1

2

MAGISTRATE JUDGE DAVID E. WILSON

3

4

- FILFD

• LO&GEO

5

• RtCtiVED

6

OCT ] 2 jg

7

AT SEATTLE

BY WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHWGTQN

8

DEPUTY

9

10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

11

AT TACOMA

12 SHANNON HALLETT, YVONNE

)

13 WOOD, GAIL RAY, CINDY STEWART,) No. C93-5496(T)D

and RENA SKILTON,

14

PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED

15

Plaintiffs,

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

16
vs.
17
ALICE PAYNE, Superintendent, 18 Washington Corrections for Women, in
her official and individual 19 capacities, and DONNA MORGAN,
20 Health Care Manager, in her official and individual capacities, and their
21 officers, agents, employees, and
successors,
22

23

Defendants.

CLASS ACTION
Hallett v. Payne
• • •• •• •• • •
PC-WA-002-001

24

I. INTRODUCTION

25

1. This is a class action brought on behalf of women incarcerated at the

26 Washington Corrections Center for Women (WCCW) to redress the harm caused by the

27
State's failure to provide them with adequate health care; including medical, dental and
28

PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 1

EVERGREEN LEGAL SERVICES
INSTITUTIONAL LEGAL SERVICES PROJECT
101 YESLER WAY. SUITE 301 SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98104
(2061 464-08:18

1 mental health care.

2

II. JURISDICTION AND SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION

3
2. This Court has jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is invoked under 28 U.S.C. §
4

1343(a)(3) and(4). This Court hasjurisdiction over plaintiffs' pendant state law claim under

e 28 U.S.C. §1367.

D

7

3. Venue is in the Western District of Washington since this case concerns parties

8 residing in Pierce County in the State of Washington.

9

III. PARTIES

10 DEFENDANTS
11
4. Defendant Alice Payne is theSuperintendent at WCCW. The Superintendent
12

has thestatutory duty to manage WCCW. RCW 72.02.045. She has deprived plaintiffs of
1 O

14 their constitutional rights under color of state law. She is sued in herofficial andindividual

15 capacity.

16

5. Defendant Donna Morgan is theHealth Care Manager at WCCW. She is the

designated health authority responsible for planning, organizing, directing, coordinatingand
18
controlling all health care at WCCW. She has deprived plaintiffs of their constitutional
19
rights under color of state law. She is sued in her official andindividual capacity.

21 PLAINTIFFS

22

6. Plaintiff Shannon Hallett is incarcerated at WCCW.

23

7. Plaintiff Yvonne Wood is incarcerated at WCCW.

8. Plaintiff Gail Ray is incarcerated at WCCW. 25
9. Plaintiff Cindy Stewart is incarcerated at WCCW. 26
10. Plaintiff Rena Skilton is incarcerated at WCCW.
27
28
PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 2

E V E R G R E E N L E G A L SERV(CES
INSTITUTIONAL LEGAL SERVICES PROJECT
101 YESLER WAY, SUITE 301
SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98.04
(206) 464-0838

1

IV. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

2

11. Class - All Prisoners. Plaintiffs seek to maintain this action as a class action.

3 They ask this court to define one class. That class is all prisoners currently, or in the future,
4
incarcerated at WCCW. 5

6

12. Class - Common Allegations and Relief: CR 23(a)(2) and (b)(2). Defendants

7 have acted or refused to act on grounds applicable to all prisoners currently incarcerated in,

8 or in the future transferred to, WCCW. There are questions of law and fact common to all

9 members of the class. All class members are subjected to a constitutionally inadequate health

10
care system by defendants, making declaratory and injunctive relief appropriate.
11
13. Class - Numerositv: CR 23(a)(l). The class is so numerous that joinder of all
12
members is impracticable. There are currently more than 300 prisoners incarcerated at
13
14 WCCW.

15

14. Class - Typicality: CR 23(a)(3). The claims of the representative plaintiffs

16 are typical of those of the class. All class members are subject to the constitutionally
17 deficient health care system at WCCW and will continue to be subject to this system absent
18
the prayed for relief.
19
15. Class - Adequacy and Fairness: CR 23(a)(4). The representative plaintiffs
20
21 will adequately and fairly protect the interests of the class because they have been subjected
22 to the conditions challenged by the class as a whole. The named plaintiffs seek declaratory

23 and injunctive relief that would assure relief for the class. They have available capable and

24 experienced counsel in the areas of civil rights and prisoners' rights.

25
26
A.
27

V. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS General Factual Allegations

28
PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 3

EVERGREEN LEGAL SERVICES
INSTITUTIONAL LEGAL SERVICES PROJECT 101 YESLER WAY. SUITE 301
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104
(206) 464 0838

1

16. WCCW is located in Gig Harbor, Washington. It houses minimum, medium

2 and maximum security women prisoners.
3
17. Health care as referred to herein include dental, medical and mental health
4
services. Health care services are provided both at the prison and "off-site" by private health
5
care providers under contract with the Department of Corrections (DOC), except that mental
6
7 health services are provided only at WCCW.

8

18. The DOC does not provide the same or comparable mental health services to

9 women under DOC's jurisdiction as are provided to men under DOC's jurisdiction. The

10
Special Offenders Center (SOC), located at Monroe, Washington, is DOC's primary mental
11
health treatment facility. Women are not eligible for placement there. SOC provides men
12
housed there with more mental health treatment than is available to women within DOC.
13

14

19. The health care system at WCCW is disorganized and the health care staff

15 there are inadequately trained and supervised.

16

20. There is an inadequate number of staff to provide needed health care services

17
to women at WCCW. There are no physicians available on-site at WCCW during the
18
evenings or weekends. There is currently no female staff physician available to women at
19
WCCW.
20

21

21. Routine gynecological and dental care is not systematically provided to women

22 at WCCW.

23

22. Non-physician staff at WCCW override the professional judgment and medical

24 orders of physicians. A physician treating a prisoner does not control whether and when a
25
prisoner will be given health care that is only available off-site. Instead, it is the "Utilization
26
Review Committee" at WCCW, which includes non-medical staff, which makes this
27

28
PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 4

EVERGREEN LEGAL SERVICES
INSTITUTIONAL LEGAL SERVICES PROJFCT 101 YESLER WAY. SUITE 301
SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98104 (206) 464-0838

1 determination.

2

23. Defendants or their agents often do not timely respond to prisoners' requests

3 for health care. Financial considerations, not medical ones, often determine whether or when
4
a prisoner will receive requested health care. 5

6

24. The medical records at WCCW are in disarray. Health record entries are

7 incomplete and health care information and requests for health care are not recorded in

8 accordance with professional standards.

9

25. Follow-up care and diagnostic testing prescribed by treating physicians is

10
sometimes not given at all or not provided in a timely manner.
11
26. Defendants or their agents improperly dispense medications.
12
27. The dentist at WCCW fails to take sanitary precautions when delivering dental
13

14 services to women. The dentist has failed to use latex gloves or change them between

15 patients.

16

28. Conditions in the infirmary at WCCW are often unclean and unsanitary. Bed

17
linen is sometimes not changed between patients.
18
29. Defendants have knowledge of these practices and conditions but have failed to
19
adequately remedy them.
20

21

30. The disorganized health care system and health care conditions and practices at

22 WCCW described above demonstrate a deliberate indifference to the serious medical needs of

23 women incarcerated there and cause WCCW prisoners to suffer unnecessary pain.
24

25

26

27

28
PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 5

EVERGREEN LEGAL SERVICES
INSTITUTIONAL LEGAL SERVICES PROJECT 101 YESLER WAY, SUITE 301
SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98101
(206) 464-0838

1 B. Specific Factual Allegations

2

Shannon Hallett

3
31. On January 17, 1992, Shannon Hallett injured herself when she fell off the top
4
bunk of a bunk-bed in her cell.
5

6

32. The bunk from which she fell is like all other bunk-beds at WCCW. The

7 bunk beds are smaller than twin-size, about the size of a cot. These beds pose a risk to the

8 safety of prisoners. Other women have fallen from top bunks and injured themselves.

9

33. After her fall Shannon experienced constant headaches, pain in her arm,

10
shoulder and hand. The fall aggravated a degenerative disc problem Shannon suffered from
11
before the fall.
12
34. WCCW staff were deliberately indifferent to Shannon's serious medical needs
13

14 by failing to timely provide her with needed follow-up medical care after her fall despite her

15 repeated requests for tests and treatment.

16

35. Shannon also suffers from a chronic peptic ulcer disease. WCCW staff

17 discontinued the medication she was prescribed by a physician to take for this problem.

18
Shannon has also been prescribed anti-inflammatory medication for her disc problem. Her
19
prescriptions were discontinued or not filled without the authority of the treating physician.
20

21

36. Shannon does not receive routine gynecological or dental exams or care.

22

37. Through the actions described above, Defendants or their agents cause

23 Shannon to suffer unnecessary pain.

24

Yvonne Wood

25
38. Yvonne Wood has been incarcerated at WCCW since 1987. She has had
26
frequent seizures since before her arrival at WCCW. Yvonne now has seizures about once
27

28
PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 6

EVERGREEN LEGAL SERVICES
INSTITUTIONAL LEGAL SERVICES PROJECT 101 YESLER WAY, SUITE 301
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104 (206) 464-0838

1 every two weeks.

2

39. Yvonne fell from a top bunk on June 24, 1990, while having a seizure.

3
40. In 1990 she was given tests by a neurologist, including a Magnetic Resonance
4
Imaging (MRI). The neurologist asked that further tests, including a MRI, be given in one
5
year. In 1991 the neurologist again requested a repeat MRI.
6

7

41. Yvonne was not given another MRI as ordered by the doctor despite her

8 repeated requests to be returned to the neurologist for testing and the fact that the cause of

9 her seizures has not been determined.

10
42. The "Utilization Review Committee" made the decision to "defer" her MRI.
11
43. Through the actions described above, Defendants or their agents cause Yvonne
12
to suffer unnecessary pain.
13

14

Gail Ray

15

44. Gail Ray suffers from multiple medical problems including severe coronary

16 obstructive pulmonary disease and Talc lung. She has very limited use of her lungs. Gail

17 has chronic severe headaches and near syncopal or seizure-like episodes.
18
45. A physician specialist she was referred to by the prison strongly recommended
19
that she be given a 24 hour Holter monitor to check for arrhythmia. The "Utilization
20
21 Review Committee" refused to approve performance of this test.

22

46. The "Utilization Review Committee" refused to allow Gail to see her

23 pulmonary specialist for a follow-up exam requested by the specialist.

24

47. Gail had a cyst excision performed on her elbow in December of 1992 by an

25
off-site physician. Eight months after the surgery Gail continues to suffer pain, infection,
26
swelling and draining from her elbow wound. The "Utilization Review Committee" has
27

28
PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 7

EVERGREEN LEGAL SERVICES
INSTITUTIONAL LEGAL SERVICES PROJECT
101 YESLER WAY, SUITE 301 SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98104
(206) 464-0838

1 refused to approve her to see the physician off-site. The doctor comes to WCCW generally

2 once a month. Gail has not been seen by this physician since early May of 1993.

3
48. Through the actions described above, Defendants or their agents cause Gail to
4
suffer unnecessary pain.
5

6

Cindy Stewart

7

49. Cindy Stewart suffers from severe mental health problems. She was evaluated

8 by both the prison psychiatrist and psychologist in June of 1992. Both determined that Cindy

9 needed intensive long-term psychotherapy.

10 50. Cindy has never been allowed to see the psychiatrist or psychologist for
11 psycho-therapy. She sees the psychiatrist periodically only to obtain prescriptions for
12
medications for her mental health problems.
13

14

51. Cindy has received only intermittent counseling from social workers at

15 WCCW. From June 1992 to September 1992, she was given counseling by a social worker.

16 She did not get anymore counseling until January of 1993 when she began seeing a social
17 worker intern. After May of 1993 she got no counseling until late August 1993.
18
52. Cindy takes Pinequan, Prozac, and Desyrel. In June of this year, Cindy's
19
prescriptions expired and she believed that she was sexually harassed in prison which evoked
20
21 memories of the physical and sexual abuse she has suffered in the past.

22

53. Subsequently, Cindy became increasingly disassociated from reality. She

23 requested to be seen by the psychiatrist on July 2, 1993, July 9, 1993, and July 16, 1993.
24 She was not receiving any counseling during this time.
25
53. Cindy was placed in segregation between July 8, 1993, and July 14, 1993.
26
During the period of segregation confinement she injured her wrist by biting it and cutting on
27

28
PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 8

EVERGREEN LEGAL SERVICES
INSTITUTIONAL LEGAL SERVICES PROJECT
101 YESLER WAY, SUITE 301 SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98104
(206) 4640838

1 it with a toothbrush.

2

55. Cindy was placed again in segregation on July 15, 1993. In segregation she

3
repeatedly beat her head against the wall, bit herself and pulled out her hair. She had
4
nightmares and generally did not sleep.
5
56. Despite her requests and behavior Cynthia was not counseled by a psychiatrist
6

7 or other mental health professional during these episodes.

8

57. Cindy also fell off an upper bunk in approximately February of 1993.

9

58. Through the actions described above, Defendants or their agents cause Cindy

10
to suffer unnecessary pain.
11
Rena Skilton
12
59. Rena began to complain to WCCW medical staff of severe abdominal pain
13

14 beginning in approximately April of 1990. In May of 1990 Rena was diagnosed with a left

15 ovarian cyst and multiple cysts on her right ovary.

16

60. Over the course of the next five months, Rena experienced severe pain,

17 dizziness, unusual vaginal discharge and fainting spells which she reported to WCCW
18
medical staff. In August of 1990 a gynecologist ordered surgery to be performed on Rena.
19
61. Finally, in October of 1990, a partial hysterectomy was performed on Rena.
20

21

62. Very soon after her surgery Rena again experienced and complained about

22 severe abdominal pain. It was not until November of 1992 that her left ovary was removed.

23

63. Beginning in December of 1992, Rena again began feeling pain in her

24 abdomen. Rena still suffers from abdominal pain and vomiting.
25
64. Rena does not receive routine gynecological check-ups or exams.
26
65. Rena has been disciplined and punished for not "programming" (being at work
27

28
PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 9

EVERGREEN LEGAL SERVICES
INSTITUTIONAL LEGAL SERVICES PBOjSCT
101 YESLEH WAY, SUITE 301 SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 981OJ
(206) 464-0838

1 or in school) even when she has valid medical excuses for her inability to "program".

2

66. Through the actions described above, Defendants or their agents cause Rena to

3
suffer unnecessary pain.
4
VI. CAUSES OF ACTION
5
67. The health care system at WCCW for which defendants are responsible
6

7 subjects named plaintiffs and the class they represent to cruel and unusual punishment in

8 violation of the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and 42 U.S.C. §1983.

9

68. The failure of the DOC to provide women prisoners with the same or

10 comparable mental health services as are provided to men violates the equal protection clause
11
of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. §1983.
12
69. The failure of DOC to provide women prisoners with the same or comparable
13
14 mental health services as are provided to men violates Article 31, section 1 of the

15 Washington State Constitution (the Equal Rights Amendment).

16

70. Defendants subject plaintiffs to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of

17 the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and 42 U.S.C. §1983 by requiring them to

18 sleep on bunk-beds that are unsafe.
19
VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
20

21

The plaintiffs ask this Court for the following relief:

22

(1) A declaration stating that the health care system at WCCW is constitutionally

23 inadequate;

24

(2) An injunction to prevent defendants from failing to provide women at WCCW

25
with adequate health services and to prevent the defendants from requiring women to sleep
26
on unsafe bunk beds.
27

28
PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 10

EVERGREEN LEGAL SERVICES
INSTITUTIONAL LEGAL SERVICES PROJECT
101 YESLER WAY. SUITE 301 SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98104
(206) 464-0838

1

(3) An award of attorneys fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988 and such

2 other relief as the court deems necessary.

3

DATED: flthfi* /2,

4

5

6

7

1993.
EVERGREEN LEGAL SERVICES Institutional Legal Services Project 101 Yesler Way, Suite 301 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 464-0838

8

9

PATRICIA/K ARTHUR

10

WSBA #11769

JOHN MIDGLEY

11

WSBA #6511

Attorney for Plaintiffs

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 11

EVERGREEN LEGAL SERVICES
INSTITUTIONAL LEGAL SERVICES PROJECT
101 YESLER WAY, SUITE 301 SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98104
(206) 464-0838

 
 ENTERED ON DOCKET

JAN 1 2/JB8S)

2
[ ,
3

By D«putv - ( ? < > » / - "

HONORABLE FRANKLIN D. BURGESS MAGISTRATE JUDGE DAViD E. WILSON
r

4

-FILED

.LODGED

FllFn ( X U k j Q D G t _____RECE1VED

L 2 k l FILED.

.LODGED

.RECEIVED

5
86

.RECEIVED
JAN 1 1 1995

CO

7

CLERK U.S. DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

BY

DEPUTY

DEC 2 9 1994

CLEFK U S DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT Of WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

BY

DEPUfBY

JAN 1 2 1995

CLERK U S. WTmCT COWT

DtrviT

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

10 SHANNON HALLETT, YVONNE

)

WOOD, GAIL RAY, CINDY STEWART,) No. C93-5496(T)D

11 and RENA SKILTON,

)

) STIPULATION AND JUDGMENT
12

13

Plaintiffs,

)

14

vs.

15 ALICE PAYNE, Superintendent, Washington Corrections for Women, in
16 her official and individual 17 capacities, and DONNA MORGAN,
Health Care Manager, in her official 18 and individual capacities, and their
officers, agents, employees,and 19 successors,

Hallett v. Payne PC-WA-002-002

20
Defendants.
21
STIPULATION
22

23

The parties, plaintiffs Shannon Hallett, Yvonne Wood, Gail Ray, Cindy Stewart, and

24 Rena Skilton, and the class ofplaintiffs they represent, through their counsel of record

25 Patricia J. Arthur, Caroline Starbird, Megan McLemore, and Katrin E. Frank,and
26 defendants Alice Payne, Donna Morgan, through their counsel ofrecord Daniel J. Judgeand
27
Cheryl Carey, hereby agree that the following Judgment shall be entered, subject to approval
28

STIPULATION & JUDGMENT PAGE 1

EVERGREEN LEGAL SERVICE'

INSTITUTIONAL LEGAL SERV1CFS PRC

101 YESLER WAY. SUITE 30'

SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 9 8 ' 0 -

(206) 464-0838

\ \y

1 of the court and notice to class members. This Stipulation and Judgment is entered to

2 resolve plaintiffs' health care claims for injunctive and declaratory relief in the above-
3 captioned lawsuit. This Stipulation is not to be construed as an admission by either party
4
regarding liability of violation of any law by Defendants. The parties enter into the
5
Stipulation for purposes of settling disputed contentions and controversies arising from this
6
7 action.

8

Respectfully submittecj^Qetrjfjer Z<j , 1994.

9
10
PATRICIA/L ARTHUR, WSBA #13769 11 CAROLINE STARBIRD, WSBA #23368
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
12

n&cD... iL J. JUDGE, WS18A #17392 IERYL B. CAREY, WSBA #18417 Attorneys for Defendants

EVERGREEN LEGAL SERVICES 13 Institutional Legal Services Project 14 101 Yesler Way, Suite 301
Seattle, WA 98104 15 (206) 464-0838

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY

GENERAL, Corrections Division

P.O. Box 40116

Oly

H 98504-0116

16

KATRIN E. FRANK, WSBA #14786 17 Cooperating Attorney with

18 Northwest Women's Law Center for Plaintiffs

19

MacDONALD, HOAGUE & BAYLESS 20 1500 Hoge Building, 705-2nd Avenue

21

Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 622-1604

22

itk

23 MEGAN McLEMORE, WSl 17

Cooperating Attorney for the 24 American Civil Liberties Union

25 for Plaintiffs

CHASE RIVELAND, Secretary Department of Corrections
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS P.O. Box 41101 Olympia, WA 98504-1101

26 PRESTON, GATES & ELLIS 5000 Columbia Center, 701-5th Avenue
27 Seattle, WA 98104
28 (206) 623-7580

STIPULATION & JUDGMENT PAGE 2

EVERGREEN LEGAL SERVICES
INSTITUTIONAL LEGAL SERVICES PROJECT 101 YESLER WAY. SUITE 301
SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98104 (206) 464-0838

JUDGMENT

This matter having been heard by the Honorable Franklin D. Burgess, United States

District Court Judge, theparties having stipulated to the entry of this Judgment, notice to

class members having been issued, and all comments from class members considered by the

court, the court approves and enters the following Judgment.

I. BACKGROUND AND DEFINITIONS
A. TheComplaint in this action wasfiled on August 31, 1993, on behalf of the
named plaintiffs, and all others similarly situated, against defendants Alice Payne, 10
Superintendent of the Washington Corrections Center for Women ("WCCW"), and Donna
11
Morgan, Health Care Manager at WCCW, and their officers, agents, employees, and
12
successors. Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint on October 12, 1993. Defendants
13
14 moved to dismiss this case on October 18, 1993. On February 9, 1994, District Court Judge
15 Carolyn R. Dimmick dismissed plaintiffs' claim related to defendants' use of unsafe
16 bunkbeds at WCCW, but denied defendants' Motion to Dismiss plaintiffs' health care claims 17 brought under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. 18
B. This case wascertified as a class action by order dated April 13, 1994. The
19
class is defined as "Allprisoners currently, or in the future, incarcerated at the Washington

21 Corrections Center for Women."

22

C. TheStipulation and Order signed by District Court Judge Carolyn R. Dimmick

23 was entered July 14, 1994, is incorporated herein by reference.
24 D. This Judgment is fair, reasonable, and adequate to protect the class in
25 accordance with the standards of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e).
26
E. This Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this action and personal

28 jurisdiction over the defendants.

CTTDITT A T I A M P TtmrMCKTT STIPULATION & JUDGMENT
J

EVERGREEN LEGAL SERVICES
INSTITUTIONAL LEGAL SERVICES PROJECT
101 YESLER WAV Su-'E 3C SEATTLE. WASHINGTON S8'04
(206) 4640838

1

F. For purposes of this Judgment, the following definitions shall apply.

2
1. Documents: The term "documents" as used herein includes, without
3
limitation, correspondence, telegrams, cables, teletype messages, mailgrams, reports,
4
records, schedules, diaries, court dockets, court files and papers found therein, notes, logs, 5
6 summaries, memoranda, memoranda of telephone conversations, photographs, depictions,

7 sketches, renderings, mechanical and electronic records of conversations or of statements or

8 of telephone conversations, and all other printed, typewritten, written records, or taped
9 matter of any kind of description. The term "documents" does not include attorney/client
10
privilege or any other privilege pursuant to federal or state laws.
11
2. Defendants: Defendants include the named defendants in this action 12
and their supervisors, officers, agents, successors, employees and assigns.

14

3. Follow-up Health Care or Follow-up Care: Any health care treatment

15 requiring more than one appointment with a health care provider.

16

4. Health Care: "Health care" records and services as referred to herein

include medical, mental health, and dental records and services. 18
5. Services: The term "services" shall include medical, dental, mental 19
health, infectious disease, environmental, pharmacy, research, continuous quality

21 improvement ("CQI"), utilization review, and information services.

22

II. OBLIGATIONS OF DEFENDANTS

23

A. The defendants shall immediately take steps to develop, adopt, and implement

24 a set of health care standards at WCCW consistent with the Washington State Department of
25 Health Standards that the Department of Health and Department of Corrections are jointly
26
developing. (See Appendix 1, attached hereto and incorporated herein, for areas to be 2 8 addressed.) The standards adopted shall in all respects be consistent with the Stipulation and

QTTPTTT A T T O M kr TTm f l M F N T
i 1 If ULA 11UIN & J UJJUMCIN 1 PAfrF 4 inui^ 1

EVERGREEN LEGAL SERVICES '

INSTITUTIONAL LEGAL SERVICES PROJECT !

101 YESLER WAV. SUITE 301

j

SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98101

j

(206) 464-0838

!

1 Order signed by District Court Judge Carolyn R. Dimmick on July 14, 1994, referenced in
2
paragraph I.C., supra. 3
In developing these standards, defendants will consider the four sets of National
4
Standards that have been used to govern correctional health care in the United States: those 5 6 of the American Correctional Association (ACA); those of the American Public Health
7 Association (APHA); those of the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare
8 Organizations (JCAHO); and those of the National Commission of Correctional Health Care
9 (NCCHC).

B. Defendants will have developed, adopted, and begun implementation of the
11
health care standards for WCCW which will be consistent with paragraph II.A. of this
12
Agreement, by no later than September 1, 1995, and shall have fully implemented these
1 o
14 standards by no later than April 1, 1996.

15

C. Defendants shall develop a health care services delivery plan for WCCW by

16 no later than December 1, 1994. This plan shall govern health care services provided at

WCCW and be consistent with the standards developed under paragraph II.B. above. The
18
plan shall specify the implementation and completion dates of all tasks delineated in the plan. 19
D. The plan referenced in paragraph II.C. of this Agreement shall include the 20
21 following:

22

1. Centralized Data Collection System.

23

a. By April 1995, WCCW shall install and begin using the

2 4 Department of Corrections ("DOC") medical services database. WCCW will be the DOC
25 pilot site for those aspects of the medical services data base addressing gynecological,
26
obstetrical, and related issues for offenders at WCCW. The DOC medical services database 27
28 system will have the ability to capture data on:

STTPTTT ATTON # TTTDGMFNT

SI i r U LA 11UIN

(SJU UOMC1> 1

.

PAfiF ")

1 rvvjl^ u

EVERGREEN LEGAL SERVICES
.NSTITUTION AL LEGAL SERVICES PROJECT
'01 YES1-ER WAY. SUITE301
SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 9610-1 (206) 464-0638

1

(1) Details of medical care encounters, and the medical care

2 services provided, such as provider name, date of service, primary diagnosis, treatment,
3 referrals for lab, x-ray, appointments with specialists, medication prescribed, and other
4
follow-up actions;
5
(2) Scheduling of medical care appointments and follow-ups,
6
7 referrals for diagnostic tests, specialty care, and procedures, and

8

(3) Medical care provided to offenders off-site, in the

9 community, including hospitalizations and referrals to community specialists.

10

b. The dental services data base which will track information

11
analogous to that identified in paragraph II.l.a.(l)-(3) above will be implemented by
12
December 1995.
13

14

c. The mental health services data base which will track

15 information analogous to that identified in paragraph II.l.a.(l)-(3) above will be implemented

16 by December 1996.

17

2. Health Records.

18
a. Health care records at WCCW shall be legible and shall contain
19
the necessary signatures in accordance with professional standards. Defendants shall ensure
20
the legibility of health records and signatures entered into all health care records at WCCW.
21

22 Defendants shall date and time all health record entries. Health records maintained at

23 WCCW will contain, at a minimum, the following information and documents:

24

(1)

25
to the clinic;
26
(2)
27
number, date of birth, sex);
28

Records of written and oral requests for health care made Identifying information (e.g., patient name, identification

STIPULATION & JUDGMENT PAGE 6

EVERGREEN LEGAL SERVICES i

INSTITUTIONAL LEGAL SERVICES PROJECT ;

101 YESLER WAY SUITE 30'

j

SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 9810-s

(206) 464-0838

1

(3) Treatment Plan;

2

(4) Problem List (including allergies):

3 (a) Receiving Screening Health Assessment Forms;

4

(b) All findings, diagnoses, treatments, and

5

dispositions;

6

(c) Prescribed medications and their administration;

7 (d) Reports of laboratory, x-ray, and diagnostic

8

studies;

9

(e) Progress notes;

10 (0 Consent and refusal forms;

11 (g) Release of information forms;
12

(h) Results of consultations and off-site referrals for

13

treatment;

14 (i) Discharge summary of hospitalizations;
15 (j) Special needs treatment plan, if any;
16

17

(k) Immunization records;

18

(1) Place, date, and time of each medical encounter;

and

19

(m) Signature and title of each documenter. 20

21

b. Defendants shall ensure that all records are complete and that all

22 standardized forms are entered into patient records. This system shall ensure the timeliness

23 of loose-sheet filing into the record and compliance with all policies of the DOC and will
24 ensure that pharmaceutical records are kept together with patient records.
25 3. Medication Dispensing and Administration.
26
a. By no later than November 1, 1994, defendants shall develop-
27
28 and implement systems to track the dispensing and administration of medications.

STIPULATION & JUDGMENT PAGE 7

EVERGREEN LEGAL SERVICES
INSTITUTIONAL LEGAL SERVICES PROJECT 101 YESLER WAY, SUITE 301
SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98104 (206) 464-0838

1

b. Defendants shall immediately take all necessary steps to develop

2
and implement standards governing the dispensation and administration of medications which
3
are consistent with correctional health care standards.
4 c. WCCW will institute a self-medication or "keep on person"
5 6 program defining the circumstances under which eligible prisoners may carry and administer

j their medication.

8

d. Defendants agree to comply with all applicable state and federal

9 laws and regulations, DOC policies and directives, regarding prescribing, dispensing,

administering and procuring Pharmaceuticals.
11
4. Continuity of Care and Staffing. 12
a. Defendants shall employ at WCCW sufficient numbers of 13

14 qualified health care staff to meet the health care needs of prisoners.

15

b. Defendants shall develop and implement a system by no later

16 than October 1, 1994, to ensure that prisoners are provided with necessary follow-up health

care. This system shall ensure that prisoners are provided access to the results of any 18
medical tests or assessments performed as soon as the results of the medical tests are known. 19
The system shall also ensure that the results of all medical tests and assessments that are 20
21 performed by health care providers either at WCCW or off-site are obtained in a timely

22 fashion and that the recommended follow-up care is provided in a timely manner.

23

c. By no later than January 1, 1995, and semi-annually thereafter

for a period of three years following entry of this Stipulation and Judgment, defendants,
25 together with an independent monitor and any necessary consultants, shall randomly review
26
the health care records of prisoners confined at WCCW to determine whether all necessary 27
?fi and/or recommended tests, assessments, and treatment, including medication prescriptions

STIPULATION & JUDGMENT PAGE 8 ourubAiiuiM ajuuumo>n

EVERGREEN LEGAL SERVICES
INSTITU1T0I1OYNEASLL LEER GWAALYSESRUVITIECEXS l=«OJECT
SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98-04 (2061 46i-083e

1 and renewals that are medically appropriate, have been performed. The independent monitor

2 under whose direction this review shall be conducted shall be an individual mutually agreed
3 upon by the parties. If the parties are unable to agree upon who the independent monitor
4 shall be, the court shall appoint one who has no previous involvement with this case to
5 conduct this review. Defendants, in conjunction with the agreed upon or appointed
6
7 individual, shall prepare a report after each review required by this paragraph, identifying all

8 medically necessary and/or recommended tests, assessments, and treatment that have not

9 been performed, the reasons therefor, and the steps to be taken within a specified schedule to

10 perform such incomplete necessary and/or recommended assessments and/or treatment.

11
These reports shall be provided to all counsel and to the court. Defendants shall bear the
12
expense of the independent monitor, including compensation and travel costs.
13

14

d. Defendants shall ensure that the orders of physicians are signed

15 and mid-level providers' orders are reviewed and signed in a timely manner consistent with

16 professional standards and state law.

17

e. Defendants shall develop a protocol to coordinate prisoner health

18
care among multiple health care providers to ensure continuity of care among different

19
providers. This system will be implemented by October 1, 1994.
20

21

f. Defendants shall provide written, problem-oriented individual

22 health care plans and necessary follow-up for all prisoners with high-risk medical conditions

23 including, but not limited to, asthma, hypertension, HIV/AIDS infection, diabetes, seizure

24 disorders, tuberculosis, ulcers, medical consequences of chemical dependency, and ongoing
25
gynecological problems.
26
g. Defendants shall prepare a plan to provide routine gynecological
27
care for all prisoners at WCCW including PAP smears and mammograms at a medically-
28

STIPULATION & JUDGMENT PAGE 9

EVERGREEN LEGAL SERVICES
INSTITUTIONAL LEGAL SERVICES PROJECT 101 YESLER WAY SUITE 301
SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98104
<206\ 464-0838

1 accepted frequency, and regular and necessary access to agynecologist. This plan shall be

implemented by no later than October 1, 1994.
3 5. Health Care Education for Prisoners.
4 Defendants shall prepare and make available written information about
5 how health care is provided and can be accessed at WCCW to all prisoners at WCCW and to
6
7 all new admittees upon their arrival at WCCW. Defendants shall ensure that illiterate

8 prisoners are given the same information verbally and that non-English speaking prisoners

are provided with the information in their native language.

6. Staff Training.
11
Defendants shall train staff to ensure that they maintain a professional 12
attitude at all times while providing health care services and that staff treat prisoners as

14 individuals with consideration for their privacy, dignity, and feelings.

15

7. Continuous Quality Improvement.

16

a. By no later than October 1, 1994, defendants shall develop a

continuous quality improvement program ("CQI") that monitors the quality of health care 18
services provided at WCCW. The CQI program shall monitor all major aspects of health 19
care including at least the following: access to health care, nursing services, physician 20
services, mental health services, pharmacy services, dental services, environmental services,

22 infectious control procedures, health care records, sick call services, admission screening and

2 3 evaluations, chronic disease services, infirmary care, diagnostic services, and adverse patient

occurrences including all deaths. Defendants shall establish a multi-disciplinary CQI
25 Committee that involves the participation of qualified health care professionals with the
26
appropriate specialties and which includes the participation of individuals who are not 27 28 regularly employed by the DOC. The CQI Committee shall perform at least quarterly

STTPTII ATTON & TTIDGMFNT

i l l ^ U L A l 1U1\ <X JUUUJVltiN 1

.

P A f l F 10

EVERGREEN LEGAL SERVICES
INSTITUTIONAL LEGAL SERVICES PROJECT 101 YESLER WAY. SUITE 301
SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98101 (206) 464-0838

1 reviews and shall identify staff training needs and/or deficiencies, as well as any deficiencies
2 in services provided to inmates. The CQI shall also prepare corrective plans to address all
recommended improvements and deficiencies and assess the effectiveness of corrective 4 I
action. 5
b. The agreed upon or appointed individual described in paragraph

II.4.c. above, shall review findings, conclusions, corrective plans and any other reports of 8 the CQI Committee and the outcome of corrective plans to determine whether the CQI

' process is working effectively. If the agreed upon or appointed individual determines that

10 1 the CQI process is not working effectively, that individual shall work with the Chair of the
11
CQI Committee to ensure that the needed improvements are made.
121

c

Defendants shall provide to plaintiffs' counsel copies of minutes

13

14 of all meetings of any CQI Committee established by the new guidelines and standards to be

15 adopted by defendants pursuant to this Stipulation and Judgment. The requirement to provide

16 such minutes shall become effective upon the entry of this Stipulation and Judgment and shall

17
continue thereafter for the duration of this Stipulation and Judgment. Defendants and
18 plaintiffs' counsel shall maintain the confidentiality and privilege of these documents.
19 8. Management of Health Care Services and Medical Autonomy.
20

21

a. Defendants shall employ a qualified health care manager

22 responsible for administration of health care services. Specifically, the manager is

23 responsible for arranging all levels of health care and ensuring the quality and accessibility of

24
all health services provided to prisoners at WCCW.

b. All medical judgments shall be made by alicensed physician or 26
a qualified health care provider under a physician's supervision.
2

28

c. In addition to a health care manager, defendants shall employ a

STIPULATION & JUDGMENT PAGE 1 1

EVERGREEN LEGAL SERVICES
INSTITUTIONAL LEGAL SERV,CES PROJECT 101 YESLER WAY SUITE 301
SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98iO4 (206) 464-0838

1 licensed physician as a medical director for the institution. This medical director, in addition

to providing primary care, shall supervise all health care judgments regarding the health care
3 provided to prisoners at WCCW.
4
9. Mental Health Services.
5
a. Effective December 1, 1994, defendants agree to provide 6

7 prisoners at WCCW who have acute mental health care needs comparable services provided

8 to male offenders under the jurisdiction of the Division of Prisons.

9

b. All prisoners at WCCW shall receive gender appropriate mental

health care treatment comparable to male offenders under the jurisdiction of the Division of

11
Prisons.
12
13

c. Defendants shall employ sufficient numbers of qualified mental

14 health staff to provide prisoners with adequate evaluation and treatment at least five business

15 days per week, and for emergency coverage during evenings, nights, and weekends,

1 6 consistent with professional standards of care.

1

10. Miscellaneous.

18 a. Defendants shall develop policy and procedures that would
19
permit prisoners to obtain their own health care at their own expense, or through private 20

21 insurance coverage, provided offenders using such care bear the cost of security,

22 transportation to and from personal providers and all other related expenses, and provided

23 that it does not interfere with the overall security of the institution.

b. Defendants shall provide necessary language interpretive

25
services to prisoners seeking or receiving health care at WCCW and provide necessary oral
26 information concerning health care services to illiterate prisoners.
27

„-

c. This Stipulation and Judgment does not resolve any claims

STIPULATION & JUDGMENT
P A G E 12

^^^^IIS
101 YESLER WAY. SUITE 301 SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98101
(206) 461-0838

1 related to the use of restraint and seclusion at WCCW.

d. Defendants shall ensure that all appropriate staff are advised in a
3 timely manner of all medical special diets, excuses from programming as a result of health
4 needs, or other special health dispensations given to prisoners by health care personnel.
5 e. Defendants shall provide prisoners with appropriate special diets
6
j whenever medically indicated.

8

f. Defendants shall instruct staff how to conduct room searches or

9 count prisoners during sleep hours in a manner that minimizes the degree of disturbance to
10 prisoners.
11 g. Defendants shall not house any prisoners in
12 housing units which are designated specifically and exclusively to house mentally ill prisoners
13
for reasons other than those related to mental health, unless the prisoner and institution agree

15 in writing to such placement.

16

h. Nothing contained in this Stipulation and Judgment shall prevent

defendants from taking corrective measures not specifically authorized in this Stipulation and
18 Judgment to maintain or improve health care services to female offenders at WCCW.
19 E. Monitoring and Report Requirements.
20

21

1. For the duration of this Stipulation and Judgment, defendants shall

22 permit plaintiffs' counsel, plaintiffs' expert and the agreed upon or appointed individual

2 3 described in paragraph II.4.c. above mutually agreed upon individual access to: WCCW

prisoners; WCCW staff; patient records; WCCW for on-site inspections, and all other
25
documents relevant to health care services at WCCW, except for privileged documents. 26
Access will be made available so long as there is appropriate notice to WCCW and to the 27 28 extent that it is not inconsistent with institutional security and operation. The parties and

STTPIIT ATTON & JUDGMENT
J l i r U L r t l l U l > <X JUI^UMEIN 1
PAGF 13

EVERGREEN LEGAL SERVICES

INSTITUTIONAL LEGAL SEPv.CE? =»OJECT
101YESLER WAY Su *E30:

•

SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 56-04

(206! 46--083t

1 plaintiffs' expert and the mutually agreed upon or appointed individual shall be given access
o
to records within seven (7) days of any request, absent extenuating circumstances. 3
F. Damages and Attorneys' Fees.
4
This Stipulation and Judgment does not resolve, adjudicate or bar the damages
5
6 claims of any plaintiffs or class members. Plaintiffs', claims for costs and attorneys' fees are
7 reserved for determination by the court at a later date.

8

G. Dispute Resolution.

^

Except as otherwise herein provided, in the event that there is a dispute with

10

respect to facts relating to a possible violation of this Stipulation and Judgment, the Federal

11

Civil Rules of Discovery shall apply before the parties are required to enter into the dispute

12

resolution process.

13

F

14

Unless use of the dispute resolution process described below would cause

15 undue delay or imminent harm to any party, the parties agree to engage in the following 16 dispute resolution process, in good faith, prior to submitting adispute arising under this

Stipulation and Judgment to the court for adjudication:
18
1. The party identifying a dispute arising under this Stipulation and 19
Judgment shall notify the other party as soon as practicable, in writing, of the alleged 20
21 violation of the Stipulation and Judgment, and the remedial action demanded by that party.

22

2. Theparty receiving notice of the dispute shall have ten business days

2 3 from receipt of the notice to respond in writing.

24
3. Theresponse shall either describe the corrective action that will be
25
taken and the timetable for implementation or shall explain the reasons whythe responding
26
party believes no remedial action is warranted. 27

2g

4. Ifthe parties are unable to resolve the dispute as described above, the

STTPTTT A T T O N # T T T D f i M F N T
a l i r U L / V U U l N <X J U L A j l V I C r N 1 PAfrF 14 rrVVJi^ 1*1-

EVERGREEN LEGAL SERVICES
INSTITUTIONAL LEGAL SERVICES PROJECT 101YESLERWAY SUITE 3C1
SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 93-04 (206) 464-0838

1 party identifying the dispute shall obtain the services of a mutually agreed upon mediator to

2 attempt to resolve the dispute as soon as possible. Costs of mediation shall be allocated by

3

the mediator.

4

5. In the event either party is dissatisfied with the results of mediation, the

5

'

!

6 dissatisfied party may submit the dispute to the court for resolution.

7

6. Nothing in this Stipulation and Judgment replaces the WCCW

8 Grievance Procedure.

9

H. Termination of Federal Court Jurisdiction.

This Court has continuing jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this Stipulation and
11
Judgment for four years following the date of its entry by this Court. Except as provided
12
below, at the conclusion of this period the Court's jurisdiction shall terminate, this

. . Stipulation and Judgment shall be vacated, and this case shall be dismissed.

15

Prior to the conclusion of the above period, Defendants may petition this Court for

16 termination of the court's jurisdiction and dismissal. Prior to granting the petition for early

termination and dismissal, the Defendants must prove by a preponderance of the evidence
18
that they have substantially complied with their obligations under this Stipulation and
19
Judgment. 20
Plaintiffs may move this Court for an order extending the Court's jurisdiction under

22 this Stipulation and Judgment under the following conditions:

23

1. By no later than three years following the date of entry of this Stipulation and

OA
Judgment, Plaintiffs shall serve upon Defendants written notice of their intent
25
to seek an extension; and
26
2. In the written notice described in paragraph (1) above, Plaintiffs shall identify 27

OQ

with particularity the areas in which they allege Defendants have not

STTPIJI ATION & JUDGMENT

inruLAiiui>i oc juuumcni

.

P A G F 15

"

EVERGREEN LEGAL SERVICES
INSTITUTIONAL LEGAL SERVICES PROJECT 101 YESLER WAY. SUITE 301 SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98100 (206) 464-0838

1

substantially complied with the conditions of this Stipulation and Judgment;

2

and

3 3. Plaintiffs must file and serve amotion and supporting documents for extension
4 of the Court's jurisdiction by no later than three years and six months
5
following the date of entry of this Stipulation and Judgment; and 6

7

4. At the hearing upon Plaintiffs motion to extend jurisdiction, Plaintiffs must

8

prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendants have not

^

substantially complied with this Stipulation and Judgment; and

5. If the Court grants Plaintiffs' motion to extend the Court's jurisdiction under
11
this Stipulation and Judgment, the Court may extend jurisdiction only so long
12
as necessary for a specified period of time to be determined by the Court to

14

allow Defendants to substantially comply with this Stipulation and Judgment.

15

In addition, the Court shall:

16

a. Enter detailed findings that identify where Defendants have not

1

substantially complied with this Stipulation and Judgment;

18
b. Enter an order that directs Defendants to cure such deficiencies bya
19
date certain; and 20

21

c. Set a new date upon which federal court jurisdiction shall terminate,

22

this Stipulation and Judgment shall be vacated, and this case shall be

23

dismissed.

Oil

I.

Modification.

25

The court may modify this Stipulation and Judgment only upon (1) the
26
agreement of the parties with the approval of the Court; (2) or upon a motion to modify 27

28 provided that the party seeking the modification demonstrates that asignificant and

STTPTIT A T T O N # T T I D G M F N T

S 1 l r U L A 11U1N <X J UUU1V1E1M 1

P A f r F 1 f>

rnUL

1W

EVERGREEN LEGAL SERVICES
INSTITUTIONAL LEGAL SERVICES PROJECT 101 YESLER WAY SUITE 30'
SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 96104 (206) 464-0838

1 unforeseen or unforeseeable change in the law or in the facts warrants revision of this 2 Stipulation and Judgment, and that the proposed modification is suitably tailored to the 3
changed circumstances. 4
DONE 5
6 7
ITED STATES DISTRieXCOURT JUDGE 8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
RECOMMENDED FOR ENTRY
19
20 21 DAVID E. WILSON
MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22
23
24
25
26
27
28

STIPULATION & JUDGMENT PAGE 17

EVERGREEN LEGAL SERVICES
INSTITUTIONAL LEGAL SERVICES PROJECT 101 YESLER WAY. SUITE 301
SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98101
(206) 46-5-0838

1

APPENDIX 1

2

3 Areas to be addressed in standards for the delivery of health services at WCCW:

4

Administration of Health Services 5 Personnel

Health Education 6 Emergency Services

7 Adulatory/Clinic Services — e.g., medical/dental, sick call Infirmary Services

8 Mental Health Services

Toilet and Bathing Facilities 9 Infection Control

10

Isolation Management Examination Room

11 Treatment/Trauma Rooms Sterilization and Supply

12 Dietary and Food Service

Pharmacy Services/Medication Management 13 Health Records System

14 Emergency Planning Laboratory Services

15 Radiology Services

Continuous Quality Improvement 16 Environmental Health and Safety

17

Training for Correctional Officers Suicide Prevention

18 Intake Screening and Assessment Prenatal Care/Pregnant Patients

19 Dental Services (Routine/Preventative)

Gynecological Services (Routine/Preventative) 20 Training of Health Care Staff

21 Psychotropic Medications

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

EVERGREEN LEGAL SERVICES
INSTITUTIONAL LEGAL SERVICES PROJECT 101 YESLER WAY SUITE 301
SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98104 (2061 464 0838

 
 Case 3:93-cv-05496-FDB Document 600 Filed 05/28/2004 Page 1 of 3

MAGISTRATE JUDGE MONICA J. BENTON

2

3

4

5

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

8

SHANNON HALLEIT, e1 aI.,

NO. C93-5496FDB

9 10
v.

Plainti ffs,

SETTLEMENT AGREloMloNt

II BELINDA STEWART, ct al.,

12 Defendants.

13

14

This is a Settlement Agreement for the above-referenced action. Based up',~cOI1Si'lerati,'n

15

and mutual promises, the Parties, inclurling the named Plaintiffs and the class represent (as

16

defined by prior order oCthis Court), by and tluough their attorneys, Katrin E.

and Patricia

17

Arthur, and Defendants, by and through their attorneys, CHRISTINE O.

., Attorney

18

General, and Assistant Attorneys General Carol Murplly and Aileen Miller, subject approval of

19

the court after Ilotice to the class members agree to the following:

20

1. In considcratiotl of the following provisions of the Settlement A,:r..,miml, Plaintiffs

21

(meaning named Plaintiffs and all members of the plaintiffclass), agree to dismiss claims and

22

contemtl"matter remaining in this lawsuit. This agre~ent does not constitute

23

liability, wrongdoing Ot vlOlation of any state or federal regulation, state or federal

24

federal constitutional provision by any party to this Agreement, or allY other

officer,

25

employee, or department of the State of WashingtOll. Tins resolution shall not

26

judgment against any individual defendant.

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT -- NO. C93-5496FDB

11111111111111111111111111111111 11111111 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111
93_CY_0549(>-S'rMT

Case 3:93-cv-05496-FDB Document 600 Filed 05/28/2004 Page 2 of 3

1

2. The State shall pay the sum of FIVE HUNDRBD THOUSAND DOLL/\,KS AND NO

2

CENTS ($500,000.00) as full and complete settlement of this case. This se«1emon sum includes

3

paymenl for:

4

(1) costs;

5

(2) attorneys' fees; and

6

(3) money to be allocated into a fund for the benefil of class members (The Fund).

7

3 Plaintiffs' counsel is responsible for obtaining a neutral person to det ine how the

8

$500,000.00 will be divided between costs, attorneys' fees and The Fund.

9

4. The settlement amount of$500,OOO.OO will be payable by check or warr to Plaintiffs'

10

counsel and delivered to Plaintiffs' counsel within 10 business days of DeJe:mda, ls' counsel's

11

receipt of an order approving the settlement agreement by the Court.

12

5.

None of the $SOO,OOO.OO is to be considered compensatory damages.

13

6. The terms of thi~ Settlement Agreement shall be effective when sign by the legal

14

representatives of the parties, subject to approval of the court after t10tice to class embers.

15

7. The partiesjointly agree that upon court approval ofthe settlement; dism1ssal ith prejudice

16

of this lawsuit is an appropriate resolution in consideration for the tenns stated her 'n, Plaintiffs'

17

counsel agree to recommend accepting this settlement by class members. The pies also agree

18

to sign and file a sti.pulated motion for the entry of an order dismissing this action jth prejudice,

19

consistent with the provisions above and Fed, R.eiv.p. 23.

20

8. The wldersigned declare that the tenns of this Scttlernent Agreement are co Ipletely read,

21

wholly understood, and voluntarily accepted for the pLLfposeofmaking a fuJI and fin compromise,

22

adjustment and settlement ofany and all claims brought by plaintiffs in this acti011 a ainst any and

23

all defendants. All counsel agree that this is a faiT, reasonable and adequate settle ent pursuant

24

to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23.

25

II

26

II

II

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT -- NO.

2

C93.5496FDD

Case 3:93-cv-05496-FDB Document 600 Filed 05/28/2004 Page 3 of 3

1

/I

2

/I

3

/I

4

5

The parties agree that any pending deadlines are stayed pendlIlg approval 0 t1m:;

6

settlement by the Court.

7

8

DATED this 13th day of NovOlnbe,. 2003.

9

CHRISTINE O. GREGOIRE

10

Attorney General

11 C~M~~21244

12 AILEEN B. MILLER, WSBA 1127943

13

Assistant Attorneys General

Attorneys for Defendants

14

.ARTHUR'WSBA#13~-51 k 'GAL SERVICES
15

16

PATRICIA

~

17

KATRIN E. FRANK, WSBA # 14786

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

18

19

20

WM il"IIJc, rot.!

CAhAN , W58A

21

22

AGL(A. /'JATIONA(.. PR./SON PROJECT"

23

DAV"ID c-. FAnfI, WSBfj # :I.'1!'f3

24 Attvrney" fi~ f/a,;.tJ$

25

26

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT -- NO.

J

C93-5496FDB

 
 ..

1

2

HONORABLE FRANKLIN D. BURGESS MAGISTRATE JUDGE DAVID E. WILSON

3

4

5 6 7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

10 SHANNON HALLETT, YVONNE

)

WOOD, GAIL RAY, CINDY STEWART,) No. C93-5496(T)D

11 and RENA SKILTON,

)

) STIPULATION AND JUDGMENT

12

)

13

Plaintiffs,

)

)

14

VS.

)

)

15 ALICE PAYNE, Superintendent,

)

16

Washington Corrections for Women, in her official and individual

) )

17 capacities, and DONNA MORGAN,

)

Health Care Manager, in her official

)

18 and individual capacities, and their

)

officers, agents, employees, and

)

19 successors,

)

20

)

Defendants.

)

21 STIPULATION
22

23

The parties, plaintiffs Shannon Hallett, Yvonne Wood, Gail Ray, Cindy Stewart, and

24 Rena Skilton, and the class of plaintiffs they represent, through their counsel of record

25 Patricia J. Arthur, Caroline Starbird, Megan McLemore, and Katrin E. Frank, and

26 defendants Alice Payne, Donna Morgan, through their counsel of record Daniel J. Judge and
27 Cheryl Carey, hereby agree that the following Judgment shall be entered, subject to approval 28

STIPULATION & JUDGMENT PAGE 1

EVERGREEN LEGAL SERVICES
INSTITUTIONAL LEGAL SER VICES PROJ ECT 101 YE SLER WAY , SUITE 301 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104
(206) 464-0838

...
..

1 of the court and notice to class members. This Stipulation and Judgment is entered to

2 resolve plaintiffs' health care claims for injunctive and declaratory relief in the above-

3 captioned lawsuit. This Stipulation is not to be construed as an admission by either party
4 regarding liability of violation of any law by Defendants. The parties enter into the
5 Stipulation for purposes of settling disputed contentions and controversies arising from this
6

7 action.

~l'\kf'

8

Respectfully submitte~r Z.<l , 1994.

9

10 PATRICI . ARTHUR, WSBA #13769

11 CAROL! E STARBIRD, WSBA #23368 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

12

EVERGREEN LEGAL SERVICES 13 Institutional Legal Services Project

14

101 Yesler Way, Suite 301 Seattle, WA 98104

15 (206) 464-0838

16 a-ht~?.

K TRIN E. FRANK, WSBA #14786 17 Cooperating Attorney with

18 Northwest Women's Law Center for Plaintiffs

19

MacDONALD, HOAGUE & BAYLESS 20 1500 Hoge Building, 705-2nd Avenue

21

Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 622-1604

22 23

M~:1~~@:)

Cooperating Attorney for the 24 American Civil Liberties Union

25 for Plaintiffs

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY

GENERAL, Co

P.O. Box 401

Oly

98504-0116

(20

CHASE RIVELAND , Secretary Department of Corrections
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS P.O. Box 41101 Olympia, WA 98504-1101

26 PRESTON, GATES & ELLIS 5000 Columbia Center, 701-5th Avenue
27 Seattle, WA 98104
28 (206) 623-7580

STIPULATION & JUDGMENT PAGE2

EVERGREEN LEGAL SERVICES
INSTITUTIONAL LEGAL SERVIC ES PROJECT 101 YESLER WAY, SUITE 301 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104 1206\ 464~0838

1

JUDGMENT

2

This matter having been heard by the Honorable Franklin D. Burgess, United States

3 District Court Judge, the parties having stipulated to the entry of this Judgment, notice to
4
class members having been issued, and all comments from class members considered by the
5
6 court, the court approves and enters the following Judgment.

7

I. BACKGROUND AND DEFINITIONS

8

A. The Complaint in this action was filed on August 31, 1993, on behalf of the

9 named plaintiffs, and all others similarly situated, against defendants Alice Payne,
tO Superintendent of the Washington Corrections Center for Women ("WCCW"), and Donna
11
Morgan, Health Care Manager at WCCW, and their officers, agents, employees, and
12
successors. Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint on October 12, 1993. Defendants
13
14 moved to dismiss this case on October 18, 1993. On February 9, 1994, District Court Judge

15 Carolyn R. Dimmick dismissed plaintiffs' claim related to defendants' use of unsafe

16 bunkbeds at WCCW, but denied defendants' Motion to Dismiss plaintiffs' health care claims

17 brought under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
18
B. This case was certified as a class action by order dated April 13, 1994. The
19
20 class is defined as "All prisoners currently, or in the future, incarcerated at the Washington

21 Corrections Center for Women. "

22

C. The Stipulation and Order signed by District Court Judge Carolyn R. Dimmick

23 was entered July 14, 1994, is incorporated herein by reference.

24

D. This Judgment is fair, reasonable, and adequate to protect the class in

25 accordance with the standards of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e).
26
E. This Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this action and personal
27

28 jurisdiction over the defendants.

STIPULATION & JUDGMENT PAGE3

EVERGREEN LEGAL SERVICES
INSTITUTIONAL LEGAL SERVICES PROJECT 101 YESLER WAY, SUITE 301 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104
(206) 464-0838

1

F. For purposes of this Judgment, the following definitions shall apply.

2

1. Documents: The term "documents" as used herein includes, without

3 limitation, correspondence, telegrams, cables, teletype messages, mailgrams, reports,
4
records, schedules, diaries, court dockets, court files and papers found therein, notes, logs, 5
summaries, memoranda, memoranda of telephone conversations, photographs, depictions,
6

7 · sketches, renderings, mechanical and electronic records of conversations or of statements or

8 of telephone conversations, and all other printed, typewritten, written records, or taped

9 matter of any kind of description. The term "documents" does not include attorney/client

10 privilege or any other privilege pursuant to federal or state laws.

11
2. Defendants: Defendants include the named defendants in this action
12
and their supervisors, officers, agents, successors, employees and assigns.
13

14

3. Follow-up Health Care or Follow-up Care: Any health care treatment

15 requiring more than one appointment with a health care provider.

16

4. Health Care: "Health care" records and services as referred to herein

17 include medical, mental health, and dental records and services.
18
5. Services: The term "services" shall include medical, dental, mental
19
health, infectious disease, environmental, pharmacy, research, continuous quality 20
21 improvement ("CQI"), utilization review, and information services.

22

II. OBLIGATIONS OF DEFENDANTS

23

A. The defendants shall immediately take steps to develop, adopt, and implement

24 a set of health care standards at WCCW consistent with the Washington State Department of
25 Health Standards that the Department of Health and Department of Corrections are jointly
26 developing. (See Appendix 1, attached hereto and incorporated herein, for areas to be
27
28 addressed.) The standards adopted shall in all respects be consistent with the Stipulation and

STIPULATION & JUDGMENT PAGE4

EVERGREEN LEGAL SERVICES
INSTITUTIONAL LEGAL SERVICES PROJECT 101 YESLER WAY. SUITE 301
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104
(206) 464-0838

.1

I

I

,

1 Order signed by District Court Judge Carolyn R. Dimmick on July 14, 1994, referenced in

2 paragraph I. C., supra.

3

In developing these standards, defendants will consider the four sets of National

4
Standards that have been used to govern correctional health care in the United States: those
5
of the American Correctional Association (ACA); those of the American Public Health
6

7 Association (APHA); those of the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare

8 Organizations (JCAHO); and those of the National Commission of Correctional Health Care

9 (NCCHC).

10

B. Defendants will have developed, adopted, and begun implementation of the

11
health care standards for WCCW which will be consistent with paragraph II.A. of this
12
Agreement, by no later than September 1, 1995, and shall have fully implemented these
13

14 standards by no later than April 1, 1996.

15

C. Defendants shall develop a health care services delivery plan for WCCW by

16 no later than December 1, 1994. This plan shall govern health care services provided at

17 WCCW and be consistent with the standards developed under paragraph II.B. above. The

18
plan shall specify the implementation and completion dates of all tasks delineated in the plan.
19
D. The plan referenced in paragraph II .C. of this Agreement shall include the
20
21 following:

22

1. Centralized Data Collection System.

23

a. By April 1995, WCCW shall install and begin using the

24 Department of Corrections ("DOC") medical services database. WCCW will be the DOC
25 pilot site for those aspects of the medical services data base addressing gynecological,
26
obstetrical, and related issues for offenders at WCCW. The DOC medical services database 27 28 system will have the ability to capture data on:

STIPULATION & JUDGMENT
PAGES

EVERGREEN LEGAL SERVICES
INSTITUTIONAL LEGAL SERVICES PROJECT 101 YESLER WAY, SUITE 301
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104 (206) 464-0838

(1) Details of medical care encounters, and the medical care

2 services provided, such as provider name, date of service, primary diagnosis, treatment,

3 referrals for lab, x-ray, appointments with specialists, medication prescribed, and other

4
follow-up actions;
5
6

(2) Scheduling of medical care appointments and follow-ups,

7 referrals for diagnostic tests, specialty care, and procedures, and

8

(3) Medical care provided to offenders off-site, in the

9 community, including hospitalizations and referrals to community specialists.

10

b. The dental services data base which will track information

11
analogous to that identified in paragraph II.l.a.(1)-(3) above will be implemented by
12
December 1995.
13

14

c. The mental health services data base which will track

15 information analogous to that identified in paragraph Il.l.a.(1)-(3) above will be implemented

16 by December 1996.

17

2. Health Records.

18
a. Health care records at WCCW shall be legible and shall contain
19
the necessary signatures in accordance with professional standards. Defendants shall ensure
20
21 the legibility of health records and signatures entered into all health care records at WCCW.

22 Defendants shall date and time all health record entries. Health records maintained at

23 WCCW will contain, at a minimum, the following information and documents:

24

(1)

25 to the clinic;
26
(2) 27

28 number, date of birth, sex);

Records of written and oral requests for health care made Identifying information (e.g., patient name, identification

STIPULATION & JUDGMENT PAGE6

EVERGREEN LEGAL SERVICES
INSTITUTIONAL LEGAL SERVICES PROJECT 101 YESLER WAY, SUITE 301 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104
(206) 464-0838

1

(3) Treatment Plan;

2

(4) Problem List (including allergies):

3

(a) Receiving Screening Health Assessment Forms;

4
(b) All findings, diagnoses, treatments, and

5

dispositions;

6

(c) Prescribed medications and their administration;

7
(d) Reports of laboratory, x-ray, and diagnostic

8

studies;

9

(e) Progress notes;

10

(f) Consent and refusal forms;

11
(g) Release of information forms;

12

(h) Results of consultations and off-site referrals for

13

treatment;

14

(i) Discharge summary of hospitalizations;

15
(j) Special needs treatment plan, if any;
16
(k) Immunization records;
17

18

(1) Place, date, and time of each medical encounter;

and

19

(m) Signature and title of each documenter.
20

21

b. Defendants shall ensure that all records are complete and that all

22 standardized forms are entered into patient records. This system shall ensure the timeliness

23 of loose-sheet filing into the record and compliance with all policies of the DOC and will
24 ensure that pharmaceutical records are kept together with patient records. 25
3. Medication Dispensing and Administration. 26
a. By no later than November 1, 1994, defendants shall develop 27 28 and implement systems to track the dispensing and administration of medications.

STIPULATION & JUDGMENT PAGE7

EVERGREEN LEGAL SERVICES
INSTITUTIONAL LEGAL SERVICES PROJECT 101 YESLER WAY, SUITE 301
SEATILE, WASHINGTON 98104
(206) 464-0838

1

b. Defendants shall immediately take all necessary steps to develop

2 and implement standards governing the dispensation and administration of medications which

3 . are consistent with correctional health care standards.
4
c. WCCW will institute a self-medication or "keep on person"
5
program defining the circumstances under which eligible prisoners may carry and administer
6
7 their medication.

8

d. Defendants agree to comply with all applicable state and federal

9 laws and regulations, DOC policies and directives, regarding prescribing, dispensing,

10 administering and procuring pharmaceuticals.
11
4. Continuity of Care and Staffing.
12
a. Defendants shall employ at WCCW sufficient numbers of
13
14 qualified health care staff to meet the health care needs of prisoners.

15

b. Defendants shall develop and implement a system by no later

16 than October 1, 1994, to ensure that prisoners are provided with necessary follow-up health

17 care. This system shall ensure that prisoners are provided access to the results of any
18
medical tests or assessments performed as soon as the results of the medical tests are known.
19
The system shall also ensure that the results of all medical tests and assessments that are
20
21 performed by health care providers either at WCCW or off-site are obtained in a timely
22 fashion and that the recommended follow-up care is provided in a timely manner.

23

c. By no later than January 1, 1995, and semi-annually thereafter

24 for a period of three years following entry of this Stipulation and Judgment, defendants,
25 together with an independent monitor and any necessary consultants, shall randomly review
26 the health care records of prisoners confined at WCCW to determine whether all necessary
27 28 and/or recommended tests, assessments, and treatment, including medication prescriptions

STIPULATION & JUDGMENT PAGE 8

EVERGREEN LEGAL SERVICES
INSTITUTIONAL LEGAL SERVICES PROJECT 101 YESLER WAY, SUITE 301
SEATILE, WASHINGTON 98104 (206) 464-0838

1 and renewals that are medically appropriate, have been performed. The independent monitor
2 under whose direction this review shall be conducted shall be an individual mutually agreed
3
upon by the parties. If the parties are unable to agree upon who the independent monitor
4
shall be, the court shall appoint one who has no previous involvement with this case to
5
conduct this review. Defendants, in conjunction with the agreed upon or appointed
6
7 individual, shall prepare a report after each review required by this paragraph, identifying all
8 medically necessary and/or recommended tests, assessments, and treatment that have not

9 been performed, the reasons therefor, and the steps to be taken within a specified schedule to

10 perform such incomplete necessary and/or recommended assessments and/or treatment.

11
These reports shall be provided to all counsel and to the court. Defendants shall bear the
12
expense of the independent monitor, including compensation and travel costs.
13

14

d. Defendants shall ensure that the orders of physicians are signed

15 and mid-level providers' orders are reviewed and signed in a timely manner consistent with

16 professional standards and state law.

17

e. Defendants shall develop a protocol to coordinate prisoner health

18
care among multiple health care providers to ensure continuity of care among different
19
providers. This system will be implemented by October 1, 1994. 20

21

f. Defendants shall provide written, problem-oriented individual

22 health care plans and necessary follow-up for all prisoners with high-risk medical conditions

23 including, but not limited to, asthma, hypertension, HIV/AIDS infection, diabetes, seizure

24 disorders, tuberculosis, ulcers, medical consequences of chemical dependency, and ongoing

25 gynecological problems.
26 g.
27

Defendants shall prepare a plan to provide routine gynecological

28 care for all prisoners at WCCW including PAP smears and mammograms at a medically-

STIPULATION & JUDGMENT PAGE9

EVERGREEN LEGAL SERVICES
INSTITUTIONAL LEGAL SERVICES PROJECT 101 YESLER WAY, SUITE 301 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104 (206) 464-0838

1 accepted frequency, and regular and necessary access to a gynecologist. This plan shall be

2 implemented by no later than October 1, 1994.

3

5. Health Care Education for Prisoners.

4
Defendants shall prepare and make available written information about
5
how health care is provided and can be accessed at WCCW to all prisoners at WCCW and to
6

7 all new admittees upon their arrival at WCCW. Defendants shall ensure that illiterate

8 prisoners are given the same information verbally and that non-English speaking prisoners

9 are provided with the information in their native language.

10

6. Staff Training.

11
Defendants shall train staff to ensure that they maintain a professional
12
attitude at all times while providing health care services and that staff treat prisoners as
13

14 individuals with consideration for their privacy, dignity, and feelings.

15

7. Continuous Quality Improvement.

16

a. By no later than October 1, 1994, defendants shall develop a

17 continuous quality improvement program ("CQI") that monitors the quality of health care
18
services provided at WCCW. The CQI program shall monitor all major aspects of health
19
care including at least the following: access to health care, nursing services, physician
20
21 services, mental health services, pharmacy services, dental services, environmental services,
22 infectious control procedures, health care records, sick call services, admission screening and

23 evaluations, chronic disease services, infirmary care, diagnostic services, and adverse patient
24 occurrences including all deaths. Defendants shall establish a multi-disciplinary CQI
25 Committee that involves the participation of qualified health care professionals with the
26
appropriate specialties and which includes the participation of individuals who are not 27 28 regularly employed by the DOC. The CQI Committee shall perform at least quarterly

STIPULATION & JUDGMENT PAGE 10

EVERGREEN LEGAL SERVICES
INSTITUTIONAL LEGAL SERVICES PROJECT 101 YESLER WAY, SUITE 301 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104 (206) 464-0838

1 reviews and shall identify staff training needs and/or deficiencies, as well as any deficiencies
2 in services provided to inmates. The CQI shall also prepare corrective plans to address all
3 recommended improvements and deficiencies and assess the effectiveness of corrective
4
action.
5
b. The agreed upon or appointed individual described in paragraph
6
7 11.4.c. above, shall review findings, conclusions, corrective plans and any other reports of

8 the CQI Committee and the outcome of corrective plans to determine whether the CQI

9 process is working effectively. If the agreed upon or appointed individual determines that
10
the CQI process is not working effectively, that individual shall work with the Chair of the
11
CQI Committee to ensure that the needed improvements are made.
12
c. Defendants shall provide to plaintiffs' counsel copies of minutes
13
14 of all meetings of any CQI Committee established by the new guidelines and standards to be
15 adopted by defendants pursuant to this Stipulation and Judgment. The requirement to provide

16 such minutes shall become effective upon the entry of this Stipulation and Judgment and shall

17 continue thereafter for the duration of this Stipulation and Judgment. Defendants and

18
plaintiffs' counsel shall maintain the confidentiality and privilege of these documents.
19
8. Management of Health Care Services and Medical Autonomy. 20

21

a. Defendants shall employ a qualified health care manager

22 responsible for administration of health care services. Specifically, the manager is

23 responsible for arranging all levels of health care and ensuring the quality and accessibility of

24 all health services provided to prisoners at WCCW.

25 b. All medical judgments shall be made by a licensed physician or
26 a qualified health care provider under a physician's supervision.
27

28

c. In addition to a health care manager, defendants shall employ a

STIPULATION & JUDGMENT PAGE 11

EVERGREEN LEGAL SERVICES
INSTITUTIONAL LEGAL SERVICES PROJECT 101 YESLER WAY, SUITE 301 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104 (206) 464-0838

1 licensed physician as a medical director for the institution. This medical director, in addition

2 to providing primary care, shall supervise all health care judgments regarding the health care
3
provided to prisoners at WCCW.
4
9. Mental Health Services.
5
a. Effective December 1, 1994, defendants agree to provide
6
7 prisoners at WCCW who have acute mental health care needs comparable services provided

8 to male offenders under the jurisdiction of the Division of Prisons.

9

b. All prisoners at WCCW shall receive gender appropriate mental

10 health care treatment comparable to male offenders under the jurisdiction of the Division of

11
Prisons.
12
13

c. Defendants shall employ sufficient numbers of qualified mental

14 health staff to provide prisoners with adequate evaluation and treatment at least five business

15 days per week, and for emergency coverage during evenings, nights, and weekends,

16 consistent with professional standards of care.

17

10. Miscellaneous.

18
a. Defendants shall develop policy and procedures that would
19
permit prisoners to obtain their own health care at their own expense, or through private
20
21 insurance coverage, provided offenders using such care bear the cost of security,

22 transportation to and from personal providers and all other related expenses, and provided

23 that it does not interfere with the overall security of the institution.

24

b. Defendants shall provide necessary language interpretive

25 services to prisoners seeking or receiving health care at WCCW and provide necessary oral
26
information concerning health care services to illiterate prisoners . 27

c. This Stipulation and Judgment does not resolve any claims
28

STIPULATION & JUDGMENT PAGE 12

EVERGREEN LEGAL SERVICES
INSTITUTIONAL LEGAL SERVICES PROJECT 101 YESLER WAY. SUITE 301 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104 (206) 464-0838

1 related to the use of restraint and seclusion at WCCW.

2

d. Defendants shall ensure that all appropriate staff are advised in a

3 timely manner of all medical special diets, excuses from programming as a result of health
4
needs, or other special health dispensations given to prisoners by health care personnel.
5
e. Defendants shall provide prisoners with appropriate special diets
6
7 whenever medically indicated.

8

f. Defendants shall instruct staff how to conduct room searches or

9 count prisoners during sleep hours in a manner that minimizes the degree of disturbance to
10 prisoners.
11
g. Defendants shall not house any prisoners in
12
housing units which are designated specifically and exclusively to house mentally ill prisoners
13
for reasons other than those related to mental health, unless the prisoner and institution agree
14
15 in writing to such placement.

16

h. Nothing contained in this Stipulation and Judgment shall prevent

17 defendants from taking corrective measures not specifically authorized in this Stipulation and

18
Judgment to maintain or improve health care services to female offenders at WCCW.
19
E. Monitoring and Report Requirements. 20

21

1. For the duration of this Stipulation and Judgment, defendants shall

22 permit plaintiffs' counsel, plaintiffs' expert and the agreed upon or appointed individual

23 described in paragraph II.4.c. above mutually agreed upon individual access to: WCCW
24 prisoners; WCCW staff; patient records; WCCW for on-site inspections, and all other
25 documents relevant to health care services at WCCW, except for privileged documents.
26 Access will be made available so long as there is appropriate notice to WCCW and to the
27 extent that it is not inconsistent with institutional security and operation. The parties and
28

STIPULATION & JUDGMENT PAGE 13

EVERGREEN LEGAL SERVICES
INSTITUTIONAL LEGAL SERVICES PROJECT 101 YESLER WAY, SUITE 301
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104 (206) 464-0838

1 plaintiffs' expert and the mutually agreed upon or appointed individual shall be given access
2 to records within seven (7) days of any request, absent extenuating circumstances.
3
F. Damages and Attorneys' Fees.
4
This Stipulation and Judgment does not resolve, adjudicate or bar the damages
5
claims of any plaintiffs or class members. Plaintiffs' claims for costs and attorneys' fees are
6
7 reserved for determination by the court at a later date.

8

G. Dispute Resolution.

9

Except as otherwise herein provided, in the event that there is a dispute with

10 respect to facts relating to a possible violation of this Stipulation and Judgment, the Federal

11
Civil Rules of Discovery shall apply before the parties are required to enter into the dispute
12
resolution process.
13

14

Unless use of the dispute resolution process described below would cause

15 undue delay or imminent harm to any party, the parties agree to engage in the following

16 dispute resolution process, in good faith, prior to submitting a dispute arising under this

17 Stipulation and Judgment to the court for adjudication:
18
1. The party identifying a dispute arising under this Stipulation and
19
Judgment shall notify the other party as soon as practicable, in writing, of the alleged
20
21 violation of the Stipulation and Judgment, and the remedial action demanded by that party.

22

2. The party receiving notice of the dispute shall have ten business days

23 from receipt of the notice to respond in writing.

24

3. The response shall either describe the corrective action that will be

25 taken and the timetable for implementation or shall explain the reasons why the responding
26
party believes no remedial action is warranted.
27

28

4. If the parties are unable to resolve the dispute as described above, the

STIPULATION & JUDGMENT PAGE 14

EVERGREEN LEGAL SERVICES
INSTITUTIONAL LEGAL SERVICES PROJECT 101 YESLER WAY, SUITE 301
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104 (206) 464-0838

1 party identifying the dispute shall obtain the services of a mutually agreed upon mediator to

2 attempt to resolve the dispute as soon as possible. Costs of mediation shall be allocated by

3
the mediator.
4
5. In the event either party is dissatisfied with the results of mediation, the
5
dissatisfied party may submit the dispute to the court for resolution.
6

7

6. Nothing in this Stipulation and Judgment replaces the WCCW

8 Grievance Procedure.

9

H. Termination of Federal Court Jurisdiction.

10

This Court has continuing jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this Stipulation and

11
Judgment for four years following the date of its entry by this Court. Except as provided
12
below, at the conclusion of this period the Court's jurisdiction shall terminate, this
13

14 Stipulation and Judgment shall be vacated, and this case shall be dismissed.

15

Prior to the conclusion of the above period, Defendants may petition this Court for

16 termination of the court's jurisdiction and dismissal. Prior to granting the petition for early

17 termination and dismissal, the Defendants must prove by a preponderance of the evidence

18
that they have substantially complied with their obligations under this Stipulation and
19
Judgment.
20

21

Plaintiffs may move this Court for an order extending the Court's jurisdiction under

22 this Stipulation and Judgment under the following conditions:

23

1. By no later than three years following the date of entry of this Stipulation and

24

Judgment, Plaintiffs shall serve upon Defendants written notice of their intent

25 to seek an extension; and
26 2. In the written notice described in paragraph (1) above, Plaintiffs shall identify
27

28

with particularity the areas in which they allege Defendants have not

STIPULATION & JUDGMENT PAGE 15

EVERGREEN LEGAL SERVICES
INSTITUTIONAL LEGAL SERVICES PROJECT 101 YESLER WAY, SUITE 301
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104 (206) 464-0838

1

substantially complied with the conditions of this Stipulation and Judgment;

2

and

3
3. Plaintiffs must file and serve a motion and supporting documents for extension
4
of the Court's jurisdiction by no later thau three years and six months
5
following the date of entry of this Stipulation and Judgment; and
6

7

4. At the hearing upon Plaintiff's motion to extend jurisdiction, Plaintiffs must

8

prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendants have not

9

substantially complied with this Stipulation and Judgment; and

10

5. If the Court grants Plaintiffs' motion to extend the Court's jurisdiction under

11
this Stipulation and Judgment, the Court may extend jurisdiction only so long
12
as necessary for a specified period of time to be determined by the Court to
13

14

allow Defendants to substantially comply with this Stipulation and Judgment.

15

In addition, the Court shall:

16

a. Enter detailed findings that identify where Defendants have not

17

substantially complied with this Stipulation and Judgment;

18
b. Enter an order that directs Defendants to cure such deficiencies by a
19
date certain; and 20

21

c. Set a new date upon which federal court jurisdiction shall terminate,

22

this Stipulation and Judgment shall be vacated, and this case shall be

23

dismissed.

24

I. Modification.

25 The court may modify this Stipulation and Judgment only upon (1) the
26
agreement of the parties with the approval of the Court; (2) or upon a motion to modify
27

28 provided that the party seeking the modification demonstrates that a significant and

STIPULATION & JUDGMENT PAGE 16

EVERGREEN LEGAL SERVICES
INSTITUTIONAL LEGAL SERVICES PROJECT 101 YESLER WAY, SUITE 301 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104 (206) 464-0838

. .• . -.

1 unforeseen or unforeseeable change in the law or in the facts warrants revision of this

2 Stipulation and Judgment, and that the proposed modification is suitably tailored to the

3 changed circumstances.

4

DONE IN OPEN COURT

5

------------~--------------

6

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

STIPULATION & JUDGMENT · PAGE 17

EVERGREEN LEGAL SERVICES
INSTITUTIONAL LEGAL SERVICES PROJECT
101 YESLER WAY , SUITE 301 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104
(206) 464-0838

- . ' . '

1

APPENDIX 1

2

3 Areas to be addressed in standards for the delivery of health services at WCCW:

4
Administration of Health Services 5 Personnel

Health Education 6 Emergency Services

7 Adulatory/Clinic Services- e.g., medical/dental, sick call Infirmary Services

8 Mental Health Services

Toilet and Bathing Facilities 9 Infection Control

10

Isolation Management Examination Room

11 Treatment/Trauma Rooms Sterilization and Supply

12 Dietary and Food Service

Pharmacy Services/Medication Management 13 Health Records System

14 Emergency Planning Laboratory Services

15 Radiology Services Continuous Quality Improvement
16 Environmental Health and Safety

Training for Correctional Officers 17 Suicide Prevention

18 Intake Screening and Assessment Prenatal Care/Pregnant Patients

19 Dental Services (Routine/Preventative)

Gynecological Services (Routine/Preventative) 20 Training of Health Care Staff

21 Psychotropic Medications

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

EVERGREEN LEGAL SERVICES
INSTITUTIONAL LEGAL SERVICES PROJECT 101 YESLER WAY, SUITE 301 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104
(206) 464-0838

 
 WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.4 - Docket Report

Page 1 of 64

APPEAL, CLOSED, JURYDEMAND
U.S. District Court WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON (Tacoma)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:93-cv-05496-FDB

Hallett, et al v. Payne, et al Assigned to: Hon. Franklin D. Burgess Demand: $0 Cause: 28:1343 Violation of Civil Rights
Plaintiff
Shannon Hallett

Date Filed: 08/31/1993 Jury Demand: Defendant Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Aaron H Caplan American Civil Liberties Union of Washington 705 Second Avenue Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98104-1799 206 624-2184 Fax: 206 624-2190 Email: caplan@aclu-wa.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Angela M Niemann HELLER EHRMAN LLP 701 5TH AVE STE 6100 SEATTLE, WA 98104-7098 206-447-0900 Fax: FAX 447-0375 Email: angela.niemann@hellerehrman.com TERMINATED: 04/20/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY
Caroline Lim Starbird COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 101 YESLER WAY STE 300 SEATTLE, WA 98104-2552 206-464-5933 TERMINATED: 11/05/1998 LEAD ATTORNEY
David C Fathi ACLU NATIONAL PRISONER PROJECT 915 15TH ST NW

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?645612875470737-L_280_0-1

11/1/2005

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.4 - Docket Report

Page 2 of 64
7TH FLOOR WASHINGTON, DC 20005 202-393-4930 Email: dfathi@npp-aclu.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Hank L Balson PUBLIC INTEREST LAW GROUP, PLLC 705 Second Avenue Suite 501 Seattle, WA 98104 206-447-0103 Fax: 206-447-0115 Email: hbalson@pilg.org TERMINATED: 05/13/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY
Heidi H Borson MACDONALD, HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 SECOND AVE STE 1500 SEATTLE, WA 98104-1745 206-622-1604 Fax: 206-622-1604 TERMINATED: 09/08/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY
Janet M Helson COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 101 YESLER WAY STE 300 SEATTLE, WA 98104-2552 206-464-5933 Fax: 206-464-1422 Email: janet.helson@columbialegal.org TERMINATED: 05/19/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY
Jeff B Crollard CROLLARD & ASSOCIATES PLLC 1621-114th AVE SE SUITE 223 BELLEVUE, WA 98004 425-453-5679 Fax: 425-453-5685 Email: jbc@crollardlaw.com TERMINATED: 05/19/1999

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?645612875470737-L_280_0-1

11/1/2005

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.4 - Docket Report

Page 3 of 64
LEAD ATTORNEY
John B. Midgley COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 101 YESLER WAY STE 300 SEATTLE, WA 98104-2552 206-464-5933 Fax: 206-464-1122 Email: john.midgley@columbialegal.org TERMINATED: 05/25/1994 LEAD ATTORNEY
Katrin E Frank MACDONALD, HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 SECOND AVE STE 1500 SEATTLE, WA 98104-1745 206-622-1604 Fax: FAX 343-3961 Email: kayf@mhb.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mary Megan McLemore PRESTON GATES & ELLIS 925 FOURTH AVE STE 2900 SEATTLE, WA 98104-1158 206-623-7580 Fax: 206-623-7580 TERMINATED: 02/24/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY
Patricia J. Arthur COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 101 YESLER WAY STE 300 SEATTLE, WA 98104-2552 206-464-5933 Fax: FAX 382-3386 Email: pat.arthur@columbialegal.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patricia H Wagner HELLER EHRMAN WHITE & MCAULIFFE

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?645612875470737-L_280_0-1

11/1/2005

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.4 - Docket Report

Page 4 of 64

Plaintiff Yvonne Wood

701 5TH AVE STE 6100 SEATTLE, WA 98104-7098 206-447-0900 Fax: FAX 447-0849 TERMINATED: 04/20/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY
Stephen C Willey SAVITT & BRUCE LLP 1325 FOURTH AVE STE 1410 SEATTLE, WA 98101-2509 206-749-0500 Fax: 206-749-0600 Email: swilley@jetcitylaw.com TERMINATED: 05/19/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Aaron H Caplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy Chia-Mei Tsai COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES 101 YESLER WAY STE 300 SEATTLE, WA 98104-2552 206-464-5933 Fax: FAX 464-0856 TERMINATED: 09/16/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY
Angela M Niemann (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/20/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY
Caroline Lim Starbird (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/05/1998 LEAD ATTORNEY
David C Fathi (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?645612875470737-L_280_0-1

11/1/2005

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.4 - Docket Report

Page 5 of 64

Plaintiff

Hank L Balson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/13/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY
Heidi H Borson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/08/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY
Janet M Helson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/19/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY
Jeff B Crollard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/19/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY
John B. Midgley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/25/1994 LEAD ATTORNEY
Katrin E Frank (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mary Megan McLemore (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/24/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY
Patricia J. Arthur (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patricia H Wagner (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/20/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY
Stephen C Willey (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/19/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?645612875470737-L_280_0-1

11/1/2005

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.4 - Docket Report

Page 6 of 64

Gail Ray

represented by Aaron H Caplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy Chia-Mei Tsai (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/16/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY
Angela M Niemann (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/20/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY
Caroline Lim Starbird (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/05/1998 LEAD ATTORNEY
David C Fathi (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Hank L Balson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/13/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY
Heidi H Borson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/08/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY
Janet M Helson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/19/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY
Jeff B Crollard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/19/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY
John B. Midgley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/25/1994 LEAD ATTORNEY

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?645612875470737-L_280_0-1

11/1/2005

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.4 - Docket Report

Page 7 of 64

Plaintiff Cindy Stewart

Katrin E Frank (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mary Megan McLemore (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/24/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY
Patricia J. Arthur (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patricia H Wagner (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/20/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY
Stephen C Willey (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/19/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Aaron H Caplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy Chia-Mei Tsai (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/16/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY
Angela M Niemann (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/20/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY
Caroline Lim Starbird (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/05/1998 LEAD ATTORNEY
David C Fathi (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?645612875470737-L_280_0-1

11/1/2005

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.4 - Docket Report

Page 8 of 64

Hank L Balson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/13/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY
Heidi H Borson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/08/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY
Janet M Helson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/19/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY
Jeff B Crollard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/19/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY
John B. Midgley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/25/1994 LEAD ATTORNEY
Katrin E Frank (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mary Megan McLemore (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/24/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY
Patricia J. Arthur (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patricia H Wagner (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/20/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY
Stephen C Willey (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/19/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?645612875470737-L_280_0-1

11/1/2005

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.4 - Docket Report

Page 9 of 64

Plaintiff Rena Skilton

represented by Aaron H Caplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy Chia-Mei Tsai (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/16/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY
Angela M Niemann (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/20/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY
Caroline Lim Starbird (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/05/1998 LEAD ATTORNEY
David C Fathi (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Hank L Balson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/13/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY
Heidi H Borson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/08/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY
Janet M Helson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/19/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY
Jeff B Crollard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/19/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY
John B. Midgley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/25/1994 LEAD ATTORNEY

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?645612875470737-L_280_0-1

11/1/2005

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.4 - Docket Report

Page 10 of 64

V.
Defendant
Alice Payne Superintendent WA Corrections for Women, in her official & individual capacities

Katrin E Frank (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mary Megan McLemore (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/24/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY
Patricia J. Arthur (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patricia H Wagner (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/20/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY
Stephen C Willey (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/19/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Aileen Miller ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE CRIMINAL JUSTICE DIVISION PO BOX 40116 OLYMPIA, WA 98504-0116 360-586-1445 Fax: FAX 1-360-664-8716 Email: AileenM@atg.wa.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carol A Murphy ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE CRIMINAL JUSTICE DIVISION PO BOX 40116 OLYMPIA, WA 98504-0116 360-586-1445 Fax: FAX 1-360-664-8716 Email: CarolM@atg.wa.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?645612875470737-L_280_0-1

11/1/2005

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.4 - Docket Report

Page 11 of 64

Cheryl Barbara Carey ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE LABOR & PERSONNEL 900 FOURTH AVE STE 2000 MS TB-14 SEATTLE, WA 98164-1012 206-464-7740 Fax: 206-389-3259 TERMINATED: 03/09/1995 LEAD ATTORNEY
Daniel J Judge ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE TORTS DIVISION PO BOX 40126 OLYMPIA, WA 98504-0126 360-459-6600 Fax: FAX 1-360-459-6967 Email: danielj@atg.wa.gov TERMINATED: 10/15/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY
Eric A Mentzer ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE TORTS DIVISION PO BOX 40126 OLYMPIA, WA 98504-0126 360-459-6600 Email: EricM@atg.wa.gov TERMINATED: 04/16/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY
John Joseph Samson ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE CRIMINAL JUSTICE DIVISION PO BOX 40116 OLYMPIA, WA 98504-0116 360-586-1445 Fax: FAX 1-360-664-8716 Email: JohnS@atg.wa.gov TERMINATED: 12/22/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY
Mary E Fairhurst ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE CRIMINAL JUSTICE DIVISION PO BOX 40116 OLYMPIA, WA 98504-0116 360-586-1445

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?645612875470737-L_280_0-1

11/1/2005

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.4 - Docket Report

Page 12 of 64

Defendant
Donna Morgan Health Care Manager in her official & individual capacities, and their officers, agents, employees, and successor

Fax: FAX 1-360-664-8716 TERMINATED: 10/15/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY
Pat L. DeMarco ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE CRIMINAL JUSTICE DIVISION PO BOX 40116 OLYMPIA, WA 98504-0116 360-586-1445 Fax: 586-1445 TERMINATED: 01/17/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY
William Andrew Myers ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE (LAB/IND-OLY) LABOR & INDUSTRIES PO BOX 40121 OLYMPIA, WA 98504-0121 360-493-9363 Email: AndyM@atg.wa.gov TERMINATED: 10/15/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Aileen Miller (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carol A Murphy (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cheryl Barbara Carey (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/09/1995 LEAD ATTORNEY
Daniel J Judge (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/15/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY
Eric A Mentzer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/16/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?645612875470737-L_280_0-1

11/1/2005

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.4 - Docket Report

Page 13 of 64

Date Filed 08/31/1993 09/03/1993 09/03/1993 09/03/1993 09/03/1993 09/03/1993 09/03/1993 09/07/1993

John Joseph Samson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/22/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY
Mary E Fairhurst (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/15/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY
Pat L. DeMarco (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/17/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY
William Andrew Myers (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/15/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY

#

Docket Text

PROPOSED IFP Applications for all plaintiffs w/ consent for payments attached; Complaint (dktclk) Modified on 09/01/1993 (Entered: 09/01/1993)

1 ORDER GRANTING Gail Ray APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS by Magistrate Judge David E. Wilson (cc: all counsel) (dktclk) (Entered: 09/03/1993)

2 ORDER GANTING Rena Skilton APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS by Magistrate Judge David E. Wilson (cc: all counsel) (dktclk) Modified on 09/03/1993 (Entered: 09/03/1993)

3 ORDER GRANTING Cindy Stewart APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS by Magistrate Judge David E. Wilson (cc: all counsel) (dktclk) (Entered: 09/03/1993)

4 ORDER GRANTING Shannon Hallett APPLICATION TO PROCEED INFORMA PAUPERIS by Magistrate Judge David E. Wilson (cc: all counsel) (dktclk) (Entered: 09/03/1993)

5 ORDER GRANTING Yvonne Wood APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS by Magistrate Judge David E. Wilson document lodged [0-0] (cc: all counsel) (dktclk) (Entered: 09/03/1993)

6 COMPLAINT for Declaratory and Injuntive Relief (Summons(es) issued) Receipt # ifp (dktclk) (Entered: 09/03/1993)

SUMMONS ISSUED as to defendant Alice Payne, defendant Donna Morgan;(mailed to cnsl per telephone call) (dktclk) (Entered:

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?645612875470737-L_280_0-1

11/1/2005

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.4 - Docket Report

Page 14 of 64

09/16/1993 09/16/1993
09/17/1993
09/17/1993 09/17/1993 10/06/1993
10/06/1993 10/06/1993 10/06/1993 10/07/1993 10/07/1993 10/07/1993 10/07/1993 10/07/1993 10/07/1993
10/07/1993
10/07/1993

09/07/1993)
10 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendant Alice Payne, defendant Donna Morgan by Daniel J Judge (dktclk) (Entered: 09/20/1993)
11 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by defendant Alice Payne, defendant Donna Morgan of attorney [10-1] served on 9/15/93 (dktclk) (Entered: 09/20/1993)
7 ACCEPTANCE/ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SERVICE of summons and complaint by defendant Alice Payne on 9/10/93 (dktclk) (Entered: 09/20/1993)
8 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE upon defendant Donna Morgan of summons/complaint on 9/8/93 (dktclk) (Entered: 09/20/1993)
9 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by plaintiffs of service [7-1] served on 9/16/93 (dktclk) (Entered: 09/20/1993)
25 MOTION by defendant Alice Payne, defendant Donna Morgan for protective order noted for 10/22/93 (dktclk) Modified on 10/08/1993 (Entered: 10/08/1993)
26 MEMORANDUM by defendant in support of motion for protective order [25-1] (dktclk) (Entered: 10/08/1993)
27 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by defendant of motion for protective order [25-1] served on 10/5/93 (dktclk) (Entered: 10/08/1993)
LODGED ORDER: re: motion for protective order [25-1] (dktclk) (Entered: 10/08/1993)
12 MOTION by plaintiffs for class certification noted for 10/22/93 (dktclk) (Entered: 10/08/1993)
13 MEMORANDUM by plaintiffs in support of motion for class certification [12-1] (dktclk) (Entered: 10/08/1993)
14 DECLARATION filed by plts of Patricia J. Arthur re motion for class certification [12-1] (dktclk) (Entered: 10/08/1993)
15 DECLARATION filed by plts of John Midgley re motion for class certification [12-1] (dktclk) (Entered: 10/08/1993)
16 MOTION by plaintiffs to expedite production of medical records of class members noted for 10/22/93 (dktclk) (Entered: 10/08/1993)
17 MEMORANDUM by plaintiffs in support of motion to expedite production of medical records of class members [16-1] (dktclk) (Entered: 10/08/1993)
18 DECLARATION filed by plts of Linda Tingley re motion to expedite production of medical records of class members [16-1] (dktclk) (Entered: 10/08/1993)
19 DECLARATION filed by plts of Regina Patterson re motion to expedite

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?645612875470737-L_280_0-1

11/1/2005

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.4 - Docket Report

Page 15 of 64

10/07/1993 10/07/1993 10/07/1993 10/07/1993 10/08/1993 10/12/1993
10/12/1993 10/12/1993 10/12/1993 10/12/1993 10/13/1993
10/15/1993 10/18/1993 10/18/1993 10/18/1993

production of medical records of class members [16-1] (dktclk) (Entered: 10/08/1993)
20 DECLARATION filed by plts of Sherryl Brongil re motion to expedite production of medical records of class members [16-1] (dktclk) (Entered: 10/08/1993)
21 DECLARATION filed by plts of Deborah Mitchel re motion to expedite production of medical records of class members [16-1] (dktclk) (Entered: 10/08/1993)
22 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by plaintiffs of motion for class certification [12-1],etc served on 10/7/93 (dktclk) (Entered: 10/08/1993)
23 MOTION by plaintiffs to shorten time motion to expedite production of medical records of class members [16-1], motion for class certification [12-1] noted for 10/11/93 (dktclk) (Entered: 10/08/1993)
24 ORDER by Judge Carolyn R. Dimmick Case referred to Magistrate Judge David E. Wilson (cc: all counsel,CRD,GW) (dktclk) (Entered: 10/08/1993)
28 MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION by defendant Alice Payne, defendant Donna Morgan to motion to shorten time motion to expedite production of medical records of class members [16-1], motion for class certification [12-1] [23-1] (dktclk) (Entered: 10/13/1993)
29 Defendants' Counsel Joint Declaration Opposing Expedited Hearing [281] (dktclk) (Entered: 10/13/1993)
30 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by defendant Alice Payne, defendant Donna Morgan of motion response [28-1] served on 10/11/93 (dktclk) (Entered: 10/13/1993)
31 AMENDED COMPLAINT [6-1] by plaintiffs (dktclk) (Entered: 10/14/1993)
33 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE of complaint [31-1] served on 10/12/93 (dktclk) (Entered: 10/14/1993)
32 ORDER by Magistrate Judge David E. Wilson DENYING motion to shorten time motion to expedite production of medical records of class members [16-1], motion for class certification [12-1] [23-1] (cc: all counsel) (dktclk) (Entered: 10/14/1993)
34 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to motion for protective order [25-1] (dktclk) (Entered: 10/18/1993)
35 MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION by defendant to motion for class certification [12-1] (dktclk) (Entered: 10/20/1993)
36 ANSWER by defendants to plt's first request for production of documents (dktclk) (Entered: 10/20/1993)
37 MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION by defendant

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?645612875470737-L_280_0-1

11/1/2005

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.4 - Docket Report

Page 16 of 64

10/19/1993 10/19/1993 10/19/1993 10/19/1993 10/21/1993 10/21/1993 10/21/1993 10/21/1993
10/21/1993 10/21/1993 10/21/1993 10/21/1993 11/02/1993
11/02/1993 11/02/1993 11/02/1993 11/02/1993

to motion to expedite production of medical records of class members [16-1] (dktclk) (Entered: 10/20/1993)
38 MOTION by defendants to dismiss noted for 11/12/93 (dktclk) (Entered: 10/22/1993)
39 MEMORANDUM by defendants in support of motion to dismiss [38-1] (dktclk) (Entered: 10/22/1993)
LODGED ORDER: re: motion to dismiss [38-1] (dktclk) (Entered: 10/22/1993)
40 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by defendant of motion to dismiss [38-1] served on 10/18/93 (dktclk) (Entered: 10/22/1993)
41 REPLY by plaintiff TO RESPONSE to motion to expedite production of medical records of class members [16-1] (dktclk) (Entered: 10/22/1993)
42 REPLY by plaintiff TO RESPONSE to motion for class certification [121] (dktclk) (Entered: 10/22/1993)
43 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by plaintiff of motion reply [41-1] served on 10/21/93 (dktclk) (Entered: 10/22/1993)
44 PRAECIPE: by plaintiffs to file exhibits 1-3 affidavits of Alice Payne Donna Morgan, and Christianne Addison re motion reply [41-1] (dktclk) (Entered: 10/22/1993)
45 AFFIDAVIT of Alice Payne re: motion reply [41-1] (dktclk) (Entered: 10/22/1993)
46 AFFIDAVIT of Donna Morgan re: motion reply [41-1] (dktclk) (Entered: 10/22/1993)
47 AFFIDAVIT of Christianne Addison re: motion reply [41-1] (dktclk) (Entered: 10/22/1993)
48 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by plaintiff of documents [44-1] served on 10/20/93 (dktclk) (Entered: 10/22/1993)
49 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by mailing by defendants of utilization of review committe minutes served on 11/1/93 (dktclk) (Entered: 11/03/1993)
50 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by mailing by defendants of medical records served on 10/21/93 (dktclk) (Entered: 11/03/1993)
51 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by mailing by defendants of medical records served on 10/15/93 (dktclk) (Entered: 11/03/1993)
52 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by mailing by defendants of medical records served on 10/15/93 (dktclk) (Entered: 11/03/1993)
53 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by mailing by defendants of medical records served on 10/26/93 (dktclk) (Entered: 11/03/1993)

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?645612875470737-L_280_0-1

11/1/2005

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.4 - Docket Report

Page 17 of 64

11/02/1993 11/04/1993 11/04/1993
11/08/1993 11/08/1993 11/08/1993 11/10/1993 11/12/1993 11/17/1993
11/17/1993 12/06/1993 12/16/1993 12/17/1993
12/17/1993

54 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by mailing by defendants of medical records served on 10/26/93 (dktclk) (Entered: 11/03/1993)
Text not available. (Entered: 11/04/1993)
55 MINUTE ORDER: by Magistrate Judge David E. Wilson. Renoting for 11/12/93 the following motions, the date the Court will consider defts' motion to dismiss: motion to expedite production of medical records of class members [16-1], motion for class certification [12-1], motion for protective order [25-1] (cc: all counsel,GW) (dktclk) (Entered: 11/04/1993)
56 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to motion to dismiss [38-1] (dktclk) (Entered: 11/09/1993)
57 SECOND REQUEST by plaintiffs for production of documents (dktclk) (Entered: 11/09/1993)
58 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by plaintiffs of motion response [56-1] served on 11/5/93 (dktclk) (Entered: 11/09/1993)
60 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by plaintiff of request [57-1] served on cnsl or record (PV) (Entered: 11/15/1993)
59 REPLY MEMORANDUM by defendants TO RESPONSE to motion to dismiss [38-1] (dktclk) (Entered: 11/12/1993)
61 SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL on behalf of Alice Payne, Donna Morgan Cheryl Barbara Carey terminating attorney Pat L. DeMarco for Donna Morgan, attorney Pat L. DeMarco for Alice Payne (dktclk) Modified on 12/20/1993 (Entered: 11/19/1993)
62 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by defendant of attorney [61-1] served on 11/16/93 (dktclk) (Entered: 11/19/1993)
63 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by defendants of defts answer to plts' second request for production of documents served on 12/2/93 (dktclk) (Entered: 12/07/1993)
65 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for plaintiffs by Mary Megan McLemore (dktclk) (Entered: 12/20/1993)
64 Report and Recommendation that defts motion to dismiss be denied in part, and granted in part; specifically, plts' claim that the bunk beds used at the WCCW are unsafe & are violative of the 8th Amendment's prohibition against cruel unusual punishment should be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable 1983 claim. The motion should be denied as to plts remaining claims. [38-1], [16-1], [12-1], [25-1] by Magistrate Judge David E. Wilson noted for 1/7/94 (cc: all counsel,CRD,GW) (dktclk) Modified on 01/25/1994 (Entered: 12/17/1993)
LODGED ORDER: re: Report and Recommendation that defts motion t dismiss is denied in part, and granted in part; specifically, plts' claim that the bunk beds used at the WCCW are unsafe & are violative the 8th

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?645612875470737-L_280_0-1

11/1/2005

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.4 - Docket Report

Page 18 of 64

12/20/1993 12/22/1993 12/30/1993 12/30/1993 12/30/1993
12/30/1993 12/30/1993 12/30/1993 01/03/1994 01/03/1994 01/03/1994 01/03/1994 01/03/1994 01/03/1994

Amendment's prohibition against cruel & unusual punishment should be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable 1983 claim. The motion should be denied as to plts remaining claims. [38-1], [16-1], [12-1], [25-1] (dktclk) (Entered: 12/17/1993)
66 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE of pltfs' 4th request for production of documents; served on 12/16/93 (dktclk) (Entered: 12/23/1993)
67 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE by Megan McLemore as a cooperating attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union (dktclk) (Entered: 12/27/1993)
68 MOTION by plaintiffs to amend complaint noted for 1/14/94 (dktclk) (Entered: 01/03/1994)
69 MEMORANDUM of points and authorities by plaintiff in support of motion to amend complaint [68-1] (dktclk) (Entered: 01/03/1994)
70 Objections to Report and Recommendation by plaintiffs that defts motion to dismiss is denied in part, and granted in part; specifically, plts' claim that the bunk beds used at the WCCW are unsafe & are violative of the 8th Amendment's prohibition against cruel & unusual punishment should be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable 1983 claim. The motion should be denied as to plts remaining claims. [38-1], [16-1], [12-1], [251] [64-1] noted for 1/14/94; objections not noted, cnsl called re noting date (dktclk) Modified on 01/06/1994 (Entered: 01/03/1994)
PROPOSED Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief (dktclk) (Entered: 01/03/1994)
71 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by plaintiffs of motion to amend complaint [68-1] served on 12/30/93 (dktclk) (Entered: 01/03/1994)
72 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by defendants of notice of intent to take depo served on 12/28/93 (dktclk) (Entered: 01/03/1994)
73 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for plaintiff Shannon Hallett, plaintiff Yvonne Wood, plaintiff Gail Ray, plaintiff Cindy Stewart, plaintiff Rena Skilton by Katrin E. Frank (dktclk) (Entered: 01/03/1994)
74 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by plaintiffs of attorney [73-1] served on 12/30/93 (dktclk) (Entered: 01/03/1994)
75 Objections to Report and Recommendation by defendant Alice Payne, defendant Donna Morgan noted for 1/28/94 (dktclk) Modified on 01/06/1994 (Entered: 01/03/1994)
76 MEMORANDUM by defendant Alice Payne, defendant Donna Morgan in support of objection motion Objections to Report and Recommendation [75-1] (dktclk) (Entered: 01/03/1994)
LODGED ORDER: re: objection motion Objections to Report and Recommendation [75-1] (dktclk) (Entered: 01/03/1994)
77 AFFIDAVIT OF Personal SERVICE by defendant Alice Payne,

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?645612875470737-L_280_0-1

11/1/2005

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.4 - Docket Report

Page 19 of 64

01/10/1994 01/10/1994 01/10/1994 01/15/1994 01/20/1994 01/21/1994 01/21/1994 01/21/1994 01/21/1994 01/24/1994 01/24/1994 01/24/1994
01/25/1994 01/25/1994 01/27/1994

defendant Donna Morgan of objection motion Objections to Report and Recommendation [75-1] served on 1/3/94 (not signed) (dktclk) (Entered: 01/03/1994)
78 Memorandum of Authorities in Opposition (RESPONSE) by defendant Alice Payne, defendant Donna Morgan to plts' motion to amend complaint [68-1] (dktclk) (Entered: 01/10/1994)
79 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by defendant Alice Payne, defendant Donna Morgan of motion response [78-1] served on 1/7/94 (dktclk) (Entered: 01/10/1994)
80 LETTER by plaintiffs to confirm noting date of 1/28/94 re objections to report & recommendation (dktclk) (Entered: 01/10/1994)
81 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE re defts answer to plts 4th request for production of documents by defendants (dktclk) (Entered: 01/18/1994)
82 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by defendants of defts answer to plts 6th request for production of docs (dktclk) (Entered: 01/24/1994)
83 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by defendants of defts amended ans to plts' 6th request for production of documents (dktclk) (Entered: 01/24/1994)
84 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to defts Objections to Report and Recommendation on motion to dismiss [75-1] (dktclk) (Entered: 01/24/1994)
85 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by plaintiffs of response [84-1] (dktclk) (Entered: 01/24/1994)
86 REPLY by plaintiff TO OPPOSITION to motion to amend complaint [68-1] (dktclk) (Entered: 01/24/1994)
87 MEMORANDUM of points and authorities by defendant IN OPPOSITION to plts cross-objections to Report and Recommendation regarding bunkbeds [70-1] (dktclk) (Entered: 01/24/1994)
Text not available. (Entered: 01/24/1994)
88 MINUTE ORDER: by Magistrate Judge David E. Wilson. Plts motion for class certification and motion for protective order have been renoted for 1/28/94, the date any objections to report & recommendation on defts motion to dismiss are due. [12-1],[25-1] (cc: all counsel,CRD,GW) (dktclk) (Entered: 01/24/1994)
89 NOTICE OF HEARING: ; in chambers conf w/ Judge Wilson regarding discovery issues & status of case scheduled for 9:30 on Friday 1/28/94 (cc: all counsel) (PV) (Entered: 01/25/1994)
90 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by defendants of defts answer to plts 7th request for production of docs (dktclk) (Entered: 01/27/1994)
91 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by defendant of memorandum [87-1] (dktclk) (Entered: 01/28/1994)

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?645612875470737-L_280_0-1

11/1/2005

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.4 - Docket Report

Page 20 of 64

01/31/1994
02/08/1994
02/08/1994 02/08/1994 02/09/1994 02/09/1994 02/09/1994 02/10/1994

92 MINUTES re Discovery and Status Conference before Magistrate Judge Wilson: Dep Clerk: P.V.; cnsl present for plt: P. Arthur, M. McLemore, K. Frank, C. Starbird. cnsl for deft: D. Judge, C. Carey. Court advises cnsl of law clerks past association w. NW Womens Law Center. Ms Friedman relates her past volunteer for NWWLC & current limited financial support. Cnsl indicates they've no objections or foresee a conflict; the court requests any additional comments by 1/31/94. Court notes motin to dismiss is before Judge Dimmick; regarding pending motions, the court will not rule until Judge Dimmick has dealt w/ motion to dismiss. Court hears Mr. Judge & Ms. Carey re issue of privilege to review medical records, and discovery in general. Parties announce they have resolved some issues related to privilege & documents in question. Ms Arthur will submit a proposed "opt-out option" document for the court's review. Court schedules phone conference for 2/8/94 at 4:00pm to update discovery process. (dktclk) (Entered: 01/31/1994)
93 MINUTES: Telephone Conference GW; Dep Clerk: PV; cnsl for plt: Patricia Arthur, Mary McLemore; cnsl for deft: Daniel Judge, Cheryl Carey. Court has received the deft's memorandum. MR. Arthur summarizes her letter to the parties. Parties are in agreement w/ the proposals discussed at the conference on 1/28. Additional comments by Ms. Arthur. Cnsl agree the issue of access to the medical records of deceased inmates. Ms. Arthur will file a letter-brief w/ the court by close of business, 2/9/94 on this issue. The state does not intent to file additional material o this issue. Court and cnsl discuss other issues addressed in the states memorandum. (dktclk) (Entered: 02/08/1994)
99 MEMORANDUM re Agreements to and Objections to plts discovery requests by defendants (dktclk) (Entered: 02/11/1994)
100 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by defendants of memorandum [99-1] (dktclk) (Entered: 02/11/1994)
94 MINUTE ORDER: by Magistrate Judge David E. Wilson. In light of the agreemnts reached by cnsl for plts and defts at the status conference held in chambers on 1/28/94 and during the telephone conference held on 2/8/94, plts' motion to expedite production of the medical recors of class members (dkt. #16), in addition to defts' motion for a rotective order (dkt. #25), are hereby STRICKEN as moot. [16-1], [25-1] (cc: all counsel,GW,CRD) (dktclk) (Entered: 02/09/1994)
97 MEMORANDUM by plaintiffs in support of plts access to the health care records of deceased prisoners (dktclk) (Entered: 02/11/1994)
98 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by plaintiffs of memorandum [97-1] (dktclk) (Entered: 02/11/1994)
95 ORDER by Judge Carolyn R. Dimmick. The Court adopts the Report & Recommedation. Defts motion to dismiss plts 1983 claim based on Eighth Amedment violations premised on the use of unsafe bunk beds is hereby GRANTED. Plts motin for leave to amend is DENIED. Defts remaining motions to dismiss are DENIED. [75-1], [70-1], [68-1],ENT

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?645612875470737-L_280_0-1

11/1/2005

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.4 - Docket Report

Page 21 of 64

02/10/1994 02/23/1994 02/23/1994 03/09/1994 03/09/1994 03/17/1994
03/18/1994 04/13/1994 05/16/1994

2/10/94 (cc: all counsel,CRD,GW) (dktclk) Modified on 02/10/1994 (Entered: 02/10/1994)
96 ORDER on plts' request for access to health care records of deceased prisoners by Magistrate Judge David E. Wilson (cc: all counsel,GW,CRD) (dktclk) (Entered: 02/10/1994)
101 ANSWER to amended complaint [31-1] by defendant Alice Payne, defendant Donna M; jury demand (dktclk) (Entered: 02/25/1994)
102 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by defendants of answer [101-1] (dktclk) (Entered: 02/25/1994)
103 Report and Recommendation that plts' motion for class certification be granted [12-1] by Magistrate Judge David E. Wilson noted for 4/1/94 (cc: all counsel) (dktclk) (Entered: 03/09/1994)
LODGED ORDER: re: Report and Recommendation that plts' motion for class certification be granted [12-1] [103-1] (dktclk) (Entered: 03/09/1994)
104 MINUTES: Conference held by telephone: DEW; Dep Clerk: PV; cnsl for plt Pat Arthur; cnsl for deft Daniel Judge, Cheryl Carey. Ms Arthur informs the Court that settlement discussions are underway. Nevertheless, parties believe the discovery process should not be delayed or cease. Counsel advise court that numerous depositions need to be scheduled. Counsel indicate scheduled events unrelated to this case & suggest a late summer discovery cut-off date. Court sets discovery cut-off at 9/30/94. (dktclk) (Entered: 03/18/1994)
105 MINUTE ORDER: by Magistrate Judge David E. Wilson ; discovery completed 9/30/94 (cc: all counsel) (dktclk) (Entered: 03/18/1994)
106 ORDER by Judge Carolyn R. Dimmick GRANTING plts' motion for class certification [12-1] [103-1] (cc: all counsel,CRD,GW) (dktclk) (Entered: 04/13/1994)
109 MINUTES: DISCOVERY CONFERENCE; DEW; Dep Clerk: PV;Kay Frank advises court one of the inmates has died within the past 24 hours. Ms. Frank requests an injunction to prohibit the prison from destroying the records & personal papers of the deceased individual that are currently in the possession of the prison. Ms. Frank requests the material be released to counsel pursuant to the previously signed medical release. Ms. Starbrid addresses the court re materials in question. Mr. Judge responses. Mr. Judge & Ms. Frank exchange suggestions as to how best to provide material to plt cnsl. Mr. Judge & Ms. Carey advise the court & plt counsel the agency will follow its legal procedures; no records or personal papers of the deceased inmate will be destroyed. Plt's counsel will be allowed access to the papers. Ms. Frank will prepare order for the court's signature. Prior to the court signing the order, the state will contact the court and affirm the order is acceptable per agreement of this conference. (dktclk) (Entered: 05/18/1994)

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?645612875470737-L_280_0-1

11/1/2005

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.4 - Docket Report

Page 22 of 64

05/17/1994
05/17/1994 05/18/1994 05/25/1994
05/25/1994 05/25/1994 05/27/1994 05/27/1994 06/01/1994 06/02/1994 06/06/1994 06/06/1994 06/06/1994 06/07/1994 06/07/1994
06/09/1994

107 ORDER on Plts' request for perservation & protection of Gertrude Barrow's personal belongings & dept of corrections records by Magistrate Judge David E. Wilson (cc: all counsel,CRD,GW) (dktclk) (Entered: 05/17/1994)
108 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by plaintiffs re plts tenth request for product of documents on 5/10/94 (dktclk) (Entered: 05/18/1994)
110 DECLARATION of Caroline Starbird by plaintiffs (dktclk) (Entered: 05/18/1994)
111 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL AND CONSENT TO SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL on behalf of plaintiffs; adding atty Caroline Starbird; terminating John Midgley attorney John B. Midgley for Gail Ray, attorney John B. Midgley for Yvonne Wood (dktclk) (Entered: 05/27/1994)
112 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by plaintiffs re notice of depos (dktclk) (Entered: 05/27/1994)
113 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by plaintiffs re plts 11th request for production of docs (dktclk) (Entered: 05/27/1994)
114 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA of Elizabeth Strodtman on 5/26/94 (dktclk) (Entered: 05/31/1994)
115 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA of Joe Kingsbury on 5/25/94 (dktclk) (Entered: 05/31/1994)
116 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA of Kathy Young on 5/26/94 (dktclk) (Entered: 06/02/1994)
117 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA of Senegunda Stankovic on 5/27/94 (dktclk) (Entered: 06/06/1994)
118 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by plaintiffs of notice of depo re Dr. Chris Badger (dktclk) (Entered: 06/08/1994)
119 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by defendants re defts objections for production of documents (dktclk) (Entered: 06/09/1994)
120 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA of Phillip Stubenrach on 5/26/94 (dktclk) (Entered: 06/09/1994)
122 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA of Elizabeth Strodtman, and Cindy Johnson on 5/29/94 (dktclk) (Entered: 06/10/1994)
123 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA of Alice Owens , Priscilla Werner, Bobby J. Greene, and Martha Cheek on 5/30/94 (dktclk) (Entered: 06/10/1994)
121 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA on 5/27/94 of Charlene Casle at 4:50pm; Diane Ortega at 4:45pm; Lorelie Cruthers at 12:55pm; Dr. Chris Badger at 12:20pm; Beverly Taweek at 12:35pm; and Jo Kingsbury at 1:30pm (dktclk) (Entered: 06/09/1994)

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?645612875470737-L_280_0-1

11/1/2005

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.4 - Docket Report

Page 23 of 64

06/09/1994 06/10/1994 07/11/1994 07/11/1994 07/12/1994 07/14/1994 07/14/1994
07/15/1994
07/18/1994
07/19/1994 07/19/1994 07/19/1994 08/19/1994 11/28/1994 11/28/1994 11/28/1994

124 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA of Phillip Ingram on 5/31/94 (dktclk) (Entered: 06/14/1994)
125 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA of Christine Schlatter on 6/1/94 (dktclk) (Entered: 06/14/1994)
126 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA of Cheryl B. Carey on 7/6/94 (dktclk) (Entered: 07/12/1994)
127 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA of Dr. Randall Snow and Gary McCracken (Dr) on 7/7/94 (dktclk) (Entered: 07/12/1994)
128 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA of Judith Walker and Mark Tollefson on 7/7/94 (dktclk) (Entered: 07/14/1994)
PROPOSED Stipulation & Order (dktclk) (Entered: 07/14/1994)
129 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Carolyn R. Dimmick; It is hereby ORDERED that the above stipulation shall be entered, and that the parties shall abide by the terirs of their agreement as set forth above. (see stip & order for details) (cc: all counsel) (dktclk) (Entered: 07/14/1994)
130 STIPULATION and ORDER by Magistrate Judge David E. Wilson: It is hereby ordered, adjudged and decreed that the depositoins taken in this case may exceed ten. (cc: all counsel,CRD,GW) (dktclk) (Entered: 07/15/1994)
131 MINUTE ORDER: by Judge Carolyn R. Dimmick Case reassigned to Judge Franklin D. Burgess for trial purposes; this case remains referred to Magistrate Judge David E. Wilson through the lodging of the pretrial order. (cc: all counsel,CRD,FDB,GW,Kay) (dktclk) Modified on 07/19/1994 (Entered: 07/18/1994)
132 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA of Lindy Simons on 7/11/94 (PL) (Entered: 07/19/1994)
133 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA of Linda Anderson on 7/11/94 (PL) (Entered: 07/19/1994)
134 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA of Chris Addison on 7/11/94 (PL) (Entered: 07/19/1994)
135 NOTICE by CR of filing depo of Charlene Castle & Beverly Traweek w/ Patricial Arther -Evergreen Legal Svc (PL) (Entered: 08/22/1994)
136 STIPULATION/MTN for order approving ntc of settlmt of class action (TW) (Entered: 11/29/1994)
137 DECLARATION of Patricia J. Arthur by plaintiff re: stipulation [136-1] (TW) (Entered: 11/29/1994)
PROPOSED ntc of proposed settlmnt re: stipulation [136-1] (TW) (Entered: 11/29/1994)

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?645612875470737-L_280_0-1

11/1/2005

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.4 - Docket Report

Page 24 of 64

11/28/1994 11/30/1994
11/30/1994 12/29/1994 12/29/1994 01/12/1995
01/12/1995
03/09/1995 12/20/1995 12/20/1995
10/21/1996 07/21/1997 07/28/1997 07/28/1997 07/28/1997 07/28/1997 08/04/1997

LODGED ORDER: re: stipulation [136-1] (TW) (Entered: 11/29/1994)
138 ORDER by Judge Franklin D. Burgess Approving Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action Lawsuit (cc: counsel, Judge) (dktclk) (Entered: 12/01/1994)
139 ORDER by Judge Franklin D. Burgess Approving Notice of Settlement of Class Action (cc: counsel, Judge) (dktclk) (Entered: 12/01/1994)
PROPOSED Stipulated Motion and Order for approval of settlement agreement (CAR) (Entered: 12/30/1994)
PROPOSED Stipulation and Judgment (CAR) (Entered: 12/30/1994)
140 STIPULATED Motion and ORDER by Judge Franklin D. Burgess : Approving Settlement Agreement (cc: counsel, Judge) (dktclk) (Entered: 01/12/1995)
141 Stipulation and JUDGMENT: by Judge Franklin D. Burgess (see Stipulation for details) (cc: counsel, Judge) Entered on: 1/12/95 (dktclk) (Entered: 01/12/1995)
142 NOTICE by defendant of W/Drawal of atty Cheryl Carey (dktclk) (Entered: 03/09/1995)
LODGED JUDGMENT SUMMARY/ STIP & JDG awarding P's interim atty fees (TW) (Entered: 12/20/1995)
143 JUDGMENT SUMMARY, STIPULATION, & JUDGMENT AWARDING INTERIM ATTYS' FEES: by Judge Franklin D. Burgess; Ps awarded jgm agains dfts in the amountof $212,000.00 for interim attys' fees & $13,000.00 for costs incurred in this litigation thru 9/1/95 (cc: counsel, Judge, Jgm. Book) Entered on: 12/20/95 (TW) (Entered: 12/20/1995)
144 DECLARATION/REPORT OF SITE SURVEY WCCW of Roderic Gottula, MD (EC) (Entered: 10/23/1996)
145 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA of Dave Dunnington on 7/16/97 (TW) (Entered: 07/21/1997)
146 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA of Jane Loeken, Dr. on 7/23/97 (EC) (Entered: 07/28/1997)
147 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA of Lindy Simmons on 7/23/97 (EC) (Entered: 07/28/1997)
148 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA of Gary Fleming on 7/23/97 (EC) (Entered: 07/28/1997)
149 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA of Carl Weaver, Dr. on 7/23/97 (EC) (Entered: 07/28/1997)
150 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA of Ella Ray Sigmund on 7/28/97 (TW) (Entered: 08/07/1997)

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?645612875470737-L_280_0-1

11/1/2005

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.4 - Docket Report

Page 25 of 64

08/26/1997 08/27/1997 08/28/1997 10/14/1997 10/20/1997 06/12/1998 06/12/1998 06/12/1998 06/12/1998 06/12/1998
06/12/1998
06/16/1998
06/16/1998 06/22/1998
06/25/1998

152 DECLARATION/AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA of Jan Schaeffer on 8/21/97 (TW) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
151 DECLARATION/AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA of Nancy Heller on 8/21/97 (TW) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
153 DECLARATION/AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA of Jane Maier on 8/25/97 (TW) (Entered: 09/03/1997)
PROPOSED Stipulation and Protective Order (CAR) (Entered: 10/16/1997)
154 STIPULATION and PROTECTIVE ORDER by Magistrate Judge David E. Wilson; see order for details (cc: counsel, Judge) (TW) (Entered: 10/21/1997)
155 MOTION by plaintiff to extend time to file mtn for ext of court jurisdiction NOTED FOR 7/3/98 (TW) (Entered: 06/17/1998)
LODGED ORDER: re: motion to extend time to file mtn for ext of court jurisdiction [155-1] (TW) (Entered: 06/17/1998)
156 MOTION by plaintiff to shorten time on motion to extend time to file mtn for ext of court jurisdiction [155-1] NOTED FOR 6/16/98 (TW) (Entered: 06/17/1998)
LODGED ORDER: re: motion to shorten time on motion to extend time to file mtn for ext of court jurisdiction [155-1] [156-1] (TW) (Entered: 06/17/1998)
157 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff in support of motion to shorten time on motion to extend time to file mtn for ext of court jurisdiction [155-1] [156-1], of motion to extend time to file mtn for ext of court jurisdiction [155-1] (TW) (Entered: 06/17/1998)
158 DECLARATION of Patricia J Arthur by plaintiff re motion to shorten time on motion to extend time to file mtn for ext of court jurisdiction [155-1] [156-1], re motion to extend time to file mtn for ext of court jurisdiction [155-1] (TW) (Entered: 06/17/1998)
159 OPPOSITION/RESPONSE by defendant to motion to shorten time on motion to extend time to file mtn for ext of court jurisdiction [155-1] [156-1], motion to extend time to file mtn for ext of court jurisdiction [155-1] (TW) (Entered: 06/17/1998)
160 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by defendant of motion response [159-1] (TW) (Entered: 06/17/1998)
161 ORDER by Judge Franklin D. Burgess GRANTING pla's motion to shorten time on motion to extend time to file mtn for ext of court jurisdiction [155-1] [156-1], RENOTED FOR 6/19/98 pla's motion to extend time to file mtn for ext of court jurisdiction [155-1] (cc: counsel, Judge) (TW) (Entered: 06/22/1998)
162 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendants by Mary E Fairhurst (TW)

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?645612875470737-L_280_0-1

11/1/2005

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.4 - Docket Report

Page 26 of 64

06/25/1998 07/01/1998
09/11/1998 09/11/1998 09/11/1998 09/11/1998 09/11/1998 09/11/1998 09/24/1998 09/28/1998 09/29/1998
10/23/1998
10/23/1998 10/23/1998 10/23/1998 10/23/1998
10/23/1998

(Entered: 06/25/1998)
163 REPLY by plaintiffs TO RESPONSE to motion to extend time to file mtn for ext of court jurisdiction [155-1] (TW) (Entered: 06/25/1998)
164 ORDER by Judge Franklin D. Burgess that Pltfs shall be granted until 9/12/98 to file for an extension of federal court jurisdiction over the Stipulation and Judgment entered in this case on 1/12/95. [155-1] (cc: counsel, Judge) (CAR) (Entered: 07/02/1998)
165 MOTION by plaintiff to extend jurisdiction, OA REQ NOTED FOR 10/2/98 (EC) (Entered: 09/15/1998)
166 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff in support of motion to extend jurisdiction, OA REQ [165-1] (EC) (Entered: 09/15/1998)
LODGED ORDER: re: pl's motion to extend jurisdiction, OA REQ [1651] (EC) (Entered: 09/15/1998)
167 MOTION by plaintiff to exceed page limitation NOTED FOR 10/2/98 (EC) (Entered: 09/15/1998)
LODGED ORDER: re: pls' motion to exceed page limitation [167-1] (EC) (Entered: 09/15/1998)
PROPOSED Declaration of Patricia J. Arthur re: motion to exceed page limitation [167-1] (EC) (Entered: 09/15/1998)
168 DECLARATION of Cynthia Marler by plaintiff re motion to extend jurisdiction, OA REQ [165-1] (EC) (Entered: 09/24/1998)
PROPOSED Stipulation and Order re: motion to extend jurisdiction, OA REQ [165-1] (EC) (Entered: 09/28/1998)
169 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Franklin D. Burgess: RENOTED FOR 10/30/98 motion to extend jurisdiction [165-1]; dfts will respond by 10/23/98 (cc: counsel, Judge) (EC) (Entered: 09/29/1998)
170 MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITIES by defendant in opposition to pl's motion to extend jurisdiction, OA REQ [165-1] (EC) (Entered: 10/26/1998)
171 MOTION by defendant to exceed page limitation on brief NOTED FOR 11/13/98 (EC) (Entered: 10/26/1998)
172 AFFIDAVIT of Daniel J. Judge regarding dfts' motion to exceed page limitation on brief [171-1] (EC) (Entered: 10/26/1998)
LODGED ORDER: re: dfts' motion to exceed page limitation on brief [171-1] (EC) (Entered: 10/26/1998)
173 MOTION by defendant to shorten time on motion to exceed page limitation on brief [171-1] NOTED FOR 10/30/98 (EC) (Entered: 10/26/1998)
LODGED ORDER: re: motion to shorten time on motion to exceed page

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?645612875470737-L_280_0-1

11/1/2005

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.4 - Docket Report

Page 27 of 64

10/23/1998 10/23/1998 10/23/1998 10/23/1998 10/23/1998 10/23/1998 10/23/1998 10/23/1998
10/23/1998 10/23/1998
10/23/1998 10/23/1998 10/23/1998 10/23/1998 10/23/1998 10/23/1998 10/23/1998 10/23/1998

limitation on brief [171-1] [173-1] (EC) (Entered: 10/26/1998)
174 DECLARATION of Elizabeth Anderson in opposition to pl's motion to extend jurisdiction, OA REQ [165-1] (EC) (Entered: 10/26/1998)
175 DECLARATION of Linda Anderson in opposition to pl's motion to extend jurisdiction, OA REQ [165-1] (EC) (Entered: 10/26/1998)
176 DECLARATION of Rod Coberly in opposition to pls' motion to extend jurisdiction, OA REQ [165-1] (EC) (Entered: 10/26/1998)
177 DECLARATION of Judith Defelice, PhD in opposition to pls' motion to extend jurisdiction, OA REQ [165-1] (EC) (Entered: 10/26/1998)
178 DECLARATION of Gary Fleming in opposition to pls' motion to extend jurisdiction, OA REQ [165-1] (EC) (Entered: 10/26/1998)
179 DECLARATION of Jay Harness, MD in opposition to pls' motion to extend jurisdiction, OA REQ [165-1] (EC) (Entered: 10/26/1998)
180 DECLARATION of Patricia Hogan in opposition to pls' motion to extend jurisdiction, OA REQ [165-1] (EC) (Entered: 10/26/1998)
181 DECLARATION of Judith Chelotti (Horsham) in opposition to pls' motion to extend jurisdiction, OA REQ [165-1] (EC) (Entered: 10/26/1998)
182 DECLARATION of Charles Huffine, MD in opposition to pls' motion to extend jurisdiction, OA REQ [165-1] (EC) (Entered: 10/26/1998)
183 DECLARATION of Renee Kanan, MD, MPH in opposition to pls' motion to extend jurisdiction, OA REQ [165-1] (EC) (Entered: 10/26/1998)
184 DECLARATION of David Kludt in opposition to pls' motion to extend jurisdiction, OA REQ [165-1] (EC) (Entered: 10/26/1998)
185 DECLARATION of Gail Kreiger in opposition to pls' motion to extend jurisdiction, OA REQ [165-1] (EC) (Entered: 10/26/1998)
186 DECLARATION of Abby Kupper in opposition to pls' motion to extend jurisdiction, OA REQ [165-1] (EC) (Entered: 10/26/1998)
187 DECLARATION of Linda Lawrence, ARNP in opposition to pls' motion to extend jurisdiction, OA REQ [165-1] (EC) (Entered: 10/26/1998)
188 DECLARATION of James Lewis in opposition pls' motion to extend jurisdiction, OA REQ [165-1] (EC) (Entered: 10/26/1998)
189 DECLARATION of Janiese Loeken, MD in opposition to pls' motion to extend jurisdiction, OA REQ [165-1] (EC) (Entered: 10/26/1998)
190 DECLARATION of Karen Lynch in opposition to pls' motion to extend jurisdiction, OA REQ [165-1] (EC) (Entered: 10/26/1998)
191 DECLARATION of Alice Payne in opposition to pls' motion to extend

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?645612875470737-L_280_0-1

11/1/2005

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.4 - Docket Report

Page 28 of 64

10/23/1998 10/23/1998 10/23/1998 10/23/1998 10/23/1998 10/23/1998 10/23/1998 10/23/1998 10/23/1998 10/23/1998 10/23/1998 10/23/1998 10/23/1998 10/23/1998 10/23/1998 10/26/1998
10/26/1998 10/27/1998

jurisdiction, OA REQ [165-1] (EC) (Entered: 10/26/1998)
192 DECLARATION of Cynthia R. Phillips in opposition to pls' motion to extend jurisdiction, OA REQ [165-1] (EC) (Entered: 10/26/1998)
193 DECLARATION of Peggy Reitz, RN in opposition to pls' motion to extend jurisdiction, OA REQ [165-1] (EC) (Entered: 10/26/1998)
194 DECLARATION of Michael Robbins, PhD in opposition to pls' motion to extend jurisdiction, OA REQ [165-1] (EC) (Entered: 10/26/1998)
195 DECLARATION of Jane Robinson in opposition to pls' motion to extend jurisdiction, OA REQ [165-1] (EC) (Entered: 10/26/1998)
196 DECLARATION of Paul Root in opposition to pls' motion to extend jurisdiction, OA REQ [165-1] (EC) (Entered: 10/26/1998)
197 DECLARATION of Brent R. Saetrum, MD in opposition to pls' motion to extend jurisdiction, OA REQ [165-1] (EC) (Entered: 10/26/1998)
198 DECLARATION of Ella Ray Sigmund in opposition to pls' motion to extend jurisdiction, OA REQ [165-1] (EC) (Entered: 10/26/1998)
199 AFFIDAVIT of Helen Stacey, MD in opposition to pls' motion to extend jurisdiction, OA REQ [165-1] (EC) (Entered: 10/26/1998)
200 DECLARATION of Stephen R. Tabet, MD in opposition to pls' motion to extend jurisdiction, OA REQ [165-1] (EC) (Entered: 10/26/1998)
201 DECLARATION of Angela Wade, PsyD in opposition to pls' motion to extend jurisdiction, OA REQ [165-1] (EC) (Entered: 10/26/1998)
202 DECLARATION of Carl Weaver, DDS in opposition to pls' motion to extend jurisdiction, OA REQ [165-1] (EC) (Entered: 10/26/1998)
203 DECLARATION of Patricia Wiggins in opposition to pls' motion to extend jurisdiction, OA REQ [165-1] (EC) (Entered: 10/26/1998)
204 DECLARATION of Ted Wilson in opposition to pls' motion to extend jurisdiction, OA REQ [165-1] (EC) (Entered: 10/26/1998)
205 DECLARATION of Diane Winniford in opposition to pls' motion to extend jurisdiction, OA REQ [165-1] (EC) (Entered: 10/26/1998)
PROPOSED Appendix to Memo In Opposition to pls' motion to extend jurisdiction, OA REQ [165-1] (EC) (Entered: 10/26/1998)
206 ORDER by Judge Franklin D. Burgess finding the motion to shorten time on motion to exceed page limitation on brief [171-1] [173-1] MOOT., GRANTING motion to exceed page limitation on brief [171-1] (cc: counsel, Judge) (EC) (Entered: 10/26/1998)
207 APPENDIX filed by defendant in opposition to pl's motion to extend jurisdiction, OA REQ [165-1] (EC) (Entered: 10/26/1998)
PROPOSED Stipulated Motion and Order Renoting pl's motion to extend

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?645612875470737-L_280_0-1

11/1/2005

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.4 - Docket Report

Page 29 of 64

10/28/1998 10/28/1998 11/03/1998 11/03/1998 11/03/1998 11/03/1998 11/03/1998 11/03/1998 11/03/1998 11/03/1998 11/05/1998 11/05/1998 11/05/1998
11/06/1998
11/06/1998 11/09/1998

jurisdiction, OA REQ [165-1] (EC) (Entered: 10/28/1998)
208 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by plaintiff of document lodged [0-0] (EC) (Entered: 10/29/1998)
209 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Franklin D. Burgess: RENOTED FOR 11/20/98 motion to extend jurisdiction, OA REQ [165-1] ; pls shall file response by 11/13/98(cc: counsel, Judge) (EC) (Entered: 10/29/1998)
210 MOTION by dfts for protective order or stay of discovery NOTED FOR 11/20/98 (EC) (Entered: 11/04/1998)
211 MEMORANDUM in support of dfts' motion for protective order or stay of discovery [210-1] (EC) (Entered: 11/04/1998)
212 DECLARATION of Daniel J. Judge in support of dfts' motion for protective order or stay of discovery [210-1] (EC) (Entered: 11/04/1998)
213 DECLARATION of Jane Robinson in support of dfts' motion for protective order or stay of discovery [210-1] (EC) (Entered: 11/04/1998)
214 DECLARATION of Alice Payne in support of dfts' motion for protective order or stay of discovery [210-1] (EC) (Entered: 11/04/1998)
LODGED ORDER: re: dfts' motion for protective order or stay of discovery [210-1] (EC) (Entered: 11/04/1998)
215 MOTION by defendant to shorten time on motion for protective order or stay of discovery [210-1] NOTED FOR 11/6/98 (EC) (Entered: 11/04/1998)
LODGED ORDER: re: motion to shorten time on motion for protective order or stay of discovery [210-1] [215-1] (EC) (Entered: 11/04/1998)
216 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION by plaintiff to dfts' motion for protective order or stay of discovery [210-1] (EC) (Entered: 11/05/1998)
217 DECLARATION of Patricia J. Arthur in opposition to dfts' motion for protective order or stay of discovery [210-1] (EC) (Entered: 11/05/1998)
218 SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL on behalf of dfts Rena Skilton, Cindy Stewart, Gail Ray, Yvonne Wood, Shannon Hallett; Attorney David C Fathi, terminating attorney Caroline Lim Starbird (EC) Modified on 05/16/2000 (Entered: 11/06/1998)
219 ORDER by Judge Franklin D. Burgess GRANTING motion to shorten time on motion for protective order or stay of discovery [210-1] [215-1], RENOTED FOR 11/9/98 motion for protective order or stay of discovery [210-1] (cc: counsel, Judge) (EC) (Entered: 11/06/1998)
220 DECLARATION of Patricia J. Arthur in opposition to dfts' motion for protective order or stay of discovery [210-1] (EC) (Entered: 11/09/1998)
221 ORDER by Judge Franklin D. Burgess DENYING dfts' motion for

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?645612875470737-L_280_0-1

11/1/2005

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.4 - Docket Report

Page 30 of 64

11/09/1998 11/10/1998 11/10/1998 11/12/1998
11/13/1998 11/13/1998
11/13/1998 12/03/1998 12/03/1998 12/04/1998 12/04/1998 12/04/1998 12/07/1998
12/07/1998
12/07/1998

protective order or stay of discovery [210-1]; pls may depose the WCCW nurses scheduled on 11/10/98 and Drs. Loeken, Harness and Stacey, and dfts shall produce the docs requested in ltr of pls' counsel dated 11/2/98 (cc: counsel, Judge) (EC) (Entered: 11/09/1998)
222 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA of Christine Schlatter on 11/5/98 (EC) (Entered: 11/09/1998)
223 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA of Hope Fermoyle on 11/5/98 (EC) (Entered: 11/10/1998)
224 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA of Bev Traweek on 11/6/98 (EC) (Entered: 11/10/1998)
225 AFFIDAVITS OF SERVICE OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA of Flor Blanton, Charlene Castle, Kathy Davis, Prescila Werner and Ginny Suzzo on 11/6/98 (EC) (Entered: 11/12/1998)
PROPOSED Stipulation and Order re: motion to extend jurisdiction, OA REQ [165-1] (EC) (Entered: 11/13/1998)
226 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Franklin D. Burgess, RENOTED FOR 12/11/98 motion to extend jurisdiction, OA REQ [165-1] (cc: counsel, Judge) (EC) (Entered: 11/13/1998)
227 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA of Margo Johnson on 11/9/98 (EC) (Entered: 11/13/1998)
228 DECLARATION of Linda Anderson by defendant re motion to extend jurisdiction, OA REQ [165-1] (EC) (Entered: 12/03/1998)
229 DECLARATION of Renee Kanan, MD by defendant re motion to extend jurisdiction, OA REQ [165-1] (EC) (Entered: 12/03/1998)
230 MOTION by plaintiff to five overlength brief in support of pl's motion to extend jurisdiction NOTED FOR 12/25/98 (EC) (Entered: 12/07/1998)
LODGED ORDER: re: motion to five overlength brief in support of pl's motion to extend jurisdiction [230-1] (EC) (Entered: 12/07/1998)
PROPOSED Brief in Support of Pl's [230-1]: motion to extend jurisdiction [165-1] (EC) (Entered: 12/07/1998)
231 MOTION by plaintiff to shorten time on motion to file overlength brief in support of pl's motion to extend jurisdiction [230-1] NOTED FOR 12/11/98 (EC) Modified on 05/16/2000 (Entered: 12/08/1998)
232 DECLARATION of Patricia J. Arthur by plaintiff re motion to shorten time on motion to file overlength brief in support of pl's motion to extend jurisdiction [230-1] [231-1] (EC) Modified on 05/16/2000 (Entered: 12/08/1998)
LODGED ORDER: re: motion to shorten time on motion to file overlength brief in support of pl's motion to extend jurisdiction [230-1] [231-1] (EC) Modified on 05/16/2000 (Entered: 12/08/1998)

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?645612875470737-L_280_0-1

11/1/2005

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.4 - Docket Report

Page 31 of 64

12/09/1998 12/11/1998 12/11/1998 12/11/1998 12/11/1998 12/11/1998 12/11/1998 12/14/1998 12/14/1998 12/15/1998 12/16/1998
12/16/1998
12/17/1998 12/17/1998

233 ORDER by Judge Franklin D. Burgess Case referred to Magistrate Judge David E. Wilson (cc: counsel, Judge) (EC) (Entered: 12/09/1998)
234 MOTION by defendant for leave to file surreply in opposition to pl's motion to extend jurisdiction NOTED FOR 1/1/99 (EC) Modified on 12/14/1998 (Entered: 12/14/1998)
235 DECLARATION of Daniel J. Judge by defendant re dfts' motion for leave to file surreply in opposition to pl's motion to extend jurisdiction [234-1] (EC) (Entered: 12/14/1998)
LODGED ORDER: re: dfts' motion for leave to file surreply in opposition to pl's motion to extend jurisdiction [234-1] (EC) (Entered: 12/14/1998)
236 MOTION by defendant to shorten time on motion for leave to file surreply in opposition to pl's motion to extend jurisdiction [234-1] NOTED FOR 12/15/98 (EC) (Entered: 12/14/1998)
LODGED ORDER: re: motion to shorten time on motion for leave to file surreply in opposition to pl's motion to extend jurisdiction [234-1] [2361] (EC) (Entered: 12/14/1998)
PROPOSED Dfts' Surreply Memorandum to Pls' Reply Brief to Motion for Extension of Court Jurisdiction [234-1] (EC) (Entered: 12/14/1998)
237 DECLARATION of Marva Talley Morehead by plaintiff re: document lodged [0-0] (EC) (Entered: 12/14/1998)
238 DECLARATION of Armond H. Start, MD by plaintiff re: document lodged [0-0] (EC) (Entered: 12/14/1998)
239 MEMO IN OPPOSITION by Pltfs to Dfts' motion for leave to file surreply in opposition to pl's motion to extend jurisdiction [234-1] (CAR) (Entered: 12/16/1998)
240 MINUTE ORDER: by Magistrate Judge David E. Wilson GRANTING motion to shorten time on motion to five overlength brief in support of pl's motion to extend jurisdiction [230-1] [231-1] and RENOTING FOR 12/17/98 motion to five overlength brief in support of pl's motion to extend jurisdiction [230-1] (cc: counsel, Judge) (CAR) (Entered: 12/16/1998)
241 ORDER by Magistrate Judge David E. Wilson GRANTING motion to shorten time on motion for leave to file surreply in opposition to pl's motion to extend jurisdiction [234-1] [236-1], NOTED FOR 12/17/98 motion for leave to file surreply in opposition to pl's motion to extend jurisdiction [234-1] (cc: counsel, Judge) (CAR) (Entered: 12/16/1998)
242 REPLY MEMORANDUM by dfts RE: Dfts' motion for leave to file surreply in opposition to pl's motion to extend [234-1] (CAR) (Entered: 12/17/1998)
243 MOTION by plaintiff for provisional extension of stipulation and

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?645612875470737-L_280_0-1

11/1/2005

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.4 - Docket Report

Page 32 of 64

12/17/1998 12/17/1998 12/17/1998 12/17/1998 12/18/1998 12/28/1998 12/28/1998 12/30/1998 01/04/1999
01/08/1999 01/08/1999 01/08/1999 01/15/1999
01/21/1999

judgment NOTED FOR 1/1/99 (EC) (Entered: 12/18/1998)
244 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff in support of motion for provisional extension of stipulation and judgment [243-1] (EC) (Entered: 12/18/1998)
245 DECLARATION of David C. Fathi by plaintiff re motion for provisional extension of stipulation and judgment [243-1] (EC) (Entered: 12/18/1998)
LODGED ORDER: re: pls' motion for provisional extension of stipulation and judgment [243-1] (EC) (Entered: 12/18/1998)
246 LETTER by plaintiff re: pls' motion for provisional extension of stipulation and judgment [243-1] (EC) (Entered: 12/18/1998)
247 ORDER by Magistrate Judge David E. Wilson GRANTING dfts' motion for leave to file surreply in opposition to pl's motion to extend jurisdiction [234-1] (cc: counsel, Judge) (EC) (Entered: 12/18/1998)
248 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION by defendant to pl's motion to extend jurisdiction, OA REQ [165-1] (EC) (Entered: 12/28/1998)
249 FINAL REPLY by plaintiff in support of pls' motion for provisional extension of stipulation and judgment [243-1] (EC) (Entered: 12/29/1998)
250 REPLY by plaintiff TO RESPONSE to pls' motion for provisional extension of stipulation and judgment [243-1] (EC) (Entered: 12/31/1998)
251 ORDER by Judge Franklin D. Burgess GRANTING in part pls' motion for provisional extension of stipulation and judgment [243-1], RENOTED FOR 2/12/99 motion to extend jurisdiction [165-1] (cc: counsel, Judge) (EC) (Entered: 01/04/1999)
252 DFTS' SURREPLY MEMORANDUM in RESPONSE to pls' reply brief to motion to extend jurisdiction [165-1] (EC) (Entered: 01/08/1999)
253 REPLY BRIEF by plaintiffs in suport of pls' motion to extend jurisdiction [230-1] (EC) (Entered: 01/08/1999)
254 DECLARATION of Patricia J. Arthur by plaintiff re pls' motion to extend jurisdiction [165-1] (EC) (Entered: 01/08/1999)
255 ORDER by Magistrate Judge David E. Wilson -- Parties are ORDERED TO Show Cause by 1-21-99 why they have not pursued the dispute resolution procedures specified in the Stipulatio & Order (see order for details)(cc: counsel, by fax & mail,FDB, DEW) (PV) (Entered: 01/15/1999)
256 MEMORANDUM by defendants in response to order to show cause re mediation [255-1] (TW) (Entered: 01/22/1999)

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?645612875470737-L_280_0-1

11/1/2005

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.4 - Docket Report

Page 33 of 64

01/21/1999 01/21/1999 01/25/1999
01/26/1999 02/01/1999 02/01/1999 02/01/1999 02/01/1999 02/01/1999 02/02/1999
02/03/1999 02/11/1999

257 RESPONSE by plaintiff to OSC ddl why dispute resolution procedures have not been pursued [0-0] (EC) (Entered: 01/25/1999)
258 DECLARATION of Patricia J. Arthur by plaintiff re OSC ddl why dispute resolution procedures have not been pursued [0-0] (EC) (Entered: 01/25/1999)
260 MINUTES OF CONFERENCE RE: MEDIATION: DEW; Dep Clerk: P Voelker; Telephone Conference w/P Aruther, D Fathi, D Judge and M Fairhurst, appearing in addition: C Klein; Court orders mediation w/Magistrate Judge J Kelley Arnold; Counsel suggests medation occur on 1/29/99; Court directs counsel schedule matter directly w/Judge Arnold (EC) (Entered: 01/26/1999)
259 ORDER by Judge Franklin D. Burgess; parties are ORDERED to participate in mediation with Magistrate Judge J. Kelley Arnold and to contact him as soon as possible to make arrangements (cc: counsel, Judge) (EC) (Entered: 01/26/1999)
261 MINUTE ORDER re: SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE: by Magistrate Judge J. K. Arnold; counsel met with Court; mediator was not able to bring parties to agreement (cc: counsel, Judge) (EC) (Entered: 02/01/1999)
262 MOTION by plaintiff for oral argument on pls' motion for extension of jurisdiction and conditional request for a trial date, OA REQ NOTED FOR 2/19/99 (EC) (Entered: 02/01/1999)
263 MOTION by plaintiff to shorten time on motion for oral argument on pls' motion for extension of jurisdiction and conditional request for a trial date, OA REQ [262-1] NOTED FOR 2/3/99 (EC) (Entered: 02/01/1999)
264 DECLARATION of Patricia J. Arthur re motion to shorten time on motion for oral argument on pls' motion for extension of jurisdiction and conditional request for a trial date, OA REQ [262-1] [263-1] (EC) (Entered: 02/01/1999)
LODGED ORDER: re: motion to shorten time on motion for oral argument on pls' motion for extension of jurisdiction and conditional request for a trial date, OA REQ [262-1] [263-1] (EC) (Entered: 02/01/1999)
265 ORDER by Judge Franklin D. Burgess extending provisional extension of jurisdiction until Magistrate Judge can have a hrg on underlying Motion to Extend Jurisdiction and submit a Report and Recommendation and until Court has considered R&R and entered an order (cc: counsel, Judge) (EC) (Entered: 02/02/1999)
266 MEMORANDUM of points and authorities by defendant in opposition to pl's motion for oral argument on pls' motion for extension of jurisdiction and conditional request for a trial date, OA REQ [262-1], and pl's motion to extend jurisdiction, OA REQ [165-1] (EC) (Entered: 02/03/1999)
267 ORDER by Magistrate Judge David E. Wilson GRANTING motion to

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?645612875470737-L_280_0-1

11/1/2005

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.4 - Docket Report

Page 34 of 64

02/11/1999 02/11/1999 02/11/1999 02/11/1999 02/17/1999 02/17/1999 02/17/1999 02/17/1999 02/17/1999 02/17/1999 02/18/1999
02/22/1999 02/22/1999

shorten time on motion for oral argument on pls' motion for extension of jurisdiction and conditional request for a trial date [262-1] [263-1]. It is further ORDERED that Plts' request for Oral Argument and Conditional Request for Trial shall be set for hrg w/o oral argument on 2/5/99 at 4:00 p.m. before Magistrate Judge David E. Wilson (cc: counsel, Judge) (CAR) Modified on 05/16/2000 (Entered: 02/11/1999)
268 MOTION by defendant in the alternative for order vacating stipulation and judgment NOTED FOR 3/5/99 (EC) (Entered: 02/12/1999)
269 MEMORANDUM by defendant in support of dft's motion in the alternative for order vacating stipulation and judgment [268-1] (EC) (Entered: 02/12/1999)
LODGED ORDER: re: motion in the alternative for order vacating stipulation and judgment [268-1] (EC) (Entered: 02/12/1999)
270 ORDER by Magistrate Judge David E. Wilson GRANTING pls' request for an evidentiary hrg [262-1]; Court will contact counsel to set dates for the hrg (cc: counsel, Judge) (EC) (Entered: 02/16/1999)
271 MOTION by defendant for reconsideration of orders entered 2/2/99 and 2/11/99 NOTED FOR 2/19/99 (EC) (Entered: 02/17/1999)
272 MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITIES in support of dft's motion for reconsideration of orders entered 2/2/99 and 2/11/99 [271-1] (EC) (Entered: 02/17/1999)
LODGED ORDER: re: dft's motion for reconsideration of orders entered 2/2/99 and 2/11/99 [271-1] (EC) (Entered: 02/17/1999)
273 MOTION by defendant to shorten time on dft's motion in the alternative for order vacating stipulation and judgment [268-1] NOTED FOR 2/19/99 (EC) (Entered: 02/17/1999)
274 MEMORANDUM in support of dft's motion to shorten time on dft's motion in the alternative for order vacating stipulation and judgment [268-1] [273-1] (EC) (Entered: 02/17/1999)
LODGED ORDER: re: dft's motion to shorten time on dft's motion in the alternative for order vacating stipulation and judgment [268-1] [273-1] (EC) (Entered: 02/17/1999)
275 ORDER by Magistrate Judge David E. Wilson DENYING motion to shorten time on dft's motion in the alternative for order vacating stipulation and judgment [268-1] [273-1], RENOTED FOR 2/26/99 motion for reconsideration of orders entered 2/2/99 and 2/11/99 [271-1]; pls to respond by 2/23/99, dfts reply by 2/25/99 (cc: counsel, Judge) (EC) (Entered: 02/19/1999)
276 MOTION by plaintiff for contempt NOTED FOR 4/2/99 (EC) Modified on 02/24/1999 (Entered: 02/23/1999)
277 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff in support of pls' motion for contempt

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?645612875470737-L_280_0-1

11/1/2005

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.4 - Docket Report

Page 35 of 64

02/22/1999 02/23/1999 02/23/1999 02/24/1999 02/24/1999
02/25/1999
02/25/1999 03/01/1999 03/01/1999 03/01/1999 03/04/1999 03/04/1999

[276-1] (EC) Modified on 02/24/1999 (Entered: 02/23/1999)
LODGED ORDER: re: pls' motion for contempt [276-1] (EC) Modified on 02/24/1999 (Entered: 02/23/1999)
281 RESPONSE by plaintiff to dft's motion for reconsideration of orders entered 2/2/99 and 2/11/99 [271-1] (EC) (Entered: 02/25/1999)
282 DECLARATION of David C. Fathi by plaintiff re dft's motion for reconsideration of orders entered 2/2/99 and 2/11/99 [271-1] (EC) Modified on 05/16/2000 (Entered: 02/25/1999)
278 MINUTES OF STATUS HRG: DEW; Dep Clerk: P Voelker; CR: K Vernon; Pla Counsel D Fathi/K Frank; Def Counsel M Fairhurst/D Judge/C Phillips; see minute for details; evidentiary hrg is 9:00 on 3/29/99, Ctrm D, Union Station Courthouse (EC) (Entered: 02/24/1999)
279 SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL on behalf of Rena Skilton, Cindy Stewart, Gail Ray, Yvonne Wood, Shannon Hallett Aaron Caplan terminating attorney Mary Megan McLemore for Shannon Hallett, attorney Mary Megan McLemore for Yvonne Wood, attorney Mary Megan McLemore for Gail Ray, attorney Mary Megan McLemore for Cindy Stewart, attorney Mary Megan McLemore for Rena Skilton (EC) (Entered: 02/24/1999)
280 ORDER by Magistrate Judge David E. Wilson re: evidentiary hrg on pl's motion for extension of Court's jurisdiction, see order for details; pl's will present their case at the US Courthouse in Tacoma from 3/29/99-4/2/99 commencing at 9:00 and concluding at 4:30 daily; dfts will present their case from 4/5/99-4/9/99 at the US Courthouse in Seattle commencing at 9:00 and concluding at 4:30 daily (cc: counsel, Judge) (EC) (Entered: 02/25/1999)
283 REPLY by defendant TO RESPONSE to dfts' motion for reconsideration of orders entered 2/2/99 and 2/11/99 [271-1] (EC) (Entered: 02/25/1999)
284 ORDER by Magistrate Judge David E. Wilson GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART dfts' motion for reconsideration of orders entered 2/2/99 and 2/11/99 [271-1], see order for details (cc: counsel, Judge) (EC) (Entered: 03/02/1999)
285 MINUTE ORDER: by Magistrate Judge David E. Wilson re: Ntc of Withdrawal and Substitution of Counsel, substituting Aaron Caplan for Mary MCLemore(cc: counsel, Judge) (EC) (Entered: 03/02/1999)
286 RESPONSE/MEMO IN OPPOSITION by plaintiff to dft's motion in the alternative for order vacating stipulation and judgment [268-1] (EC) (Entered: 03/03/1999)
PROPOSED Stipulated pretrial order (EC) (Entered: 03/04/1999)
287 REPLY by defendant TO RESPONSE to dft's motion in the alternative for order vacating stipulation and judgment [268-1] (EC) (Entered: 03/04/1999)

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?645612875470737-L_280_0-1

11/1/2005

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.4 - Docket Report

Page 36 of 64

03/05/1999 03/08/1999 03/08/1999 03/08/1999
03/09/1999 03/09/1999 03/09/1999 03/09/1999 03/09/1999
03/09/1999 03/09/1999
03/10/1999
03/10/1999 03/10/1999
03/10/1999 03/10/1999

288 MOTION by plaintiffs for reconsideration of 3/1/99 order NOTED FOR 3/12/99 (TW) (Entered: 03/08/1999)
289 TRANSCRIPT of evidentiary hearing for the following date(s): 2/24/99; CR initials: Catherine Vernon (MW) (Entered: 03/08/1999)
290 NOTICE by plaintiff of ASSOCIATION OF ATTORNEY Stephen C Willey (EC) (Entered: 03/09/1999)
297 MINUTES OF DISCOVERY CONFERENCE: DEW; Dep Clerk: P Voelker;; Pla Counsel P Arthur; Def Counsel M Fairhurst/D Judge; see minutes for details (EC) (Entered: 03/10/1999)
291 NOTICE by plaintiff of ASSOCIATION OF ATTORNEY Heidi H Borson (EC) (Entered: 03/09/1999)
292 NOTICE by plaintiff of ASSOCIATION OF ATTORNEY Jeff B Crollard, Janet M Helson (EC) (Entered: 03/09/1999)
293 WITNESS LIST submitted by plaintiff (EC) (Entered: 03/09/1999)
294 MOTION by plaintiff for reconsideration of Court's oral order of 3/5/99 NOTED FOR 3/12/99 (EC) (Entered: 03/09/1999)
295 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff in support of pls' motion for reconsideration of Court's oral order of 3/5/99 [294-1] (EC) (Entered: 03/09/1999)
LODGED ORDER: re: pls' motion for reconsideration of Court's oral order of 3/5/99 [294-1] (EC) (Entered: 03/09/1999)
296 LETTER by plaintiff re: motion for reconsideration of 3/1/99 order [2881]; pls' state motion filed 3/4/99 and noting date should be 3/5/99; motion actually filed 3/5/99 and is correctly noted by Clerk for 3/12/99 (EC) (Entered: 03/09/1999)
298 LETTER by plaintiff to Magistrate Wilson re: issues raised during conference call involving independent monitor and consultants (EC) (Entered: 03/10/1999)
299 LETTER by defendant to Magistrate Wilson re: contacts between independent monitor and experts (EC) (Entered: 03/10/1999)
300 MINUTE ORDER: by Magistrate Judge David E. Wilson, Court ORDERS that the independent monitor may speak to the parties' respective expert witnesses w/o counsel for either side being present (cc: counsel, Judge) (EC) (Entered: 03/10/1999)
301 MEMORANDUM OPINION by Magistrate Judge David E. Wilson (cc: all counsel) (EC) (Entered: 03/10/1999)
302 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION regarding denying motion for reconsideration of Court's 2/2/99 Order Extending Provisional Order of 1/4/99 by Magistrate Judge David E. Wilson NOTED FOR 3/19/99 (cc: counsel, Judge) (EC) (Entered: 03/10/1999)

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?645612875470737-L_280_0-1

11/1/2005

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.4 - Docket Report

Page 37 of 64

03/10/1999 03/10/1999 03/11/1999 03/11/1999 03/11/1999 03/11/1999 03/11/1999 03/12/1999
03/15/1999 03/15/1999

LODGED ORDER: re: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION regarding denying motion for reconsideration of Court's 2/2/99 Order Extending Provisional Order of 1/4/99 [302-1] (EC) (Entered: 03/10/1999)
303 ORDER by Magistrate Judge David E. Wilson DENYING motion for reconsideration of 3/1/99 order [288-1] (cc: counsel, Judge) (EC) (Entered: 03/11/1999)
304 MINUTE ORDER: DENYING motion for reconsideration of Court's oral order of 3/5/99 [294-1] (cc: counsel, Judge) (EC) (Entered: 03/11/1999)
305 WITNESS LIST submitted by defendant (EC) (Entered: 03/11/1999)
306 NOTICE by plaintiff of ASSOCIATION OF ATTORNEY Patricia H. Wagner, Angela M Luera (EC) (Entered: 03/12/1999)
307 OBJECTIONS by plaintiff to Magistrate Orders of 2/11 and 3/1/99 [2841][267-1] [270-1] (EC) (Entered: 03/12/1999)
309 MINUTES OF DISCOVERY STATUS CONFERENCE: DEW; Dep Clerk: P Voelker; Pla Counsel P Arthur/K Frank; Def Counsel M Fairhurst; see minutes for details (EC) (Entered: 03/15/1999)
308 STIPULATION and ORDER by Magistrate Judge David E. Wilson: parties shall file a plan for requests of, objections to and production of documents by 3/5/99, if no agreed-upon plan, notify Court by 3/8/99 for resolution; Pls' witness list filed/served by 3/8/99; Pls' disclose identity, curriculum vitae and areas of testimony of expert witnesses by 3/8/99; dfts witness list by 3/10/99; dfts' disclose identity, curriculum vitae and areas of testimony of expert witnesses by 3/10/99; final disclosure of addtl witnesses by 3/15/99; expert witness and independent monitor site visits by 3/19/99; parties to exchange all docs to be used during evidentiary hrg by 3/24/99; parties shall complete all expert and independent monitor depos by 3/19/99; parties shall complete expert and independent monitor depos by 3/26/99; either party can contact Court and request conference re: discovery or pretrial hrg issues; parties shall serve by 3/24/99 a list of new factual contentions; parties shall file/serve by 3/24/99 any motions in limine; dfts agree to stipulate to Writ of Habes Corpus ad Testificandum of witnesses; evidence of incidents occuring up to 3/19/99 may be presented; any pretiral brief submitted by either party must be submitted by 3/26/99; parties shall submit post-trial briefing w/in two wks following conclusion of evidentiary hrg (cc: counsel, Judge) (EC) (Entered: 03/12/1999)
310 ORDER GRANTING DFTS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF COURT'S 3/10/99 MINUTE ORDER by Magistrate Judge David E. Wilson; Counsel for parties may be present when the independent monitor and consultants confer w/parties expert witnesses (cc: counsel, Judge) (EC) (Entered: 03/15/1999)
311 LETTER from Mary Fairhurst to Magistrate Judge David E. Wilson re: Minute Order order [300-1] (EC) (Entered: 03/15/1999)

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?645612875470737-L_280_0-1

11/1/2005

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.4 - Docket Report

Page 38 of 64

03/15/1999 03/15/1999 03/15/1999 03/16/1999 03/17/1999 03/17/1999 03/17/1999 03/18/1999 03/18/1999 03/18/1999
03/19/1999 03/19/1999 03/24/1999
03/24/1999

312 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA of Pat Wiggins on 3/11/99 (EC) (Entered: 03/15/1999)
PROPOSED Stipulation and Protective Order (EC) (Entered: 03/15/1999)
313 REVISED WITNESS LIST submitted by plaintiff (EC) (Entered: 03/15/1999)
314 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA of Steven P. Marinkovich, D.D.S. on 3/15/99 (CAR) (Entered: 03/16/1999)
315 AMENDED WITNESS LIST submitted by defendant (EC) (Entered: 03/17/1999)
316 MEMORANDUM of authorities by defendant in opposition to pls' motion for contempt [276-1] and request that motion be stricken or denied (EC) (Entered: 03/17/1999)
317 LETTER by defendant to Magistrate Wilson re: clarification of evidentiary hrg and independent monitors (EC) (Entered: 03/17/1999)
318 LETTER by defendant re: earlier letter requesting clarification [317-1] (EC) (Entered: 03/18/1999)
319 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER by Magistrate Judge David E. Wilson: see order for details (cc: counsel, Judge) (EC) (Entered: 03/18/1999)
322 MINUTES OF HRG ON DISCOVERY DISPUTES: DEW; Dep Clerk: P Voelker; CR: R Ketz (Vernon); Pla Counsel P Arthur/D Fathi/A Caplan; Def Counsel M Fairhurst/D Judge; see minutes for details; Court will allow the plaintiffs to depose E Vail but not other witnesses; Court schedules hrg on motions in limine (to be filed by 3/24/99) for 3/26/99 at 2:30 (EC) (Entered: 03/22/1999)
320 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA of Linda Thomas on 3/15/99 (EC) (Entered: 03/19/1999)
321 AMENDED AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA of David Kludt on 3/17/99 (EC) (Entered: 03/22/1999)
323 MOTION by defendant in limine re: pls' challenge to DOC OHP , and in limine re: testimony of Nancy Heller, Jane Meier and Dr Jan Schaefer , and in limine re: testimony of Dr Michael Easley and Dr Carl Weaver , and in limine re: live testimony at trial by Dr Jeffrey Metzner , and in limine re: any other evidence pertaining to issues not presented by Pls in their motion for extension of jurisdictino , and in limine re: any evidence or argument not pertaining to matters covered under the Stipulation and Judgment ; dfts also seek clarification and permission on some matters (EC) (Entered: 03/24/1999)
324 MEMORANDUM of authorities by defendant in support of motion in limine re: pls' challenge to DOC OHP [323-1], in support of motion in

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?645612875470737-L_280_0-1

11/1/2005

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.4 - Docket Report

Page 39 of 64

03/24/1999 03/24/1999 03/24/1999 03/24/1999 03/24/1999 03/24/1999
03/25/1999 03/25/1999

limine re: testimony of Nancy Heller, Jane Meier and Dr Jan Schaefer [323-2], in support of motion in limine re: testimony of Dr Michael Easley and Dr Carl Weaver [323-3], in support of motion in limine re: live testimony at trial by Dr Jeffrey Metzner [323-4], in support of motion in limine re: any other evidence pertaining to issues not presented by Pls in their motion for extension of jurisdictino [323-5], in support of motion in limine re: any evidence or argument not pertaining to matters covered under the Stipulation and Judgment [323-6] (EC) (Entered: 03/24/1999)
325 CONTENTIONS re: evidentiary hearing by defendant (EC) (Entered: 03/24/1999)
326 MOTION by plaintiff to compel production of documents (EC) (Entered: 03/25/1999)
327 DECLARATION of David C. Fathi by plaintiff re motion to compel production of documents [326-1] (EC) (Entered: 03/25/1999)
328 MOTION by plaintiff for reconsideration of ruling re: deposition of Kelly Kelly (EC) (Entered: 03/25/1999)
329 LETTER by plaintiff to Court re: admissibility of depositions and evidence, etc. (EC) (Entered: 03/25/1999)
333 MINUTES OF DISCOVERY CONFERENCE BY TELEPHONE: DEW; Dep Clerk: P Voelker/L Williams; Pla Counsel P Arthur; Def Counsel D Judge; Court reviewed all paperwork this date; Prison witnesses: Pl requests depos be admissible, dft objects, Pl responds, Court rules that prison witnesses are not unavailable and counsel cannot use their depos unless dft will not transport prisoners; Court hears counsel regarding concerns of prisoner witnesses losing housing rights and privileges if transported to testify, Mr. Judge assures Court neither will occur; Court hears pl's counsel re: depos of employees of institution being allowed to proceed as adverse witnesses, Court will allow dft to review cited cases and to respond by 3/25/99, Court asks parties to confirm and attempt to reach agreement; DENYING motion for reconsideration of ruling re: deposition of Kelly Kelly [328-1]; Court hears Ms Arthur re: Motion to Compel, GRANTING motion to compel production of documents [3261]; dft to present protective order for Court's signature, Mr. Judge requests 24 hrs to notify witnesses, granted; re: pepper spray policy, Mr. Judge requests deferral until the Court rules on Motions in limine, raises issue concerning security issues, State to submit docs under seal to review in camera; Ms Arthur requests clarification of ruling of C Taylor, ruling applies to both items 12 & 13 in pl's motion; State will not file any motion in limine; dft to file it's brief by noon, 3/25/99 (EC) (Entered: 03/26/1999)
330 NOTICE of filing of depo of Alice Payne on 3/16/99 by CCR Sherry Anderson; original dep filed w/P Arthur, Columbia Legal Svcs (EC) (Entered: 03/25/1999)
331 NOTICE by defendant of ASSOCIATION OF ATTORNEY Eric A

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?645612875470737-L_280_0-1

11/1/2005

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.4 - Docket Report

Page 40 of 64

03/25/1999 03/25/1999 03/25/1999 03/25/1999 03/25/1999
03/25/1999 03/25/1999
03/25/1999 03/25/1999
03/25/1999 03/25/1999
03/25/1999 03/25/1999
03/25/1999 03/26/1999 03/26/1999

Mentzer, John Joseph Samson (EC) (Entered: 03/25/1999)
332 Plaintiffs' Factual Contentions (EC) (Entered: 03/25/1999)
335 EXHIBIT LIST by defendant (EC) (Entered: 03/26/1999)
338 APPLICATION/ORDER by plaintiff for Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum for witness Mary Eastwood (EC) (Entered: 03/26/1999)
339 WRIT of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum issued for witness, Mary Eastwood (EC) (Entered: 03/26/1999)
340 APPLICATION/ORDER FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AD TESTIFICANDUM by plaintiff for witness, Gloria Garza (EC) (Entered: 03/26/1999)
341 WRIT of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum issued for witness, Gloria Garza (EC) (Entered: 03/26/1999)
342 APPLICATION/ORDER FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AD TESTIFICANDUM by plaintiff for witness, Cheri Fletcher (EC) (Entered: 03/26/1999)
343 WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AD TESTIFICANDUM issued for witness, Cheri Fletcher (EC) (Entered: 03/26/1999)
344 APPLICATION/ORDER FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AD TESTIFICANDUM by plaintiff for witness, Allissa McCune (EC) (Entered: 03/26/1999)
345 WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AD TESTIFICANDUM issued for witness, Allissa McCune (EC) (Entered: 03/26/1999)
346 APPLICATION/ORDER FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AD TESTIFICANDUM by plaintiff for witness, Neshelle Wood (EC) (Entered: 03/26/1999)
347 WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AD TESTIFICANDUM issued for witness, Neshelle Wood (EC) (Entered: 03/26/1999)
348 APPLICATION/ORDER FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AD TESTIFICANDUM by plaintiff for witness, Justine O'Neill (EC) (Entered: 03/26/1999)
349 WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AD TESTIFICANDUM issued by witness, Justine O'Neill (EC) (Entered: 03/26/1999)
334 LETTER by defendant re: discovery conference [333-1] (EC) (Entered: 03/26/1999)
336 RESPONSE/OPPOSITION by plaintiff to dfts' motion in limine re: pls' challenge to DOC OHP [323-1], motion in limine re: testimony of Nancy Heller, Jane Meier and Dr Jan Schaefer [323-2], motion in limine re: testimony of Dr Michael Easley and Dr Carl Weaver [323-3], motion in limine re: live testimony at trial by Dr Jeffrey Metzner [323-4], motion in

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?645612875470737-L_280_0-1

11/1/2005

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.4 - Docket Report

Page 41 of 64

03/26/1999 03/26/1999 03/26/1999 03/26/1999
03/26/1999 03/26/1999 03/26/1999 03/26/1999 03/26/1999

limine re: any other evidence pertaining to issues not presented by Pls in their motion for extension of jurisdictino [323-5], motion in limine re: any evidence or argument not pertaining to matters covered under the Stipulation and Judgment [323-6] (EC) (Entered: 03/26/1999)
337 LETTER by plaintiff re: supplement argument regarding pls' use of the depos of the dfts' staff in lieu of their live testimony at trial (EC) (Entered: 03/26/1999)
350 PREHEARING BRIEF filed by defendant (EC) (Entered: 03/29/1999)
351 ORDER ON PL'S MOTION TO ADMIT DEPOSITION TESTIMONY OF INDIVIDUAL PLS AND EMPLOYEES OF DFT by Magistrate Judge David E. Wilson; The request to admit the depo testimony of individual pls is DENIED; request to admit the depo testimony of dfts employee witnesses is GRANTED IN PART (cc: counsel, Judge) (EC) (Entered: 03/29/1999)
352 ORDER by Magistrate Judge David E. Wilson DENYING motion in limine re: dfts request that Court exclude evidence related to DOC Offender Health Plan [323-1], DENYING motion in limine re: testimony of Nancy Heller, Jane Meier and Dr Jan Schaefer [323-2], DENYING motion in limine re: testimony of Dr Michael Easley and Dr Carl Weaver [323-3], DENYING motion in limine re: live testimony at trial by Dr Jeffrey Metzner [323-4], DENYING motion in limine re: any other evidence pertaining to issues not presented by Pls in their motion for extension of jurisdiction [323-5], DENYING motion in limine re: any evidence or argument pertaining to custody staff's response to inmate Cassandra Taylor on 1/26/99 [323-6]; DENYING dfts' request to exclude evidence or argument related to the writing of infractions for missed appointments and generally the writing of infractions by staff; DENYING dfts' request to exclude evidence or argument related to restraint and seclusion procedures, including placement in the Close Observation Area of the TEC unit; DENYING dfts request to exclude evidence or argument regarding one-to-one counseling; GRANTING dft requesting premissions to call Rachel Burgett and Erika Zimmerman during the week of 3/29/99 to accomodate their respective vacation schedules (cc: counsel, Judge) (EC) Modified on 05/16/2000 (Entered: 03/29/1999)
353 PRETRIAL BRIEF filed by plaintiff (EC) (Entered: 03/29/1999)
358 ORDER by Magistrate Judge David E. Wilson granting issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum for Bridgette Brown (cc: counsel, Judge) (CAR) (Entered: 03/30/1999)
359 PRAECIPE by cnsl for Pltfs re: revised pretrial brief [353-1] (CAR) (Entered: 03/30/1999)
360 REVISED PRETRIAL BRIEF filed by plaintiffs (CAR) (Entered: 03/30/1999)
361 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by Pltfs of praecipe [359-1] and revised

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?645612875470737-L_280_0-1

11/1/2005

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.4 - Docket Report

Page 42 of 64

03/29/1999 03/29/1999 03/29/1999 03/29/1999 03/29/1999 03/29/1999
03/30/1999

pretrial brief [360-1] (CAR) (Entered: 03/30/1999)
PROPOSED Stipulated Motion and Protective Order (EC) Modified on 05/16/2000 (Entered: 03/29/1999)
354 STIPULATION and PROTECTIVE ORDER by Magistrate Judge David E. Wilson: see order for details (cc: counsel, Judge) (EC) (Entered: 03/29/1999)
355 SECOND AMENDED WITNESS LIST submitted by defendant (EC) (Entered: 03/29/1999)
356 SUPPLEMENTAL EXHIBIT LIST by defendant (EC) (Entered: 03/29/1999)
357 AMENDED EXHIBIT LIST by plaintiff (EC) (Entered: 03/29/1999)
362 MINUTES OF DAY ONE OF EVIDENTIARY HRG on Motion for Ext ension of 1/12/95 Stipulation and Judgment : DEW; Dep Clerk: P Voelker; CR: J Ryen; Pla Counsel K Frank, P Arthur, D Fathi, A Caplan, H Bronson; Def Counsel M Fairhurst, D Judge Court hears Ms Arthur move Court to allow continuation of due date of reply brief on contempt motion to after completion of this hrg, hears Mr Judge, no objection, request granted, Pl brief due one week after post hrg brief, State may respond one week later; Pl moves to exclude witnesses, dft objects, Ms Fairhurst and Ms Arthur argue, Court will rule after recess; Ms Arthur advises Court of lack of stipulation between the parties re: pl's proposed exhibits, hears Ms Fairhurst, Court will allow dts to object to exhibits as they are presented; Counsel and Court discuss time allowed by each party during hrg, Court announces Law Clerk C Klein will be official timekeeper; Court orders Dr Weaver may remain in Courtroom; Opening argument by Ms Frank, dft reserves opening statements; Dr M Easley sworn and testifies Following exhibits admitted: 50,152,196,197,200203,205-217,220,221, 223,225,226,229,231,342-348, 34,37,232,161,A103; Mr Caplan requests Dr Weaver not be present during testimony of M Eastwood, no objection, granted; C Fletcher and M Eastwood sworn and testifies (EC) Modified on 05/16/2000 (Entered: 03/31/1999)
363 MINUTES OF DAY TWO OF EVIDENTIARY HRG re: motion for extension of 1/12/95 Stipulation and Judgment: DEW; Dep Clerk: P Voelker; CR: J Ryen; Pla Counsel K Frank, P Arthur, D Fathi, A Caplan, H Bronson, J Helson; Def Counsel M Fairhurst, D Judge; J Easterly sworn and testifies, Mr Fathi moves admission of exhs 286,287,289-313, objections by Mr Judge, Exhs are admitted, Ms Arthur moves to admit exh 2228, objection by Mr Judge, exh admitted, Mr Caplan reads a portion of Dr Weaver's depo referrencing Ms Eastwood into record; G Garza sworn and testifies, exh 349 offered and admitted; Ms Arthur requests prisoner/witnesses be allowed to view proceedings, Mr Judge objects, Court cites security concerns and denies request; Dr J Schaeffer sworn and testifies, exhs 110 and 111 offered, objection, exhs admitted; Pl offers exh 1, Court reserves addtl argument and ruling; Ms Arthur

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?645612875470737-L_280_0-1

11/1/2005

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.4 - Docket Report

Page 43 of 64

03/31/1999
04/01/1999 04/01/1999
04/02/1999
04/05/1999 04/05/1999 04/05/1999

makes proposal to court re: admission of exh 1, Court hears argument, Court rules exh 1 is not admissible in any form, Court reserves ruling on admissino of exh 2, direct examination of Dr Schaeffer continues; Ms Arthur offers exhs 278, 183 and 281, objections, argument, Court rules exhs admitted but will be videos will be shown in open court, Ms Arthur questions Dr Schaeffer re: incidents depicted on tapes, exh 183 admitted; N Wood sworn and testifies, exhs 174, 176 (specific pages), 177 and 178 admitted (EC) Modified on 04/02/1999 (Entered: 03/31/1999)
364 MINUTES OF DAY THREE OF EVIDENTIARY HRG re: Motion for Extension of 1/12/95 Stipulation and Judgment: DEW; Dep Clerk: P Voelker; CR: J Ryen; Pla Counsel K Frank/P Arthur/D Fathi/A Caplan/H Bronson/J Helson/S Willey/P Wagner; Def Counsel M Fairhurst/D Judge; Ms Wood resumes stand on direct, cross; Justine O'Neill sworn and testifies; Allissa McCune Sworn and and testifies; Linda Joyce Thomas sworn and testifies (EC) Modified on 04/02/1999 (Entered: 04/01/1999)
365 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE OF SUBPOENA of John Larocca on 3/30/99 (EC) (Entered: 04/01/1999)
366 MINUTES OF DAY FOUR OF EVIDENTIARY HRG RE: MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF 1/12/95 STIPULATION AND JUDGMENT: DEW; Dep Clerk: P Voelker; CR: J Ryen; Pla Counsel K Frank/P Arthur/D Fathi; Def Counsel M Fairhurst/D Judge; P Wiggins sworn and testifies, Exhs 163, 173, 7, 323, 11, 10 and 354 admitted; D Kludt sworn and testifies, Exhs 162, 121, 124, 82, 83, 88, 87, 153, 155, 90, A-52 admitted; Mr Kludt resumes the stand and is questioned by Mr Judge; Exh A-21 split, Exhs A-64, A-75 and A-76 admitted; Dr C Newkirk sworn and testifies, Exh 22 admitted (EC) (Entered: 04/02/1999)
367 MINUTES OF DAY FIVE OF EVIDENTIARY HRG RE: MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF 1/22/95 STIPULATION AND JUDGMENT: DEW; Dep Clerk: P Voelker; CR: J Ryen; Pla Counsel K Frank/P Arthur/D Fathi/A Caplan; Def Counsel M Fairhurst/D Judge; Dr C Newkirk resumes stand on direct; Dr R Gottula sworn and testifies, Exhs 13-16, 18, 19 admitted; D S Marinovich sworn and testifies, Exhs 327, 328, A-118, A-119, A-120 admitted; R Burgett sworn and testifies, Exhs A-122, A-111 admitted; E Zimmerman sworn and testifies, Exhs A-121, A-102, pages 197, 199, 201-207, and 211 of exh A107 admitted (EC) (Entered: 04/05/1999)
368 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE of Trial Subpoena and Witness Fee for Dr. Steen Marinkovich, DDS (EC) (Entered: 04/05/1999)
369 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE of trial subpoena for Ramona Gragg (EC) (Entered: 04/05/1999)
370 MINUTES OF DAY SIX OF EVIDENTIARY HRG RE: MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF 1/12/95 STIPULATION AND JUDGMENT: DEW; Dep Clerk: P Voelker; CR: L Kelly; Pla Counsel K Frank/P Arthur/D Fathi/A Caplan; Def Counsel M Fairhurst/D Judge; Discussion re:

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?645612875470737-L_280_0-1

11/1/2005

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.4 - Docket Report

Page 44 of 64

04/05/1999 04/06/1999
04/07/1999 04/08/1999

Motion for Production of documents w/respect to use of force and pepper spray; Court advises counsel admission of exh 2 is accepted and admitted; dfts opening statement; Dr C Weaver sworn and testifies, Exhs 56, A-97, 425, 426, 53, A-95, 427, A-112 admitted; Dr L Rencher sworn and testifies; Ms Fairhurst addresses court of calling Dr Seaman as witness, argument, Court will allow calling and testimony (EC) (Entered: 04/06/1999)
372 MINUTES OF DAY SIX OF EVIDENTIARY HRG RE: MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF 1/12/95 STIPULATION & JUDGMENT : DEW; Dep Clerk: P Voelkr; CR: L Kelly; Pla Counsel K Frank/P Arthur/D Fathi/A Caplan; Def Counsel M Fairhurst/D Judge; Ms Arthur addresses court re: motion for production of docs w/respect to use of force, court will advise of ruling; Admission of Exh 2, dfts opening statement; Dr C Weaver sworn and testifies, Exhs 56, A-97, 425, 426, 53, A-95, 427, A-112 admitted; Dr L Rencher sworn and testifies; Ms Fairhurst addresses Court of calling Dr Seaman as witness, pls object, argument, Court will allow testimony of Dr Seaman (EC) (Entered: 04/08/1999)
373 MINUTES OF DAY SEVEN OF EVIDENTIARY HRG RE: MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF 1/12/95 STIPULATION AND JUDGMENT: DEW; Dep Clerk: P Voelker; CR: L Kelly; Pla Counsel K Frank/P Arthur/D Fathi; Def Counsel M Fairhurst/D Judge; Dr R Seaman sworn and testifies; use of force docs submitted in camera, Court finds preserving safety of staff, prison population and general public outweigh need of pls to review material, motion denied; Court directs affidavit of E Vail become part of record; Re: docs regarding Cassandra Taylor incident, Court hears Mr Judge explain ongoing investigation, Court rules in camera material may be disclosed to pl in redacted form, pls may use material to cross examine witnesses, any material placed in file will be done under seal; Court hears Ms Arthur re receiving docs on pepper spray policy, Courts ruling will stand, Ms Arthur makes offer of proof; Dr J Loeken sworn and testifies, Exhs A-38, A-26 admitted; Exh 57 admitted (EC) (Entered: 04/08/1999)
371 MOTION by plaintiff to compel all documents re: investigation of Sgt Lennard and WCCW directive prohibiting counseling of prisoners on one-on-one watch (EC) (Entered: 04/08/1999)
374 MINUTES OF DAY NINE OF EVIDENTIARY HRG RE: MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF 1/12/95 STIPULATION AND JUDGMENT: DEW; Dep Clerk: P Voelker; CR: L Kelly; Pla Counsel K Frank/P Arthur/D Fathi/A Caplan; Def Counsel M Fairhurst/D Judge; Court admits exhs 2a, 351a, 351x, 351xx, 353, 354-423 in addition to ltr of Ms Fairhurst admitted as exh 2b; Court hears Mr Judge re: motion to compel, Court directs docs to be disclosed to pl under a protective order and to be returned to dft at conclusion of proceedings; Lt Isham resumes stand on direct, balance of exh A-64 admitted, Exh 428 (video) and 1-vv admitted; Sgt R Coberly sworn and testifies; M Walls sworn and testifies, exh A128 admitted, pages 328-376, 386-464 of exh A-105 admitted, exh A-53 admitted; J Robinson sworn and testifies, exhs A-71, A-72 admitted (EC)

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?645612875470737-L_280_0-1

11/1/2005

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.4 - Docket Report

Page 45 of 64

04/09/1999 04/09/1999
04/12/1999
04/12/1999 04/13/1999 04/15/1999 04/15/1999 04/15/1999

Modified on 04/09/1999 (Entered: 04/09/1999)
375 AFFIDAVIT of Eldon Vail (EC) (Entered: 04/09/1999)
378 MINUTES OF DAY TEN OF EVIDENTIARY HRG RE: MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF 1/12/95 STIPULATION AND JUDGMENT: DEW; Dep Clerk: D Smith; CR: L Kelly; Pla Counsel K Frank/P Arthur/D Fathi/A Caplan; Def Counsel M Fairhurst/D Judge; Exhs 64, 68, 69, 85, 117, 150, 154, 432 admitted pursuant to stipulation; parties stipulate that copy of B Brown's diary, exh 339, was destroyed by WCC staff, record will remain open as to video tape only re: exhs 335 and 336; J Robinson resmes testimony, exhs A-47, A-48, A-132, A-127 admitted; parties stipulate Ms Robinson will testify that docs in exhs A-107 are true and corect copies of med and tech records maintained in J O'Neill's med files, parties stipulate Ms Robinson will testify that docs referred to in exh A-105 are true and correct copies of A McCune's med files, exhs A105 and A-107 are admitted in their entirety; A Payne sworn and testifies, exhs A-15-A-19, A-46, A-136, A-138-A-143, A-137, A-3, A135, A-4, A-5, A-11, A-134, A-13, A-113, A-20, A-22, A-28, A-30, A31, A-32, A-86, A-54, A-74, A-77, A-79, A-80, A-81 are admitted; Ms Arthur moves to call Dr Langer as rebuttal witness to Ms Payne's testimony, motion denied; pl moves to keep record open as to videotape and other exhs that pl may acquire; counsel will prepare stipulated order modifying briefing schedule (EC) (Entered: 04/13/1999)
376 PROTECTIVE ORDER ON COURT'S ORAL RULING by Magistrate Judge David E. Wilson; GRANTING pl's motion to compel all documents re: investigation of Sgt Lennard and WCCW directive prohibiting counseling of prisoners on one-on-one watch [371-1]; dfts' motion for protective order is GRANTED: docs provided to pls by dfts numbered 5-0003000-5-0003026 shall be used for purposes of this litigation only, shall not be disclosed to any person or entity other than pls' counsel w/o permission of Court, and shall be returned to dfts counsel and experts at close of proceeding (cc: counsel, Judge) (EC) (Entered: 04/12/1999)
377 ORDER by Judge Franklin D. Burgess ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION regarding denying motion for reconsideration of Court's 2/2/99 Order Extending Provisional Order of 1/4/99 [302-1]; dfts' motion for reconsideration of the Court's 2/2/99 Order Extending Order of 1/4/99 is DENIED (cc: counsel, Judge) (EC) (Entered: 04/12/1999)
379 RETURN OF EXHIBITS to counsel pursuant to local rule. (EC) (Entered: 04/13/1999)
380 NOTICE by Pltfs of Withdrawal and Substitution of Counsel (CAR) (Entered: 04/15/1999)
LODGED ORDER re: notice of withdrawal and substitution of counsel [380-1] (CAR) (Entered: 04/15/1999)
381 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by Pltfs of Ntc of W/D and Substitution of Cnsl [380-1] and proposed order [0-0] (CAR) (Entered: 04/15/1999)

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?645612875470737-L_280_0-1

11/1/2005

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.4 - Docket Report

Page 46 of 64

04/16/1999 04/20/1999 04/20/1999 04/20/1999 04/20/1999 04/20/1999
04/20/1999 04/23/1999 04/26/1999
04/26/1999 04/26/1999 04/27/1999 04/28/1999
05/10/1999 05/10/1999 05/10/1999 05/10/1999

382 NOTICE by defendants of WITHDRAWAL of Attorney Eric Mentzer (CAR) (Entered: 04/16/1999)
383 EXHIBIT LIST by defendant (EC) (Entered: 04/20/1999)
384 EXHIBIT LIST by plaintiff (EC) (Entered: 04/20/1999)
385 RETURN OF EXHIBITS to pl's counsel pursuant to local rule. (EC) (Entered: 04/20/1999)
386 RETURN OF dfts' EXHIBITS to counsel pursuant to local rule. (EC) (Entered: 04/20/1999)
387 ORDER OF WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL by Magistrate Judge David E. Wilson; P Wagner, A Luera and Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe are granted leave to withdraw appearance as counsel for pls (cc: counsel, Judge) (EC) (Entered: 04/20/1999)
388 MOTION by plaintiff for admission of exhibits NOTED FOR 4/23/99 (EC) (Entered: 04/22/1999)
389 LETTER by plaintiff to Judge Franklin D. Burgess re: noting objections to Magistrate's orders of 2/11 and 3/1/99 (EC) (Entered: 04/23/1999)
390 STIPULATION and ORDER by Magistrate Judge David E. Wilson: RENOTED FOR 4/28/99 pl's motion for admission of exhibits [388-1] (cc: counsel, Judge) (EC) (Entered: 04/26/1999)
PROPOSED Notice of Withdrawal of Counsel (EC) (Entered: 04/26/1999)
PROPOSED Stipulation and Scheduling Order (EC) (Entered: 04/26/1999)
391 RESPONSE by defendant to pl's motion for admission of exhibits [3881] (EC) (Entered: 04/28/1999)
392 STIPULATION and ORDER by Magistrate Judge David E. Wilson: trial transcripts are not currently available and provided trial transcripts are complete by 5/14/99, the parties post-trial briefs shall be filed and served no later than 5/21/99; pl's reply brief in support of pl's motion for contempt shall be filed and served no later than 5/28/99 and dft's surreply to pls' motion for contempt is due 6/2/99; RENOTED FOR 6/4/99 motion for contempt [276-1] (cc: counsel, Judge) (EC) (Entered: 04/28/1999)
393 TRANSCRIPT of trial, Vol 1 for the following date(s): 3/29/99; CR initials: Julaine Ryen (MW) (Entered: 05/10/1999)
394 TRANSCRIPT of trial, Vol 2 for the following date(s): 3/30/99; CR initials: Julaine Ryen (MW) (Entered: 05/10/1999)
395 TRANSCRIPT of trial, Vol 3 for the following date(s): 3/31/99; CR initials: Julaine Ryen (MW) (Entered: 05/10/1999)
396 TRANSCRIPT of trial, Vol 4 for the following date(s): 4/1/99; CR

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?645612875470737-L_280_0-1

11/1/2005

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.4 - Docket Report

Page 47 of 64

05/10/1999 05/11/1999
05/13/1999
05/13/1999 05/13/1999 05/13/1999 05/13/1999 05/13/1999 05/17/1999 05/17/1999 05/18/1999
05/19/1999 05/21/1999 05/21/1999

initials: Julaine Ryen (MW) (Entered: 05/10/1999)
397 TRANSCRIPT of trial, Vol 5 for the following date(s): 4/2/99; CR initials: Julaine Ryen (MW) (Entered: 05/10/1999)
398 MINUTE ORDER by Magistrate Judge David E. Wilson that P' motion to extend jurisdiction [165-1] is RENOTED to 5/21/99; that Dfts' motion in the alternative for order vacating stipulation and judgment [268-1] is RENOTED to 5/21/99; and P' motion for contempt [276-1] is RENOTED to 5/21/99 (cc: counsel, Judge) (CAR) (Entered: 05/11/1999)
399 MINUTE ORDER: by Judge Franklin D. Burgess STRIKING Minute Order order [398-1] RENOTED FOR 6/4/99 motion to extend jurisdiction, OA REQ [165-1], RENOTED FOR 6/4/99 motion in the alternative for order vacating stipulation and judgment [268-1], RENOTED FOR 6/4/99 motion for contempt [276-1] (cc: counsel, Judge) (EC) (Entered: 05/13/1999)
400 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings, Vol 6-pages 1159-1321, for the following date(s): 4/5/99; CR initials: Laurene Kelly (MW) (Entered: 05/14/1999)
401 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings, Vol 7, pages 1322-1487, for the following date(s): 4/6/99; CR initials: Laurene Kelly (MW) (Entered: 05/14/1999)
402 TRANSCRIPT of Vol 8, pages 1488-1648, for the following date(s): 4/7/99; CR initials: Laurene Kelly (MW) (Entered: 05/14/1999)
403 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings, Vol 9-pages 1649-1844, for the following date(s): 4/8/99; CR initials: Laurene Kelly (MW) (Entered: 05/14/1999)
404 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings, Vol 10, pages 1845-2020, for the following date(s): 4/8/99; CR initials: Laurene Kelly (MW) (Entered: 05/14/1999)
405 MOTION by plaintiff for leave to withdraw as attorney NOTED FOR 6/4/99 (EC) (Entered: 05/18/1999)
LODGED ORDER: re: pls' motion for leave to withdraw as attorney [405-1] (EC) (Entered: 05/18/1999)
406 ORDER by Magistrate Judge David E. Wilson that P' mtn to admit Exh 434 is DENIED. It is further ORDERED that P' mtn to admit Exh 435 is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that P' mtn to admit Exhs 314-321 is DENIED (cc: counsel, Judge) (CAR) (Entered: 05/18/1999)
407 ORDER by Magistrate Judge David E. Wilson GRANTING motion for leave to withdraw as attorney [405-1]; attorney Stephen Willey withdrawn for pl (cc: counsel, Judge) (EC) (Entered: 05/19/1999)
408 POST HEARING MEMORANDUM by defendant re evidentiary hrg, [165-1] (EC) (Entered: 05/24/1999)
409 POST HEARING BRIEF filed by plaintiffs (CAR) (Entered: 05/25/1999)

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?645612875470737-L_280_0-1

11/1/2005

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.4 - Docket Report

Page 48 of 64

05/26/1999 05/26/1999 05/28/1999 05/28/1999 06/02/1999 06/04/1999 06/04/1999 06/04/1999 06/04/1999 06/04/1999 06/08/1999 06/10/1999 06/14/1999
07/20/1999 07/29/1999 07/29/1999

410 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by plaintiff of brief [409-1] (EC) (Entered: 05/26/1999)
411 CORRECTED POST-HEARING BRIEF filed by plaintiff (EC) (Entered: 05/27/1999)
412 REPLY by plaintiff TO RESPONSE to pls' motion for contempt [276-1] (EC) (Entered: 06/01/1999)
413 DECLARATION of Patricia J. Arthur by plaintiff re pls' motion for contempt [276-1] (EC) (Entered: 06/01/1999)
414 SURREPLY by defendant re: pl's motion for contempt [276-1] (EC) (Entered: 06/03/1999)
415 MOTION by defendant to strike attachments 2 & 3 to pl's post-hearing brief NOTED FOR 6/25/99 (EC) (Entered: 06/04/1999)
LODGED ORDER: re: dfts' motion to strike attachments 2 & 3 to pl's post-hearing brief [415-1] (EC) (Entered: 06/04/1999)
416 MOTION by defendant to shorten time on motion to strike attachments 2 & 3 to pl's post-hearing brief [415-1] NOTED FOR 6/11/99 (EC) (Entered: 06/04/1999)
417 AFFIDAVIT of Daniel J. Judge regarding motion to shorten time on motion to strike attachments 2 & 3 to pl's post-hearing brief [415-1] [4161] (EC) (Entered: 06/04/1999)
LODGED ORDER: re: motion to shorten time on motion to strike attachments 2 & 3 to pl's post-hearing brief [415-1] [416-1] (EC) (Entered: 06/04/1999)
418 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to dfts motion to strike attachments 2 & 3 to pl's post-hearing brief [415-1] (DK) (Entered: 06/09/1999)
419 REPLY by defendant TO RESPONSE to dfts' motion to strike attachments 2 & 3 to pl's post-hearing brief [415-1] (EC) (Entered: 06/10/1999)
420 MINUTE ORDER: by Magistrate Judge David E. Wilson DENYING motion to shorten time on motion to strike attachments 2 & 3 to pl's posthearing brief [415-1] [416-1] (cc: counsel, Judge) (EC) (Entered: 06/14/1999)
421 ORDER by Magistrate Judge David E. Wilson DENYING motion to strike attachments 2 & 3 to pl's post-hearing brief [415-1] (cc: counsel, Judge) (CAR) (Entered: 07/21/1999)
422 MOTION by plaintiff for access to medical records NOTED FOR 8/13/99 (EC) (Entered: 07/30/1999)
423 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff in support of pls' motion for access to medical records [422-1] (EC) (Entered: 07/30/1999)

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?645612875470737-L_280_0-1

11/1/2005

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.4 - Docket Report

Page 49 of 64

07/29/1999 07/29/1999 07/29/1999 07/29/1999 07/29/1999 07/29/1999 07/29/1999 08/09/1999 08/09/1999 08/09/1999 08/12/1999 09/03/1999
09/03/1999
09/08/1999 09/08/1999

424 DECLARATION of Patricia J. Arthur by plaintiff re pls' motion for access to medical records [422-1] (EC) (Entered: 07/30/1999)
LODGED ORDER: re: pls' motion for access to medical records [422-1] (EC) (Entered: 07/30/1999)
425 MOTION by plaintiff for access to medical documents NOTED FOR 8/13/99 (CAR) (Entered: 08/02/1999)
426 MEMORANDUM by plaintiffs in support of motion for access to medical documents [425-1] (CAR) (Entered: 08/02/1999)
427 DECLARATION of Patricia J Arthur re motion for access to medical documents [425-1] (CAR) (Entered: 08/02/1999)
LODGED ORDER re: motion for access to medical documents [425-1] (CAR) (Entered: 08/02/1999)
428 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by plaintiff of motion for access to medical documents [425-1], of memorandum [426-1], of declaration [427-1], of order lodged [0-0] (CAR) (Entered: 08/02/1999)
429 RESPONSE/MEMO OF AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION by defendant to pls' motion for access to medical documents [425-1] (EC) (Entered: 08/09/1999)
430 AFFIDAVIT of Daniel J. Judge in opposition to pls' motion for access to medical documents [425-1] (EC) (Entered: 08/09/1999)
431 AFFIDAVIT of David Gale in opposition to pls' motion for access to medical documents [425-1] (EC) (Entered: 08/09/1999)
432 REPLY by Pls' TO RESPONSE to pls' motion for access to medical documents [425-1] (EC) (Entered: 08/12/1999)
433 ORDER by Magistrate Judge David E. Wilson STRIKING motion for access to medical documents [425-1], STRIKING motion for access to medical records [422-1] STRIKING declaration [427-1], STRIKING memorandum [426-1] (cc: counsel, Judge) (EC) (Entered: 09/03/1999)
434 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION regarding denying pls' motion for contempt [276-1], granting dfts' motion in the alternative for order vacating stipulation and judgment [268-1], denying pls' motion to extend jurisdiction, OA REQ [165-1] by Magistrate Judge David E. Wilson NOTED FOR 9/24/99 (cc: counsel, Judge) (EC) (Entered: 09/03/1999)
435 NOTICE of withdrawal of association of counsel by Heidi Borson (KM) (Entered: 09/08/1999)
PROPOSED Stipulation and Order for objections to report & recommendation motion REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION regarding denying pls' motion for contempt [276-1], granting dfts' motion in the alternative for order vacating stipulation and judgment [268-1], denying pls' motion to extend jurisdiction, OA REQ [165-1] [434-1] (KM) (Entered: 09/08/1999)

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?645612875470737-L_280_0-1

11/1/2005

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.4 - Docket Report

Page 50 of 64

09/10/1999
09/27/1999 09/28/1999 09/28/1999 10/05/1999 10/06/1999 10/18/1999 10/18/1999 10/18/1999 10/18/1999 10/18/1999 10/18/1999 10/18/1999 10/21/1999 10/25/1999 10/25/1999

436 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Franklin D. Burgess: Objections ddl is 9/27/99; response ddl is 10/18/99; reply ddl is 10/21/99; Objections to REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION regarding denying pls' motion for contempt [276-1], granting dfts' motion in the alternative for order vacating stipulation and judgment [268-1], denying pls' motion to extend jurisdiction, OA REQ [165-1] [434-1] RENOTED FOR 10/22/99 (cc: counsel, Judge) (EC) (Entered: 09/10/1999)
437 Objections to Report and Recommendation by plaintiffs NOTED FOR 10/22/99 (DK) (Entered: 09/28/1999)
438 NOTICE by plaintiff that the following is NOTED FOR 10/22/99 objection motion Objections to Report and Recommendation (DK) (Entered: 09/28/1999)
439 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by plaintiff of motion notice [438-1], of objection motion Objections to Report and Recommendation [437-1] (DK) (Entered: 09/28/1999)
511 EXHIBITS re: pl's motion to extend jurisdiction, OA REQ [165-1]; note: 17 expandos, notebooks (EC) (Entered: 07/10/2000)
440 LETTER by plaintiff transmittal Exhibits from evidentiary hearing for review by Judge Burgess (Original Exhibits delivered to law clerk, Ms. Miener) (KM) (Entered: 10/07/1999)
441 MOTION by defendant to file overlength brief NOTED FOR 11/5/99 (EC) (Entered: 10/18/1999)
442 DECLARATION of Daniel J. Judge by defendant re motion to file overlength brief [441-1] (EC) (Entered: 10/18/1999)
LODGED ORDER: re: dfts' motion to file overlength brief [441-1] (EC) (Entered: 10/18/1999)
PROPOSED Response to Pls' Objections to Report and Recommendation and Orders of Magistrate Judge re: motion to file overlength brief [441-1] (EC) (Entered: 10/18/1999)
443 DECLARATION of Daniel J. Judge by defendant re pls' Objections to Report and Recommendation [437-1] (EC) (Entered: 10/18/1999)
444 DECLARATION of Gerald C. Isham by defendant re pls' Objections to Report and Recommendation [437-1] (EC) (Entered: 10/18/1999)
445 DECLARATION of Alice Payne by defendant re pls' Objections to Report and Recommendation [437-1] (EC) (Entered: 10/18/1999)
446 REPLY IN SUPPORT by plaintiff to Objections to Report and Recommendation [437-1] (EC) (Entered: 10/22/1999)
447 ERRATA by plaintiff to motion reply [446-1] (EC) (Entered: 10/26/1999)
448 ERRATA by defendant to lodged response to pls' objections to R&R [0-

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?645612875470737-L_280_0-1

11/1/2005

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.4 - Docket Report

Page 51 of 64

10/27/1999 10/27/1999 10/27/1999 10/27/1999 10/27/1999 10/27/1999 10/27/1999 10/27/1999 11/01/1999 11/03/1999
11/10/1999 11/17/1999
11/18/1999 11/19/1999 11/29/1999

0] (EC) (Entered: 10/26/1999)
449 MOTION by defendant to strike unadmitted exhibits NOTED FOR 11/12/99 (EC) (Entered: 10/27/1999)
450 MEMORANDUM by defendant in support of motion to strike unadmitted exhibits [449-1] (EC) (Entered: 10/27/1999)
LODGED ORDER: re: dfts' motion to strike unadmitted exhibits [449-1] (EC) (Entered: 10/27/1999)
451 MOTION by defendant to shorten time on motion to strike unadmitted exhibits [449-1] NOTED FOR 11/2/99 (EC) (Entered: 10/27/1999)
452 AFFIDAVIT of Daniel J. Judge regarding dfts' motion to shorten time on motion to strike unadmitted exhibits [449-1] [451-1] (EC) (Entered: 10/27/1999)
LODGED ORDER: re: dfts' motion to shorten time on motion to strike unadmitted exhibits [449-1] [451-1] (EC) (Entered: 10/27/1999)
453 RESPONSE by plaintiff to dfts' motion to strike unadmitted exhibits [449-1] (EC) (Entered: 10/28/1999)
454 SUPPLEMENT/INDEX TO PLS' EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE by plaintiff re dfts' motion to strike unadmitted exhibits [449-1] (EC) (Entered: 10/28/1999)
455 REPLY by defendant TO dfts' RESPONSE to motion to strike unadmitted exhibits [449-1] (EC) (Entered: 11/01/1999)
456 ORDER by Judge Franklin D. Burgess REFERRING to Magistrate Judge David E. Wilson the motion to shorten time on motion to strike unadmitted exhibits [449-1] [451-1], REFERRING to Magistrate Judge David E. Wilson the motion to strike unadmitted exhibits [449-1] (cc: counsel, Judge) (EC) (Entered: 11/04/1999)
457 ERRATA/SUR-RESPONSE by plaintiff to dfts' motion to strike unadmitted exhibits [449-1] (EC) (Entered: 11/12/1999)
458 ORDER by Magistrate Judge David E. Wilson GRANTING dfts' motion to shorten time on motion to strike unadmitted exhibits [449-1] [451-1], DENYING dfts' motion to strike unadmitted exhibits [449-1]; parties are ordered to file w/in 15 days of this Order an index of the exhibits offered for admissoin as evidence and clearly designate which were admitted and which were not; parties may submit a joint statement designating evidence (cc: counsel, Judge) (EC) (Entered: 11/17/1999)
PROPOSED Stipulated Protective Order (EC) (Entered: 11/18/1999)
459 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER by Judge Franklin D. Burgess **SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS** (cc: counsel, Judge) (CAR) (Entered: 11/19/1999)
460 Pltfs' STATEMENT regarding exhibits (DK) (Entered: 11/30/1999)

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?645612875470737-L_280_0-1

11/1/2005

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.4 - Docket Report

Page 52 of 64

12/01/1999 12/22/1999
12/22/1999
12/29/1999 12/29/1999 12/29/1999 12/29/1999 12/29/1999 12/29/1999 12/29/1999 12/29/1999 12/29/1999 12/29/1999 12/29/1999 12/29/1999 12/29/1999 01/03/2000

461 Dft's Index of Offered & Admitted Exhitits (DK) (Entered: 12/02/1999)
462 SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL on behalf of Donna Morgan, Alice Payne William Andrew Myers terminating attorney John Joseph Samson for Alice Payne, attorney John Joseph Samson for Donna Morgan (EC) (Entered: 12/22/1999)
463 ORDER by Judge Franklin D. Burgess [437-1] ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION regarding denying pls' motion for contempt [276-1], granting dfts' motion in the alternative for order vacating stipulation and judgment [268-1], denying pls' motion to extend jurisdiction [165-1] [434-1] (cc: counsel, Judge) (EC) (Entered: 12/23/1999)
464 MOTION by plaintiffs for injunction pending appeal NOTED FOR 1/21/00 (EC) (Entered: 12/29/1999)
465 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff in support of motion for injunction pending appeal [464-1] (EC) (Entered: 12/29/1999)
466 DECLARATION of Dorine Crawford by plaintiff re motion for injunction pending appeal [464-1] (EC) (Entered: 12/29/1999)
467 DECLARATION of Dana Darcy by plaintiff re motion for injunction pending appeal [464-1] (EC) (Entered: 12/29/1999)
468 DECLARATION of Alissa McCune by plaintiff re motion for injunction pending appeal [464-1] (EC) (Entered: 12/29/1999)
469 DECLARATION of Naomi Riojas by plaintiff re motion for injunction pending appeal [464-1] (EC) (Entered: 12/29/1999)
470 DECLARATION of Audura Brooks by plaintiff re motion for injunction pending appeal [464-1] (EC) (Entered: 12/29/1999)
471 DECLARATION of Maria Casblanca by plaintiff re motion for injunction pending appeal [464-1] (EC) (Entered: 12/29/1999)
472 DECLARATION of Jerry Esterly by plaintiff re motion for injunction pending appeal [464-1] (EC) (Entered: 12/29/1999)
473 DECLARATION of David Fathi by plaintiff re motion for injunction pending appeal [464-1] (EC) (Entered: 12/29/1999)
LODGED ORDER: re: pls' motion for injunction pending appeal [464-1] (EC) (Entered: 12/29/1999)
474 MOTION by plaintiff to shorten time on motion for injunction pending appeal [464-1] NOTED FOR 1/4/00 (EC) (Entered: 12/29/1999)
LODGED ORDER: re: pls' motion to shorten time on motion for injunction pending appeal [464-1] [474-1] (EC) (Entered: 12/29/1999)
475 RESPONSE/OPPOSITION by defendant to pls' motion to shorten time on motion for injunction pending appeal [464-1] [474-1] (EC) (Entered:

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?645612875470737-L_280_0-1

11/1/2005

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.4 - Docket Report

Page 53 of 64

01/03/2000 01/04/2000
01/06/2000
01/14/2000 01/14/2000 01/14/2000 01/14/2000 01/14/2000 01/14/2000 01/14/2000 01/18/2000 01/18/2000 01/18/2000 01/18/2000 01/18/2000

01/03/2000)
476 DECLARATION of Daniel J. Judge by defendant re pls' motion to shorten time on motion for injunction pending appeal [464-1] [474-1] (EC) (Entered: 01/03/2000)
477 JUDGMENT: by Judge Franklin D. Burgess DENYING motion to extend jurisdiction[165-1]; ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION regarding denying pls' motion for contempt [276-1], granting dfts' motion in the alternative for order vacating stipulation and judgment [268-1], denying pls' motion to extend jurisdiction, OA REQ [165-1] [434-1] (cc: counsel, Judge, Jgm. Book) Entered on: 1/5/00 (EC) (Entered: 01/05/2000)
478 ORDER by Judge Franklin D. Burgess DENYING pls' motion to shorten time on motion for injunction pending appeal [464-1] [474-1]; pending resolution of motion for injunction, terms of Stip and Judgment are extended (cc: counsel, Judge) (EC) (Entered: 01/07/2000)
479 SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSION by plaintiff re pls' motion for injunction pending appeal [464-1] (EC) (Entered: 01/14/2000)
480 DECLARATION of Betty Donley by plaintiff re pls' motion for injunction pending appeal [464-1] (EC) (Entered: 01/14/2000)
481 DECLARATION of Betty Antus by plaintiff re pls' motion for injunction pending appeal [464-1] (EC) (Entered: 01/14/2000)
482 DECLARATION of Bertha Robinson by plaintiff re pls' motion for injunction pending appeal [464-1] (EC) (Entered: 01/14/2000)
483 DECLARATION of Catherine Johnson by plaintiff re pls' motion for injunction pending appeal [464-1] (EC) (Entered: 01/14/2000)
484 DECLARATION of Lillian Shilling by plaintiff re pls' motion for injunction pending appeal [464-1] (EC) (Entered: 01/14/2000)
485 DECLARATION of Regina Pruitt by plaintiff re pls' motion for injunction pending appeal [464-1] (EC) (Entered: 01/14/2000)
486 RESPONSE by defendant to pls' motion for injunction pending appeal [464-1] (EC) (Entered: 01/19/2000)
487 DECLARATION of Rachel Burgett by defendant re pls' motion for injunction pending appeal [464-1] (EC) (Entered: 01/19/2000)
488 DECLARATION of Darren E. Gooding by defendant re pls' motion for injunction pending appeal [464-1] (EC) (Entered: 01/19/2000)
489 DECLARATION of David Hollenbeck, MD by defendant re pls' motion for injunction pending appeal [464-1] (EC) (Entered: 01/19/2000)
490 DECLARATION of Gerald C. Isham by defendant re pls' motion for injunction pending appeal [464-1] (EC) (Entered: 01/19/2000)

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?645612875470737-L_280_0-1

11/1/2005

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.4 - Docket Report

Page 54 of 64

01/18/2000 01/18/2000 01/18/2000 01/18/2000 01/18/2000 01/20/2000 01/20/2000 01/20/2000
01/20/2000 01/21/2000 01/21/2000 01/21/2000 01/25/2000
01/26/2000 01/26/2000 01/26/2000 01/26/2000

491 DECLARATION of Janet Mullins by defendant re pls' motion for injunction pending appeal [464-1] (EC) (Entered: 01/19/2000)
492 DECLARATION of Wm. Andrew Myers by defendant re pls' motion for injunction pending appeal [464-1] (EC) (Entered: 01/19/2000)
493 DECLARATION of Jane Robinson by defendant re pls' motion for injunction pending appeal [464-1] (EC) (Entered: 01/19/2000)
494 DECLARATION of Larry Uribe by defendant re pls' motion for injunction pending appeal [464-1] (EC) (Entered: 01/19/2000)
495 DECLARATION of Michael Walls by defendant re pls' motion for injunction pending appeal [464-1] (EC) (Entered: 01/19/2000)
496 REPLY by plaintiff TO RESPONSE to pls' motion for injunction pending appeal [464-1] (EC) (Entered: 01/21/2000)
497 DECLARATION of Patricia J. Arthur by plaintiff re pls' motion for injunction pending appeal [464-1] (EC) (Entered: 01/21/2000)
498 NOTICE OF APPEAL CCA#00-35098 by Plaintiffs from Dist. Court decision [463-1] order adopting Report & Recommendation re denying Ps' mtn for contempt, granting Ds' mtn in the alternative for order vacation stipulation & jgm, and denying Ps' mtn to extend jurisdiction (cc: CCA, Judge, counsel) (MW) Modified on 02/07/2000 (Entered: 01/21/2000)
NO APPEAL FEE RECEIVED: appellants granted IFP 9/3/93 (MW) (Entered: 01/21/2000)
Civil Appeals Docketing Statement, by Plaintiffs, forwarded to CCA. [498-1] (MW) (Entered: 01/21/2000)
ENT-Representation Statement (orig & 1 copy) to CCA (MW) (Entered: 01/21/2000)
APPEAL NOTIFICATION packet sent to CCA (cc: cnsl) (MW) (Entered: 01/21/2000)
499 ORDER by Judge Franklin D. Burgess DENYING pls' motion for injunction pending appeal [464-1] (cc: counsel, Judge) (EC) (Entered: 01/26/2000)
500 DECLARATION of Betty Donley by plaintiff re pls' motion for injunction pending appeal [464-1] (EC) (Entered: 01/26/2000)
501 DECLARATION of Lillian Shilling by plaintiff re pls' motion for injunction pending appeal [464-1] (EC) (Entered: 01/26/2000)
502 DECLARATION of Regina Pruitt by plaintiff re pls' motion for injunction pending appeal [464-1] (EC) (Entered: 01/26/2000)
503 DECLARATION of Catherine Johnson by plaintiff re pls' motion for injunction pending appeal [464-1] (EC) (Entered: 01/26/2000)

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?645612875470737-L_280_0-1

11/1/2005

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.4 - Docket Report

Page 55 of 64

01/26/2000 01/26/2000 01/26/2000 01/26/2000 01/31/2000 01/31/2000 02/07/2000 02/07/2000
03/24/2000
12/27/2000 02/14/2001 02/16/2001 10/04/2001 10/04/2001 10/04/2001 10/04/2001

504 DECLARATION of Bertha Robinson by plaintiff re pls' motion for injunction pending appeal [464-1] (EC) (Entered: 01/26/2000)
505 DECLARATION of Betty Antus by plaintiff re pls' motion for injunction pending appeal [464-1] (EC) (Entered: 01/26/2000)
506 SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION of Maria Casablanca by plaintiff re pls' motion for injunction pending appeal [464-1] (EC) (Entered: 01/26/2000)
507 SUPPLMENTAL DECLARATION of Audura Brooks by plaintiff re pls' motion for injunction pending appeal [464-1] (EC) (Entered: 01/26/2000)
508 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION and Ordering Form for dates: none designated [498-1] (MW) (Entered: 01/31/2000)
CERTIFICATE OF RECORD Transmitted to USCA (cc: all counsel) (MW) (Entered: 01/31/2000)
NOTIFICATION by Circuit Court of Appellate Docket Number 0035098 (MW) (Entered: 02/07/2000)
509 TIME SCHEDULE ORDER (CCA#00-35098): Transcript Designation due 2/22/00; Reporter's Transcript(s) due 3/21/00; aplt's opening brief & excerpts of record due 5/8/00; aple's brief due 6/6/00; opt reply due w/in 14 days (MW) (Entered: 02/07/2000)
510 ORDER (CCA#00-35098): aplts' opposed mtn for injunctive relief pending appeal is granted; stipulation & jgm entered by DC 1/12/95, shall remain in effect pending dispositon of appeal; briefing schedule set 2/1/00 shall remain in effect (cc: FDB, MAG JUDGE BENTON, counsel) (MW) (Entered: 03/24/2000)
512 NOTICE by plaintiffs' counsel, David Fathi, of change of address (EC) (Entered: 12/27/2000)
513 LETTER from Mary Cluck requesting information on a motion to compel Columbia Legal Svcs to provide photocopies (EC) (Entered: 02/14/2001)
514 ORDER by Judge Franklin D. Burgess STRIKING request letter [513-1] (cc: counsel, Judge) (EC) (Entered: 02/16/2001)
515 MOTION by plaintiff for contempt NOTED FOR 10/19/01 (EC) (Entered: 10/05/2001)
516 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff in support of P's motion for contempt [515-1] (EC) (Entered: 10/05/2001)
517 DECLARATION of Patricia J. Arthur by plaintiff re P's motion for contempt [515-1] (EC) (Entered: 10/05/2001)
LODGED ORDER: re: P's motion for contempt [515-1] (EC) (Entered: 10/05/2001)

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?645612875470737-L_280_0-1

11/1/2005

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.4 - Docket Report

Page 56 of 64

10/05/2001 10/05/2001 10/09/2001 10/09/2001 10/09/2001 10/09/2001 10/09/2001 10/09/2001 10/09/2001 10/09/2001 10/09/2001
10/10/2001
10/11/2001 10/12/2001 10/15/2001

CLERK'S RECORD ON APPEAL transmitted to Circuit, 12 vols, 32 expandos (EC) Modified on 10/05/2001 (Entered: 10/05/2001)
518 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA of Dr Renee Kanan on 9/29/01 (EC) (Entered: 10/05/2001)
519 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for plaintiffs by Hank L Balson, Amy Chia-Mei Tsai (DK) (Entered: 10/09/2001)
520 MOTION by plaintiff for order to compel discover NOTED FOR 10/26/01 (DK) (Entered: 10/09/2001)
521 MEMORANDUM in support of pltfs' motion for order compelling discovery [520-1] (DK) (Entered: 10/09/2001)
522 DECLARATION of Patricia J. Arthur in support of pltfs' motion to compel discover [520-1] (DK) (Entered: 10/09/2001)
LODGED ORDER: re: motion to compel discover [520-1] (DK) (Entered: 10/09/2001)
523 MOTION by plaintiff to shorten time on motion to compel discover [520-1] NOTED FOR 10/11/01 (DK) (Entered: 10/09/2001)
524 DECLARATION of Patricia J. Arthur in support of pltf's motion to shorten time on motion to compel discover [520-1] [523-1] (DK) (Entered: 10/09/2001)
LODGED ORDER: re: motion to shorten time on motion to compel discover [520-1] [523-1] (DK) (Entered: 10/09/2001)
525 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by plaintiff of order lodged [0-0], of declaration [524-1], of motion to shorten time on motion to compel discover [520-1] [523-1], of order lodged [0-0], of declaration [522-1], of memorandum [521-1], of motion to compel discover [520-1] (DK) (Entered: 10/09/2001)
526 MINUTE ORDER: by Judge Franklin D. Burgess RE-REFERRING to Magistrate Judge Monica J. Benton the motion to shorten time on motion to compel discover [520-1] [523-1], REFERRING to Magistrate Judge Monica J. Benton the motion to compel discover [520-1] (cc: counsel, Judge) (EC) (Entered: 10/10/2001)
527 NOTICE by plaintiff that the following is RENOTED FOR 10/26/01 P's motion for contempt (EC) (Entered: 10/11/2001)
528 RESPONSE by defendant to P's motion to compel discover [520-1] (EC) (Entered: 10/15/2001)
529 SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL on behalf of Donna Morgan, Alice Payne Carol A Murphy terminating attorney William Andrew Myers for Alice Payne, attorney Mary E Fairhurst for Alice Payne, attorney Daniel J Judge for Alice Payne, attorney William Andrew Myers for Donna Morgan, attorney Mary E Fairhurst for Donna Morgan, attorney Daniel J Judge for Donna Morgan (EC) (Entered: 10/15/2001)

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?645612875470737-L_280_0-1

11/1/2005

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.4 - Docket Report

Page 57 of 64

10/15/2001
10/16/2001
10/17/2001
10/17/2001 10/19/2001 10/22/2001 10/22/2001 10/23/2001 11/05/2001 11/06/2001 11/06/2001 11/06/2001 11/06/2001 11/15/2001 05/08/2002 07/15/2002

530 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Monica J. Benton GRANTING motion to shorten time on motion to compel discover [520-1] [523-1], SETTING motion to compel discovery [520-1] at 9:30 10/16/01 (cc: counsel, Judge, MJB) (ZG) (Entered: 10/15/2001)
532 MINUTES OF DISCOVERY CONFERENCE: DEW; Dep Clerk: P Voelker; CR: none; Pla Counsel Arthur/A Kaplan; Def Counsel C Murphy; Conference held via telephone; motion to shorten time granted; motion to compel now at issue; discussion; court takes motion under advisement, order to issue 10/17/01 (EC) (Entered: 10/17/2001)
531 MINUTE ORDER: by Judge Franklin D. Burgess; All matters related to the injunctive relief pending appeal are referred to Magistrate Judge Monica J. Benton [520-1] [515-1] (cc: counsel, Judge) (EC) (Entered: 10/17/2001)
533 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Monica J. Benton STRIKING pltfs' motion to compel discover [520-1] and STRIKING pltfs' motion for contempt [515-1] (cc: counsel, Judge) (RS) (Entered: 10/17/2001)
534 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA of Dr. Karen Saylor on 10/24/01 (EC) (Entered: 10/19/2001)
535 DECLARATION of Judy Howard re: memorandum [516-1] (CM) (Entered: 10/22/2001)
536 DECLARATION of Jewell Baker re: memorandum [516-1] (CM) (Entered: 10/22/2001)
537 OBJECTIONS by plaintiff obj to order dismissing pltfs's mtn to compel & mtn for contempt NOTED FOR 10/26/01 (DK) (Entered: 10/23/2001)
538 RESPONSE by dfts to Pltfs' obj to order dismissing pltfs's mtn to compel & mtn for contempt [537-1] (CAR) (Entered: 11/05/2001)
539 Pltfs' REPLY in support of objections to order dismissing pltfs' mtn to compel & mtn for contempt [537-1] (DK) (Entered: 11/07/2001)
LODGED ORDER on pltf's objs to order dismissing pltfs' mtn to compel & mtn for contempt [539-1] (DK) (Entered: 11/07/2001)
540 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by plaintiff of motion reply [539-1], of order lodged [0-0] (DK) (Entered: 11/07/2001)
541 Amended AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by mailing by defendant of response [538-1] (DK) (Entered: 11/07/2001)
542 ORDER AFFIRMING Magistrate Judge's Order entered 10/17/01 by Judge Franklin D. Burgess (cc: counsel, Judge) (EC) (Entered: 11/15/2001)
543 LETTER from Mary Cluck re class action (EC) (Entered: 05/14/2002)
RECORD ON APPEAL returned from U.S. Court of Appeals, 12 vols, 32 expandos (EC) (Entered: 07/15/2002)

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?645612875470737-L_280_0-1

11/1/2005

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.4 - Docket Report

Page 58 of 64

09/03/2002
09/03/2002
10/03/2002 12/19/2002 12/19/2002 12/19/2002 12/19/2002 12/19/2002 12/30/2002 12/30/2002 12/30/2002 01/07/2003

544 ORDER/JGM DATED 4/26/02: The jgm of the said District Court in this is AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED. (CCA 00-35098) Copy of Opinion (4/6/02) & Order & Amended Opinion (7/17/02) Attached. (cc: CCA, Judge, counsel) (DK) (Entered: 09/04/2002)
545 CERTIFIED COPY OF JUDGMENT from USCA: Jgm of the said District Court is AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED (CCA# 00-35098) Entered: 4/26/02; Amended: 7/17/02; Second Amended: 8/2/02 (Copy of Order & Amended Opinion Attached) [Appeal [498-1] (cc: all counsel) (DK) (Entered: 09/04/2002)
546 MINUTE ORDER: by Judge Franklin D. Burgess Case referred to Magistrate Judge Monica J. Benton (cc: counsel, Judge) (EC) (Entered: 10/04/2002)
547 MOTION by plaintiffs to hold prison officials in contempt re medical care at WCC for Women NOTED FOR 1/3/03 (DK) (Entered: 12/23/2002)
548 MEMORANDUM in support of pltfs' motion to hold prison officials in contempt re medical care at WCC for women [547-1] (DK) (Entered: 12/23/2002)
549 DECLARATION of Patricia J. Arthur in support of pltfs' motion to hold prison officials in contempt re medical care at WCC for women [547-1] (DK) (Entered: 12/23/2002)
LODGED ORDER: re: motion to hold prison officials in contempt [5471] (DK) (Entered: 12/23/2002)
550 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by plaintiff of motion to hold prison officials in contempt [547-1], of memorandum [548-1], of declaration [549-1], of order lodged [0-0] (DK) (Entered: 12/23/2002)
551 MOTION by defendants for ext of time to respond to pltfs' mtn to hold prison officials in contempt NOTED FOR 1/17/03 (DK) (Entered: 12/31/2002)
552 AFFIDAVIT of Carol A. Murphy regarding motion for ext of time to respond to pltfs' mtn to hold prison officials in contempt [551-1] (DK) (Entered: 12/31/2002)
LODGED ORDER: re: motion for ext of time to respond to pltfs' mtn to hold prison officials in contempt [551-1] (DK) (Entered: 12/31/2002)
553 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Monica J. Benton that Dfts' motion for ext of time to respond to pltfs' mtn to hold prison officials in contempt [5511] is GRANTED. Dfts shall have until January 29, 2003 to file their response to Plaintiff's Motion to Hold Prison Officials in Contempt. The Clerk is directed to RE-NOTE Plaintiffs' Motion to Hold Prison Officials on Contempt (dkt #547) for 2/14/03. Plaintiff may file and seve a reponse not later than on the Thursday immediately preceding the Friday designated for consideration of this matter. (cc: counsel, Judge, Mag

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?645612875470737-L_280_0-1

11/1/2005

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.4 - Docket Report

Page 59 of 64

01/29/2003 02/13/2003 04/24/2003 04/24/2003 05/14/2003 05/23/2003 07/18/2003 08/11/2003
08/11/2003 09/11/2003 09/12/2003 09/15/2003

Judge) (CM) (Entered: 01/07/2003)
554 Dfts' RESPONSE Memo in Opp to pltfs' motion to hold prison officials in contempt [547-1] (DK) (Entered: 01/30/2003)
555 REPLY by plaintiffs' IN SUPPORT of motion to hold prison officials in contempt [547-1] (CAR) (Entered: 02/13/2003)
556 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION regarding motion to hold prison officials in contempt [547-1] by Magistrate Judge Monica J. Benton NOTED FOR 5/16/03 (cc: counsel, Judge) (DK) (Entered: 04/27/2003)
LODGED ORDER: re: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION regarding motion to hold prison officials in contempt [547-1] [556-1] (DK) (Entered: 04/27/2003)
557 Objections to Report and Recommendation by defendant NOTED FOR 5/30/03 (DK) (Entered: 05/15/2003)
558 Pltfs' RESPONSE to Dfts' objection motion Objections to Report and Recommendation [557-1] (DK) (Entered: 05/27/2003)
Judge Monica J. Benton no longer assigned to case. (CM, ) (Entered: 07/18/2003)
559 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The Report & Recommendation is ADOPTED. Dfts' Mtns to Strike (incl within doc #554) are DENIED & an evidentiary hrg shall be held in order to decide the merits of ptfs' mtn for contempt. This matter is referred to the Magistrate Judge for the conduct of all proceedings related to & incl the evidentiary hrg. The Magistrate Judge shall contact the parties in order to scheduled the hrg. 547 Motion for Contempt ***SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS*** Signed by Judge Franklin D. Burgess. (DK, ) (Entered: 08/12/2003)
CASE RE-REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Monica J. Benton. per doc #559 (DK, ) (Entered: 09/23/2003)
Set Hearings: Scheduling Conference set for 9/15/2003 01:30 PM by telephone conference before Hon. Monica J. Benton. (PV, ) (Entered: 09/11/2003)
563 NOTICE of Association of Attorney by Aileen Miller on behalf of Defendants Donna Morgan, Alice Payne (CAR, ) (Entered: 09/23/2003)
560 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Monica J. Benton Dep Clerk: phv; Pla Counsel: Pat Arthur, Katrin Frank, Hank Balson, David Fathi, Aaron Caplan; Def Counsel: Aileen Miller; Scheduling Conference Conducted by Telephone held on 9/15/2003.. Court and counsel discuss need for discovery, length of discovery, scope & length of evidentiary hearing, potential witness types (authorities, experts, prisoners)and use of settlement judge. Court sets dates: Discovery ddl 41-04; Motion ddl 4-16-04; Evidentiary Hearing set for Tuesday 4/20/2004 09:30 AM before Hon. Monica J. Benton. (PV, ) (Entered:

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?645612875470737-L_280_0-1

11/1/2005

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.4 - Docket Report

Page 60 of 64

09/15/2003 09/15/2003 09/16/2003 10/15/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003
10/27/2003 10/29/2003 10/30/2003 10/30/2003 11/10/2003 11/13/2003

09/15/2003)
561 MINUTE ORDER setting deadlines pursuant to conference held 9-15-03: discovery 4-1-04; motions 4-16-03; evidentiary hrg 4-20-04 by Judge Monica J. Benton. (PV, ) (Entered: 09/16/2003)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Discovery due by 4/1/2004; Motions due by 4/16/2004; Evidentiary Hearing set for 4/20/2004 09:30 AM before Hon. Monica J. Benton. (PV, ) (Entered: 09/16/2003)
562 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL: Attorney Amy Chia-Mei Tsai for Plaintiffs. (CAR, ) (Entered: 09/19/2003)
564 MOTION to Certify Order for Interlocutory Appeal and Motion to Stay Proceedings by Defendants Donna Morgan, Alice Payne. Noting Date 10/31/2003. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order # 2 Attachment A to Motion)(Miller, Aileen) (Entered: 10/15/2003)
565 MINUTE ORDER referring to Magistrate Judge Strombom for settlement conference. (KM, ) (Entered: 10/21/2003)
566 MINUTE ORDER 565 that this matter haws been referred to Judge Strombom to conduct a settlement conference on: Wednesday, 11/12 and Thursday, 11/13/2003 beginning at 9:00 a.m. Settlement briefs are not to exceed eight double-spaced pages, and are DUE (received in Tacoma) by NOON on Friday, November 7, 2003. The briefs are to be confidential and are NOT to be filed with the Clerk or served on opposing counsel. by Judge Karen L Strombom. (CAR, ) (Entered: 10/21/2003)
567 RESPONSE filed by Plaintiffs re 564 MOTION to Certify Order for Interlocutory Appeal and Motion to Stay Proceedings (ECS, ) (Entered: 10/28/2003)
568 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Defendants Donna Morgan, Alice Payne re 564 MOTION to Certify Order for Interlocutory Appeal and Motion to Stay Proceedings (Miller, Aileen) (Entered: 10/29/2003)
569 MOTION to Bifurcate Hearing on Plaintiffs' Contempt Motion by Defendants Donna Morgan, Alice Payne. Noting Date 11/14/2003. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Miller, Aileen) (Entered: 10/30/2003)
570 ERRATA re 568 Reply to Response to Motion to Certify Order for Interlocutory Appeal and Motion to Stay Proceedings by Defendants Donna Morgan, Alice Payne. (Attachments: # 1 Errata Pages 4-5)(Miller, Aileen) (Entered: 10/30/2003)
571 RESPONSE filed by Plaintiffs to Dfts' 569 MOTION to Bifurcate Hearing on Plaintiffs' Contempt Motion (CAR, ) (Entered: 11/13/2003)
572 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Defendants Donna Morgan, Alice Payne re 569 MOTION to Bifurcate Hearing on Plaintiffs' Contempt Motion (Murphy, Carol) (Entered: 11/13/2003)

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?645612875470737-L_280_0-1

11/1/2005

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.4 - Docket Report

Page 61 of 64

11/14/2003 11/14/2003 01/08/2004 01/08/2004 01/08/2004 01/20/2004
01/22/2004 02/03/2004 02/13/2004
02/13/2004
02/27/2004 03/15/2004

573 MINUTE ORDER RE Settlement Conference. Settlement was reached and a written Settlement Agreement signed. The parties agree that all pending ddls are stayed pending hrg by the court re the settlement. by Judge Karen L Strombom. (CAR, ) (Entered: 11/17/2003)
check status of Settlement Agreement re Minute Order on Settlement Conference 573; Noting Date 12/5/2003. (CAR, ) M (Entered: 12/03/2003)
574 MOTION to Approve Settlement Notice and Notification Process pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) by Plaintiffs. Noting Date 1/23/2004. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(CAR, ) (Entered: 01/13/2004)
575 DECLARATION of Patricia J. Arthur in support of 574 MOTION to Approve Settlement Notice and Notification Process pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) (CAR, ) (Entered: 01/13/2004)
576 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Plaintiffs re 574 MOTION to Approve Settlement Notice and Notification Process pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (e), 575 Declaration. (CAR, ) (Entered: 01/13/2004)
577 RESPONSE filed by Defendants Donna Morgan, Alice Payne re 574 MOTION to Approve Settlement Notice and Notification Process pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Carol Murphy# 2 Exhibit Notice of Proposed Settlement and Dismissal)(Murphy, Carol) (Entered: 01/20/2004)
578 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Plaintiff re 574 P's MOTION to Approve Settlement Notice and Notification Process pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) (ECS, ) (Entered: 01/26/2004)
579 **PROPOSED** NOTICE of Settlement by Plaintiffs S\(CAR, ) (Entered: 02/04/2004)
580 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 574 MOTION to Approve Settlement Notice and Notification Process pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (e) filed by Yvonne Wood, Shannon Hallett, Gail Ray, Cindy Stewart, Rena Skilton. Objections to R&R due by 3/1/2004. Noting Date 3/5/2004. by Judge Monica J. Benton. (Attachments: (1) Proposed Order (2) Cover letter)(HW) (Entered: 02/13/2004)
581 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 574 MOTION to Approve Settlement Notice and Notification Process pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (e) filed by Yvonne Wood, Shannon Hallett, Gail Ray, Cindy Stewart, Rena Skilton. Objections to R&R due by 3/1/2004. Noting Date 3/5/2004. by Judge Monica J. Benton. (Attachments: # 1 cover letter# 2 Proposed Order)(CAR, ) Modified on 2/17/2004 - image turned off/clerical error - duplicate document (CAR, ). (Entered: 02/13/2004)
582 OBJECTIONS to 580 Report and Recommendation filed by Defendants Donna Morgan, Alice Payne Noting Date 3/19/2004. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Miller, Aileen) (Entered: 02/27/2004)
583 RESPONSE to 582 Objections to Report and Recommendation filed by

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?645612875470737-L_280_0-1

11/1/2005

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.4 - Docket Report

Page 62 of 64

03/15/2004 03/15/2004 03/18/2004 03/23/2004
03/25/2004 03/30/2004
03/30/2004 04/20/2004 04/30/2004
04/30/2004 04/30/2004 05/13/2004 05/17/2004

Plaintiffs (CAR, ) (Entered: 03/16/2004)
584 DECLARATION of Maureen Janega re 583 Response to Objections to R&R. (CAR, ) (Entered: 03/16/2004)
585 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Plaintiffs re 583 Response to Objections to R&R, 584 Declaration. (CAR, ) (Entered: 03/16/2004)
586 RESPONSE to 582 Objections to Report and Recommendation filed by Defendants Donna Morgan, Alice Payne (Reply in Support of Objections to Report and Recommendation) (Murphy, Carol) (Entered: 03/18/2004)
587 ORDER ADOPTING IN PART AND REJECTING IN PART the REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (**SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS**); Pltfs' mtn to approve their proposed ntc to class members 574 is GRANTED insofar as it comports with this Order. by Judge Franklin D. Burgess. (CAR, ) (Entered: 03/24/2004)
588 REVISED NOTICE to the Clerk of Court 579. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Settlement Notice)(ECS, ) (Entered: 03/26/2004)
589 SETTLEMENT NOTICE 588 **SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS** Any objection must be mailed to the Clerk of the Court by no later than 4/30/04. After reviewing any objections that have been filed, the Judge will hold a hearing on 5/28/2004 at 1:30 p.m. to decide whether or not to approve the proposed Settlement Agreement. If the Judge finds that the proposed Settlement Agreement is a fair, reasonable and adequate compromise of this case, the Settlement Agreement will become final. by Judge Franklin D. Burgess. (CAR, ) (Entered: 03/31/2004)
Objections to Settlement due by 4/30/04 per Order #589; hrg set for 5/28/04 at 1:30 p.m. (CAR, ) (Entered: 03/31/2004)
590 OBJECTIONS by Roxane Elizabeth Roberts to 589 Settlement Agreement Notice. (CAR, ) (Entered: 04/21/2004)
591 OBJECTIONS by Mary Cluck to Settlement Agreement & Motion to Extend Time or Delay Hearing of 5/28/04 to prevent fraud, etc; Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 60(b) and Court Order for Discovery or Disclosure (CAR, ) (Entered: 05/03/2004)
Motion to Extend Time or Delay Hearing set for 5/28/04 (attached to Objections to Settlement Agreement 591); Noting Date 5/21/2004. (CAR, ) (Entered: 05/03/2004)
592 MOTION by Mary Cluck to Intervene as Plaintiff . Noting Date 5/21/2004. (CAR, ) (Entered: 05/03/2004)
593 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL: Attorney Hank L Balson for Plaintiffs Shannon Hallett, Yvonne Wood, Gail Ray, Cindy Stewart, Rena Skilton. (Balson, Hank) (Entered: 05/13/2004)
594 RESPONSE filed by Defendants Donna Morgan, Alice Payne re to Extend Time or Delay Hearing set for 5/28/04 re 591 Objections NOTED

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?645612875470737-L_280_0-1

11/1/2005

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.4 - Docket Report

Page 63 of 64

05/21/2004 05/21/2004
05/24/2004 05/24/2004 05/28/2004
05/28/2004 06/07/2004 06/07/2004 06/14/2004 06/14/2004 08/04/2004

on motion calendar;, 592 MOTION to Intervene (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 (Declaration of O'Dell))(Miller, Aileen) (Entered: 05/17/2004)
595 Plaintiffs' BRIEF in Support of Court Approval of Settlement by Plaintiff Shannon Hallett. (Arthur, Patricia) (Entered: 05/21/2004)
596 ORDER that Mary Cluck's mtn to ext time or delay hrg of 5/28/04 is DENIED and Ms. Cluck's mtn to allow her to intervene as a P' is STRICKEN from the Court's calenar as MOOT 592 as Ms. Cluck is already a class member by Judge Franklin D. Burgess.(CAR, ) (Entered: 05/24/2004)
597 DECLARATION of Patricia J. Arthur in Support of Court Approval of Settlement re 595 Brief. (DK, ) (Entered: 05/26/2004)
598 DECLARATION of David C. Fathi in Support of Court Approval of Settlement re 595 Brief. (DK, ) (Entered: 05/26/2004)
599 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Franklin D. Burgess - Dep Clerk: Rhonda Miller; CR: T Hendrix; Pla Counsel: P Arthur/K Frank; Def Counsel: A Miller/C Murphy; Settlement Agreement Counsel present. Ms. Arthur address the Court regarding Settlement Agreement. Ms. Arthur requests additional time to review Findings and Stipulation of Dismissal prior to entry by Court. Ms. Miller addresses the Court and moves for Court to Approve Settlement. Court finds that Parties agree that this is a fair and reasonable Settlement Agreement. Counsel to prepare Agreed Findings and Order Approving Settlement Agreement which are to be submitted by close of business on 6/4/04. If Counsel unable to submit Agreed Findings and Order Approving Settlement Agreement, then Counsel will each file Proposed Findings and Order Approving Settlement Agreement by close of business on 6/4/04 and the Court will decide on Findings and Order Approving Settlement Agreement(RM, ) (Entered: 05/28/2004)
600 Settlement Agreement. (RM, ) (Entered: 06/01/2004)
601 Agreed MOTION to Dismiss by Plaintiff Shannon Hallett. Noting Date 6/7/2004. (Attachments: # 1 Findings and Conclusions# 2 Proposed Order Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal)(Arthur, Patricia) (Entered: 06/07/2004)
602 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Plaintiff Shannon Hallett re 601 Agreed MOTION to Dismiss. (Arthur, Patricia) (Entered: 06/07/2004)
603 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW by Judge Franklin D. Burgess. (CAR, ) (Entered: 06/16/2004)
604 FINAL JUDGMENT and ORDER OF DISMISSAL by Judge Franklin D. Burgess. (CAR, ) (Entered: 06/16/2004)
605 Letter from Mary L. Cluck re Motion to Extend Time or Delay Hearing set for 5/28/04 re 591 Objections to Settlement, 592 MOTION to Intervene, 591 Objections. (CAR, ) (Entered: 08/06/2004)

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?645612875470737-L_280_0-1

11/1/2005

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.4 - Docket Report

Page 64 of 64

08/18/2004

606 Letter from Mary Cluck requesting copies of file. (CAR, ) (Entered: 08/19/2004)

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt

11/01/2005 15:16:29

PACER Login:

hs0328

Client Code:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

3:93-cv-05496-FDB

Billable Pages:

30

Cost: 2.40

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?645612875470737-L_280_0-1

11/1/2005

 
 296 F.3d 732 (2002)
Shannon HALLETT; Yvonne Wood; Gail Ray; Cindy Stewart; Rena Skilton, PlaintiffsAppellants, v.
Donna MORGAN, Health Care Manager, in her official and individual capacities, and Belinda Stewart, Superintendent, Washington Corrections Center for Women, in her official capacity, and their officers, agents, employees, and successors; and Alice Payne,
in her individual capacity, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 00-35098.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted January 8, 2002. Filed April 26, 2002.
Amended July 17, 2002. Second Amendment August 2, 2002.
7334567 *733 *734 *735 *736 *737 Patricia J. Arthur, Columbia Legal Services, Seattle, WA, for the plaintiffs-appellants.
Carol A. Murphy and Wm. Andrew Myers, Assistant Attorneys General, Olympia, WA, for the defendantsappellees.
Before: THOMAS, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

The opinion filed April 26, 2002, is amended as follows: On slip opinion page 6360 [287 F.3d 1193, 1212], delete:

3. Permissible Sanctions on Remand

On remand, the district court may conclude that Defendants substantially complied with the

medical services provisions of the Judgment at all times relevant to this action.10 However, should

the court hold otherwise, it may order only retrospective relief. That is because the consent decree

that is the subject of Plaintiffs' contempt motion expired on January 5, 2000, and is no longer in

effect. See Imprisoned Citizens Union v. Ridge, 169 F.3d 178, 190 (3d Cir.1999) (holding that

738

extension of jurisdiction over a terminated consent *738 decree is an inappropriate remedy for

past civil contempt).

10. Because the district court twice extended its jurisdiction over the Judgment, the medical services provisions were in effect until January 5, 2000, the date on which the court's final judgment was entered.

With this amendment, the panel has voted to deny the petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc.

The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc and no judge of the court has requested a vote on it.

The petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED.

OPINION
GRABER, Circuit Judge.
Plaintiffs, who are a class of prisoners at the Washington Corrections Center for Women (the Prison), brought this action in 1993 to challenge conditions of their confinement. Defendants, who are current and former prison officials, entered into a consent decree with Plaintiffs governing the quality and availability of medical, dental, and mental health services at the Prison. Under the terms of the parties' agreement, the decree was to expire on January 12, 1999, unless timely extended. In 1998, Plaintiffs moved to extend jurisdiction over the consent decree for an additional period of time. Plaintiffs also moved, twice, to have Defendants held in contempt for past violations of the consent decree and moved to compel discovery. The district court denied all of Plaintiffs' motions, and it granted a motion brought by Defendants to terminate the consent decree.
We have jurisdiction over this timely appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we hold: (a) The district court properly limited the scope of the evidentiary hearing to the dental and mental health provisions of the consent decree, because Plaintiffs failed to give timely notice of their intent to seek extension of any other provisions. (b) The prospective-relief provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3626, apply to Plaintiffs' motion to extend the decree. (c) Based on the district court's findings of fact, which are not clearly erroneous, the conditions of confinement at the Prison do not violate the Eighth Amendment and, therefore, the PLRA mandates that the motion to extend the decree be denied. (d) In light of this ruling, Defendants' motion to terminate the consent decree is moot. (e) In response to Plaintiffs' first contempt motion, the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Defendants had substantially complied with the dental and mental health provisions of the consent decree. However, the court improperly declined to consider whether Defendants had substantially complied with the other health care provisions, because the entire consent decree was still in effect when Plaintiffs filed their motion.[1] (f) Plaintiffs are not entitled to a reversal based on the district court's denial of their discovery motion, because they suffered no prejudice.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This appeal represents the culmination of a long sequence of disputes and compromises between the parties. Plaintiffs filed this class action in 1993, alleging that health care at the Prison violated the Eighth Amendment. On January 12, 1995, the district court approved the parties' Stipulation and Judgment (Judgment), which resolved 739 Plaintiffs' claims and required Defendants to implement a number *739 of changes in the Prison's health care policies. The parties also agreed to a system of independent monitoring. Under the terms of the Judgment, the district court's jurisdiction was to terminate automatically on January 12, 1999. However, the Judgment also contained a procedure for extending the court's jurisdiction beyond that date.
As the expiration date of the Judgment approached, Plaintiffs sought to extend it for an additional four years. They alleged that Defendants had not substantially complied with the Judgment with respect to medical, dental, and mental health services. Defendants responded by arguing that Plaintiffs had not complied with the notice provisions of the Judgment and that any extension of the district court's jurisdiction would violate the prospectiverelief provisions of the PLRA.
The district court provisionally changed the expiration date of the Judgment to February 12, 1999, anticipating that this extension would give the court enough time to review the merits of Plaintiffs' motion to extend jurisdiction. When it became apparent that more time was necessary, the court again extended jurisdiction over the Judgment until it could enter a final order resolving the parties' dispute.
On February 11, 1999, the district court granted Plaintiffs' motion for an evidentiary hearing, but it also held that the prospective-relief provisions of the PLRA would apply. The same day, Defendants filed a motion in the alternative for an order terminating the Judgment pursuant to § 3626(b) of the PLRA. Plaintiffs responded on February 22, 1999, with a motion for contempt alleging that Defendants had failed to substantially comply with the terms of the Judgment.

The court held a two-week evidentiary hearing on Plaintiffs' motion to extend jurisdiction. Because it found that Plaintiffs had complied with the Judgment's notice requirements only with respect to mental health and dental services, the court limited the scope of the hearing to those topics.
After weighing the voluminous record and the testimony offered at the hearing, the court concluded that Plaintiffs were not entitled to an extension of the Judgment. It held that Plaintiffs had not demonstrated that the quality and availability of mental health and dental care services at the Prison fell below Eighth Amendment standards and that, therefore, the prospective-relief provisions of the PLRA barred the court from granting Plaintiffs' motion. The court also denied Plaintiffs' motion for contempt and their motion to compel discovery. Finally, the court granted Defendants' motion to terminate the Judgment pursuant to § 3626(b) of the PLRA.
Plaintiffs filed a timely notice of appeal and a motion for injunctive relief. We granted the motion and issued an order reinstating the Judgment pending resolution of this appeal.
Plaintiffs then filed a second motion for contempt. The district court held that, pursuant to the orders issued by this court, it lacked jurisdiction to entertain Plaintiffs' motion.
DISCUSSION
A. Scope of the Evidentiary Hearing on Extension of the Judgment
The terms of the Judgment govern the timeliness of motions to extend the district court's jurisdiction. The proper scope of the evidentiary hearing on extension is therefore a question of law to be reviewed de novo. Gates v. Gomez, 60 F.3d 525, 530 (9th Cir.1995). However, we must also "`give deference to the district court's 740 interpretation[of the Judgment] *740 based on the court's extensive oversight of the decree from the commencement of the litigation to the current appeal.'" Id. (quoting Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 934 F.2d 1092, 1094 (9th Cir.1991)). That principle applies here, where the same judge has overseen this litigation since 1994.
Under the terms of the Judgment, the district court's continuing jurisdiction was to expire on January 12, 1999, unless extended in the manner established by the Judgment itself:
This Court has continuing jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this Stipulation and Judgment for four years following the date of its entry by this Court. Except as provided below, at the conclusion of this period the Court's jurisdiction shall terminate, this Stipulation and Judgment shall be vacated, and this case shall be dismissed.
As noted, the date of entry of the Judgment was January 12, 1995. The procedure for extending the court's jurisdiction was specific:
1. By no later than three years following the date of entry of this Stipulation and Judgment, Plaintiffs shall serve upon Defendants written notice of their intent to seek an extension; and
2. In the written notice described in paragraph (1) above, Plaintiffs shall identify with particularity the areas in which they allege Defendants have not substantially complied with the conditions of this Stipulation and Judgment[.]
Thus, Plaintiffs had only until January 12, 1998, to provide Defendants with written notice of their intent to file a motion to extend jurisdiction.
The district court did not err when it ruled that Plaintiffs complied with that notice procedure only as to some of the claims that they now seek to raise. Although Plaintiffs did give timely and sufficient notice of their intent to seek an extension of the mental health and dental provisions of the Judgment, they failed to do so with respect to the provisions governing other medical services at the Prison.

Plaintiffs' counsel sent a letter to Defendants on December 16, 1997, which read in part: "[P]laintiffs plan to ask the court to extend jurisdiction as allowed under the decree. We believe that defendants are not yet in compliance with the mental health and dental portions of the decree and that additional time is required to monitor those areas." (Emphasis added.) The following day, Plaintiffs' counsel sent a second letter:
In the letter I sent to you yesterday I inadvertently omitted the words "at least" before describing the areas of non-compliance on which plaintiffs will base an extension of jurisdiction motion. What I intended to say is that plaintiffs believe that defendants are not in compliance with at least the dental and mental health portions of the Hallett decree.
We are presently reviewing the documents you recently sent, talking to clients, and may engage expert(s) on the question of compliance in all areas of the decree. In January we plan to provide you with more specific notice of plaintiffs' areas of concern, which we now know will include, at a minimum, dental and mental health. And we anticipate at this time seeking an extension of court jurisdiction over the decree.
Contrary to the assurance in the second letter, Plaintiffs did not provide Defendants with more specific notice of areas of concern until after the period for timely notice had expired.
741 *741 The Judgment required Plaintiffs to "identify with particularity" the alleged deficiencies in Defendants' compliance. As the district court explained, the words "at least" were simply "not sufficient to put defendants on notice with particularity of any areas in addition to mental health and dental care in which plaintiffs were alleging that defendants had not complied with the conditions of the 1995 Stipulation and Judgment." Neither did the bare promise of more detail in the future suffice to substitute for actual timely detail.
Plaintiffs offer four reasons why the notice sufficed with respect to all areas of health care covered by the Judgment, and not just mental health and dental care. None persuades us.
First, they argue that Defendants had constructive notice of the additional areas of alleged deficiency because of adverse reports from the professional consultants who had been monitoring compliance with the Judgment and letters of complaint from prisoners. The district court found, however, that "the experts had noted with satisfaction the significant progress that had been made in all areas" that they had identified as needing improvement. Those findings are not clearly erroneous. Because the experts' reports pointed to improvements, not just to deficiencies, the reports did not provide constructive notice even if, in theory, they could have done so under the terms of the Judgment. The prisoners' complaint letters are insufficient because complaints from individual prisoners are not the same thing as notice that the class as a whole intends to seek extension of the Judgment based on certain grounds.
Second, Plaintiffs argue that they did not have to provide more detailed notice because Defendants themselves had moved for termination of the entire Judgment under 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b). That theory is unavailing because of the terms of the Judgment itself. To the extent that Plaintiffs did not timely move for an extension of the medical services provisions, those parts of the Judgment expired by their own terms. The district court did not need to rule on Defendants' motion to terminate these already expired provisions. See Taylor v. United States, 181 F.3d 1017, 1022 (9th Cir.1999) (en banc) (holding that a motion to terminate a consent decree was "moot" because there was "no ... consent decree left to be terminated").
Third, Plaintiffs contend that more specific notice was unnecessary because the provisions of the Judgment pertaining to mental health, dental, and other medical services are closely related. In a general sense that may be so, but it is readily possible to separate health care services by discipline. Indeed, the fact that Plaintiffs themselves isolated mental health and dental services in the two communications that they sent to Defendants refutes their own argument.
Finally, Plaintiffs assert that Defendants were not prejudiced by the lack of timely notice. Assuming that prejudice is relevant under the terms of the Judgment, Plaintiffs' failure to specify perceived deficiencies outside the areas of mental health and dental care deprived Defendants of the opportunity to correct those deficiencies within the

four-year period during which the Judgment was in effect. By requiring that notice be given one year before the expiration of the Judgment, the Judgment clearly contemplated that Defendants should have such an opportunity.
In summary, we hold that the district court did not err in limiting the scope of the hearing to evidence regarding mental health and dental services at the Prison.
742 *742 B. Application of the PLRA to Plaintiffs' Motion to Extend Jurisdiction
The district court's construction of the PLRA is a question of law, which we review de novo. Gilmore v. California, 220 F.3d 987, 997 (9th Cir.2000).
The district court held that the prospective-relief provisions of the PLRA applied to Plaintiffs' motion to extend jurisdiction. The court then denied the motion on the ground that Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a "current and ongoing violation" of their constitutional rights. Plaintiffs argue that the court should not have applied the PLRA because extension of the Judgment is not "prospective relief" subject to the strict limitations of that statute. In the alternative, they argue that, even if the PLRA does constrain the district court's power to extend the Judgment, the court applied the wrong legal standard. We will examine each of these two arguments in turn.
1. Applicability of the PLRA to Plaintiffs' Motion to Extend Jurisdiction
The PLRA limits the power of federal courts to grant or approve certain remedies in actions challenging prison conditions:
Prospective relief in any civil action with respect to prison conditions shall extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a particular plaintiff or plaintiffs. The court shall not grant or approve any prospective relief unless the court finds that such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.
18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A). As defined by Congress, "the term `prospective relief' means all relief other than compensatory monetary damages." Id. § 3626(g)(7). "[T]he term `relief' means all relief in any form that may be granted or approved by the court, and includes consent decrees...." Id. § 3626(g)(9).
Defendants contend that Plaintiffs' motion for extension of jurisdiction was a request for prospective relief within the meaning of the PLRA. They note that Plaintiffs asked the district court to craft an order that would have governed health services at the Prison for two years after January 12, 1999, making the request both nonmonetary and future oriented. That being so, Defendants argue that § 3626(a)(1)(A) of the PLRA constrained the district court's power to extend jurisdiction over the Judgment.
Plaintiffs counter that their motion did not call for prospective relief because it did not require the court to devise any new remedy. They assert that the motion was nothing more than an attempt to enforce the existing terms of a court order by following the procedures laid out in that order. Because the district court retained continuing jurisdiction over the Judgment, Plaintiffs claim that the PLRA cannot limit the district court's power to extend its jurisdiction.
Plaintiffs' position is rebutted by Ninth Circuit precedents interpreting the meaning of "prospective relief" under the PLRA. We have explained that "[t]he PLRA restricts the power of the court to grant prospective relief regarding any civil action respecting prison conditions." Oluwa v. Gomez, 133 F.3d 1237, 1239 (9th Cir.1998) (emphasis added). The fact that the Judgment was approved before the enactment of the PLRA does not change the status of future remedial requirements as "prospective relief." Id. at 1240. To the contrary, we have held that § 3626 743 applies to all relief other than monetary *743 damages "`whether such relief was originally granted or approved before, on, or after'" the PLRA's enactment. Gilmore, 220 F.3d at 999 n. 15 (quoting Omnibus Consolidated

Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996, Pub.L. No. 104-134, § 101, 110 Stat. 1321, 1321-70). Thus, the Judgment and any extension thereof constitute "prospective relief" under the PLRA.
In support of their view, Plaintiffs cite Essex County Jail Annex Inmates v. Treffinger, 18 F.Supp.2d 445 (D.N.J.1998), and Inmates of Occoquan v. Barry, C.A. No. 86-2128 (D.D.C. July 23, 1996) (unpublished disposition). Of course, neither case binds us. Further, both cases are readily distinguishable.
In each of those cases, the plaintiffs filed motions for contempt in order to enforce substantive provisions of their respective consent decrees. Neither decision addressed a situation in which the plaintiffs were seeking to extend the life of an expiring decree or in which the defendants were seeking to terminate a decree pursuant to the PLRA. See, e.g., Essex County, 18 F.Supp.2d at 462 ("The enforcement of a valid consent decree is not the kind of `prospective relief' considered by § 3626(a). As long as the underlying consent order remains valid 0907neither party has made a 3626(b) motion to terminate0907the court must be able to enforce it.").
In short, the district court properly concluded that the prospective-relief provisions of the PLRA apply to Plaintiffs' motion to extend jurisdiction.[2]
2. Applicable Legal Standard Under the PLRA

Plaintiffs argue in the alternative that, even if § 3626 limited the district court's ability to extend jurisdiction, the court applied the wrong legal standard. Plaintiffs assert that the district court erred by requiring them to prove a "current and ongoing violation" of their constitutional rights. The quoted standard appears in § 3626(b)(3), which pertains to termination proceedings and which states in part: "Prospective relief shall not terminate if the court makes written findings based on the record that prospective relief remains necessary to correct a current and ongoing violation of the Federal right...." (Emphasis added.) We are not persuaded by Plaintiffs' argument.

The quoted standard for termination does not differ materially from the standard to be applied in deciding whether prospective relief is proper. To prevail on their motion to extend jurisdiction, Plaintiffs must establish that the prospective relief "extend[s] no further than necessary to correct the violation of" their Eighth Amendment rights. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) (emphasis added). This standard, too, requires the existence of a constitutional "violation" in need of correction. The text of § 3626(a)(1)(A) suggests that, in the absence of a "current and ongoing" violation, there is no occasion to fashion prospective relief to cure the violation. In other words, if a violation no longer exists, the statute does not permit the court to order prospective relief. As we have declared:

[T]he general standard for granting prospective relief differs little from the standard set forth in §

3626(b)(2) for terminating prospective relief, or from the standard set forth in § 3626(b)(3) for

744

preserving relief to correct a current and ongoing violation. The limits on *744 federal court

jurisdiction are essentially the same 0907 no more than necessary to correct the underlying

constitutional violation.

Gilmore, 220 F.3d at 1006.

To summarize, the district court properly applied the PLRA's prospective-relief provisions to Plaintiffs' motion to extend jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Judgment expired by its own terms unless Plaintiffs proved that the Prison's mental health and dental services violated the Eighth Amendment, an issue to which we now turn.[3]
C. Eighth Amendment Analysis

The district court made extensive factual findings with respect to mental health and dental services. Based on its findings, the court concluded that Plaintiffs had failed to prove that the quality and availability of those services fell below the minimum prescribed by the Eighth Amendment. Therefore, the court determined that the PLRA prevented it from granting Plaintiffs' motion to extend the Judgment.

Whether the Prison's mental health and dental services violate the Eighth Amendment is a mixed question of law and fact. See Campbell v. Wood, 18 F.3d 662, 681 (9th Cir.1994) (en banc) (reviewing whether hanging violates the Eighth Amendment as a mixed question of law and fact). The district court's factual findings regarding conditions at the Prison are reviewed for clear error. However, its conclusion that the facts do not demonstrate an Eighth Amendment violation is a question of law that we review de novo. Id.
Mere medical malpractice does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976). Instead, the Eighth Amendment is violated when prison officials demonstrate "deliberate indifference to serious medical needs." Id. at 104, 97 S.Ct. 285; Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir.1996).
In order to establish a constitutional violation, Plaintiffs must satisfy both the objective and subjective components of a two-part test. Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298-99, 111 S.Ct. 2321, 115 L.Ed.2d 271 (1991). First, they must prove that Defendants have deprived them of the "`minimal civilized measure of life's necessities.'" Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir.1998) (quoting Wilson, 501 U.S. at 304, 111 S.Ct. 2321). Second, Plaintiffs must demonstrate that Defendants acted with "deliberate indifference" in doing so. Wilson, 501 U.S. at 297, 303, 111 S.Ct. 2321. Prison officials are deliberately indifferent to a prisoner's serious medical needs when they "`deny, delay, or intentionally interfere with medical treatment.'" Hamilton v. Endell, 981 F.2d 1062, 1066 (9th Cir.1992) (quoting Hunt v. Dental Dep't, 865 F.2d 198, 201 (9th Cir.1989)). However, the officials' conduct must constitute "`unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain'" before it violates the Eighth Amendment. Estelle, 429 U.S. 745 at 104, 97 S.Ct. 285 (quoting Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 173, 96 S.Ct. 2909, 49 *745 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976)); see also Frost, 152 F.3d at 1128.
This is not an easy test for Plaintiffs to satisfy. To the contrary, this court has explained:
The Eighth Amendment is not a basis for broad prison reform. It requires neither that prisons be comfortable nor that they provide every amenity that one might find desirable. Rather, the Eighth Amendment proscribes the "unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain," which includes those sanctions that are "so totally without penological justification that it results in the gratuitous infliction of suffering."
Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1246 (9th Cir.1982) (citations omitted) (quoting Gregg, 428 U.S. at 173, 183, 96 S.Ct. 2909).
The record in this case is massive, and in our view it contains ample evidence to support either party's characterization of the facts. Because both views are fully plausible, the district court's factual findings with respect to conditions at the Prison are not clearly erroneous.
1. Dental Health Services
After reviewing prisoners' dental records, testimony concerning patient care, and the reports of dental experts, the district court found that "Plaintiffs' concerns regarding the quality of dental services provided at [the Prison] do not appear to be substantiated by the record." The court concluded that, therefore, "Plaintiffs have not shown that the dental services provided at [the Prison] constitute a current and ongoing violation of their constitutional rights." In fact, the court opined that dental services at the Prison were acceptable even under the usual standard of care in nonprison settings: "[P]laintiffs have failed to carry their burden to show that the dental services provided by the dental clinic, and Dr. Weaver in particular, fell below minimum standards of acceptable professional practice."
Plaintiffs have three principal complaints with respect to dental care at the Prison. First, they claim that Dr. Weaver, one of the prison dentists, insists on extracting teeth rather than repairing them. Second, Plaintiffs complain that prisoners face long delays in dental treatment, up to five and one-half months for dentures and six weeks for dental care. Finally, they object to Defendants' "blanket exclusion of pro-phylactic dental care." The district court's findings rejecting each of these contentions are supported by the record.

First, with respect to Plaintiffs' criticism of Dr. Weaver, the court found that the dental clinic "is organized around Dr. Weaver performing extractions and restorations, with the contract dentists performing other routine dental work." In other words, Dr. Weaver performed many extractions because of a division of labor among the prison dentists. Moreover, the district court found that, although Dr. Weaver performs a large number of extractions, patients are advised of the option of root canals on salvageable teeth. The reports and testimony in the record support the district court's findings.[4]
In response to Plaintiffs' second major complaint, the court found that prisoners had access to dental care after a 746 wait of only three weeks for a hygienist and six weeks for a dentist. In addition, it found *746 that emergencies
were treated the same day or the next day. Finally, the court found that the wait for dentures was about four months. Those findings are supported by the record. However, even if the district court's findings on delay were clearly erroneous, Plaintiffs could not prove an Eighth Amendment violation because they have not demonstrated that delays occurred to patients with problems so severe that delays would cause significant harm and that Defendants should have known this to be the case: "[D]elay in providing a prisoner with dental treatment, standing alone, does not constitute an eighth amendment violation." Hunt, 865 F.2d at 200.
Finally, the district court found that, although Defendants do not provide "routine teeth cleaning," Prison dentists "may refer a patient for prophylactic treatment (cleaning and/or scaling) in his or her discretion, and the number of visits with the hygienist is not limited." Further, the court found that "Dr. Weaver refers patients to a hygienist if their periodontal disease requires it" and that "[t]his approach appears to be consistent with the Standards for Health Services in Prisons, published by the National Commission on Correctional Health Care in 1997." The court's findings are supported by the record. In the face of those findings, Plaintiffs cannot establish that the lack of routine teeth cleaning constitutes "deliberate indifference to serious medical needs." Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104, 97 S.Ct. 285.
2. Punishment of Prisoners for "Self-Harm Events"
Plaintiffs next argue that Defendants punish prisoners who are mentally ill for self-harm behavior over which the prisoners have no control and that Defendants punish them without any penological purpose. The district court disagreed as a matter of fact. The court found that many of the prisoners who engage in self-harm have "mixed motivations" for hurting themselves: "It would be a mistake to conclude that all such behavior is attributable to manipulation on the part of the inmates. But it would also be a mistake to conclude that manipulation is not often a part of the individual inmate's agenda." Citing examples of such manipulation, the court found that the sanctions imposed by Defendants are a "reasonable and moderate" response to self harm incidents and that they are designed "to attempt to discourage and deter such behavior," which is a legitimate penological goal.
Although several of the experts whose opinions appear in the record did not agree with those determinations, there is sufficient support in the record to justify the court's findings. Therefore, the present action is distinguishable from those decisions on which Plaintiffs rely. See, e.g., Coleman v. Wilson, 912 F.Supp. 1282, 1320-21 (E.D.Cal.1995); Casey v. Lewis, 834 F.Supp. 1477, 1529-34, 1550 (D.Ariz. 1993); Arnold v. Lewis, 803 F.Supp. 246, 249-51 (D.Ariz.1992). Inmates at the Prison are not "being treated with punitive measures by the custody staff to control the inmates' behavior without regard to the cause of the behavior, the efficacy of such measures, or the impact of those measures on the inmates' mental illnesses." Coleman, 912 F.Supp. at 1320. To the contrary, the sanctions for self-harm are minor, are designed to deter dangerous 0907 and sometimes even 747 deadly 0907 behavior, and are often cleared through the Prison's psychiatrist before imposition.[5]*747 Additionally, the regulation pursuant to which these sanctions are administered requires the hearings officer to "consider the inmate's mental health and his/her intellectual, emotional, and maturity levels and what effect a particular sanction might have on the inmate in light of such factors." Wash. Admin. Code § 137-28-360.
Thus, Plaintiffs failed to prove that Defendants' practice of sanctioning inmates for self-harm constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.

3. Use of Force on Mentally Ill Prisoners
Next, Plaintiffs assert that members of the Prison's staff use force, including pepper spray, on prisoners instead of employing appropriate mental health interventions. We will first address the contentions concerning pepper spray and then consider Plaintiffs' other allegations of force.
The district court found that "the institution does not inappropriately rely on pepper spray as a means of controlling inmates." It noted that
the evidence before the Court is that pepper spray has been used on one occasion.[6] That occasion was videotaped and a copy of the tape is in evidence. The Court has examined the evidence adduced by the parties as to this singular use of pepper spray, and concludes that its use was not inappropriate on this occasion.
The court also ruled that Defendants' general policies on the use of pepper spray are constitutional. The court found that Defendants had authorized the use of pepper spray approximately 20 times, yet it had actually been used only once; that staff are properly trained in the use of pepper spray; and that staff may not employ it without first being personally subjected to it. Further, the court found that
use of pepper spray is carefully considered in advance of its authorization, restricted and confined for limited purposes, and used only very sparingly. Although professionals disagree with respect to the appropriateness of using pepper spray for managing the behavior of mentally ill inmates, [the Prison's] approach to its use does not seem to be unreasonable.
The district court's findings are supported by the record and its conclusions are therefore permissible.[7]
With respect to Defendants' use of other forms of force, the district court found that "the use of force in controlling inmates with mental health problems ... is [not] being misused at [the Prison.] Staff testified that force is used as a last resort, and that when it is used the incident is videotaped." The court concluded that "[n]one of the tapes or the testimony presented at the hearing establishes or even strongly suggests that force is being misused."
748 *748 Plaintiffs point to a handful of incidents in which force was used on mentally ill prisoners in the absence of consultations with mental health staff. However, Plaintiffs did not show that such incidents were commonplace or that Prison officials were deliberately indifferent in any of these incidents. Thus, Plaintiffs have not established a violation of their constitutional rights.
4. Staffing Levels
The best substantiated of all the alleged deficiencies is the small number of mental health staff members at the Prison. The bulk of the evidence in the record suggests that Defendants have failed to respond to the independent monitors' requests for an increase in staffing. Nonetheless, the district court found that the existing level of staffing, while not optimal, has not resulted in an unconstitutionally low level of mental health care. Because the court's findings of adequate mental health care are not clearly erroneous, Plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of demonstrating a violation of the Eighth Amendment.
The district court found that "outpatient services appear to meet the needs of the inmates." It noted that patient requests for mental health services are reviewed and triaged by the next business day, and are addressed substantively within four days. Similarly, it found that "triage groups allow inmates to have contact with a mental health professional on a non crisis basis one weekday after the request is submitted" and that outpatient services include group counseling in a number of areas. The court also noted that inmates with Axis I diagnoses[8] may receive individual counseling. Finally, the court found that one staff member is assigned as the Prison's crisis counselor each day and that outpatients requesting crisis assistance are seen immediately by mental health staff.

With respect to inpatient mental health services, the district court found that group counseling is provided on a weekly basis to prisoners housed in the special mental health Treatment and Evaluation Center. It also found that prisoners in this unit are provided with a treatment plan and that their medications are monitored by the Prison psychiatrist and other staff members. The court noted that, in crisis situations, Defendants maintain a one-to-one watch system, and that inmates who are perceived to be a risk to themselves are placed in a close observation area.
The evidence in the record supports each of the district court's findings. In addition, many of those testifying noted that, in general, Defendants are meeting the basic mental health needs of the prisoners. Thus, the low staffing levels at the Prison do not constitute an Eighth Amendment violation.
5. Other Conditions
Finally, Plaintiffs argue that Defendants' policies with respect to prisoner transfers, mental health segregation, medication management, and the Offender Health Plan violate the Eighth Amendment. However, these contentions find little support in the record.
749 First, Plaintiffs have not established that prison officials are deliberately *749 indifferent to the need to transfer mentally ill prisoners to facilities that may better accommodate their needs. Instead, the record shows that Defendants have tried to transfer at least two mentally ill patients, but that receiving institutions have not accepted the inmates or the inmates began to stabilize. In addition, there is evidence that the civil system could not handle these inmates any better than the Prison has.
Second, Plaintiffs have not proved that Defendants' mental health segregation policy constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. In fact, some of those who testified asserted that conditions in the Prison's closeobservation areas are in accord with prevailing practices in the mental health community.
Third, the district court did not clearly err in finding that Defendants' system for administration and tracking of medications is constitutionally adequate. Although the independent experts expressed concern that the system was insufficiently formal, evidence presented by Defendants shows that both inpatients and outpatients are subject to medication compliance monitoring, that Defendants have increased the number of staff hours dedicated to medication management, and that Defendants have made a number of reforms to their method for distributing medications. Accordingly, there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the district court's finding that medication management at the Prison does not violate the Eighth Amendment.
Finally, Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that Defendants' administration of the Offender Health Plan constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. Although Plaintiffs argue that the plan results in the denial of treatment that Defendants have a constitutional obligation to provide, they raise this complaint primarily in the context of medical care and dental care. Plaintiffs cite insufficient support in the record for their contention that, as a result of the plan, prisoners are not receiving the mental health care that they need.
We conclude that the district court's findings are not clearly erroneous and that Defendants' transfer, segregation, medication management, and health plan policies do not violate the Eighth Amendment.
D. Defendants' Motion to Terminate the Judgment
Because we hold that the district court properly denied Plaintiffs' motion to extend jurisdiction, we need not examine whether the district court erred in its analysis of Defendants' motion to terminate. The Judgment expired by its own terms when the district court denied Plaintiffs' motion to extend and, thus, Defendants' motion to terminate was moot. Cf. Taylor, 181 F.3d at 1022 (holding that a motion to terminate a consent decree was "moot" because there was "no ... consent decree left to be terminated").

E. First Motion for Contempt
A district court's decision to deny a motion for contempt is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Hook v. Ariz. Dep't of Corr., 107 F.3d 1397, 1403 (9th Cir.1997). We may reverse only if the district court has misapprehended the law or rested its decision on a clearly erroneous finding of a material fact. Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712 (9th Cir.2001).
Plaintiffs filed a motion for contempt on February 22, 1999. The district court denied the motion, finding that Defendants had substantially complied with the mental health and dental provisions of the Judgment and that a 750 motion for contempt of the remainder of the Judgment was untimely. *750 We affirm the district court's ruling with respect to the mental health and dental provisions of the Judgment. With respect to the other medical services provisions, however, we conclude that the district court misapprehended the law and therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings.
1. Mental Health and Dental Provisions
Plaintiffs argue in part that the district court improperly denied the contempt motion on the ground that Defendants had not committed an Eighth Amendment violation. However, in its concluding discussion, the court explained:
With respect to dental care and mental health care, the Court has determined that the care provided and steps taken to address those issues substantially complied with the terms of the Stipulation and Judgment. In addition, the Court has concluded that there is not a current and ongoing violation of the Constitutional rights of inmates at [the Prison] with respect to the dental and mental health care provided.
(Emphasis added.) Substantial compliance with the Judgment is an acceptable defense to Plaintiffs' motion for civil contempt. Go-Video, Inc. v. Motion Picture Ass'n of Am. (In re Dual-Deck Video Cassette Recorder Antitrust Litig.), 10 F.3d 693, 695 (9th Cir.1993). The district court addressed that question directly and answered it in Defendants' favor.
Because the court applied the correct legal standard, Plaintiffs are left with their alternative argument that "the district court denied the prisoners' contempt motion based on the erroneous conclusion that [the Prison] had substantially complied with the terms of the Judgment." For the reasons explained in the foregoing sections of this opinion, the district court did not make clearly erroneous findings of fact. The district court concluded that these findings indicate substantial compliance, a conclusion that is not an abuse of discretion.
2. Other Medical Care Provisions
The district court declined even to consider whether Defendants were in contempt for failing to comply substantially with the other medical care provisions of the Judgment. The court reasoned that the motion for contempt was "untimely" because "Plaintiffs failed to give adequate notice [of] their intent to seek an extension of jurisdiction over anything other than dental and mental health care; those terms of the Stipulation and Judgment expired January 12, 1999."
The problem with that reasoning is that the court already had issued two orders "deferring the automatic expiration of the Stipulation and Judgment until the court can enter findings regarding whether an extension of jurisdiction is warranted." Because the orders deferring expiration of the Judgment were worded broadly and did not distinguish between the mental health and dental provisions, on the one hand, and other health services provisions, on the other, the entire Judgment remained in force when Plaintiffs filed their first motion for contempt. That is so even though (as we have held above) the court eventually concluded that Plaintiffs had not sought to extend the Judgment in a timely manner as to the other health services provisions. The temporary extension of the Judgment was in aid of the court's jurisdiction to decide its jurisdiction. That is, the district court had power to

extend the Judgment "for the purpose of preserving existing conditions pending a decision upon its own 751 jurisdiction." United States v. United Mine Workers of Am., 330 U.S. 258, 290, 67 S.Ct. 677, 91 L.Ed. 884 (1947);
*751 see also Matsuk v. INS, 247 F.3d 999, 1000-01 (9th Cir.2001) ("We have jurisdiction `to determine whether jurisdiction exists.'") (quoting Flores-Miramontes v. INS, 212 F.3d 1133, 1135 (9th Cir.2000)).
Defendants argue that the word "provisional" in the orders extending the life of the Judgment meant that the extension affected only those portions of the Judgment concerning mental health and dental care. We are not persuaded. The term "provisional" generally means "temporary." Black's Law Dictionary 1224 (6th ed. 1990) ("Temporary; preliminary; tentative; taken or done by way of precaution or ad interim."); Oxford English Dictionary 719 (2d ed. 1989) ("Of, belonging to, or of the nature of a temporary provision or arrangement; provided or adopted for present needs or for the time being; supplying the place of something regular, permanent, or final...."). Because the orders did not otherwise limit the substantive reach of the extension of the Judgment, we decline to adopt Defendants' idiosyncratic interpretation of the term "provisional."
To the extent that the Judgment required notice before the filing of a motion for contempt alleging a past breach of the substantive terms of the Judgment0907as distinct from the notice required to extend the court's continuing jurisdiction into the future0907Plaintiffs complied with it.[9] Accordingly, the district court's refusal even to consider the merits of Plaintiffs' motion was an abuse of discretion. We reverse this aspect of the decision and remand the case to the district court for further proceedings.
F. Motion to Compel Disclosure of Defendants' Use-of-Force Policies
We review for abuse of discretion the district court's denial of Plaintiffs' motion to compel discovery. Mabe v. San Bernardino County, 237 F.3d 1101, 1112 (9th Cir.2001). As we have explained, "`[b]road discretion is vested in the trial court to permit or deny discovery, and its decision to deny discovery will not be disturbed except upon the clearest showing that denial of discovery results in actual and substantial prejudice to the complaining litigant.'" Goehring v. Brophy, 94 F.3d 1294, 1305 (9th Cir.1996) (quoting Sablan v. Dep't of Fin., 856 F.2d 1317, 1321 (9th Cir.1988)).
The district court refused to order disclosure of Defendants' internal policies regarding the use of force against inmates. Plaintiffs urge reversal on the ground that any matter that reasonably can be expected to lead to admissible evidence is discoverable. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1).
The disputed evidence was only minimally relevant to Plaintiffs' case. As the district court permissibly found after reviewing the policies in camera, "there is a very small portion of those documents which might have some minimal relevance to the issues which have been placed before the Court." Because Plaintiffs suffered no prejudice from the denial of their motion to compel, they are not entitled to reversal on that ground.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the district court's denial of Plaintiffs' motion to extend jurisdiction over the Judgment and its denial of Plaintiffs' motion to compel discovery.
752 *752 However, we reverse in part the district court's denial of Plaintiffs' first contempt motion. On remand, the court shall consider the merits of Plaintiffs' contention that Defendants failed to substantially comply with the medical services provisions of the Judgment.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this opinion. The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.
[1] Plaintiffs' second contempt motion is addressed in a separate Order.

[2] Arguably, the prospective-relief provisions of the PLRA applied to the district court's earlier, provisional extensions of the Judgment. However, Defendants did not cross-appeal on this issue, and they conceded at oral argument that the issue is not before us.
[3] Section 3626(a)(1)(A) also states that prospective relief may not be granted "unless the court finds that such relief is narrowly drawn... and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right." 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A). The district court did not reach those questions because it determined that the Judgment extended "further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a particular plaintiff or plaintiffs." Id. Because we affirm the district court, we likewise need not reach these additional issues.
[4] For example, the independent expert charged with monitoring dental care at the Prison reported that he "saw nothing to indicate that too many extractions were being done," that he "fe[lt] confident that patients are provided an option when it comes to extracting salvageable teeth," and that "Dr. Weaver has developed an unwarranted reputation for extracting too many teeth."
[5] The Prison's former psychiatrist testified that she had never been consulted before an infraction was issued, but that she had been consulted before sanctions were imposed for an infraction.
[6] After the evidentiary hearing, Plaintiffs submitted evidence demonstrating that pepper spray had been used on two other occasions. However, Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the use of spray in these instances was inappropriate. Further, the later-introduced evidence does not make the district court's earlier finding erroneous.
[7] Regarding the use of force and sanctions for self-harm, Plaintiffs quarrel with the court's use of the word "reasonable," suggesting that the court inappropriately applied the standard of Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987), in the Eighth Amendment context. See Jordan v. Gardner, 986 F.2d 1521, 1530 (9th Cir.1993) (en banc) (holding that Turner does not apply to Eighth Amendment claims). Considered as a whole, however, the findings demonstrate that the court correctly applied traditional Eighth Amendment standards.
[8] The American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed.1994, text rev.2000) categorizes mental diagnoses under five different axes. Axis I diagnoses include mood and anxiety disorders, schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders, substance-related disorders, eating disorders, sleep disorders, and impulse-control disorders.
[9] Unless "undue delay or imminent harm to any party" would result, the Judgment required the parties to submit their disputes to a mediator before bringing them before the court. Plaintiffs satisfied that requirement, reaching an impasse with Defendants on January 29, 1999.
Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.

 
 287 F.3d 1193 (2002)
Shannon HALLETT; Yvonne Wood; Gail Ray; Cindy Stewart; Rena Skilton, PlaintiffsAppellants, v.
Donna MORGAN, Health Care Manager, in her official and individual capacities, and Belinda Stewart, Superintendent, Washington Corrections Center for Women, in her official capacity, and their officers, agents, employees, and successors; and Alice Payne,
in her individual capacity, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 00-35098.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted January 8, 2002. Filed April 26, 2002.
11945678 *1194 *1195 *1196 *1197 *1198 Patricia J. Arthur, Columbia Legal Services, Seattle, WA, Katrin E. Frank, MacDonald Hoague & Bayless, Seattle, WA, David C. Fathi, ACLU Nat. Prison Project, Washington, DC, Aaron H. Caplan, ACLU of Washington, Seattle, WA, for the plaintiffs-appellants.
Carol A. Murphy and Wm. Andrew Myers, Assistant Attorneys General, Olympia, WA, for the defendantsappellees.
1199 *1199 Before THOMAS, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
OPINION
GRABER, Circuit Judge.
Plaintiffs, who are a class of prisoners at the Washington Corrections Center for Women (the Prison), brought this action in 1993 to challenge conditions of their confinement. Defendants, who are current and former prison officials, entered into a consent decree with Plaintiffs governing the quality and availability of medical, dental, and mental health services at the Prison. Under the terms of the parties' agreement, the decree was to expire on January 12, 1999, unless timely extended. In 1998, Plaintiffs moved to extend jurisdiction over the consent decree for an additional period of time. Plaintiffs also moved, twice, to have Defendants held in contempt for past violations of the consent decree and moved to compel discovery. The district court denied all of Plaintiffs' motions, and it granted a motion brought by Defendants to terminate the consent decree.
We have jurisdiction over this timely appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we hold: (a) The district court properly limited the scope of the evidentiary hearing to the dental and mental health provisions of the consent decree, because Plaintiffs failed to give timely notice of their intent to seek extension of any other provisions. (b) The prospective-relief provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3626, apply to Plaintiffs' motion to extend the decree. (c) Based on the district court's findings of fact, which are not clearly erroneous, the conditions of confinement at the Prison do not violate the Eighth Amendment and, therefore, the PLRA mandates that the motion to extend the decree be denied. (d) In light of this ruling, Defendants' motion to terminate the consent decree is moot. (e) In response to Plaintiffs' first contempt motion, the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Defendants had substantially complied with the dental and mental health provisions of the consent decree. However, the court improperly declined to consider whether Defendants had substantially complied with the other health care provisions, because the entire consent decree was still in effect when Plaintiffs filed their motion.[1] (f) Plaintiffs are not entitled to a reversal based on the district court's denial of their discovery motion, because they suffered no prejudice.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This appeal represents the culmination of a long sequence of disputes and compromises between the parties. Plaintiffs filed this class action in 1993, alleging that health care at the Prison violated the Eighth Amendment. On January 12, 1995, the district court approved the parties' Stipulation and Judgment (Judgment), which resolved Plaintiffs' claims and required Defendants to implement a number of changes in the Prison's health care policies. The parties also agreed to a system of independent monitoring. Under the terms of the Judgment, the district court's jurisdiction was to terminate automatically on January 12, 1999. However, the Judgment also contained a procedure for extending the court's jurisdiction beyond that date.
1200 As the expiration date of the Judgment approached, Plaintiffs sought to extend it *1200 for an additional four years. They alleged that Defendants had not substantially complied with the Judgment with respect to medical, dental, and mental health services. Defendants responded by arguing that Plaintiffs had not complied with the notice provisions of the Judgment and that any extension of the district court's jurisdiction would violate the prospective-relief provisions of the PLRA.
The district court provisionally changed the expiration date of the Judgment to February 12, 1999, anticipating that this extension would give the court enough time to review the merits of Plaintiffs' motion to extend jurisdiction. When it became apparent that more time was necessary, the court again extended jurisdiction over the Judgment until it could enter a final order resolving the parties' dispute.
On February 11, 1999, the district court granted Plaintiffs' motion for an evidentiary hearing, but it also held that the prospective-relief provisions of the PLRA would apply. The same day, Defendants filed a motion in the alternative for an order terminating the Judgment pursuant to § 3626(b) of the PLRA. Plaintiffs responded on February 22, 1999, with a motion for contempt alleging that Defendants had failed to substantially comply with the terms of the Judgment.
The court held a two-week evidentiary hearing on Plaintiffs' motion to extend jurisdiction. Because it found that Plaintiffs had complied with the Judgment's notice requirements only with respect to mental health and dental services, the court limited the scope of the hearing to those topics.
After weighing the voluminous record and the testimony offered at the hearing, the court concluded that Plaintiffs were not entitled to an extension of the Judgment. It held that Plaintiffs had not demonstrated that the quality and availability of mental health and dental care services at the Prison fell below Eighth Amendment standards and that, therefore, the prospective-relief provisions of the PLRA barred the court from granting Plaintiffs' motion. The court also denied Plaintiffs' motion for contempt and their motion to compel discovery. Finally, the court granted Defendants' motion to terminate the Judgment pursuant to § 3626(b) of the PLRA.
Plaintiffs filed a timely notice of appeal and a motion for injunctive relief. We granted the motion and issued an order reinstating the Judgment pending resolution of this appeal.
Plaintiffs then filed a second motion for contempt. The district court held that, pursuant to the orders issued by this court, it lacked jurisdiction to entertain Plaintiffs' motion.
DISCUSSION
A. Scope of the Evidentiary Hearing on Extension of the Judgment
The terms of the Judgment govern the timeliness of motions to extend the district court's jurisdiction. The proper scope of the evidentiary hearing on extension is therefore a question of law to be reviewed de novo. Gates v. Gomez, 60 F.3d 525, 530 (9th Cir.1995). However, we must also "`give deference to the district court's interpretation[of the Judgment] based on the court's extensive oversight of the decree from the commencement

of the litigation to the current appeal.'" Id. (quoting Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 934 F.2d 1092, 1094 (9th Cir. 1991)). That principle applies here, where the same judge has overseen this litigation since 1994.
Under the terms of the Judgment, the district court's continuing jurisdiction was to expire on January 12, 1999, 1201 unless extended *1201 in the manner established by the Judgment itself:
This Court has continuing jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this Stipulation and Judgment for four years following the date of its entry by this Court. Except as provided below, at the conclusion of this period the Court's jurisdiction shall terminate, this Stipulation and Judgment shall be vacated, and this case shall be dismissed.
As noted, the date of entry of the Judgment was January 12, 1995. The procedure for extending the court's jurisdiction was specific:
1. By no later than three years following the date of entry of this Stipulation and Judgment, Plaintiffs shall serve upon Defendants written notice of their intent to seek an extension; and
2. In the written notice described in paragraph (1) above, Plaintiffs shall identify with particularity the areas in which they allege Defendants have not substantially complied with the conditions of this Stipulation and Judgment[.]
Thus, Plaintiffs had only until January 12, 1998, to provide Defendants with written notice of their intent to file a motion to extend jurisdiction.
The district court did not err when it ruled that Plaintiffs complied with that notice procedure only as to some of the claims that they now seek to raise. Although Plaintiffs did give timely and sufficient notice of their intent to seek an extension of the mental health and dental provisions of the Judgment, they failed to do so with respect to the provisions governing other medical services at the Prison. Plaintiffs' counsel sent a letter to Defendants on December 16, 1997, which read in part: "[P]laintiffs plan to ask the court to extend jurisdiction as allowed under the decree. We believe that defendants are not yet in compliance with the mental health and dental portions of the decree and that additional time is required to monitor those areas." (Emphasis added.) The following day, Plaintiffs' counsel sent a second letter:
In the letter I sent to you yesterday I inadvertently omitted the words "at least" before describing the areas of non-compliance on which plaintiffs will base an extension of jurisdiction motion. What I intended to say is that plaintiffs believe that defendants are not in compliance with at least the dental and mental health portions of the Hallett decree.
We are presently reviewing the documents you recently sent, talking to clients, and may engage expert(s) on the question of compliance in all areas of the decree. In January we plan to provide you with more specific notice of plaintiffs' areas of concern, which we now know will include, at a minimum, dental and mental health. And we anticipate at this time seeking an extension of court jurisdiction over the decree.
Contrary to the assurance in the second letter, Plaintiffs did not provide Defendants with more specific notice of areas of concern until after the period for timely notice had expired.
The Judgment required Plaintiffs to "identify with particularity" the alleged deficiencies in Defendants' compliance. As the district court explained, the words "at least" were simply "not sufficient to put defendants on notice with particularity of any areas in addition to mental health and dental care in which plaintiffs were alleging that defendants had not complied with the conditions of the 1995 Stipulation and Judgment." Neither did the bare promise of more detail in the future suffice to substitute for actual timely detail.
1202 *1202 Plaintiffs offer four reasons why the notice sufficed with respect to all areas of health care covered by the Judgment, and not just mental health and dental care. None persuades us.
First, they argue that Defendants had constructive notice of the additional areas of alleged deficiency because of adverse reports from the professional consultants who had been monitoring compliance with the Judgment and

letters of complaint from prisoners. The district court found, however, that "the experts had noted with satisfaction the significant progress that had been made in all areas" that they had identified as needing improvement. Those findings are not clearly erroneous. Because the experts' reports pointed to improvements, not just to deficiencies, the reports did not provide constructive notice even if, in theory, they could have done so under the terms of the Judgment. The prisoners' complaint letters are insufficient because complaints from individual prisoners are not the same thing as notice that the class as a whole intends to seek extension of the Judgment based on certain grounds.
Second, Plaintiffs argue that they did not have to provide more detailed notice because Defendants themselves had moved for termination of the entire Judgment under 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b). That theory is unavailing because of the terms of the Judgment itself. To the extent that Plaintiffs did not timely move for an extension of the medical services provisions, those parts of the Judgment expired by their own terms. The district court did not need to rule on Defendants' motion to terminate these already expired provisions. See Taylor v. United States, 181 F.3d 1017, 1022 (9th Cir.1999) (en banc) (holding that a motion to terminate a consent decree was "moot" because there was "no ... consent decree left to be terminated").
Third, Plaintiffs contend that more specific notice was unnecessary because the provisions of the Judgment pertaining to mental health, dental, and other medical services are closely related. In a general sense that may be so, but it is readily possible to separate health care services by discipline. Indeed, the fact that Plaintiffs themselves isolated mental health and dental services in the two communications that they sent to Defendants refutes their own argument.
Finally, Plaintiffs assert that Defendants were not prejudiced by the lack of timely notice. Assuming that prejudice is relevant under the terms of the Judgment, Plaintiffs' failure to specify perceived deficiencies outside the areas of mental health and dental care deprived Defendants of the opportunity to correct those deficiencies within the four-year period during which the Judgment was in effect. By requiring that notice be given one year before the expiration of the Judgment, the Judgment clearly contemplated that Defendants should have such an opportunity.
In summary, we hold that the district court did not err in limiting the scope of the hearing to evidence regarding mental health and dental services at the Prison.
B. Application of the PLRA to Plaintiffs' Motion to Extend Jurisdiction
The district court's construction of the PLRA is a question of law, which we review de novo. Gilmore v. California, 220 F.3d 987, 997 (9th Cir.2000). The district court held that the prospective-relief provisions of the PLRA applied to Plaintiffs' motion to extend jurisdiction. The court then denied the motion on the ground that Plaintiffs failed to 1203 demonstrate *1203 a "current and ongoing violation" of their constitutional rights. Plaintiffs argue that the court should not have applied the PLRA because extension of the Judgment is not "prospective relief" subject to the strict limitations of that statute. In the alternative, they argue that, even if the PLRA does constrain the district court's power to extend the Judgment, the court applied the wrong legal standard. We will examine each of these two arguments in turn.
1. Applicability of the PLRA to Plaintiffs' Motion to Extend Jurisdiction
The PLRA limits the power of federal courts to grant or approve certain remedies in actions challenging prison conditions:
Prospective relief in any civil action with respect to prison conditions shall extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a particular plaintiff or plaintiffs. The court shall not grant or approve any prospective relief unless the court finds that such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.

18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A). As defined by Congress, "the term `prospective relief' means all relief other than compensatory monetary damages." Id. § 3626(g)(7). "[T]he term `relief' means all relief in any form that may be granted or approved by the court, and includes consent decrees...." Id. § 3626(g)(9).
Defendants contend that Plaintiffs' motion for extension of jurisdiction was a request for prospective relief within the meaning of the PLRA. They note that Plaintiffs asked the district court to craft an order that would have governed health services at the Prison for two years after January 12, 1999, making the request both nonmonetary and future-oriented. That being so, Defendants argue that § 3626(a)(1)(A) of the PLRA constrained the district court's power to extend jurisdiction over the Judgment.
Plaintiffs counter that their motion did not call for prospective relief because it did not require the court to devise any new remedy. They assert that the motion was nothing more than an attempt to enforce the existing terms of a court order by following the procedures laid out in that order. Because the district court retained continuing jurisdiction over the Judgment, Plaintiffs claim that the PLRA cannot limit the district court's power to extend its jurisdiction.
Plaintiffs' position is rebutted by Ninth Circuit precedents interpreting the meaning of "prospective relief" under the PLRA. We have explained that "[t]he PLRA restricts the power of the court to grant prospective relief regarding any civil action respecting prison conditions." Oluwa v. Gomez, 133 F.3d 1237, 1239 (9th Cir.1998) (emphasis added). The fact that the Judgment was approved before the enactment of the PLRA does not change the status of future remedial requirements as "prospective relief." Id. at 1240. To the contrary, we have held that § 3626 applies to all relief other than monetary damages "`whether such relief was originally granted or approved before, on, or after'" the PLRA's enactment. Gilmore, 220 F.3d at 999 n. 15 (quoting Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996, Pub.L. No. 104-134, § 101, 110 Stat. 1321, 1321-70). Thus, the Judgment and any extension thereof constitute "prospective relief" under the PLRA.
1204 In support of their view, Plaintiffs cite Essex County Jail Annex Inmates v. Treffinger, *1204 18 F.Supp.2d 445 (D.N.J.1998), and Inmates of Occoquan v. Barry, C.A. No. 86-2128 (D.D.C. July 23, 1996) (unpublished disposition). Of course, neither case binds us. Further, both cases are readily distinguishable.
In each of those cases, the plaintiffs filed motions for contempt in order to enforce substantive provisions of their respective consent decrees. Neither decision addressed a situation in which the plaintiffs were seeking to extend the life of an expiring decree or in which the defendants were seeking to terminate a decree pursuant to the PLRA. See, e.g., Essex County, 18 F.Supp.2d at 462 ("The enforcement of a valid consent decree is not the kind of `prospective relief' considered by § 3626(a). As long as the underlying consent order remains valid 0907 neither party has made a 3626(b) motion to terminate 0907 the court must be able to enforce it.").
In short, the district court properly concluded that the prospective-relief provisions of the PLRA apply to Plaintiffs' motion to extend jurisdiction.[2]
2. Applicable Legal Standard Under the PLRA
Plaintiffs argue in the alternative that, even if § 3626 limited the district court's ability to extend jurisdiction, the court applied the wrong legal standard. Plaintiffs assert that the district court erred by requiring them to prove a "current and ongoing violation" of their constitutional rights. The quoted standard appears in § 3626(b)(3), which pertains to termination proceedings and which states in part: "Prospective relief shall not terminate if the court makes written findings based on the record that prospective relief remains necessary to correct a current and ongoing violation of the Federal right...." (Emphasis added.) We are not persuaded by Plaintiffs' argument.
The quoted standard for termination does not differ materially from the standard to be applied in deciding whether prospective relief is proper. To prevail on their motion to extend jurisdiction, Plaintiffs must establish that the prospective relief "extend[s] no further than necessary to correct the violation of" their Eighth Amendment rights. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) (emphasis added). This standard, too, requires the existence of a constitutional "violation" in need of correction. The text of § 3626(a)(1)(A) suggests that, in the absence of a "current and

ongoing" violation, there is no occasion to fashion prospective relief to cure the violation. In other words, if a violation no longer exists, the statute does not permit the court to order prospective relief. As we have declared:
[T]he general standard for granting prospective relief differs little from the standard set forth in § 3626(b)(2) for terminating prospective relief, or from the standard set forth in § 3626(b)(3) for preserving relief to correct a current and ongoing violation. The limits on federal court jurisdiction are essentially the same 0907 no more than necessary to correct the underlying constitutional violation.
Gilmore, 220 F.3d at 1006.
To summarize, the district court properly applied the PLRA's prospective-relief provisions to Plaintiffs' motion to extend jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Judgment expired by its own terms unless Plaintiffs proved that the Prison's 1205 mental health and dental services violated the Eighth *1205 Amendment, an issue to which we now turn.[3]
C. Eighth Amendment Analysis

The district court made extensive factual findings with respect to mental health and dental services. Based on its findings, the court concluded that Plaintiffs had failed to prove that the quality and availability of those services fell below the minimum prescribed by the Eighth Amendment. Therefore, the court determined that the PLRA prevented it from granting Plaintiffs' motion to extend the Judgment.

Whether the Prison's mental health and dental services violate the Eighth Amendment is a mixed question of law and fact. See Campbell v. Wood, 18 F.3d 662, 681 (9th Cir.1994) (en banc) (reviewing whether hanging violates the Eighth Amendment as a mixed question of law and fact). The district court's factual findings regarding conditions at the Prison are reviewed for clear error. However, its conclusion that the facts do not demonstrate an Eighth Amendment violation is a question of law that we review de novo. Id.

Mere medical malpractice does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976). Instead, the Eighth Amendment is violated when prison officials demonstrate "deliberate indifference to serious medical needs." Id. at 104, 97 S.Ct. 285; Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir.1996).

In order to establish a constitutional violation, Plaintiffs must satisfy both the objective and subjective components of a two-part test. Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298-99, 111 S.Ct. 2321, 115 L.Ed.2d 271 (1991). First, they must prove that Defendants have deprived them of the "`minimal civilized measure of life's necessities.'" Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir.1998) (quoting Wilson, 501 U.S. at 304, 111 S.Ct. 2321). Second, Plaintiffs must demonstrate that Defendants acted with "deliberate indifference" in doing so. Wilson, 501 U.S. at 297, 303, 111 S.Ct. 2321. Prison officials are deliberately indifferent to a prisoner's serious medical needs when they "`deny, delay, or intentionally interfere with medical treatment.'" Hamilton v. Endell, 981 F.2d 1062, 1066 (9th Cir.1992) (quoting Hunt v. Dental Dep't, 865 F.2d 198, 201 (9th Cir.1989)). However, the officials' conduct must constitute "`unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain'" before it violates the Eighth Amendment. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104, 97 S.Ct. 285 (quoting Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 173, 96 S.Ct. 2909, 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976)); see also Frost, 152 F.3d at 1128.

This is not an easy test for Plaintiffs to satisfy. To the contrary, this court has explained:

1206

The Eighth Amendment is not a basis for broad prison reform. It requires neither that prisons be comfortable nor that they provide every amenity that one might find desirable. Rather, the Eighth Amendment proscribes the "unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain," which includes those sanctions that are *1206 "so totally without penological justification that it results in the gratuitous infliction of suffering."

Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1246 (9th Cir.1982) (citations omitted) (quoting Gregg, 428 U.S. at 173, 183, 96 S.Ct. 2909).

The record in this case is massive, and in our view it contains ample evidence to support either party's characterization of the facts. Because both views are fully plausible, the district court's factual findings with respect to conditions at the Prison are not clearly erroneous.
1. Dental Health Services
After reviewing prisoners' dental records, testimony concerning patient care, and the reports of dental experts, the district court found that "Plaintiffs' concerns regarding the quality of dental services provided at [the Prison] do not appear to be substantiated by the record." The court concluded that, therefore, "Plaintiffs have not shown that the dental services provided at [the Prison] constitute a current and ongoing violation of their constitutional rights." In fact, the court opined that dental services at the Prison were acceptable even under the usual standard of care in nonprison settings: "[P]laintiffs have failed to carry their burden to show that the dental services provided by the dental clinic, and Dr. Weaver in particular, fell below minimum standards of acceptable professional practice."
Plaintiffs have three principal complaints with respect to dental care at the Prison. First, they claim that Dr. Weaver, one of the prison dentists, insists on extracting teeth rather than repairing them. Second, Plaintiffs complain that prisoners face long delays in dental treatment, up to five and one-half months for dentures and six weeks for dental care. Finally, they object to Defendants'"blanket exclusion of prophylactic dental care." The district court's findings rejecting each of these contentions are supported by the record.
First, with respect to Plaintiffs' criticism of Dr. Weaver, the court found that the dental clinic "is organized around Dr. Weaver performing extractions and restorations, with the contract dentists performing other routine dental work." In other words, Dr. Weaver performed many extractions because of a division of labor among the prison dentists. Moreover, the district court found that, although Dr. Weaver performs a large number of extractions, patients are advised of the option of root canals on salvageable teeth. The reports and testimony in the record support the district court's findings.[4]
In response to Plaintiffs' second major complaint, the court found that prisoners had access to dental care after a wait of only three weeks for a hygienist and six weeks for a dentist. In addition, it found that emergencies were treated the same day or the next day. Finally, the court found that the wait for dentures was about four months. Those findings are supported by the record. However, even if the district court's findings on delay were clearly erroneous, Plaintiffs could not prove an Eighth Amendment violation because they have not demonstrated that delays occurred to patients with problems so severe that delays would cause significant harm and that 1207 Defendants should have known this to be the case: "[D]elay in providing a prisoner with dental treatment, *1207 standing alone, does not constitute an eighth amendment violation." Hunt, 865 F.2d at 200.
Finally, the district court found that, although Defendants do not provide "routine teeth cleaning," Prison dentists "may refer a patient for prophylactic treatment (cleaning and/or scaling) in his or her discretion, and the number of visits with the hygienist is not limited." Further, the court found that "Dr. Weaver refers patients to a hygienist if their periodontal disease requires it" and that "[t]his approach appears to be consistent with the Standards for Health Services in Prisons, published by the National Commission on Correctional Health Care in 1997." The court's findings are supported by the record. In the face of those findings, Plaintiffs cannot establish that the lack of routine teeth cleaning constitutes "deliberate indifference to serious medical needs." Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104, 97 S.Ct. 285.
2. Punishment of Prisoners for "Self-Harm Events"
Plaintiffs next argue that Defendants punish prisoners who are mentally ill for self-harm behavior over which the prisoners have no control and that Defendants punish them without any penological purpose. The district court disagreed as a matter of fact. The court found that many of the prisoners who engage in self-harm have "mixed motivations" for hurting themselves: "It would be a mistake to conclude that all such behavior is attributable to manipulation on the part of the inmates. But it would also be a mistake to conclude that manipulation is not often

a part of the individual inmate's agenda." Citing examples of such manipulation, the court found that the sanctions imposed by Defendants are a "reasonable and moderate" response to self-harm incidents and that they are designed "to attempt to discourage and deter such behavior," which is a legitimate penological goal.
Although several of the experts whose opinions appear in the record did not agree with those determinations, there is sufficient support in the record to justify the court's findings. Therefore, the present action is distinguishable from those decisions on which Plaintiffs rely. See, e.g., Coleman v. Wilson, 912 F.Supp. 1282, 1320-21 (E.D.Cal.1995); Casey v. Lewis, 834 F.Supp. 1477, 1529-34, 1550 (D.Ariz.1993); Arnold v. Lewis, 803 F.Supp. 246, 249-51 (D.Ariz.1992). Inmates at the Prison are not "being treated with punitive measures by the custody staff to control the inmates' behavior without regard to the cause of the behavior, the efficacy of such measures, or the impact of those measures on the inmates' mental illnesses." Coleman, 912 F.Supp. at 1320. To the contrary, the sanctions for self-harm are minor, are designed to deter dangerous 0907 and sometimes even deadly 0907 behavior, and are often cleared through the Prison's psychiatrist before imposition.[5] Additionally, the regulation pursuant to which these sanctions are administered requires the hearings officer to "consider the inmate's mental health and his/ her intellectual, emotional, and maturity levels and what effect a particular sanction might have on the inmate in light of such factors." Wash. Admin. Code § 137-28-360.
Thus, Plaintiffs failed to prove that Defendants' practice of sanctioning inmates for self-harm constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.
1208 *1208 3. Use of Force on Mentally Ill Prisoners
Next, Plaintiffs assert that members of the Prison's staff use force, including pepper spray, on prisoners instead of employing appropriate mental health interventions. We will first address the contentions concerning pepper spray and then consider Plaintiffs' other allegations of force.
The district court found that "the institution does not inappropriately rely on pepper spray as a means of controlling inmates." It noted that
the evidence before the Court is that pepper spray has been used on one occasion.[6] That occasion was videotaped and a copy of the tape is in evidence. The Court has examined the evidence adduced by the parties as to this singular use of pepper spray, and concludes that its use was not inappropriate on this occasion.
The court also ruled that Defendants' general policies on the use of pepper spray are constitutional. The court found that Defendants had authorized the use of pepper spray approximately 20 times, yet it had actually been used only once; that staff are properly trained in the use of pepper spray; and that staff may not employ it without first being personally subjected to it. Further, the court found that
use of pepper spray is carefully considered in advance of its authorization, restricted and confined for limited purposes, and used only very sparingly. Although professionals disagree with respect to the appropriateness of using pepper spray for managing the behavior of mentally ill inmates, [the Prison's] approach to its use does not seem to be unreasonable.
The district court's findings are supported by the record and its conclusions are therefore permissible.[7]
With respect to Defendants' use of other forms of force, the district court found that "the use of force in controlling inmates with mental health problems ... is [not] being misused at [the Prison.] Staff testified that force is used as a last resort, and that when it is used the incident is videotaped." The court concluded that "[n]one of the tapes or the testimony presented at the hearing establishes or even strongly suggests that force is being misused."
Plaintiffs point to a handful of incidents in which force was used on mentally ill prisoners in the absence of consultations with mental health staff. However, Plaintiffs did not show that such incidents were commonplace or that Prison officials were deliberately indifferent in any of these incidents. Thus, Plaintiffs have not established a violation of their constitutional rights.

4. Staffing Levels
1209 The best substantiated of all the alleged deficiencies is the small number of *1209 mental health staff members at the Prison. The bulk of the evidence in the record suggests that Defendants have failed to respond to the independent monitors' requests for an increase in staffing. Nonetheless, the district court found that the existing level of staffing, while not optimal, has not resulted in an unconstitutionally low level of mental health care. Because the court's findings of adequate mental health care are not clearly erroneous, Plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of demonstrating a violation of the Eighth Amendment.
The district court found that "outpatient services appear to meet the needs of the inmates." It noted that patient requests for mental health services are reviewed and triaged by the next business day, and are addressed substantively within four days. Similarly, it found that "triage groups allow inmates to have contact with a mental health professional on a non crisis basis one weekday after the request is submitted" and that outpatient services include group counseling in a number of areas. The court also noted that inmates with Axis I diagnoses[8] may receive individual counseling. Finally, the court found that one staff member is assigned as the Prison's crisis counselor each day and that outpatients requesting crisis assistance are seen immediately by mental health staff.
With respect to inpatient mental health services, the district court found that group counseling is provided on a weekly basis to prisoners housed in the special mental health Treatment and Evaluation Center. It also found that prisoners in this unit are provided with a treatment plan and that their medications are monitored by the Prison psychiatrist and other staff members. The court noted that, in crisis situations, Defendants maintain a one-to-one watch system, and that inmates who are perceived to be a risk to themselves are placed in a close observation area.
The evidence in the record supports each of the district court's findings. In addition, many of those testifying noted that, in general, Defendants are meeting the basic mental health needs of the prisoners. Thus, the low staffing levels at the Prison do not constitute an Eighth Amendment violation.
5. Other Conditions
Finally, Plaintiffs argue that Defendants' policies with respect to prisoner transfers, mental health segregation, medication management, and the Offender Health Plan violate the Eighth Amendment. However, these contentions find little support in the record.
First, Plaintiffs have not established that prison officials are deliberately indifferent to the need to transfer mentally ill prisoners to facilities that may better accommodate their needs. Instead, the record shows that Defendants have tried to transfer at least two mentally ill patients, but that receiving institutions have not accepted the inmates or the inmates began to stabilize. In addition, there is evidence that the civil system could not handle these inmates any better than the Prison has.
Second, Plaintiffs have not proved that Defendants' mental health segregation policy constitutes cruel and 1210 unusual *1210 punishment. In fact, some of those who testified asserted that conditions in the Prison's close-
observation areas are in accord with prevailing practices in the mental health community.
Third, the district court did not clearly err in finding that Defendants' system for administration and tracking of medications is constitutionally adequate. Although the independent experts expressed concern that the system was insufficiently formal, evidence presented by Defendants shows that both inpatients and outpatients are subject to medication compliance monitoring, that Defendants have increased the number of staff hours dedicated to medication management, and that Defendants have made a number of reforms to their method for distributing medications. Accordingly, there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the district court's finding that medication management at the Prison does not violate the Eighth Amendment.
Finally, Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that Defendants' administration of the Offender Health Plan constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. Although Plaintiffs argue that the plan results in the denial of treatment

that Defendants have a constitutional obligation to provide, they raise this complaint primarily in the context of medical care and dental care. Plaintiffs cite insufficient support in the record for their contention that, as a result of the plan, prisoners are not receiving the mental health care that they need.
We conclude that the district court's findings are not clearly erroneous and that Defendants' transfer, segregation, medication management, and health plan policies do not violate the Eighth Amendment.
D. Defendants' Motion to Terminate the Judgment
Because we hold that the district court properly denied Plaintiffs' motion to extend jurisdiction, we need not examine whether the district court erred in its analysis of Defendants' motion to terminate. The Judgment expired by its own terms when the district court denied Plaintiffs' motion to extend and, thus, Defendants' motion to terminate was moot. Cf. Taylor, 181 F.3d at 1022 (holding that a motion to terminate a consent decree was "moot" because there was "no ... consent decree left to be terminated").
E. First Motion for Contempt
A district court's decision to deny a motion for contempt is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Hook v. Ariz. Dep't of Corr., 107 F.3d 1397, 1403 (9th Cir.1997). We may reverse only if the district court has misapprehended the law or rested its decision on a clearly erroneous finding of a material fact. Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712 (9th Cir.2001).
Plaintiffs filed a motion for contempt on February 22, 1999. The district court denied the motion, finding that Defendants had substantially complied with the mental health and dental provisions of the Judgment and that a motion for contempt of the remainder of the Judgment was untimely. We affirm the district court's ruling with respect to the mental health and dental provisions of the Judgment. With respect to the other medical services provisions, however, we conclude that the district court misapprehended the law and therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings.
1. Mental Health and Dental Provisions
Plaintiffs argue in part that the district court improperly denied the contempt motion on the ground that 1211 Defendants *1211 had not committed an Eighth Amendment violation. However, in its concluding discussion, the
court explained:
With respect to dental care and mental health care, the Court has determined that the care provided and steps taken to address those issues substantially complied with the terms of the Stipulation and Judgment. In addition, the Court has concluded that there is not a current and ongoing violation of the Constitutional rights of inmates at [the Prison] with respect to the dental and mental health care provided.
(Emphasis added.) Substantial compliance with the Judgment is an acceptable defense to Plaintiffs' motion for civil contempt. Go-Video, Inc. v. Motion Picture Ass'n of Am. (In re Dual-Deck Video Cassette Recorder Antitrust Litig.), 10 F.3d 693, 695 (9th Cir.1993). The district court addressed that question directly and answered it in Defendants' favor.
Because the court applied the correct legal standard, Plaintiffs are left with their alternative argument that "the district court denied the prisoners' contempt motion based on the erroneous conclusion that [the Prison] had substantially complied with the terms of the Judgment." For the reasons explained in the foregoing sections of this opinion, the district court did not make clearly erroneous findings of fact. The district court concluded that these findings indicate substantial compliance, a conclusion that is not an abuse of discretion.

2. Other Medical Care Provisions
The district court declined even to consider whether Defendants were in contempt for failing to comply substantially with the other medical care provisions of the Judgment. The court reasoned that the motion for contempt was "untimely" because "Plaintiffs failed to give adequate notice [of] their intent to seek an extension of jurisdiction over anything other than dental and mental health care; those terms of the Stipulation and Judgment expired January 12, 1999."
The problem with that reasoning is that the court already had issued two orders "deferring the automatic expiration of the Stipulation and Judgment until the court can enter findings regarding whether an extension of jurisdiction is warranted." Because the orders deferring expiration of the Judgment were worded broadly and did not distinguish between the mental health and dental provisions, on the one hand, and other health services provisions, on the other, the entire Judgment remained in force when Plaintiffs filed their first motion for contempt. That is so even though (as we have held above) the court eventually concluded that Plaintiffs had not sought to extend the Judgment in a timely manner as to the other health services provisions. The temporary extension of the Judgment was in aid of the court's jurisdiction to decide its jurisdiction. That is, the district court had power to extend the Judgment "for the purpose of preserving existing conditions pending a decision upon its own jurisdiction." United States v. United Mine Workers of Am., 330 U.S. 258, 290, 67 S.Ct. 677, 91 L.Ed. 884 (1947); see also Matsuk v. INS, 247 F.3d 999, 1000-01 (9th Cir.2001) ("We have jurisdiction `to determine whether jurisdiction exists.)'" (quoting Flores-Miramontes v. INS, 212 F.3d 1133, 1135 (9th Cir.2000)).
Defendants argue that the word "provisional" in the orders extending the life of the Judgment meant that the extension affected only those portions of the Judgment concerning mental health and dental care. We are not persuaded. The term "provisional" generally means "temporary." Black's Law Dictionary 1224 (6th ed. 1990) 1212 ("Temporary; preliminary; tentative; *1212 taken or done by way of precaution or ad interim."); Oxford English Dictionary 719 (2d ed. 1989) ("Of, belonging to, or of the nature of a temporary provision or arrangement; provided or adopted for present needs or for the time being; supplying the place of something regular, permanent, or final...."). Because the orders did not otherwise limit the substantive reach of the extension of the Judgment, we decline to adopt Defendants' idiosyncratic interpretation of the term "provisional."
To the extent that the Judgment required notice before the filing of a motion for contempt alleging a past breach of the substantive terms of the Judgment 0907 as distinct from the notice required to extend the court's continuing jurisdiction into the future 0907 Plaintiffs complied with it.[9] Accordingly, the district court's refusal even to consider the merits of Plaintiffs' motion was an abuse of discretion. We reverse this aspect of the decision and remand the case to the district court for further proceedings.
3. Permissible Sanctions on Remand
On remand, the district court may conclude that Defendants substantially complied with the medical services provisions of the Judgment at all times relevant to this action.[10] However, should the court hold otherwise, it may order only retrospective relief. That is because the consent decree that is the subject of Plaintiffs' contempt motion expired on January 5, 2000, and is no longer in effect. See Imprisoned Citizens Union v. Ridge, 169 F.3d 178, 190 (3d Cir.1999) (holding that extension of jurisdiction over a terminated consent decree is an inappropriate remedy for past civil contempt).
F. Motion to Compel Disclosure of Defendants' Use-of-Force Policies
We review for abuse of discretion the district court's denial of Plaintiffs' motion to compel discovery. Mabe v. San Bernardino County, 237 F.3d 1101, 1112 (9th Cir.2001). As we have explained, "`[b]road discretion is vested in the trial court to permit or deny discovery, and its decision to deny discovery will not be disturbed except upon the clearest showing that denial of discovery results in actual and substantial prejudice to the complaining litigant.'"

Goehring v. Brophy, 94 F.3d 1294, 1305 (9th Cir.1996) (quoting Sablan v. Dep't of Fin., 856 F.2d 1317, 1321 (9th Cir.1988)).
The district court refused to order disclosure of Defendants' internal policies regarding the use of force against inmates. Plaintiffs urge reversal on the ground that any matter that reasonably can be expected to lead to admissible evidence is discoverable. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1).
The disputed evidence was only minimally relevant to Plaintiffs' case. As the district court permissibly found after reviewing the policies in camera, "there is a very small portion of those documents which might have some minimal relevance to the issues which have been placed before the Court." Because Plaintiffs suffered no prejudice from the denial of their motion to compel, they are not entitled to reversal on that ground.
1213 *1213 CONCLUSION
We affirm the district court's denial of Plaintiffs' motion to extend jurisdiction over the Judgment and its denial of Plaintiffs' motion to compel discovery.
However, we reverse in part the district court's denial of Plaintiffs' first contempt motion. On remand, the court shall consider the merits of Plaintiffs' contention that Defendants failed to substantially comply with the medical services provisions of the Judgment before January 5, 2000.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this opinion. The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.
[1] Plaintiffs' second contempt motion is addressed in a separate Order.
[2] Arguably, the prospective-relief provisions of the PLRA applied to the district court's earlier, provisional extensions of the Judgment. However, Defendants did not cross-appeal on this issue, and they conceded at oral argument that the issue is not before us.
[3] Section 3626(a)(1)(A) also states that prospective relief may not be granted "unless the court finds that such relief is narrowly drawn ... and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right." 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A). The district court did not reach those questions because it determined that the Judgment extended "further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a particular plaintiff or plaintiffs." Id. Because we affirm the district court, we likewise need not reach these additional issues.
[4] For example, the independent expert charged with monitoring dental care at the Prison reported that he "saw nothing to indicate that too many extractions were being done," that he "fe[lt] confident that patients are provided an option when it comes to extracting salvageable teeth," and that "Dr. Weaver has developed an unwarranted reputation for extracting too many teeth."
[5] The Prison's former psychiatrist testified that she had never been consulted before an infraction was issued, but that she had been consulted before sanctions were imposed for an infraction.
[6] After the evidentiary hearing, Plaintiffs submitted evidence demonstrating that pepper spray had been used on two other occasions. However, Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the use of spray in these instances was inappropriate. Further, the later-introduced evidence does not make the district court's earlier finding erroneous.
[7] Regarding the use of force and sanctions for self-harm, Plaintiffs quarrel with the court's use of the word "reasonable," suggesting that the court inappropriately applied the standard of Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987), in the Eighth Amendment context. See Jordan v. Gardner, 986 F.2d 1521, 1530 (9th Cir.1993) (en banc) (holding that Turner does not apply to Eighth Amendment claims). Considered as a whole, however, the findings demonstrate that the court correctly applied traditional Eighth Amendment standards.

[8] The American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed.1994, text rev.2000) categorizes mental diagnoses under five different axes. Axis I diagnoses include mood and anxiety disorders, schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders, substance-related disorders, eating disorders, sleep disorders, and impulse-control disorders.
[9] Unless "undue delay or imminent harm to any party" would result, the Judgment required the parties to submit their disputes to a mediator before bringing them before the court. Plaintiffs satisfied that requirement, reaching an impasse with Defendants on January 29, 1999.
[10] Because the district court twice extended its jurisdiction over the Judgment, the medical services provisions were in effect until January 5, 2000, the date on which the court's final judgment was entered.
Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.