staff are advised to notify the Operations Lieutenant. The Operations Lieutenant shall:

Provide for victim's safety. Refer to Health Services, Psychology. Notify Captain, SIS, AW and Warden.

Non Business Hours staff are advised to notify the Operations Lieutenant. The Operations Lieutenant shall:

Provide for victim's safety. Refer to Health Services or Psychology Services. Notify Captain, SIS, Duty Officer, AW, and Warden.

Correctional Services and Legal staff shall coordinate such matters as evidence and witness testimony collection and corroboration and consultation on administrative and disciplinary issues.
L. INVESTIGATION
In any case of alleged, or suspected, sexual misconduct or sexual assault by a staff member, the Chief Executive Officer must be notified immediately and s/he must telephonically report the allegation to the Office of Internal Affairs (OIA). Even though OIG and/or the Civil Rights Division (CRD) will notify the FBI, to help expedite the investigative process, the Warden may also notify the FBI.

15

LIEUTENANTS SPECIALTY TRAINING
-SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION-

INSTRUCTOR GUIDE
Remember, if you were the reporting staff member, to minimize your involvement in the investigation procedures you should not speak to other staff members concerning the allegation. Furthermore, you are obligated to maintain confidentiality of the allegations to protect both the staff member and the inmate.
1. Institution staff, i.e., SIA, SIS, or Executive Staff, will not investigate allegations of staff sexual misconduct and/or assault beyond interviewing the inmate victim to discern what happened and then report their findings to the Warden.

INSTRUCTOR NOTES
All staff
It is important for all staff to understand the investigative process. All allegations will be taken seriously and investigated promptly.

a. Statistics show this interview should ideally be conducted by a staff member who the inmate trusts, since more information could possibly be obtained. The Psychologist or Chaplain may be considered for this interview as they are frequently trusted by inmates. Staff should recognize that inmates do not always lie. All such incidents/allegations will be thoroughly investigated. The incident will be documented and maintained in the SIS file tracking systems. Ordinarily, the inmate will not be subject to disciplinary action, even if the allegation is not sustained. However, based on the outcome of the investigation, it is possible the inmate could be Refer to local policy. charged with a prohibited act, such as lying.

b. Statistics also indicate many female offenders have been victimized by men before coming to prison and some may prefer to talk to a female staff member rather than a male because of this prior trauma.

M. TRACKING SEXUAL ABUSE
The major purpose of the Bureau's Sexual Abuse Prevention and Intervention Program is to protect inmates in Bureau custody. Monitoring and evaluation are essential to assess both sexual assault levels and agency effectiveness in reducing sexually abusive behavior. Accordingly, the SIS must maintain two types of files:

16

LIEUTENANTS SPECIALTY TRAINING -SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION-

INSTRUCTOR GUIDE
1. General Files which includes data on:
The victim(s) and assailant(s) of a sexual assault b. Crime characteristics c. Formal and/or informal action(s) taken.
2. Investigative Files which are opened following any allegation of sexual assault which include copies of:
a. All reports, b. Medical forms, c. Supporting memos and videotapes, and d. Any other evidentiary materials pertaining to
the allegation.
The SIS shall maintain the following on the computerized incident index system current listings of sexual assault victims and assailants. A specific STG SENTRY assignment shall be given to sexual abuse assailants and victims to allow administrative, treatment, and SIS staff the ability to track inmates across the system either as a victim or as an assailant.
N. MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES
1. Psychology Services or other mental health staff shall be notified immediately añer the initial report of an allegation of sexual abuse/assault of an inmate.
2. Any alleged victim(s) shall be seen, within 24 hours following such notification, by a mental health clinician to provide crisis intervention and to assess any immediate and subsequent treatment needs.
3. The findings of this initial crisis/evaluation session shall be summarized in a written format within one week of the initial session and, once completed, shall be placed in the appropriate treatment record, with a copy provided to the Clinical Director and other staff responsible for oversight of sexual abuse/assault prevention and intervention procedures.

INSTRUCTOR NOTES Refer to the SIS Manual
For Psychology Services Staff Handout: Mental Health Services Emphasize first two points with lieutenants.

17

LIEUTENANTS SPECIALTY TRAINING
-SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION-

INSTRUCTOR GUIDE
4. Additional psychological or psychiatric treatment, as well as continued assessment of mental health status and treatment needs, shall be provided as needed and only with the victim's full consent and collaboration. Decisions regarding the need for continued treatment and/or assessment shall be made by qualified clinicians according to established professional standards, and shall be made with an awareness that victim(s) of sexual abuse/assault commonly experience both immediate and delayed psychiatric and/or emotional symptoms.
If the victim(s) choose to continue to pursue treatment, the clinician will either provide appropriate treatment or facilitate referral of the victim(s) to the appropriate treatment option(s) including individual therapy, group therapy, further psychological assessment, assignment to a mental health case load and/or facility, referral to a psychiatrist, and/or other treatment options. Pending referral, mental health services shall continue unabated. If the victim(s) chooses to decline further treatment services, he or she shall be asked to sign a statement to that effect.
5. All treatment and evaluation sessions shall'be properly documented and placed in the appropriate treatment record to ensure continuity of care within, between, or outside Bureau facilities.
6. Should the victim be released from custody during the course of treatment, the victim will be advised of community mental health resources in their release area.

INSTRUCTOR NOTES

O. MONITORING AND FOLLOW-UP
1. Arrange with the unit team and Correctional Services to place the inmate in appropriate housing.
2. Monitor the physical and mental health of the victim and coordinate the continuation of necessary services.
3. Dispense medication, provide routine examinations and STD and HIV follow-up.
18

LIEUTENANTS SPECIALTY TRAINING -SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION-

INSTRUCTOR GUIDE
4. Conduct post-crisis counseling and arrange for psychiatric care if necessary.

INSTRUCTOR NOTES

5.

Psychology staff should watch for reaction stages and For Psychology and Health

provide support as needed during critical stages.

Services staff

6. Determine the risk of keeping the victim at the same Handout: Monitoring and Follow

facility where the incident occurred.

up

P. RELEASE PREPARATION AND CONTINUING CARE

Emphasize points 1 and 6 with lieutenants

1. Psychology staff shall ordinarily determine the need for aftercare and transitional treatment services, and notify the Case Manager of their recommendations.

2. The willingness ofthe victim to participate in treatment in the community should be determined.

3. For those cases that will use continuing care services, efforts to facilitate them should begin about 12 months prior to their release.

4. If CCC services are used, mental health counseling and

other transitional services that facilitate the victim's

healthy reintegration into the community and with the

family may be necessary.

For Psychology and Unit Staff

Handout: Release Preparation and
5. The responsibilities of the victim in the treatment process Continuing Care should be identified.
Lieutenants need to be aware of
6. Arrangements should be made through the U.S. Probation general continuity of care upon Office for psychological, medical, or other support release. services in the victim's release district.

7. The victim should be encouraged to participate in support groups in the community.

Q. AFTERMATH
Taking the proper steps after a reported incident of sexual assault/abuse is critical. As you can see, this issue is taken seriously and can lead to the prosecution, conviction and
19

LIEUTENANTS SPECIALTY TRAINING
-SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION-

INSTRUCTOR GUIDE
incarceration of staff. If staff feel the investigation process is a witch hunt, or they never hear of the results, problems can result.

INSTRUCTOR NOTES

Therefore, management has a responsibility to staff to take appropriate action when a staff member is accused of sexual misconduct or sexual assault. To protect all persons involved, institution staff must understand they will not be advised of the details of the case, or the outcome of the investigation, until such information is made a matter of public record and is available to the general public.
Añer an incident of sexual misconduct, there is an aftermath that must be managed by staff at all levels. The following can occur:
Polarization: staff take sides Placing blame on others Gossip and stories Heightened awareness and fear of maintaining professional, appropriate relationships with inmates Staff may want "witnesses" when talking to an inmate of the opposite gender Thoughts about "what more could I have done?" Feelings of anger, guilt, betrayal

For all staff Handout: Aftermath

Until a prosecution occurs, the information that is provided staff will be very limited and this could further serve to alienate staff. The information will be limited due to privacy issues and possible pending future legal actions.
IV. SUMMARY
We have talked today about the types of staff behaviors that are against the law and/or against the code of conduct as outlined by the Sexual Abuse/Assault Prevention Program. We have outlined the obligations of both staff and inmates in reporting inappropriate behavior, discussed possible staff reactions to an incident of this type, and have given you the appropriate steps to take if such an incident is alleged or known to have occurred.

When backlash occurs, staff are frozen. Staff may feel a need to talk about heir feelings and may seek out a trusted person, such as a psychologist, chaplain, superv isory, or executive staff member for further guidance.
Lieutenant splay a critical role in helping staff to minimize rumors, and to better understand the dynamics involved when inappropriate relationship develop in a correctional environment

20

LIEUTENANTS SPECIALTY TRAINING
-SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION-

INSTRUCTOR GUIDE
In summary, ensuring you understand the critical role a lieutenant has in preventing sexual abuse/assaults between inmates, and between staff and inmates, and in taking the appropriate intervention when instances occur. Ignoring the issue or inappropriate handling of an allegation may increase your risk of legal liability.

INSTRUCTOR NOTES

21

SPECIALIZED TRAINING SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION

LESSON PLAN: TIME FRAME:

Health Services Staff Training 2 Hours minimum

PURPOSE: OBJECTIVES:

To provide guidelines for health services professionals to understand local procedures for preventing sexual abuse/assault, intervening when sexual assaults occur by addressing the safety and treatment needs of inmate victims, investigating allegations of sexual assault, and disciplining/prosecuting perpetrators of sexual abuse/assault.

At the end of this session each staff member will be able to:

A

List the key aspects of the Sexual Abuse/Assault Prevention

and Intervention Program.

B

State staff and supervisory intervention strategies to minimize

instances of inappropriate staff/inmate relationships.

C

State the identification and referral process when an alleged

staff/inmate sexual assault occurs.

STUDENT MATERIALS: INSTRUCTOR MATERIALS:
REFERENCES:
CLASS SIZE: INSTRUCTOR:
COORDINATED AND DEVELOPED BY: APPROVED BY:

Handouts
Lesson Plan Briefing Materials from NIC Flipchart
Program Statement. 5324.04. Sexual Abuse/Assault Prevention and Intervention Program Program Statement 3420.08. Standards of Employee Conduct Health Services Manual
No more than IS participants.
A medical professional who is recognized as a good communicator, serves in a managerial role, and whose experience demonstrates an understanding of the Sexual Abuse/Assault Intervention and Prevention Program.
Teresa Hunt Katsel. Central Office Gloria Lucero. MSTC
Thurman Robbins. Health Services Division Central Office

HEALTH SERVICES SPECIALTY TRAINING
-SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION-

INSTRUCTOR GUIDE I. INTRODUCTION

INSTRUCTOR NOTES

The sexual abuse of inmates has been identified across correctional systems as a major correctional management issue of the 1990's. A coordinated strategy that involves law and policy development, training of prisoners and correctional staff, and public education is being examined and pursued by most states. A federal law, the Sexual Abuse Act of 1986 (18 U.S.C. 2242-44) provides severe penalties for sexual abuse of inmates. If the abuse involves coercion, it is usually presented as a felony offense. The maximum penalty for an offense of this type is life in prison. If the abuse does not involve coercion, it is usually prosecuted as a misdemeanor. The penalties for this type of offense are still severe. Incidentally, there is no such thing as "consensual sex." In 1990, only 17 states and the federal government had laws prohibiting the sexual abuse of inmates. Today, sexual misconduct has been recognized as a national issue, and:

•

35 states, the District of Columbia, and the federal

government have laws that specifically criminalizing

sexual abuse in prisons.

• 28 states and the District of Columbia define sexual

misconduct in prisons as a felony.

• 4 states define sexual misconduct in prisons as a

misdemeanor.

•

3 states and the federal government define sexual

misconduct in prisons as either a felony or a

misdemeanor depending on the nature and severity of

the assault.

•

3 states criminalize the conduct of both the prisoner and

the corrections employee in "consensual" cases of

sexual misconduct.

•

13 states and the District of Columbia specifically

provide that even if a prisoner "consents:" to or

voluntarily engages in sex with a corrections staff

person, the staff member is criminally liable.

• 9 states, the District of Columbia and federal government provide that marriage is a defense to a charge of sexual misconduct.

•

15 states have no laws criminalizing sexual misconduct

in prisons.

Handout: SO State Survey

HEALTH SERVICES SPECIALTY TRAINING
-SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION-

INSTRUCTOR GUIDE
The National Institute of Corrections (NIC), (the component of the BOP which provides direct assistance to states and local correctional systems), has been pro active and responsive in providing direct technical assistance to states who have experienced instances of sexual misconduct. NIC has worked directly with 24 states and the BOP in developing action plans to provide remedies for correctional systems in responding to the issue of sexual misconduct.

INSTRUCTOR NOTES Handout: "Assumptions" from NIC

The BOP has a zero tolerance stance regarding inappropriate conduct between staff and inmates, particularly that of a sexual nature. There are currently 30,000 employees who work for the BOP. There were 15 cases sustained against BOP staff for sexual abuse of an inmate in 1997. With zero tolerance, the BOP strives to prosecute any instance of sexual misconduct and obtained 8 prosecutions in 1997. The BOP has very clear policy and training programs for staff and inmates.
The BOP increased its focus on the issue of sexual abuse of inmates in July of 1996 añer several incidents occurred at a facility for female offenders. The BOP, with assistance from the National Institute of Corrections (NIC), conducted focus groups with staff and inmates at four facilities to assess staff attitudes toward women offenders, BOP philosophy on the management of female offenders and training needs. Issues were identified and presented to a BOP Workgroup who formulated recommendations for refining BOP policy and training which were approved by the Executive Staff in December of 1996. Objectives and action steps were identified and target dates established for implementation beginning in April of 1997.

Handout: BOP Cases
Eleven of those cases involved male staff and female inmates, three involved female staff and male inmates and one case involved a female staff and a female inmate.
Discuss cases and how the dynamics between male staff and female inmates, male staff and male inmates, female staff and male inmates, and female staff and female inmates differ.

In December of 1997, the revised Program Statement entitled

Sexual Abuse/Assault Prevention and Intervention Program was

issued and included for the first time discussion of the protocol to

follow to ensure:

•

effective procedures to prevent sexually assaultive

behavior will be operative in each Bureau institution

•

medical, psychological, safety, and social needs of victims

will be promptly and effectively met

•

all allegations of sexual abuse/assault will be promptly

and effectively reported and investigated

•

an, assailants, once identified, will be controlled,

Handout; Program Statement 5324.4, Sexual Abuse/Assault Prevention and Intervention Program.

HEALTH SERVICES SPECIALTY TRAINING
-SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION-

INSTRUCTOR GUIDE
disciplined, and/or prosecuted

INSTRUCTOR NOTES

All staff received training on Sexual Misconduct, Sexual Assault Prevention and Intervention during Annual Refresher Training in 1998, and new employees received training beginning in March of 1998 as part of their basic training at the Staff Training Academy at Glynco. Specialized training has been developed for staff who have been appointed by the Warden [herein after referred to as Program Coordinators] to ensure that all elements of the program statement are met in a coordinated, interdisciplinary fashion to include:

•

educating and training staff and inmates

•

safeguarding, assessing, treating, and managing sexually

assaulted inmates

•

investigating disciplining, and/or prosecuting perpetrators

of sexual assault

Specialty training has also been developed for medical and mental health staff, correctional supervisors (lieutenants), and other staff who are at the GS9 and above level to ensure all staff with management responsibilities are aware of their responsibilities in preventing sexual abuse/assault and intervening appropriately when allegations are brought to their attention by inmates.

In the near future, each institution will begin providing training for inmates on sexual abuse/assault prevention and intervention. Therefore, it is very important the Program Coordinator understand the dynamics involved when presenting this topic to staff and inmates. This training module is to be completed by the Program Coordinator and any staff responsible for conducting sexual abuse/assault training for staff and inmates.

II. OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this training is to ensure staff are aware of behaviors that constitute sexual abuse, sexual assault, or sexual misconduct, as defined by Bureau of Prisons policy and the law. As staff/supervisors, you should be familiar with:

Handout: Objectives

•

the key aspects of the Sexual Abuse/Assault Prevention

and Intervention Program Statement.

•

staff/supervisory intervention strategies to minimize

HEALTH SERVICES SPECIALTY TRAINING
-SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION-

INSTRUCTOR GUIDE
episodes of inappropriate staff/inmate relationships, the identification and referral process when an alleged sexual assault occurs.

INSTRUCTOR NOTES

III. LESSON PLAN

A. DEFINITIONS

Handout: Definitions

The Program Statement on Sexual Abuse/Assault Prevention and Intervention Program defines two types of sexual assault and the Employee Standards of Conduct describes prohibited sexual behavior.

1. Inmate on inmate sexual abuse/assault: One or more inmates engaging in, or attempting to engage in a sexual act with another inmate or the use of threats, intimidation, inappropriate touching, or other actions and/or communications by one or more inmates aimed at coercing and/or pressuring another inmate to engage in a sexual act. Sexual acts or contacts between inmates, even when no objections are raised, are prohibited.

2. Staff on inmate sexual abuse/assault: Engaging in, or attempting to engage in a sexual act with any inmate. The intentional touching of an inmate's genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks with the intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, arouse, or gratify the sexual desire of any person. Sexual acts or contacts between an inmate and a staff member, even when no objections are raised, are always illegal.

3. From the Employee Standards of Conduct
Staff¯on-inmate sexual behavior that does not rise

HEALTH SERVICES SPECIALTY TRAINING
-SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION-

INSTRUCTOR GUIDE
to the level of a criminal violation is covered by the Employee Standards of Conduct which states "an employee may not engage in, or allow another person to engage in sexual behavior with an inmate."

INSTRUCTOR NOTES

Employees are subject to administrative action, up to and including removal, for any inappropriate contact or relationship with inmates, regardless of whether such contact constitutes a prosecutable crime. Physical contact is not required to subject an employee to sanctions for sexual misconduct.
Staff must understand they are obligated by the Standards of Conduct to report any allegation of sexual assault/abuse by other inmates or staff.

This type of behavior includes, and is not limited to, indecent, profane or abusive language or gestures, and inappropriate visual surveillance of inmates. Emphasize these actions which are more passive in nature are not specifically covered by the sexual abuse statute, but are still wrong, harassing in nature, and prohibited by eh Employee Standards of Conduct.

B. INDICATORS OF INAPPROPRIATE STAFF/INMATE RELATIONSHIPS

There are several warning signs or behaviors that may alert you that a staff member may be involved in an inappropriate relationship with an inmate:

Discussion: Ask for other examples.

•

spending too much time with one inmate

•

exchange of personal items, notes, letters

•

playing favorites

•

idle conversation referring to relationships

•

attempts by inmates' family/friends to contact a

staff member

•

unusual personal inquiries about an inmate

•

unexplained gestures or body language between

inmates and staff

•

accessing inmate living areas añer regular work

hours

C. MANAGERIAL INTERVENTIONS

The BOP also has a zero tolerance stance toward sexual harassment of staff. Now, how do the two relate? Maintaining professional relationships and appropriate boundaries with other staff and inmates is imperative when working in corrections.

HEALTH SERVICES SPECIALTY TRAINING
-SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION-

INSTRUCTOR GUIDE

INSTRUCTOR NOTES

When staff are interacting inappropriately with each other, it is usually an indicator they are acting inappropriately with inmates.

•

Does your institution culture promote overall

human dignity that serve both staff and inmates?

•

Have there been instances where violation of

staff-offender boundaries have occurred?

•

Does your institution have programs in place for

staff and inmates to develop more positive

relationships with others?

Do staff know who to contact if they feel a relationship established with a co-worker or inmates has become too informal and uncomfortable?

1. What interventions are available at your facility, and are staff aware of them? The following are some examples:

a. Have you publicized the accessibility to support programs · local EAP and those in the community This assistance through EAP is (no-cost and confidential)? This may divert confidential and no-cost.
employees who are encountering difficulties with
their personal/family life from becoming involved
with inmates.

b. Have you enhanced the surveillance process by installing video recording devices in SHU, remote areas of the institution, and female housing units? Has telephone monitoring been considered? This may not only detect misconduct, but it may also protect staff from false allegations.

c. Have windows been installed in office and closet doors?

d. Are the inmates kept busy? Idleness creates problems.

e. Has this issue been discussed with the union?

HEALTH SERVICES SPECIALTY TRAINING
-SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION-

INSTRUCTOR GUIDE

INSTRUCTOR NOTES

f.

Have you ensured that staff understand their Privacy for staff and inmates must

responsibility for ensuring confidentiality is be preserved throughout the maintained as instances of inappropriate staff- investigations.

inmate relationships are reported and

investigated?

g. Are staff aware it is against the code of conduct to Instances of retaliation must be retaliate against staff or inmates who make reported. allegations of sexual abuse/assault?

h. It is every supervisor's responsibility to exercise proper supervision over staff and inmates, to take corrective action when, warranted, and guard against retaliation by either staff or inmates.

i.

Is there a clear action plan established for dealing Consult with your Regional Director

with employees when allegations of sexual abuse/assault have been made?

to consider the options, e.g., home duty status or assignment to posts/shifts which keep them

separated from the accusing inmate

j.

Is there a plan to provide on-going training for all or staff member.

staff in the institution on what to do if they

become inappropriately involved with an inmate, or what their responsibilities are if they become aware, or witness another staff member becoming inappropriately involved with an inmate?

All staff should have been trained at ART 1998, or at Glynco, STA, beginning in March of 1998; specialized training is held for Program Coordinators, GS( and

above staff, lieutenants, Health

k. Supervisors must ensure staff understand it is services and Mental Health staff and

against the code of conduct to not come forward and report occurrences of sexual abuse/assault.

is required for all incumbents within 120 days of appointment in any of the previously described positions,

Staff must make their report to a supervisor and as outlined in the EDM Manual.

must be clear that by following the appropriate

procedures they are not rumor mongering or Recognize that where the work

gossiping.

environment is coercive or repressive, there will be a fear to

2.

Ensure institution supervisors are creating an environment bring forward complaints.

that provides interventions for staff by:

a.

Rotation of inmate workers on work details in Check all details for longevity of

remote or isolated locations.

inmates assigned.

b. Consistent discipline of violators.

c. Acknowledging the problem and not ignoring

7

HEALTH SERVICES SPECIALTY TRAINING
-SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION-

INSTRUCTOR GUIDE

INSTRUCTOR NOTES

inappropriate behavior based on someone' s age or position in the department.

d. Avoiding enabling behaviors which removes or cushions an employee from the consequences of their action.

e. Correcting staff who show signs of inappropriate relationships with inmates and taking action as early as possible; ensuring that every complaint is taken seriously.

f. Knowing the inmates.

g. Watching for staff who withdraw from the administration, or who come to work on off days, or arrive early and leave late.

h. Maintaining high visibility and managing by walking around.

D. PROGRAM COORDINATION
Managing sexual misconduct requires an interdisciplinary approach. Each institution should have a local institution supplement, approved by the Regional Director, that outlines their procedures and staff responsibilities for sexual abuse/assault intervention.

Discuss roles of each member (see policy) and local institution supplement which outlines their responsibilities.

Preventing sexual assault, intervening when sexual assaults do occur, investigating allegations of sexual assault, and disciplining/prosecuting perpetrators of sexual assault/abuse involves the coordinated efforts of several institution departments.

•

Correctional Services: influences the culture of the

institution environment; manages protection and

investigation

•

Psychology Services: provides clinical assessment of

psychological trauma and provides mental health aftercare

and treatment plan

•

Health Services: provides initial clinical assessment and

8

HEALTH SERVICES SPECIALTY TRAINING
-SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION-

INSTRUCTOR GUIDE

INSTRUCTOR NOTES

treatment of physical trauma; certified medical

professionals gather evidence

•

Legal: manages case once referred for prosecution

•

Unit Management: manages all inmate movement to

include release

•

Religious Services: provides spiritual assistance to

traumatized inmate victims

Ordinarily an Associate Warden has overall responsibility for ensuring the program requirements are met.

E. INMATE EDUCATION
As part of the institution's Admission and Orientation Program, a staff member, designated by the Warden shall include a brief, candid presentation about the Sexual Abuse/Assault Prevention and Intervention Program that includes:
A. How inmates can protect themselves from becoming victims while incarcerated.
B. Treatment options available to victims of sexual assault, and

Discuss how to file an administrative remedy directly to the Regional Office when the issue is considered sensitive in* accordance with the program statement, Administrative Remedy Program must be emphasized. Also discuss method inmates can report to Office of Inspector General. Inmates are also advised they are obligated to report such incidents.

C. Methods of reporting incidents of sexual abuse/assault.

The presentation also includes information on services and programs available for victims of sexual abuse/assault and for sexually assaultive or aggressive inmates. Each inmate will also receive a brochure summarizing key elements.

Inmates who do not participate in the formal A&O program (e.g., inmates in the hospital or SHU units, or pre-trial and/or detention units), will be provided with the pamphlet. Posters will be placed in the inmate housing units and the law library.

F. PROTECTION
Prompt and effective intervention must be provided to victims of sexual assault/abuse. Staff shall take seriously all statements

HEALTH SERVICES SPECIALTY TRAINING -SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION-

INSTRUCTOR GUIDE

INSTRUCTOR NOTES

from inmates that they have been victims of sexual assaults an and respond supportively and non-judgementally. Any inmate who alleges that he or she has been sexually assaulted, shall be offered immediate protection from the assailant, will be referred for a medical examination from a certified medical professional, as well as to a mental health professional, for a clinical assessment of the potential for suicide or other symptomology.

G. CONFIDENTIALITY
Staff shall provide services and conduct investigations of sexual abuse/assault incidents, maintaining strict confidentiality for the staff member, and inmate victims. Information concerning the identity of an inmate victim reporting a sexual assault, and the facts of the report itself, shall be limited to those who have a "need to know" in order to make decisions concerning the inmatevictim's welfare and for law enforcement/investigative purposes.

H. VICTIM IDENTIFICATION

For ail staff

1. The following are primary ways staff learn that a sexual assault has occurred during confinement: Handout: Victim Identification

a. Staff discover an assault in progress.

Intake screening now reques6ts

b. Victim reports an assault to a staff history of abuse/assault

member.

c. An assault is reported to staff by another

inmate, or is the subject of inmate rumors.

d. Medical evidence.

While some victims will be clearly identified, most will probably not come forward directly with information about the event. In some circumstances, staff may hear of an inmate being threatened with sexual abuse/assault or rumored to be a victim. Some victims may be identified through unexplained injuries, changes in physical behavior due to injuries, or abrupt personality changes such as withdrawal or suicidal behavior.

10

HEALTH SERVICES SPECIALTY TRAINING
-SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION-

INSTRUCTOR GUIDE
2. The following guidelines may help staff in responding appropriately to a suspected victim:

INSTRUCTOR NOTES

a. The staff member who first identifies that an assault may have occurred should refer the matter to the institution's Operations Lieutenant or SIS.

b. If it is suspected that the inmate was sexually assaulted, the inmate should be advised of the importance of getting help to deal with the assault, that he/she may be evaluated medically for sexually transmitted diseases and other injuries, and that trained staff are available to assist. They must immediately be safeguarded and removed from the staff or inmate perpetrator..

c. Appropriate staff should review the background of a suspected victim, and the circumstances surrounding the incident, without jeopardizing the inmate's safety, identity, and privacy. Inmate identity and background must be kept confidential and is limited to those with a need to know.

d. If staff discover an assault in progress, the suspected victim should be removed from the immediate area for care and for interviewing by appropriate staff.

e.

If the suspected victim is fearful of being Discuss how victim may be

labeled an informer, the inmate should be advised that the identity of the assailant(s)

traumatized and be unable to give much detail. There will be opportunities to secure more details

is (are) not needed to receive assistance. later.

I. PROCEDURES FOR STAFF INTERVENTION

For all staff

The following procedures may apply for reported or known victims of sexual assault. If the inmate was

11

HEALTH SERVICES SPECIALTY TRAINING
-SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION-

INSTRUCTOR GUIDE
threatened with sexual assault or was assaulted on an earlier occasion, some steps may not be necessary.

INSTRUCTOR NOTES

1. Early Intervention Techniques

Handout: Early Intervention

Techniques

a. It is important that all contact with a

sexual assault victim be sensitive, Discuss how critical staff sensitivity

supportive, and non-judgmental.

is a t this time.

b. It is not necessary to make a judgment about whether or not a sexual assault occurred.

c. Identify the inmate victim(s) and remove them from the immediate area;

d. To facilitate evidence collection, the victim should ngt shower, wash, drink, eat, defecate or change any clothing until examined.

e. Alert medical staff immediately and escort

the victim to the Health Services Unit for a medical evaluation as soon as possible. If necessary, medical staff shall refer the

Medical exam and clinical assessment ofpotential for suicide or other related symptomology must be addressed. Staff must be sensitive to

victim to a local emergency facility.

the family concerns of the inmate

victim.

f. Appropriate staff shall coordinate other

services to do follow-up (e.g, housing,

suicide assessment).

g. A brief statement about the assault should be obtained from the inmate. (The victim may be in shock, and unable to give much detail. It is important to be understanding and responsive. Opportunities to secure more details will occur later.)

h. Following medical evaluation/treatment,

the victim may need to be reassigned to

Discuss how appropriate staff will coordinate other services such as

protective custody or to another secure housing. Refer to local policy.

area ofthe facility. Ensure that the alleged

assailant(s) have no access to the area.

12

HEALTH SERVICES SPECIALTY TRAINING
-SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION-

INSTRUCTOR GUIDE
2. Collect Evidence from Victim
a. Use HIV infection precautions and procedures. Contact medical staff to determine how to preserve medical indications of sexual assault. In the crime scene area, look for the presence of body fluids, pubic hair, or semen that can be used as evidence. For example, blankets and sheets should be collected.

INSTRUCTOR NOTES
For Correctional Services/SIS and certified medical staff Handout: collect evidence from Victim

b. Use standard evidence collection procedures (photographs, etc.) identified in the SIS Manual.

3. Collect Evidence from Assailant

a.

Identify and isolate the assailant, pending

For Correctional Services/SIS Staff/Health Services staff

further investigation.

Handout: Collect Evidence from
b. Use the standard evidence gathering Assailant

procedures identified in the SIS Manual.

c. Report the incident to the appropriate law enforcement agency.

d. If institution medical staff attempt to examine the alleged assailant, findings should be documented both photographically and in writing. A written summary of all medical evidence and findings should be completed and maintained in the inmate's medical record. Copies of this written summary should also be provided to the SIS and appropriate law enforcement officials.

J. MEDICAL ASSESSMENT OF VICTIM

1. If trained medical staff are available in the For Health Services staff

institution, render treatment locally whenever

feasible.

Handout: Medical Assessment of

13

HEALTH SERVICES SPECIALTY TRAINING -SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION-

INSTRUCTOR GUIDE

INSTRUCTOR NOTES

If the alleged victim is examined in the institution (see the Health Services Manual, Sexual Assault) to determine the extent of injuries, all findings should be documented both photographically and in writing. An original Inmate Injury Assessment and Follow-up form (BP-S362) should be filed in the inmate's medical record. A copy of BP-S362 should be provided to the SIS or appropriate law enforcement official.

Victim
Refer to local policy which specifies the certification requirements for the jurisdiction in which your institution is located and determine where and who will conduct the medical examination.

3. If deemed necessary by the examining physician, follow established procedures for use of outside medical consultants or for an escorted trip to an outside medical facility.

4. Notify star!at the community medical facility and alert them to the inmate's condition.

5. When necessary, conduct STD and HIV testing.

6. Refer the inmate for crisis counseling as appropriate.

K. MEDICAL TRANSFERS FOR EXAMINATION AND TREATMENT
Health services will be responsible for victim examination, treatment, and medical evidence collection. This will include examination, treatment, documentation ofany injuries, processing evidence with a rape kit, and will be done in an environment that meets both the inmate's safety and therapeutic needs. The medical staff member collecting evidence MUST BE CERTIFIED to perform the procedures. Medical examination will include testing for HTV and sexually transmitted diseases (STD's).

For all staff and Correctional and Health Services staff
Handout: Medical Transfers for Examination and Treatment
Refer to local supplement

1. If determined appropriate by the institution physician and if approved by the Warden or designee, the inmate may be examined by medical personnel from the community. A contractual arrangement may be developed with a rape crisis

14

HEALTH SERVICES SPECULTY TRAINING
-SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION-

INSTRUCTOR GUIDE
center or other medical service if available in the community and should be utilized to enhance institution medical services as deemed appropriate by institution medical staff and the Warden. The contract should provide for clinical examination, for assessing physical injuries, and for the collection of any physical evidence of sexual assault. It should also allow for contract medical personnel to come into the institution and for the escorting of inmates to the contract facility (e.g., crisis care center, medical clinic, hospital, etc.).

INSTRUCTOR NOTES

2. Escorting staff should treat the victim in a supportive and non-judgmental way.

3. Information about the assault is confidential, and should be given only to those directly involved in the investigation and/or treatment of the victim.

L. INVESTIGATION

For all staff

In any case of alleged, or suspected, sexual misconduct or sexual assault by a staff member, the Chief Executive Officer must be notified immediately and s/he must telephonically report the allegation to the Office of Internal Affairs (OIA). Even though OIG and/or the Civil Rights Division (CRD) will notify the FBI, to help expedite the investigative process, the Warden may also notify the FBI.

Handout: Investigations

Remember, if you were the reporting staff member, to minimize your involvement in the investigation procedures you should not speak to other staff members concerning the allegation. Furthermore, you are obligated to maintain confidentiality of the allegations to protect both the staff member and the inmate.

1. Institution staff, i.e., SIA, SIS, or Executive Staff, will not investigate allegations of staff sexual misconduct and/or assault beyond interviewing the inmate victim to discern what happened and then report their findings to the Warden.

15

HEALTH SERVICES SPECIALTY TRAINING
-SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION-

INSTRUCTOR GUIDE
Statistics show this interview should ideally be conducted by a staff member who the inmate trusts, since more information could possibly be obtained. The Psychologist or Chaplain may be considered for this interview as they are frequently trusted by inmates. Staff should recognize that inmates do not always lie. All such incidents/allegations will be thoroughly investigated. The incident will be documented and maintained in the SIS file tracking systems. Ordinarily, the inmate will not be subject to disciplinary action, even if the allegation is not sustained. However, based on the outcome of the investigation, it is possible the inmate could be charged with a prohibited act, such as lying.

INSTRUCTOR NOTES

Statistics also indicate many female offenders have been victimized by men before coming to prison and some may prefer to talk to a female staff member rather than a male because of this prior trauma.

M. MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

For Psychology Services

Psychology Services or other mental health staff shall be notified immediately after the initial report of an allegation of sexual abuse/assault of an inmate.

Handout: Mental Health Services

Any alleged victim(s) shall be seen, within 24 hours following such notification, by a mental health clinician to provide crisis intervention and to assess any immediate and subsequent treatment needs.

The findings of this initial crisis/evaluation session shall be summarized in a written format within one week of the initial session and, once completed, shall be placed in the appropriate

16

HEALTH SERVICES SPECIALTY TRAINING -SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION-

INSTRUCTOR GUIDE

INSTRUCTOR NOTES

treatment record, with a copy provided to the Clinical Director and other staff responsible for oversight of sexual abuse/assault prevention and intervention procedures.

4. Additional psychological or psychiatric treatmenì, as well as continued assessment of mental health status and treatment needs, shall be provided as needed and only with the victim's full consent and collaboration. Decisions regarding the need for continued treatment and/or assessment shall be made by qualified clinicians according to established professional standards, and shall be made with an awareness that victim(s) of sexual abuse/assault commonly experience both immediate and delayed psychiatric and/or emotional symptoms.

If the victim(s) choose to continue to pursue treatment, the clinician will either provide appropriate treatment or facilitate referral of the victim(s) to the appropriate treatment option(s) including individual therapy, group therapy, further psychological assessment, assignment to a mental health case load and/or facility, referral to a psychiatrist, and/or other treatment options. Pending referral, mental health services shall continue unabated. If the victim(s) chooses to decline further treatment services, he or she shall be asked to sign a statement to that effect.

5. All treatment and evaluation sessions shall be properly documented and placed in the appropriate treatment record to ensure continuity of care within, between, or outside Bureau facilities.

6. Should the victim be released from custody during the course of treatment, the victim will be advised of community mental health resources in their release area.

17

HEALTH SERVICES SPECIALTY TRAINING
-SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION-

INSTRUCTOR GUIDE
N. MONITORING AND FOLLOW-UP
1. Arrange with the unit team and Correctional Services to place the inmate in appropriate housing.

INSTRUCTOR NOTES
For all staff and Psychology and Health Services staff.
Handout: Monitoring and Follow up

2. Monitor the physical and mental health of the victim and coordinate the continuation of necessary services.

3. Dispense medication, provide routine examinations and STD and HIV follow-up.

4. Conduct post-crisis counseling and arrange for psychiatric care if necessary.

5. Psychology staff should watch for reaction stages and provide support as needed during critical stages.

6. Determine the risk of keeping the victim at the same facility where the incident occurred.

O. RELEASE PREPARATION AND CONTINUING CARE For all staff and Psychology and
Unit Management Staff
1. Psychology staff shall ordinarily determine the
need for aftercare and transitional treatment Handout: Release Preparation and services, and notify the Case Manager of their Continuing Care
recommendations.

2. The willingness of the victim to participate in treatment in the community should be determined.

3. For those cases that will use continuing care services, efforts to facilitate them should begin about 12 months prior to their release.

4. If CCC services are used, mental health counseling and other transitional services that facilitate the victim's healthy reintegration into the community and with the family may be necessary.

5. The responsibilities of the victim in the treatment

18

HEALTH SERVICES SPECIALTY TRAINING
-SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION-

INSTRUCTOR GUIDE
process should be identified.
6. Arrangements should be made through the U.S. Probation Office for psychological, medical, or other support services in the victim's release district.

INSTRUCTOR NOTES
Refer to local procedures for specific follow-up procedures.

7. The victim should be encouraged to participate in support groups in the community.

P. AFTERMATH

Handout: Aftermath

Taking the proper steps after a reported incident of sexual assault/abuse is critical. As you can see, this issue is taken seriously and can lead to the prosecution, conviction and incarceration of staff. If staff feel the investigation process is a witch hunt, or they never hear of the results, problems can result.

Therefore, management has a responsibility to staff to take appropriate action when a staff member is accused of sexual misconduct or sexual assault. To protect all persons involved, institution staff must understand they will not be advised of the details of the case, or the outcome of the investigation, until such information is made a matter of public record and is available to the general public.

After an incident of sexual misconduct, there is an aftermath that must be managed by staff at all levels. The following can occur:

•

Polarization: staff take sides

•

Placing blame on others

•

Gossip and stories

•

Heightened awareness and fear of maintaining

professional, appropriate relationships with

inmates

•

Staff may want "witnesses" when talking to an

inmate of the opposite gender

•

Thoughts about "what more could I have done?"

When backlash occurs, staff are frozen. Staff may feel a need to talk about their feelings and may seek out a trusted person, such as a psychologist, chaplain, supervisory, or executive staff member for further guidance.
Discussion

19

HEALTH SERVICES SPECIALTY TRAINING
-SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION-

fNSTRUCTOR GUIDE

•

Feelings of anger, guilt, betrayal

INSTRUCTOR NOTES

Until a prosecution occurs, the information that is provided staff will be very limited and this could further serve to alienate staff. The information will be limited due to privacy issues and possible pending future legal actions.

IV. SUMMARY
We have talked today about the types of staff behaviors that are against the law and/or against the code of conduct as outlined by the Sexual Abuse/Assault Prevention Program. We have outlined the obligations of both staff and inmates in reporting inappropriate behavior, discussed possible staff reactions to an incident of this type, and have given you the appropriate steps to take if such an incident is alleged or known to have occurred.
In summary, ensuring you understand the critical role health care professionals have in preventing sexual abuse/assaults between inmates, and between staff and inmates, the appropriate intervention to take when instances occur. Ignoring the issue or inappropriate handling of an allegation may increase your risk of legal liability.

20

LESSON PLAN: TIME FRAME: PURPOSE:

SPECIALIZED TRAINING SEXUAL ABUSE PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION
Mental Health Staff Training
2 Hours minimum
To provide guidelines for mental health professionals to better understand local procedures for preventing sexual abuse/assault, intervening when sexual assaults occur by addressing the safety and treatment needs of inmate victims.

OBJECTIVES:

At the end of this session each staff member will be able to:

A.

List the key aspects of the Sexual Abuse/Assault Prevention

and Intervention Program.

B.

State staff and supervisory intervention strategies to minimize

instances of inappropriate staff/inmate relationships.

C.

State the identification and referral process when an alleged

staff/inmate sexual assault occurs.

STUDENT MATERIALS: INSTRUCTOR MATERIALS:
REFERENCES:

Handouts
Lesson Plan Briefing Materials from NIC Flipchart
Program Statement, 5324.04, Sexual Abuse/Assault Prevention and Intervention Program and corresponding Institution Supplement Program Statement 3420.08, Standards of Employee Conduct.

CLASS SIZE: INSTRUCTOR:
COORDINATED AND DEVELOPED BY:

No more than 15 participants
A mental health professional who is recognized as a good communicator, serves in a managerial role, and whose experience demonstrates an understanding of the Sexual Abuse/Assault Intervention and Prevention Program.
Teresa Hunt-Katsel, Central Office Gloria Lucero, MSTC

APPROVED BY:

Vickie Verdeven, Central Office

PSYCHOLOGY SPECIALTY TRAINING
-SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION-

INSTRUCTOR GUIDE
I. INTRODUCTION

INSTRUCTOR NOTES

The sexual abuse of inmates has been identified across correctional systems as a major correctional management issue of the 1990's. A coordinated strategy that involves law and policy development, training of prisoners and correctional staff, and public education is being examined and pursued by most states. A federal law, the Sexual Abuse Act of 1986 (18 U.S.C. 2242-44) provides severe penalties for sexual abuse of inmates. If the abuse involves coercion, it is usually presented as a felony offense. The maximum penalty for an offense of this type is life in prison. If the abuse does not-involve coercion, it is usually prosecuted as a misdemeanor. The penalties for this type of offense are still severe. Incidentally, there is no such thing as "consensual sex." In 1990, only 17 states and the federal government had laws prohibiting the sexual abuse of inmates. Today, sexual misconduct has been recognized as a national issue, and:

•

35 states, the District of Columbia, and the federal

government have laws that specifically criminalizing

sexual abuse in prisons.

• 28 states and the District of Columbia define sexual

misconduct in prisons as a felony.

• 4 states define sexual misconduct in prisons as a

misdemeanor.

•

3 states and the federal government define sexual

misconduct in prisons as either a felony or a

misdemeanor depending on the nature and severity of

the assault.

•

3 states criminalize the conduct of both the prisoner and

the corrections employee in "consensual" cases of

sexual misconduct.

•

13 states and the District of Columbia specifically

provide that even if a prisoner "consents:" to or

voluntarily engages in sex with a corrections staff

person, the staff member is criminally liable.

•

9 states, the District of Columbia and federal

government provide that marriage is a defense to a

charge of sexual misconduct.

•

15 states have no laws criminalizing sexual misconduct

in prisons.

Handout · SO State Survey

PSYCHOLOGY SPECIALTY TRAINING
-SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION-

INSTRUCTOR GUIDE
The National Institute of Corrections (NIC), (the component of the BOP which provides direct assistance to states and local correctional systems), has been pro active and responsive in providing direct technical assistance to states who have experienced instances of sexual misconduct. NIC has worked directly with 24 states and the BOP in developing action plans to provide remedies for correctional systems in responding to the issue of sexual misconduct.

INSTRUCTOR NOTES

The BOP has a zero tolerance stance regarding inappropriate conduct between staff and inmates, particularly that of a sexual nature. There are currently 30,000 employees who work for the BOP. There were 15 cases sustained against BOP staff for sexual abuse of an inmate in 1997. With zero tolerance, the BOP strives to prosecute any instance of sexual misconduct and obtained 8 prosecutions in 1997. The BOP has very clear policy and training programs for staff and inmates.
The BOP increased its focus on the issue of sexual abuse of inmates in July of 1996 after several incidents occurred at a facility for female offenders. The BOP, with assistance from the National Institute of Corrections (NIC), conducted focus groups with staff and inmates at four facilities to assess staff attitudes toward women offenders, BOP philosophy on the management of female offenders and training needs. Issues were identified and presented to a BOP Workgroup who formulated recommendations for refining BOP policy and training which were approved by the Executive Staff in December of 1996. Objectives and action steps were identified and target dates established for implementation beginning in April of 1997.

Handout - BOP Cases
Eleven of those cases involved male staff and female inmates, three involved female staff and male inmates and one case involved female staff and a female inmate. Two of these cases involved contract male staff and female inmates and two involved female contract staff, one with a male inmate and one with a female inmate.

In December of 1997, the revised Program Statement entitled

Sexual Abuse/Assault Prevention and Intervention Program was

issued and included for the first time discussion of the protocol to

follow to ensure:

•

effective procedures to prevent sexually assaultive

behavior will be operative in each Bureau institution

•

medical, psychological, safety, and social needs of victims

will be promptly and effectively met

all allegations of sexual abuse/assault will be promptly

and effectively reported and investigated

•

an, assailants, once identified, will be controlled,

Discuss Definitions from Sexual Abuse/Assault Prevention and Intervention Program Statement
Discuss sexual behaviors definitions from Employee Standards of Conduct. Emphasize these actions which are more passive in nature are not specifically covered by the sexual abuse statute, but are still wrong, harassing in nature and prohibited.

PSYCHOLOGY SPECIALTY TRAINING
-SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION-

INSTRUCTOR GUIDE disciplined, and/or prosecuted

INSTRUCTOR NOTES

All staff received training on Sexual Misconduct, Sexual Assault Prevention and Intervention during Annual Refresher Training in 1998, and new employees received training beginning in March of 1998 as part of their basic training at the Staff Training Academy at Glynco. Specialized training has been developed for staff who have been appointed by the Warden [herein after referred to as Program Coordinators] to ensure that all elements of the program statement are met in a coordinated, interdisciplinary fashion to include:

•

educating and training staff and inmates

•

safeguarding, assessing, treating, and managing sexually

assaulted inmates

investigating disciplining, and/or prosecuting perpetrators

of sexual assault

Specialty training has also been developed for medical and mental health staff, correctional supervisors (lieutenants), and other staff who are at the GS9 and above level to ensure all staff with management responsibilities are aware of their responsibilities in preventing sexual abuse/assault and intervening appropriately when allegations are brought to their attention by inmates.

In the near future, each institution will begin providing training for inmates on sexual abuse/assault prevention and intervention. Therefore, it is very important that Mental Health staff understand the dynamics involved when handling this issue. This training module is to be completed by the staff who provide mental health services for staff and inmates.

II. OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this training is to ensure staff are aware of behaviors that constitute sexual abuse, sexual assault, or sexual misconduct, as defined by Bureau of Prisons policy and the law. As staff/supervisors, you should be familiar with:

Handout - Objectives

•

the key aspects of the Sexual Abuse/Assault Prevention

and Intervention Program Statement.

•

staff/supervisory intervention strategies to minimize

PSYCHOLOGY SPECIALTY TRAINING
-SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION-

INSTRUCTOR GUIDE
episodes of inappropriate staff/inmate relationships, the identification and referral process when an alleged sexual assault occurs.

INSTRUCTOR NOTES

III. LESSON PLAN

A. DEFINITIONS

The Program Statement on Sexual Abuse/Assault Prevention and Intervention Program defines two types of sexual assault and the Employee Standards of Conduct describes prohibited sexual behavior.

Handout - Definitions

1. Inmate on inmate sexual abuse/assault: One or more inmates engaging in, or attempting to engage in a sexual act with another inmate or the use of threats, intimidation, inappropriate touching, or other actions and/or communications by one or
• more inmates aimed at coercing and/or pressuring another inmate to engage in a sexual act. Sexual acts or contacts between inmates, even when no objections are raised, are prohibited.

2. Staff on inmate sexual abuse/assault: Engaging in, or attempting to engage in a sexual act with any inmate. The intentional touching of an inmate's genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks with the intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, arouse, or gratify the sexual desire of any person. Sexual acts or contacts between an inmate and a staff member, even when no objections are raised, are always illegal.

3. From the Employee Standards of Conduct

This type of behavior includes, and

is not limited to, indecent, profane or

Staff-on-inmate sexual behavior that does not rise to the level of a criminal violation is covered by the Employee Standards of Conduct which states

abuse language or gestures, and inappropriate visual surveillance of inmates. Emphasize these actions which are more passive in nature are

"an employee may not engage in, or allow another not specifically covered by the

person to engage in sexual behavior with an sexual abuse statute, but are still
wrong, harassing in nature, and

PSYCHOLOGY SPECIALTY TRAINING
-SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION-

INSTRUCTOR GUIDE

INSTRUCTOR NOTES

inmate."
Employees are subject to administrative action, up to and including removal, for any inappropriate contact or relationship with inmates, regardless of whether such contact constitutes a prosecutable crime. Physical contact is not required to subject an employee to sanctions for sexual misconduct

prohibited by the Employee Standards of Conduct.

Staff must understand they are obligated by the Standards of Conduct to report any allegation of sexual assault/abuse by other inmates or staff.

B. INDICATORS OF INAPPROPRIATE STAFF/INMATE RELATIONSHIPS

There are several warning signs or behaviors that may alert you that a staff member may be involved in an inappropriate relationship with an inmate:

Discussion - Ask for other examples.

•

spending too much time with one inmate

•

exchange of personal items, notes, letters

•

playing favorites

•

idle conversation referring to relationships

•

attempts by inmates' family/friends to contact a

staff member

•

unusual personal inquiries about an inmate

•

unexplained gestures or body language between

inmates and staff

•

accessing inmate living areas añer regular work

hours

C. MANAGERIAL INTERVENTIONS

The BOP also has a zero tolerance stance toward sexual harassment of staff. Now, how do the two relate? Maintaining professional relationships and appropriate boundaries with other staff and inmates is imperative when working in corrections. When staff are interacting inappropriately with each other, it is usually an indicator they are acting inappropriately with inmates.

PSYCHOLOGY SPECIALTY TRAINING
-SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION-

fNSTRUCTOR GUIDE

INSTRUCTOR NOTES

Does your institution culture promote overall human dignity that serve both staff and inmates?

This may have some impact on preventing over-familiarity with individual inmates.

•

Have there been instances where violation of

staff-offender boundaries have occurred?

•

Does your institution have programs in place for

staff and inmates to develop more positive

relationships with others?

Do staff know who to contact if they feel a relationship established with a co-worker or`, inmates has become too informal and uncomfortable?

What interventions are available at your facility, and are staff aware of them? The following are some examples:

a.

Have you publicized the accessibility to support This assistance through EAP is

programs - local EAP and those in the community confidential and no-cost.

(no-cost and confidential)? This may divert

employees who are encountering difficulties with

their personal/family life from becoming involved

with inmates.

b. Have you enhanced the surveillance process by installing video recording devices in SHU, remote areas of the institution, and female housing units? Has telephone monitoring been considered? This may not only detect misconduct, but it may also protect staff from false allegations.

c. Have windows been installed in office and closet doors?

Privacy for staff and inmates must
d. Are the inmates kept busy? Idleness creates be preserved throughout the

problems.

investigation.

e. Has this issue been discussed with the union?

Instances of retaliation must be reported.

f. Have you ensured that staff understand their responsibility for ensuring confidentiality is maintained as instances of inappropriate staff-

PSYCHOLOGY SPECIALTY TRAINING
-SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION-

INSTRUCTOR GUIDE
inmate relationships are reported and investigated? g. Are staff aware it is against the code of conduct to retaliate against staff or inmates who make allegations of sexual abuse/assault?

INSTRUCTOR NOTES

h. It is every supervisor's responsibility to exercise proper supervision over staff and inmates, to take corrective action when warranted, and guard against retaliation by either staff or inmates.

i.

Is there a clear action plan established for dealing Your Warden will consult with your

with employees when allegations of sexual abuse/assault have been made?

Regional Director to consider the options, e.g. home duty status or assignment to posts/shifts which

keep them separated from the

accusing inmate or staff member.

j.

Is there a plan to provide on-going training for all

staff in the institution on what to do if they

All staff should have been trained at ART 1998, or at Glynco STA,

become inappropriately involved with an inmate, beginning in March of 1998;

or what their responsibilities are if they become specialized training is held for

aware, or witness another staff member becoming Program Coordinator, GS9 and

inappropriately involved with an inmate?

above staff, Lieutenants, Health Services and Mental Health staff and

is required for all incumbents within
k. Supervisors must ensure staff understand it is 120 days of appointment in any of

against the code of conduct to not come forward the previously described positions,

and report occurrences of sexual abuse/assault. as outlined in the EDM Manual.

Staff must make their report to a supervisor and

must be clear that by following the appropriate procedures they are not rumor mongering or gossiping.

Recognize that where the work environment is coercive or repressive, there will be a fear to bring forward complaints.

2. Ensure institution supervisors are creating an environment

that provides interventions for staff by:

a.

Rotation of inmate workers on work details in Check all details for longevity of

remote or isolated locations.

inmates assigned.

b. Consistent discipline of violators.

c. Acknowledging the problem and not ignoring inappropriate behavior based on someone's age or position in the department.

PSYCHOLOGY SPECIALTY TRAINING
-SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION-

INSTRUCTOR GUIDE
d. Avoiding enabling behaviors which removes or cushions an employee from the consequences of their action.

INSTRUCTOR NOTES

e. Correcting staff who show signs of inappropriate relationships with inmates and taking action as early as possible; ensuring that every complaint is taken seriously.

f. Knowing the inmates.

g. Watching for staff who withdraw from the administration, or who come to work on off days, or arrive early and leave late.

h. Maintaining high visibility and managing by walking around.

D. PROGRAM COORDINATION

Managing sexual misconduct requires an interdisciplinary approach. Each institution should have a local institution supplement, approved by the Regional Director, that outlines their procedures and staff responsibilities for sexual abuse/assault intervention.

Preventing sexual assault, intervening when sexual assaults do occur, investigating allegations of sexual assault, and disciplining/prosecuting perpetrators of sexual assault/abuse involves the coordinated efforts of several institution departments.

Correctional Services: influences the culture of the

institution environment; manages protection and

investigation

•

Psychology Services: provides clinical assessment of

psychological trauma and provides mental health aftercare

and treatment plan

•

Health Services: provides initial clinical assessment and

treatment of physical trauma; certified medical

professionals gather evidence

Legal: manages case once referred for prosecution

Discuss roles of each member (see policy) and local institution supplement which outlines their responsibilities.
Specialized training for these staff has been developed and you should familiarize yourself with the lesson plans, if you are not the primary instructor. It is recommended that the Program Coordinator monitor the training conducted for all disciplines. It is also important to ensure the appropriate staff are making the presentations.

8

PSYCHOLOGY SPECIALTY TRAINING -SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION-

INSTRUCTOR GUIDE

INSTRUCTOR NOTES

•

Unit Management: manages all inmate movement to

include release

•

Religious Services: provides spiritual assistance to

traumatized inmate victims

Ordinarily an Associate Warden has overall responsibility for ensuring the program requirements are met.

E. INMATE EDUCATION

As part of the institution's Admission and Orientation Program, a staff member, designated by the Warden shall include a brief, candid presentation about the Sexual Abuse/Assault Prevention and Intervention Program that includes:

a. How inmates can protect themselves from becoming victims while incarcerated.

b. Treatment options available to victims of sexual assault, and

c.

Methods of reporting incidents of sexual Discuss how to file an administrative

abuse/assault.

remedy directly to the Regional Office when the issue is considered

sensitive in accordance with the

program statement, Administrative

Remedy Program must be

emphasized. Also discuss method

inmates can report to Office of

Inspector General. Inmates are also

advised they are obligated to report

such incidents.

The presentation also includes information on services and programs available for victims of sexual abuse/assault and for sexually assaultive or aggressive inmates. Each inmate will also receive a brochure summarizing key elements.

Inmates who do not participate in the formal A&O program (e.g., inmates in the hospital or SHU units, or pre-trial and/or detention units), will be provided with the pamphlet. Posters will be placed in the inmate housing units and the law library.

PSYCHOLOGY SPECIALTY TRAINING
-SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION-

INSTRUCTOR GUIDE
F. PROTECTION

INSTRUCTOR NOTES

Prompt and effective intervention must be provided to victims of sexual assault/abuse. Staff shall take seriously all statements from inmates that they have been victims of sexual assaults an and respond supportively and non-judgementally. Any inmafe who alleges that he or she has been sexually assaulted, shall be offered immediate protection from the assailant, will be referred for a medical examination from a certified medical professional, as well as to a mental health professional, for a clinical assessment of the potential for suicide or other symptomology.

G. CONFIDENTIALITY
Staff shall provide services and conduct investigations of sexual abuse/assault incidents, maintaining strict confidentiality for the staff member, and inmate victims. Information concerning the identity of an inmate victim reporting a sexual assault, and the facts of the report itself, shall be limited to those who have a "need to know" in order to make decisions concerning the inmatevictim's welfare and for law enforcement/investigative purposes.

H. VICTIM IDENTIFICATION
For all staff
1. The following are primary ways staff learn that a sexual assault has occurred during confinement:

a. Staff discover an assault in progress.

Intake screening now requests

b. Victim reports an assault to a staff history of abuse/assault.

member.

c. An assault is reported to staff by another

inmate, or is the subject of inmate rumors.

d. Medical evidence.

While some victims will be clearly identified, most will probably not come forward directly with information about the event. In some circumstances, staff may hear of an inmate being threatened with sexual abuse/assault or rumored to be a victim. Some victims may be identified

A staff member who the inmate knows may be of assistance in taking the initial interview since more information could possibly be obtained. The Psychologist or Chaplain may be considered for this interview as they are frequently

10

PSYCHOLOGY SPECIALTY TRAINING
-SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION-

INSTRUCTOR GUIDE

INSTRUCTOR NOTES

through unexplained injuries, changes in physical behavior due to injuries, or abrupt personality changes such as withdrawal or suicidal behavior.

trusted by inmates.

2. The following guidelines may help staff in responding appropriately to a suspected victim:
a. The staff member who first identifies that an assault may have occurred should refer the matter to the institution's Operations Lieutenant or SIS. .

b. If it is suspected that the inmate was sexually assaulted, the inmate should be advised of the importance of getting help to deal with the assault, that he/she may be evaluated medically for sexually transmitted diseases and other injuries, and that trained staff are available to assist. They must immediately be safeguarded and removedfromthe alleged staff or inmate perpetrator.

c. Appropriate staff should review the background of a suspected victim, and the circumstances surrounding the incident, without jeopardizing the inmate's safety, identity, and privacy. Inmate identity and background must be kept confidential and is limited to those with a need to know.

d. If staff discover an assault in progress, the suspected victim should be removed from the immediate area for care and for interviewing by appropriate staff.

e. If the suspected victim is fearful of being

labeled an informer, the inmate should be

Stress that timely reporting is of paramount importance.

advised that the identity of the assailant(s)

is (are) not needed to receive assistance.

11

PSYCHOLOGY SPECIALTY TRAINING
-SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION-

INSTRUCTOR GUIDE

INSTRUCTOR NOTES

I. PROCEDURES FOR STAFF INTERVENTION AND INVESTIGATION

The following procedures may apply for reported or known victims of sexual assault. If the inmate was threatened with sexual assault or was assaulted on an earlier occasion, some steps may not be necessary.

1. Early Intervention Techniques

For all staff

a. It is important that all contact with a

sexual assault victim be sensitive,

Handout - Early Intervention Techniques

supportive, and non-judgmental.

b. It is not necessary to make a judgment about whether or not a sexual assault occurred.

Identify the inmate victim(s) and remove them from the immediate area;

To facilitate evidence collection, the victim should not shower, wash, drink, eat, defecate or change any clothing until examined.

Alert medical staff immediately and escort the victim to the Health Services Unit for a medical evaluation as soon as possible. If necessary, medical staff shall refer the victim to a local emergency facility.
Appropriate staff shall coordinate other services to do follow-up (e.g, housing, suicide assessment).

Medical exam and clinical assessment ofpotential for suicide or other related symptomology must be addressed. Staff must be sensitive to the family concerns of the inmate victim.
Discuss how appropriate staff will coordinate other services such as housing.

A brief statement about the assault should be obtained from the inmate. (The victim may be in shock, and unable to give much detail. It is important to be understanding and responsive. Opportunities to secure

12

PSYCHOLOGY SPECIALTY TRAINING
-SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION-

INSTRUCTOR GUIDE more details will occur later.)

INSTRUCTOR NOTES

h. Following medical evaluation/treatment, the victim may need to be reassigned to protective custody or to another secure area of the facility. Ensure that the alleged assailant(s) have no access to the area.

2. Collect Evidence from Victim
Handout - Collect Evidence from
a. Use HIV infection precautions and Victim procedures. Contact medical staff to determine how to preserve medical indications of sexual assault. In the crime scene area, look for the presence of body fluids, pubic hair, or semen that can be used as evidence. For example, blankets and sheets should be collected.

b. Use standard evidence collection procedures (photographs, etc.) identified in the SIS Manual.

3. Collect Evidence from Assailant

a. Identify and isolate the assailant, pending For Correctional Services/SIS

further investigation.

stañ/Health Services staff

Handout - Collect Evidence from
b. Use the standard evidence gathering Assailant procedures identified in the SIS Manual.

c. Report the incident to the appropriate law enforcement agency.

d. If institution medical staff attempt to examine the alleged assailant, findings should be documented both photographically and in writing. A written summary of all medical evidence and findings should be completed and maintained in the inmate's medical record. Copies of this written summary should

13

PSYCHOLOGY SPECIALTY TRAINING
-SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION-

INSTRUCTOR GUIDE
also be provided to the SIS and appropriate law enforcement officials.

INSTRUCTOR NOTES

J. MEDICAL ASSESSMENT OF VICTIM

For Health Services staff

1. If trained medical staff are available in the

institution, render treatment locally whenever Handout - Medical Assessment of

feasible.

Victim

Refer to local policy which specifies

2.

If the alleged victim is examined in the institution the certification requirements for the

(see the Health Services Manual, Sexual Assault) jurisdiction in which your institution

to determine the extent of injuries, all findings should be documented both photographically and in writing. An original Inmate Injury Assessment

is located and determine where and who will conduct the medical examination.

and Follow-up form (BP-S362) should be filed in

the inmate's medical record. A copy of BP-S362

should be provided to the SIS or appropriate law

enforcement official.

3. If deemed necessary by the examining physician, follow established procedures for use of outside medical consultants or for an escorted trip to an outside medical facility.

4. Notify staff at the community medical facility and alert them to the inmate's condition.

5. When necessary, conduct STD and HIV testing.

6. Refer the inmate for crisis counseling as appropriate.

K. MEDICAL TRANSFERS FOR EXAMINATION AND TREATMENT

1. If determined appropriate by the institution For Correctional Services and physician and if approved by the Warden or Health Services staff

designee, the inmate may be examined by medical personnel from the community. A contractual arrangement may be developed with a rape crisis

Handout - Medical Transfers for Examination and Treatment.

center or other medical service if available in the Refer to Local Supplement.

community and should be utilized to enhance

14

PSYCHOLOGY SPECIALTY TRAINING
-SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION-

INSTRUCTOR GUIDE
institution medical services as deemed appropriate by institution medical staff arid the Warden. The contract should provide for clinical examination, for assessing physical injuries, and for the collection of any physical evidence of sexual assault. It should also allow for contract medical personnel to come into the institution and for the escorting of inmates to the contract facility (e.g., crisis care center, medical clinic, hospital, etc.).

INSTRUCTOR NOTES

2. Escorting staff should treat the victim in a supportive and non-judgmental way.

3. Information about the assault is confidential, and should be given only to those directly involved in the investigation and/or treatment of the victim.

L. MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

For Psychology Services

1. Psychology Services or other mental health staff Handout - Mental Health Services
shall be notified immediately after the initial report of an allegation of sexual abuse/assault of Emphasize Point 1,3,4 & 5
an inmate.

2. Any alleged victim(s) shall be seen, within 24 hours following such notification, by a mental health clinician to provide crisis intervention and to assess any immediate and subsequent treatment needs.

3. The findings of this initial crisis/evaluation session shall be summarized in a written format within one week of the initial session and, once completed, shall be placed in the appropriate treatment record, with a copy provided to the Clinical Director and other staff responsible for oversight of sexual abuse/assault prevention and intervention procedures.

4. Additional psychological or psychiatric treatment, as well as continued assessment of mental health

15

PSYCHOLOGY SPECIALTY TRAINING -SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION-

INSTRUCTOR GUIDE
status and treatment needs, shall be provided as needed and only with the victim's full consent and collaboration. Decisions regarding the need for continued treatment and/or assessment shall be made by qualified clinicians according to established professional standards, and shall be made with an awareness that victim(s) of sexual abuse/assault commonly experience both immediate and delayed psychiatric and/or emotional symptoms.

INSTRUCTOR NOTES

If the victim(s) choose to continue to pursue treatment, the clinician will either provide appropriate treatment or facilitate referral of the victim(s) to the appropriate treatment option(s) including individual therapy, group therapy, further psychological assessment, assignment to a mental health case load and/or facility, referral to a psychiatrist, and/or other treatment options. Pending referral, mental health services shall continue unabated. If the victim(s) chooses to decline further treatment services, he or she shall be asked to sign a statement to that effect.

5. All treatment and evaluation sessions shall be properly documented and placed in the appropriate treatment record to ensure continuity of care within, between, or outside Bureau facilities.

6. Should the victim be released from custody during the course of treatment, the victim will be advised of community mental health resources in their release area.

M. MONITORING AND FOLLOW-UP

For all staff and Psychology and Health Services

1.

Arrange with the unit team and Correctional Handout - Monitoring and Follow-

Services to place the inmate in appropriate up

housing.

16

PSYCHOLOGY SPECIALTY TRAINING
-SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION-

INSTRUCTOR GUIDE
2. Monitor the physical and mental health of the victim and coordinate the continuation of necessary services.

INSTRUCTOR NOTES

3. Dispense medication, provide routine examinations and STD and HIV follow-up.

4. Conduct post-crisis counseling and arrange for psychiatric care if necessary.

5. Psychology staff should watch for reaction stages and provide support as needed during critical stages.

6. Determine the risk of keeping the victim at the same facility where the incident occurred.
N. RELEASE PREPARATION AND CONTINUING CARE For Psychology and Unit staff
1. Psychology staff shall ordinarily determine the Handout - Release Preparation and need for aftercare and transitional treatment Continuing Care services, and notify the Case Manager of their recommendations.
2. The willingness of the victim to participate in treatment in the community should be determined.
3. For those cases that will use continuing care services, efforts to facilitate them should begin about 12 months prior to their release.
4. If CCC services are used, mental health counseling and other transitional services that facilitate the victim's healthy reintegration into the community and with the family may be necessary.
5. The responsibilities of the victim in the treatment process should be identified.
6. Arrangements should be made through the U.S. Probation Office for psychological, medical, or other support services in the victim's release
17

PSYCHOLOGY SPECIALTY TRAINING
-SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION-

INSTRUCTOR GUIDE
district.

INSTRUCTOR NOTES

7. The victim should be encouraged to participate in support groups in the community.

O. AFTERMATH

For all staff

Taking the proper steps after a reported incident of sexual assault/abuse is critical. As you can see, this issue is taken seriously and can lead to the prosecution, conviction and incarceration of staff. If staff feel the investigation process is a witch hunt, or they never hear of the results, problems can result.
Therefore, management has a responsibility to staff to take appropriate action when a staff member is accused of sexual misconduct or sexual assault. To protect all persons involved, institution staff must understand they will not be advised of the details of the case, or the outcome of the investigation, until such information is made a matter of public record and is available to the general public.

Handout - Aftermath
When backlash occurs, staff are frozen. Staff may feel a need to talk about their feelings and may seek out a trusted person, such as a psychologist, chaplain, supervisor, or executive staff member for further guidance.

Añer an incident of sexual misconduct, there is an aftermath that must be managed by staff at all levels. The following can occur:

Polarization: staff take sides Placing blame on others Gossip and stories Heightened awareness and fear of maintaining professional, appropriate relationships with inmates Staff may want "witnesses" when talking to an inmate of the opposite gender Thoughts about "what more could I have done?" Feelings of anger, guilt, betrayal

Psychologists play a critical role in helping staff and inmates to better understand the dynamics involved in inappropriate relationships developed in the correctional environment. They also have the clinical skills to provide appropriate mental health services for victims who have been traumatized.

Until a prosecution occurs, the information that is provided staff will be very limited and this could further serve to alienate staff.
18

PSYCHOLOGY SPECIALTY TRAINING
-SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION-

INSTRUCTOR GUIDE

INSTRUCTOR NOTES

The information will be limited due to privacy issues and possible pending future legal actions.

IV. SUMMARY

We have talked today about the types of staff behaviors that are against the law and/or against the code of conduct as outlined by the Sexual Abuse/Assault Prevention Program. We have outlined the obligations of both staff and inmates in reporting inappropriate behavior, discussed possible staff reactions to an incident of this type, and have given you the appropriate steps to take if such an incident is alleged or known to have occurred.

In summary, ensuring you understand the critical role mental health professionals have in preventing sexual abuse/assaults between inmates, between staff and inmates in taking the appropriate intervention when instances occur. Ignoring the issue or inappropriate handling of an allegation may increase your risk of legal liability.

19