LITIGATION DOCKET

Transcription

1 LITIGATION DOCKET ARIZONA Canadian Coalition Against the Death Penalty, et al. v. Stewart (D. Ariz.). In 2000, the Arizona legislature passed and the Governor signed House Bill 2376, which makes it a crime for prisoners to have access to the internet. Since then, Arizona prisoners who have information about themselves or their cases posted on the websites of various nonprofit organizations have been punished with loss of visits, telephone calls, and other privileges. Prisoners are also banned from corresponding with any organization that maintains a website. On July 18, 2002, the NPP filed suit in federal court, seeking a declaration that HB 2376 violates the First Amendment. The clients are the Canadian Coalition Against the Death Penalty, Citizens United for Alternatives to the Death Penalty, and Stop Prisoner Rape, three nonprofit organizations that post information about prisoners on their internet websites. On December 16, 2002, the judge granted plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction and enjoined correctional officials from enforcing the statute. COLORADO Darbyshire v. Extraditions International, Inc. (D. Colo.). On April 11, 2002, the NPP filed suit against Extraditions International, Inc., a private prisoner-transport company, and two of its ex-employees. The suit alleges that a driver/guard for Extraditions International sexually harassed, threatened with death, and sexually assaulted Robin Darbyshire, a prisoner in his custody, and that the company was deliberately indifferent to the threat posed by the driver. Defendants also subjected Ms. Darbyshire, as well as the other prisoners, to unsafe and inhumane conditions of confinement: during a four-day transport, the van never stopped at a secure facility to allow the prisoners to rest and shower; the prisoners remained shackled for the entire time; the prisoners were only allowed to use restrooms every ten to twelve hours; the prisoners were given water only once; the van was driven in a reckless and erratic manner. On August 9, 2002, an amended complaint was filed, adding as a defendant American Extraditions, Inc., a successor corporation to which the assets of Extraditions International, Inc. had been transferred. In March 2003 we reached a settlement with all defendants under which the plaintiff will receive monetary damages. Shook v. Board of County Commissioners of the County of El Paso, (D. Colo.). This is a challenge to inadequate mental health care in the El Paso County Jail in Colorado Springs, Colorado. The badly overcrowded Jail, whose population regularly exceeds 1,000, has only two hours of psychiatric services

2 per week. Ten prisoners have died in the Jail since May 1998, including two who committed suicide in 2001 and another who recently committed suicide; one who died while tied to the Jail s restraint board; and a prisoner suffering from alcohol withdrawal who died after being repeatedly pepper-sprayed by deputies. The Jail also fails to provide necessary psychotropic medication; fails to provide inpatient hospitalization for mentally ill prisoners who need it; and uses restraints on mentally ill prisoners in an improper and unsafe manner. On January 15, 2003, the judge heard oral argument on defendants motion to dismiss and plaintiffs motion for class certification. We are awaiting a decision. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Caldwell v. Washington (D.D.C.) In a previous case, the court had appointed the NPP to represent the plaintiffs regarding his confinement in a disgusting mental health unit, despite his lack of any mental illness. In addition, the defendants had failed to treat his skin cancer and glaucoma, causing him injuries. The jury awarded him compensatory and punitive damages totaling about $175,000. Following that case, the defendants transferred the plaintiff to the District of Columbia Jail, where he continued to encounter unsafe and inhumane conditions. In addition, he was again diagnosed with skin cancer in April 2001, but the defendants failed to provide any treatment for that cancer until December 2001, by which time treatment of the cancer involved removing a substantial amount of skin from his face. In January 2003, the plaintiff accepted an offer of judgment from defendants for damages of $55,000. Jerry M. v. District of Columbia (D.C. Superior Court) The NPP has reentered this case, originally filed by the NPP, challenging conditions and practices involving D.C. juveniles. In 1986 the parties agreed to a Consent Decree, but the District has failed to come into compliance. A hearing in August 2000 revealed that the District was violating provisions regarding population limits, continuum of services, diagnostic services, programming, and aftercare services, among others. The judge issued an order setting new compliance deadlines for all provisions of the Consent Decree on January 31, In August 2001, the court held the first of several evidentiary hearing on defendants compliance with those provisions. In November 2001, immediately before a second hearing, the judge issued another order and opinion finding continued non-compliance. In July 2002 the court issued an order to show cause why the defendants should not be held in contempt and the court held a hearing on that motion in September. The parties are currently awaiting a ruling on that motion. In addition, in September 2002 the court granted a motion for injunctive relief filed 2

3 by plaintiffs requiring the defendants to employ a dentist immediately and to provide additional dental services, including the treatment of dental cavities. Plaintiffs have subsequently filed additional motions related to failure to protect the girls at Oak Hill from sexual assault. We are awaiting a decision from the court. A separate part of the Consent Decree involves placement of youth in facilities not directly operated by the District of Columbia. In August 2001 the parties, after protracted negotiations, reached an agreement on the mechanism for compliance with the Consent Decree requirements affecting these placements. In December 2002 the expert reviewing compliance pursuant to the parties agreement filed her final report, finding continued noncompliance and partial compliance with critical provisions of the Consent Decree. FLORIDA Carruthers v. Jenne (S.D.Fla.) This is a longstanding class action suit regarding conditions at the Broward County Jail. The case was settled in 1994, resulting in a consent decree mandating a population cap, and improvements in various operations at the jail. On August 30, 1996, the defendants filed a motion to terminate the decree pursuant to the PLRA, arguing that they were in compliance with the terms of the decree. The NPP joined this case to assist local counsel in preparing for the evidentiary hearing. On March 15, 2002, three court-appointed experts filed reports regarding conditions at the jails. The experts identified numerous overarching and systemic problems, including that unnecessary and excessive force is often employed by BCDD correctional staff, that reviews of use-of-force incidents are inadequate and that there is a lack of meaningful disciplinary sanctions for serious violations of use-of-force policies; that BCDD's use of the restraint chair is not properly regulated or documented; that the practices they found violate the jail detainees constitutional right to a professional judgment exercised by appropriate trained medical personnel, in a medical setting; and that many inmates with serious mental disorders (often associated with active psychotic features) were not receiving adequate mental health treatment. In January 2003 the court-appointed experts conducted another round of inspections. They concluded that the jail had made improvements in medical services, classification, and disciplinary segregation, but that problems persisted in the areas of mental health, and use of force. The trial was scheduled for April 2003, but it has been postponed to allow the parties to engage in settlement discussions. 3

4 IDAHO Gomez v. Vernon (D. Idaho; Ninth Circuit) This case challenged a long-standing pattern and practice of retaliation by correctional staff against prisoners who brought civil rights lawsuits or submitted grievances about the conditions of their confinement. On the eve of trial, plaintiffs learned that Deputy Attorneys General for the State had been secretly reading the confidential lawyer-client mail between the ACLU and the plaintiffs. An eight-week trial was completed in March In 1999, the court issued an opinion finding that a number of prisoners had suffered retaliation, and it ordered individual injunctive relief. Subsequently, the court issued an opinion sanctioning defendants lawyers for secretly reading the plaintiffs lawyer-client mail. The defendants appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed all aspects of the District Court s rulings. Defendants filed a petition for review by Supreme Court, which was denied in December The plaintiffs fees petition is pending in the Ninth Circuit. INDIANA Anderson v. Orr (N.D. Ind.) This class action case resulted in a consent decree covering medical and mental health care, among other issues, at the Westville Correctional Center. Plaintiffs recently have been investigating prisoner-on-prisoner violence, gang activity, staff misconduct, and drug trafficking at the facility. Hendrix v. Farley (N.D. Ind.) This case was originally filed over 20 years ago alleging that the totality of conditions at the Indiana State Prison (ISP) violated the prisoners' Eighth Amendment rights. Following a bench trial, a federal judge found that the facility was unconstitutionally overcrowded, and imposed a population cap at the prison. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit upheld the population cap, and determined that the prison's medical care system was unconstitutional. The parties thereafter entered into an Agreed Entry regarding health care at ISP. The Agreed Entry requires ISP to hire a medical director, sets medical staffing requirements, and requires ISP to develop and implement appropriate medical protocols. Post-judgment monitoring is ongoing. The NPP recently entered the case to conduct post-judgment monitoring. LOUISIANA Doe v. Foti (E.D. La.) The NPP serves as co-counsel with the Youth Law Center in this class action challenging conditions at the Conchetta Facility which houses juveniles 4

5 as part of the Orleans Parish Prison in New Orleans. The case challenges physical abuse of juveniles, lack of educational programs, lack of medical and mental health care, unsafe environmental conditions, and inadequate visitation policies. The parties have now settled all issues. Hamilton v. Morial (E.D. La.) This class action, initially filed in 1969, challenges conditions at the Orleans Parish Prison (New Orleans Jail). The NPP entered the case in 1989 as class counsel, and over the next six years negotiated settlements on the medical care, mental health care, physical plant and fire safety claims, and continue to monitor defendants compliance with the settlement agreements. The defendants are constructing a new mental health facility to enable more programming for mentally ill prisoners, following several reports by plaintiffs expert that programming space was severely inadequate. The facility is expected to be online in early In 2002 the court held a hearing on the use of restraints in the jail after a mentally ill prisoner died of dehydration while he was in four-point restraints. Plaintiffs are awaiting decision on that issue. In addition, in early 2003 plaintiffs filed a motion regarding the defendants failures to treat prisoners with Hepatitis C. The plaintiffs have also scheduled an expert inspection regarding mental health for Spring Lambert v. Morial (E.D. La.) This case challenged the conditions for women prisoners in the Orleans County Parish (New Orleans Jail). It has been consolidated with Hamilton v. Morial, supra. MARYLAND Duvall v. Glendening (D. Md.) In August 2002, the NPP, working with the Maryland ACLU and local counsel, discovered that female detainees in the jail were being exposed to heat in excess of 115 degrees because the facility was unventilated. As a result, pregnant women and women with chronic diseases were at great danger of immediate injury or death. The plaintiffs sought reopening of the case and an injunction safeguarding the women. Shortly before a scheduled hearing on plaintiffs motion was set to begin, the defendants agreed to a Consent Decree admitting that conditions related to the heat and lack of ventilation in the facility violated the Eighth Amendment. The plaintiffs continue to monitor and expect to bring further challenges to unconstitutional conditions within the facility. Currently plaintiffs are investigating medical and mental health problems. MICHIGAN 5

6 Hadix v. Johnson (W.D. Mich.) In 1992 the NPP was asked to enter this case by local counsel. In 1996 the defendants filed a PLRA motion to terminate a consent decree covering medical and mental health issues, and asked the court to recognize an automatic stay (suspension) of the Consent Decree. The district court held this stay provision of PLRA unconstitutional, and the defendants appealed to the Sixth Circuit. In May 1998, the Sixth Circuit rejected the defendants contentions on statutory rather than constitutional grounds. In November 1997, the district court held an evidentiary hearing on the medical issues. Following the hearing, it issued findings specifying areas of continuing constitutional violations, including failures to provide necessary treatment for prisoners with chronic diseases, failures to supervise the medical staff, failures to make necessary referrals for specialty care, failures to provide a reliable method for prisoners to request health care, failures to provide necessary accommodations for disabled prisoners, and deficiencies in the maintenance of the medical records. The defendants appealed to the Sixth Circuit, but the court of appeals dismissed the appeal. In May 2002 the court held another trial on medical care, disability accommodations, heat and ventilation, and fire safety issues. Plaintiffs evidence demonstrated, among other things that delivery of medications for chronic diseases is completely unreliable, that prisoners who need specialized treatment like chemotherapy routinely have that treatment interrupted and delayed, that prisoners who report symptoms that require urgent attention frequently are not seen in a timely fashion and suffer harm as a result, and that a number of prisoners have suffered harm because of exposure to excessive heat. On October 29, 2002, the judge issued a comprehensive decision finding in plaintiffs favor on all issues. In connection with that decision, the judge issued an order requiring that the defendants develop a plan to protect all prisoners at heightened risk for heat injury by placing them in temperature-controlled housing when the heat index rises above 90 degrees. In a subsequent order following further briefing from the parties, the judge mandated major structural changes to provide necessary fire safety. The defendants have appealed to the Sixth Circuit from both the order related to prevention of heat injury and the fire safety order. For legal access aspects of Hadix, see Knop v. Johnson, infra. Knop v. Johnson (W.D. Mich.) This class action challenges certain conditions at the State Prison of Southern Michigan, the Michigan Reformatory, the Marquette Branch Prison, and the Riverside Correctional and Psychiatric Facilities. The district court granted relief on all the issues tried. The defendants appealed to the Sixth Circuit, which reversed the district court s findings of racial discrimination and a 6

7 failure to provide adequate plumbing facilities. The court affirmed the district court s findings of constitutional violations on the issues of access to courts, confidential legal mail, and provision of adequate winter clothing. In 1996 the district court entered a new remedial order regarding access to courts and granted a preliminary injunction continuing funding for Michigan Prisoner Legal Services until defendants implemented that remedy. In addition, the court denied defendants motion to terminate under PLRA, holding that defendants had failed to show that they had cured the constitutional violations. In 1999 the Sixth Circuit vacated and remanded the remedial order, but affirmed the preliminary injunction on funding. In August 2000 the parties agreed on a comprehensive settlement. In October 2001 the defendants announced that because of recent events they intended to cease obedience to orders in this case and Hadix v. Johnson, supra, which required them to open legal mail in the presence of the prisoner recipient and to refrain from reading such mail. The plaintiffs filed a motion for contempt. In February 2002 the magistrate judge issued an opinion recommending rejection of the defendants policy, but recommending against the issuance of an injunction. Both sides appealed to the district judge, who granted most of the injunctive relief requested by plaintiffs. While defendants are prohibited from reading any legal mail, they can open such mail in a central location as long as additional steps to assure that the mail is not read are followed. Following agreement on new mail policies and a period of monitoring, the parties agreed to a stipulation dismissing the access to courts and legal mail provisions in September Overton v. Bazzetta (U.S. S. Ct.) In this case, the Supreme Court granted review in a case in which the Sixth Circuit had upheld a lower court s decision striking down various restrictions on non-contact prisoner visits, including a permanent ban on all visits for prisoners who had two prison disciplinary charges for substance abuse (a charge that includes possession of prescription medications after the prescription expires). The NPP filed a amicus brief in the Supreme Court supporting the decision in the Sixth Circuit. MISSISSIPPI Moore v. Fordice/Gates v. Cook (N.D. Miss.; Fifth Circuit) In 1999, all of the prisoners confined in Mississippi s segregated unit for HIVpositive prisoners at Parchman petitioned to have the NPP to serve as their counsel, replacing their court-appointed class counsel, and to enforce their rights to adequate medical care and humane conditions of confinement. The NPP asked the court to issue a preliminary injunction regarding the unit s failure 7

8 to provide necessary medical care. Following an evidentiary hearing, the district court found that the medical care was grossly defective, and entered an injunction requiring the State to provide HIV care consistent with CDC guidelines, including triple-drug therapy. The district court nevertheless rejected the prisoners' request to make the NPP their class counsel, and shortly thereafter, at the request of court-appointed class counsel, it issued a gag order prohibiting the NPP from communicating with any Mississippi prisoner about medical care or any other conditions of confinement. In November 2000, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, lifted the gag order, and ordered the NPP substituted as counsel. In April 2001, after the Fifth Circuit denied further review, the NPP began to monitor medical care and other conditions of confinement. In , while the gag order was in place, the NPP worked with the prisoners' families and with local and national advocates for people living with HIV to form a coalition to advocate for an end to Mississippi's policy of segregating all prisoners with HIV and excluding them from the educational and vocational programs offered to their HIV-negative peers. In response, the Commissioner of the Mississippi Department of Corrections formed a Task Force to review the DOC's HIV policies, and appointed NPP staff and allies as members of the Task Force along with DOC and public health officials. The Task Force issued a comprehensive report in March 2001, recommending program integration and universal HIV education throughout the prison system. In June 2001, the Commissioner adopted these recommendations in full, and program integration commenced in September The NPP has continued to monitor closely the delivery of medical care, environmental hazards, staff abuses and security concerns in the HIV Unit, as well as persistent problems of staff retaliation against prisoners active in the litigation. In May 2002, correctional staff opened and read confidential lawyerclient correspondence from the NPP to class members concerning environmental hazards on the Unit, and shortly thereafter staff conducted a retaliatory cell shake-down of the lead class representative. The district court granted a temporary restraining order, and after an evidentiary hearing on June 25, entered a permanent injunction barring mail tampering and retaliatory cell searches. Groot v. Hudson (N.D. Miss.) In October 2001, a number of HIV-positive prisoners in Mississippi State Penitentiary at Parchman, activists in the Moore v. Fordice class action [see above], brought suit for damages and injunctive relief against several correctional officers, alleging a long-standing pattern of severe retaliation against prisoners who submit grievances regarding staff misconduct. Plaintiffs have been beaten, threatened with beatings, subjected to fabricated 8

9 disciplinary charges, and confined to punitive segregation for many months in grossly inhumane conditions in retaliation for filing grievances exposing staff misconduct. Among the plaintiffs are two inmate clerks who were routinely coerced by correctional staff into creating bogus rule violation reports and forged witness statements to ensure severe punishment for prisoners targeted by correctional officers for retaliation. The case was tried in March Following the trial the court dismissed some of the claims, but reserved judgment on the physical assault claims. The plaintiffs will consider an appeal after the assault claims are resolved. Russell v. Johnson (N.D. Miss.) In January 2001, a number of Mississippi s Death Row prisoners at Mississippi State Penitentiary in Parchman went on a hunger strike to protest brutally harsh conditions in Unit 32, which houses Mississippi's death-row prisoners and severely mentally ill prisoners. A majority of the death-sentenced prisoners spend many years on death row while they pursue their appeals, and many of those appeals eventually succeed: Of 183 death sentences imposed in Mississippi since 1976, the Mississippi Supreme Court has reversed the death penalty in 41 percent of the direct appeals it has ruled on. In fact, almost as many people have had their convictions reversed as have been executed. The NPP agreed to investigate the prisoners complaints, and met with the Commissioner of the Department to attempt to negotiate changes and to tour Death Row with medical, mental health and environmental health and safety experts. When the State refused to allow NPP to inspect Death Row, the NPP and other national and local counsel filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of the prisoners. In July 2002, the district court entered an order compelling the State to allow NPP to tour Death Row with four experts. The August tour revealed conditions so inhumane as to amount to torture, including lethal extremes of heat and humidity, pervasive filth, uncontrolled infestation of mosquitoes and other pests, nonfunctional plumbing, lack of water, arbitrary and draconian discipline, grossly inadequate lack of opportunity to exercise, solitary confinement and extreme deprivation of social contact, and grossly deficient mental health and medical care. In early September, plaintiffs psychiatrist, emergency medicine physician, environmental health and safety engineer, and corrections expert, submitted reports to the district court on their findings, with their conclusions that Death Row conditions are so brutally inhumane and extreme that they are virtually certain to cause medical illness and destruction of mental stability and functioning, and to jeopardize the lives of all prisoners incarcerated there. Based on these reports, the district judge granted Plaintiffs motion for class certification and for expedited discovery and trial. The trial took place in February 2003 and a decision in expected by the end of the March. 9

10 MONTANA Langford v. Racicot (D. Mont.) This case was filed following a serious disturbance at the Montana State Prison that resulted in seven deaths. The lawsuit challenges medical and mental health care, overcrowding, environmental and fire safety conditions, classification policy, and sex offender policies. The parties settled all issues except those issues related to treatment of protective custody prisoners. The protective custody issues were ultimately tried in a separate case filed by the Department of Justice. In September 2002 the health care experts conducted an inspection of the prison. The experts concluded that prisoners suffering from chronic illnesses were not receiving appropriate treatment, and were not being monitored at regular intervals by medical staff. The recommended that a physician be responsible for monitoring seriously chronically ill patients and that the defendants revise their medication procurement contract to assure that medications prescribed to prisoners are renewed promptly. The experts are scheduled to conduct a follow-up site inspection in Spring NEW MEXICO Sandoval v. Lopez (D.N.M.) The NPP is co-counsel in this case, which attempts to replicate our success in Jones El, the Wisconsin supermax litigation. (See below). Here, as in Jones El, the major issues are the devastating effects of supermax confinement on the mentally ill, and the harmful effects of such confinement even on previously mentally healthy prisoners. The litigation is currently on hold while the parties attempt to negotiate a settlement. These talks have already resulted in a major victory: the replacement of so-called video visitation with face-to-face visits for prisoners and their loved ones. OHIO Southern Ohio Correctional Facility Following an extensive investigation, in 2002 the NPP and local counsel accepted an invitation from the Ohio Department of Corrections to work with them, rather than file suit, to address deficiencies in mental health care at the facility. These issues include reducing reliance on medication as the primary treatment modality; addressing staff insensitivity to mentally ill patients; providing appropriate housing for mentally ill patients; reducing the number of suicide gestures; and implementing an appropriate quality assurance program. RHODE ISLAND Inmates of the Boys Training School v. Lindgren (D.R.I.) 10

11 This class action involves conditions of confinement and program management at the central juvenile facility in Rhode Island. It was originally settled by entry of a Consent Decree in In 1997, because of continuing failures to obey the Consent Decree, the court reactivated the Special Master to work with the parties to resolve compliance issues. The NPP entered this case as plaintiffs class counsel in Following the NPP s entry into the case, in March 2000, the parties negotiated a comprehensive revision of the Consent Decree. The plaintiffs continue to monitor compliance. In 2002, with NPP s counsel active participation, Rhode Island agreed to construct a new juvenile facility and the state legislature appropriated sixty million dollars to fund it. Construction is expected to begin in 2003 and will take three to four years to complete. SOUTH DAKOTA Cody v. Hillard (D.S.D.) This class action challenged medical and mental health care, physical plant and sanitation, shop safety, legal access, and overcrowding at the South Dakota State Penitentiary. Following a trial, the district court found for the plaintiffs on virtually all issues. After the decision, the parties agreed on a consent decree covering all issues but overcrowding. The court of appeals reversed the district court on that issue. On all other issues, the plaintiffs continued to monitor and filed motions for enforcement of the consent decree. In 1996, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the district court granted in April In March 1998 the court of appeals unanimously reversed the dismissal After that decision, the district judge transferred the case to a new judge. The parties agreed to a new settlement that provided additional relief to the plaintiffs. Following a fairness hearing in November 1999, the Court approved the settlement in February In November 2000 the court awarded substantial attorneys fees to plaintiffs. The defendants appealed from that order and in September 2002 the Eighth Circuit affirmed the award of attorneys fees in a decision that interprets the PLRA s fees provisions in a helpful way. The plaintiffs are continuing to monitor compliance with the settlement agreement. TEXAS Johnson v. Johnson (N.D. Tex.). Texas was identified as the worst state in the nation for prisoner rape by Human Rights in On April 18, 2002, the NPP filed suit, seeking damages and injunctive relief on behalf of Roderick Keith Johnson, a young, gay African American who alleges that from September 2000 to April 2002, he was subjected to a system of gang-run sexual slavery. Gang members routinely bought and sold him as a chattel, raped and degraded him on a virtually daily 11

12 basis, and threatened him with death if he resisted. He repeatedly pleaded with prison officials to house him in safekeeping or protective custody, but they refused to conduct any meaningful investigation of his complaints and denied his pleas for safekeeping. They made clear that they took sadistic pleasure in his victimization, and repeatedly insisted that because he is Black, Mr. Johnson should either be able to fight off his attackers or accept sexual victimization. They also repeatedly expressed contempt for non-aggressive gay men, following a practice to refuse to protect such inmates from sexual assault, at least until such inmates are savagely beaten or "gutted." The assaults escalated until the NPP intervened and brought pressure to bear to transfer Mr. Johnson to safekeeping in another prison. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Mr. Johnson s Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment by deliberately failing to protect him, and that they denied him equal protection of the laws based on his race and sexual orientation. In January 2003 the court issued an order protecting witnesses after plaintiffs demonstrated evidence of witness intimidation. Trial is set for May Essary v. Chaney (S.D. Tex.) The NPP filed its second lawsuit of 2002 challenging prisoner rape in Texas on behalf of Nathan Essary, a slightly-built 22-year-old with very little prison experience and a history of mental illness, who was a minimum custody prisoner when he was repeatedly sexually assaulted by correctional officer Michael Chaney. The plaintiff, a past victim of a prison gang-rape, was ordered to masturbate and perform oral sex on Officer Chaney on a number of occasions in October When he tried to refuse these demands for sex, Chaney warned Essary that he would make his life a living hell and would pay prison gangs to have him killed if he resisted. When Essary notified the prison warden that Chaney was sexually assaulting him, the warden failed to protect him and that night Officer Chaney raped Essary again. In May 2002, Officer Chaney was indicted for sexual assault on Essary, based on semen that he had collected following one of the attacks. The lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive damages against Officer Chaney and the warden who failed to protect Essary after being notified of the assaults. A trial scheduling order is set for late March VIRGIN ISLAND Carty v. Schneider (D.V.I.) This class action case culminated in a comprehensive settlement agreement requiring the Virgin Islands government to rectify severe overcrowding, to address squalid conditions, to remedy deficient medical and mental health care, and to institute inmate classification and fire safety 12

13 measures to ensure the safety and security of prisoners. In 1997, the district court held defendants in contempt of court for their failure to comply with the consent decree. During 1998, the defendants sharply reduced the population at CJC. Through 2000, the court held periodic hearings, and entered several detailed remedial orders requiring improvements in virtually every aspect of operations and conditions at the facilities. In June 2001, the court again held the defendants in contempt for failing to comply with the decree and the court s remedial orders. The court found that the government had failed to install a reliable fire detection system, or institute fire safety and evacuation procedures, that the jail remained plagued with environmental hazards due to inadequate maintenance staff, that severely mentally ill prisoners received inadequate treatment at the jail, that prisoners did not have access to working telephones to contact their attorneys or families, and that prisoners were denied basic hygiene supplies such as toilet paper and shampoo. In September 2001, the court ordered the defendants to create a remedial fund to pay for rectifying conditions within the system. In November 2002, the judge held another contempt hearing. During that hearing, the court received expert testimony that the jail was still not equipped with a complete fire detection and alarm system, that critical security posts often were unmanned, and that jail personnel were unable to open key exit doors, thus endangering the lives of prisoners and staff in the event of a fire. A medical expert testified that severely mentally ill prisoners continued to receive inadequate mental health treatment, and that prisoners suffering from chronic illnesses were not appropriately treated for their conditions. Following the hearing, the judge entered an order for interim relief requiring the defendants to hire an independent medical expect to assist the defendants in augmenting existing health care policies and procedures, and implementing a health care quality assurance program. A final decision on remedy is expected this Spring. WASHINGTON Hallett v. Payne (W.D. Wash.; Ninth Circuit) This class action, challenging inadequate medical, mental health, and dental care at the Washington Corrections Center for Women (WCCW), was filed in The case was settled in 1995 with entry of a consent decree that was to last for four years, but could be extended if the state failed to comply with its terms. In 1999 the plaintiffs moved for an extension of the decree and for contempt, citing serious ongoing deficiencies in health care. The state filed a motion to terminate the decree under PLRA. After a two-week evidentiary hearing in March and April 1999, the district court denied the plaintiffs motions 13

14 and granted the state s termination motion. Plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit and asked that court to reinstate the decree pending appeal, to prevent irreparable harm to the women at WCCW. The Ninth Circuit granted that request in March In August 2002, the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part, and sent the case back to the district court to determine whether the state was in contempt of the decree. Because serious and lifethreatening deficiencies in medical care continue to exist at the prison, on December 19, 2002 the plaintiffs filed a motion for contempt, which is now pending in the district court. Orndorff v. Jefferson County (W. D. Wash.) This lawsuit challenges conditions at the Jefferson County Jail in Port Hadlock, Washington. The Jail has no salaried health care staff, and prisoners are denied necessary medical, mental health, and dental care. As a result of severe overcrowding, many prisoners are forced to sleep on the floor. Plumbing and climate control are inadequate, and prisoners are denied basic hygiene supplies, such as toilet paper and sanitary napkins. Overcrowding and squalid conditions lead to heightened tension and fighting among prisoners, which security staff are unable or unwilling to prevent. On September 3, 2002, the district court certified the plaintiff class. On February 14, 2003 the parties reached a settlement that calls for a comprehensive overhaul of jail operations. WISCONSIN Jones El v. Berge (W.D. Wis.). The NPP is co-counsel with the ACLU of Wisconsin and a coalition of Wisconsin lawyers in this challenge to conditions at the Supermax Correctional Institution (SMCI) in Boscobel, Wisconsin. Opened in 1999 in a remote part of the state, SMCI is designed to subject prisoners to extreme social isolation and sensory deprivation. Conditions include 24 hour illumination and bed checks in which prisoners are awakened hourly throughout the night. Prisoners are locked in their windowless cells for all but four hours a week. They receive no outdoor exercise. All visits, except with attorneys, are conducted via video screen. Some prisoners are allowed only one 6-minute telephone call per month. These conditions are particularly devastating to mentally ill prisoners, who suffer exacerbation of their illness and often attempt self-harm or suicide. In October 2001, the court issued a preliminary injunction ordering the state to remove a number of identified mentally ill prisoners from SMCI, and to evaluate other SMCI prisoners to determine if they are mentally ill. This resulted in over 30 mentally ill prisoners being removed from SMCI. In March 2002, the remaining issues in the case were settled with the entry of a consent decree. A courtappointed monitor is now overseeing implementation of the decree s provisions. 14