Case 1:17-cv-191 Document <docnum> Filed <datefiled> Page 1 of 7
CONMAG,LC13,RFSETL,TERMED
U.S. District Court District of Idaho (LIVE Database)Version 6.1 (Boise − Southern)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:17−cv−00191−CWD

Bartlett et al v. Atencio et al Assigned to: Judge Candy W. Dale Referred to: Judge Mikel H. Williams (Settlement) related Case: 1:17−cv−00060−BLW Cause: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 05/03/2017 Date Terminated: 10/04/2017 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner: Civil Rights Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Billy Ray Bartlett

represented by Craig Durham Ferguson Durham, PLLC 223 N. 6th Street, Suite 325 Boise, ID 83702 208−345−5183 Fax: 208−906−8663 Email: chd@fergusondurham.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard Alan Eppink American Civil Liberties Union of Idaho Foundation P.O. Box 1897 Boise, ID 83701 208−344−9750 ext. 1202 Fax: 208−344−7201 Email: reppink@acluidaho.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Kenneth F Felder

represented by Craig Durham (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard Alan Eppink (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Brian Halstrom

represented by Craig Durham (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard Alan Eppink (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Jonathan Robert Jennings

represented by Craig Durham (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case 1:17-cv-191 Document <docnum> Filed <datefiled> Page 2 of 7
Richard Alan Eppink (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Henry Atencio Director of the Idaho Department of Correction (IDOC)
Defendant Jeff Zmuda IDOC Deputy Director
Defendant Ashley Dowell IDOC Chief of Prisons
Defendant Jessica Tyler
Defendant Jeannie Hunter
Defendant J Does 1−20

represented by Leslie Marie Hayes Idaho Attorney General's Office 954 W. Jefferson, 2nd Floor Boise, ID 83702 208−334−4538 Email: leslie.hayes@ag.idaho.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Leslie Marie Hayes (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Leslie Marie Hayes (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Leslie Marie Hayes (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Leslie Marie Hayes (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Leslie Marie Hayes (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 05/03/2017
05/04/2017

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT Verfiied Class Action Civil Rights Complaint against All Defendants ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0976−1582342.), filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Cover Sheet, # 2 Summons Henry Atencio, # 3 Summons Jeff Zmuda, # 4 Summons Ashley Dowell, # 5 Summons Jessica Tyler, # 6 Summons Jeannie Hunter)(Eppink, Richard)
2 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction Richard Alan Eppink appearing for Plaintiffs Billy Ray Bartlett, Kenneth F Felder, Brian Halstrom, Jonathan Robert Jennings. Responses due by 5/25/2017 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Affidavit Decl. Rabbi Fink, # 3 Exhibit A to Decl. Fink, # 4 Exhibit B to Decl. Fink, # 5 Affidavit Decl. Rabbi Lifshitz, # 6 Exhibit A to Decl. Lifshitz, # 7 Exhibit B to Decl.

Case 1:17-cv-191 Document <docnum> Filed <datefiled> Page 3 of 7

05/08/2017 05/09/2017 05/19/2017 05/19/2017
05/19/2017 05/19/2017 05/23/2017
05/24/2017
05/24/2017

Lifshitz, # 8 Exhibit C to Decl. Lifshitz, # 9 Affidavit Decl. Rabbi Weiss, # 10 Exhibit A to Decl. Weiss, # 11 Exhibit B. to Decl. Weiss, # 12 Exhibit C. to Decl. Weiss, # 13 Affidavit Decl. Bartlett, # 14 Exhibit A to Decl. Bartlett, # 15 Exhibit B to Decl. Bartlett, # 16 Exhibit C to Decl. Bartlett, # 17 Affidavit Decl. Felder, # 18 Exhibit A to Decl. Felder, # 19 Affidavit Decl. Halstrom, # 20 Exhibit A to Decl. Halstrom, # 21 Affidavit Decl. Jennings, # 22 Exhibit A to Decl. Jennings, # 23 Exhibit B to Decl. Jennings, # 24 Affidavit Decl. Epink, # 25 Exhibit A to Decl. Eppink, # 26 Exhibit B to Decl. Eppink, # 27 Exhibit C to Decl. Eppink, # 28 Exhibit D to Decl. Eppink, # 29 Exhibit E2012 to Decl. Eppink, # 30 Exhibit E2012P to Decl. Eppink, # 31 Exhibit E2013 to Decl. Eppink, # 32 Exhibit E2013P to Decl. Eppink, # 33 Exhibit E2014 to Decl. Eppink, # 34 Exhibit E2014P to Decl. Eppink, # 35 Exhibit E2015 to Decl. Eppink, # 36 Exhibit E2015P to Decl. Eppink, # 37 Exhibit E2016 to Decl. Eppink, # 38 Exhibit E2016P to Decl. Eppink, # 39 Exhibit E2017 to Decl. Eppink, # 40 Exhibit E2017P to Decl. Eppink, # 41 Exhibit E2018 to Decl. Eppink, # 42 Exhibit E2018P to Decl. Eppink, # 43 Exhibit F to Decl. Eppink, # 44 Exhibit G to Decl. Eppink, # 45 Exhibit H to Decl. Eppink, # 46 Exhibit I to Decl. Eppink)(Eppink, Richard)
4 Docket entry only − CONSENT to Magistrate Judge filed. (km) (Entered: 05/09/2017)
3 Summons Issued as to Henry Atencio, Ashley Dowell, Jeannie Hunter, Jessica Tyler, Jeff Zmuda. (Print attached Summons for service.) (Attachments: # 1 Dowell Summons, # 2 Hunter Summons, # 3 Tyler Summons, # 4 Zmuda Summons) (km)
5 NOTICE of Appearance by Leslie Marie Hayes on behalf of All Defendants (Hayes, Leslie)
6 DOCKET ENTRY ORDER − The parties, via counsel, participated in an informal telephonic status conference with Chambers staff on May 19, 2017, to discuss referral for a settlement conference, and a briefing schedule on the pending motion 2 . It is hereby ordered that this matter is referred to the Honorable Mikel H. Williams for the purpose of conducting a settlement conference, to be held on June 8, 2017. The Court will conduct a hearing on the pending motion 2 on July 28, 2017, at 9:30 a.m. A response brief is due by June 30, 2017. A reply brief is due by July 14, 2017. (Judicially Supervised Settlement Conference shall be held by 6/8/2017.) Signed by Judge Candy W. Dale. (klw)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 2 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction . Responses due by 6/30/2017 Replies due by 7/14/2017. Motion Ripe Deadline set for 7/14/2017. Motion Hearing set for 7/28/2017 09:30 AM in Boise − Courtroom 6 before Judge Candy W. Dale. (klw)
7 NOTICE of Assignment to Magistrate Judge and Requirement for Consent sent to counsel for Henry Atencio, Ashley Dowell, Jeannie Hunter, Jessica Tyler, Jeff and Zmuda re 5 Notice of Appearance Consent/Objection to Magistrate due by 6/30/2017. (km)
8 SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a Settlement Conference is set to take place on Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 9:30 a.m. at the United States Courthouse in Boise, Idaho in Courtroom 1 before United States Magistrate Judge Mikel H. Williams. Each party shall prepare and submit to the Court on or before Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 5:00 p.m., a candid submission of its assessment of the strengths of its case and the strengths of the opposing party's case. The confidential summation shall be submitted in camera via email to MHW_Orders@id.uscourts.gov. Signed by Judge Mikel H. Williams. (km) (Entered: 05/24/2017)
9 TRANSPORT ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that the Idaho Department of Correction officials shall take appropriate measures to transport Bill Ray Bartlett to Courtroom #1 in Boise on June 8, 2017, to arrive at 8:30 a.m. (Notice sent to USMS). Signed by Judge Candy W. Dale. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (km) (Entered: 05/25/2017)
10 TRANSPORT ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that the Idaho Department of Correction officials shall take appropriate measures to transport Kenneth Franklin Felder to Courtroom #1 in Boise on June 8, 2017 to arrive at 8:30 a.m. (Notice sent to USMS). Signed by Judge Candy W. Dale. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants

Case 1:17-cv-191 Document <docnum> Filed <datefiled> Page 4 of 7

05/24/2017 05/24/2017 05/25/2017 05/26/2017 06/02/2017
06/06/2017
06/06/2017 06/15/2017 06/16/2017 06/16/2017 06/16/2017

at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (km) (Entered: 05/25/2017)
11 TRANSPORT ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that the Idaho Department of Correction officials shall take appropriate measures to transport Brian Daniel Halstrom to Courtroom #1 in Boise on June 8, 2017 to arrive at 8:30 a.m. (Notice sent to USMS). Signed by Judge Candy W. Dale. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (km) (Entered: 05/25/2017)
12 TRANSPORT ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that the Idaho Department of Correction officials shall take appropriate measures to transport Jonathan Robert Jennings to Courtroom #1 in Boise on June 8, 2017 to arrive at 8:30 a.m. (Notice sent to USMS). Signed by Judge Candy W. Dale. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (km) (Entered: 05/25/2017)
13 CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE re 9 Order to Transport, 10 Order to Transport, 11 Order to Transport, and 12 Order to Transport. Per the Orders to Transport, docket numbers 9, 10, 11, and 12 were emailed to the U.S. Marshal Service, Marissa Doan (mdoan@idoc.idaho.gov), Beth Purdy (bepurdy@idoc.idaho.gov), and Liz Hale (ehale@idoc.idaho.gov). (km)
14 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Jeannie Hunter, Jeff Zmuda, Ashley Dowell, J Does 1−20, Henry Atencio, Jessica Tyler. All Defendants. (Hayes, Leslie)
15 DOCKET TEXT AMENDED SETTLEMENT ORDER, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Settlement Conference set for 6/8/2017 is VACATED and RESET for 6/23/2017. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all previsions of the prior settlement order remain in affect and candid assessments be submitted in camera via email to MHW_Orders@id.uscourts.gov on or before June 15, 2017 re 8 Order, Set Deadlines/Hearings ( Settlement Conference set for 6/23/2017 09:30 AM in Boise − Courtroom 1 before Judge Mikel H. Williams.). Signed by Judge Mikel H. Williams. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (so)
16 DOCKET ENTRY NOTICE OF HEARING − After an informal telephonic conference between Chambers staff and the parties, the hearing on the pending 2 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction, currently set for July 28, 2017, at 9:30 a.m., is VACATED and RESET to commence at 9:30 a.m. on August 7, 2017, before Judge Dale. The briefing schedule is hereby modified as follows: response brief due by July 7, 2017; reply brief due by July 21, 2017. (Motion Hearing set for 8/7/2017 09:30 AM in Boise − Courtroom 6 before Judge Candy W. Dale.)(klw)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 2 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction . Responses due by 7/7/2017 Replies due by 7/21/2017. Motion Ripe Deadline set for 7/21/2017. Motion Hearing set for 8/7/2017 09:30 AM in Boise − Courtroom 6 before Judge Candy W. Dale. (klw)
17 ALL PARTIES HAVE CONSENTED TO PROCEED BEFORE A US MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Attachments: # 1 Consent by Plaintiff)(cjs)
18 TRANSPORT ORDER − IDOC to take appropriate measures to transport BILL RAY BARTLETT #18858 to Courtroom #1, Boise on 6/23/2017 beginning at 8:30 a.m. (Notice sent to USMS). Signed by Judge Candy W. Dale. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (cjs)
19 TRANSPORT ORDER − IDOC to take appropriate measures to transport KENNETH FRANKLIN FELDER #89622 to Courtroom #1, Boise on 6/23/2017 beginning at 8:30 a.m. (Notice sent to USMS). Signed by Judge Candy W. Dale. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (cjs)
20 TRANSPORT ORDER − IDOC to take appropriate measures to transport BRIAN DANIEL HALSTROM #112122 to Courtroom #1, Boise on 6/23/2017 beginning at

Case 1:17-cv-191 Document <docnum> Filed <datefiled> Page 5 of 7

06/16/2017 06/16/2017 06/23/2017 07/07/2017
07/07/2017 07/11/2017 07/11/2017
07/11/2017 07/12/2017 07/27/2017 07/28/2017
08/01/2017

8:30 a.m. (Notice sent to USMS). Signed by Judge Candy W. Dale. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (cjs)
21 TRANSPORT ORDER − IDOC to take appropriate measures to transport JONATHAN ROBERT JENNINGS, IDOC # 109670 to Courtroom #1, Boise on 6/23/2017 beginning at 8:30 a.m. (Notice sent to USMS). Signed by Judge Candy W. Dale. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (cjs)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE re 18 Transport Order, 20 Transport Order, 19 Transport Order, 21 Transport Order to IDOC at Transport mdoan@idoc.idaho.gov, bepurdy@idoc.idaho.gov, ehale@idoc.idaho.gov and U.S. Marshal at Nicole.Albright@usdoj.gov, ecf.idaho@usdoj.gov. (cjs)
22 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Mikel H. Williams: Settlement Conference held on 6/23/2017 Case not settled. Time in Court 6 hours. (Court Reporter/ESR Not Recorded.) Hearing Not Recorded. (so) (Entered: 06/27/2017)
23 DOCKET ENTRY NOTICE OF HEARING: After an informal telephonic conference between Chambers staff and the parties indicating settlement discussions are ongoing, the hearing on the pending 2 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction, currently set for August 7, 2017, at 9:30 a.m., is VACATED and RESET to commence at 9:30 a.m. on August 25, 2017, before Judge Dale. The briefing schedule is hereby modified as follows: response brief due by July 28, 2017; reply brief due by August 11, 2017. (klw)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 2 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction . Responses due by 7/28/2017 Replies due by 8/11/2017. Motion Ripe Deadline set for 8/11/2017. Motion Hearing set for 8/25/2017 09:30 AM in Boise − Courtroom 6 before Judge Candy W. Dale. (klw)
24 ANSWER to 1 Complaint, by Henry Atencio, Ashley Dowell, Jeannie Hunter, Jessica Tyler, Jeff Zmuda.(Hayes, Leslie) Modified on 7/18/2017 to refer to Amended Answer Dkt. 26 (cjs).
25 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Leslie Marie Hayes appearing for Defendants Henry Atencio, Ashley Dowell, Jeannie Hunter, Jessica Tyler, Jeff Zmuda. Responses due by 8/1/2017 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Affidavit Affidavit Hess, # 3 Exhibit Exh A Hess, # 4 Exhibit Exh B Hess, # 5 Exhibit Exh C Hess, # 6 Exhibit Exh D Hess, # 7 Affidavit Affidavit Mason, # 8 Exhibit Exh A Mason, # 9 Affidavit Affidavit Tyler−Leekley, # 10 Exhibit Exh A Tyler−Leekley, # 11 Affidavit Affidavit Zmuda, # 12 Exhibit Exh A Zmuda, # 13 Exhibit Exh B Zmuda)(Hayes, Leslie) Modified on 7/18/2017 pursuant to Corrective Entry entered 7/12/2017, disregard Attachment #s 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12 & 13 (cjs).
26 AMENDED ANSWER to Verified Class Action Civil Rights 1 Complaint, by Henry Atencio, Ashley Dowell, Jeannie Hunter, Jessica Tyler, Jeff Zmuda. (Hayes, Leslie)
CORRECTIVE ENTRY − Per attorney Leslie Hays, The Affidavits of Hess, Leekley and Zmuda and their attached exhibits were filed in error. Please disregard Docket numbers 25−2, 25−3, 25−4, 25−5, 25−6, 25−9, 25−10, 25−11, 25−12, and 25−13. (jp)
27 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 25 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Richard Alan Eppink appearing for Plaintiffs Billy Ray Bartlett, Kenneth F Felder, Brian Halstrom, Jonathan Robert Jennings. Responses due by 8/17/2017 (Eppink, Richard)
28 RESPONSE to Motion re 2 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Henry Atencio, Ashley Dowell, Jeannie Hunter, Jessica Tyler, Jeff Zmuda. Replies due by 8/11/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Zmuda, # 2 Exhibit A − Zmuda, # 3 Exhibit B − Zmuda, # 4 Affidavit Leekley, # 5 Exhibit A − Leekley, # 6 Affidavit Hess, # 7 Exhibit A− Hess, # 8 Exhibit B − Hess, # 9 Exhibit C − Hess, # 10 Exhibit D − Hess)(Hayes, Leslie)
29 ORDER TO ADJUST BRIEFING SCHEDULE on Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss Filed 7/11/17. Granting 27 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 25 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim . Responses due

Case 1:17-cv-191 Document <docnum> Filed <datefiled> Page 6 of 7

08/03/2017 08/08/2017 08/11/2017
08/17/2017
09/04/2017 09/04/2017 09/14/2017 09/18/2017 09/25/2017 10/03/2017 10/04/2017 10/04/2017

by 9/4/2017. Any reply by defendants is due 14 days after the plaintiffs' response is filed. Signed by Judge Candy W. Dale. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (jp)
30 DOCKET ENTRY ORDER − The Court has been informed that the parties are continuing with settlement discussions. The Court requests a joint status report to be filed by August 8, 2017, regarding the status of those discussions and their impact upon the hearing set on August 25, 2017. Signed by Judge Candy W. Dale. (klw)
31 DOCKET ENTRY ORDER The parties informed the Court that they have reached a partial settlement of this matter, which would resolve the pending motion for preliminary injunction 2 . Accordingly, the parties do not need to submit a joint status report by August 8, 2017, and settlement papers are due by August 11, 2017. Signed by Judge Candy W. Dale. ((klw)
32 STIPULATION and Joint Motion for Order of Partial Dismissal with Retained Jurisdiction by Billy Ray Bartlett, Kenneth F Felder, Brian Halstrom, Jonathan Robert Jennings. (Attachments: # 1 Partial Settlement Agreement, # 2 Exhibit A to Partial Settlement Agreement, # 3 Exhibit B to Partial Settlement Agreement, # 4 Exhibit C to Partial Settlement Agreement, # 5 Exhibit D to Partial Settlement Agreement, # 6 Exhibit E to Partial Settlement Agreement)(Eppink, Richard)
33 ORDER FOR PARTIAL DISMISSAL WITH RETAINED JURISDICTION re 32 Stipulation − IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Claims 1, 2, 3, and 4 in the Complaint (Dkt. 1) are dismissed pursuant to the parties Stipulation of Dismissal (Dkt. 32) and Settlement Agreement (Dkt. 32−1), both of which are hereby incorporated into this order by the Court. On or before 11/3/2017, the parties must provide the Court with either a motion or a status report identifying the proposed termination date. The Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. 2 ) is deemed MOOT as a result of the dismissal of Claim 1, and the motion hearing set for 8/25/2017, at 9:30 a.m. is hereby VACATED. Signed by Judge Candy W. Dale. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (cjs)
34 RESPONSE to Motion re 25 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed by Billy Ray Bartlett, Kenneth F Felder, Brian Halstrom, Jonathan Robert Jennings. Replies due by 9/18/2017. (Attachments: # 1 2d Decl. Bartlett, # 2 Exhibit A to 2d Decl. Bartlett)(Eppink, Richard)
35 MOTION to Take Judicial Notice Richard Alan Eppink appearing for Plaintiffs Billy Ray Bartlett, Kenneth F Felder, Brian Halstrom, Jonathan Robert Jennings. Responses due by 9/25/2017 (Eppink, Richard)
36 DOCKET ENTRY NOTICE of Hearing on Motions: 35 MOTION to Take Judicial Notice, 25 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim − Motion Hearing set for 11/27/2017 01:30 PM in Boise − Courtroom 6 before Judge Candy W. Dale. (at)
37 REPLY to Response to Motion re 25 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed by Henry Atencio, J Does 1−20, Ashley Dowell, Jeannie Hunter, Jessica Tyler, Jeff Zmuda.(Hayes, Leslie)
38 RESPONSE to Motion re 35 MOTION to Take Judicial Notice Non−Opposition to Request for Judicial Notice filed by Henry Atencio, J Does 1−20, Ashley Dowell, Jeannie Hunter, Jessica Tyler, Jeff Zmuda. Replies due by 10/10/2017.(Hayes, Leslie)
39 JUDGMENT Offer Accepted (Notice of Acceptance) by Billy Ray Bartlett, Kenneth F Felder, Brian Halstrom, Jonathan Robert Jennings . (Eppink, Richard)
40 DOCKET ENTRY NOTICE of Hearing: Telephonic Status Conference set for 11/27/2017 01:30 PM in Boise − Courtroom 6 before Judge Candy W. Dale. Counsel for Plaintiff to initiate the conference call and when all parties are on the line, connect to the courtroom at 208−334−9945. (klw)
41 JUDGMENT re 39 Offer of Judgment − IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that: Plaintiffs Billy Ray Bartlett, Kenneth F Felder, Brian Halstrom, and Jonathan Jennings are awarded judgment in the amount of $93,000.00 against Defendants Henry Atencio, Jeff Zmuda, Ashley Dowell, Jessica Tyler, and Jeannie

Case 1:17-cv-191 Document <docnum> Filed <datefiled> Page 7 of 7

10/06/2017 10/31/2017 11/27/2017
12/01/2017 12/26/2017 01/03/2018

Hunter. Signed by Judge Candy W. Dale. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (cjs) (Entered: 10/05/2017)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Motion or Status Report due by 11/3/2017 pursuant to Order Dkt. 33 . Telephonic Status Conference reset for 11/27/2017 01:30 PM in Boise − Courtroom 6 before Judge Candy W. Dale pursuant to Notice Dkt. 40. Entry of the Judgment Dkt. 41 did not vacate this deadline or hearing. (cjs)
42 STATUS REPORT Joint Status Update by Henry Atencio, Ashley Dowell, Jeannie Hunter, Jessica Tyler, Jeff Zmuda. (Hayes, Leslie)
43 Docket Text Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Candy W. Dale: Appearance by Richard Eppink and Craig Durham for the Plaintiff; Leslie Hayes for the Defendants. Telephonic Status Conference held on 11/27/2017. Counsel and Judge Dale's Law Clerk Kirsten Wallace conferred regarding case status. Defendants continue CAPP implementation. Written status update to be provided by 12/1/2017. (Telephonic Status Conference set for 1/3/2018 10:30 AM Telephonic Hearing − Boise Courtroom 6 before Judge Candy W. Dale. Counsel for Plaintiff to initiate the conference call and when all parties are on the line, connect to the courtroom at 208−334−9945. Matter may be vacated if termination date can be determined.) Time in Court 1:30−1:36 PM. (ESR A. Tate.) Audio File Location Boise − Courtroom 6. (at)
44 STATUS REPORT Joint Status Update by Billy Ray Bartlett, Kenneth F Felder, Brian Halstrom, Jonathan Robert Jennings. (Eppink, Richard)
45 Statement Joint Statement Re End of Monitoring Period filed by Henry Atencio, Ashley Dowell, Jeannie Hunter, Jessica Tyler, Jeff Zmuda.(Hayes, Leslie)
46 Docket Text Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Candy W. Dale: Appearance by Richard Eppink and Craig Durham for the Plaintiffs; Leslie Hays for the Defendants. Telephonic Status Conference held on 1/3/2018. Counsel and Judge Dale's Law Clerk Kirsten Wallace discussed case status. Parties noted the monitoring period will end on 6/1/2018 and noted the CAPP implementation has now occurred. Time in Court 10:33−10:41 AM. (ESR A. Tate.) Audio File Location Boise − Courtroom 6. (at) (Entered: 01/04/2018)

 
 Case 1:17-cv-00191-CWD Document 1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 1 of 29

Richard Eppink AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF IDAHO FOUNDATION Idaho State Bar no. 7503 reppink@acluidaho.org P.O. Box 1897 Boise, Idaho 83701 (208) 344-9750, ext. 1202

Craig Durham FERGUSON DURHAM, PLLC Idaho State Bar no. 6428 chd@fergusondurham.com 223 N. 6th Street, Suite 235 Boise, Idaho 83702 (208) 345-5183

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF IDAHO

BILL BARTLETT, KENNETH FELDER, BRIAN HALSTROM, JONATHAN JENNINGS, and all those similarly situated,

Case No.

Plaintiffs,

VERIFIED CLASS ACTION CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT

v.

HENRY ATENCIO, Director of the Idaho Department of Correction (IDOC), JEFF ZMUDA, IDOC Deputy Director, ASHLEY DOWELL, IDOC Chief of Prisons,

VERIFIED CLASS ACTION CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT – Page 1

Case 1:17-cv-00191-CWD Document 1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 2 of 29
JESSICA TYLER, IDOC Dietary Services Manager, JEANNIE HUNTER, IDOC Food Services Manager, J. DOEs 1 through 10, current and former members of the IDOC division Religious Activity Review Committee, J. DOEs 11 through 20, IDOC agents or employees, in their official and individual capacities,
Defendants.
1. By refusing to offer kosher meals, the defendants (“IDOC”) force prisoners to violate their core religious beliefs on a daily basis, in violation of law.
2. The plaintiffs are Jewish prisoners who have been forced by hunger to defile themselves every day, for years. They have pleaded repeatedly for meals that comply with the dietary laws of their religion. They sought relief on their own in this Court but were turned away because of procedural missteps. They have searched for lawyers to help them and now have finally found some. Their lawyers tried unsuccessfully to work collaboratively with the Idaho Department of Correction to develop a kosher diet for Jewish prisoners.
3. IDOC’s dietary policy is an outlier among American correctional institutions. Kosher food is readily available in the United States, including for prison food service. Most states, as well as the Federal Bureau of Prisons, already
VERIFIED CLASS ACTION CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT – Page 2

Case 1:17-cv-00191-CWD Document 1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 3 of 29
offer fully kosher meals in all of their prisons. Yet in response to the plaintiffs’
grievances, IDOC instead chose to invest in a new “Common Fare” diet that it
knew was not kosher.
4. The plaintiffs ask that this Court ensure that Jewish prisoners in IDOC
facilities have a kosher option.
Religious freedom benefits prisoners, prison security, and society
5. Criminologists and other sociologists have studied religion in prison.
Their studies show that respecting the right of prisoners to practice their religion
facilitates prisoners’ adjustment to prison life, promotes rehabilitation, and reduces
recidivism.
6. Their studies find that religion emphasizes accountability and
responsibility, targets antisocial values, changes cognitive approaches to conflict,
and provides social support and social skills.1
1Bryon R. Johnson, et al., Religious Programs, Institutional Adjustment, and Recidivism among Former Inmates in Prison Fellowship Programs, 14 Justice Quarterly 145, 148 (1997); see also Todd R. Clear, et al., Does Involvement in Religion Help Prisoners Adjust to Prison?, NCDD Focus 1 (Nov. 1992); Todd R. Clear & Marin Myhre, A Study of Religion in Prison, 6 Int’l Ass’n Res. & Cmty. Alts. J. on Cmty. Corrs. 20 (1995); Byron R. Johnson, Religiosity and Institutional Deviance: The Impact of Religious Variables upon Inmate Adjustment, 12 Crim. Just. Rev. 21 (1987); Bryon R. Johnson, et al., A Systematic Review of the Religiosity and Delinquency Literature: A Research Note, 16 J. Contemp. Crim. Just. 32 (2000); Byron R. Johnson, Religious Participation and Criminal Behavior, in Effective Interventions in the Lives of Criminal Offenders 3, 14–15 (J.A. Humphrey & P. Cordella eds., 2014).
VERIFIED CLASS ACTION CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT – Page 3

Case 1:17-cv-00191-CWD Document 1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 4 of 29
7. Their studies find that when prisoners participate more frequently in religious activities, those prisoners break the rules less often.2
8. Their studies find that prisoners who participate in religious activities are less likely to engage in conflict with other prisoners.3
9. Their studies find that religious prisoners tend to better adjust to prison and spend less time in disciplinary confinement.4 Religious practices help even prisoners who insincerely profess religious belief to mitigate the negative psychological and physical impacts of incarceration.5
10. Spirituality and religious exercise can provide prisoners with a sense of purpose, hope, and motivation to change. Religious activities lead prisoners to engage with religious communities inside and beyond the prison’s walls, steering them away from more harmful social groups that other prisoners join.6 2Thomas P. O’Connor & Michael Perryclear, Prison Religion in Action and Its Influence on Offender Rehabilitation, 35 J. Offender Rehab. 11 (2002).
3Kent R. Kerley, et al., Religiosity, Religious Participation, and Negative Prison Behaviors, 44 J. for the Sci. Study of REgliion 443, 453 (2005).
4Todd R. Clear & Melvina T. Sumter, Prisoners, Prison, and Religion: Religion and Adjustment to Prison, 35 J. Offender Rehab. 127, 154 (2002).
5H.R. Dammer, Religious Involvement in the Correctional Environment, 35 (3/4) J. of Offender REhabiliation 29–47 (2002).
6Thomas P. O’Connor & Michael Perryclear, Prison Religion in Action and Its Influence on Offender Rehabilitation, 35 J. Offender Rehab. 11, 28 (2002); Todd
VERIFIED CLASS ACTION CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT – Page 4

Case 1:17-cv-00191-CWD Document 1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 5 of 29
11. After and outside of prison, criminological and sociological studies find that religion and religious involvement correlate with decreases in crime and delinquency.7 Jewish practice in prison
12. In 2005, IDOC engaged Boise Rabbi Menachem Mendel Lifshitz to review IDOC’s accommodations for Jewish practices and make recommendations. Rabbi Lifshitz prepared a report for IDOC that included an overview of Jewish practice “as it related to the correctional setting.”
13. The Rabbi explained in his report that “[t]he approach of Judaism to spiritual fulfillment is that every person can attain such achievement” and that “according to Jewish law, if one fails in his or her moral and/or religious obligations, there is always room for repentance.”
14. Jewish teachings do not differentiate between a “religious” Jew and a “secular” Jew, the Rabbi explained. All Jews are equally responsible and
R. Clear, et al., Does Involvement in Religion Help Prisoners Adjust to Prison?, NCDD Focus 1, 6 (Nov. 1992); SpearIt, Religion as Rehabilitation? Reflections on Islam in the Correctional Setting, 34 Whittier L. Rev. 29, 38–39 (2012).
7See Byron R. Johnson & Sung Joon Jang, Crime and Religion: Assessing the Role of the Faith Factor, in The Role of Social Institutions: Papers from the American Society of Criminology 2010 Conference 117, 120 (Richard Rosenfeld, et al., eds., 2012).
VERIFIED CLASS ACTION CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT – Page 5

Case 1:17-cv-00191-CWD Document 1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 6 of 29
privileged to practice their religion, regardless of previous or future failings, whether temporary or sustained.
15. Every mitzvah—commandments of the Jewish faith like keeping kosher —a person performs brings goodness into this world and upon the individual fulfilling that precept, the Rabbi explained in his report to IDOC. “Thus, although ideally every Jew should perform all of the obligatory precepts (mitzvoth), even in instances where one is not scrupulous about performance of one or many mitzvoth he or she should be given the opportunity to fulfill any given mitzvah at any given time. In fact, even if one fails to perform or intentionally omits performance of a certain mitzvah, he or she should still be given the opportunity to perform that very mitzvah the next time.”
16. “Many offenders begin to discover G-d, religion, spirituality, their heritage or other means of fulfillment while incarcerated,” the Rabbi told IDOC. “Thus, although they may not have previously been religiously involved—they have the right and responsibility to be religiously involved regardless of the human judgment of staff or others as to their sincerity or level of commitment.” Kosher food is fundamental to Jewish practice
17. The essence of Am Yisroel, the Jewish people, is their spirituality and holiness—that within the body of the Jew resides a holy and eternal soul. Each mitzvah, or commandment, of the Jewish faith serves as a reminder of this.
VERIFIED CLASS ACTION CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT – Page 6

Case 1:17-cv-00191-CWD Document 1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 7 of 29
18. Even commonplace functions, including physical nourishment, are sacred in nature and sanctify the human body. Conversely, consuming forbidden foods defiles the holy spirit and injures its sanctity. This injury reduces the Jewish capacity to reap the full spiritual rewards of their faith. The result of eating forbidden foods is referred to as timtum halev: damage to the heart’s ability to fully comprehend. To the dedicated Jew there is a religious force so deeply embedded in the soul that even the most delectable serving of milk and meat, or pork, becomes abominable and physically revolting. Only when the Jew observes his religion’s dietary laws as a matter of faith does his commitment permeate his entire life and surroundings, bringing him the meaning of God’s teachings.8
19. Following the Jewish dietary laws is therefore not a frivolous notion, but a critical need of the Jews to relate with their God in a series of instructions that have been their mark of distinction from the days that they left Egypt thousands of years ago.9
20. The dietary laws were given not for the good of the body but that of the soul. Keeping kosher results in a higher spiritual health and a more saintly
8Rabbi Yacov Lipschutz, Kashruth: A Comprehensive Background and Reference Guide to the Principles of Kashruth 15–16 (1988). 9United States v. Kahane, 396 F. Supp. 687, 692 (E.D.N.Y. 1975).
VERIFIED CLASS ACTION CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT – Page 7

Case 1:17-cv-00191-CWD Document 1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 8 of 29
character.10 Those who observe kosher laws are more likely to observe other rules and lead a healthier, moral life.
21. The Hebrew term “kashrut” is the term for the Jewish laws and customs prescribing the types of food permitted for consumption and their preparation. Following the rules of kashrut is also known as “keeping kosher.”
22. The rules of kashrut specify the types of food a Jew may consume and how that food must be prepared. As for types of food, all fruits and vegetables are kosher, but certain meat, poultry, and fish are prohibited. As for preparation, the rules dictate how meat must be slaughtered and inspected, and they require that meat and dairy products—and the utensils and cookware that touch them—remain strictly separated. Prepared foods bear labels to indicate that they are kosher.
23. Special dietary laws apply during the eight-day Jewish holiday of Passover, the most observed Jewish holiday. Passover celebrates the escape of Jewish slaves from Egypt, as described in the biblical book of Exodus. During the eight days of Passover, Jews reflect on their history in slavery through ritual and practice. Strict curtailment of diet is a central component of this observance: during Passover chametz (leavened products) and kitniyot (rice, corn, millet, and legumes) are forbidden. The central food during Passover is matzah, unleavened bread,
10Rabbi Ephraim Buchwald, Kashruth: An Interpretation for the 20th Century (1988), http://njop.org/wp-content/uploads-post-launch/2010/08/kashruth-aninterpretation-in-book-format-3-25-2014.pdf.
VERIFIED CLASS ACTION CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT – Page 8

Case 1:17-cv-00191-CWD Document 1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 9 of 29
which was the food of the Jewish slaves. Prepared foods bear special labels if they are kosher for Passover. Kosher food in prison
24. Most state prison systems in the United States offer a kosher diet option for Jewish prisoners who want to keep kosher. The Federal Bureau of Prisons does as well, for all federal prisoners who want to keep kosher.
25. Most state prisons and all federal prisons provide a kosher diet by purchasing pre-packaged, shelf stable or frozen kosher meals—like TV dinners.11 During Passover, frozen pre-packaged meals that are kosher for Passover are served.
26. These meals come double-sealed. Thus, prisoners or staff can warm them in any microwave or oven as long as the double seal remains intact and is not broken.
27. To avoid the burdens of keeping utensils and cookware strictly separate, Jewish prisoners can use disposable utensils.12
28. By providing double-sealed shelf stable or frozen meals with disposable utensils, prison administrators do not have to spend extra resources to try to keep cookware, serving trays, utensils, and food ingredients separated from food 11See Kahane, 397 F. Supp. at 702.
12Ashelman v. Wawrzaszek, 111 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 1997).
VERIFIED CLASS ACTION CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT – Page 9

Case 1:17-cv-00191-CWD Document 1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 10 of 29
preparation for non-kosher diets. Trying to keep all of that separate is difficult and costly. Even if it were possible, Rabbinic supervision would be necessary to ensure that the food prepared was kosher. Kosher food in Idaho prisons
29. Although IDOC currently refuses to provide kosher meals to prisoners, they have been available in IDOC’s system before. When Corrections Corporation of America had a contract to confine Idaho prisoners in its Kit Carson Correctional Center in Colorado, it provided kosher meals to prisoners who requested them as part of their religious exercise.
30. IDOC put an end to those kosher meals, instructing its contractor CCA to stop offering kosher meals to Idaho prisoners.
31. In 1985, this Court itself, as part of the Balla litigation (D. Idaho case no. 81-cv-1165), adopted a compliance plan that required IDOC to provide religious diets to prisoners who needed them. This Court ordered IDOC to implement that compliance plan.
32. In Rabbi Lifshitz’s 2005 report to IDOC, he made clear to IDOC and its attorneys that Jews are forbidden from eating non-kosher food items. The Rabbi further explained that during Passover, additional food guidelines are enforced and that products that are kosher for year-round consumption cannot be eaten on Passover unless they bear a “Kosher for Passover” certification.
VERIFIED CLASS ACTION CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT – Page 10

Case 1:17-cv-00191-CWD Document 1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 11 of 29
33. Rabbi Lifshitz told IDOC in his report that in order for Jewish prisoners to practice their religion, prisoners who wish to eat kosher food should be given the full opportunity to do so without compromising their nutrition and without unfairness of when, where, or how they must eat. Rabbi Lifshitz explained that IDOC could use frozen and shelf-stable kosher meals along with disposable dishes and utensils to provide a kosher meal option. He also emphasized that IDOC would have to also ensure that during food items served during Passover are kosher for Passover.
34. Rabbi Lifshitz emphasized the importance of kosher meals options in his report, stating that “anything short of implementing a satisfactory kosher system cannot be accepted by the author as an adequate solution.”
35. IDOC’s own “Handbook of Religious Beliefs and Practices” states unequivocally that “Any Jewish inmate must, upon request, be provided with a religiously acceptable (kosher) diet” and that “Any Jewish inmate, whether or not participating on a regular Jewish religious diet program must, upon request, be provided with a diet during the eight days of Passover that meets all the religious requirements of that period (i.e., no leavening, etc.).”
36. Yet, IDOC currently does not offer kosher meals to its prisoners. 37. Instead of providing kosher meals, IDOC offers a “mainline” menu plus five additional selective diets available to all prisoners:
VERIFIED CLASS ACTION CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT – Page 11

Case 1:17-cv-00191-CWD Document 1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 12 of 29
 The Healthy Choice Diet, with reduced calories, fat, sodium, and sugar.
 A non-pork diet that substitutes pork-free alternatives for food items in the mainline menu that contain pork.
 A lacto-ovo Vegetarian Diet” without meat but including dairy items and eggs.
 A vegan diet without meat or animal products.  Common Fare, which is “comprised of vegan food items plus eggs,
and/or dairy, and/or kosher meats, as well as cooking and serving procedures that maintain separation of dairy from meat and common fare foods from non-common fare foods.” 38. In addition to these diets available to all prisoners, IDOC prepares special meals for prisoners with medically necessary dietary needs not met by either the mainline or the five selective diets. IDOC provides not only a variety of standard medical diets, but also “special provision” diets to address needs that cannot be met by either a selective diet or a standard medical diet option. 39. None of the meal options that IDOC offers is kosher. 40. Although the Common Fare selective diet includes kosher meats and calls for separation of dairy from meat and common fare foods from non-common
VERIFIED CLASS ACTION CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT – Page 12

Case 1:17-cv-00191-CWD Document 1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 13 of 29
fare foods, it is not kosher. IDOC neither designed nor intended the Common Fare diet to be kosher.
41. Plaintiffs’ counsel even warned IDOC that its Common Fare diet was not kosher (or kosher for Passover). Counsel offered to arrange consultations with local rabbis, both Reform and Orthodox, for IDOC. Yet, IDOC indicated that it did not expect to make any adjustments to the Common Fare diet so that it would be kosher or kosher for Passover.
42. What Common Fare does appear to provide is an adequate halal diet option for Muslim prisoners. Because the kosher standard for meat products and butchering is more demanding than halal standards, the kosher meat included in the Common Fare diet means that diet meets the religious dietary restrictions of Muslim prisoners, but not those of Jewish ones.
43. Indeed, IDOC through its Common Fare diet together with the mainline and selective diets, meets the religious dietary restrictions of all the religions listed in its “Handbook of Religious Beliefs and Practices” except the kosher requirements of Judaism.
44. IDOC’s refusal to provide kosher meals violates the religious rights of Jewish prisoners in Idaho. IDOC’s dietary policies force prisoners with a religious basis for consuming kosher meals to violate their core religious beliefs on a daily basis.
VERIFIED CLASS ACTION CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT – Page 13

Case 1:17-cv-00191-CWD Document 1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 14 of 29
45. The substantial burden the IDOC’s dietary policies impose on these prisoners is not necessary achieve any compelling state interest. Indeed, the Federal Bureau of Prisons and most state departments of correction offer kosher meals while achieving government interests indistinguishable from IDOC’s. The plaintiffs
46. Bill Bartlett’s Jewish grandmother introduced him to Judaism as a child, and he followed Jewish practices during his teen years. He has now been an observant Jew continuously for the past ten years. Since 2014, IDOC has approved him to wear his tzitzit—a four-cornered religious undershirt, featuring tassels, which Jewish males are supposed to wear throughout the day, every day of the year. He has observed all of the fast days observed by Orthodox Jews during his confinement in prison since 2009. IDOC currently confines him at the Idaho State Correctional Center (ISCC), though it has moved him among several prisons, including the Idaho State Correctional Institution (ISCI) and Idaho Correctional Institution – Orofino (ICIO). He has been asking IDOC to provide him with kosher meals since at least 2009.
47. Bill Bartlett has repeatedly asked for kosher meals, both verbally and through IDOC’ concern and grievance process. He has exhausted the grievance process multiple times requesting kosher meals. Most recently, he had a grievance appeal denied on March 14, 2017. His grievance stated that the Common Fare diet
VERIFIED CLASS ACTION CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT – Page 14

Case 1:17-cv-00191-CWD Document 1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 15 of 29
is not kosher and that, “[a]s an Orthodox Jewish man, my scriptures instruct us to eat and be Kosher.” IDOC staff denied his grievance and refused to make any changes to its diet offerings or policies.
48. Kenneth Felder was introduced to Jewish practices as a young child, by his parents, as far back as he can remember. While growing up he observed Passover and Chanukah. His grandfather was a leader and teacher in his synagogue for 40 years. As a teenager he fell out of Jewish practice, after his parents divorced. But about 15 years ago, before prison, he began to observe Passover and Chanukah and saying daily Jewish prayers. He now follows an Orthodox Jewish practice in prison, and he has been an inmate teacher and service leader for Jewish congregate worship at ISCC. He has been asking IDOC to provide him with kosher meals since at least 2014.
49. Kenneth Felder has also repeatedly asked both verbally and through the concern and grievance process for kosher meals. He most recently completed the grievance process on November 15, 2016. He grieved there that
IDOC is violating my first amendment right to the full expression of my religion by denying me a kosher diet. The selective diet SOP 403.02.01.003 to include common fa[re] is not kosher and is not currently available throughout all IDOC facilit[ies.] Your policy and practices impede me from practicing the ba[s]ic tenets of my Jewish faith. A kosher diet does not constitute a security issue nor would it creat[e] an unreas[onable] government expe[n]se beyond the IDOC’s current obligations[.] IDOC’s final, appeal-level response to this grievance was this:
VERIFIED CLASS ACTION CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT – Page 15

Case 1:17-cv-00191-CWD Document 1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 16 of 29
The IDOC dietician’s response does support IDOC’s position. “IDOC does not offer religious menus. However, there are selective diet options for inmates to choose from that meet the dietary preferences of various religions and lifestyle choices. The common fare menu is being implemented at IDOC facilities as equipment is available. ISCC offers those menus approved by IDOC. Yet, IDOC still does not provide a kosher diet option to Kenneth Felder or any other Jewish prisoner. 50. Brian Halstrom has been studying Judaism and Christianity over the past 20 years. He began to follow Jewish practices about three years ago, shortly before he went to prison. For him, Judaism and Jewish practice gives him something that he has lacked in his life. He feels that if he had a religious practice before in his life, he would not be in prison now. His commitment to Jewish practice is the foundation of his commitment to lead a better life. 51. Brian Halstrom has exhausted IDOC’s grievance procedure asking for kosher food. Most recently, he made clear that “Kosher is a tenet of Jewish religious existence, and there in, cannot be ignored. I am not asking for a feast like you provide the Christians on Christmas, just basic Jewish diet.” He also specifically requested food during Passover that is kosher for Passover, complaining that “I have been told to provide my own food for Passover or starve if I wish to practice my religion.” IDOC denied his request, stating in its final, appeal-level response on October 26, 2016, that “There are no meals that are
VERIFIED CLASS ACTION CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT – Page 16

Case 1:17-cv-00191-CWD Document 1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 17 of 29
purchased by IDOC specific to religious preference” and that “At this time your appeal to have IDOC request a change in the policy regarding Passover meals is denied. You have met your administrative responsibility.”
52. Jonathan Jennings has been practicing Judaism since the mid 1990s. He formally converted to Judaism when he was 17, completing a full conversion program at the Congregation Beth Shalom in Bloomington, Indiana, over the court of a year and a half. As part of his conversion, he had to learn Hebrew, read from the Torah at the synagogue in front of the congregation, and go through the bris ceremony. He considers himself a Reform Jew. Because IDOC refuses to provide him with food during Passover that is kosher for Passover, for the past three years during Passover he has starved, except for fruit this year.
53. Jonathan Jennings has also exhausted his IDOC’s grievance procedure requesting kosher for Passover food during Passover. He grieved in May 2015 that “in April for 8 days I was told to go hungry for Passover I requested a non-leaven diet, for I am not allowed by Jewish law to eat or have around food that I eat anything leaven (oats, bread, etc).” He went to report that “[b]ecause of my belief I had to go without eating for 8 days.” IDOC responded that because other inmates participating in the same religious observance, “[i]f you did indeed go any amount of time without meals it was your own decision to do so.” Jennings tried to commence the grievance process about the lack of a kosher for Passover option
VERIFIED CLASS ACTION CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT – Page 17

Case 1:17-cv-00191-CWD Document 1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 18 of 29
during Passover again this year, but IDOC referred him to its response to his prior grievances about this.
54. All of the plaintiffs reside in and are confined to an institution, and the burdens on their religious exercise are imposed in a program or activity that receives Federal financial assistance. Those burdens also affect commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations of Indian tribes, as would the removal of those burdens. The defendants
55. The Director of the Idaho Department of Correction is the ultimate decision-maker with authority to approve IDOC policies, including dietary policies. The current Director is Henry Atencio.
56. The IDOC Deputy Director directly oversees the IDOC Chief of Prisons and IDOC’s prison operations. The Deputy Director also assists the IDOC Director with his responsibilities. The current Deputy Director is Jeff Zmuda. Zmuda, in his previous position as IDOC Chief of Prisons, approved changes to IDOC’s Standard Operating Procedure governing special and selective diets for IDOC prisoners, including the new Common Fare selective diet, without providing for kosher or kosher for Passover meals for Jewish prisoners who want to keep kosher.
57. The IDOC Chief of Prisons is the person with authority to approve IDOC prisoners’ requests for new and unfamiliar religious accommodations. The
VERIFIED CLASS ACTION CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT – Page 18

Case 1:17-cv-00191-CWD Document 1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 19 of 29
Chief of Prisons also designates persons to serve on IDOC’s Religious Activity Review Committee and has authority to approve changes to IDOC’s Standard Operating Procedure governing special and selective diets for IDOC prisoners. The current Chief of Prisons is Ashley Dowell.
58. The IDOC Dietary Services Manager and Food Service Manager are responsible for implementation and administrative oversight of IDOC’s guidelines, standards, and procedures governing dietary and food services in IDOC prisons. They oversee menus for prisoner diets and food purchases, and they monitor food costs. The current Dietary Services Manager is Jessica Tyler and the current Food Service Manager is Jeannie Hunter.
59. IDOC has a Religious Activity Review Committee made up of at least three individuals designated by IDOC’s Chief of Prisons. The RARC is responsible for making recommendations, in writing, when an IDOC prisoner requires a new or unfamiliar religious accommodation that is not already approved. The plaintiffs do not know for sure the names and identities of the current RARC members, as well as the RARC members who denied or failed to consider the plaintiffs’ previous requests for kosher and kosher for Passover meals. Defendants J. Doe 1 through 10 are fictitious names to identify the current RARC member as well as former RARC members who denied or failed to consider the plaintiffs’ requests for kosher and kosher for Passover meals. The plaintiffs will substitute these fictitious
VERIFIED CLASS ACTION CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT – Page 19

Case 1:17-cv-00191-CWD Document 1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 20 of 29
names with the RARC members’ true names once the plaintiffs discover their names.
60. Defendants J. Doe 11 through 20 are fictitious names to identity other IDOC employees or agents whose actions or omissions have played a part in denying kosher and kosher for Passover meals for the plaintiffs and class members. The plaintiffs will substitute these fictitious names with the employees’ and agents’ true names once the plaintiffs discover their names.
61. The plaintiffs and the class they seek to represent sue the defendants in their official capacity as to the class claims (claims 1 through 4). The named plaintiffs sue the defendants in their individual capacity as to their individual claims (claims 5 through 7). The class
62. The plaintiffs propose to represent a class of all current and future Jewish prisoners confined in Idaho Department of Correction facilities who seek to maintain a kosher diet.
63. The proposed class asserts only the claims seeking prospective relief, claims 1 through 4 below, and not any claims seeking damages or other compensatory relief.
64. The total number of Jewish prisoners confined by IDOC who want to keep kosher is not yet known. IDOC has estimated that about 220 prisoners will
VERIFIED CLASS ACTION CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT – Page 20

Case 1:17-cv-00191-CWD Document 1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 21 of 29
request its new Common Fare diet, IDOC’s inadequate effort at providing a pseudo-kosher menu option. Even if only a fraction of those prisoners may want to keep kosher, joining all of them into a single action would be impracticable because of their numerosity.
65. There are important issues of law and fact common to the class, including whether IDOC has any compelling state interest in denying its prisoners kosher meals, whether complete denial of kosher meals is the least restrictive means of furthering any compelling state interest IDOC could demonstrate, and whether there are any other religious dietary restrictions that IDOC does not already accommodate with its existing dietary options.
66. The prospective relief claims are typical of the class as a whole. Like all of the class members, the class representatives are being denied a diet that meets the requirements of their religious faith.
67. The class representatives will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. The interests of the class representatives are not in conflict with the interests of any other Jewish prisoner seeking to maintain a kosher diet, and the class representatives have every incentive to pursue this litigation vigorously on behalf of themselves and the class as a whole.
VERIFIED CLASS ACTION CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT – Page 21

Case 1:17-cv-00191-CWD Document 1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 22 of 29
68. The class representatives are represented by experienced counsel, including the American Civil Liberties Union of Idaho Foundation, whose attorney possesses substantial expertise in prosecuting class action lawsuits.
69. Pursing separate actions by individual members of the class, now and in the future, would create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications for individual members of the class. That could establish incompatible orders or standards of conduct for IDOC, which in themselves could create equal protection and other constitutional and religious rights violations.
70. The common questions of law and fact involved in this case predominate of any case-specific questions that may arise out of individual class members’ claims for prospective relief. A class action is superior to other methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating whether IDOC may deny Jewish prisoners kosher food going forward.
71. IDOC’s complete refusal to provide a kosher diet to its prisoners applied generally to the entire class, across the board at all IDOC prisons. Accordingly, this Court can issue final injunctive and declaratory relief for all class members in this case. Jurisdiction
72. This Court has jurisdiction over the action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331. It has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a),
VERIFIED CLASS ACTION CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT – Page 22

Case 1:17-cv-00191-CWD Document 1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 23 of 29
because those claims form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.
73. The Court has the power jurisdiction to grant declaratory and injunctive relief under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201–2202 and FRCP 65.
74. Venue is proper in this Court and District, under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), because the defendants operate prisons throughout the District where they incarcerate the plaintiffs and other Jewish prisoners who want to keep kosher. Virtually all of the events, actions, and omissions that give rise to this complaint occurred in this District. Class claims for relief
Claim 1. RLUIPA 75. IDOC does not provide kosher meals to prisoners in their custody who request the meals in accordance with their religious beliefs. 76. IDOC’s denial of kosher meals is a substantial burden on the religious exercise of prisoners in IDOC’s custody. 77. Denial of kosher meals is not the least restrictive means of furthering any compelling government interest. 78. Accordingly, IDOC’s refusal to provide kosher meals violates RLUIPA, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc.
VERIFIED CLASS ACTION CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT – Page 23

Case 1:17-cv-00191-CWD Document 1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 24 of 29
Claim 2. Equal Protection 79. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits IDOC from denying the plaintiffs equal protection of the laws. 80. By failing to accommodate the plaintiffs’ religious dietary needs by providing kosher meals, while accommodating the dietary needs of similarly situated prisoners who follow other religious practices, IDOC has violated the plaintiffs’ rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 81. Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the plaintiffs are entitled to declaratory, injunctive, and prospective relief prohibiting IDOC from violating their rights, privileges, and immunities under federal law.
Claim 3. Free Exercise 82. The First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution prohibits IDOC from prohibiting the plaintiffs’ free exercise of their religion. 83. By failing to accommodate the plaintiffs’ religious dietary needs by providing kosher meals, while accommodating the dietary needs of similarly situated prisoners who follow other religious practices, IDOC has violated the plaintiffs’ rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, as incorporated against the State of Idaho under the Fourteenth Amendment.
VERIFIED CLASS ACTION CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT – Page 24

Case 1:17-cv-00191-CWD Document 1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 25 of 29
84. Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the plaintiffs are entitled to declaratory, injunctive, and prospective relief prohibiting IDOC from violating their rights, privileges, and immunities under federal law.
Claim 4. Free Exercise of Religion Protected Act 85. IDOC’s denial of kosher meals is a substantial burden on the religious exercise of prisoners in IDOC’s custody. 86. Denial of kosher meals is not the least restrictive means of furthering any compelling government interest. 87. Accordingly, IDOC’s refusal to provide kosher meals violates Idaho’s Free Exercise of Religion Protected Act, Idaho Code § 73-401–404. Individual claims for relief
Claim 5. Equal Protection 88. The individual, named plaintiffs have been suffered harm, including emotional distress and psychological damage, as a direct and proximate result of the defendants’ Equal Protection violations described above. Accordingly, they seek compensatory and other damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the defendants, in their individual capacities, for that harm.
Claim 6. Free Exercise 89. The individual, named plaintiffs have been suffered harm, including emotional distress and psychological damage, as a direct and proximate result of
VERIFIED CLASS ACTION CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT – Page 25

Case 1:17-cv-00191-CWD Document 1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 26 of 29
the defendants’ Free Exercise clause violations described above. Accordingly, they seek compensatory and other damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the defendants, in their individual capacities, for that harm.
Claim 7. Free Exercise of Religion Protected Act 90. The individual, named plaintiffs have been suffered harm, including emotional distress and psychological damage, as a direct and proximate result of the defendants’ violations of Idaho’s Free Exercise of Religion Protected Act described above. Accordingly, they seek compensatory and other damages under that Act against the defendants, in their individual capacities, for that harm. Prayer for relief The plaintiffs respectfully ask the Court for the following relief: 1. A declaration that the defendants have violated RLUIPA by failing to offer kosher meals to prisoners in their custody who desire a kosher diet to exercise their religious belief. 2. Injunctions—temporary, preliminary, and permanent—ordering the defendants, their officers, agents, contractors, attorneys, employees, subordinates, successors in office, and all those acting in concert or participation with them to provide prisoners in their custody with nutritionally sufficient kosher meals, including meals that are kosher for Passover during Passover.
VERIFIED CLASS ACTION CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT – Page 26

Case 1:17-cv-00191-CWD Document 1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 27 of 29
3. Monetary damages to fairly and reasonably compensate the individual, named plaintiffs for the deprivation of their rights, including compensatory damages (including for emotional distress), consequential damages, and presumed damages.
4. Attorneys fees and costs under § 1988, RLUIPA, FERPA, and any other applicable law, decision, or custom.
5. All other relief that the Court determines appropriate or that the interests of justice may require.
Respectfully submitted on behalf of the plaintiffs,

/s/ Richard Eppink American Civil Liberties Union of Idaho Foundation

/s/ Craig Durham Ferguson Durham, PLLC

Dated: May 3, 2017

VERIFIED CLASS ACTION CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT – Page 27

Case 1:17-cv-00191-CWD Document 1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 28 of 29
VERIFICATION I, Bill Ray Bartlett, verify that I have read the allegations contained in this Verified Complaint and that, other than allegations made upon information and belief, the allegations are true to the best of my knowledge, and I believe that the allegations made upon information and belief are true. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I verify under penalties of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. EXECUTED on this 18th day of April, 2017.
/s/ Bill Ray Bartlett
VERIFICATION I, Kenneth Felder, verify that I have read the allegations contained in this Verified Complaint and that, other than allegations made upon information and belief, the allegations are true to the best of my knowledge, and I believe that the allegations made upon information and belief are true. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I verify under penalties of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. EXECUTED on this 18th day of April, 2017.
/s/ Kenneth Felder
VERIFIED CLASS ACTION CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT – Page 28

Case 1:17-cv-00191-CWD Document 1 Filed 05/03/17 Page 29 of 29
VERIFICATION I, Brian Halstrom, verify that I have read the allegations contained in this Verified Complaint and that, other than allegations made upon information and belief, the allegations are true to the best of my knowledge, and I believe that the allegations made upon information and belief are true. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I verify under penalties of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. EXECUTED on this 18th day of April, 2017.
/s/ Brian Halstrom
VERIFICATION I, Jonathan Jennings, verify that I have read the allegations contained in this Verified Complaint and that, other than allegations made upon information and belief, the allegations are true to the best of my knowledge, and I believe that the allegations made upon information and belief are true. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I verify under penalties of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. EXECUTED on this 18th day of April, 2017.
/s/ Jonathan Jennings
VERIFIED CLASS ACTION CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT – Page 29

 
 Case 1:17-cv-00191-CWD Document 41 Filed 10/04/17 Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF IDAHO

BILL BARTLETT, et al., and all those similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
HENRY ATENCIO, Director of the Idaho Department of Correction (IDOC), et al.,

Case No. 1:17-cv-00191-CWD JUDGMENT

Defendants.

An offer of judgment having been made and accepted under Fed. Rule Civ. P. 68 (Dkt. 39),
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that: Plaintiffs Bill Bartlett, Kenneth Felder, Brian Halstrom, and Jonathan Jennings are awarded judgment in the amount of $93,000.00, with interest to accrue at the applicable federal rate, against Defendants Henry Atencio, Jeff Zmuda, Ashley Dowell, Jessica Tyler, and Jeannie Hunter. This judgment includes all accrued costs and attorney’s fees through the date of the offer.
DATED: October 4, 2017
_________________________ Honorable Candy W. Dale United States Magistrate Judge

JUDGMENT – Page 1

Bartlett et al v. Atencio et al, Docket No. 1:17-cv-00191 (D. Idaho May 03, 2017), Court Docket
General Information

Court
Federal Nature of Suit Docket Number Status

United States District Court for the District of Idaho; United States District Court for the District of Idaho
Prisoner Petitions - Civil Rights[550]
1:17-cv-00191
CLOSED

© 2018 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Service // PAGE 2

 
 Case 1:17-cv-00191-CWD Document 32-1 Filed 08/11/17 Page 1 of 9

Richard Eppink AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF IDAHO FOUNDATION Idaho State Bar no. 7503 reppink@acluidaho.org P.O. Box 1897 Boise, Idaho 83701 (208) 344-9750, ext. 1202
Craig Durham FERGUSON DURHAM, PLLC Idaho State Bar no. 6428 chd@fergusondurham.com 223 N. 6th Street, Suite 235 Boise, Idaho 83702 (208) 345-5183
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

LAWRENCE G. WASDEN ATTORNEY GENERAL
STEVEN L. OLSEN ISB #3586 Chief, Civil Litigation Division
LESLIE M. HAYES ISB #7995 Deputy Attorney General 954 W. Jefferson Street Second Floor P.O. Box 83720 Boise, Idaho 83720-0010 Telephone: (208) 334-2400 Facsimile: (208) 854-8073 leslie.hayes@ag.idaho.gov
Attorneys for Defendants

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF IDAHO

BILL BARTLETT, et al., and all those similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
HENRY ATENCIO, Director of the Idaho Department of Correction (IDOC), et al.,

Case No. 1:17-cv-00191
PARTIAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Defendants.

PARTIAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT – Page 1

Case 1:17-cv-00191-CWD Document 32-1 Filed 08/11/17 Page 2 of 9
1. The terms “Defendants” and “IDOC” in this agreement include the defendants and all of their officers, servants, employees, and all those in active concert or participation with them.
2. The terms “Plaintiff” in this agreement include the four named plaintiffs in this action.
3. The term “Parties” in this agreement include the defendants and plaintiffs.
4. The parties agree that the terms of this Agreement extend no further than necessary to satisfy the requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A).
5. Common Fare Diet. No later than November 1, 2017, Defendants shall transition the Common Fare Diet at IDOC to a No Touch diet system available to all prisoners in IDOC’s custody.
6. The Common Fare No Touch menu shall consist of a majority of meals that are pre-packaged or double-sealed frozen meals that are kosher certified. All items served on Common Fare will be individually wrapped and kosher certified or pareve. Except for restrictive housing inmates (as defined by IDOC policy, all meals will be served unprepared and may be heated in a microwave by the prisoner receiving them. For restrictive housing inmates, a staff member will heat frozen meals and ensure that the double seal remains unbroken. If the double seal is broken during heating, the prisoner will receive
PARTIAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT – Page 2

Case 1:17-cv-00191-CWD Document 32-1 Filed 08/11/17 Page 3 of 9
a new meal where the seal is unbroken. Staff will verify verbally with the inmate that the seal remains unbroken at the time of serving.
7. All kosher certified items shall be certified by an agency approved by the Chicago Rabbinical Council. A copy of the current list is attached to this Agreement as Exhibit A and can be found at: http://www.crcweb.org/agency_list.php.
8. Friday dinner through Saturday dinner will consist of lunch meals that can be eaten cold so that inmates may observe the rules of no heating on the Sabbath, if they choose.
9. Variety. The menu shall include at least 19 different main entrees offered over breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Each 28-day menu that is implemented at any facility will offer all 19 entrees. The 28-day menu will offer at a minimum 19 different combinations of breakfast, lunch, and dinner. The attached 28-day menu (Exhibit B) demonstrates a sample of what shall be offered, based on a generic menu (Exhibit C). At implementation Common Fare will incorporate the meals described and pictured in Exhibits D and E.
10. Defendants retain the discretion to change the Common Fare Menu. Common Fare Menu items are subject to manufacture and distributor availability. All changes will meet the variety requirement of paragraph 9 except
PARTIAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT – Page 3

Case 1:17-cv-00191-CWD Document 32-1 Filed 08/11/17 Page 4 of 9
as otherwise provided in paragraph 11 and unless Defendants utilized the provisions outlined in paragraph11.
11. If Defendants at any point are unable to implement a 28-day menu that includes 19 different daily variations at all IDOC facilities housing prisoners, despite exhausting all reasonable efforts to do so, the Defendants shall notify Plaintiffs’ counsel as soon as the Defendants become aware of their inability to comply. They shall include in the notification the efforts that they have made to comply and a statement of an alternative plan. Upon receipt of notice, the parties will attempt to resolve the issue through negotiation. If they are unable to resolve the issue within 20 days, the issue may be submitted to the Court for resolution.
12. Passover. Common Fare will comply with all kosher rules, including kosher for Passover. During Passover, Common Fare will serve the same generic menu set out in Exhibit B, but all prepacked meals shall be certified kosher for Passover.
13. Serving Food. Defendants shall serve all no-touch diet system food in the disposable container it comes in with double-wrap intact and with disposable utensils to prevent cross-contamination. Defendants shall serve all food that requires a tray on Common Fare trays that are stored and washed separately from all other food service trays.
PARTIAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT – Page 4

Case 1:17-cv-00191-CWD Document 32-1 Filed 08/11/17 Page 5 of 9
14. Monitoring Period. The parties agree that Plaintiffs’ counsel have a need to conduct reasonable monitoring of this Agreement to ensure compliance. Accordingly, the parties agree that there shall be a monitoring period to begin 30 days from the date that the no-touch diet system is available at any IDOC facility and continuing for six months after the date that the system is available at all IDOC facilities or until the no-touch diet system has been available during Passover at all IDOC facilities, whichever is later.
a. Within 14 days after IDOC has notified plaintiffs’ counsel in writing that the no-touch diet system is available at all IDOC facilities housing prisoners, the parties will meet and confer about the date on which this monitoring period will end. If the parties agree on the date, they will file a joint statement of that date with this Court. If there is a dispute between the parties about the date that the monitoring period will end, any party may file a motion with the Court to seek resolution of the dispute.
b. During that monitoring period, the parties agree that: (i) Defendants must produce any records and answer any
questions reasonably requested by Plaintiffs’ counsel that are related to compliance with this agreement at no cost to plaintiffs. These requests shall be sent to Defendants’ counsel Leslie Hayes
PARTIAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT – Page 5

Case 1:17-cv-00191-CWD Document 32-1 Filed 08/11/17 Page 6 of 9
and Mark Kubinski, or their designated successors. Defendants’ counsel shall respond to these requests within 14 days. These requests are subject to the proportionality standard expressed in FRCP 26(b)(1).
(ii) Plaintiffs’ counsel will be permitted on-site access for the purposes of inspection and monitoring compliance with this Agreement at any Idaho Department of Correction facility housing prisoners, with 48-hours’ notice to Defense counsel and not to exceed five total visits during the monitoring period. During the 48hour period, counsel will keep the date and time of the monitoring audit confidential. Defendants’ counsel and the IDOC Dietary Services Manager, if available, will be present for these visits. The notice of monitoring audit to Defense counsel will include confirmation of the date and time that the Plaintiffs, the facility warden, IDOC Deputy Director, and Director may be notified of the audit. Notice will be given at least 2 hours prior to the monitoring audit. To ensure against interference with monitoring, the Parties shall keep the date and time of the monitoring audit confidential until the audit occurs. Confidentiality of the monitoring audit terminates once the audit occurs.
PARTIAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT – Page 6

Case 1:17-cv-00191-CWD Document 32-1 Filed 08/11/17 Page 7 of 9
(iii) Every 30 days, Plaintiffs’ counsel shall be provided with all grievances, whether exhausted or not, related to the no-touch diet system or kosher food.
Defense counsel will search IDOC’s online grievance system for “no touch,” “kosher,” and “Common Fare.” Defense counsel will also review all food grievances. Defense Counsel will provide Plaintiffs’ counsel with the grievances that are relevant. 12. Federal Court Enforcement. The parties agree to jointly request that the Court approve this Settlement Agreement, incorporate this settlement agreement into its order approving it, and retain jurisdiction over this matter for the purpose of supervising and enforcing the terms of this Agreement until termination of the monitoring period as provided under ¶ 11. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375 (1994). This Agreement is contingent upon the Court incorporating the settlement agreement into an order and retaining jurisdiction over this matter to supervise and enforce the terms of the Agreement. If the Court does not do all of those things, the Plaintiffs retain all rights to enforce the terms of the Agreement or to withdraw their consent to the Agreement and revive any claims otherwise barred by operation of the Agreement. If the Plaintiffs elect to revive their claims, the case shall be returned to active status and the Defendants shall retain all of their rights and defenses.
PARTIAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT – Page 7

Case 1:17-cv-00191-CWD Document 32-1 Filed 08/11/17 Page 8 of 9
13. Alleged Breach and Other Disputes. The parties agree that in the event of a dispute between them regarding the terms and conditions of or compliance with this agreement during the monitoring period, they will provide written notice to the other of the alleged dispute, including a statement of facts sufficient to identify their dispute and make it possible for them to attempt to resolve the matter through negotiation. In the event they are unable to resolve the matter within 20 days, each party has the option of filing legal action, including a motion to show cause for contempt, with the Court to seek resolution of the dispute.
14. Individual Claims for Damages. The parties agree that this Agreement does not resolve the Plaintiffs’ individual claims for damage. That issue shall be resolved by separate agreement or by the Court.
15. Fees and Costs. The parties agree that this Agreement also does not resolve the issue of costs and attorneys’ fees for Plaintiffs’ counsels’ work on this case. That issue shall be resolved by separate agreement or by the Court.
PARTIAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT – Page 8

Case 1:17-cv-00191-CWD Document 32-1 Filed 08/11/17 Page 9 of 9
EXECUTED: For Plaintiffs: DATED: August 11, 2017
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF IDAHO FOUNDATION By: /s/ Richard Eppink
Richard Alan Eppink FERGUSON & DURHAM, PLLC
By: /s/ Craig Durham Craig Durham, of the firm
For Defendants: DATED: August 11, 2017
STATE OF IDAHO OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL By: /s/ Leslie Hayes
Leslie Hayes
PARTIAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT – Page 9