f: .._

, . .,

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION

r 7J i ;i .
1 ?~`

RICHARD RALPH,

Plaintiff, v.

CIVIL ACTION NO . :1 :02-CV-479-JEC

ALAN ADAMS, Acting Commissioner of the Georgia Department of Corrections, and MICHELLE MARTIN, Warden of Phillips State Prison, in their official capacities,

Defendants .

O RD E R

This case is presently before the Court on defendants' Motion

to Dismiss [38] .

The Court has reviewed the record and the

arguments of the parties and, for the reasons set out below,

concludes that defendants' Motion to Dismiss should be DENIED .

BACKGROUND

This case began its life under the style Fluellen v .

Wetnerington, No, i :02-CV-479-JEC, and was filed as a purported

class action . The would-be class was composed of mentally i11 and/or mentally retarded prisoners at Phillips State Prison . These

plaintiffs alleged that they were subiect to physical, mental, and

AO 7?k i Fev. 3182)

1\

sexual abuse, excessive use of force, improper and prolonged

(placement in administrative and disciplinary segregation, and to an

Ion-going risk of suicide, sell-injury, and death .

Plaintiffs

sought class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

23(b) (2) for a class consisting of "all individuals whose abilities

to cope with the demands of life within the correctional

environment are impaired or in need of monitoring due to mental

illness and/or mental retardation, who are now or will be in the future incarcerated at Phillips State Prison ." (First Amended

Compl . [10] at $ 17 .) In an Order [32] dated March 21, 2003, the Court determined

that the would-be class did not meet all four of the requirements

of Rule 23(a) and therefore denied without prejudice plaintiffs' motion for class certification . (Order [32] at 43 .) The Court

stated that it would maintain, as a single case, the action styled

Fluellen, et al . v . Wetherington, et al ., 1 :02-CV-479-JEC, and

ordered plaintiff Fluellen to file an amended complaint within

thirty days from the date of that Order . (Id .) The Court further

severed the claims of the remaining twenty plaintiffs and directed

them to file individual complaints within thirty days of the date

of the Order . (Id .) The Court emphasized that the denial of class

certification was without prejudice and stated that if the j i
plaintiffs, at some point in the future, developed a more cohesive

2

AO ;w aev 8/82 1

class that could meet the requirements of Rule 23, the Court would entertain again a motion for class certification . (Id . at 99 .)
Plaintiff Lacoya Fluellen subsequently decided to accept a transfer from Phillips State Prison because he feared for his safety there . (Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Pursuant to Fed . R . Civ . P . 41(a) at 2 .) Because Phillips officials had informed him that he could not be transferred while his lawsuit was still spending, Fluelle :: dismissed his action without prejudice, pursuant to Rule 41 (a) (1) . (Id . at 2-3 .) On April 9, 2003, this Court therefore entered an Order [35] dismissing without prejudice Fluellen's lawsuit against Jim Wetherington, James DeGroot, Michelle Martin, Cynthia Nelson, Eleanor Brown, and James Brown . The case was terminated the same day .
On April 10, 2003, the Court held a status conference with counsel for all parties present . The purpose of the conference was both to consider a motion for a preliminary injunction that plaintiffs had filed before the dismissal by Fluellen and to determine how best to proceed with the case . The Court noted the awkward procedural posture that had been created because the voluntary dismissal by plaintiff Fluellen meant that there was really no longer any case . (Hearing Tr . at 3 .) The Court stated that it would like to have some sort of action started and for the parties to begin discovery . (Id . at 23 .) The Court noted that a
3
AO 714 raevs'a2)

complaint would need to be filed and that the next step would then

be to conduct discovery with regard to the particular complaint .

(Id . at 24 .) The Court therefore instructed plaintiffs' counsel to

pick the plaintiff that they wanted to go with and to file an

amended complaint "in the next few days ." (Id . at 28 .) The Court

stated that discovery would proceed as to that one individual and

that any decision on class status would be deferred . (Id .)

Plaintiffs' counsel subsequently submitted an amended

complaint to the Clerk's Office on July 8, 2003 . This complaint

has apparently not actually been filed, however, and it does not

appear on the docket sheet . Moreover, no discovery appears to have

been conducted in the intervening period . Plaintiffs' counsel

stated at the conference that they would like to begin discovery as

soon as they could .

(Hearing Tr . at 31 .)

The Court stated

specifically that it wanted discovery to start . (Td . at 33 .) The

Court's understanding was therefore that the parties would go ahead

and conduct a ninety-day discovery period after the filing of the

new complaint .

(Hearing Minute Sheet [36] .) Yet, for reasons

I

unclear to the Court, the amended complaint appears never to have

been officially filed, and no discovery has occurred .

Defendants have new filed a motion to dismiss this case based

upon the new plaintiff's failure to exhaust his administrative

remedies . At the April 10, 2003, conference, the Court noted that

4

Ao ;2a
i Rev 9821

it did not want to get bogged down nn the issue of whether the

proper grievances had been filed at the prison . (Hearing Tr . at

33 .)

The Court stated that the defendants might win on the

grievance issue at summary judgment, but that it is a summary

judgment issue because it is not always obvious at the outset

whether someone has filed a grievance or not . (Id .) Nonetheless,

the Court did tell defense counsel, "As to filing motions to dismiss on things like grievances, you can go ahead and file it up

front or you can wait and file it later . . . . Whatever you want to

do is fine with me ." (Id . at :i4-35 .) The Court concluded the conference by denying without prejudice the motion for a preliminary injunction and stating that it would conduct a conference call with counsel after the close of the ninety-day discovery period . (Id . at 37 .) This call has obviously not taken

place, as no discovery has taken place to date .

DISCUSSION

Defendants do not specify under which subsection of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) they bring this motion to dismiss . The Court will therefore address the motion under both Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6) . I . Rule 12(b)(1)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) (1) provides for the dismissal of a complaint on the basis of "lack of jurisdiction over

5

A17'-4
(Rev 3/821

the subject matter ." Fed . R . Civ . P . 12(b)(1) . In this case,

defendants argue that plaintiff's Complaint must be dismissed

I because he has not exhausted his administrative remedies under 92

U .S .C . § 1997e(a) . (Br . in Supp . of Mot . to Dismiss [38] at 4 .)

I The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996 (PLRA) provides, in

relevant part :

No action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of this title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted .

42 U .S .C . § 1997e(a) .

I

The exhaustion requirement of 92 U .S .C . 9 1997e(a) does not

I limit this Court's subject matter jurisdiction .

Though the

Eleventh Circuit has not yet decided whether a dismissal under

I 1997e(a) amounts to a dismissal for failure to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted, under Rule 12(b) (6), or for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction over the unexhausted claims, under Rule I
12(b)(1), it has recognized that "[m]ost courts addressing this

issue have decided that § 1997e(a) is not a jurisdictional

mandate ." Brown v . Sikes, 212 F .3d 1205, 1207 n .2 (11" Cir . 2000)

(citing Nyhuis v . Reno, 209 F .3d 65, 69 n .9 (3d Cir . 2000)) . The

clear majority of circuit courts that have ruled on the issue have

held that section 1997e(a) is not a jurisdictional requirement,

such that failure to comply with the section would deprive federal

6

AO 712H (Rev.9B2)

courts of subject matter jurisdiction . See Foulk v . Charrier, 262 F .3d 687, 697 (8`r' Cir . 2001) ; Nyhuis v . Reno, 204 F .3d 65, 69 n .4 (3d Cir . 2000) ; Massey v . Helman, 196 F . 3d 727, 732 (7"' Cir . 1999) ; Wyatt v . Leonard, 193 E .3d 876, 879 (6"' Cir . 1999) ; Rumbles v .

Hill, 182 F .3d 1069, 1068 (9"' Cir . 1999), overruled on other

grounds, Booth v . Churner, 532 U .S . 731 (2001) ; Underwood v .

Wilson, 151 F .3d 292, 299-95 (5`r' Cir . 1998) ; Basham v . Uphoff, No .

98-8013, 1998 WL 897689, at *3 (lOcr' Cir . Dec . 8, 1998) (unpublished

decision) .

This Court will therefore not dismiss plaintiff's

claims under Rule 12(b)(1), but will consider defendants' motion to

dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) .

II . Rule 12 (b) (6)

A . Motion to Dismiss Standard

In deciding a motion to dismiss brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Procedure 12(b)(6), the Court shall not dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim "unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief ." Conley v . Gibson, 355 U .S . 91, 95-46 (1957) . Motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim will rarely be granted because of the liberal pleading requirements of the federal rules . Quality Foods de Centro Am ., S .A . v . Latin Am . Agribusiness Dev . Corp ., S . A ., 711 F .2d 989, 995

7

AO 7zH
IRev.BB2)

(ll"'Cir . 1983) . Furthermore, courts must "accept the well pleaded facts as true and resolve them in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff ." Beck c" . Deloitte b Touch e, 149 F .3d 732, 735 (11`r' Cir . 1998) (citation omitted) . The Eleventh Circuit has stated :
The purpose of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is to test the facial sufficiency of the statement of claim for relief . It is read alongside Fed . R . Civ . P . 8(a), which requires only a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief ." The rule is not designed to strike inartistic pleadings or to provide a more definite statement to answer an apparent ambiguity, and the analysis of a 12(b)(6) motion is limited primarily to the face of the complaint and attachments thereto .
Brooks v . Blue Cross 5 Blue Shield of Florida, Inc ., 116 E .3d 1369, 1368 (11'r' Cir . 1997) (citing 5 Charles A . Wright & Arthur Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1356 at 590-92 (1969)) . Thus, in general, "the threshold of sufficiency that a complaint must meet to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is
exceedingly low ." Quality Foods, 711 F .2d at 995 . Defendants bear the "very high burden" of showing that a plaintiff cannot conceivably prove any set of facts that would entitle him to
relief . Heck, 149 F .3d at 735-36 .
B . Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
As noted above, defendants argue that plaintiff's Complaint must be dismissed because he has not exhausted his administrative remedies under the PLRA, 92 U .S .C . § 1997e(a) . The Supreme Court
8
AO 72A IRev 9B2i

has held that the PLRA exhaustion requirement applies to all

prisoners seeking redress for prison conditions or occurrences .

Porter v . Nussle, 539 U .S . 516, 520 (2002) . All available remedies

must be exhausted, even if those remedies would not meet federal

standards, even if the available remedies are not quick or

effective, and even when the prisoner seeks relief that may not be

available in grievance proceedings . Id . at 529 . Furthermore, the

exhaustion requirement of the PLRA applies to all inmate suits

about prison life, no matter the nature of the complaint . I 532 .

Id . at

The exhaustion requirement cannot be waived merely because

the prisoner believes that pursuing administrative procedures would

be futile . Higginbottom v . Carter, 223 F .3d 1259, 1261 (11"' Cir .

2000) (citation omitted) . As Congress has mandated exhaustion in section 1°97e(a), courts have no discretion to waive the exhaustion

~Irequirement . Alexander v . Hawk, 159 F .3d 1321, 1325 (11" Cir .

11998) . Further, section 1997e(a)'s requirement that a prisoner

lexhaust such administrative "remedies" as are available simply acknowledges that not all prisons actually have administrative

remedy programs . Id . at 1326 . If a state penal institution does

not have an administrative remedy program to address prison conditions, there would be no "available" administrative remedies to exhaust . Thus, section 1997e(a) would permit these prisoners to

9

AO '2H (Rev 8/82)

pursue their claims directly in federal court . Id . at 1326-27 . Nevertheless, if a prison has an internal administrative grievance system through which a prisoner can seek to correct a problem, then the prisoner must utilize that administrative system before filing la claim . Massey v . Helman, 196 F .3d 727, 733 (7`r' Cir . 1999) .
Defendant argues that, even if he has not exhausted all of his administrative remedies, the grievance system at Phillips should be construed as being "unavailable" to him, because he is severely mentally impaired due to both mental illness and mental retardation and has great difficulty thinking logically and expressing himself rationally . (Pl .'s Resp . to Defs .' Mot . to Dismiss [39] at 3-9 .) (Plaintiff asserts that these impairments prevent him from always understanding and complying with the grievance procedure . (Id . at 9 .) Plaintiff further avers that his grievance counselor told him Ito stop filing grievances because she cannot understand what he is (trying to stay . (Id .) More importantly at the moment, however, plaintiff alleges in his Amended Complaint that he has exhausted all of his administrative remedies to the extent that they were available . (Am . Compl . at T 29 .) In addition, plaintiff asserts that "he has filed numerous grievances and appeals detailing his fear of assault from other prisoners and from officers describing actual physical and sexual assaults to which he has been victim during the past six - eight months at Phillips State Prison ."
10
AO '2H i Fev .9B2-~

(Id .) Thus, taking the well pleaded facts as true and resolving

them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, as the Court must do on this motion to dismiss, this paragraph is sufficient to allege exhaustion of administrative remedies and to avoid dismissal . Based on the face of the Amended Complaint, it does not lappear beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in

support of his claim which would entitle him to relief .

See

Conley, 355 U .S . at 45-46 .

Defendants attached to their motion to dismiss the record of Ian exhausted grievance filed by plaintiff in May of 2002 .

Defendants also attached additional records of five other

unexhausted grievances filed by plaintiff over the past eight

years .

Defendants argue that these records establish that

plaintiff has access to the grievance procedure and that he knows

how to use it and exhaust his administrative remedies . (Br . in

Supp . of Mot . to Dismiss [38] at 2 .) "Having filed six grievances

with three of them being within the last three years and none of

them asserting a safety concern, this Plaintiff can not now

complain of a lack of access to the grievance procedure due to

I

invented assertions ." (Id . at 5 .)

'

I

Of course, the problem for defendants is that it is not

appropriate for the Court to consider this type of evidentiary

i

submission on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss . These attached

11

ao ,_.v
i Rev S/821

(grievance records clearly constitute "the sort of evidentiary material that is not appropriate at the 12(b) (6) stage ." Bryant v . lAvado Brands, Inc ., 187 F .3d 1271, 1280 (ll"' Cir . 1999) . The Court did not consider these records, as considering these matters outside of the pleading would have converted this Rule 12(b) (6) motion to a motion for summary judgment . Ware v . Associated Milk (Producers, Inc ., 614 F . 2d 913, 414-415 (5"' Cir . 1980) .' The Court has discretion as to whether to accept material beyond the pleading that is offered in association with a 12(b) (6) motion . Prop . Mgmt . & Invs ., Inc . v . Lewis, 752 F .2d 599, 604 (ller' Cir . 1985) (citing Ware, 614 F .2d at 415)) . If the district court chooses to ignore any supplementary materials outside the pleadings that are filed and determines the motion under the Rule 12(b) (6) standard, the motion to dismiss is not transformed into a motion for summary judgment . Garita Hotel Ltd . P'ship v . Ponce Fed . Bank, 958 F .2d 15, 18 (1G` Cir . 1992) (citations omitted) . This is exactly what the Court has done in this case .
Defendants argue that the records attached to their motion are used only in connection with their jurisdictional challenge, and so the Court could consider these items without converting the motion
' In Bonner v . City of Prichard, 661 P .2d 1206, 1209 (11"' Cir . 1981) (en banc), the Eleventh Circuit adopted as binding precedent all Fifth Circuit decisions handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981 .
12
r417 7= .'4 (Rev 31821

to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment . (Br . in Supp . of Mot .

to Dismiss [38] at 2 n .1 .) In support of this argument, defendants

cite Colonial Pipeline Co . v . Collins, 921 F .2d 1237 (11'-" Cir .

1991) . In that case, the Eleventh Circuit held that, in assessing

a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) , a "district court is not

limited to an inquiry into undisputed facts ; it may hear

conflicting evidence and decide for itself the factual issues that

determine Jurisdiction ." Id . at 1293 (citations omitted) ; see alsc

Holt v . United States, 96 F .3d 1000, 1003 (10`r' Cir . 1995) (holding

that, when reviewing a factual attack on subject matter

jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1), a district court has wide

discretion to allow affidavits, other documents, and a limited

evidentiary hearing to resolve disputed jurisdictional facts) . As

explained above, however, section 1997e (a) of the PLEA is not a jurisdictional requirement, such that failure to comply with its

administrative exhaustion mandate would deprive federal courts of

subject matter jurisdiction .

Defendants thus do not have a

cognizable jurisdictional argument and cannot have this case

dismissed under Rule 12(b)(1) . Thus, it is immaterial that the

Court perhaps could have considered the records attached to

defendants' motion to dismiss without converting it to a motion for

summary judgment under this subsection of the rule .

In its

consideration of the motion under Rule 12(b) (6), the Court could

13

AO "74
i aev.8!82i

not consider matters outside the pleadings without converting the motion to one for summary judgment, and so the Court has not done so .
In sum, defendants' Motion to Dismiss [38] must fail under both Rules 12 (b) (1) and 12 (b) (6) . Defendants have not raised a (successful challenge to the jurisdiction of this Court and have further not met their "very high burden" of showing that plaintiff cannot conceivably prove any set of facts that would entitle him to relief . Beck, 199 F .3d at 735-36 .
CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES defendants' Motion

to Dismiss [38] . The Court DIRECTS the clerk to file plaintiff's

Amended Complaint effective July 8, 2003 .

The Court further

DIRECTS the clerk to assign the Amended Complaint a new civil

action number and to establish Richard Ralph v . Alan Adams and

Michelle Martin as a new case . In addition, the Court ORDERS the

parties to begin discovery as soon as possible . The discovery (period shall be ninety clays . At the close of this time, the Court
will conduct a conference with counsel to determine the status of the case and how best to proceed with regard to class certification or other issues .

14
AU 7= .4
(Rev S/82)

SO ORDERED, this -~ `? day of January, 2009 . Z,
IE E . CARNES NITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
15 ,ao 'a,+
i Rev 9821

 ,~ . ..._ uRGINaL

W+' k&A

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT a NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION

OBI awk

RICHARD RALPH, on behalf of himself and all persons similarly situated,
Plaintiff
v.
ALAN ADAMS, Acting Commissioner of the Georgia Department of Corrections, and MICHELLE MARTIN, Warden of Phillips State Prison, in their official capacities,
Defendants

AMENDED COMIM&IM
Civil Case No :
1,02 sv-4 :79-4.2C
Class Action
~0~~cv~a~ 7-JCC

I. 1 . Plaintiff RICHARD RALPH, a prisoner at Phillips State Prison, seeks protection for himself and for all other persons who are now or will in the future be housed in the mental health unit at Phillips State Prison,' from an ongoing substantial risk of death and serious injury resulting from abuse by correctional

This complaint is being filed as an individual action in accordance with the Court's order of March 21, 2003, and subsequent instructions from the Court . For the reasons set forth in Plaintiffs' Motion to Reconsider Denial of Class Certification and for Leave to Amend Complaint filed April 7, plaintiffs believe that this case is properly maintained as a class action . Plaintiffs anticipate after discovery asking the Court to reconsider the motion to certify this civil lawsuit as a class action . Because the original lead plaintiff in this action, Lacoya Fluellen, is no longer a proper party to this suit, Richard Ralph, another of the original named plaintiffs, is
filing this amended complaint instead .

staff and other prisoners and from self-injury at the prison . 2 . Plaintiff RALPH suffers from paranoid schizophrenia, a
serious mental illness that interferes with his ability to comprehend and relate rationally to what is happening around him . He resides in the mental health unit at Phillips State Prison, where there are approximately 225-250 other individuals with serious mental illness . The "mental health unit" consists of several dormitories where defendants confine all of the seriously mentally ill prisoners at Phillips . As of the date of this filing, those dormitories are D-1 and D-2, E-1 and E-2, F-1 and F-2, G-1 and G-2, the crisis stabilization unit and the special management unit .
3 . In the dormitories that constitute the mental health unit at Phillips State Prison, there has been chronic understaffing of correctional staff, deployment of untrained or undertrained correctional staff, and inadequate procedures for dealing with the special population of seriously mentally ill prisoners . In this one unit alone, six individuals have died in the past two years . This death rate is alarmingly higher than the death rate of the prison system as a whole . In addition to the deaths, there has been a large number of reported and unreported assaults on prisoners - both by correctional staff and by other prisoners - leading to further serious physical and
2

mental injuries . 4 . The defendants are public officials who bear final
responsibility for the care and custody of the plaintiff and other seriously mentally ill prisoners who are confined in the mental health unit at Phillips State Prison . Through their practices, policies and customs, these officials have acted with deliberate indifference to the unacceptably high risk of harm faced daily by the plaintiff and other mentally ill prisoners at Phillips . In particular, they have failed to protect the plaintiff and other members of the proposed class from the substantial risk of serious abuse at the hands of officers and other prisoners, and from the substantial risk of self-harm and suicide . Defendants have disregarded known risks of harm and have allowed dangerous conditions to persist .
5 . Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated prisoners at Phillips State Prison in Buford, Georgia, pursuant to 42 U .S .C . § 1983, and the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief .
I.T . JURISDICTION 6 . This action is brought pursuant to 92 U .S .C . § 1983 . This Court has jurisdiction over plaintiffs' claims pursuant to 28 U .S .C . §§ 1331 and 1343, and the United States Constitution .
3

7 . This Court is authorized to grant declaratory and injunctive relief under 28 U .S .C . §§ 2201 and 2202 .

III . VENUE

B . The Northern District of Georgia is an appropriate venue for this action under 28 U .S .C . § 1391(b)(2) because a "substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim[s] occurred" in this district, at Phillips State Prison in

Buford, Georgia .

N. PARTIES

9 . The plaintiff RICHARD RALPH is currently in Georgia Department of Corrections ("GDC") custody at Phillips State Prison, where he is held in the mental health unit . Plaintiff RALPH is diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, a serious mental illness that often substantially interferes with his thought processes, making him highly agitated, paranoid and delusional . He is also borderline mentally retarded .
10 . Defendant ALAN ADAMS is Acting Commissioner of the Georgia Department of Corrections . As Acting Commissioner, ADAMS is responsible for the daily supervision of operations at the Georgia Department of Corrections . He is the highest ranking official in the Georgia Department of Corrections . Defendant ADAMS is sued in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Georgia Department of Corrections .

4

11 . Defendant MICHELLE MARTIN is Warden of Phillips State Prison . Defendant Martin is responsible for the day-to-day operations of Phillips, including the establishment and implementation of conditions, practices and policies of the prison relating to security . Defendant MARTIN is sued in her official capacity as Warden of Phillips State Prison .
V . CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 12 . The plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all others who are similarly situated pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure . The class consists o£ individuals who are now or will be in the future incarcerated at the mental health unit at Phillips State Prison . 13 . The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable . The mental health unit houses approximately 225 mentally ill and/or mentally retarded prisoners . This population changes often as prisoners are transferred in and out of the prison or released . 14 . There are questions of law and fact common to the class . 15 . The conditions, policies, and practices challenged in this action apply with equal force to the named plaintiffs and all members of the class so that the claims of the named
5

plaintiffs are typical of those of the class . 16 . The named plaintiff will fairly and adequately
represent the interests of the class . He possesses the requisite personal interest in the subject matter of the lawsuit . He is represented by a law office that is experienced in class-action litigation involving failure to protect prisoners from risk of harm .
17 . Defendants have acted and refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final dec2aratory and injunctive relief with respect to the class as a whole .
V1 . STATE14ENT OF FACTS 18 . Phillips State Prison is located in Buford, Georgia, and has approximately 1,200 total beds . Approximately 225-250 beds make up the mental health unit, where individuals suffering from serious mental illness are confined . Phillips State Prison is one of only a few prisons in the Georgia Department of Corrections designated and purportedly equipped to confine and treat the most severely mentally ill male prisoners in the State of Georgia . Such prisoners are classified by the Department of Corrections as mental health "Level III" and "Level IV", 19 . As a Level IV mentally ill prisoner, plaintiff RALPH has been and will continue to be housed in the mental health unit
6

as long as he remains at Phillips State Prison . 20 . In the past two years, at least six individuals housed
in the mental health unit at Phillips State Prison have died : 20A . On July 27, 2001, Alfred Motes died during a "cutting
party ." Before the death of Mr . Motes, a mental health aide informed the deputy warden of security that there was a knife blade in a certain cell . Despite the warning, Mr . Motes was placed in that cell . Mr . Motes was cut, either by another prisoner or by himself, so severely that he bled to death . An eyewitness to the incident wrote a statement that Mr . Motes was cut by another person . Nevertheless, the death was called a suicide without further investigation by the Department of Corrections .
20B . On October 21, 2001, David Strickland was killed while double-bunked in an administrative segregation cell . Before he died, David Strickland had repeatedly told guards that he was fearful for his life and asked them to move him from the cell . He was not removed despite his pleas . Both Mr . Strickland and his cellmate, who was accused of causing the death of Mr . Strickland, suffered from serious psychiatric disorders, and had been placed in segregation for disciplinary reasons .
20C . On September 7, 2002, prisoner Frederick Roberson died after falling while in the dayroom of his living unit .
7

20D . On January 12, 2003, Arthur Umberhand, a Level IV mental health prisoner, was killed while double-bunked in a segregation cell . Mr . Umberhand had requested protective custody and had been moved to a segregation cell for his own protection . Another prisoner, who was being segregated pending a disciplinary investigation for threatening another prisoner, was already occupying the cell where Mr . Umberhand was placed . Due to the inadequate policies, procedures, and practices of defendants, the prisoner already occupying the cell was not moved, and both he and Mr . Umberhand were locked into the same segregation cell A day later, Mr . Umberhand was killed by his cellmate .
20E . On March 26, 2003, prisoner John Walker died after falling onto the floor in the dayroom in his living unit .
20F . On June 13, 2003, Reginald Taylor died after hanging himself from his top bunk in a segregation unit . Earlier that day he was slammed against a wall or a fence by an officer .
21 . Six deaths over a two-year period in a population that averages about 250 prisoners, or 2 .9% of the population, is an extraordinarily high death rate . This is approximately six times higher than the death rate in the remainder of the Georgia Department of Corrections . The policies and procedures at Phillips State Prison are inadequate to prevent future deaths and serious injuries at the prison .
8

22 . In addition to the risk of death, plaintiff RALPH and other prisoners in the mental health unit are subjected to the substantial risk of serious bodily harm from correctional staff and other prisoners as well as from self-injury .
23 . Phillips State Prison does not have sufficient correctional staff who are adequately trained and experienced to monitor and supervise seriously mentally ill prisoners who may pose a risk of violence to other prisoners and to themselves . Nor does the prison have sufficient correctional staff who are adequately trained to protect those mentally ill prisoners who are particularly vulnerable to physical and sexual assault and intimidation .
24 . Mentally ill prisoners such as plaintiff RALPH present correctional staff with significant management problems due to manifestations of their mental illness : they may be manic, responding to voices, experiencing delusions or other disturbed thought processes, or suffering from other severe mental impairments or limitations that make it difficult or impossible for them to respond to commands in the way that a person without mental illness would be expected to respond . This makes the job of the correctional staff who are required to manage and protect this population extremely difficult and necessarily requires more staff with appropriate mental health training and certification
9

to do the job safely . Nevertheless, defendants have persistently failed to ensure that there is an adequate number of sufficiently trained staff in the mental health unit . Often a single officer who or may not be mental health certified is required to monitor a housing area in the mental health unit by him or herself .
25 . Due to the shortage of trained and experienced correctional staff at Phillips, officers in the mental health units are forced to work double shifts without overtime pay to cover essential positions . Such officers become exhausted and resentful, and frequently do not respond adequately to threats of abuse and self-harm within the mental health unit . Moreover, such officers are more likely to use excessive physical force and unnecessary brutality against mentally ill prisoners for symptoms of their mental illness, even when such prisoners are already restrained . The presence of exhausted and overworked officers, many of whom are required to work in two dormitories at a time because there are not enough officers on the shift, increases the risk of harm to plaintiff RALPH and other class members .
26 . Another factor contributing to the high risk of harm is defendants' practice of placing two prisoners into cells, including administrative and disciplinary segregation cells, without adequate consideration of whether the prisoners are a danger to one another and without taking proper precautions to
10

prevent physical and sexual assault . The two deaths described in paragraphs 20B and 20D above, are a result of improperly placing two prisoners without appropriate screening into a single segregation cell . Other policies and procedures at the prison do not adequately take into account the safety needs of seriously mentally ill prisoners .
27 . The practices, policies and procedures challenged in this lawsuit were developed and implemented with deliberate indifference to the substantial risk of serious harm faced by prisoners confined in the mental health unit at Phillips State Prison . Defendants have known about this risk, which is longstanding, pervasive, well-documented, and apparent to any knowledgeable observer . In addition to the obviousness of the risks of harm to plaintiff Ralph and the proposed plaintiff class, defendants were also put on notice of the risks of harm on February 20, 2002, when a class of 21 seriously mentally ill prisoners at Phillips State Prison filed a class action lawsuit describing substantially the same problems as are detailed in this Complaint . Four mentally ill prisoners have died since that lawsuit was filed and many more have been injured . On February 20, 2003, the plaintiffs in that lawsuit filed a motion for a preliminary injunction after a second mentally i11 prisoner was killed by his cellmate . This death further demonstrated that
11

prisoners continued to be at substantial risk of death because of defendants' deliberate indifference to known risks of harm .
28 . Defendants have not responded reasonably to the known risks of harm and to the actual deaths that have already resulted from defendants' actions and inactions . The defendants' practices, policies and procedures have caused and, unless changed, will continue to cause, needless human suffering and an increased risk of serious injury and death .
VI . EMAUSTION 08 ADMNISTRATIVB REHZDIBS 29 . Plaintiff RALPH has exhausted administrative remedies to the extent that they were available to an individual suffering from severe mental illness and borderline mental retardation . Due to his mental impairments, RALPH is usually incapable of understanding the rules concerning grievances and incapable of complying with them or obtaining the help that he needs ; i .e ., he has loose associations, illogical thought processes, auditory hallucinations, paranoid delusions, and has great difficulty expressing himself rationally . He believes that he has filed numerous grievances and appeals detailing his fear of assault from other prisoners and from officers and describing actual physical and sexual assaults to which he has been victim during the past six - eight months at Phillips State Prison . According to plaintiff RALPH, the grievance counselor has told him to stop
12

filing grievances because she cannot understand his writing or what he is trying to say . The existing procedure is not available to plaintiff RALPH or to others similarly situated .
VII . CRUSE O!' ACTION 30 . Defendants' policies and practices in failing to protect plaintiff RALPH and other class members from serious abuse by officers and other prisoners and from self-injury constitute deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm to these persons and amount to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of plaintiffs' rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution . In support of this claim, plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-29 of this Complaint .
HRAYZt FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully pray that this Court : 31 . Assume jurisdiction over this action ; 32 . Order that discovery in this matter commence immediately for a period of 90 days ; 33 . Adjudge and declare that the acts and omissions of the defendants with regard to the class members violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution ; 34 . Enjoin defendants, their agents, officials, employees,
13

and all persons acting in concert with them, under color of State law or otherwise, from continuing the unconstitutional and illegal acts, conditions, and practices described in this complaint ;
35 . Certify this civil action as a class action ; 36 . Award plaintiffs the costs of this lawsuit and reasonable attorney's fees ; and 37 . Order such additional relief as the Court may deem just and proper .
Respectfully submitted this ~ day of July, 2003,
T mara H .~ erwer, GA Bar No . 617053 Lisa Kung, GA Bar No . 930302 Stephen B . Bright, GA Bar No . 082075 SOUTHERN CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS 83 Poplar Street, N .W . Atlanta, Georgia 30303-2122 Telephone : (909) 688-1202 Facsimile : (904) 688-9990 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
14

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION
RICHARD RALPH, Plaintiff v.
ALAN ADAMS, et al ., Defendants .
CERTIFICATE Or COMPLIANCE I, Tamara Serwer, do hereby certify that the foregoing document has been prepared in 12-point Courier font and complies with LR S .1B .
Respectfully submitted this Yt day of July, 2003 .
mara H . Serwer, GA Bar No . 617053 83 Poplar Street, N .W . Atlanta, Georgia 30303-2122 Telephone : (909) 688-1202 Facsimile : (409) 688-9440

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION
RICHARD RALPH, Plaintiff v,
AI, ADAMS, et al ., Defendants .

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Tamara Serwer, do hereby certify that on this date I have
caused to be served a copy of the Amended Complaint by hand
delivery upon defendants' attorney at the following address :
John C . Jones Senior Assistant Attorney General 40 Capitol Square, S .W . Atlanta, GA 30334-1300
Respectfully submitted this ~ day of July, 2003 .

/f~ amara H

.

9 . 4=G .. Serwer,

GA Bar No .

83 Poplar Street, N .W .

Atlanta, Georgia 30303-2122

Telephone : (904) 688-1202

Facsimile : (404) 688-9940

617053

 "

MINUTE SHEET - CIVIL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION

IN OPEN COIJR.T (xx) IN CHAMBERS DATE : thurs 4/15/04

TIME : x :27

HONORABLE JULIE E . CARVES

Court Reporter :

DAVID RITCHIE

Deputy Clerk. :

KAY BATES

Deputy U .S . Marshal : none

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RICAARD RALPH

Counsel : TAMARA

CALDAS/STEPHEN

BRIGHT/SARAH GERAGHTY

Vs .

Case No . : 1 :04-CV-257-JEC

ALAN ADAMS

Counsel : JOHN JONES/CRAIG HG'rIPJKEL/WILLIAM'. RMIDEO

Cause came on for ( ; Jury

( j Non-Jury trial on the merits . Came the

parties in person and/or as shown above,

Plaintiff (s) Memo/Brief Defendant(s) Memo/Brief

; j Request to Charge ( ) Request to Charge

( ) Voir Dire ( ) Voir Dire

( ) Trial ( ) Trial

Plaintiff s) Defendant s)

( j Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law ; ) Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

Whereupon the Court ordered that a jury be impaneled t-- try said issue, and after the Court toad qualified the jurors for cause, and alter counsel had exercised all peremptory challenges, the furors selected to
try said issue came and were sworn, to wit :

(1)

(5)

(2)

(6)

(3)

(7)

(4)

(8)

( ) The Rule of Sequestration ( ) was

( ) was not

invoked .

RALPH v . ADAMS 1 :04-CV-_67-JEC 04/15/09 HEAk1NGS/PRE-TkIALS/EVIDENCE : STATUS CONeERENCF :Warden Michelle Martin also present . Court orally denied defendant's Motion to Dismiss Due 'cc) Moot:ness [5] . Discovery to commence and will epire FRIDAY, 7/30/04 . Defense will attempt to comply with request to produce and parties may have to g : to institution to review certain documents within twenty (20) days . Plaintiff's counsel agreed that when doing depositions to inquire -about both plaintiffs Ralph and Johnson .
VERDICT :

JUDGMENT :

Court adjourned at 4 :30 until

(xx)
j ( ; ( i

until further order jurors excused until the above time under the usual caution of the jurors excused for the term jurors excused and directed to return to the jury assembly room

Court

Exhibits returned to counsel for ( ) Plaintiff(s) ( ) Court Reporter

( j Defendant s)

( ) Exhibits retained by the Court .

 TN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
RICHARD RALPH

i
-- Id ., , ' '
a,. . . .

Plaintiff(s),

u. JAMES DONALD, et al .,

N0 . x :04-cv-257-JEC

Defendant (s) .

ORDER

The Court has received a courtesy copy of the Joint Stipulation of Dismissal in the above numbered action .

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court APPROVES the Joint Stipulation of Dismissal .

SO ORDERED, this

day of JANUARY, 20 0 5 .

~4 2Lz--,- -~
rJ~LIIE~ E . CARNES ~,ffJNNII TTED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

AO 72A (Rev.8182)

 0

0

V .w7 .°
JAN 3 005 LU-TviJ,. .

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION

AEFFICE
1 e
JAN S 12001
LUTHER D. THOMAS,Okk By
IX"ck*
7PW1

RICHARD RALPH,
on behalf of himself and all persons similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

Civil Case No.

1 :04-CV-00257-7EC

.LAMES E. DONALD, Commissioner of the Georgia Department of
Corrections, and MICHELLE MARTIN,
Warden of Phillips State Prison, in their official capacities,

Defendants .

JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL The parties to this litigation have concluded their settlement negotiations and now respectfully move this Court to dismiss this case. In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. Pro . 4I(a){1)(ii), all parties to the litigation have consented to this stipulation of dismissal . Accordingly, upon agreement of the parties, it is hereby ordered that the claims ofplaintiff Richard Ralph are dismissed. The parties agree that Plaintiff is not hereby barred from filing a lawsuit against these same Defendants pertaining

0

0

to any future injury, constitutional violation, or action or inaction by Defendants,
their agents, employees, or assigns .

IT IS SO ORDERED, this day of

2005 .

JULIE E. CARNES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

AGREED T4 AND SUBMITTED BY:

AGREED TO BY:

-~!~GAL~Sarah Geraghty Georgia Bar No . 291393 Stephen B. Bright
Georgia Bar No. 082075

Southern Center for Human Rights 83 Poplar Street, N. W .

Atlanta, GA 30303

Telephone: (404) b88-12Q2

Fac mi :

688-9440

64&n Rohr Georgia Bar Na. 613518 Harold T. Daniel Georgia Bar No. 204000
Holland & Knight LLP 1201 West Peachtree Street, N.E. Suite 2000 Atlanta, Georgia 30309

.~--w5 (&M N pX ss

xSr .. L, Y It~+.~

John C. Jones Senior Assistant Attorney General

40 Capitol Square, S.W. Atlanta, Georgia 3Q334-1300

Attorneyfir Defendants

J
J. Willcox Dorm III Georgia Bar No. 234264 Hunton & Williams LLP 600 Peachtree Street, N.E. Suite 41.00 Atlanta, GA 30308

Guardian Ad Litemfor Plaintiff

0

0

Telephone: (4p4) 817-850Q Facsimile : (404) 881-8470
Attorsaeys for Plaintiffs

0

0

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE i hereby certify that the foregoing document has been prepared in 14-point
Times New Roman font and complies with Local Rule 5.1B . S+"
Dated: This day of J2005 .
Sarah Geraghty

0

0

CERTIFICAT OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing Stipulation of
Dismissal upon Defendants by causing a true and correct copy thereof to be
deposited with the United States Postal Service as first class mail, postage prepaid,
in are envelope addressed to Defendants' counsel ofrecord as follows ;
Mr. John C. Jones
Senior Assistant Attorney General Department of Law State of Georgia 40 Capital Square SW Atlanta, GA 30334-1300
0r
This ~ day of~ 2005 .

Sarah Geraghty

J

 CM/ECF LIVE v3 - U.S. District Court - Docket Report

https://ecf.gand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?297520169514002-L_3...

4months, CLOSED
U.S. District Court Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:04-cv-00257-JEC

Ralph v. Adams, et al Assigned to: Judge Julie E. Carnes Demand: $0 Cause: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff Richard Ralph on behalf of himself and all persons similarly situated
V. Defendant Acting Commissioner Alan Adams of the Georgia Department of Corrections

Date Filed: 01/29/2004 Date Terminated: 01/31/2005 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 555 Habeas Corpus (Prison Condition) Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Stephen Brooks Bright Southern Center for Human Rights 83 Poplar Street, N.W. Atlanta, GA 30303-2122 404-688-1202 Email: sbright@schr.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tamara H. Serwer Southern Center for Human Rights 83 Poplar Street, N.W. Atlanta, GA 30303-2122 404-688-1202 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by John C. Jones Freeman Mathis & Gary 100 Galleria Parkway Suite 1600 Atlanta, GA 30339-5948 770-818-1409 Email: jjones@fmglaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathleen Mary Pacious Office of State Attorney General 40 Capitol Square, S.W. Atlanta, GA 30334-1300

1 of 5

8/9/2007 10:50 AM

CM/ECF LIVE v3 - U.S. District Court - Docket Report

https://ecf.gand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?297520169514002-L_3...

Defendant
Warden Michelle Martin of Phillips State Prison, in their official capacities

404-656-9622 Email: kathleen.pacious@law.state.ga.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thurbert E. Baker Office of State Attorney General 40 Capitol Square, S.W. Atlanta, GA 30334-1300 404-656-3385 Email: thurbert.baker@law.state.ga.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by John C. Jones (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathleen Mary Pacious (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thurbert E. Baker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 01/29/2004 01/29/2004
01/30/2004

#

Docket Text

1 AMENDED COMPLAINT (class action) filed by plaintiff Richard Ralph in Civil Action 1:02-cv-0479-JEC on 7/8/03 and entered as this new civil action pursuant to this court's order of 01/29/04 docketed here as document number 2. (aaq) Modified on 01/30/2004 (Entered: 01/30/2004)
2 ORDER by Judge Julie E. Carnes (originally entered in 1:02-cv-257-JEC) DIRECTING the Clerk to assign the amended complaint filed in 1:02-cv-257, a new civil action number and establish Richard Ralph v. Alan Adams, et. al. as a new case. The parties are ORDERED to begin discovery as soon as possible. The discovery period shall be (90) days. Discovery ends 4/28/04. At the close of this time, the court will conduct a conference with counsel to determine the status of the case and how best to proceed with regard to class certification or other issues. (cc) (aaq) (Entered: 01/30/2004)
Notice and copy of the [2-1] order served to parties by clerk. (aaq) (Entered: 01/30/2004)

2 of 5

8/9/2007 10:50 AM

CM/ECF LIVE v3 - U.S. District Court - Docket Report

https://ecf.gand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?297520169514002-L_3...

02/06/2004
02/13/2004
02/17/2004 03/01/2004 03/03/2004
03/08/2004 03/09/2004 03/10/2004
03/22/2004 03/24/2004 03/25/2004 03/29/2004 04/05/2004
04/08/2004 04/15/2004 04/15/2004

3 Dft's withdrawal of motion for reconsideration of [41] order (order filed in 1:02-cv-479-JEC on 1/29/04) due to mootness.(jlm) Modified on 02/23/2004 (Entered: 02/23/2004)
4 RESPONSE by plaintiff to dft's [3-1] withdrawal of motion for reconsideration due to mootness. (withdrawal filed in 02-cv-479-JEC on 2/6/04) and reasons why discovery should begin immediately. (jlm) (Entered: 02/23/2004)
5 MOTION by defendants to dismiss due to mootness with brief in support. (jlm) (Entered: 02/23/2004)
6 REPLY by dfts to pla's response and dft's supplement to [5-1] motion to dismiss. (jlm) (Entered: 03/02/2004)
7 CONSENT MOTION to extend time to and including 3/8/04 to respond to dft's [5-1] motion to dismiss due to mootness and dft's supplement to motion to dismiss . (jlm) (Entered: 03/08/2004)
8 RESPONSE by plaintiff to [5-1] motion to dismiss due to mootness. (jlm) (Entered: 03/09/2004)
SUBMITTED to Judge Julie E. Carnes on [5-1] motion to dismiss due to mootness. (jlm) (Entered: 03/09/2004)
9 Notice of filing discovery by plaintiff with pla's request for entry upon land for inspection and other purposes and pla's first request for production of documents attached. (jlm) (Entered: 03/10/2004)
10 Notice to parties by CRD, scheduling conference for 4/9/04 at 10:30 AM (cc by CRD). (jlm) Modified on 03/25/2004 (Entered: 03/25/2004)
11 Certificate of service by plaintiff re: Pla's second request for documents and pla's first interrogatories. (jlm) (Entered: 03/25/2004)
12 Notice to parties by CRD, re-scheduling conference for 4/13/04 at 3:30 PM (cc by CRD) (jlm) (Entered: 03/25/2004)
13 Notice to parties by CRD, re-scheduling hearing for 4/15/04 at 3:30 PM . (jlm) (Entered: 03/29/2004)
14 ORDER by Judge Julie E. Carnes GRANTING [7-1] motion to extend time to and including 3/8/04 to respond to dft's [5-1] motion to dismiss due to mootness and dft's supplement to motion to dismiss (cc) (jlm) (Entered: 04/06/2004)
Terminated submissions. (jlm) (Entered: 04/08/2004)
15 MOTION by plaintiff for appointment of guardian ad litem with brief in support. (jlm) (Entered: 04/16/2004)
16 Status Conference HELD on [5-1] motion to dismiss due to mootness before Judge Julie E. Carnes, Court orally DENIED motion. Discovery to commence and will expire on 7/30/04 . Dft will attempt to comply with request to produce and parties may have to go to institution to review certain documents within 20 days. Pla's counsel agreed that when doing depositions to inquire about bother plas' Ralph and Johnson. (jlm) (Entered: 04/19/2004)

3 of 5

8/9/2007 10:50 AM

CM/ECF LIVE v3 - U.S. District Court - Docket Report

https://ecf.gand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?297520169514002-L_3...

04/15/2004
04/20/2004
04/28/2004 04/28/2004 05/03/2004 05/05/2004 05/14/2004 05/14/2004 05/21/2004 05/21/2004 06/08/2004 06/08/2004 06/18/2004 06/25/2004 07/15/2004 07/23/2004 08/05/2004 08/17/2004 09/10/2004 09/17/2004

VERBAL ORDER by Judge Julie E. Carnes DENYING [5-1] motion to dismiss due to mootness by Alan Adams and Michelle Martin. Answer to complaint due 4/25/04 for Alan Adams, and for Martin. (jlm) (Entered: 04/19/2004)
17 ORDER by Judge Julie E. Carnes, directing parties to provide Court with a status report on 8/30/04. [17-1] order to be submitted on 8/31/04 (cc by CRD) (jlm) (Entered: 04/21/2004)
18 ANSWER to complaint [1-1] by Michelle Martin and Alan Adams Discovery ends 9/25/04 (jlm) (Entered: 04/29/2004)
19 RESPONSE by defendants to [15-1] motion for appointment of guardian ad litem (jlm) Modified on 04/29/2004 (Entered: 04/29/2004)
SUBMITTED to Judge Julie E. Carnes on [15-1] motion for appointment of guardian ad litem. (jlm) (Entered: 05/03/2004)
20 ANSWER to complaint [1-1] by dfts' Michelle Martin and Alan Adams Discovery ends 10/2/04 (jlm) (Entered: 05/06/2004)
21 REPLY MEMORANDUM by plaintiff IN SUPPORT of [15-1] motion for appointment of guardian ad litem. (jlm) (Entered: 05/18/2004)
22 MOTION by plaintiff for Court order to produce mental health records with brief in support. (jlm) (Entered: 05/18/2004)
23 ORDER by Judge Julie E. Carnes GRANTING [22-1] motion for Court order to produce mental health records. (cc) (jlm) (Entered: 05/24/2004)
24 Certificates of service by defendants re: Response to pla's first and second request for production of documents. (jlm) (Entered: 05/24/2004)
25 Certificate of interested persons. (to judge) (jlm) (Entered: 06/10/2004)
26 Notice of filing discovery by plaintiff. (jlm) (Entered: 06/10/2004)
27 Preliminary Report and Discovery Schedule. (to judge) (fmm) (Entered: 06/21/2004)
28 Certificate of service by plaintiff re: Pla's third request for production. (jlm) (Entered: 06/25/2004)
29 ORDER approving 27 Joint Preliminary Report and Discovery Schedule Signed by Judge Julie E. Carnes on 7/14/04. (jlm) (Entered: 07/22/2004)
30 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by dfts re: Notice of deposition of Richard Ralph. (jlm) (Entered: 07/27/2004)
Steno Notes of proceedings held on 4/15/04 before Judge Julie E. Carnes, by David Ritchie (jlm) (Entered: 08/05/2004)
31 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by dft re: Dfts Response to pla's third request for production of documents. (jlm) (Entered: 08/18/2004)
Submission of 17 Order,, submitted to District Judge Julie E. Carnes. (FILE IN CHAMBERS) (jlm) (Entered: 09/10/2004)
32 Letter to CRD from counsel regarding status of case. (jlm) (Entered: 09/22/2004)

4 of 5

8/9/2007 10:50 AM

CM/ECF LIVE v3 - U.S. District Court - Docket Report

https://ecf.gand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?297520169514002-L_3...

11/30/2004 12/01/2004 12/01/2004 12/10/2004 01/11/2005 01/13/2005 01/31/2005 01/31/2005 01/31/2005

33 NOTICE by CRD directing that all dispositive motions are due MONDAY, 12/20/04. (kb) (Entered: 11/30/2004)
34 Joint MOTION to Extend Due Date for Dispositive Motions . (dfb) (Entered: 12/06/2004)
35 ORDER granting 34 Joint Motion to Extend Due Date to January 14, 2005 for Filing Dispositive Motions. Signed by Judge Julie E. Carnes on 12/01/04. (dfb) (Entered: 12/06/2004)
36 ORDER granting 15 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief and appoints J. Wilcox Dunn, III as guardian ad litem for plaintiff . Signed by Judge Julie E. Carnes on 12/10/2004. (kb) (Entered: 12/10/2004)
37 JOINT MOTION for Extension of Time through 2/1/05 to file dispositive motions by Richard Ralph, Alan Adams, Michelle Martin. (ddm) (Entered: 01/13/2005)
38 CONSENT ORDER granting the 37 Joint Motion to Extend Due Date for Dispositive Motions to February 1, 2005. Signed by Judge Julie E. Carnes on 01/12/05. (dfb) (Entered: 01/13/2005)
39 JOINT STIPULATION of Dismissal pursuant to FRCP 41(a)(1)(ii) by Richard Ralph, Alan Adams, Michelle Martin. (ddm) (Entered: 02/01/2005)
40 ORDER approving 39 Stipulation of Dismissal filed by Richard Ralph, Michelle Martin, Alan Adams. Signed by Judge Julie E. Carnes on 1/31/05. (ddm) (Entered: 02/01/2005)
Civil Case Terminated. (ddm) (Entered: 02/01/2005)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

08/09/2007 11:50:11

PACER Login:

hs0328

Client Code:

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

Billable Pages: 3

Cost:

clearinghouse 1:04-cv-00257-JEC 0.24

5 of 5

8/9/2007 10:50 AM


In 2004, a Mental Health Unit (MHU) prisoner at Georgia's Phillips State Prison brought this §1983 suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.  Represented by the Southern Center for Human Rights, , plaintiff contended that the defendant prison administrators denied Eighth Amendment protections against cruel and unusual punishment by understaffing the MHU, as well as by staffing it with correctional officers without adequate mental health training.  Class certification was sought but not granted.  On January 31, 2005, the day before dispositive motions were due to be filed, the Court approved the parties' joint stipulation for dismissal.