Braggs et al v. Dunn et al
Court Docket Sheet

Middle District of Alabama

2:2014-cv-00601 (almd)

RESPONSE to Motion re {{1551}} MOTION : Request for Expedited Status Conference with Judge Borden Regarding Discovery Related to Trial on February 5, 2018 filed by Jefferson S. Dunn, Ruth Naglich.

0 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARD BRAGGS, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) v.) Case No. 2:14-cv-00601-MHT-GMB) Magistrate Judge Gray M. Borden JEFFERSON DUNN, et al.,)) Defendants.) RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR STATUS CONFERENCE REGARDING INFORMAL DISCOVERY PRIOR TO REMEDIAL TRIAL ON HOSPITAL-LEVEL CARE AND SEGREGATION Defendants JEFFERSON DUNN ("Commissioner Dunn") and RUTH NAGLICH ("Naglich" and, collectively with Commissioner Dunn, "the State") hereby submit this Response to Plaintiffs' "Request for Status Conference Regarding Informal Discovery Prior to Remedial Trial on Hospital-Level Care and Segregation." (Doc. No. 1551). As stated more fully below, Plaintiffs' request for the Court to order the State to respond to Plaintiffs' "Discovery Requests Pertaining to Defendants' Proposed Remedial Plan on Hospital Level of Care" (the "Hospital-Level Care Discovery") and "Informal Discovery Requests Pertaining to Defendants' Proposed Remedial Plan on Segregation" (the "Segregation Discovery") is due to be denied. 1. Plaintiffs' Hospital-Level Care Discovery. Plaintiffs' request for 0 the Court to intervene with respect to Plaintiffs' Hospital-Care Discovery is due to be denied as moot. The State produced documentation responsive to Plaintiffs' Hospital-Level Care Discovery on Thursday, January 18, 2018. The State provided Plaintiffs with the State's complete responses and objections to the Hospital-Level Care Discovery on Monday, January 22, 2018. This issue is moot. 2. Plaintiffs' Segregation Discovery. The Court should deny Plaintiffs' request for the Court to order the State to respond to Plaintiffs' Segregation Discovery. First, Plaintiffs' request for the Court's intervention is premature. Plaintiffs' counsel emailed the Segregation Discovery to counsel for the State on January 9, 2018. The discovery consists of twenty-nine (29) requests for production and thirty-five (35) interrogatories. (See Ex. 2 to Plaintiffs' Request for Status Conference). Even if the Segregation Discovery were reasonable in scope (as described below, it clearly is not), the State has not received sufficient time to respond to the discovery. Plaintiffs' request for the Court to order a response from the State is due to be denied as premature. 3. Second, Plaintiffs' request for the Court to compel the State to respond to the Segregation Discovery is due to be denied because Plaintiffs' twenty-nine (29) requests for production and thirty-five (35) interrogatories1 1 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure only permit a party to serve twenty-five (25) interrogatories and that is with respect to formal discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(1). The State objects to Plaintiffs' attempt to circumvent Rule 33's limitation on the number of interrogatories. 2 0 clearly serve as unauthorized formal discovery, regardless of their styling. Formal discovery in this matter concluded nearly two (2) years ago. (See Order, Doc. No. 259). With respect to the remedial phase of Phase 2A, the Court only permitted the Parties to conduct "informal discovery." (See Order, Doc. No. 1433). The Court's recent Phase 2A Opinion and Order Regarding Eighth Amendment Claim: Segregation indicated that "additional discovery … is warranted" regarding whether ADOC inappropriately houses inmates with serious mental illnesses in segregation. (Doc. No. 1530 at p. 6). However, the Court never authorized formal discovery with respect to the remedial phase, and certainly not on the scope of Plaintiffs' Segregation Discovery. In fact, the Court expressly stated that it "was not saying … that the additional discovery should be as outlined in the [Plaintiffs'] December 21 proposal" (Doc. No. 1525) regarding segregation-related discovery. (Id.) (emphasis added). To be clear, Plaintiffs' December 21, 2017, proposal (Doc. No. 1525) regarding segregation-related discovery proposed a much narrower scope of discovery than what is contained in their Segregation Discovery. Thus, Plaintiffs' request for an order compelling responses to the Segregation Discovery should be denied because the Segregation Discovery functions as formal discovery. 4. Third, Plaintiffs' request for the Court to order the State to respond to Plaintiffs' Segregation Discovery is due to be denied because the discovery requests are overly broad, unduly burdensome, seek irrelevant documents and 3 0 information, unreasonable in scope, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence at the evidentiary hearing on the State's Phase 2A Proposed Remedial Plan on Segregation (Doc. No. 1533) (the "Segregation Evidentiary Hearing"), disproportional to Plaintiffs' needs with respect to the Segregation Evidentiary Hearing, and require the State to undertake an enormous expense to produce the documentation and responses. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure certainly do not permit such discovery, particularly in the context of "informal discovery." See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 5. On their face, the discovery requests are unreasonably broad and impose an enormous burden and expense on the State. For example, Request for Production 26 requests the following: Please provide all documentation of the determinations by mental-health providers of whether prisoners being considered for placement in segregation had a serious mental illness and the propriety of placing the prisoners in a segregation unit with our without the existence of an extenuating circumstance since February 1, 2017. Plaintiffs do not limit the requested documentation to inmates whom the Alabama Department of Corrections ("ADOC") did, in fact, house in segregation. Finding, much less producing, the requested documentation would literally require the ADOC to comb through the mental-health records of every single inmate on the mental-health caseload to determine whether the mental health staff evaluated the inmate for segregation placement during a period of time when the inmate had a 4 0 serious mental health illness. (Declaration of Ruth Naglich ("Naglich Decl."), attached hereto as Exhibit A, at ¶ 5). 6. To be clear, the State could not provide all of the information and documentation requested in Plaintiffs' Segregation Discovery even if the State assigned someone to work on the task full time for a year. (Id. at ¶ 6). Responding to the discovery would require the ADOC to hunt through individual inmates' medical and mental health records and movement histories. (Id.). The ADOC would suffer an enormous cost and burden in time and money to provide the documentation and information requested by Plaintiffs. (Id.). 7. Moreover, many of the requests in the Segregation Discovery are not relevant to any claim or defense regarding the State's remedial proposal or the Segregation Evidentiary Hearing. For example, Plaintiffs' Request for Production 14 asks for "all incident reports and psychological reconstructions created in response to the death that occurred in the Bullock Correctional Facility Residential Treatment Unit in April 2017…." (Emphasis added). The Bullock RTU is not a segregation unit. Thus, the death of any inmate housed in the RTU is not relevant to the State's remedial proposal or the Segregation Evidentiary Hearing. Plaintiffs' request for an order requiring responses to the Segregation Discovery is due to be denied to the extent that the discovery is not relevant. 8. Furthermore, Plaintiffs' prior submissions to the Court demonstrate 5 0 that the Segregation Discovery is not necessary. Plaintiffs previously represented to the Court that the significantly narrower discovery proposed in their December 21, 2017, proposal regarding segregation would "be sufficient to determine whether persons with serious mental illness are being [inappropriately] placed in segregation" and whether such inmates received access to mental health treatment and monitoring while in segregation. (Doc. No. 1525 at p. 3-4, 9). The December 21, 2017, proposal asked the Court to direct the State to produce the following categories of documentation: a. the "current MHM Master Roster in native format"; b. the "current version of the mental health coding policy"; c. the "movement histories since February [2017] of each person on the MHM Master Roster who meets" certain criteria; d. "documentation for the disciplinaries … for a segregation placement for the persons who meet any of the criteria listed above who have been in segregation since February"; e. "a random sample of documentation for the disciplinaries … for a segregation placement of persons not on the mental health caseload who have been place in segregation since February"; and f. "duty post logs for 1 week (Dec. 11-17, 2017) for any celled unit in any major correctional facility where any of the persons meeting any of the criteria listed abo[ve] were housed." (Id. at 4, 8, 10). Plaintiffs reassured the Court that the discovery sought in the 6 0 December 21, 2017, proposal would suffice. (Id.). 9. During the December 21, 2017, teleconference, the State described the enormous, impossible undertaking that would be required to produce the documentation outlined in the Plaintiffs' December 21, 2017, proposal. Nevertheless, the twenty-nine (29) requests for production and thirty-five (35) interrogatories contained in Plaintiffs' Discovery Requests dwarf the December 21, 2017, proposal both in terms of the number of requests and the scope of the individual requests. It staggers the imagination that Plaintiffs could represent to the Court that the December 21, 2017, proposal would have provided sufficient discovery but now, with a straight face, seek to vastly expand the scope of discovery. 10. The State remains willing to provide documentation and information in response to reasonable, informal discovery regarding the State's remedial plan with respect to segregation. Unfortunately neither Plaintiffs' Segregation Discovery nor their request for the Court to compel responses to that discovery is reasonable. Plaintiffs' request for the Court to order the State to respond to the Segregation Discovery is due to be denied. Dated: January 23, 2018. /s/ Matthew B. Reeves Matthew B. Reeves Attorney for the Commissioner and Associate Commissioner 7 0 William R. Lunsford Matthew B. Reeves Melissa K. Marler Stephen C. Rogers MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, PC 655 Gallatin Street Huntsville, AL 35801 Telephone: (256) 512-5710 Facsimile: (256) 512-0119 blunsford@maynardcooper.com mreeves@maynardcooper.com mmarler@maynardcooper.com srogers@maynardcooper.com Luther M. Dorr, Jr. Mitesh B. Shah MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, PC 1901 Sixth Avenue North 2400 Regions Harbert Plaza Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 254-1178 Facsimile: (205) 714-6438 rdorr@maynardcooper.com mshah@maynardcooper.com 8 0 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served upon all attorneys of record in this matter, including without limitation the following, by the Court's CM/ECF system on this the 26rd day of January, 2018: Maria V. Morris William Van Der Pol, Jr. Rhonda C. Brownstein Glenn N. Baxter Latasha L. McCrary Barbara A. Lawrence J. Richard Cohen Andrea J. Mixson Caitlin J. Sandley ALABAMA DISABILITIES ADVOCACY Grace Graham PROGRAM SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER University of Alabama 400 Washington Avenue 500 Martha Parham West Montgomery, Alabama 36104 Box 870395 Telephone: (334) 956-8200 Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487-0395 Facsimile: (334) 956-8481 Telephone: (205) 348-6894 maria.morris@splcenter.org Facsimile: (205) 348-3909 rhonda.brownstein@splcenter.org wvanderpoljr@adap.ua.edu latasha.mccrary@splcenter.org gnbaxter@bama.ua.edu richard.cohen@splcenter.org blawrence@adap.ua.edu cj.sandley@splcenter.org amixson@adap.ua.edu grace.graham@splcenter.org Gregory M. Zarzaur Andrew P. Walsh Anil A. Mujumdar William G. Somerville III Diandra S. Debrosse Patricia Clotfelter Denise Wiginton Lisa W. Borden ZARZAUR MUJUMDAR & DEBROSSE BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN 2332 2nd Avenue North CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC Birmingham, AL 35203 420 20th Street North Telephone: (205) 983-7985 Suite 1400 Facsimile: (888) 505-0523 Birmingham, Alabama 35203 gregory@zarzaur.com Telephone: (205) 244-3863 anil@zarzaur.com Facsimile: (205) 488-3863 fuli@zarzaur.com awalsh@bakerdonelson.com denise@zarzaur.com wsomerville@bakerdonelson.com pclotfelter@bakerdonelson.com lborden@bakerdonelson.com 9 0 John G. Smith Deana Johnson David R. Boyd Brett T. Lane BALCH & BINGHAM LLP MHM SERVICES, INC. Post Office Box 78 1447 Peachtree Street NE Montgomery, AL 36101-0078 Suite 500 Telephone: (334) 834-6500 Atlanta, GA 30309 Facsimile: (866) 316-9461 Telephone: (404) 347-4134 jgsmith@balch.com Facsimile: (404) 347-4138 dboyd@balch.com djohnson@mhm-services.com btlane@mhm-services.com Steven C. Corhern Lonnie J. Williams BALCH & BINGHAM LLP ALABAMA DISABILITIES ADVOCACY Post Office Box 306 PROGRAM Birmingham, AL 35201-0306 P. O. Box 870395 Telephone: (205) 251-8100 Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 Facsimile: (205) 488-5708 Telephone: (205) 348-4928 scorhern@balch.com Facsimile: (205) 348-3909 lwilliams@adap.ua.edu Anne A. Hill Elizabeth A. Sees Joseph G. Stewart ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Legal Division 301 South Ripley Street Montgomery, Alabama 36130 Telephone (334) 353-3884 Facsimile (334) 353-3891 anne.hill@doc.alabama.gov elizabeth.sees@doc.alabama.gov joseph.stewart@doc.alabama.gov /s/ Matthew B. Reeves Of Counsel 10

Exhibit A - Declaration of Ruth Naglich

8 Exhibit A 8 8 8 8 Exhibit A 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARDS BRAGGS, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) v.) CIVIL ACTION NO.) 2:14-CV-00601-MHT-GMB JEFFERSON DUNN, in his official) (Judge Thompson) capacity as Commissioner) of the Alabama Department of) Corrections, et al.,)) Defendants.)) PLAINTIFFS' INFORMAL DISCOVERY REQUESTS PERTAINING TO DEFENDANTS' PROPOSED REMEDIAL PLAN ON SEGREGATION Pursuant to the informal discovery process set up by the Court in this matter, Plaintiffs, by and through the undersigned counsel, hereby request that the Alabama Department of Corrections and Defendants Jefferson Dunn and Ruth Naglich produce responses and the following documents to the offices of Plaintiffs' Counsel, Southern Poverty Law Center, Montgomery, AL, 36104, no later than January 19, 2018. These interrogatories and requests for production pertain to the Defendants' Proposed Remedial Plan on Segregation (Doc. 1533) filed on January 5, 2018. Many will also be relevant to the remaining remedial trials scheduled in the December 20, 2017 Scheduling Order (Doc. 1524). 8 REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 1. Please provide a copy of all current and proposed ADOC and MHM mental health coding policies. 2. Please provide a copy of the current MHM Master Roster in native format. 3. Please provide a roster of all persons in segregation in the ADOC on the day after receipt of these informal discovery requests. 4. Please provide the MHM Alabama Department of Corrections Monthly Operating Reports, Staffing Reports, Medical Director Reports, Training Manager Reports and Nursing Reports for November 2017 and December 2017. During the course of the remedial trials, please provide these reports upon receipt from MHM. If, before the completion of the remedial trials, the new ADOC healthcare contract comes into effect, please provide the monthly reports containing the analogous information from the new vendor. If, before the completion of the remedial trials, any of the above-listed reports are revised, please provide the revised reports. 5. Please provide a copy of all current and proposed policies regarding the placement of prisoners with mental illness in segregation. 6. Please provide a copy of all current and proposed ADOC policies regarding mental health monitoring of prisoners in segregation. 8 7. Please provide the movement histories since February 1, 2017 of each person on the MHM Master Roster who meets any of the following criteria: (a) Diagnosed with schizophrenia, schizophreniform disorder or schizoaffective disorder; (b) Diagnosed with bipolar disorder; (c) Diagnosed with any disorder "with psychotic features" or "with psychosis"; (d) Diagnosed with psychotic disorder or delusional disorder; (e) Diagnosed with major depressive disorder; (f) Is under an involuntary medication order; or (g) Has a mental health code of MH-2 or above whose last name starts with, A, J, S, OR W. 8. Please provide the duty post logs for 2 weeks (December 31, 2017- January 13, 2018) for any celled unit in any major correctional facility where any of the persons meeting any of the criteria listed above were housed. 9. Please provide the duty post logs for 2 weeks (December 31, 2017- January 13, 2018) for all segregation units. 10. Please provide all "Review of Segregation Inmates" forms (ADOC Form MH-039) completed between February 1, 2017 and December 31, 2017. 8 11. Please provide all documentation of mental health provider approvals of segregation placement of prisoners with mental illness that were created between February 1, 2017 and December 31, 2017. 12. Please provide all documentation of the disciplinaries or other bases for segregation placement of persons not on the mental health caseload who have been placed in segregation since February 1, 2017 and whose last names start with A, J, S OR W. 13. Please provide the mental health records for every prisoner discharged from suicide watch to segregation more than one (1) time during 2017 for the period covering one month prior to the prisoner's placement in suicide watch through one month after discharge from suicide watch to segregation. 14. Please provide all incident reports and psychological reconstructions created in response to the death that occurred in the Bullock Correctional Facility Residential Treatment Unit in April 2017 that was reported as a suicide in the April 2017 MHM Alabama Department of Corrections Monthly Operating Report. 15. Please provide all incident reports and psychological reconstructions created in response to the death that occurred on January 7, 2018 in Donaldson Correctional Facility. 8 16. Please provide all completed ADOC Form 434-A, "Segregation Unit Record Sheet" from all segregation units for the fourteen days prior to the date this request was filed. 17. Please provide all completed ADOC Form MH-038, "Mental Health Segregation Rounds Log" from all segregation units for the fourteen days prior to the date this request was filed. 18. Please provide all completed ADOC Form MH-008, "Referral to Mental Health" for everyone in segregation during the fourteen days prior to the date of this request was filed. 19. Please provide all documentation regarding any decisions to place any prisoner with a serious mental illness in a segregation unit since February 1, 2017, including any consideration of whether there were extenuating circumstances. 20. Please provide all documentation regarding the placement of any prisoner with a serious mental illness in a segregation unit for protection from other prisoners for thirty (30) days or less since February 1, 2017. 21. Please provide all documentation regarding placement of any prisoner with a serious mental illness placed in a segregation unit for behavior unrelated to his or her mental illness after psychiatric evaluation and for no more than thirty (30) days since February 1, 2017, including but not limited to the psychiatric 8 evaluation and any documentation relating to the determination that the behavior was unrelated to the mental illness. 22. Please provide all documentation of monitoring and treatment of any prisoner with a serious mental illness placed in a segregation unit for behavior unrelated to his or her mental illness after psychiatric evaluation and for no more than thirty (30) days since February 1, 2017, for the period of time the person was in segregation. 23. Please provide all documentation of monitoring and treatment of any prisoner with a serious mental illness placed in a segregation unit for protection from himself or herself for fifteen (15) days or less where a crisis unit or other specialized mental-health unit is not vacant since February 1, 2017, for the period of time the person was in segregation. 24. Please provide all documentation of observation and treatment of any prisoner with a serious mental illness placed in a segregation unit for medical and/or mental-health observation where a crisis unit or other specialized mental- health unit is not vacant since February 1, 2017, for the period of time the person was in segregation. 25. Please provide all documentation of monitoring and treatment of any prisoner with a serious mental illness placed in a segregation unit pending transfer 8 to a specialized mental-health unit since February 1, 2017, for the period of time the person was in segregation. 26. Please provide all documentation of the determinations by mental- health providers of whether prisoners being considered for placement in segregation had a serious mental illness and the propriety of placing the prisoner in a segregation unit with or without the existence of an extenuating circumstance since February 1, 2017. 27. Please provide all documentation of the re-evaluation of mental-health codes of prisoners housed in any segregation unit since February 1, 2017, as described on page 25 of the State's Phase 2A Proposed Remedial Plan on Segregation (Doc. 1533). 28. Please provide documentation of any transfers from segregation that occurred as a result of the re-evaluation of mental-health codes of prisoners housed in any segregation unit, as described on page 25 of the State's Phase 2A Proposed Remedial Plan on Segregation (Doc. 1533). 29. Please provide every iteration of the OHS Mental Health Coding Reference Table that has been operative at any time since May 2, 2016. 8 INTERROGATORIES 1. Under the State's plan, does a prisoner with a mental health code of MH-2 or higher have to have a psychiatric evaluation to be approved for placement in segregation? 2. Can anyone other than psychiatrists perform psychiatric evaluations for determining whether a prisoner can be placed in segregation? 3. If the answer to interrogatory 2 is yes, identify by job title and credentials the persons who can perform psychiatric evaluations. 4. Does ADOC require a particularized finding as to whether a prisoner will be harmed by placement in segregation in order to designate said prisoner as eligible for segregation? 5. Please describe your process for evaluating whether a prisoner with serious mental health needs, but no serious mental illness, should be removed from segregation. 6. Under the currently operative mental-health coding system, can a prisoner be placed in segregation before a psychological assessment is completed? 7. Under the currently operative mental-health coding system, if a prisoner is referred for a psychiatric evaluation, can the prisoner be placed in segregation before the psychiatric evaluation is completed? 8 8. Under the proposed mental-health coding system, can a prisoner be placed in segregation before a psychological assessment is completed? 9. Under the proposed mental-health coding system, if a prisoner is referred for a psychiatric evaluation, can the prisoner be placed in segregation before the psychiatric evaluation is completed? 10. When did ADOC determine that Deputy Commissioner for Women's Services, Dr. Wendy Williams, and Associate Commissioner for Operations, Grantt Culliver were not placing anyone with a mental health code of MH-2 in restrictive housing? 11. How did ADOC determine that Deputy Commissioner for Women's Services, Dr. Wendy Williams, and Associate Commissioner for Operations, Grantt Culliver were not placing anyone with a mental health code of MH-2 in restrictive housing? 12. When did ADOC decided to implement a new mental health coding system that generally makes it inappropriate to house inmates with a mental-health code of MH-2 or above in a segregation unit? 13. Has ADOC implemented a new mental health coding system that generally makes it inappropriate to house inmates with a mental-health code of MH-2 or above in a segregation unit? 8 14. If ADOC has implemented a new mental health coding system that generally makes it inappropriate to house inmates with a mental-health code of MH-2 or above in a segregation unit, when did it do so? 15. If ADOC has implemented a new mental health coding system that generally makes it inappropriate to house inmates with a mental-health code of MH-2 or above in a segregation unit, how did it communicate the new policy to correctional and mental health staff? 16. If ADOC has implemented a new mental health coding system that generally makes it inappropriate to house inmates with a mental-health code of MH-2 or above in a segregation unit, what has it done to ensure that the new system is being followed? 17. Does the new mental health coding system set out on pages 17-20 of the State's Phase 2A Proposed Remedial Plan on Segregation (Doc. 1533) require both being "diagnosed as having a Serious Mental Illness as defined with a DSM diagnosis" and having a "moderate impairment in mental functioning" for a prisoner to receive a mental health code of MH-2? 18. Under the new mental health coding system set out on pages 17-20 of the State's Phase 2A Proposed Remedial Plan on Segregation (Doc. 1533), if a prisoner is diagnosed with schizophrenia but currently has his or her symptoms 8 under control and does not have a moderate impairment in mental functioning, can that prisoner be given a mental health code of MH-1, MH-1a or MH-0? 19. Under the new mental health coding system set out on pages 17-20 of the State's Phase 2A Proposed Remedial Plan on Segregation (Doc. 1533), what is the distinction between "Diagnosed as having a Serious Mental Illness as defined with a DSM diagnosis" (one of the criteria for MH-2) and "Serious Mental Illness diagnosis" (one of the criteria for MH-3 and MH-3a)? 20. Since July 1, 2017, how many prisoners have had a psychological assessment by a licensed mental health professional in the situation where the ADOC intends to proceed with placement of the prisoner in segregation? 21. Since July 1, 2017, of the prisoners who have had a psychological assessment by a licensed mental health professional in the situation where the ADOC intends to proceed with placement of the prisoner in segregation, how many (if any) were referred to and received a psychiatric evaluation? 22. Since July 1, 2017, of the prisoners who have had a psychiatric evaluation in the situation where the ADOC intends to proceed with placement of the prisoner in segregation, how many had their mental health code changed to a higher mental health code (i.e., MH-0 to MH-2 or MH-1 to MH-1 to MH-1a)? 23. Since July 1, 2017, of the prisoners who have had a psychiatric evaluation in the situation where the ADOC intends to proceed with placement of 8 the prisoner in segregation, how many had their mental health code changed to a lower mental health code (i.e., MH-2 to MH-0 or MH-1a to MH-1)? 24. Since July 1, 2017, how many prisoners with a serious mental illness have been placed in segregation following a psychiatric evaluation with the existence of an extenuating circumstance? 25. Since July 1, 2017, how many prisoners with a serious mental illness have been placed in segregation following a psychiatric evaluation without the existence of an extenuating circumstance? 26. How many prisoners with a serious mental illness under consideration for placement in segregation were not placed in segregation following a psychiatric evaluation pursuant to the findings of the evaluation? 27. Please identify the dates each iteration of the OHS Mental Health Coding Reference Table was operative at any time since May 2, 2016. 28. For each month since February 2017, how many times have prisoners been placed in segregation? For the purpose of answering this interrogatory, if a single prisoner is placed in segregation on two occasions, that counts as two. If a prisoner is returned to segregation from the infirmary or suicide watch, only the initial determination that the prisoner be placed in segregation counts. 8 29. For each month since February 2017, how many individual prisoners spent time in segregation? For the purpose of answering this interrogatory, if a single prisoner is placed in segregation on two occasions, that counts as one. 30. How many prisoners have been in segregation for over one continuous month since February 1, 2017? 31. How many prisoners on the mental health caseload have been in segregation for over one continuous month since February 1, 2017? 32. How many prisoners have been in segregation for over four continuous months since February 1, 2017? 33. How many prisoners on the mental health caseload have been in segregation for over four continuous months since February 1, 2017? 34. How many prisoners have been in segregation for over seven continuous months since February 1, 2017? 35. How many prisoners on the mental health caseload have been in segregation for over seven continuous months since February 1, 2017?

ORDERED that Plaintiffs' motion (Doc. {{1551}}) is GRANTED as follows: Defendants are to respond to the "informal" requests for production served on January 9, 2018, as further set out. All responses and documents ordered to be produced shall be provided to Plaintiffs' counsel no later than January 31, 2018. Plaintiffs' motion to compel is DENIED in all other respects and Defendants are not to respond to the requests for production and interrogatories served on January 9, 2018, except as specifically set out above, as the court finds the remaining discovery requests to be overly broad, disproportionate to the needs of the case, or unduly burdensome. It is further ORDERED that counsel for all parties shall meet and confer in person or by telephone no later than January 31, 2018 regarding a proposal for the administration of future discovery disputes during the remedial phase of this litigation. Specifically, the parties are to discuss the appropriate role for Chief Magistrate Judge John E. Ott in this process and whether there is a substantial need for a standard schedule calculated in relation to the trial phasesfor the parties to serve discovery requests, to file responses and objections, and to raise any remaining disputes with the undersigned. To the extent the parties agree on a proposal, it should be submitted to the court as a joint filing. Signed by Honorable Judge Gray M. Borden on 1/24/2018.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARD BRAGGS, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) v.) CASE NO.: 2:14-cv-601-MHT-GMB) JEFFERSON S. DUNN, et al.,)) Defendants.) ORDER Consistent with Plaintiffs' request for an expedited status conference regarding certain discovery, which the court construes to contain a motion to compel (Doc. 1551), the court held a conference on this date regarding the status of the parties' discovery efforts relating to the remedial hearing scheduled to commence on February 5, 2018. Based upon the representations made during the telephone conference, and for the reasons stated on the record during that conference, it is ORDERED that Plaintiffs' motion (Doc. 1551) is GRANTED as follows: Defendants are to respond to the "informal" requests for production served on January 9, 2018, as follows: 1. Produce all responsive documents. 2. Produce all responsive documents in Excel or another appropriate electronic format. 3. Produce all responsive documents. 4. Produce all MHM Alabama Department of Corrections Monthly Operating Reports and component sub-reports received to date by Defendants and not previously produced. 7. Produce all responsive documents from October 1, 2017 to the present. 9. Produce all responsive documents. 13. Plaintiffs shall provide to Defendants their list of 42 inmates who they believe to have been discharged more than one time from suicide watch to segregation, as referenced during the call, no later than 12:00 p.m. on January 25, 2018. Defendants are to produce all responsive documents relating to these 42 prisoners. 16. Produce all responsive documents. 17. Produce all responsive documents to the extent the Mental Health Segregation Rounds Logs are maintained in a segregated manner in each facility. 29. Produce all responsive documents. All responses and documents ordered to be produced shall be provided to Plaintiffs' counsel no later than January 31, 2018. Plaintiffs' motion to compel is DENIED in all other respects and Defendants are not to respond to the requests for production and interrogatories served on January 9, 2018, except as specifically set out above, as the court finds the remaining discovery requests to be overly broad, disproportionate to the needs of the case, or unduly burdensome. It is further ORDERED that counsel for all parties shall meet and confer in person or by telephone no later than January 31, 2018 regarding a proposal for the administration of future discovery disputes during the remedial phase of this litigation. Specifically, the parties are to discuss the appropriate role for Chief Magistrate Judge John E. Ott in this process and whether there is a substantial need for a standard schedule— 2 calculated in relation to the trial phases—for the parties to serve discovery requests, to file responses and objections, and to raise any remaining disputes with the undersigned. To the extent the parties agree on a proposal, it should be submitted to the court as a joint filing. DONE this 24th day of January, 2018. 3

PHASE 2A ORDER RESETTING REMEDIAL HEARING ON HOSPITAL-LEVEL CARE AND SEGREGATION: It is ORDERED that the remedial hearing on the segregation and hospital-level care issues, now set for February 5, 2018, is reset for February 7, 2018, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 2FMJ of the Frank M. Johnson Jr. United States Courthouse Complex, One Church Street, Montgomery, Alabama. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 1/25/2018. (furn: ag, calendar)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARD BRAGGS, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) CIVIL ACTION NO. v.) 2:14cv601-MHT) JEFFERSON S. DUNN, in his) official capacity as) Commissioner of) the Alabama Department of) Corrections, et al.,)) Defendants.) PHASE 2A ORDER RESETTING REMEDIAL HEARING ON HOSPITAL-LEVEL CARE AND SEGREGATION It is ORDERED that the remedial hearing on the segregation and hospital-level care issues, now set for February 5, 2018, is reset for February 7, 2018, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 2FMJ of the Frank M. Johnson Jr. United States Courthouse Complex, One Church Street, Montgomery, Alabama. DONE, this the 25th day of January, 2018. /s/ Myron H. Thompson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER: Based on the representations made on the record on January 24, 2018, it is ORDERED that, with regard to the joint status reports (doc. no. {{1298}}), the parties are to confer with United States Magistrate Judge Gray Borden to come up with a new format that is more informative and efficient. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 1/26/2018.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARD BRAGGS, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) CIVIL ACTION NO. v.) 2:14cv601-MHT) JEFFERSON S. DUNN, in his) official capacity as) Commissioner of) the Alabama Department of) Corrections, et al.,)) Defendants.) ORDER Based on the representations made on the record on January 24, 2018, it is ORDERED that, with regard to the joint status reports (doc. no. 1298), the parties are to confer with United States Magistrate Judge Gray Borden to come up with a new format that is more informative and efficient. DONE, this the 26th day of January, 2018. /s/ Myron H. Thompson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER: Pursuant to the court's {{1563}} order, the parties are DIRECTED to meet and confer in an effort to prepare a joint proposal for improving the format of their joint status reports, and are ORDERED to submit that proposal to the undersigned no later than 2/16/2018, as further set out in order. Signed by Honorable Judge Gray M. Borden on 1/26/2018.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARD BRAGGS, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) v.) CASE NO.: 2:14-cv-601-MHT-GMB) JEFFERSON S. DUNN, et al.,)) Defendants.) ORDER Pursuant to the court's order on this date (Doc. 1563), the parties are DIRECTED to meet and confer in an effort to prepare a joint proposal for improving the format of their joint status reports, and are ORDERED to submit that proposal to the undersigned no later than February 16, 2018. To the extent the parties disagree on their recommendations to the court, they are to set out their areas of disagreement, and the rationale for their respective positions, within the joint submission. DONE this 26th day of January, 2018.

NOTICE by All Plaintiffs re {{1549}} Reply Brief.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARD BRAGGS, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) v.) CIVIL ACTION NO.) 2:14-CV-00601-MHT-GMB JEFFERSON DUNN, in his official) HON. MYRON H. THOMPSON capacity as Commissioner) of the Alabama Department of) Corrections, et al.,)) Defendants.)) NOTICE OF FILING Notice is hereby given that the Plaintiffs have filed Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Proposed Opinion Finding Eighth Amendment Violations in the Alabama Department of Corrections' Failure to Monitor and Assess Prisoners in Segregation with the Clerk of the above Court. Dated: January 26, 2018 Respectfully Submitted, _______________________ Maria V. Morris One of the Attorneys for Plaintiffs Southern Poverty Law Center 400 Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36104 1 Rhonda Brownstein (ASB-3193-O64R) Maria V. Morris (ASB-2198-R64M) Grace Graham (ASB-3040-A64G) Latasha L. McCrary (ASB-1935-L75M) Caitlin J. Sandley (ASB-5317-S48R) SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 400 Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36104 Telephone: (334) 956-8200 Facsimile: (334) 956-8481 rhonda.brownstein@splcenter.org maria.morris@splcenter.org grace.graham@splcenter.org latasha.mccrary@splcenter.org cj.sandley@splcenter.org William Van Der Pol, Jr. (ASB-2112-114F) Glenn N. Baxter (ASB-3825-A41G) Lonnie J. Williams Barbara A. Lawrence Andrea J. Mixson Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program Box 870395 Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 Telephone: (205) 348-4928 Facsimile: (205) 348-3909 wvanderpoljr@adap.ua.edu gnbaxter@adap.ua.edu lwilliams@adap.ua.edu blawrence@adap.ua.edu amixson@adap.ua.edu Lisa W. Borden (ASB-5673-D57L) William G. Somerville, III (ASB-6185-E63W) Andrew P. Walsh (ASB-3755-W77W) Dennis Nabors Patricia Clotfelter (ASB-0841-F43P) Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz PC 420 20th Street North, Suite 1400 Birmingham, AL 35203 2 Telephone: (205) 328-0480 Facsimile: (205) 322-8007 lborden@bakerdonelson.com wsomerville@bakerdonelson.com awalsh@bakerdonelson.com dnabors@bakerdonelson.com pclotfelter@bakerdonelson.com Gregory M. Zarzaur (ASB-0759-E45Z) Anil A. Mujumdar (ASB-2004-L65M) Diandra S. Debrosse (ASB-2956-N76D) Denise Wiginton Zarzaur Mujumdar & Debrosse 2332 2nd Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 983-7985 Facsimile: (888) 505-0523 gregory@zarzaur.com anil@zarzaur.com diandra@zarzaur.com denise@zarzaur.com ATTORNEYS FOR THE PLAINTIFFS 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have on this 26th day of January, 2018, filed under seal the foregoing with the clerk of the court and electronically served the following: David R. Boyd, Esq. Steven C. Corhern, Esq. John G. Smith, Esq. Balch & Bingham LLP John W. Naramore, Esq. Post Office Box 306 Balch & Bingham LLP Birmingham, AL 35201-0306 Post Office Box 78 scorhern@balch.com Montgomery, AL 36101-0078 dboyd@balch.com Mitesh Shah, Esq. jgsmith@balch.com Luther M. Dorr, Esq. jnaramore@balch.com Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C. 1901 6th Avenue North, Suite 2400 William R. Lunsford, Esq. Birmingham, AL 35203 Melissa K. Marler, Esq. mshah@maynardcooper.com Stephen C. Rogers, Esq. rdorr@maynardcooper.com Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C. 655 Gallatin Street, SW Deana Johnson, Esq. Huntsville, AL 35801 Brett T. Lane, Esq. blunsford@maynardcooper.com MHM Services, Inc. mmarler@maynardcooper.com 1447 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 500 srogers@maynardcooper.com Atlanta, GA 30309 djohnson@mhm-services.com Anne Hill, Esq. btlane@mhm-services.com Elizabeth A. Sees, Esq. Joseph G. Stewart, Jr., Esq. Alabama Department of Corrections Legal Division 301 South Ripley Street Montgomery, AL 36104 anne.hill@doc.alabama.gov elizabeth.sees@doc.alabama.gov joseph.stewart@doc.alabama.gov Maria V. Morris__________ One of the Attorneys for Plaintiffs 4

SEALED - Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Proposed Opinion Finding Eighth Amendment Violations in the Alabama Department of Corrections' Failure to Monitor and Assess Prisoners in Segregation) (Attachment 1 replaced on 1/29/2018

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARDS BRAGGS, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) v.) CIVIL ACTION NO.) 2:14-CV-00601-MHT-GMB JEFFERSON DUNN, in his official) FILED UNDER SEAL capacity as Commissioner) of the Alabama Department of) Corrections, et al.,)) Defendants.)) PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' PROPOSED OPINION FINDING EIGHTH AMENDMENT VIOLATIONS IN THE ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS' FAILURE TO MONITOR AND ASSESS PRISONERS IN SEGREGATION

OPINION AND ORDER RE: HEAT SENSITIVITY: It is ORDERED that counsel for all parties, after reviewing a transcript of the hearing on August 23, 2017, and after conferring with each other, file a joint report regarding the status, in this litigation, of the issue of heat sensitivity experienced by prisoners taking psychotropic medication--including whether these prisoners still risk suffering from overheating due to placement in cells without air conditioning and what progress, if any, has been made toward remedying the situation--by no later than February 12, 2018. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 1/29/2018.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARD BRAGGS, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) CIVIL ACTION NO. v.) 2:14cv601-MHT) (WO) JEFFERSON S. DUNN, in his) official capacity as) Commissioner of) the Alabama Department of) Corrections, et al.,)) Defendants.) OPINION AND ORDER RE: HEAT SENSITIVITY At a status conference on January 24, 2018, the court asked counsel for the parties about the status of the issue of heat sensitivity experienced by prisoners prescribed psychotropic medication and whether the ADA required a reasonable accommodation for those prisoners. As the court understood it, this issue had been raised in a prior hearing. However, counsel for both sides responded that they did not remember the issue being raised previously. Fortunately, it appears that counsel, and not the court, had a 'senior moment.' At a hearing on August 23, 2017, a prisoner testified about how psychotropic medication can cause the body to overheat, which can result in seizures, stoke, and even death if left unaddressed. He further testified that all of the prisoners prescribed psychotropic medication in the ADOC facility where he was imprisoned were housed in cells without air conditioning. The court asked counsel for plaintiffs whether this issue is part of this litigation; if so, whether it should be a concern of the court; and, if so, whether it is the type of matter that could be resolved through that ADA as an accommodation. Counsel for plaintiffs responded that, in their view, it is part of this litigation; that it is an issue "the court should be concerned about"; that there was an ongoing discussion of architectural modifications needed to bring the ADOC into compliance with the ADA; and that they would add the issue to the list of items for discussion. *** 2 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that counsel for all parties, after reviewing a transcript of the hearing on August 23, 2017, and after conferring with each other, file a joint report regarding the status, in this litigation, of the issue of heat sensitivity experienced by prisoners taking psychotropic medication--including whether these prisoners still risk suffering from overheating due to placement in cells without air conditioning and what progress, if any, has been made toward remedying the situation--by no later than February 12, 2018. DONE, this the 29th day of January, 2018. /s/ Myron H. Thompson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3

NOTICE by All Plaintiffs re {{1539}} Order.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARD BRAGGS, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) v.) CIVIL ACTION NO.) 2:14-CV-00601-MHT-GMB JEFFERSON DUNN, in his official) HON. MYRON H. THOMPSON capacity as Commissioner) of the Alabama Department of) Corrections, et al.,)) Defendants.)) NOTICE OF FILING Notice is hereby given that the Plaintiffs have filed Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendants' Proposed Opinion on Correctional and Mental-Health Staffing Remedies under seal with the Clerk of the above Court. Dated: January 29, 2018 Respectfully Submitted, Maria V. Morris Maria V. Morris One of the Attorneys for Plaintiffs Southern Poverty Law Center 400 Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36104 1 Rhonda Brownstein (ASB-3193-O64R) Maria V. Morris (ASB-2198-R64M) Grace Graham (ASB-3040-A64G) Latasha L. McCrary (ASB-1935-L75M) Caitlin J. Sandley (ASB-5317-S48R) SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 400 Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36104 Telephone: (334) 956-8200 Facsimile: (334) 956-8481 rhonda.brownstein@splcenter.org maria.morris@splcenter.org grace.graham@splcenter.org latasha.mccrary@splcenter.org cj.sandley@splcenter.org William Van Der Pol, Jr. (ASB-2112-114F) Glenn N. Baxter (ASB-3825-A41G) Lonnie J. Williams Barbara A. Lawrence Andrea J. Mixson Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program Box 870395 Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 Telephone: (205) 348-4928 Facsimile: (205) 348-3909 wvanderpoljr@adap.ua.edu gnbaxter@adap.ua.edu lwilliams@adap.ua.edu blawrence@adap.ua.edu amixson@adap.ua.edu Lisa W. Borden (ASB-5673-D57L) William G. Somerville, III (ASB-6185-E63W) Andrew P. Walsh (ASB-3755-W77W) Dennis Nabors Patricia Clotfelter (ASB-0841-F43P) Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz PC 420 20th Street North, Suite 1400 Birmingham, AL 35203 2 Telephone: (205) 328-0480 Facsimile: (205) 322-8007 lborden@bakerdonelson.com wsomerville@bakerdonelson.com awalsh@bakerdonelson.com dnabors@bakerdonelson.com pclotfelter@bakerdonelson.com Gregory M. Zarzaur (ASB-0759-E45Z) Anil A. Mujumdar (ASB-2004-L65M) Diandra S. Debrosse (ASB-2956-N76D) Denise Wiginton Zarzaur Mujumdar & Debrosse 2332 2nd Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 983-7985 Facsimile: (888) 505-0523 gregory@zarzaur.com anil@zarzaur.com diandra@zarzaur.com denise@zarzaur.com ATTORNEYS FOR THE PLAINTIFFS 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have on this 29th day of January, 2018, filed under seal the foregoing with the clerk of the court and served a copy of the filed document via electronic mail to the following: David R. Boyd, Esq. Steven C. Corhern, Esq. John G. Smith, Esq. Balch & Bingham LLP John W. Naramore, Esq. Post Office Box 306 Balch & Bingham LLP Birmingham, AL 35201-0306 Post Office Box 78 scorhern@balch.com Montgomery, AL 36101-0078 dboyd@balch.com Mitesh Shah, Esq. jgsmith@balch.com Luther M. Dorr, Esq. jnaramore@balch.com Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C. 1901 6th Avenue North, Suite 2400 William R. Lunsford, Esq. Birmingham, AL 35203 Melissa K. Marler, Esq. mshah@maynardcooper.com Stephen C. Rogers, Esq. rdorr@maynardcooper.com Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C. 655 Gallatin Street, SW Deana Johnson, Esq. Huntsville, AL 35801 Brett T. Lane, Esq. blunsford@maynardcooper.com MHM Services, Inc. mmarler@maynardcooper.com 1447 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 500 srogers@maynardcooper.com Atlanta, GA 30309 djohnson@mhm-services.com Anne Hill, Esq. btlane@mhm-services.com Elizabeth A. Sees, Esq. Joseph G. Stewart, Jr., Esq. Alabama Department of Corrections Legal Division 301 South Ripley Street Montgomery, AL 36104 anne.hill@doc.alabama.gov elizabeth.sees@doc.alabama.gov joseph.stewart@doc.alabama.gov Maria V. Morris__________ One of the Attorneys for Plaintiffs 4

SEALED - Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendants' Proposed Opinion on Correctional and Mental-Health Staffing Remedies) (Attachment 1 replaced on 1/30/2018

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARDS BRAGGS, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) v.) CIVIL ACTION NO.) 2:14-CV-00601-MHT-GMB JEFFERSON DUNN, in his official) FILED UNDER SEAL capacity as Commissioner) of the Alabama Department of) Corrections, et al.,)) Defendants.)) PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO DEFENDANTS' PROPOSED OPINION ON CORRECTIONAL AND MENNTAL-HEALTH STAFFING REMEDIES

Motion for Clarification or, in the alternative, Request for Additional Status Conference re {{1559}} Order by Jefferson S. Dunn, Ruth Naglich. Modified on 1/30/2018 to clarify the docket text.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARD BRAGGS, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) v.) Case No. 2:14-cv-00601-MHT-GMB) JEFFERSON DUNN, et al.,) Magistrate Judge Gray M. Borden) Defendants.) MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL STATUS CONFERENCE Defendants JEFFERSON DUNN ("Commissioner Dunn") and RUTH NAGLICH ("Naglich" and, collectively with Commissioner Dunn, "the State") hereby move the Court for clarification of its January 24, 2018, Order (Doc. No. 1559) (the "Segregation Discovery Order") regarding informal discovery in advance of the evidentiary hearing regarding the State's Phase 2A Proposed Remedial Plan on Segregation (the "State's Segregation Plan") in light of recently discovered information pertaining to the voluminous nature of the proposed document production. Alternatively, the State requests that the Court hold an additional teleconference with counsel to discuss reasonable limits upon the State's production in response to the Court's Segregation Discovery Order. As grounds for this Motion, the State submits the following. 1. In order to comply with one (1) request for production of documents, i.e. Request No. 7, the State would be required to produce a year's worth of movement histories for approximately 1,909 inmates. The State cannot practically accomplish this task prior to tomorrow's deadline, and attempts over the last four (4) days to resolve the dispute with Plaintiffs' counsel failed. Therefore, the State requests further guidance from the Court. 2. Following a telephonic hearing on January 24, 2018, the Court largely denied Plaintiffs' request for an order compelling immediate responses to Plaintiffs' twenty-nine (29) requests for production and thirty-five (35) interrogatories (the "Segregation Discovery Requests"). (Order, Doc. No. 1559). The Court found the vast majority of Plaintiffs' Segregation Discovery Requests "to be overly broad, disproportionate to the needs of the case, or unduly burdensome." (Id. at p. 2). The Court only required the State to respond to ten (10) of Plaintiffs' requests for production and denied Plaintiffs' request to compel the State to respond to the remaining Segregation Discovery Requests. (Id.). 3. The Court directed the State to produce documentation in response to Request No. 7. (Id.). However, implicitly recognizing the request to be overly broad, disproportionate to the needs of the case, and/or unduly burdensome, the Court reduced the Plaintiff's proposed time range for production by eight (8) months. 4. To be clear, the structure of Request No. 7 did not allow the Parties or 2 the Court to recognize the breadth of the request, even with the Court's revision, at the time of the January 24, 2018, hearing. Request No. 7 directed the State to refer to a "Master Roster" purportedly maintained by MHM, and then produce the inmate movement histories for each and every inmate who fell into any one (1) of seven (7) different criteria on the "Master Roster." Although uncertain of the exact number of movement histories requested by Request No. 7 as of the January 24, 2018, hearing, the State objected to the Request because it recognized that Request No. 7 was overly broad and disproportionate to Plaintiffs' needs, and it anticipated producing the requested documentation would be unduly burdensome. 5. The very same day as the Court entered its Segregation Discovery Order, counsel for the State requested the "Master Roster" from MHM. Contrary to the prior representations of Plaintiffs' counsel, MHM does not maintain a "Master Roster." Rather the mental health staffs at the major ADOC facilities maintain separate documentation including information regarding the inmates on the caseload at their facilities, which have to be collated into one document. 6. MHM collected the roster information from each facility, combined it into a master document and provided it to undersigned counsel. Thereafter, undersigned counsel spent hours analyzing the document to determine which inmates fell into the criteria listed in Plaintiffs' Request No. 7. 7. The State's analysis of the "Master Roster" concluded late on the 3 afternoon of Friday, January 26. Through this analysis, the State discovered that approximately 1,909 inmates listed in the "Master Roster" came within the scope of Request No. 7. The State estimates that obtaining the report for a single inmate's movement history using the Alabama Department of Corrections' ("ADOC") computer system would take between 5-10 minutes. Using an average estimate of seven (7) minutes to obtain a movement history, the State anticipates that producing the movement histories for the 1,909 inmates in response to Request for Production 7 would take approximately 222 hours (1,909 x 7 / 60). To be clear, the State realized on January 26 that it could not produce the 1,909 inmate movement histories by the deadline set in the Court's Segregation Discovery Order. 8. That very same afternoon, i.e. Friday, January 26, counsel for the State contacted Plaintiffs' counsel to notify them of this new information and provided them with a copy of the master document from MHM. Undersigned counsel requested that Plaintiffs consider narrowing the scope of their request to involve a more reasonable, less burdensome production. Between Friday, January 26 and Monday, January 29, counsel exchanged counterproposals. For the reasons stated below, the State did not see any of Plaintiffs' counterproposals as palatable or feasible. 9. From the State's perspective, Plaintiffs utilized the voluminous nature 4 of the required production and the pending Segregation Discovery Order as an opportunity to actually expand the required production and seek concessions from the State on material issues for the upcoming hearing. In short, the State did not receive any reasonable proposal from Plaintiffs. Among other things, Plaintiffs' proposal (a) discarded the Court's revision to Request for Production 7 and pushed the time frame back to February 1, 2017; (b) introduced a new pool of inmates whom the State would need to identify using a new set of criteria and produce those inmates' movement histories; and (c) demanded that the State make certain factual concessions which did not come within the ambit of the original request for production. 10. Undersigned counsel can state that they have reasonably attempted to resolve this dispute with opposing counsel. In light of the upcoming deadline, the State feels compelled to notify the Court and seek relief, given the newly discovered information. Accordingly, the State asks the Court for clarification of its Segregation Discovery Order with respect to Plaintiffs' Request No. 7 or, in the alternative, for an additional teleconference, to discuss a possible resolution of these issues. Even as revised, the request is overly broad, disproportionate to the needs of the case, and unduly burdensome. While the State remains willing to produce a reasonable number of inmate movement histories, the scope of Plaintiffs' original request and their proposed revision(s) remain unreasonable. 5 Dated: January 30, 2018. /s/ William R. Lunsford William R. Lunsford Attorney for the Commissioner and Associate Commissioner William R. Lunsford Matthew B. Reeves Melissa K. Marler Stephen C. Rogers MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, PC 655 Gallatin Street Huntsville, AL 35801 Telephone: (256) 512-5710 Facsimile: (256) 512-0119 blunsford@maynardcooper.com mreeves@maynardcooper.com mmarler@maynardcooper.com srogers@maynardcooper.com Luther M. Dorr, Jr. Mitesh B. Shah MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, PC 1901 Sixth Avenue North 2400 Regions Harbert Plaza Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 254-1178 Facsimile: (205) 714-6438 rdorr@maynardcooper.com mshah@maynardcooper.com 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served upon all attorneys of record in this matter, including without limitation the following, by the Court's CM/ECF system on this the 30th day of January, 2018: Maria V. Morris William Van Der Pol, Jr. Rhonda C. Brownstein Glenn N. Baxter Latasha L. McCrary Barbara A. Lawrence J. Richard Cohen Andrea J. Mixson Caitlin J. Sandley ALABAMA DISABILITIES ADVOCACY Grace Graham PROGRAM SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER University of Alabama 400 Washington Avenue 500 Martha Parham West Montgomery, Alabama 36104 Box 870395 Telephone: (334) 956-8200 Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487-0395 Facsimile: (334) 956-8481 Telephone: (205) 348-6894 maria.morris@splcenter.org Facsimile: (205) 348-3909 rhonda.brownstein@splcenter.org wvanderpoljr@adap.ua.edu latasha.mccrary@splcenter.org gnbaxter@bama.ua.edu richard.cohen@splcenter.org blawrence@adap.ua.edu cj.sandley@splcenter.org amixson@adap.ua.edu grace.graham@splcenter.org Gregory M. Zarzaur Andrew P. Walsh Anil A. Mujumdar William G. Somerville III Diandra S. Debrosse Patricia Clotfelter Denise Wiginton Lisa W. Borden ZARZAUR MUJUMDAR & DEBROSSE BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN 2332 2nd Avenue North CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC Birmingham, AL 35203 420 20th Street North Telephone: (205) 983-7985 Suite 1400 Facsimile: (888) 505-0523 Birmingham, Alabama 35203 gregory@zarzaur.com Telephone: (205) 244-3863 anil@zarzaur.com Facsimile: (205) 488-3863 fuli@zarzaur.com awalsh@bakerdonelson.com denise@zarzaur.com wsomerville@bakerdonelson.com pclotfelter@bakerdonelson.com lborden@bakerdonelson.com 7 John G. Smith Deana Johnson David R. Boyd Brett T. Lane BALCH & BINGHAM LLP MHM SERVICES, INC. Post Office Box 78 1447 Peachtree Street NE Montgomery, AL 36101-0078 Suite 500 Telephone: (334) 834-6500 Atlanta, GA 30309 Facsimile: (866) 316-9461 Telephone: (404) 347-4134 jgsmith@balch.com Facsimile: (404) 347-4138 dboyd@balch.com djohnson@mhm-services.com btlane@mhm-services.com Steven C. Corhern Lonnie J. Williams BALCH & BINGHAM LLP ALABAMA DISABILITIES ADVOCACY Post Office Box 306 PROGRAM Birmingham, AL 35201-0306 P. O. Box 870395 Telephone: (205) 251-8100 Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 Facsimile: (205) 488-5708 Telephone: (205) 348-4928 scorhern@balch.com Facsimile: (205) 348-3909 lwilliams@adap.ua.edu Anne A. Hill Elizabeth A. Sees Joseph G. Stewart ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Legal Division 301 South Ripley Street Montgomery, Alabama 36130 Telephone (334) 353-3884 Facsimile (334) 353-3891 anne.hill@doc.alabama.gov elizabeth.sees@doc.alabama.gov joseph.stewart@doc.alabama.gov /s/ William R. Lunsford Of Counsel 8

NOTICE by Alabama Department of Corrections, Jefferson S. Dunn, Ruth Naglich State's Non-Attorney Staff Technology Request

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION JOSHUA DUNN, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) CIVIL ACTION NO.: v.) 2:14-cv-00601-MHT-GMB) JEFFERSON S. DUNN, et al.,)) Defendants.) THE STATE'S NON-ATTORNEY STAFF TECHNOLOGY REQUEST Defendants Jefferson Dunn ("Commissioner Dunn") and Ruth Naglich ("Naglich" and, collectively with Commissioner Dunn, "the State") requests that the Balch & Bingham, LLP non-attorney staff listed below be granted/allowed the use of the following technological devices: Stephanie Marlow, Paralegal One phone, One laptop, One iPad Brenda Leveille, Legal Assistant One phone Kimberly Brantley, Office Administrator One phone Eric Marquette, Messenger One phone Hannah Geno, Messenger One Phone Respectfully submitted, this the 30th day of January, 2018. /s/ John G. Smith John G. Smith Attorney for the Commissioner and Associate Commissioner 254539.1 John G. Smith David R. Boyd John W. Naramore BALCH & BINGHAM LLP Post Office Box 78 Montgomery, AL 36101-0078 Telephone: (334) 834-6500 Facsimile: (866) 316-9461 jgsmith@balch.com dboyd@balch.com jnaramore@balch.com Steven C. Corhern BALCH & BINGHAM LLP Post Office Box 306 Birmingham, AL 35201-0306 Telephone: (205) 251-8100 Facsimile: (205) 488-5708 scorhern@balch.com Anne A. Hill Elizabeth A. Sees Joseph G. Stewart ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Legal Division 301 South Ripley Street Montgomery, AL 36130 Telephone: (334) 353-3884 Facsimile: (334) 353-3891 anne.hill@doc.alabama.gov elizabeth.sees@doc.alabama.gov joseph.stewart@doc.alabama.gov 254539.1 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served upon all attorneys of record in this matter, including without limitation the following, by the Court's CM/ECF system on this the 30th day of January, 2018: Maria V. Morris William Van Der Pol, Jr. Latasha McCrary Glenn N. Baxter Rhonda C. Brownstein Lonnie J. Williams J. Richard Cohen Barbara A. Lawrence Caitlin J. Sandley Andrea J. Mixson Grace Graham ALABAMA DISABILITIES SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW ADVOCACY PROGRAM CENTER University of Alabama 400 Washington Avenue 500 Martha Parham West, Box 870395 Montgomery, Alabama 36104 Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487-0395 maria.morris@splcenter.org wvanderpoljr@adap.ua.edu ebony.howard@splcenter.org gnbaxter@adap.ua.edu latasha.mccrary@splcenter.org lwilliams@adap.ua.edu rhonda.brownstein@splcenter.org blawrenc@adap.ua.edu richard.cohen@splcenter.org amixson@adap.ua.edu jaqueline.aranda@splcenter.org kristi.graunke@splcenter.org natalie.lyons@splcenter.org cj.sandley@splcenter.org grace.graham@splcenter.org Deana Johnson Andrew P. Walsh Brett T. Lane William G. Somerville III MHM SERVICES, INC. Patricia Clotfelter 1447 Peachtree Street NE Lisa Wright Borden Suite 500 Dennis Nabors Atlanta, GA 30309 BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN Telephone: (404) 347-4134 CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC Facsimile: (404) 347-4138 420 20th Street North, Suite 1400 djohnson@mhm-services.com Birmingham, AL 35203 btlane@mhm-services.com Telephone: (205) 244-3863 Facsimile: (205) 488-3863 awalsh@bakerdonelson.com 254539.1 3 wsomerville@bakerdonelson.com pclotfelter@bakerdonelson.com lborden@bakerdonelson.com dnabors@bakerdonelson.com Anil A. Mujumdar William R. Lunsford Gregory M. Zarzuar Matthew B. Reeves Diandra S. Debrosse Zimmerman Melissa K. Marler Denise Wiginton Stephen C. Rogers ZARZAUR MUJUMDAR & DEBROSSE MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, PC 2332 2nd Avenue North 655 Gallatin Street Birmingham, Alabama 35203 Huntsville, AL 35801 anil@zarzaur.com Telephone: (256) 512-5710 gregory@zarzaur.com Facsimile: (256) 512-0119 fuli@zarzaur.com blunsford@maynardcooper.com denise@zarzaur.com mreeves@maynardcooper.com mmarler@maynardcooper.com srogers@maynardcooper.com Luther M. Dorr, Jr. Mitesh B. Shah MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, PC 1901 Sixth Avenue North 2400 Regions Harbert Plaza Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 254-1178 Facsimile: (205) 714-6438 rdorr@maynardcooper.com mshah@maynardcooper.com /s/ John G. Smith Of Counsel 254539.1 4

PHASE 2A ORDER REGARDING REMEDIAL HEARING ON HOSPITAL LEVEL CARE AND SEGREGATION: It is ORDERED as follows: (1) The remedial hearing on hospital-level care and segregation will begin each day, including the first day, at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 2FMJ, Frank M. Johnson, Jr. U.S. Courthouse Complex, One Church Street, Montgomery, Alabama. (2) Counsel for the parties are to arrange with the clerk of the court for those witnesses who will testify by videoconferencing. (3) By no later than February 2, 2018, at 5:00 p.m., the parties are each to submit a list of witnesses, the dates they expect each witness will testify, an estimate of how long their testimony will take, the specific topic(s) each witness will address, and whether the witness needs to testify in camera in whole or in part. (4) By no later than February 2, 2018, at 5:00 p.m., the parties are each to submit a list of exhibits they plan to use. (5) By February 6, 2018, at noon, the parties are each to submit a pretrial brief (a) summarizing all of the evidence they expect to present at the hearing, and (b) setting forth their arguments as to the impact of the PLRA on remedy. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 1/30/2018.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARD BRAGGS, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) CIVIL ACTION NO. v.) 2:14cv601-MHT) (WO) JEFFERSON S. DUNN, in his) official capacity as) Commissioner of) the Alabama Department of) Corrections, et al.,)) Defendants.) PHASE 2A ORDER REGARDING REMEDIAL HEARING ON HOSPITAL- LEVEL CARE AND SEGREGATION It is ORDERED as follows: (1) The remedial hearing on hospital-level care and segregation will begin each day, including the first day, at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 2FMJ, Frank M. Johnson, Jr. U.S. Courthouse Complex, One Church Street, Montgomery, Alabama. (2) Counsel for the parties are to arrange with the clerk of the court for those witnesses who will testify by videoconferencing. (3) By no later than February 2, 2018, at 5:00 p.m., the parties are each to submit a list of witnesses, the dates they expect each witness will testify, an estimate of how long their testimony will take, the specific topic(s) each witness will address, and whether the witness needs to testify in camera in whole or in part. (4) By no later than February 2, 2018, at 5:00 p.m., the parties are each to submit a list of exhibits they plan to use. (5) By February 6, 2018, at noon, the parties are each to submit a pretrial brief (a) summarizing all of the evidence they expect to present at the hearing, and (b) setting forth their arguments as to the impact of the PLRA on remedy. DONE, this the 30th day of January, 2018. /s/ Myron H. Thompson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

PHASE 2A ORDER REGARDING THE REMEDIAL HEARING ON HOSPITAL-LEVEL CARE AND SEGREGATION: It is ORDERED that, no later than 8:00 a.m. of each day of the remedial hearing on hospital-level care and segregation, counsel are to file with the court and provide to opposing counsel the summaries required by orders entered on September 8, 2015 (doc. no. {{240}}) and May 10, 2016 (doc. no. {{463}}). Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 1/30/2018.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARD BRAGGS, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) CIVIL ACTION NO. v.) 2:14cv601-MHT) (WO) JEFFERSON S. DUNN, in his) official capacity as) Commissioner of) the Alabama Department of) Corrections, et al.,)) Defendants.) PHASE 2A ORDER REGARDING THE REMEDIAL HEARING ON HOSPITAL-LEVEL CARE AND SEGREGATION It is ORDERED that, no later than 8:00 a.m. of each day of the remedial hearing on hospital-level care and segregation, counsel are to file with the court and provide to opposing counsel the summaries required by orders entered on September 8, 2015 (doc. no. 240) and May 10, 2016 (doc. no. 463). DONE, this the 30th day of January, 2018. /s/ Myron H. Thompson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDERED that the defendants' non-attorney staff technology request (doc. no. {{1569}}) is granted. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 1/30/2018.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARD BRAGGS, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) CIVIL ACTION NO. v.) 2:14cv601-MHT) JEFFERSON S. DUNN, in his) official capacity as) Commissioner of) the Alabama Department of) Corrections, et al.,)) Defendants.) ORDER It is ORDERED that the defendants' non-attorney staff technology request (doc. no. 1569) is granted. DONE, this the 30th day of January, 2018. /s/ Myron H. Thompson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDERED that Defendants' motion (Doc. {{1568}}) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Specifically, it is ORDERED that Defendants shall respond to Request for Production No. 7, served on January 9, 2018, by producing all movement histories since February 1, 2017 for (1) each of the ten potential witnesses previously identified by Plaintiffs, and (2) each person on the MHM Master Roster who also appears on the December 2017 segregation roster and whose last name starts with A, J, S, or W. It is further ORDERED that the responsive documents for category (1) shall be produced no later than close of business on January 31, 2018. The responsive documents for category (2) shall be produced no later than close of business on February 5, 2018. In addition, any responsive documents for category (2) that are ready for production by close of business on February 2, 2018 shall be produced at that time. Defendants' motion is DENIED in all other respects. Signed by Honorable Judge Gray M. Borden on 1/31/2018.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARD BRAGGS, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) v.) CASE NO.: 2:14-cv-601-MHT-GMB) JEFFERSON S. DUNN, et al.,)) Defendants.) ORDER Pending before the court is Defendants' Motion for Clarification or, in the Alternative, Request for Additional Status Conference. Doc. 1568. The court held a telephone conference on January 30, 2018 regarding the motion, and based upon the representations made during the conference, and for the reasons stated on the record during that conference, it is ORDERED that Defendants' motion (Doc. 1568) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Specifically, it is ORDERED that Defendants shall respond to Request for Production No. 7, served on January 9, 2018, by producing all movement histories since February 1, 2017 for (1) each of the ten potential witnesses previously identified by Plaintiffs, and (2) each person on the MHM Master Roster who also appears on the December 2017 segregation roster and whose last name starts with A, J, S, or W. It is further ORDERED that the responsive documents for category (1) shall be produced no later than close of business on January 31, 2018. The responsive documents for category (2) shall be produced no later than close of business on February 5, 2018. In addition, any responsive documents for category (2) that are ready for production by close of business on February 2, 2018 shall be produced at that time. Defendants' motion is DENIED in all other respects. DONE this 31st day of January, 2018. 2

NOTICE by All Plaintiffs Plaintiffs' Non-Attorney Staff Technology Request

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARD BRAGGS, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) v.) CIVIL ACTION NO.) 2:14-CV-00601-MHT-GMB JEFFERSON DUNN, in his official) Hon. Myron H. Thompson capacity as Commissioner) of the Alabama Department of) Corrections, et al.,)) Defendants.) PLANTIFFS' NON-ATTORNEY STAFF TECHNOLOGY REQUEST Plaintiffs' counsel requests the following non-attorney staff be permitted to bring the following electronic equipment with them into the courthouse during the remedial trials regarding segregation and hospital-level care: Ashley Austin: One phone, One laptop Kriste Doniver: One phone, One laptop Andrae Dowdell: One phone, One laptop, One iPad Jen Fuson: One phone, One laptop Shantel Graves: One phone, One laptop, One iPad Rain Jordan: One phone, One laptop Tara Leesar: One phone, One laptop Ashu Mukkavilli: One phone, One laptop Jenna Roberts: One phone, One laptop, One iPad Rosi Smith: One phone, One iPad Daniel Teehan: Two phones, One laptop, One iPad Alexis Vaughn: One phone, One laptop, One iPad Tonya White-Evans: One phone, One laptop, One iPad Eldon Vail: One phone Dated: January 31, 2018 Respectfully, /s/ Maria V. Morris Maria V. Morris One of the Attorneys for Plaintiffs Southern Poverty Law Center 400 Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36104 Rhonda Brownstein (ASB-3193-O64R) Maria V. Morris (ASB-2198-R64M) Grace Graham (ASB-3040-A64G) Latasha L. McCrary (ASB-1935-L75M) Caitlin J. Sandley (ASB-5317-S48R) SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 400 Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36104 Telephone: (334) 956-8200 Facsimile: (334) 956-8481 rhonda.brownstein@splcenter.org maria.morris@splcenter.org grace.graham@splcenter.org latasha.mccrary@splcenter.org cj.sandley@splcenter.org William Van Der Pol, Jr. (ASB-2112-114F) Glenn N. Baxter (ASB-3825-A41G) Lonnie J. Williams Barbara A. Lawrence Andrea J. Mixson Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program Box 870395 Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 Telephone: (205) 348-4928 Facsimile: (205) 348-3909 wvanderpoljr@adap.ua.edu gnbaxter@adap.ua.edu lwilliams@adap.ua.edu blawrence@adap.ua.edu amixson@adap.ua.edu Lisa W. Borden (ASB-5673-D57L) William G. Somerville, III (ASB-6185-E63W) Andrew P. Walsh (ASB-3755-W77W) Dennis Nabors Patricia Clotfelter (ASB-0841-F43P) Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz PC 420 20th Street North, Suite 1400 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 328-0480 Facsimile: (205) 322-8007 lborden@bakerdonelson.com wsomerville@bakerdonelson.com awalsh@bakerdonelson.com dnabors@bakerdonelson.com pclotfelter@bakerdonelson.com Gregory M. Zarzaur (ASB-0759-E45Z) Anil A. Mujumdar (ASB-2004-L65M) Diandra S. Debrosse (ASB-2956-N76D) Denise Wiginton Zarzaur Mujumdar & Debrosse 2332 2nd Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 983-7985 Facsimile: (888) 505-0523 gregory@zarzaur.com anil@zarzaur.com diandra@zarzaur.com denise@zarzaur.com ATTORNEYS FOR THE PLAINTIFFS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have on this 31st day of January, 2018, electronically filed the foregoing with the clerk of the court by using the CM/ECF system, which will send a notice of electronic filing to the following: David R. Boyd, Esq. Steven C. Corhern, Esq. John G. Smith, Esq. Balch & Bingham LLP John W. Naramore, Esq. Post Office Box 306 Balch & Bingham LLP Birmingham, AL 35201-0306 Post Office Box 78 scorhern@balch.com Montgomery, AL 36101-0078 dboyd@balch.com Mitesh Shah, Esq. jgsmith@balch.com Luther M. Dorr, Esq. jnaramore@balch.com Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C. 1901 6th Avenue North, Suite 2400 William R. Lunsford, Esq. Birmingham, AL 35203 Melissa K. Marler, Esq. mshah@maynardcooper.com Stephen C. Rogers, Esq. rdorr@maynardcooper.com Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C. 655 Gallatin Street, SW Deana Johnson, Esq. Huntsville, AL 35801 Brett T. Lane, Esq. blunsford@maynardcooper.com MHM Services, Inc. mmarler@maynardcooper.com 1447 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 500 srogers@maynardcooper.com Atlanta, GA 30309 djohnson@mhm-services.com btlane@mhm-services.com Anne Hill, Esq. Elizabeth A. Sees, Esq. Joseph G. Stewart, Jr., Esq. Alabama Department of Corrections Legal Division 301 South Ripley Street Montgomery, AL 36104 anne.hill@doc.alabama.gov elizabeth.sees@doc.alabama.gov joseph.stewart@doc.alabama.gov /s/ Maria V. Morris One of the Attorneys for Plaintiffs

ORDER: It is ORDERED that the plaintiffs' non-attorney staff technology request (doc. no. {{1578}}) is granted. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 1/31/2018.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARD BRAGGS, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) CIVIL ACTION NO. v.) 2:14cv601-MHT) JEFFERSON S. DUNN, in his) official capacity as) Commissioner of) the Alabama Department of) Corrections, et al.,)) Defendants.) ORDER It is ORDERED that the plaintiffs' non-attorney staff technology request (doc. no. 1578) is granted. DONE, this the 31st day of January, 2018. /s/ Myron H. Thompson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER: For the hearing set to begin on February 7, 2018, it is ORDERED that the Alabama Department of Corrections is to coordinate with the United States Marshal to ensure the presence of the prisoners at this hearing. The prisoners have already been identified to the Alabama Department of Corrections. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 1/31/2018. (furn: usms, adoc transport, clerk, ag)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARD BRAGGS, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) CIVIL ACTION NO. v.) 2:14cv601-MHT) JEFFERSON S. DUNN, in his) official capacity as) Commissioner of) the Alabama Department of) Corrections, et al.,)) Defendants.) ORDER For the hearing set to begin on February 7, 2018, it is ORDERED that the Alabama Department of Corrections is to coordinate with the United States Marshal to ensure the presence of the prisoners at this hearing. The prisoners have already been identified to the Alabama Department of Corrections. DONE, this the 31st day of January, 2018. /s/ Myron H. Thompson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

JOINT SUBMISSION REGARDING THE ADMINISTRATION OF FUTURE DISCOVERY DISPUTES by All Plaintiffs. Modified on 2/1/2018 to clarify the docket text.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARD BRAGGS, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) CIVIL ACTION NO.: v.) 2:14-cv-00601-MHT-GMB) JEFFERSON S. DUNN, in his official) [JUDGE BORDEN] capacity, et al.,)) Defendants.) JOINT SUBMISSION REGARDING THE ADMINISTRATION OF FUTURE DISCOVERY DISPUTES Pursuant to the Court's Order, Doc. 1559, the Parties met and conferred on January 30, 2018, regarding the administration of future discovery disputes during the remedial phase of this litigation. The Parties have agreed as follows: 1. For purposes of the remaining remedial hearings, the informal discovery response process should include two (2) events, prior to the actual production or response dates. 2. First, after the submission of the informal discovery responses, the responding parties should generally notify the opposing parties within a specified timeframe, if the responding parties object to or do not believe they should be required to respond to any specific discovery request. 1 3. Second, the responding parties should notify the opposing parties if the responding parties do not believe that they can provide complete responses prior to the upcoming remedial hearing. 4. The timing of these notices will likely need to be staggered, depending on the timing of the hearings. These two notifications should allow the parties propounding discovery an adequate opportunity to raise their concerns with Magistrate Judge Borden before the remedial hearing. 5. The specific timing of these two notifications will require adjustment based upon the timing of the upcoming hearings. 6. The parties understand that the timing of those hearings will be the subject of upcoming discussions with the Court's clerk. Respectfully submitted this the 31st day of January, 2018. /s/ Maria V. Morris Maria V. Morris One of the Attorneys for Plaintiffs Rhonda Brownstein (ASB-3193-O64R) Maria V. Morris (ASB-2198-R64M) Latasha L. McCrary (ASB-1935-L75M) Caitlin J. Sandley (ASB-5317-S48R) SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 400 Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36104 Telephone: (334) 956-8200 Facsimile: (334) 956-8481 rhonda.brownstein@splcenter.org 2 maria.morris@splcenter.org latasha.mccrary@splcenter.org cj.sandley@splcenter.org Lisa W. Borden (ASB-5673-D57L) William G. Somerville, III (ASB-6185-E63W) Andrew P. Walsh (ASB-3755-W77W) Patricia Clotfelter (ASB-0841-F43P) BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ PC 420 20th Street North, Suite 1400 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 328-0480 Facsimile: (205) 322-8007 lborden@bakerdonelson.com wsomerville@bakerdonelson.com awalsh@bakerdonelson.com dnabors@bakerdonelson.com pclotfelter@bakerdonelson.com /s/ Anil A. Mujumdar Anil A. Mujumdar One of the Attorneys for the Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program Gregory M. Zarzaur (ASB-0759-E45Z) Anil A. Mujumdar (ASB-2004-L65M) Diandra S. Debrosse (ASB-2956-N76D) Denise Wiginton ZARZAUR MUJUMDAR & DEBROSSE 2332 2nd Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 983-7985 Facsimile: (888) 505-0523 gregory@zarzaur.com anil@zarzaur.com diandra@zarzaur.com denise@zarzaur.com William Van Der Pol, Jr. (ASB-2112-114F) 3 Glenn N. Baxter (ASB-3825-A41G) Lonnie J. Williams Barbara A. Lawrence Andrea J. Mixson ALABAMA DISABILITIES ADVOCACY PROGRAM Box 870395 Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 Telephone: (205) 348-4928 Facsimile: (205) 348-3909 wvanderpoljr@adap.ua.edu gnbaxter@adap.ua.edu lwilliams@adap.ua.edu blawrence@adap.ua.edu amixson@adap.ua.edu /s/ William R. Lunsford William R. Lunsford One of the Attorneys for Defendants Jefferson Dunn and Ruth Naglich William R. Lunsford Matthew B. Reeves Melissa K. Marler Stephen C. Rogers MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, PC 655 Gallatin Street Huntsville, AL 35801 Telephone: (256) 512-5710 Facsimile: (256) 512-0119 blunsford@maynardcooper.com mreeves@maynardcooper.com mmarler@maynardcooper.com srogers@maynardcooper.com Luther M. Dorr, Jr. Mitesh B. Shah Evan P. Moltz MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, PC 1901 Sixth Avenue North 4 2400 Regions Harbert Plaza Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 254-1178 Facsimile: (205) 714-6438 rdorr@maynardcooper.com mshah@maynardcooper.com emoltz@maynardcooper.com /s/ John Naramore John Naramore One of the Attorneys for Alabama Department of Corrections John G. Smith David R. Boyd BALCH & BINGHAM LLP Post Office Box 78 Montgomery, AL 36101-0078 Telephone: (334) 834-6500 Facsimile: (866) 316-9461 jgsmith@balch.com dboyd@balch.com Steven C. Corhern BALCH & BINGHAM LLP Post Office Box 306 Birmingham, AL 35201-0306 Telephone: (205) 251-8100 Facsimile: (205) 488-5708 scorhern@balch.com Anne A. Hill Elizabeth A. Sees Joseph G. Stewart ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Legal Division 301 South Ripley Street Montgomery, Alabama 36130 Telephone (334) 353-3884 Facsimile (334) 353-3891 5 anne.hill@doc.alabama.gov elizabeth.sees@doc.alabama.gov joseph.stewart@doc.alabama.gov 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have on this 31st day of January, 2018, filed foregoing using the electronic filing system, which electronically serves the following: David R. Boyd, Esq. Steven C. Corhern, Esq. John G. Smith, Esq. Balch & Bingham LLP John W. Naramore, Esq. Post Office Box 306 Balch & Bingham LLP Birmingham, AL 35201-0306 Post Office Box 78 scorhern@balch.com Montgomery, AL 36101-0078 dboyd@balch.com Mitesh Shah, Esq. jgsmith@balch.com Luther M. Dorr, Esq. jnaramore@balch.com Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C. 1901 6th Avenue North, Suite 2400 William R. Lunsford, Esq. Birmingham, AL 35203 Melissa K. Marler, Esq. mshah@maynardcooper.com Stephen C. Rogers, Esq. rdorr@maynardcooper.com Michael P. Huff, Esq. Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C. Deana Johnson, Esq. 655 Gallatin Street, SW Brett T. Lane, Esq. Huntsville, AL 35801 MHM Services, Inc. blunsford@maynardcooper.com 1447 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 500 mmarler@maynardcooper.com Atlanta, GA 30309 srogers@maynardcooper.com djohnson@mhm-services.com mhuff@maynardcooper.com btlane@mhm-services.com Anne Hill, Esq. Elizabeth A. Sees, Esq. Joseph G. Stewart, Jr., Esq. Alabama Department of Corrections Legal Division 301 South Ripley Street Montgomery, AL 36104 anne.hill@doc.alabama.gov elizabeth.sees@doc.alabama.gov joseph.stewart@doc.alabama.gov /s/ Maria V. Morris One of the Attorneys for Plaintiffs 7

NOTICE by Jefferson S. Dunn, Ruth Naglich The State's Technology Request

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARD BRAGGS, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) Case No. 2:14-cv-00601-MHT-GMB v.)) District Judge Myron H. Thompson JEFFERSON DUNN, et al.,)) Defendants.) THE STATE'S TECHNOLOGY REQUEST FOR PHASE 2A REMEDIAL TRIAL REGARDING HOSPITAL-LEVEL CARE AND SEGREGATION COME NOW Defendants JEFFERSON DUNN ("Commissioner Dunn") and RUTH NAGLICH ("Naglich" and, collectively with Commissioner Dunn, "the State") and submit this request that the non-attorney staff listed below be granted/allowed the use of the following technological devices for the purposes of the Phase 2A remedial trial regarding hospital-level care and segregation in this matter. Lynette Potter, Legal Assistant Laptop, iPad, Cell Phone Sarah Goldsmith, Legal Assistant Laptop, iPad, Cell Phone Kristi Simpson, Paralegal Laptop, iPad, Cell Phone Ruth Naglich, Associate Commissioner Laptop, iPad, Cell Phone Grant Culliver, Associate Commissioner iPad, Cell Phone Edward Kern, M.D., Cell Phone Cheryl Price, Regional Coordinator Cell Phone Teresa Houser, MHM Program Manager Cell Phone Wendy Williams, Deputy Commissioner Cell Phone David Tytell, PhD, Cell Phone Ron Lawrenz, Correct Care, LLC Cell Phone1 The State also respectfully requests that it be permitted, if necessary, to amend this Request during the course of the Phase 2A remedial trial regarding hospital-level care and segregation to include any other personnel whose presence at trial may become necessary to monitor these inmates. Dated: February 1, 2018. /s/ William R. Lunsford William R. Lunsford Attorney for the Commissioner and Associate Commissioner William R. Lunsford Matthew B. Reeves Melissa K. Marler Stephen C. Rogers MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, PC 655 Gallatin Street Huntsville, AL 35801 Telephone: (256) 512-5710 Facsimile: (256) 512-0119 1 The State also reserves the right to amend this technology request in the event that Plaintiffs call additional ADOC personnel to testify who are not listed on the State's technology request or it becomes necessary to call personnel as rebuttal witnesses. 2 blunsford@maynardcooper.com mreeves@maynardcooper.com mmarler@maynardcooper.com srogers@maynardcooper.com Luther M. Dorr, Jr. Mitesh B. Shah MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, PC 1901 Sixth Avenue North 2400 Regions Harbert Plaza Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 254-1178 Facsimile: (205) 714-6438 rdorr@maynardcooper.com mshah@maynardcooper.com 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served upon all attorneys of record in this matter, including without limitation the following, by the Court's CM/ECF system on this the 1st day of February, 2018: Maria V. Morris William Van Der Pol, Jr. Rhonda C. Brownstein Glenn N. Baxter Latasha L. McCrary Barbara A. Lawrence J. Richard Cohen Andrea J. Mixson Caitlin J. Sandley ALABAMA DISABILITIES ADVOCACY Grace Graham PROGRAM SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER University of Alabama 400 Washington Avenue 500 Martha Parham West Montgomery, Alabama 36104 Box 870395 Telephone: (334) 956-8200 Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487-0395 Facsimile: (334) 956-8481 Telephone: (205) 348-6894 maria.morris@splcenter.org Facsimile: (205) 348-3909 rhonda.brownstein@splcenter.org wvanderpoljr@adap.ua.edu latasha.mccrary@splcenter.org gnbaxter@bama.ua.edu richard.cohen@splcenter.org blawrence@adap.ua.edu cj.sandley@splcenter.org amixson@adap.ua.edu grace.graham@splcenter.org Gregory M. Zarzaur Andrew P. Walsh Anil A. Mujumdar William G. Somerville III Diandra S. Debrosse Patricia Clotfelter Denise Wiginton Lisa W. Borden ZARZAUR MUJUMDAR & DEBROSSE BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN 2332 2nd Avenue North CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC Birmingham, AL 35203 420 20th Street North Telephone: (205) 983-7985 Suite 1400 Facsimile: (888) 505-0523 Birmingham, Alabama 35203 gregory@zarzaur.com Telephone: (205) 244-3863 anil@zarzaur.com Facsimile: (205) 488-3863 fuli@zarzaur.com awalsh@bakerdonelson.com denise@zarzaur.com wsomerville@bakerdonelson.com pclotfelter@bakerdonelson.com lborden@bakerdonelson.com 4 John G. Smith Deana Johnson David R. Boyd Brett T. Lane BALCH & BINGHAM LLP MHM SERVICES, INC. Post Office Box 78 1447 Peachtree Street NE Montgomery, AL 36101-0078 Suite 500 Telephone: (334) 834-6500 Atlanta, GA 30309 Facsimile: (866) 316-9461 Telephone: (404) 347-4134 jgsmith@balch.com Facsimile: (404) 347-4138 dboyd@balch.com djohnson@mhm-services.com btlane@mhm-services.com Steven C. Corhern Lonnie J. Williams BALCH & BINGHAM LLP ALABAMA DISABILITIES ADVOCACY Post Office Box 306 PROGRAM Birmingham, AL 35201-0306 P. O. Box 870395 Telephone: (205) 251-8100 Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 Facsimile: (205) 488-5708 Telephone: (205) 348-4928 scorhern@balch.com Facsimile: (205) 348-3909 lwilliams@adap.ua.edu Anne A. Hill Elizabeth A. Sees Joseph G. Stewart ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Legal Division 301 South Ripley Street Montgomery, Alabama 36130 Telephone (334) 353-3884 Facsimile (334) 353-3891 anne.hill@doc.alabama.gov elizabeth.sees@doc.alabama.gov joseph.stewart@doc.alabama.gov /s/ William R. Lunsford Of Counsel 5

NOTICE by Jefferson S. Dunn, Ruth Naglich The State's Timeline for Correctional and Mental Health Staffing

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARD BRAGGS, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) Case No. 2:14-cv-00601-MHT-GMB v.)) District Judge Myron H. Thompson JEFFERSON DUNN, et al.,)) Defendants.) THE STATE'S TIMELINE FOR CORRECTIONAL AND MENTAL HEALTH STAFFING Commissioner Jefferson Dunn and Associate Commissioner Ruth Naglich (collectively, "the State") believes that the Court should not enter a remedial order on correctional and mental-health staffing. However, if the Court decides to enter a remedial order on correctional and mental-health staffing (the "Remedial Order"), then the appropriate timeline to accomplish the efforts identified in the State's Phase 2A Proposed Remedial Plan on Correctional and Mental Health Staffing (Doc. No. 1374, "the Staffing Plan"), and explained during the remedial hearing, is set forth below. PROPOSED TIMELINE FOR CORRECTIONAL STAFFING Feb. 15, 2018 Remedial Order entered by Court. April 1, 2018 Dr. Stephen Condrey submits recommendations related to compensation and benefits. May 1, 2018 Russ and Meg Savage submit final staffing analysis and recommendations. June 1, 2018 The State submits any alternative approaches to the Savages' recommendations. July 1, 2018 Plaintiffs' deadline to object to the State's alternative approaches. Aug. 1, 2018 Deadline for the parties to mediate any dispute with Magistrate Judge John E. Ott. Sept. 15, 2018 Magistrate Judge Gray M. Borden (as Special Master) to decide any dispute. Nov. 1, 2018 Warren Averett submits recommendations related to recruitment and retention. Dec. 1, 2018 Alabama Department of Corrections ("ADOC") implements the State's consulting experts' recommendations and/or the State's alternative approaches.1 Feb. 15, 2022 ADOC staffs at least 85% of the essential posts,2 unless ADOC achieves this threshold at any time before February 15, 2022, which will terminate the Remedial Order.3 1 This deadline is contingent upon receipt of adequate funds from the Alabama legislature to fund the activities and efforts set forth in the Staffing Plan. The Alabama legislature and Governor possess the sole authority to establish the budget for ADOC. Ala. Code §§ 41-4-91 and 41-19-8 (1975). 2 An "essential post" is "[a] post that is required for normal facility operations and activities but that may be temporarily interrupted without significant impact (e.g., visiting room)." National Institute of Corrections, Prison Staffing Analysis: A Training Manual at 135 (Dec. 2008). 3 See supra footnote 1. Consistent with the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the Remedial Order must have a termination option within two (2) years from its entry by the Court. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(1). 2 PROPOSED TIMELINE FOR MENTAL-HEALTH STAFFING Feb. 15, 2018 Remedial Order entered by Court. April 1, 2018 ADOC's new vendor begins providing mental-health services.4 May 1, 2018 ADOC's new vendor fills at least 65% of the mental-health staffing positions. June 1, 2018 ADOC's new vendor fills at least 75% of the mental-health staffing positions. July 1, 2018 ADOC's new vendor fills the mental-health staffing positions consistent with the contract. Sept. 1, 2018 The State's mental-health consultants begin their analysis to develop mental-health staffing ratios.5 Mar. 1, 2019 The State's mental-health consultants submit finalized mental- health staffing ratios. April 1, 2019 The State submits any alternative approaches to the mental- health consultants' staffing ratios. May 1, 2019 Plaintiffs' deadline to object to the State's alternative staffing ratios. June 1, 2019 Deadline for the parties to mediate any dispute with Magistrate Judge John E. Ott. 4 This deadline assumes that ADOC does not receive a bid protest concerning the proposed comprehensive healthcare services contract and that there is no delay with obtaining the necessary signatures to the contract. The Governor of Alabama will sign the contract on behalf of the State of Alabama. 5 The State assumes that the Court will enter its final remedial order affecting mental-health staffing by December 31, 2018. As stated in the Staffing Plan, ADOC's mental-health consultants cannot develop finalized staffing ratios until ADOC learns what, if any, additional programming requirements may be imposed by the Court. 3 July 15, 2019 Magistrate Judge Gray M. Borden (as Special Master) to decide any dispute. Aug. 15, 2019 ADOC modifies contract with vendor. Nov. 15, 2019 ADOC's vendor implements finalized staffing ratios. Jan. 15, 2020 The State's mental-health consultants review implementation of the staffing ratios and make recommendations, if necessary, for revising the staffing ratios. Feb. 15, 2020 ADOC's vendor fills the mental-health staffing positions consistent with the contract, and the Remedial Order is terminated.6 Dated: February 1, 2018. /s/ William R. Lunsford William R. Lunsford Attorney for the Commissioner and Associate Commissioner William R. Lunsford Matthew B. Reeves Melissa K. Marler Stephen C. Rogers MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, PC 655 Gallatin Street Huntsville, AL 35801 Telephone: (256) 512-5710 Facsimile: (256) 512-0119 blunsford@maynardcooper.com mreeves@maynardcooper.com mmarler@maynardcooper.com srogers@maynardcooper.com Luther M. Dorr, Jr. Mitesh B. Shah 6 See supra footnotes 1 and 3. 4 MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, PC 1901 Sixth Avenue North 2400 Regions Harbert Plaza Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 254-1178 Facsimile: (205) 714-6438 rdorr@maynardcooper.com mshah@maynardcooper.com 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served upon all attorneys of record in this matter, including without limitation the following, by the Court's CM/ECF system on this the 1st day of February, 2018: Maria V. Morris William Van Der Pol, Jr. Rhonda C. Brownstein Glenn N. Baxter Latasha L. McCrary Barbara A. Lawrence J. Richard Cohen Andrea J. Mixson Caitlin J. Sandley ALABAMA DISABILITIES ADVOCACY Grace Graham PROGRAM SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER University of Alabama 400 Washington Avenue 500 Martha Parham West Montgomery, Alabama 36104 Box 870395 Telephone: (334) 956-8200 Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487-0395 Facsimile: (334) 956-8481 Telephone: (205) 348-6894 maria.morris@splcenter.org Facsimile: (205) 348-3909 rhonda.brownstein@splcenter.org wvanderpoljr@adap.ua.edu latasha.mccrary@splcenter.org gnbaxter@bama.ua.edu richard.cohen@splcenter.org blawrence@adap.ua.edu cj.sandley@splcenter.org amixson@adap.ua.edu grace.graham@splcenter.org Gregory M. Zarzaur Andrew P. Walsh Anil A. Mujumdar William G. Somerville III Diandra S. Debrosse Patricia Clotfelter Denise Wiginton Lisa W. Borden ZARZAUR MUJUMDAR & DEBROSSE BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN 2332 2nd Avenue North CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC Birmingham, AL 35203 420 20th Street North Telephone: (205) 983-7985 Suite 1400 Facsimile: (888) 505-0523 Birmingham, Alabama 35203 gregory@zarzaur.com Telephone: (205) 244-3863 anil@zarzaur.com Facsimile: (205) 488-3863 fuli@zarzaur.com awalsh@bakerdonelson.com denise@zarzaur.com wsomerville@bakerdonelson.com pclotfelter@bakerdonelson.com lborden@bakerdonelson.com 6 John G. Smith Deana Johnson David R. Boyd Brett T. Lane BALCH & BINGHAM LLP MHM SERVICES, INC. Post Office Box 78 1447 Peachtree Street NE Montgomery, AL 36101-0078 Suite 500 Telephone: (334) 834-6500 Atlanta, GA 30309 Facsimile: (866) 316-9461 Telephone: (404) 347-4134 jgsmith@balch.com Facsimile: (404) 347-4138 dboyd@balch.com djohnson@mhm-services.com btlane@mhm-services.com Steven C. Corhern Lonnie J. Williams BALCH & BINGHAM LLP ALABAMA DISABILITIES ADVOCACY Post Office Box 306 PROGRAM Birmingham, AL 35201-0306 P. O. Box 870395 Telephone: (205) 251-8100 Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 Facsimile: (205) 488-5708 Telephone: (205) 348-4928 scorhern@balch.com Facsimile: (205) 348-3909 lwilliams@adap.ua.edu Anne A. Hill Elizabeth A. Sees Joseph G. Stewart ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Legal Division 301 South Ripley Street Montgomery, Alabama 36130 Telephone (334) 353-3884 Facsimile (334) 353-3891 anne.hill@doc.alabama.gov elizabeth.sees@doc.alabama.gov joseph.stewart@doc.alabama.gov /s/ William R. Lunsford Of Counsel 7

MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINE by Jefferson S. Dunn, Ruth Naglich. Modified on 2/2/2018 to clarify the docket text.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARD BRAGGS, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) Case No. 2:14-cv-00601-MHT-GMB v.)) District Judge Myron H. Thompson JEFFERSON DUNN, et al.,)) Defendants.) MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINE Defendants JEFFERSON DUNN ("Commissioner Dunn") and RUTH NAGLICH ("Naglich" and, collectively with Commissioner Dunn, "the State") hereby move this Court for entry of an Order extending the deadline for the State's proposal associated with identification of inmates with serious mental-health needs, classification of inmates with serious mental-health needs, and out-of-cell time and treatment for inmates in mental-health units from its current deadline of February 2, 2018, pursuant to the Court's "Additional Phase 2A Revised Scheduling Order on the Eighth Amendment Claim" (Doc. No. 1524, the "Additional Scheduling Order"), to February 14, 2018.1 In support of this Motion, the State states as follows: 1 The State communicated some of its scheduling issues during the recent prehearing conference. 1. The Court's Additional Scheduling Order set twenty (20) deadlines associated with the Phase 2A remedial plans and hearing. The first deadline set by the Court (and the subject of this Motion) is for the following: [The State's] failure to identify prisoners with serious mental-health needs and to classify their needs properly, as well as [the State's] failure to provide sufficient out-of- cell time and treatment to those who need residential treatment.… By February 2, 2018, the defendants are to submit a proposal on how to proceed as to both immediate and long-term relief. (Doc. No. 1524 at 3). 2. As raised by undersigned counsel at the prehearing conference on Wednesday, January 24, 2018, the critical Alabama Department of Corrections ("ADOC") employees required to finalize the State's proposal associated with identification of inmates with serious mental-health needs, classification of inmates with serious mental-health needs, and out-of-cell time and treatment for inmates in mental-health units have been engaged in transition issues related to the new comprehensive health services contract and site tours for other pending litigation, and they could not devote the necessary time and resources to finalize this remedial proposal. Additionally, as the Court is aware, the parties are scheduled for mediation with Magistrate Judge John Ott tomorrow, February 2, 2018, and the State continues to diligently prepare for and respond to other deadlines for the evidentiary hearing commencing on February 7, 2018. 2 3. While the State is prepared to file a plan to comply with the Court's Additional Scheduling Order, the State requests a twelve (12) day extension to present a plan that includes input and comments from all necessary ADOC personnel. Plaintiffs oppose the State's Motion. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the State respectfully requests the Court enter an Order extending the remedial proposal deadline identified above from February 2, 2018 to February 14, 2018. Dated: February 1, 2018 /s/ William R. Lunsford William R. Lunsford Attorney for the State William R. Lunsford Matthew B. Reeves Melissa K. Marler Stephen C. Rogers MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, PC 655 Gallatin Street Huntsville, AL 35801 Telephone: (256) 512-5710 Facsimile: (256) 512-0119 blunsford@maynardcooper.com mreeves@maynardcooper.com mmarler@maynardcooper.com srogers@maynardcooper.com Luther M. Dorr, Jr. Mitesh B. Shah MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, PC 1901 Sixth Avenue North 2400 Regions Harbert Plaza Birmingham, AL 35203 3 Telephone: (205) 254-1178 Facsimile: (205) 714-6438 rdorr@maynardcooper.com mshah@maynardcooper.com 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served upon all attorneys of record in this matter, including without limitation the following, by the Court's CM/ECF system on this the 1st day of February, 2018: Maria V. Morris William Van Der Pol, Jr. Rhonda C. Brownstein Glenn N. Baxter Latasha L. McCrary Barbara A. Lawrence J. Richard Cohen Andrea J. Mixson Caitlin J. Sandley ALABAMA DISABILITIES ADVOCACY SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER PROGRAM 400 Washington Avenue University of Alabama Montgomery, Alabama 36104 500 Martha Parham West Telephone: (334) 956-8200 Box 870395 Facsimile: (334) 956-8481 Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487-0395 maria.morris@splcenter.org Telephone: (205) 348-6894 rhonda.brownstein@splcenter.org Facsimile: (205) 348-3909 latasha.mccrary@splcenter.org wvanderpoljr@adap.ua.edu richard.cohen@splcenter.org gnbaxter@bama.ua.edu cj.sandley@splcenter.org blawrence@adap.ua.edu amixson@adap.ua.edu Deana Johnson Andrew P. Walsh Brett T. Lane William G. Somerville III MHM SERVICES, INC. Patricia Clotfelter 1447 Peachtree Street NE Lisa W. Borden Suite 500 BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN Atlanta, GA 30309 CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC Telephone: (404) 347-4134 420 20th Street North Facsimile: (404) 347-4138 Suite 1400 djohnson@mhm-services.com Birmingham, Alabama 35203 btlane@mhm-services.com Telephone: (205) 244-3863 Facsimile: (205) 488-3863 awalsh@bakerdonelson.com wsomerville@bakerdonelson.com pclotfelter@bakerdonelson.com lborden@bakerdonelson.com Lonnie J. Williams Gregory M. Zarzaur 5 ALABAMA DISABILITIES ADVOCACY Anil A. Mujumdar PROGRAM Diandra S. Debrosse P. O. Box 870395 Denise Wiginton Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 ZARZAUR MUJUMDAR & DEBROSSE Telephone: (205) 348-4928 2332 2nd Avenue North Facsimile: (205) 348-3909 Birmingham, AL 35203 lwilliams@adap.ua.edu Telephone: (205) 983-7985 Facsimile: (888) 505-0523 gregory@zarzaur.com anil@zarzaur.com fuli@zarzaur.com denise@zarzaur.com Steven C. Corhern John G. Smith BALCH & BINGHAM LLP David R. Boyd Post Office Box 306 BALCH & BINGHAM LLP Birmingham, AL 35201-0306 Post Office Box 78 Telephone: (205) 251-8100 Montgomery, AL 36101-0078 Facsimile: (205) 488-5708 Telephone: (334) 834-6500 scorhern@balch.com Facsimile: (866) 316-9461 jgsmith@balch.com dboyd@balch.com Anne A. Hill Elizabeth A. Sees Joseph G. Stewart ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Legal Division 301 South Ripley Street Montgomery, Alabama 36130 Telephone (334) 353-3884 Facsimile (334) 353-3891 anne.hill@doc.alabama.gov elizabeth.sees@doc.alabama.gov joseph.stewart@doc.alabama.gov /s/ William R. Lunsford Of Counsel 6

ORDERED that the defendants' non-attorney staff technology request (doc. no. {{1582}}) is granted. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 2/2/2018.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARD BRAGGS, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) CIVIL ACTION NO. v.) 2:14cv601-MHT) JEFFERSON S. DUNN, in his) official capacity as) Commissioner of) the Alabama Department of) Corrections, et al.,)) Defendants.) ORDER It is ORDERED that the defendants' non-attorney staff technology request (doc. no. 1582) is granted. DONE, this the 2nd day of February, 2018. /s/ Myron H. Thompson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER denying {{1584}} Motion to Extend Deadline, as further set out in order. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 2/2/2018.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARD BRAGGS, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) CIVIL ACTION NO. v.) 2:14cv601-MHT) (WO) JEFFERSON S. DUNN, in his) official capacity as) Commissioner of) the Alabama Department of) Corrections, et al.,)) Defendants.) ORDER It is ORDERED that the defendants' motion to extend deadline (doc. no. 1584) is denied. This court made clear early on in this litigation that, "Absent stated unforeseen and unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the movant, . . . 'eleventh hour' extension requests and motions will be denied outright." Order (doc. no. 239) § 15(B). The movants have failed to offer any explanation as to why this motion was filed on the eve of the deadline, rather than days, or even weeks, in advance. Such a late filing unfairly and inefficiently requires that the court and opposing parties drop everything in order to address the filing. DONE, this the 2nd day of February, 2018. /s/ Myron H. Thompson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

PHASE 2A ORDER REGARDING ALL REMEDIAL HEARINGS: For all Phase 2A remedial hearings, it is ORDERED that, at least five business days before a hearing, the Alabama Department of Corrections is to coordinate with the United States Marshal and the Clerk of the Court to ensure the presence of the prisoners who will testify live at that hearing. At least 10 business days before that hearing, counsel for plaintiffs are to furnish the names of such prisoners to defense counsel. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 2/2/2018.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARD BRAGGS, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) CIVIL ACTION NO. v.) 2:14cv601-MHT) JEFFERSON S. DUNN, in his) official capacity as) Commissioner of) the Alabama Department of) Corrections, et al.,)) Defendants.) PHASE 2A ORDER REGARDING ALL REMEDIAL HEARINGS For all Phase 2A remedial hearings, it is ORDERED that, at least five business days before a hearing, the Alabama Department of Corrections is to coordinate with the United States Marshal and the Clerk of the Court to ensure the presence of the prisoners who will testify live at that hearing. At least 10 business days before that hearing, counsel for plaintiffs are to furnish the names of such prisoners to defense counsel. DONE, this the 2nd day of February, 2018. /s/ Myron H. Thompson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

PHASE 2A ORDER REGARDING ALL REMEDIAL HEARINGS: For all Phase 2A remedial hearings, it is ORDERED that, no later than 8:00 a.m. of each day of a remedial hearing, counsel are to file with the court and provide to opposing counsel the summaries required by orders entered on September 8, 2015 (doc. no. {{240}}) and May 10, 2016 (doc. no. {{463}}). Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 2/2/2018.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARD BRAGGS, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) CIVIL ACTION NO. v.) 2:14cv601-MHT) JEFFERSON S. DUNN, in his) official capacity as) Commissioner of) the Alabama Department of) Corrections, et al.,)) Defendants.) PHASE 2A ORDER REGARDING ALL REMEDIAL HEARINGS For all Phase 2A remedial hearings, it is ORDERED that, no later than 8:00 a.m. of each day of a remedial hearing, counsel are to file with the court and provide to opposing counsel the summaries required by orders entered on September 8, 2015 (doc. no. 240) and May 10, 2016 (doc. no. 463). DONE, this the 2nd day of February, 2018. /s/ Myron H. Thompson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

PHASE 2A ORDER REGARDING ALL REMEDIAL HEARINGS: It is ORDERED as follows: (1) All Phase 2A remedial hearings will begin each day, including the first day, at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 2FMJ, Frank M. Johnson, Jr. U.S. Courthouse Complex, One Church Street, Montgomery, Alabama. (2) By no later than 10 business days before the first day of a remedial hearing, counsel for the parties are to arrange with the clerk of the court for those witnesses who will testify by videoconferencing, as further set out in order. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 2/2/2018.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARD BRAGGS, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) CIVIL ACTION NO. v.) 2:14cv601-MHT) JEFFERSON S. DUNN, in his) official capacity as) Commissioner of) the Alabama Department of) Corrections, et al.,)) Defendants.) PHASE 2A ORDER REGARDING ALL REMEDIAL HEARINGS It is ORDERED as follows: (1) All Phase 2A remedial hearings will begin each day, including the first day, at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 2FMJ, Frank M. Johnson, Jr. U.S. Courthouse Complex, One Church Street, Montgomery, Alabama. (2) By no later than 10 business days before the first day of a remedial hearing, counsel for the parties are to arrange with the clerk of the court for those witnesses who will testify by videoconferencing. (3) By no later than five business days before the first day of a remedial hearing at 5:00 p.m., the parties are each to submit and file a list of witnesses, the dates they expect each witness will testify, an estimate of how long their testimony will take, the specific topic(s) each witness will address, and whether the witness needs to testify in camera in whole or in part. (4) By no later than five business days before the first day of a remedial hearing at 5:00 p.m., the parties are each to submit and file a list of exhibits they plan to use. (5) By no later than five business days before the first day of a remedial hearing at 5:00 p.m., the parties are each to submit and file a pretrial brief (a) summarizing all of the evidence they expect to present at the hearing, and (b) setting forth their arguments as to the impact of the PLRA on remedy. DONE, this the 2nd day of February, 2018. /s/ Myron H. Thompson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER: In the defendants' proposed remedial plan (doc. no. {{1374}}), in the defendants' pretrial brief (doc. no. {{1478}}), throughout the nine-day evidentiary hearing on understaffing, and during the post-trial oral argument on January 24, 2018, the defendants maintained that the proposed remedy as to understaffing would apply to all of ADOC's major facilities, with the exception that the Savages would not conduct a staffing analysis at the Tutwiler facility at this time (as agreed upon by the parties), as further set out. Because the court presumes that the defendants are not attempting to relitigate liability at the remedial stage, it is ORDERED that defendants shall, by February 5, 2018, at 5:00 p.m., point to the section(s) of the liability opinion, if any, in which the court limited its liability findings to those six facilities. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 2/2/2018.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARD BRAGGS, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) CIVIL ACTION NO. v.) 2:14cv601-MHT) (WO) JEFFERSON S. DUNN, in his) official capacity as) Commissioner of) the Alabama Department of) Corrections, et al.,)) Defendants.) ORDER In the defendants' proposed remedial plan (doc. no. 1374), in the defendants' pretrial brief (doc. no. 1478), throughout the nine-day evidentiary hearing on understaffing, and during the post-trial oral argument on January 24, 2018, the defendants maintained that the proposed remedy as to understaffing would apply to all of ADOC's major facilities, with the exception that the Savages would not conduct a staffing analysis at the Tutwiler facility at this time (as agreed upon by the parties). However, the defendants' proposed opinion has suggested that the court limit its supervision of the remedial plan's implementation to six facilities-- Donaldson, Draper, Elmore, Fountain, Holman, and Staton--on the basis that "Plaintiffs failed to establish that correctional or mental-health staffing at other ADOC facilities creates a constitutional violation with respect to the provision of mental- health care." State's Proposed Opinion on Correctional and Mental Health Staffing Remedies at 14. The court is concerned by this abrupt change in position. Because the court presumes that the defendants are not attempting to relitigate liability at the remedial stage, it is ORDERED that defendants shall, by February 5, 2018, at 5:00 p.m., point to the section(s) of the liability opinion, if any, in which the court limited its liability findings to those six facilities. DONE, this the 2nd day of February, 2018. /s/ Myron H. Thompson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Witness List by Jefferson S. Dunn, Ruth Naglich.

2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARD BRAGGS, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) Case No. 2:14-cv-00601-MHT-GMB v.)) District Judge Myron H. Thompson JEFFERSON DUNN, et al.,)) Defendants.) THE STATE'S WITNESS AND EXHIBIT LIST FOR THE HEARING ON SEGREGATION AND HOSPITAL-LEVEL CARE Defendants JEFFERSON DUNN ("Commissioner Dunn") and RUTH NAGLICH ("Naglich" and, collectively with Commissioner Dunn, "the State") hereby submit its Witness and Exhibit List pursuant to this Court's January 30, 2018, Order. (Doc. No. 1571). WITNESS LIST The State has not yet determined which witnesses, if any, it may call at the Phase 2A Segregation and Hospital-Level Care Hearing or the order of any witnesses. Moreover, the State does not know how long Plaintiffs' presentation of evidence with respect to the State's Phase 2A Proposed Remedial Plan on Segregation (Doc. No. 1533) (the "Segregation Plan") will last. Thus, the State cannot state when its witnesses will begin testifying with respect to the State's Phase 2A Proposed Remedial Plan on Hospital-Level Care (Doc. No. 1514) (the 2 "Hospital Care Plan"). Furthermore, the State reserves the right to supplement its witness list with (1) any witness on the witness list of any other party; (2) any witness who has been or will be deposed in this action or, if the witness is unavailable, present the witness' testimony through his or her deposition; (3) any witness whose identity is learned through discovery or investigation subsequent to the filing of this witness list; and (4) any witness needed for rebuttal or impeachment purposes or to authenticate any document at the Phase 2A Segregation and Hospital-Level Care Hearing. The State objects to any testimony relating to subject matters and issues that should be excluded from the Phase 2A Segregation and Hospital-Level Care Hearing, but reserves the right to offer testimony from witnesses not otherwise identified in its witness list as may be necessary or appropriate in the event that the Court permits Plaintiffs to offer evidence or argument relating to any such subject matter or issues. By identifying a witness on its witness list, the State does not waive, and hereby expressly preserves, any and all objections to the admissibility of all testimony offered by witnesses so identified. The State expressly objects to any testimony, questioning, or evidence regarding the current status of the Alabama Department of Corrections' ("ADOC") Request for Proposal No. 2017-02: Comprehensive Inmate Healthcare Services 2 2 (the "RFP"), the bids submitted in response to the RFP, ADOC's consideration of those bids, or negotiations with any of the entities submitting bids in response to the RFP. Without waiving any objection, the State provides that any testimony, questioning, or evidence regarding these matters should be provided in camera. Without waiving any objection, the State thus anticipates that Associate Commissioner Ruth Naglich may need to testify in camera if she receives questions regarding the RFP. The State will or may call the following witnesses during the Phase 2A Segregation and Hospital-Level Care Hearing: 1. Associate Commissioner Ruth Naglich. a. Dates of testimony: February 7, 2018.1 Ms. Naglich will testify regarding the State's Hospital Care Plan upon the close of Plaintiffs' presentation of evidence relating to the State's Segregation Plan. b. Estimated length of testimony: Approximately one day with respect to the Segregation Plan; approximately one half day with respect to the Hospital Care Plan.2 c. Specific topic(s) of testimony: Restrictive housing in the ADOC and the mental health care for inmates housed there; the care and treatment provided at Columbia Regional Care Center and the transportation of ADOC inmates to same. 1 The State can only estimate the date(s) for each witness' testimony because the State does not know the length of any cross examination of the individuals on its witness list. 2 The State's estimations in this Witness and Exhibit List regarding the length of any witness' testimony reflect the estimated length of direct testimony only, without regard for the length of any cross examination. 3 2 d. Need to testify in camera: Only to the extent the Court permits questioning regarding the RFP. The State expressly objects to any such questioning. 2. Associate Commissioner Grantt Culliver. a. Dates of testimony: February 7, 2018. b. Estimated length of testimony: Approximately one day. c. Specific topic(s) of testimony: Restrictive housing in the ADOC and the mental health care for inmates housed there. d. Need to testify in camera: No. 3. Dr. Wendy Williams. a. Dates of testimony: February 8, 2018. b. Estimated length of testimony: Approximately one half day. c. Specific topic(s) of testimony: Restrictive housing at Julia Tutwiler Prison for Women and the mental health care for inmates housed there. d. Need to testify in camera: No. 4. Dr. Edward Kern. a. Dates of testimony: February 8, 2018. b. Estimated length of testimony: Approximately one half day. c. Specific topic(s) of testimony: The mental health care provided to inmates housed in ADOC's restrictive housing units. d. Need to testify in camera: No. 5. Regional Coordinator Cheryl Price. 4 2 a. Dates of testimony: February 9, 2018. b. Estimated length of testimony: Approximately one half day. c. Specific topic(s) of testimony: Restrictive housing in the ADOC and the mental health care for inmates housed there. d. Need to testify in camera: No. 6. Warden Cynthia Stewart. a. Dates of testimony: February 9, 2018. b. Estimated length of testimony: Approximately one half day. c. Specific topic(s) of testimony: Restrictive housing at Holman Correctional Facility and the mental health care for inmates housed there. d. Need to testify in camera: No. 7. A corporate representative of Correct Care Solutions, which operates Columbia Regional Care Center ("CRCC"). a. Dates of testimony: This corporate representative will testify upon the close of Plaintiffs' presentation of evidence relating to the State's Segregation Plan. b. Estimated length of testimony: Approximately one half day. c. Specific topic(s) of testimony: The care and treatment provided at CRCC and the transportation of inmates to same. d. Need to testify in camera: No. The State further provides the following list of witnesses whom it will or may call during the Phase 2A Segregation and Hospital-Level Care Hearing: 5 2 1. Any person disclosed on any party's witness list for the Phase 2A Segregation and Hospital-Level Care Hearing. 2. Any person disclosed as a consultant or testifying expert witness by any party in this action. 3. Any person who testified at the Phase 2A liability trial or Staffing Hearing in this action. 4. Any person disclosed on any party's witness list for the Phase 2A liability trial or Staffing Hearing in this action. 5. Any person called for rebuttal purposes. 6. Any person called for impeachment purposes. 7. Any person called to authenticate or identify any document. EXHIBIT LIST The State reserves the right to supplement its exhibit list with (1) any exhibit on the exhibit list of any party; (2) any exhibit marked during the deposition of any witness who has been or will be deposed in this matter; (3) any exhibit whose existence or identity is learned through discovery or investigation subsequent to the filing of this exhibit list; (4) any document produced in this matter by any current or former party; (5) any document produced by a third party via subpoena or otherwise; (6) any document produced by, referred to, or relied upon by the State's or ADOC's consultants or expert witnesses; (7) any exhibit introduced by any party at the Phase 2A liability trial or Staffing Hearing in this action; (8) any exhibit disclosed on any party's exhibit list related to the Phase 2A liability trial or 6 2 Staffing Hearing in this action; (9) any exhibit needed for rebuttal or impeachment purposes at the Phase 2A Segregation and Hospital-Level Care Hearing; and (10) any demonstrative exhibit to summarize, illustrate, and/or demonstrate testimony, information, and/or data provided at the Phase 2A Segregation and Hospital-Level Care Hearing. Without waiving any reservation of rights, and instead expressly preserving these rights, the State provides the following list of exhibits which it will or may use during the Phase 2A Segregation and Hospital-Level Care Hearing: 1. Any exhibit attached to the State's Segregation and Hospital Care Plans. (Doc. Nos. 1514, 1533). 2. ADOC's Administrative Regulations. 3. MHM's monthly reports to ADOC. 4. Daily restrictive housing reports for ADOC. 5. ADOC MH-038 logs produced in this action. 6. January 29, 2018, Email from William Despain to Warden Cynthia Stewart. 7. January 23, 2018, Email from Cheryl Price to Warden Cynthia Stewart. 8. January 29, 2018, Memoranda from William Despain to Warden Cynthia Stewart. 9. January 23, 2018, Memoranda from William Despain to Warden Cynthia Stewart. 10. Reports to Warden Cynthia Stewart regarding restrictive 7 2 housing at Holman. 11. Reports to Cheryl Price regarding restrictive housing. 12. ADOC Population Reports. 13. CRCC patient handbook. 14. CRCC brochure. 15. Restrictive housing rosters from Julia Tutwiler Prison for Women. 16. Movement histories for the following: a. John Weaver; b. Alanda Evans; c. Catherine Gilbert; d. William Bramlett; e. Monte Prince; f. Jerel Anderson; g. Lucas Walker; h. Matthew Ward; and i. Eddie Williams. 17. ADOC Monthly Reports of Psychological Activities. 18. Proposed revision to Administrative Regulation 602. 19. Prior versions of Administrative Regulation 602. 20. Proposed revision to Administrative Regulation 613. 21. Prior versions of Administrative Regulation 613. 22. Proposed revision to Administrative Regulation 615. 23. Prior versions of Administrative Regulation 615. 24. The Consent Decree in the action styled United States of America v. State of Alabama, Case No. 2:15-cv-368-MHT- 8 2 TFM, in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama. 25. NCCHC's Standards for Mental Health Services in Correctional Facilities, MH-E-07 Segregated Inmates. 26. Any document produced by any party in this action. 27. Any document relied upon by any consulting or testifying expert for expert opinions or recommendations related to this action. 28. Any document listed on the exhibit list for any party for the Phase 2A Segregation and Hospital-Level Care Hearing in this action. 29. Any document listed on the exhibit list for any party for the Phase 2A liability trial in this action. 30. Any document introduced by any party during the Phase 2A liability trial in this matter. 31. Any document listed on the exhibit list for any party for the Phase 2A Staffing Hearing in this action. 32. Any document introduced by any party during the Phase 2A Staffing Hearing in this matter. 33. Any document produced in this matter by any current or former party. 34. Any document produced by a third party via subpoena or otherwise in this matter. 35. Any exhibit whose existence or identity is learned through discovery or investigation subsequent to the filing of this exhibit list. 36. Any exhibit marked during the deposition of any witness who has been or will be deposed in this action. 9 2 37. Any document used for rebuttal purposes. 38. Any document used for impeachment purposes. 39. Any exhibit summarizing, illustrating, and/or demonstrating testimony, information, and/or data provided through discovery or during the course of the Phase 2A Staffing Hearing, Segregation and Hospital-Level Care Hearing. Dated: February 2, 2018. /s/ William R. Lunsford William R. Lunsford Attorney for the Commissioner and Associate Commissioner William R. Lunsford Matthew B. Reeves Melissa K. Marler Stephen C. Rogers MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, PC 655 Gallatin Street Huntsville, AL 35801 Telephone: (256) 512-5710 Facsimile: (256) 512-0119 blunsford@maynardcooper.com mreeves@maynardcooper.com mmarler@maynardcooper.com srogers@maynardcooper.com Luther M. Dorr, Jr. Mitesh B. Shah MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, PC 1901 Sixth Avenue North 2400 Regions Harbert Plaza Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 254-1178 Facsimile: (205) 714-6438 rdorr@maynardcooper.com 10 2 mshah@maynardcooper.com CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served upon all attorneys of record in this matter, including without limitation the following, by the Court's CM/ECF system on this the 2nd day of February, 2018: Maria V. Morris William Van Der Pol, Jr. Rhonda C. Brownstein Glenn N. Baxter Latasha L. McCrary Barbara A. Lawrence J. Richard Cohen Andrea J. Mixson Caitlin J. Sandley ALABAMA DISABILITIES ADVOCACY Grace Graham PROGRAM SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER University of Alabama 400 Washington Avenue 500 Martha Parham West Montgomery, Alabama 36104 Box 870395 Telephone: (334) 956-8200 Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487-0395 Facsimile: (334) 956-8481 Telephone: (205) 348-6894 maria.morris@splcenter.org Facsimile: (205) 348-3909 rhonda.brownstein@splcenter.org wvanderpoljr@adap.ua.edu latasha.mccrary@splcenter.org gnbaxter@bama.ua.edu richard.cohen@splcenter.org blawrence@adap.ua.edu cj.sandley@splcenter.org amixson@adap.ua.edu grace.graham@splcenter.org Gregory M. Zarzaur Andrew P. Walsh Anil A. Mujumdar William G. Somerville III Diandra S. Debrosse Patricia Clotfelter Denise Wiginton Lisa W. Borden ZARZAUR MUJUMDAR & DEBROSSE BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN 2332 2nd Avenue North CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC Birmingham, AL 35203 420 20th Street North Telephone: (205) 983-7985 Suite 1400 Facsimile: (888) 505-0523 Birmingham, Alabama 35203 gregory@zarzaur.com Telephone: (205) 244-3863 anil@zarzaur.com Facsimile: (205) 488-3863 fuli@zarzaur.com awalsh@bakerdonelson.com denise@zarzaur.com wsomerville@bakerdonelson.com pclotfelter@bakerdonelson.com 11 2 lborden@bakerdonelson.com John G. Smith Deana Johnson David R. Boyd Brett T. Lane BALCH & BINGHAM LLP MHM SERVICES, INC. Post Office Box 78 1447 Peachtree Street NE Montgomery, AL 36101-0078 Suite 500 Telephone: (334) 834-6500 Atlanta, GA 30309 Facsimile: (866) 316-9461 Telephone: (404) 347-4134 jgsmith@balch.com Facsimile: (404) 347-4138 dboyd@balch.com djohnson@mhm-services.com btlane@mhm-services.com Steven C. Corhern Lonnie J. Williams BALCH & BINGHAM LLP ALABAMA DISABILITIES ADVOCACY Post Office Box 306 PROGRAM Birmingham, AL 35201-0306 P. O. Box 870395 Telephone: (205) 251-8100 Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 Facsimile: (205) 488-5708 Telephone: (205) 348-4928 scorhern@balch.com Facsimile: (205) 348-3909 lwilliams@adap.ua.edu Anne A. Hill Elizabeth A. Sees Joseph G. Stewart ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Legal Division 301 South Ripley Street Montgomery, Alabama 36130 Telephone (334) 353-3884 Facsimile (334) 353-3891 anne.hill@doc.alabama.gov elizabeth.sees@doc.alabama.gov joseph.stewart@doc.alabama.gov /s/ William R. Lunsford Of Counsel 12

NOTICE by All Plaintiffs re {{1571}} Order, Plaintiffs' Pretrial Submission Identifying Witnesses and Exhibits

8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARDS BRAGGS, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) v.) CIVIL ACTION NO.) 2:14-CV-00601-MHT-GMB JEFFERSON DUNN, in his official) (J. Thompson) capacity as Commissioner) of the Alabama Department of) Corrections, et al.,)) Defendants.)) PLAINTIFFS' PRETRIAL SUBMISSION IDENTIFYING WITNESSES AND EXHIBITS In its January 30, 2018 Order, the Court instructed the parties to provide the following information by February 2, 2018, at 5 PM: • A list of witnesses; • The dates they are expected to testify; • How long their testimony will take; • The specific topics each will address; and • Whether the testimony will be in camera in whole or part. Plaintiffs herein provide the information responsive to the Court's Order and do not anticipate that any of the proposed testimony needs to be given in camera. 8 WITNESS DATE LENGTH TOPICS Teresa Houser February 9 4 hours Topics explored will include (assuming mental health conclusion of coding/classification; pre- Defendants' segregation mental health case; otherwise, evaluations; re-evaluations of February 15) prisoners already in segregation to determine mental health status; monitoring and mental health treatment for prisoners in segregation; Defendants' proposed remedial plan; and if necessary, hospital-level care including a discussion of the number of MH-6's as well as the number of prisoners housed in the Stabilization Unit (SU) for greater than 30 consecutive days. Dr. David February 9 3 hours Topics explored will include Tytell (assuming ADOC policies and procedures conclusion of regarding the placement into Defendants' segregation of prisoners on the case; otherwise, caseload; mental health February 15 or coding/classification; the 16) availability of RTU beds; Defendants' proposed remedial plan; mental health treatment while a prisoner is in segregation; and if necessary, hospital-level care including Office of Health Service's (OHS) monitoring of inmates on suicide watch to determine if they are in need of hospital level of care. 2 8 WITNESS DATE LENGTH TOPICS J.W. February 12-14, 2 hours Topics explored will include as available the pre-placement evaluation, if any; any "extenuating circumstances"; the mental health treatment provided while in segregation; and the conditions in segregation and the impact on the individual. C.G. February 12-14, 2 hours Topics explored will include as available the pre-placement evaluation, if any; any "extenuating circumstances"; the mental health treatment provided while in segregation; and the conditions in segregation and the impact on the individual. A.E. February 12-14, 2 hours Topics explored will include as available the pre-placement evaluation, if any; any "extenuating circumstances"; the mental health treatment provided while in segregation; and the conditions in segregation and the impact on the individual. J.A. February 12-14, 2 hours Topics explored will include as available the pre-placement evaluation, if any; any "extenuating circumstances"; the mental health treatment provided while in segregation; and the conditions in segregation and the impact on the individual. 3 8 WITNESS DATE LENGTH TOPICS E.W. February 12-14, 2 hours Topics explored will include as available the pre-placement evaluation, if any; any "extenuating circumstances"; the mental health treatment provided while in segregation; and the conditions in segregation and the impact on the individual. W.B. February 12-14, 2 hours Topics explored will include as available the pre-placement evaluation, if any; the mental health treatment provided while in administrative segregation; and the conditions in administrative segregation and the impact on the individual. S.T. February 12-14, 2 hours Topics explored will include as available the pre-placement evaluation, if any; any "extenuating circumstances"; the mental health treatment provided while in segregation; and the conditions in segregation and the impact on the individual. L.W. February 12-14, 2 hours Topics explored will include as available the pre-placement evaluation, if any; any "extenuating circumstances"; the mental health treatment provided while in segregation; and the conditions in segregation and the impact on the individual. 4 8 WITNESS DATE LENGTH TOPICS M.W. February 12-14, 2 hours Topics explored will include as available the pre-placement evaluation, if any; any "extenuating circumstances"; the mental health treatment provided while in segregation; and the conditions in segregation and the impact on the individual. Eldon Vail February 14 4 hours Topics explored will include physical plant improvements to segregation that are consistent with security needs; appropriate policies and practices relating to the placement and housing of persons with mental illness in segregation; and if necessary, hospital-level care. Dr. Robert February 15 3 hours Topics explored will include Hunter ADOC/MHM policies and procedures regarding the placement into segregation of prisoners on the caseload; mental health coding/classification; mental health treatment while a prisoner is in segregation; prevention and treatment for prisoners who are on suicide watch; and continuous quality improvement (CQI). 5 8 WITNESS DATE LENGTH TOPICS Dr. Craig February 15 4 hours Topics explored will include Haney the impact of placement in segregation on SMI and non- SMI prisoners; adequacy of ADOC's actions taken to date; appropriate policies relating to the placement or housing of persons with mental illness in segregation; and physical plant issues with regard to segregation. Dr. Kathryn February 16 4 hours Topics explored will include Burns the ADOC definition of serious mental illness (SMI); what constitutes an extenuating or exigent circumstance; the impact of segregation on non- SMI prisoners; adequacy of ADOC's actions taken to date; appropriate policies relating to the placement or housing of persons with mental illness in segregation; and if necessary, hospital-level care including the timing for transfer to hospital level care, pre- admission care for inmate sin need of hospital-level care, and monitoring and care of inmates on hospital level care. 6 8 WITNESS DATE LENGTH TOPICS Commissioner February 16 1 hour Topics explored will include Jefferson Dunn ADOC policies and procedures regarding the placement into segregation of prisoners on the caseload; the availability of specialized mental health beds; Defendants' proposed remedial plan; and if necessary, hospital- level care. Associate Plaintiffs 4 hours Topics explored will include Commissioner anticipate Assoc. ADOC policies and procedures Ruth Naglich Comm'r Naglich regarding the placement into will be called segregation of prisoners on the during caseload; mental health Defendants' case coding/classification; the in chief. availability of specialized mental health beds; mental health treatment while a prisoner is in segregation; Defendants' proposed remedial plan; and if necessary, hospital- level care. Associate Plaintiffs 2 hours Topics explored will include Commissioner anticipate Assoc. ADOC policies and procedures Grantt Culliver Comm'r Culliver regarding the placement into will be called segregation of prisoners on the during caseload; the availability of Defendants' case specialized mental health beds; in chief. appropriate security procedures for inmates on death row while hospitalized for a medical condition vs. a mental health condition; and if necessary, hospital-level care. Plaintiffs also identify the individuals below as potential witnesses. 7 8 WITNESS DATE LENGTH TOPICS Deputy February 19 2 hours Topics explored will include Commissioner ADOC policies and practices Wendy relating to the placement, Williams housing, and assessment of prisoners with mental illness in segregation. Dr. Edward February 19 3 hours Topics explored will include Kern ADOC/MHM policies and procedures related to hospital- level care. Dr. Richard February 19 3 hours Topics explored will include Craig (note he is not timing for transfer to hospital- available on level care, pre-admission care February 16) for inmates in need of hospital- level care, continuum of care, securing hospital level psychiatric beds, monitoring and care of inmate on hospital- level care, re-assessment of needs for beds, general knowledge about availability of hospital-level care beds. James Tucker February 20 2 hours Topics explored will include ADAP's willingness and ability to serve as the 'advisor' at due process hearings for prisoners in accordance with Vitek and ADAP's willingness and ability to monitor the Defendants' Plan pertaining to patients receiving a hospital level of care. 8 8 WITNESS DATE LENGTH TOPICS Correct Care February 20 2 hours Topics explored will include Recovery the policies and procedures Solutions relevant to the transport (CCRS) to/from and the hospitalization representative of prisoners, programs and conditions available at CRCC, Involuntary Medication procedure employed at CCRS facilities. Any witness identified by Defendants. Any witness necessary for impeachment. Any witness not otherwise identified but necessary to respond to and/or explain discovery ordered to be produced by Defendants from January 31, 2018, forward. 1 The Court also ordered the parties to provide a list of exhibits they intend to use during the segregation remedial trial no later than February 2, 2018, at 5 PM. Plaintiffs' exhibits include as follows: Ex. No. Title Bates / Docket Number D-2916 OHS MH Coding Form ADOC342119- & Table ADOC342122 D-2934 (P-1302+) RFP 2017- 02 and Bidders Conf. Announcement D-2992 (P-1339) Proposed OHS Staffing 1 Plaintiffs have made every effort to review and evaluate all of the documents produced by Defendants prior to this filing. That evaluation has resulted in a number of those documents being included as exhibits below. However, the vast majority of Defendants' production began as recently as Wednesday, January 31, 2018, and will not conclude until Monday, February 5, 2018. Accordingly, a final review and evaluation was not possible by the filing deadline. 9 8 Ex. No. Title Bates / Docket Number J-88 AR602 MH Definitions & Acronyms J-89 AR602 Change #1 (02.08.16) J-90 AR602 Change #2 (05.02.16) J-97 AR607 MH Staff Orientation J-98 AR608 Staff MH Training J-103 AR612 Reception MH Evals J-104 AR612-1 Change #1 (03.07.16) J-105 AR613 MH Coding & Inmate Tracking J-106 AR613-1 Change #1 (03.07.16) J-107 AR613-2 Change #2 (05.02.16) J-108 AR614 Intra-System MH Transfers J-109 AR615 Psychiatric Evals J-110 AR615-1 Change #1 (3.07.16) J-126 AR624 Segregation MH Rounds J-127 AR625 Segregation MH Evals J-128 AR626 MH & Disciplinary Process J-163 C.J. Med Recs MR007585-MR008221 J-173 H.W. Movement ADOC038873- History ADOC038897 J-185 MHM-ADOC Contract ADOC000323- & RFP 2013 ADOC000517 10 8 Ex. No. Title Bates / Docket Number J-207 D.T. Med Recs ADOC0396622- ADOC0396747 J-222 H.C. Institutional File ADOC007330- ADOC009509 J-237 J.A. Med Recs ADOC0395975- ADOC0396529 J-272 L.P. Med Recs MR011840-MR012198 J-404 R.M.W. Med Recs MR016842-MR017111 P-670 CQI Meeting Minutes MHM031186- 3Q 2013 - Statewide MHM031260 2015 P-689 MHM Corrective ADOC045441- Action Plan - ADOC045471 Donaldson (05.--.13) P-715 CQI Meeting Minutes MHM029556- 2Q 2013 (07.24.13) MHM029560 P-1126 St. Clair Security AuditADOC065996- ADOC066037 P-1224 Wilson-Houser Email + MHM053017- DOJ Mortality Study MHM053060 P-1258 C.J. Movement History ADOC0400233- ADOC0400245 P-1342 May 2017 Mental ADOC0403218- Health Staffing by ADOC0403221 Facility P-1344 ADOC Facility ADOC0408103- Assessment by ADOC0409214 Goodwyn Mills P-1355 Sept. 2017 MHM ADOC0410112- Monthly Operating ADOC0410311 Report P-1356 Sept. 2017 MHM Staff ADOC0410312- Reports ADOC0410329 P-1357 Dec. 2017 Mental ADOC0409299- Health 2 thru 6 Inmates ADOC0409329 P-1358 Dec. 12., 2017 ADOC0409703- Segregation Roster ADOC0409721 11 8 Ex. No. Title Bates / Docket Number P-1359 MHM Monthly Reports HOUSER000001- (05-10.--.17) HOUSER000053 P-1360 MHM Staffing Reports P-1361 Plaintiffs' Proposed SMI Definition (AR 602) P-1362 DSM-5 Bipolar & Doc. 1546-4 Depressive Disorders P-1363 Chart of Inmates on Doc. 1546-3 Caseload in Segregation, ~Dec. 12, 2017 P-1364 MHM Feb. 2016 MHM038293-038540 Master Roster P-1365 Defendants' Proposed Change #3 to AR 602 (SMI Def.) P-1366 Plaintiffs' Proposed Changes to Assessment Guidelines P-1367 Defendants' Proposed Excerpt of Doc. 1533 Extenuating Circumstances P-1368 Plaintiffs' Proposed Excerpt of Doc. 1546 Changes to Defendants' Revised AR613 MH Coding Table P-1369 Bibb Suicide Watch Monitoring Logs (12.16-31.17) P-1370 UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (Mandela Rules) 12 8 Ex. No. Title Bates / Docket Number P-1371 DOJ Report and Recommendations Regarding Use of Restrictive Housing (2016) P-1372 W.B. 1st Notice of Segregation Placement P-1373 W.B. 2nd Notice of Segregation Placement P-1374 W.B. Request for Group Therapy P-1375 Craig, Richard CV P-1376 Jan. 2018 MHM Master Roster P-13772 Doc. 1514 Defendants' Phase 2A Proposed Remedial Plan on Hospital-Level Care and attachments P-1378 Doc. 1533 Defendants' Proposed Segregation Remedial Plan and attachments P-1379 J.A. Mvmt History ADOC0418436- ADOC0418439 P-1380 W.B. Mvmt History ADOC0418440- ADOC0418441 P-1381 A.R. Mvmt History ADOC0418442- ADOC0418442 P-1382 C.G. Mvmt History ADOC0418443- ADOC0418445 P-1383 M.P. Mvmt History ADOC0418446- ADOC0418447 P-1384 L.W. Mvmt History ADOC0418448- ADOC0418449 2 Exhibit No. 1377 may not be necessary if this portion of the case settles. 13 8 Ex. No. Title Bates / Docket Number P-1385 M.W. Mvmt History ADOC0418450- ADOC0418452 P-1386 J.L.W. Mvmt History ADOC0418453- ADOC0418455 P-1387 E.W. Mvmt History ADOC0418456- ADOC0418457 P-1388 R.R. Mvmt History ADOC409297 P-1389 M.P. Mvmt History ADOC0409222- ADOC0409230 P-1390 Oct. 2017 ADOC Monthly Statistical Report P-1391 Oct. 2017 MHM ADOC0410333- Monthly Operating ADOC0410527 Report P-1392 Nov. 2017 MHM ADOC0418636- Monthly Operating ADOC0418875 Report P-1393 Dec. 2017 MHM ADOC0418876- Monthly Operating ADOC0419040 Report P-1394 AR 403 Disciplinary Hearing Procedures P-1395 AR 403 Change #1 (3- 04-2014) P-1396 AR 403 Change #2 (08- 01-2014) P-1397 AR 435 Protective Custody P-1398 AR 433 Admin ADOC033381- Segregation ADOC033397 P-1399 AR 434 Disciplinary Segregation P-1400 AR 436 Segregation ADOC033410- Review Board ADOC033412 P-1401 Jan. – Dec. 2017 Suicide Prevention Monitoring Reports 14 8 Ex. No. Title Bates / Docket Number P-1402 M.W. Mental Health ADOC0413525- Records ADOC0413601 P-1403 J.A. Mental Health ADOC0410578- Records ADOC0410689 P-1404 Jan. 10, 2018 ADOC0416055- Segregation Roster ADOC0416079 Any exhibit necessary for impeachment. Any exhibit resulting from Defendants' document production beginning Wednesday, January 31, 2018, forward.3 Dated: February 2, 2018 Respectfully Submitted, /s/ Maria V. Morris Maria V. Morris One of the Attorneys for Plaintiffs Southern Poverty Law Center 400 Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36104 Rhonda Brownstein (ASB-3193-O64R) Maria V. Morris (ASB-2198-R64M) Grace Graham (ASB-3040-A64G) Latasha L. McCrary (ASB-1935-L75M) Caitlin J. Sandley (ASB-5317-S48R) SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 400 Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36104 Telephone: (334) 956-8200 Facsimile: (334) 956-8481 rhonda.brownstein@splcenter.org maria.morris@splcenter.org grace.graham@splcenter.org latasha.mccrary@splcenter.org cj.sandley@splcenter.org 3 See n.1. 15 8 William Van Der Pol, Jr. (ASB-2112-114F) Glenn N. Baxter (ASB-3825-A41G) Lonnie J. Williams Barbara A. Lawrence Andrea J. Mixson Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program Box 870395 Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 Telephone: (205) 348-4928 Facsimile: (205) 348-3909 wvanderpoljr@adap.ua.edu gnbaxter@adap.ua.edu lwilliams@adap.ua.edu blawrence@adap.ua.edu amixson@adap.ua.edu Lisa W. Borden (ASB-5673-D57L) William G. Somerville, III (ASB-6185-E63W) Andrew P. Walsh (ASB-3755-W77W) Dennis Nabors Patricia Clotfelter (ASB-0841-F43P) Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz PC 420 20th Street North, Suite 1400 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 328-0480 Facsimile: (205) 322-8007 lborden@bakerdonelson.com wsomerville@bakerdonelson.com awalsh@bakerdonelson.com dnabors@bakerdonelson.com pclotfelter@bakerdonelson.com 16 8 Gregory M. Zarzaur (ASB-0759-E45Z) Anil A. Mujumdar (ASB-2004-L65M) Diandra S. Debrosse (ASB-2956-N76D) Denise Wiginton Zarzaur Mujumdar & Debrosse 2332 2nd Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 983-7985 Facsimile: (888) 505-0523 gregory@zarzaur.com anil@zarzaur.com diandra@zarzaur.com denise@zarzaur.com ATTORNEYS FOR THE PLAINTIFFS 17 8 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have on this 2nd day of February, 2018, electronically filed the foregoing with the clerk of the court by using the CM/ECF system, which will send a notice of electronic filing to the following: David R. Boyd, Esq. Steven C. Corhern, Esq. John G. Smith, Esq. Balch & Bingham LLP John W. Naramore, Esq. Post Office Box 306 Balch & Bingham LLP Birmingham, AL 35201-0306 Post Office Box 78 scorhern@balch.com Montgomery, AL 36101-0078 dboyd@balch.com Mitesh Shah, Esq. jgsmith@balch.com Luther M. Dorr, Esq. jnaramore@balch.com Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C. 1901 6th Avenue North, Suite 2400 William R. Lunsford, Esq. Birmingham, AL 35203 Melissa K. Marler, Esq. mshah@maynardcooper.com Stephen C. Rogers, Esq. rdorr@maynardcooper.com Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C. 655 Gallatin Street, SW Deana Johnson, Esq. Huntsville, AL 35801 Brett T. Lane, Esq. blunsford@maynardcooper.com MHM Services, Inc. mmarler@maynardcooper.com 1447 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 500 srogers@maynardcooper.com Atlanta, GA 30309 djohnson@mhm-services.com btlane@mhm-services.com Anne Hill, Esq. Elizabeth A. Sees, Esq. Joseph G. Stewart, Jr., Esq. Alabama Department of Corrections Legal Division 301 South Ripley Street Montgomery, AL 36104 anne.hill@doc.alabama.gov elizabeth.sees@doc.alabama.gov joseph.stewart@doc.alabama.gov /s/ Maria V. Morris One of the Attorneys for Plaintiffs 18

NOTICE The State's Phase 2A Proposed Remedial Plan on Identification, Classification, and Residential Unit Out-of-Cell Time and Treatment by Jefferson S. Dunn, Ruth Naglich re {{1524}} Order Modified on 2/2/2018 to clarify the text.

7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARD BRAGGS, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) Case No. 2:14-cv-00601-MHT-GMB v.)) District Judge Myron H. Thompson JEFFERSON DUNN, et al.,)) Defendants.) THE STATE'S PHASE 2A PROPOSED REMEDIAL PLAN ON IDENTIFICATION, CLASSIFICATION, AND RESIDENTIAL UNIT OUT-OF-CELL TIME AND TREATMENT Defendants JEFFERSON DUNN, in his official capacity as Commissioner the Alabama Department of Corrections ("ADOC"), and RUTH NAGLICH, in her official capacity as Associate Commissioner of Health Services for ADOC (collectively, "the State"), hereby submit this Phase 2A Proposed Remedial Plan on Identification, Classification, and Residential Unit Out-of-Cell Time and Treatment (the "Plan"), pursuant to the Court's Additional Phase 2A Revised Scheduling Order on the Eighth Amendment Claim (Doc. No. 1524). INTRODUCTION ADOC evaluated the Court's concerns about the policies and practices related to its identification and classification of inmates with serious mental-health needs and its provision of out-of-cell time and treatment to inmates in a mental- 7 health residential treatment setting—i.e., a residential treatment unit ("RTU") or stabilization unit ("SU"). In response to those concerns, ADOC created a plan to improve identification and classification of inmates with serious mental-health needs and to provide sufficient out-of-cell time and treatment to inmates in a RTU or SU. The State's Plan is responsive to the Court's concerns expressed in the Liability Opinion and Order as to Phase 2A Eighth Amendment Claim (Doc. No. 1285, "the Liability Order").1 ADOC's Plan related to identification and classification of inmates with serious mental-health needs and to provision of out-of-cell time and treatment to inmates in a RTU or SU, coupled with the State's Phase 2A Proposed Remedial Plan on Correctional and Mental Health Staffing (Doc. No. 1374, the "Staffing Plan"),2 the State's Phase 2A Proposed Remedial Plan on Hospital-Level Care 1 Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Plan, the State reserves all rights, including its objections to the Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law in the Liability Order, and, to avoid duplication, adopts and incorporates subsections VI.A. through C. and section VII. of its Phase 2A Proposed Remedial Plan on Correctional and Mental Health Staffing (Doc. No. 1374, "the Staffing Plan"). To be clear, the State does not make this Plan contingent upon receipt of funding from the Alabama legislature (as contained in subsection VI, D. of the Staffing Plan). 2 In the Liability Opinion and Order as to Phase 2A Eighth Amendment Claim (Doc. No. 1285, the "Liability Order"), the Court determined that shortages of correctional and mental-health staff, along with overcrowding, are the "overarching issues that permeate each of the … contributing factors of inadequate mental-health care," including the contributing factor of placing inmates with serious mental-health needs in segregation. (Doc. No. 1285 at 301). Specifically, the Court determined that the lack of adequate correctional and mental-health staff made the then-existing monitoring of inmates with serious mental-health needs ineffective and prevented access by inmates to mental-health treatment and programs. (Id. at 216-221). The State believes the Staffing Plan (and increased correctional and mental-health staff) positively impacted and will continue to positively impact the monitoring of inmates with serious mental- health needs and afford inmates greater access to mental-health treatment and programs. 2 7 (Doc. No. 1514, the "Hospitalization Plan"),3 the State's Phase 2A Proposed Remedial Plan on Segregation (Doc. No. 1533, the "Segregation Plan"), and the Phase 2A Interim Relief Order Regarding Suicide Prevention Measures (as amended and supplemented) (Doc. Nos. 1102, 1106, 1200, the "Suicide Prevention Measures"), reflect the State's endeavors to improve the conditions of confinement and mental-health care for inmates in ADOC custody, including those with serious mental-health needs. Building on these noteworthy, meaningful endeavors, the State's Plan responds to the Court's concerns expressed in the Liability Order and the applicable scheduling orders. As a result, the State respectfully requests the Court endorse this Plan and deny any objections advanced by Plaintiffs to this Plan. THE PLAN FOR IDENTIFICATION, CLASSIFICATION, AND RESIDENTIAL UNIT OUT-OF-CELL TIME AND TREATMENT I. IDENTIFICATION OF INMATES WITH SERIOUS MENTAL- HEALTH NEEDS THROUGH THE INTAKE PROCESS. The identification of inmates with serious mental-health needs takes place primarily through two (2) processes: intake and referral. ADOC's intake and referral processes are memorialized in AR 609 through AR 612 and AR 615. 3 In the Liability Order, the Court expressed concern that inmates lacked access to hospital-level mental-health care. (Doc. No. 1285 at 128-33). Now, with access to hospital-level mental- health care at the Columbia Regional Care Center ("CRCC"), ADOC and its mental-health vendor possess the ability to provide inmates with serious mental-health needs advanced inpatient mental-health care and to keep those inmates out of segregation when they cannot be stabilized and are too dangerous for a specialized mental-health unit. (Doc. No. 1514). 3 7 Currently, the intake process at the male reception center, Kilby Correctional Facility ("Kilby"), and the female reception center, Julia Tutwiler Prison for Women ("Tutwiler"), generally consists of a mental-health screening by a licensed practical nurse ("LPN") on the first day of an inmate's incarceration (AR 610, AR 612), a psychological assessment by an ADOC psychologist or psychological associate on the third day of an inmate's incarceration (AR 612), and, when there is a referral after the mental-health screening and/or psychological assessment, a psychiatric evaluation by a psychiatrist on the fourth day of an inmate's incarceration (AR 612, AR 615). The Court criticized ADOC's intake processes in the Liability Order. (Doc. No. 1285 at 71-79). In the Liability Order, the Court found "that the intake screening process conducted by an LPN without any on-site supervision by a higher-level provider" and the rare referral of inmates for a psychiatric evaluation after the psychological assessment resulted in the "under-identification of [inmates] with mental illness." (Doc. No. 1285 at 75, 76 n. 27). Additionally, the Court found that these deficiencies were "compounded by insufficient mental- health staffing." (Id. at 78). Taking into consideration the Court's criticisms, ADOC incorporated a revised intake process in Request for Proposal No. 2017-02, entitled 4 7 Comprehensive Inmate Healthcare Services" (the "RFP"). (Doc. No. 1374-5 at 78- 82).4 As it relates to the intake process, the RFP states: 5.43 Intake Mental Health Assessment An RN with mental health training will conduct a mental health receiving screening as soon as possible, and no later than twelve (12) hours, upon an inmate's arrival in the ADOC. The RN will document the mental health receiving screening on ADOC Form MH-011, Reception Mental Health Screening Evaluation. The mental health RN conducting the screening shall conduct a mental health receiving screening in accordance with the National Commission on Correctional Healthcare ("NCCHC") standard M-E-02. Receiving screening is intended to identify potential emergency situations among new arrivals. It is a process of structured inquiry and observation designed to prevent newly arriving inmates who pose a threat to their own or others' health or safety from being admitted to the general population and to provide them rapid treatment and care. Particular attention also must be paid to signs of trauma. All mental health staff should report suspected abuse of an inmate to the appropriate authority. Inmates arriving with signs of recent trauma are referred immediately for medical observation and treatment. Inmates with mental disorders are often unable to give complete or accurate information in response to health status inquiries. Good interviewing skills and training are critical for the licensed mental health receiving screening staff. At a minimum, mental health receiving screening staff should be trained on how to make the 4 For ease of reference, the State refers to the page numbers at the top right corner of the RFP included with the document identification number and stamp, instead of the actual page numbers of the RFP. 5 7 required observations, how to determine the appropriate disposition of an inmate based on responses to questions and observations, and how to document findings on the receiving screening form. At intake, all inmates entering the system will be assigned a mental health code, as outlined in ADOC AR 613, by the mental health staff. The ADOC revised its mental health coding/classification system in September of 2016, to reflect and align the identification and housing restrictions related to those inmates identified as "Seriously Mentally Ill." Mental Health Coding is captured in the OHS Healthcare module and documented in the inmate Healthcare record.5 Mental health professionals are responsible for providing pertinent mental health status information to the ADOC Classification Supervisor. ADOC Classification personnel consider and utilize the inmate's mental health code in the institutional assignment of the inmate. The mental health coding process is a HIPAA compliant process. a) The mental health RN will refer the inmate for a psychiatric evaluation if the inmate reports, at a minimum: 1. Current prescription for psychiatric medications; 2. Any in-patient mental health hospitalization; 3. Mental health treatment within the last year; 4. Past or current suicidal acts or ideation; 5. Trauma (history of victimization or abuse); 6. Head injuries (with or without loss of consciousness); 5 ADOC intends, if approved by the Court, to rely upon the definition of serious mental Illness ("SMI"), the factors for making a clinical determination that an inmate possesses an SMI, and the mental-health coding system identified in the Segregation Plan. (Doc. No. 1533 at 5-22). 6 7 7. Gender dysphoria; 8. Hallucinations or delusions or; 9. When the inmate's presentation suggests the need for psychiatric evaluation. b) If the inmate reports a current prescription for psychiatric medications, ADOC will attempt to verify with the prescriber or pharmacy within twelve (12) hours of the intake screening and ensure continuity of medication. c) If the prescription cannot be verified within twelve (12) hours, the inmate shall be seen by a psychiatrist or CRNP within twenty-four (24) hours of intake screening during regular working hours. Weekend and holiday response can be via Tele-health when necessary, to ensure appropriate medication. d) If the inmate reports receiving mental health services, and can correctly report the prior mental health provider, a records request from the prior provider will be made within seventy-two (72) hours of the intake screening. e) All health records from the prior facility of incarceration are to be requested within the seventy-two (72) hour time frame, if they are not presented at intake. f) If the inmate reports receiving mental health services, and cannot remember or correctly identify the prior mental health provider, every effort will be made to locate his prior records. g) The mental health RN performing the intake screening will triage the immediate mental healthcare needs of the inmate and define as: 7 7 a. Emergent: the inmate needs an immediate evaluation if the intake screening suggests that an inmate may be at risk for harm to self or others. The on-site or on-call psychiatrist will be notified; b. Urgent: the inmate will be seen within 24 hours by a CRNP or psychologist and referred for a psychiatric evaluation within seven working (7) days; or c. Routine: the inmate will be given a reception evaluation by the MHP or psychologist within fourteen (14) days. h) The on-site or on-call psychiatrist shall be contacted immediately to evaluate an inmate when the RN determines that the mental health screening suggests that an inmate may be at risk for harm to self or others or may be experiencing acute psychosis. i) If the on-site psychiatrist is not available, the inmate will be placed on watch status until the evaluation can be completed. The on-call psychiatrist will be contacted for additional instructions. j) Vendor mental health staff will: 1) Be trained in identifying inmates at risk for self-harm or potentially in need of immediate mental health assistance when conducting the reception mental health screenings. 2) Conduct the reception mental health screening when an inmate is admitted to the ADOC and before the inmate is placed in a housing area that does not provide constant correctional officer observation. 8 7 3) Review transfer medical documentation prior to conducting the reception mental health screening to optimize available information about the inmate's mental status or treatment. 4) Conduct the mental health screening in an area permitting inmate confidentiality and encouraging inmate self-reporting. 5) Provide the inmate an initial description of the mental health services available in the ADOC, how to access these services and the grievance process for mental health related complaints. 6) Document the initial mental health screening on ADOC Form MH-011, Reception Mental Health Screening Evaluation. 7) File original forms in the inmate's Healthcare record and forward a copy to the ADOC Psychologist responsible for reception mental health evaluations. 5.44 Social Risk Assessment and Testing An ADOC Psychologist or Psychological Associate, within fourteen (14) days of the intake screening, will conduct a Social Risk Assessment (SRA) of every inmate who is not referred for psychiatric evaluation. The mental health professional will utilize a standardized mental health screening form and SRA within the OHS module (provided on the ARD). The OHS approved SRA questions with this module are in accordance with NCCHC Standard M-E-05. All incoming inmates will receive the MMPI-2. The testing psychologist shall determine whether the inmate should be referred to a psychiatrist to be evaluated for placement on the mental health caseload. 9 7 5.45 Reception Psychiatric Evaluation a.) A psychiatrist will evaluate referred inmates within seven (7) working days of the referral (except in cases where it is determined in the receiving screening or reception mental health evaluation that an immediate psychiatric evaluation is required). If immediate psychiatric evaluation is ordered, the psychiatrist will evaluate the inmate within twenty-four (24) hours of the referral. The evaluations shall include review of the inmate's health record and direct examination of the inmate. The evaluation will include, but is not limited to, the following: 1. Current complaint 2. Psychiatric history 3. Prior mental health treatment 4. Prior use of psychotropic medication 5. Pertinent medical history (including history of head injuries with or without loss of consciousness) 6. Substance abuse history 7. Pertinent personal history (including education, victimization, history of trauma or abuse) 8. Pertinent family history including family history of mental illness 9. Mental status examination 10. Risk for suicide and violence 11. Brief social history 12. DSM 5 diagnosis 13. Psychiatric input for treatment plan b) Any mental health or intellectual disability test results that are not available at the time of the psychiatric evaluation shall be reviewed by the psychiatrist within fourteen (14) days of the complete battery of test results becoming available. If, in the psychiatrist's clinical 10 7 judgment, the test results are clinically significant and may indicate a different assessment than the initial psychiatric evaluation, the psychiatrist shall re-evaluate the inmate within fourteen (14) days of reviewing the tests. If the inmate has been transferred to another facility, the psychiatrist shall inform the psychiatrist at the receiving facility, who shall perform the re-evaluation. 5.46 Transfer and Receiving Screening a) Qualified mental healthcare personnel will review, evaluate, and document pertinent mental health information to be forwarded to any ADOC receiving facility with the individual inmate's healthcare record (in-state) and all prescribed medications (excluding narcotics) upon notice by the ADOC of the intent to transfer. b) Vendor will provide transfer and receiving screening in accordance with ADOC-OHS Policy and Procedures E-3 (a) through E-3 (c). An oral or written report must be provided to the receiving institution for all inmates with a mental health code of MH 2-D6 or higher to share current treatment plan and the inmate's compliance status. c) Mental health information, transfer receiving form, and medications will be sealed and secured when handing to the transferring officer for transport to the next facility. d) The transport officer will present the inmate to the healthcare unit upon reception at the receiving facility. 6 ADOC intends to revise this portion of the RFP when it creates an Administrative Regulation from a mental-health code of MH-2d or higher to a mental-health code of MH-2 or higher. 11 7 (Doc. No. 1374-5 at 78-82) (emphasis added). ADOC's intake process will significantly change after execution of a contract and transition to a single healthcare vendor for ADOC. (Id.). Under the RFP, the number of full-time equivalents ("FTEs") for mental-health care at Kilby and Tutwiler to perform screenings and evaluations increases significantly. (Id. at 138, 140). Moreover, consistent with the Staffing Plan, the mental-health staffing at Kilby and Tutwiler may increase in the future after evaluation and analysis by the State's expert consultants. (Doc. No. 1374 at 20-22). Increased mental-health staffing, coupled with (1) the use of RNs with mental-health training (i.e., a higher-level provider) to perform mental-health screenings, (2) the use of ADOC's psychologists and psychological associates to perform social risk assessments, and (3) the use of psychiatrists to perform psychiatric evaluations, will effectively address the under-identification of inmates with a mental illness at intake. (Doc. No. 1374-5 at 78-82). Under this Plan, there will be two (2) opportunities at intake—or shortly after intake—for mental-health providers to evaluate and observe all inmates for mental illness and, if necessary, to refer inmates to a psychiatrist for a psychiatric evaluation. (Id. at 78-82). Notably, each inmate's mental-health status is timely evaluated and there is an effective system to triage and treat (after appropriate referrals) any emergent, urgent, and routine mental-health needs. (Id. at 79-80). For example, a 12 7 psychiatrist will perform a psychiatric evaluation immediately or within twenty- four (24) hours if an inmate has an emergent or urgent mental-health need. (Id. at 81). Aside from increased mental-health staffing and a revamped intake process, the RFP (and the future contract with a healthcare vendor) provides for training of mental-health staff (including training on how to make required observations, how to determine the appropriate disposition of an inmate based on responses to questions and observations, and how to document findings on the receiving screening form) and documentation and information sharing related to intake and referrals. (Doc. No. 1374-5 at 78-82). Equally important, to monitor the healthcare vendor's compliance with its intake-related obligations, ADOC intends to make review of the intake process part of the healthcare vendor's continuous quality improvement and to obtain monthly reports from the healthcare vendor, identifying for the past month: • the number of inmates seen in intake; • the number of inmates identified with mental illness during the intake process and placed on the mental-health caseload; • the number of inmates referred for emergent mental- health needs from intake; • the number of inmates seen for an urgent referral from intake; and 13 7 • the number of inmates seen for a routine referral from intake within fourteen (14) days. (See AR 636). ADOC's revised intake process, training, documentation, monitoring, and reporting efforts will help address the under-identification of inmates with a mental illness at intake and ensure continuity of care. II. IDENTIFICATION OF INMATES WITH SERIOUS MENTAL- HEALTH NEEDS THROUGH THE REFERRAL PROCESS. As it relates to the referral process, the Court determined first that "ADOC does not have a system to triage and identify the urgency of each request, and to make referrals according to the level of urgency" and second that "the referral process is inadequate because [understaffed] correctional officers are ill-positioned to notice behavioral changes." (Doc. No. 1285 at 80-81). Of course, the correctional and mental-health staffing is addressed in the Staffing Plan. (Doc. No. 1374). An increase in correctional and mental-health staff will allow greater observation of inmates throughout ADOC's facilities and should result in increased mental-health referrals through institutional staff. Additionally, the increased staff will allow mental-health services the ability to process mental-health referrals and requests for mental-health services in a timely fashion. ADOC intends to ensure that inmates receive timely access to mental-health services through its referral process. Consistent with AR 609, there are two (2) sources of a mental-health referral: (1) the inmate himself or herself (i.e., a self- 14 7 referral), and (2) institutional staff (i.e., correctional, medical, and mental-health staff). During the mental-health screening process, a RN orients the inmate to mental-health services, how to access those services, and the grievance process for mental-health-related complaints. (Doc. No. 1374-5 at 80; see also AR 611). Additionally, consistent with AR 607 and AR 608, institutional staff will be trained on mental illness, the identification and management of inmates with serious mental-health needs, and the referral of inmates for mental-health services. All mental-health referrals and requests for mental-health services will be responded to in a timely fashion, whether they are from inmates or institutional staff. Obviously, increased mental-health staff, as reflected in the RFP and as may be added by the State's consulting experts, will ensure a timely response to mental- health referrals and requests for mental-health services. Additionally, to ensure a timely response to mental-health referrals, ADOC intends to update AR 609 to incorporate for the referral process the same triage system (for emergent, urgent, and routine mental-health needs), treatment requirements, and documentation (including forms that identify the urgency level) contained in the RFP (and discussed above) related to the intake process. (Id. at 79-80). By way of example, consistent with the intake process, upon receipt of a mental-health referral, a psychiatrist will perform a psychiatric evaluation immediately or within twenty- 15 7 four (24) hours if an inmate has an emergent or urgent mental-health need. (Id. at 81). As with the intake process, ADOC intends to monitor the healthcare vendor's compliance with its referral-related obligations. ADOC intends to make review of the intake process part of the healthcare vendor's continuous quality improvement and to obtain monthly reports from the healthcare vendor, identifying for the past month: • the number of inmates seen by mental-health staff through a self-referral or institutional staff referral (but not through the intake process); • the number of inmates identified with mental illness during the referral process (but not through the intake process) and placed on the mental-health caseload; • the number of inmates seen for an emergent referral through a self-referral or institutional staff referral (but not through the intake process); • the number of inmates seen for an urgent referral through a self-referral or institutional staff referral (but not through the intake process); and • the number of inmates seen for a routine referral through a self-referral or institutional staff referral (but not through the intake process). (See AR 636). ADOC's revised referral process, training, documentation, monitoring, and reporting efforts will help address the under-identification of 16 7 inmates with a mental illness through the referral process and ensure continuity of care. III. CLASSIFICATION OF INMATES WITH SERIOUS MENTAL- HEALTH NEEDS. In the Liability Order, the Court determined that ADOC had an inadequate mental-health classification system. (Doc. No. 1285 at 83-86). A mental-health coding system, the Court said, needs "to reflect the level of functioning a mental- health patient has and correspond to his or her treatment needs and housing requirements." (Id. at 83). At the time, ADOC's mental-health coding system "include[d] 13 different codes, ranging from MH-0 to MH-9, with sub-codes for some levels, such as Mh-2d," and, "[i]n broad strokes, a higher numbered MH code reflect[ed] more intensive care needs." (Id.). ADOC's definition of, and clinical factors for consideration in diagnosing, a serious mental illness and its mental-health classification (or coding) system evolved after the Phase 2A trial. ADOC explained that evolution in its Segregation Plan. (Doc. No. 1533 at 5-24). In the Segregation Plan, ADOC proposed the implementation of a new mental-health coding system that reduced the number of mental-health codes and provided additional information concerning the inmate's functionality, treatment needs, and housing requirements. (Id. at 17-20). ADOC is in the process of preparing changes to the Administrative Regulations impacted by implementation of the new mental-health coding system, including, for example, 17 7 AR 602, AR 613, and AR 615 (but those will not be finalized until other remedial plans affecting those Administrative Regulations are determined). The new mental-health coding system is as follows: MH Status Housing Placement Guideline Code MH-0 1. No history of a serious mental illness • May transfer anywhere in or out of 2. No current identified need for state mental health assistance 3. Receives Crisis Intervention • General Population when indicated • Restrictive Housing permitted MH-1 1. Mild impairment in mental functioning • Clear to Transfer to any ADOC 2. Inmate is stable in out-patient operated or contracted institution setting with treatment provided (with MH services). May assume 3. May or may not be currently on job duties in an ADOC mental health medication Community Work Center or Work 4. No evidence of symptoms of a Release Center. serious mental illness; is managed with the compliance of • General Population treatment 5. Eligible for Keep on Person • Restrictive Housing permitted Program (KOP) after demonstrated compliance 6. Requires Multidisciplinary treatment plan 7. Is not on Involuntary Medication 18 7 MH -1a 1. Stable in an outpatient setting for a least the prior six months; RX • Clear to Transfer to any ADOC anti-depressants/antipsychotics operated or contracted institution 2. Mild impairment in mental (with MH services) Community Work functioning Center or to any other ADOC operated 3. Inmate is stable in out-patient institutions and assume job duties setting with treatment provided except an ADOC Work Release 4. No evidence of symptoms of a Program serious mental illness; is managed with the compliance of • General Population treatment 5. Requires multidisciplinary • Restrictive Housing permitted treatment plan 6. Eligible for Keep On Person Program (KOP) after demonstrated compliance 7. Is not on Involuntary Medication MH-2 1. Diagnosed as having a Serious • Clear to transfer to any ADOC Mental Illness as defined with a operated facility with 24/7 nursing DSM diagnosis coverage. Not eligible for free world 2. Moderate impairment in mental Work Center or ADOC Work Release functioning Program 3. Requires monitoring for treatment for compliance • May be placed in General Population, 4. May be ordered to be placed on RTU, Structured Living Unit or SU. an involuntary medication program for compliance • Not eligible for restrictive housing; assurances except when extenuating 5. Requires multidisciplinary circumstances are documented by treatment plan security, reviewed and approved by a Licensed Mental Health Professional. Placement approval should be co- signed by a Licensed Mental Health Provider within 24 hours. Placement in restrictive housing will be limited to the resolution of the extenuating circumstances. MH-3 1. Serious Mental Illness diagnosis 2. Closely monitored for acute • Housed in Open Residential psychosis or severe mood Treatment Unit disturbance 3. Moderate impairment in mental • Not eligible for restrictive housing functioning with social outside of an RTU or SU impairment and/or self- management needs 19 7 4. May be ordered to be placed on an involuntary medication program 5. Poor behavioral control MH-3a 1. Serious mental illness diagnosis 2. Closely monitored for acute • Housed in Semi Closed or Closed psychosis or severe mood Residential Treatment Unit disturbance 3. May be at risk when socializing • Not eligible for restrictive housing in a non-structured environment outside of an RTU or SU 4. Moderate to chronic impairment in mental functioning with self- management needs 5. May be ordered to be placed on an involuntary medication program 6. Poor behavioral control MH-4 1. Severe impairment in mental health functioning such as • Housed in Stabilization Unit delusions, hallucinations, severe mood disorder, or inability to • Not eligible for restrictive housing function in most areas of daily outside of an RTU or SU living 2. Chronic impairment in mental • Placement in SU more than 21 days functioning with self- rotate to closed RTU while evaluating management needs need for inpatient treatment center, or 3. May be ordered to be placed on commitment. an involuntary medication program 4. Poor behavioral control MH-5 1. Severe impairment in mental health functioning such as • Housed in Stabilization Unit persistent danger of hurting self or others • Not eligible for restrictive housing 2. Acute impairment in mental outside of an RTU or SU functioning with self- management needs • Placement in SU more than 21 days, 3. Recurrent violence, inability to initiate commitment process; rotate to maintain minimal personal closed RTU while waiting for hygiene admission to an inpatient treatment 4. May be ordered to be placed on center or commitment. 20 7 an involuntary medication program 5. Poor behavioral control MH-6 Consultation – Pending May not be moved from current facility Evaluation without prior permission from the Associate Commissioner of Health Services As part of this Plan and the Segregation Plan, ADOC and its healthcare vendor will train correctional and mental-health staff concerning the new mental- health classification (or coding) system. Their training will include the proper documentation in treatment plans and progress notes so that an inmate's symptoms and treatment are preserved and evaluated in a historical context. (Doc. No. 1533 at 84 n. 31). Of course, the preparation of training modules and administration of the training will be a part of other training related to the new and modified mental- health programs resulting from the Phase 2A remedial process, which will be completed when all mental-health programs are finalized. But, ADOC will continue to provide training pursuant to AR 607 and AR 608 and other training related to mental-health services in the interim. (See Doc. No. 1533-2 at 66-67).7 IV. SU AND RTU OUT-OF-CELL TIME AND TREATMENT. ADOC has two (2) types of residential mental-health treatment units—a SU and a RTU. A SU is intended to provide short-term intensive mental-health 7 For ease of reference, the State refers to the page numbers at the top right corner of the RFP included with the document identification number and stamp, instead of the actual page numbers of the RFP 21 7 services to reduce acute symptoms, allow for stabilization, or allow for transfer to a psychiatric hospital. (Doc. No. 1374-5 at 85).8 A RTU is intended to stabilize, support, and ensure positive reintegration of inmates into the general prison population. (Id. at 87). There are three (3) levels of care provided within the RTUs: Level 1 (closed RTU), Level 2 (semi-closed RTU), and Level 3 (open RTU). Each RTU level of care is designed to meet the needs of mentally ill inmates as they reduce acuity and progress with treatment. (Id. at 87- 90). Generally, out-of-cell time and the types and frequency of treatment change as the inmate moves from RTU Level 1 to Level 3. (Id.).9 In the Liability Order, the Court found that ADOC's SUs and RTUs "often fail to serve their therapeutic purpose due to insufficient out-of-cell time and scarce programming for their patients." (Doc. No. 1285 at 115). From the Court's perspective, the "lack of out-of-cell time" and "lack of meaningful treatment activities" for inmates in a SU or RTU was illustrated in a 2013 audit of the Bullock Correctional Facility's ("Bullock") SU. (Id. at 116, 120). The 2013 audit 8 Inmates in a SU generally possess a MH-5 mental-health code, which means they are "severe[ly]" or "acute[ly]" impaired and exhibit "poor behavioral control" and "recurrent violence." (Doc. No. 1533 at 19-20). Naturally, significant out-of-cell time and group interaction is inappropriate until the inmate is stabilized. 9 A Level 1 inmate is generally more "impaired" and acute, with less behavioral control, than a Level 2 inmate, and a Level 2 inmate is generally more "impaired" and acute, with less behavioral control, than a Level 3 inmate. (Doc. No. 1533 at 18-19). A Level 3 inmate is housed in an open dorm (similar to general population) and, therefore, is out of an isolated cell all day. (Id.). As such, it does not appear that out-of-cell time is a problem for Level 3 inmates in an RTU. 22 7 of the Bullock SU indicated inmates were receiving about thirty (30) minutes of individual therapeutic contact per week and about two and one-half (2½) hours of non-therapeutic group contacts per week. (Id.). As the Court acknowledged in the Liability Order, the primary factor leading to less out-of-cell time and mental-health programming in the SUs and RTUs is the need for additional correctional and mental-health staff. (Doc. No. 126 at 115-27). Again, the Staffing Plan will adequately address correctional and mental-health staffing and resolve the primary obstacle to out-of-cell time and treatment in ADOC's SUs and RTUs. (See Doc. No. 1374). Nevertheless, ADOC is taking additional steps to address out-of-cell time and the provision of treatment for inmates in SUs and RTUs. Those steps are memorialized in the RFP. As to SUs and RTUs, the RFP states: 5.49 Stabilization Units The goal of the Stabilization Unit (SU) is to provide short-term intensive mental healthcare to reduce acute symptoms, allow for stabilization, or allow for transfer to an in-patient psychiatric hospital. The ADOC minimum mental health staffing plan provides for twenty-four (24) hour nursing coverage and on-call 24 hours a day coverage by a CRNP or Psychiatrist. Each Stabilization Unit will utilize a multidisciplinary treatment team approach. The Associate Commissioner of Health Services, or Statewide or facility Medical Director may request the transfer of an inmate in crisis to an SU without an admission order for a period of twenty-four (24) hours under emergency situations. A licensed psychiatrist or psychologist will complete an assessment 23 7 for admission within the designated twenty-four (24) hour time period. Stabilization Units (SU) are located at the following institutions:  Kilby Reception Center (Short term Crisis Stabilization) (16 Beds)  Tutwiler Prison for Women (8 SU Beds)  Bullock Correctional Facility (30 SU Beds) a) The Stabilization Unit ("SU") provides intensive treatment to inmates experiencing acute mental health problems when brief crisis interventions at other institutions have been unsuccessful in assisting the inmate in achieving prior levels of functioning. b) Treatment on an SU is structured to provide stabilization as quickly as possible and return the inmate to a less restrictive environment. c) SU admission decisions shall be made by the treating provider in conjunction with the receiving psychiatrist. Discharge decisions shall be made by the treating psychiatrist in the SU. d) SU mental health staff and correctional officers will work collaboratively to ensure a therapeutic, safe, and secure environment. e) The ADOC SU treatment planning will be conducted in accordance with ADOC AR 633, Treatment Planning (currently under revision, drafted to reflect RFP specifications). f) The treatment team shall consist of a psychiatrist, a mental health nurse, the MHP who is the inmate's treatment coordinator, an activity 24 7 technician, and a correctional officer from the unit. g) The level of clinical monitoring and treatment provided to SU inmates will include at a minimum: 1. Assignment of a licensed MHP. 2. Completion of admission assessment by an RN, CRNP and/or Psychiatrist within one (1) working day, Monday through Friday. 3. Completion of an individual treatment plan within three (3) working days of admission. 4. A Weekly treatment team meeting and review of the treatment plan. 5. Documented out-of-cell interaction with a weekly progress note. 6. If such interactions are not out-of-cell, based on a clinical determination, that determination shall be documented in the MHP progress note. 7. Daily documented interaction with an MHP as part of the daily cell-front interaction on each shift. 8. The treatment team will closely monitor the inmate's response to treatment and modify the treatment plan accordingly 9. Unless determined by the treating psychiatrist to be clinically inappropriate, the inmate will have two (2) hours of out- of-cell time daily for scheduled groups or activities, in addition to hygiene activities. 10. Medication administration will be at inmate's cell-front. 25 7 h) Discharge from a SU 1. The attending Psychiatrist will evaluate when an inmate has sufficiently stabilized to be discharged. 2. The inmate's treatment team will coordinate with the attending Psychiatrist regarding the appropriate level of mental healthcare to be provided upon discharge from the SU. ***** 5.51 Residential Treatment Units The goal of the Residential Treatment Unit (RTU) is to stabilize, support, and ensure positive reintegration of the inmate into a regular general prison population. The RTU day room and activities room shall be maintained as an environment conducive to activities and socialization. The inmate will receive multidisciplinary treatment. Admission to and discharge from these units will be based on clinical decisions, supported by documentation in the Healthcare record. The mental health staff and correctional officers will maintain a collaborative working environment to ensure a therapeutic, safe, and secure environment. The ADOC minimum staffing plan provides for twenty-four (24) hours per day seven (7) days per week nursing coverage in the RTUs. Residential Treatment Units are currently located at the following institutions:  Donaldson (96 Inpatient beds)  Donaldson (48 Semi-closed Behavioral Unit)  Bullock (256 Inpatient beds)  Tutwiler (50 Inpatient beds) There are three levels of care provided within the RTU units that are designed to meet the individual needs of the mentally ill inmate. Vendor is required to submit with its proposal an example of a daily activity 26 7 and programing schedule for a five (5) day period for each of the following 'RTU Levels.' At a minimum, the proposed schedule should reflect the programing and activity requirements outlined in the RFP for each level.  Closed RTU (Level 1)  Semi-closed RTU (Level 2)  Open RTU (Level 3) a) The ADOC RTU treatment planning will be conducted in accordance with ADOC AR 633, Treatment Planning (currently under revision to reflect RFP specifications). b) Admission decisions into the RTU and level of admission are made by the treating psychiatrist or CRNP in conjunction with the receiving psychiatrist. c) The minimum level of clinical monitoring and treatment provided to the Closed (Level 1) RTU inmates includes the following: 1. Assignment of a licensed MHP as the treatment team coordinator. 2. Completion of a treatment team meeting and individual treatment plan within three (3) working days of admission. 3. A Weekly treatment team meeting and review of the treatment plan. 4. Daily documented out-of-cell interaction with the MHP weekdays and weekends with weekly progress note. 5. Daily documented out-of-cell interaction by a mental health nurse (RN) documented in the inmate's health record. 27 7 6. If out-of-cell interactions cannot occur based on a clinical determination or due to security concern, that determination shall be documented in the MHP progress note. 7. Unless determined by the treating psychiatrist to be clinically inappropriate, or a security risk, the inmate will have two (2) hours daily of out-of-cell time for hygiene and recreational activities. This time is in addition to group times and individual therapy. 8. The treatment team will closely monitor the inmate's response to treatment and modify the treatment plan accordingly. 9. Medication administration will be administered at the inmate's cell-front. 10. Discharge orders from the Closed RTU will be the clinical decision of the treating psychiatrist or CRNP in the RTU. CRNP's will collaborate with the treating psychiatrist prior to discharge. d) The minimum level of clinical monitoring and treatment provided to the Semi-closed (Level 2) RTU inmates includes the following: 1. Assignment of a licensed MHP as the treatment team coordinator. 2. A treatment team meeting and completion of individual treatment plan after review of the prior treatment plan at Level 1, within three (3) working days of admission. 3. Review and update of the individual treatment plan every two (2) weeks. 28 7 4. A treatment team meeting at least every sixty (60) days. 5. Daily documented cell-front interaction by a MHP or mental health nurse documented in the inmate's healthcare record. 6. Eight (8) hours per week of out-of-cell structured therapeutic activities documented in the inmate patient's healthcare record, to include but not be limited to: i. Confidential counseling, ii. Therapeutic groups (group counseling, anger management, behavior management); and iii. Structured activity and psycho- educational groups, 7. Inmate shall participate in six (6) hours of counseling or therapeutic groups within a seven (7) day calendar week. 8. Medication management and education classes will be provided by RNs. 9. Activity groups may be led by LPNs or Activity Technicians. 10. Activity Technicians shall maintain weekly logs of activities with listed start and stop times of each group or activity. 11. Inmates will sign or 'mark' a sign-in sheet to document their participation in programming. 12. Medication administration may be conducted by means of small controlled groups within a pill line. 29 7 e) The minimum level of clinical monitoring and treatment provided to the Open (Level 3) RTU inmates includes the following: 1. Direct admission to the Open RTU (Level 3) can be approved/ordered based on the assessment of a licensed clinical psychologist, CRNP, or psychiatrist. 2. The assignment of a licensed MHP as the treatment team coordinator. 3. A treatment team meeting and completion of individual treatment plan after review of the prior treatment plan at Level 2 within three (3) working days of admission. 4. Monthly review of the individual treatment plan. 5. A treatment team meeting at least every ninety (90) days. 6. Documented confidential assessment by a psychiatrist every sixty (60) days documented in the inmate's healthcare record. 7. Daily interaction by a MHP documented in the inmate's healthcare record. 8. Ten (10) hours per week structured therapeutic activities documented in the inmate-patient's Healthcare record, to include but not be limited to: i. Confidential counseling ii. Therapeutic groups (group counseling, anger management, behavior management); and 30 7 iii. Structured activity and psycho- educational groups. 9. Inmate shall participate in eight (8) hours of counseling or therapeutic groups within a seven (7) day calendar week. 10. Medication management and education classes will be provided by RNs. 11. Activity groups may be led by LPNs or Activity Technicians. 12. Activity Technicians shall maintain weekly logs of activities with listed start and stop times of each group or activity. 13. Inmates will sign or 'mark' a sign-in sheet to document their participation in programming. 14. The Mental Health staff will work with the Warden and security staff to create/identify purposeful inmate job assignments within the Open RTU when security permits. 15. Open RTU inmates will have access to out- of-housing-unit recreation five (5) times per week. This will include going outdoors when weather permits. 16. Medication administration conducted by means of a pill line within a designated controlled space similar to that of the general population. 5.52 Program Staffing and Schedule The mental health program staff will be multidisciplinary in nature. Treatment programs will be provided between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Vendor should configure staffing schedules to 31 7 provide weekend program and activity coverage by a Licensed MHP and Activity Technician a minimum of four (4) hours on Saturdays and Sundays at Bullock, Donaldson, and Tutwiler. The minimum RFP staffing requirements assume a trending increase in the current inmate mental health case load by fifteen (15) to twenty (20) percent. The Mental Health Manager assigned to these institutions will pre-schedule Saturday and Sunday programs with the Warden of the facility to ensure the Warden's approval and the proper security coverage during these times frames. An inmate assigned to a RTU unit will be programmed with as much out of cell time as clinically directed by the treatment plan. 5.53 Mental Health Workshops on the RTU Vendor staff will provide each designated RTU with a range of planned and regularly scheduled workshops and groups to foster the well-being of inmates assigned to the unit. Treatment topics will include, but not be limited to: a) Medication Management: can range from teaching the inmate about the reasons for and effects of medication, to programs designed to reduce or eliminate the use of medication. b) Cognitive Retraining: structured group learning programs to enhance self-awareness, develop self- control, learn problem solving techniques, and improve interpersonal communication. c) Stress Management: teaching inmates how to recognize and appropriately deal with stress. d) Anger Management: teaching inmates to become aware of the facets of anger, understanding anger, and how to appropriately deal with anger. e) Activity Therapy: includes planned supervised group and/or individual activities that provide appropriate physical release, an opportunity to 32 7 learn group cooperation and enhance attention/concentration skills. f) Social Skills Training: a series of group and/or individual exercises designed to develop an awareness of one's impact on others, reduce negative interactions, and promote positive social experiences. g) Bibliotherapy: includes the use of books, pamphlets, and videotapes to facilitate personal growth and increase one's understanding of life in general. (Doc. No. 1374-5 at 85-91) (emphasis added). The RFP contains the minimum out-of-cell time and treatment requirements for inmates in a SU or RTU. It takes into account the level of mental-health services (including treatment) needed by an inmate in a SU or a Level 1 through 3 RTU, and affords an inmate more out-of-cell time (including housing in an open dormitory) as the acuity of his or her impairment diminishes and clinical progress is made. Notably, the RFP increases the out-of-cell time and treatment requirements contained in AR 632 (as modified by Change # 1) and AR 633. And, ADOC anticipates that, as correctional and mental-health staffing levels increase, inmates in SUs and RTUs will be afforded more out-of-cell time and additional treatment programming by the healthcare vendor. However, in the interim, ADOC believes the minimum out-of-cell time and treatment requirements for inmates in a SU or RTU reflected in the RFP address the Court's concerns in the Liability Order and are more than constitutionally adequate. See, e.g., 33 7 Anderson v. Colorado, 887 F. Supp. 2d 1133, 1157 (D. Colo. 2012); Singh v. Czerniak, No. CV 07-1906-PK, 2009 WL 464461 (D. Or. Feb. 23, 2009); Litmon v. Santa Clara Cty., No. C 03-2054 RMW (PR), 2009 WL 890884 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2009); Harrison v. Lee, No. CIV.A. 7:08CV00062, 2008 WL 467361 (W.D. Va. Feb. 19, 2008); Moore v. Schuetzle, 486 F. Supp. 2d 969, 983 (D.N.D. 2007), aff'd as modified, 289 F. App'x 962 (8th Cir. 2008); Rincker v. Oregon Dep't of Corr., No. CIV. 04-6410-AS, 2007 WL 1723510 (D. Or. June 12, 2007), aff'd, 301 F. App'x 720 (9th Cir. 2008); Kunze v. Bertsch, 477 F. Supp. 2d 1038 (D.N.D. 2007). CONCLUSION This Plan for identification and classification of inmates with serious mental-health needs and out-of-cell time and treatment for inmates in residential treatment settings addresses the Court's concerns in the Liability Order. It improves the identification and classification of inmates with serious mental-health needs and affords an inmate in a SU or RTU with constitutionally adequate out-of- cell time and treatment. ADOC is committed to this Plan. Therefore, consistent with the State's position in the Staffing Plan, Hospital-Level Care Plan, and Segregation Plan, the State believes that the Court should consider declining to enter a remedial order on identification and classification of inmates with serious mental-health needs and out-of-cell time and treatment for inmates in ADOC's 34 7 SUs and RTUs. Instead, the State respectfully requests the Court endorse this Plan to implement the identification and classification program and to increase out-of- cell time and access to treatment for inmates in a SU or RTU and deny any objections advanced by Plaintiffs to this Plan. Dated: February 2, 2018. /s/ William R. Lunsford William R. Lunsford Attorney for the Commissioner and Associate Commissioner William R. Lunsford Matthew B. Reeves Melissa K. Marler Stephen C. Rogers MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, PC 655 Gallatin Street Huntsville, AL 35801 Telephone: (256) 512-5710 Facsimile: (256) 512-0119 blunsford@maynardcooper.com mreeves@maynardcooper.com mmarler@maynardcooper.com srogers@maynardcooper.com Luther M. Dorr, Jr. Mitesh B. Shah MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, PC 1901 Sixth Avenue North 2400 Regions Harbert Plaza Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 254-1178 Facsimile: (205) 714-6438 rdorr@maynardcooper.com mshah@maynardcooper.com 35 7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served upon all attorneys of record in this matter, including without limitation the following, by the Court's CM/ECF system on this the 2nd day of February, 2018: Maria V. Morris William Van Der Pol, Jr. Rhonda C. Brownstein Glenn N. Baxter Latasha L. McCrary Barbara A. Lawrence J. Richard Cohen Andrea J. Mixson Caitlin J. Sandley ALABAMA DISABILITIES ADVOCACY SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER PROGRAM 400 Washington Avenue University of Alabama Montgomery, Alabama 36104 500 Martha Parham West Telephone: (334) 956-8200 Box 870395 maria.morris@splcenter.org Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487-0395 rhonda.brownstein@splcenter.org Telephone: (205) 348-6894 latasha.mccrary@splcenter.org wvanderpoljr@adap.ua.edu richard.cohen@splcenter.org gnbaxter@bama.ua.edu cj.sandley@splcenter.org blawrence@adap.ua.edu amixson@adap.ua.edu Deana Johnson Andrew P. Walsh Brett T. Lane William G. Somerville III MHM SERVICES, INC. Patricia Clotfelter 1447 Peachtree Street NE Lisa W. Borden Suite 500 BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN Atlanta, GA 30309 CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC Telephone: (404) 347-4134 420 20th Street North djohnson@mhm-services.com Suite 1400 btlane@mhm-services.com Birmingham, Alabama 35203 Telephone: (205) 244-3863 awalsh@bakerdonelson.com wsomerville@bakerdonelson.com pclotfelter@bakerdonelson.com lborden@bakerdonelson.com 36 7 Lonnie J. Williams Gregory M. Zarzaur ALABAMA DISABILITIES ADVOCACY Anil A. Mujumdar PROGRAM Diandra S. Debrosse P. O. Box 870395 Denise Wiginton Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 ZARZAUR MUJUMDAR & DEBROSSE Telephone: (205) 348-4928 2332 2nd Avenue North lwilliams@adap.ua.edu Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 983-7985 gregory@zarzaur.com anil@zarzaur.com fuli@zarzaur.com denise@zarzaur.com Steven C. Corhern John G. Smith BALCH & BINGHAM LLP BALCH & BINGHAM LLP Post Office Box 306 Post Office Box 78 Birmingham, AL 35201-0306 Montgomery, AL 36101-0078 Telephone: (205) 251-8100 Telephone: (334) 834-6500 scorhern@balch.com jgsmith@balch.com Anne A. Hill Elizabeth A. Sees Joseph G. Stewart ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Legal Division 301 South Ripley Street Montgomery, Alabama 36130 Telephone (334) 353-3884 anne.hill@doc.alabama.gov elizabeth.sees@doc.alabama.gov joseph.stewart@doc.alabama.gov /s/ William R. Lunsford Of Counsel 37

Response to Order re {{1590}} Order by Jefferson S. Dunn, Ruth Naglich.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARD BRAGGS, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) Case No. 2:14-cv-00601-MHT-GMB v.)) District Judge Myron H. Thompson JEFFERSON DUNN, et al.,)) Defendants.) RESPONSE TO COURT'S FEBRUARY 2, 2018 ORDER Defendants JEFFERSON DUNN, as Commissioner of the Alabama Department of Corrections ("ADOC"), and RUTH NAGLICH, as Associate Commissioner of ADOC (collectively, "the State") submit this response to the Court's Order dated February 2, 2018 (Doc. No. 1590, the "Order"): 1. The Court "ORDERED that defendants shall, by February 5, 2018, at 5:00 p.m., point to the section(s) of the liability opinion, if any, in which the court limited its liability findings to those six facilities [i.e., Donaldson, Draper, Elmore, Fountain, Holman, and Staton Correctional Facilities]." (Doc. No. 1590 at 2). 2. The State is not aware of any section of the Court's liability opinion in which the Court indicated an intent to limit its liability findings to Donaldson, Draper, Elmore, Fountain, Holman, and Staton Correctional Facilities. Dated: February 5, 2018. /s/ William R. Lunsford William R. Lunsford Attorney for the Commissioner and Associate Commissioner William R. Lunsford Matthew B. Reeves Melissa K. Marler Stephen C. Rogers MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, PC 655 Gallatin Street Huntsville, AL 35801 Telephone: (256) 512-5710 Facsimile: (256) 512-0119 blunsford@maynardcooper.com mreeves@maynardcooper.com mmarler@maynardcooper.com srogers@maynardcooper.com Luther M. Dorr, Jr. Mitesh B. Shah MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, PC 1901 Sixth Avenue North 2400 Regions Harbert Plaza Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 254-1178 Facsimile: (205) 714-6438 rdorr@maynardcooper.com mshah@maynardcooper.com 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served upon all attorneys of record in this matter, including without limitation the following, by the Court's CM/ECF system on this the 5th day of February, 2018: Maria V. Morris William Van Der Pol, Jr. Rhonda C. Brownstein Glenn N. Baxter Latasha L. McCrary Barbara A. Lawrence J. Richard Cohen Andrea J. Mixson Caitlin J. Sandley ALABAMA DISABILITIES ADVOCACY Grace Graham PROGRAM SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER University of Alabama 400 Washington Avenue 500 Martha Parham West Montgomery, Alabama 36104 Box 870395 Telephone: (334) 956-8200 Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487-0395 Facsimile: (334) 956-8481 Telephone: (205) 348-6894 maria.morris@splcenter.org Facsimile: (205) 348-3909 rhonda.brownstein@splcenter.org wvanderpoljr@adap.ua.edu latasha.mccrary@splcenter.org gnbaxter@bama.ua.edu richard.cohen@splcenter.org blawrence@adap.ua.edu cj.sandley@splcenter.org amixson@adap.ua.edu grace.graham@splcenter.org Gregory M. Zarzaur Andrew P. Walsh Anil A. Mujumdar William G. Somerville III Diandra S. Debrosse Patricia Clotfelter Denise Wiginton Lisa W. Borden ZARZAUR MUJUMDAR & DEBROSSE BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN 2332 2nd Avenue North CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC Birmingham, AL 35203 420 20th Street North Telephone: (205) 983-7985 Suite 1400 Facsimile: (888) 505-0523 Birmingham, Alabama 35203 gregory@zarzaur.com Telephone: (205) 244-3863 anil@zarzaur.com Facsimile: (205) 488-3863 fuli@zarzaur.com awalsh@bakerdonelson.com denise@zarzaur.com wsomerville@bakerdonelson.com pclotfelter@bakerdonelson.com lborden@bakerdonelson.com 3 John G. Smith Deana Johnson David R. Boyd Brett T. Lane BALCH & BINGHAM LLP MHM SERVICES, INC. Post Office Box 78 1447 Peachtree Street NE Montgomery, AL 36101-0078 Suite 500 Telephone: (334) 834-6500 Atlanta, GA 30309 Facsimile: (866) 316-9461 Telephone: (404) 347-4134 jgsmith@balch.com Facsimile: (404) 347-4138 dboyd@balch.com djohnson@mhm-services.com btlane@mhm-services.com Steven C. Corhern Lonnie J. Williams BALCH & BINGHAM LLP ALABAMA DISABILITIES ADVOCACY Post Office Box 306 PROGRAM Birmingham, AL 35201-0306 P. O. Box 870395 Telephone: (205) 251-8100 Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 Facsimile: (205) 488-5708 Telephone: (205) 348-4928 scorhern@balch.com Facsimile: (205) 348-3909 lwilliams@adap.ua.edu Anne A. Hill Elizabeth A. Sees Joseph G. Stewart ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Legal Division 301 South Ripley Street Montgomery, Alabama 36130 Telephone (334) 353-3884 Facsimile (334) 353-3891 anne.hill@doc.alabama.gov elizabeth.sees@doc.alabama.gov joseph.stewart@doc.alabama.gov /s/ William R. Lunsford Of Counsel 4

NOTICE of Appearance by Jonathan Michael Barry-Blocker on behalf of All Plaintiffs

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARDS BRAGGS, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) v.) CIVIL ACTION NO.) 2:14-CV-00601-MHT-GMB JEFFERSON DUNN, in his official) JUDGE MYRON H. THOMPSON capacity as Commissioner) JUDGE GRAY M. BORDEN of the Alabama Department of) Corrections, et al.,)) Defendants.)) NOTICE OF APPEARANCE COMES NOW Jonathan Blocker of the Southern Poverty Law Center and enters his appearance as counsel for all Plaintiffs in the above listed case. /s/ Jonathan Blocker Jonathan Blocker (ASB-6818-G19I) SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 400 Washington Avenue Montgomery, Alabama 36104 Telephone: (334) 956-8200 Facsimile: (334) 956-8481 jonathan.blocker@splcenter.org Attorney for Plaintiffs CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have on this 5th day of February, 2018, filed the foregoing with the clerk of the court which will send a notice of filing to the following: David R. Boyd, Esq. Steven C. Corhern, Esq. John G. Smith, Esq. Balch & Bingham LLP John W. Naramore, Esq. Post Office Box 306 Balch & Bingham LLP Birmingham, AL 35201-0306 Post Office Box 78 scorhern@balch.com Montgomery, AL 36101-0078 dboyd@balch.com Mitesh Shah, Esq. jgsmith@balch.com Luther M. Dorr, Esq. jnaramore@balch.com Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C. 1901 6th Avenue North, Suite 2400 William R. Lunsford, Esq. Birmingham, AL 35203 Melissa K. Marler, Esq. mshah@maynardcooper.com Stephen C. Rogers, Esq. rdorr@maynardcooper.com Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C. 655 Gallatin Street, SW Deana Johnson, Esq. Huntsville, AL 35801 Brett T. Lane, Esq. blunsford@maynardcooper.com MHM Services, Inc. mmarler@maynardcooper.com 1447 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 500 srogers@maynardcooper.com Atlanta, GA 30309 djohnson@mhm-services.com Anne Hill, Esq. btlane@mhm-services.com Elizabeth A. Sees, Esq. Joseph G. Stewart, Jr., Esq. Alabama Department of Corrections Legal Division 301 South Ripley Street Montgomery, AL 36104 anne.hill@doc.alabama.gov elizabeth.sees@doc.alabama.gov joseph.stewart@doc.alabama.gov /s/ Jonathan Blocker One of the Attorneys for Plaintiffs

TRIAL BRIEF : Summary of Evidence to Be Presented, Remedial Trial on Segregation and Hospital-Level Care by All Plaintiffs.

0 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARDS BRAGGS, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) v.) CIVIL ACTION NO.) 2:14-CV-00601-MHT-GMB JEFFERSON DUNN, in his official) (J. Thompson) capacity as Commissioner) of the Alabama Department of) Corrections, et al.,)) Defendants.)) PLAINTIFFS' PRETRIAL SUBMISSION SUMMARIZING EVIDENCE AND THE IMPACT OF THE PRISON LITIGATION REFORM ACT (PLRA) ON REMEDY I. SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFFS' EVIDENCE The evidence presented by Plaintiffs during the remedial trial on segregation and hospital-level care necessarily will be determined by and in response to the evidence presented by Defendants. Should Defendants present different evidence than Plaintiffs currently anticipate, the responsive evidence presented by Plaintiffs may be adjusted accordingly. At this point in pretrial preparations, Plaintiffs intend to present evidence that Defendants have maintained a policy and practice of placing prisoners with a 0 serious mental illness (SMI) in segregation with little regard for the impact of such placement on their mental health as well as often inadequate or non-existent mental health treatment and monitoring. Second, Plaintiffs will present evidence that Defendants' policies also fail to take into account the impact of segregation on prisoners with serious mental-health needs who are not mentally ill. Third, Plaintiffs will present evidence that the very definition of serious mental illness put forward by Defendants creates an unnecessary risk of harm. Fourth, Plaintiffs will show that Defendants' monitoring and assessment practices remain deficient, placing prisoners with mental illness at risk. Fifth, Plaintiffs will show that Defendants have failed to address and remedy placements in segregation-like conditions. Sixth, Plaintiffs will present evidence that the physical conditions in segregation remain deplorable, notwithstanding Defendants' attempts to improve the cosmetic appearance of some segregation units. Finally, Plaintiffs will present evidence regarding an appropriate placement for prisoners with SMI, other than segregation.1 With respect to hospital-level care, Plaintiffs will present evidence regarding Defendants' failure (1) to provide an adequate number of hospital-level beds either in or out-of-state; (2) to ensure the adequacy of treatment offered by providers such 1 Plaintiffs note that their presentation of evidence also may change due to any information received from Defendants between the date of this filing and the remedial trial. 2 0 as Taylor Hardin Secure Medical Facility (in-state) and Columbia Regional Care Center (CRCC)2; (3) to address the pre-transport needs of prisoners who require hospital-level care; (4) to provide a constitutionally adequate Due Process hearing to prisoners prior to placement in hospital-level care; and (5) to provide constitutionally adequate measures when a prisoner receiving hospital-level care is prescribed involuntary medication. Plaintiffs will also present evidence that Defendants have no plan at all for providing hospital-level care to prisoners facing a sentence of death. A. Segregation 1. Placement of prisoners with serious mental illness in segregation Plaintiffs' evidence will show that Defendants continue to prisoners with serious mental illness in segregation. On a day in December 2017, there were 107 total prisoners with serious mental illnesses in segregation, eighty-nine (89) with categorical SMIs (based on Defendants' definition) and nineteen (19) with functional SMIs. The evidence will show that 10.6% of prisoners in segregation in December 2017 were diagnosed with an SMI and moreover, 26.7% of prisoners in segregation were either (1) on the caseload in December 2017 or (2) on the caseload in January 2018. Further, on a day in January 2018, there were 105 total 2 CRCC is a 354-bed private mental health hospital that has contracts with various state and federal correctional systems. 3 0 prisoners with serious mental illness in segregation. By facility, the evidence will show the following breakdown of the percentage of prisoners in segregation with an SMI and the percentage of prisoners in segregation who are also on the caseload, at least as of December 2017. Facility Percentage of Percentage of Percentage of Prisoners in Prisoners in Prisoners in Segregation with a Segregation Who Segregation Who Serious Mental Are on Caseload Are Not on Illness Caseload Bibb County 8.8% 29.4% 70.6% Correctional Facility Bullock 10.3% 34.5% 65.5% Correctional Facility Donaldson 6.7% 15.4% 84.6% Correctional Facility Draper 22.7% 45.5% 55.5% Correctional Facility Easterling 11.0% 25.5% 74.5% Correctional Facility Fountain 11.5% 23.1% 76.9% Correctional Facility Hamilton 25% 50% 50% Correctional Facility Holman 6.3% 22% 78% Correctional Facility Kilby 9.9% 22.5% 77.5% Correctional 4 0 Facility Percentage of Percentage of Percentage of Prisoners in Prisoners in Prisoners in Segregation with a Segregation Who Segregation Who Serious Mental Are on Caseload Are Not on Illness Caseload Facility Limestone 18.8% 34.4% 65.5% Correctional Facility St. Clair 6.5% 24% 76% Correctional Facility Tutwiler 30% 100% 0% Women's Facility Plaintiffs' evidence will also show that Defendants have placed at least 18.7% of prisoners on suicide watch in segregation during December 2017. Furthermore, Plaintiffs will present evidence that the use of "extenuating circumstances" do not actually limit segregation placement for prisoners with SMIs; Defendants' exceptions to the prohibition on placing prisoners with serious mental illnesses into segregation are so broad that they render the proscription meaningless. Further, Plaintiffs will present evidence that Defendants either fail to perform a pre-placement assessment or do not heed any specific warnings from mental health professionals when such an assessment is conducted. 2. Impact of segregation on other prisoners with mental illness Plaintiffs will present evidence about Defendants' failure to consider the specific risk of harm to the prisoner from a placement in segregation, 5 0 notwithstanding his/her mental health code. While Defendants intend to make it categorically acceptable to place any prisoner into segregation with a mental health code below MH2, the evidence will show this approach fails to consider the impact of segregation on the mental health of every prisoner with serious mental-health needs, not just those who are seriously mentally ill. 3. Defendants' definition of serious mental illness creates a risk of harm Plaintiffs will present evidence that the very definition of serious mental illness put forward by Defendants creates an unnecessary risk of harm. It unduly collapses the distinction between categorical and functional serious mental illness, resulting in significant under-identification of serious mental illness. Plaintiffs will also show that regulations require the diagnosis of serious mental illness before a placement in segregation is contraindicated, removing the exercise of clinical judgment. 4. Defendants' monitoring and assessment practices remain deficient, placing prisoners at risk of harm Additionally, Plaintiffs will present evidence regarding Defendants' inadequate monitoring and mental health treatment for prisoners in segregation. The evidence will show that there is insufficient staffing to allow for appropriate monitoring and mental health treatment, as necessary, for prisoners who are mentally ill in segregation. The evidence will further show that Defendants have 6 0 not adequately addressed how to respond when prisoners without a serious mental illness decompensate in segregation. 5. Defendants continue to place prisoners in segregation-like conditions The Court found that "[m]ental health units intended as a therapeutic environment for the most severely ill prisoners operate like segregation units, with little counseling, therapeutic programming, or out-of-cell time." Braggs v. Dunn, 257 F. Supp. 3d 1171, 1185 (M.D. Ala. 2017). Plaintiffs will show that Defendants continue the practice of such placements and have failed to remedy the risk of harm to prisoners with serious mental illness from such placements. 6. Deplorable conditions in segregation Plaintiffs will present evidence that the physical conditions in segregation remain deplorable, notwithstanding Defendants' attempts to improve the cosmetic appearance of some segregation units. For example, evidence will show how there is a continued lack of natural or artificial light in the segregation cells and the Alabama Department of Corrections (ADOC) continues to utilize cells for segregation that do not match the American Correctional Association's (ACA) requirement for at least seventy (70) square feet of space. The evidence further will show that structural issues remain with respect to preventing suicides in segregation, e.g., the installation of anti-ligature plumbing or the lack of visibility into the segregation cells. 7 0 7. Appropriate alternatives to segregation Plaintiffs will present evidence regarding appropriate placement and mental health treatment for prisoners with serious mental illness or serious mental health needs. B. Hospital-Level Care and Placements 1. Taylor-Hardin is not an adequate placement The Court has already held that a civil commitment placement in Taylor Hardin Secure Medical Facility is not an adequate placement for prisoners in need of hospital-level care for treatment of serious mental illness care because of the long wait for an available bed. Braggs v. Dunn, 257 F. Supp. 3d 1171, 1217-18 (M.D. Ala. 2017). Yet Defendants continue to propose an equivalent situation as the remedy for constitutional violations. Plaintiffs will present evidence that such placements do not adequately provide hospital-level care and treatment to prisoners with serious mental illness. Further, Plaintiffs will show that even if such placements were appropriate, the waiting list for a placement unconstitutionally delays mental health treatment for prisoners with the most serious and acute mental health needs in ADOC's custody. 2. CRCC may not provide sufficient beds at the appropriate level of care Defendants' current proposal involves entering into a contract with CRCC for bed space to increase the number of beds needed to accommodate the needs of 8 0 prisoners who require hospital-level mental health care. Plaintiffs have been provided no documentation that ADOC has in fact even entered into a contract with CRCC for these beds as of this date. But Plaintiffs will present evidence that five of the seven units at CRCC are set aside for the exclusive use of other correctional systems and hence, not available to ADOC prisoners. Thus, only two of the seven units are possibly available to house ADOC prisoners. In any event, Plaintiffs will present evidence that CRCC seldom has any vacant beds and that the contracts between CRCC and other correctional systems exceed the maximum capacity of the two units to which ADOC prisoners might be admitted. Further, Plaintiffs will show that even if a bed were vacant at CRCC, the bed may not be appropriate for a newly-admitted patient, e.g., a level two bed is available, but incoming prisoners must begin treatment at level one until it is clinically appropriate to advance to the next level. Accordingly, Plaintiffs will demonstrate that CRCC will not have the number of beds needed to accommodate ADOC prisoners within a clinically appropriate period ranging from identification of need to admission. Additionally, Plaintiffs will present evidence that Defendants have failed to provide any mechanism for adequacy assessments or monitoring procedures. For example, Defendants have no way to assess the adequacy of the number of hospital-level care beds available, and if appropriate, to provide for the addition of 9 0 available beds. The evidence will also show that Defendants' proposal also fails to provide any mechanism to assess compliance with necessary deadlines for admission, prompt transportation, adequacy of care, and appropriate identification of need. Finally, Plaintiffs will also present evidence regarding the nature of care provided at CRCC and how the failure of a prisoner to cooperate with various forms of care may affect the duration of stay, conditions within the facility, and privileges provided to such prisoners. Prisoners face adverse consequences for failing to cooperate with treatment, making such programs inherently and inappropriately coercive in nature. 3. Pre-transport care and transport procedures are inadequate Plaintiffs will present evidence that the method of transportation to CRCC may further damage a seriously mentally ill prisoner. During the transfer process, prisoners would be placed in a van, shackled, and not provided any form of mental health treatment beyond, perhaps, medication. Lengthy delays in the physical transfer process would dramatically affect a vulnerable prisoner's mental health condition. Plaintiffs will also present evidence that Defendants' proposal fails to account for adequate treatment of prisoners who are awaiting transport to hospital- level care. After identification of need and before the patient is picked up to be 10 0 transported to CRCC, for example, the prisoner is self-evidently receiving less care than clinically indicated. Plaintiffs will introduce evidence that during this period, Defendants must provide the maximum level of care available in ADOC's continuum of care, including acute suicidal observations, stabilization level of care, additional out of cell time, and individualized assessments to determine what additional supports and care can be provided to the prisoner. 4. Defendants fail to provide adequate due process Plaintiffs will present evidence that ADOC's plan violates the Constitution by explicitly denying that a Due Process hearing is constitutionally required prior to transfer to CRCC. Plaintiffs will also present evidence that the involuntary medication procedure employed by CRCC fails to meet the requirements of Due Process and the terms of the Consent Decree approved by this Court. Doc. 1353. 5. There is no plan for prisoners with serious mental illness who have been sentenced to death Plaintiffs will present evidence that CRCC will not accept a prisoner under a sentence of death. Therefore, Defendants' proposal fails to provide for how hospital-level care will be provided to this subset of prisoners. Defendants must provide similar access to care for prisoners with mental-health needs as is provided to prisoners who require medical hospitalization for non-mental-health issues. 11 0 Accordingly, Plaintiffs will present evidence that Defendants have security protocols for prisoners sentenced to death who are in need of medical care. II. PLRA IMPACT ON THE SEGREGATION AND HOSPITAL-LEVEL CARE REMEDIAL PHASES A. Ordering Defendants to Remedy Their Constitutional Violations with Respect to Segregation and Hospital-Level Care Is an Appropriate Exercise of Judicial Authority In fashioning a remedy, courts are guided by the PLRA, which provides that appropriate relief must be "narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and [be] the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right." 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A). However, this requirement does not prevent the Court from comprehensively addressing Defendants' practices with respect to segregation or hospital-level care. In fact, nothing in the needs-narrowness-intrusiveness requirement in the PLRA "eviscerate[s] a district court's equitable discretion." Gilmore v. People of the State of California, 220 F.3d 987, 1007 (9th Cir. 2000). The PLRA requires only that there be a "fit between the remedy's ends and the means chosen to accomplish those ends." Brown v. Plata, 563 U.S. 493, 531 (2011). Nor does the requirement to give appropriate deference to administration officials prevent the Court from ordering specific actions to achieve constitutional compliance. The PLRA, like decades of caselaw prior to the PLRA, recognizes that courts should be "be sensitive to the State's interest in punishment, deterrence, 12 0 and rehabilitation, as well as the need for deference to experienced and expert prison administrators faced with the difficult and dangerous task of housing large numbers of convicted criminals." Id. at 511 (citing Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 547-548 (1979)). Such sensitivity and deference do not, however, prevent courts from carrying out "their obligation to enforce the constitutional rights of all persons, including prisoners." Id. (internal quotations omitted). "Courts may not allow constitutional violations to continue simply because a remedy would involve intrusion into the realm of prison administration." Id. To do otherwise would be an "abdication of the court's role as warden of the Constitution." Dunn v. Dunn, 219 F. Supp. 3d 1100, 1162 (M.D. Ala. 2016). In short, "federal courts have the power, and the duty, to make their intervention effective." Smith v. Sullivan, 611 F.2d 1039, 1044 (5th Cir. 1980); 3 Ruiz v. Johnson, 154 F. Supp. 2d 975, 1000 (S.D. Tex. 2001). And "[g]iven the polycentric and pervasive nature of the problems afflicting" the ADOC, the remedy must be comprehensive and reticulated. See Plata v. Schwarzenegger, No. C01–1351-THE, 2005 WL 2932253, at *34 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2005). "[T]he only effective approach to reforming" ADOC's mental-health care system, "and 3 In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir.1981) (en banc), the Eleventh Circuit adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to October 1, 1981. 13 0 reducing the harm to plaintiffs in a sustainable fashion, must be comprehensive and systemic from the outset." See id. B. As Permitted by the PLRA, the Court Can and Should Order Defendants to Remedy Constitutional Violations Related to Segregation and Hospital-Level Care The Court has already determined that "ADOC's current segregation practices pose an unacceptably high risk of serious harm to prisoners with serious mental-health needs." Braggs, 257 F. Supp. 3d at 1236. Due to the damaging impact of segregation, even on previously healthy people, the Court concluded that "[t]he serious psychological harm stemming from segregation is even more devastating for those with mental illness." Id. at 1236-37. Specifically, the Court found that ADOC lacked a screening process for screening out prisoners who should not be in segregation due to mental illness and failed to ensure that prisoners were not sent to segregation for dangerously long periods. Id. at 1236. The Court also held that these inadequacies are magnified because mentally ill prisoners in segregation do not receive adequate mental health treatment or monitoring. Id. at 1237. Accordingly, the Court decided that "the placement and duration of segregation should be strictly limited for mentally ill prisoners." Id. Similarly, the Court has already determined that ADOC "creates a substantial risk of serious harm to prisoners at the most severe end of the mental- health spectrum, because it does not provide hospital-level care or a hospitalization 14 0 option for prisoners housed there." Id. at 1217. The Court concluded summarily, "[a]lthough many ADOC prisoners require hospital-level care, very few actually receive it." Id. (emphasis added). Despite the months that have passed since the Court's Liability Opinion, the evidence will demonstrate that Defendants' unconstitutional practice of placing prisoners with serious mental illness in segregation without any consideration of the impact of segregation on their mental health continues virtually unabated. Moreover, the monitoring and mental health care provided to prisoners with serious mental-health needs in segregation continues to be substandard and fails to meet constitutional minimums. Additionally, hospital-level care continues to be virtually non-existent state-wide. And there are many questions regarding the efficacy and sustainability of the plan proposed by Defendants to address the need. C. The Remedial Relief Can Extend Beyond Two Years In light of the severity of the problems to be remedied, it may take Defendants years to comply fully with the remedial order, or orders, in this case. Defendants may move to terminate a remedial order after two years. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(1)(A). But nothing in the PLRA requires the Court to cap the ordered remedies at two years or to order only remedies that are achievable within two years. See, e.g., Coleman v. Brown, 938 F. Supp. 2d 955, 959 (E.D. Cal. 2013) (referencing seventeen years of remedial efforts); Graves v. Arpaio, No. CV–77– 15 0 0479, 2008 WL 4699770 (D. Ariz. 2008) (describing years of pre- and post-PLRA remedies and denying a motion to terminate). To put it another way, prospective relief "becomes terminable" after two years upon a showing that there is no ongoing constitutional violation, but by no means must it automatically terminate after two years. Gilmore, 220 F.3d at 999. Further, relief cannot be terminated, even after two years, "if the court makes written findings based on the record that prospective relief remains necessary to correct a current and ongoing violation of the Federal right." 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(3). D. Conclusion In short, nothing in the PLRA limits Plaintiffs' entitlement to a comprehensive and effective remedy in light of the Court's detailed findings and conclusions of law. The Court should not hesitate to order Defendants to implement the practices and/or policies necessary to ameliorate the Constitutional violations with respect to segregation and hospital-level care. Dated: February 6, 2018 Respectfully Submitted, /s/ Maria V. Morris Maria V. Morris One of the Attorneys for Plaintiffs Southern Poverty Law Center 400 Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36104 Rhonda Brownstein (ASB-3193-O64R) Maria V. Morris (ASB-2198-R64M) Grace Graham (ASB-3040-A64G) 16 0 Latasha L. McCrary (ASB-1935-L75M) Caitlin J. Sandley (ASB-5317-S48R) SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 400 Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36104 Telephone: (334) 956-8200 Facsimile: (334) 956-8481 rhonda.brownstein@splcenter.org maria.morris@splcenter.org grace.graham@splcenter.org latasha.mccrary@splcenter.org cj.sandley@splcenter.org William Van Der Pol, Jr. (ASB-2112-114F) Glenn N. Baxter (ASB-3825-A41G) Lonnie J. Williams Barbara A. Lawrence Andrea J. Mixson Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program Box 870395 Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 Telephone: (205) 348-4928 Facsimile: (205) 348-3909 wvanderpoljr@adap.ua.edu gnbaxter@adap.ua.edu lwilliams@adap.ua.edu blawrence@adap.ua.edu amixson@adap.ua.edu Lisa W. Borden (ASB-5673-D57L) William G. Somerville, III (ASB-6185-E63W) Andrew P. Walsh (ASB-3755-W77W) Dennis Nabors Patricia Clotfelter (ASB-0841-F43P) Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz PC 420 20th Street North, Suite 1400 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 328-0480 Facsimile: (205) 322-8007 lborden@bakerdonelson.com wsomerville@bakerdonelson.com awalsh@bakerdonelson.com dnabors@bakerdonelson.com pclotfelter@bakerdonelson.com 17 0 Gregory M. Zarzaur (ASB-0759-E45Z) Anil A. Mujumdar (ASB-2004-L65M) Diandra S. Debrosse (ASB-2956-N76D) Denise Wiginton Zarzaur Mujumdar & Debrosse 2332 2nd Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 983-7985 Facsimile: (888) 505-0523 gregory@zarzaur.com anil@zarzaur.com diandra@zarzaur.com denise@zarzaur.com ATTORNEYS FOR THE PLAINTIFFS 18 0 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have on this 6th day of February, 2018, electronically filed the foregoing with the clerk of the court by using the CM/ECF system, which will send a notice of electronic filing to the following: David R. Boyd, Esq. Steven C. Corhern, Esq. John G. Smith, Esq. Balch & Bingham LLP John W. Naramore, Esq. Post Office Box 306 Balch & Bingham LLP Birmingham, AL 35201-0306 Post Office Box 78 scorhern@balch.com Montgomery, AL 36101-0078 dboyd@balch.com Mitesh Shah, Esq. jgsmith@balch.com Luther M. Dorr, Esq. jnaramore@balch.com Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C. 1901 6th Avenue North, Suite 2400 William R. Lunsford, Esq. Birmingham, AL 35203 Melissa K. Marler, Esq. mshah@maynardcooper.com Stephen C. Rogers, Esq. rdorr@maynardcooper.com Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C. 655 Gallatin Street, SW Deana Johnson, Esq. Huntsville, AL 35801 Brett T. Lane, Esq. blunsford@maynardcooper.com MHM Services, Inc. mmarler@maynardcooper.com 1447 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 500 srogers@maynardcooper.com Atlanta, GA 30309 djohnson@mhm-services.com btlane@mhm-services.com Anne Hill, Esq. Elizabeth A. Sees, Esq. Joseph G. Stewart, Jr., Esq. Alabama Department of Corrections Legal Division 301 South Ripley Street Montgomery, AL 36104 anne.hill@doc.alabama.gov elizabeth.sees@doc.alabama.gov joseph.stewart@doc.alabama.gov /s/ Maria V. Morris One of the Attorneys for Plaintiffs 19 0 20

TRIAL BRIEF The State's Pretrial Brief Regarding Remedial Hearing on Hospital-Level Care and Segregation by Jefferson S. Dunn, Ruth Naglich.

8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARD BRAGGS, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) Case No. 2:14-cv-00601-MHT-GMB v.)) District Judge Myron H. Thompson JEFFERSON DUNN, et al.,)) Defendants.) THE STATE'S PRETRIAL BRIEF REGARDING REMEDIAL HEARING ON HOSPITAL-LEVEL CARE AND SEGREGATION William R. Lunsford Mitesh B. Shah Matthew B. Reeves Luther M. Dorr, Jr. Melissa K. Marler MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, P.C. Stephen C. Rogers 1901 Sixth Avenue North MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, P.C. 2400 Regions Harbert Plaza 655 Gallatin Street, S.W. Birmingham, Alabama 35203 Huntsville, Alabama 35801 John G. Smith Steven C. Corhern David R. Boyd BALCH & BINGHAM LLP BALCH & BINGHAM LLP Post Office Box 306 Post Office Box 78 Birmingham, AL 35201-0306 Montgomery, AL 36101-0078 Telephone: (205) 251-8100 Telephone: (334) 834-6500 Facsimile: (205) 488-5708 Facsimile: (866) 316-9461 scorhern@balch.com jgsmith@balch.com dboyd@balch.com 8 INTRODUCTION Defendants JEFFERSON DUNN ("Commissioner Dunn"), in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Alabama Department of Corrections ("ADOC"), and RUTH NAGLICH ("Naglich" and, collectively with Commissioner Dunn, "the State"), in her official capacity as ADOC's Associate Commissioner for Health Services, hereby submit this Pretrial Brief, pursuant to the Court's January 30, 2018 Order entitled "Phase 2A Order Regarding Remedial Hearing on Hospital-Level Care and Segregation" (the "Pretrial Order").1 (Doc. No. 1571). During the Phase 2A Hearing on Hospital-Level Care and Segregation, the State expects to show through the testimony and evidence presented to the Court that the State's Phase 2A Proposed Remedial Plan on Segregation (the "Segregation Plan") (Doc. No. 1533) fully addresses the Court's concerns about the policies and practices related to its segregation of inmates with serious mental-health needs, particularly the assignment of inmates with a serious mental illness to segregation units. In response to those concerns, ADOC created a plan to address the policies and procedures surrounding the segregation of inmates with serious mental-health 1 The State expressly preserves, adopts, and incorporates as if fully set forth herein the objections and reservations of rights set forth in the State's Phase 2A Proposed Remedial Plans on Hospital- Level Care and Segregation (Doc. No. 1514 and 1533, respectively). Nothing contained in this Pretrial Brief shall be construed as an admission by the State or a waiver of any objection that the State may have to the Liability Order. Nothing in this Pretrial Brief shall be construed as an admission of any kind by the State that ADOC's current or historical provision of mental health care in any area is unconstitutional or deficient in any way. 1 8 needs (including those with a serious mental illness). Consistent with Associate Commissioner Naglich's testimony during the remedial hearing on correctional and mental-health staffing, ADOC is addressing (and has addressed) concerns expressed by the Court in the housing of inmates with a serious mental illness in segregation, resulting in a general exclusion of inmates with a serious mental illness from segregation units. (Naglich Remedial Hrg. Trans. Vol. I [Ex. A to the Segregation Plan] at 16-21; Vol. II [Ex. B to the Segregation Plan] at 55-67).2 ADOC also intends to show at the hearing that it possesses a plan to provide a hospitalization option for inmates with a serious mental illness in its custody. State's Phase 2A Proposed Remedial Plan on Hospital-Level Care (Doc. No. 1514, the "Hospitalization Plan").3 The mental-health staff working in ADOC facilities will have (over a period of time) on-demand access to twenty-five (25) beds to provide hospital-level mental health care. ADOC's Hospitalization Plan is responsive to the Court's concerns expressed in the Liability Opinion and Order as to Phase 2A Eighth Amendment Claim (Doc. No. 1285, "the Liability Order"): ADOC … creates a substantial risk of serious harm to 2 All Exhibit references in this Pre-Trial Brief are to the Exhibits attached to the Segregation or Hospitalization Plan as noted, and are not being reproduced here. 3 In the Liability Order, the Court expressed concern that inmates lacked access to hospital-level mental-health care. (Doc. No. 1285 at 128-33). Now, with access to hospital-level mental-health care at the Columbia Regional Care Center ("CRCC"), ADOC and its mental-health vendor possess the ability to provide inmates with serious mental-health needs advanced inpatient mental- health care and to keep those inmates out of segregation when they cannot be stabilized and are too dangerous for a specialized mental-health unit. (Doc. No. 1514). 2 8 prisoners at the most severe end of the mental-health spectrum, because it does not provide hospital-level care or a hospitalization option for prisoners housed there. According to experts from both sides, hospital-level care or hospitalization should be available when patients pose a danger to self or others and interventions in the [Stabilization Unit ("SU")] do not improve their condition…. (Doc. No. 1285 at 128). ADOC's Hospitalization Plan affords an inmate who needs hospital-level mental health care the ability to obtain that care. An inmate will access hospital- level mental health care at a safe, high quality, licensed, and accredited institution. ADOC's exclusion of inmates with a serious mental illness from prolonged segregation (absent rare exceptions), coupled with the Hospitalization Plan, the Phase 2A Proposed Remedial Plan on Correctional and Mental Health Staffing (Doc. No. 1374, the "Staffing Plan"),4 and the Phase 2A Interim Relief Order Regarding Suicide Prevention Measures (as amended and supplemented) (Doc. Nos. 1102, 1106, 1200, the "Suicide Prevention Measures"),5 reflect the State's endeavors to 4 In the Liability Order (Doc. No. 1285), the Court determined that shortages of correctional and mental-health staff, along with overcrowding, are the "overarching issues that permeate each of the … contributing factors of inadequate mental-health care," including the contributing factor of placing inmates with serious mental-health needs in segregation. (Doc. No. 1285 at 301). Specifically, the Court determined that the lack of adequate correctional and mental-health staff made the then-existing monitoring of inmates with serious mental-health needs ineffective and prevented access by inmates to mental-health treatment and programs. (Id. at 216-221). The State believes the Staffing Plan (and increased correctional and mental-health staff) positively impacted and will continue to positively impact the monitoring of inmates with serious mental-health needs and afford inmates greater access to mental-health treatment and programs. 5 In the Liability Order, the Court indicated that most suicides in ADOC occur in segregation. (Doc. No. 1285 at 20-21). Since implementation of the Suicide Prevention Measures, ADOC has 3 8 improve the conditions of confinement and mental-health care for inmates in ADOC custody, including those with a serious mental illness. Building on these noteworthy, meaningful endeavors, the Segregation and Hospitalization Plans respond to the Court's concerns expressed in the Liability Order and the Scheduling Order.6 As a result, the State respectfully requests the Court endorse the Segregation and Hospitalization Plans and deny any objections advanced by Plaintiffs to these Plans. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY TO BE PRESENTED AT HEARING REGARDING THE STATE'S PLAN FOR SEGREGATION On September 13, 2017, the Court entered the Scheduling Order and, as to segregation, the Court stated: Third, the court will address the issue of segregation. The defendants are violating the Eighth Amendment by "[p]lacing seriously mentally ill prisoners in segregation without extenuating circumstances and for prolonged periods of time; placing prisoners with serious mental- health needs in segregation without adequate consideration of the impact of segregation on mental health; and providing inadequate treatment and monitoring in segregation." Braggs v. Dunn, --- F.3d ---, 2017 WL 2773833, at *68 (M.D. Ala. June 27, 2017). not experienced a completed suicide in segregation. (Naglich Remedial Hrg. Trans. Vol. I [Ex. A to the Segregation Plan] at 16-17). 6 Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in these Plans, the State reserves all rights, including its objections to the Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law in the Liability Order, and, to avoid duplication, adopts and incorporates subsections VI.A. through C. and section VII. of its Staffing Plan. To be clear, except as expressly provided below, the State does not make these Plans contingent upon receipt of funding from the Alabama legislature (as contained in subsection VI.D. of the Staffing Plan). 4 8 "Experts on both sides were alarmed by ADOC's systematic overuse of segregation for mentally ill prisoners." Id. at *49. The inadequacies of ADOC's segregation practices, including significant understaffing, "perpetuate a vicious cycle of isolation, inadequate treatment, and decompensation" for the seriously mentally ill. Id. at *51. Without question, segregation needs to be addressed and remedied as soon as possible. (Doc. No. 1357 at 7). That is consistent with the Liability Order. (Doc. No. 1285 at 301). From the Scheduling Order and Liability Order, it is clear that the Court desires a remedial plan from the State addressing: (1) ADOC's placement of inmates with serious mental-health needs in segregation for long periods of time without consideration of the impact on their mental health, and (2) the provision of adequate mental-health treatment and monitoring for inmates in segregation. (Id.). Importantly, in the Liability Order, the Court considered segregation of inmates with serious mental-health needs. (Doc. No. 1285 at 225). It did not consider the segregation of mentally ill inmates generally. (Id.). The Segregation Plan therefore focuses on inmates with serious mental-health needs, but naturally, it will positively affect segregation broadly speaking and the conditions of confinement for other mentally ill inmates in segregation. 5 8 A. THE REVISED DEFINITION OF SERIOUS MENTAL ILLNESS. ADOC's Administrative Regulation ("AR") 602, entitled "Mental Health Definitions and Acronyms," contains the operative definition for "serious mental illness": Serious Mental Illness (SMI): Seriously Mentally Ill. A substantial disorder of thought, mood, perception, orientation, or memory such as those that meet the DSM IV criteria for Axis I disorders: schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, psychotic disorders due to substance abuse or general medical condition, major depression, bipolar disorder, and organic conditions resulting in significant and debilitating psychotic symptoms or cognitive impairment; persistent and disabling Axis II personality disorders. A serious mental illness significantly impairs judgment, behavior, and the capacity to recognize reality or cope with the ordinary demands of life within the prison environment and is manifested by substantial pain or disability. Serious mental illness requires a mental health diagnosis, prognosis and treatment, as appropriate, by mental health staff. (See AR 602 [Ex. C to the Segregation Plan] at 11). ADOC's definition of "serious mental illness" in AR 602 incorporates "the diagnosis, the degree of disability, and the duration of the diagnosis or disability." (Doc. No. 1285 at 37 n. 11). "Dr. [Kathryn] Burns testified [during the Phase 2A trial] that ADOC's administrative definition of serious mental illness tracks this understanding of serious mental illness." (Id. at 37-38 n. 11) (citing AR 602). 6 8 By Change # 17 to AR 602, ADOC deleted definitions for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual IV ("DSM-IV") and replaced them with definitions for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual 5 ("DSM-5"). (See AR 602 Change #1 [Ex. D to the Segregation Plan] at 1-2). However, neither Change # 1 nor Change # 2 to AR 602 updated the definition of "serious mental illness" (or "seriously mentally ill") to reflect the use of DSM-5 for mental-health diagnoses or otherwise revised that definition. (Id.; see also AR 602 Change #2 [Ex. E to the Segregation Plan]). In preparing the Plan, ADOC decided to take this opportunity to update its definition of "serious mental illness" and to provide clarity and additional considerations for use by clinicians in evaluating and determining whether an inmate in ADOC custody possesses a serious mental illness. ADOC intends to implement a change (i.e., Change # 3) that revises the definition of "serious mental illness" in AR 602 to read as follows: Serious Mental Illness (SMI): Any Psychotic Disorder, Bipolar Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder, or any diagnosed mental disorder (excluding substance use disorders) currently associated with serious impairment in psychological, cognitive, or behavioral functioning that substantially interferes with the person's ability to meet the ordinary demands of living and requires an individualized treatment plan by a qualified mental health professional(s). 7 ADOC revises its Administrative Regulations through "Changes" and numbers each "Change" sequentially starting with "Change # 1." 7 8 ADOC's definition is consistent with the definition of "serious mental illness" in Request for Proposal No. 2017-02, entitled "Comprehensive Inmate Healthcare Services." (RFP [Ex. F to the Segregation Plan] at 39). Additionally, to assist clinicians in determining whether an inmate suffers from a serious mental illness, ADOC intends to implement a change that revises AR 613 entitled "Mental Health Coding and Tracking of Inmates" and AR 615 entitled "Psychiatric Evaluations" to contain the below provision in the "Procedures" section: Serious Mental Illness (SMI): To assess whether segregation of an inmate is clinically contraindicated, whether an inmate in segregation should be transferred to a structured treatment unit or specialized treatment unit such as an RTU, SU, or advanced inpatient care unit, or whether any other mental-health treatment, evaluation, observation, or housing decision is appropriate for an inmate under ADOC's Administrative Regulations, ADOC hereby deems an inmate to possess a "serious mental illness" or to be "seriously mentally ill" when: a. ADOC's mental-health vendor determines, using clinical judgment, that an inmate is currently diagnosed with, or has a recent significant history of, any of the following types of diagnoses from the current Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM): (1) Schizophrenia (all sub-types); (2) Delusional Disorder; (3) Schizophreniform Disorder; (4) Schizoaffective Disorder; 8 8 (5) Brief Psychotic Disorder; (6) Substance-Induced Psychotic Disorder (excluding intoxication and withdrawal); (7) Psychotic Disorder Not Otherwise Specified; (8) Major Depressive Disorders; and (9) Bipolar Disorder I and II. For purposes of this section a., a "recent significant history" means a diagnosis specified above in subsections a.(l) through (9) upon discharge within the past year from an inpatient psychiatric hospital; b. ADOC's mental health vendor diagnoses an inmate with other current DSM-recognized mental-health disorders that are commonly characterized by breaks with reality, or perceptions of reality, that lead an inmate to experience significant functional impairment involving acts of self-harm or other behaviors that have a seriously adverse effect on life or on mental or physical health; c. ADOC's medical or mental health vendor diagnoses an inmate with a developmental disability, dementia, or other cognitive disorder that results in a significant functional impairment involving acts of self-harm or other behaviors that have a seriously adverse effect on life or on mental or physical health; or d. ADOC's mental health vendor diagnoses an inmate with a severe personality disorder that is manifested by episodes of psychosis or depression, and results in significant functional impairment involving acts of self-harm or other behaviors that have a seriously adverse effect on life or on mental or physical health. e. For purposes of sections b. through d. above and as it relates to significant functional impairment, "self- harm" means a deliberate act by an inmate that inflicts 9 8 damage to, or threatens the integrity of, his or her body. "Self-harm" includes, but is not limited to, the following behaviors by an inmate to himself or herself: hanging, self-strangulation, asphyxiation, cutting, self- mutilation, ingestion of a foreign body, insertion of a foreign body, head banging, drug overdose, and biting. Significant Functional Impairment Factors to consider when assessing and making a clinical judgment about the existence of a significant functional impairment include the following: 1. An inmate engages in self-harm. 2. An inmate demonstrates difficulty in his or her ability to engage in activities of daily living, including eating, grooming, and personal hygiene, maintenance of housing area, participation in recreation, and ambulation, as a consequence of any current DSM- recognized mental-health disorder. 3. An inmate demonstrates a pervasive pattern of dysfunctional or disruptive social interactions, including withdrawal or bizarre or disruptive behavior, as a consequence of any current DSM-recognized mental-health disorder. ADOC developed this assessment guideline in collaboration with its consulting experts. It is consistent with, but provides additional clarification to, the definition of "serious mental illness" from AR 602—a definition the Court already acknowledged to be consistent with its understanding of a serious mental illness and the Phase 2A trial testimony of psychiatrists Dr. Burns and Dr. Robert Hunter, Jr. (Doc. No. 1285 at 37-38 n. 11). ADOC's adoption and use of this updated and revised definition of "serious 10 8 mental illness" and the assessment guideline will provide additional clarity to clinicians when (among other things) they exercise their clinical judgment to determine whether an inmate is suffering from a serious mental illness. Because ADOC does not prescribe a specific version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, the definition of "serious mental illness" and the assessment guideline are flexible and respond to the publication of new DSM versions. More importantly, the updated and revised definition of "serious mental illness" and assessment guideline are consistent with Dr. Burns' definition of "serious mental illness" in Bradley v. Hightower, No. 92-A-70-N, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama and a Massachusetts action. See Disability Law Ctr. v. Massachusetts Dep't of Corr., 960 F. Supp. 2d 271 (D. Mass. 2012). As a result, ADOC's revised definition of "serious mental illness" and assessment guideline should be endorsed by the Court. B. THE PROCESS FOR MINIMIZING THE POSSIBILITY THAT INMATES WITH A SERIOUS MENTAL ILLNESS WILL BE CONFINED IN SEGREGATION. In the Liability Order, the Court concluded "that it is categorically inappropriate to place [inmates] with serious mental illness in segregation absent extenuating circumstances; even in extenuating circumstances, decisions regarding the placement should be with the involvement and approval of appropriate mental- health staff, and the [inmate] should be moved out of segregation as soon as possible 11 8 and have access to treatment and monitoring in the meantime." (Doc. No. 1285 at 230). Before the Phase 2A trial, ADOC reached a similar conclusion and determined generally that it would not house an inmate with a serious mental illness in administrative or disciplinary segregation for prolonged periods of time. (Id. at 227- 228). Associate Commissioner Naglich testified during the Phase 2A trial about this policy change and the implementation of a new mental-health coding system as part of this policy change. (Id.). Since the Phase 2A trial, ADOC has continued to implement the policy of excluding (absent extenuating circumstances) inmates with serious mental-health needs from segregation for prolonged periods of time. (Naglich Remedial Hrg. Trans. Vol. I [Ex. A to the Segregation Plan] at 16-21; Vol. II [Ex. B to the Segregation Plan] at 55-67). The Segregation Plan reflects ADOC's efforts to refine its policy concerning segregation for inmates with serious mental- health needs and to provide a process for minimizing the possibility that inmates with a serious mental illness will be confined in segregation. A. ADOC's Changes to Its Mental-Health Coding System. On May 2, 2016, ADOC revised its mental-health coding system. Notably, the mental-health coding system reflected in Change # 2 to AR 602 contained, for each mental-health code, a range of possible housing assignments for an inmate within that mental-health code. (AR 602 Change # 2 [Ex. E to the Segregation Plan] 12 8 at 2-3).8 ADOC's mental-health coding reflected in Change # 2 to AR 602 generally prohibited house inmates with a mental-health code of MH-2d or above in a segregation unit. (Id.; AR 613 Change # 2 [Ex. G to the Segregation Plan]). By September 2016, ADOC decided to refine its mental-health coding system to incorporate a serious mental illness diagnosis with certain mental-health codes and to provide more clarity concerning housing assignments for inmates with a mental-health code of MH-2d or above. ADOC incorporated the new mental-health code reference table into AR 613. (AR 613 OHS Mental Health Coding Ref. Table [Ex. H to the Segregation Plan]). ADOC's mental-health code reference table incorporated a serious mental illness diagnosis for mental-health codes MH-2d to MH-3a and eliminated two (2) mental-health codes: MH-1-c and MH-9. However, consistent with Change # 2 to AR 602, ADOC continued to generally prohibit housing inmates with a mental-health code of MH-2d or above in a segregation unit. (Id.; see also AR 602 Change # 2 [Ex. E to the Segregation Plan]; AR 613 Change # 2 [Ex. G to the Segregation Plan]). Specifically, the mental-health code reference table to AR 613 contains the following mental-health codes and possible housing assignments: 8 When ADOC replaced its mental-health coding system, it replaced the table accompanying AR 613 containing mental-health coding, a description of mental-health status and care, and housing. (AR 613 Change # 2 [Ex. G to the Segregation Plan] at 3-5). The "Mental Health Classifications" table provides additional information related to housing inmates on the mental-health case-load. (Id.). 13 8 MH Status Housing Placement Guideline Code 1. No history of a serious mental MH-0 illness • May transfer anywhere in our 2. No current identified need for out of state mental health assistance • General Population 3. Receives Crisis Intervention • Restrictive Housing permitted when indicated 1. Mild impairment in mental MH-1 functioning 2. Inmate is stable in out-patient setting with treatment provided 3. Not currently on mental health medication • Clear to transfer to any ADOC 4. No present evidence or history of operated institution symptoms of serious mental • General Population illness; managed only with the • Restrictive Housing permitted compliance of treatment 5. Eligible for Keep on Person Program (KOP) 6. Requires Multidisciplinary treatment plan 1. Stable in an outpatient setting for MH-1a a least the prior six months; R X anti-depressants/antipsychotics 2. Mild impairment in mental functioning 3. Inmate is stable in out-patient • Clear to Transfer to an ADOC setting with treatment provided Community Work Center or 4. No present evidence or history of Work Release Center or any symptoms of serious mental other ADOC operated illness; managed only with the institutions compliance of treatment 5. Requires multidisciplinary treatment plan 6. Eligible for Keep on Person Program (KOP) 1. Stable in an outpatient setting for MH-1b a least the prior three months; • Clear to Transfer to an ADOC RX anti- Community Work Center or to depressants/antipsychotics any other ADOC operated 2. Mild impairment in mental institutions, except an ADOC functioning Work Release Program 3. Inmate is stable in out-patient setting with treatment provided 14 8 4. No present evidence or history of symptoms of serious mental illness; managed only with the compliance of treatment 5. Requires multidisciplinary treatment plan 6. Eligible for Keep On Person Program (KOP) after demonstrated compliance 1. History of mental health • Clear to transfer to any ADOC MH-2 treatment operated facility with 24/7 2. Closely monitored for serious nursing coverage mental illness • May be placed in General 3. Moderate impairment in mental Population or Restrictive functioning Housing 4. May have residual symptoms • If placed in Restrictive Housing, that are non-acute (i.e. ADD- a mental health PTSD-Impulse Control) practitioner/provider completes 5. Requires monitoring treatment a mental health appraisal and for compliance prepares a written report within 6. Requires multidisciplinary 7 days of placement. If treatment plan confinement continues beyond 30 days, a behavioral health assessment by a mental health practitioner/provider is completed at lease every 30 days for offenders with a diagnosed behavioral health disorder and more frequently if clinically indicated. For offenders without a behavioral health disorder, an assessment is completed every 90 days and more frequently if clinically indicated, 1. Serious mental illness diagnosis MH-2 d • Clear to transfer to any ADOC 2. Moderate impairment in mental operated facility with 24/7 functioning nursing coverage. Not eligible 3. Requires monitoring for for free world Work Center or treatment for compliance ADOC Work Release Program. 4. May be ordered to be placed on • May be placed in General an involuntary medication Population program for compliance assurances • Not eligible for restrictive 5. Requires multidisciplinary housing outside of an RTU or treatment plan SU 15 8 1. Serious mental illness diagnosis MH-3 2. Closely monitored for acute psychosis or severe mood disturbance • Housed in Open Residential 3. Moderate impairment in mental Treatment Unit functioning with social • Not eligible for restrictive impairment and/or self- housing outside of an RTU or management needs SU 4. May be ordered to be placed on an involuntary medication program 5. Poor behavioral control 1. Serious mental illness diagnosis MH-3a 2. Closely monitored for acute psychosis or severe mood disturbance • Housed in Semi Closed or 3. May be at risk when socializing Closed Residential Treatment in a non-structured environment Unit 4. Moderate to chronic impairment • Not eligible for restrictive in mental functioning with self- housing outside of an RTU or management needs SU 5. May be ordered to be placed on an involuntary medication program 6. Poor behavioral control 1. Severe impairment in mental MH-4 health functioning such as delusions, hallucinations, severe mood disorder, or inability to • Housed in Stabilization Unit function in most areas of daily • Not eligible for restrictive living housing outside of an RTU or 2. Chronic impairment in mental SU functioning with self- • Placement in SU in excess of 21 management needs days rotate to closed RTU while 3. May be ordered to be placed on evaluating need for commitment an involuntary medication program 4. Poor behavioral control 1. Severe impairment in mental • Housed in Stabilization Unit MH-5 health functioning such as • Not eligible for restrictive persistent danger of hurting self housing outside of an RTU or or others SU 2. Acute impairment in mental • Placement in SU in excess of 21 functioning with self- days, initiate commitment management needs process; rotate to closed RTU while waiting for admission 16 8 3. Recurrent violence, inability to maintain minimal personal hygiene 4. May be ordered to be placed on an involuntary medication program 5. Poor behavioral control MH-6 May not be moved from current facility Consultation – Pending Evaluation without prior permission from the Associate Commissioner of Health Services. (AR 613 OHS Mental Health Coding Ref. Table [Ex. H to the Segregation Plan] at 1-3). Recently, ADOC determined that Deputy Commissioner for Women's Services, Dr. Wendy Williams, and Associate Commissioner for Operations, Grantt Culliver, were taking a more conservative approach to housing inmates with serious mental-health needs in segregation. As Associate Commissioner Naglich testified during the remedial hearing on correctional and mental-health staffing, "Dr. [Wendy] Williams and [Grantt] Culliver … are taking more of a precautionary [position], and anyone with an MH-2, they are not placing … them in restrictive housing. So they're going above what is actually listed in [Administrative Regulations]." (Naglich Remedial Hrg. Trans. Vol. II [Ex. B to the Segregation Plan] at 65).9 As a result of this practice, ADOC decided to implement a new mental- 9 ADOC ensures inmates with a mental-health code of MH-2 and above are not housed in 17 8 health coding system that generally made it inappropriate to house inmates with a mental-health code of MH-2 or above in a segregation unit. ADOC is in the process of preparing changes to the Administrative Regulations impacted by implementation of the new mental-health coding system, including, for example, AR 602, AR 613, and AR 615. However, the new mental-health coding system is as follows: MH Status Housing Placement Guideline Code MH-0 1. No history of a serious mental illness • May transfer anywhere in or out 2. No current identified need for of state mental health assistance 3. Receives Crisis Intervention • General Population when indicated • Restrictive Housing permitted MH-1 1. Mild impairment in mental functioning • Clear to Transfer to any ADOC 2. Inmate is stable in out-patient operated or contracted setting with treatment provided institution (with MH services). 3. May or may not be currently on May assume job duties in an mental health medication ADOC Community Work 4. No evidence of symptoms of a Center or Work Release Center. serious mental illness; is managed with the compliance of treatment • General Population 5. Eligible for Keep on Person Program (KOP) after • Restrictive Housing permitted demonstrated compliance 6. Requires Multidisciplinary treatment plan 7. Is not on Involuntary Medication segregation through regular reporting to Associate Commissioners Naglich and Culliver. (Naglich Remedial Hrg. Trans. Vol. II [Ex. B to the Segregation Plan] at 62-65). 18 8 MH -1a 1. Stable in an outpatient setting for a least the prior six months; RX • Clear to Transfer to any ADOC anti-depressants/antipsychotics operated or contracted institution 2. Mild impairment in mental (with MH services) Community functioning Work Center or to any other ADOC 3. Inmate is stable in out-patient operated institutions and assume job setting with treatment provided duties except an ADOC Work 4. No evidence of symptoms of a Release Program serious mental illness; is managed with the compliance of treatment • General Population 5. Requires multidisciplinary treatment plan • Restrictive Housing permitted 6. Eligible for Keep On Person Program (KOP) after demonstrated compliance 7. Is not on Involuntary Medication MH-2 1. Diagnosed as having a Serious • Clear to transfer to any ADOC Mental Illness as defined with a operated facility with 24/7 nursing DSM diagnosis coverage. Not eligible for free 2. Moderate impairment in mental world Work Center or ADOC functioning Work Release Program 3. Requires monitoring for treatment for compliance • May be placed in General 4. May be ordered to be placed on Population, RTU, Structured an involuntary medication Living Unit or SU. program for compliance assurances • Not eligible for restrictive housing; 5. Requires multidisciplinary except when extenuating treatment plan circumstances are documented by security, reviewed and approved by a Licensed Mental Health Professional. Placement approval should be co-signed by a Licensed Mental Health Provider within 24 hours. Placement in restrictive housing will be limited to the resolution of the extenuating circumstances. 19 8 MH-3 1. Serious Mental Illness diagnosis 2. Closely monitored for acute • Housed in Open Residential psychosis or severe mood Treatment Unit disturbance 3. Moderate impairment in mental • Not eligible for restrictive housing functioning with social outside of an RTU or SU impairment and/or self- management needs 4. May be ordered to be placed on an involuntary medication program 5. Poor behavioral control MH-3a 1. Serious mental illness diagnosis 2. Closely monitored for acute • Housed in Semi Closed or Closed psychosis or severe mood Residential Treatment Unit disturbance 3. May be at risk when socializing • Not eligible for restrictive housing in a non-structured environment outside of an RTU or SU 4. Moderate to chronic impairment in mental functioning with self- management needs 5. May be ordered to be placed on an involuntary medication program 6. Poor behavioral control MH-4 1. Severe impairment in mental health functioning such as • Housed in Stabilization Unit delusions, hallucinations, severe mood disorder, or inability to • Not eligible for restrictive housing function in most areas of daily outside of an RTU or SU living 2. Chronic impairment in mental • Placement in SU more than 21 functioning with self- days rotate to closed RTU while management needs evaluating need for inpatient 3. May be ordered to be placed on treatment center, or commitment. an involuntary medication program 4. Poor behavioral control MH-5 1. Severe impairment in mental health functioning such as • Housed in Stabilization Unit persistent danger of hurting self or others • Not eligible for restrictive housing 2. Acute impairment in mental outside of an RTU or SU functioning with self- management needs 20 8 3. Recurrent violence, inability to • Placement in SU more than 21 maintain minimal personal days, initiate commitment process; hygiene rotate to closed RTU while waiting 4. May be ordered to be placed on for admission to an inpatient an involuntary medication treatment center or commitment. program 5. Poor behavioral control MH-6 Consultation – Pending May not be moved from current facility Evaluation without prior permission from the Associate Commissioner of Health Services ADOC's new mental-health coding system removes several mental-health codes from the mental-health code reference table to AR 613. ADOC determined that its policy change prohibiting the placement of an inmate with a mental-health code of MH-2 or above in a segregation unit (absent "extenuating circumstances") made a number of prior mental-health codes (including the MH-2d mental-health code) unnecessary. ADOC is in the process of implementing the new mental-health coding system so that inmates with a mental-health code of MH-2 or above are not housed in a segregation unit absent "extenuating circumstances." (Naglich Remedial Hrg. Trans. Vol. I [Ex. A to the Segregation Plan] at 17-18; Vol. II [Ex. B to the Segregation Plan] at 64-65). B. "Extenuating Circumstances" or "Exceptions" to the General Rule Prohibiting Housing of Inmates with a Mental-Health Code of MH-2 or above in a Segregation Unit. ADOC may place inmates with serious mental-health needs in segregation units for short periods of time. For an inmate with a serious mental illness to be 21 8 placed in a segregation unit, "extenuating circumstances" must exist. Examples of "extenuating circumstances" or "exceptions" to the general rule prohibiting placement of inmates with a serious mental illness in segregation include, but are not limited to, the following hypothetical circumstances: • Placement of an inmate in a single-occupancy segregation unit for protection from other inmates for thirty (30) days or less; • Placement of an inmate in a single-occupancy segregation unit for behavior unrelated to his or her mental illness after psychiatric evaluation and for no more than thirty (30) days, so long as the inmate is monitored and afforded treatment; • Placement of an inmate in a single-occupancy segregation unit for protection from himself or herself for fifteen (15) days or less where a crisis unit or other specialized mental-health unit is not vacant, so long as the inmate is monitored and afforded treatment; • Placement of an inmate in a single-occupancy segregation unit for medical and/or mental-health observation where a crisis unit or other specialized mental-health unit is not vacant, so long as the inmate is observed and afforded treatment; and • Placement of an inmate in a single-occupancy segregation unit pending transfer to a specialized mental-health unit for seven (7) days or less, so long as the inmate is monitored / observed and afforded treatment. This list of "extenuating circumstances" or "exceptions" will be incorporated by ADOC into AR 613. However, to be clear, even during these "extenuating circumstances" involving the placement of an inmate in segregation, the inmate must be monitored and afforded treatment for any mental-health needs. Before an inmate can be placed in a segregation unit, the inmate's institutional 22 8 and medical records are reviewed to determine if placement in segregation is contraindicated. ADOC's IMAS system contains information about each inmate in ADOC's custody. The inmate detail for each inmate provides a designation at the top of the page under "Inmate Status" whether that inmate is generally ineligible for placement in a segregation unit. If an inmate is generally prohibited from placement in a segregation unit because of his or her mental-health status, then that is flagged by the medical professional. During the encounter with the inmate, the medical professional will examine the inmate and complete an "Initial Health Review" or "body chart." (See, e.g., Initial Health Review [Ex. I to the Segregation Plan]). After completion of the physical examination of the inmate, a referral to mental-health services consistent with AR 609 is automatically generated. A psychological assessment or psychiatric evaluation of the inmate is subsequently performed—the timing of the assessment or evaluation depends on when the referral is made and, if made during the night, will be performed the next day (typically in the morning). If ADOC intends to proceed with placement of the inmate in segregation (either an inmate without a mental-health code or an inmate with a mental-health code, including a mental-health code of MH-2 or above pursuant to an "exception"), then a licensed mental-health professional will conduct a psychological assessment or a psychiatric evaluation. An inmate who lacks a mental-health code (i.e., an inmate not on the mental-health caseload, including those who are undiagnosed 23 8 inmates with a mental illness) must receive a psychological assessment by a licensed mental-health professional. An inmate who "fails" the psychological assessment and shows the possible presence of a mental illness, or an inmate with a mental- health code (including an inmate with a serious mental illness), is referred for and must receive a psychiatric evaluation. (AR 615 [Ex. J to the Segregation Plan]). That psychiatric evaluation must be performed consistent with AR 615 (as amended by Change # 1). Notably, AR 615 provides for a comprehensive, documented evaluation with a mental-health diagnosis pursuant to DSM-5. (Id.). A psychiatric evaluation ensures that an inmate presented for placement in a segregation unit is appropriately evaluated by a member of the mental-health staff. If a diagnosable and/or identifiable mental illness exists (identified earlier or during that psychiatric evaluation), then the inmate is provided a mental-health code and placed on the mental-health caseload, or his or her mental-health code is changed as appropriate. After consideration of the psychiatric evaluation and mental-health code, the mental-health provider determines if the inmate has a serious mental illness and the propriety of placing the inmate in a segregation unit with or without the existence of an "extenuating circumstance." If an inmate with a serious mental illness is placed in a segregation unit due to an "extenuating circumstance," then that inmate continues to receive the same level of mental-health services as he or she received outside of segregation. (AR 624 [Ex. K to the Segregation Plan] at 1-2; 24 8 RFP [Ex. F to the Segregation Plan] at 93). ADOC recognizes the need to train correctional and mental-health staff about mental-health coding and the conditions precedent to placement of an inmate in a segregation unit, including an inmate with a serious mental illness or serious mental- health needs. ADOC and its mental-health vendor provided training concerning mental-health codes prior to implementation of the new mental-health coding system. (Naglich Remedial Hrg. Trans. Vol. II [Ex. B to the Segregation Plan] at 65-66). ADOC intends to provide future training concerning mental-health codes, psychological assessments and/or psychiatric evaluations, and ascribing a mental illness (including a serious mental illness) to an inmate. ADOC's training will be provided along with training concerning monitoring and treatment of inmates (including those with a mental illness) in segregation units. C. Evaluation of Inmates with a Mental-Health Code of MH-2 or Below. Plaintiffs recently identified inmates purportedly with a serious mental illness who were, for some period of time, housed in a segregation unit. (Doc. No. 1525; Naglich Remedial Hrg. Trans. Vol. II [Ex. B to the Segregation Plan] at 59-63). ADOC investigated Plaintiffs' concerns and confirmed that no inmate with a mental- health code of MH-2d or above is, or has been since February 2017, in a segregation unit absent "extenuating circumstances." (Id.). Notwithstanding, and without delving into, the exceptions to ADOC's general policy against housing a seriously 25 8 mentally ill inmate (or any inmate with a mental-health code of MH-2 or above) in a segregation unit, the dispute about the propriety of keeping any inmate in a segregation unit centers around the appropriateness of that inmate's mental-health code. ADOC took into consideration the concerns about the propriety of inmate mental-health coding for those inmates with a mental-health code of MH-0, MH-1, and MH-1-a—i.e., those inmates who are not subject to the general prohibition against housing of inmates with serious mental-health needs in segregation and who might find themselves in administrative or disciplinary segregation. Based on those concerns, ADOC's mental-health vendor initiated a process for the re-evaluation of the mental-health codes of inmates housed in a segregation unit to determine if any of those inmates should have a mental-health code of MH-2 or above and, therefore, be subject to the general prohibition on housing in a segregation unit. (Naglich Remedial Hrg. Trans. Vol. II [Ex. B to the Segregation Plan] at 62-64). As a result of the re-evaluations of mental-health codes, ADOC moved a small number of inmates from segregation to a specialized mental-health unit. (Id.; see also Naglich Remedial Hrg. Trans. Vol. I [Ex. A to the Segregation Plan] at 17-18). Prospectively, ADOC's mental-health vendor will (as described above) conduct a psychological assessment and/or psychiatric evaluation before any inmate is placed in a segregation unit, and at that time based on the DSM-5 diagnosis, evaluate the 26 8 inmate's mental-health code and change the inmate's mental-health code if, in the judgment of the clinician, a change is appropriate. Over time, but before an inmate is placed in a segregation unit, inmates' mental-health codes will be re-evaluated by members of the mental-health staff. And, inmates with a serious mental illness will be screened out of segregation. Of course, this screening process is separate and apart from the referrals for mental- health services and evaluations through other contacts and interactions with mental- health providers. (See, e.g., AR 609, AR 623-27, AR 630, AR 638). D. Monitoring and Treating Inmates with Serious Mental-Health Needs in a Segregation Unit. ADOC intends to ensure that inmates with serious mental-health needs in segregation units are adequately monitored through regular and routine observation and evaluation by mental-health providers to ensure inmates with serious mental- health needs in segregation units do not decompensate. Additionally, ADOC intends to ensure that inmates with serious mental-health needs in segregation units possess adequate access to mental-health services, including individual treatment, group therapy, and other programming. ADOC believes that improved monitoring and treatment of inmates with serious mental-health needs (or any mental-health needs) in segregation units will be achieved primarily through increased correctional and mental-health staff (consistent with the Staffing Plan) and secondarily through additional training of correctional and mental-health staff. (Doc. No. 1285 at 214- 27 8 217) (attributing treatment and monitoring problems primarily to lack of correctional and mental-health staff). ADOC's Administrative Regulations contain the policies for evaluating, monitoring, and treating inmates housed in segregation units. AR 624 is ADOC's policy and procedure relating to mental-health segregation rounds. (AR 624 [Ex. K to the Segregation Plan] at 1). "It is the policy of ADOC to conduct regular administrative and disciplinary segregation rounds to monitor the mental status of inmates, identify inmates who may be experiencing difficulty in this restrictive environment and to ensure their access to mental health services." (Id.). In terms of responsibilities, AR 624 provides: ADOC Psychologists, Psychological Associates and contracted mental health staff are responsible for conducting mental health rounds on a regular basis to monitor the mental status of inmates housed in Disciplinary / Administrative Segregation Units and Death Row. The mental health rounds do not substitute for the on-going assessment and treatment of inmates previously identified as having a serious mental illness. Administrative reviews and rounds of segregation units conducted by the ADOC Psychologists and Psychological Associates complement but do not replace the mental health rounds performed by the contracted mental health staff. (Id. at 2) (emphasis added). Therefore, AR 624 (as adopted by ADOC) addresses the process for ensuring access to mental-health care for inmates in segregation units. 28 8 The robust procedures contained in AR 624 require (a) at least two (2) mental- health rounds by ADOC psychologists and psychological associates each week and one mental-health round during Segregation Review Board10 rounds, and (b) at least two (2) mental-health rounds by the mental-health vendor each week and one mental-health round during Segregation Review Board rounds, without duplication of a mental-health round by ADOC and the mental-health vendor on the same day. (Id. at 2). Each mental-health round by ADOC or the mental-health vendor involves at least the following: 1. Signing ADOC Form 434-A, Segregation Unit Record Sheet, for each inmate seen. 2. Scheduling mental health rounds to minimize disruption of the unit's operations and maximize finding the inmates awake and willing to respond to brief questions. 3. Conducting a brief interview with each inmate housed in Segregation / Death Row. The interview shall consist of, but is not limited to: a. Ensuring that the cell door window provides an unobstructed view of the inmate and housing unit. b. Making visual contact with the inmate. c. Assessing the inmate's presentation to include mood, affect, compliance with treatment, personal hygiene and level of functioning. 10 "Segregation (SEG) Review Board: A weekly board of institutional representatives who assess the status of inmates in segregation." (AR 602 [Ex. C to the Segregation Plan] at 10). 29 8 d. Evaluating the condition of the housing unit. 4. Notifying the Correctional Officers in the Segregation Units and Death Row of any problematic inmate behaviors that have been observed. 5. Referring inmates with non-emergency mental health needs for routine follow-up as necessary by completing ADOC Form MH- 008, Referral to Mental Health. 6. Referring inmates with immediate mental health needs verbally to the institution's Supervising Psychologist/Psychiatrist and: a. Completing ADOC Form MH-008, Referral to Mental Health. b. Transferring the inmate to a crisis cell, if necessary. c. Noting on ADOC Form MH-038, Mental Health Segregation Rounds Log. 7. Documenting in the inmate's medical file on ADOC Form MH-040, Progress Notes only if there is a critical incident or a significant change in the inmate's functioning. (Id. at 2-3) (emphasis added).11 Additionally, the mental-health vendor must provide ADOC's correctional officers assigned to each segregation unit a weekly roster of 11 Section 5.59 of the RFP is consistent with AR 624, but additionally requires an interviewer to "mak[e] recommendations whether an inmate should receive a further out-of-cell consultation following segregation rounds" and for the mental-health vendor to "review logs of the segregation unit, including meals, out-of-cell time, and heat monitoring as deemed appropriate." (RFP [Ex. F to the Segregation Plan] at 93). Section 5.59 of the RFP ensures that inmates on the mental-health caseload receive the same level of mental-health services as they receive before placement in segregation. (Id.). Moreover, to ensure continuity of care, no inmate may be removed from the mental-health caseload while housed in segregation. (Id.). To the extent necessary, ADOC will amend AR 624 to incorporate the additional requirements of section 5.59 of the RFP. 30 8 inmates coded with mental-health codes MH-0 to MH-6 to alert them to an inmate's special needs, and ADOC Form MH-038, Mental Health Segregation Rounds Log must be maintained by the staff conducting the mental-health rounds. (Id. at 3). AR 625 is ADOC's policy and procedure relating to mental-health evaluation of inmates on segregation status. (AR 625 [Ex. L to the Segregation Plan] at 1). Mental health professionals will evaluate inmates who are receiving treatment of serious mental illness within one working day of the inmate's placement in a segregation cell. ADOC psychologists and psychological associates will perform brief mental health assessments: A. Whenever an inmate is maintained in a segregation cell for longer than thirty-days. B. Following each ninety-day period thereafter. C. To determine if segregation placement is contraindicated by: 1. The inmate's mental status. 2. The potential for significant deterioration in the inmate's functioning by continued placement in the restrictive environment. (Id. at 1) (emphasis added). ADOC's Director of Treatment "is responsible for ensuring that clinically effective mental health treatment is provided in a therapeutic environment," and "all contracted medical, mental health and ADOC employees involved in the provision of medical and mental health care services[] will ensure that such services are provided in a therapeutic environment." (Id. at 2). Procedurally, AR 625 requires: 31 8 A. Mental health staff will review daily reports of segregation (SEG) unit placements to determine if an inmate receiving treatment for serious mental illness has been placed in SEG. B. A treatment coordinator will conduct a face-to-face evaluation of the inmate within 24 hours of placement in SEG (except on weekends). C. The treatment coordinator will document the evaluation in the mental health progress notes of the inmate's medical record. The evaluation of the inmate will address the following clinical issues: 1. Mental status and current behavior 2. Treatment compliance 3. Response to segregation placement 4. Potential for harm to self or others 5. Complaints or requests for services 6. Ability to cope with segregation placement D. The treatment coordinator will advise the institution's supervising psychologist and the SEG security supervisor when an evaluation suggests that an inmate may be clinically inappropriate for SEG placement. E. Treatment coordinators will continue to monitor assigned inmates no less than monthly while the inmate is in segregation. When clinically indicated, the follow-up will be more frequent. These contacts will be documented on ADOC Form MH-040, Progress Notes, and filed in the inmate's medical record. F. ADOC psychologists and psychological associates will conduct mental health assessments of inmates after an inmate has been placed in segregation for 32 8 longer than thirty days and every ninety days thereafter. These assessments will be documented on ADOC Form MH-039, Review of Segregation Inmates. G. The ADOC psychologist or psychological associate will consult with the Warden or designee when their SEG mental health assessment indicates that continued placement in SEG is contraindicated by changes in the inmate's mental status and functioning. Alternative strategies to facilitate the inmate's mental stabilization will be offered. H. The ADOC psychologist or psychological associate will complete ADOC Form MH-008, Referral to Mental Health, and consult with the institution's supervising psychologist or designee when a SEG mental health assessment indicates that the inmate may be exhibiting signs of serious mental illness. I. The original ADOC Form MH-039 will be filed in the inmate's medical record. Copies will be: 1. Placed in the inmate's institutional file. 2. Sent to the Director of Central Records for inclusion in the inmate's central records file. (Id. at 2-3) (emphasis added). AR 625 provides a mechanism for reviewing the mental health of inmates in segregation and removing inmates from segregation when appropriate. (See also Naglich Remedial Hrg. Trans. Vol. II [Ex. B to the Segregation Plan] at 62-64). Although AR 624 and AR 625 apply directly to mentally ill inmates in segregation units, the other 600-series Administrative Regulations apply as well. For example, inmates with a mental illness receive treatment planning consistent 33 8 with AR 622. Similarly, inmates with a mental illness receive outpatient mental- health assistance, counseling, and other mental-health programming, with those services being facilitated by ADOC and its mental-health vendor consistent with AR 623. ADOC's Administrative Regulations (as implemented by ADOC and its mental-health vendor) ensure that inmates with serious mental-health needs in segregation units are adequately monitored through regular and routine observation and evaluated by a mental-health provider to ensure inmates with serious mental- health needs in segregation units do not decompensate. ADOC's Administrative Regulations (as implemented by ADOC and its mental-health vendor) also ensure that inmates with serious mental-health needs in segregation units possess adequate access to mental-health services, including individual treatment, group therapy, and other programming. ADOC's (and its mental-health vendor's) monitoring of inmates with serious mental-health needs in segregation units and the access of inmates with serious mental-health needs in segregation units to mental-health programs is anticipated to improve. By eliminating inmates with a serious mental illness (save "extenuating circumstances"), the number of inmates with serious mental-health needs housed in ADOC's segregation units is substantially lower than in the past. That alone makes it easier on the correctional and mental-health staff to monitor and treat inmates housed in segregation. However, eliminating inmates with a serious mental illness 34 8 from segregation, coupled with the existing and impending growth in correctional and mental-health staff, permits ADOC and its mental-health provider to better monitor and to improve access to care (individual treatment, group therapy, etc.) for inmates with serious mental-health needs in segregation units. Equally important, fewer inmates with serious mental-health needs in segregation units and increased correctional and mental-health staff will allow ADOC to provide inmates with serious mental-health needs more structured and unstructured out-of-cell time. In totality, these measures will substantially address the availability and significance of the mental-health care and attention provided to these inmates. E. ADOC Will Train Staff on Evaluating, Monitoring, and Treating Inmates with Mental Illness in Segregation Units. As part of this Plan, ADOC will train correctional and mental-health staff concerning the evaluation, monitoring, and treatment of inmates with mental illness in segregation units. Of course, the preparation of training modules and administration of the training will be a part of other training related to the new and modified mental-health programs resulting from the Phase 2A remedial process. ADOC will continue to provide training pursuant to AR 607 and AR 608 and other training related to mental-health services in the interim. (See Naglich Remedial Hrg. Trans. Vol. II [Ex. B to the Segregation Plan] at 65-66). ADOC's training will include (among other things) identifying the early warning signs of mental illness, 35 8 identifying the signs and symptoms of mental illness, understanding the different types of mental illness, making referrals to mental-health services, and using management techniques for inmates with a serious mental illness. (RFP [Ex. F to the Segregation Plan] at 94). ADOC, its mental-health vendor, and the State's expert consultants will work together to prepare a training module and materials related to evaluating, monitoring, and treating inmates with a mental illness housed in segregation units. They will use a "train-the-trainer" model as a training and learning strategy to allow the rapid expansion and retention of knowledge and skills to correctional and mental-health staff. As opportunities for improvement appear, ADOC and its mental-health vendor will provide additional training on an as-needed basis or during the routine annual training session. F. ADOC Continues to Undertake and Evaluate Physical Plant Improvements in Segregation Units. Even before the submission of this Plan, ADOC took steps to make improvements to the segregation units and cells within its facilities. These improvements include: Bullock CF • Ten (10) of the segregation cells have been painted in the past forty-five (45) days, which continues as empty segregation cell space allows; and 36 8 • The viewing windows were replaced on every segregation cell door within the past six (6) months. Donaldson CF • Segregation units E, F, G, H, I, J, P, Q, X, and W were painted; • The exterior windows in segregation units E, F, G, H, I, J, P, Q, and W were replaced; and • Tray doors were created in segregation unit V. Easterling CF • Replaced the control panel in the cubicle within the past six (6) months. Fountain CF • The segregation units were painted; and • Lighting in segregation cells updated. Holman CF • Forty-eight (48) segregation cells (K 17 – 32, L 19 – 34, M 19 – 34) received new plumbing, lighting, and paint; • The ceiling, walls, and railing on the tiers of the above-identified segregation cells were cleaned and painted; • Tray locks were replaced on 194 of 200 cells in the segregation units; • A compressor was replaced in the segregation unit (which works with the locking mechanism to the cell doors); • Tier and tier night lights were repaired and/or replaced; and 37 8 • Additional fans were added for ventilation in the segregation unit. Kilby CF Housing Units C-D-E-F Block • Rewired lights in pipe chase; • P.R.E.A. boards in showers; • New lock on C Block showers; • New fans on C-D-E-F Block; • New paint in C-D-E-F Block; • New control panels for C-D-E-F Block "North Control;" • Replaced motor on roof unit for heat on C-D Block; • Secured handrails on D-F Block; • Painted stairs for D-F Block; and • Painted segregation cells. L Block • Replaced old lights with new fixtures and lights for segregation cells; • Added new lights on L Block; • New paint for L Block and segregation cells; and • Replaced fan motor and pump on L Block air-conditioning unit. O Dorm 38 8 • Updated control panel for O Dorm; • Painted O Dorm and O Dorm segregation cells; • Added and secured O Dorm suicide beds; • Replace safety glass on cell doors; • Replaced motor in O Dorm air-conditioning unit; • Replaced motor on O Dorm heat unit; and • Replaced wood on benches in O Dorm. Limestone CF • Exterior windows were refabricated; and • Tray hole slots with covers were added to the doors. St. Clair CF • All cell door sliders and locking mechanism were replaced; • All cell-block entrance sliders were replaced; • All windows were replaced; • The control panels were replaced; • Entrance doors were replaced; • Doors leading to exercise yards were replaced with new locks; • A camera was installed on the front entrance and the exercise yard entrance with monitors installed in both cubes; • Emergency exit doors were replaced in each cell-block; 39 8 • Cell-block A exercise cage locks were replaced; and • A new slider was installed along the walkway leading to the segregation units with a camera and the monitor for the camera installed in the segregation unit office. The State believes these improvements dramatically improve the overall conditions within its segregation units and cells. C. REPORTS ABOUT INMATES WITH SERIOUS MENTAL-HEALTH NEEDS IN SEGREGATION. At this stage, formal "monitoring" or other intrusive oversight is unnecessary as to the segregation of inmates with serious mental-health needs. As a more practical matter, there is nothing that a formal "monitor" could undertake that could not be achieved more effectively and less intrusively through reporting. As such, ADOC proposes a process for submitting written reports to the Court and/or Special Master (as discussed below) on a quarterly basis (January 1, April 1, July 1, and October 1). Each proposed quarterly report will provide: (1) the number of ADOC segregation units; (2) the number of inmates with a mental-health code of MH-2 or above in a segregation unit during that quarterly period; (3) the entry date for each inmate with a mental-health code of MH-2 or above into a segregation unit during that quarterly period; (4) the exit date for each inmate with a mental-health code of MH-2 or above from a segregation unit during that quarterly period; and (5) a general 40 8 reason for housing each inmate with a mental-health code of MH-2 or above in a segregation unit during that quarterly period (ex. protective custody, mental-health observation, etc.). To the extent any inmate with a mental-health code of MH-2 or above is housed in a segregation unit more than one time during a quarterly period, the quarterly report will provide the information in the foregoing paragraphs (2) through (5) for each stay in a segregation unit. No quarterly report should be admissible against the State, ADOC, its employees, contractors, or contractor's employees in any civil action or other proceeding. If a dispute arises concerning the housing of any inmate with serious mental-health needs in segregation, then the State and Plaintiffs must attempt to resolve any compliance-related problem through conciliation efforts. To the extent any disagreement exists after the State's and Plaintiffs' conciliation efforts, then the State and Plaintiffs will submit the disagreement to the Special Master for resolution in accordance with the dispute resolution procedures set forth below.12 D. DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCEDURE. If, after exhaustion of conciliation efforts, a dispute exists concerning or relating to ADOC's implementation or compliance with the Segregation or 12 Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Segregation and Hospitalization Plans, the Plans will terminate two (2) years after the Effective Date and, at any time, ADOC may seek to terminate the Plans with the Court consistent with the provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"), 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b). 41 8 Hospitalization Plans, then ADOC proposes that any such dispute be resolved by the Special Master, Judge Ott. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 53; 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Within fourteen (14) days after the State and Plaintiffs end conciliation efforts (or another date and time mutually agreeable to the State and Plaintiffs), Plaintiffs will submit to the Special Master a notice of dispute, identifying the dispute, explaining in detail Plaintiffs' position as to the implementation- or compliance-related dispute, and describing in detail the relief they seek from the Special Master. The State will respond to Plaintiffs' notice of dispute within fourteen (14) days (or another date and time mutually agreeable to the State and Plaintiffs), explaining in detail the State's position as to the implementation- or compliance-related dispute and the relief sought by Plaintiffs. The Special Master will decide the dispute within fourteen (14) days (or another date and time mutually agreeable to the State and Plaintiffs).13 To prevail, consistent with applicable law (including the PLRA), Plaintiffs must prove that the topic of dispute addresses an ongoing constitutional violation from the Court's Liability Order and that their proposed relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct such constitutional violation, and constitutes the least intrusive means necessary to correct such constitutional violation. ADOC will 13 Alternatively, the Special Master should be afforded sufficient authority to manage the dispute resolution process, including the authority to reset, extend, or re-establish any deadlines in his discretion. 42 8 comply or initiate efforts to comply with the decision of the Special Master within the time designated by the Special Master. E. PLAINTIFFS' "PROPOSED PROCEDURE." Plaintiffs and the State resolved the concerns raised by Plaintiffs during the remedial hearing on correctional and mental-health staffing about M.P. with the assistance of United States Magistrate Judge Gray M. Borden (as directed by this Court). (Naglich Remedial Hrg. Trans. Vol. II at 59-62, 67; Doc. No. 1529). For some unknown reason, Plaintiffs viewed the narrow referral to Magistrate Judge Borden concerning M.P. as an opportunity to pursue documents, information, and relief not contemplated by and inconsistent with the Court's directive to get an understanding about M.P.'s situation. Plaintiffs then prematurely filed the "Proposed Procedure for Resolving SMI Disputes" (Doc. No. 1525, the "Proposed Procedure"). The Proposed Procedure is not a pleading or motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 7. The Phase 2A liability trial is over, and the Court entered the Liability Order. (Doc. No. 1285). Procedurally, the Segregation Plan is the next step in the process established by the Court related to the housing of inmates with a serious mental illness. (Doc. No. 1357). The State proposed its Segregation Plan. The Plan contains reporting obligations so that Plaintiffs will receive information on a routine basis concerning 43 8 inmates with serious mental-health needs in segregation and provides for a dispute resolution process involving United States Magistrate Judge John E. Ott serving as a Special Master. The documents and information sought by Plaintiffs in the Proposed Procedure, including master rosters and movement histories, are immaterial and the discovery requests are overly broad, unduly burdensome, and disproportionate to the needs of this case (especially given the procedural posture). Again, the Court is not considering the liability of the State related to its practices of housing inmates with a serious mental illness in segregation. It already made that determination. (Doc. No. 1285 at 205-30). The purported "evidence" in the Proposed Procedure and Plaintiffs' pursuit of discovery for additional "evidence" to support a previously determined constitutional violation is a waste of time—both the parties' and this Court's time. The sole issue before the Court is whether the State's Segregation Plan sufficiently remedy the purported constitutional violation on a prospective basis, keeping in mind the limitations imposed by the PLRA and applicable precedent, including, for example, Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) and its progeny. The State believes it does. The State does not object to, and will consent to, Magistrate Judge Borden resolving disputes about the Segregation Plan and the segregation of inmates with a serious mental illness. Fed. R. Civ. P. 53, 73; 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), (c). However, because the State proposed Magistrate Judge Ott as Special Master in the Staffing 44 8 Plan and because a number of the issues in the Segregation Plan, the Staffing Plan, the Hospitalization Plan and future remedial plans will overlap, the State believes that it is inefficient and probably counterproductive (due to potentially inconsistent decisions) to divide the duties for dispute resolution associated with the various mental-health remedial measures. Either Magistrate Judge Ott or Magistrate Judge Borden should be appointed as Special Master or as a decision-maker by consent of the parties to resolve disputes consistent with and arising under the Staffing Plan, the Segregation Plan, the Hospitalization Plan, and any other remedial plan proposed by the State. Id. And, Plaintiffs' Proposed Procedure should be rejected in its entirety by the Court. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY TO BE PRESENTED AT HEARING REGARDING THE STATE'S PLAN FOR HOSPITAL-LEVEL CARE In the past, the Alabama Department of Mental Health ("ADMH") provided limited access to hospital-level mental health care for inmates in ADOC's custody. Although ADMH's Taylor Hardin Secure Medical Facility ("Taylor Hardin") is responsible for providing comprehensive psychiatric evaluation and treatment to those persons criminally committed throughout the state of Alabama, a transfer of ADOC inmates to Taylor Hardin remains a limited option, because, as the Court recognized, "the waiting list for a bed in a hospital can be six months long or longer" and Taylor Hardin lacks sufficient hospital beds for the number of individuals requiring or seeking the level of care provided by ADMH at this facility. (Doc. No. 45 8 1285 at 129). Moreover, an initial assessment by ADOC did not reveal any available space within the ADOC system where it could construct or renovate, maintain, and staff a mental health hospital of the type discussed in the Court's Liability Order. Recognizing the challenges posed by any long-term reliance by ADOC on the use of Taylor Hardin, the State sought to secure hospital-level mental health care elsewhere. A. THE COLUMBIA REGIONAL CARE CENTER. The State selected Correct Care of South Carolina, LLC d/b/a Correct Care Recovery Solutions ("Correct Care") to provide hospital-level mental health services for ADOC inmates at the Columbia Regional Care Center ("CRCC") in Columbia, South Carolina. In August 1998, Just Care, Inc. completed the conversion of a state- run mental hospital in Columbia, South Carolina into a secure, private medical facility for the provision of comprehensive medical and mental health services to incarcerated persons. As of today, CRCC is a 374-bed detention hospital designed as a fully secured facility. It is the only private detention hospital in the United States that provides long-term mental health and medical services to inmates. CRCC is fully licensed by the state of South Carolina's Department of Health and Environmental Control and by the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division. Correct Care's CRCC is accredited by (among others) The Joint Commission14 and 14 The Joint Commission is an independent, non-profit organization that accredits and certifies 46 8 the National Commission on Correctional Health Care ("NCCHC").15 In 2009, Correct Care assumed operation of CRCC. Since that time, Correct Care and its partner, the South Carolina Department of Health, have continued to provide psychiatric, medical, and skilled nursing services for federal, state, and local governmental agencies at CRCC. The federal, state, and local governmental agencies relying upon the services provided at CRCC include: • The United States Marshals Service; • The Federal Bureau of Prisons; • Immigration and Customs Enforcement; • Georgia Department of Corrections; • Georgia Department of Behavioral Health & Developmental Disabilities; • Georgia Department of Public Health, TB Division; • South Carolina Department of Corrections; nearly 21,000 health care organizations and programs in the United States. Its accreditation and certification is recognized nationwide as a symbol of quality, reflecting an organization's commitment to meeting certain performance standards. CRCC achieved reaccreditation most recently in 2015. 15 NCCHC is an independent, non-profit organization that offers a voluntary health services accreditation program based on its Standards. See, e.g., Nat'l Comm'n on Corr. Health Care, Mental Health Standards, available at https://www.ncchc.org/mental-health-standards-1. The process uses external peer review to determine whether correctional institutions meet the Standards in provision of health services. NCCHC renders a professional judgment and assists in the improvement of services provided. During the Phase 2A trial, Craig Haney testified that NCCHC is a "well respected organization" that ensures "adequate, effective health and mental health care." (Phase 2A Tr. Trans., Day 27 [Jan. 20, 2017] at 126:8-13). CRCC achieved reaccreditation most recently in 2014. Notably, NCCHC named CRCC the Program of the Year in 2012. 47 8 • South Carolina Department of Mental Health Forensic Program; • South Carolina Department of Disabilities and Special Needs; and • Various other state and local detention facilities in Georgia, Hawaii, Mississippi, and South Carolina. These various governmental agencies rely upon Correct Care to safely and securely house and professionally care for inmates with significant medical and mental health needs. As it relates to hospital-level mental health care, Correct Care offers a "turn- key solution."16 That is, Correct Care furnishes comprehensive mental health care, including comprehensive assessment, evaluation, and treatment of psychiatric disorders, through a highly structured milieu that encourages patient involvement in (among other things) treatment team meetings, group activities, education classes, life skills, and spiritual services. (See Exhibit A to the Hospitalization Plan [CRCC brochure]; Exhibit B to the Hospitalization Plan [CRCC Mental Health Programs and Services]). CRCC's mental health team includes psychiatrists, psychologists, physicians, licensed social workers, chaplains, licensed counselors, nurses, activity therapists, educational instructors, and an experienced horticulture therapist.17 16 See CRCC brochure attached as Exhibit A to the Hospitalization Plan; CRCC Mental Health Programs and Services attached as Exhibit B to the Hospitalization Plan; see also Correct Care, Locations, Columbia Reg'l Care Ctr., available at http://www.correctcarers.com/crcc/. Notably, Correct Care is responsible for security and transportation from an ADOC facility to CRCC, so ADOC will not have to use its correctional staff for these transports. 17 Correct Care complies with the guidelines for staffing established by the U.S. Center for 48 8 Because of its robust staff, Correct Care can manage inmates with a serious mental illness, including those inmates with suicidal ideations through suicide prevention procedures consisting of, among other things, constant and staggered watch. (See Exhibit C to the Hospitalization Plan [CRCC Suicide Prevention Pol.]). As explained in the Patient Handbook for CRCC, each inmate admitted to CRCC can expect the following: Patients in an acute stage of mental illness will be treated at the facility. The appropriate agency will be notified should off site services be required. Diagnosis and recommendations will be noted on the psychiatric evaluation by the attending Psychiatrist. Evaluation 1. A Psychiatric Evaluation will be completed after admission or referral and will include a brief medical history; a mental status examination including suicidality and homicidality; a history of the current illness; a description of the patient's current attitudes and behavior; an estimate of intellectual functioning, memory functioning and orientation; and an inventory of the patient's assets. 2. A Psychosocial Assessment by a licensed mental health professional or someone seeking licensure under the direct supervision of a licensed mental health professional will be completed after admission. 3. A Personal Safety Plan will be completed by a licensed clinician after admission. The Personal Safety Plan assists with the determination of the patient's personal preference for techniques of de- escalation to prevent displays of aggression. Medicare and Medicaid Services and the standards for staffing per patient established by The Joint Commission (as demonstrated by CRCC's recent reaccreditation). 49 8 4. When additional assessments, such as intellectual assessments, suicide assessment, etc. are needed, documentation will include findings, plan of action, and be signed and dated by the clinician. 5. Brief Medical screenings will be performed by licensed medical providers. Treatment Program 1. A multidisciplinary treatment plan will be generated during the first treatment team meeting, but no later than seven days after admission. The treatment plan will be reviewed by the clinical treatment team and updated at a minimum of every six months. However, the team will discuss the treatment process monthly with the patient. 2. A Treatment Plan consists of a series of written statements specifying a patient's particular course of treatment and the roles of qualified health care professionals in carrying it out. The plan is individualized, multidisciplinary and based on assessment of your needs. The treatment plan is developed by a multidisciplinary team of professionals at the time the condition is identified and updated as warranted. 3. Group therapy will be provided on each unit. Groups such as Life Skills, Coping Skills, Horticulture Therapy, other educational classes, and the Work Therapy Program are available to all patients. The treatment may include group and individual counseling. 4. The use of a Behavior Step Plan or Behavior Improvement Plan is discussed by the treatment team and implemented by security, nursing, and mental health staff. An approved copy of any current behavioral management plan will be placed in the Behavioral Management section of the chart. 5. Individual counseling will be provided based on a physician approval. The assigned licensed clinician will document each session following the therapy. 6. Crisis intervention services will be provided as needed. 50 8 7. Substance abuse group therapy is provided by a licensed clinician as appointed. Description of Level System Unit three (3) is designed to have three (3) Areas of Treatment (AOT) that are focused on motivating patients to stabilize and restore their emotional and behavioral control: • Red Level • Yellow Level • Green Level Patients can earn points by group therapy participation, behavioral improvement plans, Step Program, treatment team participation, and individual therapy sessions. Patients can "cash-in" earned points for special events. Treatment Team Progress Reviews In conjunction with your sending agency, you will be scheduled for a Progress Review based on a review schedule. At this Progress Review, your behavior and adjustment for the stated period will be evaluated. The report will address the entire spectrum of your facility life. It is a permanent part of your record and a copy will be sent to your parent agency. Therefore, you should assist in making sure it is as accurate and thorough as possible. During Progress Reviews, several things may be accomplished, such as your visiting list may be updated, and requests for program changes can be reviewed and discussed with you. One of the most important aspects of the Progress Review is your behavior. The team will, at this time, answer any questions you have regarding your behavior and stay at CRCC. Any programs that you are involved in or need to become involved in will be discussed. The basic purpose of the Progress Review is to document your progress and keep you informed of how you are doing. The Progress Review time should also be utilized in 51 8 planning for the future. Come to your review prepared to ask questions and contribute to the procedure. Keep in mind that this review is an instrument that can either help or hinder your stay at CRCC. If you received a good evaluation during the preceding review period, it will be noted on these documents. On the other hand, any bad reports will be shown as well. Your participation in the programs available at CRCC will also be listed on these documents. (Exhibit D to the Hospitalization Plan [Patient Handbook] at 12-14).18 In addition to comprehensive mental health services, Correct Care offers comprehensive medical services, including full-time primary physician care, 24- hour skilled nursing coverage, and assistance with activities of daily living. More specifically, Correct Care provides acute, sub-acute, skilled care; intermediate and assisted care; geriatric and hospice care; pre- and post-operative care; and oncology and primary care services for a wide range of health conditions including, but not limited to AIDS, cancer, hepatitis, tuberculosis, pneumonia, cardiac disease, quadriplegia, kidney disease, and traumatic brain / spinal cord injury; and special needs services, including dialysis, negative pressure rooms, peritoneal dialysis, chemotherapy, enteral feeding, infusion services, tracheostomy care, physical therapy, and ventilator care. ADOC intends to award a sole-source contract to Correct Care for hospital- 18 Correct Care's general expectations for patients residing at the CRCC and its policies and procedures are contained in the Patient Handbook attached as Exhibit D to the Hospitalization Plan. 52 8 level mental health care for ADOC inmates. ADOC anticipates the sole-source contract to be in place in the near future. However, in the interim, ADOC plans to enter into a Letter of Agreement with Correct Care so that ADOC can begin transferring inmates to CRCC before the sole-source contract is executed by ADOC and Correct Care. ADOC intends to review the inmates on ADOC's mental health caseload to determine if any inmate is in immediate need of hospital-level mental health care and, if an inmate in ADOC's custody has an immediate need for hospital- level mental health care, then ADOC will transfer that inmate to CRCC in accordance with the proposed Administrative Regulation 640. B. ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATION 640. A decision to transfer an ADOC inmate to or from CRCC will be made consistent with Administrative Regulation 640, entitled "Criteria for Advanced Inpatient Mental Healthcare." A true and accurate copy of the proposed Administrative Regulation 640 is attached as Exhibit E to the Hospitalization Plan. Notably, the decision to transfer an ADOC inmate to or from CRCC will be a clinical decision made consistent with the admission criteria and by an ADOC-designated psychiatrists through a collaborative approach, focusing on the best interest of the inmate. During an ADOC inmate's stay at CRCC, Correct Care will provide regular reports to ADOC about the inmate's mental and (if applicable) medical condition and treatment, so that ADOC can monitor the inmate's status and treatment. 53 8 If an inmate is determined to meet the admission criteria for transfer to CRCC, then mental health staff will transfer the inmate to CRCC. ADOC does not believe that a transfer from an ADOC facility—most likely a SU—to CRCC constitutes a dramatic departure from the accepted standards for conditions of confinement such that due process is implicated. Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 214 (1976); Montanye v. Haymes, 427 U.S. 236 (1976). And, a transfer from CRCC back to an ADOC facility (if and when appropriate) does not depart from the accepted standards for conditions of confinement or implicate due process concerns. Id.; see also Turner v. Warden, GDCP, 650 F. App'x 695, 699-700 (11th Cir. 2016). The United State Supreme Court "'ha[s] held that the Constitution itself does not give rise to a liberty interest in avoiding transfer to more adverse conditions of confinement.'" Turner, 650 F. App'x at 699 (quoting Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 221 (2005)). Affording an ADOC inmate hospital-level mental health care is not fundamentally inconsistent with imprisonment or incompatible with the objectives of incarceration—as already determined by the Court in the Liability Order. (Doc. No. 1285 at 128-33). It does not exceed any inmate's prison sentence or impose an atypical or significant hardship compared to the ordinary incidents of prison life, especially as it relates to the conditions or degree of confinement. Id. at 700 (quoting Sandlin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995)); Montanye, 427 U.S. at 242. In fact, the degree of confinement at CRCC is similar to that in an ADOC 54 8 facility for an inmate in need of hospital-level mental health care. (See, e.g., Exhibit D to the Hospitalization Plan [Patient Handbook]). As a result, no liberty interest exists requiring procedural due process in addition to the process contained in Administrative Regulation 640. That is especially true given that most transfers will occur on an emergency basis, because the inmate is a serious and imminent danger to himself / herself or others. (See Exhibit E to the Hospitalization Plan [AR 640]). A transfer of an ADOC inmate to and from a third-party provider of hospital- level mental health care (Correct Care at CRCC) for the inmate's benefit (with the inmate committed to ADOC during his or her stay at CRCC) differs from the situation presented in Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480 (1980) and Bailey v. Pataki, 708 F.3d 391 (2d Cir. 2013). In Vitek, a Nebraska statute (Neb. Rev. Stat. § 83-180) allowed the Nebraska Department of Corrections to transfer an inmate to a mental hospital operated by the Nebraska Department of Public Institutions for the duration of his prison sentence if that inmate "'cannot be given proper treatment in that facility.'" Vitek, 445 U.S. at 484-85 (quoting Neb. Rev. Stat. § 83-180). Similarly, in Bailey, to prevent the release of "sexually violent predators," the New York Office of Public Health and New York Department of Corrections (at the direction of the Governor) created an "initiative" providing for the involuntary commitment of selected "sexually violent predators" to psychiatric facilities operated by the New York Office of Public Health at the end of the inmate's prison sentence. Bailey, 708 55 8 F.3d at 393. Vitek and Bailey dealt with involuntary confinement of inmates to a state-run mental hospital. Vitek, 445 U.S. at 493-95; Bailey, 708 F.3d at 393, 400-02. Vitek and Bailey recognized a liberty interest based on a substantial change in the essential nature of the inmates' confinement. Id. That substantial change required adequate procedural due process—notice and pre-deprivation hearing for involuntary confinement on a non-emergent basis. Id.; but see Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113 (1990) (requiring a post-deprivation hearing for a commitment to a state-run mental hospital). Administrative Regulation 640 does not contemplate confinement of an ADOC inmate to Taylor Hardin or any other ADMH facility. ADOC already possesses an Administrative Regulation addressing the confinement of an ADOC inmate to an ADMH facility (such as Taylor Hardin). Administrative Regulation 634 (as amended by Administrative Regulation 634-1), along with Alabama Code § 22-52-1.1, et seq., affords an ADOC inmate adequate due process protections before he or she is confined to a state-run ADMH mental hospital. A transfer of an ADOC inmate to CRCC is qualitatively different than an involuntary civil commitment. Fundamentally, a transfer of an inmate with special mental health needs is a change in housing assignment. The essential nature of the confinement remains the same, and there is no material change in the conditions of 56 8 confinement. A mental health provider has already made a mental health diagnosis, the inmate is already on the mental health caseload, the inmate is already receiving mental health services, and the inmate typically has already changed his or her residence from general population to a Residential Treatment Unit ("RTU") or SU. A transfer between an ADOC facility and CRCC is simply affording an inmate access to higher-level mental health care than can be provided in an RTU or SU— often times on an emergency or urgent basis. The transfer does not result in the involuntary commitment of an ADOC inmate to a state-run mental hospital such as Taylor Hardin. The transfer does not invoke the procedural due process protections recognized in Vitek and contained in Administrative Regulation 634 (as amended by Administrative Regulation 634-1) or Alabama Code § 22-52-1.1, et seq. It is no different than the transfer of an inmate from an ADOC facility to a public or private hospital for higher-level or emergency medical care, which does not raise procedural due process concerns. In fact, if ADOC possessed hospital-level care in any of its facilities, then the transfer of an inmate to that facility would not raise procedural due process protections. Any process in addition to that contained in proposed Administrative Regulation 640 is antithetical to the concept of hospital-level mental health care. It creates a barrier to access crucial mental health care for an inmate in dire need of hospital-level mental health care on an emergency or urgent basis. For example, an 57 8 inmate who cannot be stabilized in the SU for thirty (30) or more days should not be delayed hospital-level mental health care so that notice can be provide, a committee formed, a hearing held, findings and conclusions compiled, a decision rendered, and an appeal taken while the inmate continues unstable and without appropriate mental health care. Instead, a process like that found in Administrative Regulation 640 properly balances the need for hospital-level care with the need to ensure an improper or errant decision is not made as to any particular inmate. As a result, the process contained in proposed Administrative Regulation 640 for transferring inmates from an ADOC facility to CRCC is proper. IMPACT OF THE PRISON LITIGATION REFORM ACT A. ADOC IS ENTITLED TO OPERATE AND ADMINISTER ITS FACILITIES WITHOUT OBSTRUCTION OR INTERFERENCE FROM PLAINTIFFS OR THE COURT. Supreme Court precedent makes clear that this Court may not become the de facto manager and/or administrator of the Alabama prison system. Three (3) reasons exist for this line of demarcation between the Court's jurisdiction and the administration of the prison system. First, this Court (like all courts) lacks expertise in the administration and operation of a prison system. As such, it must avoid second-guessing the decision of those with such expertise. Second (and relatedly), the responsibilities of prison administration and operation have been allocated to the executive branch, not the judiciary, so the appropriate separation of powers requires 58 8 limited involvement by this Court. Third, the rules of comity limit the involvement of federal courts in state-operated prison systems. See Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 85 (1987); Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 229 (1976); Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 405 (1974). With regard to the first issue, the Supreme Court routinely directs courts to defer to prison administrators, especially concerning matters within their discretion and expertise. In Turner v. Safley, the Supreme Court cautioned against judicial intervention in a prison system: A … principle identified in Martinez, however, is the recognition that 'courts are ill equipped to deal with the increasingly urgent problems of prison administration and reform.' Id., at 405, 94 S.Ct., at 1807. As the Martinez court acknowledged, 'the problems of prisons in America are complex and intractable, and, more to the point, they are not readily susceptible of resolution by decree.' Id., at 404-405, 94 S.Ct., at 1807. Running a prison is an inordinately difficult undertaking that requires expertise, planning, and the commitment of resources, all of which are peculiarly within the province of the legislative and executive branches of government. Prison administration is, moreover, a task that has been committed to the responsibility of those branches, and separation of powers concerns counsel a policy of judicial restraint. 482 U.S. at 84-85 (quoting Martinez, 416 U.S. at 404-405). The Eleventh Circuit expressed a similar view in Newman v. Alabama, in which it held, "A federal court, when fashioning a remedy to redress constitutional violations in a prison, must recognize that it is ill-equipped to involve itself intimately in the administration of 59 8 the prison system." 683 F.2d 1312, 1320 (11th Cir. 1982). Thus, courts must avoid substituting their judgment for those of prison administrators. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 554 (1979); Mitchell v. Rouse, 2:11-cv-1101-WHA, 2015 WL 893262 (M.D. Ala. Mar. 2, 2015) (granting summary judgment to defendants on retaliation claim and acknowledging prison officials are entitled to deference); Broadhead v. Canty, 2:10-cv-808-MHT, 2013 WL 5347358 (M.D. Ala. Sept. 23, 2013) (Thompson, J.) (same); Hope v. Allen, 2:07-cv-210, 2009 WL 1688177 (M.D. Ala. Jun. 16, 2009) (same). With regard to the second issue, courts recognize that prison administration is a legislative and executive function, not a judicial one. "[J]udicial deference is accorded not merely because the administrator ordinarily will, as a matter of fact in a particular case, have a better grasp of his domain than the reviewing judge, but also because the operation of our correctional facilities is peculiarly the province of the Legislative and Executive Branches of our Government, not the Judicial." Bell, 441 U.S. at 548. Thus, the court's role is limited to determining "whether a particular system violates any prohibition of the Constitution.... The wide range of 'judgment calls' that meet constitutional and statutory requirements are confided to officials outside of the Judicial Branch of Government." Id. at 562. The rationale for deference on these issues therefore is based upon both a lack of expertise in prison issues and an acknowledgement of the limits of judicial authority. 60 8 With regard to the third issue, the need for deference is heightened for federal courts when a state prison system is at issue. "The federal courts do not sit to supervise state prisons, the administration of which is of acute interest to the States." Meachum, 427 U.S. at 229; see also Turner, 482 U.S. at 85 ("Where a state penal system is involved, federal courts have, as we indicated in Martinez, additional reason to accord deference to the appropriate prison authorities.") (citing Martinez, 416 U.S. at 405). Thus, federal courts must tread particularly carefully when a state prison system is involved. Accordingly, the Segregation and Hospitalization Plans leave the administration of Alabama's prisons in the hands of its prison officials. B. THE PLRA'S RESTRICTIONS ON REMEDIAL RELIEF The Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA") imposes clear limitations upon the scope and extent of any relief following entry of the Liability Order. The PLRA states: Prospective relief in any civil action with respect to prison conditions shall extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a particular plaintiff or plaintiffs. The court shall not grant or approve any prospective relief unless the court finds that such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right. The court shall give substantial weight to any adverse impact on public safety or the operation of a criminal justice system caused by the relief. 61 8 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) (emphasis added). Therefore, the relief is not tailored to best practices, national standards, or other industry-created norms, but must narrowly address the issues alleged in the Liability Order. To this end, courts conducting these remedial procedures individually assess "each requirement imposed by the" relief to determine whether it meets this standard. U.S. v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr., 778 F.3d 1223, 1228 (11th Cir. 2015); see also Cason v. Seckinger, 231 F.3d 777, 785 (11th Cir. 2000) (identical language in section 3626(b)(3) requires "particularized findings, on a provision-by-provision basis, that each requirement imposed by the consent decree satisfies the need- narrowness-intrusiveness requirement"). The State structured the Plans so that each requirement meets this standard. To go any further runs afoul of the PLRA's need- narrowness-intrusiveness requirement. CONCLUSION At the hearing, the State will show that the Segregation Plan addresses the Court's concerns in the Liability Order. It provides for (a) the exclusion of inmates with a serious mental illness (as now defined) from housing in a segregation unit absent "extenuating circumstances;" (b) the screening of inmates for a serious mental illness before housing them in a segregation unit; (c) the monitoring and evaluation of inmates during their stay in a segregation unit; and (d) the treatment (and access to care) of inmates during their stay in a segregation unit. The 62 8 Segregation Plan (which includes a training component), along with the staffing efforts reflected in the Staffing Plan, will result in improved monitoring and access to mental-health care for inmates with serious mental-health needs in segregation units. Its efficacy (at least as to the initial implementation) is apparent based on the Court's determination in the Liability Order that most suicides occur in segregation and the fact that ADOC has not experienced a completed suicide in segregation since the end of the Phase 2A trial. (Doc. No. 1285 at 20-21; Naglich Remedial Hrg. Trans. Vol. I at 16-17). Similarly, the Hospitalization Plan for hospital-level mental health care also addresses the Court's concerns in the Liability Order. It affords an inmate who needs hospital-level mental health care the ability to obtain that care for however long he or she needs it. And, the Hospitalization Plan allows an inmate to obtain hospital- level care at a safe, high quality, licensed, and accredited institution: CRCC. ADOC's commitment to the Segregation and Hospitalization Plans is clear. It already has started the process to implement them. Consistent with the State's position in the Staffing Plan, the State believes that the Court should consider declining to enter a remedial order on segregation and hospital-level mental health care. Instead, the State respectfully requests the Court endorse the Segregation and Hospitalization Plans and deny any objections advanced by Plaintiffs to these Plans. Dated: February 6, 2018. 63 8 /s/ William R. Lunsford William R. Lunsford Attorney for the Commissioner and Associate Commissioner William R. Lunsford Matthew B. Reeves Michael P. Huff Melissa K. Marler Stephen C. Rogers MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, PC 655 Gallatin Street Huntsville, AL 35801 Telephone: (256) 512-5710 Facsimile: (256) 512-0119 blunsford@maynardcooper.com mreeves@maynardcooper.com mhuff@maynardcooper.com mmarler@maynardcooper.com srogers@maynardcooper.com Luther M. Dorr, Jr. Mitesh B. Shah MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, PC 1901 Sixth Avenue North 2400 Regions Harbert Plaza Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 254-1178 Facsimile: (205) 714-6438 rdorr@maynardcooper.com mshah@maynardcooper.com /s/ John G. Smith John G. Smith Attorney for the Commissioner and Associate Commissioner John G. Smith David R. Boyd 64 8 BALCH & BINGHAM LLP Post Office Box 78 Montgomery, AL 36101-0078 Telephone: (334) 834-6500 Facsimile: (866) 316-9461 jgsmith@balch.com dboyd@balch.com Steven C. Corhern BALCH & BINGHAM LLP Post Office Box 306 Birmingham, AL 35201-0306 Telephone: (205) 251-8100 Facsimile: (205) 488-5708 scorhern@balch.com Anne A. Hill Elizabeth A. Sees Joseph G. Stewart ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Legal Division 301 South Ripley Street Montgomery, Alabama 36130 Telephone (334) 353-3884 Facsimile (334) 353-3891 anne.hill@doc.alabama.gov elizabeth.sees@doc.alabama.gov joseph.stewart@doc.alabama.gov 65 8 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served upon all attorneys of record in this matter, including without limitation the following, by the Court's CM/ECF system on this the 6th day of February, 2018: Maria V. Morris William Van Der Pol, Jr. Rhonda C. Brownstein Glenn N. Baxter Latasha L. McCrary Barbara A. Lawrence J. Richard Cohen Andrea J. Mixson Caitlin J. Sandley ALABAMA DISABILITIES ADVOCACY SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER PROGRAM 400 Washington Avenue University of Alabama Montgomery, Alabama 36104 500 Martha Parham West Telephone: (334) 956-8200 Box 870395 Facsimile: (334) 956-8481 Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487-0395 maria.morris@splcenter.org Telephone: (205) 348-6894 rhonda.brownstein@splcenter.org Facsimile: (205) 348-3909 latasha.mccrary@splcenter.org wvanderpoljr@adap.ua.edu richard.cohen@splcenter.org gnbaxter@bama.ua.edu cj.sandley@splcenter.org blawrence@adap.ua.edu amixson@adap.ua.edu Deana Johnson Andrew P. Walsh Brett T. Lane William G. Somerville III MHM SERVICES, INC. Patricia Clotfelter 1447 Peachtree Street NE Lisa W. Borden Suite 500 BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN Atlanta, GA 30309 CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC Telephone: (404) 347-4134 420 20th Street North Facsimile: (404) 347-4138 Suite 1400 djohnson@mhm-services.com Birmingham, Alabama 35203 btlane@mhm-services.com Telephone: (205) 244-3863 Facsimile: (205) 488-3863 awalsh@bakerdonelson.com wsomerville@bakerdonelson.com pclotfelter@bakerdonelson.com lborden@bakerdonelson.com Lonnie J. Williams Gregory M. Zarzaur 66 8 ALABAMA DISABILITIES ADVOCACY Anil A. Mujumdar PROGRAM Diandra S. Debrosse P. O. Box 870395 Denise Wiginton Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 ZARZAUR MUJUMDAR & DEBROSSE Telephone: (205) 348-4928 2332 2nd Avenue North Facsimile: (205)348-3909 Birmingham, AL 35203 lwilliams@adap.ua.edu Telephone: (205) 983-7985 Facsimile: (888) 505-0523 gregory@zarzaur.com anil@zarzaur.com fuli@zarzaur.com denise@zarzaur.com /s/ William R. Lunsford Of Counsel 67

NOTICE by All Plaintiffs : PLAINTIFFS AMENDED PRETRIAL SUBMISSION IDENTIFYING WITNESSES AND EXHIBITS

0 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARDS BRAGGS, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) v.) CIVIL ACTION NO.) 2:14-CV-00601-MHT-GMB JEFFERSON DUNN, in his official) (J. Thompson) capacity as Commissioner) of the Alabama Department of) Corrections, et al.,)) Defendants.)) PLAINTIFFS' AMENDED PRETRIAL SUBMISSION IDENTIFYING WITNESSES AND EXHIBITS In its January 30, 2018 Order, the Court instructed the parties to provide the following information by February 2, 2018, at 5 PM: • A list of witnesses; • The dates they are expected to testify; • How long their testimony will take; • The specific topics each will address; and • Whether the testimony will be in camera in whole or part. Plaintiffs timely filed information responsive to the Court's Order but reserved the right to amend their witness and exhibit lists after reviewing discovery ordered to 0 be produced by Defendants on Wednesday, January 31, 2018 and thereafter. Doc. 1593. Plaintiffs do not anticipate that any of the proposed testimony needs to be given in camera. WITNESS DATE LENGTH TOPICS Teresa Houser February 9 4 hours Topics explored will include (assuming mental health conclusion of coding/classification; pre- Defendants' segregation mental health case; otherwise, evaluations; re-evaluations of February 15) prisoners already in segregation to determine mental health status; monitoring and mental health treatment for prisoners in segregation; Defendants' proposed remedial plan; and if necessary, hospital-level care including a discussion of the number of MH-6's as well as the number of prisoners housed in the Stabilization Unit (SU) for greater than 30 consecutive days. Dr. David February 9 3 hours Topics explored will include Tytell (assuming ADOC policies and procedures conclusion of regarding the placement into Defendants' segregation of prisoners on the case; otherwise, caseload; mental health February 15 or coding/classification; the 16) availability of RTU beds; Defendants' proposed remedial plan; mental health treatment while a prisoner is in segregation; and if necessary, hospital-level care including Office of Health Service's 2 0 WITNESS DATE LENGTH TOPICS (OHS) monitoring of inmates on suicide watch to determine if they are in need of hospital level of care. J.W. February 12-14, 2 hours Topics explored will include as available the pre-placement evaluation, if any; any "extenuating circumstances"; the mental health treatment provided while in segregation; and the conditions in segregation and the impact on the individual. C.G. February 12-14, 2 hours Topics explored will include as available the pre-placement evaluation, if any; any "extenuating circumstances"; the mental health treatment provided while in segregation; and the conditions in segregation and the impact on the individual. A.E. February 12-14, 2 hours Topics explored will include as available the pre-placement evaluation, if any; any "extenuating circumstances"; the mental health treatment provided while in segregation; and the conditions in segregation and the impact on the individual. J.A. February 12-14, 2 hours Topics explored will include as available the pre-placement evaluation, if any; any "extenuating circumstances"; the mental health treatment provided while in segregation; and the conditions in segregation and the impact on the individual. 3 0 WITNESS DATE LENGTH TOPICS E.W. February 12-14, 2 hours Topics explored will include as available the pre-placement evaluation, if any; any "extenuating circumstances"; the mental health treatment provided while in segregation; and the conditions in segregation and the impact on the individual. W.B. February 12-14, 2 hours Topics explored will include as available the pre-placement evaluation, if any; the mental health treatment provided while in administrative segregation; and the conditions in administrative segregation and the impact on the individual. Eldon Vail February 14 4 hours Topics explored will include physical plant improvements to segregation that are consistent with security needs; appropriate policies and practices relating to the placement and housing of persons with mental illness in segregation; and if necessary, hospital-level care. Dr. Robert February 15 3 hours Topics explored will include Hunter ADOC/MHM policies and procedures regarding the placement into segregation of prisoners on the caseload; mental health coding/classification; mental health treatment while a prisoner is in segregation; prevention and treatment for prisoners who are on suicide 4 0 WITNESS DATE LENGTH TOPICS watch; and continuous quality improvement (CQI). Dr. Craig February 15 4 hours Topics explored will include Haney the impact of placement in segregation on SMI and non- SMI prisoners; adequacy of ADOC's actions taken to date; appropriate policies relating to the placement or housing of persons with mental illness in segregation; and physical plant issues with regard to segregation. Dr. Kathryn February 16 4 hours Topics explored will include Burns the ADOC definition of serious mental illness (SMI); what constitutes an extenuating or exigent circumstance; the impact of segregation on non- SMI prisoners; adequacy of ADOC's actions taken to date; appropriate policies relating to the placement or housing of persons with mental illness in segregation; and if necessary, hospital-level care including the timing for transfer to hospital level care, pre- admission care for inmate sin need of hospital-level care, and monitoring and care of inmates on hospital level care. 5 0 WITNESS DATE LENGTH TOPICS Commissioner February 16 1 hour Topics explored will include Jefferson Dunn ADOC policies and procedures regarding the placement into segregation of prisoners on the caseload; the availability of specialized mental health beds; Defendants' proposed remedial plan; and if necessary, hospital- level care. Associate Plaintiffs 4 hours Topics explored will include Commissioner anticipate Assoc. ADOC policies and procedures Ruth Naglich Comm'r Naglich regarding the placement into will be called segregation of prisoners on the during caseload; mental health Defendants' case coding/classification; the in chief. availability of specialized mental health beds; mental health treatment while a prisoner is in segregation; Defendants' proposed remedial plan; and if necessary, hospital- level care. Associate Plaintiffs 2 hours Topics explored will include Commissioner anticipate Assoc. ADOC policies and procedures Grantt Culliver Comm'r Culliver regarding the placement into will be called segregation of prisoners on the during caseload; the availability of Defendants' case specialized mental health beds; in chief. appropriate security procedures for inmates on death row while hospitalized for a medical condition vs. a mental health condition; and if necessary, hospital-level care. Plaintiffs also identify the individuals below as potential witnesses. 6 0 WITNESS DATE LENGTH TOPICS Deputy February 19 2 hours Topics explored will include Commissioner ADOC policies and practices Wendy relating to the placement, Williams housing, and assessment of prisoners with mental illness in segregation. Dr. Edward February 19 3 hours Topics explored will include Kern ADOC/MHM policies and procedures related to hospital- level care. Dr. Richard February 19 3 hours Topics explored will include Craig (note he is not timing for transfer to hospital- available on level care, pre-admission care February 16) for inmates in need of hospital- level care, continuum of care, securing hospital level psychiatric beds, monitoring and care of inmate on hospital- level care, re-assessment of needs for beds, general knowledge about availability of hospital-level care beds. James Tucker February 20 2 hours Topics explored will include ADAP's willingness and ability to serve as the 'advisor' at due process hearings for prisoners in accordance with Vitek and ADAP's willingness and ability to monitor the Defendants' Plan pertaining to patients receiving a hospital level of care. 7 0 WITNESS DATE LENGTH TOPICS Correct Care February 20 2 hours Topics explored will include Recovery the policies and procedures Solutions relevant to the transport (CCRS) to/from and the hospitalization representative of prisoners, programs and conditions available at CRCC, Involuntary Medication procedure employed at CCRS facilities. Any witness identified by Defendants. Any witness necessary for impeachment. Any witness not otherwise identified but necessary to respond to and/or explain discovery ordered to be produced by Defendants from January 31, 2018, forward. 1 Plaintiffs' exhibits include as follows: Ex. No. Title Bates / Docket Number D-2916 OHS MH Coding Form ADOC342119- & Table ADOC342122 D-2934 (P-1302+) RFP 2017- 02 and Bidders Conf. Announcement D-2992 (P-1339) Proposed OHS Staffing J-88 AR602 MH Definitions & Acronyms 1 Plaintiffs have made every effort to review and evaluate all of the documents produced by Defendants prior to this filing. That evaluation has resulted in a number of those documents being included as exhibits below. However, the vast majority of Defendants' production began as recently as Wednesday, January 31, 2018, and will not conclude until Monday, February 5, 2018. Accordingly, a final review and evaluation was not possible by the filing deadline. 8 0 Ex. No. Title Bates / Docket Number J-89 AR602 Change #1 (02.08.16) J-90 AR602 Change #2 (05.02.16) J-97 AR607 MH Staff Orientation J-98 AR608 Staff MH Training J-103 AR612 Reception MH Evals J-104 AR612-1 Change #1 (03.07.16) J-105 AR613 MH Coding & Inmate Tracking J-106 AR613-1 Change #1 (03.07.16) J-107 AR613-2 Change #2 (05.02.16) J-108 AR614 Intra-System MH Transfers J-109 AR615 Psychiatric Evals J-110 AR615-1 Change #1 (3.07.16) J-126 AR624 Segregation MH Rounds J-127 AR625 Segregation MH Evals J-128 AR626 MH & Disciplinary Process J-163 C.J. Med Recs MR007585-MR008221 J-173 H.W. Movement ADOC038873- History ADOC038897 J-185 MHM-ADOC Contract ADOC000323- & RFP 2013 ADOC000517 J-207 D.T. Med Recs ADOC0396622- ADOC0396747 9 0 Ex. No. Title Bates / Docket Number J-222 H.C. Institutional File ADOC007330- ADOC009509 J-237 J.A. Med Recs ADOC0395975- ADOC0396529 J-272 L.P. Med Recs MR011840-MR012198 J-404 R.M.W. Med Recs MR016842-MR017111 P-670 CQI Meeting Minutes MHM031186- 3Q 2013 - Statewide MHM031260 2015 P-689 MHM Corrective ADOC045441- Action Plan - ADOC045471 Donaldson (05.--.13) P-715 CQI Meeting Minutes MHM029556- 2Q 2013 (07.24.13) MHM029560 P-1126 St. Clair Security AuditADOC065996- ADOC066037 P-1224 Wilson-Houser Email + MHM053017- DOJ Mortality Study MHM053060 P-1258 C.J. Movement History ADOC0400233- ADOC0400245 P-1342 May 2017 Mental ADOC0403218- Health Staffing by ADOC0403221 Facility P-1344 ADOC Facility ADOC0408103- Assessment by ADOC0409214 Goodwyn Mills P-1355 Sept. 2017 MHM ADOC0410112- Monthly Operating ADOC0410311 Report P-1356 Sept. 2017 MHM Staff ADOC0410312- Reports ADOC0410329 P-1357 Dec. 2017 Mental ADOC0409299- Health 2 thru 6 Inmates ADOC0409329 P-1358 Dec. 12., 2017 ADOC0409703- Segregation Roster ADOC0409721 P-1359 MHM Monthly Reports HOUSER000001- (05-10.--.17) HOUSER000053 10 0 Ex. No. Title Bates / Docket Number P-1360 MHM Staffing Reports P-1361 Plaintiffs' Proposed SMI Definition (AR 602) P-1362 DSM-5 Bipolar & Doc. 1546-4 Depressive Disorders P-1363 Chart of Inmates on Doc. 1546-3 Caseload in Segregation, ~Dec. 12, 2017 P-1364 MHM Feb. 2016 MHM038293-038540 Master Roster P-1365 Defendants' Proposed Change #3 to AR 602 (SMI Def.) P-1366 Plaintiffs' Proposed Changes to Assessment Guidelines P-1367 Defendants' Proposed Excerpt of Doc. 1533 Extenuating Circumstances P-1368 Plaintiffs' Proposed Excerpt of Doc. 1546 Changes to Defendants' Revised AR613 MH Coding Table P-1369 Bibb Suicide Watch Monitoring Logs (12.16-31.17) P-1370 UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (Mandela Rules) P-1371 DOJ Report and Recommendations Regarding Use of Restrictive Housing (2016) 11 0 Ex. No. Title Bates / Docket Number P-1372 W.B. 1st Notice of Segregation Placement P-1373 W.B. 2nd Notice of Segregation Placement P-1374 W.B. Request for Group Therapy P-1375 Craig, Richard CV P-1376 Jan. 2018 MHM Master Roster P-13772 Doc. 1514 Defendants' Phase 2A Proposed Remedial Plan on Hospital-Level Care and attachments P-1378 Doc. 1533 Defendants' Proposed Segregation Remedial Plan and attachments P-1379 J.A. Mvmt History ADOC0418436- ADOC0418439 P-1380 W.B. Mvmt History ADOC0418440- ADOC0418441 P-1381 A.R. Mvmt History ADOC0418442- ADOC0418442 P-1382 C.G. Mvmt History ADOC0418443- ADOC0418445 P-1383 M.P. Mvmt History ADOC0418446- ADOC0418447 P-1384 L.W. Mvmt History ADOC0418448- ADOC0418449 P-1385 M.W. Mvmt History ADOC0418450- ADOC0418452 P-1386 J.L.W. Mvmt History ADOC0418453- ADOC0418455 P-1387 E.W. Mvmt History ADOC0418456- ADOC0418457 2 Exhibit No. 1377 may not be necessary if this portion of the case settles. 12 0 Ex. No. Title Bates / Docket Number P-1388 R.R. Mvmt History ADOC409297 P-1389 M.P. Mvmt History ADOC0409222- ADOC0409230 P-1390 Oct. 2017 ADOC Monthly Statistical Report P-1391 Oct. 2017 MHM ADOC0410333- Monthly Operating ADOC0410527 Report P-1392 Nov. 2017 MHM ADOC0418636- Monthly Operating ADOC0418875 Report P-1393 Dec. 2017 MHM ADOC0418876- Monthly Operating ADOC0419040 Report P-1394 AR 403 Disciplinary Hearing Procedures P-1395 AR 403 Change #1 (3- 04-2014) P-1396 AR 403 Change #2 (08- 01-2014) P-1397 AR 435 Protective Custody P-1398 AR 433 Admin ADOC033381- Segregation ADOC033397 P-1399 AR 434 Disciplinary Segregation P-1400 AR 436 Segregation ADOC033410- Review Board ADOC033412 P-1401 Jan. – Dec. 2017 Suicide Prevention Monitoring Reports P-1402 M.W. Mental Health ADOC0413525- Records ADOC0413601 P-1403 J.A. Mental Health ADOC0410578- Records ADOC0410689 P-1404 Jan. 10, 2018 ADOC0416055- Segregation Roster ADOC0416079 13 0 Ex. No. Title Bates / Docket Number P-1405 Combined Sampling of Movement Histories P-1406 Bibb CO Segregation ADOC0413833- Rounds Logs ADOC0416150 P-1407 Bullock CO ADOC0413879-0413959 Segregation Rounds Logs P-1408 Donaldson CO ADOC0413960- Segregation Rounds ADOC0414326 Logs P-1409 Easterling CO ADOC0414327- Segregation Rounds ADOC0414422 Logs P-1410 Fountain CO ADOC0414525- Segregation Rounds ADOC0414649 Logs P-1411 Hamilton CO ADOC0414650- Segregation Rounds ADOC0414666 Logs P-1412 Holman CO ADOC0414667- Segregation Rounds ADOC0414709 Logs P-1413 Kilby CO Segregation ADOC0414972- Rounds Logs ADOC0415215 P-1414 Limestone CO ADOC0415216- Segregation Rounds ADOC0415428 Logs P-1415 St. Clair CO ADOC0415608-0415988 Segregation Rounds Logs P-1416 Tutwiler CO ADOC0415989- Segregation Rounds ADOC0416026 Logs P-1417 Ventress CO ADOC0416027- Segregation Rounds ADOC0416054 Logs P-1418 Bibb Duty Post Logs ADOC0418622- ADOC0418635 14 0 Ex. No. Title Bates / Docket Number P-1419 Bullock Duty Post ADOC0416182- Logs ADOC0416284 P-1420 Donaldson Duty Post ADOC0416285- Logs ADOC0416575 P-1421 Draper Duty Post Logs ADOC0416576- ADOC0416576 P-1422 Easterling Duty Post ADOC0416577- Logs ADOC0416671 P-1423 Elmore Duty Post Logs ADOC0416672- ADOC0416672 P-1424 Fountain Duty Post ADOC0416673- Logs ADOC0416754 P-1425 Hamilton Duty Post ADOC0416755- Logs ADOC0416842 P-1426 Holman Duty Post ADOC0416843- Logs ADOC0417035 P-1427 Kilby Duty Post Logs ADOC0417036- ADOC0417151 P-1428 Limestone Duty Post ADOC0417152- Logs ADOC0417327 P-1429 St. Clair Duty Post ADOC0417328- Logs ADOC0417993 P-1430 Staton Duty Post Logs ADOC0417994 P-1431 Tutwiler Duty Post ADOC0417995- Logs ADOC0418093 P-1432 Ventress Duty Post ADOC0418094- Logs ADOC0418486 P-1433 Bibb Mental Health ADOC0418487- Segregation Rounds ADOC0418502 Logs P-1434 Bullock Mental Health ADOC0418503- Segregation Rounds ADOC0418511 Logs P-1435 Donaldson Mental ADOC0419041- Health Segregation ADOC0419056 Rounds Logs P-1436 Easterling Mental ADOC0418503- Health Segregation ADOC0419058 15 0 Ex. No. Title Bates / Docket Number Rounds Logs P-1437 Fountain Mental Health ADOC0418534- Segregation Rounds ADOC0418537 Logs P-1438 Hamilton Mental ADOC0418538- Health Segregation ADOC0418540 Rounds Logs P-1439 Holman Mental Health ADOC0418541- Segregation Rounds ADOC0418543 Logs P-1440 Kilby Mental Health ADOC0418544- Segregation Rounds ADOC0419169 Logs P-1441 Limestone Mental ADOC0418579- Health Segregation ADOC0418589 Rounds Logs P-1442 St. Clair Mental Health ADOC0418590- Segregation Rounds ADOC0418591 Logs P-1443 Tutwiler Mental Health ADOC0418592- Segregation Rounds ADOC0418617 Logs P-1444 Ventress Mental Health ADOC0418618- Segregation Rounds ADOC0418621 Logs P-1445 W.B. Grievance Appeal Any exhibit necessary for impeachment. Any exhibit resulting from Defendants' document production beginning Wednesday, January 31, 2018, forward.3 3 See n.1. 16 0 Dated: February 6, 2018 Respectfully Submitted, /s/ Maria V. Morris Maria V. Morris One of the Attorneys for Plaintiffs Southern Poverty Law Center 400 Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36104 Rhonda Brownstein (ASB-3193-O64R) Maria V. Morris (ASB-2198-R64M) Grace Graham (ASB-3040-A64G) Latasha L. McCrary (ASB-1935-L75M) Caitlin J. Sandley (ASB-5317-S48R) SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 400 Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36104 Telephone: (334) 956-8200 Facsimile: (334) 956-8481 rhonda.brownstein@splcenter.org maria.morris@splcenter.org grace.graham@splcenter.org latasha.mccrary@splcenter.org cj.sandley@splcenter.org William Van Der Pol, Jr. (ASB-2112-114F) Glenn N. Baxter (ASB-3825-A41G) Lonnie J. Williams Barbara A. Lawrence Andrea J. Mixson Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program Box 870395 Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 Telephone: (205) 348-4928 Facsimile: (205) 348-3909 wvanderpoljr@adap.ua.edu gnbaxter@adap.ua.edu lwilliams@adap.ua.edu 17 0 blawrence@adap.ua.edu amixson@adap.ua.edu Lisa W. Borden (ASB-5673-D57L) William G. Somerville, III (ASB-6185-E63W) Andrew P. Walsh (ASB-3755-W77W) Dennis Nabors Patricia Clotfelter (ASB-0841-F43P) Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz PC 420 20th Street North, Suite 1400 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 328-0480 Facsimile: (205) 322-8007 lborden@bakerdonelson.com wsomerville@bakerdonelson.com awalsh@bakerdonelson.com dnabors@bakerdonelson.com pclotfelter@bakerdonelson.com Gregory M. Zarzaur (ASB-0759-E45Z) Anil A. Mujumdar (ASB-2004-L65M) Diandra S. Debrosse (ASB-2956-N76D) Denise Wiginton Zarzaur Mujumdar & Debrosse 2332 2nd Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 983-7985 Facsimile: (888) 505-0523 gregory@zarzaur.com anil@zarzaur.com diandra@zarzaur.com denise@zarzaur.com 18 0 ATTORNEYS FOR THE PLAINTIFFS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have on this 6th day of February, 2018, electronically filed the foregoing with the clerk of the court by using the CM/ECF system, which will send a notice of electronic filing to the following: David R. Boyd, Esq. Steven C. Corhern, Esq. John G. Smith, Esq. Balch & Bingham LLP John W. Naramore, Esq. Post Office Box 306 Balch & Bingham LLP Birmingham, AL 35201-0306 Post Office Box 78 scorhern@balch.com Montgomery, AL 36101-0078 dboyd@balch.com Mitesh Shah, Esq. jgsmith@balch.com Luther M. Dorr, Esq. 19 0 jnaramore@balch.com Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C. 1901 6th Avenue North, Suite 2400 William R. Lunsford, Esq. Birmingham, AL 35203 Melissa K. Marler, Esq. mshah@maynardcooper.com Stephen C. Rogers, Esq. rdorr@maynardcooper.com Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C. 655 Gallatin Street, SW Deana Johnson, Esq. Huntsville, AL 35801 Brett T. Lane, Esq. blunsford@maynardcooper.com MHM Services, Inc. mmarler@maynardcooper.com 1447 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 500 srogers@maynardcooper.com Atlanta, GA 30309 djohnson@mhm-services.com btlane@mhm-services.com Anne Hill, Esq. Elizabeth A. Sees, Esq. Joseph G. Stewart, Jr., Esq. Alabama Department of Corrections Legal Division 301 South Ripley Street Montgomery, AL 36104 anne.hill@doc.alabama.gov elizabeth.sees@doc.alabama.gov joseph.stewart@doc.alabama.gov /s/ Maria V. Morris One of the Attorneys for Plaintiffs 20

NOTICE by Jefferson S. Dunn, Ruth Naglich The State's Witness Summaries for February 7, 2018

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARD BRAGGS, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) CIVIL ACTION NO.: v.) 2:14-cv-00601-MHT-TFM) JEFFERSON S. DUNN, in his official) District Judge Myron H. Thompson capacity, et al.,)) Defendants.)) THE STATE'S WITNESS SUMMARIES FOR FEBRUARY 7, 2018 Defendants JEFFERSON DUNN ("Commissioner Dunn") and RUTH NAGLICH ("Naglich" and, collectively with Commissioner Dunn, "the State") pursuant to this Court's Orders (Doc. Nos. 240, 463, and 1495, 1572, 1588) hereby submit their witness summaries for February 7, 2018. 1. Ruth Naglich. The State expects to call Ms. Naglich on February 7, 2018. Ms. Naglich is the Associate Commissioner of Health Services for the Alabama Department of Corrections. The State expects Ms. Naglich to testify regarding the State's Segregation Plan, restrictive housing in the ADOC, and the mental health care for inmates housed there. 2. Grantt Culliver. The State also expects to call Mr. Culliver on February 7, 2018. Mr. Culliver is the Associate Commissioner of Operations for the Alabama Department of Corrections. The State expects Mr. Culliver will testify regarding restrictive housing in the ADOC and the mental health care for inmates housed there. 254605.1 Respectfully submitted this the 7th day of February, 2018. /s/ John G. Smith John G. Smith Attorney for the Commissioner and Associate Commissioner John G. Smith David R. Boyd BALCH & BINGHAM LLP Post Office Box 78 Montgomery, AL 36101-0078 Telephone: (334) 834-6500 Facsimile: (866) 316-9461 jgsmith@balch.com dboyd@balch.com Steven C. Corhern BALCH & BINGHAM LLP Post Office Box 306 Birmingham, AL 35201-0306 Telephone: (205) 251-8100 Facsimile: (205) 488-5708 scorhern@balch.com Anne A. Hill Elizabeth A. Sees Joseph G. Stewart ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Legal Division 301 South Ripley Street Montgomery, Alabama 36130 Telephone (334) 353-3884 Facsimile (334) 353-3891 anne.hill@doc.alabama.gov elizabeth.sees@doc.alabama.gov joseph.stewart@doc.alabama.gov 2 254605.1 William R. Lunsford Matthew B. Reeves Melissa K. Marler Stephen C. Rogers MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, PC 655 Gallatin Street Huntsville, AL 35801 Telephone: (256) 512-5710 Facsimile: (256) 512-0119 blunsford@maynardcooper.com mreeves@maynardcooper.com mmarler@maynardcooper.com srogers@maynardcooper.com Luther M. Dorr, Jr. Mitesh B. Shah MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, PC 1901 Sixth Avenue North 2400 Regions Harbert Plaza Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 254-1178 Facsimile: (205) 714-6438 rdorr@maynardcooper.com mshah@maynardcooper.com 3 254605.1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served upon all attorneys of record in this matter, including without limitation the following, by the Court's CM/ECF system on this the 7th day of February, 2018: Maria V. Morris William Van Der Pol, Jr. Rhonda C. Brownstein Glenn N. Baxter Latasha L. McCrary Barbara A. Lawrence J. Richard Cohen Andrea J. Mixson Caitlin J. Sandley ALABAMA DISABILITIES ADVOCACY Grace Graham PROGRAM SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER University of Alabama 400 Washington Avenue 500 Martha Parham West Montgomery, Alabama 36104 Box 870395 Telephone: (334) 956-8200 Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487-0395 Facsimile: (334) 956-8481 Telephone: (205) 348-6894 maria.morris@splcenter.org Facsimile: (205) 348-3909 rhonda.brownstein@splcenter.org wvanderpoljr@adap.ua.edu latasha.mccrary@splcenter.org gnbaxter@bama.ua.edu richard.cohen@splcenter.org blawrence@adap.ua.edu cj.sandley@splcenter.org amixson@adap.ua.edu grace.graham@splcenter.org Gregory M. Zarzaur Andrew P. Walsh Anil A. Mujumdar William G. Somerville III Diandra S. Debrosse Patricia Clotfelter Denise Wiginton Lisa W. Borden ZARZAUR MUJUMDAR & DEBROSSE BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN 2332 2nd Avenue North CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC Birmingham, AL 35203 420 20th Street North Telephone: (205) 983-7985 Suite 1400 Facsimile: (888) 505-0523 Birmingham, Alabama 35203 gregory@zarzaur.com Telephone: (205) 244-3863 anil@zarzaur.com Facsimile: (205) 488-3863 fuli@zarzaur.com awalsh@bakerdonelson.com denise@zarzaur.com wsomerville@bakerdonelson.com pclotfelter@bakerdonelson.com lborden@bakerdonelson.com 4 254605.1 Lonnie J. Williams Deana Johnson ALABAMA DISABILITIES ADVOCACY Brett T. Lane PROGRAM MHM SERVICES, INC. P. O. Box 870395 1447 Peachtree Street NE Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 Suite 500 Telephone: (205) 348-4928 Atlanta, GA 30309 Facsimile: (205) 348-3909 Telephone: (404) 347-4134 lwilliams@adap.ua.edu Facsimile: (404) 347-4138 djohnson@mhm-services.com btlane@mhm-services.com /s/ John G. Smith Of Counsel 5 254605.1

ORDER: During an evidentiary hearing on February 7, 2018, the plaintiffs presented evidence (plaintiffs' demonstrative exhibit 167, an excerpt of which is attached) that allegedly reflects that the Alabama Department of Corrections has held approximately 20 inmates with serious mental illness in segregation housing units for periods of more than 30 days between February 1, 2017, and January 31, 2018--including several for significantly longer periods. Because, as the defendants recognize, it is categorically inappropriate to place inmates with serious mental illness in segregation for longer than 30 days at a time, it is ORDERED, as to each of the inmates listed in the attached excerpt of plaintiffs' demonstrative exhibit 167, that, by February 9, 2018, at 5:00 p.m.,the defendants are to (1) confirm that the inmate has been removed from segregation, give the date of removal, and explain where that inmate has moved to, or (2) explain why that inmate has not been removed from segregation, which explanation shall also include the length of time the inmate has remained in segregation (including the dates of each stint) during the period covered in the exhibit and the dates of any crisis or medical/mental-health placements during that period, as further set out. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 2/7/2018.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARD BRAGGS, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) CIVIL ACTION NO. v.) 2:14cv601-MHT) (WO) JEFFERSON S. DUNN, in his) official capacity as) Commissioner of) the Alabama Department of) Corrections, et al.,)) Defendants.) ORDER During an evidentiary hearing on February 7, 2018, the plaintiffs presented evidence (plaintiffs' demonstrative exhibit 167, an excerpt of which is attached) that allegedly reflects that the Alabama Department of Corrections has held approximately 20 inmates with serious mental illness in segregation housing units for periods of more than 30 days between February 1, 2017, and January 31, 2018--including several for significantly longer periods. Because, as the defendants recognize, it is categorically inappropriate to place inmates with serious mental illness in segregation for longer than 30 days at a time, it is ORDERED, as to each of the inmates listed in the attached excerpt of plaintiffs' demonstrative exhibit 167, that, by February 9, 2018, at 5:00 p.m., the defendants are to (1) confirm that the inmate has been removed from segregation, give the date of removal, and explain where that inmate has moved to, or (2) explain why that inmate has not been removed from segregation, which explanation shall also include the length of time the inmate has remained in segregation (including the dates of each stint) during the period covered in the exhibit and the dates of any crisis or medical/mental-health placements during that period. Because plaintiffs' demonstrative exhibit 167 was based upon a limited sample of information provided from defendants, the court does understand that the list is complete. Nor does the court conclude, at this time, that the list is accurate. However, given the 2 urgency of this issue, the court opts to act now upon this initial sample. Furthermore, the court focuses in this order on inmates with serious mental illness in segregation for longer than 30 days because the parties agree that placement for that length of time is categorically inappropriate for such inmates. However, this order should not be read to suggest that placement of seriously mentally ill inmates in segregation for 30 days or less is appropriate. DONE, this the 7th day of February, 2018. /s/ Myron H. Thompson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Time in Segregation Attachment

Time in Segregation – Sampling of Mental Health Caseload SOUF E: PLS. EX. 1405 COMBINED SAMPLING OF MOVEMENT HISTORY EXCERPTS OF PERSONS ON THE CASELOAD WHO WERE IN SEGREGATION: PLS. EX. 1376 JAN. 2018 MM MASTER HOSTER) NUMBER Jan. 2018 MH Code 2018 Diagnosis FEB 1, 2017 - JAN 31, 2018 * Total Days in Longest period Segregation in Segregation 311 154 365 365 41 23 1b 1b 31 29 1b 283 262 1b 365 365 88 1a 144 126 113 220 220 166 139 | Schizoaffective D / 0, Depressed; Meth Use DVO MDD w psychosis Substance Induced Mood D / O; Hx Bipolar D / O; Hx Polysub Use D / 0 MDD, Recurrent w / Psychotic Features MOD W psychosis MDD MAJ DEP Psychotic D / O Unspecified MDD Recurrent in Remission. ASPD Unspec Psychosis Schizophrenia Schizoaffective D / O Antisocial Personality Disorder PTSD MDD Psychosis, c / o adj dio Schizoaffective D / O dep d / o unspec; / o adj. dvo; ETO Bipolar Schizoaffective D / O TO CVA W / RECEPTIVE 365 365 = = NM NN NI 49 49 103 40 43 55 59 34 199 62 199 16 332 137 335 232 223 133 232 223 133 76 & 8 som = DEP DIS 76 Mood D / 0 unspec Average for Prisoners with Serious Mental Dipess 187 167 * Days include first and last day in segregation, and any crisis of medical placements during the period in segregation. PLAINTIFFS ' DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT 167

NOTICE by Jefferson S. Dunn, Ruth Naglich State Witness Summaries for February 8, 2018

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARD BRAGGS, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) CIVIL ACTION NO.: v.) 2:14-cv-00601-MHT-TFM) JEFFERSON S. DUNN, in his official) District Judge Myron H. Thompson capacity, et al.,)) Defendants.) THE STATE'S WITNESS SUMMARIES FOR FEBRUARY 8, 2018 Defendants JEFFERSON DUNN ("Commissioner Dunn") and RUTH NAGLICH ("Naglich" and, collectively with Commissioner Dunn, "the State") pursuant to this Court's Orders (Doc. Nos. 240, 463, and 1495, 1572) hereby submit their witness summaries for February 8, 2018. 1. Dr. Wendy Williams. The State expects to call Dr. Williams on February 8, 2017. Dr. Williams is the Deputy Commissioner of Women's Services for the Alabama Department of Corrections. The State expects Ms. Williams will testify regarding restrictive housing at Julia Tutwiler Prison for Women, as well as the mental health care provided to the inmates housed there. 2. Dr. Edward Kern. The State also expects to call Dr. Kern on February 8, 2017. Dr. Edward Kern is a Board certified psychiatrist licensed in Alabama, providing psychiatric treatment to inmates in the Residential Treatment and Stabilization Units at {H0381417.1} Bullock Correctional Facility. The State expects Dr. Kern will testify regarding the mental health care provided to inmates housed in ADOC's restrictive housing units. 3. Grantt Culliver. The State also expects to call Mr. Culliver on February 8, 2018. Mr. Culliver is the Associate Commissioner of Operations for the Alabama Department of Corrections. The State expects Mr. Culliver will testify regarding restrictive housing in the ADOC and the mental health care for inmates housed there. Respectfully submitted this the 8th day of February, 2018. /s/ John G. Smith John G. Smith Attorney for the Commissioner and Associate Commissioner John G. Smith David R. Boyd John W. Naramore BALCH & BINGHAM LLP Post Office Box 78 Montgomery, AL 36101-0078 Telephone: (334) 834-6500 Facsimile: (866) 316-9461 jgsmith@balch.com dboyd@balch.com jnaramore@balch.com Steven C. Corhern BALCH & BINGHAM LLP Post Office Box 306 Birmingham, AL 35201-0306 Telephone: (205) 251-8100 Facsimile: (205) 488-5708 scorhern@balch.com Anne A. Hill Elizabeth A. Sees {H0381417.1} Joseph G. Stewart ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Legal Division 301 South Ripley Street Montgomery, AL 36130 Telephone: (334) 353-3884 Facsimile: (334) 353-3891 anne.hill@doc.alabama.gov elizabeth.sees@doc.alabama.gov joseph.stewart@doc.alabama.gov William R. Lunsford Matthew B. Reeves Michael P. Huff Melissa K. Marler Stephen C. Rogers MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, PC 655 Gallatin Street Huntsville, AL 35801 Telephone: (256) 512-5710 Facsimile: (256) 512-0119 blunsford@maynardcooper.com mreeves@maynardcooper.com mhuff@maynardcooper.com mmarler@maynardcooper.com srogers@maynardcooper.com Luther M. Dorr, Jr. Mitesh B. Shah MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, PC 1901 Sixth Avenue North 2400 Regions Harbert Plaza Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 254-1178 Facsimile: (205) 714-6438 rdorr@maynardcooper.com mshah@maynardcooper.com {H0381417.1} CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served upon all attorneys of record in this matter, including without limitation the following, by the Court's CM/ECF system on this the 8th day of February, 2018: Maria V. Morris William Van Der Pol Latasha McCrary Glenn N. Baxter Rhonda C. Brownstein Lonnie J. Williams J. Richard Cohen Barbara A. Lawrence Caitlin J. Sandley Andrea J. Mixson Grace Graham ALABAMA DISABILITIES SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER ADVOCACY PROGRAM 400 Washington Avenue University of Alabama Montgomery, Alabama 36104 500 Martha Parham West, Box 870395 maria.morris@splcenter.org Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487-0395 ebony.howard@splcenter.org wvanderpoljr@adap.ua.edu latasha.mccrary@splcenter.org gnbaxter@adap.ua.edu rhonda.brownstein@splcenter.org lwilliams@adap.ua.edu richard.cohen@splcenter.org blawrenc@adap.ua.edu jaqueline.aranda@splcenter.org amixson@adap.ua.edu kristi.graunke@splcenter.org natalie.lyons@splcenter.org cj.sandley@splcenter.org grace.graham@splcenter.org Deana Johnson Andrew P. Walsh Brett T. Lane William G. Somerville III MHM SERVICES, INC. Patricia Clotfelter 1447 Peachtree Street NE Lisa Wright Borden Suite 500 Dennis Nabors Atlanta, GA 30309 BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN Telephone: (404) 347-4134 CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC Facsimile: (404) 347-4138 420 20th Street North, Suite 1400 djohnson@mhm-services.com Birmingham, AL 35203 btlane@mhm-services.com Telephone: (205) 244-3863 Facsimile: (205) 488-3863 awalsh@bakerdonelson.com wsomerville@bakerdonelson.com pclotfelter@bakerdonelson.com lborden@bakerdonelson.com dnabors@bakerdonelson.com {H0381417.1} Anil A. Mujumdar Gregory M. Zarzuar Diandra S. Debrosse Zimmerman Denise Wiginton ZARZAUR MUJUMDAR & DEBROSSE 2332 2nd Avenue North Birmingham, Alabama 35203 anil@zarzaur.com gregory@zarzaur.com fuli@zarzaur.com denise@zarzaur.com /s/ John G. Smith Of Counsel {H0381417.1}

AMENDED ORDER (REPLACING DOC. NO. {{1601}}) During an evidentiary hearing on February 7, 2018, the plaintiffs presented evidence (plaintiffs' demonstrative exhibit 167, an excerpt of which is attached) that allegedly reflects that the Alabama Department of Corrections has held approximately 20 inmates with serious mental illness in segregation housing units for periods of more than 30 days between February 1, 2017, and January 31, 2018--including several for significantly longer periods. Because, as the defendants recognize, it is categorically inappropriate to place inmates with serious mental illness in segregation for longer than 30 days at a time, it is ORDERED, as to each of the inmates listed in the attached excerpt of plaintiffs demonstrativeexhibit 167, that, by February 9, 2018, at 5:00 p.m., the defendants are to (1) confirm that the inmate has been removed from segregation, give the date of removal, and explain where that inmate has moved to, or (2) explain why that inmate has not been removed from segregation, which explanation shall also include the length of time the inmate has remained in segregation (including the dates of each stint) during the period covered in the exhibit and the dates of any crisis or medical/mental-health placements during that period. Because plaintiffs' demonstrative exhibit 167 was based upon a limited sample of information provided from defendants, the court does understand that the list is not complete. Nor does the court conclude, at this time, that the list is accurate. However, given the urgency of this issue, the court opts to act now upon this initial sample, as further set out. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 2/8/2018.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARD BRAGGS, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) CIVIL ACTION NO. v.) 2:14cv601-MHT) (WO) JEFFERSON S. DUNN, in his) official capacity as) Commissioner of) the Alabama Department of) Corrections, et al.,)) Defendants.) AMENDED ORDER (REPLACING DOC. NO. 1601) During an evidentiary hearing on February 7, 2018, the plaintiffs presented evidence (plaintiffs' demonstrative exhibit 167, an excerpt of which is attached) that allegedly reflects that the Alabama Department of Corrections has held approximately 20 inmates with serious mental illness in segregation housing units for periods of more than 30 days between February 1, 2017, and January 31, 2018--including several for significantly longer periods. Because, as the defendants recognize, it is categorically inappropriate to place inmates with serious mental illness in segregation for longer than 30 days at a time, it is ORDERED, as to each of the inmates listed in the attached excerpt of plaintiffs' demonstrative exhibit 167, that, by February 9, 2018, at 5:00 p.m., the defendants are to (1) confirm that the inmate has been removed from segregation, give the date of removal, and explain where that inmate has moved to, or (2) explain why that inmate has not been removed from segregation, which explanation shall also include the length of time the inmate has remained in segregation (including the dates of each stint) during the period covered in the exhibit and the dates of any crisis or medical/mental-health placements during that period. Because plaintiffs' demonstrative exhibit 167 was based upon a limited sample of information provided from defendants, the court does understand that the list is not complete. Nor does the court conclude, at this time, that the list is accurate. However, given 2 the urgency of this issue, the court opts to act now upon this initial sample. Furthermore, the court focuses in this order on inmates with serious mental illness in segregation for longer than 30 days because the parties agree that placement for that length of time is categorically inappropriate for such inmates. However, this order should not be read to suggest that placement of seriously mentally ill inmates in segregation for 30 days or less is appropriate. DONE, this the 8th day of February, 2018. /s/ Myron H. Thompson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

SECOND ADDITIONAL PHASE 2A REVISED REMEDY SCHEDULING ORDER ON THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT CLAIM: Based on the representations made in open court on February 7, 2018, it is ORDERED that the deadlines and dates set in the additional Phase 2A remedy scheduling order for the Eighth Amendment claim (doc. no. {{1524}}) are further revised as follows: Final Pretrial Conference previously set for 2/14/2018 reset to 2/26/2018, at 10:00 AM, in chambers before Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson; Evidentiary Hearing previously set for 2/26/2018 reset to 3/12/2018, 09:00 AM, in CR 2FMJ before Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson; Final Pretrial Conference previously set for 3/1/2018 reset to 4/4/2018, 10:00 AM, in chambers before Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson; Evidentiary Hearing previously set for 3/5/2018 reset to 4/9/2018, 09:00 AM, in CR 2FMJ before Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson; Final Pretrial Conference previously set for 3/20/2018 reset to 6/1/2018, 10:00 AM, in chambers before Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson; Evidentiary Hearing previously set for 3/26/2018 reset to 6/11/2018, 09:00 AM, in CR 2FMJ before Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson; Final Pretrial Conference previously set for 4/11/2018 reset to 9/4/2018, 10:00 AM, in chambers before Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson; Evidentiary Hearing previously set for 4/16/2018 reset to 9/10/2018, 09:00 AM, in CR 2FMJ before Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson; Final Pretrial Conference previously set for 4/30/2018 reset to 10/12/2018, 10:00 AM, in chambers before Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson; Evidentiary Hearing previously set for 5/7/2018 reset to 10/22/2018, 09:00 AM, in CR 2FMJ before Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 2/8/2018. (furn: calendar, ag)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARD BRAGGS, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) CIVIL ACTION NO. v.) 2:14cv601-MHT) (WO) JEFFERSON S. DUNN, in his) official capacity as) Commissioner of) the Alabama Department of) Corrections, et al.,)) Defendants.) SECOND ADDITIONAL PHASE 2A REVISED REMEDY SCHEDULING ORDER ON THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT CLAIM Based on the representations made in open court on February 7, 2018, it is ORDERED that the deadlines and dates set in the additional Phase 2A remedy scheduling order for the Eighth Amendment claim (doc. no. 1524) are further revised as follows: OLD DATES NEW DATES IDENTIFICATION/ CLASSIFICATION Plaintiffs' Response 2/9/18 2/16/18 Pretrial Hearing 2/14/18 2/26/18 at 10:00 a.m. Evidentiary Hearing 2/26/18 3/12/18 at 9:00 a.m. INDIVIDUAL TREATMENT PLANS Defendants' Proposal 2/14/18 3/21/18 Plaintiffs' Response 2/21/18 3/28/18 Pretrial Hearing 3/1/18 4/4/18 at 10:00 a.m. Evidentiary Hearing 3/5/18 4/9/18 at 9:00 a.m. PSYCHOTHERAPY Defendants' Proposal 3/9/18 5/11/18 Plaintiffs' Response 3/16/18 5/25/18 Pretrial Hearing 3/20/18 6/1/18 at 10:00 a.m. Evidentiary Hearing 3/26/18 6/11/18 at 9:00 a.m. SUICIDE PREVENTION Defendants' Proposal 3/30/18 8/14/18 Plaintiffs' Response 4/6/18 8/28/18 Pretrial Hearing 4/11/18 9/4/18 at 10:00 a.m. Evidentiary Hearing 4/16/18 9/10/18 at 9:00 a.m. DISCIPLINARY SANCTIONS Defendants' Proposal 4/11/18 9/21/18 Plaintiffs' Response 4/18/18 10/5/18 Pretrial Hearing 4/30/18 10/12/18 at 10:00 a.m. Evidentiary Hearing 5/7/18 10/22/18 at 9:00 a.m. DONE, this the 8th day of February, 2018. /s/ Myron H. Thompson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

NOTICE by Jefferson S. Dunn, Ruth Naglich The State's Witness Summaries for February 9, 2018

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARD BRAGGS, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) Case No. 2:14-cv-00601-MHT-GMB v.)) District Judge Myron H. Thompson JEFFERSON DUNN, et al.,)) Defendants.) THE STATE'S WITNESS SUMMARIES FOR FEBRUARY 9, 2018 Defendants JEFFERSON DUNN ("Commissioner Dunn") and RUTH NAGLICH ("Naglich" and, collectively with Commissioner Dunn, "the State") pursuant to this Court's Orders (Doc. Nos. 240, 463, and 1495, 1572, 1588) hereby submit their witness summaries for February 9, 2018. 1. Grantt Culliver. The State expects to call Mr. Culliver on February 9, 2018 to conclude his testimony. Mr. Culliver is the Associate Commissioner of Operations for the Alabama Department of Corrections. The State expects Mr. Culliver will further testify regarding restrictive housing in the ADOC and the mental health care for inmates housed there. 2. Cynthia Stewart. The State expects to call Ms. Stewart on February 9, 2018. Ms. Stewart is the Warden of Holman Correctional Facility. The State expects Ms. Stewart will testify regarding the restrictive housing at Holman and the mental health care provided to inmates housed there. 3. Cheryl Price. The State expects to call Ms. Price on February 9, 2018. Ms. Price is the Institutional Coordinator for the Southern Region of the Alabama Department of Corrections. The State expects Ms. Price will testify regarding the restrictive housing in the ADOC and the mental health care for inmates housed there. Respectfully submitted this the 9th day of February, 2018. /s/ John G. Smith John G. Smith Attorney for the Commissioner and Associate Commissioner John G. Smith David R. Boyd BALCH & BINGHAM LLP Post Office Box 78 Montgomery, AL 36101-0078 Telephone: (334) 834-6500 Facsimile: (866) 316-9461 jgsmith@balch.com dboyd@balch.com Steven C. Corhern BALCH & BINGHAM LLP Post Office Box 306 Birmingham, AL 35201-0306 Telephone: (205) 251-8100 Facsimile: (205) 488-5708 scorhern@balch.com Anne A. Hill Elizabeth A. Sees Joseph G. Stewart ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Legal Division 301 South Ripley Street Montgomery, Alabama 36130 Telephone (334) 353-3884 Facsimile (334) 353-3891 anne.hill@doc.alabama.gov elizabeth.sees@doc.alabama.gov joseph.stewart@doc.alabama.gov William R. Lunsford Matthew B. Reeves Melissa K. Marler Stephen C. Rogers MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, PC 655 Gallatin Street Huntsville, AL 35801 Telephone: (256) 512-5710 Facsimile: (256) 512-0119 blunsford@maynardcooper.com mreeves@maynardcooper.com mmarler@maynardcooper.com srogers@maynardcooper.com Luther M. Dorr, Jr. Mitesh B. Shah MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, PC 1901 Sixth Avenue North 2400 Regions Harbert Plaza Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 254-1178 Facsimile: (205) 714-6438 rdorr@maynardcooper.com mshah@maynardcooper.com CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served upon all attorneys of record in this matter, including without limitation the following, by the Court's CM/ECF system on this the 9th day of February, 2018: Maria V. Morris William Van Der Pol, Jr. Rhonda C. Brownstein Glenn N. Baxter Latasha L. McCrary Barbara A. Lawrence J. Richard Cohen Andrea J. Mixson Caitlin J. Sandley ALABAMA DISABILITIES ADVOCACY Grace Graham PROGRAM SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER University of Alabama 400 Washington Avenue 500 Martha Parham West Montgomery, Alabama 36104 Box 870395 Telephone: (334) 956-8200 Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487-0395 Facsimile: (334) 956-8481 Telephone: (205) 348-6894 maria.morris@splcenter.org Facsimile: (205) 348-3909 rhonda.brownstein@splcenter.org wvanderpoljr@adap.ua.edu latasha.mccrary@splcenter.org gnbaxter@bama.ua.edu richard.cohen@splcenter.org blawrence@adap.ua.edu cj.sandley@splcenter.org amixson@adap.ua.edu grace.graham@splcenter.org Gregory M. Zarzaur Andrew P. Walsh Anil A. Mujumdar William G. Somerville III Diandra S. Debrosse Patricia Clotfelter Denise Wiginton Lisa W. Borden ZARZAUR MUJUMDAR & DEBROSSE BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN 2332 2nd Avenue North CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC Birmingham, AL 35203 420 20th Street North Telephone: (205) 983-7985 Suite 1400 Facsimile: (888) 505-0523 Birmingham, Alabama 35203 gregory@zarzaur.com Telephone: (205) 244-3863 anil@zarzaur.com Facsimile: (205) 488-3863 fuli@zarzaur.com awalsh@bakerdonelson.com denise@zarzaur.com wsomerville@bakerdonelson.com pclotfelter@bakerdonelson.com lborden@bakerdonelson.com Lonnie J. Williams Deana Johnson ALABAMA DISABILITIES ADVOCACY Brett T. Lane PROGRAM MHM SERVICES, INC. P. O. Box 870395 1447 Peachtree Street NE Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 Suite 500 Telephone: (205) 348-4928 Atlanta, GA 30309 Facsimile: (205) 348-3909 Telephone: (404) 347-4134 lwilliams@adap.ua.edu Facsimile: (404) 347-4138 djohnson@mhm-services.com btlane@mhm-services.com /s/ John G. Smith Of Counsel

NOTICE by All Plaintiffs : Witness Summaries

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARDS BRAGGS, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) v.) CIVIL ACTION NO.) 2:14-CV-00601-MHT-GMB JEFFERSON DUNN, in his official) (Judge Thompson) capacity as Commissioner) of the Alabama Department of) Corrections, et al.,)) Defendants.)) PLAINTIFFS' WITNESS SUMMARIES, FEB. 8, 2018 I. Teresa Houser, MHM Program Manager Ms. Houser is the MHM Program Manager for Alabama. She testified during the liability trial and the understaffing remedial trial. She is expected to testify about the current and past iterations of the mental-health coding system; pre- segregation mental-health evaluations; re-evaluations of prisoners already in segregation to determine mental-health status; monitoring and mental-health treatment for prisoners in segregation; and Defendants' proposed remedial plan. II. Dr. David Tytell, ADOC Chief Psychologist Dr. David Tytell is ADOC's Chief Psychologist. He testified during the liability trial. He is expected to testify about the current and past iterations of the mental-health coding system; ADOC policies and procedures regarding the placement of prisoners on the mental-health caseload into segregation; the availability of Residential Treatment Unit beds; Defendants' proposed remedial plan; and mental-health monitoring and treatment for prisoners in segregation. Dated: Feb. 9, 2018 Respectfully Submitted, /s/ Maria V. Morris Maria V. Morris One of the Attorneys for Plaintiffs Southern Poverty Law Center 400 Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36104 Rhonda Brownstein (ASB-3193-O64R) Maria V. Morris (ASB-2198-R64M) Grace Graham (ASB-3040-A64G) Latasha L. McCrary (ASB-1935-L75M) Jonathan Blocker (ASB-6818-G19I) Caitlin J. Sandley (ASB-5317-S48R) SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 400 Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36104 Telephone: (334) 956-8200 Facsimile: (334) 956-8481 rhonda.brownstein@splcenter.org maria.morris@splcenter.org grace.graham@splcenter.org latasha.mccrary@splcenter.org jonathan.blocker@splcenter.org cj.sandley@splcenter.org William Van Der Pol, Jr. (ASB-2112-114F) Glenn N. Baxter (ASB-3825-A41G) Lonnie J. Williams Barbara A. Lawrence Andrea J. Mixson Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program Box 870395 Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 Telephone: (205) 348-4928 Facsimile: (205) 348-3909 wvanderpoljr@adap.ua.edu gnbaxter@adap.ua.edu lwilliams@adap.ua.edu blawrence@adap.ua.edu amixson@adap.ua.edu Lisa W. Borden (ASB-5673-D57L) William G. Somerville, III (ASB-6185-E63W) Andrew P. Walsh (ASB-3755-W77W) Dennis Nabors Patricia Clotfelter (ASB-0841-F43P) Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz PC 420 20th Street North, Suite 1400 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 328-0480 Facsimile: (205) 322-8007 lborden@bakerdonelson.com wsomerville@bakerdonelson.com awalsh@bakerdonelson.com dnabors@bakerdonelson.com pclotfelter@bakerdonelson.com Gregory M. Zarzaur (ASB-0759-E45Z) Anil A. Mujumdar (ASB-2004-L65M) Diandra S. Debrosse (ASB-2956-N76D) Denise Wiginton Zarzaur Mujumdar & Debrosse 2332 2nd Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 983-7985 Facsimile: (888) 505-0523 gregory@zarzaur.com anil@zarzaur.com diandra@zarzaur.com denise@zarzaur.com ATTORNEYS FOR THE PLAINTIFFS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have on this 9th day of February, 2018, electronically filed the foregoing with the clerk of the court by using the CM/ECF system, which will send a notice of electronic filing to the following: David R. Boyd, Esq. Steven C. Corhern, Esq. John G. Smith, Esq. Balch & Bingham LLP John W. Naramore, Esq. Post Office Box 306 Balch & Bingham LLP Birmingham, AL 35201-0306 Post Office Box 78 scorhern@balch.com Montgomery, AL 36101-0078 dboyd@balch.com Mitesh Shah, Esq. jgsmith@balch.com Luther M. Dorr, Esq. jnaramore@balch.com Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C. 1901 6th Avenue North, Suite 2400 William R. Lunsford, Esq. Birmingham, AL 35203 Melissa K. Marler, Esq. mshah@maynardcooper.com Stephen C. Rogers, Esq. rdorr@maynardcooper.com Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C. 655 Gallatin Street, SW Deana Johnson, Esq. Huntsville, AL 35801 Brett T. Lane, Esq. blunsford@maynardcooper.com MHM Services, Inc. mmarler@maynardcooper.com 1447 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 500 srogers@maynardcooper.com Atlanta, GA 30309 djohnson@mhm-services.com btlane@mhm-services.com Anne Hill, Esq. Elizabeth A. Sees, Esq. Joseph G. Stewart, Jr., Esq. Alabama Department of Corrections Legal Division 301 South Ripley Street Montgomery, AL 36104 anne.hill@doc.alabama.gov elizabeth.sees@doc.alabama.gov joseph.stewart@doc.alabama.gov /s/ Maria V. Morris________________ One of the Attorneys for Plaintiffs One of the Attorneys for Plaintiffs

ORDER: Based on the testimony of defendant Associate Commissioner Ruth Naglich on February 7, 2018, it is ORDERED that defendant Associate Commissioner Ruth Naglich is to return to the stand on February 14, 2018, at 9:00 a.m., to explain whether and why, as indicated by the plaintiffs demonstrative exhibit 165, there were approximately 900 inmates in the custody of the Alabama Department of Corrections in December 2017- January 2018 with a mental-health code of MH-1 who have a categorical serious mental illness. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 2/9/2018.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARD BRAGGS, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) CIVIL ACTION NO. v.) 2:14cv601-MHT) JEFFERSON S. DUNN, in his) official capacity as) Commissioner of) the Alabama Department of) Corrections, et al.,)) Defendants.) ORDER Based on the testimony of defendant Associate Commissioner Ruth Naglich on February 7, 2018, it is ORDERED that defendant Associate Commissioner Ruth Naglich is to return to the stand on February 14, 2018, at 9:00 a.m., to explain whether and why, as indicated by the plaintiffs' demonstrative exhibit 165, there were approximately 900 inmates in the custody of the Alabama Department of Corrections in December 2017- January 2018 with a mental-health code of MH-1 who have a categorical serious mental illness. DONE, this the 9th day of February, 2018. /s/ Myron H. Thompson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

MOTION for Leave to File Exhibits Under Seal to Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction to Close the Bibb Correctional Facility Segregation Unit by All Plaintiffs.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARDS BRAGGS, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) v.) CIVIL ACTION NO.) 2:14-CV-00601-MHT-GMB JEFFERSON DUNN, in his official) JUDGE MYRON H. THOMPSON capacity as Commissioner) of the Alabama Department of) Corrections, et al.,)) Defendants.) MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE UNDER SEAL The Court in this matter has entered several Protective Orders. Docs. 266, 279, 325. On February 11, 2016, the Court entered an Order governing the practice regarding filing briefs and documents that have been designated as confidential pursuant to one of the Protective Orders. Doc. 325. Plaintiffs intend to file with the Court exhibits to Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction to Close the Bibb Correctional Facility Segregation Unit. These exhibits contain information that has been designated as confidential. Plaintiffs request permission to file these exhibits under seal. Plaintiffs intend to file these exhibits under seal on Friday, February 9, 2018. 1 Dated: February 9, 2018 Respectfully Submitted, /s/ Maria V. Morris Maria V. Morris Attorney for Plaintiffs Southern Poverty Law Center 400 Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36104 Rhonda Brownstein (ASB-3193-O64R) Maria V. Morris (ASB-2198-R64M) Grace Graha m (ASB-3040-A64G) Latasha L. McCrary (ASB-1935-L75M) J on a th an B lo c k e r (ASB-6818-G19I) Caitlin J. Sandley (ASB-5317-S48R) SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 400 Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36104 Telephone: (334) 956-8200 Facsimile: (334) 956-8481 rhonda.brownstein@splcenter.org maria.morris@splcenter.org grace.graham@splcenter.org latasha.mccrary@splcenter.org jonathan.blocker@splcenter.org cj.sandley@splcenter.org William Van Der Pol, Jr. (ASB-2112-114F) Glenn N. Baxter (ASB-3825-A41G) Lonnie J. Williams Barbara A. Lawrence Andrea J. Mixson Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program Box 870395 Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 Telephone: (205) 348-4928 Facsimile: (205) 348-3909 wvanderpoljr@adap.ua.edu gnbaxter@adap.ua.edu lwilliams@adap.ua.edu 2 blawrence@adap.ua.edu amixson@adap.ua.edu Lisa W. Borden (ASB-5673-D57L) William G. Somerville, III (ASB-6185-E63W) Andrew P. Walsh (ASB-3755-W77W) Dennis Nabors Patricia Clotfelter (ASB-0841-F43P) Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz PC 420 20th Street North, Suite 1400 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 328-0480 Facsimile: (205) 322-8007 lborden@bakerdonelson.com wsomerville@bakerdonelson.com awalsh@bakerdonelson.com dnabors@bakerdonelson.com pclotfelter@bakerdonelson.com Gregory M. Zarzaur (ASB-0759-E45Z) Anil A. Mujumdar (ASB-2004-L65M) Diandra S. Debrosse (ASB-2956-N76D) Denise Wiginton Zarzaur Mujumdar & Debrosse 2332 2nd Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 983-7985 Facsimile: (888) 505-0523 gregory@zarzaur.com anil@zarzaur.com diandra@zarzaur.com denise@zarzaur.com ATTORNEYS FOR THE PLAINTIFFS 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have on this 9th day of February, 2018, electronically filed the foregoing with the clerk of the court by using the CM/ECF system, which will send a notice of electronic filing to the following: David R. Boyd, Esq. Steven C. Corhern, Esq. John G. Smith, Esq. Balch & Bingham LLP John W. Naramore, Esq. Post Office Box 306 Balch & Bingham LLP Birmingham, AL 35201-0306 Post Office Box 78 scorhern@balch.com Montgomery, AL 36101-0078 dboyd@balch.com Mitesh Shah, Esq. jgsmith@balch.com Luther M. Dorr, Esq. jnaramore@balch.com Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C. 1901 6th Avenue North, Suite 2400 William R. Lunsford, Esq. Birmingham, AL 35203 Melissa K. Marler, Esq. mshah@maynardcooper.com Stephen C. Rogers, Esq. rdorr@maynardcooper.com Matthew Reeves, Esq. Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C. 655 Gallatin Street, SW Deana Johnson, Esq. Huntsville, AL 35801 Brett T. Lane, Esq. blunsford@maynardcooper.com MHM Services, Inc. mmarler@maynardcooper.com 1447 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 500 srogers@maynardcooper.com Atlanta, GA 30309 mreeves@maynardcooper.com djohnson@mhm-services.com btlane@mhm-services.com Anne Hill, Esq. Elizabeth A. Sees, Esq. Joseph G. Stewart, Jr., Esq. Alabama Department of Corrections Legal Division 301 South Ripley Street Montgomery, AL 36104 anne.hill@doc.alabama.gov elizabeth.sees@doc.alabama.gov joseph.stewart@doc.alabama.gov /s/ Maria V. Morris One of the Attorneys for Plaintiffs 4 5

NOTICE by Jefferson S. Dunn, Ruth Naglich re {{1585}} Order, {{1582}} Notice (Other) The State's Revised Technology Request

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARD BRAGGS, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) Case No. 2:14-cv-00601-MHT-GMB v.)) District Judge Myron H. Thompson JEFFERSON DUNN, et al.,)) Defendants.) THE STATE'S REVISED TECHNOLOGY REQUEST FOR PHASE 2A REMEDIAL TRIAL REGARDING HOSPITAL-LEVEL CARE AND SEGREGATION COME NOW Defendants JEFFERSON DUNN ("Commissioner Dunn") and RUTH NAGLICH ("Naglich" and, collectively with Commissioner Dunn, "the State") and submit this request that the non-attorney staff listed below be added to the previous request dated February 1, 2018 and allowed the use of the following technological devices for the purposes of the Phase 2A remedial trial regarding hospital-level care and segregation in this matter. Cindy Johnson, Nurse Cell Phone1 Ms. Johnson is a nurse attending trial to provide the inmate witnesses with their medications, as necessary. She will need a cell phone to alert the appropriate 1 The State also reserves the right to amend this technology request in the event that Plaintiffs call additional ADOC personnel to testify who are not listed on the State's technology request or it becomes necessary to call personnel as rebuttal witnesses. provider in a timely manner if any inmate witness requires urgent medical or mental health care. The State also respectfully requests that it be permitted, if necessary, to amend this Request during the course of the Phase 2A remedial trial regarding hospital-level care and segregation to include any other personnel whose presence at trial may become necessary to monitor these inmates. Dated: February 9, 2018. /s/ Stephen C. Rogers Stephen C. Rogers Attorney for the Commissioner and Associate Commissioner William R. Lunsford Matthew B. Reeves Melissa K. Marler Stephen C. Rogers MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, PC 655 Gallatin Street Huntsville, AL 35801 Telephone: (256) 512-5710 Facsimile: (256) 512-0119 blunsford@maynardcooper.com mreeves@maynardcooper.com mmarler@maynardcooper.com srogers@maynardcooper.com Luther M. Dorr, Jr. Mitesh B. Shah MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, PC 1901 Sixth Avenue North 2400 Regions Harbert Plaza Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 254-1178 Facsimile: (205) 714-6438 2 rdorr@maynardcooper.com mshah@maynardcooper.com CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served upon all attorneys of record in this matter, including without limitation the following, by the Court's CM/ECF system on this the 9th day of February, 2018: Maria V. Morris William Van Der Pol, Jr. Rhonda C. Brownstein Glenn N. Baxter Latasha L. McCrary Barbara A. Lawrence J. Richard Cohen Andrea J. Mixson Caitlin J. Sandley ALABAMA DISABILITIES ADVOCACY Grace Graham PROGRAM SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER University of Alabama 400 Washington Avenue 500 Martha Parham West Montgomery, Alabama 36104 Box 870395 Telephone: (334) 956-8200 Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487-0395 Facsimile: (334) 956-8481 Telephone: (205) 348-6894 maria.morris@splcenter.org Facsimile: (205) 348-3909 rhonda.brownstein@splcenter.org wvanderpoljr@adap.ua.edu latasha.mccrary@splcenter.org gnbaxter@bama.ua.edu richard.cohen@splcenter.org blawrence@adap.ua.edu cj.sandley@splcenter.org amixson@adap.ua.edu grace.graham@splcenter.org Gregory M. Zarzaur Andrew P. Walsh Anil A. Mujumdar William G. Somerville III Diandra S. Debrosse Patricia Clotfelter Denise Wiginton Lisa W. Borden ZARZAUR MUJUMDAR & DEBROSSE BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN 2332 2nd Avenue North CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC Birmingham, AL 35203 420 20th Street North Telephone: (205) 983-7985 Suite 1400 Facsimile: (888) 505-0523 Birmingham, Alabama 35203 gregory@zarzaur.com Telephone: (205) 244-3863 anil@zarzaur.com Facsimile: (205) 488-3863 fuli@zarzaur.com awalsh@bakerdonelson.com denise@zarzaur.com wsomerville@bakerdonelson.com pclotfelter@bakerdonelson.com 3 lborden@bakerdonelson.com John G. Smith Deana Johnson David R. Boyd Brett T. Lane BALCH & BINGHAM LLP MHM SERVICES, INC. Post Office Box 78 1447 Peachtree Street NE Montgomery, AL 36101-0078 Suite 500 Telephone: (334) 834-6500 Atlanta, GA 30309 Facsimile: (866) 316-9461 Telephone: (404) 347-4134 jgsmith@balch.com Facsimile: (404) 347-4138 dboyd@balch.com djohnson@mhm-services.com btlane@mhm-services.com Steven C. Corhern Lonnie J. Williams BALCH & BINGHAM LLP ALABAMA DISABILITIES ADVOCACY Post Office Box 306 PROGRAM Birmingham, AL 35201-0306 P. O. Box 870395 Telephone: (205) 251-8100 Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 Facsimile: (205) 488-5708 Telephone: (205) 348-4928 scorhern@balch.com Facsimile: (205) 348-3909 lwilliams@adap.ua.edu Anne A. Hill Elizabeth A. Sees Joseph G. Stewart ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Legal Division 301 South Ripley Street Montgomery, Alabama 36130 Telephone (334) 353-3884 Facsimile (334) 353-3891 anne.hill@doc.alabama.gov elizabeth.sees@doc.alabama.gov joseph.stewart@doc.alabama.gov /s/ Stephen C. Rogers Of Counsel 4

MOTION for Leave to File Under Seal by Jefferson S. Dunn, Ruth Naglich.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARD BRAGGS, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) Case No. 2:14-cv-00601-MHT-GMB v.)) District Judge Myron H. Thompson JEFFERSON DUNN, et al.,)) Defendants.) MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL Defendants JEFFERSON DUNN ("Commissioner Dunn") and RUTH NAGLICH ("Naglich" and, collectively with Commissioner Dunn, "the State") hereby submit this Motion for Leave to file their Response to the Court's February 8, 2018, Order, under seal. The State firmly believes that some of the information contained in the Response is confidential and/or highly confidential—for attorneys' eyes only, because it quotes from and relies upon documents previously identified as confidential or highly confidential—for attorneys' eyes only and/or contains protected medical information. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the State respectfully requests that this Court enter an Order permitting the State to file its Response to the Court's February 8, 2018, Order, under seal. Dated: February 9, 2018. /s/ Stephen C. Rogers Stephen C. Rogers Attorney for the Commissioner and Associate Commissioner William R. Lunsford Matthew B. Reeves Melissa K. Marler Stephen C. Rogers MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, PC 655 Gallatin Street Huntsville, AL 35801 Telephone: (256) 512-5710 Facsimile: (256) 512-0119 blunsford@maynardcooper.com mreeves@maynardcooper.com mmarler@maynardcooper.com srogers@maynardcooper.com Luther M. Dorr, Jr. Mitesh B. Shah MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, PC 1901 Sixth Avenue North 2400 Regions Harbert Plaza Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 254-1178 Facsimile: (205) 714-6438 rdorr@maynardcooper.com mshah@maynardcooper.com 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served upon all attorneys of record in this matter, including without limitation the following, by the Court's CM/ECF system on this the 9th day of February, 2018: Maria V. Morris William Van Der Pol, Jr. Rhonda C. Brownstein Glenn N. Baxter Latasha L. McCrary Barbara A. Lawrence J. Richard Cohen Andrea J. Mixson Caitlin J. Sandley ALABAMA DISABILITIES ADVOCACY Grace Graham PROGRAM Jonathan Blocker University of Alabama SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 500 Martha Parham West 400 Washington Avenue Box 870395 Montgomery, Alabama 36104 Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487-0395 Telephone: (334) 956-8200 Telephone: (205) 348-6894 Facsimile: (334) 956-8481 Facsimile: (205) 348-3909 maria.morris@splcenter.org wvanderpoljr@adap.ua.edu rhonda.brownstein@splcenter.org gnbaxter@bama.ua.edu latasha.mccrary@splcenter.org blawrence@adap.ua.edu richard.cohen@splcenter.org amixson@adap.ua.edu cj.sandley@splcenter.org grace.graham@splcenter.org jonathan.blocker@splcenter.org Gregory M. Zarzaur Andrew P. Walsh Anil A. Mujumdar William G. Somerville III Diandra S. Debrosse Patricia Clotfelter Denise Wiginton Lisa W. Borden ZARZAUR MUJUMDAR & DEBROSSE BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN 2332 2nd Avenue North CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC Birmingham, AL 35203 420 20th Street North Telephone: (205) 983-7985 Suite 1400 Facsimile: (888) 505-0523 Birmingham, Alabama 35203 gregory@zarzaur.com Telephone: (205) 244-3863 anil@zarzaur.com Facsimile: (205) 488-3863 fuli@zarzaur.com awalsh@bakerdonelson.com denise@zarzaur.com wsomerville@bakerdonelson.com pclotfelter@bakerdonelson.com 3 lborden@bakerdonelson.com John G. Smith Deana Johnson David R. Boyd Brett T. Lane BALCH & BINGHAM LLP MHM SERVICES, INC. Post Office Box 78 1447 Peachtree Street NE Montgomery, AL 36101-0078 Suite 500 Telephone: (334) 834-6500 Atlanta, GA 30309 Facsimile: (866) 316-9461 Telephone: (404) 347-4134 jgsmith@balch.com Facsimile: (404) 347-4138 dboyd@balch.com djohnson@mhm-services.com btlane@mhm-services.com Steven C. Corhern Lonnie J. Williams BALCH & BINGHAM LLP ALABAMA DISABILITIES ADVOCACY Post Office Box 306 PROGRAM Birmingham, AL 35201-0306 P. O. Box 870395 Telephone: (205) 251-8100 Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 Facsimile: (205) 488-5708 Telephone: (205) 348-4928 scorhern@balch.com Facsimile: (205) 348-3909 lwilliams@adap.ua.edu Anne A. Hill Elizabeth A. Sees Joseph G. Stewart ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Legal Division 301 South Ripley Street Montgomery, Alabama 36130 Telephone (334) 353-3884 Facsimile (334) 353-3891 anne.hill@doc.alabama.gov elizabeth.sees@doc.alabama.gov joseph.stewart@doc.alabama.gov /s/ Stephen C. Rogers Of Counsel 4

Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction for Immediate Closure of Bibb Correctional Facility Segregation Unit by All Plaintiffs.

0 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARDS BRAGGS, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) v.) CIVIL ACTION NO.) 2:14-CV-00601-MHT-GMB JEFFERSON DUNN, in his official) J. Thompson capacity as Commissioner) of the Alabama Department of) Corrections, et al.,)) Defendants.)) PLAINTIFFS' EMERGENCY MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER OR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION REQUIRING THE IMMEDIATE CLOSURE OF BIBB CORRECTIONAL FACILITY'S SEGREGATION UNITS Plaintiffs seek immediate relief closing the segregation units at Bibb Correctional Facility. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65. The circumstances surrounding these units are well known to the Court. On January 20, 2017, Plaintiffs' expert Dr. Craig Haney recommended that the segregation units at Bibb Correctional Facility be closed immediately because of the risk of harm they pose—a recommendation he had never made in any prison. Braggs v. Dunn, 257 F. Supp. 3d 1171, 1239 (M.D. Ala. 2017) (Liability Opinion); Dr. Craig Haney, Jan. 20, 2018 Trial Tr., at 140:5-143:14, 165:13-21. Likewise, Plaintiffs' expert Dr. Kathryn Burns testified that the Bibb segregation units were "very concerning" and that she had not "seen 1 0 units like that in a long time." Dr. Kathryn Burns, Dec. 12, 2106 Trial Tr., at 214:5-215:23. As the Court noted in its liability opinion, even Defendants' own security expert, Robert Ayers, "credibly testified to his suspicion that, because of understaffing and safety concerns, correctional officers were not walking down the hallway away from the central cube at Bibb as frequently as they claimed." Braggs, 257 F. Supp. 3d at 1239. Now, over a year later and despite the Court's Liability Opinion, Defendants have done nothing to address the deficiencies in the segregation units at Bibb. Staffing deficiencies remain beyond critical, and information presented during this remedial trial on segregation indicated an extraordinary risk for prisoners housed in these units. There are few, if any, correctional rounds, mental health rounds, and little or no out-of-cell time. And prisoners with mental illnesses, including serious mental illnesses, remain housed in the units. Such gross violations of the State's basic obligation to provide for the safety and health of prisoners while they are in state custody creates, and perpetuates, a substantial risk of serious harm to prisoners housed in segregation. See Braggs, 257 F. Supp. 3d at 1192 (articulating Eighth Amendment standard). Moreover, such conditions present an imminent risk of harm to prisoners located in the segregation units. The Court should not let this situation remain unaddressed until the conclusion of the segregation remedial phase or beyond. 2 0 For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiffs move the Court to order Defendants to (1) immediately close the segregation units at Bibb; (2) move all prisoners currently placed in the units to other correctional facilities or other housing after an expedited review of their individual situations and healthcare needs, if any; (3) report to the Court by Monday, February 12, 2018, at 5:00 p.m. regarding the status of each prisoner currently held in the Bibb segregation units; and (4) keep the segregation units closed until Defendants can appropriately renovate or replace the units to address inadequacies with the physical plant and provide appropriate staffing, monitoring, and treatment. FACTUAL BACKGROUND I. The Physical Layout of the Bibb Segregation Units In its Liability Opinion, the Court found that Bibb's segregation units: might be the most egregious in terms of visibility: each housing unit has its own segregation unit of a few cells shut off from the rest of the unit, down a long hallway and through a door, with no line of sight from the central officer station and officers entering the space to check on the prisoners only periodically. Braggs, 257 F. Supp. 3d at 1239; see also Pls. Dem. Ex. 137.1 On February 9, 2018, Associate Commissioner Grantt Culliver confirmed 2 that cubicle officers 1 There are thirty-six (36) segregation cells at Bibb. Pls. Ex. 1404. 2 Because Associate Commissioner Culliver's testimony referred to herein occurred today, Plaintiffs do not yet have even a rough transcript to cite. However, 3 0 cannot see into the segregation units at Bibb and that officers must physically enter the unit to observe and check on prisoners housed in segregation. Associate Commissioner Culliver further confirmed that duty post logs and correctional officer rounds logs indicate that security checks are not happening as they should in the Bibb segregation units, with prisoners going hours and even days without being seen by a correctional officer. ADOC's own facilities assessment consultants, Goodwyn Mills, recommended in fall 2017 that ADOC create an entirely new segregation unit for Bibb because of the current lack of "visual control." Pls. Ex. 1344 at 65. Yet Defendants have done nothing to relocate or increase visibility within the Bibb segregation units, nor have they presented any plan to do so. See Doc. 1533 (Defs.' Segregation Remedial Plan) at 36-39. Further, Defendants have not moved any prisoners to other segregation units in other facilities even though Associate Commissioner Culliver confirmed that space was available system-side; apparently, it is just too difficult to transport them. II. People with Mental Illness in Segregation Bibb Correctional Facility continues to house prisoners in segregation at a disproportionate rate. As of January 10, 2018, 38% of prisoners housed in segregation at Bibb were on the mental-health caseload, compared to just 17.8% of these representations are made based on the best recollection of all Plaintiffs' counsel who were present. 4 0 the total Bibb population on the caseload. Pls. Ex. 1404 (Jan. 10, 2018 ADOC Segregation Roster); Pls. Ex. 1376 (Jan. 2018 MHM Master Roster); Pls. Ex. 1393 at 1 (Dec. 2017 MHM Monthly Report). Though the Court held in June 2017 that prisoners with serious mental illness should not be housed in segregation absent extenuating circumstances, as of January 10, 2018, there were five (5) prisoners with serious mental illness housed in segregation at Bibb. Braggs, 257 F. Supp. 3d at 1247; Pls. Dem. Ex. 166 (Prisoners Nos. 11, 44, 122, 131, 132). Two (2) of those prisoners were also listed on a segregation roster from on or around December 12, 2017, giving rise to an inference they had been housed in segregation for over thirty days. Pls. Dem. Ex. 166 (Prisoners Nos. 11 and 44). Additionally, a total of thirteen (13) individuals at Bibb listed on the January 10, 2018 segregation roster were on the mental-health caseload. Pls. Dem. Ex. 164 (Prisoner Nos. 28, 65, 110, 111, 128, 135, 142, 280, 294, 297, 311, 313, 350). Of those individuals, seven (7) were also listed on a segregation roster from on or around December 12, 2017, giving rise to an inference they had been housed in segregation for over thirty days. Pls. Dem. Ex. 164 (Prisoner Nos. 28, 65, 110, 111, 128, 135, 142). Furthermore, within the past year, there were ten (10) instances of individuals who were discharged from suicide watch directly to segregation at 5 0 Bibb. Pls. Ex. 1401 (Jan.-Dec. 2017 Suicide Prevention Monitoring Logs). Commissioner Naglich testified on February 7, 2018, that this practice is not appropriate and would be especially problematic for a person with a mental illness. Ruth Naglich, Feb. 7, 2018 R.D. Trial Tr., at 211:23-212:7. Finally, as of January 2018, at Bibb, there were 100 individuals with categorical serious mental illness diagnoses who were coded as MH-1. Pls. Dem. Ex. 165. Defendants' current coding scheme requires these individuals to be coded as MH-2 or higher. Ruth Naglich, Feb. 7, 2018 R.D. Trial Tr., at 121:19-24. Because ADOC's current policy only prohibits the placement of individuals coded as MH-2 or higher from being placed in segregation, these people are at risk of being placed in segregation because they are miscoded, and therefore, they face a substantial risk of serious harm. Braggs, 257 F. Supp. 3d at 1247. In fact, three individuals with categorical serious mental illness who were miscoded as MH-1 were placed in segregation at Bibb during December 2017 or January 2018. Pls. Dem. Ex. 165-SEG (highlighting Prisoner Nos. 139, 337, 664). III. Correctional Officer Rounds Are Not Occurring Correctional officer rounds in the Bibb segregation units are not happening at the frequency ADOC's own policy requires. ADOC Administrative Regulation 434 requires security officers to observe prisoners housed in segregation every thirty minutes and to note such checks on a duty post log. Pls. Ex. 1399 (Admin. 6 0 Reg. 434) at 8. On February 9, 2018, Associate Commissioner Culliver testified that he would not be surprised to know that correctional officer rounds are not occurring as required due to understaffing. Indeed, as of October 2017, Bibb was only staffed at 23% of the authorized correctional officer positions. Pls. Ex. 1308 (June 2017 ADOC Monthly Statistical Report) at 16 (listing authorized correctional officer numbers); Pls. Ex. 1323 (Correctional Officer Staffing Numbers).3 Four months ago, Defendants received preliminary staffing recommendations for Bibb from their security consultants, Merle and Margaret Savage. The Savages recommended that ADOC station one correctional officer in each segregation unit at Bibb twenty-four (24) hours a day, seven (7) days a week. Doc. 1374-2 at 13 (Savages' Preliminary Staffing Recommendations for Bibb). Duty post logs from Bibb segregation units reflect that correctional officer rounds are not occurring every thirty (30) minutes and that, at times, hours and even days pass without correctional officer rounds happening. Pls. Ex. 1406 (Bibb Correctional Officer Rounds Logs). Indeed, the logs confirm that one prisoner, C.C., who has been diagnosed with Bipolar II disorder, went four (4) days without being checked on by a correctional officer. Pls. Ex. 1376 (Jan. 2018 MHM Master Roster) at 9; Pls. Ex. 1406 (Bibb Correctional Officer Rounds Logs) 3 On February 9, 2018, Associate Commissioner Culliver testified that Bibb was currently staffed at 28-30% of the authorized correctional officer positions. But it was unclear the basis of this conclusion and/or whether this number included supervisory officers. 7 0 at ADOC0413834, ADOC0416080-82 (showing no entries at all into the segregation unit from January 5 through January 8, 2018). Furthermore, some correctional officer rounds logs from Bibb are signed by Correctional Cubicle Officers (CCOs), who have not received training at the Academy. See, e.g., Pls. Ex. 1406 (Bibb Duty Post Logs) at ADOC0413836-37, ADOC0413857-64; see also Jefferson Dunn, Nov. 30, 2017 Trial Tr., at 79:1-86:9. These officers are not allowed to interact with prisoners because they have not received adequate training. Jefferson Dunn, Nov. 30, 2017 Trial Tr., at 79:1-86:9. On February 9, 2018, Associate Commissioner Culliver testified that, based on the logs, it is not possible to know whether CCOs themselves conducted the rounds or simply signed the form. If CCOs are in fact conducting segregation rounds, prisoners are placed at a further risk of irreparable harm because they are being directly supervised only by untrained officers. IV. Mental-Health Rounds Are Not Occurring Mental-health rounds in the Bibb segregation units are not happening at the frequency ADOC's own policy requires. ADOC's own policy requires mental- health segregation rounds four days per week. Jt. Ex. 126 (ADOC Admin. Reg. 624) at 2. While mental-health rounds logs from Bibb reflect that mental-health rounds occurred on six days during a two-week period, the duty post logs from the same period reflect zero entries by mental-health staff into the segregation units at 8 0 Bibb. Compare Pls. Ex. 1433 (Bibb Mental Health Rounds Logs) (documenting rounds on six days during a two-week period) with Pls. Ex. 1406 (Bibb Duty Post Logs) at ADOC0416080-82. The rounds logs contain almost no substantive notes regarding prisoners' mental-health status, further evidencing the cursory contact, if any, between mental-health staff and prisoners in segregation, some of whom have serious mental illnesses. See Pls. Ex. 1433 (Bibb Mental Health Rounds Logs). V. Out-of-Cell Time Is Not Provided to Prisoners Housed in Segregation at Bibb Prisoners housed in segregation at Bibb are not receiving out-of-cell time. The logs maintained for prisoner C.C., who has a Bipolar II diagnosis, reflect that he received one exercise walk between December 28, 2017, and January 26, 2018. Pls. Ex. 1406 (Bibb Segregation Logs) at ADOC0416080-82. And class member M.P., who has a serious mental illness diagnosis of Psychotic Disorder Unspecified, received no exercise walks between December 10, 2017, and January 12, 2018. Id. at ADOC0416111-15; Pls. Ex. 1376 (Jan. 2018 MHM Master Roster). The Court has found that out-of-cell time is critical for prisoners with serious mental illness who are housed in residential treatment units and failure to provide it results in a substantial risk of serious harm. Braggs, 257 F. Supp. 3d at 1213-17, 1267-68. Similarly, the failure to provide out-of-cell time to prisoners with serious mental illnesses housed in segregation only compounds the risk of harm segregation poses to this population. See id. at 1240 n.65 (noting that other 9 0 states operate housing units for people with mental illnesses who have committed disciplinary infractions that provide up to twenty (20) hours of out-of-cell time per week as well as therapeutic activities). LEGAL STANDARD To obtain a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, the moving party must show: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) that it will suffer irreparable injury unless the injunction is issued; (3) that the threatened injury outweighs possible harm that the injunction may cause the opposing party; and (4) that the injunction would not disserve the public interest. GeorgiaCarry.Org, Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 788 F.3d 1318, 1322 (11th Cir. 2015). If a temporary restraining order is sought, the moving party must also show that immediate and irreparable injury will result before the adverse party can be heard in opposition. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A). 4 ARGUMENT 4 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(B), the attorney for the movant seeking a temporary restraining order must "certif[y] in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required." Today, counsel for the parties conferred briefly. No agreement on segregation at Bibb has been reached, but Plaintiffs have expressed their willingness to continue to discuss the issue should Defendants find evidence that the conditions in segregation are less dire than the duty post logs and other ADOC records show. However, given the extraordinary nature of the evidence of risk of harm in segregation at Bibb, Plaintiffs do not believe they should postpone bringing this motion. 10 0 I. Defendants Continue to Be Deliberately Indifferent to Substantial Risks of Serious Harm to Prisoners Housed in the Segregation Units at Bibb. The Eighth Amendment requires that prison officials adequately meet the serious mental health needs of prisoners. See Rogers v. Evans, 792 F.2d 1052, 1058 (11th Cir. 1986). It also requires that officials "take reasonable measures to guarantee the safety of the inmates." Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994) (internal quotations omitted). Prison officials violate the Eighth Amendment when they are deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk to prisoner safety. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. Deliberate indifference "entails something more than mere negligence," but "the cases are also clear that it is satisfied by something less than acts or omissions for the very purpose of causing harm or with knowledge that harm will result." Id. at 835. Where officials have actual knowledge that prisoners are at substantial risk of serious harm, but "disregard[] that known risk by failing to respond to it in an (objectively) reasonable manner," they violate the Eighth Amendment. Rodriguez v. Sec'y for Dep't of Corr., 508 F.3d 611, 617 (11th Cir. 2007); see also Farmer, 511 U.S. at 836 ("It is, indeed, fair to say that acting or failing to act with deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm to a prisoner is the equivalent of recklessly disregarding that risk.") The Court has already found Defendants deliberately indifferent with respect to segregation conditions system-wide and noted its particular concern with the 11 0 situation at Bibb. Nevertheless, Defendants have not taken any actions to correct the deficiencies at this specific facility. As deeply disturbing as the facts are here, the response of ADOC officials is even more so. While acknowledging that the situation in the segregation units at Bibb "concerned" him, Associate Commissioner Culliver questioned the veracity of ADOC'S own documents and advocated for keeping the units open despite the severe risks to prisoners, merely because it would be too difficult to transport them to another facility. Moreover, as of February 9, 2018, his stated plan of action was not to review immediately each prisoners' situation and house them elsewhere where possible, but to gather the various logs together and to discuss the situation with the Bibb warden. Furthermore, there is no plan to address the lack of visibility into the segregation cells caused by the way the units were constructed. This de facto lack of response merely demonstrates the continued deliberate indifference of Defendants to the substantial risk of serious harm faced by seriously mentally ill prisoners in the segregation units at Bibb. II. Defendants' Failure to Adequately Supervise, Monitor, and Treat Prisoners in the Segregation Units at Bibb Creates a Substantial Threat of Irreparable Injury. The injuries at issue in this Motion—suicide, serious self-injury, or decompensation—are patently imminent and irreparable. There is no question that the vast majority of suicides and suicide attempts in the ADOC system have 12 0 occurred while the prisoner was housed in segregation. Pls. Ex. 1267; see also Braggs, 237 F. Supp. 3d at 1236 (citing Dr. Craig Haney regarding the "characteristically high numbers of suicide deaths and incidents of self-harm and self-mutilation" that occur in segregation). Further, the Court has already noted that "[t]he serious psychological harm stemming from segregation is even more devastating for those with mental illness." Braggs, 257 F. Supp. at 1237 (emphasis added). As stated above, as recently as January 20, 2018, there were five (5) prisoners with serious mental illness currently housed in segregation at Bibb, and two (2) of them may have been in segregation more than 30 days. Similarly, there were thirteen (13) individuals on the mental-health caseload in segregation, and seven (7) may have been housed in segregation for over thirty days. The risks to these individuals is even more acute considering the lack of any monitoring by health or security staff, virtually no out-of-cell time, and the dearth of mental health treatment. See Braggs, 257 F. Supp. 3d at 1245. There are literally days in which not one official has entered the segregation units at Bibb. This cannot be allowed to continue—particularly when Defendants have empty segregation cells in other facilities. Defendants' promises of more staffing, monitoring, and treatment, or their references to the purportedly limiting effect of the application of "extenuating circumstances" on the placement of seriously mentally ill prisoners in 13 0 segregation, rings hollow against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. And in any event, none of these measures alter the physical deficiencies in how the units were constructed in the first place. The Court "need not await a tragic event" before it may act. Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 33 (1993) ("It would be odd to deny an injunction to inmates who plainly proved an unsafe, life-threatening condition in their prison on the ground that nothing yet had happened to them."). As set forth above, Defendants' conduct and knowing failure to act constitutes an ongoing violation of their constitutional duty to adequately protect the safety of prisoners located in the segregation units at Bibb. An ongoing constitutional violation also constitutes irreparable harm in and of itself. See Laube v. Haley, 234 F. Supp. 2d 1227, 1251 (M.D. Ala. 2002) ("The existence of a continuing constitutional violation constitutes proof of an irreparable harm…") (quoting Preston v. Thompson, 589 F.2d 300, 303 n.3 (7th Cir.1978)). III. The Threatened Injury to Seriously Mentally Ill Prisoners at Risk of Serious Injury or Death Significantly Outweighs the Harm of Issuing an Injunction Against Defendants. In light of the previous findings of the Court in the Liability Opinion, the testimony of Associate Commissioner Culliver that virtually no action is being taken to address the particular and singular issues with respect to the segregation units at Bibb, and the incontrovertible proof that seriously mentally ill prisoners continue to be placed in the units, there is no legitimate question that the threatened 14 0 injury to prisoners significantly outweighs any purported harm to Defendants. See Laube, 234 F. Supp. at 1252 (finding that the defendants would "suffer no harm from providing sufficient staff and adequate facilities to reduce the risk of assault and harm to women prisoners"); see also Ancata v. Prison Health Servs., Inc., 769 F.2d 700, 705 (11th Cir. 1985) ("Lack of funds for facilities cannot justify an unconstitutional lack of competent medical care and treatment for inmates."). Defendants have failed their constitutional duty to adequately monitor and treat prisoners located in segregation generally, but particularly at Bibb. And their intransigence continues unabated. In these circumstances, Plaintiffs respectfully submit, the Court must act. IV. A Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction Would Be in the Public Interest. The public has a substantial interest in not only safeguarding the rights afforded under the Constitution generally, but also specifically in protecting prisoners in the segregation units at Bibb from preventable death, self-harm, or decompensation. See Laube, 234 F. Supp. at 1252 ("[T]here is a strong public interest in requiring that plaintiffs' constitutional rights no longer be violated, as well as in prevention of the foreseeable violence that will occur if present conditions persist."). Defendants have disregarded their constitutional obligation to adequately monitor and treat prisoners housed in the segregation units at Bibb, and the public would be served by an injunction requiring them to adhere to their 15 0 constitutional duty by not just monitoring and treating prisoners in segregation but by closing the Bibb segregation units altogether. V. Plaintiffs Should Not Be Required to Post Bond Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c). The Court should require no security or nominal security under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c), as Plaintiffs and class members are prisoners seeking compliance with their basic civil rights and injunctive relief to prevent further death and serious injury. See BellSouth Telecomm., Inc. v. MCIMetro Access Transmission Servs., LLC, 425 F.3d 964, 971 (11th Cir. 2005) ("[I]t is well-established that the amount of security required by the rule is a matter within the discretion of the trial court, and the court may elect to require no security at all.") (quotations and ellipses omitted); Complete Angler, LLC v. City of Clearwater, Fla., 607 F. Supp. 2d 1326, 1335 (M.D. Fla. 2009) ("Waiving the bond requirement is particularly appropriate where a plaintiff alleges the infringement of a fundamental constitutional right."); see also All States Humane Game Fowl Org., Inc. v. City of Jacksonville, Fla., No. 308-CV-312-J-33MCR, 2008 WL 2949442, at *13 (M.D. Fla. July 29, 2008) ("Plaintiffs bring a constitutional law complaint and allege infringement of fundamental rights. The action that they fear, permanent destruction of their roosters, is a considerable loss to face. The Court finds it appropriate to waive the bond requirement in this case."). 16 0 RELIEF REQUESTED Plaintiffs seek an order requiring Defendants to (1) immediately close the segregation units at Bibb; (2) move all prisoners currently placed in the units to other correctional facilities or other housing after an expedited review of their individual situations and healthcare needs, if any; (3) report to the Court by Monday, February 12, 2018, at 5:00 p.m. regarding the status of each prisoner currently held in the Bibb segregation units; and (4) keep the segregation units closed until Defendants can appropriately renovate or replace the units to address inadequacies with the physical plant. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court enter a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction as set forth in this Motion. Dated: Feb. 9, 2018 Respectfully Submitted, /s/ Maria V. Morris___________________ Maria V. Morris One of the Attorneys for Plaintiffs Southern Poverty Law Center 400 Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36104 Rhonda Brownstein (ASB-3193-O64R) Maria V. Morris (ASB-2198-R64M) Grace Graham (ASB-3040-A64G) Latasha L. McCrary (ASB-1935-L75M) Jonathan Blocker (ASB-6818-G19I) Caitlin J. Sandley (ASB-5317-S48R) 17 0 SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 400 Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36104 Telephone: (334) 956-8200 Facsimile: (334) 956-8481 rhonda.brownstein@splcenter.org maria.morris@splcenter.org grace.graham@splcenter.org latasha.mccrary@splcenter.org jonathan.blocker@splcenter.org cj.sandley@splcenter.org William Van Der Pol, Jr. (ASB-2112-114F) Glenn N. Baxter (ASB-3825-A41G) Lo nnie J. Willia ms Barba ra A. Lawre nce Andrea J. Mixson Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program Box 870395 Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 Telephone: (205) 348-4928 Facsimile: (205) 348-3909 wvanderpoljr@adap.ua.edu gnbaxter@adap.ua.edu lwilliams@adap.ua.edu blawrence@adap.ua.edu amixson@adap.ua.edu Lisa W. Borden (ASB-5673-D57L) William G. Somerville, III (ASB-6185-E63W) Andrew P. Walsh (ASB-3755-W77W) Dennis Nabors Patricia Clotfelter (ASB-0841-F43P) Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz PC 420 20th Street North, Suite 1400 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 328-0480 Facsimile: (205) 322-8007 lborden@bakerdonelson.com 18 0 wsomerville@bakerdonelson.com awalsh@bakerdonelson.com dnabors@bakerdonelson.com pclotfelter@bakerdonelson.com Gregory M. Zarzaur (ASB-0759-E45Z) Anil A. Mujumdar (ASB-2004-L65M) Diandra S. Debrosse (ASB-2956-N76D) Denise Wiginton Zarzaur Mujumdar & Debrosse 2332 2nd Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 983-7985 Facsimile: (888) 505-0523 gregory@zarzaur.com anil@zarzaur.com diandra@zarzaur.com denise@zarzaur.com ATTORNEYS FOR THE PLAINTIFFS 19 0 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have on this 9th day of February, 2018, electronically filed the foregoing with the clerk of the court by using the CM/ECF system, which will send a notice of electronic filing to the following: David R. Boyd, Esq. Steven C. Corhern, Esq. John G. Smith, Esq. Balch & Bingham LLP John W. Naramore, Esq. Post Office Box 306 Balch & Bingham LLP Birmingham, AL 35201-0306 Post Office Box 78 scorhern@balch.com Montgomery, AL 36101-0078 dboyd@balch.com Mitesh Shah, Esq. jgsmith@balch.com Luther M. Dorr, Esq. jnaramore@balch.com Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C. 1901 6th Avenue North, Suite 2400 William R. Lunsford, Esq. Birmingham, AL 35203 Melissa K. Marler, Esq. mshah@maynardcooper.com Stephen C. Rogers, Esq. rdorr@maynardcooper.com Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C. 655 Gallatin Street, SW Deana Johnson, Esq. Huntsville, AL 35801 Brett T. Lane, Esq. blunsford@maynardcooper.com MHM Services, Inc. mmarler@maynardcooper.com 1447 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 500 srogers@maynardcooper.com Atlanta, GA 30309 djohnson@mhm-services.com btlane@mhm-services.com Anne Hill, Esq. Elizabeth A. Sees, Esq. Joseph G. Stewart, Jr., Esq. Alabama Department of Corrections Legal Division 301 South Ripley Street Montgomery, AL 36104 anne.hill@doc.alabama.gov elizabeth.sees@doc.alabama.gov joseph.stewart@doc.alabama.gov /s/ Maria V. Morris_______________ One of the Attorneys for Plaintiffs 20

Exhibit

Plaintiffs ' Demonstrative Exhibit 137 Diagram of Bibb Housing Unit FILED UNDER SEAL

Exhibit

Prisoners on the Mental Health Caseload in Segregation On or About December 12, 2017 and/or On or About January 10, 2018 SOURCE: PLS. EX. 1357 (DEC. 2017 LIST OF MH-2S AND HIGHER), PLS. EX. 1363 (DEC. 12, 2017 SEGREGATION ROSTER), PLS. EX. 1376 (JAN. 2018 MHM MASTER ROSTER), PLS. EX. 1404 (JAN. 10, 2018 SEGREGATION ROSTER) DEC. 2017 MH 2 OR HIGHER JAN. 2018 IN SEG IN IN SEG IN NUMBER LOCATION LISTING MH CODE 2018 DIAGNOSIS DEC. 2017 JAN. 2018 1 St Clair Correctional Facility n/a 1a mood d/o, NOS, Prob. Cluster B x x 2 Limestone Correctional Facility n/a 1a Mood D/O Unspecified x x 3 Donaldson Correctional Facility n/a 1 Adjustment D/O x x 4 Limestone Correctional Center 1 x x 5 Holman Correctional Facility n/a 1 MDD-Remission x x 6 Limestone Correctional Facility n/a 1b Schizophrenia x x 7 Easterling Correctional Facility n/a 1b Substance Use D/O w/ Mood D/O x x 8 Limestone Correctional Facility n/a 1a Mood D/O Unspecified x x 9 Limestone Correctional Facility n/a 1b Adjustment D/O w/depression x x 10 Limestone Correctional Facility 2 2 Mood D/O Unspecified x x 11 Kilby Rcc 1 Anxiety D/O Unspecified x x 12 St Clair Correctional Facility n/a 1 Schizophrenia, SUD, ASPD x x 13 Holman Correctional Facility n/a 1b R/O Psychosis, Depression x x 14 Fountain Correctional Facility 2 2 Unsp. Mood D/O x x 15 Donaldson Correctional Facility n/a 1b abuse d/o x x 16 Limestone Correctional Facility n/a 1 Adjustment D/O mixed x x 17 Kilby Correctional Facility n/a 1b ADJ DIS x x 18 Kilby Correctional Facility 2 2 MDD x x 19 Holman Correctional Facility n/a 1 Substance induced, mood d/o x x 20 Easterling Correctional Facility 2 2d MDD - Recurrent w/ Anxiety x x 21 Bullock Correctional Facility n/a 1b Adjustment Disorder, mixed mood x x 22 Limestone Correctional Facility n/a 1 MDD in remission x x 23 Holman Correctional Facility n/a 1b MDD w/Psychosis x x 24 Easterling Correctional Facility n/a 1 Personality D/O, Unspecified; R/O Delusional D/O x x 25 Holman Correctional Facility n/a 1b Depression/adj d/o x x 26 Limestone Correctional Facility n/a 1a MDD x x 27 Donaldson Correctional Facility n/a 1b R/O PTSD x x Bipolar II disorder; Intellectual Impairment; Continu- 28 Bibb Correctional Facility n/a 1 x x ous Drug Use 29 Limestone Correctional Facility n/a 1 Mood D/O Unspecified x x 30 Limestone Correctional Facility n/a 1a MDD x x 31 Kilby Correctional Facility n/a 2 adj dis. x x 32 Easterling Correctional Facility n/a 1b MDD, Recurrent x x 33 Limestone Correctional Facility n/a 1 Adjustment D/O w/depression x x 34 Limestone Correctional Facility n/a 1 Adjust d/o, cluster B traits x x Adjustment Disorder with mixed disturbance of 35 Donaldson Correctional Facility n/a 1b x x conduct 36 Kilby Correctional Facility 2 x x 37 Donaldson Correctional Facility n/a 1b ASPD/ Inter. Explosive D/O x x 38 St Clair Correctional Facility n/a 1b depression d/o, unspec x x 39 Holman Correctional Facility n/a 1 x x 40 Donaldson Correctional Facility n/a 1 Psychotic D/O Unspecified x x 41 Donaldson Correctional Facility n/a 1 Adjustment D/O Depressed Mood x x 42 Hamilton Aged & Infirmed n/a 1b ADJ D/O W/ANXIETY x x 43 St Clair Correctional Facility n/a 1 adj. d/o, substance use d/o x x 44 St Clair Correctional Facility 2 n/a x x 45 Holman Correctional Facility n/a 1 Adj d/o mixed sub x x 46 Holman Correctional Facility n/a 1 Adj D/O x x 47 Holman Correctional Facility n/a 1 Unspec mood d/o x x 48 St Clair Correctional Facility n/a 2 Psychosis, Hx of SUD x x 49 Fountain Correctional Facility n/a 1 Mood D/O x x 50 Easterling Correctional Facility n/a 1b Unspecified Depression D/O x x 51 Limestone Correctional Facility n/a 1a Substance Induced Psychotic x x 52 Limestone Correctional Facility n/a 1a Psychotic D/O Unspecified x x 53 St Clair Correctional Facility n/a 1a Depression d/o NOS x x 54 Limestone Correctional Center 1 x x 55 Easterling Correctional Facility n/a 1b Adjustment D/O w/ anxious mood x x 56 Holman Correctional Facility n/a 1b MDD x x 57 Holman Correctional Facility n/a 1b R/O Unsp Depression x x 58 Easterling Correctional Facility n/a 1b Anxiety D/O, Unspecified x x 59 Donaldson Correctional Facility n/a 2 Unspec mood D/O x x 60 St Clair Correctional Facility n/a 1 Adj d/o, ADHD, polysubs dep x x 61 Holman Correctional Facility n/a 1b Mood D/O NOS x x PLAINTIFFS' DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT 164 DEC. 2017 MH 2 OR HIGHER JAN. 2018 IN SEG IN IN SEG IN NUMBER LOCATION LISTING MH CODE 2018 DIAGNOSIS DEC. 2017 JAN. 2018 62 Donaldson Correctional Facility n/a 1 Persistant Dep D/O x x 63 Limestone Correctional Facility n/a 1 Adjustment D/O x x 64 St Clair Correctional Facility n/a 1 depression x x 65 Bibb County Correctional Fac. 1 x x 66 Limestone Correctional Facility n/a 1b Bipolar I D/O, Depressed x x 67 Limestone Correctional Facility n/a 1b Schizoaffective D/O x x 68 Kilby Correctional Facility n/a 1 DELUSIONAL DIS x x 69 Kilby Rcc 1 x x 70 Easterling Correctional Facility 2 2d Schizophrenia x x 71 Holman Correctional Facility n/a 1 Major Depression x x 72 Donaldson Correctional Facility n/a 1b Adjustment D/O x x 73 Fountain Correctional Facility n/a 1b Adjustment D/O; Dep/Anx x x 74 St Clair Correctional Facility n/a 1b mood d/o unspecified; ASPD x x 75 Limestone Correctional Facility n/a 1a Bipolar D/O, Depressed x x 76 Fountain Correctional Facility n/a 1 Acute stress D/O x x 77 Holman Correctional Facility n/a 1 x x 78 St Clair Correctional Facility n/a 1b mild x x 79 Limestone Correctional Facility n/a 1 Mood D/O w/depression x x 80 Holman Correctional Facility n/a 1b Schizophrenia x x 81 Easterling Correctional Facility n/a 1 Anxiety D/O, unspecified x x 82 Limestone Correctional Facility n/a 1 PTSD x x 83 Holman Correctional Facility n/a 1 Unsp. Depression x x 84 Holman Correctional Facility 2 2 Unspec Psychosis x x 85 Donaldson Correctional Facility n/a 1b Adjustment D/O with Distubance of Conduct x x 86 Limestone Correctional Facility n/a 1b Adjustment D/O w/depression x x 87 Limestone Correctional Facility n/a 1a Adjustment D/O x x 88 Donaldson Correctional Facility n/a 1 PTSD/ MDD Psychosis, r/o adj d/o x x 89 St Clair Correctional Facility n/a 1b adjustment D/O with depressed m x x 90 Fountain Correctional Facility n/a 1 Adj. D/O, Depression x x 91 Limestone Correctional Facility n/a 1b Bipolar D/O x x 92 Ventress Correctional Center 1 x x 93 Limestone Correctional Facility n/a 1a Adjustment D/O mixed x x 94 St Clair Correctional Facility n/a 1b depressive d/o, unspec x x 95 St Clair Correctional Facility n/a 1b maj. Dep d/o; EPD x x 96 Limestone Correctional Facility n/a 1b x x 97 Easterling Correctional Facility n/a 1 Adjustment D/O w/ Anxious x x 98 Easterling Correctional Facility n/a 1b Depression D/O - Unspecified x x 99 St Clair Correctional Facility n/a 1b R/O cluster Bipolar d/o x x 100 Donaldson Correctional Facility n/a 1 ASPD x x 101 Kilby Correctional Facility n/a 1b ADJ DIS x x 102 St Clair Correctional Facility n/a 1 ASPD x x 103 St Clair Correctional Facility n/a 1 mood d/o x x 104 St Clair Correctional Facility n/a 1a Depressive d/o NOS x x 105 Limestone Correctional Facility n/a 1a PTSD x x 106 Holman Correctional Facility n/a 1b Adj d/o Depressed mood x x 107 Fountain Correctional Facility 2 1 Unsp anxiety D/O x x 108 Holman Correctional Facility n/a 1b Depressive D/O x x 109 Limestone Correctional Facility n/a 1a GAD, Psychotic D/O x x 110 Bibb Correctional Facility n/a 1b Mood d/o unspec x x 111 Bibb Correctional Facility n/a 1b x x 112 Holman Correctional Facility n/a 1b Adjustment D/O x x 113 Limestone Correctional Facility n/a 1a Bipolar D/O w/psychosis x x 114 Limestone Correctional Facility n/a 1b Psychotic D/O Unspecified x x 115 Fountain Correctional Facility n/a 1b MDD, recurrent, mild, Opiod use D/O x x 116 Limestone Correctional Facility n/a 1a Adjustment D/O w/anxiety x x 117 Limestone Correctional Facility n/a 1b Adjustment D/O mixed x x 118 Kilby Correctional Facility n/a 1a DYSPHORIC MOOD x x 119 Kilby Correctional Facility n/a 1a ADJ DIS x x 120 Easterling Correctional Facility n/a 1b Psychosis, Unspecified; R/O Schizoaffective D/O x x 121 Fountain Correctional Facility n/a 1a MDD, recurrent x x 122 Bullock Correctional Facility n/a 1 x x 123 St Clair Correctional Facility n/a 1b PTSD; Adj. d/o w/anxiety x x 124 Easterling Correctional Facility 2 2d Psychosis; R/O, Bipolar D/O (Manic/Depressive) x x 125 St Clair Correctional Facility n/a 1b psychosis unspec x x 126 n/a 1 Personality D/O, Unspecified x x 127 n/a 1 Depression D/O Unspecified; THC/Meth Use D/O x x 128 Bibb Correctional Facility n/a 1a Psychotic D/O Unspecified x x 129 Bullock Correctional Facility n/a 1a Depressive Disorder, Unspecified x x 130 Limestone Correctional Facility n/a 1a Adjustment D/O w/depression x x 131 Easterling Correctional Facility n/a 1b MDD D/O, Recurrecent Moderate; PTSD x x 132 Donaldson Correctional Facility n/a 2 Antisocial Traits x x PAGE 2 — PLAINTIFFS' DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT 164 DEC. 2017 MH 2 OR HIGHER JAN. 2018 IN SEG IN IN SEG IN NUMBER LOCATION LISTING MH CODE 2018 DIAGNOSIS DEC. 2017 JAN. 2018 133 Holman Correctional Facility n/a 1b Unsp. Anxiety x x 134 Limestone Correctional Facility n/a 1 Adjustment D/O w/anxiety x x 135 Bibb Correctional Facility n/a 1b x x 136 Kilby Correctional Facility n/a 1 ADJ DIS/ ANX x x 137 Easterling Correctional Facility n/a 1b Bipolr D/O II x x 138 Holman Correctional Facility n/a 1 x x 139 Donaldson Correctional Facility n/a 1a Substance- Induced depressed d/o x x 140 Holman Correctional Facility n/a 1b Schizoaffective x x 141 Donaldson Correctional Facility n/a 1 Delustional D/O x x 142 Bibb County Correctional Fac. 1 x x 143 Fountain Correctional Facility n/a 1a MDD x x 144 Limestone Correctional Facility n/a 1 Schizoaffective D/O x x 145 Holman Correctional Facility n/a 1b depression x x 146 Kilby Correctional Facility n/a 1 MOOD DIS x x 147 St Clair Correctional Facility n/a 1 dep d/o unspec; r/o adj. d/o;ETO x x 148 Limestone Correctional Facility n/a 1b MDD w/psychosis x x 149 Donaldson Correctional Facility n/a 1 Bipolar x x 150 Holman Prison 1 x x 151 Kilby Correctional Facility n/a 1a MAJ DEP x x 152 St Clair Correctional Facility n/a 1 adj. d/o w/mixed features x x 153 Limestone Correctional Facility n/a 1a Adjustment D/O x x 154 Kilby Correctional Facility n/a 1a ADJ DIS x x 155 St Clair Correctional Facility n/a 1 Diagnostic Clarification x x 156 Easterling Correctional Facility n/a 1b MDD, Recurrent w/ Psychotic Features x x 157 Limestone Correctional Facility n/a 1a Adjustment D/O mixed x x 158 Donaldson Correctional Facility n/a 1 Unspecified Psychosis x x 159 Donaldson Correctional Facility n/a 1b Mood, Bipolar D/O x x 160 Holman Correctional Facility n/a 1b Unspec Depression x x 161 Bullock Correctional Facility n/a 1b Major Depressive Disorder, recurrent x x 162 St Clair Correctional Facility n/a 1 depression, sub. Abuse x x 163 St Clair Correctional Facility n/a 1 psychotic d/o unspecified x x 164 Fountain Correctional Facility n/a 1 Opiates Use Disorder, Acute Stress Disorder x x 165 St Clair Correctional Facility n/a 1 x x 166 Limestone Correctional Center 1 x x 167 St Clair Correctional Facility n/a 1b r/o bipolar d/o, personality d/o x x 168 Easterling Correctional Facility 2 2d Schizoaffective D/O, Depressed; Meth Use D/O x x 169 Kilby Rcc 1 x x 170 St Clair Correctional Facility n/a 1b MDD w/ psychosis x x 171 Limestone Correctional Facility n/a 1b Mood D/O Unspecified x x 172 Donaldson Correctional Facility n/a 1 Schizoaffective D/O x x 173 Limestone Correctional Center 1 x x 174 St Clair Correctional Facility n/a 1b Adj. d/o w/depression x x 175 Fountain Correctional Facility n/a 1 Adjustment D/O x x 176 Limestone Correctional Facility n/a 1b Adjustment D/O mixed x x 177 Fountain Correctional Facility n/a 1b Unspecified Mood D/O x x 178 Holman Correctional Facility n/a 1b Unsp. Depression x x 179 St Clair Correctional Facility 2 n/a x 180 Draper Correctional Facility n/a 1 Adjustment Disorder w/ Depressed Mood x 181 Fountain Correctional Facility 2 2 MDD Recurrent in Remission,ASPD x Adj d/o c- depressive mood; Opiod Use d/o; THC use 182 Bibb Correctional Facility n/a 1a x d/o 183 Fountain Correctional Facility 2 2 MDD, Recurrent- Moderate x 184 Holman Correctional Facility n/a 1b Depression NOS x 185 Fountain Correctional Facility 2 n/a x 186 Holman Correctional Facility n/a 1a Anxiety unspec x 187 Donaldson Correctional Facility 2 2 Bipolar D/O Unspecified x 188 Draper Correctional Facility 2 2 Depressive D/O Unspecified x 189 Kilby Correctional Facility 2 2 Depressive Disorder x 190 Limestone Correctional Facility n/a 1a Adjustment D/O w/depression x 191 Fountain Correctional Facility 2 2 schizophrenia x 192 Easterling Correctional Facility n/a 1 Adj. D/O W/ Depressed Mood x Adjustment D/O w/Anxiety, Cannabis use D/O (in 193 Tutwiler Prison For Women n/a 1a x remission), Gender Dysphoria Adjustment D/I w/ 194 Easterling Correctional Facility n/a 1 x Anxiety; Meth Use D/O 195 Limestone Correctional Facility n/a 1a MDD, Anxiety D/O x Mood D/O unspec,Hx of opioids/benzos/molly use 196 Tutwiler Prison For Women n/a 1b x D/O 197 Limestone Correctional Facility 2 1b Delusional D/O x 198 Kilby Correctional Facility n/a 1b x 199 Donaldson Correctional Facility n/a 1 MDD with psychotic Features x PAGE 3 — PLAINTIFFS' DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT 164 DEC. 2017 MH 2 OR HIGHER JAN. 2018 IN SEG IN IN SEG IN NUMBER LOCATION LISTING MH CODE 2018 DIAGNOSIS DEC. 2017 JAN. 2018 200 Limestone Correctional Facility n/a 1a MDD x 201 Kilby Correctional Facility 2 2 PTSD x 202 St Clair Correctional Facility 2 n/a x 203 Draper Correctional Facility 2 2 Depressive D/O Unspecified x 204 Limestone Correctional Facility n/a 1b PTSD x 205 Bibb Correctional Facility n/a 1 PTSD, Depression D/O, Meth/THC Use D/O x 206 Limestone Correctional Facility 2 2 Cluster B Personality x 207 Limestone Correctional Facility n/a 1b MDD x 208 Easterling Correctional Facility n/a 1b x 209 St Clair Correctional Facility 2 2 mood d/o, substance induced x 210 Limestone Correctional Facility n/a 1a PTSD x 211 Limestone Correctional Facility n/a 1a MDD, moderate x 212 Limestone Correctional Facility n/a 1a Mood D/O Unspecified x 213 n/a 1b Cluster B Personality Disorder x 214 Limestone Correctional Facility n/a 1 Adjustment D/O x 215 Tutwiler Prison For Women 2 2 Bipolar I D/O, PTSD, Substance use D/O x 216 Kilby Correctional Facility n/a 1 Depression D/O, Unspecified, THC Use D/O x 217 Fountain Correctional Facility 2 n/a x 218 Bullock Correctional Facility n/a 1 Adj D/O mixed x 219 Bibb Correctional Facility n/a 1b Bipolar I Disorder x 220 Tutwiler Prison For Women n/a 1b Mood D/O unspec x 221 Bullock Correctional Facility n/a 1a R/O MDD Recurrent x 222 St Clair Correctional Facility 2 n/a x 223 Draper Correctional Facility 2 2 Depressive D/O x 224 Limestone Correctional Facility n/a 1b Mood D/O Unspecified x 225 St Clair Correctional Facility 2 n/a x 226 Donaldson Correctional Facility n/a 1 Adjustment D/O x 227 Easterling Correctional Facility n/a 1 x 228 St Clair Correctional Facility 2 n/a x 229 Easterling Correctional Facility n/a 1b Depression D/O, Unspecified x Mood D/O unspec, Anxiety D/O unspec vs MDD w/o 230 Tutwiler Prison For Women n/a 1b x Psychotic fx 231 Limestone Correctional Facility n/a 1a PTSD x 232 St Clair Correctional Facility n/a 1 Depressive d/o unspec; x 233 Fountain Correctional Facility n/a 1a Depression D/O, Unspecified x 234 Limestone Correctional Facility n/a 1b Depressive D/O Unspecified x 235 Limestone Correctional Facility n/a 1b PTSD x 236 St Clair Correctional Facility n/a 1b psychotic d/o unspec; r/o bipola x 237 Tutwiler Prison For Women n/a 1b Unspec Depression, Anxiety D/O unspec x 238 Holman Correctional Facility 2 2 schizophrenia x 239 Limestone Correctional Facility n/a 1a PTSD x 240 Easterling Correctional Facility n/a 1 MDD, Recurrent -Revised; No documented HX of x 241 Limestone Correctional Facility n/a 1b PTSD x 242 Holman Correctional Facility n/a 1b Bipolar unspec x 243 St Clair Correctional Facility 2 1 Unspec. Mood d/o x 244 Draper Correctional Facility n/a 1 x 245 Holman Correctional Facility n/a 1 Adj d/o x 246 Draper Correctional Facility 2 2 NEW Intake x 247 Limestone Correctional Facility 2 1b MDD w/psychosis x 248 St Clair Correctional Facility 2 n/a x 249 St Clair Correctional Facility 2 n/a x 250 Limestone Correctional Facility n/a 1a GAD x 251 Bullock Correctional Facility n/a 1b Adjustment Disorder, with mixed mood x 252 Limestone Correctional Facility n/a 1b Mood D/O Unspecified x 253 Tutwiler Prison For Women n/a 1b Mood D/O unspec x 254 Fountain Correctional Facility n/a 1b Unsp Anxiety/Depression, Mood D/O x 255 Hamilton Aged & Infirmed 2 2 TO CVA W/ RECEPTIVE x 256 Bullock Correctional Facility 2 2 Schizophrenia x 257 Donaldson Correctional Facility n/a 1 Adjustment D/O Depressed Mood x 258 Limestone Correctional Facility n/a 1a Psychotic D/O Unspecified x Substance Induced Mood D/O; Hx Bipolar D/O; Hx 259 Draper Correctional Facility n/a 1b x Polysub Use D/O 260 Tutwiler Prison For Women n/a 1 Mood d/O unspec x 261 Holman Correctional Facility n/a 1b R/O unsp. Psychosis x 262 Tutwiler Prison For Women 2 2 Bipolar I vs Bipolar II x 263 Easterling Correctional Facility n/a 2 x 264 Limestone Correctional Facility n/a 1a MDD, mild x 265 Limestone Correctional Facility 2 1a MDD w/psychosis x 266 Limestone Correctional Facility 2 2 Schizoaffective D/O x 267 Kilby Correctional Facility 2 2 DEP DIS x 268 Bullock Correctional Facility 2 2 Antisocial Personality Disorder x PAGE 4 — PLAINTIFFS' DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT 164 DEC. 2017 MH 2 OR HIGHER JAN. 2018 IN SEG IN IN SEG IN NUMBER LOCATION LISTING MH CODE 2018 DIAGNOSIS DEC. 2017 JAN. 2018 269 Tutwiler Prison For Women 2 2 Mood D/O unspec x 270 Bullock Correctional Facility n/a 1b Adj D/O vs Unsp Moood, ASPD x Depressive D/O Unspecified; R/O Bipolar D/O vs Sub- 271 n/a 1b x stance Induced Mood D/O; Substance Use D/O THC 272 St Clair Correctional Facility n/a 1a Adjustment D/O w/depression x 273 Holman Correctional Facility n/a 1b Adj d/o w/ depressed mood x 274 Bibb Correctional Facility n/a 1b Cluster B Personality Disorder x 275 Easterling Correctional Facility n/a 1b Adjustment D/O w/ Anxious Mood x 276 Limestone Correctional Facility n/a 2 PTSD x 277 Holman Prison 2 2 Bipolar D/O x 278 Kilby Rcc 1 x 279 Limestone Correctional Center 1 Unspecified Bipolar D/O x Adj d/o c- depressive mood; Opiod Use d/o; THC use 280 Bibb County Correctional Fac. 1 x d/o 281 St.clair Correctional Fac. 1 adj. d/o, mixed; anti-social d/o x 282 Limestone Correctional Center 2 Schizoaffective D/O x 283 Limestone Correctional Center 1 Adjustment D/O w/anxiety x 284 William E. Donaldson Corr. Fac 1 Delusional D/O x 285 Bullock Correctional Facility 1 Intermittent Explosive Disorder x 286 Limestone Correctional Center 1 MDD, Anxiety D/O x 287 William E. Donaldson Corr. Fac 1 Depressive D/O unspecified x 288 Bullock Correctional Facility 2 1 x 289 William E. Donaldson Corr. Fac 2 1 Adjustment d/o w depression and anxiety x 290 Easterling Correctional Center 1 ADJ DIS x 291 Tutwiler Prison 1 Mood D/O unspec, Opiate use D/O x 292 Limestone Correctional Center 2 2 x 293 Fountain Correctional Center 1 Intermittent Explosive D/O x 294 Bibb County Correctional Fac. 1 x 295 Kilby Rcc 1 x 296 Bullock Correctional Facility 2 2 Impulse Control Disorder, Unspecified x 297 Bibb County Correctional Fac. 2 2 Bipolar D/O, Unpsecified x 298 Kilby Rcc 2 SCHIZO x 299 Tutwiler Prison 1 x 300 St.clair Correctional Fac. 2 2 MDD w. psych fx x 301 St.clair Correctional Fac. 2 2 Schizophrenia x 302 Tutwiler Prison 2 2 Mood D/O unspec, hx of Substance abuse x 303 Tutwiler Prison 1b Bipolar I D/O unspec x 304 Kilby Rcc 1 x 305 Tutwiler Prison 2 2 Schizophrenia D/O-Paranoid Type x 306 Bullock Correctional Facility 2 2 Substance Induced Psychotic Disorder x 307 William E. Donaldson Corr. Fac 1 Adjustment / PTSD x 308 Ventress Correctional Center 1 Mood D/O, Unspecified x 309 Kilby Rcc 1 x 310 Tutwiler Prison 2 2 Mood D/O unspec, Ectasy use D/O x 311 Bibb County Correctional Fac. 3 2 x 312 St.clair Correctional Fac. 1 anti-social traits; conduct d/o x 313 Bibb County Correctional Fac. 2 1 Bipolar I Disorder x 314 Ventress Correctional Center 1 Depressive D/O, Unspecified, ASPD x 315 Holman Prison 1 Adjustment D/O w/mixed features x 316 William E. Donaldson Corr. Fac 2 2 MDD, ASPD x 317 Bullock Correctional Facility 1 Mood Disorder, Unspecified x 318 William E. Donaldson Corr. Fac 2 2 Depression x 319 Limestone Correctional Center 1 MDD x 320 Kilby Rcc 2 2 x 321 Tutwiler Prison 2 2 x 322 Easterling Correctional Center 1 x 323 Fountain Correctional Center 1 Depression x 324 Limestone Correctional Center 1 x 325 Easterling Correctional Center 1 Adjustment D/O mixed distubances x 326 Fountain Correctional Center 1 Schizoaffective D/O x 327 Ventress Correctional Center 1 Schizoaffective D/O x Depressive D/O unspec, R/O Personality D/O unspec 328 Tutwiler Prison 1 x Cluster B Mood D/O unspec- Personality D/O unspec, hx of 329 Tutwiler Prison 2 1 x Cocaine use D/O 330 St.clair Correctional Fac. 2 2 Diagnostic Clarification x 331 Holman Prison 1 Adj d/o x 332 Bullock Correctional Facility 1 Major Depression Disorder, recurrent x 333 Fountain Correctional Center 2 2 Psychosis x 334 Easterling Correctional Center 1 x 335 Ventress Correctional Center 1 Adjustment Disorder, mixed mood x PAGE 5 — PLAINTIFFS' DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT 164 DEC. 2017 MH 2 OR HIGHER JAN. 2018 IN SEG IN IN SEG IN NUMBER LOCATION LISTING MH CODE 2018 DIAGNOSIS DEC. 2017 JAN. 2018 336 Hamilton A & I 1 ANXIETY&DEPERESSION) CA x 337 Limestone Correctional Center 1 x 338 Ventress Correctional Center 2 2 PTSD. Mild Schizophrenia Spectrum D/O; x 339 Kilby Rcc 5 2 POLY SUB x 340 Fountain Correctional Center 1 MDD, recurrent x 341 Fountain Correctional Center 1 Unsp. Depression x 342 Holman Prison 1 Mood d/o x 343 Ventress Correctional Center 1 x 344 St.clair Correctional Fac. 1 larification; r/o substance induce x 345 Limestone Correctional Center 1 x 346 Limestone Correctional Center 1 Bipolar D/O Unspecified x 347 Tutwiler Prison 2 2 Bipolar D/O unspec x 348 William E. Donaldson Corr. Fac 2 Schizophrenia x 349 Tutwiler Prison 2 2 Schizoaffective D/O (in remission) x 350 Bibb County Correctional Fac. 1 x 351 St.clair Correctional Fac. 1 mood d/o unspec; ASPD x PAGE 6 — PLAINTIFFS' DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT 164

Exhibit

Plaintiffs' Demonstrative Exhibit 164 Prisoners on the Mental- Health Caseload in Segregation in Dec. 2017 and Jan. 2018 – KEY FILED UNDER SEAL

Exhibit

Prisoners with a Mental Health Code of MH-1 Who Have a Categorical Serious Mental Illness SOURCE: PLS. EX. 1376 (JAN. 2018 MHM MASTER ROSTER), PLS. EX. 1363 (DEC. 12, 2017 SEGREGATION ROSTER), PLS. EX. 1404 (JAN. 10, 2018 SEGREGATION ROSTER) NUMBER FACILITY DIAGNOSIS NUMBER FACILITY DIAGNOSIS 1 Bullock OP Mood Disorder w/psychosis 64 Bibb MDD recurrent, Continuous Cocaine Use 2 Limestone MDD w/psychosis 65 Holman MDD - REMISSION 3 Bibb MDD, recurrent, in remission; PTSD; Polysubstance Use Disorder; ADD 66 Kilby MDD 4 Easterling MDD, Recurrent 67 Fountain Schizoaffective D/O 5 Limestone Schizoaffective D/O 68 Bibb Schizoaffective D/O - depressive type, ETOH use D/O moderate 6 Ventress Bipolar D/O, Personality D/O, Unspecified 69 Draper Depressive D/O NOS, R/O Situational vs MDD; R/O Personality D/O 7 Ventress Bipolar Mood D/O, Unspecified 70 Tutwiler Bipolar D/O unspec 8 Limestone MDD w/psychotic features 71 Holman Schizoaffective D/O 9 Staton MDD, Partial remission, Cocaine, Cannabis, Meth, ETOH, Use D/O 72 Elmore Major Depressive Disorder 10 Hamilton MDD 73 Staton Major Depressive Disorder w/ Psychotic Feat. 11 Easterling MDD, Recurrent w/ Psychotic Features 74 Limestone Schizophrenia 12 Donaldson Bipolar D/O 75 Limestone Bipolar D/O 13 Hamilton MDD 76 Bibb Unspecified Psychotic D/O 14 Limestone MDD, PTSD 77 Bullock OP Major Depressive Disorder (Unspecified) 15 Bibb MDD Recurrent Mild; PTSD 78 Easterling MDD, Recurrent - Moderate 16 Limestone Bipolar D/O Unspecified Bipolar D/O, Unspecified VS Personality D/O, Personality D/O with 79 Ventress 17 Fountain Bipolar Unsp Antisocial Traits 18 Bibb MDD, ASPD 80 Elmore Bipolar Disorder, Methamphetamine Use, ASPD 19 Limestone Schizophrenia 81 Bibb Bipolar II Disorder 20 Bibb Schizoaffective D/O 82 Tutwiler MDD (in remission), PTSD (in remission) 21 Kilby BIPOLAR DIS 83 Bibb Schizophrenia 22 Bibb Psychosis, Unspecified 84 Easterling SCZ, Personality D/O, Unspecified 23 Limestone Unspecified Bipolar D/O 85 Limestone MDD 24 Easterling Substance Induced Psychosis - Remisson; THC 86 Bullock OP Unspecified Psychotic Disorder 25 Bullock OP Bipolar Mood Disorder, mixed, remission 87 Kilby PSYCH UNSP 26 Bullock OP Bipolar Mood Disorder with mixed features 88 Bullock OP Bipolar I Disorder 27 Kilby PSYCH DIS 89 Limestone MDD 28 Bibb MDD Recurrent H/O Polysubstance Use D/O 90 Hamilton MDD Stable / in Remission 29 Elmore Schhizoaffective Disorder 91 Bullock OP Bipolar Mood Disorder 30 Ventress Psycothic D/O 92 Donaldson Schizoaffective 31 Tutwiler Bipolar I D/O unspec vs Depressive D/O unspec 93 Bibb Psychotic d/o Unspecified 32 Bibb MDD 94 Donaldson Schizophrenia 33 Limestone MDD 95 Staton Schizophrenia, PTSD 34 Holman MDD-Remission 96 Fountain Schizoaffective D/O 35 Limestone Schizophrenia 97 St. Clair bipolar d/o per chart 36 Elmore Schizoaffective Disorder 98 Bibb Schizophrenia 37 Limestone MDD 99 Tutwiler Hx Bipolar D/O unspec, R/O Cluster B Traits 38 Easterling MDD Recurrent - Partial Remisson 100 Bullock OP Schizoaffective Disorder, Bipolar 39 Bibb Bipolar D/O 101 Staton MDD- Recurrent, Autism Spectrum - Possible Asperger's Syndrome 40 Ventress MDD, Recurrent 102 Tutwiler Bipolar I D/O (in remission) 41 Donaldson Undiff Schizophrenia 103 Easterling MDD Recurrent, Partial Remission 42 Fountain Schizoaffective D/O, Bipolar type 104 Bibb MDD Recurrent 43 Hamilton WR SCHIZOAFFECTIVE D/O 105 Limestone MDD 44 Tutwiler MDD, recurrent 106 Limestone MDD 45 Ventress MDD chronic recurrent PD w/Cluster B traits 107 Bullock OP Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent, partial remission Persistant Depressive D/O w/MDD Episode w/o Trauma Related/Stress 108 Holman Major Depression 46 Tutwiler Related D/O 109 Limestone MDD in remission 47 Limestone MDD recurrent 110 Bullock OP Major Depressive Disorder,w/psychosis 48 Elmore MDD- Improving, Hx of substance abuse 111 Donaldson Crisis 49 Easterling MDD, Recurrent 112 Holman MDD w/Psychosis 50 Bullock OP Major Depressive Disorder, recurrent with psychosis 113 Bullock OP Major Depressive Disorder, Single Episode (Remission) 51 Easterling MDD, Recurrent 114 Limestone PTSD, MDD 52 St. Clair Schizophrenia, SUD, ASPD 115 Draper Schizoaffective D/O,Depression 53 Bibb MDD Recurrent 116 Tutwiler Bipolar II D/O 54 Tutwiler Major Depressive D/O w/Psychotic fx 117 Limestone MDD, recurrent 55 Donaldson Paranoid Schizophrenia vs Undiff 118 Easterling Personality D/O,Unspecified; R/O Delusional D/O 56 Donaldson Delusional D/O 119 Limestone MDD 57 Ventress Bipolar D/O Unspecified 120 Bibb MDD Recurrent 58 Holman Schizop 121 Staton Psychotic Disorder Unsp., ASPD Traits, Depressive Disorder Unsp. 59 Limestone MDD w/psychosis 122 Limestone Schizoaffective D/O 60 Limestone MDD, mild 123 Bullock OP Schizophrenia 61 Bibb MDD w/anxiety 124 Limestone MDD, Anxiety D/O 62 St. Clair Delusional D/O; ASPD Traits 125 Limestone Bipolar D/O 63 Kilby PSYCH DIS 126 Limestone MDD PLAINTIFFS' DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT 165 NUMBER FACILITY DIAGNOSIS NUMBER FACILITY DIAGNOSIS 127 Holman Schizophrenia 198 Kilby SCHIZO 128 Limestone MDD recurrent 199 Tutwiler Bipolar D/O unspec 129 Bibb Bipolar II disorder; Intellectual Impairment; Continuous Drug Use 200 Ventress MDD Chronic-remission 130 Limestone MDD 201 Bullock OP Unspecified Bipolar Disorder 131 Limestone MDD w/psychosis 202 Bullock OP Schizoaffective Disorder 132 Bullock OP Bipolar Mood Disorder, Depressed, ASPD 203 Bullock OP Schizoaffective Disorder, depressed mood 133 Limestone Bipolar D/O in remission 204 Fountain Schizophrenia 134 Bullock OP Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent, partial remission 205 Tutwiler Psychotic D/O unspec (in remission) 135 Easterling SCZ Chronic w/ Fixed Delusional Beliefs r/o 206 Bibb Schizoaffective disorder, depressed 136 Staton Schizpophrenia 207 Bibb MDD; PTSD 137 Bibb PTSD, MDD recurrent 208 Limestone Mdd recurrent 138 Bibb MDD Recurrent 209 St. Clair SA d/o, depressed 139 St. Clair Bi-polar mood d/o, unspec 210 Easterling Bipolar D/O, Unspecified 140 Hamilton WR PSYCHOTIC D/O UNSPEC 211 Ventress MDD Recurrent 141 Bullock OP Major Depressive Disorder, partial remission 212 Ventress Bipolar II D/O 142 Elmore Biplolar D/O, Anxiety D/O Unspecified, ASPD 213 Bullock OP Schizophrenia 143 Limestone MDD 214 Ventress MDD, Recurrent, Mood, THC Abuse D/O, Meth Use D/O 144 Limestone MDD 215 Tutwiler MDD recurrent, moderate w/o Psychotic fx, Amphetamine use D/O 145 St. Clair Mjr Depression w pych fx 216 Holman Bipolar 146 Tutwiler Bipolar II D/O, hx of PTSD 217 Limestone Psychotic D/O Unspecified 147 Staton Schizophrenia 218 Bullock OP Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent, partial remission 148 Limestone MDD 219 Ventress Bipolar Mood D/O, Unsppecified 149 Ventress MDD-remission SAD- remission 220 Ventress Psychosis Unspecified 150 Limestone Delusional D/O 221 Easterling MDD, Moderate; H/O Psychotic Features 151 Bullock OP Schizophrenia, Paranoid Type 222 Ventress MDD, Recurrent, Moderate/Remission, PTSD, Mild 152 Hamilton MDD RECURRENT 223 Limestone Schizophrenia 153 Bullock OP Major Depressive Disorder, recurrent 224 Easterling MDD; Partial Remisson 154 Bullock OP Schizophrenia, Undiffrentiated Type 225 Tutwiler Depressive D/O unspec w/Psychotic fx 155 Bullock OP Schizoaffective Disorder 226 Limestone MDD w/anxiety 156 Bullock OP Schizophrenia 227 Bibb Bipolar I D/O depressed 157 Easterling MDD, Recurrent 228 Easterling PTSD, Chronic; MDD, Recurrent 158 Staton MDD-m Recurrent 229 Bibb Psychosis disorder Unspecified 159 Ventress Bipolar D/O, Unspecified 230 Limestone Psychotic D/O Unspecified 160 Ventress Schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type 231 Bullock OP Schizophrenia, Paranoid Type 161 Easterling Psychotic D/O, Unspecified 232 Easterling BMD, Unspecified 162 Tutwiler Bipolar I D/O vs Anxiety D/O unspec 233 Limestone MDD recurrent 163 Fountain Bipolar D/O 234 Bibb Unspecified Psychotic D/O 164 Tutwiler Bipolar I D/O 235 Elmore Schizoaffective D/O, ASPD Traits 165 Easterling Schizophrenia 236 Limestone Bipolar D/O Unspecified 166 Bibb Schizophrenia 237 Tutwiler Bipolar D/O unpsec, Anxiety D/O unspec 167 Kilby SCHIZO 238 Bibb Psychosis Unspecified 168 Donaldson MDD with psychotic Features 239 Tutwiler MDD w/ Psychotic features (in remission), HIV 169 Kilby MDD IN REMISSN 240 Limestone MDD 170 Kilby PSYCH 241 Limestone Bipolar D/O 171 Ventress Psychotic D/O, Unspecified, Substance Use D/O 242 Limestone MDD 172 Limestone MDD 243 Holman Schizoaffective d/o 173 Donaldson Major Dispressive D/O 244 Limestone Substance Induced Psychotic 174 Bullock OP Schizophrenia 245 Limestone Psychotic D/O Unspecified 175 Bullock OP Major Depressive Disorder with mixed features 246 Kilby SCHIZO 176 Donaldson Schizophrenia 247 Limestone Bipolar I D/O 177 Bibb Unspecified Bipolar D/O Stimulant Use D/O 248 Elmore MDD; Hx Heroin Dependence; ASPD 178 Staton Depressive Disorder NOS, Hx of Paranoid Schizophrenia per pt. 249 Ventress Substance Induced Psychotic D/O, Borderline Intell Functioning 179 Limestone Bipolarl D/O MDD, moderate, PTSD; Polysubstance use disorder (THC, ETOH, 250 Bibb 180 Limestone MDD Benzos) 181 Tutwiler Bipolar D/O unspec 251 Tutwiler Bipolar I D/O unspec 182 Donaldson Schizophrenia 252 Donaldson Psychotic D/o unspecified 183 Ventress MDD w/ Psychtoic features-rem on meds 253 Bullock OP Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent, partial remission 184 Kilby MDD 254 Tutwiler Bipolar I D/O w/Psychotic fx 185 Elmore Schizophrenia 255 Ventress Bipolar D/O, Unspecified Meth Use D/O 186 Tutwiler Anxiety D/O unspec, MDD in partial remission 256 Tutwiler Bipolar D/O unspec, hx of PTSD, hx of Polysubstance use D/O 187 Staton Schizophrenia Paronoid type 257 Bullock OP Schizophrenia, Paranoid Type 188 Limestone Schizophrenia 258 Limestone MDD w/psychosis 189 St. Clair bipolar d/o, depressed type 259 Limestone MDD 190 Limestone MDD 260 Holman Major Depression 191 Ventress Bipolar D/O, Mixed 261 Bullock OP Unspecified Psychotic Disorder 192 Elmore Schizophrenia, Chronic-in partial remission 262 Limestone MDD, GAD 193 Bullock OP Schizophrenia, paranoid type, partial remission 263 Bullock OP Schizophrenia, Chronic Paranoid Type 194 Easterling MDD/ w anxiety 264 Staton Bipolar Disorder Unspec, Anxiety Disorder Unspec, Substance Abu 195 Limestone MDD 265 Easterling MDD, Moderate w/ Psychosis 196 Bibb Unspecified Bipolar D/O; Substance Use D/O 266 Elmore Major Depressive Disorder 197 Limestone Psychotic D/O Unspecified 267 Bibb Bipolar 1 D/O, THC & ICE Use D/O PAGE 2 — PLAINTIFFS' DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT 165 NUMBER FACILITY DIAGNOSIS NUMBER FACILITY DIAGNOSIS 268 Limestone Schizoaffective D/O 335 Easterling MDD Recurrent w/ Anxiety; R/O Bipolar D/O 269 Tutwiler MDD (in remission) 336 Ventress Bipolar Mood D/O, Unspecified 270 Bibb Unspecified Bipolar D/O; Cannabis Use D/O; Stimulant Use D/O 337 Bibb Bipolar I Disorder 271 Limestone MDD w/psychosis 338 Bullock OP Schizophrenia, Undiffrentiated Type MDD Recurrent, Substance Use D/O, Meth/Substance (6 Months 339 Bullock OP Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent, partial remission 272 Ventress Clean) 340 Hamilton MDD 273 Limestone MDD w/psychosis 341 Easterling MDD, Recurrent Partial Remisson, PTSD 274 St. Clair MDD 342 Draper MDD-recurrent severe, Bereavement 275 Limestone Substance Induced Psychosis 343 Holman Major Depression 276 Holman MDD 344 Bullock OP Psychosis, Unspecified Unspec psychotic D/O (in remission) substance induced psychotic D/O 345 Ventress Psychotic D/O, Unspecified, MDD 277 Tutwiler Iin remission) 346 Staton Major Depressive Disorder NOS 278 Limestone MDD, moderate 347 Ventress Schizoaffective d/o Bipolar Bipolar I D/O, Manic with Psychotic Features, Stimulant Use D/O/THC 348 Limestone MDD 279 Ventress Use D/O, Severe 349 Bibb MDD, partial remission c- anxiety 280 Tutwiler Bipolar D/O unspec 350 Bullock OP Bipolar I Disorder 281 Draper MDD w/Psychotic Features 351 Bibb Bipolar D/O 282 Bullock OP Schizoaffective Disorder 352 Donaldson Sub Depression Unspec w/ psychosis 283 Ventress Bipolar D/O, Unspecified/THC Use D/O, Unspecified 353 Donaldson MDD 284 Easterling Bipolar D/O, Mixed 354 Donaldson Drug-Induced Psychotic D/O 285 Ventress MDD Moderate Psychosis 355 Staton Major Depressive Disorder in remission w/medication 286 Kilby PSYCH DIS 356 Donaldson Bipolar D/O (mixed) 287 Staton MDD- Mild Recurrent 357 Limestone Bipolar D/O, Depressed 288 Hamilton WR SCHIZOAFFECTIVE D/O 358 Limestone MDD, moderate 289 Staton MDD w/ Psychotic Features 359 Elmore Schizophrenia, Polysubstance Use D/O 290 Staton Schizophrenia Disrder - Depressed 360 Limestone Bipolar II D/O 291 Limestone MDD 361 Limestone Schizophrenia 292 Limestone Bipolar D/O 362 Limestone Bipolar D/O 293 Donaldson MDD Recurrent 363 Staton Bipolar Disorder Unspecified 294 Kilby SCHIZO 364 Bibb Psychotic 2 GMC D/O; H/O TBI 295 Limestone Schizophrenia 365 Easterling Schizophrenia PT MDD, recurrent, Moderate; Cluster B Personality Disorder; Polysub- 366 Bibb H/O Bipolar disorder 296 Bibb stance use disorder 367 Limestone MDD in remission 297 Kilby MDD 368 Limestone MDD w/psychosis 298 Limestone Bipolar Unspecified 369 Tutwiler Major depressive D/O w/psychotic fx, R/O PTSD 299 Hamilton SCHIZOPHRENIA 370 Easterling MDD, Recurrent w.Psychotic Features - In Remission 300 Limestone Bipolar D/O 371 Kilby BIPOLAR DIS 301 Bullock OP Major Depressive Disorder, recurrent, remission 372 Limestone Bipolar D/O 302 Staton Bipolar Disorder, R/O Intermittent Explosive Disorder 373 Bullock OP Bipolar I Disorder 303 St. Clair MDD, recurrent 374 Tutwiler Major Depressive D/O in partial remission 304 Limestone Schizoaffective D/O 375 Elmore Schizoaffective 305 Limestone Bipolar I D/O, Depressed 376 Limestone Schizoaffective D/O 306 Limestone Substance Induced Psychotic D/O 377 Bibb MDD 307 Draper MDD w/Psychotic Features, ASPD Traits 378 Limestone MDD w/psychosis 308 Tutwiler Bipolar I D/O 379 Ventress Schizophrenia PT 309 Staton Bipolar Disorder Mixed 380 Bibb MDD Recurrent, in remission 310 Draper Psychotic Disorder Unspecified 381 Elmore MDD w/ Psychotic Feat, Cluster B Personality D/O 311 Bullock OP Schizophrenia, Paranoid Type 382 Limestone MDD w/psychotic features 312 Limestone MDD 383 Tutwiler MDD with Psychotic fx 313 Bullock OP Schizophrenia, Residual Type 384 Fountain Bipolar I D/O, Depression 314 Draper Major Depressive Disorder; Intellectual Disability @82 385 Ventress Bipolar D/O, Unspecified 315 Elmore Psychotic Disorder Unspec. Remission 386 Easterling MDD, Recurrent Moderate 316 Bibb Psychosis Unspecified 387 Staton Schizophrenia D/O Bipolar type 317 Limestone Schizoaffective D/O 388 Easterling MDD - Moderate w/ Anxiety 318 Bullock OP Psychosis, Unspecified 389 Kilby SCHIZO 319 Holman MDD w/ Psychosis 390 Limestone Psychosis Unspecified 320 Ventress Bipolar D/O, Unspecified 391 Donaldson MDD/ Depression 321 Bullock OP Schizoaffective Disorder, Unspecified 392 Holman Schizophrenia 322 Limestone MDD recurrent 393 Bullock OP Bipolar Mood Disorder, mixed, r/o unspecified mood d/o 323 Limestone Bipolar II D/O 394 Easterling Schizophrenia 324 Staton Psychotic D/O NOS, R/O Intellectual Disability 395 Bibb SIMD, Bipolar D/O 325 Tutwiler Bipolar D/O unspec 396 Limestone Psychotic D/O Unspecified 326 Kilby SCHIZO 397 Easterling Bipolar D/O Mixed 327 Bibb MDD; Hep C 398 Ventress Biploar D/O, Unspecified 328 Kilby DELUSIONAL DIS 399 St. Clair psychosis NOS, subs induced 329 Easterling Bipolar D/O mixed w/ Psychotic Features 400 Staton Bipolar D/O Unspecified, Psychotic D/O Unspecified 330 Staton Bipolar Disorder 401 Limestone MDD 331 Ventress Bipolar I D/O, Manix Stimulant Use D/O, Cannabis Use 402 Ventress Bipolar D/O, Unspecified, THC Use D/O, R/O Substance Induced Mood 332 Bibb MDD c- psychotic features 403 Ventress Anxiety D/O, Unspecified, Bipolar D/O, Unspecified 333 Easterling MDD Single Episode w/ Psychotic Features 404 Ventress Schizophrenia, Mood D/O, Unspecified 334 Elmore Mood Disorder, Bipolar, major depression 405 Bullock OP Schizoaffective Disorder PAGE 3 — PLAINTIFFS' DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT 165 NUMBER FACILITY DIAGNOSIS NUMBER FACILITY DIAGNOSIS 406 Elmore Hx of Schizophrenia 477 Ventress Mood D/O NOS Psychotic D/O NOS Hx of Substance Abuse 407 Ventress Schizoaffective D/O 478 Easterling MDD in Remission 408 Tutwiler MDD (in remission), Anxiety D/O unspec(stable) 479 Bibb MDD Recurrent 409 Limestone MDD recurrent 480 Tutwiler hx of Bipolar D/O w/Depression, hx of Polysubstance use D/O 410 Elmore MDD, Anxiety D/O Unspec, Meth Use D/O 481 Limestone Bipolar D/O 411 Kilby MAJ DEP 482 Fountain MDD, PTSD, resolved 412 Holman Bipolar Disorder 483 Fountain MDD, recurrent, moderate 413 Easterling MDD (Remission) 484 Ventress Major Depression/Anxiety D/O, Unspecified 414 Limestone MDD w/psychosis 485 Holman Major Depression 415 Bullock OP Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent, partial remission 486 St. Clair Schizoaffective D/O 416 Donaldson Psychosis 487 Elmore Bipolar Disorder I 417 Donaldson Mood D/O, Psychosis Unspecified 488 Hamilton MAJOR DEPRESSION 418 Limestone MDD recurrent 489 Bibb Delusional D/O; Borderline Intellectual Impairment 419 Bibb MDD Recurrent in remission 490 Bibb MDD, mild, recurrent 420 Bullock OP Psychosis Unspecified 491 Easterling Bipolar D/O Type I w/ Anxious Distress; R/O Drug 421 Tutwiler Bipolar II D/O 492 Limestone MDD 422 Staton Bipolar Disorder, ASPD 493 Kilby BIPOLAR DIS 423 Easterling Bipolar D/O w/ Psychotic Features 494 Bibb Schizophrenia Spectrum 424 Limestone MDD, GAD MDD-Recurrent; Anxiety disorder Unspec. ETOH and THC use disor- 495 Elmore 425 Hamilton UNSP HX BIPOLAR D/O CLUS der,Beta 79 426 Tutwiler Bipolar II D/O 496 Donaldson Bipolar D/O, Subst. induced 427 Tutwiler Bipolar I D/O 497 St. Clair maj. Dep d/o; EPD 428 Limestone Schizophrenia 498 Limestone MDD, recurrent, moderate 429 Staton Hx Of Depressive Disorder, PTSD, Conduct D/O, Bipolar D/O- per 499 Draper Bipolar Disorder, Mixed with Psychosis 430 Bullock OP Major Depressive Disorder, partial remission 500 Easterling MDD 431 Limestone MDD w/psychosis 501 Tutwiler Bipolar I D/O, Hx of alcohol abuse 432 St. Clair schizophrenia 502 Elmore MDD, Personality Disorder 433 Limestone MDD recurrent 503 Easterling MDD, single episode moderate 434 Kilby MAJOR DEP 504 Hamilton MDD 435 Kilby BIPOLAR DIS 505 Bullock OP Bipolar Mood Disorder II 436 Kilby MDD 506 Kilby MDD 437 Bullock OP Schizophrenia, Paranoid Type, Partial Remission 507 Hamilton D R/O MAJ DEPRESSION REC 438 Easterling MDD, Recurrent Servere; SA disorder 508 Bibb Psychotic Disorder Unspecified 439 Ventress Major Depressive D/O- Mild Recurrent 509 Bibb Schizophrenia 440 Tutwiler Bipolar D/O unspec, GAD, hx of IV Heroin/MJ use D/O 510 Kilby PSYCH 441 Holman MDD 511 Donaldson Bipolar D/O 442 Limestone Bipolar D/O 512 Ventress MDD Recurrent, Moderate, THC/ETOH Use D/O 443 Tutwiler Bipolar D/O unspec, PTSD, Polysub Abuse 513 Hamilton MDD 444 Limestone MDD recurrent 514 Bibb MDD Recurrent; Opiod Use D/O Severe, Stimulant Use D/O Severe 445 Hamilton HIZOPHRENIA PARANOID TY 515 Limestone MDD w/psychosis 446 Limestone MDD in remission 516 Fountain Scizoaffective D/O 447 Tutwiler MDD (in remission), GAD (stable) 517 Hamilton MDD 448 Donaldson PTSD/ MDD Psycchosis 518 Ventress MDD Recurrent, THC Use D/O 449 Bibb MDD, moderate, recurrent 519 Draper MDD,Recurrent Moderate, ASPD Traits 450 Kilby MAJOR DEP 520 Limestone MDD recurrent w/o psychosis 451 Bullock OP Schizoaffective Disorder 521 Bullock OP Major Depressive Disorder, partial remission 452 Draper MDD 522 Donaldson MDD 453 Bullock OP Major Depressive Disorder, recurrent moderate with anxious mood 523 St. Clair psychotic d/o unspec; r/o bipola 454 Limestone Bipolar D/O moderate 524 Tutwiler Bipolar D/O unspec, Depressive D/O unspec 455 Tutwiler Schizophrenia 525 Tutwiler Major Depressive D/O w/Psychotic fx, PTSD, hx of crack use d/O 456 Bullock OP Bipolar Mood Disorder, mixed 526 Ventress Bipolar D/O with Psychotic Features 457 Elmore Psychotic Disorder Unspecified; Mood Disorder Unspec 527 Limestone MDD w/Psychosis 458 Kilby SCHIZO 528 Bibb Schizoaffective D/O bipolar type 459 Holman Psychosis NOS 529 Limestone MDD recurrent, Borderline Intellect 460 Tutwiler MDD (in remission) 530 Holman MDD 461 Staton Anxiety D/O, R/O PTSD 531 Bullock OP Major Depressive Disorder, recurrent 462 Limestone Bipolar D/O Unspecified 532 Tutwiler MDD (recurrent stable), PTSD 463 Limestone MDD w/psychosis 533 Holman Bipolar d/o 464 Bullock OP Psychosis, Unspecified 534 Donaldson Bipolar D/O R/O MDD 465 Limestone Schizophrenia 535 Bullock OP Bipolar I Disorder, depressed type in remission 466 Donaldson Bipolar D/O, Acute stress/ Depression D/O 536 Bibb Schizophrenia spectrum D/O, Stimulant Use D/O 467 Ventress MDD, Meth Abuse D/O 537 Limestone MDD mild 468 Bibb MDD c- Psychotic features 538 Draper MDD with Psychosis, ASPD Traits; IQ 82 469 Tutwiler MDD w/Psychotic features (stable) 539 Tutwiler MDD, Cocaine use D/O 470 Kilby PSYCH DIS 540 Limestone MDD w/psychosis 471 Ventress Psychotic D/O, Unpsecified 541 Easterling MDD W/ Psychotic Features 472 Draper MDD w/ psychotic features; Atypical/Mixed Personality D/O Traits 542 Ventress Bipolar D/O unspecfied, Psychotic D/O Unspecified 473 Bibb MDD, recurrent moderate 543 Limestone MDD, PTSD 474 Holman Adj D/O w/ depression, MDD 544 Elmore Major Depressive Disorder Mild Recurrent 475 Bibb Schizoaffective D/O; H/O drug use in prison 545 Bullock OP Bipolar I Disorder, Most Recent Episode Mixed 476 Elmore Bipolar D/O Unspec., Pseudodementia, OCD 546 Kilby MAJ DEP PAGE 4 — PLAINTIFFS' DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT 165 NUMBER FACILITY DIAGNOSIS NUMBER FACILITY DIAGNOSIS 547 Bibb MDD, stable c- meds 617 Bibb MDD, Mild, recurrent 548 Ventress Schizoaffective D/O, Cocaine/ETOH Abuse D/O 618 Easterling MDD, Recurrent; Anxiety D/O, Unspecified 549 Limestone MDD 619 Elmore Psychosis NOS, R/O Induced Psychosis, ASPD 550 Easterling Schizoaffective D/O depressed type 620 Limestone MDD, PTSD 551 Limestone MDD moderate 621 Bullock OP Bipolar Mood Disorder, depressed wi/mixed features 552 Tutwiler PTSD/ MDD 622 Limestone PTSD, MDD w/psychosis H/O Psychotic D/O related to Substance abuse vs Psychotic D/O 623 Bullock OP Bipolar Mood Disorder, Unspecified 553 Tutwiler unspec 624 Kilby SCHIZO 554 Bullock OP Major Depressive Disorder Recurrent (Remission) 625 Bibb MDD, recurrent; Continuous Drug Use; Stimulant/Opiod use disorder 555 Limestone MDD w/psychosis 626 Ventress Schizophrenia-PT remission Substance Abuse d/o 556 Bibb Schizophrenia; Polysubstance Use D/O 627 Ventress Bipolar D/O, Meth/THC Use D/O 557 Hamilton MDD in REMISSION 628 Hamilton MDD/ANXIETY 558 Hamilton WR BIPOLAR D/O 629 Bibb MDD; Unspecified Bipolar D/O; Antisocial PD 559 Bullock OP Major Depressive Disorder, recurrent 630 Tutwiler Major depressive (recurrent),cocaine use D/O, R/O BPD 560 Bullock OP Psychosis, Unspecified 631 Bullock OP Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent, partial remission 561 Bullock OP Major Depressive Disorder 632 Easterling MDD w/ Psychotic Features,H/O Substance Use D/O 562 Easterling MDD, Recurrent - Revised; No documented HX of 633 St. Clair psychosis unspec 563 Staton Bipolar Disorder Unspec. 634 Bullock OP Psychotic Disorder with Hallucinations 564 Bibb Schizoaffective D/O 635 Bibb Schizophrenia 565 Hamilton WR MDD IN REMISSION 636 Limestone MDD 566 Staton Bipolar Disorder vs Mood Disorder Unspec; Polysub Abuse 637 Tutwiler Major depressive (recurrent) PTSD 567 Limestone Bipolar D/O in remission 638 Staton Bipolar D/O Unspec. METH and THC Use Disorder; ASPD Traits 568 Bullock OP Major Depressive Disorder 639 Easterling Bipolar D/O, Unspecified 569 Limestone GAD, Psychotic D/O 640 Ventress Bipolar D/O, Mood D/O with Psychosis 570 Limestone MDD moderate 641 Draper Psychotic Disorder-Resolved, R/O ASPD 571 Holman Bipolar unspec 642 Draper Schizophrenia 572 Tutwiler MDD w/ Psychotic fx, hx PTSD, hx of Opiate use D/O 643 Holman MDD 573 Bullock OP Major Depressive Disorder, partial remission 644 Easterling MDD ETOH Substance Abuse D/O 574 Limestone Bipolar I D/O Depressed 645 Staton Psychosis NOS 575 Bibb Unspecified Psychotic D/O; R/O Substance Induced Psychotic D/O 646 St. Clair MDD 576 Bibb Bipolar D/O 647 Kilby MDD, MOOD DEP 577 Ventress Bipolar D/O, Unspecified 648 Easterling MDD, GAD 578 Tutwiler MDD w/Intermittent Psychotic fx (in remission) 649 Elmore R/O MDD Recurrent Moderate 579 Tutwiler MDD recuurent/moderate vs Mood D/O, Hx of Meth Abuse 650 Tutwiler MDD recurrent, moderate R/O Cannabis use D/O 580 Tutwiler Schizoaffective D/O, Bipolar Type, hx of Alcohol/Cocaine/ETOH use D/O 651 Holman Schizoaffective 581 Limestone MDD, mild 652 Tutwiler Major Depression (recurrent) w/Mixed fx, PTSD 582 Limestone Bipolar D/O 653 Bullock OP Major Depressive Disorder, recurrent, severe with psychosis 583 Limestone MDD w/psychosis 654 Limestone MDD 584 Donaldson Psychotic D/O substance Abuse 655 Bullock OP Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent, partial remission 585 Hamilton MDD 656 St. Clair psychosis unspec 586 Limestone MDD recurrent 657 Easterling MDD, Recurrent 587 Limestone MDD 658 Bullock OP Major Depression Disorder, recurrent 588 Donaldson Bipolar Disorder 659 Easterling MDD 589 Elmore MDD, ASPD, Beta 99 660 Limestone MDD 590 Draper MDD, Recurrent, Chronic pain 661 Ventress Schizoaffective D/O, Bipolar Type, Substance Abuse D/O 591 Limestone Bipolar D/O w/psychosis 662 Donaldson MDD resolved 592 Donaldson Undiff Schizophrenia 663 Limestone MDD 593 Bullock OP Schizophrenia, residual phase 664 Bibb Psychotic D/O Unspecified 594 Limestone Psychotic D/O Unspecified 665 St. Clair bipolar mood d/o; PTSD 595 Ventress MDD Recurrent, Dysthymia, Adjustment D/O 666 Bullock OP Schizophrenia, Undiffrentiated Type 596 Bibb Unspecified Psychotic D/O; Stimulant Use D/O; Cannabis Use D/O 667 Donaldson Schizophrenia (Catatonic) 597 Fountain MDD, recurrent, mild, Opiod use D/O 668 Kilby BIPOLAR DIS 598 Elmore Schizoaffective Disorder 669 Kilby BIPOLAR DIS 599 Easterling Bipolar D/O, Unspecified 670 Bibb Schizophrenia 600 Limestone Bipolar I D/O Depressed 671 Donaldson MDD 601 Staton Psychotic D/O-Substance Induced-resolved, ASPD, grief, Cannabis 672 Easterling MDD D/O, Recurrecent Moderate; PTSD 602 Tutwiler Bipolar II D/O (stable) 673 Ventress MDD, Recurrent 603 Bibb Unspecified Schizophrenia Spectrum; Cannabis Use D/O 674 Kilby PSYCH DIS 604 Bullock OP Major Depressive Disorder 675 Elmore Mood/Depressive D/O, R/O MDD with Psychosis 605 Ventress Schizophrenia Spectrum D/O 676 Limestone MDD, mild 606 Bullock OP Bipolar Disorder (Unspecified) 677 Bibb MDD, recurrent 607 Donaldson Undiff Schizophrenia 678 Kilby SCHIZO 608 Tutwiler Bipolar D/O unspec, GAD w/Panic Attacks, PTSD 679 Tutwiler Bipolar D/O unspec/BPD (hx) Polysub use D/O 609 Bibb Substance induced psychosis 680 Tutwiler Bipolar II D/O 610 Limestone MDD w/psychosis 681 Bibb MDD, in remission 611 Donaldson Major Depression D/O 682 Tutwiler Bipolar D/O unspec, Hx of Polysubstance abuse 612 Easterling Psychosis Unspecified; R/O Schizoaffective D/O 683 Staton Hx of Bipolar Disorder, Hx of Questionable PTSD, ASPD, R/O Paro 613 Tutwiler MDD (in remission), PTSD (in remission) 684 Tutwiler Bipolar D/O unspec, PTSD (in remission) 614 Tutwiler Major Depressive D/O unspec 685 Ventress Bipolar I, in Remission 615 Fountain MDD, recurrent 686 Limestone Schizophrenia 616 Limestone MDD, PTSD 687 Tutwiler MDD recurrent/moderate PAGE 5 — PLAINTIFFS' DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT 165 NUMBER FACILITY DIAGNOSIS NUMBER FACILITY DIAGNOSIS 688 Ventress MDD with Psychotic Features 759 Limestone MDD, mild 689 Elmore MDD- Recurrent with Psychotic Features 760 Tutwiler Bipolar D/O unspec 690 Bullock OP Schizoaffective Disorder 761 Limestone MDD w/psychosis 691 Bullock OP Major Depressive Disorder 762 Easterling MDD w/ Anxiety 692 Staton Bipolar D/O, Antisocial Personality D/O 763 Bibb MDD, recurrent mild 693 Limestone MDD 764 Donaldson Schizoaffective D/O 694 Draper Mood D/O NOS, Hx of Bipolar D/O and ADHD per pt, ASPD 765 Bullock OP Bipolar Mood I, depressed type 695 Easterling Bipolr D/O II 766 Donaldson Bipolar 696 Limestone MDD, PTSD, mild/Dysthymia 767 Kilby MAJ DEP 697 Limestone MDD moderate 768 Holman Psychosis 698 Donaldson MDD 769 Limestone MDD 699 Kilby MDD 770 Bullock OP Anxious, Depressed mood 700 Staton Bipolar Disorder, Chronic pain 771 Donaldson MDD/ Remission 701 Fountain Unsp. Bipolar 772 Elmore MDD Recurrent Moderate 702 Holman Delusional D/O 773 Donaldson Bipolar D/O Unspecified 703 Limestone MDD w/Psychosis 774 Kilby MAJ DEP 704 Holman Schizoaffective 775 Donaldson Unspecfied Psychosis D/O 705 Ventress MDD 776 Limestone MDD w/psychosis 706 Ventress MDD with Psychosis, PTSD, Chronic, THC/Concaine D/O 777 Kilby SCHIZO DIS 707 Donaldson Delustional D/O 778 Limestone Schizophrenia 708 Holman Bipolar 779 Ventress MDD Recurrent, Partial Remission, GAD 709 Limestone MDD 780 Bibb Schizophrenia 710 Tutwiler Schizophrenia D/O (in remission) 781 Hamilton W/PSYCHOSIS BY HX 711 Bibb MDD, recurrent 782 Ventress MDD w/ Psychotic features 712 Easterling MDD, Recurent moderate w/ Psychosis 783 Limestone Psychotic D/O Unspecified 713 Bullock OP Schizoaffective Disorder 784 Bullock OP Major Depressive Disorder (Unspecified) 714 Tutwiler MDD 785 Limestone MDD w/psychosis 715 Limestone MDD w/psychosis 786 Limestone Bipolar D/O Unspecified 716 Easterling Bipolar D/O, Unspecified 787 Bullock OP Bipolar Mood Disorder, Euthymic 717 Bullock OP Major Depressive Disorder, severe 788 Bibb Bipolar disorder Unspecified; PTSD; ETOH use disorder 718 St. Clair bipolar d/o 789 Kilby MDD 719 Bullock OP Major Depressive Disorder, single, moderate 790 Easterling PTSD, Chronic; MDD w/ Psychotic Features 720 Bullock OP Schizophrenia, Undiffrentiated Type 791 Limestone Psychotic D/O Unspecified 721 Ventress MDD Unspecified, H/O Cocaine Use D/O 792 Tutwiler Depressive D/O unspec, Bipolar d/O unspec 722 Easterling MDD moderate with Psychotic Features 793 Ventress MDD Recurrent 723 Bullock OP Bipolar Disorder 794 Bullock OP Unspecified Depressive Disorder, h/o Bipolar Disorder 724 Ventress Bipolar D/O, Unspecified/Depressive D/O, Unspecified, Adjustment D/O 795 Bibb MDD w/Psychotic Features; THC Use D/O; ETOH Use D/O 725 Bullock OP Mood Disorder, Unspecified 796 Fountain PTSD, MDD 726 Limestone MDD, mild 797 Bullock OP Major Depressive Disorder, Unspecified 727 Limestone MDD, GAD 798 Limestone Psychotic D/O Unspecified 728 Elmore Bipolar Disorder, Axniety Disorder 799 Elmore Substance Induced Mood D/O; Hx Bipolar D/O; Hx Polysub Use D/O 729 Elmore Bipolar and Anxiety DO 800 St. Clair MDD 730 Limestone Bipolar D/O 801 Bullock OP Bipolar Mood Disorder II, partial remission 731 Elmore Schizophrenia Unspecified, Anxiety Disorder 802 Bullock OP Major Depressive Disorder, moderate 732 Limestone Schizoaffective D/O 803 Bullock OP Major Depressive Disorder, recurrent in partial remission 733 Staton Major Depressive Disorder, Mild-Resolved 804 Bullock OP Major Depressive Disorder 734 Easterling Major Depression 805 Ventress BMD, Substance Abuse D/O 735 Limestone MDD in remission 806 Elmore MDD, Anxiety Disorder, Personality D/O NOS 736 Tutwiler Major Depressive Episode 807 Easterling MDD, Recurrent w/ Psychotic Features 737 Bullock OP Major Depressive Disorder, recurrent 808 Tutwiler Major depressive D/O, Cocaine/benzo use D/O 738 Bibb Bipolar 1 Disorder; SUD - Continuous 809 Donaldson Schizoaffective D/O 739 Bibb MDD, moderate, recurrent 810 Fountain Schizophrenia 740 Fountain MDD, recurrent 811 Easterling Bipolar D/O 741 Elmore Hx Psychosis with Tx in Bullock RTU 812 Donaldson Unspecified Psychosis 742 Tutwiler MDD vs unspec Bipolar D/O 813 Bullock OP Major Depression Disorder 743 Fountain Mdd, recurrent 814 Staton Bipolar I D/O Refused appt 1/15/18 744 Kilby BIPOLAR DIS 815 Ventress Schizophrenia 745 Elmore Bipolar D/O Unspec., Meth and THC use D/O 816 Limestone Schizoaffective D/O, Bipolar Type 746 Ventress BMD, Unspecified 817 Easterling MDD, Moderate 747 Bibb Unspecified Bipolar D/O, PTSD 818 Bullock OP Bipolar I Disorder, manic with pyschosis 748 Bibb MDD Recurrent w/ psychotic features 819 Tutwiler MDD 749 Kilby PSYCH DIS 820 Draper MDD, R/O Bipolar Disorder 750 Kilby MAJ DEP 821 Limestone Bipolar D/O Unspecified 751 Limestone MDD, mild 822 Bullock OP Schizophrenia 752 Limestone Schizoaffective D/O 823 Bullock OP Schizophrenia, Paranoid Type 753 Bibb Bipolar Disorder; H/O Polysubstance Use Disorder 824 Donaldson Schizoaffective 754 Bullock OP Bipolar Disorder I, mixed 825 St. Clair Adjustment D/O Unspecified 755 Tutwiler Bipolar D/O unspec, hx of PTSD 826 Staton Schizophrenia, Paranoid Type 756 Bibb Bipolar D/O 827 Holman Schizop 757 Easterling Bipolar D/O Partial remission 828 Donaldson Schizophrenia 758 Limestone MDD in remission 829 Donaldson Mood, Bipolar D/O PAGE 6 — PLAINTIFFS' DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT 165 NUMBER FACILITY DIAGNOSIS NUMBER FACILITY DIAGNOSIS 830 Easterling MDD - Recurrent; Psychosis 900 Bullock OP Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent, partial remission 831 Bullock OP Schizophrenia 901 Tutwiler Bipolar I D/O unspec 832 Limestone Bipolar D/O in remission 902 Bibb Delusional D/O 833 Bibb MDD, recurrent, mild 903 Limestone Psychotic D/O Unspecified 834 Tutwiler Major Depressive D/O in partial remission 904 Tutwiler Depressive D/O unspec,Bipolar II D/O 835 Elmore Bipolar Disorder Unspec; Dependent Personality D/O 905 Limestone MDD 836 Draper MDD 906 Bullock OP Schizoaffective Disorder 837 Limestone MDD recurrent 907 Limestone MDD w/psychosis 838 Elmore MDD Recurrent, Cannabis Use D/O, ASPD Traits 908 Tutwiler Bipolar I D/O 839 Bullock OP Major Depressive Disorder, recurrent 909 Ventress MDD, Single Episode Moderate 840 Bullock OP Major Depressive Disorder, Single, Severe 910 Limestone MDD, moderate 841 Bibb Bipolar D/O Unspecified, Polysubstance Use D/O 911 Elmore MDD recurrent 842 Bullock OP Bipolar Disorder, r/o Posttraumatic Stress Disorder 912 Tutwiler Bipolar D/O unspec, PTSD 843 Bullock OP Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent, partial remission 913 Limestone MDD 844 Donaldson Psychosis Unspecified 914 Tutwiler MDD recurrent w/Mixed fx, Hx of Cocaine/Alcohol use D/O 845 Tutwiler Major Depressive D/O 915 Easterling MDD, Recurrent - Moderate 846 Limestone MDD 916 Limestone Psychotic D/O Unspecified 847 Easterling MDD, Recurrent Partial 917 Bibb Bipolar Disorder, Type II 848 Limestone MDD, PTSD 918 Tutwiler Bipolar I D/O unspec, hx of Opiate use 849 Tutwiler Mood D/O unspec w/Psychotic fx, hx of Polysub use D/O 919 Ventress MDD, Recurrent, Mild 850 St. Clair psychotic d/o unspecified 920 Bibb Major Neurocognitive D/O 851 Kilby BIPOLAR DIS 921 Bibb Unspecified Mood D/O; Unspecified Psychosis; Borderline IQ 852 St. Clair psychosis NOS 922 Ventress MDD, Anxiety D/O, Unspecified 853 Limestone MDD, mild 923 Bibb MDD c- Psychotic features 854 Limestone Schizophrenia 924 Tutwiler Depressive D/O unspec, hx of Schizophrenia D/O 855 Ventress Flocca Induces Psychosis, Bipolar D/O, Unspecified 925 Easterling Schizoid Personaility Trait; R/O Autism 856 Limestone MDD w/psychosis 926 Limestone MDD in remission 857 Limestone MDD 927 Tutwiler Bipolar D/O unspec 858 Ventress MDD, R/O Depression, 2nd GMC 928 Limestone Psychotic D/O Unspecified 859 Draper Delusional Disorder Unspecified, Hx Polysubstance Use 929 Ventress MDD Recurent Moderate GAD 860 Tutwiler MDD w/o Psychotic fx (in remission, GAD, Hx of Opiate use D/O 930 Tutwiler Bipolar I D/O, Substance use D/O 861 Easterling MDD Recurrent, Partial Remission 931 Donaldson MDD 862 Donaldson Major Depressive d/o 932 Bullock OP Psychosis, Unspecified 863 Ventress Psychotic D/O, Unsepecified 933 Limestone Schizophrenia 864 Limestone MDD, recurrent 934 Draper Schizophrenia, Anxiety D/O Unspec. 865 Fountain Schizophrenia, ASPD 935 Kilby MDD 866 Bibb MDD, recurrent, moderate 936 Easterling PTSD mood, Bipolar D/O Unspecified 867 Limestone Schizoaffective D/O, PTSD 937 St. Clair ychosis unspec; mood d/o unsp 868 Tutwiler MDD w/Psychotic fx (in remission) 938 Bullock OP Schizoaffective Disorder, Bipolar Type 869 Limestone Bipolar Unspecified 870 Limestone Schizoaffective D/O 871 Bibb Mood Disorder Unspecified, Psychosis, Unspecified 872 Fountain Psychosis unsp 873 Limestone Delusional D/O Unspecified 874 Bullock OP Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent, partial remission 875 Donaldson Major Depression D/O 876 Bibb Unspecified Psychotic D/O 877 Bibb Bipolar D/O 878 Limestone MDD recurrent 879 Kilby SCHIZO DIS 880 Elmore MDD w/ Hx Psychosis-single episode; R/O Mood Disorder Unspec 881 Donaldson Schizoaffective D/O Bipolar I D/O, Depressive D/O unspec, Anxiety D/O unspec, hx of Meth 882 Tutwiler use D/O 883 Tutwiler MDD (in partial remission), hx of Amphetamine use D/O 884 St. Clair MDD w/ psychosis 885 Bibb MDD Recurrent; Cont drug use - Substance 886 Staton Delusional Disorder poss Drug Induced, no recent hx of delusionas 887 Limestone Substance Induced Psychotic D/O 888 Bullock OP Major Depressive Disorder, PTSD, Schizophrenia 889 Bullock OP Major Depressive Disorder, recurrent, moderate, with psychosis 890 Staton Bipolar Disorder 891 Bibb MDD, recurrent, moderate 892 Limestone MDD 893 Bullock OP Schizoaffective Disorder 894 Limestone Bipolar D/O, PTSD 895 St. Clair c psychosis; h/o repeated brain 896 Staton Bipolar Disorder Unspecified 897 Donaldson Schizoaffective D/O 898 Draper Bipolar D/O; R/O Personality Disorder 899 Draper MDD Recurrent in Partil Remission PAGE 7 — PLAINTIFFS' DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT 165

Exhibit

Plaintiffs' Demonstrative Exhibit 165 Prisoners with a Mental- Health Code of MH-1 Who Have a Categorical Serious Mental Illness – KEY FILED UNDER SEAL

Exhibit

Prisoners with a Mental Health Code of MH-1 Who Have a Categorical Serious Mental Illness DECEMBER 2017 AND JANUARY 2018 SEGREGATION PLACEMENTS HIGHLIGHTED SOURCE: PLS. EX. 1363 (DEC. 12, 2017 SEGREGATION ROSTER), PLS. EX. 1364 (FEB. 2016 MHM MASTER ROSTER), PLS. EX. 1376 (JAN. 2018 MHM MASTER ROSTER), PLS. EX. 1404 (JAN. 10, 2018 SEGREGATION ROSTER) NUMBER FACILITY DIAGNOSIS NUMBER FACILITY DIAGNOSIS 1 Bullock OP Mood Disorder w/psychosis 64 Bibb MDD recurrent, Continuous Cocaine Use 2 Limestone MDD w/psychosis 65 Holman MDD - REMISSION 3 Bibb MDD, recurrent, in remission; PTSD; Polysubstance Use Disorder; ADD 66 Kilby MDD 4 Easterling MDD, Recurrent 67 Fountain Schizoaffective D/O 5 Limestone Schizoaffective D/O 68 Bibb Schizoaffective D/O - depressive type, ETOH use D/O moderate 6 Ventress Bipolar D/O, Personality D/O, Unspecified 69 Draper Depressive D/O NOS, R/O Situational vs MDD; R/O Personality D/O 7 Ventress Bipolar Mood D/O, Unspecified 70 Tutwiler Bipolar D/O unspec 8 Limestone MDD w/psychotic features 71 Holman Schizoaffective D/O 9 Staton MDD, Partial remission, Cocaine, Cannabis, Meth, ETOH, Use D/O 72 Elmore Major Depressive Disorder 10 Hamilton MDD 73 Staton Major Depressive Disorder w/ Psychotic Feat. 11 Easterling MDD, Recurrent w/ Psychotic Features 74 Limestone Schizophrenia 12 Donaldson Bipolar D/O 75 Limestone Bipolar D/O 13 Hamilton MDD 76 Bibb Unspecified Psychotic D/O 14 Limestone MDD, PTSD 77 Bullock OP Major Depressive Disorder (Unspecified) 15 Bibb MDD Recurrent Mild; PTSD 78 Easterling MDD, Recurrent - Moderate 16 Limestone Bipolar D/O Unspecified Bipolar D/O, Unspecified VS Personality D/O, Personality D/O with 79 Ventress 17 Fountain Bipolar Unsp Antisocial Traits 18 Bibb MDD, ASPD 80 Elmore Bipolar Disorder, Methamphetamine Use, ASPD 19 Limestone Schizophrenia 81 Bibb Bipolar II Disorder 20 Bibb Schizoaffective D/O 82 Tutwiler MDD (in remission), PTSD (in remission) 21 Kilby BIPOLAR DIS 83 Bibb Schizophrenia 22 Bibb Psychosis, Unspecified 84 Easterling SCZ, Personality D/O, Unspecified 23 Limestone Unspecified Bipolar D/O 85 Limestone MDD 24 Easterling Substance Induced Psychosis - Remisson; THC 86 Bullock OP Unspecified Psychotic Disorder 25 Bullock OP Bipolar Mood Disorder, mixed, remission 87 Kilby PSYCH UNSP 26 Bullock OP Bipolar Mood Disorder with mixed features 88 Bullock OP Bipolar I Disorder 27 Kilby PSYCH DIS 89 Limestone MDD 28 Bibb MDD Recurrent H/O Polysubstance Use D/O 90 Hamilton MDD Stable / in Remission 29 Elmore Schhizoaffective Disorder 91 Bullock OP Bipolar Mood Disorder 30 Ventress Psycothic D/O 92 Donaldson Schizoaffective 31 Tutwiler Bipolar I D/O unspec vs Depressive D/O unspec 93 Bibb Psychotic d/o Unspecified 32 Bibb MDD 94 Donaldson Schizophrenia 33 Limestone MDD 95 Staton Schizophrenia, PTSD 34 Holman MDD-Remission 96 Fountain Schizoaffective D/O 35 Limestone Schizophrenia 97 St. Clair bipolar d/o per chart 36 Elmore Schizoaffective Disorder 98 Bibb Schizophrenia 37 Limestone MDD 99 Tutwiler Hx Bipolar D/O unspec, R/O Cluster B Traits 38 Easterling MDD Recurrent - Partial Remisson 100 Bullock OP Schizoaffective Disorder, Bipolar 39 Bibb Bipolar D/O 101 Staton MDD- Recurrent, Autism Spectrum - Possible Asperger's Syndrome 40 Ventress MDD, Recurrent 102 Tutwiler Bipolar I D/O (in remission) 41 Donaldson Undiff Schizophrenia 103 Easterling MDD Recurrent, Partial Remission 42 Fountain Schizoaffective D/O, Bipolar type 104 Bibb MDD Recurrent 43 Hamilton WR SCHIZOAFFECTIVE D/O 105 Limestone MDD 44 Tutwiler MDD, recurrent 106 Limestone MDD 45 Ventress MDD chronic recurrent PD w/Cluster B traits 107 Bullock OP Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent, partial remission Persistant Depressive D/O w/MDD Episode w/o Trauma Related/Stress 108 Holman Major Depression 46 Tutwiler Related D/O 109 Limestone MDD in remission 47 Limestone MDD recurrent 110 Bullock OP Major Depressive Disorder,w/psychosis 48 Elmore MDD- Improving, Hx of substance abuse 111 Donaldson MDD with Psychosis 49 Easterling MDD, Recurrent 112 Holman MDD w/Psychosis 50 Bullock OP Major Depressive Disorder, recurrent with psychosis 113 Bullock OP Major Depressive Disorder, Single Episode (Remission) 51 Easterling MDD, Recurrent 114 Limestone PTSD, MDD 52 St. Clair Schizophrenia, SUD, ASPD 115 Draper Schizoaffective D/O,Depression 53 Bibb MDD Recurrent 116 Tutwiler Bipolar II D/O 54 Tutwiler Major Depressive D/O w/Psychotic fx 117 Limestone MDD, recurrent 55 Donaldson Paranoid Schizophrenia vs Undiff 118 Easterling Personality D/O,Unspecified; R/O Delusional D/O 56 Donaldson Delusional D/O 119 Limestone MDD 57 Ventress Bipolar D/O Unspecified 120 Bibb MDD Recurrent 58 Holman Schizop 121 Staton Psychotic Disorder Unsp., ASPD Traits, Depressive Disorder Unsp. 59 Limestone MDD w/psychosis 122 Limestone Schizoaffective D/O 60 Limestone MDD, mild 123 Bullock OP Schizophrenia 61 Bibb MDD w/anxiety 124 Limestone MDD, Anxiety D/O 62 St. Clair Delusional D/O; ASPD Traits 125 Limestone Bipolar D/O 63 Kilby PSYCH DIS 126 Limestone MDD PLAINTIFFS' DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT 165 NUMBER FACILITY DIAGNOSIS NUMBER FACILITY DIAGNOSIS 127 Holman Schizophrenia 198 Kilby SCHIZO 128 Limestone MDD recurrent 199 Tutwiler Bipolar D/O unspec 129 Bibb Bipolar II disorder; Intellectual Impairment; Continuous Drug Use 200 Ventress MDD Chronic-remission 130 Limestone MDD 201 Bullock OP Unspecified Bipolar Disorder 131 Limestone MDD w/psychosis 202 Bullock OP Schizoaffective Disorder 132 Bullock OP Bipolar Mood Disorder, Depressed, ASPD 203 Bullock OP Schizoaffective Disorder, depressed mood 133 Limestone Bipolar D/O in remission 204 Fountain Schizophrenia 134 Bullock OP Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent, partial remission 205 Tutwiler Psychotic D/O unspec (in remission) 135 Easterling SCZ Chronic w/ Fixed Delusional Beliefs r/o 206 Bibb Schizoaffective disorder, depressed 136 Staton Schizpophrenia 207 Bibb MDD; PTSD 137 Bibb PTSD, MDD recurrent 208 Limestone Mdd recurrent 138 Bibb MDD Recurrent 209 St. Clair SA d/o, depressed 139 St. Clair Bi-polar mood d/o, unspec 210 Easterling Bipolar D/O, Unspecified 140 Hamilton WR PSYCHOTIC D/O UNSPEC 211 Ventress MDD Recurrent 141 Bullock OP Major Depressive Disorder, partial remission 212 Ventress Bipolar II D/O 142 Elmore Biplolar D/O, Anxiety D/O Unspecified, ASPD 213 Bullock OP Schizophrenia 143 Limestone MDD 214 Ventress MDD, Recurrent, Mood, THC Abuse D/O, Meth Use D/O 144 Limestone MDD 215 Tutwiler MDD recurrent, moderate w/o Psychotic fx, Amphetamine use D/O 145 St. Clair Mjr Depression w pych fx 216 Holman Bipolar 146 Tutwiler Bipolar II D/O, hx of PTSD 217 Limestone Psychotic D/O Unspecified 147 Staton Schizophrenia 218 Bullock OP Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent, partial remission 148 Limestone MDD 219 Ventress Bipolar Mood D/O, Unsppecified 149 Ventress MDD-remission SAD- remission 220 Ventress Psychosis Unspecified 150 Limestone Delusional D/O 221 Easterling MDD, Moderate; H/O Psychotic Features 151 Bullock OP Schizophrenia, Paranoid Type 222 Ventress MDD, Recurrent, Moderate/Remission, PTSD, Mild 152 Hamilton MDD RECURRENT 223 Limestone Schizophrenia 153 Bullock OP Major Depressive Disorder, recurrent 224 Easterling MDD; Partial Remisson 154 Bullock OP Schizophrenia, Undiffrentiated Type 225 Tutwiler Depressive D/O unspec w/Psychotic fx 155 Bullock OP Schizoaffective Disorder 226 Limestone MDD w/anxiety 156 Bullock OP Schizophrenia 227 Bibb Bipolar I D/O depressed 157 Easterling MDD, Recurrent 228 Easterling PTSD, Chronic; MDD, Recurrent 158 Staton MDD-m Recurrent 229 Bibb Psychosis disorder Unspecified 159 Ventress Bipolar D/O, Unspecified 230 Limestone Psychotic D/O Unspecified 160 Ventress Schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type 231 Bullock OP Schizophrenia, Paranoid Type 161 Easterling Psychotic D/O, Unspecified 232 Easterling BMD, Unspecified 162 Tutwiler Bipolar I D/O vs Anxiety D/O unspec 233 Limestone MDD recurrent 163 Fountain Bipolar D/O 234 Bibb Unspecified Psychotic D/O 164 Tutwiler Bipolar I D/O 235 Elmore Schizoaffective D/O, ASPD Traits 165 Easterling Schizophrenia 236 Limestone Bipolar D/O Unspecified 166 Bibb Schizophrenia 237 Tutwiler Bipolar D/O unpsec, Anxiety D/O unspec 167 Kilby SCHIZO 238 Bibb Psychosis Unspecified 168 Donaldson MDD with psychotic Features 239 Tutwiler MDD w/ Psychotic features (in remission), HIV 169 Kilby MDD IN REMISSN 240 Limestone MDD 170 Kilby PSYCH 241 Limestone Bipolar D/O 171 Ventress Psychotic D/O, Unspecified, Substance Use D/O 242 Limestone MDD 172 Limestone MDD 243 Holman Schizoaffective d/o 173 Donaldson Major Dispressive D/O 244 Limestone Substance Induced Psychotic 174 Bullock OP Schizophrenia 245 Limestone Psychotic D/O Unspecified 175 Bullock OP Major Depressive Disorder with mixed features 246 Kilby SCHIZO 176 Donaldson Schizophrenia 247 Limestone Bipolar I D/O 177 Bibb Unspecified Bipolar D/O Stimulant Use D/O 248 Elmore MDD; Hx Heroin Dependence; ASPD 178 Staton Depressive Disorder NOS, Hx of Paranoid Schizophrenia per pt. 249 Ventress Substance Induced Psychotic D/O, Borderline Intell Functioning 179 Limestone Bipolarl D/O MDD, moderate, PTSD; Polysubstance use disorder (THC, ETOH, 250 Bibb 180 Limestone MDD Benzos) 181 Tutwiler Bipolar D/O unspec 251 Tutwiler Bipolar I D/O unspec 182 Donaldson Schizophrenia 252 Donaldson Psychotic D/o unspecified 183 Ventress MDD w/ Psychtoic features-rem on meds 253 Bullock OP Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent, partial remission 184 Kilby MDD 254 Tutwiler Bipolar I D/O w/Psychotic fx 185 Elmore Schizophrenia 255 Ventress Bipolar D/O, Unspecified Meth Use D/O 186 Tutwiler Anxiety D/O unspec, MDD in partial remission 256 Tutwiler Bipolar D/O unspec, hx of PTSD, hx of Polysubstance use D/O 187 Staton Schizophrenia Paronoid type 257 Bullock OP Schizophrenia, Paranoid Type 188 Limestone Schizophrenia 258 Limestone MDD w/psychosis 189 St. Clair bipolar d/o, depressed type 259 Limestone MDD 190 Limestone MDD 260 Holman Major Depression 191 Ventress Bipolar D/O, Mixed 261 Bullock OP Unspecified Psychotic Disorder 192 Elmore Schizophrenia, Chronic-in partial remission 262 Limestone MDD, GAD 193 Bullock OP Schizophrenia, paranoid type, partial remission 263 Bullock OP Schizophrenia, Chronic Paranoid Type 194 Easterling MDD/ w anxiety 264 Staton Bipolar Disorder Unspec, Anxiety Disorder Unspec, Substance Abu 195 Limestone MDD 265 Easterling MDD, Moderate w/ Psychosis 196 Bibb Unspecified Bipolar D/O; Substance Use D/O 266 Elmore Major Depressive Disorder 197 Limestone Psychotic D/O Unspecified 267 Bibb Bipolar 1 D/O, THC & ICE Use D/O PAGE 2 — PLAINTIFFS' DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT 165 NUMBER FACILITY DIAGNOSIS NUMBER FACILITY DIAGNOSIS 268 Limestone Schizoaffective D/O 335 Easterling MDD Recurrent w/ Anxiety; R/O Bipolar D/O 269 Tutwiler MDD (in remission) 336 Ventress Bipolar Mood D/O, Unspecified 270 Bibb Unspecified Bipolar D/O; Cannabis Use D/O; Stimulant Use D/O 337 Bibb Bipolar I Disorder 271 Limestone MDD w/psychosis 338 Bullock OP Schizophrenia, Undiffrentiated Type MDD Recurrent, Substance Use D/O, Meth/Substance (6 Months 339 Bullock OP Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent, partial remission 272 Ventress Clean) 340 Hamilton MDD 273 Limestone MDD w/psychosis 341 Easterling MDD, Recurrent Partial Remisson, PTSD 274 St. Clair MDD 342 Draper MDD-recurrent severe, Bereavement 275 Limestone Substance Induced Psychosis 343 Holman Major Depression 276 Holman MDD 344 Bullock OP Psychosis, Unspecified Unspec psychotic D/O (in remission) substance induced psychotic D/O 345 Ventress Psychotic D/O, Unspecified, MDD 277 Tutwiler Iin remission) 346 Staton Major Depressive Disorder NOS 278 Limestone MDD, moderate 347 Ventress Schizoaffective d/o Bipolar Bipolar I D/O, Manic with Psychotic Features, Stimulant Use D/O/THC 348 Limestone MDD 279 Ventress Use D/O, Severe 349 Bibb MDD, partial remission c- anxiety 280 Tutwiler Bipolar D/O unspec 350 Bullock OP Bipolar I Disorder 281 Draper MDD w/Psychotic Features 351 Bibb Bipolar D/O 282 Bullock OP Schizoaffective Disorder 352 Donaldson Sub Depression Unspec w/ psychosis 283 Ventress Bipolar D/O, Unspecified/THC Use D/O, Unspecified 353 Donaldson MDD 284 Easterling Bipolar D/O, Mixed 354 Donaldson Drug-Induced Psychotic D/O 285 Ventress MDD Moderate Psychosis 355 Staton Major Depressive Disorder in remission w/medication 286 Kilby PSYCH DIS 356 Donaldson Bipolar D/O (mixed) 287 Staton MDD- Mild Recurrent 357 Limestone Bipolar D/O, Depressed 288 Hamilton WR SCHIZOAFFECTIVE D/O 358 Limestone MDD, moderate 289 Staton MDD w/ Psychotic Features 359 Elmore Schizophrenia, Polysubstance Use D/O 290 Staton Schizophrenia Disrder - Depressed 360 Limestone Bipolar II D/O 291 Limestone MDD 361 Limestone Schizophrenia 292 Limestone Bipolar D/O 362 Limestone Bipolar D/O 293 Donaldson MDD Recurrent 363 Staton Bipolar Disorder Unspecified 294 Kilby SCHIZO 364 Bibb Psychotic 2 GMC D/O; H/O TBI 295 Limestone Schizophrenia 365 Easterling Schizophrenia PT MDD, recurrent, Moderate; Cluster B Personality Disorder; Polysub- 366 Bibb H/O Bipolar disorder 296 Bibb stance use disorder 367 Limestone MDD in remission 297 Kilby MDD 368 Limestone MDD w/psychosis 298 Limestone Bipolar Unspecified 369 Tutwiler Major depressive D/O w/psychotic fx, R/O PTSD 299 Hamilton SCHIZOPHRENIA 370 Easterling MDD, Recurrent w.Psychotic Features - In Remission 300 Limestone Bipolar D/O 371 Kilby BIPOLAR DIS 301 Bullock OP Major Depressive Disorder, recurrent, remission 372 Limestone Bipolar D/O 302 Staton Bipolar Disorder, R/O Intermittent Explosive Disorder 373 Bullock OP Bipolar I Disorder 303 St. Clair MDD, recurrent 374 Tutwiler Major Depressive D/O in partial remission 304 Limestone Schizoaffective D/O 375 Elmore Schizoaffective 305 Limestone Bipolar I D/O, Depressed 376 Limestone Schizoaffective D/O 306 Limestone Substance Induced Psychotic D/O 377 Bibb MDD 307 Draper MDD w/Psychotic Features, ASPD Traits 378 Limestone MDD w/psychosis 308 Tutwiler Bipolar I D/O 379 Ventress Schizophrenia PT 309 Staton Bipolar Disorder Mixed 380 Bibb MDD Recurrent, in remission 310 Draper Psychotic Disorder Unspecified 381 Elmore MDD w/ Psychotic Feat, Cluster B Personality D/O 311 Bullock OP Schizophrenia, Paranoid Type 382 Limestone MDD w/psychotic features 312 Limestone MDD 383 Tutwiler MDD with Psychotic fx 313 Bullock OP Schizophrenia, Residual Type 384 Fountain Bipolar I D/O, Depression 314 Draper Major Depressive Disorder; Intellectual Disability @82 385 Ventress Bipolar D/O, Unspecified 315 Elmore Psychotic Disorder Unspec. Remission 386 Easterling MDD, Recurrent Moderate 316 Bibb Psychosis Unspecified 387 Staton Schizophrenia D/O Bipolar type 317 Limestone Schizoaffective D/O 388 Easterling MDD - Moderate w/ Anxiety 318 Bullock OP Psychosis, Unspecified 389 Kilby SCHIZO 319 Holman MDD w/ Psychosis 390 Limestone Psychosis Unspecified 320 Ventress Bipolar D/O, Unspecified 391 Donaldson MDD/ Depression 321 Bullock OP Schizoaffective Disorder, Unspecified 392 Holman Schizophrenia 322 Limestone MDD recurrent 393 Bullock OP Bipolar Mood Disorder, mixed, r/o unspecified mood d/o 323 Limestone Bipolar II D/O 394 Easterling Schizophrenia 324 Staton Psychotic D/O NOS, R/O Intellectual Disability 395 Bibb SIMD, Bipolar D/O 325 Tutwiler Bipolar D/O unspec 396 Limestone Psychotic D/O Unspecified 326 Kilby SCHIZO 397 Easterling Bipolar D/O Mixed 327 Bibb MDD; Hep C 398 Ventress Biploar D/O, Unspecified 328 Kilby DELUSIONAL DIS 399 St. Clair psychosis NOS, subs induced 329 Easterling Bipolar D/O mixed w/ Psychotic Features 400 Staton Bipolar D/O Unspecified, Psychotic D/O Unspecified 330 Staton Bipolar Disorder 401 Limestone MDD 331 Ventress Bipolar I D/O, Manix Stimulant Use D/O, Cannabis Use 402 Ventress Bipolar D/O, Unspecified, THC Use D/O, R/O Substance Induced Mood 332 Bibb MDD c- psychotic features 403 Ventress Anxiety D/O, Unspecified, Bipolar D/O, Unspecified 333 Easterling MDD Single Episode w/ Psychotic Features 404 Ventress Schizophrenia, Mood D/O, Unspecified 334 Elmore Mood Disorder, Bipolar, major depression 405 Bullock OP Schizoaffective Disorder PAGE 3 — PLAINTIFFS' DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT 165 NUMBER FACILITY DIAGNOSIS NUMBER FACILITY DIAGNOSIS 406 Elmore Hx of Schizophrenia 477 Ventress Mood D/O NOS Psychotic D/O NOS Hx of Substance Abuse 407 Ventress Schizoaffective D/O 478 Easterling MDD in Remission 408 Tutwiler MDD (in remission), Anxiety D/O unspec(stable) 479 Bibb MDD Recurrent 409 Limestone MDD recurrent 480 Tutwiler hx of Bipolar D/O w/Depression, hx of Polysubstance use D/O 410 Elmore MDD, Anxiety D/O Unspec, Meth Use D/O 481 Limestone Bipolar D/O 411 Kilby MAJ DEP 482 Fountain MDD, PTSD, resolved 412 Holman Bipolar Disorder 483 Fountain MDD, recurrent, moderate 413 Easterling MDD (Remission) 484 Ventress Major Depression/Anxiety D/O, Unspecified 414 Limestone MDD w/psychosis 485 Holman Major Depression 415 Bullock OP Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent, partial remission 486 St. Clair Schizoaffective D/O 416 Donaldson Psychosis 487 Elmore Bipolar Disorder I 417 Donaldson Mood D/O, Psychosis Unspecified 488 Hamilton MAJOR DEPRESSION 418 Limestone MDD recurrent 489 Bibb Delusional D/O; Borderline Intellectual Impairment 419 Bibb MDD Recurrent in remission 490 Bibb MDD, mild, recurrent 420 Bullock OP Psychosis Unspecified 491 Easterling Bipolar D/O Type I w/ Anxious Distress; R/O Drug 421 Tutwiler Bipolar II D/O 492 Limestone MDD 422 Staton Bipolar Disorder, ASPD 493 Kilby BIPOLAR DIS 423 Easterling Bipolar D/O w/ Psychotic Features 494 Bibb Schizophrenia Spectrum 424 Limestone MDD, GAD MDD-Recurrent; Anxiety disorder Unspec. ETOH and THC use disor- 495 Elmore 425 Hamilton UNSP HX BIPOLAR D/O CLUS der,Beta 79 426 Tutwiler Bipolar II D/O 496 Donaldson Bipolar D/O, Subst. induced 427 Tutwiler Bipolar I D/O 497 St. Clair maj. Dep d/o; EPD 428 Limestone Schizophrenia 498 Limestone MDD, recurrent, moderate 429 Staton Hx Of Depressive Disorder, PTSD, Conduct D/O, Bipolar D/O- per 499 Draper Bipolar Disorder, Mixed with Psychosis 430 Bullock OP Major Depressive Disorder, partial remission 500 Easterling MDD 431 Limestone MDD w/psychosis 501 Tutwiler Bipolar I D/O, Hx of alcohol abuse 432 St. Clair schizophrenia 502 Elmore MDD, Personality Disorder 433 Limestone MDD recurrent 503 Easterling MDD, single episode moderate 434 Kilby MAJOR DEP 504 Hamilton MDD 435 Kilby BIPOLAR DIS 505 Bullock OP Bipolar Mood Disorder II 436 Kilby MDD 506 Kilby MDD 437 Bullock OP Schizophrenia, Paranoid Type, Partial Remission 507 Hamilton D R/O MAJ DEPRESSION REC 438 Easterling MDD, Recurrent Servere; SA disorder 508 Bibb Psychotic Disorder Unspecified 439 Ventress Major Depressive D/O- Mild Recurrent 509 Bibb Schizophrenia 440 Tutwiler Bipolar D/O unspec, GAD, hx of IV Heroin/MJ use D/O 510 Kilby PSYCH 441 Holman MDD 511 Donaldson Bipolar D/O 442 Limestone Bipolar D/O 512 Ventress MDD Recurrent, Moderate, THC/ETOH Use D/O 443 Tutwiler Bipolar D/O unspec, PTSD, Polysub Abuse 513 Hamilton MDD 444 Limestone MDD recurrent 514 Bibb MDD Recurrent; Opiod Use D/O Severe, Stimulant Use D/O Severe 445 Hamilton HIZOPHRENIA PARANOID TY 515 Limestone MDD w/psychosis 446 Limestone MDD in remission 516 Fountain Scizoaffective D/O 447 Tutwiler MDD (in remission), GAD (stable) 517 Hamilton MDD 448 Donaldson PTSD/ MDD Psycchosis 518 Ventress MDD Recurrent, THC Use D/O 449 Bibb MDD, moderate, recurrent 519 Draper MDD,Recurrent Moderate, ASPD Traits 450 Kilby MAJOR DEP 520 Limestone MDD recurrent w/o psychosis 451 Bullock OP Schizoaffective Disorder 521 Bullock OP Major Depressive Disorder, partial remission 452 Draper MDD 522 Donaldson MDD 453 Bullock OP Major Depressive Disorder, recurrent moderate with anxious mood 523 St. Clair psychotic d/o unspec; r/o bipola 454 Limestone Bipolar D/O moderate 524 Tutwiler Bipolar D/O unspec, Depressive D/O unspec 455 Tutwiler Schizophrenia 525 Tutwiler Major Depressive D/O w/Psychotic fx, PTSD, hx of crack use d/O 456 Bullock OP Bipolar Mood Disorder, mixed 526 Ventress Bipolar D/O with Psychotic Features 457 Elmore Psychotic Disorder Unspecified; Mood Disorder Unspec 527 Limestone MDD w/Psychosis 458 Kilby SCHIZO 528 Bibb Schizoaffective D/O bipolar type 459 Holman Psychosis NOS 529 Limestone MDD recurrent, Borderline Intellect 460 Tutwiler MDD (in remission) 530 Holman MDD 461 Staton Anxiety D/O, R/O PTSD 531 Bullock OP Major Depressive Disorder, recurrent 462 Limestone Bipolar D/O Unspecified 532 Tutwiler MDD (recurrent stable), PTSD 463 Limestone MDD w/psychosis 533 Holman Bipolar d/o 464 Bullock OP Psychosis, Unspecified 534 Donaldson Bipolar D/O R/O MDD 465 Limestone Schizophrenia 535 Bullock OP Bipolar I Disorder, depressed type in remission 466 Donaldson Bipolar D/O, Acute stress/ Depression D/O 536 Bibb Schizophrenia spectrum D/O, Stimulant Use D/O 467 Ventress MDD, Meth Abuse D/O 537 Limestone MDD mild 468 Bibb MDD c- Psychotic features 538 Draper MDD with Psychosis, ASPD Traits; IQ 82 469 Tutwiler MDD w/Psychotic features (stable) 539 Tutwiler MDD, Cocaine use D/O 470 Kilby PSYCH DIS 540 Limestone MDD w/psychosis 471 Ventress Psychotic D/O, Unpsecified 541 Easterling MDD W/ Psychotic Features 472 Draper MDD w/ psychotic features; Atypical/Mixed Personality D/O Traits 542 Ventress Bipolar D/O unspecfied, Psychotic D/O Unspecified 473 Bibb MDD, recurrent moderate 543 Limestone MDD, PTSD 474 Holman Adj D/O w/ depression, MDD 544 Elmore Major Depressive Disorder Mild Recurrent 475 Bibb Schizoaffective D/O; H/O drug use in prison 545 Bullock OP Bipolar I Disorder, Most Recent Episode Mixed 476 Elmore Bipolar D/O Unspec., Pseudodementia, OCD 546 Kilby MAJ DEP PAGE 4 — PLAINTIFFS' DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT 165 NUMBER FACILITY DIAGNOSIS NUMBER FACILITY DIAGNOSIS 547 Bibb MDD, stable c- meds 617 Bibb MDD, Mild, recurrent 548 Ventress Schizoaffective D/O, Cocaine/ETOH Abuse D/O 618 Easterling MDD, Recurrent; Anxiety D/O, Unspecified 549 Limestone MDD 619 Elmore Psychosis NOS, R/O Induced Psychosis, ASPD 550 Easterling Schizoaffective D/O depressed type 620 Limestone MDD, PTSD 551 Limestone MDD moderate 621 Bullock OP Bipolar Mood Disorder, depressed wi/mixed features 552 Tutwiler PTSD/ MDD 622 Limestone PTSD, MDD w/psychosis H/O Psychotic D/O related to Substance abuse vs Psychotic D/O 623 Bullock OP Bipolar Mood Disorder, Unspecified 553 Tutwiler unspec 624 Kilby SCHIZO 554 Bullock OP Major Depressive Disorder Recurrent (Remission) 625 Bibb MDD, recurrent; Continuous Drug Use; Stimulant/Opiod use disorder 555 Limestone MDD w/psychosis 626 Ventress Schizophrenia-PT remission Substance Abuse d/o 556 Bibb Schizophrenia; Polysubstance Use D/O 627 Ventress Bipolar D/O, Meth/THC Use D/O 557 Hamilton MDD in REMISSION 628 Hamilton MDD/ANXIETY 558 Hamilton WR BIPOLAR D/O 629 Bibb MDD; Unspecified Bipolar D/O; Antisocial PD 559 Bullock OP Major Depressive Disorder, recurrent 630 Tutwiler Major depressive (recurrent),cocaine use D/O, R/O BPD 560 Bullock OP Psychosis, Unspecified 631 Bullock OP Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent, partial remission 561 Bullock OP Major Depressive Disorder 632 Easterling MDD w/ Psychotic Features,H/O Substance Use D/O 562 Easterling MDD, Recurrent - Revised; No documented HX of 633 St. Clair psychosis unspec 563 Staton Bipolar Disorder Unspec. 634 Bullock OP Psychotic Disorder with Hallucinations 564 Bibb Schizoaffective D/O 635 Bibb Schizophrenia 565 Hamilton WR MDD IN REMISSION 636 Limestone MDD 566 Staton Bipolar Disorder vs Mood Disorder Unspec; Polysub Abuse 637 Tutwiler Major depressive (recurrent) PTSD 567 Limestone Bipolar D/O in remission 638 Staton Bipolar D/O Unspec. METH and THC Use Disorder; ASPD Traits 568 Bullock OP Major Depressive Disorder 639 Easterling Bipolar D/O, Unspecified 569 Limestone GAD, Psychotic D/O 640 Ventress Bipolar D/O, Mood D/O with Psychosis 570 Limestone MDD moderate 641 Draper Psychotic Disorder-Resolved, R/O ASPD 571 Holman Bipolar unspec 642 Draper Schizophrenia 572 Tutwiler MDD w/ Psychotic fx, hx PTSD, hx of Opiate use D/O 643 Holman MDD 573 Bullock OP Major Depressive Disorder, partial remission 644 Easterling MDD ETOH Substance Abuse D/O 574 Limestone Bipolar I D/O Depressed 645 Staton Psychosis NOS 575 Bibb Unspecified Psychotic D/O; R/O Substance Induced Psychotic D/O 646 St. Clair MDD 576 Bibb Bipolar D/O 647 Kilby MDD, MOOD DEP 577 Ventress Bipolar D/O, Unspecified 648 Easterling MDD, GAD 578 Tutwiler MDD w/Intermittent Psychotic fx (in remission) 649 Elmore R/O MDD Recurrent Moderate 579 Tutwiler MDD recuurent/moderate vs Mood D/O, Hx of Meth Abuse 650 Tutwiler MDD recurrent, moderate R/O Cannabis use D/O 580 Tutwiler Schizoaffective D/O, Bipolar Type, hx of Alcohol/Cocaine/ETOH use D/O 651 Holman Schizoaffective 581 Limestone MDD, mild 652 Tutwiler Major Depression (recurrent) w/Mixed fx, PTSD 582 Limestone Bipolar D/O 653 Bullock OP Major Depressive Disorder, recurrent, severe with psychosis 583 Limestone MDD w/psychosis 654 Limestone MDD 584 Donaldson Psychotic D/O substance Abuse 655 Bullock OP Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent, partial remission 585 Hamilton MDD 656 St. Clair psychosis unspec 586 Limestone MDD recurrent 657 Easterling MDD, Recurrent 587 Limestone MDD 658 Bullock OP Major Depression Disorder, recurrent 588 Donaldson Bipolar Disorder 659 Easterling MDD 589 Elmore MDD, ASPD, Beta 99 660 Limestone MDD 590 Draper MDD, Recurrent, Chronic pain 661 Ventress Schizoaffective D/O, Bipolar Type, Substance Abuse D/O 591 Limestone Bipolar D/O w/psychosis 662 Donaldson MDD resolved 592 Donaldson Undiff Schizophrenia 663 Limestone MDD 593 Bullock OP Schizophrenia, residual phase 664 Bibb Psychotic D/O Unspecified 594 Limestone Psychotic D/O Unspecified 665 St. Clair bipolar mood d/o; PTSD 595 Ventress MDD Recurrent, Dysthymia, Adjustment D/O 666 Bullock OP Schizophrenia, Undiffrentiated Type 596 Bibb Unspecified Psychotic D/O; Stimulant Use D/O; Cannabis Use D/O 667 Donaldson Schizophrenia (Catatonic) 597 Fountain MDD, recurrent, mild, Opiod use D/O 668 Kilby BIPOLAR DIS 598 Elmore Schizoaffective Disorder 669 Kilby BIPOLAR DIS 599 Easterling Bipolar D/O, Unspecified 670 Bibb Schizophrenia 600 Limestone Bipolar I D/O Depressed 671 Donaldson MDD 601 Staton Psychotic D/O-Substance Induced-resolved, ASPD, grief, Cannabis 672 Easterling MDD D/O, Recurrecent Moderate; PTSD 602 Tutwiler Bipolar II D/O (stable) 673 Ventress MDD, Recurrent 603 Bibb Unspecified Schizophrenia Spectrum; Cannabis Use D/O 674 Kilby PSYCH DIS 604 Bullock OP Major Depressive Disorder 675 Elmore Mood/Depressive D/O, R/O MDD with Psychosis 605 Ventress Schizophrenia Spectrum D/O 676 Limestone MDD, mild 606 Bullock OP Bipolar Disorder (Unspecified) 677 Bibb MDD, recurrent 607 Donaldson Undiff Schizophrenia 678 Kilby SCHIZO 608 Tutwiler Bipolar D/O unspec, GAD w/Panic Attacks, PTSD 679 Tutwiler Bipolar D/O unspec/BPD (hx) Polysub use D/O 609 Bibb Substance induced psychosis 680 Tutwiler Bipolar II D/O 610 Limestone MDD w/psychosis 681 Bibb MDD, in remission 611 Donaldson Major Depression D/O 682 Tutwiler Bipolar D/O unspec, Hx of Polysubstance abuse 612 Easterling Psychosis Unspecified; R/O Schizoaffective D/O 683 Staton Hx of Bipolar Disorder, Hx of Questionable PTSD, ASPD, R/O Paro 613 Tutwiler MDD (in remission), PTSD (in remission) 684 Tutwiler Bipolar D/O unspec, PTSD (in remission) 614 Tutwiler Major Depressive D/O unspec 685 Ventress Bipolar I, in Remission 615 Fountain MDD, recurrent 686 Limestone Schizophrenia 616 Limestone MDD, PTSD 687 Tutwiler MDD recurrent/moderate PAGE 5 — PLAINTIFFS' DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT 165 NUMBER FACILITY DIAGNOSIS NUMBER FACILITY DIAGNOSIS 688 Ventress MDD with Psychotic Features 759 Limestone MDD, mild 689 Elmore MDD- Recurrent with Psychotic Features 760 Tutwiler Bipolar D/O unspec 690 Bullock OP Schizoaffective Disorder 761 Limestone MDD w/psychosis 691 Bullock OP Major Depressive Disorder 762 Easterling MDD w/ Anxiety 692 Staton Bipolar D/O, Antisocial Personality D/O 763 Bibb MDD, recurrent mild 693 Limestone MDD 764 Donaldson Schizoaffective D/O 694 Draper Mood D/O NOS, Hx of Bipolar D/O and ADHD per pt, ASPD 765 Bullock OP Bipolar Mood I, depressed type 695 Easterling Bipolr D/O II 766 Donaldson Bipolar 696 Limestone MDD, PTSD, mild/Dysthymia 767 Kilby MAJ DEP 697 Limestone MDD moderate 768 Holman Psychosis 698 Donaldson MDD 769 Limestone MDD 699 Kilby MDD 770 Bullock OP Anxious, Depressed mood 700 Staton Bipolar Disorder, Chronic pain 771 Donaldson MDD/ Remission 701 Fountain Unsp. Bipolar 772 Elmore MDD Recurrent Moderate 702 Holman Delusional D/O 773 Donaldson Bipolar D/O Unspecified 703 Limestone MDD w/Psychosis 774 Kilby MAJ DEP 704 Holman Schizoaffective 775 Donaldson Unspecfied Psychosis D/O 705 Ventress MDD 776 Limestone MDD w/psychosis 706 Ventress MDD with Psychosis, PTSD, Chronic, THC/Concaine D/O 777 Kilby SCHIZO DIS 707 Donaldson Delustional D/O 778 Limestone Schizophrenia 708 Holman Bipolar 779 Ventress MDD Recurrent, Partial Remission, GAD 709 Limestone MDD 780 Bibb Schizophrenia 710 Tutwiler Schizophrenia D/O (in remission) 781 Hamilton W/PSYCHOSIS BY HX 711 Bibb MDD, recurrent 782 Ventress MDD w/ Psychotic features 712 Easterling MDD, Recurent moderate w/ Psychosis 783 Limestone Psychotic D/O Unspecified 713 Bullock OP Schizoaffective Disorder 784 Bullock OP Major Depressive Disorder (Unspecified) 714 Tutwiler MDD 785 Limestone MDD w/psychosis 715 Limestone MDD w/psychosis 786 Limestone Bipolar D/O Unspecified 716 Easterling Bipolar D/O, Unspecified 787 Bullock OP Bipolar Mood Disorder, Euthymic 717 Bullock OP Major Depressive Disorder, severe 788 Bibb Bipolar disorder Unspecified; PTSD; ETOH use disorder 718 St. Clair bipolar d/o 789 Kilby MDD 719 Bullock OP Major Depressive Disorder, single, moderate 790 Easterling PTSD, Chronic; MDD w/ Psychotic Features 720 Bullock OP Schizophrenia, Undiffrentiated Type 791 Limestone Psychotic D/O Unspecified 721 Ventress MDD Unspecified, H/O Cocaine Use D/O 792 Tutwiler Depressive D/O unspec, Bipolar d/O unspec 722 Easterling MDD moderate with Psychotic Features 793 Ventress MDD Recurrent 723 Bullock OP Bipolar Disorder 794 Bullock OP Unspecified Depressive Disorder, h/o Bipolar Disorder 724 Ventress Bipolar D/O, Unspecified/Depressive D/O, Unspecified, Adjustment D/O 795 Bibb MDD w/Psychotic Features; THC Use D/O; ETOH Use D/O 725 Bullock OP Mood Disorder, Unspecified 796 Fountain PTSD, MDD 726 Limestone MDD, mild 797 Bullock OP Major Depressive Disorder, Unspecified 727 Limestone MDD, GAD 798 Limestone Psychotic D/O Unspecified 728 Elmore Bipolar Disorder, Axniety Disorder 799 Elmore Substance Induced Mood D/O; Hx Bipolar D/O; Hx Polysub Use D/O 729 Elmore Bipolar and Anxiety DO 800 St. Clair MDD 730 Limestone Bipolar D/O 801 Bullock OP Bipolar Mood Disorder II, partial remission 731 Elmore Schizophrenia Unspecified, Anxiety Disorder 802 Bullock OP Major Depressive Disorder, moderate 732 Limestone Schizoaffective D/O 803 Bullock OP Major Depressive Disorder, recurrent in partial remission 733 Staton Major Depressive Disorder, Mild-Resolved 804 Bullock OP Major Depressive Disorder 734 Easterling Major Depression 805 Ventress BMD, Substance Abuse D/O 735 Limestone MDD in remission 806 Elmore MDD, Anxiety Disorder, Personality D/O NOS 736 Tutwiler Major Depressive Episode 807 Easterling MDD, Recurrent w/ Psychotic Features 737 Bullock OP Major Depressive Disorder, recurrent 808 Tutwiler Major depressive D/O, Cocaine/benzo use D/O 738 Bibb Bipolar 1 Disorder; SUD - Continuous 809 Donaldson Schizoaffective D/O 739 Bibb MDD, moderate, recurrent 810 Fountain Schizophrenia 740 Fountain MDD, recurrent 811 Easterling Bipolar D/O 741 Elmore Hx Psychosis with Tx in Bullock RTU 812 Donaldson Unspecified Psychosis 742 Tutwiler MDD vs unspec Bipolar D/O 813 Bullock OP Major Depression Disorder 743 Fountain Mdd, recurrent 814 Staton Bipolar I D/O Refused appt 1/15/18 744 Kilby BIPOLAR DIS 815 Ventress Schizophrenia 745 Elmore Bipolar D/O Unspec., Meth and THC use D/O 816 Limestone Schizoaffective D/O, Bipolar Type 746 Ventress BMD, Unspecified 817 Easterling MDD, Moderate 747 Bibb Unspecified Bipolar D/O, PTSD 818 Bullock OP Bipolar I Disorder, manic with pyschosis 748 Bibb MDD Recurrent w/ psychotic features 819 Tutwiler MDD 749 Kilby PSYCH DIS 820 Draper MDD, R/O Bipolar Disorder 750 Kilby MAJ DEP 821 Limestone Bipolar D/O Unspecified 751 Limestone MDD, mild 822 Bullock OP Schizophrenia 752 Limestone Schizoaffective D/O 823 Bullock OP Schizophrenia, Paranoid Type 753 Bibb Bipolar Disorder; H/O Polysubstance Use Disorder 824 Donaldson Schizoaffective 754 Bullock OP Bipolar Disorder I, mixed 825 St. Clair Adjustment D/O Unspecified 755 Tutwiler Bipolar D/O unspec, hx of PTSD 826 Staton Schizophrenia, Paranoid Type 756 Bibb Bipolar D/O 827 Holman Schizop 757 Easterling Bipolar D/O Partial remission 828 Donaldson Schizophrenia 758 Limestone MDD in remission 829 Donaldson Mood, Bipolar D/O PAGE 6 — PLAINTIFFS' DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT 165 NUMBER FACILITY DIAGNOSIS NUMBER FACILITY DIAGNOSIS 830 Easterling MDD - Recurrent; Psychosis 900 Bullock OP Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent, partial remission 831 Bullock OP Schizophrenia 901 Tutwiler Bipolar I D/O unspec 832 Limestone Bipolar D/O in remission 902 Bibb Delusional D/O 833 Bibb MDD, recurrent, mild 903 Limestone Psychotic D/O Unspecified 834 Tutwiler Major Depressive D/O in partial remission 904 Tutwiler Depressive D/O unspec,Bipolar II D/O 835 Elmore Bipolar Disorder Unspec; Dependent Personality D/O 905 Limestone MDD 836 Draper MDD 906 Bullock OP Schizoaffective Disorder 837 Limestone MDD recurrent 907 Limestone MDD w/psychosis 838 Elmore MDD Recurrent, Cannabis Use D/O, ASPD Traits 908 Tutwiler Bipolar I D/O 839 Bullock OP Major Depressive Disorder, recurrent 909 Ventress MDD, Single Episode Moderate 840 Bullock OP Major Depressive Disorder, Single, Severe 910 Limestone MDD, moderate 841 Bibb Bipolar D/O Unspecified, Polysubstance Use D/O 911 Elmore MDD recurrent 842 Bullock OP Bipolar Disorder, r/o Posttraumatic Stress Disorder 912 Tutwiler Bipolar D/O unspec, PTSD 843 Bullock OP Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent, partial remission 913 Limestone MDD 844 Donaldson Psychosis Unspecified 914 Tutwiler MDD recurrent w/Mixed fx, Hx of Cocaine/Alcohol use D/O 845 Tutwiler Major Depressive D/O 915 Easterling MDD, Recurrent - Moderate 846 Limestone MDD 916 Limestone Psychotic D/O Unspecified 847 Easterling MDD, Recurrent Partial 917 Bibb Bipolar Disorder, Type II 848 Limestone MDD, PTSD 918 Tutwiler Bipolar I D/O unspec, hx of Opiate use 849 Tutwiler Mood D/O unspec w/Psychotic fx, hx of Polysub use D/O 919 Ventress MDD, Recurrent, Mild 850 St. Clair psychotic d/o unspecified 920 Bibb Major Neurocognitive D/O 851 Kilby BIPOLAR DIS 921 Bibb Unspecified Mood D/O; Unspecified Psychosis; Borderline IQ 852 St. Clair psychosis NOS 922 Ventress MDD, Anxiety D/O, Unspecified 853 Limestone MDD, mild 923 Bibb MDD c- Psychotic features 854 Limestone Schizophrenia 924 Tutwiler Depressive D/O unspec, hx of Schizophrenia D/O 855 Ventress Flocca Induces Psychosis, Bipolar D/O, Unspecified 925 Easterling Schizoid Personaility Trait; R/O Autism 856 Limestone MDD w/psychosis 926 Limestone MDD in remission 857 Limestone MDD 927 Tutwiler Bipolar D/O unspec 858 Ventress MDD, R/O Depression, 2nd GMC 928 Limestone Psychotic D/O Unspecified 859 Draper Delusional Disorder Unspecified, Hx Polysubstance Use 929 Ventress MDD Recurent Moderate GAD 860 Tutwiler MDD w/o Psychotic fx (in remission, GAD, Hx of Opiate use D/O 930 Tutwiler Bipolar I D/O, Substance use D/O 861 Easterling MDD Recurrent, Partial Remission 931 Donaldson MDD 862 Donaldson Major Depressive d/o 932 Bullock OP Psychosis, Unspecified 863 Ventress Psychotic D/O, Unsepecified 933 Limestone Schizophrenia 864 Limestone MDD, recurrent 934 Draper Schizophrenia, Anxiety D/O Unspec. 865 Fountain Schizophrenia, ASPD 935 Kilby MDD 866 Bibb MDD, recurrent, moderate 936 Easterling PTSD mood, Bipolar D/O Unspecified 867 Limestone Schizoaffective D/O, PTSD 937 St. Clair ychosis unspec; mood d/o unsp 868 Tutwiler MDD w/Psychotic fx (in remission) 938 Bullock OP Schizoaffective Disorder, Bipolar Type 869 Limestone Bipolar Unspecified 870 Limestone Schizoaffective D/O 871 Bibb Mood Disorder Unspecified, Psychosis, Unspecified 872 Fountain Psychosis unsp 873 Limestone Delusional D/O Unspecified 874 Bullock OP Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent, partial remission 875 Donaldson Major Depression D/O 876 Bibb Unspecified Psychotic D/O 877 Bibb Bipolar D/O 878 Limestone MDD recurrent 879 Kilby SCHIZO DIS 880 Elmore MDD w/ Hx Psychosis-single episode; R/O Mood Disorder Unspec 881 Donaldson Schizoaffective D/O Bipolar I D/O, Depressive D/O unspec, Anxiety D/O unspec, hx of Meth 882 Tutwiler use D/O 883 Tutwiler MDD (in partial remission), hx of Amphetamine use D/O 884 St. Clair MDD w/ psychosis 885 Bibb MDD Recurrent; Cont drug use - Substance 886 Staton Delusional Disorder poss Drug Induced, no recent hx of delusionas 887 Limestone Substance Induced Psychotic D/O 888 Bullock OP Major Depressive Disorder, PTSD, Schizophrenia 889 Bullock OP Major Depressive Disorder, recurrent, moderate, with psychosis 890 Staton Bipolar Disorder 891 Bibb MDD, recurrent, moderate 892 Limestone MDD 893 Bullock OP Schizoaffective Disorder 894 Limestone Bipolar D/O, PTSD 895 St. Clair c psychosis; h/o repeated brain 896 Staton Bipolar Disorder Unspecified 897 Donaldson Schizoaffective D/O 898 Draper Bipolar D/O; R/O Personality Disorder 899 Draper MDD Recurrent in Partil Remission PAGE 7 — PLAINTIFFS' DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT 165

Exhibit

Prisoners with Serious Mental Illness in Segregation On or About December 12, 2017 and/or On or About January 10, 2018 SOURCE: PLS. EX. 1357 (DEC. 2017 LIST OF MH-2S AND HIGHER), PLS. EX. 1363 (DEC. 12, 2017 SEGREGATION ROSTER), PLS. EX. 1364 (FEB. 2016 MHM MASTER ROSTER), PLS. EX. 1376 (JAN. 2018 MHM MASTER ROSTER), PLS. EX. 1404 (JAN. 10, 2018 SEGREGATION ROSTER) DEC. 2017 MH IN SEG IN SEG 2OR HIGHER JAN. 2018 DEC. 12, JAN. 10, NUMBER LOCATION LISTING MH CODE 2016 DIAGNOSIS 2018 DIAGNOSIS 2017 2018 1 Holman Correctional Facility n/a 1 other, specified personality d/o, cluster 8i MDD-Remission x x 2 Limestone Correctional Facility n/a 1b Schizophrenia Schizophrenia x x 3 Limestone Correctional Facility 2 2 Mood D/O Unspecified x x 4 St Clair Correctional Facility n/a 1 Undiff Schizophrenia Schizophrenia, SUD, ASPD x x 5 Fountain Correctional Facility 2 2 Psychotic d/o unspecified Unsp. Mood D/O x x 6 Kilby Correctional Facility 2 2 MDD x x 7 Easterling Correctional Facility 2 2d MDD - Recurrent w/ Anxiety x x 8 Limestone Correctional Facility n/a 1 MDD in remission x x 9 Holman Correctional Facility n/a 1b MDD, Recurrent Severe w/ Psychotic Features MDD w/Psychosis x x 10 Limestone Correctional Facility n/a 1a MDD x x Bipolar II disorder; Intellectual Impairment; 11 Bibb Correctional Facility n/a 1 x x Continuous Drug Use 12 Limestone Correctional Facility n/a 1a MDD x x 13 Kilby Correctional Facility n/a 2 adj dis. x x Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent, partial 14 Easterling Correctional Facility n/a 1b MDD, Recurrent x x remission 15 Limestone Correctional Facility n/a 1 MDD, recurrent, Borderline Intellect Adjustment D/O w/depression x x 16 Kilby Rcc 2 x x 17 Limestone Correctional Facility 1 1 Psychotic D/O Unspecified x x 18 Holman Prison 2 mood disorder x x 19 St Clair Correctional Facility n/a 2 Psych NOS Psychosis, Hx of SUD x x 20 Limestone Correctional Facility n/a 1a Psychotic D/O Unspecified x x 21 Holman Correctional Facility n/a 1b major depression d/o MDD x x 22 Donaldson Correctional Facility n/a 2 Unspec mood D/O x x 23 Limestone Correctional Facility n/a 1b Bipolar I D/O, Depressed x x 24 Limestone Correctional Facility n/a 1b Schizoaffective D/O x x 25 Kilby Correctional Facility n/a 1 DELUSIONAL DIS x x 26 Easterling Correctional Facility 2 2d Schizophrenia x x 27 Holman Correctional Facility n/a 1 antisocial personality d/o Major Depression x x 28 Limestone Correctional Facility n/a 1a Bipolar D/O, Depressed x x 29 Holman Correctional Facility n/a 1b schizophrenia Schizophrenia x x 30 Holman Correctional Facility 2 2 Unspec Psychosis x x 31 Donaldson Correctional Facility n/a 1 PTSD/ MDD Psychosis, r/o adj d/o x x 32 Limestone Correctional Facility n/a 1b Bipolar Disorder, ASPD Bipolar D/O x x 33 St Clair Correctional Facility n/a 1b ASPD maj. Dep d/o; EPD x x 34 St Clair Correctional Facility n/a 1b psychotic d/o unspec; r/o bipola x x 35 Fountain Correctional Center 2 Unsp anxiety D/O x x 36 Limestone Correctional Facility n/a 1a MDD w/psychosis GAD, Psychotic D/O x x 37 Limestone Correctional Facility n/a 1a Bipolar D/O w/psychosis x x 38 Limestone Correctional Facility n/a 1b Psychotic D/O Unspecified x x 39 Fountain Correctional Facility n/a 1b MDD unspecified MDD, recurrent, mild, Opiod use D/O x x Psychosis, Unspecified; R/O Schizoaffective 40 Easterling Correctional Facility n/a 1b x x D/O 41 Fountain Correctional Facility n/a 1a MDD unspecified MDD, recurrent x x 42 Easterling Correctional Facility 2 2d Mood Disorder NOS Psychosis; R/O, Bipolar D/O (Manic/Depressive) x x 43 St Clair Correctional Facility n/a 1b psychosis unspec x x 44 Bibb Correctional Facility n/a 1a Psychotic D/O Unspecified x x 45 Easterling Correctional Facility n/a 1b MDD D/O, Recurrecent Moderate; PTSD x x 46 Donaldson Correctional Facility n/a 2 Antisocial Traits x x 47 Easterling Correctional Facility n/a 1b Bipolr D/O II x x 48 Holman Correctional Facility n/a 1b Schizoaffective x x 49 Donaldson Correctional Facility n/a 1 Delusional D/O Unspecified Delustional D/O x x 50 Fountain Correctional Facility n/a 1a anxiety d/o w/ psychotic features MDD x x 51 Limestone Correctional Facility n/a 1 Schizoaffective D/O x x MDD, mood d/o NOS, depressive disorder 52 St Clair Correctional Facility n/a 1 dep d/o unspec; r/o adj. d/o;ETO x x NOS - per med records 53 Limestone Correctional Facility n/a 1b MDD w/psychosis x x 54 Donaldson Correctional Facility n/a 1 BIPOLAR DIS Bipolar x x 55 Kilby Correctional Facility n/a 1a r/o schizophrenia/psychosis MAJ DEP x x 56 Easterling Correctional Facility n/a 1b Psychosis NOS MDD, Recurrent w/ Psychotic Features x x 57 Donaldson Correctional Facility n/a 1 Unspecified Psychosis x x 58 Donaldson Correctional Facility n/a 1b adj dis Mood, Bipolar D/O x x 59 Bullock Correctional Facility n/a 1b Major Depressive Disorder, recurrent x x PLAINTIFFS' DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT 166 DEC. 2017 MH IN SEG IN SEG 2OR HIGHER JAN. 2018 DEC. 12, JAN. 10, NUMBER LOCATION LISTING MH CODE 2016 DIAGNOSIS 2018 DIAGNOSIS 2017 2018 60 St Clair Correctional Facility n/a 1 psychotic d/o unspecified psychotic d/o unspecified x x Schizoaffective D/O, Depressed; Meth Use 61 Easterling Correctional Facility 2 2d x x D/O 62 St Clair Correctional Facility n/a 1b MDD w/ psychosis x x 63 Donaldson Correctional Facility n/a 1 Schizoaffective D/O Schizoaffective D/O x x 64 Limestone Correctional Facility n/a n/a MDD w/psychotic features x x 65 Fountain Correctional Facility 2 2 MDD MDD Recurrent in Remission,ASPD x 66 Fountain Correctional Facility 2 2 MDD, Recurrent- Moderate x 67 Donaldson Correctional Facility 2 2 Bipolar D/O Unspecified x 68 Draper Correctional Facility 2 2 Depressive D/O Unspecified x 69 Kilby Correctional Facility 2 2 Depressive Disorder x 70 Fountain Correctional Facility 2 2 schizophrenia schizophrenia x 71 Limestone Correctional Facility n/a 1a MDD, Anxiety D/O x 72 Limestone Correctional Facility 2 1b Delusional D/O Delusional D/O x 73 Donaldson Correctional Facility n/a 1 MDD with psychotic Features x 74 Limestone Correctional Facility n/a 1a Unspecified Depressive D/O MDD x 75 Kilby Correctional Facility 2 2 PTSD x 76 St Clair Correctional Facility 2 n/a major depression x 77 Draper Correctional Facility 2 2 Depressive D/O Unspecified x 78 Limestone Correctional Facility 2 2 Cluster B Personality x 79 Limestone Correctional Facility n/a 1b MDD x 80 Limestone Correctional Facility n/a 1a Substance Induced Psychotic x 81 St Clair Correctional Facility 2 2 mood d/o, substance induced x 82 Fountain Correctional Facility n/a n/a Bipolar mood disorder II, with paranoia x 83 Limestone Correctional Facility n/a 1a MDD MDD, moderate x 84 Limestone Correctional Facility n/a n/a psychosis x 85 Tutwiler Prison For Women 2 2 PTSD w/ depressive, cyclothymic d/o Bipolar I D/O, PTSD, Substance use D/O x 86 Bibb Correctional Facility n/a 1b Bipolar I Disorder x 87 Draper Correctional Facility 2 2 Depressive D/O x 88 Limestone Correctional Facility n/a 1a PTSD, MDD PTSD x 89 St Clair Correctional Facility n/a 1 Depressive D/O, Bipolar D/O Depressive d/o unspec; x 90 Holman Correctional Facility 2 2 schizophrenia schizophrenia x MDD, Recurrent -Revised; No documented 91 Easterling Correctional Facility n/a 1 MDD w/ Psychosis x HX of 92 Holman Correctional Facility n/a 1b Bipolar unspec x 93 Limestone Correctional Facility n/a n/a Bipolar D/O NOS x 94 Draper Correctional Facility 2 2 NEW Intake x 95 Fountain Correctional Facility n/a n/a Bipolar mood disorder II, with paranoia x 96 Limestone Correctional Facility 2 1b MDD w/psychosis x 97 Limestone Correctional Facility n/a 1a Delusional D/O, Anxiety NOS GAD x 98 Hamilton Aged & Infirmed 2 2 TO CVA W/ RECEPTIVE x 99 Bullock Correctional Facility 2 2 Schizophrenia, Paranoid Type Schizophrenia x 100 Limestone Correctional Facility n/a 1a Psychotic D/O Unspecified x Substance Induced Mood D/O; Hx Bipolar D/O; 101 Draper Correctional Facility n/a 1b x Hx Polysub Use D/O 102 Tutwiler Prison For Women 2 2 Bipolar I vs Bipolar II x 103 Easterling Correctional Facility n/a 2 x 104 Limestone Correctional Facility n/a 1a MDD, mild x 105 Limestone Correctional Facility 2 1a MDD w/psychosis x Mood D/O NOS, MDD w/ Psychotic Feat vs 106 Limestone Correctional Facility n/a n/a x Schizoaffective D/O; ASPD T 107 Limestone Correctional Facility 2 2 Schizophrenia Schizoaffective D/O x 108 Limestone Correctional Facility n/a n/a MDD w/psychotic features x 109 Kilby Correctional Facility 2 2 DEP DIS x 110 Bullock Correctional Facility 2 2 bipolar, mood d/o unspec. Per med records Antisocial Personality Disorder x 111 Tutwiler Prison For Women 2 2 Mood D/O unspec x 112 Limestone Correctional Facility n/a 2 PTSD x Unspecified Bipolar Disorder; Substance use 113 Holman Prison 2 2 Bipolar D/O x disorders(meth,synthetic, marijuana&opiod) 114 Limestone Correctional Center 1 Bipolar mood disorder Unspecified Bipolar D/O x 115 Limestone Correctional Center 2 Schizoaffective D/O x 116 William E. Donaldson Corr. Fac 1 Delusional D/O Delusional D/O x Psychotic d/o Unspecified Mood d/o Unspecfied 117 Bullock Correctional Facility 1 Intermittent Explosive Disorder x r/o SAD Depressed vs MDD w/ Psychotic feat 118 Bullock Correctional Facility SCHIZO x 119 Limestone Correctional Center 1 MDD, Anxiety D/O x 120 Limestone Correctional Center 2 2 x 121 Bullock Correctional Facility 2 2 Impulse Control Disorder, Unspecified Impulse Control Disorder, Unspecified x 122 Bibb County Correctional Fac. 2 2 psych NOS Bipolar D/O, Unpsecified x 123 Kilby Rcc 2 SCHIZO x 124 St.clair Correctional Fac. 2 2 MDD w. psych fx MDD w. psych fx x PAGE 2 — PLAINTIFFS' DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT 166 DEC. 2017 MH IN SEG IN SEG 2OR HIGHER JAN. 2018 DEC. 12, JAN. 10, NUMBER LOCATION LISTING MH CODE 2016 DIAGNOSIS 2018 DIAGNOSIS 2017 2018 125 St.clair Correctional Fac. 2 2 paranoid schizophrenia Schizophrenia x 126 Tutwiler Prison 2 2 Mood D/O unspec, hx of Substance abuse x 127 Tutwiler Prison 1b MDD, Mood Disorder NOS Bipolar I D/O unspec x 128 Tutwiler Prison 2 2 bipolar d/o Schizophrenia D/O-Paranoid Type x 129 Bullock Correctional Facility 2 2 Mood D/O NOS Substance Induced Psychotic Disorder x 130 Tutwiler Prison 2 2 Mood D/O unspec, Ectasy use D/O x 131 Bibb County Correctional Fac. 3 2 x 132 Bibb County Correctional Fac. 2 1 Bipolar I Disorder x 133 William E. Donaldson Corr. Fac 2 2 remission; ASPD MDD, ASPD x 134 William E. Donaldson Corr. Fac 2 2 antisocial personality d/o Depression x 135 Limestone Correctional Center 1 MDD x 136 Kilby Rcc 2 2 x 137 Tutwiler Prison 2 2 x 138 Limestone Correctional Center psychosis, unspecified x 139 Fountain Correctional Center 1 Schizoaffective D/O x 140 Ventress Correctional Center 1 Schizoaffective D/O x Mood D/O unspec- Personality D/O unspec, hx 141 Tutwiler Prison 2 2 x of Cocaine use D/O 142 St.clair Correctional Fac. 2 2 Diagnostic Clarification x 143 Bullock Correctional Facility 1 MAJOR DEP Major Depression Disorder, recurrent x 144 Fountain Correctional Center 2 2 Psychosis x 145 Limestone Correctional Center MDD; HX of MJ/cocaine abuse x 146 Ventress Correctional Center 2 2 PTSD. Mild Schizophrenia Spectrum D/O; x Personality Disorder-mixed Anti-Social and 147 Kilby Rcc 5 2 POLY SUB x Borderline Personality D/O 148 Fountain Correctional Center 1 Schizophrenia, PT MDD, recurrent x 149 Limestone Correctional Center 1 Bipolar D/O Unspecified x 150 Tutwiler Prison 2 2 Mood D/O NOS Bipolar D/O unspec x Schizoaffective Disorder-Controlled with 151 William E. Donaldson Corr. Fac 2 Schizophrenia x medication 152 Tutwiler Prison 2 2 Schizoaffective D/O (in remission) x PAGE 3 — PLAINTIFFS' DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT 166

Exhibit

Plaintiffs ' Demonstrative Exhibit 166 Prisoners with Serious Mental Illness in Segregation in December and January – KEY FILED UNDER SEAL

Exhibit

Plaintiffs ' Exhibit 1376 Jan. 2018 MHM Master Roster FILED UNDER SEAL

Exhibit

Plaintiffs ' Exhibit 1393 Dec. 2017 MHM Monthly Operating Report FILED UNDER SEAL

Exhibit

Plaintiffs ' Exhibit 1401 Jan. - Dec. 2017 Suicide Prevention Monitoring Reports FILED UNDER SEAL

Exhibit

Plaintiffs ' Exhibit 1404 Jan. 10, 2018 Segregation Roster FILED UNDER SEAL

Exhibit

Plaintiffs ' Exhibit 1406 Bibb Segregation Rounds and Duty Post Logs FILED UNDER SEAL

Exhibit) (Attachment 1 replaced on 2/12/2018). (Attachment 3 replaced on 2/12/2018

Plaintiffs ' Exhibit 1433 Bibb Segregation Mental Health Rounds Logs FILED UNDER SEAL

NOTICE by All Plaintiffs Exhibits Under Seal to Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction to Close the Bibb Correctional Facility Segregation Unit.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARD BRAGGS, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) v.) CIVIL ACTION NO.) 2:14-CV-00601-MHT-GMB JEFFERSON DUNN, in his official) HON. MYRON H. THOMPSON capacity as Commissioner) of the Alabama Department of) Corrections, et al.,)) Defendants.)) NOTICE OF FILING Notice is hereby given that the Plaintiffs have filed exhibits to Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction to Close the Bibb Correctional Facility Segregation Unit under seal on compact disc with the Clerk of the above Court. Dated: February 9, 2018 Respectfully Submitted, Maria V. Morris Maria V. Morris One of the Attorneys for Plaintiffs Southern Poverty Law Center 400 Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36104 1 Rhonda Brownstein (ASB-3193-O64R) Maria V. Morris (ASB-2198-R64M) Grace Graham (ASB-3040-A64G) Latasha L. McCrary (ASB-1935-L75M) Jonathan Blocker (ASB-6818-G19I) Caitlin J. Sandley (ASB-5317-S48R) SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 400 Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36104 Telephone: (334) 956-8200 Facsimile: (334) 956-8481 rhonda.brownstein@splcenter.org maria.morris@splcenter.org grace.graham@splcenter.org latasha.mccrary@splcenter.org jonathan.blocker@splcenter.org cj.sandley@splcenter.org William Van Der Pol, Jr. (ASB-2112-114F) Glenn N. Baxter (ASB-3825-A41G) Lonnie J. Williams Barbara A. Lawrence Andrea J. Mixson Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program Box 870395 Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 Telephone: (205) 348-4928 Facsimile: (205) 348-3909 wvanderpoljr@adap.ua.edu gnbaxter@adap.ua.edu lwilliams@adap.ua.edu blawrence@adap.ua.edu amixson@adap.ua.edu Lisa W. Borden (ASB-5673-D57L) William G. Somerville, III (ASB-6185-E63W) Andrew P. Walsh (ASB-3755-W77W) Dennis Nabors 2 Patricia Clotfelter (ASB-0841-F43P) Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz PC 420 20th Street North, Suite 1400 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 328-0480 Facsimile: (205) 322-8007 lborden@bakerdonelson.com wsomerville@bakerdonelson.com awalsh@bakerdonelson.com dnabors@bakerdonelson.com pclotfelter@bakerdonelson.com Gregory M. Zarzaur (ASB-0759-E45Z) Anil A. Mujumdar (ASB-2004-L65M) Diandra S. Debrosse (ASB-2956-N76D) Denise Wiginton Zarzaur Mujumdar & Debrosse 2332 2nd Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 983-7985 Facsimile: (888) 505-0523 gregory@zarzaur.com anil@zarzaur.com diandra@zarzaur.com denise@zarzaur.com ATTORNEYS FOR THE PLAINTIFFS 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have on this 9th day of February, 2018, filed under seal the foregoing with the clerk of the court and served a copy of the filed document via electronic mail to the following: David R. Boyd, Esq. Steven C. Corhern, Esq. John G. Smith, Esq. Balch & Bingham LLP John W. Naramore, Esq. Post Office Box 306 Balch & Bingham LLP Birmingham, AL 35201-0306 Post Office Box 78 scorhern@balch.com Montgomery, AL 36101-0078 dboyd@balch.com Mitesh Shah, Esq. jgsmith@balch.com Luther M. Dorr, Esq. jnaramore@balch.com Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C. 1901 6th Avenue North, Suite 2400 William R. Lunsford, Esq. Birmingham, AL 35203 Melissa K. Marler, Esq. mshah@maynardcooper.com Stephen C. Rogers, Esq. rdorr@maynardcooper.com Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C. 655 Gallatin Street, SW Deana Johnson, Esq. Huntsville, AL 35801 Brett T. Lane, Esq. blunsford@maynardcooper.com MHM Services, Inc. mmarler@maynardcooper.com 1447 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 500 srogers@maynardcooper.com Atlanta, GA 30309 djohnson@mhm-services.com Anne Hill, Esq. btlane@mhm-services.com Elizabeth A. Sees, Esq. Joseph G. Stewart, Jr., Esq. Alabama Department of Corrections Legal Division 301 South Ripley Street Montgomery, AL 36104 anne.hill@doc.alabama.gov elizabeth.sees@doc.alabama.gov joseph.stewart@doc.alabama.gov Maria V. Morris__________ One of the Attorneys for Plaintiffs 4

Exhibit

Plaintiffs ' Demonstrative Exhibit 137 Diagram of Bibb Housing Unit FILED UNDER SEAL

Exhibit

Plaintiffs' Demonstrative Exhibit 164 Prisoners on the Mental- Health Caseload in Segregation in Dec. 2017 and Jan. 2018 – KEY FILED UNDER SEAL

Exhibit

Plaintiffs' Demonstrative Exhibit 165 Prisoners with a Mental- Health Code of MH-1 Who Have a Categorical Serious Mental Illness – KEY FILED UNDER SEAL

Exhibit

Plaintiffs ' Demonstrative Exhibit 166 Prisoners with Serious Mental Illness in Segregation in December and January – KEY FILED UNDER SEAL

Exhibit

Plaintiffs ' Exhibit 1376 Jan. 2018 MHM Master Roster FILED UNDER SEAL

Exhibit

Plaintiffs ' Exhibit 1393 Dec. 2017 MHM Monthly Operating Report FILED UNDER SEAL

Exhibit

Plaintiffs ' Exhibit 1401 Jan. - Dec. 2017 Suicide Prevention Monitoring Reports FILED UNDER SEAL

Exhibit

Plaintiffs ' Exhibit 1404 Jan. 10, 2018 Segregation Roster FILED UNDER SEAL

Exhibit

Plaintiffs ' Exhibit 1406 Bibb Segregation Rounds and Duty Post Logs FILED UNDER SEAL

Exhibit) (Attachment 1 replaced on 2/12/2018). (Attachment 2 replaced on 2/12/2018). (Attachment 3 replaced on 2/12/2018). (Attachment 4 replaced on 2/12/2018). (Attachment 6 replaced on 2/12/2018). (Attachment 5 replaced on 2/12/2018). (Attachment 8 replaced on 2/12/2018). (Attachment 9 replaced on 2/12/2018). (Attachment 10 replaced on 2/12/2018). (Attachment 7 replaced on 2/13/2018

Plaintiffs ' Exhibit 1433 Bibb Segregation Mental Health Rounds Logs FILED UNDER SEAL

NOTICE by Jefferson S. Dunn, Ruth Naglich State's Witness Summaries for February 12, 2018

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARD BRAGGS, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) Case No. 2:14-cv-00601-MHT-GMB v.)) District Judge Myron H. Thompson JEFFERSON DUNN, et al.,)) Defendants.) THE STATE'S WITNESS SUMMARIES FOR FEBRUARY 12, 2018 Defendants JEFFERSON DUNN ("Commissioner Dunn") and RUTH NAGLICH ("Naglich" and, collectively with Commissioner Dunn, "the State") pursuant to this Court's Orders (Doc. Nos. 240, 463, and 1495, 1572, 1588) hereby submit their witness summaries for February 12, 2018. 1. Cynthia Stewart. The State expects to call Ms. Stewart on February 12, 2018 to conclude her testimony. Ms. Stewart is the Warden of Holman Correctional Facility. The State expects Ms. Stewart will testify regarding the restrictive housing at Holman and the mental health care provided to inmates housed there. 2. Cheryl Price. The State expects to call Ms. Price on February 12, 2018. Ms. Price is the Institutional Coordinator for the Southern Region of the Alabama Department of Corrections. The State expects Ms. Price will testify regarding the restrictive housing in the ADOC and the mental health care for inmates housed there. Respectfully submitted this the 12th day of February, 2018. /s/ John G. Smith John G. Smith Attorney for the Commissioner and Associate Commissioner John G. Smith David R. Boyd BALCH & BINGHAM LLP Post Office Box 78 Montgomery, AL 36101-0078 Telephone: (334) 834-6500 Facsimile: (866) 316-9461 jgsmith@balch.com dboyd@balch.com Steven C. Corhern BALCH & BINGHAM LLP Post Office Box 306 Birmingham, AL 35201-0306 Telephone: (205) 251-8100 Facsimile: (205) 488-5708 scorhern@balch.com Anne A. Hill Elizabeth A. Sees Joseph G. Stewart ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Legal Division 301 South Ripley Street Montgomery, Alabama 36130 Telephone (334) 353-3884 Facsimile (334) 353-3891 anne.hill@doc.alabama.gov elizabeth.sees@doc.alabama.gov joseph.stewart@doc.alabama.gov 2 William R. Lunsford Matthew B. Reeves Melissa K. Marler Stephen C. Rogers MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, PC 655 Gallatin Street Huntsville, AL 35801 Telephone: (256) 512-5710 Facsimile: (256) 512-0119 blunsford@maynardcooper.com mreeves@maynardcooper.com mmarler@maynardcooper.com srogers@maynardcooper.com Luther M. Dorr, Jr. Mitesh B. Shah MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, PC 1901 Sixth Avenue North 2400 Regions Harbert Plaza Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 254-1178 Facsimile: (205) 714-6438 rdorr@maynardcooper.com mshah@maynardcooper.com 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served upon all attorneys of record in this matter, including without limitation the following, by the Court's CM/ECF system on this the 12th day of February, 2018: Maria V. Morris William Van Der Pol, Jr. Rhonda C. Brownstein Glenn N. Baxter Latasha L. McCrary Barbara A. Lawrence J. Richard Cohen Andrea J. Mixson Caitlin J. Sandley ALABAMA DISABILITIES ADVOCACY Grace Graham PROGRAM SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER University of Alabama 400 Washington Avenue 500 Martha Parham West Montgomery, Alabama 36104 Box 870395 Telephone: (334) 956-8200 Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487-0395 Facsimile: (334) 956-8481 Telephone: (205) 348-6894 maria.morris@splcenter.org Facsimile: (205) 348-3909 rhonda.brownstein@splcenter.org wvanderpoljr@adap.ua.edu latasha.mccrary@splcenter.org gnbaxter@bama.ua.edu richard.cohen@splcenter.org blawrence@adap.ua.edu cj.sandley@splcenter.org amixson@adap.ua.edu grace.graham@splcenter.org Gregory M. Zarzaur Andrew P. Walsh Anil A. Mujumdar William G. Somerville III Diandra S. Debrosse Patricia Clotfelter Denise Wiginton Lisa W. Borden ZARZAUR MUJUMDAR & DEBROSSE BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN 2332 2nd Avenue North CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC Birmingham, AL 35203 420 20th Street North Telephone: (205) 983-7985 Suite 1400 Facsimile: (888) 505-0523 Birmingham, Alabama 35203 gregory@zarzaur.com Telephone: (205) 244-3863 anil@zarzaur.com Facsimile: (205) 488-3863 fuli@zarzaur.com awalsh@bakerdonelson.com denise@zarzaur.com wsomerville@bakerdonelson.com pclotfelter@bakerdonelson.com lborden@bakerdonelson.com 4 Lonnie J. Williams Deana Johnson ALABAMA DISABILITIES ADVOCACY Brett T. Lane PROGRAM MHM SERVICES, INC. P. O. Box 870395 1447 Peachtree Street NE Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 Suite 500 Telephone: (205) 348-4928 Atlanta, GA 30309 Facsimile: (205) 348-3909 Telephone: (404) 347-4134 lwilliams@adap.ua.edu Facsimile: (404) 347-4138 djohnson@mhm-services.com btlane@mhm-services.com /s/ John G. Smith Of Counsel 5

ORDER: It is ORDERED that the defendants' revised non-attorney staff technology request (doc. no. {{1610}}) is granted. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 2/12/2018.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARD BRAGGS, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) CIVIL ACTION NO. v.) 2:14cv601-MHT) JEFFERSON S. DUNN, in his) official capacity as) Commissioner of) the Alabama Department of) Corrections, et al.,)) Defendants.) ORDER It is ORDERED that the defendants' revised non-attorney staff technology request (doc. no. 1610) is granted. DONE, this the 12th day of February, 2018. /s/ Myron H. Thompson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER:Based on the representations made in open court on February 9, 2018, and based on the agreement of both parties, it is ORDERED as follows: (1) The joint report regarding the issue of heat sensitivity experienced by prisoners taking psychotropic medication, previously due on February 12, 2018, see Opinion and Order (doc. no. {{1566}}), is now due on February 19, 2018. (2) The joint report regarding the ADA settlement arbitration procedure, including how a prisoner is to invoke that procedure, previously due on February 12, 2018, is now due on February 19, 2018. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 2/12/2018.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARD BRAGGS, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) CIVIL ACTION NO. v.) 2:14cv601-MHT) JEFFERSON S. DUNN, in his) official capacity as) Commissioner of) the Alabama Department of) Corrections, et al.,)) Defendants.) ORDER Based on the representations made in open court on February 9, 2018, and based on the agreement of both parties, it is ORDERED as follows: (1) The joint report regarding the issue of heat sensitivity experienced by prisoners taking psychotropic medication, previously due on February 12, 2018, see Opinion and Order (doc. no. 1566), is now due on February 19, 2018. (2) The joint report regarding the ADA settlement arbitration procedure, including how a prisoner is to invoke that procedure, previously due on February 12, 2018, is now due on February 19, 2018. DONE, this the 12th day of February, 2018. /s/ Myron H. Thompson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDERED as follows: (1) The plaintiffs' motion for temporary restraining order (doc. no. {{1614}}) is denied. (2) By Thursday, February 15, 2018, at noon, the defendants are to respond to the motion for preliminary injunction (doc. no. {{1614}}). Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 2/12/2018.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARD BRAGGS, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) CIVIL ACTION NO. v.) 2:14cv601-MHT) JEFFERSON S. DUNN, in his) official capacity as) Commissioner of) the Alabama Department of) Corrections, et al.,)) Defendants.) ORDER It is ORDERED as follows: (1) The plaintiffs' motion for temporary restraining order (doc. no. 1614) is denied. (2) By Thursday, February 15, 2018, at noon, the defendants are to respond to the motion for preliminary injunction (doc. no. 1614). DONE, this the 12th day of February, 2018. /s/ Myron H. Thompson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

NOTICE by All Plaintiffs : Witness Summaries

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARDS BRAGGS, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) v.) CIVIL ACTION NO.) 2:14-CV-00601-MHT-GMB JEFFERSON DUNN, in his official) (J. Thompson) capacity as Commissioner) of the Alabama Department of) Corrections, et al.,)) Defendants.)) PLAINTIFFS' WITNESS SUMMARIES FOR FEBRUARY 12, 2018 Plaintiffs, pursuant to this Court's Orders, present their witness summaries for February 12, 2018. I. Class Member E.W., a Prisoner with a Serious Mental Illness Housed at Donaldson Class Member E.W. is currently housed at Donaldson Correctional Facility, has been diagnosed with schizophrenia, and is currently coded as MH-2. Plaintiffs expect him to testify regarding his serious mental illness and his placement and continued housing in segregation or segregation-like conditions since his entry into the custody of the Alabama Department of Corrections. II. Class Member J.A., a Prisoner with a Serious Mental Illness Housed at Easterling Class Member J.A. is currently housed at Easterling Correctional Facility. On January 10, 2017, Class Member J.A. testified about his history of self-harm and suicide attempts in segregation during the liability trial. He has been diagnosed with Major Depressive Disorder and is currently coded as MH-2. He is expected to testify regarding his serious mental illness and his transfer back-and-forth between segregation and suicide watch during the past year. III. Class Member W.B., a Prisoner with a Mental Illness Housed at Limestone Class Member W.B. is currently housed at Limestone Correctional Facility. He has been diagnosed with "adjustment disorder mixed" and is currently coded as MH-1. Plaintiffs expect him to testify regarding his mental illness and his prolonged placement and continued housing in segregation. Dated: February 12, 2018 Respectfully Submitted, /s/ Maria v. Morris Maria V. Morris One of the Attorneys for Plaintiffs Southern Poverty Law Center 400 Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36104 Rhonda Brownstein (ASB-3193-O64R) Maria V. Morris (ASB-2198-R64M) Grace Graham (ASB-3040-A64G) Latasha L. McCrary (ASB-1935-L75M) Jonathan Blocker (ASB-6818-G19I) Caitlin J. Sandley (ASB-5317-S48R) SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 2 400 Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36104 Telephone: (334) 956-8200 Facsimile: (334) 956-8481 rhonda.brownstein@splcenter.org maria.morris@splcenter.org grace.graham@splcenter.org latasha.mccrary@splcenter.org jonathan.blocker@splcenter.org cj.sandley@splcenter.org William Van Der Pol, Jr. (ASB-2112-114F) Glenn N. Baxter (ASB-3825-A41G) Lonnie J. Williams Barbara A. Lawrence Andrea J. Mixson Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program Box 870395 Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 Telephone: (205) 348-4928 Facsimile: (205) 348-3909 wvanderpoljr@adap.ua.edu gnbaxter@adap.ua.edu lwilliams@adap.ua.edu blawrence@adap.ua.edu amixson@adap.ua.edu Lisa W. Borden (ASB-5673-D57L) William G. Somerville, III (ASB-6185-E63W) Andrew P. Walsh (ASB-3755-W77W) Dennis Nabors Patricia Clotfelter (ASB-0841-F43P) Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz PC 420 20th Street North, Suite 1400 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 328-0480 Facsimile: (205) 322-8007 lborden@bakerdonelson.com wsomerville@bakerdonelson.com awalsh@bakerdonelson.com 3 dnabors@bakerdonelson.com pclotfelter@bakerdonelson.com Gregory M. Zarzaur (ASB-0759-E45Z) Anil A. Mujumdar (ASB-2004-L65M) Diandra S. Debrosse (ASB-2956-N76D) Denise Wiginton Zarzaur Mujumdar & Debrosse 2332 2nd Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 983-7985 Facsimile: (888) 505-0523 gregory@zarzaur.com anil@zarzaur.com diandra@zarzaur.com denise@zarzaur.com ATTORNEYS FOR THE PLAINTIFFS 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have on this 12th day of February, 2018, electronically filed the foregoing with the clerk of the court by using the CM/ECF system, which will send a notice of electronic filing to the following: David R. Boyd, Esq. Steven C. Corhern, Esq. John G. Smith, Esq. Balch & Bingham LLP John W. Naramore, Esq. Post Office Box 306 Balch & Bingham LLP Birmingham, AL 35201-0306 Post Office Box 78 scorhern@balch.com Montgomery, AL 36101-0078 dboyd@balch.com Mitesh Shah, Esq. jgsmith@balch.com Luther M. Dorr, Esq. jnaramore@balch.com Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C. 1901 6th Avenue North, Suite 2400 William R. Lunsford, Esq. Birmingham, AL 35203 Melissa K. Marler, Esq. mshah@maynardcooper.com Stephen C. Rogers, Esq. rdorr@maynardcooper.com Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C. 655 Gallatin Street, SW Deana Johnson, Esq. Huntsville, AL 35801 Brett T. Lane, Esq. blunsford@maynardcooper.com MHM Services, Inc. mmarler@maynardcooper.com 1447 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 500 srogers@maynardcooper.com Atlanta, GA 30309 djohnson@mhm-services.com btlane@mhm-services.com Anne Hill, Esq. Elizabeth A. Sees, Esq. Joseph G. Stewart, Jr., Esq. Alabama Department of Corrections Legal Division 301 South Ripley Street Montgomery, AL 36104 anne.hill@doc.alabama.gov elizabeth.sees@doc.alabama.gov joseph.stewart@doc.alabama.gov /s/ Maria V. Morris_______________ One of the Attorneys for Plaintiffs 5

NOTICE of Appearance by Alyson Lee Smith on behalf of Jefferson S. Dunn, Ruth Naglich

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARD BRAGGS, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) Case No. 2:14-cv-00601-MHT-GMB v.)) District Judge Myron H. Thompson JEFFERSON DUNN, et al.,)) Defendants.) NOTICE OF APPEARANCE Please take notice that Alyson L. Smith hereby enters an appearance as counsel for Defendants JEFFERSON DUNN ("Commissioner Dunn") and RUTH NAGLICH ("Naglich" and, collectively with Commissioner Dunn, "the State") in the above-styled action. Dated: February 12, 2018. /s/ Alyson L. Smith Alyson L. Smith Attorney for the Commissioner and Associate Commissioner William R. Lunsford Matthew B. Reeves Melissa K. Marler Stephen C. Rogers Alyson L. Smith MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, PC 655 Gallatin Street Huntsville, AL 35801 Telephone: (256) 512-5710 Facsimile: (256) 512-0119 blunsford@maynardcooper.com mreeves@maynardcooper.com mmarler@maynardcooper.com srogers@maynardcooper.com asmith@maynardcooper.com Luther M. Dorr, Jr. Mitesh B. Shah MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, PC 1901 Sixth Avenue North 2400 Regions Harbert Plaza Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 254-1178 Facsimile: (205) 714-6438 rdorr@maynardcooper.com mshah@maynardcooper.com 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served upon all attorneys of record in this matter, including without limitation the following, by the Court's CM/ECF system on this the 12th day of February, 2018: Maria V. Morris William Van Der Pol, Jr. Rhonda C. Brownstein Glenn N. Baxter Latasha L. McCrary Barbara A. Lawrence J. Richard Cohen Andrea J. Mixson Caitlin J. Sandley ALABAMA DISABILITIES ADVOCACY Grace Graham PROGRAM Jonathan Blocker University of Alabama SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 500 Martha Parham West 400 Washington Avenue Box 870395 Montgomery, Alabama 36104 Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487-0395 Telephone: (334) 956-8200 Telephone: (205) 348-6894 Facsimile: (334) 956-8481 Facsimile: (205) 348-3909 maria.morris@splcenter.org wvanderpoljr@adap.ua.edu rhonda.brownstein@splcenter.org gnbaxter@bama.ua.edu latasha.mccrary@splcenter.org blawrence@adap.ua.edu richard.cohen@splcenter.org amixson@adap.ua.edu cj.sandley@splcenter.org grace.graham@splcenter.org jonathan.blocker@splcenter.org Gregory M. Zarzaur Andrew P. Walsh Anil A. Mujumdar William G. Somerville III Diandra S. Debrosse Patricia Clotfelter Denise Wiginton Lisa W. Borden ZARZAUR MUJUMDAR & DEBROSSE BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN 2332 2nd Avenue North CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC Birmingham, AL 35203 420 20th Street North Telephone: (205) 983-7985 Suite 1400 Facsimile: (888) 505-0523 Birmingham, Alabama 35203 gregory@zarzaur.com Telephone: (205) 244-3863 anil@zarzaur.com Facsimile: (205) 488-3863 fuli@zarzaur.com awalsh@bakerdonelson.com denise@zarzaur.com wsomerville@bakerdonelson.com pclotfelter@bakerdonelson.com 3 lborden@bakerdonelson.com John G. Smith Deana Johnson David R. Boyd Brett T. Lane BALCH & BINGHAM LLP MHM SERVICES, INC. Post Office Box 78 1447 Peachtree Street NE Montgomery, AL 36101-0078 Suite 500 Telephone: (334) 834-6500 Atlanta, GA 30309 Facsimile: (866) 316-9461 Telephone: (404) 347-4134 jgsmith@balch.com Facsimile: (404) 347-4138 dboyd@balch.com djohnson@mhm-services.com btlane@mhm-services.com Steven C. Corhern Lonnie J. Williams BALCH & BINGHAM LLP ALABAMA DISABILITIES ADVOCACY Post Office Box 306 PROGRAM Birmingham, AL 35201-0306 P. O. Box 870395 Telephone: (205) 251-8100 Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 Facsimile: (205) 488-5708 Telephone: (205) 348-4928 scorhern@balch.com Facsimile: (205) 348-3909 lwilliams@adap.ua.edu Anne A. Hill Elizabeth A. Sees Joseph G. Stewart ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Legal Division 301 South Ripley Street Montgomery, Alabama 36130 Telephone (334) 353-3884 Facsimile (334) 353-3891 anne.hill@doc.alabama.gov elizabeth.sees@doc.alabama.gov joseph.stewart@doc.alabama.gov /s/ Alyson L. Smith Of Counsel 4

NOTICE by Jefferson S. Dunn, Ruth Naglich

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARD BRAGGS, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) Case No. 2:14-cv-00601-MHT-GMB v.)) District Judge Myron H. Thompson JEFFERSON DUNN, et al.,)) Defendants.) NOTICE OF FILING Defendants JEFFERSON DUNN, as Commissioner of the Alabama Department of Corrections ("ADOC"), and RUTH NAGLICH, as Associate Commissioner of ADOC, hereby submit to the Court (consistent with the Court's request) the text from the 2018 State of the State Address given by Governor Kay Ivey on January 9, 2018 as Exhibit A. A copy of the text from the 2018 State of the State Address given by Governor Kay Ivey on January 9, 2018 is also available at https://governor.alabama.gov/remarks-speeches/2018-state-of-the-state-address/. Dated: February 12, 2018. /s/ William R. Lunsford William R. Lunsford Attorney for the Commissioner and Associate Commissioner William R. Lunsford Matthew B. Reeves Melissa K. Marler Stephen C. Rogers Alyson L. Smith MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, PC 655 Gallatin Street Huntsville, AL 35801 Telephone: (256) 512-5710 Facsimile: (256) 512-0119 blunsford@maynardcooper.com mreeves@maynardcooper.com mmarler@maynardcooper.com srogers@maynardcooper.com asmith@maynardcooper.com Luther M. Dorr, Jr. Mitesh B. Shah MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, PC 1901 Sixth Avenue North 2400 Regions Harbert Plaza Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 254-1178 Facsimile: (205) 714-6438 rdorr@maynardcooper.com mshah@maynardcooper.com 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served upon all attorneys of record in this matter, including without limitation the following, by the Court's CM/ECF system on this the 12th day of February, 2018: Maria V. Morris William Van Der Pol, Jr. Rhonda C. Brownstein Glenn N. Baxter Latasha L. McCrary Barbara A. Lawrence J. Richard Cohen Andrea J. Mixson Caitlin J. Sandley ALABAMA DISABILITIES ADVOCACY Grace Graham PROGRAM Jonathan Blocker University of Alabama SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 500 Martha Parham West 400 Washington Avenue Box 870395 Montgomery, Alabama 36104 Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487-0395 Telephone: (334) 956-8200 Telephone: (205) 348-6894 Facsimile: (334) 956-8481 Facsimile: (205) 348-3909 maria.morris@splcenter.org wvanderpoljr@adap.ua.edu rhonda.brownstein@splcenter.org gnbaxter@bama.ua.edu latasha.mccrary@splcenter.org blawrence@adap.ua.edu richard.cohen@splcenter.org amixson@adap.ua.edu cj.sandley@splcenter.org grace.graham@splcenter.org jonathan.blocker@splcenter.org Gregory M. Zarzaur Andrew P. Walsh Anil A. Mujumdar William G. Somerville III Diandra S. Debrosse Patricia Clotfelter Denise Wiginton Lisa W. Borden ZARZAUR MUJUMDAR & DEBROSSE BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN 2332 2nd Avenue North CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC Birmingham, AL 35203 420 20th Street North Telephone: (205) 983-7985 Suite 1400 Facsimile: (888) 505-0523 Birmingham, Alabama 35203 gregory@zarzaur.com Telephone: (205) 244-3863 anil@zarzaur.com Facsimile: (205) 488-3863 fuli@zarzaur.com awalsh@bakerdonelson.com 3 denise@zarzaur.com wsomerville@bakerdonelson.com pclotfelter@bakerdonelson.com lborden@bakerdonelson.com John G. Smith Deana Johnson David R. Boyd Brett T. Lane BALCH & BINGHAM LLP MHM SERVICES, INC. Post Office Box 78 1447 Peachtree Street NE Montgomery, AL 36101-0078 Suite 500 Telephone: (334) 834-6500 Atlanta, GA 30309 Facsimile: (866) 316-9461 Telephone: (404) 347-4134 jgsmith@balch.com Facsimile: (404) 347-4138 dboyd@balch.com djohnson@mhm-services.com btlane@mhm-services.com Steven C. Corhern Lonnie J. Williams BALCH & BINGHAM LLP ALABAMA DISABILITIES ADVOCACY Post Office Box 306 PROGRAM Birmingham, AL 35201-0306 P. O. Box 870395 Telephone: (205) 251-8100 Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 Facsimile: (205) 488-5708 Telephone: (205) 348-4928 scorhern@balch.com Facsimile: (205) 348-3909 lwilliams@adap.ua.edu Anne A. Hill Joseph G. Stewart ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Legal Division 301 South Ripley Street Montgomery, Alabama 36130 Telephone (334) 353-3884 Facsimile (334) 353-3891 anne.hill@doc.alabama.gov joseph.stewart@doc.alabama.gov /s/ William R. Lunsford Of Counsel 4

Exhibit A - Text from 2018 State of the State Address

(https: / / governor. alabama. gov /) . 2018 State of the State Address Remarks & Speeches Posted on January 9, 2018 Watch: Governor Kay Ivey's 2018 State of the State Address (https: / / youtu. be / SIZulwzroTQ) . 2018 State of the State Governor Kay Ivey January 9, 2018 ChesideCNMARK) SpeakeFMECutdOnShtethBerd oftedAQabbank8 Page 2 of 7 Legislature, Chief Justice Stuart, justices of the Alabama Supreme Court, distinguished guests – and my fellow Alabamians: As we begin the 2018 legislative session, we recognize Alabama has experienced a significant transformation in government since the first day of the 2017 legislative session. On this occasion last year, I sat where my friend President Del Marsh sits tonight. And now, due to a successful transition in state government, I humbly stand before you as the 54th Governor of Alabama. I ' ve been called upon to report on the state of the state. When I became governor on April 10th, the ship of state government was adrift. We needed thoughtful and straightforward leadership. Over the past nine months, together, we have proven Alabamians seek progress, not stagnation. Mr. President, Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to report, we have successfully steadied the ship of state; I declare that the state of the state is strong and our future is as bright as the sun over the Gulf. Tonight, let's take a brief journey to consider where we ' ve been, where we are, and where we are going. Most governors have three months to prepare. I had three hours. Yet, after being sworn in as governor on April 10, 2017, in the Old Senate Chamber, just across the hall from where we are gathered this evening, I promised the people of Alabama there would be no disruption in the ongoing functions of the state. That's a promise kept. I promised the people of Alabama, even though challenges lay ahead, we would seize the opportunity to make Alabama even better and our government more effective. That's a promise kept. My immediate pledge was to steady the ship of state, navigate Alabama through the storm we found ourselves in, and seek a calmer path for this state we dearly love and proudly call home. That, too, is a promise kept. When I was sworn in, there were many decisions to be made. I was focused, committed and prepared. My first full day was the 16th legislative day in the 2017 legislative session – exactly half way through a session that I began as president of the Senate. As governor, last session, working closely with the Legislature, I signed 333 bills and resolutions into law. CangetherçWOVEMladigaIMBantprogrest vaiBohr Filagete / Welvofdade 3 of 7 proration and practiced fiscal responsibility. We renewed the Alabama Jobs Act, ensuring economic development continues, and we provided the tools and flexibility needed to attract new investments, creating more jobs for Alabama families. Many bills I signed as governor also bore my signature from my time as president of the Senate. The smooth transition of government, brought me full circle - from the legislative to the executive – and I am better able to lead and govern because of it. I support having a lieutenant governor who presides over the Senate. Our current order of succession serves the state well. I know this firsthand, having experienced it. I strongly support our current order of succession. My first major effort in leading the state was to evaluate the cabinet and staff of the new administration. With this evaluation, I made changes resulting in nearly half of the 22 cabinet members being replaced. My cabinet and staff are capable, honest and dedicated. They take their charge to serve the people of Alabama seriously. They provide the people of Alabama with the open, honest and transparent government that they deserve. My administration includes public servants who are subject matter experts and who work tirelessly to make Alabama a great place to live, work, and raise a family. My second major effort was to connect with and hear directly from Alabamians, so that together we would restore confidence in state government. An effective leader does four things: listen, learn, help, and lead. To help and lead the people of Alabama, it was essential that I first listen to and learn from the people of Alabama. Throughout July, August and September, I embarked on my Listen, Learn, Help and Lead tour where I visited communities across the state. I spent an entire day in these communities, meeting with local leaders and visiting their businesses and schools. I wanted to learn about their successes and their challenges. I wanted to hear from everyday people, not just from the politicians and lobbyists in Montgomery. These meetings were beneficial and well received. People were excited about reconnecting with their governor. I wanted to restore our state's image. To do this, government must be efficient and transparent. With executive orders, we ' ve streamlined state government, dissolved unneeded task forces, and banned lobbyists from CappeintrentSY LHM execum bralnehmensufag mofeettidenkmade tage 4 of 7 opportunity to serve and contribute. I also established the Opioid Overdose & Addiction Council to address the urgent opioid epidemic that is impacting Alabama families. Administratively, I ' ve appointed more than 350 qualified and diverse individuals to boards and other groups which affect the day - to - day lives of Alabamians. One of the most important duties of government is providing safety and protection. I have worked closely with the Alabama Emergency Management Agency and local officials across our state during six weather related States of Emergency. Through coordinated efforts, we have improved our communication and our response to natural disasters. The people of Alabama desire leadership that is willing to get things done. As a result of our team approach, I am proud to report, Alabama's economy is performing well – revenues are up, unemployment is down, economic development is on the rise and improved educational opportunities abound. Since I became governor, over $ 3. 5 billion dollars in new direct investments have been committed in the state. These investments will create nearly 8, 000 new jobs for Alabama workers. The unemployment rate has fallen every month since I became governor. Our most recent unemployment numbers put the unemployment rate at 3. 5 percent – the lowest rate ever recorded in Alabama ! My friends, Alabama's economy is supporting more jobs than ever before ! News of our economic successes seem to be a daily occurrence. In fact, I am proud to announce this evening that Kimber Firearms will build a $ 38 million dollar production facility in Troy, bringing with it 366 new jobs ! These are good, high - paying jobs, and will enable more of our citizens to provide for their families while taking part in the rich history of the Second Amendment. We are proud and honored to welcome Kimber to Alabama ! This announcement and countless others like it make one thing clear: what we are doing is working, and as a result, the people of Alabama are working and providing for their families. When I meet with global CEOs of companies considering Alabama, or who already have companies here, they tell me their Alabama facility operates at a level that cannot be rivaled. My fellow Alabamians, that is because of you, – the hard - working people of Alabama. Companies choose Alabama CDecalidadfywafaedication Mrd of UKIIN JOFRfdrcEinher / a 26 panage 5 of 7 invests in Alabama, it is investing not just in our state, but in you, our people. We should do everything we can to help every Alabamian find work. One of the most meaningful experiences I have had as governor was to participate in the first ever Governor's Disability Job Fair with Secretary of Labor Fitzgerald Washington, Commissioner of Mental Health Lynn Beshear, Dr. Graham Sisson, Executive Director of the Governor's Office on Disability, and Commissioner Jane Elizabeth Burdeshaw of the Department of Rehabilitation Services. The fair consisted of more than 95 employers looking to fill over 3, 100 positions. 1, 100 people attended the Disability Job Fair. One of those job - seekers is with us tonight – Caryn McDade. Caryn walked into the Governor's Disability Job Fair, on Oct. 30th, looking for an opportunity. As a teenager, Caryn's learning disabilities plagued her until she saw no alternative other than dropping out of school. She took GED classes at the Birmingham Career Center and was referred to the Alabama Department of Rehabilitation Services to work on resumé writing, job development, interviewing and placement. Rehabilitation Services paired her with Harold Reynolds, an employment specialist with Easter Seals of Birmingham, to prepare her for job interviews at the job fair. During the fair, Caryn met and interviewed with staff from Southern Hospitality Home Health Care of Fultondale. Within 48 hours, she had completed a second follow - up interview. By the end of the week, she was employed full - time as a home health care aide. Caryn, thank you for being with us tonight. You are a perfect example of the intrinsic value we all have, and a reminder that what we do as public officials affects the lives of real Alabamians. For Alabamians to have career opportunities, they must be prepared when the right job comes along. My education initiative, Strong Start, Strong Finish, does just that. Under Strong Start, Strong Finish, we will coordinate our efforts and bring all stakeholders to the table in order to improve education all the way from Pre - K to the workforce. I instituted Strong Start, Strong Finish, because we must prepare our people for the jobs of today and for the jobs of tomorrow. By 2020, 62 percent of all jobs available in Alabama will require some form of postsecondary education. However, today, only 37 percent of our workforce has achieved such an education. We must ensure that our students graduate high school and then earn a postsecondary certificate or degree. CEfeetke elleAfon MequiƏMR strongifoantaabisa h FÖR PRekaalygedtegn6 of 7 2017, under the leadership of Secretary Jeana Ross, Alabama's First Class Pre - K program increased the number of classrooms to 938 statewide. Research shows us that students who participate in Alabama's First Class Pre - K program are more likely, than other students, to be proficient in reading and math at every grade level. For the 11th year in a row, our First - Class Pre - K program was recognized for being the highest - quality Pre - K in the nation. In fact, Harvard University is currently developing a full - length documentary on Alabama's Pre - K program to share across the country with those interested in following our lead. Our First - Class Pre - K is certainly a bright spot for Alabama. I ' m proud to have quickly become known as a governor focused on education. Over the past nine months, I have devoted a great deal of my time to my role as president of the State Board of Education. In less than two years, Alabama has had four different K - 12 superintendents. That is nothing to be proud of. The members of the State Board of Education must ensure continuity to see progress. Board members must set goals and adopt strategies to achieve student learning at high standards. Our central focus must be on our students, not on personal agendas or political maneuvering. Tomorrow marks nine full months since I unexpectedly became governor. A lot has happened since then. We have lifted the dark cloud, wounds have started healing, and the people's faith in a government " for and by the people " is being restored. Though it is important to reflect on where we ' ve been and where we are – we must place most of our focus on where we are going. Let me share with you a quote you ' ve probably heard, that is relevant to where we are as a state, " What lies ahead of us, or what lies behind us, is of little importance when compared to what lies within us. " In that spirit, I say to you, instead of dwelling on what adversity we have previously faced or what mountains we may soon climb, we must focus on being who we are – a resilient people, a people dedicated to doing what's right and to making a difference in the world. Like always, our budgets are at the forefront of state government. However, this year, we find ourselves in an unfamiliar position related to our budgets. We are clearly in the midst of our recovery from the Great Recession. Unemployment is at an all - time low, housing prices have increased for the third consecutive year and Alabama is rated 12th nationwide for financial health. Cwhai - câmewotol Offide, RelatiØTISMbativeerd thfeilexkoatika håd Page 7 of 7 legislative branches was strained - but that too has been corrected. I have worked closely with legislative leadership, and the Senate and House budget chairs, to draft fiscally responsible budgets. We ' ve righted the ship of state; now, my proposed budgets will move Alabama in the right direction. Just as Alabama families work on their budgets around their kitchen tables to get them just right, we too must get the state's budgets right. I am proposing strong, manageable budgets that responsibly fund state government without raising taxes on the people of Alabama. Our improved economy, allows us to not just fund state programs, but to expand the ones making a positive difference. It is tempting, when times aren ' t as tight as before, to spend generously. We must resist that temptation. As a lifelong conservative, I believe in being fiscally responsible and in being good stew

ORDERED that defense counsel are to file with the court by 5:00 p.m. on February 14, 2018, the information requested by plaintiffs as to an additional 131 inmates (as a follow-up to defendants response regarding the 21 inmates (doc. no. {{1613}}). The defendants information should include, at least, the information sought in the courts order of February 8, 2018 (doc. no. {{1603}}). Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 2/12/2018.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARD BRAGGS, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) CIVIL ACTION NO. v.) 2:14cv601-MHT) (WO) JEFFERSON S. DUNN, in his) official capacity as) Commissioner of) the Alabama Department of) Corrections, et al.,)) Defendants.) ORDER Based on the representations made in open court on February 12, 2018, it is ORDERED that defense counsel are to file with the court by 5:00 p.m. on February 14, 2018, the information requested by plaintiffs as to an additional 131 inmates (as a follow-up to defendants' response regarding the 21 inmates (doc. no. 1613)). The defendants' information should include, at least, the information sought in the court's order of February 8, 2018 (doc. no. 1603). DONE, this the 12th day of February, 2018. /s/ Myron H. Thompson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

NOTICE by Jefferson S. Dunn, Ruth Naglich State's Witness Summary for February 13, 2018

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARD BRAGGS, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) Case No. 2:14-cv-00601-MHT-GMB v.)) District Judge Myron H. Thompson JEFFERSON DUNN, et al.,)) Defendants.) THE STATE'S WITNESS SUMMARY FOR FEBRUARY 13, 2018 Defendants JEFFERSON DUNN ("Commissioner Dunn") and RUTH NAGLICH ("Naglich" and, collectively with Commissioner Dunn, "the State") pursuant to this Court's Orders (Doc. Nos. 240, 463, and 1495, 1572, 1588) hereby submit their witness summary for February 13, 2018. 1. Cheryl Price. The State expects to call Ms. Price on February 13, 2018. Ms. Price is the Institutional Coordinator for the Southern Region of the Alabama Department of Corrections. The State expects Ms. Price will testify regarding the restrictive housing in the ADOC and the mental health care for inmates housed there. Respectfully submitted this the 13th day of February, 2018. /s/ John G. Smith John G. Smith Attorney for the Commissioner and Associate Commissioner John G. Smith David R. Boyd BALCH & BINGHAM LLP Post Office Box 78 Montgomery, AL 36101-0078 Telephone: (334) 834-6500 Facsimile: (866) 316-9461 jgsmith@balch.com dboyd@balch.com Steven C. Corhern BALCH & BINGHAM LLP Post Office Box 306 Birmingham, AL 35201-0306 Telephone: (205) 251-8100 Facsimile: (205) 488-5708 scorhern@balch.com Anne A. Hill Elizabeth A. Sees Joseph G. Stewart ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Legal Division 301 South Ripley Street Montgomery, Alabama 36130 Telephone (334) 353-3884 Facsimile (334) 353-3891 anne.hill@doc.alabama.gov elizabeth.sees@doc.alabama.gov joseph.stewart@doc.alabama.gov 2 William R. Lunsford Matthew B. Reeves Melissa K. Marler Stephen C. Rogers MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, PC 655 Gallatin Street Huntsville, AL 35801 Telephone: (256) 512-5710 Facsimile: (256) 512-0119 blunsford@maynardcooper.com mreeves@maynardcooper.com mmarler@maynardcooper.com srogers@maynardcooper.com Luther M. Dorr, Jr. Mitesh B. Shah MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, PC 1901 Sixth Avenue North 2400 Regions Harbert Plaza Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 254-1178 Facsimile: (205) 714-6438 rdorr@maynardcooper.com mshah@maynardcooper.com 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served upon all attorneys of record in this matter, including without limitation the following, by the Court's CM/ECF system on this the 13th day of February, 2018: Maria V. Morris William Van Der Pol, Jr. Rhonda C. Brownstein Glenn N. Baxter Latasha L. McCrary Barbara A. Lawrence J. Richard Cohen Andrea J. Mixson Caitlin J. Sandley ALABAMA DISABILITIES ADVOCACY Grace Graham PROGRAM SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER University of Alabama 400 Washington Avenue 500 Martha Parham West Montgomery, Alabama 36104 Box 870395 Telephone: (334) 956-8200 Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487-0395 Facsimile: (334) 956-8481 Telephone: (205) 348-6894 maria.morris@splcenter.org Facsimile: (205) 348-3909 rhonda.brownstein@splcenter.org wvanderpoljr@adap.ua.edu latasha.mccrary@splcenter.org gnbaxter@bama.ua.edu richard.cohen@splcenter.org blawrence@adap.ua.edu cj.sandley@splcenter.org amixson@adap.ua.edu grace.graham@splcenter.org Gregory M. Zarzaur Andrew P. Walsh Anil A. Mujumdar William G. Somerville III Diandra S. Debrosse Patricia Clotfelter Denise Wiginton Lisa W. Borden ZARZAUR MUJUMDAR & DEBROSSE BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN 2332 2nd Avenue North CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC Birmingham, AL 35203 420 20th Street North Telephone: (205) 983-7985 Suite 1400 Facsimile: (888) 505-0523 Birmingham, Alabama 35203 gregory@zarzaur.com Telephone: (205) 244-3863 anil@zarzaur.com Facsimile: (205) 488-3863 fuli@zarzaur.com awalsh@bakerdonelson.com denise@zarzaur.com wsomerville@bakerdonelson.com pclotfelter@bakerdonelson.com lborden@bakerdonelson.com 4 Lonnie J. Williams Deana Johnson ALABAMA DISABILITIES ADVOCACY Brett T. Lane PROGRAM MHM SERVICES, INC. P. O. Box 870395 1447 Peachtree Street NE Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 Suite 500 Telephone: (205) 348-4928 Atlanta, GA 30309 Facsimile: (205) 348-3909 Telephone: (404) 347-4134 lwilliams@adap.ua.edu Facsimile: (404) 347-4138 djohnson@mhm-services.com btlane@mhm-services.com /s/ John G. Smith Of Counsel 5

NOTICE by All Plaintiffs : Witness Summaries

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARDS BRAGGS, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) v.) CIVIL ACTION NO.) 2:14-CV-00601-MHT-GMB JEFFERSON DUNN, in his official) (Judge Thompson) capacity as Commissioner) of the Alabama Department of) Corrections, et al.,)) Defendants.)) PLAINTIFFS' WITNESS SUMMARIES, FEB. 13, 2018 Plaintiffs, pursuant to this Court's Orders, present their witness summaries for February 13, 2018. I. Eldon Vail, Plaintiffs' Correctional Administration Expert Eldon Vail is Plaintiffs' Correctional Administration Expert. He is expected to testify regarding: the amount of out-of-cell time that should be provided to prisoners housed in segregation; how security rounds in segregation should occur and be documented; the segregation units at Bibb Correctional Facility; physical plant improvements to segregation that are consistent with security needs; appropriate policies and practices relating to the placement and housing of persons 1 with mental illness in segregation; and the extenuating circumstances outlined in Defendants' Proposed Segregation Remedial Plan. II. Dr. David Tytell, ADOC Chief Psychologist Dr. David Tytell is ADOC's Chief Psychologist. He testified during the liability trial. He is expected to testify about the current and past iterations of the mental-health coding system; ADOC policies and procedures regarding the placement of prisoners on the mental-health caseload into segregation; the availability of Residential Treatment Unit beds; Defendants' proposed remedial plan; and mental-health monitoring and treatment for prisoners in segregation. Dated: Feb. 13, 2018 Respectfully Submitted, /s/ Maria V. Morris Maria V. Morris One of the Attorneys for Plaintiffs Southern Poverty Law Center 400 Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36104 Rhonda Brownstein (ASB-3193-O64R) Maria V. Morris (ASB-2198-R64M) Grace Graham (ASB-3040-A64G) Latasha L. McCrary (ASB-1935-L75M) Jonathan Blocker (ASB-6818-G19I) Caitlin J. Sandley (ASB-5317-S48R) SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 400 Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36104 Telephone: (334) 956-8200 Facsimile: (334) 956-8481 rhonda.brownstein@splcenter.org 2 maria.morris@splcenter.org grace.graham@splcenter.org latasha.mccrary@splcenter.org jonathan.blocker@splcenter.org cj.sandley@splcenter.org William Van Der Pol, Jr. (ASB-2112-114F) Glenn N. Baxter (ASB-3825-A41G) Lonnie J. Williams Barbara A. Lawrence Andrea J. Mixson Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program Box 870395 Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 Telephone: (205) 348-4928 Facsimile: (205) 348-3909 wvanderpoljr@adap.ua.edu gnbaxter@adap.ua.edu lwilliams@adap.ua.edu blawrence@adap.ua.edu amixson@adap.ua.edu Lisa W. Borden (ASB-5673-D57L) William G. Somerville, III (ASB-6185-E63W) Andrew P. Walsh (ASB-3755-W77W) Dennis Nabors Patricia Clotfelter (ASB-0841-F43P) Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz PC 420 20th Street North, Suite 1400 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 328-0480 Facsimile: (205) 322-8007 lborden@bakerdonelson.com wsomerville@bakerdonelson.com awalsh@bakerdonelson.com dnabors@bakerdonelson.com pclotfelter@bakerdonelson.com Gregory M. Zarzaur (ASB-0759-E45Z) 3 Anil A. Mujumdar (ASB-2004-L65M) Diandra S. Debrosse (ASB-2956-N76D) Denise Wiginton Zarzaur Mujumdar & Debrosse 2332 2nd Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 983-7985 Facsimile: (888) 505-0523 gregory@zarzaur.com anil@zarzaur.com diandra@zarzaur.com denise@zarzaur.com ATTORNEYS FOR THE PLAINTIFFS 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have on this 13th day of February, 2018, electronically filed the foregoing with the clerk of the court by using the CM/ECF system, which will send a notice of electronic filing to the following: David R. Boyd, Esq. Steven C. Corhern, Esq. John G. Smith, Esq. Balch & Bingham LLP John W. Naramore, Esq. Post Office Box 306 Balch & Bingham LLP Birmingham, AL 35201-0306 Post Office Box 78 scorhern@balch.com Montgomery, AL 36101-0078 dboyd@balch.com Mitesh Shah, Esq. jgsmith@balch.com Luther M. Dorr, Esq. jnaramore@balch.com Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C. 1901 6th Avenue North, Suite 2400 William R. Lunsford, Esq. Birmingham, AL 35203 Melissa K. Marler, Esq. mshah@maynardcooper.com Stephen C. Rogers, Esq. rdorr@maynardcooper.com Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C. 655 Gallatin Street, SW Deana Johnson, Esq. Huntsville, AL 35801 Brett T. Lane, Esq. blunsford@maynardcooper.com MHM Services, Inc. mmarler@maynardcooper.com 1447 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 500 srogers@maynardcooper.com Atlanta, GA 30309 djohnson@mhm-services.com btlane@mhm-services.com Anne Hill, Esq. Elizabeth A. Sees, Esq. Joseph G. Stewart, Jr., Esq. Alabama Department of Corrections Legal Division 301 South Ripley Street Montgomery, AL 36104 anne.hill@doc.alabama.gov elizabeth.sees@doc.alabama.gov joseph.stewart@doc.alabama.gov /s/ Maria V. Morris________________ One of the Attorneys for Plaintiffs One of the Attorneys for Plaintiffs 5

NOTICE by All Plaintiffs : Witness Summaries

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARDS BRAGGS, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) v.) CIVIL ACTION NO.) 2:14-CV-00601-MHT-GMB JEFFERSON DUNN, in his official) (Judge Thompson) capacity as Commissioner) of the Alabama Department of) Corrections, et al.,)) Defendants.)) PLAINTIFFS' WITNESS SUMMARIES, FEB. 14, 2018 Plaintiffs, pursuant to this Court's Orders, present their witness summaries for February 12, 2018. I. Dr. David Tytell, ADOC Chief Psychologist Dr. David Tytell is ADOC's Chief Psychologist. He testified during the liability trial. He is expected to testify about the current and past iterations of the mental-health coding system; ADOC policies and procedures regarding the placement of prisoners on the mental-health caseload into segregation; the availability of Residential Treatment Unit beds; Defendants' proposed remedial plan; and mental-health monitoring and treatment for prisoners in segregation. 1 II. Class Member W.B., a Prisoner with a Mental Illness Housed at Limestone Class Member W.B. is currently housed at Limestone Correctional Facility. He has been diagnosed with "adjustment disorder mixed" and is currently coded as MH-1. Plaintiffs expect him to testify regarding his mental illness and his prolonged placement and continued housing in segregation. III. A.E., a Prisoner with a Serious Mental Illness Housed at Tutwiler A.E. is currently housed at Tutwiler Women's Facility. She has been diagnosed with Schizophrenia D/O-Paranoid Type and is currently coded as MH-2. Plaintiffs expect her to testify regarding her serious mental illness and her placement in segregation during the past year. IV. Class Member J.L.W., a Prisoner with a Serious Mental Illness Housed at Bullock Class Member J.L.W. is currently housed at Bullock Correctional Facility. He is currently coded as an MH-2. Class Member J.L.W. is expected to testify regarding his serious mental illness and his placements in segregation during the past year. V. C.G., a Prisoner with a Serious Mental Illness Housed at Tutwiler C.G. is currently housed at Tutwiler Women's Facility. She has been diagnosed with Bipolar I Disorder and is currently coded as MH-2. Plaintiffs expect her to 2 testify regarding her serious mental illness and her placement in segregation during the past year. Dated: Feb. 14, 2018 Respectfully Submitted, /s/ Maria V. Morris Maria V. Morris One of the Attorneys for Plaintiffs Southern Poverty Law Center 400 Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36104 Rhonda Brownstein (ASB-3193-O64R) Maria V. Morris (ASB-2198-R64M) Grace Graham (ASB-3040-A64G) Latasha L. McCrary (ASB-1935-L75M) Jonathan Blocker (ASB-6818-G19I) Caitlin J. Sandley (ASB-5317-S48R) SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 400 Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36104 Telephone: (334) 956-8200 Facsimile: (334) 956-8481 rhonda.brownstein@splcenter.org maria.morris@splcenter.org grace.graham@splcenter.org latasha.mccrary@splcenter.org jonathan.blocker@splcenter.org cj.sandley@splcenter.org William Van Der Pol, Jr. (ASB-2112-114F) Glenn N. Baxter (ASB-3825-A41G) Lonnie J. Williams Barbara A. Lawrence Andrea J. Mixson Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program Box 870395 3 Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 Telephone: (205) 348-4928 Facsimile: (205) 348-3909 wvanderpoljr@adap.ua.edu gnbaxter@adap.ua.edu lwilliams@adap.ua.edu blawrence@adap.ua.edu amixson@adap.ua.edu Lisa W. Borden (ASB-5673-D57L) William G. Somerville, III (ASB-6185-E63W) Andrew P. Walsh (ASB-3755-W77W) Dennis Nabors Patricia Clotfelter (ASB-0841-F43P) Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz PC 420 20th Street North, Suite 1400 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 328-0480 Facsimile: (205) 322-8007 lborden@bakerdonelson.com wsomerville@bakerdonelson.com awalsh@bakerdonelson.com dnabors@bakerdonelson.com pclotfelter@bakerdonelson.com Gregory M. Zarzaur (ASB-0759-E45Z) Anil A. Mujumdar (ASB-2004-L65M) Diandra S. Debrosse (ASB-2956-N76D) Denise Wiginton Zarzaur Mujumdar & Debrosse 2332 2nd Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 983-7985 Facsimile: (888) 505-0523 gregory@zarzaur.com anil@zarzaur.com diandra@zarzaur.com denise@zarzaur.com ATTORNEYS FOR THE PLAINTIFFS 4 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have on this 14th day of February, 2018, electronically filed the foregoing with the clerk of the court by using the CM/ECF system, which will send a notice of electronic filing to the following: David R. Boyd, Esq. Steven C. Corhern, Esq. John G. Smith, Esq. Balch & Bingham LLP John W. Naramore, Esq. Post Office Box 306 Balch & Bingham LLP Birmingham, AL 35201-0306 Post Office Box 78 scorhern@balch.com Montgomery, AL 36101-0078 dboyd@balch.com Mitesh Shah, Esq. jgsmith@balch.com Luther M. Dorr, Esq. jnaramore@balch.com Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C. 1901 6th Avenue North, Suite 2400 William R. Lunsford, Esq. Birmingham, AL 35203 Melissa K. Marler, Esq. mshah@maynardcooper.com Stephen C. Rogers, Esq. rdorr@maynardcooper.com Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C. 655 Gallatin Street, SW Deana Johnson, Esq. Huntsville, AL 35801 Brett T. Lane, Esq. blunsford@maynardcooper.com MHM Services, Inc. mmarler@maynardcooper.com 1447 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 500 srogers@maynardcooper.com Atlanta, GA 30309 djohnson@mhm-services.com btlane@mhm-services.com Anne Hill, Esq. Elizabeth A. Sees, Esq. Joseph G. Stewart, Jr., Esq. Alabama Department of Corrections Legal Division 301 South Ripley Street Montgomery, AL 36104 anne.hill@doc.alabama.gov elizabeth.sees@doc.alabama.gov joseph.stewart@doc.alabama.gov /s/ Maria V. Morris________________ One of the Attorneys for Plaintiffs One of the Attorneys for Plaintiffs 6

NOTICE by Jefferson S. Dunn, Ruth Naglich re {{1622}} Notice (Other) Amended Notice of Filing

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARD BRAGGS, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) Case No. 2:14-cv-00601-MHT-GMB v.)) District Judge Myron H. Thompson JEFFERSON DUNN, et al.,)) Defendants.) AMENDED NOTICE OF FILING Defendants JEFFERSON DUNN, as Commissioner of the Alabama Department of Corrections ("ADOC"), and RUTH NAGLICH, as Associate Commissioner of ADOC, hereby submit to the Court (consistent with the Court's request) the text from the 2018 State of the State Address given by Governor Kay Ivey on January 9, 2018, as Exhibit A. The prior filing erroneously cut off the full text of the speech. A copy of the text from the 2018 State of the State Address given by Governor Kay Ivey on January 9, 2018 is also available at https://governor.alabama.gov/remarks-speeches/2018-state-of-the-state-address/. Dated: February 14, 2018. /s/ Stephen C. Rogers Stephen C. Rogers Attorney for the Commissioner and Associate Commissioner William R. Lunsford Matthew B. Reeves Melissa K. Marler Stephen C. Rogers Alyson L. Smith MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, PC 655 Gallatin Street Huntsville, AL 35801 Telephone: (256) 512-5710 Facsimile: (256) 512-0119 blunsford@maynardcooper.com mreeves@maynardcooper.com mmarler@maynardcooper.com srogers@maynardcooper.com asmith@maynardcooper.com Luther M. Dorr, Jr. Mitesh B. Shah MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, PC 1901 Sixth Avenue North 2400 Regions Harbert Plaza Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 254-1178 Facsimile: (205) 714-6438 rdorr@maynardcooper.com mshah@maynardcooper.com 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served upon all attorneys of record in this matter, including without limitation the following, by the Court's CM/ECF system on this the 14th day of February, 2018: Maria V. Morris William Van Der Pol, Jr. Rhonda C. Brownstein Glenn N. Baxter Latasha L. McCrary Barbara A. Lawrence J. Richard Cohen Andrea J. Mixson Caitlin J. Sandley ALABAMA DISABILITIES ADVOCACY Grace Graham PROGRAM Jonathan Blocker University of Alabama SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 500 Martha Parham West 400 Washington Avenue Box 870395 Montgomery, Alabama 36104 Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487-0395 Telephone: (334) 956-8200 Telephone: (205) 348-6894 Facsimile: (334) 956-8481 Facsimile: (205) 348-3909 maria.morris@splcenter.org wvanderpoljr@adap.ua.edu rhonda.brownstein@splcenter.org gnbaxter@bama.ua.edu latasha.mccrary@splcenter.org blawrence@adap.ua.edu richard.cohen@splcenter.org amixson@adap.ua.edu cj.sandley@splcenter.org grace.graham@splcenter.org jonathan.blocker@splcenter.org Gregory M. Zarzaur Andrew P. Walsh Anil A. Mujumdar William G. Somerville III Diandra S. Debrosse Patricia Clotfelter Denise Wiginton Lisa W. Borden ZARZAUR MUJUMDAR & DEBROSSE BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN 2332 2nd Avenue North CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC Birmingham, AL 35203 420 20th Street North Telephone: (205) 983-7985 Suite 1400 Facsimile: (888) 505-0523 Birmingham, Alabama 35203 gregory@zarzaur.com Telephone: (205) 244-3863 anil@zarzaur.com Facsimile: (205) 488-3863 fuli@zarzaur.com awalsh@bakerdonelson.com 3 denise@zarzaur.com wsomerville@bakerdonelson.com pclotfelter@bakerdonelson.com lborden@bakerdonelson.com John G. Smith Deana Johnson David R. Boyd Brett T. Lane BALCH & BINGHAM LLP MHM SERVICES, INC. Post Office Box 78 1447 Peachtree Street NE Montgomery, AL 36101-0078 Suite 500 Telephone: (334) 834-6500 Atlanta, GA 30309 Facsimile: (866) 316-9461 Telephone: (404) 347-4134 jgsmith@balch.com Facsimile: (404) 347-4138 dboyd@balch.com djohnson@mhm-services.com btlane@mhm-services.com Steven C. Corhern Lonnie J. Williams BALCH & BINGHAM LLP ALABAMA DISABILITIES ADVOCACY Post Office Box 306 PROGRAM Birmingham, AL 35201-0306 P. O. Box 870395 Telephone: (205) 251-8100 Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 Facsimile: (205) 488-5708 Telephone: (205) 348-4928 scorhern@balch.com Facsimile: (205) 348-3909 lwilliams@adap.ua.edu Anne A. Hill Joseph G. Stewart ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Legal Division 301 South Ripley Street Montgomery, Alabama 36130 Telephone (334) 353-3884 Facsimile (334) 353-3891 anne.hill@doc.alabama.gov joseph.stewart@doc.alabama.gov /s/ Stephen C. Rogers Of Counsel 4

NOTICE by Jefferson S. Dunn, Ruth Naglich The State's Revised Technology Request

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARD BRAGGS, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) Case No. 2:14-cv-00601-MHT-GMB v.)) District Judge Myron H. Thompson JEFFERSON DUNN, et al.,)) Defendants.) THE STATE'S REVISED TECHNOLOGY REQUEST FOR PHASE 2A REMEDIAL TRIAL REGARDING HOSPITAL-LEVEL CARE AND SEGREGATION COME NOW Defendants JEFFERSON DUNN ("Commissioner Dunn") and RUTH NAGLICH ("Naglich" and, collectively with Commissioner Dunn, "the State") and submit this request that the non-attorney staff listed below be added to the previous request dated February 1, 2018 and allowed the use of the following technological devices for the purposes of the Phase 2A remedial trial regarding hospital-level care and segregation in this matter. La'Quisha Moore Cell Phone1 Ms. Moore is the Health Services Administrator for Kilby Correctional Facility. Ms. Moore is attending trial to provide the inmate witnesses with their 1 The State also reserves the right to amend this technology request in the event that Plaintiffs call additional ADOC personnel to testify who are not listed on the State's technology request or it becomes necessary to call personnel as rebuttal witnesses. medications, as necessary. She will need a cell phone to alert the appropriate provider in a timely manner if any inmate witness requires urgent medical or mental health care. The State also respectfully requests that it be permitted, if necessary, to amend this Request during the course of the Phase 2A remedial trial regarding hospital-level care and segregation to include any other personnel whose presence at trial may become necessary to monitor these inmates. Dated: February 14, 2018. /s/ Stephen C. Rogers Stephen C. Rogers Attorney for the Commissioner and Associate Commissioner William R. Lunsford Matthew B. Reeves Melissa K. Marler Stephen C. Rogers Alyson L. Smith MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, PC 655 Gallatin Street Huntsville, AL 35801 Telephone: (256) 512-5710 Facsimile: (256) 512-0119 blunsford@maynardcooper.com mreeves@maynardcooper.com mmarler@maynardcooper.com srogers@maynardcooper.com asmith@maynardcooper.com Luther M. Dorr, Jr. Mitesh B. Shah MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, PC 1901 Sixth Avenue North 2 2400 Regions Harbert Plaza Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 254-1178 Facsimile: (205) 714-6438 rdorr@maynardcooper.com mshah@maynardcooper.com 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served upon all attorneys of record in this matter, including without limitation the following, by the Court's CM/ECF system on this the 14th day of February, 2018: Maria V. Morris William Van Der Pol, Jr. Rhonda C. Brownstein Glenn N. Baxter Latasha L. McCrary Barbara A. Lawrence J. Richard Cohen Andrea J. Mixson Caitlin J. Sandley ALABAMA DISABILITIES ADVOCACY Grace Graham PROGRAM SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER University of Alabama 400 Washington Avenue 500 Martha Parham West Montgomery, Alabama 36104 Box 870395 Telephone: (334) 956-8200 Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487-0395 Facsimile: (334) 956-8481 Telephone: (205) 348-6894 maria.morris@splcenter.org Facsimile: (205) 348-3909 rhonda.brownstein@splcenter.org wvanderpoljr@adap.ua.edu latasha.mccrary@splcenter.org gnbaxter@bama.ua.edu richard.cohen@splcenter.org blawrence@adap.ua.edu cj.sandley@splcenter.org amixson@adap.ua.edu grace.graham@splcenter.org Gregory M. Zarzaur Andrew P. Walsh Anil A. Mujumdar William G. Somerville III Diandra S. Debrosse Patricia Clotfelter Denise Wiginton Lisa W. Borden ZARZAUR MUJUMDAR & DEBROSSE BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN 2332 2nd Avenue North CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC Birmingham, AL 35203 420 20th Street North Telephone: (205) 983-7985 Suite 1400 Facsimile: (888) 505-0523 Birmingham, Alabama 35203 gregory@zarzaur.com Telephone: (205) 244-3863 anil@zarzaur.com Facsimile: (205) 488-3863 fuli@zarzaur.com awalsh@bakerdonelson.com denise@zarzaur.com wsomerville@bakerdonelson.com pclotfelter@bakerdonelson.com lborden@bakerdonelson.com 4 John G. Smith Deana Johnson David R. Boyd Brett T. Lane BALCH & BINGHAM LLP MHM SERVICES, INC. Post Office Box 78 1447 Peachtree Street NE Montgomery, AL 36101-0078 Suite 500 Telephone: (334) 834-6500 Atlanta, GA 30309 Facsimile: (866) 316-9461 Telephone: (404) 347-4134 jgsmith@balch.com Facsimile: (404) 347-4138 dboyd@balch.com djohnson@mhm-services.com btlane@mhm-services.com Steven C. Corhern Lonnie J. Williams BALCH & BINGHAM LLP ALABAMA DISABILITIES ADVOCACY Post Office Box 306 PROGRAM Birmingham, AL 35201-0306 P. O. Box 870395 Telephone: (205) 251-8100 Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 Facsimile: (205) 488-5708 Telephone: (205) 348-4928 scorhern@balch.com Facsimile: (205) 348-3909 lwilliams@adap.ua.edu Anne A. Hill Elizabeth A. Sees Joseph G. Stewart ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Legal Division 301 South Ripley Street Montgomery, Alabama 36130 Telephone (334) 353-3884 Facsimile (334) 353-3891 anne.hill@doc.alabama.gov elizabeth.sees@doc.alabama.gov joseph.stewart@doc.alabama.gov /s/ Stephen C. Rogers Of Counsel 5

THIRD ADDITIONAL PHASE 2A REVISED REMEDY SCHEDULING ORDER ON THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT CLAIM: At the request of the parties orally made on February 13, 2018, it is ORDERED that the deadlines and dates for the Phase 2A remedy scheduling order for the Eighth Amendment claim (doc. nos. {{1524}} and {{1604}}) are further revised such that the deadlines and dates for the "Individual Treatment Plans" and "Psychotherapy" are inverted as further set out in order. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 2/14/2018.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARD BRAGGS, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) CIVIL ACTION NO. v.) 2:14cv601-MHT) (WO) JEFFERSON S. DUNN, in his) official capacity as) Commissioner of) the Alabama Department of) Corrections, et al.,)) Defendants.) THIRD ADDITIONAL PHASE 2A REVISED REMEDY SCHEDULING ORDER ON THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT CLAIM At the request of the parties orally made on February 13, 2018, it is ORDERED that the deadlines and dates for the Phase 2A remedy scheduling order for the Eighth Amendment claim (doc. nos. 1524 and 1604) are further revised such that the deadlines and dates for the "Individual Treatment Plans" and "Psychotherapy" are inverted as follows: NEW DATES IDENTIFICATION/ CLASSIFICATION Plaintiffs' Response 2/16/18 Pretrial Hearing 2/26/18 at 10:00 a.m. Evidentiary Hearing 3/12/18 at 9:00 a.m. PSYCHOTHERAPY Defendants' Proposal 3/21/18 Plaintiffs' Response 3/28/18 Pretrial Hearing 4/4/18 at 10:00 a.m. Evidentiary Hearing 4/9/18 at 9:00 a.m. INDIVIDUAL TREATMENT PLANS Defendants' Proposal 5/11/18 Plaintiffs' Response 5/25/18 Pretrial Hearing 6/1/18 at 10:00 a.m. Evidentiary Hearing 6/11/18 at 9:00 a.m. SUICIDE PREVENTION Defendants' Proposal 8/14/18 Plaintiffs' Response 8/28/18 Pretrial Hearing 9/4/18 at 10:00 a.m. Evidentiary Hearing 9/10/18 at 9:00 a.m. DISCIPLINARY SANCTIONS Defendants' Proposal 9/21/18 Plaintiffs' Response 10/5/18 Pretrial Hearing 10/12/18 at 10:00 a.m. Evidentiary Hearing 10/22/18 at 9:00 a.m. DONE, this the 14th day of February, 2018. /s/ Myron H. Thompson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

MOTION for Leave to File Under Seal by Jefferson S. Dunn, Ruth Naglich.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARD BRAGGS, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) Case No. 2:14-cv-00601-MHT-GMB v.)) District Judge Myron H. Thompson JEFFERSON DUNN, et al.,)) Defendants.) MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL Defendants JEFFERSON DUNN ("Commissioner Dunn") and RUTH NAGLICH ("Naglich" and, collectively with Commissioner Dunn, "the State") hereby submit this Motion for Leave to file their Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. No. 1614), and exhibits thereto, under seal. The State firmly believes that some of the information contained in the Response and exhibits is confidential and/or highly confidential—for attorneys' eyes only, because it quotes from and relies upon documents previously identified as confidential or highly confidential—for attorneys' eyes only and/or contains protected medical information. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the State respectfully requests that this Court enter an Order permitting the State to file its Response and, the exhibits thereto, to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Order, under seal. Dated: February 14, 2018. /s/ Stephen C. Rogers Stephen C. Rogers Attorney for the Commissioner and Associate Commissioner William R. Lunsford Matthew B. Reeves Melissa K. Marler Stephen C. Rogers Alyson L. Smith MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, PC 655 Gallatin Street Huntsville, AL 35801 Telephone: (256) 512-5710 Facsimile: (256) 512-0119 blunsford@maynardcooper.com mreeves@maynardcooper.com mmarler@maynardcooper.com srogers@maynardcooper.com asmith@maynardcooper.com Luther M. Dorr, Jr. Mitesh B. Shah MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, PC 1901 Sixth Avenue North 2400 Regions Harbert Plaza Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 254-1178 Facsimile: (205) 714-6438 rdorr@maynardcooper.com mshah@maynardcooper.com 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served upon all attorneys of record in this matter, including without limitation the following, by the Court's CM/ECF system on this the 14th day of February, 2018: Maria V. Morris William Van Der Pol, Jr. Rhonda C. Brownstein Glenn N. Baxter Latasha L. McCrary Barbara A. Lawrence J. Richard Cohen Andrea J. Mixson Caitlin J. Sandley ALABAMA DISABILITIES ADVOCACY Grace Graham PROGRAM Jonathan Blocker University of Alabama SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 500 Martha Parham West 400 Washington Avenue Box 870395 Montgomery, Alabama 36104 Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487-0395 Telephone: (334) 956-8200 Telephone: (205) 348-6894 Facsimile: (334) 956-8481 Facsimile: (205) 348-3909 maria.morris@splcenter.org wvanderpoljr@adap.ua.edu rhonda.brownstein@splcenter.org gnbaxter@bama.ua.edu latasha.mccrary@splcenter.org blawrence@adap.ua.edu richard.cohen@splcenter.org amixson@adap.ua.edu cj.sandley@splcenter.org grace.graham@splcenter.org jonathan.blocker@splcenter.org Gregory M. Zarzaur Andrew P. Walsh Anil A. Mujumdar William G. Somerville III Diandra S. Debrosse Patricia Clotfelter Denise Wiginton Lisa W. Borden ZARZAUR MUJUMDAR & DEBROSSE BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN 2332 2nd Avenue North CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC Birmingham, AL 35203 420 20th Street North Telephone: (205) 983-7985 Suite 1400 Facsimile: (888) 505-0523 Birmingham, Alabama 35203 gregory@zarzaur.com Telephone: (205) 244-3863 anil@zarzaur.com Facsimile: (205) 488-3863 fuli@zarzaur.com awalsh@bakerdonelson.com denise@zarzaur.com wsomerville@bakerdonelson.com pclotfelter@bakerdonelson.com 3 lborden@bakerdonelson.com John G. Smith Deana Johnson David R. Boyd Brett T. Lane BALCH & BINGHAM LLP MHM SERVICES, INC. Post Office Box 78 1447 Peachtree Street NE Montgomery, AL 36101-0078 Suite 500 Telephone: (334) 834-6500 Atlanta, GA 30309 Facsimile: (866) 316-9461 Telephone: (404) 347-4134 jgsmith@balch.com Facsimile: (404) 347-4138 dboyd@balch.com djohnson@mhm-services.com btlane@mhm-services.com Steven C. Corhern Lonnie J. Williams BALCH & BINGHAM LLP ALABAMA DISABILITIES ADVOCACY Post Office Box 306 PROGRAM Birmingham, AL 35201-0306 P. O. Box 870395 Telephone: (205) 251-8100 Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 Facsimile: (205) 488-5708 Telephone: (205) 348-4928 scorhern@balch.com Facsimile: (205) 348-3909 lwilliams@adap.ua.edu Anne A. Hill Elizabeth A. Sees Joseph G. Stewart ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Legal Division 301 South Ripley Street Montgomery, Alabama 36130 Telephone (334) 353-3884 Facsimile (334) 353-3891 anne.hill@doc.alabama.gov elizabeth.sees@doc.alabama.gov joseph.stewart@doc.alabama.gov /s/ Stephen C. Rogers Of Counsel 4

MOTION to Seal Documents produced in Response to this Court's Order of February 14, 2018 by Alabama Department of Corrections.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARD BRAGGS, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) Case No. 2:14-cv-00601-MHT-GMB v.)) District Judge Myron H. Thompson JEFFERSON DUNN, et al.,)) Defendants.) MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL Defendants JEFFERSON DUNN ("Commissioner Dunn") and RUTH NAGLICH ("Naglich" and, collectively with Commissioner Dunn, "the State") hereby submit this Motion for Leave to file their information requested by Plaintiffs as to an additional 131 inmates (see Doc. 1623), under seal. The State firmly believes that some of the information to be produced is confidential and/or highly confidential—for attorneys' eyes only, because it quotes from and relies upon documents previously identified as confidential or highly confidential—for attorneys' eyes only and/or contains protected medical information. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the State respectfully requests that this Court enter an Order permitting the State to file its information requested by Plaintiffs as to an additional 131 inmates, under seal. Dated: February 14, 2018. /s/ John G. Smith John G. Smith Attorney for the Commissioner and Associate Commissioner Steven C. Corhern BALCH & BINGHAM LLP Post Office Box 306 Birmingham, AL 35201-0306 Telephone: (205) 251-8100 Facsimile: (205) 488-5708 scorhern@balch.com John G. Smith David R. Boyd BALCH & BINGHAM LLP Post Office Box 78 Montgomery, AL 36101-0078 Telephone: (334) 834-6500 Facsimile: (866) 316-9461 jgsmith@balch.com dboyd@balch.com 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served upon all attorneys of record in this matter, including without limitation the following, by the Court's CM/ECF system on this the 14th day of February, 2018: Maria V. Morris William Van Der Pol, Jr. Rhonda C. Brownstein Glenn N. Baxter Latasha L. McCrary Barbara A. Lawrence J. Richard Cohen Andrea J. Mixson Caitlin J. Sandley ALABAMA DISABILITIES ADVOCACY Grace Graham PROGRAM Jonathan Blocker University of Alabama SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 500 Martha Parham West 400 Washington Avenue Box 870395 Montgomery, Alabama 36104 Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487-0395 Telephone: (334) 956-8200 Telephone: (205) 348-6894 Facsimile: (334) 956-8481 Facsimile: (205) 348-3909 maria.morris@splcenter.org wvanderpoljr@adap.ua.edu rhonda.brownstein@splcenter.org gnbaxter@bama.ua.edu latasha.mccrary@splcenter.org blawrence@adap.ua.edu richard.cohen@splcenter.org amixson@adap.ua.edu cj.sandley@splcenter.org grace.graham@splcenter.org jonathan.blocker@splcenter.org Gregory M. Zarzaur Andrew P. Walsh Anil A. Mujumdar William G. Somerville III Diandra S. Debrosse Patricia Clotfelter Denise Wiginton Lisa W. Borden ZARZAUR MUJUMDAR & DEBROSSE BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN 2332 2nd Avenue North CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC Birmingham, AL 35203 420 20th Street North Telephone: (205) 983-7985 Suite 1400 Facsimile: (888) 505-0523 Birmingham, Alabama 35203 gregory@zarzaur.com Telephone: (205) 244-3863 anil@zarzaur.com Facsimile: (205) 488-3863 fuli@zarzaur.com awalsh@bakerdonelson.com denise@zarzaur.com wsomerville@bakerdonelson.com pclotfelter@bakerdonelson.com 3 lborden@bakerdonelson.com Luther M. Dorr, Jr. Deana Johnson Mitesh B. Shah Brett T. Lane MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, PC MHM SERVICES, INC. 1901 Sixth Avenue North 1447 Peachtree Street NE 2400 Regions Harbert Plaza Suite 500 Birmingham, AL 35203 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (205) 254-1178 Telephone: (404) 347-4134 Facsimile: (205) 714-6438 Facsimile: (404) 347-4138 rdorr@maynardcooper.com djohnson@mhm-services.com mshah@maynardcooper.com btlane@mhm-services.com William R. Lunsford Lonnie J. Williams Matthew B. Reeves ALABAMA DISABILITIES ADVOCACY Melissa K. Marler PROGRAM Stephen C. Rogers P. O. Box 870395 Alyson L. Smith Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, PC Telephone: (205) 348-4928 655 Gallatin Street Facsimile: (205) 348-3909 Huntsville, AL 35801 lwilliams@adap.ua.edu Telephone: (256) 512-5710 Facsimile: (256) 512-0119 blunsford@maynardcooper.com mreeves@maynardcooper.com mmarler@maynardcooper.com srogers@maynardcooper.com asmith@maynardcooper.com Anne A. Hill Elizabeth A. Sees Joseph G. Stewart ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Legal Division 301 South Ripley Street Montgomery, Alabama 36130 Telephone (334) 353-3884 Facsimile (334) 353-3891 4 anne.hill@doc.alabama.gov elizabeth.sees@doc.alabama.gov joseph.stewart@doc.alabama.gov /s/ John G. Smith Of Counsel 5

NOTICE by All Plaintiffs : Witness Summaries

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARDS BRAGGS, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) v.) CIVIL ACTION NO.) 2:14-CV-00601-MHT-GMB JEFFERSON DUNN, in his official) (Judge Thompson) capacity as Commissioner) of the Alabama Department of) Corrections, et al.,)) Defendants.)) PLAINTIFFS' WITNESS SUMMARIES, FEB. 15, 2018 Plaintiffs, pursuant to this Court's Orders, present their witness summaries for February 15, 2018. I. Dr. Robert Hunter, MHM Chief Psychiatrist Dr. Robert Hunter is MHM's Chief Psychiatrist. Plaintiffs expect him to testify about: ADOC and MHM policies and procedures regarding the placement into segregation of prisoners on the caseload; mental health coding and classification; mental-health treatment and monitoring while a prisoner is in segregation; prevention and treatment for prisoners who are on suicide watch; and any continuous quality improvement (CQI) efforts relating to segregation. 1 II. Dr. Craig Haney, Plaintiffs' Expert on Psychology and Prison Conditions Plaintiffs' expert Dr. Craig Haney is expected to testify about: standards regarding segregation; the impact of placement in segregation on prisoners with serious mental illness and prisoners with serious mental-health needs; appropriate policies regarding the placement of people with mental illness in segregation; the adequacy of ADOC's actions taken to date with regard to mental-health monitoring and treatment of prisoners in segregation; and physical plant issues with regard to segregation. Dated: Feb. 15, 2018 Respectfully Submitted, /s/ Maria V. Morris Maria V. Morris One of the Attorneys for Plaintiffs Southern Poverty Law Center 400 Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36104 Rhonda Brownstein (ASB-3193-O64R) Maria V. Morris (ASB-2198-R64M) Grace Graham (ASB-3040-A64G) Latasha L. McCrary (ASB-1935-L75M) Jonathan Blocker (ASB-6818-G19I) Caitlin J. Sandley (ASB-5317-S48R) SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 400 Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36104 Telephone: (334) 956-8200 Facsimile: (334) 956-8481 rhonda.brownstein@splcenter.org maria.morris@splcenter.org grace.graham@splcenter.org 2 latasha.mccrary@splcenter.org jonathan.blocker@splcenter.org cj.sandley@splcenter.org William Van Der Pol, Jr. (ASB-2112-114F) Glenn N. Baxter (ASB-3825-A41G) Lonnie J. Williams Barbara A. Lawrence Andrea J. Mixson Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program Box 870395 Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 Telephone: (205) 348-4928 Facsimile: (205) 348-3909 wvanderpoljr@adap.ua.edu gnbaxter@adap.ua.edu lwilliams@adap.ua.edu blawrence@adap.ua.edu amixson@adap.ua.edu Lisa W. Borden (ASB-5673-D57L) William G. Somerville, III (ASB-6185-E63W) Andrew P. Walsh (ASB-3755-W77W) Dennis Nabors Patricia Clotfelter (ASB-0841-F43P) Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz PC 420 20th Street North, Suite 1400 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 328-0480 Facsimile: (205) 322-8007 lborden@bakerdonelson.com wsomerville@bakerdonelson.com awalsh@bakerdonelson.com dnabors@bakerdonelson.com pclotfelter@bakerdonelson.com Gregory M. Zarzaur (ASB-0759-E45Z) Anil A. Mujumdar (ASB-2004-L65M) Diandra S. Debrosse (ASB-2956-N76D) 3 Denise Wiginton Zarzaur Mujumdar & Debrosse 2332 2nd Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 983-7985 Facsimile: (888) 505-0523 gregory@zarzaur.com anil@zarzaur.com diandra@zarzaur.com denise@zarzaur.com ATTORNEYS FOR THE PLAINTIFFS 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have on this 15th day of February, 2018, electronically filed the foregoing with the clerk of the court by using the CM/ECF system, which will send a notice of electronic filing to the following: David R. Boyd, Esq. Steven C. Corhern, Esq. John G. Smith, Esq. Balch & Bingham LLP John W. Naramore, Esq. Post Office Box 306 Balch & Bingham LLP Birmingham, AL 35201-0306 Post Office Box 78 scorhern@balch.com Montgomery, AL 36101-0078 dboyd@balch.com Mitesh Shah, Esq. jgsmith@balch.com Luther M. Dorr, Esq. jnaramore@balch.com Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C. 1901 6th Avenue North, Suite 2400 William R. Lunsford, Esq. Birmingham, AL 35203 Melissa K. Marler, Esq. mshah@maynardcooper.com Stephen C. Rogers, Esq. rdorr@maynardcooper.com Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C. 655 Gallatin Street, SW Deana Johnson, Esq. Huntsville, AL 35801 Brett T. Lane, Esq. blunsford@maynardcooper.com MHM Services, Inc. mmarler@maynardcooper.com 1447 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 500 srogers@maynardcooper.com Atlanta, GA 30309 djohnson@mhm-services.com btlane@mhm-services.com Anne Hill, Esq. Elizabeth A. Sees, Esq. Joseph G. Stewart, Jr., Esq. Alabama Department of Corrections Legal Division 301 South Ripley Street Montgomery, AL 36104 anne.hill@doc.alabama.gov elizabeth.sees@doc.alabama.gov joseph.stewart@doc.alabama.gov /s/ Maria V. Morris________________ One of the Attorneys for Plaintiffs One of the Attorneys for Plaintiffs 5

RESPONSE in Opposition re {{1614}} Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction for Immediate Closure of Bibb Correctional Facility Segregation Unit filed by Jefferson S. Dunn, Ruth Naglich.

2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARD BRAGGS, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) Case No. 2:14-cv-00601-MHT-GMB v.)) District Judge Myron H. Thompson JEFFERSON DUNN, et al.,)) Defendants.) THE STATE'S RESPONSE TO "PLAINTIFFS' EMERGENCY MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER OR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION REQUIRING THE IMMEDIATE CLOSURE OF BIBB CORRECTIONAL FACILITY'S SEGREGATION UNITS" 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................ i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...................................................................................... ii INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1 STATEMENT OF FACTS ......................................................................................... 3 1. Captain John Hutton .................................................................................... 4 2. Sharon Kirk................................................................................................... 8 3. Marie Borden ................................................................................................ 9 4. Angel Badea ................................................................................................. 9 5. Glenda Black ................................................................................................ 10 6. Edward Ellington .......................................................................................... 10 STANDARD OF REVIEW ......................................................................................... 11 ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITY ............................................................................. 13 I. Plaintiffs Lack a Substantial Likelihood of Success on the Merits.............. 13 II. Plaintiffs Have Not and Cannot Show an Immediate and Irreparable Injury ............................................................................................................ 21 III. Any Purported Injury to Plaintiffs is Outweighed by the Hardship the Proposed Injunction May Cause the State and ADOC ................................ 27 IV. No Public Interest is Served by Affording Plaintiffs Injunctive Relief ....... 30 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................ 32 i 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .................................................................................... 34 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases A.N.R. v. Caldwell 111 F. Supp. 2d 1294 (M.D. Ala. 2000) ...............................................................14 Ashcroft v. Iqbal 556 U.S. at 677 S.Ct. 1938 (2009) ........................................................................14 Bell v. Wolfish 441 U.S. 520 (1979) ................................................................................. 23, 24, 31 Broadhead v. Canty 2:10-cv-808-MHT, 2013 WL 5347358 (M.D. Ala. Sept. 23, 2013) ....................23 Brown v. Hughes 894 F.2d 1533 (11th Cir. 1990).............................................................................19 Brown v. Sikes 212 F.3d 1205 (11th Cir. 2000).............................................................................14 Burks v. Sikes 169 F.3d 1353 (11th Cir. 1999).............................................................................19 Campbell v. Sikes 169 F.3d 1353 (11th Cir. 1999).............................................................................20 Cason v. Seckinger 231 F.3d 777 (11th Cir. 2000)...............................................................................26 Chandler v. Crosby 379 F.3d 1278 (11th Cir. 2004)...................................................................... 17, 18 City of Los Angeles v. Lyons 461 U.S. 95 (1983) ................................................................................................21 Cottrell v. Caldwell ii 2 85 F.3d 1480 (11th Cir. 1996)...............................................................................19 Craig v. Floyd Cnty., Ga. 643 F.3d 1306 (11th Cir. 2011).............................................................................14 Daniels v. Williams 474 U.S. 327 (1986) ..............................................................................................19 Exhibitors Poster Exchange, Inc. v. Nat'l Screen Serv. Corp. 441 F.2d 560 (5th Cir. 1971).................................................................................12 Farmer v. Brennan 511 U.S. 825 at 834 S.Ct. 1970 (1994) .................................................... 17, 18, 19 Farrow v. West 320 F.3d 1235 (11th Cir. 2003).............................................................................18 Flowers Industries v. FTC 849 F.2d 551 (11th Cir. 1988)...............................................................................27 Foley v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 849 F. Supp. 2d 1345 (S.D. Fla. 2012) .................................................................13 Goebert v. Lee Cnty., Ala. 510 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir. 2007).............................................................................14 Higginbottom v. Carter 223 F.3d 1259 (11th Cir. 2000).............................................................................14 Hill v. DeKalb Reg'l Youth Det. Ctr. 40 F.3d 1176 (11th Cir. 1994)........................................................................ 18, 20 Holmes v. Crosby 418 F.3d 1256 (11th Cir. 2005).............................................................................13 Hope v. Allen 2:07-cv-210, 2009 WL 1688177 (M.D. Ala. Jun. 16, 2009) ................................24 Hudson v. McMillian 503 U.S. 1 (1992) ..................................................................................................17 iii 2 Klay v. United Healthgroup, Inc. 376 F.2d 1092 (11th Cir. 2004).........................................................................3, 12 Kramer v. Conway 962 F. Supp. 2d 1333 (N.D. Ga. 2012) .................................................................12 Marsh v. Butler County, Ala. 268 F.3d 1014 (11th Cir. 2001).............................................................................15 Martinez v. Mathews 544 F.2d 1233 (5th Cir. 1976)...............................................................................12 Meachum v. Fano 427 U.S. 215 (1976) ....................................................................................... 22, 24 Mercedes-Benz U.S. Int'l, Inc. v. Cobasys, LLC 605 F. Supp. 2d 1189 (N.D. Ala. 2009) ................................................................11 Mitchell v. Rouse 2:11-cv-1101-WHA, 2015 WL 893262 (M.D. Ala. Mar. 2, 2015) ......................23 Newman v. Alabama 683 F.2d 1312 (11th Cir. 1982).............................................................................23 Northeastern Fla. Chapter of the Ass'n of Gen. Contractors v. City of Jacksonville 896 F.2d 1283 (11th Cir. 1990)................................................................ 21, 26, 27 Pierce v. Smith 347 F. Supp. 2d 1143 (M.D. Ala. 2004) ...............................................................14 Procunier v. Martinez 416 U.S. 396 (1974) ....................................................................................... 22, 24 Ransome v. Aguirre No. 1:12-cv-01343, 2013 WL 5530336 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2013) ........................32 Robinson v. California 370 U.S. 660 (1962) ..............................................................................................15 Schiavo ex rel. Schindler v. Schiavo 403 F.3d 1223 (11th Cir. 2005).............................................................................11 iv 2 Siegel v. LePore 234 F.3d 1163 (11th Cir. 2000).............................................................................12 Snook v. Trust Co. of Georgia Bank of Savannah, N.A. 909 F.2d 480 (11th Cir. 1990)...............................................................................27 Steele v. Shah 87 F.3d 1266 (11th Cir. 1996)...............................................................................20 Turner v. Safley 482 U.S. 78 (1987) ................................................................................... 22, 24, 31 U.S. v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr. 778 F.3d 1223 (11th Cir. 2015).............................................................................25 United States v. Lambert 695 F.2d 536 (11th Cir. 1983)........................................................................ 21, 27 Wall v. Ferrero 142 F. App'x 405 (11th Cir. 2005) .......................................................................12 Women's Emergency Network v. Bush 191 F. Supp. 2d 1356 (S.D. Fla. 2002) .................................................................12 v 2 Defendants JEFFERSON DUNN, as Commissioner of the Alabama Department of Corrections ("ADOC"), and RUTH NAGLICH, as Associate Commissioner of ADOC (collectively, "the State"), hereby submit this Response to "Plaintiff's Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order or a Preliminary Injunction Requiring the Immediate Closure of Bibb Correctional Facility's Segregation Units" (Doc. No. 1614, the "Motion").1 INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs' Motion attempts to manufacture an "emergency" based upon one set of ill-completed logs at one ADOC facility. The undisputable evidence presented by the State in this response demonstrates that inmates housed in restrictive housing at Bibb Correctional Facility ("Bibb") between January 4 and 8, 2018, were not left to their own devices. The evidence presented with this response demonstrates that these inmates received food, medicine, showers, medical care, mental-health monitoring, and routine oversight by the correctional staff. While ADOC correctional staff from Bibb did not always complete the 1 The Court denied Plaintiffs' request for a temporary restraining order on February 12, 2018. (Order, Doc. No. 1619). Thus, the State will only address Plaintiffs' Motion to the extent that it seeks a preliminary injunction. 1 2 segregation logs as instructed, these logs are mere writings. Logs do not provide meals. Logs do not provide medicine. Logs do not provide showers. Logs do not provide mental-health care. Plaintiffs have not presented any direct evidence that inmates in restrictive housing at Bibb were not fed. Plaintiffs fail to present any direct evidence that inmates in restrictive housing at Bibb did not receive medicine. Plaintiffs fail to present any direct evidence that inmates in restrictive housing at Bibb did not receive showers. Plaintiffs fail to present any evidence that inmates in restrictive housing did not have any contact with correctional, medical, or mental-health staff during the five-day timeframe. This fundamental failure of proof is particularly stark in light of the extreme remedial relief requested by Plaintiffs, i.e. the complete closure of a portion of a correctional facility. Attempting to capitalize on a handful of incomplete logs, Plaintiffs seek an extraordinary remedy which seems well beyond the realm of any prior reported judicial intervention. Plaintiffs seek the "closure" of the restrictive housing units at Bibb for all inmates—not just inmates with a serious mental illness or even serious mental-health needs. Of course, none of the inmates currently in restrictive housing at Bibb is a Named Plaintiff and, to the extent they lack serious mental- health needs, the inmates are not even part of the class certified by this Court. Plaintiffs' Motion is notably silent on these issues. 2 2 As discussed more fully below, Plaintiffs cannot carry their burden of proof of demonstrating (1) a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) an immediate and irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted; (3) a threatened harm to any inmate currently housed in Bibb's restrictive housing unit that outweighs any harm that an injunction may cause the State and ADOC; and (4) the public interest will not be disserved by the grant of a preliminary injunction. Klay v. United Healthgroup, Inc., 376 F.2d 1092, 1097 (11th Cir. 2004). As a result, Plaintiffs' Motion is due to be denied.2 STATEMENT OF FACTS As Plaintiffs acknowledge, the Court is familiar with many of the facts and circumstances surrounding the restrictive housing units at Bibb. The issues about 2 The State expressly reserves and preserves any and all objections to the Court's Liability Opinion and Order as to Phase 2A Eighth Amendment Claim (Doc. No. 1285, the "Liability Opinion"), and nothing contained in this Response or any other submission by the State shall be construed as an admission by the State or a waiver of any objection the State may have to the Liability Opinion. Nothing in this Response be construed as an admission of any kind by the State that the ADOC's provision of mental-health care is unconstitutional or deficient in any way. To be clear, the State specifically disclaims that the Commissioner or Associate Commissioner engaged in any conduct and/or failed to act in any way which resulted in the violation of any constitutional rights of any individual incarcerated within the ADOC. By submitting this Response, the State also does not waive any arguments that the Court erred in deciding any claim, defense, motion and/or other filing, including, but not limited to, any motion for summary judgment, class certification, or judgment on partial findings, and specifically preserves all appellate issues related to error. 3 2 the physical structure, the adequacy of correctional staff, the configuration of the units, and other topics are being addressed either in the segregation or other remedial hearings, and the State will not belabor those points here. The new allegations central to Plaintiffs' Motion surround the claim that inmates in the restrictive housing units received no care from January 4 through 8, 2018. In response, the State offers the declarations of John Hutton, a Captain at Bibb; Sharon Kirk, the Director of Nursing for the Bibb medical staff; Marie Borden, a licensed practical nurse ("LPN") on the Bibb medical staff; Angel Badea, the site administrator over the Bibb mental-health staff; Glenda Black, a psychological associate employed by the ADOC at Bibb; and Edward Ellington, an administrator with supervisory authority over the wardens at Bibb. These declarations and their accompanying exhibits conclusively rebut Plaintiffs' allegations. In fact, as discussed below, they show a system that is effectively responding to the needs of the restrictive housing population. 1. Captain John Hutton Captain Hutton has served as a captain at Bibb since 2008. Hutton Declaration, ¶ 2. He oversees the custody staff and correctional cubicle officers ("CCOs") working in Bibb's restrictive housing units. Id. Bibb consists of six (6) housing dormitories, each of which has a restrictive housing unit. Id. at ¶ 4. Each 4 2 restrictive housing unit has three (3) cells, each of which contains two (2) beds. Id. The ADOC installed video cameras in each restrictive housing unit, and Captain Hutton provided video clips from January 4 to 8, 2018 for A, C, D, E, and F Dorms.3 Id. at ¶ 6. The State will make the relevant videos available to the Court, but asks that the Court and counsel for Plaintiffs take particular note of the fact that all of the videos being provided are marked as "HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY."4 The videos clearly show medical, mental-health, and correctional staff providing services to inmates in the restrictive housing units regularly during January 4-8, 2018. Id. at ¶ 6. For example, the videos show the following activities in Dorm E on Thursday, January 4, 2018: 3 The video recording system in Dorm B is overwritten every 14 days, so videos from January 4 to 8, 2018 had already been overwritten when Plaintiffs filed their Motion. Id. at ¶ 4. 4 The video recordings created within the ADOC system are highly confidential. Disclosure of any portion of the video recordings to any individual other than the Court and counsel will cause immediate and irreparable injury to the ADOC. The disclosure of these videos can reveal blind spots, hidden areas, or other discrepancies in the ADOC's monitoring system, which could be utilized for an improper purpose. Disclosure of these videos to any inmate or other outside party would require the ADOC to relocate, replace or supplement these cameras, which would be extraordinarily costly. These videos should be treated as highly confidential. Any unauthorized disclosure should be immediately reported to ADOC as it may compromise the safety and security of Bibb, its population, and its staff. 5 2 Date Time Event 1/4/2018 1:27:38 2 guards check each cell 1/4/2018 3:34:54 1 guard and 1 nurse conduct pill call 1/4/2018 4:15:02 1 guard delivering food trays 1/4/2018 8:20:29 1 guard and 1 nurse conduct pill call 1/4/2018 11:05:34 1 guard visits each cell 1/4/2018 11:44:05 1 guard takes 1 inmate from cell 1/4/2018 12:01:40 1 guard brings back 1 inmate to cell; another man delivers food trays; guard radios and another guard comes 1/4/2018 12:37:56 1 guard and another man deliver tray to one cell 1/4/2018 15:07:56 1 guard and 1 nurse conduct pill call 1/4/2018 17:27:32 1 guard and 1 man deliver clean linens and food trays 1/4/2018 18:23:35 1 guard takes 1 inmate from cell for shower and checks other cells 1/4/2018 18:25:21 Inmate is returned to unit to retrieve something from cell window and leaves 1/4/2018 18:45:36 1 guard brings 1 inmate back to cell and takes another inmate out of cell; another guard comes to check the other 2 cells 1/4/2018 19:01:22 1 guard brings back 1 inmate to cell and takes another inmate out of another cell 1/4/2018 19:27:03 1 guard enters and talks in middle of dorm 1/4/2018 19:40:03 1 guard brings inmate back to cell and takes another inmate out of cell 1/4/2018 19:50:47 1 guard returns inmate to cell and takes another inmate out of another cell 1/4/2018 20:22:55 2 guards return 1 inmate to cell and take another inmate from another cell 6 2 1/4/2018 20:58:26 1 guard returns 1 inmate to cell; visits other cell windows 1/4/2018 21:22:43 1 guard checks 1 cell 1/4/2018 21:40:22 1 guard delivers papers to 2 of the cells Hutton Declaration, ¶ 6 (Video of Dorm E). The remaining videos from other days and dorms between January 4-8 show the similar daily routines of the correctional housing units. These videos conclusively resolve any concerns about the activities within the restrictive housing units during this period. Captain Hutton also submits records that demonstrate the routine activities of the correctional, medical, and mental-health staffs within Bibb's restrictive housing units, including between January 4 and 8, 2018. Id. at ¶¶ 8-7 (BIBB_CTRL_00155-250, 359-421, 438-639). These records include duty post logs, shift logs, and unit record sheets. Id. The evidence shows that, among other things, (a) custodial staff provided meals each day between January 4 and 8, (see, e.g., BIBB_CTRL_00155-65, 169, 373-74, 376-77, 383-84, 401-03); (b) custodial staff removed inmates from their cells for showers and exercise during this timeframe, (see, e.g., BIBB_CTRL_00156, 161, 166, 178, 365, 381, 394-95, 405, 418); (c) nurses entered the units for multiple rounds throughout the days, (see, e.g., BIBB_CTRL_155-61, 163, 165-70, 178, 360-63, 369, 383, 389, 395, 402, 408); and (d) members of the mental-health staff checked on each inmate, (see, 7 2 e.g., BIBB_CTRL_156, 159-162, 166, 169, 178, 374).5 Hutton Declaration, ¶ 7. Additionally, the ADOC's records show that inmates in the restrictive housing units continue to receive regular medical care, mental-health care, meals, exercise, and other checks on their condition. Id. at ¶ 10 (BIBB_CTRL_00438- 639). 2. Sharon Kirk According to Sharon Kirk, the Director of Nursing at Bibb, "The suggestion that inmates in Bibb segregation did not receive medication or medical attention [between January 8 and 8, 2018] is not true." Kirk Declaration, ¶ 4. Members of the Bibb nursing staff entered the restrictive housing units multiple times each day during this period, as reflected in both the nursing records and the restrictive housing videos. Id. at ¶ 6 (BIBB_CTRL_00097-154). Inmates received their prescribed medications during pill call and regularly interacted with members of the Bibb medical staff. Id. at ¶¶ 5-8 (BIBB_CTRL_00097-154). Moreover, the records reflect that a nurse checked on inmate C.C. each day during that period, despite Plaintiffs' claims that he was not seen at all. Id. at ¶ 7 (BIBB_CTRL_00097). 5 CCOs did not conduct security checks or otherwise interact directly with inmates. Hutton Declaration, ¶ 8. 8 2 3. Marie Borden As an LPN on Bibb's medical staff, Marie Borden conducted nursing rounds in the restrictive housing unit on Monday, January 8, which is confirmed through the inmate-specific logs maintained by the nursing staff. Borden Declaration, ¶ 2 (BIBB_CTRL_00097-101, 105-09, 113, 117-29, 135-36). Ms. Borden is aware that other members of the Bibb nursing staff also performed rounds on this date. Id. at ¶ 6 (BIBB_CTRL_00097-101, 105-09, 113, 117-29, 135-36). During these rounds, she did not observe any indication that inmates had not previously received food or necessary medical care. Id. (BIBB_CTRL_00097-101, 105-09, 113, 117- 29, 135-36). A member of the correctional staff accompanied her and her colleagues on their rounds, as is customary at the facility. Id. at ¶ 5 (BIBB_CTRL_00097-101, 105-09, 113, 117-29, 135-36). 4. Angel Badea As MHM's site administrator at Bibb, Angel Badea oversees the provision of mental-health care by the mental-health staff. Badea Declaration, ¶ 2. Mental- health professionals at Bibb conducted segregation rounds and/or mental-health segregation review boards on Tuesday, January 2; Friday, January 5; Tuesday, January 9; Wednesday, January 10; and Thursday, January 11. Id. at ¶ 5 (BIBB_CTRL_00422-31). She personally conducted rounds on January 5, 2018, 9 2 along with Captain Smith and Glenda Black and completed a log noting the interactions with the inmates in restrictive housing on January 5. Id. (BIBB_CTRL_00424-25). During these rounds, Ms. Badea met with each inmate present in restrictive housing to determine whether he had any urgent or non- urgent mental-health needs and, as appropriate, scheduled follow up treatment. Id. at ¶ 4 (BIBB_CTRL_00424-25). She and her staff are continuing to conduct rounds in the restrictive housing units, per their policy. Id. at ¶ 7 (BIBB_CTRL_00432-37). 5. Glenda Black Glenda Black, the ADOC's Psychological Associate at Bibb, conducted rounds with Ms. Badea and Captain Smith in the restrictive housing unit on Friday, January 5. Black Declaration at ¶ 5 (BIBB_CTRL_00302-03). If inmates expressed any concerns to her, Ms. Black raised them with the appropriate individual on the medical, mental-health, or correctional staff. Id. (BIBB_CTRL_00302-03). Ms. Black typically conducts mental-health rounds in the restrictive housing unit and/or mental-health segregation review boards two to three times a week. Id. at ¶ 3. 6. Edward Ellington Mr. Ellington is the Institutional Coordinator for the Northern Region for the 10 2 ADOC, with oversight over twelve (12) wardens in the ADOC system. Ellington Declaration, ¶ 2. According to Mr. Ellington, the restrictive housing units at Bibb are the only place at the facility to isolate inmates from the general population, and closing them would subject both inmates and staff to serious security risks. Id. at ¶¶ 5, 10. It would hamper the ability of correctional staff to respond effectively to altercations among inmates or attacks on staff. Id. at ¶¶ 5-8. It would make it impossible to separate inmates from enemies at Bibb or protect inmates who are at risk due to debts owed to other inmates. Id. at ¶ 8. The security consequences of closing the restrictive housing unit at Bibb would be severe. STANDARD OF REVIEW Plaintiffs ask this Court for an "extraordinary and drastic remedy." Schiavo ex rel. Schindler v. Schiavo, 403 F.3d 1223, 1231 (11th Cir. 2005). Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction "closing the segregation units at Bibb." (Doc. No. 1614 at 1).6 The Court cannot grant a preliminary injunction unless Plaintiffs clearly show: 6 From a review of the "relief" sought by Plaintiffs in the Motion, it is clear that they do not seek to preserve the status quo until this Court has an opportunity to render a decision on the merits. Klay, 376 F. 3d at 11101 n. 13. Instead, Plaintiffs seek final relief—which is improper at this stage of the action. Moreover, because the relief sought by Plaintiffs goes beyond maintaining the status quo, it becomes an affirmative or mandatory injunction, and the burden placed on the moving party is increased. See Mercedes-Benz U.S. Int'l, Inc. v. Cobasys, LLC, 605 F. Supp. 2d 1189, 1196 (N.D. Ala. 2009). Mandatory injunctive relief is disfavored. Martinez v. Mathews, 11 2 (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a continuing irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted; (3) a threatened harm to any inmate currently housed in Bibb's restrictive housing unit that outweighs any harm that an injunction may cause the State and ADOC; and (4) the public interest will not be disserved by the grant of a permanent injunction. Id.; Klay, 376 F.3d at 1097); Wall v. Ferrero, 142 F. App'x 405, 407 (11th Cir. 2005) (citing McDonald's Corp. v. Robertson, 147 F.3d 1301, 1306 (11th Cir. 1998)) (requiring a plaintiff to "clearly establish[] the burden of persuasion as to each of the four prerequisites."). A plaintiff "cannot rest on allegations in his pleadings, but must present competent evidence establishing all four (4) prerequisites." Siegel v. LePore, 234 F.3d 1163, 1176 (11th Cir. 2000) (en banc); Kramer v. Conway, 962 F. Supp. 2d 1333, 1343 (N.D. Ga. 2012); Women's Emergency Network v. Bush, 191 F. Supp. 2d 1356, 1361-62 (S.D. Fla. 2002) (preliminary injunction cannot be entered based on allegations alone). Because 544 F.2d 1233, 1243 (5th Cir. 1976). A mandatory preliminary injunction should not be granted unless the facts and law are clearly in favor of Plaintiff—which, here, they are not. Exhibitors Poster Exchange, Inc. v. Nat'l Screen Serv. Corp., 441 F.2d 560, 561 (5th Cir. 1971). 12 2 Plaintiffs' Motion lacks any evidentiary justification or appropriate legal basis for a preliminary injunction, it is due to be denied.7 ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITY I. PLAINTIFFS LACK A SUBSTANTIAL LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS ON THE MERITS. The United States Constitution is not self-executing; that is, an aggrieved party cannot bring claims directly under the Constitution. Rather, a plaintiff seeking redress for a violation of federal constitutional rights generally must institute his or her action by means of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("section 1983"). Section 1983 creates a cause of action for a plaintiff to enforce federal rights created elsewhere, such as constitutional rights. 42 U.S.C. § 1983.8 Plaintiffs' Motion seeking injunctive relief is due to be denied because no inmate currently in Bibb's restrictive housing exhausted his administrative remedies prior to filing the Motion. The legal standard is crystal clear that an 7 A reply brief may not raise new arguments or evidence, particularly where the evidence was available when the underlying motion was filed and the movant was aware (or should have been aware) of the necessity of the evidence. Foley v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 849 F. Supp. 2d 1345 (S.D. Fla. 2012). The State hereby moves to strike any additional evidence offered by Plaintiffs in support of their Motion. 8 To prevail on a cause of action under section 1983, a plaintiff must clearly establish with competent evidence: (1) a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under color of state law. Holmes v. Crosby, 418 F.3d 1256, 1258 (11th Cir. 2005). 13 2 inmate may not pursue relief under federal law unless and until he first exhausts the administrative remedies available to him. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Higginbottom v. Carter, 223 F.3d 1259, 1261 (11th Cir. 2000); Brown v. Sikes, 212 F.3d 1205, 1207 (11th Cir. 2000); A.N.R. v. Caldwell, 111 F. Supp. 2d 1294, 1297-99 (M.D. Ala. 2000). Here, there is no indication that Plaintiffs submitted any grievance before asking this Court for injunctive relief, nor do Plaintiffs even purport to have done so. Plaintiffs' Motion therefore should be denied because no inmate currently in restrictive housing at Bibb exhausted the administrative remedies available to him. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Carter, 223 F.3d at 1261;)Sikes, 212 F.3d at 1207. Without such exhaustion, there can be no federal claim. Under section 1983, there is no respondeat superior or vicarious liability. Craig v. Floyd Cnty., Ga., 643 F.3d 1306 (11th Cir. 2011); Goebert v. Lee Cnty., Ala., 510 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir. 2007); Pierce v. Smith, 347 F. Supp. 2d 1143 (M.D. Ala. 2004). A State official sued under section 1983 may be held personally liable only "for his or her own misconduct." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677 S.Ct. 1938 (2009) ("[Supervisors] may not be held accountable for the misdeeds of their agents."). Commissioner Dunn and Associate Commissioner Naglich may be held liable only for his or her own unconstitutional conduct, not that of subordinates or other ADOC employees or agents. As such, Plaintiffs' allegations concerning the 14 2 acts or omissions of ADOC's employees, medical vendor staff, and mental-health vendor staff are of no legal consequence in an action against Commissioner Dunn and Associate Commissioner Naglich. In order to substantiate their request for preliminary injunctive relief, Plaintiffs must allege and demonstrate each of the elements necessary for an alleged Eighth Amendment violation against the State. The Eighth Amendment9 does not, on its face, reference in any way a limitation on the placement of inmates in restrictive housing. See, e.g., Marsh v. Butler County, Ala., 268 F.3d 1014, 1038 (11th Cir. 2001) (en banc). Instead, Plaintiffs attempt to build their case largely upon the allegation that inmates in restrictive housing were not provided medical, mental-health, or other custodial care from January 4-8, 2018. In fact, they allege that "[t]here are literally days in which not one official has entered the segregation units at Bibb." (Doc. No. 1614 at 13). This reckless allegation is inconsistent with the exhibits upon which Plaintiffs rely in their Motion, which show the ADOC providing in-person care to the inmates in the restrictive housing units during the period at issue. See Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1406 (Segregation Unit Record Sheet) (showing medical visits for each inmate between January 4-8, 2018, 9 The Eighth Amendment applies to the states by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660, 666 (1962). 15 2 plus other contacts); Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1433 (Mental Health Segregation Logs) at ADOC 0418489-90; ADOC 0418501-2 (showing mental-health visits on January 5, 2018). Moreover, the State has offered conclusive, irrefutable proof that Plaintiffs' core allegation is wrong. The videos show that Bibb staff regularly provided services to inmates in the restrictive housing units between January 4-8, 2018. Hutton Decl. ¶ 6. Badea and Black testified that they personally were in the units for mental-health rounds on Friday, January 5 (Badea Decl. ¶ 5 (BIBB_CTRL_00424-425); Black Decl. ¶ 5 (BIBB_CTRL_00302-303)); Borden personally conducted nursing rounds there on Monday, January 8. Borden Decl. ¶ 6 (BIBB_CTRL_00097-101, 105-09, 113, 117-29, 135-36). When Borden conducted her rounds, there was no indication that nursing rounds had not occurred in the prior days. Id. In fact, Kirk testified that members of the nursing staff entered the restrictive housing units multiple times each day between January 4 and 8. Kirk Decl. ¶ 6 (BIBB_CTRL_00097-154). Hutton also confirmed that custodial staff provided meals, exercise, showers and other essential functions to inmates in the unit during that time period. Hutton Decl. ¶ 7. ADOC provided essential services to inmates in restrictive housing in early January and continues to do so to this day. The records for the days directly 16 2 preceding Plaintiffs' Motion reflect frequent contacts with inmates throughout each day. From February 1 through February 9, 2018, inmates received meals and check-ins from correctional staff, got regular visits from nurses, and saw members of the mental-health staff. Hutton Decl. ¶ 10; Badea Decl. ¶ 7 (BIBB_CTRL_00432-437). Based on this information, there is no basis to conclude that inmates in the restrictive housing units at Bibb have been denied their constitutional rights. Both the Supreme Court and Eleventh Circuit have described the Eighth Amendment standard of deliberate indifference as requiring allegations and evidence of both "objective" and "subjective" components. See, e.g., Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 at 834, 837 S.Ct. 1970 (1994); Chandler v. Crosby, 379 F.3d 1278, 1289-90 (11th Cir. 2004). The "objective" component of the Eighth Amendment analysis requires a prisoner to demonstrate the existence of a condition, act, or omission which is sufficiently egregious to violate the Eighth Amendment. See Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 8 (1992). The underlying conduct or condition must be "extreme" and pose "an unreasonable risk of serious damage to his future health," if left unchecked. Chandler, 379 F.3d at 1289-90 (quoting Hudson, 503 U.S. at 9) (other citations omitted). At a minimum, an inmate must allege and establish the 17 2 existence of a serious medical and/or mental-health need. Chandler, 379 F.3d at 1289-90; Farrow v. West, 320 F.3d 1235, 1243 (11th Cir. 2003). The Eleventh Circuit's long-standing definition of serious medical and/or mental-health need is a condition "that has been diagnosed by a physician as mandating treatment or one that is so obvious that even a lay person would easily recognize the necessity for a doctor's attention." See, e.g., Farrow, 320 F.3d at 1243 (citing Hill v. DeKalb Reg'l Youth Det. Ctr., 40 F.3d 1176, 1187 (11th Cir. 1994) (internal quotations omitted)). Additionally, the serious medical and/or mental-health need must be such that, if left untreated, "pos[es] a substantial risk of serious harm." Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. The burden falls squarely upon Plaintiffs to allege and ultimately establish the existence of a serious medical and/or mental-health need. See, e.g., Farrow, 320 F.3d at 1243. They have not done so. Even if housing an inmate in restrictive housing could rise to the level of a serious medical and/or mental-health need for purposes of a section 1983 claim, Plaintiffs must also establish the "subjective" component of an Eighth Amendment violation. In other words, Plaintiffs must prove the State acted with "deliberate indifference." See, e.g., Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837. This subjective component requires evidence the State possessed actual knowledge of "an excessive risk to inmate health or safety" and disregarded that risk. Id. Evidence demonstrating the 18 2 State failed "to alleviate a significant risk that [they] should have perceived but did not, while no cause for commendation, cannot under our cases be condemned as the infliction of punishment" or serve as a basis for a claim of deliberate indifference. Burks v. Sikes, 169 F.3d 1353, 1363-1364 (11th Cir. 1999) (other citations omitted); see also Cottrell v. Caldwell, 85 F.3d 1480, 1491 (11th Cir. 1996) (holding, "[t]here is no liability for 'an official's failure to alleviate a significant risk that he should have perceived but did not ....'" (quoting Farmer, 511 U.S. at 838)). Courts summarize this component as requiring evidence of a "subjectively sufficiently culpable state of mind." Cottrell, 85 F.3d at 1491 (other citations and internal quotations omitted). Plaintiffs cannot establish this element as to Commissioner Dunn or Associate Commissioner Naglich. It is incumbent upon an inmate asserting a section 1983 claim to establish conscious indifference on the part of the prison official. See, e.g., Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 329-36 (1986); Brown v. Hughes, 894 F.2d 1533, 1537-38 (11th Cir. 1990). For example, an inmate's section 1983 claim for inadequate medical treatment cannot survive unless and until the inmate produces evidence of the prison official's "subjective awareness" of the alleged medical condition and a refusal to provide care. Campbell v. Sikes, 169 F.3d 1353, 1364 (11th Cir. 1999) (quoting Steele v. Shah, 87 F.3d 1266, 1269 (11th Cir. 1996)); Hill, 40 F.3d at 19 2 1186. Without evidence of this "specific intent" on the part of the State, an inmate's section 1983 claim cannot succeed. Steele, 87 F.3d at 1269. Here, there is no evidence of any specific intent on behalf of any official to deny care to inmates in restrictive housing at Bibb. To the contrary, the record reflects that inmates are receiving medical care, mental-health care and other correctional services. This type of care was provided regularly between January 4- 8, 2018, as well as in the days leading up to Plaintiffs' Motion. There admittedly are some gaps in the documentation at ADOC, particularly during that earlier period, but that fact does not mean that inmates actually were denied care. Given the drastic remedy sought here, there is no basis for imposing it based merely on allegations of missing or incomplete paperwork. The fact that Plaintiffs' Motion is a drastic overreach also is evident by the fact that none of the inmates currently in restrictive housing at Bibb is a Named Plaintiff, and many of them are not even part of the class that the Court certified. In fact, there are inmates in the restrictive housing unit at Bibb who have no mental-health issues at all. As such, Plaintiffs lack standing to seek remedial relief that closes the Bibb restrictive housing unit in its entirety, thereby prohibiting its use for class members and non-class members alike. In sum, Plaintiffs' Motion does not identify any evidence that would 20 2 remotely justify a finding of deliberate indifference, especially when taken together with the actual extent of mental-health care documented in the evidence before the Court. Plaintiffs therefore cannot demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits. II. PLAINTIFFS HAVE NOT AND CANNOT SHOW AN IMMEDIATE AND IRREPARABLE INJURY. Generally, the remedy of a preliminary injunction is unavailable absent a showing of irreparable injury. See City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 111 (1983). A showing of irreparable injury is the "sine qua non of injunctive relief." Northeastern Fla. Chapter of the Ass'n of Gen. Contractors v. City of Jacksonville, 896 F.2d 1283, 1285 (11th Cir. 1990). An "irreparable injury" is more than merely "substantial" harm. Id.; United States v. Lambert, 695 F.2d 536, 540 (11th Cir. 1983). Moreover, a purported irreparable injury "must be neither remote nor speculative, but actual and imminent." City of Jacksonville, 896 F.2d at 1285 (quoting Tucker Anthony Realty Corp. v. Schlesinger, 888 F.2d 969, 973 (2d Cir. 1989)). Plaintiffs cannot make a showing of an irreparable injury. Supreme Court precedent makes clear that this Court may not become the de facto manager and/or administrator of the Alabama prison system. Three (3) reasons exist for this line of demarcation between the Court's jurisdiction and the 21 2 administration of the prison system. First, this Court (like all courts) lacks expertise in the administration and operation of a prison system. As such, it must avoid second-guessing the decision of those with such expertise. Second (and relatedly), the responsibilities of prison administration and operation have been allocated to the executive branch, not the judiciary, so the appropriate separation of powers requires limited involvement by this Court. Third, the rules of comity limit the involvement of federal courts in state-operated prison systems. See Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 85 (1987); Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 229 (1976); Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 405 (1974). With regard to the first issue, the Supreme Court routinely directs courts to defer to prison administrators, especially concerning matters within their discretion and expertise. In Turner v. Safley, the Supreme Court cautioned against judicial intervention in a prison system: A … principle identified in Martinez, however, is the recognition that 'courts are ill equipped to deal with the increasingly urgent problems of prison administration and reform.' Id., at 405, 94 S.Ct., at 1807. As the Martinez court acknowledged, 'the problems of prisons in America are complex and intractable, and, more to the point, they are not readily susceptible of resolution by decree.' Id., at 404-405, 94 S.Ct., at 1807. Running a prison is an inordinately difficult undertaking that requires expertise, planning, and the commitment of resources, all of which are peculiarly within the province of the legislative and executive branches of government. 22 2 Prison administration is, moreover, a task that has been committed to the responsibility of those branches, and separation of powers concerns counsel a policy of judicial restraint. 482 U.S. at 84-85 (quoting Martinez, 416 U.S. at 404-405). The Eleventh Circuit expressed a similar view in Newman v. Alabama, 683 F.2d 1312, 1320 (11th Cir. 1982) in which it held, "A federal court, when fashioning a remedy to redress constitutional violations in a prison, must recognize that it is ill-equipped to involve itself intimately in the administration of the prison system." 683 F.2d 1312, 1320 (11th Cir. 1982). Thus, courts must avoid substituting their judgment for those of prison administrators. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 554 (1979); Mitchell v. Rouse, 2:11-cv-1101-WHA, 2015 WL 893262 (M.D. Ala. Mar. 2, 2015) (granting summary judgment to defendants on retaliation claim and acknowledging prison officials are entitled to deference); Broadhead v. Canty, 2:10-cv-808-MHT, 2013 WL 5347358 (M.D. Ala. Sept. 23, 2013) (Thompson, J.) (same); Hope v. Allen, 2:07-cv-210, 2009 WL 1688177 (M.D. Ala. Jun. 16, 2009) (same). With regard to the second issue, courts recognize that prison administration is a legislative and executive function, not a judicial one. "[J]udicial deference is accorded not merely because the administrator ordinarily will, as a matter of fact in a particular case, have a better grasp of his domain than the reviewing judge, but 23 2 also because the operation of our correctional facilities is peculiarly the province of the Legislative and Executive Branches of our Government, not the Judicial." Bell, 441 U.S. at 548. Thus, the court's role is limited to determining "whether a particular system violates any prohibition of the Constitution.... The wide range of 'judgment calls' that meet constitutional and statutory requirements are confided to officials outside of the Judicial Branch of Government." Id. at 562. The rationale for deference on these issues therefore is based upon both a lack of expertise in prison issues and an acknowledgement of the limits of judicial authority. With regard to the third issue, the need for deference is heightened for federal courts when a state prison system is at issue. "The federal courts do not sit to supervise state prisons, the administration of which is of acute interest to the States." Meachum, 427 U.S. at 229; see also Turner, 482 U.S. at 85 ("Where a state penal system is involved, federal courts have, as we indicated in Martinez, additional reason to accord deference to the appropriate prison authorities.") (citing Martinez, 416 U.S. at 405). Thus, federal courts must tread particularly carefully when a state prison system is involved. The Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA") imposes clear limitations upon the scope and extent of any injunctive relief. The PLRA states: Prospective relief in any civil action with respect to prison conditions shall extend no further than necessary to correct the 24 2 violation of the Federal right of a particular plaintiff or plaintiffs. The court shall not grant or approve any prospective relief unless the court finds that such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right. The court shall give substantial weight to any adverse impact on public safety or the operation of a criminal justice system caused by the relief. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) (emphasis added). Therefore, the relief is not tailored to best practices, national standards, or other industry-created norms, but must narrowly address only any actual constitutional violation. Here, the evidence demonstrates nothing more than incomplete paperwork. While not ideal, incomplete paperwork is not a constitutional violation. To this end, courts conducting these remedial procedures individually assess "each requirement imposed by the" relief to determine whether it meets this standard. U.S. v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr., 778 F.3d 1223, 1228 (11th Cir. 2015); see also Cason v. Seckinger, 231 F.3d 777, 785 (11th Cir. 2000) (identical language in section 3626(b)(3) requires "particularized findings, on a provision-by- provision basis, that each requirement imposed by the consent decree satisfies the need-narrowness-intrusiveness requirement"). To grant the broad injunctive relief sought by Plaintiffs based solely on incomplete paperwork runs afoul of the PLRA's need-narrowness-intrusiveness requirement. 25 2 Nor is incomplete paperwork an irreparable and imminent injury. See City of Jacksonville, 896 F.2d at 1285. Many of the issues about which Plaintiffs complain were addressed in the Liability Phase over a year ago, and little has occurred to make those purported harms immediate. Absent that basis, Plaintiffs point to the specific period from January 4-8, 2018, and ask the Court to find that inmates were essentially ignored during that period. As discussed more fully above, while some of the record-keeping during the five-day period was imperfect, there is no question that inmates in the restrictive housing units received medical care, mental-health care, and other services during this time. There was no increased risk of harm to inmates in early January, nor have Plaintiffs established that there is any specific, immediate harm now that would require the extraordinary remedy that Plaintiffs are seeking. While Plaintiffs may be dissatisfied with the conditions in the Bibb restrictive housing units, there is no evidence of a specific threat of immediate injury; instead, these issues can and should be addressed within the context of the Court's remedial hearing on restrictive housing. In sum, Plaintiffs have not identified, much less demonstrated, an imminent and irreparable injury that justifies extraordinary relief through a preliminary injunction. Significantly, even if Plaintiffs established a substantial likelihood of success on the merits (which they have not done), the absence of an immediate and 26 2 irreparable injury, standing alone, makes injunctive relief improper.10 Because Plaintiffs have not and cannot show an immediate and irreparable injury, the Motion is due to be denied. III. ANY PURPORTED INJURY TO PLAINTIFFS IS OUTWEIGHED BY THE HARDSHIP THE PROPOSED INJUNCTION MAY CAUSE THE STATE AND ADOC. Plaintiffs ask this Court to issue a mandatory injunction compelling the State to close the restrictive housing units at Bibb. (Doc. No. 1614 at 1). This mandatory injunction would not preserve the status quo. It would require the State, before a final adjudication (which, as demonstrated above, will be in favor of the State), to eliminate eighteen (18) restrictive housing units at Bibb. Plaintiffs' unsubstantiated and speculative loss does not justify a preliminary injunction. However, even if it did, the hardship on the State outweighs the benefit to 10 See Snook v. Trust Co. of Georgia Bank of Savannah, N.A., 909 F.2d 480, 486 (11th Cir. 1990) (affirming denial of preliminary injunction even though plaintiff established likelihood of prevailing because plaintiff failed to meet burden of proving irreparable injury); City of Jacksonville, 896 F.2d at 1285 (reversing preliminary injunction based solely on plaintiffs failure to show irreparable injury); Flowers Industries v. FTC, 849 F.2d 551, 552 (11th Cir. 1988) (same); Lambert, 695 F.2d at 540 (affirming denial of preliminary injunction and stating that a plaintiff's "success in establishing a likelihood it will prevail on the merits does not obviate the necessity to show irreparable harm"). 27 2 Plaintiffs.11 Closing the Bibb segregation units would devastate the ability of ADOC to manage the facility while compromising the safety of both inmates and staff. As discussed more fully in the Declaration of Edward Ellington, the restrictive housing units at Bibb are the only place within the facility where ADOC can isolate an inmate from the general population. Ellington Decl., ¶ 4. Correctional staff uses these cells for inmates with disciplinary issues, debts to other inmates, enemies within the general population and other appropriate purposes. Id. at ¶ 8. If an inmate had to be transferred immediately under any of these circumstances, it would have a serious impact on ADOC's ability to manage its population and to protect the safety of both inmates and security officials. Id. at ¶¶ 5-8. An altercation among inmates at Bibb or an inmate's attack on a member of the staff would perfectly illustrate the implications of closing the restrictive housing units. The closure of Bibb's restrictive housing units would require 11 The State recognizes that Plaintiffs must give "security in an amount that the court considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by" the State if found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c). To adequately compensate the State for the actual costs and damages sustained by it as a result of a wrongful injunction Plaintiffs' security must be at least 150% of the currently anticipated costs and damages. The State reasonably believes that, if Plaintiffs are afforded the injunctive relief they seek, then its costs and damages will exceed $4,500,000 (comprised of transportation and security costs for movement of inmates, addition of thirty-six (36) beds lost, disturbance throughout the ADOC, harm to inmates and staff, and the State's legal fees and costs) and, therefore, the security amount should be at least $6,750,000. 28 2 ADOC to transfer the offending inmate immediately to a different facility because there would be no place to put him at Bibb. Id. at ¶ 5. So, two (2) officers would be required to leave Bibb right after the incident to transport the inmate to the nearest ADOC facility, which is more than fifty (50) miles away. Id. at ¶ 6. If that institution did not have an available restrictive housing bed, the trip would be even longer. Id. If the altercation involved a serious injury, two (2) additional officers would be required to transport the injured inmate to receive off-site treatment. Id. Thus, immediately after such an incident, ADOC would have to maintain order throughout the facility with four (4) fewer officers, and the shortage likely would last for hours until the transporting officers returned. Id. If the incident occurred in the afternoon or evening, the situation would be even worse. In that circumstance, the offending inmate would need to be transported at night, which is both unusual and dangerous. Id. at ¶ 7. ADOC currently conducts its prisoner movements in the morning to avoid the pitfalls of transporting inmates at night. Id. But without any other options for segregating an inmate at Bibb, ADOC would have to move the inmate immediately, day or night. If inmates know that disciplinary restrictive housing is not available at Bibb, it likely will have an impact on their conduct within the facility. Id. at ¶ 8. It also will make it harder for ADOC as a whole to find suitable locations for inmates 29 2 who have enemies within the system. Id. at ¶ 9. Overall, the closing of the Bibb restrictive housing unit would wreak havoc on the system and compromise the safety and security of both inmates and staff. Because any purported injury to Plaintiffs is outweighed by the hardship the proposed injunctive relief may cause the State, Plaintiffs' Motion is due to be denied. IV. NO PUBLIC INTEREST IS SERVED BY AFFORDING PLAINTIFFS INJUNCTIVE RELIEF. The public interest clearly will not be served by a preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs desire to eliminate restrictive housing at ADOC facilities, starting with restrictive housing at Bibb. Those are goals personal to Plaintiffs as inmates. It serves absolutely no public purpose. It is not the role of federal courts to set aside decisions of prison officials which a court may view as lacking wisdom or compassion. The prison system that has evolved in this nation relies necessarily upon the discretion and judgment of prison officials, and section 1983 is not intended to be a vehicle for federal court correction of perceived errors in the exercise of that discretion. Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 84-85 (1987); Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 554 (1979). Plaintiffs seek judicial interference with the operation of an ADOC facility, 30 2 including intrusion into its internal policies and decisions. However, the inmates in administrative restrictive housing are there for a purpose (including protection of these inmates from enemies) and in disciplinary restrictive housing because they engaged in serious misconduct (as determined after a due process hearing). Ellington Decl., ¶ 4. Affording Plaintiffs the relief sought in their Motion would suggest to current and future inmates that if they are displeased with their housing or with being disciplined for misconduct, they can ignore or avoid applicable ADOC policy and obtain relief through the court system. That cannot be a result consistent with the public good. Additionally, there is clearly a potential to negatively impact the public or nonparties by affording Plaintiffs injunctive relief. Plaintiffs' requested injunctive relief will compromise the public health, safety, and welfare of ADOC's employees, medical staff, and mental-health staff and other inmates located at Bibb and other ADOC facilities. Ransome v. Aguirre, No. 1:12-cv-01343, 2013 WL 5530336, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2013). Plainly, many of the inmates in restrictive housing at Bibb cannot be trusted in general population or around ADOC's employees, medical staff, and mental-health staff and other inmates. Each inmate currently housed in Bibb's restrictive housing needs protection and/or has engaged in misconduct outside restrictive housing. Neither the State nor ADOC can expose 31 2 its employees, medical staff, mental-health staff, or other inmates to the potential for additional misconduct by the inmates currently housed in Bibb restrictive housing. Similarly, neither the State nor ADOC can expose the inmates currently in Bibb restrictive housing for their protection to the potential for violence from enemies (many of whom are unknown enemies to these inmates). It would be entirely inappropriate for the Court to compel the State to expose inmates currently in Bibb's restrictive housing to dangers that they are currently being protected from in restrictive housing. Similarly, it would be entirely inappropriate for the Court to expose ADOC's employees, medical staff, mental- health staff, or other inmates (i.e. nonparties) to the potential to be a victim of misconduct by the inmates currently in Bibb's restrictive housing. Because Plaintiffs have not and cannot show the public interest is served by a preliminary injunction, Plaintiffs' Motion is due to be denied. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs' Motion for injunctive relief is due to be denied. Dated: February 15, 2018. /s/ William R. Lunsford William R. Lunsford Attorney for the Commissioner and Associate Commissioner 32 2 William R. Lunsford Matthew B. Reeves Melissa K. Marler Stephen C. Rogers Alyson L. Smith MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, PC 655 Gallatin Street Huntsville, AL 35801 Telephone: (256) 512-5710 Facsimile: (256) 512-0119 blunsford@maynardcooper.com mreeves@maynardcooper.com mmarler@maynardcooper.com srogers@maynardcooper.com asmith@maynardcooper.com Luther M. Dorr, Jr. Mitesh B. Shah MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, PC 1901 Sixth Avenue North 2400 Regions Harbert Plaza Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 254-1178 Facsimile: (205) 714-6438 rdorr@maynardcooper.com mshah@maynardcooper.com 33 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served upon all attorneys of record in this matter, including without limitation the following, by the Court's CM/ECF system on this the 15th day of February, 2018: Maria V. Morris William Van Der Pol, Jr. Rhonda C. Brownstein Glenn N. Baxter Latasha L. McCrary Barbara A. Lawrence J. Richard Cohen Andrea J. Mixson Caitlin J. Sandley ALABAMA DISABILITIES ADVOCACY Grace Graham PROGRAM Jonathan Blocker University of Alabama SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 500 Martha Parham West 400 Washington Avenue Box 870395 Montgomery, Alabama 36104 Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487-0395 Telephone: (334) 956-8200 Telephone: (205) 348-6894 Facsimile: (334) 956-8481 Facsimile: (205) 348-3909 maria.morris@splcenter.org wvanderpoljr@adap.ua.edu rhonda.brownstein@splcenter.org gnbaxter@bama.ua.edu latasha.mccrary@splcenter.org blawrence@adap.ua.edu richard.cohen@splcenter.org amixson@adap.ua.edu cj.sandley@splcenter.org grace.graham@splcenter.org jonathan.blocker@splcenter.org Gregory M. Zarzaur Andrew P. Walsh Anil A. Mujumdar William G. Somerville III Diandra S. Debrosse Patricia Clotfelter Denise Wiginton Lisa W. Borden ZARZAUR MUJUMDAR & DEBROSSE BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN 2332 2nd Avenue North CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC Birmingham, AL 35203 420 20th Street North Telephone: (205) 983-7985 Suite 1400 Facsimile: (888) 505-0523 Birmingham, Alabama 35203 gregory@zarzaur.com Telephone: (205) 244-3863 anil@zarzaur.com Facsimile: (205) 488-3863 fuli@zarzaur.com awalsh@bakerdonelson.com 34 2 denise@zarzaur.com wsomerville@bakerdonelson.com pclotfelter@bakerdonelson.com lborden@bakerdonelson.com John G. Smith Deana Johnson David R. Boyd Brett T. Lane BALCH & BINGHAM LLP MHM SERVICES, INC. Post Office Box 78 1447 Peachtree Street NE Montgomery, AL 36101-0078 Suite 500 Telephone: (334) 834-6500 Atlanta, GA 30309 Facsimile: (866) 316-9461 Telephone: (404) 347-4134 jgsmith@balch.com Facsimile: (404) 347-4138 dboyd@balch.com djohnson@mhm-services.com btlane@mhm-services.com Steven C. Corhern Lonnie J. Williams BALCH & BINGHAM LLP ALABAMA DISABILITIES ADVOCACY Post Office Box 306 PROGRAM Birmingham, AL 35201-0306 P. O. Box 870395 Telephone: (205) 251-8100 Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 Facsimile: (205) 488-5708 Telephone: (205) 348-4928 scorhern@balch.com Facsimile: (205) 348-3909 lwilliams@adap.ua.edu Anne A. Hill Joseph G. Stewart ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Legal Division 301 South Ripley Street Montgomery, Alabama 36130 Telephone (334) 353-3884 Facsimile (334) 353-3891 anne.hill@doc.alabama.gov joseph.stewart@doc.alabama.gov 35 2 /s/ William R. Lunsford Of Counsel 36

MOTION for Hearing REGARDING INFORMAL DISCOVERY PRIOR TO REMEDIAL TRIAL ON CLASSIFICATION, IDENTIFICATION, AND RESIDENTIAL UNITS OUT-OF-CELL TIME AND TREATMENT by All Plaintiffs.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARD BRAGGS, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) v.) CIVIL ACTION NO.) 2:14-CV-00601-MHT-GMB JEFFERSON DUNN, in his official) (J. Borden) capacity as Commissioner) of the Alabama Department of) Corrections, et al.,)) Defendants.)) PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR STATUS CONFERENCE REGARDING INFORMAL DISCOVERY PRIOR TO REMEDIAL TRIAL ON CLASSIFICATION, IDENTIFICATION, AND RESIDENTIAL UNITS OUT-OF-CELL TIME AND TREATMENT Pursuant to the Court's revised scheduling order, the Parties will be proceeding to a remedial trial on March 12, 2018, regarding classification, identification, and residential unit out-of-cell time and treatment. Doc. 1631. The pretrial hearing is set for February 26, 2018. Id. For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiffs seek a status conference to discuss Defendants' response to informal discovery, so that responses can be received sufficiently in advance of the remedial trial. 1. Defendants filed their remedial proposal on identification, classification, and residential unit out-of-cell time and treatment on February 2, 2017. Doc. 1594. Plaintiffs' response to Defendants' proposal is due February 16, 2018. 2. On February 5, 2017, Plaintiffs served informal discovery requests pertaining to this remedial phase. Ex. 1 (Plaintiffs' Informal Discovery Requests Classification, Identification, and Residential Unit Out-of-Cell Treatment). 3. On February 13, 2018, Plaintiffs' counsel Maria Morris wrote Defendants' counsel, asking whether Defendants would be providing responses to the discovery requests. Ex. 2 (Email). 4. Defendants have not responded to the email at the time of this filing. Accordingly, Plaintiffs do not know whether Defendants object to the discovery or whether any substantive responses are intended, and if so, when those responses will be served. 5. The information sought is necessary to prepare for the remedial trial. Moreover, the requested discovery—which documents Defendants' practices procedures, and proposals related to the relevant subject areas—is solely in the possession of Defendants. 6. Without a reasonable timeline for production, Plaintiffs will be unable to appropriately prepare for the remedial trial and will be prejudiced. 2 Because of the urgency of issue, Plaintiffs request a status conference with Judge Borden to resolve the remaining discovery disputes. Because the parties are currently in trial for the segregation remedial portion, Plaintiffs request that such status conference take place as soon as possible the week of February 19, 2018. Dated: February 15, 2018 Respectfully Submitted, /s/ Maria V. Morris Maria V. Morris One of the Attorneys for Plaintiffs Southern Poverty Law Center 400 Washington Avenue Rhonda Brownstein (ASB-3193-O64R) Maria V. Morris (ASB-2198-R64M) Grace Graham (ASB-3040-A64G) Latasha L. McCrary (ASB-1935-L75M) Jonathan Blocker (ASB-6818-G19I) Caitlin J. Sandley (ASB-5317-S48R) SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 400 Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36104 Telephone: (334) 956-8200 Facsimile: (334) 956-8481 rhonda.brownstein@splcenter.org maria.morris@splcenter.org grace.graham@splcenter.org latasha.mccrary@splcenter.org jonathan.blocker@splcenter.org cj.sandley@splcenter.org William Van Der Pol, Jr. (ASB-2112-114F) Glenn N. Baxter (ASB-3825-A41G) Lonnie J. Williams 3 Barbara A. Lawrence Andrea J. Mixson Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program Box 870395 Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 Telephone: (205) 348-4928 Facsimile: (205) 348-3909 wvanderpoljr@adap.ua.edu gnbaxter@adap.ua.edu lwilliams@adap.ua.edu blawrence@adap.ua.edu amixson@adap.ua.edu Lisa W. Borden (ASB-5673-D57L) William G. Somerville, III (ASB-6185-E63W) Andrew P. Walsh (ASB-3755-W77W) Dennis Nabors Patricia Clotfelter (ASB-0841-F43P) Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz PC 420 20th Street North, Suite 1400 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 328-0480 Facsimile: (205) 322-8007 lborden@bakerdonelson.com wsomerville@bakerdonelson.com awalsh@bakerdonelson.com dnabors@bakerdonelson.com pclotfelter@bakerdonelson.com Gregory M. Zarzaur (ASB-0759-E45Z) Anil A. Mujumdar (ASB-2004-L65M) Diandra S. Debrosse (ASB-2956-N76D) Denise Wiginton Zarzaur Mujumdar & Debrosse 2332 2nd Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 983-7985 Facsimile: (888) 505-0523 gregory@zarzaur.com 4 anil@zarzaur.com diandra@zarzaur.com denise@zarzaur.com ATTORNEYS FOR THE PLAINTIFFS 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have on this 15th day of February, 2018, electronically filed the foregoing with the clerk of the court by using the CM/ECF system, which will send a notice of electronic filing to the following: David R. Boyd, Esq. Steven C. Corhern, Esq. John G. Smith, Esq. Balch & Bingham LLP John W. Naramore, Esq. Post Office Box 306 Balch & Bingham LLP Birmingham, AL 35201-0306 Post Office Box 78 scorhern@balch.com Montgomery, AL 36101-0078 dboyd@balch.com Mitesh Shah, Esq. jgsmith@balch.com Luther M. Dorr, Esq. jnaramore@balch.com Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C. 1901 6th Avenue North, Suite 2400 William R. Lunsford, Esq. Birmingham, AL 35203 Matthew Reeves, Esq. mshah@maynardcooper.com Melissa K. Marler, Esq. rdorr@maynardcooper.com Stephen C. Rogers, Esq. Alyson L. Smith, Esq. Deana Johnson, Esq. Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C. Brett T. Lane, Esq. 655 Gallatin Street, SW MHM Services, Inc. Huntsville, AL 35801 1447 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 500 blunsford@maynardcooper.com Atlanta, GA 30309 mreeves@maynardcooper.com djohnson@mhm-services.com mmarler@maynardcooper.com btlane@mhm-services.com srogers@maynardcooper.com asmith@maynardcooper.com Anne Hill, Esq. Elizabeth A. Sees, Esq. Joseph G. Stewart, Jr., Esq. Alabama Department of Corrections Legal Division 301 South Ripley Street Montgomery, AL 36104 anne.hill@doc.alabama.gov elizabeth.sees@doc.alabama.gov joseph.stewart@doc.alabama.gov /s/ Maria V. Morris One of the Attorneys for Plaintiffs 6

Exhibit

EXHIBIT 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARDS BRAGGS, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) v.) CIVIL ACTION NO.) 2:14-CV-00601-MHT-GMB JEFFERSON DUNN, in his official) (Judge Thompson) capacity as Commissioner) of the Alabama Department of) Corrections, et al.,)) Defendants.)) PLAINTIFFS' INFORMAL DISCOVERY REQUESTS PERTAINING TO DEFENDANTS' PROPOSED REMEDIAL PLAN ON INTAKE, REFERRALS, CLASSIFICATION AND THE RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT UNITS AND STABILIZATION UNITS Pursuant to the informal discovery process set up by the Court in this matter, and as agreed by the Parties (Doc. 1581), Plaintiffs, by and through the undersigned counsel, hereby request that the Alabama Department of Corrections and Defendants Jefferson Dunn and Ruth Naglich respond to the following interrogatories and requests for production relating to or arising from their Proposed Remedial Plan on Identification, Classification, and Residential Unit Out-of-Cell Time and Treatment (the "Plan") submitted on February 2, 2018 (Doc. 1594). INSTRUCTIONS 1. By February 7, 2018, Defendants shall inform Plaintiffs as to whether there are interrogatories or document requests to which they do not intend to provide responsive information; 2. By February 9, 2018, Defendants shall inform Plaintiffs as to whether there are interrogatories or document requests that they do not believe they are capable of providing the requested information prior to trial on February 26, 2018; 3. By February 16, 2018, Defendants shall produce responses and the responsive documents to the offices of Plaintiffs' Counsel, Southern Poverty Law Center, Montgomery, Alabama, 36104. INTERROGATORIES 1. If the mental health RN performing the intake screening determines that a prisoner has emergent mental-health needs and therefore requires an immediate evaluation: a. Who can conduct that evaluation? b. What, if any, time limits are there for the evaluation? 2. If the mental health RN performing the intake screening determines that a prisoner needs an urgent evaluation, are there requirements for the encounter between the prisoner and a CRNP or psychologist that must occur within twenty- four (24) hours? If so, what are they? 3. Are there any monitoring requirements, such as constant watch or close watch, for prisoners who the mental health RN performing the intake screening determines to have emergent or urgent mental health needs, prior to their evaluation by a psychiatrist? 4. Are there any changes to the intake process in Defendants' Plan other than those laid out in the RFP? 5. The Plan indicates that intake mental health screening has generally been conducted by an LPN, but that it will be conducted by an RN. The RFP indicates an increase in mental health RN staff of .4 FTE at Kilby Outpatient, where nearly all male intake occurs. Is there any plan for additional mental-health RN staff at Kilby to cover the task of mental health intake screening beyond this .4 FTE RN? 6. Which iteration of the Mental Health Coding System is the current mental-health vendor currently using? 7. Which iteration of the Mental Health Coding System will the mental- health vendor be required to use at the commencement of work under the contract that will be implemented in 2018? 8. Are ADOC's psychologists and psychological associates required to be professionally licensed? 9. How many ADOC Psychologists are employed at Kilby? 10. How many ADOC Psychological Associates are employed at Kilby? 11. How many ADOC Psychologists are employed at Tutwiler? 12. How many ADOC Psychological Associates are employed at Tutwiler? 13. How many beds in the Bullock Intensive Stabilization Unit are allocated for suicide watch? 14. Does ADOC intend to begin using the Bullock Intensive Stabilization Unit solely as a stabilization unit? 15. How does ADOC plan to address the number of "Not Coded" persons in the ADOC? 16. How does ADOC plan to address the errors in the OHS Module that result in the OHS Module not accurately reflecting all mental health codes? 17. How many inmates under a sentence of death have been coded MH-3 or greater in the last 5 years. 18. How does ADOC intend to provide RTU and SU level of care for inmates under a sentence of death and in need of such care level? 19. Are the intake procedures the same for prisoners under a sentence of death as for those not under a sentence of death? REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION 1. Please provide the executed healthcare contract that is to come into effect in 2018. 2. Please provide the Duty Post Logs for every RTU and SU for the period January 18-31, 2018. 3. Please provide the "example of a daily activity and programing schedule for a five (5) day period for each [RTU Level]" that was provided by Wexford in the contracting process, as discussed on pages 26-27 of Defendants' Plan. 4. Please provide all portions of the Wexford response to the RFP that relate to mental health intake or referrals, RTUs, or SUs. 5. Please provide all "Shave, Haircut and Shower Logs" from the Bullock Stabilization Unit for the period January 18-31, 2018. To the extent they are included within the Duty Post Logs, they need not be produced separately.

Exhibit

EXHIBIT 2 2/15/2018 RE: Informal Discovery Requests Case 2:14-cv-00601-MHT-GMB Document regarding Defendants' 1638-2 P... - Tonya Filed White-Evans 02/15/18 Page 2 of 3 RE: Informal Discovery Requests regarding Defendants' Proposed Remedial Plan on Intake, Classification and Out-of-Cell Time and Treatment in the RTUs Maria Morris Tue 2/13/2018 2:51 PM To: 'Bill Lunsford' <blunsford@maynardcooper.com>; Mitesh Shah <MShah@maynardcooper.com>; 'Hill, Anne (DOC)' <Anne.Hill@doc.alabama.gov>; 'joseph.stewart@doc.alabama.gov' <joseph.stewart@doc.alabama.gov>; 'Smith, John G.' <jgsmith@balch.com>; 'Corhern, Steven' <scorhern@balch.com>; Cc:Alprison-all <alprison-all@splcenter.org>; Can you please let us know whether you will be providing the requested informa on and documenta on? Confiden ality No ce - The informa on contained in this e-mail and any a achments to it may be legally privileged and include confiden al informa on. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, distribu on or copying of this e-mail or its a achments is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please no fy the sender immediately of that fact by return e- mail and permanently delete the e-mail and any a achments to it. Thank you. From: Maria Morris Sent: Monday, February 5, 2018 1:24 PM To: 'Bill Lunsford'; Mitesh Shah; 'Hill, Anne (DOC)'; joseph.stewart@doc.alabama.gov; 'Smith, John G.'; Corhern, Steven Cc: Alprison-all Subject: Informal Discovery Requests regarding Defendants' Proposed Remedial Plan on Intake, Classification and Out-of- Cell Time and Treatment in the RTUs Counsel, Please find a ached Plain ffs' informal discovery requests. Please note that we have iden fied a schedule for responding consistent with the structure agreed upon last week. Thank you, Maria Maria V. Morris Senior Supervisory Staff A orney Southern Poverty Law Center 400 Washington Avenue Montgomery, Alabama 36104 (334) 956-8322 maria.morris@splcenter.org Admi ed in AL, CA and NY https://outlook.office.com/owa/?viewmodel=ReadMessageItem&ItemID=AAMkAGE0NWRkN2IyLWNhMzktNDIyOS1hNjM1LTg4ODVhMjY1ZjZhYQBG… 1/2 2/15/2018 RE: Informal Discovery Requests Case 2:14-cv-00601-MHT-GMB Document regarding Defendants' 1638-2 P... - Tonya Filed White-Evans 02/15/18 Page 3 of 3 Confiden ality No ce - The informa on contained in this e-mail and any a achments to it may be legally privileged and include confiden al informa on. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, distribu on or copying of this e-mail or its a achments is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please no fy the sender immediately of that fact by return e- mail and permanently delete the e-mail and any a achments to it. Thank you. https://outlook.office.com/owa/?viewmodel=ReadMessageItem&ItemID=AAMkAGE0NWRkN2IyLWNhMzktNDIyOS1hNjM1LTg4ODVhMjY1ZjZhYQBG… 2/2

NOTICE by All Plaintiffs : Witness Summaries

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARDS BRAGGS, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) v.) CIVIL ACTION NO.) 2:14-CV-00601-MHT-GMB JEFFERSON DUNN, in his official) (Judge Thompson) capacity as Commissioner) of the Alabama Department of) Corrections, et al.,)) Defendants.)) PLAINTIFFS' WITNESS SUMMARIES, FEB. 16, 2018 Plaintiffs, pursuant to this Court's Orders, present their witness summaries for February 16, 2018. Dr. Kathryn Burns, Plaintiffs' Correctional Psychiatry Expert Dr. Kathryn Burns is Plaintiffs' Correctional Psychiatry Expert and the Chief Psychiatrist of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. She is expected to testify about: ADOC's proposed definition of serious mental illness (SMI); what constitutes an extenuating or exigent circumstance; the impact of segregation on prisoners with SMI and those with serious mental-health needs; the adequacy of ADOC's actions taken to date with regard to segregation; and 1 appropriate policies relating to the placement or housing of persons with mental illness in segregation. Dated: Feb. 16, 2018 Respectfully Submitted, /s/ Maria V. Morris Maria V. Morris One of the Attorneys for Plaintiffs Southern Poverty Law Center 400 Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36104 Rhonda Brownstein (ASB-3193-O64R) Maria V. Morris (ASB-2198-R64M) Grace Graham (ASB-3040-A64G) Latasha L. McCrary (ASB-1935-L75M) Jonathan Blocker (ASB-6818-G19I) Caitlin J. Sandley (ASB-5317-S48R) SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 400 Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36104 Telephone: (334) 956-8200 Facsimile: (334) 956-8481 rhonda.brownstein@splcenter.org maria.morris@splcenter.org grace.graham@splcenter.org latasha.mccrary@splcenter.org jonathan.blocker@splcenter.org cj.sandley@splcenter.org William Van Der Pol, Jr. (ASB-2112-114F) Glenn N. Baxter (ASB-3825-A41G) Lonnie J. Williams Barbara A. Lawrence Andrea J. Mixson Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program Box 870395 2 Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 Telephone: (205) 348-4928 Facsimile: (205) 348-3909 wvanderpoljr@adap.ua.edu gnbaxter@adap.ua.edu lwilliams@adap.ua.edu blawrence@adap.ua.edu amixson@adap.ua.edu Lisa W. Borden (ASB-5673-D57L) William G. Somerville, III (ASB-6185-E63W) Andrew P. Walsh (ASB-3755-W77W) Dennis Nabors Patricia Clotfelter (ASB-0841-F43P) Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz PC 420 20th Street North, Suite 1400 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 328-0480 Facsimile: (205) 322-8007 lborden@bakerdonelson.com wsomerville@bakerdonelson.com awalsh@bakerdonelson.com dnabors@bakerdonelson.com pclotfelter@bakerdonelson.com Gregory M. Zarzaur (ASB-0759-E45Z) Anil A. Mujumdar (ASB-2004-L65M) Diandra S. Debrosse (ASB-2956-N76D) Denise Wiginton Zarzaur Mujumdar & Debrosse 2332 2nd Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 983-7985 Facsimile: (888) 505-0523 gregory@zarzaur.com anil@zarzaur.com diandra@zarzaur.com denise@zarzaur.com ATTORNEYS FOR THE PLAINTIFFS 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have on this 16th day of February, 2018, electronically filed the foregoing with the clerk of the court by using the CM/ECF system, which will send a notice of electronic filing to the following: David R. Boyd, Esq. Steven C. Corhern, Esq. John G. Smith, Esq. Balch & Bingham LLP John W. Naramore, Esq. Post Office Box 306 Balch & Bingham LLP Birmingham, AL 35201-0306 Post Office Box 78 scorhern@balch.com Montgomery, AL 36101-0078 dboyd@balch.com Mitesh Shah, Esq. jgsmith@balch.com Luther M. Dorr, Esq. jnaramore@balch.com Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C. 1901 6th Avenue North, Suite 2400 William R. Lunsford, Esq. Birmingham, AL 35203 Melissa K. Marler, Esq. mshah@maynardcooper.com Stephen C. Rogers, Esq. rdorr@maynardcooper.com Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C. 655 Gallatin Street, SW Deana Johnson, Esq. Huntsville, AL 35801 Brett T. Lane, Esq. blunsford@maynardcooper.com MHM Services, Inc. mmarler@maynardcooper.com 1447 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 500 srogers@maynardcooper.com Atlanta, GA 30309 djohnson@mhm-services.com btlane@mhm-services.com Anne Hill, Esq. Elizabeth A. Sees, Esq. Joseph G. Stewart, Jr., Esq. Alabama Department of Corrections Legal Division 301 South Ripley Street Montgomery, AL 36104 anne.hill@doc.alabama.gov elizabeth.sees@doc.alabama.gov joseph.stewart@doc.alabama.gov /s/ Maria V. Morris________________ One of the Attorneys for Plaintiffs One of the Attorneys for Plaintiffs 4

NOTICE OF FILING by Jefferson S. Dunn, Ruth Naglich re {{1623}} Order

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDWEIC;El OF ALABAMA NORTHERN b ION 1018 FEB 15 A 10: 08 EDWARD BRAGGS,et al., DEBRA P. HA ETT,CLK ritSTRII! COURT Plaintiffs,) Case No. 2:14-cv-00601-MHT-GMB v.)) District Judge Myron H. Thompson JEFFERSON DUNN,et al.,)) FILED UNDER SEAL Defendants.) NOTICE OF FILING Pursuant to the February 12, 2018 Order (Doc. No. 1623), Defendants JEFFERSON DUNN,as Commissioner of the Alabama Department of Corrections ("ADOC"), and RUTH NAGLICH, as Associate Commissioner of ADOC, hereby submit to the Court a spreadsheet attached as Exhibit A containing information related to one-hundred thirty one(131)inmates. Dated: February 15, 2018. /s/ William R. Lunsford William R. Lunsford Attorneyfor the Commissioner and Associate Commissioner William R. Lunsford Matthew B. Reeves Melissa K. Marler Stephen C. Rogers MAYNARD,COOPER & GALE,PC 655 Gallatin Street Huntsville, AL 35801 Telephone:(256)512-5710 Facsimile:(256)512-0119 blunsford@maynardcooper.com mreeves@maynardcooper.com mmarler@maynardcooper.com srogers@maynardcooper.com Luther M. Dorr, Jr. Mitesh B. Shah MAYNARD,COOPER & GALE,PC 1901 Sixth Avenue North 2400 Regions Harbert Plaza Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone:(205)254-1178 Facsimile:(205)714-6438 rdorr@rnaynardcooper.com rnshah@maynardcooper.com 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy ofthe foregoing has been served upon all attorneys ofrecord in this matter, including without limitation the following, by hand-delivery and electronic mail on this the 15th day of February, 2018: Maria V. Morris William Van Der Pol, Jr. Rhonda C. Brownstein Glenn N. Baxter Latasha L. McCrary Barbara A. Lawrence J. Richard Cohen Andrea J. Mixson Caitlin J. Sandley ALABAMA DISABILITIES ADVOCACY Grace Graham PROGRAM Jonathan Blocker University of Alabama SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 500 Martha Parham West 400 Washington Avenue Box 870395 Montgomery, Alabama 36104 Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487-0395 Telephone:(334)956-8200 Telephone:(205)348-6894 Facsimile:(334)956-8481 Facsimile:(205)348-3909 maria.morris@splcenter.org wvanderpoljr@adap.ua.edu rhonda.brownstein@splcenter.org gnbaxter@bama.ua.edu latasha.mccrary@splcenter.org blawrence@adap.ua.edu richard.cohen@splcenter.org amixson@adap.ua.edu cj.sandley@splcenter.org grace.graham@splcenter.org jonathan.blocker@splcenter.org Gregory M.Zarzaur Andrew P. Walsh Anil A. Mujumdar William G. Somerville III Diandra S. Debrosse Patricia Clotfelter Denise Wiginton Lisa W. Borden ZARZAUR MUJUMDAR & DEBROSSE BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN 2332 2nd Avenue North CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ,PC Birmingham, AL 35203 420 20th Street North Telephone:(205)983-7985 Suite 1400 Facsimile:(888)505-0523 Birmingham, Alabama 35203 gregory@zarzaur.com Telephone: (205)244-3863 anil@zarzaur.com Facsimile: (205)488-3863 fuli@zarzaur.com awalsh@bakerdonelson.com 3 denise@zarzaur.corn wsornerville@bakerdonelson.corn pclotfelter@bakerdonelson.com lborden@bakerdonelson.com John G. Smith Deana Johnson David R. Boyd Brett T. Lane BALCH & BINGHAM LLP MHM SERVICES,INC. Post Office Box 78 1447 Peachtree Street NE Montgomery, AL 36101-0078 Suite 500 Telephone:(334)834-6500 Atlanta, GA 30309 Facsimile:(866)316-9461 Telephone:(404)347-4134 jgsmith@balch.com Facsimile:(404)347-4138 dboyd@balch.com djohnson@mhm-services.com btlane@mhm-services.com Steven C. Corhern Lonnie J. Williams BALCH & BINGHAM LLP ALABAMA DISABILTTIES ADVOCACY Post Office Box 306 PROGRAM Birmingham, AL 35201-0306 P. O. Box 870395 Telephone:(205)251-8100 Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 Facsimile:(205)488-5708 Telephone:(205)348-4928 scorhern@balch.com Facsimile:(205)348-3909 lwilliams@adap.ua.edu Anne A. Hill Joseph G. Stewart ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CoRRECTIONS Legal Division 301 South Ripley Street. Montgomery, Alabama 36130 Telephone(334)353-3884 Facsimile(334)353-3891 anne.hill@doc.alabama.gov joseph.stewart@doc.alabama.gov /s/ William R. Luns or Of Counsel 4

ORDER RE: SEGREGATION AND &quot;131 INMATES&quot;: Based on the representations made in open court on February 16, 2018, it is ORDERED as follows: By February 20, 2018, at noon, the defendants are to file with the court a list of those members of the 131 inmates with serious mental illness previously identified, see Order (doc. no. {{1623}}), who are currently placed in segregation, as further set out in order. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 2/16/2018.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARD BRAGGS, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) CIVIL ACTION NO. v.) 2:14cv601-MHT) JEFFERSON S. DUNN, in his) official capacity as) Commissioner of) the Alabama Department of) Corrections, et al.,)) Defendants.) ORDER RE: SEGREGATION AMD "131 INMATES" Based on the representations made in open court on February 16, 2018, it is ORDERED as follows: By February 20, 2018, at noon, the defendants are to file with the court a list of those members of the 131 inmates with serious mental illness previously identified, see Order (doc. no. 1623), who are currently placed in segregation. The list shall include the length of time each inmate has remained in segregation (including the dates of each stint) during the previous year, and the dates of any crisis or medical/mental-health placements during that period. For those inmates who have been in segregation for 20 days or longer, the defendants are to (a) confirm that the inmate has been removed from segregation, give the date of removal, and explain where that inmate has moved to, or (b) explain why that inmate has not been removed from segregation. DONE, this the 16th day of February, 2018. /s/ Myron H. Thompson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER RE: SEGREGATION LIST: Based on the representations made in open court on February 16, 2018, it is ORDERED as follows: Until further notice, defendants are to produce to plaintiffs, by each Monday at noon, a list of inmates in Alabama Department of Corrections custody who are currently housed in segregation, which shall include the mental-health code of each inmate. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 2/16/2018.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARD BRAGGS, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) CIVIL ACTION NO. v.) 2:14cv601-MHT) JEFFERSON S. DUNN, in his) official capacity as) Commissioner of) the Alabama Department of) Corrections, et al.,)) Defendants.) ORDER RE: SEGREGATION LIST Based on the representations made in open court on February 16, 2018, it is ORDERED as follows: Until further notice, defendants are to produce to plaintiffs, by each Monday at noon, a list of inmates in Alabama Department of Corrections custody who are currently housed in segregation, which shall include the mental-health code of each inmate. DONE, this the 16th day of February, 2018. /s/ Myron H. Thompson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER RE: SEGREGATION REBUTTAL WITNESS LIST: Based on the representations made in open court on February 16, 2018, it is ORDERED as follows: By February 21, 2018, at 5:00 p.m., the defendants are to file a list of witnesses they intend to call to provide rebuttal evidence to the evidence presented by plaintiffs at the Phase 2A Eighth Amendment evidentiary hearing on segregation remedy. The list shall include a summary of each witness's testimony. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 2/16/2018.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARD BRAGGS, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) CIVIL ACTION NO. v.) 2:14cv601-MHT) JEFFERSON S. DUNN, in his) official capacity as) Commissioner of) the Alabama Department of) Corrections, et al.,)) Defendants.) ORDER RE: SEGREGATION REBUTTAL WITNESS LIST Based on the representations made in open court on February 16, 2018, it is ORDERED as follows: By February 21, 2018, at 5:00 p.m., the defendants are to file a list of witnesses they intend to call to provide rebuttal evidence to the evidence presented by plaintiffs at the Phase 2A Eighth Amendment evidentiary hearing on segregation remedy. The list shall include a summary of each witness's testimony. DONE, this the 16th day of February, 2018. /s/ Myron H. Thompson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER RE: HOSPITAL-LEVEL CARE AND &quot;13 OR SO INMATES&quot;: Based on the representations made in open court on February 16, 2018, it is ORDERED that the defendants are, by February 23, 2018 at 5:00 p.m., to file with the court a list of the '13 or so' inmates alleged by the plaintiffs as in need of hospital-level mental-health care or in need of assessment for whether they need hospital-level mental-health care. If the defendants are unable to identify those inmates based on the representations of plaintiffs' counsel, defense counsel are, by February 18, 2018, at noon, to notify. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 2/16/2018.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARD BRAGGS, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) CIVIL ACTION NO. v.) 2:14cv601-MHT) JEFFERSON S. DUNN, in his) official capacity as) Commissioner of) the Alabama Department of) Corrections, et al.,)) Defendants.) ORDER RE: HOSPITAL-LEVEL CARE AND "13 OR SO INMATES" Based on the representations made in open court on February 16, 2018, it is ORDERED that the defendants are, by February 23, 2018 at 5:00 p.m., to file with the court a list of the '13 or so' inmates alleged by the plaintiffs as in need of hospital-level mental-health care or in need of assessment for whether they need hospital-level mental-health care. If the defendants are unable to identify those inmates based on the representations of plaintiffs' counsel, defense counsel are, by February 18, 2018, at noon, to notify plaintiffs' counsel in writing, and plaintiffs' counsel are to identify those inmates in writing by February 19, 2018, at noon. As to each inmate, the list shall identify: (1) whether the inmate has been transferred to receive such care, including the date and location of any such transfer, or (2) an explanation as to why the inmate has not yet been transferred for the indicated care. DONE, this the 16th day of February, 2018. /s/ Myron H. Thompson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER RE: HOSPITAL-LEVEL CARE SCHEDULE: Based on the representations made in open court on February 16, 2018, it is ORDERED that, by February 19, 2018, at noon, the parties are jointly to file a proposed schedule for the hearing on the hospital-level care issue. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 2/16/2018.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARD BRAGGS, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) CIVIL ACTION NO. v.) 2:14cv601-MHT) JEFFERSON S. DUNN, in his) official capacity as) Commissioner of) the Alabama Department of) Corrections, et al.,)) Defendants.) ORDER RE: HOSPITAL-LEVEL CARE SCHEDULE Based on the representations made in open court on February 16, 2018, it is ORDERED that, by February 19, 2018, at noon, the parties are jointly to file a proposed schedule for the hearing on the hospital-level care issue. DONE, this the 16th day of February, 2018. /s/ Myron H. Thompson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

AMENDED ORDER RE: HOSPITAL-LEVEL CARE SCHEDULE (REPLACING DOC. NO. {{1647}}): Based on the representations made in open court on February 16, 2018, it is ORDERED that, by February 21, 2018, at 5:00 p.m., the parties are jointly to file a proposed schedule for the hearing on the hospital-level care issue. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 2/16/2018.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARD BRAGGS, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) CIVIL ACTION NO. v.) 2:14cv601-MHT) JEFFERSON S. DUNN, in his) official capacity as) Commissioner of) the Alabama Department of) Corrections, et al.,)) Defendants.) AMENDED ORDER RE: HOSPITAL-LEVEL CARE SCHEDULE (REPLACING DOC. NO. 1647) Based on the representations made in open court on February 16, 2018, it is ORDERED that, by February 21, 2018, at 5:00 p.m., the parties are jointly to file a proposed schedule for the hearing on the hospital-level care issue. DONE, this the 16th day of February, 2018. /s/ Myron H. Thompson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Response to Order re {{1604}} Order Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Proposal Regarding Identification, Classification, and Residential Unit Out-of-Cell Time and Treatment by All Plaintiffs. Modified on 2/16/2018 to clarify the text.

8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARD BRAGGS, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) v.) CIVIL ACTION NO.) 2:14-CV-00601-MHT-GMB JEFFERSON DUNN, in his official) (J. Thompson) capacity as Commissioner) of the Alabama Department of) Corrections, et al.,)) Defendants.)) PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' PROPOSAL REGARDING IDENTIFICATION, CLASSIFICATION, AND RESIDENTIAL UNIT OUT-OF-CELL TIME AND TREATMENT 1 8 TABLE OF CONTENTS BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................................ 4 RESPONSE AND PROPOSAL.................................................................................................................... 11 I. ADOC'S INADEQUATE INTAKE PROCESS............................................................................... 11 A. Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Proposal ................................................................................. 11 B. Plaintiffs' Proposal.......................................................................................................................... 14 1. Defendants Must Hire Adequate Staff to Implement Their Intake Remedial Plan ..................... 14 2. An Intake Remedial Order Must Address Each of the Inadequacies Identified in ADOC's Intake Process ................................................................................................................................................ 17 II. ADOC'S INADEQUATE REFERRAL PROCESS ......................................................................... 22 A. Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Proposal ................................................................................. 22 B. Plaintiffs' Proposal.......................................................................................................................... 24 1. A Referral Remedy Must Include Requirements about How, When, by Whom and to Whom Mental-Health Referrals Should Be Made .......................................................................................... 24 2. A Referral Remedy Must Address ADOC's Broken Referral Triage System ............................ 25 3. A Referral Remedy Must Create the Cultural Shift Necessary to Ensure that Mental-Health Referrals Are Actually Made and Timely Addressed ......................................................................... 28 III. ADOC's INADEQUATE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM ............................................................... 30 A. Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Proposal ................................................................................. 30 1. Defendants' Proposed Classification System Does Not Serve the Necessary Purpose of a Coding System .................................................................................................................................. 312 2. Defendants' Proposed Classification System Violates the ADA ................................................ 33 a. The proposed amended mental-health coding system violates the ADA by systematically excluding prisoners coded as MH-1a from Work Release Programming…………………..………33 b. The proposed amended mental-health coding system violates the ADA by systematically excluding stable prisoners classified as MH-2 due to a specific DSM diagnosis from work release programs, community work centers, and facilities without 24/7 nursing……………..…………….38 3. Defendants' Proposed Mental Health Coding System Violates the Settlement Agreement on Involuntary Medication ....................................................................................................................... 43 4. Defendants Have Not Yet Appropriately Coded Every Prisoner with a Serious Mental Illness and Include No Deadlines for Doing So in Their Proposed Remedial Plan ....................................... 44 B. Plaintiffs' Proposal.......................................................................................................................... 45 IV. ADOC's INADEQUATE CAPACITY FOR RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT ................................ 46 A. Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Proposal ................................................................................... 46 B. Plaintiffs' Proposal.......................................................................................................................... 50 V. ADOC'S INADEQUATE PHYSICAL PLANT .............................................................................. 52 2 8 A. Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Proposal ................................................................................. 52 B. Plaintiffs' Proposal.......................................................................................................................... 53 VI. ADOC'S IMPROPER USE OF RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT UNITS ....................................... 55 A. Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Proposal ................................................................................. 55 B. Plaintiffs' Proposal.......................................................................................................................... 56 VII. ADOC'S INADEQUATE TREATMENT FOR PRISONERS IN RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT …………..……………………………………………………………………………………………….578 A. Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Proposal ............................................................................... 578 B. Plaintiffs' Proposal.......................................................................................................................... 60 VIII. MONITORING ................................................................................................................................. 62 A. Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Proposal ................................................................................. 62 B. Plaintiffs' Proposal.......................................................................................................................... 62 IX. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................. 65 3 8 In its December 20, 2017 Order (Doc.1524), the Court issued a revised remedial schedule for Phase 2A addressing the provision of mental-health care to prisoners. Pursuant to that Order, on February 2, 2018, Defendants submitted their proposal regarding (1) identifying prisoners with serious mental-health needs and classifying their needs properly, as well as (2) providing sufficient out-of-cell time and treatment to prisoners who need residential treatment. Pursuant to the Court's revised remedial schedule for Phase 2A (Doc.1604), Plaintiffs' response herein addresses the inadequate relief proffered by Defendants and proposes additional measures to ensure that Defendants satisfy the Constitutional deficiencies identified by the Court in Braggs v. Dunn, 257 F. Supp. 3d 1171 (M.D. Ala. 2017) (Liability Opinion). BACKGROUND Improper identification and classification In its Liability Opinion, the Court identified numerous Constitutional deficiencies regarding the Alabama Department of Corrections' (ADOC) identification and classification of prisoners with mental illness as well as its provision of residential treatment. With respect to identification and classification, the Court held that "ADOC's system for identifying prisoners with mental illness 4 8 is significantly inadequate." Braggs, 257 F. Supp. 3d at 1201. Further, that failure resulted in a mental-health caseload that is much smaller than the national average, with "many ADOC prisoners who need mental-health care go[ing] untreated." Id. at 1184-85, 1201-02. At the time of the liability trial, the caseload was around 14% of the total prison population, and at the time of the understaffing remedial trial, it was around 19%. Id.; Dr. Kathryn Burns, Dec. 12, 2016 Trial Tr., at 58:12-59:3; Ruth Naglich, Nov. 29, 2017 R.D. Trial Tr., at 16:5-9. According to experts, the male caseload should be between 20% and 30%, but as of December 2017, it was only at around 16.84%.1 Braggs, 257 F. Supp. 3d at 1201-02; Dr. Kathryn Burns, Dec. 12, 2016 Trial Tr., at 58:12-59:3; Pls. Ex. 1393 (Dec. 2017 MHM Monthly Operating Report) at ADOC0418876-79. Nationally, mental illness prevalence among female prisoners ranges between 75% and 80%. Braggs, 257 F. Supp. 3d at 1248. At the time of the liability trial, the caseload at women's facilities was only around 54% of its population. Id. In December 2017, the caseload at women's facilities was 1 These numbers are derived from data provided on the December 2017 MHM monthly report. Pls. Ex. 1393. (MHM is MHM Services, Inc., the current provider of mental healthcare to prisoners in ADOC system.) Because many of the sum totals on the original report do not reflect accurately the individual data points, e.g., the total number of prisoners on the caseload at Bibb Correctional Facility does not reflect the individual numbers for MH1s through MH6s, Plaintiffs have adjusted the numbers accordingly. 5 8 still at around 53.59%. Pls. Ex. 1393 (Dec. 2017 MHM Monthly Operating Report) at ADOC0418876-79. After the liability trial, the Court also found that ADOC is "under- identifying those who need residential treatment—a problem that starts with the inadequate intake screening process." Braggs, 257 F. Supp. 3d at 1205, 1248. This problem persists. Around 15% of the caseload should be in residential treatment or intensive stabilization units. Id.; see also Dr. Raymond Patterson, Jan. 31, 2017 Trial Tr., at 269:11-271:10. In September 2016, only around 9% of the caseload was housed in a treatment unit. Jt. Tr. Ex. 344 at ADOC0397438, ADOC0397440-41; see also Braggs, 257 F. Supp. 3d. at 1205 (discussing unfilled RTU beds). A year later, in December 2017, this rate had reportedly inched up: 372 people, or 10% of the mental-health caseload, were housed in ADOC's Residential Treatment and Intensive Stabilization Units. Pls. Ex. 1393 (Dec. 2017 MHM Monthly Operating Report) at ADOC0418876-79. However, several witnesses testified during the Segregation Remedial Trial that portions of the Donaldson RTU, specifically R and U Units, are currently being utilized as a purported alternative to segregation for prisoners with serious mental illness. See, e.g., Ruth Naglich, Feb. 7, 2018 R.D. Trial Tr., at 70:11-71:11; Grantt Culliver, Feb. 9, 2018 R.D. Trial Tr., at 11:12-21, 97:18-98:13; Cynthia Stewart, Feb. 9, 2018 R.D. Trial Tr., at 179:5-180:4. In December 2017, 37 of the 6 8 126 people housed in the Donaldson RTU were coded as MH-2 or MH-2d, rather than as an MH-3, the code typically assigned to individuals in need of residential treatment. By contrast, in September 2016, prior to the initiation of efforts to move prisoners with serious mental illness out of segregation and the repurposing of portions of the Donaldson RTU, only seven people coded as MH-2 were housed in the Donaldson RTU. Jt. Ex. 344 (Sept. 2016 MHM Monthly Operating Report) at ADOC0397440. If, as it appears, ADOC is now counting the number of people coded as MH-2 who are housed in the Donaldson RTU in lieu of segregation in their RTU population, the actual percentage of prisoners on the caseload housed in a treatment unit for residential treatment (rather than in lieu of segregation) has decreased since the liability trial to as low as 8%. Pls. Ex. 1393 (Dec. 2017 MHM Monthly Operating Report) at ADOC0418876-79 (calculation based on a reported caseload of 4,000 people and a total of 325 people coded as MH-3 or higher in the RTUs and SUs). The Court has identified three inadequacies resulting in the failure to identify and properly classify people with mental illness in ADOC custody: (1) an inadequate intake process, (2) neglected referrals for evaluation and treatment, and (3) a mental-health coding system that "fails to classify the severity of mental illnesses accurately." Braggs, 257 F. Supp. 3d at 1184-85, 1201, 1205. The Court should order remedies that address each of these inadequacies. The Court should 7 8 also order thorough monitoring and reporting to ensure that remedies are meaningfully and thoroughly implemented. Residential Treatment With respect to residential treatment, the Court first described the manner in which ADOC manages prisoners in this subset of population. ADOC has three main treatment hubs—Bullock (Men), Donaldson (Men), and Tutwiler (Women). Id. at 1182. These facilities contain a residential treatment unit (RTU) and/or an intensive stabilization unit (SU), which are together referred to as 'mental-health units' or 'inpatient-care units.' Id. These units house and treat prisoners with the most severe mental illnesses in ADOC. 2 According to ADOC regulations, RTUs are for mental-health patients who suffer from "moderate impairment in mental health functioning" that puts them at risk in a general-population setting. Id.; see also Jt. Ex. 137 (Admin. Reg. 633). RTUs are intended to provide a therapeutic environment to patients with mental illness and to help them develop coping skills necessary for placement in general population. Id. RTUs can be closed, meaning that each patient lives in an individual cell with little time spent outside the cell; semi-open, meaning that the patient still stays in an individual cell but is let out of the cell somewhat more 2 Remedies regarding persons who require an even higher level of care, hospital-level care, are being addressed in the remedial trial that started on February 7, 2018. 8 8 often; or open, meaning that the patient lives in cells that are not locked during the day or in an open dormitory with other RTU patients. Braggs, 257 F. Supp. 3d at 1182-83. Stabilization Units are for patients who suffer from acute mental-health problems—such as acute psychosis or other conditions causing an acute risk of self-harm—and have not been stabilized through other interventions. Id. at 1183; see also Jt. Ex. 135 (Admin. Reg. 632). SUs are intended to stabilize the patient as quickly as possible so that the patient can return to a less restrictive environment. Id. All SU patients are housed in individual cells. Id. The following number of beds are available state-wide: FACILITY RTUs SUs Bullock (Men) 252 30 Donaldson (Men) 1443 0 Tutwiler (Women) 30 8 TOTAL 396 (Men)/30 (Women) 30 (Men)/8 (Women) 3 This number reflect units R, S, T, U and V at Donaldson. However, R and U units are reserved presently for segregation for prisoners with an MH-2 code and technically should not be counted as available for residential treatment. See Dr. David Tytell, Feb. 14, 2018 R.D. Trial Tr., at 61:21-62:9 (testifying that units R and U have been converted into housing for MH-2s in segregation). Nevertheless, they are counted herein because they are identified as RTU beds in the MHM monthly report. However, despite their inclusion, Defendants still do not maintain an adequate number of beds in residential treatment as discussed herein. 9 8 Id.at 1183; Pls. Ex. 1393 (MHM Monthly Report at ADOC 0418877. Notwithstanding the numbers currently available, as discussed above, ADOC does not adequately utilize residential treatment unit beds. See supra (noting that roughly 15% of ADOC's caseload should be housed in RTU or SU). In addition, ADOC's repeated use of SUs for some prisoners indicates that this subset of individuals with mental illness should be admitted to the RTU to receive more long-term, intensive treatment. Braggs, 257 F. Supp. 3d at 1205. Further, prisoners in the RTU usually stay for only a short period, despite their pronounced needs for long-term treatment. Id. Also, to the extent prisoners are sent to residential treatment beds, the Court found that they do not receive constitutionally adequate treatment. These individuals are at "higher risk of decompensation … if treatment is insufficient or if their housing environment is not therapeutic." Id. at 1212. The Court referenced inadequate staffing, increased caseloads per mental health staff, delayed or denied counseling, the lack of quality psychotherapy/treatment, improper use of residential treatment beds for segregation, and the inadequate physical plant. Id. at 1209-14. The Court described ADOC's efforts with respect to prisoners needing residential treatment as "grossly inadequate." Id. at 1212. For these reasons, the Court also should order remedial relief to address each of these inadequacies. 10 8 RESPONSE AND PROPOSAL I. ADOC'S INADEQUATE INTAKE PROCESS A. Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Proposal The Court outlined a litany of deficiencies with respect to the intake process, i.e., identifying prisoners with mental illness: "The inadequacies in the mental- health care system start at the door, with intake screening for prisoners who need mental-health care." Braggs, 257 F. Supp. 3d at 1184. One of the primary reasons why ADOC's intake process fails to identify prisoners who need mental-health care is the use of licensed practical nurses (LPNs) to conduct screenings.4 The Court found: Experts from both sides agreed, and the court finds, that the intake screening process conducted by an LPN without any on- site supervision by a higher-level provider contributes to under- identification of prisoners with mental illness. This is because 4 Currently, there are parallel tracks to the mental-health intake process. MHM, through its LPNs, conducts a mental-health screening, and ADOC, through its psychological associates, conducts psychological tests. Braggs, 257 F. Supp. 3d at 1202 n.27; Dr. Kathryn Burns, Dec. 12, 2016 Trial Tr., at 60:6-61:16. However, ADOC's intake process does not interface at all with MHM's, and the Court found no evidence that ADOC psychological associates refer prisoners for further psychiatric examination during the intake process. Braggs, 257 F. Supp. 3d at 1202 n.27; Dr. Kathryn Burns, Dec. 12, 2016 Trial Tr., at 60:6-61:16. For that reason, the Court concluded that "the initial intake process is primarily or entirely done by an LPN." Braggs, 257 F. Supp. 3d at 1202 n.27. 11 8 LPNs, who only have 12 to 15 months of general medical training—very little of which may be related to mental health— are not qualified to assess the presence or acuity of mental illness symptoms based on information obtained during the intake process. Intake forms that LPNs fill out include questions that require clinical assessments, rather than simple yes-or-no questions based on physical observations. According to the experts, LPNs are not qualified to make such clinical assessments. Moreover, although LPNs may make referrals based on self-reported symptoms of mental illness, a proper intake system cannot solely rely on self-reporting to identify mental-health needs. As Dr. Burns testified, the use of unsupervised LPNs for intake mental-health screening presents an "obvious" risk of under-identification. Id. at 1221-24 (citations omitted); id. at 1248 (finding the same for Tutwiler); Dr. Kathryn Burns, Dec. 12, 2016 Trial Tr., at 61:25-62:22 (testifying about the risk of harm created by having LPNs determine who should be seen by a psychiatrist). Mental-health understaffing and facility-wide overcrowding also result in delays in conducting intake screenings. Braggs, 257 F. Supp. 3d at 1203. Male prisoners are often sent from Kilby, the reception facility, to other facilities without first receiving a mental-health screening. Id.; Pls. Ex. 532 (2015 MHM Contract Compliance Report) at MHM041943-44; Pls. Ex. 670 (MHM CQI Meeting Minutes) at MHM031218, 031223. As recently as December 2017, there were 1,407 "Not Coded" individuals in ADOC custody, 843 of whom were not housed at a reception facility, suggesting they had been transferred from a reception facility without receiving a mental-health screening and being assigned a mental- 12 8 health code. Pls. Ex. 1393 (Dec. 2017 MHM Monthly Operating Report) at ADOC0418876, ADOC0418879; see also Dr. Robert Hunter, Feb. 15, 2018 R.D. Trial Tr., at 96:18-99:20 (testifying that one reason there are so many not coded prisoners is because they are sometimes transferred from Kilby without first receiving a mental-health code). Additionally, Plaintiffs' expert Dr. Craig Haney testified that lack of confidentiality is a problem in ADOC's intake settings, which results in prisoners not self-reporting mental illness for fear of being stigmatized or victimized. Dr. Craig Haney, Jan. 20, 2017 Trial Tr., at 83:12-85:1. During the liability trial, "[e]xperts and other clinician witnesses explained that confidentiality between providers and patients is a hallmark of and a necessary condition for mental-health treatment[.]" Braggs, 257 F. Supp. 3d at 1210. Finally, ADOC's intake process has also been inadequate because of a failure to use a suicide risk assessment tool. Id. at 1202 n.28. Around May 2016, Defendants' psychiatric expert Dr. Raymond Patterson recommended that ADOC begin using a suicide risk assessment at intake, for which MHM already had a form. Id. at 1221; Pls. Ex. 134 (Defs.' Experts Audit Tools) at ADOC0341616; Dr. Raymond Patterson, Jan. 31, 2017 Trial Tr., at 230:12-231:8; Ruth Naglich, Dec. 21, 2016 Trial Tr., at 155:2-20. Despite the dramatic rise in suicides, ADOC did not begin using that form at intake until around September 2016, just a few 13 8 months before the liability trial began. Braggs, 257 F. Supp. 3d at 1202, n.28, 1221; Ruth Naglich, Dec. 21, 2016 Trial Tr., at 155:2-20. Plaintiffs do not object to most of Defendants' proposed intake remedial plan. However, to address the specific inadequacies with the intake processes identified in the liability opinion, the Court should order remedial relief that ensures adequate staffing for the intake process Defendants have proposed, implementation regardless of whether and when a new vendor contract is entered into, and includes the critical components of an intake process outlined by the Court, Defendants' expert Dr. Raymond Patterson, and Plaintiffs' experts Dr. Kathryn Burns and Dr. Craig Haney. B. Plaintiffs' Proposal 1. Defendants Must Hire Adequate Staff to Implement Their Intake Remedial Plan In order to address the Court's findings that unqualified LPNs should not conduct intake screenings, Defendants have proposed a remedial plan that would allow only RNs to conduct the initial Receiving Screening. Defendants boldly proclaim, "Under the RFP, the number of full-time equivalent ("FTEs") for mental-health care at Kilby and Tutwiler to perform screenings and evaluations increases significantly." Doc. 1594 at 12. However, under the RFP, RNs at Kilby will only increase by 0.4 FTE—from 1.0 FTE to 1.4 FTE. Pls. Ex. 1302 (July 2017 RFP) at 209; Pls. Ex. 1360 (Nov. 2017 MHM Staffing Report) at 4. These RNs 14 8 will also have other duties since Kilby maintains a "permanent" population in addition to newly arrived prisoners.5 In September 2017, there were 828 male admissions to ADOC custody. Pls. Ex. 1332 (Sept. 2017 ADOC Monthly Statistical Report) at 6. If ADOC contracts for 1.4 FTE RNs at Kilby, those RNs would have to conduct 27.6 Receiving Screenings per day on average, or about 20 Receiving Screenings per day per 1.0 FTE, in addition to supervising LPNs and other nursing tasks. This simply would be impossible. In order for RNs to conduct Receiving Screenings, Defendants must further increase RN staffing at its reception centers. Additionally, in order to address the Court's findings that ADOC's psychological associates' intake process completely fails to interface with the mental health vendor's intake and referral process, Defendants have proposed a process by which ADOC's psychologists and psychological associates will perform Social Risk Assessments6 for nearly all incoming prisoners 7 and make 5 There are nearly 450 prisoners housed on a permanent basis at Kilby. The Court observed the permanent placements during its tour of Kilby following the conclusion of the liability trial. 6 Though similarly named and having the same acronym, Social Risk Assessment and Suicide Risk Assessment are distinct and independently important assessments. Compare Doc. 1594 at 9 (describing Social Risk Assessments), with Braggs, 257 F. Supp. 3d at 1220, n.43 (describing Suicide Risk Assessment tools). 15 8 referrals to vendor psychiatrists where appropriate. On February 14, 2018, Dr. David Tytell, ADOC's Chief Psychologist, testified that currently the majority of ADOC psychological associates are unlicensed. Dr. David Tytell, Feb. 14, 2018 R.D. Trial Tr., at 18:10-17. Defendants, however, have not indicated in their proposed plan whether these ADOC psychologists and psychological associates are required to be licensed nor have they indicated how many ADOC psychologists and psychological associates are employed at Kilby and Tutwiler. In order to address the Court's concerns about the use of unlicensed mental health staff, Defendants must ensure that all ADOC psychologists and psychological associates conducting Social Risk Assessments are licensed. See Braggs, 257 F. Supp. 3d at 1211 ("The quality of psychotherapy also suffers due to use of unsupervised, unlicensed counselors, referred to as 'mental health professionals' in ADOC."). 8 And in order to ensure that Social Risk Assessments are conducted in a timely and thorough manner and that ADOC psychologists are not overburdened, Defendants must employ enough psychologists and psychological associates. See id. at 1209 n.35 (discussing the impact of overwhelmingly large caseloads on the quality of 7 See infra (discussion regarding the importance of ensuring that all incoming prisoners, including those who have already been referred to a psychiatrist, review a Social Risk Assessment). 8 Even if each facility employs a licensed site administrator and at least one licensed psychologist, there will not be adequate licensed staff to clinically oversee unlicensed social workers and counselors to the degree required. Therefore, all social workers and counselors should be licensed in their respective fields. 16 8 psychotherapy provided). At a minimum, Defendants should employ at least one full-time equivalent psychologist and a ratio of 1 to 100 licensed mental-health professionals to prisoners at intake facilities. Doc. 1408 at 31-32; Doc. 1408-4 (Pls. Counterproposal to Defs.' Proposed Mental-Health Staffing Remedial Plan). 2. An Intake Remedial Order Must Address Each of the Inadequacies Identified in ADOC's Intake Process Plaintiffs do not object to portions of Defendants' proposed intake process. However, Defendants' proposed plan omits or is simply unclear regarding several critical details. First, Defendants' proposed remedial plan does not state who is responsible for assigning a prisoner a mental-health code. See Doc. 1594 at 6 (discussing the assignment of mental-health codes generally and stating that "mental health professionals are responsible for providing pertinent mental-health status information to the ADOC Classification Supervisor"). Plaintiffs presented evidence during the liability trial that MHM informed ADOC in February 2016 that nurses should not be allowed to assign mental-health codes. Pls. Ex. 115 (ADOC-MHM Clinical Compliance Review Report, Feb. 2016), at MHM040591. Dr. Burns also testified about the importance of utilizing qualified staff to make diagnoses and caseload determinations. See Dr. Kathryn Burns, Dec. 12, 2016 Trial Tr., at 35:3-11. A remedial order must require that only mental-health 17 8 professionals who are qualified to diagnose mental illness may assign a mental health code. Next, Defendants' proposed intake remedial plan does not expressly prohibit transfer of a prisoner from a reception center before the intake process has been completed and before a mental-health code has been assigned. This is critical. For example, prisoners with serious mental illness may not be housed in segregation absent extenuating circumstances. Braggs, 257 F. Supp. 3d at 1247. However, if a prisoner is transferred from a reception facility prior to receiving a diagnosis and code reflecting whether or not he or she has a serious mental illness, ADOC might erroneously place that prisoner in segregation. For years, Kilby has suffered backlogs in conducting intake, resulting in individuals being transferred prior to receiving a mental health code. See, e.g., Pls. Ex. 532 (2015 MHM Contract Compliance Report) at MHM041943-44; Pls. Ex. 670 (MHM CQI Meeting Minutes) at MHM031218, 031223. This problem continues and seems to have worsened. In December 2017, there were 843 prisoners not housed at a reception center who were reported as "Not Coded." Pls. Ex. 1393 (Dec. 2017 MHM Monthly Operating Report) at ADOC0418876, ADOC0418879; see also Dr. Robert Hunter, Feb. 15, 2018 R.D. Trial Tr., at 96:18-99:20 (testifying that one reason there are so many not coded prisoners is because they are sometimes transferred from Kilby without first receiving a mental-health code). Because they 18 8 have not been assigned a mental-health code, those prisoners are at risk of not receiving mental-health care and being housed in a setting that is clinically contraindicated for them. An intake remedial order must require that no prisoner be transferred from a reception facility without first completing a Receiving Screening, Social Risk Assessment, and, if appropriate, Psychiatric Evaluation, and being assigned a mental-health code. In outlining their Receiving Screening plan (Doc. 1594 at 5-9), Defendants have omitted several critical components. First, the Receiving Screening must include a suicide risk assessment. At the time of the liability trial, the evidence showed that Defendants had begun performing suicide risk assessments at intake, in response to their expert Dr. Patterson's recommendation, but were not yet performing them at other times. Braggs, 257 F. Supp. 3d at 1221; Pls. Ex. 134 (Defs.' Experts Audit Tools) at ADOC0341616; Dr. Raymond Patterson, Jan. 31, 2017 Trial Tr., at 230:12-231:8; Ruth Naglich, Dec. 21, 2016 Trial Tr., at 155:2- 20. While remedies relating to suicide prevention must include suicide risk assessments whenever a prisoner shows a heightened risk of suicide, they must also include a suicide risk assessment for all incoming prisoners upon arrival. Braggs, 257 F. Supp. 3d at 1263-64 ("Likewise, despite the recommendation of Defendants' own expert that a suicide risk-assessment tool be used for all prisoners at a heightened risk of suicide, not just prisoners coming through the intake process 19 8 for the first time, ADOC has failed to assess prisoners for suicide risks outside of the intake process."). This suicide risk assessment at intake should be performed during the Receiving Screening that Defendants propose. Second, Defendants have put forth conflicting statements regarding when and by whom "urgent" evaluations would be done. Defendants propose: "Urgent: the inmate will be seen within 24 hours by a CRNP or psychologist and referred for a psychiatric evaluation within seven working (7) days." Doc. 1594 at 8 (emphasis added). But they also propose: "For example, a psychiatrist will perform a psychiatric evaluation immediately or within twenty-four (24) hours if an inmate has an emergent or urgent mental-health need." Id. at 12-13 (emphasis added). A remedial order should clarify when and by whom urgent evaluations are triaged and, if that triage is performed by a CRNP or psychologist, what they are required to assess. Third, routine referrals must be evaluated by a licensed mental-health professional or psychologist within seven (7) days. Defendants' proposal of evaluating urgent referrals within fourteen (14) days allows for too much time. Doc. 1594 at 8; see Dr. Raymond Patterson, Jan. 31, 2017 Trial Tr., at 208:18-23 (testifying that Defendants' experts' own audit tool measured whether routine referrals were evaluated within seven days, suggesting that Defendants' experts believe that is the appropriate standard). Allowing newly incarcerated individuals 20 8 with even just routine referrals to go two weeks without seeing a mental-health professional risks decompensation and harm. Next, Defendants' proposed "Social Risk Assessment and Testing," the next phase of their proposed intake process also omits several critical components. Doc. 1594 at 9. New arrivals must be assessed by a licensed ADOC psychological associate within seven (7) days of arriving in ADOC custody. Defendants propose fourteen (14) days, which is too long. Id. For example, prisoners who are not referred for psychiatric care during the Receiving Screening will not be assigned a mental-health code until they are assessed by an ADOC psychological associate. As discussed above, assignment of a mental-health code ensures, for example, that a prisoner is not housed in a location that is clinically contraindicated. Therefore, a code must be assigned as quickly as possible, and fourteen days is too long. Second, Defendants' proposal states that only prisoners "not referred for psychiatric evaluation" during the Receiving Screening will receive a Social Risk Assessment. Doc. 1594 at 9 (emphasis omitted). All incoming prisoners must receive a Social Risk Assessment, regardless of whether they have already seen a psychiatrist for an urgent or emergent need. Additionally, Defendants have simply omitted a requirement that the Social Risk Assessment be performed in a location and manner that ensures sound confidentiality—a requirement they did make explicit for the Receiving Screening conducted by an RN. Compare Doc. 1594 at 21 8 9 ("Conduct the mental health screening in an area permitting inmate confidentiality and encouraging inmate self-reporting."), with id. (describing Social Risk Assessment and testing).9 Sound confidentiality is critical at all stages of the intake process and should be required by the remedial order. Braggs, 257 F. Supp. 3d at 1210 (discussing the important of confidentiality); Dr. Craig Haney, Jan. 20, 2017 Trial Tr., at 83:12-85:1 (discussing the impact of lack of confidentiality on the intake and identification process). Finally, Defendants' proposed intake remedial plan does not specifically mention intake for death row prisoners. Male death row prisoners go through the intake process at Holman, rather than Kilby. A remedial order must ensure that death row prisoners undergo the same mental-health evaluations at intake as prisoners receive at Kilby. II. ADOC'S INADEQUATE REFERRAL PROCESS A. Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Proposal The Court identified the purpose of a well-functioning referral system as well as the inadequacies present in ADOC's methods. As the Court found, "The purpose of the referral process is to identify prisoners whose mental illnesses develop during their incarceration and prisoners whose mental-health needs were 9 This requirement has also been omitted from the description of the Reception Psychiatric Evaluation, but should be explicitly required by a remedial order. Doc. 1594 at 10-11. 22 8 not identified during the intake process. . . [and] to respond to the changing mental-health needs of prisoners as they arise, regardless of their initial mental- health assessment results." Braggs, 257 F. Supp. 3d at 1203. In addition to the intake process, Dr. Burns testified that self-referrals and staff-referrals are two ways that prisoners get added to a corrections department's mental-health caseload. Dr. Kathryn Burns, Dec. 12, 2016 Trial Tr., at 63:22-64:1. As the Court made clear, ADOC's self-referral and staff-referral mechanisms are broken. "ADOC does not have a system to triage and identify the urgency of each request, and to make referrals according to the level of urgency." Braggs, 257 F. Supp. 3d at 1203. "In a functioning system, referrals from prisoners or staff would be triaged based on the urgency of the articulated needs: some may warrant immediate action, such as placement in a suicide-watch cell or an immediate evaluation by a psychiatrist, while others may be addressed over a longer period of time," but in ADOC "referral requests are still not being triaged according to their urgency levels." Id. at 1203, 1248, 1256; see also Pls. Ex. 670 (MHM CQI Meeting Minutes) at MHM031223; Pls. Ex. 714 (MHM CQI Meeting Minutes) at MHM029593. This failure to triage requests according to urgency results in untimely responses and failure to refer requests to mental-health providers where necessary. Braggs, 257 F. Supp. 3d at 1203; Dr. Kathryn Burns, Dec. 12, 2016, Trial Tr., at 63:22-65:22 (discussing evidence of untimely 23 8 responses to referrals). Defendants' expert Dr. Patterson explained that the risk of harm where there is no system to appropriately categorize and respond timely to emergent referrals can be death. Dr. Raymond Patterson, Jan. 31, 2018 Trial Tr., at 257:11-258:7. B. Plaintiffs' Proposal 1. A Referral Remedy Must Include Requirements about How, When, by Whom and to Whom Mental-Health Referrals Should Be Made First, Defendants' proposed referral plan does not explain how, when, and to whom referrals will be made. Referrals by ADOC or medical staff during regular business hours must be made immediately and directly to mental-health staff. Referrals by ADOC or medical staff made after regular business hours should be required to be immediately communicated to the on-call psychiatrist. Correctional officers and other non-mental-health staff should be required to make all referrals to mental-health verbally, typically via telephone. Correctional officers and other non-mental-health staff should be required to make referrals to mental-health staff as soon as possible and no later than one (1) hour of the incident/request/event. If a mental-health referral is made by correctional or other non-mental-health staff, mental-health staff should be required to document the date and time of receipt of the referral. 24 8 Mental-health staff should be required to make emergent or urgent referrals for a mental-health evaluation verbally by telephone. Mental-health professionals should be required to make routine referrals for a mental-health evaluation in writing on a form that is delivered in-person to the mental-health staff who will schedule the required assessment. Additionally, prisoners should be able to make referrals on behalf of themselves or others verbally to a correctional officer, other ADOC staff, medical staff, or mental-health staff, or in writing by completing a sick call request slip. These requirements regarding how, when, and to whom referrals are made are necessary to address the Court's finding that "referrals for evaluation and treatment are neglected." Braggs, 257 F. Supp. 3d at 1185. 2. A Referral Remedy Must Address ADOC's Broken Referral Triage System Additionally, Defendants' referral remedial plan omits several critical requirements for remedying its deficient referral triage system. Braggs, 257 F. Supp. 3d at 1203-04. First, Defendants' plan does not state how quickly and by whom a referral must be triaged. This requirement is important to ensure that referrals are not neglected and are triaged appropriately. If a prisoner self-refers, or is referred to mental health by medical or custody staff, a licensed mental-health professional must immediately determine if the referral is emergent, urgent, or 25 8 routine. 10 If there is no mental-health staff on duty, the referral must be immediately sent to the on-call psychiatrist for triage. These evaluations must be conducted out-of-cell and in a manner and location to ensure sound confidentiality. Next, Defendants' referral plan contains no requirement that mental-health staff maintain a Mental-Health Referral Log. The Court found that a system for tracking and processing referrals is critical to ensuring that urgent (and presumably emergent) requests are actually referred to providers. Braggs, 257 F. Supp. 3d at 1204, 1248 ("Despite perennial indications that referral requests were being processed in a haphazard manner, ADOC still does not have any system of tracking and processing referrals to ensure that urgent requests are actually referred to providers, or that providers are able to handle requests in a timely fashion."); see also Pls. Ex. 1190 (Clinical Contract Compliance Review Report, Feb. 2011) at MHM030871-72 (evidencing deficiencies in ADOC's referral tracking and triage system); Pls. Ex. 1191 (Clinical Contract Compliance Review Report, Feb. 2012) at MHM030903 (same); Pls. Ex. 105 (Clinical Contract Compliance Review Report, April/May 2014), at ADOC140892 (same). Therefore, Defendants must be required to maintain a "Mental-Health Referral Log." The information set forth in the "Mental-Health Referral Log" must include: 10 By incorporating the "emergent," "urgent," and "routine" definitions from their Intake proposal, Defendants have also incorporated the ambiguity regarding when and by whom an urgent referral evaluation must be completed. See supra, § II.B.1. 26 8 a. Date and time of referral; b. Identification of the referral source; c. Identification of the person who maintained constant watch pending triage; d. Identification of the mental-health staff who triaged the referral; e. Date and time of triage; f. Manner of referral (i.e., telephone, written form, etc.); g. Designation of referral by the triaging mental-health staff (i.e., emergent, urgent, or routine); h. Date and time of referral by triaging mental-health staff; i. Identification of mental-health staff to whom referral was assigned; j. Date and time assessment was completed; and k. When follow-up, if any, is scheduled for and with whom. 27 8 3. A Referral Remedy Must Create the Cultural Shift Necessary to Ensure that Mental-Health Referrals Are Actually Made and Timely Addressed Finally, a cultural shift is needed within ADOC to ensure that correctional staff, once trained, actually make mental-health referrals. Dr. Haney explained during the liability trial, "[D]etection and identification doesn't just involve an intake where, of course, it is importantly done. It also involves creating a culture in the rest of the system where inmates feel that they can easily access the mental health care delivery system." Dr. Craig Haney, Jan. 19, 2017 Trial Tr., at 29:15- 31:6l; see also Dr. Craig Haney, Jan. 20, 2017 Trial Tr., at 11:17-13:16. Correctional staff and all healthcare staff must be trained on how to identify prisoners with mental-health needs and how and when to make a mental-health referral. Dr. Craig Haney, Jan. 19, 2017 Trial Tr., at 30:3-31:6 (explaining the importance of training correctional officers to identify prisoners in need of mental health care), 83:24-84:7, and 176:7-178:14 (describing the cultural difference between officers who were trained on mental-health following the Bradley settlement and new correctional officers); Dr. Robert Hunter, Dec. 7, 2016 Trial Tr. at 11:2-23 (describing the cultural difference between officers who were trained on mental-health following the Bradley settlement and new correctional officers). 28 8 However, as in their Proposed Segregation Remedial Plan, Defendants state that they will not begin providing new training to correctional or healthcare staff until all of the Court's remedial orders have been entered. Doc. 1594 at 21. They further state that they will continue providing training pursuant to AR 607 and AR 608 and other training related to mental-health services in the interim. Id. For the reasons explained in Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Segregation Remedial Plan, the training status quo cannot continue until an indefinite date after all of the Court's remedial orders have been entered and a new "training module" has been developed by Defendants' consultants. Doc. 1546 (Pls.' Response to Defs.' Proposed Segregation Remedial Plan) at 57-63. In order to ensure that the cultural shift required to remedy ADOC's broken referral system begins as quickly as possible, the Court should order training of correctional staff and healthcare staff on the referral process to begin as soon as possible and no later than one (1) month after entry of a remedial order. This training, which should be provided to all persons working within any ADOC major facility upon beginning employment and annually thereafter, must include but not be limited to topics such as: • suicide and self-harm prevention: • the identification of possible signs or symptoms of mental illness; • the availability of mental-health services within ADOC; 29 8 • the spectrum of mental-health services available within ADOC; and • the process for referring prisoners for mental-health evaluation. III. ADOC's INADEQUATE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM A. Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Proposal The Court has already held that ADOC's mental-health classification system "also fails to classify the severity of mental illnesses" and "accurately reflect prisoners' mental-health needs." Braggs, 257 F. Supp. 3d at 1204. In the Liability Opinion, the Court described the mental-health coding system: The mental-health coding system is intended to reflect the level of functioning a mental-health patient has and correspond to his or her treatment needs and housing requirements. Through multiple revisions, the coding system now includes 13 different codes, ranging from MH–0 to MH–9, with sub-codes for some levels, such as MH–2d. In broad strokes, a higher numbered MH code reflects more intensive care needs: MH–0 refers to no mental-health care need; MH–1 and MH–2 refer to mild impairment or stable enough to receive only outpatient care; MH–3 through MH–5 refer to those who need inpatient care, in either the residential treatment unit (RTU) or intensive stabilization unit (SU); MH–6 refers to those who need to be hospitalized. Id. at 1205 (citing Jt. Ex. 105 (Admin. Reg. 613)). Dr. Burns testified that a mental-health coding system must identify prisoners with serious mental illness. Dr. Kathryn Burns, Dec. 13, 2016 Trial Tr., at 218:1-9. Dr. Burns further explained during the liability trial that ADOC's mental-health coding system is 30 8 used to refer primarily to where people are housed rather than to designate whether they have a serious or non-serious mental illness. Dr. Kathryn Burns, Dec. 12, 2016 Trial Tr., 70:11-74:25, 163:6-164:5. She explained that a coding system based on housing placements requires constant recoding, resulting in out-of-date and misapplied coding and people not receiving the level of care they need. Id. Further, during the remedial trial on segregation, Dr. Burns testified that if people are not identified as having a serious mental illness, it is easy for them to be dropped from the mental health caseload during the periods when they are doing well, increasing the likelihood that problems will arise as symptoms resurface. Dr. Kathryn Burns, Feb. 16, 2018 Trial Testimony. An example of just such a problem is class-member J.L.W., who has been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, yet discharged from the mental health caseload. Since he has not been receiving treatment, he has received numerous disciplinaries—a predictable outcome when a person with a serious mental illness receives neither treatment nor follow-up from mental health. Id. Defendants' proposed classification system is inadequate because it remains convoluted and largely designed for housing placements, violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the settlement regarding involuntary medication, has not yet been implemented, and includes no deadlines for implementation. 1. Defendants' Proposed Classification System Does Not Serve the Necessary Purpose of a Coding System 31 8 Defendants' newest proposed classification system includes a total of nine different codes. Doc. 1594 (Defs' Proposed Identification, Classification, and Mental Health Unit Remedial Plan) at 17-21. This new proposed coding system continues to serve the primary purpose of identifying where someone may be housed rather than identifying whether someone has a serious or non-serious mental illness. The new MH-2, MH-3, and MH-3a codes identify people who have been diagnosed with a "serious mental illness." Id. at 19-20. 11 However, the MH- 1 and MH-1a codes are based on impairment level and do not explicitly require a mental illness diagnosis. Id. at 18-19. Likewise, the MH-4, MH-5, and MH-6 codes also do not explicitly require a mental illness diagnosis nor do they specify whether someone assigned one of those codes must have a serious mental illness. Id. at 20-21. Thus, someone could be coded as an MH-5 and it would not be clear whether that person has a mental illness or a serious mental illness. In addition, the proposed coding system is ambiguous and confusing, even to those who developed it and are tasked with implementing it. Compare Ruth Naglich, Nov. 29, 2017 R.D. Trial Tr., at 14:3-13 (testifying that the coding system implemented in September 2016 required people with serious mental illness to be coded as MH-2 11 Plaintiffs reassert their objections to Defendants' coding system specifically with regard to their proposed definition of serious mental illness and classification of prisoners with serious mental illness. Doc. 1546 (Pls.' Response to Defs.' Proposed Segregation Remedial Plan) at 26-33. 32 8 or higher) & Teresa Houser, Dec. 14, 2017 R.D. Trial Tr., at 27:10-22 (testifying that as of December 2017, people with serious mental illness were coded as MH-2 or higher), with Dr. Edward Kern, Feb. 8, 2018 R.D. Trial Tr., at 131:4-16 (testifying that MHM clinicians code people with serious mental illness as MH-1 so they can go to work release even though doing so does not comply with ADOC's mental-health coding system); Dr. Robert Hunter, Feb. 15, 2018 R.D. Trial. Tr., at (same); see also Pls. Dem. Ex. 165 (Prisoners with a Mental-Health Code of MH-1 Who Have a Categorical Serious Mental Illness). 2. Defendants' Proposed Classification System Violates the ADA Defendants' proposed classification system violates the ADA by excluding individuals, on the basis of their mental illness, from access to programming and work release. These prohibitions exist without consideration of the prisoner's functioning or stability and therefore violate the ADA. a. The proposed amended mental-health coding system violates the ADA by systematically excluding prisoners coded as MH- 1a from Work Release Programming. The definitions for MH-1 and MH-1a are nearly identical. MH-1 is defined as follows: 1. Mild impairment in mental functioning; 2. Inmate is stable in out-patient setting with treatment provided; 3. May or may not be currently on mental health medication; 33 8 4. No evidence of symptoms of a serious mental illness; is managed with the compliance of treatment; 5. Eligible for Keep on Person Program (KOP) after demonstrated compliance; 6. Requires Multidisciplinary treatment plan; and 7. Is not on Involuntary Medication. Doc. 1533 at 18. In comparison, MH-1a is defined as follows, with differences between MH-1 and MH-1a emphasized. 1. Stable in an outpatient setting for at least the prior six months; 2. RX anti-depressants/antipsychotics; 3. Mild impairment in mental functioning; 4. Inmate is stable in out-patient setting with treatment provided; 5. No evidence of symptoms of a serious mental illness, is managed with the compliance of treatment; 6. Requires multidisciplinary treatment plan; 7. Eligible for Keep On Person Program (KOP) after demonstrated compliance; and 8. Is not on Involuntary Medication Doc. 1533 at 18. Functionally, the code MH-1a, as opposed to code MH-1, serves only to indicate that the prisoner is currently on an anti-depressant/antipsychotic medication. 34 8 The Housing Guidelines set forth in the proposed classification system, which define the facilities and programs a prisoner can access, differ. Prisoners classified as MH-1 have access to job duties in both Community Work Centers and Work Release Centers, whereas MH-1a coded prisoners are ineligible to participate in an ADOC Work Release Program. Compare Doc. 1533 at 17, with Doc. 1533 at 18. Defendants have agreed that Work Release is a program offered by ADOC under the Phase 1 and Phase 2A ADA Settlement Agreements in this litigation as well as under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Doc. 728 at 9, § IV, ¶ 28; Doc. 1291 at p. 8, § IV, ¶ 1. Work release is intended to serve as a program to "assist selected inmates in preparing for release and to aid in making the transition. . . back into the community." ADOC Admin. Reg. 410, § I.A. Although the ADA itself does not specifically define "programs or activities, the Rehabilitation Act defines "program or activity" as all operations conducted by "a department, agency, . . . or other instrumentality of a State. . . government." 29 U.S.C. § 794(b). 12 Courts have found that "programs or activities" under Title II encompass all activities of a state government. See Johnson v. City of Saline, 151 F.3d 564 (6th Cir. 1998). Furthermore, in finding that the ADA clearly applies to 12 The ADA incorporates portions of the Rehabilitation Act into Title II of the ADA by adopting all remedies, procedures, and rights available under the Rehabilitation Act. 42 U.S.C. § 12133. 35 8 state prisons, the Court in Pennsylvania Department of Corrections v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206 (1998), noted that the text of the ADA does not distinguish programs and activities within prisons from those of any other public entity. Id. at 210. Furthermore, the Court relied on the state's own labeling of the Motivational Boot Camp at issue as a "program" to determine there is no ambiguity as to whether access to prison programming is protected by Title II. Id. This Court should likewise rely on ADOC's labeling of work release as a "program" protected by Title II. Here, the only difference between MH-1 and MH-1a is the existence of a current prescription for an anti-depressant or antipsychotic. The mere existence of medication for a mental-health condition systematically excluding otherwise stable individuals from Work Release is discrimination on the basis of a disability and a violation of Title II of the ADA. The prohibition against discrimination within Title II of the ADA states that "no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity." 42 U.S.C. § 12132. The ADA defines a "qualified individual" as "an individual with a disability who, with or without reasonable modifications to rules, policies, or practices, the removal of architectural, communication, or 36 8 transportation barriers, or the provision of auxiliary aids and services, meets the essential eligibility requirements for the receipt of services or the participation in programs or activities provided by a public entity." 42 U.S.C. §12131(2) (emphasis added). The systematic exclusion of all stable individuals currently on anti- depressant or antipsychotic medication from work release is an exclusion of otherwise qualified individuals solely on the basis that they are currently taking certain medications used to treat symptoms of a mental illness. This systematic exclusion prevents any individualized assessment as to whether the individuals are independently qualified to participate in the programming other than for their disability. As prisoners coded MH-1a are, by definition, required to have been stable for at least six months prior to being coded as MH-1a, there is no indication that MH-1a prisoners as a group vary in any way from MH-1 prisoners outside of receiving certain medication. By restricting MH-1a prisoners from participating in work release, ADOC is violating Title II of the ADA. b. The proposed amended mental-health coding system violates the ADA by systematically excluding stable prisoners classified as MH-2 due to a specific DSM diagnosis from work release programs, community work centers, and facilities without 24/7 nursing. Prisoners within Defendants' proposed mental-health coding system who are MH-2 are described in the following way: 37 8 1. Diagnosed as having a Serious Mental Illness as defined with a DSM diagnosis; 2. Moderate impairment in mental functioning; 3. Requires monitoring for treatment for compliance; 4. May be ordered to be placed on an involuntary medication program for compliance assurances; or 5. Requires multidisciplinary treatment plan. Doc. 1533 at 18 (emphasis added). Additionally, the Housing Placement Guideline for an MH-2 prisoner states that these individuals are "[c]lear to transfer to any ADOC operated facility with 24/7 nursing coverage [and are n]ot eligible for free world Work Center or ADOC Work Release Program." Doc. 1533 at 18 (emphasis added). The proposed amended definition of Serious Mental Illness to be included in Administrative Regulation 602 states, in part, that a Serious Mental Illness is "[a]ny Psychotic Disorder, Bipolar Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder, or any diagnosed mental disorder (excluding substance use disorders) currently associated with serious impairment in psychological, cognitive, or behavioral functioning. . ." Doc. 1533 at 6. This definition creates two subclasses of individuals that ADOC defines as suffering from a serious mental illness and who are consequently excluded from work release: (1) all prisoners diagnosed with a psychotic disorder, 38 8 Bipolar Disorder, or Major Depressive Disorder are automatically determined to be seriously mentally ill, and (2) any prisoner diagnosed with any other mental disorder, if accompanied by significant functional impairment. For persons in the first category, the determination of having a "serious mental illness" is made regardless of whether the prisoner is stable or unstable. For such prisoners, the restriction of placement for a prisoner classified as MH-2, without regard to the level of functioning, is discrimination under Title II of the ADA. 42 U.S.C. § 12132 (prohibiting discrimination against a qualified individual with a disability). Prisoners diagnosed with Psychotic Disorder, Bipolar Disorder, or Major Depressive Disorder under ADOC's proposed new classification system may be otherwise qualified individuals, depending on the stability of their mental illness. If the prisoner's mental illness is stable, controlled, and responsive to treatment, these individuals are indistinguishable from prisoners with a lower mental-health code other than their actual disability. See Dr. Edward Kern, Feb. 8, 2018 R.D. Trial Tr., at 134:8-135:4 (testifying that clinicians often reduce the mental-health codes of stable prisoners with serious mental illness to MH-1 so they can go to work release even though doing so violates the mental- health coding system); Dr. David Tytell, Feb. 13, 2018 R.D. Trial Tr., at 275:17- 276:20, 277:18-22. Further, there is no process for reviewing whether a prisoner 39 8 with a serious mental illness is stable enough for placement in facilities without 24/7 nursing, in community work centers, or within work release programs. The restriction on housing placements prohibits MH-2 prisoners from being transferred to any facility without 24/7 nursing staff or to a community work center/work release program. Doc. 1533 at 18. This restriction prevents stable prisoners who may otherwise be qualified from accessing programs available only at facilities without 24/7 nursing care and from accessing community work centers or work release programs. ADOC provides various forms of programming at different ADOC facilities. For instance, ADOC maintains a large vocational and education complex at Frank Lee Work Release Center. Various other ADOC major facilities have unique programming available only at that facility. If such a facility does not have access to 24/7 nursing care, MH-2 prisoners who are stable cannot be transferred to this facility as similarly situated stable prisoners without a disability, and are thus unlawfully excluded from access to the unique programming there. Ex. A (All Educational, Vocational, and Rehabilitative Programs and Services) (listing programming available at each ADOC major facility and ADOC Work Release Center). The systematic exclusion of all prisoners who are diagnosed with a type of Schizophrenia, Delusional Disorder, Schizophreniform Disorder, Schizoaffective Disorder, Brief Psychotic Disorder, Substance-Induced Psychotic Disorder, 40 8 Psychotic Disorder Not Otherwise Specified, Major Depressive Disorder, Bipolar I, or Bipolar II prevents the prisoners who may be otherwise qualified from accessing programming within ADOC solely based on a disability. And perhaps more critically, the total ban imposed on prisoners who are coded MH-2 from such programming encourages those individuals to delay treatment or forego it altogether. Dr. Edward Kern, Feb. 8, 2018 R.D. Trial Tr., at 134:3-135:8; A.E., Feb. 14, 2018 R.D. Trial Tr., at 191:11-14; J.L.W., Feb. 14, 2018 R.D. Trial Tr., at 209:4-12; Ruth Naglich, Feb. 15, 2018, R.D. Trial Tr., at 19:19-20:14; Dr. Robert Hunter, Feb. 15, 2018 R.D. Trial Tr., at 169:23-171:6. During her testimony on February 15, 2018, Commissioner Naglich opined that ADOC could alleviate the inherent ADA violations in Defendants' proposed coding system by providing access to work release at a limited subset (or only one) work release center for prisoners coded MH-2. Ruth Naglich, Feb. 15, 2018 R.D. Trial Tr., at 22:9-19. This proposed fix to the problem, while eliminating one form of ADA violation (systematic exclusion from work release), would have no effect on a totally separate ADA violation. Under the terms of the Consent Decree, ADOC must provide equal access to programming for any otherwise qualified prisoner. Doc. 1290. Any inmate with a MH-2 code would be qualified to not only access work release itself, but also all of the programming available for a prisoner in a work release setting. 41 8 ADOC operates ten work release centers for males and two for females.13 These facilities are spread throughout the state. Different work release centers have access to different programming and vocational opportunities. See Ex. A. Allowing prisoners to be housed only at a limited subset of work release centers will effectively exclude them from accessing programming available only at a work release center that will not hold prisoners coded MH-2. For instance, Frank Lee WRC located in Elmore County is immediately adjacent to a very large educational and vocational complex operated by J.F. Ingram on behalf of ADOC. It provides access to numerous vocational and educational programs only available to work release prisoners housed at Frank Lee. 14 If, and only if the work release centers available for a prisoner coded MH-2 provides access to all programming available within the entire work release continuum will an ADA violation be eliminated. 13 The facilities for males are as follows: Alex City WRC, Alex City, Alabama; Camden WRC, Camden, Alabama; Childersburg WRC, Childersburg, Alabama; Decatur WRC, Decatur, Alabama; Elba WRC, Elba, Alabama; Frank Lee WRC, Deatsville, Alabama; Hamilton WRC, Hamilton, Alabama; Loxley WRC, Loxley, Alabama; Mobile WRC, Mobile, Alabama; and Red Eagle WRC, Montgomery, Alabama. The facilities for females are: Birmingham WRC, Birmingham, Alabama, and Montgomery Woman's Facility, Mt. Meigs, Alabama. 14 According to ADOC, the J.F. Ingram Trade School provides classes for upholstery, welding, cabinetry, auto trim, auto mechanics, barbering, horticulture, furniture restoration, and a General Education Diploma. Each of programs is available only to work release prisoners assigned to Frank Lee WRC. See http://www.doc.state.al.us/facility?loc=1 (last accessed February 15, 2018). 42 8 Accordingly, neither Defendants' proposal nor ADOC's purported solution eliminates the ADA violation. 3. Defendants' Proposed Mental Health Coding System Violates the Settlement Agreement on Involuntary Medication Defendants' proposed mental health coding system provides that a person who is coded as MH-2 "[m]ay be ordered to be placed on an involuntary medication program for compliance assurances." Doc. 1594 at 19. The parties have agreed to, and the Court has approved, a settlement on involuntary medication. Doc. 1248-1, 1353. Pursuant to the Phase 2A Involuntary Medication Consent Decree, and consistent with Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210 (1999), "for compliance assurances" is not a reason for which a person can be involuntarily medicated. Doc. 1354 at 4-5. Rather, involuntary medication is permissible only for patients who: 1. Have been diagnosed with a serious mental illness, and 2. Have been transferred to an Intensive Psychiatric Stabilization Unit (SU) for less intrusive treatment; and 3. Have, as a result of the serious mental illness, a current high likelihood of serious harm to self, others or property, or be unable to successfully perform basic, life-sustaining activities of daily living such as eating or drinking, or manifest severe deterioration in routine functioning, such as 43 8 repeated and escalating loss of cognitive or volitional control over personal actions; and 4. Refuse voluntary treatment. Doc. 1248-1 at 36. Defendants' proposed mental health coding system ignores these requirements and provides that persons coded as MH-2 can be medicated against their will solely "for compliance assurances." 4. Defendants Have Not Yet Appropriately Coded Every Prisoner with a Serious Mental Illness and Include No Deadlines for Doing So in Their Proposed Remedial Plan Finally, the Court must order Defendants to implement an adequate coding system by a date certain. Defendants have so far failed to implement their current coding system accurately. Since the iteration of the coding system created in September 2016,15 Defendants have purportedly coded any prisoner with a serious mental illness as a MH-2 or MH-2d. Jt. Ex. 107 (Admin. Reg. 613, Change #2); Defs. Ex. 2916 (Oct. 2016 Coding Revision); Doc. 1533-8 (May 2017 Coding Revision); Doc. No. 1594 at 18-21 (Jan. 2018 Proposed Coding Revision). Yet, as of January 2018, there are approximately 940 prisoners who have been diagnosed while in ADOC custody with a mental illness that Defendants agree is always a 15 Plaintiffs explained the timeline of Defendants' various modifications to their mental-health coding system in their Response to Defendants' Proposed Segregation Remedial Plan. Doc. 1546 at 23-26. 44 8 serious mental illness but nevertheless, are coded as MH-1, MH-1a, or MH-1b. Pls. Ex. 1376 (Jan. 2018 MHM Master Roster); Pls. Dem. Ex. 165 (Demonstrative of Prisoners Coded as MH-1 with a Categorical Serious Mental Illness); Doc. 1533 (Defs' Proposed Segregation Remedial Plan) at 7-8. Defendants' plan includes no acknowledgment of this fact or proposal for how they intend to go about accurately recoding everyone on the mental-health caseload. B. Plaintiffs' Proposal To avoid confusion and simplify the process of identifying and treating prisoners with mental illness, the Court should order Defendants to implement a three-code system that clearly identifies individuals with serious and non-serious mental illness. The premise would be obvious even to non-mental-health staff: • Code MHA - Designating prisoners with no mental health illness; • Code MHB – Designating prisoners with mental illness, but non- serious; and • Code MHC – Designating prisoners with serious mental illness. See Dr. Kathryn Burns, Dec. 12, 2016 Trial Tr., at 70:9-71:3 (describing Ohio's three-code system). The Court should order Defendants to implement fully this new classification system no later than six (6) months after entry of a remedial order, with every prisoner within ADOC being recoded accordingly. Additionally, the Court should order that no later than six (6) months after entry of a remedial 45 8 order, Defendants codify the new classification system in ADOC's administrative regulations. Further, the Court should prohibit the application of arbitrary and universal exclusions from programming, such as work release, for prisoners coded any particular mental health level in order to ensure compliance with the ADA. Finally, the Court should ensure compliance with the standards governing involuntary medication, as outlined supra. IV. ADOC's INADEQUATE CAPACITY FOR RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT A. Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Proposal The number of RTU/SU beds is inadequate to treat the current population of identified prisoners with mental illness and does not address the significant under- identification of prisoners needing mental health treatment as discussed above. As the Court noted, approximately 15% of prisoners on the mental health caseload should be housed in RTU or intensive stabilization units. Braggs, 257 F. Supp. 3d at 1205. As of December 2017, 4000, or 19.38%, of the 20,645 prisoners (19,223 male and 1422 female) were on the caseload. Pls. Ex. 1393 (MHM Monthly Report) at ADOC 0418876-79. Fifteen percent (15%) of 4000 is 600 16 beds, a number far exceeding the 464 now-available residential treatment beds in both the 16 Numbers have been rounded to the nearest whole number. 46 8 male prisons and Tutwiler. Dr. Raymond Patterson, Jan. 31, 2017 Trial Tr., at 89:23-90:12; see also Jt. Ex. 461 (Dr. Raymond Patterson Expert Report) at 63 (agreeing that the number of residential treatment beds was inadequate). As a result, ADOC had repeated backlogs for placement of prisoners into the highest levels of residential treatment. Braggs, 257 F. Supp. 3d at 1213; Ruth Naglich Dec. 21, 2016 Trial Tr., 159:10-160:8 (noting backlogs for transfer to Bullock and Donaldson). Moreover, the prevalence rate for mental illness for men should be between 20% and 30% system-wide. Braggs, 257 F. Supp. 3d at 1201. Accordingly, for a population of 19,223, the expected number of male prisoners on the caseload should be between 3845 and 5767. Fifteen percent (15%) of those numbers indicates a need for between 577 and 865 beds for male prisoners in residential treatment. ADOC currently has only 426. Braggs, 257 F. Supp. 3d at 1183; Pls. Ex. 1393 (MHM Monthly Report at ADOC 0418877; supra n3. The prevalence rate for mental illness for women should be between 75% and 80% system-wide. Braggs, 257 F. Supp. 3d at 1248. Accordingly, for a population of 1422, the expected number of prisoners on the caseload should be between 1067 and 1138. Fifteen percent (15%) of those numbers indicate a need for between 160 and 171 beds for female prisoners in residential treatment. ADOC currently has only 38. Id. at 1183. 47 8 Despite the Court's findings on this issue, notably, Defendants' proposal fails to address the need for an increase in residential treatment beds at all. Defendants do not explain how the current number of beds is sufficient to support the actual number of prisoners who currently need more intensive residential treatment or will need such treatment assuming an increase in identification of prisoners with mental illness generally. Similarly, Defendants have failed to account for the possible increase in population in residential treatment because more prisoners will be referred assuming a real improvement in programming. See Dr. Kathryn Burns, Dec. 12, 2016 Trial Tr. at 26:16-27:3 (discussing the poor treatment provided in residential treatment and underutilization of residential treatment beds); Dr. Raymond Patterson, Jan. 31, 2017 Trial Tr., at 88:6-11 (discussing underutilization in terms of poor programming). And there is no consideration for any increases stemming from the long-term or permanent housing of prisoners with serious mental illnesses who, based on clinical judgment, cannot be placed safely in the general population. See Dr. Raymond Patterson, Jan. 31, 2017 Trial Tr., at 84:7-9 (noting that there are some prisoners who will spend their entire incarceration in residential treatment); Dr. Kathryn Burns, Dec. 13, 2016 Trial Tr., at 51:12-20 (same). Defendants' focus on treatment options for residential units addresses only a portion of the Constitutional violations identified by the Court. While 48 8 improvements in treatment options, if actually implemented, will certainly affect those prisoners fortunate enough to find a placement in residential treatment, it will do nothing to ensure adequate treatment to those who should be in a mental health unit but are denied due to lack of space. See Braggs, 257 F. Supp. 3d at 1213 (discussing backlog). In these circumstances, Defendants' assurances that increases in staff will be adequate to resolve deficiencies, see Doc. 1594 at 23, ring hollow—Defendants' proposed increases do not include any increase in the number of residential treatment beds that should be offered statewide. The Court should reject Defendants' limited approach and provide a comprehensive remedy that addresses both the number of beds available as well as the treatment offered to prisoners housed or awaiting housing in residential treatment. 17 See also infra, §§ IV.B., VII. (discussing the treatment of prisoners in and awaiting placement in residential treatment). Moreover, the current dichotomy between SU and RTU placements appears to bifurcate the treatment of prisoners in residential care and creates the expectation that prisoners needing residential placements will be returned to general population once stabilized. Braggs, 257 F. Supp. 3d at 1205 (citing Dr. Raymond Patterson and noting that a prisoner's repeated trips to SU are indication that longer-term, more intensive treatment may be necessary in the RTU). Altering 17 The Court must also consider any increase in staffing necessary to accommodate the increase in the number of beds. 49 8 the terms used to identify and properly treat prisoners in residential placements is more consistent with a continuous and comprehensive approach to stabilizing the individual and evaluating his or her need for long-term residential treatment. Defendants do not propose any changes to the designation of prisoners in residential treatment and maintain their dichotomous approach, i.e., the SU exists to treat "short-term intensive mental healthcare to reduce acute symptoms" while the RTU exists to "ensure positive reintegration of the inmate into a regular general prison population." Doc 1594 at 23, 26. And critically, neither definition provides for the possibility that, as stated above, some percentage of prisoners in ADOC system will need to remain in residential treatment for the entirety of their sentences. B. Plaintiffs' Proposal The Court should order Defendants to implement a three-phase designation for residential treatment, eliminating the designation SU. Phase 1 would be most closely aligned with placement in the former SU, where a prisoner is more likely to need close confinement to treat an acute condition. In this phase, the prisoner will have fewer privileges (e.g., possession of property) and there will be fewer opportunities for out-of-cell treatment (although appropriate treatment including private counseling sessions will continue to be provided). The need for Phase 1, as well as the transition to Phase 2 and Phase 3 treatment will be determined based on 50 8 the clinical judgment of medical professionals. As a prisoner stabilizes and his or her condition improves, more privileges will be extended (i.e., the return of property), and opportunities for out-of-cell treatment or group therapy will increase. See infra, § VII. Either open or semi-open placements will be consistent with Phase 2 or Phase 3 placements. And the determination about whether long- term placement and/or permanent placement in the RTU is needed, or whether hospital-level care is appropriate, will be made based on clinical judgment. To account for under-identified prisoners, the Court should order Defendants to within two years construct, refurbish, or otherwise establish an additional male housing unit to create a total of 721 18 RTU beds, including 72 Phase 1 beds, and an additional female housing unit to create a total of 165 RTU beds, including 16 Phase 1 beds. 19 This number includes SU beds and crisis cells. Further, the Court should order ADOC to conduct an analysis every two years to determine whether the then-current number of beds is appropriate considering the population, prevalence rates for mental illness, and occupancy rates. 18 The proposed number of beds for both men and women is derived from the average of the minimum and maximum beds anticipated based on the percentage of individuals likely to be on the caseload. See supra, § IV.A. 19 These numbers include the current beds available to men and women in residential treatment, both SU and RTU. 51 8 V. ADOC'S INADEQUATE PHYSICAL PLANT 20 A. Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Proposal The Court noted just how difficult it was to treat prisoners with mental illness where the physical plant prevented meaningful contact between the prisoner and mental health staff. The Court cited Dr. Haney's testimony, in that "ADOC's 'celled' mental-health units resemble and operate like segregation units." Braggs, 257 F. Supp. 3d at 1214. "Experts on both sides pointed to specific traits of ADOC's mental-health units that contribute to [a] segregation-like atmosphere and the lack of a therapeutic milieu: the presence of segregation inmates within the mental-health unit, a severe lack of out-of-cell time; and a lack of meaningful treatment activities." Id.; see also Dr. Craig Haney, Jan. 19, 2017 Trial Tr., at 50:6-17 and 50:24-51:10 (describing Tutwiler SU); Dr. Craig Haney, Jan. 19, 2017 Trial Tr., at 192:12-25 to 193:7-22 (describing showers at Donaldson in RTU unit and impact on prisoners with mental illness). Defendants rely solely on an increase in staffing combined with policies requiring out-of-cell treatment and have chosen not to address this portion of the Court's Liability Opinion. But the segregation-like atmosphere due to the 20 The need for suicide resistant cells and crisis cells will be addressed in the remedial phase relevant to suicide prevention, defined by the Court as "defendants' failure to identify suicide risks adequately and to provide adequate treatment and monitoring to those who are suicidal, engaging in self-harm, or otherwise undergoing a mental-health crisis." Doc. 1524 at 5. 52 8 inadequacy of the physical plant may overwhelm or significantly reduce any positive impacts from an increase in staffing and programming. See Dr. Raymond Patterson, Jan. 31, 2017 Trial Tr., at 82:15-20 (discussing therapeutic milieu); see also Brown v. Plata, 563 U.S. 493, 525 (2011) (citing District Judge in comparing remedying systemic deficiencies to "a spider web, in which the tension of the various strands is determined by the relationship among all the parts of the web, so that if one pulls on a single strand, the tension of the entire web is redistributed in a new and complex pattern."). B. Plaintiffs' Proposal Because the lack of a therapeutic environment adversely affects prisoners' mental health, the Court should order Defendants to, within three months of any remedial order, conduct a facilities analysis to determine whether the RTU at Donaldson should continue to be used for residential treatment. If so, the Court should order Defendants to, within six months of any remedial order, renovate Donaldson Correctional Facility into a therapeutic environment. 21 Such retrofitting shall be accomplished as soon as possible with the understanding that due consideration shall be afforded to the necessity of the cells, the timeframe during which such modifications will take cells "off-line," and any other issues impacting 21 This is in addition to the longer-term remedy of providing more residential treatment beds. See supra § VI. 53 8 the demand for RTU Phase 1 cells and crisis cells. The renovation shall include the following: 1. Retrofitting of all doors in cells to be used as RTU Phase 1 and crisis cells to include the installation of windows measuring at least 24 inches (tall) by 18 inches (wide). See Dr. Craig Haney, Jan. 19, 2017 Trial Tr., at 185:6-20. 2. Installation of therapeutic furniture to allow for group activities, including for patients who must be restrained to be able to participate in such activities; 3. Provision of air conditioning and the installation of additional windows to increase natural light; 4. Repainting of the units (inside the cells as well as the unit as a whole); 5. Creation of confidential treatment / counseling space for mental health staff on or in close proximity to the RTU (including up to the conversion of 2 cells on the Donaldson RTU; if cells are so converted, the number of cells converted shall be added to the initial requirement for additional male RTU beds above); 6. Retrofitting all cells to be used as mental-health observation cells, mental- health holding cells, crisis cells, and RTU Phase 1 cells to make them 54 8 suicide resistant 22 consistent with recommendations to be made by Dr. Kathy Burns and Dr. Mary Perrien; 7. Other necessary renovations identified through the facilities assessment completed at the direction of ADOC; and 8. Any new residential treatment space will adhere to these guidelines in order to create an appropriately therapeutic space. VI. ADOC'S IMPROPER USE OF RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT UNITS A. Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Proposal The Court noted ADOC's "persistent and long-standing practice or placing segregation inmates without mental health needs in mental-health units." Braggs, 257 F. Supp. 3d at 1212. Citing expert testimony, the Court concluded that such placements are "highly problematic" in that they create security risks and prevent the unit from operating as intended. Id. at 1213; Dr. Craig Haney, Jan. 19, 2017 Trial Tr., at 123:9-24. Defendants offer no evidence that this issue has been resolved; nor do they propose any solutions to address this systemic deficiency. Defendants also fail to address the related problem of placing prisoners who are seriously mentally ill in 22 Other requirements related to suicide prevention will be discussed in the remedial phase relevant to that topic, defined by the Court as "defendants' failure to identify suicide risks adequately and to provide adequate treatment and monitoring to those who are suicidal, engaging in self-harm, or otherwise undergoing a mental-health crisis." Doc. 1524 at 5. 55 8 segregation while they are housed in the SU supposedly for the purpose of receiving intensive mental health treatment. See E.W., Feb. 12, 2018 R.D. Trial Tr., at 172:24-176:1 (discussing placement in segregation while in the Bullock SU). The Court should ensure that the mental health unit is utilized solely for a therapeutic purpose, and not for disciplinary reasons. B. Plaintiffs' Proposal The Court should order Defendants to cease placing prisoners in segregation into the residential treatment units. Moreover, the Court should ensure that prisoners who need placement in Residential Treatment are actually placed in a timely manner or housed appropriately until placement. Prisoners should receive appropriate mental health treatment until placement. Accordingly, the Court should order the following additional relief: 1. Any patient who is referred to the RTU Phase 1 but is unable to transfer to RTU Phase 1 because of a lack of bed space will be maintained in an approved crisis cell in a facility with an RTU, an RTU Phase 2 or 3 bed, a mental health hospital or an infirmary bed (in accordance with clinical judgment). 2. A patient who has been referred to RTU Phase 1 shall not be housed in general population. 56 8 3. A patient who has been referred to RTU Phase 1 but cannot be transported because the referral came after dark shall be housed in a crisis cell or an infirmary. Crisis cells cannot be in segregation or on death row. In either case, the individual will be under constant watch. Individuals housed in crisis cells due to the inability to transport shall not have their clothing or property removed unless determined to be clinically appropriate. The patient shall be transferred during daylight hours following the night during which the referral was made. 4. A patient who has been referred to RTU Phase 1 shall not be housed in segregation. 5. A patient who has been placed in an alternative placement due to lack of bed space in an RTU Phase 1 shall be placed in the RTU Phase 1 within four calendar days of placement in the alternative placement. 6. Any patient placed in any of the above settings for a period of more than 24 hours shall receive the same care, assessment, and protection required for other prisoners in residential treatment. VII. ADOC'S INADEQUATE TREATMENT FOR PRISONERS IN RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT A. Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Proposal The Court repeatedly noted the inadequate mental health care provided to prisoners, particularly those in residential treatment. "Patients housed in ADOC's 57 8 mental-health units receive very little out-of-cell time." Braggs, 257 F. Supp. 3d at 1214. As the Court explained, [o]ut-of-cell time is crucial for patients housed in mental-health units. Without bringing patients out of their cells for counseling sessions, treatment team meetings, group sessions, and activities, placement in a 'mental-health unit' does no good for patients who need the highest level of care; careful observation and treatment cannot happen when confined in a small cell all day. In fact, without out-of-cell time and effective treatment, housing severely mentally ill prisoners in a mental-health unit is tantamount to 'warehousing' the mentally ill. Id. at 1214 (internal citation omitted) (emphasis added); see also Dr. Kathryn Burns, Dec. 12, 2016 Trial Tr., 26:16-27:6, 165:5-166:15; Ruth Naglich, Dec. 19, 2016 Trial Tr., 36:16-21. Nevertheless, ADOC repeatedly failed to ensure that prisoners had access to group and other counseling. Pls. Ex. 116 at MHM030848 (2010 MHM Clinical Compliance Report) (group access at RTU at Donaldson is limited or non-existent); id. at MHM030854 (group therapy should be instituted at Tutwiler SU). These failures remain. See, e.g., E.W., Feb. 12, 2018 R.D. Trial Tr., at 158:7-161:3 (discussing lack of group therapy and out-of-cell time at Donaldson RTU from December 2017 to the present). Further, the Court noted that the standard out-of-cell time for those in residential treatment is ten hours of structured therapeutic activity and ten hours of unstructured activity per week. Braggs, 257 F. Supp. 3d at 1215. As the Court made clear, ADOC's current culture of treating those most seriously mentally ill prisoners with psychotropic medication alone was 58 8 not sufficient. Id. at 1214; see also Dr. Craig Haney Jan. 20, 2017 Trial Tr. 37:5- 20. Defendants' proposal falls short of alleviating these inadequacies. First, Defendants do not adhere to the standard out-of-cell time for structured and unstructured activities identified by the Court, i.e., ten hours of structured therapeutic activity and ten hours of unstructured activity per week. They fully acknowledge that the requirements for out-of-cell time and the types and frequency of treatment change as the prisoners move from level to level and none appear consistent with the 10/10 standard. Doc. 1594 at 22. For example, Level 1 RTU prisoners appear to have access to 14 hours of recreation and hygiene, in addition to an unknown amount of out-of-cell time with mental health providers. Id. at 27- 28. Level 2 prisoners, on the other hand, have access to eight hours of out-of-cell structured activities, at least six of which should be counseling or therapeutic groups. Id. at 29. As an initial matter, time for hygiene should never be considered therapeutic time (or unstructured time) and accordingly, should not count toward weekly minimums. Second, these differing requirements and minimums depending on designation (SU or RTU) and level (1, 2, or 3) make it much more difficult to manage out-of-cell time and to ensure minimums are reached; setting a default of 10 hours of structured and 10 hours of unstructured out-of-cell time for prisoners per week would be easier to manage and should be 59 8 required absent a documented clinical determination otherwise. Further, in some instances, it is not clear whether security concerns supersede clinical judgment. Defendants assert for prisoners on level 1, for example, that some out-of-cell time is mandatory "unless determined by the treating psychiatrist to be clinically inappropriate, or a security risk[.]" Id. at 28. This statement is ambiguous. Allowing security concerns to outweigh clinical judgment in this manner is inconsistent with National Commission on Correctional Health Care (NCCHC) standards, which require clinical autonomy. Ex. B (NCCHC 2015 Standards, MH- A-3 Clinical Autonomy). Additionally, Defendants identify bibliotherapy as one of the approved "treatment topics." Doc. 1594 at 33. This is defined as the "use of books, pamphlets, and videotapes to facilitate personal growth and increase one's understanding of life in general." Id. Such activities, while valuable in certain circumstances, should not be overused and become a substitute for activities led by and requiring the participation of trained and qualified professionals. B. Plaintiffs' Proposal The Court should order Defendants to provide to prisoners in residential treatment at least twenty hours of out-of-cell time for structured and unstructured activities (ten hours of each), including counselor appointment (at a frequency to be determined based on clinical judgment, but generally at least weekly), group therapy, structured therapeutic therapy, and exercise/recreation time. Dr. Craig 60 8 Haney, Jan. 20, 2017 Trial Tr., at 53:9-12. Activities should be monitored and managed by trained and qualified professionals. To the extent staffing shortages contribute to treatment inadequacies, Plaintiffs refer the Court to their proposal for staffing increases. Doc. 1408. Should a patient's treatment team make an individualized clinical determination that the patient cannot come out of the cell for some or all of this time, the out-of-cell time will be limited accordingly. In such an instance, the treatment team shall review this determination every day until a determination is made that the patient has stabilized sufficiently to be able to have therapeutic and/or unstructured activities out of cell. 61 8 VIII. MONITORING A. Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Proposal As with the Defendants' previous remedial proposals related to Understaffing, Segregation, and Hospital-level care, Defendants propose no deadlines for implementing their remedial plan. Moreover, Defendants' remedial plan relies almost exclusively on the terms of the State's Request for Proposals for a Healthcare Vendor, which have not yet been incorporated into a new contract. Doc. 1594 at 3-14. Implementation of the RFP remains illusory at this point— Defendants have not yet entered into a contract for a new healthcare vendor, though they originally committed to do so by January 1, 2018. See Ex. C (Feb. 8, 2018 Legislative Contract Review Committee Agenda) (including all contracts submitted for review and not listing an ADOC contract for a healthcare vendor); Pls. Ex. 1302 (July 2017 RFP for Comprehensive Healthcare Services) at PDF p. 126. Notwithstanding the lack of a final contract or any real improvement in Defendants' practices, Defendants urge the Court to decline to issue a remedial order. Doc. 1594 at 34. This approach is manifestly not appropriate. B. Plaintiffs' Proposal To ensure that Defendants appropriately address the deficiencies cited in the above areas, the Court should appoint a Mental Health Monitor (or team of monitors, including the Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program ("ADAP"), as 62 8 appropriate) to assess and report on Defendants' progress. Further, Defendants should provide the following information/reports to both the Monitor and Plaintiffs' counsel on a monthly basis: • duty post logs for RTU/SU; • MHM monthly reports;23 • intensive Psychiatric Stabilization Unit: Inmates with Extended Stay Monthly Reports; • Segregation Rosters daily; • status of renovations to the residential treatment units; • for each facility housing an RTU, report for the prior month: (1) the name of each prisoner held in an alternative setting due to the lack of an open RTU Phase 1 bed during the month; (2) the total number of days during which the prisoner was assigned to alternative setting; and (3) the date of the prisoner's assignment to an open RTU Phase 1 bed. • total numbers of persons on the caseload at each mental health code at each facility; • total numbers of Receiving Screenings conducted at each reception facility each month; 23 If a new mental health provider is selected, the information to be provided should be consistent with the data found presently in the MHM monthly report. 63 8 • total numbers of Social Risk Assessments conducted at each reception facility each month; • total numbers of Psychiatric Evaluations performed during the intake process at each reception facility each month; • the number of prisoners identified with mental illness during the intake process and placed on the mental-health caseload; • the number of prisoners referred for emergent mental-health needs from intake; • the number of prisoners seen for an urgent referral from intake; • the number of prisoners seen for a routine referral from intake within fourteen (14) days; • the number of prisoners seen by mental-health staff through a self-referral or institutional staff referral (but not through the intake process); • the number of prisoners identified with mental illness during the referral process (but not through the intake process) and placed on the mental-health caseload; • the number of prisoners seen for an emergent referral through a self-referral or institutional staff referral (but not through the intake process); • the number of prisoners seen for an urgent referral through a self-referral or institutional staff referral (but not through the intake process); and 64 8 • the number of prisoners seen for a routine referral through a self-referral or institutional staff referral (but not through the intake process); • all Multidisciplinary Meeting Minutes (or equivalent under the new contract) referencing any problems with mental-health intake, referrals, or coding; • all mental health CQI Meeting Minutes (or equivalent under the new contract) referencing problems with mental-health intake, referrals, or coding; • all mental health audits and Corrective Action Plans referencing problems with mental-health intake, referrals, or coding; • all Mental-Health Referral Logs maintained at each facility; and • sign-in sheets from every mental-health training provided to correctional, medical, and mental-health staff. IX. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs request that the Court reject Defendants' remedial plan and enter an order consistent with Plaintiffs' proposals herein. Dated: February 16, 2018 Respectfully Submitted, /s/ Maria V. Morris Maria V. Morris One of the Attorneys for Plaintiffs Southern Poverty Law Center 400 Washington Avenue 65 8 Montgomery, AL 36104 Rhonda Brownstein (ASB-3193-O64R) Maria V. Morris (ASB-2198-R64M) Grace Graham (ASB-3040-A64G) Latasha L. McCrary (ASB-1935-L75M) Caitlin J. Sandley (ASB-5317-S48R) SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 400 Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36104 Telephone: (334) 956-8200 Facsimile: (334) 956-8481 rhonda.brownstein@splcenter.org maria.morris@splcenter.org grace.graham@splcenter.org latasha.mccrary@splcenter.org cj.sandley@splcenter.org William Van Der Pol, Jr. (ASB-2112-114F) Glenn N. Baxter (ASB-3825-A41G) Lonnie J. Williams Barbara A. Lawrence Andrea J Mixson Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program Box 870395 Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 Telephone: (205) 348-4928 Facsimile: (205) 348-3909 wvanderpoljr@adap.ua.edu gnbaxter@adap.ua.edu lwilliams@adap.ua.edu blawrence@adap.ua.edu amixson@adap.ua.edu Lisa W. Borden (ASB-5673-D57L) William G. Somerville, III (ASB-6185-E63W) Andrew P. Walsh (ASB-3755-W77W) Dennis Nabors Patricia Clotfelter (ASB-0841-F43P) Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz PC 66 8 420 20th Street North, Suite 1400 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 328-0480 Facsimile: (205) 322-8007 lborden@bakerdonelson.com wsomerville@bakerdonelson.com awalsh@bakerdonelson.com dnabors@bakerdonelson.com pclotfelter@bakerdonelson.com /s/ Anil A. Mujumdar Anil A. Mujumdar (ASB-2004-L65M) One of the Attorneys for Plaintiff Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program Gregory M. Zarzaur (ASB-0759-E45Z) Diandra S. Debrosse (ASB-2956-N76D) Denise Wiginton Zarzaur Mujumdar & Debrosse 2332 2nd Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 983-7985 Facsimile: (888) 505-0523 gregory@zarzaur.com anil@zarzaur.com fuli@zarzaur.com denise@zarzaur.com ATTORNEYS FOR THE PLAINTIFFS 67 8 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have on this 16th day of February, 2018, electronically filed the foregoing with the clerk of the court by using the CM/ECF system, which will send a notice of electronic filing to the following: David R. Boyd, Esq. Steven C. Corhern, Esq. John G. Smith, Esq. Balch & Bingham LLP John W. Naramore, Esq. Post Office Box 306 Balch & Bingham LLP Birmingham, AL 35201-0306 Post Office Box 78 scorhern@balch.com Montgomery, AL 36101-0078 dboyd@balch.com Mitesh Shah, Esq. jgsmith@balch.com Luther M. Dorr, Esq. jnaramore@balch.com Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C. 1901 6th Avenue North, Suite 2400 William R. Lunsford, Esq. Birmingham, AL 35203 Matthew Reeves, Esq. mshah@maynardcooper.com Melissa K. Marler, Esq. rdorr@maynardcooper.com Stephen C. Rogers, Esq. Alyson L. Smith, Esq. Deana Johnson, Esq. Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C. Brett T. Lane, Esq. 655 Gallatin Street, SW MHM Services, Inc. Huntsville, AL 35801 1447 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 500 blunsford@maynardcooper.com Atlanta, GA 30309 mreeves@maynardcooper.com djohnson@mhm-services.com mmarler@maynardcooper.com btlane@mhm-services.com srogers@maynardcooper.com asmith@maynardcooper.com Anne Hill, Esq. Elizabeth A. Sees, Esq. Joseph G. Stewart, Jr., Esq. Alabama Department of Corrections Legal Division 301 South Ripley Street Montgomery, AL 36104 anne.hill@doc.alabama.gov elizabeth.sees@doc.alabama.gov joseph.stewart@doc.alabama.gov /s/ Maria V. Morris One of the Attorneys for Plaintiffs 68

Exhibit A - Training Classes Available at All Facilities

0 EXHIBIT 0 1901 Sixth Avenue North · Suite 1500 - P. O. Box 306 (35201) · Birmingham, AL 35203 - 4642 www. balch. com BALCH & B IN G H A M LLP. JENELLE R. EVANS t: (205) 226 - 8760 f: (205) 488 - 5686 e: jevans @ balch. com January 9, 2017 William Van Der Pol Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program University of Alabama 500 Martha Parham West, Box 870395 Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 Dear William: Pursuant to paragraph 41, Section II of the Consent Decree Concerning Claims Arising Under the Americans with Disabilities Act and & 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and Resolving the Phase I Trial of These Proceedings ("Phase I Consent Decree"), The Alabama Department of Corrections ("ADOC") is providing the attached list of ADOC facilities. The attachment is a complete list of all educational, vocational and rehabilitative programs and services offered for each facility. Sincerely, GamWOUKOUMAL Jenelle R. Evans JRE: kwa CC: Gina Hilberry Anne A. Hill ALABAMA | FLORIDA I GEORGIA I MISSISSIPPI | WASHINGTON, DC 0 ALABAMA CORRECTIONAL INDUSTRIES WORK TRAINING ACI Central Office and Warehouse ACI Kilby Print Plant ACI Draper Fleet ACI Draper Furniture Plant ACI St. Clair – Vinyl Products ACI St. Clair – Chemical ACI St. Clair - Furniture Restoration / New ACI St. Clair - Modular ACI St. Clair – Fleet ACI Tag Plant (Holman) ACI Holman Sewing Plant ACI Tutwiler Sewing Plant ACI Ventress Chair Plant ACI Ventress Mattress Plant ACI Fountain Fleet ALEX CITY COMMUNITY BASED FACILITY / COMMUNITY WORK CENTER SAP Relapse Aftercare Re - Entry Religious Services Religious Services Religious Services AA Religious Services Religious Services Religious Services Religious Services Religious Services Religious Services BIBB CORRECTIONAL FACILITY Seminary Kairos GED ΑΑ / ΝΑ Anger Management Values Clarification Pre Release / Re - entry Dannon Project Auburn Art Auburn Writing ! 494025. ! 0 Inside Out Dads Men's Group Kyo Kelly's Bible Study Restoring the Foundation Ministries International True Measure of a Man The Praying Life Keys to Life after Prison Principals of Transformation CPT Group Authentic Manhood Building Community Case for Character Concepts of Pre - release Critical Thinking Financial Peace Hispanic Bible Study Strategies for Success Purpose Driven Life The Addicted Brain The Cure Life Link Round Table Living Forward Freedom Reigns Model Man Concepts of Re - Entry Making it Work Life Blood Critical Thinking Effective Communication Catholic Jehovah's Witness Jewish Service Moorish Science Temple Nation of Gods in Earth Nation of Islam Native American Orthodox Muslim Protestant Services Chaplain Services Brother's Keeper Celebrate Recovery Choir Practice Comparative Religion Cultural Awareness Freedom Class N 1191025 .) 0 Gloryland Baptist Bible Study Crime Bill Aftercare Anger Management Stress Management BIRMINGHAM COMMUNITY BASED FACILITY / COMMUNITY WORK CENTER Substance Abuse Program Relapse Prevention Aftercare Program Chronic Disease Stress Management Trauma Informed Program Career Planning Computer Navigation Re - Entry Program Individual Counseling Narcotics Anonymous Alcoholics Anonymous Mental Health Collaboration Department of Public Health G. E. D. Prayer Mothers Pathway to Freedom New life Behavior Sunday Church Services Love Series Study Prayer Force Restoring the Foundations Mat Making Class Un - Glued Kicking It Warrior of the Word Study Jesus in Me Life After Prison Guiding Light Church Living Word Care New Hope Purpose Integrity Ministries Sister Loretta Closure A2 Church 1191025. 1 3 0 BULLOCK CORRECTIONAL FACILITY Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Dealing with Feeling Trauma Effective Problem Solving Depression Substance Abuse / Mental Disorders Stress Management Preparing for Change Social Skills General Activities Classes Art Therapy Self Awareness Goal setting Anger Management Planning for a Better Life Value Clarifications Reality Therapy Stress Management Long Distance Dad Depression (Situational issues) Offer Open House for inmates needing a Home Plan (s) Anger Management Domestic Violence Grief and Loss Goal Setting Job Readiness PTSD Criminal Thinking SAP Crime Bill After Care АА GED Program Bullock Re - entry Program Alabama Prison Art & Education Project Trauma Life After Release Coping with Incarceration Depression Hoping and Coping Personality Disorders Geriatric Group Borderline SMART Choices 1494025. 1 0 Taking a Chance on Change Mental Health offer Medication Education Classes by Nurse Screws CAMDEN COMMUNITY BASED FACILITY / COMMUNITY WORK CENTER Celebrate Recovery Brother's Keeper Fatherhood Initiative Institutional Fellowship CHILDERSBERG COMMUNITY BASED FACILITY / COMMUNITY WORK CENTER Adult Basic Education / GED Employee Skills Transition Skills Life Skills Work Keys High School Option (HSO) Substance Abuse Program Self - help Groups AA / NA Re - Entry Program Jehovah Witness Fatherhood Class Bible Study Catholic Services Church of the Highlands Nation of Islam Worship Service DECATUR COMMUNITY BASED FACILITY / COMMUNITY WORK CENTER 8 week SAP Relapse Aftercare New Life Behavior N / A Α / Α Adult Basic Education (GED) Re - Entry Islamic 5 % Nation of Islam Sunni Jumu ' ah Life's Healing Choices 1494025. 1 0 Christian Catholic Jewish Sabbath Jehovah Witness Choir Praise and Worship Catechism Study Kairos DONALDSON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY ΑΑ / ΝΑ Adjustment Skills Group AL Prison & Arts Education Anger Management Anger & Stress Management Coping with Incarceration Cognitive Behavior Therapy (CBT) Houses of Healing Reality Therapy Sex Addicts Anonymous (SAA) Taking a Chance on Change Therapeutic " May Day " UAB Body & Health UAB Lecture Series Values Clarification VIPASSA 3 - Day Series VIPASSANA 10 - Day Series VIPASSANA Sitting (Old Students) Activities Group Adjustment Skills Group Art Therapy Group Coping Skills Coping with Incarceration Dealing with Feeling Goals Group Handle Anger Better Horticultural Group Personal Hygiene Sleep Hygiene Pre - Treatment Phases 1 - 3 of Crime Bill Aftercare Accelerated Learning Accountability Group African - American History 1494025. 1 0 American History APAEP (AL. Prison Arts & Education Program) Bible Missionary Bible Study Group Black Creek Bible Study Character Development Christianity and World Religions Community Bible Study Faith Character Community Bible Study New Beginning Financial Peace Free Man Faith / Character Free Man New Beginning Fresh Air Jehovah Witness New Beginning Jobs for Life Laubach Reading & Writing Life Skills Long Distance Dads Mentoring Problem Solving Rev. Holt Bible Study True Holiness & Discovery New Beginnings Understanding God & His Covenant Walk of Faith Death Row Advanced Art Alive in Christ Basic Art Bible Discovery Bread of Life Come As You Are Creative Writing Debate Study Group Freedom Initiative New Beginning Islamic Studies Faith / Character Islamic Studies New Beginning Odinist Faith / Character Production Writing SOP Faith / Character SOP New Beginning Spanish Class Renewing your Mind Special Services Adult Basic Education Trade School Masonry 1494025. 1 0 Electrical Barbering Carpentry DRAPER CORRECTIONAL FACILITY Anger Management Stress Management Reality Therapy Values Clarification Domestic Violence Personal Development Self Concept Enhancement Depression Re - Entry Fatherhood Program Samford University Life Behavior Ministry Kairos 8 Week Intensive Substance Abuse Program Residential Substance Abuse Treatment Program 8 Week Stimulant Program Aftercare Programs Lauback Bible Study GED Air Conditioning Auto Mechanic Auto Mechanic Aide Barber Cabinetry Campus Aide Carpentry Drafting Drafting Aide Furniture Horticulture Horticulture Aide Student Aide Upholstery Upholstery Aide Welding Welding Aide Auto Body Barber Brick Mason 8 1494025) 0 Brick Mason Aide Diesel Mechanic Drafting Drafting Aide Electrical Maintenance Plumbing Student Aide Student Services Welding Welding Aide EASTERLING CORRECTIONAL FACILITY Refuge Church Jehovah Witnesses St. John's R. C. Church St. Mark's R. C. Church New Testament Holiness Union Springs Baptist University Church of Christ Winds of Change Chaplain Steve Riley Elder Willie Holmes No Great Love Ministry Christian Life Church Grace Baptist Church Calvary Assembly of God Seven Stars Holiness Church Warriors of the World Brother Floyd Protestant Service Nation of Islam Sunni Islam Moorish Science Temple of America 5 % Nation of Gods and Earths Native American Wicca Odinism ReNew Hope Ministries Faith Crusade Ministries Joyce Meyer Ministries Potter's House Service Fatherhood (All Day Seminar) Benevolence 1494025. 1 0 Bible Giveaway Baptisms Marriage Christian Life School of Theology Library Book Lending (Institution) Library Book Lending (Faith Dorm) Family Day Pre - Treatment Crime Bill Aftercare Alcoholics Anonymous Stop the Violence GED Drafting Electrical Cabinet Making Brick Masonry Plumbing Cognitive Behavior Therapy Adjustments to Incarceration Stress Management Anger Management Self - Esteem Coping with Incarceration Social Skills Depression Life after Release Medication Education Anxiety ELBA COMMUNITY BASED FACILITY / COMMUNITY WORK CENTER АВЕ NA / AA - Overcomers in Christ Refuge Prison Ministry St. Beaulah Outreach Winds of Change Ministries Rockwest Baptist Church Fellowship Outreach Church of Christ Church of God in Christ Summer Revival Celebrate Recovery 1494025 | 10 0 ELMORE CORRECTION FACILITY Veterans Day Program Memorial Day Program Black History Program Christmas Program July 4th Celebration We Care Donut Day Employee Appreciation Day Annual Barbeque (Inmate) Inmate Orientation Veteran Affairs Meeting G. E. D. Instruction Laubach Literacy Program Music Theory 101 Auburn Classes (Anthropology, Biology, Poetry) H. I. M. Ministry Bible College Air Conditioning Auto Mechanic Auto Mechanic Aide Barber Cabinetry Campus Aide Carpentry Drafting Drafting Aide Furniture Horticulture Horticulture Aide Student Aide Upholstery Upholstery Aide Welding Welding Aide Auto Body Barber Brick Mason Brick Mason Aide Diesel Mechanic Drafting Drafting Aide Electrical Maintenance Plumbing Student Aide 14940251 0 Student Services Welding Welding Aide Holy Spirit Class (Faith Based Honor Dorm) New Testament Class (Faith Based Honor Dorm) Life Plan for Success (Faith Based Honor Dorm) Leadership Class (Faith Based Honor Dorm) Art of Decision Making (Faith Based Honor Dorm) Maturing the Saints (Faith Based Honor Dorm) Family Day Program Listening Center Indigent Hygiene Program Kairos Outreach Service Wetumpka Church of Christ Mt. Hebron Baptist Sons of Thunder Ramp Video Service Greater Temple Hedges & Highways Faith Crusade Birmingham Grand View Pines Baptist United Prison Ministry Newness of Life Freedom Chapel Cope Ministry Lamplighters United Prison Ministry Charity Prison Ministry We Care Outreach Revival Rock of Ages Christians Concerned For Prisons East Birmingham Church of God in Christ Special Forces for Jesus Islamic Jum ' ah Volunteer Chaplain's Assistance Nation of Islam Sunni Moorish Science Temple Stress Management Anger Management Reality Therapy Money Management and Interview Strategies (Re - Entry Program) Substance Addiction (Re - Entry Program) Health Issues and Treatment, STDs (Re - Entry Program) Spirituality (Re - Entry Program) Re - Integrating with the Family (Re - Entry Program) Law Enforcement (i. e ., ICE, Probation / Parole) (Re - Entry Program) 1494025. I 0 Veteran's Administration Relapse Treatment Program Substance Abuse Program Aftercare Meetings Forklift Training FOUNTAIN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY Auto Body Repair Automotive Mechanic Small Engine Repair Barbering Cabinet Making Bricklaying / Masonry Commercial Foods Plumbing Welding Social Service I Social Service II Aftercare Narcotics Anonymous (NA) Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) Substance Abuse (SAP) Re - Entry Pre - Release Pre - Treatment - SAP SAB Recovery Anger Management Stress Management Values Clarification Sleep Hygiene Personal Hygiene Coping with Incarceration Life After Release Depression Behavior Modification Christian Basic Series Faith Lessons Faith Lessons II Hispanic Education Anger Resolution Spanish Restorative Justice II АВЕ Inside Out Dad 14940251 0 Islamic History Church History Spiritual Leadership Native American Spirituality Independent Studies ACI Fountain Fleet Service FRANK LEE COMMUNITY BASED FACILITY COMMUNITY WORK CENTER Automotive Body Repair Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning Automotive Technology Barbering Cabinet Making Carpentry Cosmetology Diesel Mechanics Drafting and Design Technology Electrical Technology Furniture Refinishing Horticulture Logistics Masonry Plumbing Office Administration Upholstery Welding Substance Abuse Program Narcotics Anonymous Alcoholics Anonymous Individual Counseling for Program Inmates Individual Counseling for Aftercare Inmates Aftercare Christianity Muslim Catholic Building Brothers for Christ Annual Training (Offered at Elmore Correctional Facility & Draper Correctional Facility) Air Conditioning (Offered at Elmore Correctional Facility & Draper Correctional Facility) Auto Mechanic (Offered at Elmore Correctional Facility & Draper Correctional Facility) Auto Mechanic Aide (Offered at Elmore Correctional Facility & Draper Correctional Facility) Barber (Offered at Elmore Correctional Facility & Draper Correctional Facility) Cabinetry (Offered at Elmore Correctional Facility & Draper Correctional Facility) Campus Aide (Offered at Elmore Correctional Facility & Draper Correctional Facility) Carpentry (Offered at Elmore Correctional Facility & Draper Correctional Facility) Drafting (Offered at Elmore Correctional Facility & Draper Correctional Facility) 1494025. 1 0 Drafting Aide (Offered at Elmore Correctional Facility & Draper Correctional Facility) Furniture (Offered at Elmore Correctional Facility & Draper Correctional Facility) Horticulture (Offered at Elmore Correctional Facility & Draper Correctional Facility) Horticulture Aide (Offered at Elmore Correctional Facility & Draper Correctional Facility) Student Aide (Offered at Elmore Correctional Facility & Draper Correctional Facility) Upholstery (Offered at Elmore Correctional Facility & Draper Correctional Facility) Upholstery Aide (Offered at Elmore Correctional Facility & Draper Correctional Facility) Welding (Offered at Elmore Correctional Facility & Draper Correctional Facility) Welding Aide (Offered at Elmore Correctional Facility & Draper Correctional Facility) Auto Body (Offered at Elmore Correctional Facility & Draper Correctional Facility) Barber (Offered at Elmore Correctional Facility & Draper Correctional Facility) Brick Mason (Offered at Elmore Correctional Facility & Draper Correctional Facility) Brick Mason Aide (Offered at Elmore Correctional Facility & Draper Correctional Facility) Diesel Mechanic (Offered at Elmore Correctional Facility & Draper Correctional Facility) Drafting (Offered at Elmore Correctional Facility & Draper Correctional Facility) Drafting Aide (Offered at Elmore Correctional Facility & Draper Correctional Facility) Electrical (Offered at Elmore Correctional Facility & Draper Correctional Facility) Maintenance (Offered at Elmore Correctional Facility & Draper Correctional Facility) Plumbing (Offered at Elmore Correctional Facility & Draper Correctional Facility) Student Aide (Offered at Elmore Correctional Facility & Draper Correctional Facility) Student Services (Offered at Elmore Correctional Facility & Draper Correctional Facility) Welding (Offered at Elmore Correctional Facility & Draper Correctional Facility) Welding Aide (Offered at Elmore Correctional Facility & Draper Correctional Facility) HAMILTON AGED & INFIRMED Samford University MTI Understanding Addiction Health & Wellness Understanding Stress Basic Science Basic Math The Old Testament The New Testament Algebra I Algebra II Geometry Anatomy World History American History Hinduism Buddhism Judaism Islam Christianity United States and Middle East 1494025. 1 0 The Dead Sea Scrolls Financial Peace Cultural Values Kairos Retreat Islamic Study Bible Study Asatru Study Celebrate Recovery Re - Entry Resource Presentations Kairos Reunions Self - Esteem Depression Anger Management Coping with Incarceration Anxiety Cognitive Behavior Therapy Coping and Hoping Dealing with Feelings Grief Support Life After Release Psychotropic Medication Education Responsible Parenting Tools for Today Planning for a Better Life Disease Prevention Exploring the United States Adjustment Skills Group Diabetes Education Alzheimers / Dementia Education PTSD / Drug Awareness GED / ABE Classes Psychotropic Medication and Heat HAMILTON COMMUNITY BASED FACILITY COMMUNITY WORK CENTER ΑΑ Heart of Addiction Pre - Release (DVD) Adult Basic Education RAMP Praise and Worship Freewill Baptist Service Contemporary Music Traditional Music Bible Study Church of Christ Service Servant Riders 1494025. I 16 0 Nation of Islam Study Orthodox Sunni Muslim Juma ' ah Church of God Service Nondenominational Nations of God and Earth Muslim DVD Christian DVD Prayer Time Religious TV Nation of Gods and Earth (DVD) HOLMAN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY Men of God Program Pre - Release Re - Entry Celebrate Recovery Narcotic Anonymous Alcoholics Anonymous WIN Program Stress & Anger Management Self Awareness Fusion Group Anger Management Coping Skills Coping with Incarceration Changing Criminal Thinking Metal Fab / Tag Plant Sewing Plant GED - Honor Dorm AM GED – Honor Dorm PM GED Day Restorative Justive - 2 Year Core Curriculum KILBY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY Muslim Service Christian Service Native American Jehovah Witness New Man of God New Life Behavior ΑΑ / ΝΑ Anger Management SAP Catholic Service 17 1494025, 1 0 Print Plant Re - Entry LIMESTONE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY 8 Week SAP x 2 (Limestone Drug Treatment Program) Co - Occurring (Limestone Drug Treatment Program) Orientation (Limestone Drug Treatment Program) Aftercare (Limestone Drug Treatment Program) AA / NA (Limestone Drug Treatment Program) James and Practical Living (Limestone Chaplin Program) NLB # 10 Seekers (Limestone Chaplin Program) Hebrews, A Word of Encouragement (Limestone Chaplin Program) Biblical Archaeology (Limestone Chaplin Program) Conflict Management (Limestone Chaplin Program) NLB # 1, A Sense of Self (Limestone Chaplin Program) NLB # 4, True Freedom (Limestone Chaplin Program) Galatians (Limestone Chaplin Program) NLB # 1, A Sense of Self (Limestone Chaplin Program) Theological Themes in the Bible (Limestone Chaplin Program) The Book of Psalms (Limestone Chaplin Program) Beatitudes (Limestone Chaplin Program) Cage the Rage (Anger Management) (Limestone Chaplin Program) Design with Purpose (Limestone Chaplin Program) Choosing your Leader (Limestone Chaplin Program) The Study of Matthew (Limestone Chaplin Program) Hispanic Bible Class (Limestone Chaplin Program) Revelations (Limestone Chaplin Program) NLB # 4, True Freedom (Limestone Chaplin Program) Christ our Example (Limestone Chaplin Program) Revelations Ch. 11 - 12 (Limestone Chaplin Program) Rebuilding the Altar (Limestone Chaplin Program) Battles of the Old Testament (Limestone Chaplin Program) Topics from the Bible (Limestone Chaplin Program) Think Right Act Right (Limestone Chaplin Program) NLB # 1, A Sense of Self (Limestone Chaplin Program) Nation of Islam (Limestone Chaplin Program) Sunni (Orthodox Islam) (Limestone Chaplin Program) M. S. T. O. A. (Limestone Chaplin Program) Jehovah Witness (Limestone Chaplin Program) Personal Development (Limestone Chaplin Program) Self - Concept (Limestone Chaplin Program) Reality Therapy (Limestone Chaplin Program) Values Clarification (Limestone Chaplin Program) Stress Management (Limestone Chaplin Program) Anger Management (Limestone Chaplin Program) 1494025. 1 0 Smoking Cessation (Limestone Chaplin Program) S. O. A. (Limestone Chaplin Program) S. F. T. (Limestone Chaplin Program) Stress Management (Limestone Chaplin Program) Anger Management (Limestone Chaplin Program) Anger Management (Limestone Chaplin Program) Jewish (Limestone Chaplin Program) Anger Management (MHM Services) Depression (MHM Services) Dealing with Feeling (MHM Services) Accepting Mental Illness (MHM Services) Taking a Chance on Change (MHM Services) Stress Management (MHM Services) Preparing for Change Self - Awareness & Self Esteem Personal Development / Character Goal Setting & Priorities Anger Management & Domestic Stress Management & Conflict Effective Communication Skills Personal Hygiene / Health / Nutrition Substance Abuse Education Employability Skill & Work Ethics Small Business Start Up Financial Management Family Reintegration Parenting & Healthy Relationships Preparing for Release Living Under Supervision Navigating & Accessing Community Anger Management Art Therapy Book Club Commercial Driver's License Christians Against Substance Abuse Conquering Computers Courage to Change: Responsible Thinking Courage to Change: Self Control Driver Improvement Course " Fight ": Winning the Battle that Matters Foundations for Life Financial Peace Houses of Healing Hepatitis Education Life's Healing Choices: Celebrate Recovery Man to Man 1494025. 1 0 Men's Health Matrix Intensive Outpatient Treatment New Life Behavior Occupational Safety & Health Parole Dunk Purpose Driven Life Reading for Life Small Business Start - Up Stress Management Twenty - Four - Seven Dads U - Turn Financial Management Starting Over Breaking Free from the Enemy's Grip Forgiving Forward Goal Setting Financial Management Inside Matters 7 Habits of Highly Effective People Life Skills 101 Relationship Smarts Inside Out Dads Construction (Calhoun Community College Programs) Rough Carpentry (Calhoun Community College Programs) Finish Carpentry (Calhoun Community College Programs) Masonry (Calhoun Community College Programs) Electrical (Calhoun Community College Programs) Design Drafting (Calhoun Community College Programs) Basic Design (Calhoun Community College Programs) Advanced Computer Aid (Calhoun Community College Programs) Architectural (Calhoun Community College Programs) Electro - Mechanical (Calhoun Community College Programs) Basic Civil - Structural Horticulture (Calhoun Community College Programs) General (Calhoun Community College Programs) Landscape Development (Calhoun Community College Programs) Nursery / Greenhouse (Calhoun Community College Programs) Welding (Calhoun Community College Programs) Basic Structural (Calhoun Community College Programs) Basic Pipe (Calhoun Community College Programs) GED Program (Calhoun Community College Programs) NA Meetings (Limestone Psychological Associate Programs) AA Meetings (Limestone Psychological Associate Programs) Personal Development (Limestone Psychological Associate Programs) Personal Development (Limestone Psychological Associate Programs) Stress Management (Limestone Psychological Associate Programs) 20 1494025. 1 0 Self - Concept (Limestone Psychological Associate Programs) Anger Management (Limestone Psychological Associate Programs) Depression (Limestone Psychological Associate Programs) Reality Therapy (Limestone Psychological Associate Programs) Values Clarification (Limestone Psychological Associate Programs) Smoking Cessation (Limestone Psychological Associate Programs) Sexual Adjustment (SAA) Behavior Modification and Life Skills Program (Limestone Psychological Associate Programs) LOXLEY COMMUNITY BASED FACILITY / COMMUNITY WORK CENTER 8 - Week SAP 120 Hour Relapse Aftercare Anger Management Re - Entry / Pre - Release ABE (GED) Career Pathways Fatherhood Economic Stability Literacy Tutoring NA Meeting AA Meeting Life Way Church Moorish Science Islam / Sunni Praise Team Bible Study MOBILE COMMUNITY BASED FACILITY COMMUNITY WORK CENTER ΑΑ / ΝΑ GED Re - Lapse (Substance Abuse Program) Re - Entry (Substance Abuse Program) Aftercare (Substance Abuse Program) Pre - Release (Substance Abuse Program) Religious Services Veteran's Affairs Programs Inmate Welfare Committee Advisory Committee Meeting MCBF – Facility Heads Job Placements ' Employers Meeting Fatherhood Initiative We Care Vocational Rehabilitation Services 1494025. I 21 0 Housing 1st MONTGOMERY WOMEN'S FACILITY Anger Management Criminal Thinking Trauma Grief Parenting Coping Skills A Sense of Self True Freedom Attitudes and Behaviors Christians Against Substance Abuse (CASA) Prisoners of Christ The Christian Woman Eight Week SAP Aftercare Strategies for Anger Management Faces Job Preparation Parent Leadership Self Esteem RED EAGLE COMMUNITY WORK CENTER Work Ethics Fatherhood / Manhood Church of Christ Moorish Science 5 % Nation of Islam Sunni Muslim John Williams Intern Catholic New Life Behavior Jehovah's Witness Holy Eucharist Nation of Islam Sam Robinson Ministries Harvest Family ST. CLAIR CORRECTIONAL FACILITY Anger Management (Psych. Associate II) Empowerment Group (Psych. Associate II) Adjustment Skills (Psych. Associate II) 1494025. 1 0 Taking a Chance on Change (Psych. Associate II) Brick Masonry (Trade School) Electrical Technology (Trade School) Welding Technology (Trade School) Heating, Air & Refrigeration Tech. (Trade School) GED Preparation (Trade School) Vinyl Product (ACI) Chemical (ACI) Furniture Restoration / New (ACI) Modular (ACI) Fleet (ACI) Anger Management (MHM) Stress Management (MHM) Depression (MHM) PTSD Trauma (MHM) Dealing with Feeling I & II (MHM) Cognitive Behavior Therapy I & II (MHM) Sleep Hygiene (MHM) Medication Adherence (MHM) Discipleship Class (Chapel Services) Knights of the 21st Century (Chapel Services) LifeLink (Chapel Services) Fatherhood Initiative (Chapel Services) Leadership Class (Chapel Services) Kairos Retreat (Chapel Services) Bible Class (Chapel Services) Chaplain's Bible Study (Chapel Services) Financial Peace University (Chapel Services) Christian Studies (Chapel Services) Disciple's Journey Bible Study (Chapel Services) Discipleship Class (Chapel Services) Grace Family Bible Study (Chapel Services) LifeLink (Chapel Services) Mindful Awareness group (Chapel Services) Morality & Ethics Class (Chapel Services) Musical Arts Class (Chapel Services) Native American Spirituality (Chapel Services) New Life Behavior Class (Chapel Services) 1 " Half Freshman Class Leadership Workshop Anger and Stress Management Sophomore / Junior Tap - in Freshman / Senior Tap In Sophomore Concept Class New Life Behavior Class Life Link Class 1494025 | 0 Criminal Thinking Pretreatment Class 2nd Half Freshman Class Fatherhood Initiative Spiritual Management Class 2nd Half Sophomore Class Jumu ' ah Relapse Prevention 2 Sophomore Recovery Dynamics 2 Sophomore Relapse Prevention 1 Sophomore Recovery Dynamics 1 Sophomore Nation of Islam Services (Chapel Services) Native American Services (Chapel Services) Odinist Services (Chapel Services) Wiccan Services (Chapel Services) Native American Sweat Lodge Ceremonies (Chapel Services) Outmate Ministries Services (Chapel Services) Sabbath Services (Chapel Services) LifeLink (Chapel Services) Fatherhood Initiative (Chapel Services) Knights of the 21st Century (Chapel Services) New Life Behavior Class (Chapel Services) Reading Workshop (Chapel Services) Anger Management (Chapel Services) Stress Management (Chapel Services) Reality Therapy (Chapel Services) Depression Workshop (Chapel Services) Values Clarification (Chapel Services) Healthy Use of Leisure Time (Chapel Services) Personal Development (Chapel Services) Prophecy Class (Chapel Services) Quranic Studies (Chapel Services) Samford Extension Class (Chapel Services) Spiritual Living Class (Chapel Services) House of Healing (Chapel Services) Book Club (Chapel Services) Book Club (Chapel Services) Protestant Christian Services (Chapel Services) Catholic Christian Services (Chapel Services) Orthodox Muslim Services (Chapel Services) 5 % Nation Services (Chapel Services) Moorish Science Temple Services (Chapel Services) Jehovah's Witness Services (Chapel Services) Rastafarian Services (Chapel Services) 1494025 1 24 0 STATON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY Matrix Drug Treatment Relapse Drug Treatment Alcoholics Anonymous Narcotics Anonymous Anger Management Re - Entry Mental Health Workshop Depression Rational Thinking Self - Concept Sexual Adjustment Stress Management Substance Abuse Use of Leisure Time Values Clarification Orientation Auto Mechanics Barbering Carpentry Furniture Refinishing Heating & Air Conditioning Horticulture Upholstery Welding Brick Masonry Drafting & Design Diesel Mechanic Electrical Auto Body Plumbing Special Services GED Path Way to Freedom Samford University JAMM Kairos Annual Kairos One Day Retreat Kairos Monthly Reunion New Life Behavior Ministry Church of the Highlands Laubach Program Auburn University Literature and Arts Life Skills Class Music Classes 25 1491025 I 0 Anger Management Christian Based Parenting Christian Based Sex Addition Christian Based Leadership Conference Christian Based Ministry V Fatherhood Initiatives We Care Ministry We Care Ministry One - on - One Creation Class Art Classes CDL Classes Annual Training (Offered at Elmore Correctional Facility & Draper Correctional Facility) Air Conditioning (Offered at Elmore Correctional Facility & Draper Correctional Facility) Auto Mechanic (Offered at Elmore Correctional Facility & Draper Correo Auto Mechanic Aide (Offered at Elmore Correctional Facility & Draper Correctional Facility) Barber (Offered at Elmore Correctional Facility & Draper Correctional Facility) Cabinetry (Offered at Elmore Correctional Facility & Draper Correctional Facility) Campus Aide (Offered at Elmore Correctional Facility & Draper Correctional Facility) Carpentry (Offered at Elmore Correctional Facility & Draper Correctional Facility) Drafting (Offered at Elmore Correctional Facility & Draper Correctional Facility) Drafting Aide (Offered at Elmore Correctional Facility & Draper Correctional Facility) Furniture (Offered at Elmore Correctional Facility & Draper Correctional Facility) Horticulture (Offered at Elmore Correctional Facility & Draper Correctional Facility) red at Elmore Correctional Facility & Draper Correctional Facility) Student Aide (Offered at Elmore Correctional Facility & Draper Correctional Facility) Upholstery (Offered at Elmore Correctional Facility & Draper Correctional Facility) Upholstery Aide (Offered at Elmore Correctional Facility & Draper Correctional Facility) Welding (Offered at Elmore Correctional Facility & Draper Correctional Facility) Welding Aide (Offered at Elmore Correctional Facility & Draper Correctional Facility) Auto Body (Offered at Elmore Correctional Facility & Draper Correctional Facility) Barber (Offered at Elmore Correctional Facility & Draper Correctional Facility) Brick Mason (Offered at Elmore Correctional Facility & Draper Correctional Facility) Brick Mason Aide (Offered at Elmore Correctional Facility & Draper Correctional Facility) Diesel Mechanic (Offered at Elmore Correctional Facility & Draper Correctional Facility) Drafting (Offered at Elmore Correctional Facility & Draper Correctional Facility) Drafting Aide (Offered at Elmore Correctional Facility & Draper Correctional Facility) Electrical (Offered at Elmore Correctional Facility & Draper Correctional Facility) Maintenance (Offered at Elmore Correctional Facility & Draper Correctional Facility) rectional Facility & Draper Correctional Facility) Student Aide (Offered at Elmore Correctional Facility & Draper Correctional Facility) Student Services (Offered at Elmore Correctional Facility & Draper Correctional Facility) Welding (Offered at Elmore Correctional Facility & Draper Correctional Facility) Welding Aide (Offered at Elmore Correctional Facility & Draper Correctional Facility) 1494025 1 26 0 TUTWILER PRISON FOR WOMEN Domestic Violence Alternative to Criminal Thinking Anger Management Coping Skills Values Trauma Parenting Personal Development Family Relations Coping with Incarceration Depression Group Project Reconnect (AIM) Story Book (AIM) Re - Entry A Doula Class 8 week SAP (Drug Treatment) 8 week SAP (Meth Treatment) 6 month Crime Bill Drug Treatment Relapse Prevention After Care AA Support Group NA Support Group New Life Behavioral Gender Response PREA for Inmates Adult Basic Education (GED) Auto Mechanics Welding Cosmetology Tablet Education Program Office Management Anthropology ADOC Tutwiler Sewing Plant Logistics Reading Program Morning Prayer Church of the Highlands Pilgrim Rest Baptist Church New Life Church of God in Christ Apostolic Faith Ministries Fresh Fire Kairos Weekend Retreat Kairos Reunion We Care ReNew Hope Revival 27 1494025, 1 0 Rock of Ages Revival Faith Crusade Revival Angel Tree Project Holiday Video Greeting (AIM) Gulf Coast Revival Praise & Worship Service Catholic Mass NCC - Safe Harbor Women Aglow Women of Excellence United Lambs of God House of Refuge Holiness True Holiness Temple Re - Birth Christian Center Word Alive Project Hope Walking in the Light Native American Grounds VENTRESS CORRECTIONAL FACILITY Adult Basic Education (ABE) Small Engine Repair Air Condition / Refrigeration Co - Occurring Disorders Program 8 week Substance Abuse Program 8 week Substance Abuse Program 8 week Stimulant Matrix AA / NA Meeting Aftercare Aftercare Crime Bill Furniture Plant Mattress Plant Anger Management Pre - Release Program Fatherhood Program / Long Distance Dads Global Youth Evangelism Studies Bible First Studies 1494025. I 28

Exhibit B - NCCHC

EXHIBIT Standards for Mental Health Services in Correctional Facilities 2015 NCCHC National Commission on Correctional Health Care Governance and Administration MH - A - 03 essential CLINICAL AUTONOMY Standard Clinical decisions and actions regarding mental health care provided to inmates to meet their serious mental health needs are solely the responsibility of qualified mental health professionals. Compliance Indicators 1. Clinical decisions and their implementation are completed in an effective and safe manner. 2. Administrative decisions (such as utilization review) are coordinated, if necessary, with clinical needs so that patient care is not jeopardized. Custody staff supports the implementation of clinical decisions. 4. Mental health staff is subject to the same security regulations as other facility employees. 5. All aspects of the standard are addressed by written policy and defined procedures. Definitions Custody staff includes line security as well as correctional administration. Mental health staff includes qualified health care professionals who have received instruction and supervision in identifying and interacting with individuals in need of mental health services. Oualified health care professionals include physicians, physician assistants, nurses, nurse practitioners, dentists, mental health professionals, and others who by virtue of their education, credentials, and experience are permitted by law to evaluate and care for patients. Discussion The intent of this standard is to ensure that clinical decisions are made for clinical purposes and without interference from other personnel. Qualified mental health professionals direct clinical decisions and actions regarding mental health care. If custody staff requests that an inmate be medicated for behavioral or any other reason, the clinical decision to medicate should be based on the mental health professional's independent determination of clinical need. The delivery of mental health care should be a collaborative effort between mental health, custody, and administrative staffs and is best achieved through cooperation. The mental health authority arranges for the availability and monitoring of mental health care National Commission on Correctional Health Care services. The official responsible for the facility provides the administrative support for the accessibility of mental health services to inmates and the physical resources for the delivery of mental health care in a safe and professional manner. The nonclinical considerations needed to carry out such clinical decisions are made in cooperation with custody staff. If this cooperation is lacking, such as when custody staff numbers are too low to carry out day - to - day mental health support services, the ability of the mental health care professionals to perform their professional and legal responsibilities is impaired and clinical autonomy is jeopardized. Another example of interference with clinical autonomy is cancellation of scheduled community consultants ' appointments without qualified mental health professional approval. Specific problems that arise with clinical autonomy generally are addressed through revised policies or reviewed as part of the continuous quality improvement program.

NOTICE by Jefferson S. Dunn, Ruth Naglich re {{1566}} Memorandum Opinion and Order, Joint Report of the Parties

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARD BRAGGS, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) CIVIL ACTION NO.: v.) 2:14-cv-00601-MHT-TFM) JEFFERSON S. DUNN, in his official) District Judge Myron H. Thompson capacity, et al.,)) Defendants.)) JOINT REPORT OF THE PARTIES The Court has directed the parties to provide a joint report "regarding the status, in this litigation, of the issue of heat sensitivity experienced by prisoners taking psychotropic medication – including whether these prisoners still risk suffering from overheating due to placement in cells without air conditioning and what progress, if any, has been made toward remedying this situation." (Doc. 1566, pg. 3). Accordingly, the parties provide this report. 1. An inmate who claims that he or she is in need of an accommodation because of a disability due to heat sensitivity that is a side effect of psychotropic medications prescribed to that inmate may make a request for an accommodation through the ADA Accommodation process described in the Phase 1 Consent Decree (doc. 728). 2. If an inmate makes a request for accommodation based on this condition, he or she should be evaluated by qualified medical clinicians, in consultation with the inmate's mental health provider, to determine if an accommodation is appropriate. 254701.1 3. Medical clinicians may or may not recommend an accommodation. 4. If the medical clinicians determine that an accommodation is medically appropriate, then ADOC should grant and implement that accommodation. 5. If the medical clinicians do not determine that an accommodation is medically appropriate, ADOC may still grant the accommodation in its sole discretion. 6. ADOC, through the appropriate facility ADA Coordinator must notify the inmate in writing of the status of his or her accommodation request as required by the Consent Decree. 7. If an inmate is not satisfied with the answer to the accommodation request by the facility ADA Coordinator, that inmate may invoke the appeal process to the Statewide ADA Coordinator, and may, if appropriate, invoke the arbitration process, both of which are described in the Consent Decree. 8. Plaintiffs may seek a systematic solution for all inmates claiming heat sensitivity issues through an Eighth Amendment claim in the medical portion of this case. 9. Nothing in this joint report shall be construed to support, or refute, such an Eighth Amendment claim should it be brought in the medical portion of the case. Done this the 19th day of February, 2018. 2 254701.1 /s/ John G. Smith /s/ William Van Der Pol (w/permission) One of the Attorneys for Commissioner One of the Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Associate Commissioner OF COUNSEL: OF COUNSEL: John G. Smith William Van Der Pol BALCH & BINGHAM LLP ALABAMA DISABILITIES Post Office Box 78 ADVOCACY PROGRAM Montgomery, AL 36101-0078 University of Alabama Telephone: (334) 834-6500 500 Martha Parham West, Box 870395 Facsimile: (866) 316-9461 Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487-0395 jgsmith@balch.com wvanderpoljr@adap.ua.edu Anil A. Mujumdar (w/permission) /s/ Maria V. Morris (w/permission) One of the Attorneys for Plaintiff One of the Attorneys for Plaintiffs Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program OF COUNSEL: OF COUNSEL: Maria V. Morris SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW Anil A. Mujumdar CENTER ZARZAUR MUJUMDAR & 400 Washington Avenue DEBROSSE Montgomery, Alabama 36104 2332 2nd Avenue North Telephone: (334) 956-8200 Birmingham, Alabama 35203 maria.morris@splcenter.org anil@zarzaur.com 3 254701.1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served upon all attorneys of record in this matter, including without limitation the following, by the Court's CM/ECF system on this the 19th day of February, 2018: Maria V. Morris William Van Der Pol, Jr. Rhonda C. Brownstein Glenn N. Baxter Latasha L. McCrary Barbara A. Lawrence J. Richard Cohen Andrea J. Mixson Caitlin J. Sandley Lonnie Williams Grace Graham ALABAMA DISABILITIES ADVOCACY Jonathan Barry-Blocker PROGRAM SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER University of Alabama 400 Washington Avenue 500 Martha Parham West Montgomery, Alabama 36104 Box 870395 Telephone: (334) 956-8200 Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487-0395 Facsimile: (334) 956-8481 Telephone: (205) 348-6894 maria.morris@splcenter.org Facsimile: (205) 348-3909 rhonda.brownstein@splcenter.org wvanderpoljr@adap.ua.edu latasha.mccrary@splcenter.org gnbaxter@bama.ua.edu richard.cohen@splcenter.org blawrence@adap.ua.edu cj.sandley@splcenter.org amixson@adap.ua.edu grace.graham@splcenter.org lwilliams@adap.ua.edu jonathan.blocker@splcenter.org Gregory M. Zarzaur Andrew P. Walsh Anil A. Mujumdar William G. Somerville III Diandra S. Debrosse Patricia Clotfelter Denise Wiginton Lisa W. Borden ZARZAUR MUJUMDAR & DEBROSSE BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN 2332 2nd Avenue North CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC Birmingham, AL 35203 420 20th Street North Telephone: (205) 983-7985 Suite 1400 Facsimile: (888) 505-0523 Birmingham, Alabama 35203 gregory@zarzaur.com Telephone: (205) 244-3863 anil@zarzaur.com Facsimile: (205) 488-3863 fuli@zarzaur.com awalsh@bakerdonelson.com denise@zarzaur.com wsomerville@bakerdonelson.com pclotfelter@bakerdonelson.com lborden@bakerdonelson.com 4 254701.1 Lonnie J. Williams Deana Johnson ALABAMA DISABILITIES ADVOCACY Brett T. Lane PROGRAM MHM SERVICES, INC. P. O. Box 870395 1447 Peachtree Street NE Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 Suite 500 Telephone: (205) 348-4928 Atlanta, GA 30309 Facsimile: (205) 348-3909 Telephone: (404) 347-4134 lwilliams@adap.ua.edu Facsimile: (404) 347-4138 djohnson@mhm-services.com btlane@mhm-services.com John G. Smith Steven C. Corhern David R. Boyd BALCH & BINGHAM LLP John Naramore Post Office Box 306 BALCH & BINGHAM LLP Birmingham, AL 35201-0306 Post Office Box 78 Telephone: (205) 251-8100 Montgomery, AL 36101-0078 Facsimile: (205) 488-5708 Telephone: (334) 834-6500 scorhern@balch.com Facsimile: (866) 316-9461 jgsmith@balch.com dboyd@balch.com jnaramore@balch.com Anne A. Hill William R. Lunsford Elizabeth A. Sees Matthew B. Reeves Joseph G. Stewart Melissa K. Marler ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF Stephen C. Rogers CORRECTIONS Alyson L. Smith Legal Division MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, PC 301 South Ripley Street 655 Gallatin Street Montgomery, Alabama 36130 Huntsville, AL 35801 Telephone (334) 353-3884 Telephone: (256) 512-5710 Facsimile (334) 353-3891 Facsimile: (256) 512-0119 anne.hill@doc.alabama.gov blunsford@maynardcooper.com elizabeth.sees@doc.alabama.gov mreeves@maynardcooper.com joseph.stewart@doc.alabama.gov mmarler@maynardcooper.com srogers@maynardcooper.com asmith@maynardcooper.com 5 254701.1 Luther M. Dorr, Jr. Mitesh B. Shah MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, PC 1901 Sixth Avenue North 2400 Regions Harbert Plaza Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 254-1178 Facsimile: (205) 714-6438 rdorr@maynardcooper.com mshah@maynardcooper.com /s/ John G. Smith OF COUNSEL 6 254701.1

PHASE 1 ORDER RE: ADA SETTLEMENT ARBITRATION PROCEDURE: Based on the representations made in open court on February 15, 2018, and based on the agreement of both parties, it is ORDERED that the joint report regarding the ADA settlement arbitration procedure, including how a prisoner is to invoke that procedure, previously due on February 19, 2018, is now due on February 23, 2018, at 5:00 p.m. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 2/20/2018.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARD BRAGGS, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) CIVIL ACTION NO. v.) 2:14cv601-MHT) JEFFERSON S. DUNN, in his) official capacity as) Commissioner of) the Alabama Department of) Corrections, et al.,)) Defendants.) PHASE 1 ORDER RE: ADA SETTLEMENT ARBITRATION PROCEDURE Based on the representations made in open court on February 15, 2018, and based on the agreement of both parties, it is ORDERED that the joint report regarding the ADA settlement arbitration procedure, including how a prisoner is to invoke that procedure, previously due on February 19, 2018, is now due on February 23, 2018, at 5:00 p.m. DONE, this the 20th day of February, 2018. /s/ Myron H. Thompson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

MOTION for Leave to File Under Seal by Jefferson S. Dunn, Ruth Naglich.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARD BRAGGS, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) Case No. 2:14-cv-00601-MHT-GMB v.)) District Judge Myron H. Thompson JEFFERSON DUNN, et al.,) Magistrate Judge John E. Ott) Magistrate Judge Gray M. Borden Defendants.) MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE UNDER SEAL Defendants JEFFERSON DUNN ("Commissioner Dunn") and RUTH NAGLICH ("Naglich" and, collectively with Commissioner Dunn, "the State") hereby submit this Motion for Leave to file their explanation was to why the 71 inmates remain in restricted housing, under seal. The State firmly believes that some of the information contained is confidential and/or highly confidential—for attorneys' eyes only, because it quotes from and relies upon documents previously identified as confidential or highly confidential—for attorneys' eyes only and/or contains protected medical information. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the State respectfully requests that this Court enter an Order permitting the State to their explanation was to why the 71 inmates remain in restricted housing, under seal. Dated: February 20, 2018. /s/ William R. Lunsford William R. Lunsford Attorney for the Commissioner and Associate Commissioner William R. Lunsford Matthew B. Reeves Melissa K. Marler Stephen C. Rogers Alyson L. Smith MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, PC 655 Gallatin Street Huntsville, AL 35801 Telephone: (256) 512-5710 Facsimile: (256) 512-0119 blunsford@maynardcooper.com mreeves@maynardcooper.com mmarler@maynardcooper.com srogers@maynardcooper.com asmith@maynardcooper.com Luther M. Dorr, Jr. Mitesh B. Shah MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, PC 1901 Sixth Avenue North 2400 Regions Harbert Plaza Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 254-1178 Facsimile: (205) 714-6438 rdorr@maynardcooper.com mshah@maynardcooper.com 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served upon all attorneys of record in this matter, including without limitation the following, by the Court's CM/ECF system on this the 20th day of February, 2018: Maria V. Morris William Van Der Pol, Jr. Rhonda C. Brownstein Glenn N. Baxter Latasha L. McCrary Barbara A. Lawrence J. Richard Cohen Andrea J. Mixson Caitlin J. Sandley ALABAMA DISABILITIES ADVOCACY Grace Graham PROGRAM Jonathan Blocker University of Alabama SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 500 Martha Parham West 400 Washington Avenue Box 870395 Montgomery, Alabama 36104 Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487-0395 Telephone: (334) 956-8200 Telephone: (205) 348-6894 Facsimile: (334) 956-8481 Facsimile: (205) 348-3909 maria.morris@splcenter.org wvanderpoljr@adap.ua.edu rhonda.brownstein@splcenter.org gnbaxter@bama.ua.edu latasha.mccrary@splcenter.org blawrence@adap.ua.edu richard.cohen@splcenter.org amixson@adap.ua.edu cj.sandley@splcenter.org grace.graham@splcenter.org jonathan.blocker@splcenter.org Gregory M. Zarzaur Andrew P. Walsh Anil A. Mujumdar William G. Somerville III Diandra S. Debrosse Patricia Clotfelter Denise Wiginton Lisa W. Borden ZARZAUR MUJUMDAR & DEBROSSE BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN 2332 2nd Avenue North CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC Birmingham, AL 35203 420 20th Street North Telephone: (205) 983-7985 Suite 1400 Facsimile: (888) 505-0523 Birmingham, Alabama 35203 gregory@zarzaur.com Telephone: (205) 244-3863 anil@zarzaur.com Facsimile: (205) 488-3863 fuli@zarzaur.com awalsh@bakerdonelson.com denise@zarzaur.com wsomerville@bakerdonelson.com pclotfelter@bakerdonelson.com 3 lborden@bakerdonelson.com John G. Smith Deana Johnson David R. Boyd Brett T. Lane BALCH & BINGHAM LLP MHM SERVICES, INC. Post Office Box 78 1447 Peachtree Street NE Montgomery, AL 36101-0078 Suite 500 Telephone: (334) 834-6500 Atlanta, GA 30309 Facsimile: (866) 316-9461 Telephone: (404) 347-4134 jgsmith@balch.com Facsimile: (404) 347-4138 dboyd@balch.com djohnson@mhm-services.com btlane@mhm-services.com Steven C. Corhern Lonnie J. Williams BALCH & BINGHAM LLP ALABAMA DISABILITIES ADVOCACY Post Office Box 306 PROGRAM Birmingham, AL 35201-0306 P. O. Box 870395 Telephone: (205) 251-8100 Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 Facsimile: (205) 488-5708 Telephone: (205) 348-4928 scorhern@balch.com Facsimile: (205) 348-3909 lwilliams@adap.ua.edu Anne A. Hill Elizabeth A. Sees Joseph G. Stewart ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Legal Division 301 South Ripley Street Montgomery, Alabama 36130 Telephone (334) 353-3884 Facsimile (334) 353-3891 anne.hill@doc.alabama.gov elizabeth.sees@doc.alabama.gov joseph.stewart@doc.alabama.gov William R. Lunsford Of Counsel 4

MOTION for Leave to File Under Seal by Jefferson S. Dunn, Ruth Naglich.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARD BRAGGS, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) Case No. 2:14-cv-00601-MHT-GMB v.)) District Judge Myron H. Thompson JEFFERSON DUNN, et al.,) Magistrate Judge John E. Ott) Magistrate Judge Gray M. Borden Defendants.) MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE UNDER SEAL Defendants JEFFERSON DUNN ("Commissioner Dunn") and RUTH NAGLICH ("Naglich" and, collectively with Commissioner Dunn, "the State") hereby submit this Motion for Leave to file the list of those members of the 131 inmates with serious mental illness previously identified, who are currently placed in segregation, under seal. The State firmly believes that some of the information contained is confidential and/or highly confidential—for attorneys' eyes only, because it quotes from and relies upon documents previously identified as confidential or highly confidential—for attorneys' eyes only and/or contains protected medical information. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the State respectfully requests that this Court enter an Order permitting the State to file the list of those members of the 131 inmates with serious mental illness previously identified, who are currently placed in segregation, under seal. Dated: February 20, 2018. /s/ William R. Lunsford William R. Lunsford Attorney for the Commissioner and Associate Commissioner William R. Lunsford Matthew B. Reeves Melissa K. Marler Stephen C. Rogers Alyson L. Smith MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, PC 655 Gallatin Street Huntsville, AL 35801 Telephone: (256) 512-5710 Facsimile: (256) 512-0119 blunsford@maynardcooper.com mreeves@maynardcooper.com mmarler@maynardcooper.com srogers@maynardcooper.com asmith@maynardcooper.com Luther M. Dorr, Jr. Mitesh B. Shah MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, PC 1901 Sixth Avenue North 2400 Regions Harbert Plaza Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 254-1178 Facsimile: (205) 714-6438 rdorr@maynardcooper.com mshah@maynardcooper.com 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served upon all attorneys of record in this matter, including without limitation the following, by the Court's CM/ECF system on this the 20th day of February, 2018: Maria V. Morris William Van Der Pol, Jr. Rhonda C. Brownstein Glenn N. Baxter Latasha L. McCrary Barbara A. Lawrence J. Richard Cohen Andrea J. Mixson Caitlin J. Sandley ALABAMA DISABILITIES ADVOCACY Grace Graham PROGRAM Jonathan Blocker University of Alabama SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 500 Martha Parham West 400 Washington Avenue Box 870395 Montgomery, Alabama 36104 Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487-0395 Telephone: (334) 956-8200 Telephone: (205) 348-6894 Facsimile: (334) 956-8481 Facsimile: (205) 348-3909 maria.morris@splcenter.org wvanderpoljr@adap.ua.edu rhonda.brownstein@splcenter.org gnbaxter@bama.ua.edu latasha.mccrary@splcenter.org blawrence@adap.ua.edu richard.cohen@splcenter.org amixson@adap.ua.edu cj.sandley@splcenter.org grace.graham@splcenter.org jonathan.blocker@splcenter.org Gregory M. Zarzaur Andrew P. Walsh Anil A. Mujumdar William G. Somerville III Diandra S. Debrosse Patricia Clotfelter Denise Wiginton Lisa W. Borden ZARZAUR MUJUMDAR & DEBROSSE BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN 2332 2nd Avenue North CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC Birmingham, AL 35203 420 20th Street North Telephone: (205) 983-7985 Suite 1400 Facsimile: (888) 505-0523 Birmingham, Alabama 35203 gregory@zarzaur.com Telephone: (205) 244-3863 anil@zarzaur.com Facsimile: (205) 488-3863 fuli@zarzaur.com awalsh@bakerdonelson.com denise@zarzaur.com wsomerville@bakerdonelson.com pclotfelter@bakerdonelson.com 3 lborden@bakerdonelson.com John G. Smith Deana Johnson David R. Boyd Brett T. Lane BALCH & BINGHAM LLP MHM SERVICES, INC. Post Office Box 78 1447 Peachtree Street NE Montgomery, AL 36101-0078 Suite 500 Telephone: (334) 834-6500 Atlanta, GA 30309 Facsimile: (866) 316-9461 Telephone: (404) 347-4134 jgsmith@balch.com Facsimile: (404) 347-4138 dboyd@balch.com djohnson@mhm-services.com btlane@mhm-services.com Steven C. Corhern Lonnie J. Williams BALCH & BINGHAM LLP ALABAMA DISABILITIES ADVOCACY Post Office Box 306 PROGRAM Birmingham, AL 35201-0306 P. O. Box 870395 Telephone: (205) 251-8100 Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 Facsimile: (205) 488-5708 Telephone: (205) 348-4928 scorhern@balch.com Facsimile: (205) 348-3909 lwilliams@adap.ua.edu Anne A. Hill Elizabeth A. Sees Joseph G. Stewart ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Legal Division 301 South Ripley Street Montgomery, Alabama 36130 Telephone (334) 353-3884 Facsimile (334) 353-3891 anne.hill@doc.alabama.gov elizabeth.sees@doc.alabama.gov joseph.stewart@doc.alabama.gov William R. Lunsford Of Counsel 4

ORDERED that, by February 27, 2018, the plaintiffs are to reply to the defendants' response (including video evidence) (doc. no. {{1637}}) to the motion for preliminary injunction (doc. no. {{1614}}). Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 2/20/2018.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARD BRAGGS, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) CIVIL ACTION NO. v.) 2:14cv601-MHT) JEFFERSON S. DUNN, in his) official capacity as) Commissioner of) the Alabama Department of) Corrections, et al.,)) Defendants.) ORDER It is ORDERED that, by February 27, 2018, the plaintiffs are to reply to the defendants' response (including video evidence) (doc. no. 1637) to the motion for preliminary injunction (doc. no. 1614). DONE, this the 20th day of February, 2018. /s/ Myron H. Thompson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

PHASE 2A UNDERSTAFFING REMEDIAL OPINION. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 2/20/2018.

7 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARD BRAGGS, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) CIVIL ACTION NO. v.) 2:14cv601-MHT) (WO) JEFFERSON S. DUNN, in his) official capacity as) Commissioner of) the Alabama Department of) Corrections, et al.,)) Defendants.) PHASE 2A UNDERSTAFFING REMEDIAL OPINION Previously this court found that the State of Alabama provides inadequate mental-health care in its prisons in violation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. See Braggs v. Dunn, 257 F. Supp. 3d 1171, 1267 (M.D. Ala. 2017) (Thompson, J.). The court now finds that the State's proposed plan to remedy one overarching aspect of the violation--correctional and mental-health understaffing--is minimally adequate and acceptable, albeit with minor modifications. 7 I. Background A. Procedural Background The plaintiffs in this class-action lawsuit include a group of mentally ill prisoners in the custody of the Alabama Department of Corrections (ADOC or Department). The defendants are ADOC Commissioner Jefferson Dunn and the ADOC Associate Commissioner of Health Services Ruth Naglich, who are both sued in only their official capacities. In a liability opinion entered on June 27, 2017, this court found that ADOC's mental-health care for prisoners in its custody was, "[s]imply put, ... horrendously inadequate." Braggs, 257 F. Supp. 3d at 1267. The court laid out seven factors contributing to the Eighth Amendment violation. Id. at 1267-68. In addition, it found that "persistent and severe shortages of mental-health staff and correctional staff" constitute an "overarching issue[] that permeate[s] each of the ... contributing factors of inadequate mental-health care." Id. at 1268. "[G]iven the severity and urgency of the 2 7 need for mental-health care explained in [the] opinion," the court emphasized, "the proposed relief must be both immediate and long term." Id. After two months of mediation to develop a comprehensive remedial plan, it became apparent that the remedy was too large and complex to be addressed all at once. The court therefore severed the remedy into several discrete issues, to be addressed seriatim. See Phase 2A Revised Remedy Scheduling Order on Eighth Amendment Claim (doc. no. 1357). The court explained: "To be sure, in a sense all of the contributing factors identified in the court's June 27 opinion warrant urgent resolution. Indeed, a continuing Eighth Amendment violation, because it is 'cruel and unusual,' could be viewed as in need of swift and serious attention of both courts and the parties involved. Yet the court is convinced that breaking down the issues in the above manner will, in the long run, result in a more efficient, timely, and full resolution of this aspect of this litigation." Id. at 7-8. 3 7 Because of the centrality of understaffing to other problems in ADOC's provision of mental-health care, it was determined that this issue "must be addressed at the outset," and that "the earlier the problem is attacked the better." Id. at 4-5. Accordingly, on October 9, 2017, the defendants submitted a proposed remedial plan on understaffing, to which the plaintiffs were allowed to respond. The court then held a nine-day evidentiary hearing, and heard oral argument, in late 2017 on whether the plan should be adopted as proposed, and whether a remedial order should be entered at this time. After oral argument, the parties were instructed to submit proposed orders. Because the plan changed in certain respects over the course of this process, the defendants submitted a revised timeline. B. Liability Findings as to Understaffing In addition to the seven "contributing factors" to the Eighth Amendment violation, the court more specifically found that persistent and severe shortages 4 7 of correctional and mental-health staff have "cascading effects" that "contribute to all of the deficiencies in ADOC's treatment of mentally ill prisoners." Braggs, 257 F. Supp. 3d at 1188, 1193. The court noted: "ADOC has maintained mental-health staffing levels that are chronically insufficient across disciplines and facilities. Witness after witness identified significant mental-health staffing shortages as one of the major reasons for ADOC's inability to meet the rising mental-health care needs of prisoners." Id. at 1194. Indeed, ADOC Commissioner Dunn described understaffing, along with overcrowding, as a "two-headed monster" facing the prison system. Id. at 1184. Moreover, as the court explained, ADOC's understaffing problem is self-compounding: shortages in mental-health staff lead to unbearably high caseloads for mental-health staff members, which in turn causes turnover and further understaffing, and even higher caseloads. Id. at 1196. The Department's lack of correctional staff "leaves many ADOC facilities 5 7 incredibly dangerous and out of control" and causes "prisoners and correctional officers alike" to be "justifiably afraid for their safety." Id. at 1198. As multiple witnesses testified at the understaffing remedial hearing, this legitimate perception of danger to correctional staff--which is a direct result of understaffing--begets further understaffing: it is a major impediment to recruitment and retention. The court found that understaffing underlies ADOC's deficient mental-health care in several ways. The shortage of mental-health staff has resulted in "a plethora of issues, including insufficient identification of mental illness at intake and referrals; missed counseling appointments and group sessions; and inadequate monitoring of prisoners in mental-health crises." Id. at 1197. Further, the shortage in correctional staffing inhibits the delivery of adequate mental-health care because it prevents ADOC from escorting inmates to their mental-health appointments; hinders correctional officers' ability to supervise 6 7 mentally ill prisoners; and diminishes officers' ability to identify and refer potentially mentally ill prisoners for treatment. Id. at 1200-04. Correctional understaffing "also has a more direct impact on prisoners' mental health" in that "[t]he combination of overcrowding and understaffing leads to an increased level of violence" in ADOC facilities. Id. at 1200. In addition, the court found that the lack of both correctional and mental-health staffing results in inadequate monitoring of prisoners in segregation, and contributes to "a vicious cycle of isolation, inadequate treatment, and decompensation." Id. at 1243-45. II. Legal Standard The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) provides that a "court shall not grant or approve any prospective relief unless the court finds that such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of a Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation 7 7 of the Federal right." 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A). In conducting this 'need-narrowness-intrusiveness' inquiry, a court is required to "give substantial weight to any adverse impact on public safety or the operation of a criminal justice system caused by the relief." Id. "As this court has stated before, [prison officials in cases challenging prison conditions] should be given considerable deference in determining an appropriate remedy for the constitutional violations involved." Laube v. Haley, 242 F. Supp. 2d 1150, 1153 (M.D. Ala. 2003) (Thompson, J.) (citing Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 547-48 (1979)); see also Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 85 (1987) ("[F]ederal courts have ... reason to accord deference to the appropriate prison authorities."). Nevertheless, courts retain a responsibility to remedy constitutional violations. See Brown v. Plata, 563 U.S. 493, 511 (2011) (citing Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 687, n.9 (1978)). "Courts must be sensitive to the State's interest in punishment, deterrence, and 8 7 rehabilitation, as well as the need for deference to experienced and expert prison administrators faced with the difficult and dangerous task of housing large numbers of convicted criminals. Courts nevertheless must not shrink from their obligation to enforce the constitutional rights of all 'persons,' including prisoners. Courts may not allow constitutional violations to continue simply because a remedy would involve intrusion into the realm of prison administration." Id. at 511. (quotation marks and citations omitted). Accordingly, the deference afforded prison administrators in remedying constitutional violations must not be "complete." See King v. McCarty, 781 F.3d 889, 897 (7th Cir. 2015) (per curiam) (citing Plata, 563 U.S. at 511). III. Discussion A. The Defendants' Proposed Remedial Plan The defendants' proposed remedial plan has evolved in some respects during the course of the evidentiary 9 7 hearing and oral argument. Accordingly, the court now sets out its understanding of the plan, including minor tweaks, which it today adopts. 1. Correctional Staffing a. The Savages' Staffing Analyses. In order to determine how many officers are needed to address ADOC's correctional understaffing problem, the defendants have retained experts Margaret and Merle Savage to conduct comprehensive staffing analyses at each of ADOC's major facilities, with the exception of the Julia Tutwiler Prison for Women.1 By the time of the evidentiary 1. A staffing analysis of Tutwiler was recently conducted by The Moss Group pursuant to a Consent Decree in United States v. Alabama, Case No. 2:15-cv-368-MHT-TFM (M.D. Ala.) (Thompson, J.). Although that case involved sexual harassment and assault of inmates, rather than mental-health care, the parties have agreed that the analysis provides an adequate basis for determining Tutwiler's current correctional staffing needs, and that the Savages need not conduct a separate staffing analysis of Tutwiler at this time. The court understands that the Savages will therefore use The Moss Group's analysis in formulating their recommendations for Tutwiler, and-- along with the analyses of other facilities--their recommendations for ADOC's system as a whole. In addition, to the extent that future remedial orders 10 7 hearing, the Savages had already completed preliminary analyses at three facilities: Bibb Correctional Facility, Donaldson Correctional Facility, and Hamilton Aged and Infirmed Center. According to the defendants' plan, the Savages are to complete final staffing analyses for all 15 major facilities except Tutwiler, as well as short- and long-term recommendations for all major facilities including Tutwiler, by May 1, 2018.2 require the Savages to reevaluate facilities based on new programmatic needs or other changes in circumstances, any such reevaluations will necessarily include Tutwiler because the current staffing analysis does not account for those changes. 2. In the defendants' proposed remedial plan (doc. no. 1374), in the defendants' pretrial brief (doc. no. 1478), throughout the nine-day evidentiary hearing on understaffing, and during the post-trial oral argument on January 24, 2018, the defendants maintained that the proposed remedy as to understaffing would apply to all 15 major ADOC facilities, with the exception that the Savages would not conduct a staffing analysis at the Tutwiler facility at this time because one has recently been done (as discussed above). However, the defendants' proposed opinion, as an apparent afterthought, suggested that the court limit its supervision of the remedial plan's implementation to six facilities, on the theory that the plaintiffs allegedly had failed to establish a violation based on correctional or mental-health understaffing at the other ADOC facilities. The defendants subsequently admitted that they are "not aware 11 7 All parties agree that any dispute related to the Savages' recommendations should first be put before United States Magistrate Judge John Ott for mediation and that, if and when Judge Ott concludes that all or part of the dispute cannot be successfully mediated, any party may then put the dispute, to the extent it is not resolved, to United States Magistrate Judge Gray M. Borden for consideration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, with allowable review, in turn, by this court pursuant to § 636. (The court, however, reserves the discretion of any section of the Court's liability opinion in which the Court indicated an intent to limit its liability findings to [those six facilities]." Response to Court's February 2, 2018 Order (doc. no. 1595) at 1. Moreover, as the court and the defendants have repeatedly recognized, all of ADOC's major prisons--and in particular the prisons for men--form part of an interlocking system. The court cannot fully appreciate what is happening, and what needs to be done, at a subset of these facilities without receiving a full evidentiary picture of what is happening in the system overall. For example, it would make little sense to order increased staffing at one understaffed prison if the staffing were to be filled by merely transferring staff from another, slightly less understaffed facility. It therefore declines to adopt the suggested limitation, which could fatally hinder its ability to remedy the constitutional violation found. 12 7 to hear and resolve any dispute itself without the parties having gone through mediation or presented the dispute to Judge Borden for consideration.) The court finds that the Savages, who have conducted correctional staffing analyses in more than 10 correctional systems, and who each possess over 40 years of experience in prison management and staffing, are qualified to conduct the staffing analysis. While the plaintiffs do not challenge the Savages' qualifications to conduct a staffing analysis and do not dispute that a staffing analysis must be conducted, they have expressed concerns about how the first three preliminary analyses were conducted. Accordingly, plaintiffs sought to have their correctional expert, Eldon Vail, collaborate with the Savages before the conclusion of the staffing analyses. During the understaffing remedial hearing, the Savages met with Vail and reached an agreement as to how they would collaborate through the remainder of the staffing-analysis process. Per the agreement, as Ms. Savage testified, the Savages 13 7 will produce to Vail the post plan, institutional profile, and activities chart for each facility as they are completed for Vail's review and consideration. The Savages will also produce these materials for the three facilities they have already preliminarily assessed: Bibb, Donaldson, and Hamilton. The Savages and Vail will then schedule a conference call to discuss any questions or areas of concern. The Savages will also provide any additional information needed for the conference call discussions. Finally, if Vail deems it necessary, he will travel to one of the facilities at the conclusion of the Savages' visit so that they can walk through their process with him and address any remaining questions or concerns. Neither party objects to the agreement reached by the Savages and Vail. Therefore, the court adopts this agreement as part of the defendants' remedial plan. b. Consultant Analyses of Compensation and Recruitment and Retention. The defendants propose employing consultants to determine how to recruit, hire, and retain more correctional officers. The evidence 14 7 presented at the remedial hearing, including the Savages' preliminary analyses of Bibb, Donaldson, and Hamilton, plainly indicated that the understaffing remedy will require ADOC to hire significant numbers of additional correctional officers. Yet ADOC, despite its purported efforts to hire more officers, has in fact continued to hemorrhage correctional staff since the time of the June 2017 liability opinion--that is, when this court had already found that "persistent and severe shortages of ... correctional staff" was an "overarching issue[]" that contributed to the defendants' Eighth Amendment violation. Braggs, 257 F. Supp. 3d at 1268. Much of the problem, then, appears to be not whether but how ADOC can effectively increase the number of correctional officers. Accordingly, the defendants have retained two consulting firms to aid in the implementation of the Savages' recommendations, as modified by any agreements between the parties or orders of the court. The defendants have retained Troy University's "Center for Public Service" and Stephen Condrey, Ph.D., 15 7 to "conduct a comprehensive analysis of the compensation and benefits offered by ADOC to correctional staff, including a comparison of ADOC compensation and benefits for correctional staff to the compensation and benefits afforded by law enforcement agencies at the state, county, and local level." Defendants' Phase 2A Proposed Remedial Plan on Correctional and Mental Health Staffing (doc. no. 1374) at 13-14. Condrey is to submit his recommendations by April 1, 2018. Defendants' Timeline for Correctional and Mental Health Staffing (doc. no. 1583) at 1. Here the court merely observes, as it suggested at the evidentiary hearing, that the level of compensation and benefits required to be on an equal competitive footing with other employers in the same market may differ from that required to hire expeditiously a significant number of new staff, as may be required by the ultimate staffing plan. Recommendations aimed at the former may miss the mark in helping the defendants execute their remedial plan. The defendants may 16 7 therefore want Condrey to grapple with this potential issue. The defendants have also retained Brian Bateh and his team at the firm of Warren Averett to "conduct a comprehensive analysis of ADOC's policies, practices, and procedures relating to or affecting the recruitment, employment, and retention of correctional staff." Id. at 13. Bateh is to submit his recommendations by November 1, 2018. Id. at 2. The court, having reviewed the qualifications of Bateh and Condrey and heard their testimony at the remedial evidentiary hearing, and seeing no objections from the plaintiffs, finds that they are qualified to perform the above analyses. 2. Mental-Health Staffing The defendants' plan to the extent it addresses mental-health understaffing contains two "centerpieces." Defendants' Phase 2A Proposed Remedial Plan on Correctional and Mental Health Staffing (doc. no. 1374) 17 7 at 16. In the short run, a Request for Proposal ("RFP") issued in July 2017 will nearly double the number of ADOC mental-health staff when implemented. In the long run, ADOC has retained three consultants to develop mental-health staffing ratios, which will be used along with the Department's caseload numbers to generate an appropriate number of mental-health staff. In addition, between January 2017 and October 2017, ADOC increased its spending on mental-health staff by approximately five million dollars and added approximately 60 full-time-equivalent positions ("FTEs"). a. July 2017 Request for Proposal. As the first step to address mental-health understaffing, the defendants in July 2017 released an RFP for a new mental-health services vendor. The RFP is designed to add approximately 125 FTEs, nearly doubling the number of psychiatrists, psychologists, certified registered nurse practitioners, licensed mental-health professionals, and registered nurses. As such, it represents a significant and commendable start to addressing ADOC's mental-health 18 7 understaffing. Both sides to this litigation acknowledge, however, that this increase will ultimately be insufficient to remedy the violations shown. Although, in the past, ADOC has through negotiations with vendors allowed the provision of fewer positions than called for in a given RFP, both Commissioner Dunn and his counsel assured the court at the remedial hearing that the resulting contract will not go below the staffing numbers provided in the July 2017 RFP. In addition, the defendants' plan provides that "ADOC will require the contractor to fully staff the positions and will impose strict financial penalties if the contractor fails to do so, except for certain delineated support positions." Id. at 18. Under the original timeline published with the RFP, the contract was to be awarded by September 4, 2017, and implemented by January 1, 2018. On September 1, 2017, the vendor selection date was extended to October 16, 2017, and the implementation date was extended to April 1, 2018. At the time of the understaffing remedial 19 7 hearing in late 2017, the vendor had not yet been selected, though ADOC had informed bidders that it was beginning negotiations with Wexford Health Sources. Commissioner Dunn testified that an award would be made by the end of December 2017, and that he would do everything in his power to meet the implementation date of April 1, 2018. However, under the timeline recently submitted to the court, implementation is merely to begin by April 1, 2018, with the RFP positions to be fully filled by July 1, 2018. Although the court today enters a remedial order adopting the defendants' proposed timeline, it notes that it has already deferred to their repeated delays in executing the contract for and implementing the RFP, and there can be no more delays. b. Mental-Health Staffing Ratios. The second, long-run "centerpiece" of the defendants' plan is to develop mental-health staffing ratios, which will be used along with the Department's future caseload numbers to generate an appropriate number of mental-health staff. To produce the ratios, ADOC has retained consultants 20 7 Catherine Knox, M.S.N., R.N., CCHP-RN, Jeffrey L. Metzner, M.D., and Mary Perrien, Ph.D. According to the defendants' proposed timeline, the consultants are to begin work to develop the mental-health ratios on September 1, 2018, in order to allow time for ADOC to implement fully the July 2017 RFP and for new mental-health staff to adjust to their positions. The consultants are to submit finalized mental-health staffing ratios by March 1, 2019. All parties agree that any dispute related to the ratio recommendations should first be put before United States Magistrate Judge John Ott for mediation and that, if and when Judge Ott concludes that all or part of the dispute cannot be successfully mediated, any party may then put the dispute, to the extent it is not resolved, to United States Magistrate Judge Gray M. Borden for consideration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, with allowable review, in turn, by this court pursuant to § 636. (The court, however, reserves the discretion to hear and resolve any dispute itself without the parties having 21 7 gone through mediation or presented the dispute to Judge Borden for consideration.) ADOC is then to modify its contract with the mental-health vendor in accordance with the mental-health staffing ratios, as modified by any agreements between the parties or orders of the court, by August 15, 2019. By November 15, 2019, ADOC's vendor is to implement the finalized staffing ratios as required by the modified contract, with all mental-health staffing positions to be filled consistent with the contract by February 15, 2020. Knox, Metzner, and Perrien are to review implementation of the finalized staffing ratios under the modified contract, and to make any recommendations for revising those ratios by January 15, 2020. The court, having reviewed the qualifications of Knox, Metzner, and Perrien, having heard their testimony at the evidentiary hearing, and seeing no objections from the plaintiffs, finds that they are qualified to produce the mental-health ratios, and to oversee and review their implementation, as described above. 22 7 3. Office of Health Services Staffing ADOC's Office of Health Services (OHS), headed by Associate Commissioner for Health Services Naglich, is "the only ADOC department with responsibility for monitoring mental-health care," Braggs, 257 F. Supp. 3d at 1258, which ADOC contracts out to a private, third-party vendor. As the court found, however, OHS "has done vanishingly little" to exercise oversight, engage in quality improvement, or take corrective measures in response to identified deficiencies in care. Id. at 1257-58. Associate Commissioner Naglich's testimony at the liability trial revealed that these failures were due in significant part to severe understaffing within OHS, and that Naglich and others had unsuccessfully sought additional OHS staff on multiple occasions since 2008. Naglich further testified that she believes having an independent contract monitor or additional OHS staffing to perform contract monitoring would be beneficial. Specifically, she testified that 23 7 OHS needs at least two psychologists, preferably in the regional offices, in addition to David Tytell (OHS's chief psychologist) to monitor and audit the mental-health vendor's contract compliance. During the understaffing remedial hearing, Naglich again testified that more OHS staff is needed. In preparation for the remedial hearing, the court specifically ordered the defendants to "present evidence of their plan to forthwith and adequately staff the Office of Health Services ..., including benchmarks for the implementation of that plan." Pretrial Order: Phase 2A Correctional Understaffing Issues (doc. no. 1436) at 4. In response to the court's concerns, the defendants submitted a new organizational structure for the mental-health functions within OHS, see 2018-2019 OHS Organizational Chart (doc. no. 1478-1), and on November 30, 2017, submitted a timeline for hiring additional OHS personnel, see Defs' Ex. 3000 (doc. no. 1515-124).3 3. Although the court asked the defendants to submit their OHS staffing plan, Associate Commissioner Naglich testified that the plan was developed in the spring or 24 7 With regard to mental-health services, the new OHS staffing plan provides for three regional clinical registered nurses who will oversee both medical and mental-health nursing. Those positions are not new. Two of those positions are currently filled. The OHS staffing plan provides for a new ombudsman position, which has not yet been filled. ADOC has received State Personnel Board approval for that position. Commissioner Dunn testified, in November 2017, that ADOC could begin seeking a qualified candidate through the state register within 30 days. Commissioner Dunn projected, consistent with the proposed timeline, that it could take three to four months to fill the position. The plan provides for a Clinical Director of Psychiatry, a position that is not yet filled. Commissioner Dunn testified, in November 2017, that the position would be appointed and would not require any additional approvals before it could be advertised. He summer of 2017--that is, perhaps even prior to the liability opinion entered on June 2017. 25 7 also testified that he had instructed his staff to begin advertising for this position within seven to 10 days of his testimony. He estimated, consistent with the proposed timeline, that it could take up to nine months to fill this position. The OHS plan calls for having two psychologists, one in each region, and a Director of Mental Health. Tytell, who currently serves as Director of Psychology, will fill the Northern Regional Psychologist position. The Southern Regional Psychologist Position remains unfilled. Commissioner Dunn estimated in November 2017, consistent with the proposed timeline, that it would take between four and six months to fill this position once the State Personnel Department has approved it. The Director of Mental Health will be a health services administrator who provides administrative but not clinical oversight. ADOC requested in the late spring or early summer of 2017 that the State Personnel Department create this position. The position remains unfilled. Commissioner Dunn estimated in November 2017, 26 7 consistent with the proposed timeline, that it would take between four and six months to fill this position once the State Personnel Department has approved it. B. The Plaintiffs' Response to the Proposed Plan In response to the defendants' plan, the plaintiffs raise several serious concerns, including that the number of ADOC correctional officers has precipitously declined since the liability trial in late 2016 and early 2017, and, indeed, even since the liability opinion was entered in late June 2017. Moreover, the defendants have repeatedly delayed negotiating, executing, and implementing the July 2017 RFP. The plaintiffs argue that a remedial order is necessary at this time and is not unduly intrusive, given the severity and urgency of the violations shown, and the defendants' longstanding deliberate indifference to these violations.4 They therefore request a series of 4. As the liability opinion noted, "This case is likely sui generis in the extent to which the top ADOC 27 7 specific measures, many of which are grounded, to a certain extent, in the recommendations of ADOC's own experts and officials. Notably, the plaintiffs argue that a remedial order should require the defendants to meet specific hiring benchmarks for correctional officers at four six-month intervals, based initially on ADOC's own number of already authorized positions, and subsequently on the Savages' recommendations.5 With regard to mental-health understaffing, the plaintiffs similarly propose that the defendants be immediately ordered to begin increasing staff according to the provisional mental-health staffing ratios developed by Knox, Metzner, and Perrien, see ADOC's Provisional Mental officials had personal knowledge of the substantial risks of serious harm posed by its deficient care and has not responded reasonably to those risks." Braggs, 257 F. Supp. 3d at 1252. 5. The plaintiffs point out that the Savages' preliminary analyses of three ADOC facilities recommend staffing numbers that are fairly similar to the number of authorized positions, and the plaintiffs therefore argue that a first benchmark could be based on the latter figure before the completion of the Savages' recommendations. 28 7 Health Staffing Ratios (doc. no. 1374-4), and that the hiring goals in the order later be adjusted when the consultants develop finalized ratios.6 Finally, because, under the PLRA, remedial orders are terminable upon the motion of any party or intervenor after two years, see 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(1), the plaintiffs expressed concern that the defendants' plan will not remedy the understaffing violation within a two-year time period. However, both defendants and plaintiffs have acknowledged this fact and agreed that the understaffing problem will likely require several years to remedy. Moreover, even when a motion to terminate is made, the PLRA allows the court to extend a remedial order upon specific findings that it remains necessary to correct a current and ongoing violation, and that the order continues to meet the 6. The defendants maintained during the evidentiary hearing and at oral argument that these "Provisional Mental Health Staffing Ratios" were not prepared by their mental-health consultants for potential implementation, but were merely examples of what the ultimate work product would consist of, and should therefore not be used as an initial target. 29 7 need-narrowness-intrusiveness test. Id. § 3626(b)(3); see also Cason v. Seckinger, 231 F.3d 777, 782-83 (11th Cir. 2000) (holding that, upon a motion to terminate a remedial order governed by the PLRA, plaintiffs must be given an opportunity for an evidentiary hearing to demonstrate a current and ongoing violation). C. The Court's Position The court agrees with the plaintiffs that, in light of the serious and longstanding violations shown, and the lack of progress on understaffing--indeed, in many ways, regression--since trial, a remedial order is necessary. The State of Alabama cannot be allowed to kick the can down the road. However, as the evidence and argument have demonstrated, the defendants' proposed plan represents a serious, albeit concededly minimal, effort to remedy a complex and difficult problem. Despite the immediate need to remedy understaffing, and distressing indications that the problem may have worsened since the liability 30 7 opinion, it may simply not be possible to turn this ship around on a dime. The defendants will, therefore, be given an opportunity to implement its proposed remedy and to demonstrate that it is producing meaningful and immediate results. The court today, therefore, enters a remedial order adopting the defendants' plan, albeit with some modifications.7 With regard to the deadlines adopted, the court emphasizes that the defendants are not to delay implementation until the last minute, but are to begin immediately and swiftly upon receiving the relevant recommendations. While the court, in deference to the State and in its discretion, today declines to order the recommendations proposed by the plaintiffs, it will not abdicate its constitutional duty "to enforce the constitutional rights of all 'persons,' including prisoners." Brown v. Plata, 563 U.S. 493, 511 (2011). 7. For example, the timeline in the remedial order for hiring additional OHS personnel reflects the outer ranges--that is, the longest--of the estimates provided by the defendants on November 30, 2017. See Defs' Ex. 3000 (doc. no. 1515-124). 31 7 In overseeing the defendants' implementation of their plan, the court will "not allow constitutional violations to continue simply because a remedy would involve intrusion into the realm of prison administration." Id. Rather, it will remain poised to step in should the defendants fail to uphold their commitment, or should the plan prove inadequate to remedy, in a timely fashion, the violations shown. IV. PLRA Requirements Section 3626(a)(1) of the PLRA requires district courts to make particularized findings that each provision of prospective relief ordered satisfies the 'need-narrowness-intrusiveness' requirement. See United States v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr., 778 F.3d 1223, 1228 (11th Cir. 2015). This court now makes such findings, and concludes that the ordered relief complies with the PLRA. With regard to correctional understaffing, the defendants' plan to use the Savages' staffing analyses 32 7 and resulting recommendations will provide the defendants with a comprehensive understanding of the ADOC's correctional staffing needs and with an opportunity for all parties to respond and resolve any disputes that may arise. Further, as the defendants explained, and in light of ample evidence from all parties that ADOC faces a serious and complex problem in hiring and retaining correctional officers, the analyses and recommendations to be prepared by Bateh and Condrey are necessary for the defendants to understand how to implement the Savages' recommendations. The court finds that such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to remedy the constitutional violation found, and is the least intrusive means of doing so. With regard to mental-health understaffing, all parties recognize that the implementation of the July 2017 RFP constitutes a necessary first step to address ADOC's mental-health understaffing. Further, as the defendants recognize, the mental-health consultants' analyses and recommended ratios will provide the 33 7 defendants with a comprehensive understanding of the ADOC's mental-health staffing needs and with an opportunity for all parties to respond and resolve any disputes that may arise. The court finds that such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to remedy the constitutional violation found, and is the least intrusive means of doing so. As Associate Commissioner Naglich testified extensively at the liability trial and remedial hearing, additional OHS staffing is necessary to monitor and oversee the third-party vendor's provision of mental-health care. The court finds that the proposed relief, which adopts the defendants' proposed OHS structure and outer timeline for hiring those positions, is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to remedy the constitutional violation found, and is the least intrusive means of doing so. The defendants have proposed quarterly reporting requirements, and the court will enact those requirements in its remedial order. The court finds that the quarterly 34 7 reporting requirements comply with the PLRA because ongoing reporting, as proposed by the defendants, is necessary to apprise the court of whether the defendants' plan is addressing ADOC's correctional and mental-health understaffing effectively and as quickly as possible, and to alert the court if additional measures are needed. Thus, the court finds that such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to remedy the constitutional violation found, and is the least intrusive means of doing so. In addition, the defendants ask that "[n]o quarterly report ... be admissible against the State, ADOC, its employees, contractors, or contractor's employees in any civil action or other proceeding." Defendants' Pretrial Brief and Witness and Exhibit List (doc. no. 1478) at 33. The court cannot agree to this condition, primarily because the purpose of the reports is to inform the plaintiffs and the court about what is occurring, so that they may act on this knowledge as necessary. It is difficult to understand how the parties and the court are 35 7 to use the reports to this end if they are not admissible in any civil action, as the proposed language now states. If the defendants, in fact, intended that the reports be admissible in this action but not in others, they may again raise that issue later for the court's consideration. Finally, the court finds that the proposed relief will have no adverse effect on public safety or the operation of the criminal-justice system. See 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A). As numerous ADOC officials testified at the liability trial and remedy hearing, and as this court has previously found, correctional understaffing at ADOC facilities has resulted in a dangerous environment for both ADOC staff and inmates. Moreover, ADOC's persistent and severe lack of mental-health staff has resulted in inmates with serious mental-health needs being under-identified and inadequately treated. Requiring the defendants simply to execute their plan to remedy what ADOC officials have acknowledged is a serious and urgent problem can, if anything, be expected to have 36 7 a positive impact on public safety and the operation of the criminal-justice system. *** For the reasons given above, the court will enter an order adopting the defendants' proposed plan, with some modifications, as a remedy for understaffing. DONE, this the 20th day of February, 2018. /s/ Myron H. Thompson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

PHASE 2A UNDERSTAFFING REMEDIAL ORDER: In accordance with the opinion entered this day, it is the ORDER, JUDGMENT, and DECREE of the court that defendants Commissioner Jefferson Dunn and Associate Commissioner of Health Services Ruth Naglich are ENJOINED and RESTRAINED from failing to comply with their remedial plan (as modified by later filings, including a timeline, and the orders and the accompanying opinion of the court) for understaffing in the Alabama Department of Corrections (ADOC). The defendants are to comply with ALL deadlines in the plan, as further set out in order. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 2/20/2018.

0 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARD BRAGGS, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) CIVIL ACTION NO. v.) 2:14cv601-MHT) (WO) JEFFERSON S. DUNN, in his) official capacity as) Commissioner of) the Alabama Department of) Corrections, et al.,)) Defendants.) PHASE 2A UNDERSTAFFING REMEDIAL ORDER In accordance with the opinion entered this day, it is the ORDER, JUDGMENT, and DECREE of the court that defendants Commissioner Jefferson Dunn and Associate Commissioner of Health Services Ruth Naglich are ENJOINED and RESTRAINED from failing to comply with their remedial plan (as modified by later filings, including a timeline, and the orders and the accompanying opinion of the court) for understaffing in the Alabama Department of Corrections (ADOC). The 0 defendants are to comply with ALL deadlines in the plan, including but not limited to the following: (1) With regard to correctional understaffing: (a) By April 1, 2018, Stephen Condrey is to submit recommendations to ADOC related to compensation and benefits, which the defendants are to file with the court by April 2, 2018. (b) By May 1, 2018, Margaret and Merle Savage shall complete the staffing analyses for each of ADOC's 15 major facilities, with the agreed-upon exception of the Tutwiler facility, and shall submit their final staffing analyses and recommendations to ADOC. The Savages are to include recommendations for Tutwiler, based on the staffing analysis previously performed for that facility by The Moss Group. In conducting the staffing analyses and preparing their recommendations, the Savages shall abide by the agreement entered between them and Vail on December 5, 2017, as set out in the 2 0 accompanying opinion. The defendants are to file the Savages' analyses and recommendations with the court by May 2, 2018. (c) By November 1, 2018, the firm Warren Averett is to submit recommendations to ADOC related to recruitment and retention, which the defendants are to file with the court by November 2, 2018. (d) By December 1, 2018, ADOC is to implement the recommendations of consultants Condrey and the firm Warren Averett, as modified by any agreements between the parties or orders of this court. (e) By February 20, 2022, the defendants shall have fully implemented the Savages' correctional staffing recommendations, as modified by any agreements between the parties or orders of this court. (2) With regard to mental-health understaffing: 3 0 (a) By April 1, 2018, ADOC's new mental-health vendor shall begin providing mental-health services. (b) By May 1, 2018, ADOC's new mental-health vendor, shall, in addition to continuing to fill those positions in place at the time of this order, fill at least 65 % of the additional mental-health staffing positions provided for in the contract. (c) By June 1, 2018, ADOC's new mental-health vendor, shall, in addition to continuing to fill those positions in place at the time of this order, fill at least 75 % of the additional mental-health staffing positions provided for in the contract. (d) By July 1, 2018, ADOC's new mental-health vendor, shall fill the mental-health staffing positions consistent with the contract. (e) By September 1, 2018, the State's mental-health consultants--Catherine Knox, 4 0 Jeffrey L. Metzner, and Mary Perrien--shall begin their analysis to develop mental-health staffing ratios. (f) By March 1, 2019, Catherine Knox, Jeffrey L. Metzner, and Mary Perrien shall submit finalized mental-health staffing ratios to the defendants. The defendants are to file the ratios with the court by March 4, 2019. (g) By August 15, 2019, ADOC shall modify its contract with the mental-health vendor in order to provide the positions required by the mental-health staffing ratios, as modified by any agreements between the parties or orders of this court. (h) By November 15, 2019, ADOC's mental-health vendor shall begin to implement the finalized staffing ratios. (j) By January 15, 2020, Catherine Knox, Jeffrey L. Metzner, and Mary Perrien shall review implementation of the mental-health 5 0 staffing ratios and make recommendations, if necessary, for revising those staffing ratios. By January 16, 2020, the defendants shall file any such recommendations with the court. (k) By February 15, 2020, ADOC's mental-health vendor shall have filled the mental-health staffing positions consistent with the contract. (3) With regard to the staffing of the ADOC Office of Health Services (OHS): (a) By August 30, 2018, the defendants are to fill the position of Clinical Director of Psychiatry. (b) The defendants are to notify the court when they receive a decision from State Personnel regarding approval for the position of Director of Mental Health Services. By six months from the date that State Personnel provides approval, the defendants are to fill the position of Director of Mental Health Services. 6 0 (c) The defendants are to notify the court when they receive a decision from State Personnel regarding approval for the position of Southern Regional Psychologist. By six months from the date that State Personnel provides approval, the defendants are to fill the position of Southern Regional Psychologist. (d) By March 30, 2018, the defendants are to fill the OHS position of Ombudsman. (4) The defendants shall submit to the court under seal a "Correctional Staffing Report" and "Mental Health Staffing Report" on a quarterly basis, that is, March 1, June 1, September 1, and December 1 of each year, with the report due on the next business day if the due date falls on a weekend or holiday. Each quarterly report will provide: (a) the number of correctional/mental-health staff assigned to each ADOC facility; 7 0 (b) the number of correctional/mental-health staff employed by each facility at the end of the quarter; (c) the turnover rate, that is, the number of voluntary and involuntary terminations during the quarter divided by the total number of correctional/mental-health staff at the end of the quarter, with each of the figures in the calculation to be provided in addition to the ultimate result); (d) the retention rate, that is, the total number of correctional/mental-health staff at an ADOC facility who have worked for ADOC for twelve months or longer divided by the total number of correctional/mental-health staff at the end of the quarter, with each of the figures in the calculation to be provided in addition to the ultimate result; (e) the vacancy rate (number of vacant positions at the end of the quarter divided by 8 0 the total number of correctional/mental-health staff and vacant positions at the end of the quarter); and (f) the implementation status of the recommendations of each of their four consultant groups: the Savages, Condrey, the firm Warren Averett, and Knox, et al. (5) The court recognizes that a party may not be able to meet a deadline for reasons outside the party's control or for other good cause. In such instances, the party should file a motion to extend the deadline. A motion for extension of a deadline (i) must be in writing; (ii) must indicate that movant has, in a timely manner, previously contacted counsel for all other parties; and, (iii) based on that contact, must state whether counsel for all other parties agree to or oppose the extension motion. Absent stated unforeseen and unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the movant, oral and "eleventh hour" extension requests and 9 0 motions are not allowed. DONE, this the 20th day of February, 2018. /s/ Myron H. Thompson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

NOTICE OF FILING by Jefferson S. Dunn, Ruth Naglich re {{1642}} Order

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARD BRAGGS, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) Case No. 2:14-cv-00601-MHT-GMB v.)) District Judge Myron H. Thompson JEFFERSON DUNN, et al.,)) FILED UNDER SEAL Defendants.) NOTICE OF FILING Pursuant to the February 16, 2018 Order (Doc. No. 1642), Defendants JEFFERSON DUNN, as Commissioner of the Alabama Department of Corrections ("ADOC"), and RUTH NAGLICH, as Associate Commissioner of ADOC, hereby submit to the Court a spreadsheet attached as Exhibit A containing information related to one-hundred thirty one (131) inmates. Dated: February 20, 2018. /s/ William R. Lunsford William R. Lunsford Attorney for the Commissioner and Associate Commissioner William R. Lunsford Matthew B. Reeves Melissa K. Marler Stephen C. Rogers Alyson L. Smith MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, PC 655 Gallatin Street Huntsville, AL 35801 Telephone: (256) 512-5710 Facsimile: (256) 512-0119 blunsford@maynardcooper.com mreeves@maynardcooper.com mmarler@maynardcooper.com srogers@maynardcooper.com asmith@maynardcooper.com Luther M. Dorr, Jr. Mitesh B. Shah MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, PC 1901 Sixth Avenue North 2400 Regions Harbert Plaza Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 254-1178 Facsimile: (205) 714-6438 rdorr@maynardcooper.com mshah@maynardcooper.com 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served upon all attorneys of record in this matter, including without limitation the following, by electronic mail on this the 20th day of February, 2018: Maria V. Morris William Van Der Pol, Jr. Rhonda C. Brownstein Glenn N. Baxter Latasha L. McCrary Barbara A. Lawrence J. Richard Cohen Andrea J. Mixson Caitlin J. Sandley ALABAMA DISABILITIES ADVOCACY Grace Graham PROGRAM Jonathan Blocker University of Alabama SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 500 Martha Parham West 400 Washington Avenue Box 870395 Montgomery, Alabama 36104 Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487-0395 Telephone: (334) 956-8200 Telephone: (205) 348-6894 Facsimile: (334) 956-8481 Facsimile: (205) 348-3909 maria.morris@splcenter.org wvanderpoljr@adap.ua.edu rhonda.brownstein@splcenter.org gnbaxter@bama.ua.edu latasha.mccrary@splcenter.org blawrence@adap.ua.edu richard.cohen@splcenter.org amixson@adap.ua.edu cj.sandley@splcenter.org grace.graham@splcenter.org jonathan.blocker@splcenter.org Gregory M. Zarzaur Andrew P. Walsh Anil A. Mujumdar William G. Somerville III Diandra S. Debrosse Patricia Clotfelter Denise Wiginton Lisa W. Borden ZARZAUR MUJUMDAR & DEBROSSE BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN 2332 2nd Avenue North CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC Birmingham, AL 35203 420 20th Street North Telephone: (205) 983-7985 Suite 1400 Facsimile: (888) 505-0523 Birmingham, Alabama 35203 gregory@zarzaur.com Telephone: (205) 244-3863 anil@zarzaur.com Facsimile: (205) 488-3863 fuli@zarzaur.com awalsh@bakerdonelson.com 3 denise@zarzaur.com wsomerville@bakerdonelson.com pclotfelter@bakerdonelson.com lborden@bakerdonelson.com John G. Smith Deana Johnson David R. Boyd Brett T. Lane BALCH & BINGHAM LLP MHM SERVICES, INC. Post Office Box 78 1447 Peachtree Street NE Montgomery, AL 36101-0078 Suite 500 Telephone: (334) 834-6500 Atlanta, GA 30309 Facsimile: (866) 316-9461 Telephone: (404) 347-4134 jgsmith@balch.com Facsimile: (404) 347-4138 dboyd@balch.com djohnson@mhm-services.com btlane@mhm-services.com Steven C. Corhern Lonnie J. Williams BALCH & BINGHAM LLP ALABAMA DISABILITIES ADVOCACY Post Office Box 306 PROGRAM Birmingham, AL 35201-0306 P. O. Box 870395 Telephone: (205) 251-8100 Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 Facsimile: (205) 488-5708 Telephone: (205) 348-4928 scorhern@balch.com Facsimile: (205) 348-3909 lwilliams@adap.ua.edu Anne A. Hill Joseph G. Stewart ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Legal Division 301 South Ripley Street Montgomery, Alabama 36130 Telephone (334) 353-3884 Facsimile (334) 353-3891 anne.hill@doc.alabama.gov joseph.stewart@doc.alabama.gov /s/ William R. Lunsford Of Counsel 4

JOINT REPORT ON THE STATUS PLAINTIFFS' INFORMAL DISCOVERY REQUESTS PERTAINING TO DEFENDANTS PROPOSED REMEDIAL PLAN ON INTAKE, REFERRALS, CLASSIFICATION AND THE RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT UNITS AND STABILIZATION UNITS by All Plaintiffs, Jefferson S. Dunn, Ruth Naglich. Modified on 2/21/2018 to add as filed on behalf of addditional parties.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARDS BRAGGS, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) v.) CIVIL ACTION NO.) 2:14-CV-00601-MHT-GMB JEFFERSON DUNN, in his official) (Judge Borden) capacity as Commissioner) of the Alabama Department of) Corrections, et al.,)) Defendants.)) JOINT REPORT ON THE STATUS PLAINTIFFS' INFORMAL DISCOVERY REQUESTS PERTAINING TO DEFENDANTS' PROPOSED REMEDIAL PLAN ON INTAKE, REFERRALS, CLASSIFICATION AND THE RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT UNITS AND STABILIZATION UNITS INTERROGATORIES Plaintiffs have withdrawn Interrogatories 6 and 8. Defendants have agreed to answer the remaining Interrogatories. With regard to Interrogatory 17, Defendants object that the timeframe is too broad. Plaintiffs have proposed limiting the interrogatory to two years. Defendants will either use the two-year timeframe proposed by Plaintiffs or propose a shorter, alternative timeframe. The Parties have not agreed on a schedule for the responses to be provided. REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Defendants have agreed to produce all of the requested documents. Defendants have stated that they will not produce the documents responsive to Request Nos. 1, 3, and 4 until the healthcare contract is signed and can be made public, which they anticipate will happen during the current week. The Parties have not agreed on a schedule for the production of documents. Dated: February 20, 2018 Respectfully Submitted, /s/ Maria V. Morris Maria V. Morris One of the Attorneys for Plaintiffs Southern Poverty Law Center 400 Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36104 Rhonda Brownstein (ASB-3193-O64R) Maria V. Morris (ASB-2198-R64M) Grace Graham (ASB-3040-A64G) Latasha L. McCrary (ASB-1935-L75M) Jonathan Blocker (ASB-6818-G19I) Caitlin J. Sandley (ASB-5317-S48R) SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 400 Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36104 Telephone: (334) 956-8200 Facsimile: (334) 956-8481 rhonda.brownstein@splcenter.org maria.morris@splcenter.org grace.graham@splcenter.org latasha.mccrary@splcenter.org jonathan.blocker@splcenter.org cj.sandley@splcenter.org William Van Der Pol, Jr. (ASB-2112-114F) Glenn N. Baxter (ASB-3825-A41G) Lonnie J. Williams Barbara A. Lawrence Andrea J. Mixson Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program Box 870395 Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 Telephone: (205) 348-4928 Facsimile: (205) 348-3909 wvanderpoljr@adap.ua.edu gnbaxter@adap.ua.edu lwilliams@adap.ua.edu blawrence@adap.ua.edu amixson@adap.ua.edu Lisa W. Borden (ASB-5673-D57L) William G. Somerville, III (ASB-6185-E63W) Andrew P. Walsh (ASB-3755-W77W) Dennis Nabors Patricia Clotfelter (ASB-0841-F43P) Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz PC 420 20th Street North, Suite 1400 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 328-0480 Facsimile: (205) 322-8007 lborden@bakerdonelson.com wsomerville@bakerdonelson.com awalsh@bakerdonelson.com dnabors@bakerdonelson.com pclotfelter@bakerdonelson.com /s/ Anil A. Mujumdar Anil A. Mujumdar One of the Attorneys for the Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program Gregory M. Zarzaur (ASB-0759-E45Z) Anil A. Mujumdar (ASB-2004-L65M) Diandra S. Debrosse (ASB-2956-N76D) Denise Wiginton Zarzaur Mujumdar & Debrosse 2332 2nd Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 983-7985 Facsimile: (888) 505-0523 gregory@zarzaur.com anil@zarzaur.com diandra@zarzaur.com denise@zarzaur.com /s/ William R. Lunsford William R. Lunsford One of the Attorneys for Defendants Jefferson Dunn and Ruth Naglich William R. Lunsford Michael P. Huff Melissa K. Marler Stephen C. Rogers MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, PC 655 Gallatin Street Huntsville, AL 35801 Telephone: (256) 512-5710 Facsimile: (256) 512-0119 blunsford@maynardcooper.com mhuff@maynardcooper.com mmarler@maynardcooper.com srogers@maynardcooper.com Luther M. Dorr, Jr. Mitesh B. Shah Evan P. Moltz MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, PC 1901 Sixth Avenue North 2400 Regions Harbert Plaza Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 254-1178 Facsimile: (205) 714-6438 rdorr@maynardcooper.com mshah@maynardcooper.com emoltz@maynardcooper.com CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have on this 20th day of February, 2018, electronically filed the foregoing with the clerk of the court by using the CM/ECF system, which will send a notice of electronic filing to the following: David R. Boyd, Esq. Steven C. Corhern, Esq. John G. Smith, Esq. Balch & Bingham LLP John W. Naramore, Esq. Post Office Box 306 Balch & Bingham LLP Birmingham, AL 35201-0306 Post Office Box 78 scorhern@balch.com Montgomery, AL 36101-0078 dboyd@balch.com Mitesh Shah, Esq. jgsmith@balch.com Luther M. Dorr, Esq. jnaramore@balch.com Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C. 1901 6th Avenue North, Suite 2400 William R. Lunsford, Esq. Birmingham, AL 35203 Matthew Reeves, Esq. mshah@maynardcooper.com Melissa K. Marler, Esq. rdorr@maynardcooper.com Stephen C. Rogers, Esq. Alyson L. Smith, Esq. Deana Johnson, Esq. Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C. Brett T. Lane, Esq. 655 Gallatin Street, SW MHM Services, Inc. Huntsville, AL 35801 1447 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 500 blunsford@maynardcooper.com Atlanta, GA 30309 mreeves@maynardcooper.com djohnson@mhm-services.com mmarler@maynardcooper.com btlane@mhm-services.com srogers@maynardcooper.com asmith@maynardcooper.com Anne Hill, Esq. Elizabeth A. Sees, Esq. Joseph G. Stewart, Jr., Esq. Alabama Department of Corrections Legal Division 301 South Ripley Street Montgomery, AL 36104 anne.hill@doc.alabama.gov elizabeth.sees@doc.alabama.gov joseph.stewart@doc.alabama.gov /s/ Maria V. Morris One of the Attorneys for Plaintiffs

ORDER: Based upon the representations made during the telephone conference held on today's date, it is ORDERED as follows: (1). No later than March 5, 2018, Defendants are to respond to the informal discovery requests served on February 2, 2018. (2). As to Interrogatory No. 17, Defendants may elect either to (a) respond to the interrogatory based solely on their review of each inmate's Master Problem List, or (b) produce to Plaintiffs a copy of the Master Problem List for all inmates within the scope of the request. Signed by Honorable Judge Gray M. Borden on 2/21/2018.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARD BRAGGS, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) v.) CASE NO.: 2:14-cv-601-MHT-GMB) JEFFERSON S. DUNN, et al.,)) Defendants.) ORDER Based upon the representations made during the telephone conference held on today's date, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. No later than March 5, 2018, Defendants are to respond to the informal discovery requests served on February 2, 2018. 2. As to Interrogatory No. 17, Defendants may elect either to (a) respond to the interrogatory based solely on their review of each inmate's Master Problem List, or (b) produce to Plaintiffs a copy of the Master Problem List for all inmates within the scope of the request. DONE this 21st day of February, 2018.

Witness List by Jefferson S. Dunn, Ruth Naglich.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARD BRAGGS, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) Case No. 2:14-cv-00601-MHT-GMB v.)) District Judge Myron H. Thompson JEFFERSON DUNN, et al.,)) Defendants.) THE STATE'S REBUTTAL WITNESS LIST FOR THE PHASE 2A REMEDIAL HEARING ON SEGREGATION Defendants JEFFERSON DUNN ("Commissioner Dunn") and RUTH NAGLICH ("Naglich" and, collectively with Commissioner Dunn, "the State") hereby submit its Rebuttal Witness List pursuant to this Court's February 16, 2018 "Order re: Segregation Rebuttal List" (Doc. No. 1644). WITNESS LIST The State intends to call rebuttal witnesses related to State's Phase 2A Proposed Remedial Plan on Segregation (Doc. No. 1533, the "Segregation Plan"). The State believes that the rebuttal testimony of each witness will be relatively short (approximately one (1) hour per witness) but that may vary length, so the State intends to make a rebuttal witness continuously available until all of the State's rebuttal witnesses testify. To continuously have rebuttal witnesses available for the efficient use of the Court's and the parties' time, while at the same trying to avoid removing these correctional, medical, and mental-health staff from their important work for the Alabama Department of Corrections ("ADOC") for prolonged periods of time to sit at the courthouse, the State intends to call its rebuttal witnesses as they are needed and available. However, calling rebuttal witnesses as they become needed and available will probably proscribe the State's commitment to any specific order of call for its rebuttal witnesses. Of course, the State reserves its right to decline calling any of the rebuttal witnesses identified below, especially if a rebuttal witness's testimony is or might be cumulative, duplicative, or otherwise unnecessary. Below is a list of the rebuttal witnesses the State will or may call during the Phase 2A Remedial Hearing on Segregation and, if called, a summary of that rebuttal witness's anticipated testimony: DONALDSON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY 1. Captain Shannon Caldwell: Captain Caldwell will testify about the activities in restrictive housing units and structured living units at Donaldson and the documents related to those activities. 2. Contenna Moore: Moore will testify about mental-health activities performed by ADOC in restrictive housing units and structured living units at Donaldson and the documents related to those activities. 3. Teresa Ergle: Ergle will testify about medical activities in restrictive 2 housing units and structured living units at Donaldson and the documents related to those activities.1 4. Shannon Reeves: Reeves will testify about mental-health activities in restrictive housing units and structured living units at Donaldson and the documents related to those activities. EASTERLING CORRECTIONAL FACILITY 5. Captain Nathaniel Lawson: Captain Lawson will testify about the activities in restrictive housing units at Easterling and the documents related to those activities. 6. Lieutenant Larry Peavy: Lieutenant Peavy will testify about the activities in restrictive housing units at Easterling and the documents related to those activities. 7. Ninnette Woods: Woods will testify about mental-health activities in restrictive housing units at Easterling and the documents related to those activities. FOUNTAIN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY 8. Captain Kevin Bishop: Captain Bishop will testify about the activities in restrictive housing units at Fountain and the documents related to those activities. 1 The State has identified the Health Services Administrator ("HSA") employed by its medical services vendor at each of the ADOC facilities. However, it may become necessary for the State to call a Director of Nursing ("DON") employed by its medical services vendor and, therefore, the State reserves the right to call a DON in addition to or instead of a HSA for a particular ADOC facility. 3 9. Lieutenant Danny Fountain: Lieutenant Fountain will testify about the activities in restrictive housing units at Fountain and the documents related to those activities. 10. Kit Gibson: Gibson will testify about the medical activities in restrictive housing units at Fountain and the documents related to those activities. 11. Marilyn Maali Johnson-Nelson: Johnson-Nelson will testify about mental-health activities in restrictive housing units at Fountain and the documents related to those activities. HOLMAN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY 12. Captain Jeff Emberton: Captain Emberton will testify about the activities in restrictive housing units at Holman and the documents related to those activities. 13. Kim McCants: McCants will testify about the medical activities in restrictive housing units at Holman and the documents related to those activities. 14. Shelia Brown: Brown will testify about mental-health activities performed by ADOC in restrictive housing units at Holman and the documents related to those activities. KILBY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY 15. Lieutenant Brandon Mack: Lieutenant Mack will testify about the activities in restrictive housing units at Kilby and the documents related to those 4 activities. 16. Eddie Lancaster: Lancaster will testify about mental-health activities performed by ADOC in restrictive housing units at Kilby and the documents related to those activities. 17. Amy Boyd: Boyd will testify about mental-health activities performed by ADOC in restrictive housing units at Kilby and the documents related to those activities. 18. LaQuisha Moore: Moore will testify about the medical activities in restrictive housing units at Kilby and the documents related to those activities. 19. Elizabeth Harris: Harris will testify about mental-health activities in restrictive housing units at Kilby and the documents related to those activities. ST. CLAIR CORRECTIONAL FACILITY 20. Captain Gary Malone: Captain Malone will testify about the activities in restrictive housing units at St. Clair and the documents related to those activities. 21. Katryna King-Evans: King-Evans will testify about mental-health activities performed by ADOC in restrictive housing units at St. Clair and the documents related to those activities. 22. Kelly Phillips: Phillips will testify about the medical activities in restrictive housing units at St. Clair and the documents related to those activities. 23. Jeanetta Thomas: Thomas will testify about mental-health activities 5 in restrictive housing units at St. Clair and the documents related to those activities. TUTWILER PRISON FOR WOMEN 24. Lieutenant Brian Coleman: Lieutenant Coleman will testify about the activities in restrictive housing units at Tutwiler and the documents related to those activities. 25. Sergeant Emily Abbott: Sergeant Abbott will testify about the activities in restrictive housing units at Tutwiler and the documents related to those activities. 26. Katrina Dixon-Moore: Moore will testify about mental-health activities performed by ADOC in restrictive housing units at Tutwiler and the documents related to those activities. 27. Constance Johnson: Johnson will testify about the medical activities in restrictive housing units at Tutwiler and the documents related to those activities. 28. Felicia Greer: Greer will testify about the mental-health activities in restrictive housing units at Tutwiler and the documents related to those activities. INMATE W.B. 29. Kristin Hollingsworth: Hollingsworth will testify about her role in enemy classification at Limestone Correctional Facility, her knowledge of W.B.'s known and unknown enemies, and about the administrative reasons to place W.B. 6 in restrictive housing. 30. Glenda Black: Black will testify about her interactions with W.B., including interactions concerning enemies and W.B.'s safety. 31. Franklin Evans: Evans will testify about his interactions with W.B., including interactions concerning enemies and W.B.'s safety. Dated: February 21, 2018. /s/ William R. Lunsford William R. Lunsford Attorney for the Commissioner and Associate Commissioner William R. Lunsford Matthew B. Reeves Melissa K. Marler Stephen C. Rogers Alyson L. Smith MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, PC 655 Gallatin Street Huntsville, AL 35801 Telephone: (256) 512-5710 Facsimile: (256) 512-0119 blunsford@maynardcooper.com mreeves@maynardcooper.com mmarler@maynardcooper.com srogers@maynardcooper.com asmith@maynardcooper.com Luther M. Dorr, Jr. Mitesh B. Shah MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, PC 1901 Sixth Avenue North 2400 Regions Harbert Plaza Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 254-1178 Facsimile: (205) 714-6438 7 rdorr@maynardcooper.com mshah@maynardcooper.com CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served upon all attorneys of record in this matter, including without limitation the following, by the Court's CM/ECF system on this the 21st day of February, 2018: Maria V. Morris William Van Der Pol, Jr. Rhonda C. Brownstein Glenn N. Baxter Latasha L. McCrary Barbara A. Lawrence J. Richard Cohen Andrea J. Mixson Caitlin J. Sandley ALABAMA DISABILITIES ADVOCACY Grace Graham PROGRAM SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER University of Alabama 400 Washington Avenue 500 Martha Parham West Montgomery, Alabama 36104 Box 870395 Telephone: (334) 956-8200 Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487-0395 Facsimile: (334) 956-8481 Telephone: (205) 348-6894 maria.morris@splcenter.org Facsimile: (205) 348-3909 rhonda.brownstein@splcenter.org wvanderpoljr@adap.ua.edu latasha.mccrary@splcenter.org gnbaxter@bama.ua.edu richard.cohen@splcenter.org blawrence@adap.ua.edu cj.sandley@splcenter.org amixson@adap.ua.edu grace.graham@splcenter.org Gregory M. Zarzaur Andrew P. Walsh Anil A. Mujumdar William G. Somerville III Diandra S. Debrosse Patricia Clotfelter Denise Wiginton Lisa W. Borden ZARZAUR MUJUMDAR & DEBROSSE BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN 2332 2nd Avenue North CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC Birmingham, AL 35203 420 20th Street North Telephone: (205) 983-7985 Suite 1400 Facsimile: (888) 505-0523 Birmingham, Alabama 35203 gregory@zarzaur.com Telephone: (205) 244-3863 8 anil@zarzaur.com Facsimile: (205) 488-3863 fuli@zarzaur.com awalsh@bakerdonelson.com denise@zarzaur.com wsomerville@bakerdonelson.com pclotfelter@bakerdonelson.com lborden@bakerdonelson.com John G. Smith Deana Johnson David R. Boyd Brett T. Lane BALCH & BINGHAM LLP MHM SERVICES, INC. Post Office Box 78 1447 Peachtree Street NE Montgomery, AL 36101-0078 Suite 500 Telephone: (334) 834-6500 Atlanta, GA 30309 Facsimile: (866) 316-9461 Telephone: (404) 347-4134 jgsmith@balch.com Facsimile: (404) 347-4138 dboyd@balch.com djohnson@mhm-services.com btlane@mhm-services.com Steven C. Corhern Lonnie J. Williams BALCH & BINGHAM LLP ALABAMA DISABILITIES ADVOCACY Post Office Box 306 PROGRAM Birmingham, AL 35201-0306 P. O. Box 870395 Telephone: (205) 251-8100 Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 Facsimile: (205) 488-5708 Telephone: (205) 348-4928 scorhern@balch.com Facsimile: (205) 348-3909 lwilliams@adap.ua.edu Anne A. Hill Joseph G. Stewart ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Legal Division 301 South Ripley Street Montgomery, Alabama 36130 Telephone (334) 353-3884 Facsimile (334) 353-3891 anne.hill@doc.alabama.gov joseph.stewart@doc.alabama.gov /s/ William R. Lunsford Of Counsel 9

Joint Proposed Schedule for Hospital Level Care Remedial Trial by Jefferson S. Dunn, Ruth Naglich, Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program, and All Plaintiffs re {{1648}} Order, Modified on 2/22/2018 to add as filed on behalf of additional parties.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARD BRAGGS, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) v.) CIVIL ACTION NO.) 2:14-CV-00601-MHT-GMB JEFFERSON DUNN, in his official) Honorable Myron H. Thompson capacity as Commissioner) of the Alabama Department of) Corrections, et al.,)) Defendants.)) JOINT PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR HOSPITAL LEVEL CARE REMEDIAL TRIAL Based upon this Honorable Court's Amended Order regarding the hospital level care schedule, requiring the Parties to submit a Joint Proposed Schedule for the hearing on the hospital level care remedy (Doc. 1648), the Parties jointly submit the following proposed schedule for resolution of this remedial phase. PROPOSED TRIAL DATE The Parties jointly request the Court to set this matter for trial on Monday, July 9, 2018 and allot one week for the completion of the remedial trial. PROPOSED ORAL ARGUMENT The Parties jointly request this Court set for oral argument, the issue of whether Due Process requires a pre-admission hearing for prisoners found to be in need of hospitalization, prior to transfer, consistent with Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480 (1980), and if so, the required parameters of such a hearing, on Thursday, March 1, 2018, at 8:00 A.M. The Parties jointly, or separately, will file an evidentiary submission with the Court on this issue, on or before, Tuesday, February 27, 2018. ADDITIONAL AGREED RESOLUTION OF ISSUES PENDING TRIAL The Parties jointly request the Court to issue additional Orders as follows: 1. Defendants have notified Plaintiffs that ADOC has seven (7) inmates cleared to receive hospital level care for their mental health needs, at this time. Subject to an unforeseen event or issue, at least three (3) of these prisoners will be transferred to CRCC by 11:59 P.M. on Saturday, February 24, 2018, and the remaining four (4) prisoners will be transferred to CRCC by 11:59 P.M. on Wednesday, March 7, 2018. Defendants shall file with the Court a certification, under seal, showing the names, AIS numbers, and admission dates and times for each such group within one (1) business day after admission. 2. The Parties are to resume mediation on hospital-level of care remedy before the Honorable John Ott, on or before Monday, April 1, 2018. Dated: February 21, 2018. /s/ William R. Lunsford William R. Lunsford Attorney for the Commissioner and Associate Commissioner William R. Lunsford 2 Matthew B. Reeves Melissa K. Marler Stephen C. Rogers MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, PC 655 Gallatin Street Huntsville, AL 35801 Telephone: (256) 512-5710 Facsimile: (256) 512-0119 blunsford@maynardcooper.com mreeves@maynardcooper.com mmarler@maynardcooper.com srogers@maynardcooper.com /s/ William Van Der Pol, Jr. William Van Der Pol, Jr. Attorney for Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program William Van Der Pol, Jr. Glenn N. Baxter Barbara A. Lawrence Andrea J. Mixson ALABAMA DISABILITIES ADVOCACY PROGRAM University of Alabama 500 Martha Parham West Box 870395 Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487-0395 Telephone: (205) 348-6894 Facsimile: (205) 348-3909 wvanderpoljr@adap.ua.edu gnbaxter@bama.ua.edu blawrence@adap.ua.edu amixson@adap.ua.edu Maria V. Morris Rhonda C. Brownstein Latasha L. McCrary J. Richard Cohen Caitlin J. Sandley Grace Graham 3 Jonathan Blocker SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 400 Washington Avenue Montgomery, Alabama 36104 Telephone: (334) 956-8200 Facsimile: (334) 956-8481 maria.morris@splcenter.org rhonda.brownstein@splcenter.org latasha.mccrary@splcenter.org richard.cohen@splcenter.org cj.sandley@splcenter.org grace.graham@splcenter.org jonathan.blocker@splcenter.org Andrew P. Walsh William G. Somerville III Patricia Clotfelter Lisa W. Borden BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC 420 20th Street North Suite 1400 Birmingham, Alabama 35203 Telephone: (205) 244-3863 Facsimile: (205) 488-3863 awalsh@bakerdonelson.com wsomerville@bakerdonelson.com pclotfelter@bakerdonelson.com lborden@bakerdonelson.com Gregory M. Zarzaur Anil A. Mujumdar Diandra S. Debrosse Denise Wiginton ZARZAUR MUJUMDAR & DEBROSSE 2332 2nd Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 983-7985 Facsimile: (888) 505-0523 gregory@zarzaur.com anil@zarzaur.com 4 fuli@zarzaur.com denise@zarzaur.com CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have on this 21st day of February, 2018, electronically filed the foregoing with the clerk of the court by using the CM/ECF system, which will send a notice of electronic filing to the following: Anne A. Hill Andrew P. Walsh Elizabeth A. Sees William G. Somerville III Joseph G. Stewart Patricia Clotfelter ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF Lisa W. Borden CORRECTIONS BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN Legal Division CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC 301 South Ripley Street 420 20th Street North Montgomery, Alabama 36130 Suite 1400 Telephone (334) 353-3884 Birmingham, Alabama 35203 Facsimile (334) 353-3891 Telephone: (205) 244-3863 anne.hill@doc.alabama.gov Facsimile: (205) 488-3863 elizabeth.sees@doc.alabama.gov awalsh@bakerdonelson.com joseph.stewart@doc.alabama.gov wsomerville@bakerdonelson.com pclotfelter@bakerdonelson.com lborden@bakerdonelson.com John G. Smith Deana Johnson David R. Boyd Brett T. Lane BALCH & BINGHAM LLP MHM SERVICES, INC. Post Office Box 78 1447 Peachtree Street NE Montgomery, AL 36101-0078 Suite 500 Telephone: (334) 834-6500 Atlanta, GA 30309 Facsimile: (866) 316-9461 Telephone: (404) 347-4134 jgsmith@balch.com Facsimile: (404) 347-4138 dboyd@balch.com djohnson@mhm-services.com btlane@mhm-services.com 5 Steven C. Corhern Lonnie J. Williams BALCH & BINGHAM LLP ALABAMA DISABILITIES ADVOCACY Post Office Box 306 PROGRAM Birmingham, AL 35201-0306 P. O. Box 870395 Telephone: (205) 251-8100 Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 Facsimile: (205) 488-5708 Telephone: (205) 348-4928 scorhern@balch.com Facsimile: (205) 348-3909 lwilliams@adap.ua.edu /s/ William R. Lunsford Of Counsel 6

MOTION to Expedite to Exclude Improper Rebuttal Witnesses and for Proper Witness List by All Plaintiffs.

5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARD BRAGGS, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) v.) CIVIL ACTION NO.) 2:14-CV-00601-MHT-GMB JEFFERSON DUNN, in his official) (J. Thompson) capacity as Commissioner) of the Alabama Department of) Corrections, et al.,)) Defendants.)) PLAINTIFFS' EXPEDITED MOTION TO EXCLUDE IMPROPER REBUTTAL WITNESSES AND FOR PROPER WITNESS LIST Defendants Jefferson Dunn and Ruth Naglich have filed an improper rebuttal witness list. The list includes thirty-one witnesses, twenty-eight of whom are not in any way rebuttal witnesses. The Court should exercise its discretion to exclude witnesses who are not proper rebuttal witnesses. Further, Defendants have failed to indicate which, if any, of the thirty-one witnesses they actually intend to call. Nor have they provided any indication of the order of the witnesses or the dates when the witnesses will testify. This list does not comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; more critically, conducting trial in this manner does not allow the Court or the Plaintiffs to plan or prepare for trial in a reasonable manner. 5 Accordingly, twenty-eight of the thirty-one witnesses should be excluded from trial because they are not rebuttal witnesses. The motion to exclude likely will not be heard until February 26,, when Plaintiffs must be ready to cross-examine any witnesses Defendants will put on that day. Therefore, Defendants should be required to provide by February 23 a proper witness list that identifies who they intend to call, and the dates they intend to call them, so that Plaintiffs can prepare, regardless of the ultimate decision on this motion to exclude. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On January 5, 2018, Defendants filed their Phase 2A Proposed Remedial Plan on Segregation (the "Plan"). Doc. 1533. The Plan indicated that Defendants would ensure that "inmates with serious mental-health needs in segregation units are adequately monitored through regular and routine observation and evaluation by mental-health providers." Id. at 26. It also stated that they would "ensure that inmates with serious mental-health needs in segregation units possess adequate access to mental-health services, including individual treatment, group therapy, and other programming." Id. The only specific ways in which Defendants proposed to ensure adequate monitoring, evaluation, and treatment were through (1) increased staffing (addressed in a prior remedial trial) and (2) the ongoing 2 5 existence of policies requiring such monitoring, evaluation and treatment. Id. at 26-34. Plaintiffs responded to Defendants' Plan on January 15, 2018. Doc. 1546. Plaintiffs put forth their position that the monitoring, evaluation and treatment in the segregation units was inadequate. Id. at 47-57. Plaintiffs noted that Defendants' Plan "is simply to continue with the policies and practices that the Court already found to contribute to Eighth Amendment violations." Id. at 47. Defendants were, without question, on notice that Plaintiffs would be presenting evidence of the continuing failure of Defendants' policies and practices to provide adequate monitoring, evaluation, and treatment. On February 2, 2018, the Parties each filed their Witness Lists. Docs. 1592, 1593. Defendants identified six individual witnesses, none of whom had direct personal knowledge about the practices of rounds or other supervision in the ADOC facilities. Doc. 1592. On February 13, 2018, prior to the conclusion of their case in chief in the remedial trial on segregation, Defendants indicated they sought to reserve the right to rebut their own witnesses, specifically ADOC Institutional Coordinator for the Southern Region Cheryl Price. See Feb. 13, 2018 R.D. Trial Tr. 149:19-25. At that time, Defendants informed the Court they would call approximately a dozen witnesses to rebut Ms. Price. Id. Specifically, the witnesses would rebut the 3 5 evidence Plaintiffs had elicited from Defendants' witness Price "concerning the several [duty post and segregation unit] logs" that had been produced by Defendants during the week prior to trial. Id. On February 14, Plaintiffs objected to the proffer of rebuttal witnesses, arguing that the witnesses should have been presented during Defendants' case in chief, as they were being offered not as rebuttal but to shore up their evidence of circumstances that had clearly been at issue since prior to the beginning of the remedial trial. See Feb. 14, 2018 R.D. Trial Tr. 3:5-21. The Court indicated that it would hear argument on the issue after Defendants provided a more definitive statement regarding who they would call on rebuttal. Id. at 3:22-4:12. Plaintiffs then requested that the Court order Defendants to identify the witnesses they intended to call, so that Plaintiffs could prepare to examine the witnesses. Id. On February 16, 2018, the Court ordered Defendants to file by February 21, 2018 a list of witnesses they intended to call and a summary of the subjects on which each witness would testify. Doc. 1644. On February 21, Defendants filed their list of thirty-one rebuttal witnesses. Doc. 1662. The testimony for all but the last three witnesses on the list was described as "activities in restrictive housing units at [a specified facility] and the documents related to those activities." Id. at 2-6. In addition, the witnesses who would testify about activities and documentation for segregation units at 4 5 Donaldson would also testify about activities and documentation of activities in the structured living units at Donaldson. Id. at 2-3. Defendants did not provide the order in which the witnesses would testify, and identified every witness as a "will or may" call, while reserving the right to decline to call any or all of the witnesses. Id. at 1-2. ARGUMENT I. DEFENDANTS' PROPOSED WITNESSES 1-28 ARE NOT REBUTTAL WITNESSES Prior to any trial, parties are required to provide their witness lists. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3)(A). Rebuttal witnesses can also be used, without disclosure prior to trial, "to explain, repel, counteract, or disprove the evidence of the adverse party." United States v. Frazier, 387 F.3d 1244, 1269 (11th Cir.2004) (en banc). Rebuttal witnesses are not proper "when a party knows that a contested matter is in the case, yet fails to address it in a timely fashion." United States v. Lezcano, 296 F. App'x 800, 803 (11th Cir. 2008) (discussing Faigin v. Kelly, 184 F.3d 67, 85 (1st Cir.1999)). Whether to exclude witnesses as improper rebuttal witnesses is a decision that "resides in the sound discretion of the trial judge." Frazier, 387 F.3d at 1269. 5 5 Defendants' "Rebuttal" witnesses 1-28 are not in any way rebuttal witnesses. 1 Defendants seek to rebut testimony that was elicited from their own witness during their case in chief. They are effectively rebutting themselves, not the Plaintiffs. Further, Defendants were aware prior to filing their initial witness list for the Segregation Remedial Trial that Plaintiffs would challenge the policies and practices of monitoring, evaluating, and treating people in segregation. Doc. 1546. In response, Defendants made their strategic litigation decisions regarding what evidence they would put before the Court. They determined they did not need witnesses who had direct knowledge of how correctional and mental health rounds of segregation were conducted, except for the limited knowledge of Segregation Review Boards on the part of Cynthia Stewart, the Warden of Holman Correctional Facility. Doc. 1592. They did not put forward witnesses who conduct security checks, who take prisoners out of the cells for exercise, showers or appointments, or who conduct mental health rounds. Instead, they chose to put forward witnesses who were ultimately responsible for ensuring that such rounds are done. See Cheryl Price, Feb. 13, 2018 R.D. Trial Tr., 35:24-39:16; Grantt Culliver, Feb. 13, 2018 R.D. Trial Tr., 16:19-20:6; Cynthia Stewart, Feb. 13, 2018 R.D. Trial Tr., 208:22-210:1. 1 Plaintiffs do not challenge the identification of rebuttal witnesses 29-31, as those witnesses appear to be named for a proper rebuttal purpose, namely addressing issues that arose during Plaintiffs' case, about which Defendants may not have previously anticipated the need to provide evidence. 6 5 There is no question that Defendants realized, prior to the end of their case in chief, that the logs that they had produced to Plaintiffs in the days before trial showed that the policies and practices relied on by Defendants in their Plan continued to result in inadequate monitoring, evaluation, and treatment of people in segregation. Specifically: • Cheryl Price testified that the Segregation Unit Record Sheets indicated limited meals, showers, exercise, and mental health visits to persons in segregation in numerous facilities (Cheryl Price, Feb. 13, 2018, R.D. Trial Tr., at 99:13-141:9) • Associate Commissioner for Operations Grantt Culliver testified that duty post logs and Segregation Unit Record Sheets indicated limited security checks, meals, showers, exercise, and mental health visits to persons in segregation at various facilities (Grantt Culliver, Feb. 13, 2018 R.D. Trial Tr., 22:20-51:8, 54:8-73:4) • Cynthia Stewart testified about duty post logs and mental health round logs that indicated limited security checks, showers, exercise and mental health visits to persons in segregation at Holman (Cynthia Stewart, Feb. 13, 2018 R.D. Trial Tr.,188:16-192:13, 194:8-201:10) Recognizing this testimony was problematic, Defendants stated, prior to the end of their case, that they intended to call a dozen witnesses to rebut the testimony 7 5 of Ms. Price and their other witnesses. Feb. 13, 2018 R.D. Trial Tr., 149:19-25 (counsel stating that witnesses were required to rebut "the evidence that plaintiffs' counsel put on just before lunch [through the testimony of Cheryl Price] concerning the several logs"). Notably, however, Defendants declined to ask Ms. Price any questions on redirect. Id. at 149:15-17. Additionally, Defendants were fully aware of the existence of the logs, and what they showed. Defense Counsel Mr. William Lunsford went through one day's duty post log with Warden Stewart, to show what contacts prison staff had with prisoners in segregation on one day in Holman. Cynthia Stewart, Feb. 13, 2018 R.D. Trial Tr.,188:16-192:13, 194:8-201:10. He then made the strategic decision not to go through other logs with the Warden, stating: "Your Honor, I'm not going to go through all of this. I think it's cumulative and repetitive. . . . So there's evidence throughout the day of January 10th that there were these interactions." Id. at 199:25-200:5. Moreover, the evidence Defendants seek to "explain, repel, counteract, or disprove" is their own evidence, not the evidence of the adverse party. The evidence came from their witnesses, in their case-in-chief, relating to documents they produced. They chose not to go through the evidence that they had in hand during their direct examinations of their own witnesses. They chose not to attempt through redirect to explain, repel, counteract or disprove the evidence that came 8 5 out during the cross-examination of their own witnesses. Having failed to address known issues during their case-in-chief (or during re-direct), Defendants should be prohibited from taking "an improper 'second bite at the apple.'" Lawson v. Plantation Gen. Hosp., L.P., No. 08-61826-CIV, 2010 WL 11504835, at *3 (S.D. Fla. May 3, 2010) (quoting Lezcano, 296 Fed.Appx. at 803). In short, while Defendants' counsel may have made a strategic mistake with these missteps, it is not for this Court or Plaintiffs to bear the burden of their error. There is no basis for the presentation of rebuttal witnesses and twenty-eight of the thirty-one witnesses should be excluded by the Court. II. DEFENDANTS SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE A REAL WITNESS LIST THAT COMPLIES WITH THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Defendants' Rebuttal Witness List fails to comply with the requirements of witness lists. 2 Specifically, the list does not include any identification of which witnesses Defendants intend to call, as opposed to those witnesses they may call if the need arises. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3)(A)(i). Further, the witness list does not indicate the dates on which each of the witnesses will be called or even the order in which they will be called. Cf. Doc. 1571 (Order requiring filing of Witness Lists 2 In addition to failing to specify who they will call and when they will call them, Defendants have indicated that they may change the people on their witness list. See Doc. 1662 at n.1. Additionally, Defendants informed Plaintiffs on February 22, 2018 that they may take some people off for some facilities, but that they are trying to have all facilities except Bibb covered, suggesting that additional witnesses may be added. 9 5 that indicate the dates on which each witness is expected to testify) Doc.1589 (same). Defendants speciously claim that they cannot provide any better information about who will testify and in what order because they do not know the availability of the witnesses. Doc. 1642 at 2. But every one of the persons listed on their Rebuttal Witness List is, directly or indirectly, employed by ADOC, and could thus be required to report to court, rather than to their ordinary place of work.3 This gamesmanship – intended to waste time and obfuscate the evidence they intend to present – is not new. Prior to the liability trial, Defendants submitted a witness list of 34 "will call" witnesses and 460 "may call" witnesses. Doc. 901. Plaintiffs objected that this was an unreasonable list, and the Court ordered Defendants to file an updated "may call" witness list. Doc. 1034. Defendants ignored the clear intent of the order and filed a new witness list of 34 "will call" witnesses and 461 "may call" witnesses. Doc. 1065. In their case, 3 Following Ms. Price's testimony, Defense counsel indicated that they intended to present additional witnesses but that they were not "available" at that time. As with the witnesses on the new rebuttal list, the witnesses were presumably employed at ADOC facilities. Defendants admitted that they wanted to offer the testimony in response to Ms. Price's testimony "before lunch". Feb. 13, 2018 R.D. Trial Tr.,149:15-17. There would have been ample time to bring witnesses from Kilby or Tutwiler over lunch. Moreover, Defendants did not seek to present these witnesses or make them available during the course of the remaining days of the proceeding. Finally, Defendants did not identify any of these individuals on their witness list for the segregation proceeding, so calling them (other than as true rebuttal or impeachment) would have been improper, regardless of the timing. See Doc. 1592. 10 5 Defendants called five witnesses. Another five of their "will call" list had been called by Plaintiffs. This strategy of identifying far larger numbers of witnesses than there is any intent to call violates Rule 26(a)(3) and the purpose of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure – to avoid trial by ambush. 4 At this point, to appropriately represent their clients, Plaintiffs' counsel must be prepared to cross-examine each one of the thirty-one witnesses upon the close of their case on February 26. All counsel who will have responsibility to cross- examine any of the thirty-one witnesses will be required to be in Court, on the mere off-chance that their witness may be called. If Defendants actually intend to call thirty-one witnesses, for an hour apiece plus the time on cross-examination, the trial will continue for another eight days at least, even assuming just one hour of direct examination and one hour of cross- examination. This is an extraordinary waste of time and judicial resources just for the purpose of explaining to the Court that the logs Defendants keep are not accurate. If Defendants do not actually intend to call each of the witnesses, they will have required Plaintiffs' counsel to waste their time preparing for the cross- examination. 4 Defendants' strategy of trial by ambush has been repeatedly seen in all proceedings in this case. Most recently, Defendants produced to Plaintiffs a spreadsheet that was hundreds of pages long, in a paper format, with rows disconnected from each other, while Associate Commissioner Naglich was on the witness stand. Feb. 15, 2018 R.D. Trial Tr. 5:4-18. 11 5 The Court has set forth an ambitious schedule for addressing the remaining constitutional violations. Plaintiffs' counsel must continue preparing for the additional remedial proceedings. The urgency and seriousness of the issues to be addressed should weigh against allowing Defendants to waste the Court's and the Plaintiffs' time in this manner. Plaintiffs request that Defendants be immediately ordered to produce a witness list identifying those witnesses they will call, the witnesses they may call, and the witnesses' anticipated dates of testimony. 5 Dated: February 22, 2018 Respectfully Submitted, /s/ Maria V. Morris Maria V. Morris One of the Attorneys for Plaintiffs Southern Poverty Law Center 400 Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36104 Rhonda Brownstein (ASB-3193-O64R) Maria V. Morris (ASB-2198-R64M) Grace Graham (ASB-3040-A64G) Latasha L. McCrary (ASB-1935-L75M) Jonathan Blocker (ASB-6818-G19I) Caitlin J. Sandley (ASB-5317-S48R) SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 400 Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36104 Telephone: (334) 956-8200 5 Even if the Court is inclined to grant the motion to exclude the witnesses as improper rebuttal witnesses (see below), Plaintiffs request that Defendants be ordered to produce a proper witness list as Plaintiffs will be prejudiced by having to prepare for thirty-one cross-examinations by February 26. 12 5 Facsimile: (334) 956-8481 rhonda.brownstein@splcenter.org maria.morris@splcenter.org grace.graham@splcenter.org latasha.mccrary@splcenter.org jonathan.blocker@splcenter.org cj.sandley@splcenter.org William Van Der Pol, Jr. (ASB-2112-114F) Glenn N. Baxter (ASB-3825-A41G) Lonnie J. Williams Barbara A. Lawrence Andrea J. Mixson ALABAMA DISABILITIES ADVOCACY PROGRAM Box 870395 Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 Telephone: (205) 348-4928 Facsimile: (205) 348-3909 wvanderpoljr@adap.ua.edu gnbaxter@adap.ua.edu lwilliams@adap.ua.edu blawrence@adap.ua.edu amixson@adap.ua.edu Lisa W. Borden (ASB-5673-D57L) William G. Somerville, III (ASB-6185-E63W) Andrew P. Walsh (ASB-3755-W77W) Dennis Nabors Patricia Clotfelter (ASB-0841-F43P) BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ PC 420 20th Street North, Suite 1400 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 328-0480 Facsimile: (205) 322-8007 lborden@bakerdonelson.com wsomerville@bakerdonelson.com awalsh@bakerdonelson.com dnabors@bakerdonelson.com pclotfelter@bakerdonelson.com 13 5 /s/ Anil A. Mujumdar Anil A. Mujumdar (ASB-2004-L65M) One of the Attorneys for Plaintiff Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program 2332 2nd Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203 Gregory M. Zarzaur (ASB-0759-E45Z) Anil A. Mujumdar (ASB-2004-L65M) Diandra S. Debrosse (ASB-2956-N76D) Denise Wiginton ZARZAUR MUJUMDAR & DEBROSSE 2332 2nd Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 983-7985 Facsimile: (888) 505-0523 gregory@zarzaur.com anil@zarzaur.com fuli@zarzaur.com denise@zarzaur.com ATTORNEYS FOR THE PLAINTIFFS 14 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have on this 22nd day of February, 2018, filed under seal the foregoing with the clerk of the court and electronically served the following: David R. Boyd, Esq. Steven C. Corhern, Esq. John G. Smith, Esq. Balch & Bingham LLP John W. Naramore, Esq. Post Office Box 306 Balch & Bingham LLP Birmingham, AL 35201-0306 Post Office Box 78 scorhern@balch.com Montgomery, AL 36101-0078 dboyd@balch.com Mitesh Shah, Esq. jgsmith@balch.com Luther M. Dorr, Esq. jnaramore@balch.com Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C. 1901 6th Avenue North, Suite 2400 William R. Lunsford, Esq. Birmingham, AL 35203 Matthew Reeves, Esq. mshah@maynardcooper.com Melissa K. Marler, Esq. rdorr@maynardcooper.com Stephen C. Rogers, Esq. Alyson L. Smith, Esq. Deana Johnson, Esq. Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C. Brett T. Lane, Esq. 655 Gallatin Street, SW MHM Services, Inc. Huntsville, AL 35801 1447 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 500 blunsford@maynardcooper.com Atlanta, GA 30309 mreeves@maynardcooper.com djohnson@mhm-services.com mmarler@maynardcooper.com btlane@mhm-services.com srogers@maynardcooper.com asmith@maynardcooper.com Anne Hill, Esq. Elizabeth A. Sees, Esq. Joseph G. Stewart, Jr., Esq. Alabama Department of Corrections Legal Division 301 South Ripley Street Montgomery, AL 36104 anne.hill@doc.alabama.gov elizabeth.sees@doc.alabama.gov joseph.stewart@doc.alabama.gov /s/ Maria V. Morris One of the Attorneys for Plaintiffs 15

MOTION for Leave to File Under Seal by Jefferson S. Dunn, Ruth Naglich.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARD BRAGGS, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) Case No. 2:14-cv-00601-MHT-GMB v.)) District Judge Myron H. Thompson JEFFERSON DUNN, et al.,)) Defendants.) MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL Defendants JEFFERSON DUNN ("Commissioner Dunn") and RUTH NAGLICH ("Naglich" and, collectively with Commissioner Dunn, "the State") move this Court for entry of an Order granting the State leave to file its Response to the Court's February 16, 2018 Order re: Hospital-Level Care and "13 or So Inmates" (the "Response") under seal. The State's Response contains private and confidential information concerning inmates in the Alabama Department of Corrections' custody (including protected health information about inmates' mental-health status and treatment) that the State believes should be protected from public disclosure consistent with the Court's prior protection of this type of private and confidential information. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the State respectfully requests that this Court enter an Order permitting the State to file its Response under seal. Dated: February 23, 2018. /s/ William R. Lunsford William R. Lunsford Attorney for the Commissioner and Associate Commissioner William R. Lunsford Matthew B. Reeves Melissa K. Marler Stephen C. Rogers Alyson L. Smith MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, PC 655 Gallatin Street Huntsville, AL 35801 Telephone: (256) 512-5710 Facsimile: (256) 512-0119 blunsford@maynardcooper.com mreeves@maynardcooper.com mmarler@maynardcooper.com srogers@maynardcooper.com asmith@maynardcooper.com Luther M. Dorr, Jr. Mitesh B. Shah MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, PC 1901 Sixth Avenue North 2400 Regions Harbert Plaza Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 254-1178 Facsimile: (205) 714-6438 rdorr@maynardcooper.com mshah@maynardcooper.com 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served upon all attorneys of record in this matter, including without limitation the following, by the Court's CM/ECF system on this the 23rd day of February, 2018: Maria V. Morris William Van Der Pol, Jr. Rhonda C. Brownstein Glenn N. Baxter Latasha L. McCrary Barbara A. Lawrence J. Richard Cohen Andrea J. Mixson Caitlin J. Sandley ALABAMA DISABILITIES ADVOCACY Grace Graham PROGRAM Jonathan Blocker University of Alabama SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 500 Martha Parham West 400 Washington Avenue Box 870395 Montgomery, Alabama 36104 Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487-0395 Telephone: (334) 956-8200 Telephone: (205) 348-6894 Facsimile: (334) 956-8481 Facsimile: (205) 348-3909 maria.morris@splcenter.org wvanderpoljr@adap.ua.edu rhonda.brownstein@splcenter.org gnbaxter@bama.ua.edu latasha.mccrary@splcenter.org blawrence@adap.ua.edu richard.cohen@splcenter.org amixson@adap.ua.edu cj.sandley@splcenter.org grace.graham@splcenter.org jonathan.blocker@splcenter.org Gregory M. Zarzaur Andrew P. Walsh Anil A. Mujumdar William G. Somerville III Diandra S. Debrosse Patricia Clotfelter Denise Wiginton Lisa W. Borden ZARZAUR MUJUMDAR & DEBROSSE BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN 2332 2nd Avenue North CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC Birmingham, AL 35203 420 20th Street North Telephone: (205) 983-7985 Suite 1400 Facsimile: (888) 505-0523 Birmingham, Alabama 35203 gregory@zarzaur.com Telephone: (205) 244-3863 anil@zarzaur.com Facsimile: (205) 488-3863 fuli@zarzaur.com awalsh@bakerdonelson.com 3 denise@zarzaur.com wsomerville@bakerdonelson.com pclotfelter@bakerdonelson.com lborden@bakerdonelson.com John G. Smith Deana Johnson David R. Boyd Brett T. Lane BALCH & BINGHAM LLP MHM SERVICES, INC. Post Office Box 78 1447 Peachtree Street NE Montgomery, AL 36101-0078 Suite 500 Telephone: (334) 834-6500 Atlanta, GA 30309 Facsimile: (866) 316-9461 Telephone: (404) 347-4134 jgsmith@balch.com Facsimile: (404) 347-4138 dboyd@balch.com djohnson@mhm-services.com btlane@mhm-services.com Steven C. Corhern Lonnie J. Williams BALCH & BINGHAM LLP ALABAMA DISABILITIES ADVOCACY Post Office Box 306 PROGRAM Birmingham, AL 35201-0306 P. O. Box 870395 Telephone: (205) 251-8100 Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 Facsimile: (205) 488-5708 Telephone: (205) 348-4928 scorhern@balch.com Facsimile: (205) 348-3909 lwilliams@adap.ua.edu Anne A. Hill Joseph G. Stewart ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Legal Division 301 South Ripley Street Montgomery, Alabama 36130 Telephone (334) 353-3884 Facsimile (334) 353-3891 anne.hill@doc.alabama.gov joseph.stewart@doc.alabama.gov /s/ William R. Lunsford Of Counsel 4

Joint MOTION for Extension of Deadline Joint Report Concerning the ADA Arbitration Request Procedure re {{1651}} Order, by Jefferson S. Dunn, Ruth Naglich.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARD BRAGGS, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) CIVIL ACTION NO.: v.) 2:14-cv-00601-MHT-TFM) JEFFERSON S. DUNN, in his official) District Judge Myron H. Thompson capacity, et al.,)) Defendants.)) THE STATE'S JOINT MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINES The Defendants (collectively referred to hereafter as the "State") respectfully request that the Court extend the deadline by which the parties must provide the Court with the joint report concerning the ADA arbitration request procedure. As grounds, the State says as follows: 1. The Court's Order of February 20, 2018 (doc. 1651) requires the parties to submit a joint report concerning the ADA arbitration request procedure by 5 p.m. on February 23, 2018. 2. The State is most cognizant that the Court has, on two prior occasions, extended the deadline for providing the required report, most recently on February 20, 2018. The State acknowledges that the parties indicated in open court on February 15, 2018, that the report would be filed by February 23, 2018. In light of those facts, this request is not made lightly. However, while the parties have worked to reach a resolution of these issues, that has not yet occurred. 254776.1 3. Unfortunately, there have been unexpected illnesses of attorneys for the State. Those lawyers necessarily must be involved in the discussion concerning the arbitration process. Those same attorneys have also been involved in the State of Alabama's attempts to carry out the capital sentence of an inmate in the custody of the Alabama Department of Corrections, which execution was set to be conducted on February 22, 2018. These illnesses and obligations connected to both the capital sentence and other reporting obligations in that case have kept the State's counsel from being able to meet the February 23, 2018 deadline called for the Court's February 20, 2018 Order. 4. Accordingly, the State respectfully request that the parties be allowed until 5 p.m. CST on Monday, February 26, 2018 to provide the Court with the joint report concerning the ADA arbitration request procedure. 5. The Plaintiffs have no objection to this motion being granted. WHEREFORE, the premises considered, the State respectfully requests that the parties be allowed until 5 p.m. CST on Monday, February 26, 2018 to provide the Court with the joint report concerning the ADA arbitration request procedure. Respectfully submitted this the 23rd day of February, 2018. /s/ John G. Smith One of the Attorneys for the Commissioner and Associate Commissioner 2 254776.1 OF COUNSEL: John G. Smith David R. Boyd BALCH & BINGHAM LLP Post Office Box 78 Montgomery, AL 36101-0078 Telephone: (334) 834-6500 Facsimile: (866) 316-9461 jgsmith@balch.com dboyd@balch.com Steven C. Corhern BALCH & BINGHAM LLP Post Office Box 306 Birmingham, AL 35201-0306 Telephone: (205) 251-8100 Facsimile: (205) 488-5708 scorhern@balch.com Anne A. Hill Joseph G. Stewart ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Legal Division 301 South Ripley Street Montgomery, Alabama 36130 Telephone (334) 353-3884 Facsimile (334) 353-3891 anne.hill@doc.alabama.gov joseph.stewart@doc.alabama.gov 3 254776.1 William R. Lunsford Matthew B. Reeves Melissa K. Marler Stephen C. Rogers Alyson L. Smith MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, PC 655 Gallatin Street Huntsville, AL 35801 Telephone: (256) 512-5710 Facsimile: (256) 512-0119 blunsford@maynardcooper.com mreeves@maynardcooper.com mmarler@maynardcooper.com srogers@maynardcooper.com asmith@maynardcooper.com Luther M. Dorr, Jr. Mitesh B. Shah MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, PC 1901 Sixth Avenue North 2400 Regions Harbert Plaza Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 254-1178 Facsimile: (205) 714-6438 rdorr@maynardcooper.com mshah@maynardcooper.com 4 254776.1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served upon all attorneys of record in this matter, including without limitation the following, by the Court's CM/ECF system on this the 23rd day of February, 2018: Maria V. Morris William Van Der Pol, Jr. Rhonda C. Brownstein Glenn N. Baxter Latasha L. McCrary Barbara A. Lawrence J. Richard Cohen Andrea J. Mixson Caitlin J. Sandley Lonnie Williams Grace Graham ALABAMA DISABILITIES ADVOCACY Jonathan Barry-Blocker PROGRAM SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER University of Alabama 400 Washington Avenue 500 Martha Parham West Montgomery, Alabama 36104 Box 870395 Telephone: (334) 956-8200 Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487-0395 Facsimile: (334) 956-8481 Telephone: (205) 348-6894 maria.morris@splcenter.org Facsimile: (205) 348-3909 rhonda.brownstein@splcenter.org wvanderpoljr@adap.ua.edu latasha.mccrary@splcenter.org gnbaxter@bama.ua.edu richard.cohen@splcenter.org blawrence@adap.ua.edu cj.sandley@splcenter.org amixson@adap.ua.edu grace.graham@splcenter.org lwilliams@adap.ua.edu jonathan.blocker@splcenter.org Gregory M. Zarzaur Andrew P. Walsh Anil A. Mujumdar William G. Somerville III Diandra S. Debrosse Patricia Clotfelter Denise Wiginton Lisa W. Borden ZARZAUR MUJUMDAR & DEBROSSE BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN 2332 2nd Avenue North CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC Birmingham, AL 35203 420 20th Street North Telephone: (205) 983-7985 Suite 1400 Facsimile: (888) 505-0523 Birmingham, Alabama 35203 gregory@zarzaur.com Telephone: (205) 244-3863 anil@zarzaur.com Facsimile: (205) 488-3863 fuli@zarzaur.com awalsh@bakerdonelson.com denise@zarzaur.com wsomerville@bakerdonelson.com pclotfelter@bakerdonelson.com lborden@bakerdonelson.com 5 254776.1 Lonnie J. Williams Deana Johnson ALABAMA DISABILITIES ADVOCACY Brett T. Lane PROGRAM MHM SERVICES, INC. P. O. Box 870395 1447 Peachtree Street NE Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 Suite 500 Telephone: (205) 348-4928 Atlanta, GA 30309 Facsimile: (205) 348-3909 Telephone: (404) 347-4134 lwilliams@adap.ua.edu Facsimile: (404) 347-4138 djohnson@mhm-services.com btlane@mhm-services.com John G. Smith Steven C. Corhern David R. Boyd BALCH & BINGHAM LLP John Naramore Post Office Box 306 BALCH & BINGHAM LLP Birmingham, AL 35201-0306 Post Office Box 78 Telephone: (205) 251-8100 Montgomery, AL 36101-0078 Facsimile: (205) 488-5708 Telephone: (334) 834-6500 scorhern@balch.com Facsimile: (866) 316-9461 jgsmith@balch.com dboyd@balch.com jnaramore@balch.com Anne A. Hill William R. Lunsford Joseph G. Stewart Matthew B. Reeves ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF Melissa K. Marler CORRECTIONS Stephen C. Rogers Legal Division Alyson L. Smith 301 South Ripley Street MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, PC Montgomery, Alabama 36130 655 Gallatin Street Telephone (334) 353-3884 Huntsville, AL 35801 Facsimile (334) 353-3891 Telephone: (256) 512-5710 anne.hill@doc.alabama.gov Facsimile: (256) 512-0119 joseph.stewart@doc.alabama.gov blunsford@maynardcooper.com mreeves@maynardcooper.com mmarler@maynardcooper.com srogers@maynardcooper.com asmith@maynardcooper.com 6 254776.1 Luther M. Dorr, Jr. Mitesh B. Shah MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, PC 1901 Sixth Avenue North 2400 Regions Harbert Plaza Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 254-1178 Facsimile: (205) 714-6438 rdorr@maynardcooper.com mshah@maynardcooper.com /s/ John G. Smith OF COUNSEL 7 254776.1

MOTION to Strike {{1637}} Response in Opposition to Motion, Defendants' Declarations and Exhibits to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction by All Plaintiffs.

6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARD BRAGGS, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) v.) CIVIL ACTION NO.) 2:14-CV-00601-MHT-GMB JEFFERSON DUNN, in his official) Judge Thompson capacity as Commissioner) of the Alabama Department of) Corrections, et al.,)) Defendants.)) PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS' DECLARATIONS AND EXHIBITS TO THEIR OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Plaintiffs move the Court to strike the declarations of available witnesses, voluminous documents, and hundreds of hours of video footage submitted by Defendants in opposition to Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion for a Preliminary Injunction Requiring the Immediate Closure of the Segregation Units at Bibb Correctional Facility. Docs. 1637-1 through 1637-9 and video footage. The Court has already heard evidence regarding the pending Motion for Preliminary Injunction during the ongoing segregation remedial trial. See Doc. 1614 (Pls.' Mot. for Prelim. Injunction) (citing evidence presented during the segregation 6 remedial trial). The Court should therefore strike from the record the hearsay declarations and unauthenticated and voluminous documents and videos Defendants have filed in opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion and instead hear any additional evidence Defendants wish to present related to the motion during the remainder of the segregation remedial trial or a separate hearing on the Motion for Preliminary Injunction. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The Parties have been engaged in a remedial trial on segregation since February 7, 2018. On February 9, 2018, Plaintiffs moved for an emergency temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction requiring the immediate closure of the Bibb Correctional Facility segregation units. Doc. 1614. Defendants responded on February 15, 2018. Doc. 1637. With their opposition, Defendants submitted declarations from six individuals currently employed at Bibb Correctional Facility. Docs. 1637-1 through 1637-9. Defendants also submitted over 400 pages of documents, many of which were not previously produced to Plaintiffs during informal discovery, and over 400 hours of video footage. Id. The video footage was not produced to Plaintiffs until a week later, on February 22, 2018. The Court ordered Plaintiffs to file a reply brief by February 27, 2018. Doc. 1654. 2 6 ARGUMENT I. The Declarations Are Inadmissible Hearsay The Court should require the Defendants to call each of the six declarants to testify in court so that Plaintiffs have opportunity to cross-examine them. All of the declarants are within ADOC's control and the Court's subpoena power, and should be made available to testify. Defendants have submitted declarations from Angel Badea, MHM Site Administrator at Bibb; Captain John Hutton; Edward Ellington, ADOC Institutional Coordinator for the Northern Region; Glenda Black, ADOC Psychological Associate at Bibb; Marie Borden, Corizon licensed practical nurse at Bibb; and Sharon Kirk, Corizon Director of Nursing at Bibb. Docs. 1637-1 through 1637-9. Each of these individuals is employed by ADOC or one of ADOC's contractors at Bibb Correctional Facility and is therefore under ADOC's control. Doc. 1637-1 at 1; Doc. 1637-2 at 1; Doc. 1637-6 at 1; Doc. 1637-7 at 1; Doc. 1637- 8 at 1; Doc. 1637-9 at 1. Further, each of these individuals works at Bibb Correctional Facility, which is less than 100 miles from the federal courthouse in Montgomery. 1 The declarants are therefore within the Court's subpoena power. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(1)(A). The declarants' out-of-court statement would ordinarily be inadmissible 1 Google Maps indicates that the distance from Bibb Correctional Facility to the federal courthouse in Montgomery, Alabama is approximately 73 miles. Google Maps, https://goo.gl/maps/fCCiErfpmEm. 3 6 hearsay because the declarants are not unavailable witnesses. Fed. R. Evid. 802; see also Fed. R. Evid. 804 (creating a hearsay exception for unavailable declarants). While courts at the preliminary injunction stage may normally rely on evidence that may not be admissible at the liability stage, see Levi Strauss & Co. v. Sunrise Int'l Trading, Inc., 51 F.3d 982, 985 (11th Cir. 1995), the procedural posture of this case is unique. The Court has already found Defendants liable for constitutional violations. Moreover, the Parties and the Court are currently engaged in a remedial evidentiary trial, which encompasses the subject matter of Plaintiffs' preliminary injunction motion, as well as a number of other issues related to segregation. Thus, the Parties are at the merits stage while also litigating a preliminary injunction. Cf. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(2) (allowing courts to consolidate hearings on preliminary injunctions with trial on the merits but to only allow admissible evidence into the trial record). Any evidence presented with regard to the Bibb segregation units should therefore be admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence. Defendants have indicated their intent to call one of the six Bibb declarants in that matter, though for reasons wholly unrelated to the issue of Bibb's segregation unit. Ex. 1 (Feb. 22, 2018 Email from B. Lunsford to M. Morris et al.) (communicating a revised "rebuttal" witness list that includes Bibb Psychological Associate Glenda Black); Doc. 1662 at 7. The importance of live testimony, including cross-examination, has been 4 6 highlighted in this case during the Segregation Remedial Trial. Indeed, the very existence of the declarations is a testament to the importance of cross-examination. Defendants proffered three witnesses to describe the policies and practices relating to rounds and other contacts for prisoners in segregation. Each of them testified on direct that the required rounds and other contacts happen, although perhaps not perfectly. See, e.g., Grantt Culliver, Feb. 8, 2018, R.D. Trial Tr., 167: 10-19; Cynthia Stewart, Feb. 9, 2018, R.D. Trial Tr., 186:5-15; Cheryl Price, Feb. 13, 2018, R.D. Trial Tr., 26:21-27-5. Each of them had to admit on cross-examination that the evidence showed that many of the required rounds and other contacts were not occurring. See, e.g., Grantt Culliver, Feb. 13, 2018, R.D. Trial Tr., 60:13-20; Cynthia Stewart, Feb. 12, 2018, R.D. Trial Tr., 78:22-83:21; Cheryl Price, Feb. 13, 2018, R.D. Trial Tr.,109:14-127:12. The declarations were submitted in opposition to a motion that was precipitated by the information that came out on cross- examination. Similarly, Defendants indicated that they need to bring a dozen rebuttal witnesses to respond to information that was elicited through cross- examination. Feb. 13, 2018, R.D. Trial Tr., 149:19-25. If Defendants seek to rely on information provided by the six declarants, they should be required to call all six—rather than relying on hearsay and denying Plaintiffs the opportunity to cross-examine the declarants. 5 6 II. The Court Should Strike the Documents and Videos Submitted in Support of Defendants' Response The Court should strike the documents and videos submitted in support of Defendants' Response because they have not been authenticated by someone with personal knowledge and because Defendants have made almost no effort to point the Court to the relevant portions. A. The Documents and Videos Are Unauthenticated and Unreliable In order to be admissible, evidence must be authenticated. Fed. R. Evid. 901. As discussed above, while courts may rely on otherwise inadmissible evidence at the preliminary injunction stage, this case is uniquely postured. Because the Parties are currently engaged in an evidentiary hearing, the subject matter of which encompasses the issues raised in Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, Defendants should be required to present authenticated evidence in court because that evidence may also bear on the merits of their remedial plan. Evidence can be authenticated in a number of ways, including through testimony of a witness with knowledge that the document is what it claims to be or through evidence "describing a process or system and showing that it produces an accurate result." Fed. R. Evid. 901(b)(1) & (9). Defendants attached over 400 pages of documents to the declarations of Angel Badea, Captain John Hutton, Glenda Black, and Sharon Kirk. The Court should strike the documents about which the declarants have no personal 6 6 knowledge. If Defendants intend to rely on such documents, they should introduce them in Court through live witnesses who can testify to their authenticity. See Fed. R. Evid. 901. Attached to MHM Site Administrator Angel Badea's declaration are mental- health rounds logs. While Ms. Badea has personal knowledge about the rounds logs for the days during which she personally conducted rounds, January 5 and 11 and February 1 and 8, 2018, she does not have personal knowledge of the remaining rounds logs attached to her declaration for January 2, 9, 10 and February 7. Doc. 1637-1 at ¶ 5. Ms. Badea does not state in her declaration that her responsibilities include reviewing other mental-health professionals' segregation rounds logs or ensuring that other mental-health professionals actually conduct rounds. See Doc. 1637-1. She also does not state how, when, or by whom the mental-health rounds logs were created. Id. She therefore has no basis for asserting that the logs created by other individuals are true and accurate evidence that mental-health rounds actually occurred. The mental-health rounds logs for January 2, 9, 10 and February 7 attached to Ms. Badea's declaration should be stricken. Attached to Captain John Hutton's declaration are hundreds of pages of typed Facility Logs, Segregation Unit Record Sheets, Inmate Interview Records, and Duty Post Logs. Docs. 1637-2 through 1637-5. Captain Hutton did not create the logs and does not claim to have performed any of the activities documented in 7 6 the logs. Id. Captain Hutton lacks personal knowledge of what actually occurs in the Bibb segregation units and even what is documented in the logs attached to his declaration. The best example of his lack of knowledge is his declaration that the logs he reviewed confirm that "Bibb custody staff removed the inmates housed in restrictive housing from their cells for. . . exercise." Id. at ¶ 7. None of the logs produced by Defendants thus far indicate that any prisoners in Bibb segregation were taken for exercise. Captain Hutton's declaration says nothing about how, when, or by whom the attached documents were created. Id. He also admits to having done only a "limited review" of the documents. Id. Captain Hutton lacks personal knowledge about the activities that take place, or not, in the Bibb segregation units and also lacks personal knowledge about the logs kept for those units. The documents attached to his declaration should therefore be stricken. Attached to Corizon Director of Nursing Sharon Kirk's declaration are over fifty pages of assorted medical records. Doc. 1637-9. In her declaration, Ms. Kirk states that she is "not directly involved in the provision of medical or nursing care to the inmate for whom the Bibb medical staff provides medical services." Id. at ¶ 3. She declares, citing only records that she did not create, that members of the medical staff other than herself conducted segregation pill call rounds at Bibb between January 4 and 8, 2018. Id. at ¶ 6. Ms. Kirk's declaration says nothing about how, when, or by whom the attached documents were created. See id. Ms. Kirk has 8 6 no personal knowledge regarding the documents attached to her declaration; the documents should therefore be stricken. Defendants' opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction also relies on over 400 hours of video footage from five days in five of Bibb's six segregation units. Doc. 1637 at 11-14. This video footage should be stricken because it is unauthenticated. Defendants have offered no evidence of how Bibb's video recording system functions and is maintained. Id. (listing methods by which evidence can be authenticated). Defendants submitted Captain John Hutton's declaration, which discusses the videos. Doc. 1637-2. However, Captain Hutton's knowledge about the video recording system is limited. For example, he states that "it appears that the recording [for B Dorm segregation unit] loops every fourteen (14) days." Id. at ¶ 4 (emphasis added). Such a statement does not indicate actual knowledge of how the video recording system functions; indeed, it suggests he does not have actual knowledge. He also admits to having done only a "limited review" of the video records. Id. at ¶ 7. Further, Defendants have offered no testimony about how the cameras and video are maintained, where the cameras are located and how they are positioned, or who has access to the video footage. Without proper authentication and testimony about how they were created and produced, the videos are unreliable. For example, the videos purportedly from 9 6 the A Dorm Segregation Unit do not even indicate within the videos themselves which dorm they are for; Plaintiffs and the Court have simply been asked to take defense counsel's word that they are from A Dorm. Furthermore, it appears as though only portions of the A Dorm videos have been produced to the Court and Plaintiffs. B. The Court Cannot Be Expected to Review the Voluminous Documents and Videos without References to the Relevant Portions Just as courts are "are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in briefs," they are also "not required to ferret out delectable facts buried in a massive record." Chavez v. Sec'y of Fla. Dep't of Corr., 647 F.3d 1057, 1061 (11th Cir. 2011) (quoting United States v. Dunkel, 927 F.2d 955, 956 (7th Cir. 1991)). Throughout the liability trial and subsequent remedial trials in this litigation, the Court has consistently asked the Parties to point it to the relevant portions of a piece of evidence. See, e.g., Dec. 5, 2016 Trial Tr., at 72:3-9; Dec. 6, 2016 Trial Tr., at 10:14-11:23. Yet, here, Defendants have asked the Court to ferret out from hundreds of pages of logs and hundreds of hours of video each instance of contact between the prisoners in Bibb segregation units and other human beings. Defendants attached over 400 pages of documents to the declarations of Angel Badea, Captain John Hutton, Glenda Black, and Sharon Kirk. The declarations do not provide citations to specific pages of the documents or attempt to summarize the information contained in the documents in a meaningful and 10 6 useful way. For example, Captain Hutton does not profess to have personal knowledge of any activities that did or did not occur in the Bibb segregation units, nor does he profess to review the various types of logs on a regular basis. See Doc. 1637-2. Rather, he declares that he has confirmed that certain activities occurred in the Bibb segregation units based on his "limited review" of the attached logs. Id. at ¶ 7. However, instead of providing pin cites or directing the Court's attention to specific examples in the hundreds of pages of logs, his declaration simply cites all of the attached logs, leaving it to the Court and Plaintiffs to review each page of the logs. Id. Additionally, the Court and Plaintiffs cannot be reasonably expected to review over 400 hours of video footage in consideration of an emergency motion. Defendants' responsive brief includes one table summarizing one day in one segregation unit. Doc. 1637 at 11-14. Otherwise, Defendants have made no effort to point the Court and Plaintiffs to specific dates and times in the videos where activity can be seen in the segregation units. The Court should therefore strike the videos and, if Defendants still seek to rely on them, require Defendants to present a witness who can testify to the videos' authenticity and point the Court to specific minute marks in each video. 11 6 III. Defendants' Declarations, Documents, and Videos Are Not Admissible as Evidence in the Segregation Remedial Trial The Parties are currently engaged in a remedial trial regarding segregation, which encompasses the issues raised in Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction Requiring the Immediate Closure of the Bibb Segregation Units. Therefore, it is unclear whether Defendants intend to rely on the declarations, documents, and video submitted in opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction as evidence in support of their Proposed Segregation Remedial Plan. For the reasons stated herein, Defendants should not be allowed to rely on, nor should the Court give weight to, these materials for either purpose. Furthermore, to the extent Defendants intend to rely on these materials as rebuttal evidence in the segregation remedial trial, they are improper rebuttal evidence. See Doc. 1664 (Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude Improper Rebuttal Witnesses and for Proper Witness List). CONCLUSION The declarations, documents, and videos filed in support of Defendants' opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction contain inadmissible hearsay, are unauthenticated, and are too voluminous for the Court and Plaintiffs to review without direction to relevant portions. Docs. 1637-1 through 1637-9. The Court should therefore strike the declarations, documents, and videos and order 12 6 Defendants to present live testimony in Court regarding any evidence they wish to rely on in opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Dated: February 23, 2018 Respectfully Submitted, /s/ Maria V. Morris Maria V. Morris One of the Attorneys for Plaintiffs Southern Poverty Law Center 400 Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36104 Rhonda Brownstein (ASB-3193-O64R) Maria V. Morris (ASB-2198-R64M) Grace Graham (ASB-3040-A64G) Latasha L. McCrary (ASB-1935-L75M) Jonathan Blocker (ASB-6818-G19I) Caitlin J. Sandley (ASB-5317-S48R) SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 400 Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36104 Telephone: (334) 956-8200 Facsimile: (334) 956-8481 rhonda.brownstein@splcenter.org maria.morris@splcenter.org grace.graham@splcenter.org latasha.mccrary@splcenter.org jonathan.blocker@splcenter.org cj.sandley@splcenter.org William Van Der Pol, Jr. (ASB-2112-114F) Glenn N. Baxter (ASB-3825-A41G) Lonnie J. Williams Barbara A. Lawrence Andrea J. Mixson 13 6 ALABAMA DISABILITIES ADVOCACY PROGRAM Box 870395 Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 Telephone: (205) 348-4928 Facsimile: (205) 348-3909 wvanderpoljr@adap.ua.edu gnbaxter@adap.ua.edu lwilliams@adap.ua.edu blawrence@adap.ua.edu amixson@adap.ua.edu Lisa W. Borden (ASB-5673-D57L) William G. Somerville, III (ASB-6185-E63W) Andrew P. Walsh (ASB-3755-W77W) Dennis Nabors Patricia Clotfelter (ASB-0841-F43P) BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ PC 420 20th Street North, Suite 1400 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 328-0480 Facsimile: (205) 322-8007 lborden@bakerdonelson.com wsomerville@bakerdonelson.com awalsh@bakerdonelson.com dnabors@bakerdonelson.com pclotfelter@bakerdonelson.com /s/ Anil A. Mujumdar Anil A. Mujumdar (ASB-2004-L65M) One of the Attorneys for Plaintiff Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program 2332 2nd Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203 Gregory M. Zarzaur (ASB-0759-E45Z) Anil A. Mujumdar (ASB-2004-L65M) Diandra S. Debrosse (ASB-2956-N76D) Denise Wiginton ZARZAUR MUJUMDAR & DEBROSSE 2332 2nd Avenue North 14 6 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 983-7985 Facsimile: (888) 505-0523 gregory@zarzaur.com anil@zarzaur.com fuli@zarzaur.com denise@zarzaur.com ATTORNEYS FOR THE PLAINTIFFS 15 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have on this 23rd day of February, 2018, electronically filed the foregoing with the clerk of the court by using the CM/ECF system, which will send a notice of electronic filing to the following: David R. Boyd, Esq. Steven C. Corhern, Esq. John G. Smith, Esq. Balch & Bingham LLP John W. Naramore, Esq. Post Office Box 306 Balch & Bingham LLP Birmingham, AL 35201-0306 Post Office Box 78 scorhern@balch.com Montgomery, AL 36101-0078 dboyd@balch.com Mitesh Shah, Esq. jgsmith@balch.com Luther M. Dorr, Esq. jnaramore@balch.com Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C. 1901 6th Avenue North, Suite 2400 William R. Lunsford, Esq. Birmingham, AL 35203 Matthew Reeves, Esq. mshah@maynardcooper.com Melissa K. Marler, Esq. rdorr@maynardcooper.com Stephen C. Rogers, Esq. Alyson L. Smith, Esq. Deana Johnson, Esq. Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C. Brett T. Lane, Esq. 655 Gallatin Street, SW MHM Services, Inc. Huntsville, AL 35801 1447 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 500 blunsford@maynardcooper.com Atlanta, GA 30309 mreeves@maynardcooper.com djohnson@mhm-services.com mmarler@maynardcooper.com btlane@mhm-services.com srogers@maynardcooper.com asmith@maynardcooper.com Anne Hill, Esq. Elizabeth A. Sees, Esq. Joseph G. Stewart, Jr., Esq. Alabama Department of Corrections Legal Division 301 South Ripley Street Montgomery, AL 36104 anne.hill@doc.alabama.gov elizabeth.sees@doc.alabama.gov joseph.stewart@doc.alabama.gov /s/ Maria V. Morris One of the Attorneys for Plaintiffs 16

Amended MOTION to Strike {{1637}} Response in Opposition to Motion, Defendants' Declarations and Exhibits to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction by All Plaintiffs.

6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARD BRAGGS, et al.,)) Plaintiffs,)) v.) CIVIL ACTION NO.) 2:14-CV-00601-MHT-GMB JEFFERSON DUNN, in his official) Judge Thompson capacity as Commissioner) of the Alabama Department of) Corrections, et al.,)) Defendants.)) PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS' DECLARATIONS AND EXHIBITS TO THEIR OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Plaintiffs move the Court to strike the declarations of available witnesses, voluminous documents, and hundreds of hours of video footage submitted by Defendants in opposition to Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion for a Preliminary Injunction Requiring the Immediate Closure of the Segregation Units at Bibb Correctional Facility. Docs. 1637-1 through 1637-9 and video footage. The Court has already heard evidence regarding the pending Motion for Preliminary Injunction during the ongoing segregation remedial trial. See Doc. 1614 (Pls.' Mot. for Prelim. Injunction) (citing evidence presented during the segregation 6 remedial trial). The Court should therefore strike from the record the hearsay declarations and unauthenticated and voluminous documents and videos Defendants have filed in opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion and instead hear any additional evidence Defendants wish to present related to the motion during the remainder of the segregation remedial trial or a separate hearing on the Motion for Preliminary Injunction. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The Parties have been engaged in a remedial trial on segregation since February 7, 2018. On February 9, 2018, Plaintiffs moved for an emergency temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction requiring the immediate closure of the Bibb Correctional Facility segregation units. Doc. 1614. Defendants responded on February 15, 2018. Doc. 1637. With their opposition, Defendants submitted declarations from six individuals currently employed at Bibb Correctional Facility. Docs. 1637-1 through 1637-9. Defendants also submitted over 400 pages of documents, many of which were not previously produced to Plaintiffs during informal discovery, and over 400 hours of video footage. Id. The video footage was not produced to Plaintiffs until a week later, on February 22, 2018. The Court ordered Plaintiffs to file a reply brief by February 27, 2018. Doc. 1654. 2 6 ARGUMENT I. The Declarations Are Inadmissible Hearsay The Court should require the Defendants to call each of the six declarants to testify in court so that Plaintiffs have opportunity to cross-examine them. All of the declarants are within ADOC's control and the Court's subpoena power, and should be made available to testify. Defendants have submitted declarations from Angel Badea, MHM Site Administrator at Bibb; Captain John Hutton; Edward Ellington, ADOC Institutional Coordinator for the Northern Region; Glenda Black, ADOC Psychological Associate at Bibb; Marie Borden, Corizon licensed practical nurse at Bibb; and Sharon Kirk, Corizon Director of Nursing at Bibb. Docs. 1637-1 through 1637-9. Each of these individuals is employed by ADOC or one of ADOC's contractors at Bibb Correctional Facility and is therefore under ADOC's control. Doc. 1637-1 at 1; Doc. 1637-2 at 1; Doc. 1637-6 at 1; Doc. 1637-7 at 1; Doc. 1637- 8 at 1; Doc. 1637-9 at 1. Further, each of these individuals works at Bibb Correctional Facility, which is less than 100 miles from the federal courthouse in Montgomery. 1 The declarants are therefore within the Court's subpoena power. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(1)(A). The declarants' out-of-court statement would ordinarily be inadmissible 1 Google Maps indicates that the distance from Bibb Correctional Facility to the federal courthouse in Montgomery, Alabama is approximately 73 miles. Google Maps, https://goo.gl/maps/fCCiErfpmEm. 3 6 hearsay because the declarants are not unavailable witnesses. Fed. R. Evid. 802; see also Fed. R. Evid. 804 (creating a hearsay exception for unavailable declarants). While courts at the preliminary injunction stage may normally rely on evidence that may not be admissible at the liability stage, see Levi Strauss & Co. v. Sunrise Int'l Trading, Inc., 51 F.3d 982, 985 (11th Cir. 1995), the procedural posture of this case is unique. The Court has already found Defendants liable for constitutional violations. Moreover, the Parties and the Court are currently engaged in a remedial evidentiary trial, which encompasses the subject matter of Plaintiffs' preliminary injunction motion, as well as a number of other issues related to segregation. Thus, the Parties are at the merits stage while also litigating a preliminary injunction. Cf. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(2) (allowing courts to consolidate hearings on preliminary injunctions with trial on the merits but to only allow admissible evidence into the trial record). Any evidence presented with regard to the Bibb segregation units should therefore be admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence. Defendants have indicated their intent to call one of the six Bibb declarants in that matter, though for reasons wholly unrelated to the issue of Bibb's segregation unit. Ex. 1 (Feb. 22, 2018 Email from B. Lunsford to M. Morris et al.) (communicating a revised "rebuttal" witness list that includes Bibb Psychological Associate Glenda Black); Doc. 1662 at 7. The importance of live testimony, including cross-examination, has been 4 6 highlighted in this case during the Segregation Remedial Trial. Indeed, the very existence of the declarations is a testament to the importance of cross-examination. Defendants proffered three witnesses to describe the policies and practices relating to rounds and other contacts for prisoners in segregation. Each of them testified on direct that the required rounds and other contacts happen, although perhaps not perfectly. See, e.g., Grantt Culliver, Feb. 8, 2018, R.D. Trial Tr., 167: 10-19; Cynthia Stewart, Feb. 9, 2018, R.D. Trial Tr., 186:5-15; Cheryl Price, Feb. 13, 2018, R.D. Trial Tr., 26:21-27-5. Each of them had to admit on cross-examination that the evidence showed that many of the required rounds and other contacts were not occurring. See, e.g., Grantt Culliver, Feb. 13, 2018, R.D. Trial Tr., 60:13-20; Cynthia Stewart, Feb. 12, 2018, R.D. Trial Tr., 78:22-83:21; Cheryl Price, Feb. 13, 2018, R.D. Trial Tr.,109:14-127:12. The declarations were submitted in opposition to a motion that was precipitated by the information that came out on cross- examination. Similarly, Defendants indicated that they need to bring a dozen rebuttal witnesses to respond to information that was elicited through cross- examination. Feb. 13, 2018, R.D. Trial Tr., 149:19-25. If Defendants seek to rely on information provided by the six declarants, they should be required to call all six—rather than relying on hearsay and denying Plaintiffs the opportunity to cross-examine the declarants. 5 6 II. The Court Should Strike the Documents and Videos Submitted in Support of Defendants' Response The Court should strike the documents and videos submitted in support of Defendants' Response because they have not been authenticated by someone with personal knowledge and because Defendants have made almost no effort to point the Court to the relevant portions. A. The Documents and Videos Are Unauthenticated and Unreliable In order to be admissible, evidence must be authenticated. Fed. R. Evid. 901. As discussed above, while courts may rely on otherwise inadmissible evidence at the preliminary injunction stage, this case is uniquely postured. Because the Parties are currently engaged in an evidentiary hearing, the subject matter of which encompasses the issues raised in Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, Defendants should be required to present authenticated evidence in court because that evidence may also bear on the merits of their remedial plan. Evidence can be authenticated in a number of ways, including through testimony of a witness with knowledge that the document is what it claims to be or through evidence "describing a process or system and showing that it produces an accurate result." Fed. R. Evid. 901(b)(1) & (9). Defendants attached over 400 pages of documents to the declarations of Angel Badea, Captain John Hutton, Glenda Black, and Sharon Kirk. The Court should strike the documents about which the declarants have no personal 6 6 knowledge. If Defendants intend to rely on such documents, they should introduce them in Court through live witnesses who can testify to their authenticity. See Fed. R. Evid. 901. Attached to MHM Site Administrator Angel Badea's declaration are mental- health rounds logs. While Ms. Badea has personal knowledge about the rounds logs for the days during which she personally conducted rounds, January 5 and 11 and February 1 and 8, 2018, she does not have personal knowledge of the remaining rounds logs attached to her declaration for January 2, 9, 10 and February 7. Doc. 1637-1 at ¶ 5. Ms. Badea does not state in her declaration that her responsibilities include reviewing other mental-health professionals' segregation rounds logs or ensuring that other mental-health professionals actually conduct rounds. See Doc. 1637-1. She also does not state how, when, or by whom the mental-health rounds logs were created. Id. She therefore has no basis for asserting that the logs created by other individuals are true and accurate evidence that mental-health rounds actually occurred. The mental-health rounds logs for January 2, 9, 10 and February 7 attached to Ms. Badea's declaration should be stricken. Attached to Captain John Hutton's declaration are hundreds of pages of typed Facility Logs, Segregation Unit Record Sheets, Inmate Interview Records, and Duty Post Logs. Docs. 1637-2 through 1637-5. Captain Hutton did not create the logs and does not claim to have performed any of the activities documented in 7 6 the logs. Id. Captain Hutton lacks personal knowledge of what actually occurs in the Bibb segregation units and even what is documented in the logs attached to his declaration. The best example of his lack of knowledge is his declaration that the logs he reviewed confirm that "Bibb custody staff removed the inmates housed in restrictive housing from their cells for. . . exercise." Id. at ¶ 7. None of the logs produced by Defendants thus far indicate that any prisoners in Bibb segregation were taken for exercise. Captain Hutton's declaration says nothing about how, when, or by whom the attached documents were created. Id. He also admits to having done only a "limited review" of the documents. Id. Captain Hutton lacks personal knowledge about the activities that take place, or not, in the Bibb segregation units and also lacks personal knowledge about the logs kept for those units. The documents attached to his declaration should therefore be stricken. Attached to Corizon Director of Nursing Sharon Kirk's declaration are over fifty pages of assorted medical records. Doc. 1637-9. In her declaration, Ms. Kirk states that she is "not directly involved in the provision of medical or nursing care to the inmate for whom the Bibb medical staff provides medical services." Id. at ¶ 3. She declares, citing only records that she did not create, that members of the medical staff other than herself conducted segregation pill call rounds at Bibb between January 4 and 8, 2018. Id. at ¶ 6. Ms. Kirk's declaration says nothing about how, when, or by whom the attached documents were created. See id. Ms. Kirk has 8 6 no personal knowledge regarding the documents attached to her declaration; the documents should therefore be stricken. Defendants' opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction also relies on over 400 hours of video footage from five days in five of Bibb's six segregation units. Doc. 1637 at 11-14. This video footage should be stricken because it is unauthenticated. Defendants have offered no evidence of how Bibb's video recording system functions and is maintained. Id. (listing methods by which evidence can be authenticated). Defendants submitted Captain John Hutton's declaration, which discusses the videos. Doc. 1637-2. However, Captain Hutton's knowledge about the video recording system is limited. For example, he states that "it appears that the recording [for B Dorm segregation unit] loops every fourteen (14) days." Id. at ¶ 4 (emphasis added). Such a statement does not indicate actual knowledge of how the video recording system functions; indeed, it suggests he does not have actual knowledge. He also admits to having done only a "limited review" of the video records. Id. at ¶ 7. Further, Defendants have offered no testimony about how the cameras and video are maintained, where the cameras are located and how they are positioned, or who has access to the video footage. Without proper authentication and testimony about how they were created and produced, the videos are unreliable. For example, the videos purportedly from 9 6 the A Dorm Segregation Unit do not even indicate within the videos themselves which dorm they are for; Plaintiffs and the Court have simply been asked to take defense counsel's word that they are from A Dorm. Furthermore, it appears as though only portions of the A Dorm videos have been produced to the Court and Plaintiffs. B. The Court Cannot Be Expected to Review the Voluminous Documents and Videos without References to the Relevant Portions Just as courts are "are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in briefs," they are also "not required to ferret out delectable facts buried in a massive record." Chavez v. Sec'y of Fla. Dep't of Corr., 647 F.3d 1057, 1061 (11th Cir. 2011) (quoting United States v. Dunkel, 927 F.2d 955, 956 (7th Cir. 1991)). Throughout the liability trial and subsequent remedial trials in this litigation, the Court has consistently asked the Parties to point it to the relevant portions of a piece of evidence. See, e.g., Dec. 5, 2016 Trial Tr., at 72:3-9; Dec. 6, 2016 Trial Tr., at 10:14-11:23. Yet, here, Defendants have asked the Court to ferret out from hundreds of pages of logs and hundreds of hours of video each instance of contact between the prisoners in Bibb segregation units and other human beings. Defendants attached over 400 pages of documents to the declarations of Angel Badea, Captain John Hutton, Glenda Black, and Sharon Kirk. The declarations do not provide citations to specific pages of the documents or attempt to summarize the information contained in the documents in a meaningful and 10 6 useful way. For example, Captain Hutton does not profess to have personal knowledge of any activities that did or did not occur in the Bibb segregation units, nor does he profess to review the various types of logs on a regular basis. See Doc. 1637-2. Rather, he declares that he has confirmed that certain activities occurred in the Bibb segregation units based on his "limited review" of the attached logs. Id. at ¶ 7. However, instead of providing pin cites or directing the Court's attention to specific examples in the hundreds of pages of logs, his declaration simply cites all of the attached logs, leaving it to the Court and Plaintiffs to review each page of the logs. Id. Additionally, the Court and Plaintiffs cannot be reasonably expected to review over 400 hours of video footage in consideration of an emergency motion. Defendants' responsive brief includes one table summarizing one day in one segregation unit. Doc. 1637 at 11-14. Otherwise, Defendants have made no effort to point the Court and Plaintiffs to specific dates and times in the videos where activity can be seen in the segregation units. The Court should therefore strike the videos and, if Defendants still seek to rely on them, require Defendants to present a witness who can testify to the videos' authenticity and point the Court to specific minute marks in each video. 11 6 III. Defendants' Declarations, Documents, and Videos Are Not Admissible as Evidence in the Segregation Remedial Trial The Parties are currently engaged in a remedial trial regarding segregation, which encompasses the issues raised in Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction Requiring the Immediate Closure of the Bibb Segregation Units. Therefore, it is unclear whether Defendants intend to rely on the declarations, documents, and video submitted in opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction as evidence in support of their Proposed Segregation Remedial Plan. For the reasons stated herein, Defendants should not be allowed to rely on, nor should the Court give weight to, these materials for either purpose. Furthermore, to the extent Defendants intend to rely on these materials as rebuttal evidence in the segregation remedial trial, they are improper rebuttal evidence. See Doc. 1664 (Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude Improper Rebuttal Witnesses and for Proper Witness List). CONCLUSION The declarations, documents, and videos filed in support of Defendants' opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction contain inadmissible hearsay, are unauthenticated, and are too voluminous for the Court and Plaintiffs to review without direction to relevant portions. Docs. 1637-1 through 1637-9. The Court should therefore strike the declarations, documents, and videos and order 12 6 Defendants to present live testimony in Court regarding any evidence they wish to rely on in opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Dated: February 23, 2018 Respectfully Submitted, /s/ Maria V. Morris Maria V. Morris One of the Attorneys for Plaintiffs Southern Poverty Law Center 400 Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36104 Rhonda Brownstein (ASB-3193-O64R) Maria V. Morris (ASB-2198-R64M) Grace Graham (ASB-3040-A64G) Latasha L. McCrary (ASB-1935-L75M) Jonathan Blocker (ASB-6818-G19I) Caitlin J. Sandley (ASB-5317-S48R) SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 400 Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36104 Telephone: (334) 956-8200 Facsimile: (334) 956-8481 rhonda.brownstein@splcenter.org maria.morris@splcenter.org grace.graham@splcenter.org latasha.mccrary@splcenter.org jonathan.blocker@splcenter.org cj.sandley@splcenter.org William Van Der Pol, Jr. (ASB-2112-114F) Glenn N. Baxter (ASB-3825-A41G) Lonnie J. Williams Barbara A. Lawrence Andrea J. Mixson 13 6 ALABAMA DISABILITIES ADVOCACY PROGRAM Box 870395 Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 Telephone: (205) 348-4928 Facsimile: (205) 348-3909 wvanderpoljr@adap.ua.edu gnbaxter@adap.ua.edu lwilliams@adap.ua.edu blawrence@adap.ua.edu amixson@adap.ua.edu Lisa W. Borden (ASB-5673-D57L) William G. Somerville, III (ASB-6185-E63W) Andrew P. Walsh (ASB-3755-W77W) Dennis Nabors Patricia Clotfelter (ASB-0841-F43P) BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ PC 420 20th Street North, Suite 1400 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 328-0480 Facsimile: (205) 322-8007 lborden@bakerdonelson.com wsomerville@bakerdonelson.com awalsh@bakerdonelson.com dnabors@bakerdonelson.com pclotfelter@bakerdonelson.com /s/ Anil A. Mujumdar Anil A. Mujumdar (ASB-2004-L65M) One of the Attorneys for Plaintiff Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program 2332 2nd Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203 Gregory M. Zarzaur (ASB-0759-E45Z) Anil A. Mujumdar (ASB-2004-L65M) Diandra S. Debrosse (ASB-2956-N76D) Denise Wiginton ZARZAUR MUJUMDAR & DEBROSSE 2332 2nd Avenue North 14 6 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 983-7985 Facsimile: (888) 505-0523 gregory@zarzaur.com anil@zarzaur.com fuli@zarzaur.com denise@zarzaur.com ATTORNEYS FOR THE PLAINTIFFS 15 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have on this 23rd day of February, 2018, electronically filed the foregoing with the clerk of the court by using the CM/ECF system, which will send a notice of electronic filing to the following: David R. Boyd, Esq. Steven C. Corhern, Esq. John G. Smith, Esq. Balch & Bingham LLP John W. Naramore, Esq. Post Office Box 306 Balch & Bingham LLP Birmingham, AL 35201-0306 Post Office Box 78 scorhern@balch.com Montgomery, AL 36101-0078 dboyd@balch.com Mitesh Shah, Esq. jgsmith@balch.com Luther M. Dorr, Esq. jnaramore@balch.com Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C. 1901 6th Avenue North, Suite 2400 William R. Lunsford, Esq. Birmingham, AL 35203 Matthew Reeves, Esq. mshah@maynardcooper.com Melissa K. Marler, Esq. rdorr@maynardcooper.com Stephen C. Rogers, Esq. Alyson L. Smith, Esq. Deana Johnson, Esq. Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C. Brett T. Lane, Esq. 655 Gallatin Street, SW MHM Services, Inc. Huntsville, AL 35801 1447 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 500 blunsford@maynardcooper.com Atlanta, GA 30309 mreeves@maynardcooper.com djohnson@mhm-services.com mmarler@maynardcooper.com btlane@mhm-services.com srogers@maynardcooper.com asmith@maynardcooper.com Anne Hill, Esq. Elizabeth A. Sees, Esq. Joseph G. Stewart, Jr., Esq. Alabama Department of Corrections Legal Division 301 South Ripley Street Montgomery, AL 36104 anne.hill@doc.alabama.gov elizabeth.sees@doc.alabama.gov joseph.stewart@doc.alabama.gov /s/ Maria V. Morris One of the Attorneys for Plaintiffs 16

Exhibit 1 - E-mail - Clarification re Rebuttal Witnesses

EXHIBIT 1 From: Bill Lunsford To: Maria Morris Cc: William Van Der Pol; Anil Mujumdar; Matthew Reeves; Stephen Rogers; Lynette Potter; Joseph Stewart; Lane, Brett; Lynette Potter; Simpson, Kristi (DOC); Alyson Smith Subject: RE: Clarification re: Rebuttal Witnesses... Date: Thursday, February 22, 2018 5:49:57 PM Maria: As I indicated this morning, we have been working to narrow the list of witnesses and solidify a schedule for next week. I'm still working on confirming the availability of certain witnesses, but assuming the witnesses are available at the designated times, we will likely call the following individuals as rebuttal witnesses at the conclusion of Teresa Houser's testimony: Monday: Elizabeth Harris Lieutenant Brandon Mack Tuesday: Captain Jeff Emberton Kimberly McCants Marilyn Maali Johnson-Nelson Captain Kevin Bishop OR Lieutenant Danny Fountain Felicia Greer Lieutenant Brian Coleman OR Sergeant Emily Abbott Teresa Ergle (if time permits) Captain Shannon Caldwell (if time permits) Wednesday: Teresa Ergle (if not called Thursday) Captain Shannon Caldwell (if not called Thursday) Ninnettee Woods Captain Nathaniel Lawson OR Lieutenant Larry Peavy Jeanetta Thomas Captain Gary Malone Kristin Hollingsworth Glenda Black *** (we may need to move this individual up in the schedule due to limitations on travel due to health concerns) We are working to provide the exhibits I mentioned to you this morning. Thanks, Bill William R. Lunsford T: 256-551-0171 | F: 256-512-0119 655 Gallatin Street | Huntsville, AL 35801 blunsford@maynardcooper.com www.maynardcooper.com Confidentiality Notice - The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments to it may be legally privileged and include confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, distribution or copying of this e-mail or its attachments is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately of that fact by return e-mail and permanently delete the e-mail and any attachments to it. Thank you. ü Please consider the environment before printing this email. Confidentiality Notice - The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments to it is intended only for the named recipient and may be legally privileged and include confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, distribution or copying of this e-mail or its attachments is