Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN Doc #1 Filed 12/04/14 Page 1 of 42 Page ID#1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

MICHELLE SEMELBAUER, PAULETTE BOSCH, DENISE VOS, CRISA BROWN, LATRECE BAKER, TAMMY SPEERS, LONDORA KITCHENS, and STASHIA COLLINS, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons,

CLASS ACTION

Plaintiffs,

vs.

MUSKEGON COUNTY, a municipal corporation; DEAN ROESLER, in his official capacity as Muskegon County Sheriff; LT. MARK BURNS, in his official capacity as Jail Administrator; CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS IVAN MORRIS, GRIEVES, DEYOUNG, and DAVID GUTOWSKI, in their individual capacities; and UNKNOWN CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS, in their individual capacities,

Defendants. /

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FUND OF MICHIGAN
Miriam J. Aukerman (P63165) Marc S. Allen (NY 5230008) 1514 Wealthy Street SE, Suite 242 Grand Rapids, MI 49506 (616) 301-0930 maukerman@aclumich.org
Sofia V. Nelson (P77960) Daniel S. Korobkin (P72842) Michael J. Steinberg (P43085) Kary L. Moss (P49759) 2966 Woodward Avenue Detroit, MI 48201 (313) 578-6800 snelson@aclumich.org

PITT, MCGEHEE, PALMER& RIVERS, P.C. Michael L. Pitt (P24429) Beth M. Rivers (P33614) Kevin M. Carlson (P67704) Andrea J. Johnson (P74596) Cooperating Attorneys, American Civil
Liberties Union Fund of Michigan 117 West Fourth Street, Suite 200 Royal Oak, MI 48067 (248) 398-9800 mpitt@pittlawpc.com brivers@pittlawpc.com kcarlson@pittlawpc.com ajohnson@pittlawpc.com
/

COMPLAINT

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN Doc #1 Filed 12/04/14 Page 2 of 42 Page ID#2
INTRODUCTION 1. This is a class action lawsuit challenging the unconstitutional and inhumane conditions of confinement at the Muskegon County Jail (“MCJ”). 2. The named plaintiffs are eight women who are current and former inmates of MCJ. In this complaint they challenge severe overcrowding and other abysmal conditions that affect all MCJ inmates, as well as policies, practices and conditions at MCJ that uniquely harm women. 3. MCJ is severely overcrowded. Some plaintiffs were held for days with other women in a tiny holding cell without a shower or bed, and without even sufficient space for them to lie down. 4. In some cases, plaintiffs were confined in this tiny space with other women who were experiencing the symptoms of drug or alcohol withdrawal, including vomiting. 5. Other appalling conditions at MCJ include vermin, insects, mold, overflowing and constantly running toilets, broken sinks, scalding water, unchecked contagious diseases, and falling ceiling tiles. 6. In order to shower, some plaintiffs must stand in pools of water that fail to drain after other inmates, who have contagious infections or who are menstruating, have taken their showers. 7. Male MCJ guards routinely and regularly view women inmates while they are naked or partially naked, including while they are showering, changing clothes, or using the toilet. 8. Defendants fail to provide adequate feminine hygiene products to women detained at MCJ, causing them to bleed through their clothes.
1

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN Doc #1 Filed 12/04/14 Page 3 of 42 Page ID#3
9. Defendants also confiscated some women’s brassieres and fail to provide replacements.
10. With some limited exceptions, plaintiffs, like other men and women detained at MCJ, are essentially on lockdown 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
11. Female MCJ inmates are rarely or never permitted out-of-cell exercise. 12. Women detained at MCJ suffer from severe verbal abuse by guards, and are routinely called “bitches” and “whores” by defendant correctional officers. 13. African-American female inmates are called “niggers” by defendant correctional officers and are told they are “like animals in a zoo.” 14. Defendants fail to respond to inmates’ grievances about the severe conditions. 15. Women inmates are routinely told that grievances are ripped up and sometimes see guards throw them away. 16. In part because of the absence of a functioning grievance system, defendants utterly fail to respond to inmates’ urgent needs. 17. One of the plaintiffs, Michelle Semelbauer, was even forced to endure these conditions for several weeks after she should have been released from MCJ. 18. Ms. Semelbauer was incarcerated in MCJ on October 9, 2012, pursuant to a “pay or stay” order issued by a state court judge in a criminal case. A “pay or stay” order is a type of disposition that requires a defendant to either pay a fine or go to jail. 19. Ms. Semelbauer’s fines were paid soon after she arrived at MCJ, but she remained in custody for 28 more days. 20. Ms. Semelbauer continually notified jail staff, both verbally and in writing, that she should have been released because her fines had been paid.
2

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN Doc #1 Filed 12/04/14 Page 4 of 42 Page ID#4
21. Ms. Semelbauer’s friends repeatedly contacted the jail by phone to find out why she had not been released.
22. Despite these warnings, Ms. Semelbauer remained incarcerated at MCJ until November 7, 2012.
23. Plaintiffs now bring this action to vindicate their rights, and the rights of those similarly situated, under the Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
SUMMARY OF CLASS ACTION STRUCTURE AND INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS 24. Plaintiffs seek to represent four overlapping classes as follows: a. The first class (the “Female Damages Class”) consists of former female inmates of MCJ seeking damages for harms specific to female inmates. This class seeks damages against the municipal defendants1 under Count I of this Complaint (violation of privacy and bodily integrity); Count II (denial of exercise); and Count III (denial of access to feminine hygiene products and adequate clothing). b. The second class (the “Overcrowding Damages Class”) consists of former male and female inmates of MCJ seeking damages for overcrowding and other abysmal conditions of confinement that affect inmates of both genders at MCJ. This class seeks damages against the municipal defendants under Count IV of this Complaint (overcrowding and other abysmal conditions).
1 The “municipal defendants” are Muskegon County and the defendants sued in their official capacities.
3

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN Doc #1 Filed 12/04/14 Page 5 of 42 Page ID#5
c. The third class (the “Female Injunctive Class”) consists of current and future female inmates of MCJ seeking declaratory and injunctive relief from ongoing harms specific to female inmates. This class seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against the municipal defendants under Count I of this Complaint (violation of privacy and bodily integrity); Count II (denial of exercise); and Count III (denial of access to feminine hygiene products and adequate clothing).
d. The fourth class (the “Overcrowding Injunctive Class”) consists of current and future male and female inmates of MCJ seeking declaratory and injunctive relief from ongoing overcrowding and other abysmal conditions that affect inmates of both genders at MCJ. This class seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against the municipal defendants under Count IV of this Complaint (overcrowding and other abysmal conditions).
25. The following plaintiffs seek to serve as class representatives: a. The Female Damages Class and the Overcrowding Damages Class (together, the “Damages Classes”) will be represented by plaintiffs Michelle Semelbauer, Paulette Bosch, Denise Vos, Crisa Brown, Latrece Baker, Tammy Speers, and Londora Kitchens. b. The Female Injunctive Class and the Overcrowding Injunctive Class (together, the “Injunctive Classes”) will be represented by plaintiff Stashia Collins.
26. In addition to serving as class representatives, plaintiffs also seek damages individually (i.e., on their own behalf) as follows:
4

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN Doc #1 Filed 12/04/14 Page 6 of 42 Page ID#6
a. All plaintiffs seek damages against the municipal defendants and unknown correctional officers under Counts I through IV.
b. Plaintiff Michelle Semelbauer seeks damages against the municipal defendants, defendants Morris and Gutowski, and unknown correctional officers under Count V.
c. Plaintiff Denise Vos seeks damages against defendant Gutowski under Count I.
d. Plaintiff Londora Kitchens seeks damages against defendant Grieves under Count III.
e. Plaintiff Stashia Collins seeks damages against defendant DeYoung under Count I and against defendant Morris under Count III.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 27. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 because federal questions are presented in this action under the Fourth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 28. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)(1) and (2) because the defendants reside in this district and the events and omissions giving rise to the claims occurred and/or will occur in this district.
PARTIES 29. Plaintiff Michelle Semelbauer is a former MCJ inmate. She was incarcerated in MCJ from October 9, 2012 until November 7, 2012.
5

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN Doc #1 Filed 12/04/14 Page 7 of 42 Page ID#7
30. Plaintiff Paulette Bosch is a former MCJ inmate. She was incarcerated in MCJ from approximately November 2012 until April 2013. At the time she was incarcerated, her name was Paulette Gauthier.
31. Plaintiff Denise Vos is a former MCJ inmate. She was incarcerated in MCJ from approximately June 2011 until February 2012.
32. Plaintiff Crisa Brown is a former MCJ inmate. She was incarcerated in MCJ from approximately February 2014 until May 2014.
33. Latrece Baker is a former MCJ inmate. She was incarcerated in MCJ from approximately March 2014 until April 2014 and again in November 2014.
34. Plaintiff Tammy Speers is a former MCJ inmate. She was incarcerated in MCJ from approximately March 2014 until September 2014.
35. Plaintiff Londora Kitchens is a former MCJ inmate. She was incarcerated in MCJ from approximately January 2014 until September 2014.
36. Plaintiff Collins is a current MCJ inmate. She has been incarcerated in MCJ since August 2014.
37. All plaintiffs reside in the Western District of Michigan. 38. Defendant Muskegon County is a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of Michigan. Muskegon County operates MCJ. Muskegon County and MCJ are located in the Western District of Michigan. 39. Defendant Dean Roesler is sued in his official capacity as Muskegon County Sheriff. He is the chief law enforcement officer for Muskegon County. 40. Defendant Mark Burns is sued in his official capacity as Jail Administrator for MCJ.
6

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN Doc #1 Filed 12/04/14 Page 8 of 42 Page ID#8
41. Defendant Ivan Morris is a correctional officer at MCJ. Upon information and belief, he resides in the Western District of Michigan. He is being sued in his individual capacity.
42. Defendant David Gutowski was at all times relevant to this Complaint a correctional officer at MCJ. Upon information and belief, he resides in the Western District of Michigan. He is being sued in his individual capacity.
43. Defendant DeYoung is a correctional officer at MCJ. Upon information and belief, he resides in the Western District of Michigan. He is being sued in his individual capacity.
44. Defendant Grieves is a correctional officer at MCJ. Upon information and belief, she resides in the Western District of Michigan. She is being sued in her individual capacity.
45. Defendants unknown correctional officers are correctional officers who currently work at MCJ or, at any time relevant to this Complaint, previously worked at MCJ, and whose identities are not yet known. They are sued in their individual capacities.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS A. General Allegations
46. MCJ holds male and female inmates, including both pre-trial detainees and sentenced individuals.
47. MCJ was built in 1959, with some additions since that time. 48. MCJ is designed to house 370 inmates. 49. MCJ routinely houses well over 400 inmates. 50. Between January 2011 and April 2014 there were between 41 and 121 women held at MCJ on any given day.
7

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN Doc #1 Filed 12/04/14 Page 9 of 42 Page ID#9
51. Women inmates are generally held either in 12-person cells along the “cat walk” (a corridor used by staff and inmate trustees), in other multi-person cells (e.g., 6 person cells), or in 2-person cells attached to a “day room.”
52. When inmates first arrive at MCJ they are processed through the booking area and “holding tanks,” which are designed to hold inmates for brief periods until they are transferred to their cells, or while they are being transferred to court or other outside locations.
B. Cross-Gender Viewing 53. Genitals, buttocks, and, for women, breasts are especially private parts of the
human body. 54. Involuntary exposure of these private body parts to members of the opposite sex
is uniquely demeaning and humiliating. 55. The act of using the toilet and, for women, of attending to the sanitary needs
related to menstrual periods, are especially private acts. 56. The toilets and showers used by plaintiffs and other female inmates are not
shielded by privacy walls. 57. As a result, male guards and male inmate trustees repeatedly and routinely
observe plaintiffs, and other female inmates, while they are using the toilet, including times when plaintiffs have had their menstrual period.
58. Furthermore, male guards repeatedly and routinely observe plaintiffs, and other female inmates, while they are showering or changing clothes, and are naked or partially naked.
59. Plaintiffs and other women inmates are subject to cross-gender viewing beginning when they first enter the jail and are held in the holding tank.
8

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN Doc #1 Filed 12/04/14 Page 10 of 42 Page ID#10
60. All plaintiffs and other women inmates have been held in the holding tank upon arrival at the jail. Male guards, as well as all inmates walking past the holding tank, can see the holding tank’s toilet and observe inmates while they use the toilet.
61. After leaving the holding tank, plaintiffs and other women inmates remain subject to cross-gender viewing, regardless of whether they are held in the 12-person cells near the cat walk, other multi-person cells, or the 2-person cells around the day room, as all cells are constructed so that women inmates using the toilet, showering, or changing clothes can be viewed by male guards.
62. For the 12-person and 6-person cells, male guards and male inmate trustees have a clear and unobstructed view of the toilets and showers. There is also no location in these cells where plaintiffs and other women inmates can change clothes without being seen by male guards and male inmate trustees from the cat walk.
63. For women held in 2-person cells near the day room, male guards and male inmates can see women toileting, showering, and changing clothes. Male guards have a clear and unobstructed view of the showers in the day room, and a clear and unobstructed view from the day room of the toilets in the 2-person cells surrounding the day room.
64. During their incarceration, plaintiffs Michelle Semelbauer, Paulette Bosch, Denise Vos, Latrece Baker and other women inmates had to wear one-piece jump suits.
65. Because they were required to wear one-piece jump suits, in order to use the toilet, plaintiffs had to disrobe and expose their bodies.2
66. MCJ confiscates and does not replace the bras of some women inmates.
2 Recently, the MCJ began providing inmates with two-piece suits.
9

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN Doc #1 Filed 12/04/14 Page 11 of 42 Page ID#11
67. Ms. Bosch and other female inmates whose bras were confiscated by MCJ officers were forced to expose their naked breasts when lowering their jumpsuits to use the toilet.
68. Male guards repeatedly and routinely enter cells and day room facilities without knocking or announcing themselves while female inmates are using the toilet, disrobing, or using the showers.
69. For example, while Ms. Vos was using the toilet, defendant Gutowski walked in and began talking with other inmates and passing out medication.
70. At the time of this encounter, Ms. Vos, who had been wearing a one-piece jumpsuit, was completely naked.
71. Plaintiffs and other women inmates have attempted to protect their bodily privacy by using their bodies, trash bags, towels or bed linens to prevent male guards and inmates from seeing women who are changing clothes, using the toilet or using the shower.
72. Plaintiffs and other women have attempted to protect their privacy by temporarily covering the windows on cell doors with plastic bags or other items while using the toilet.
73. Women inmates are either disciplined or threatened with discipline when they attempt to protect their own privacy and bodily integrity in this manner.
74. For example, Ms. Collins attempts to gain privacy while using the toilet by hanging a sheet over the window into her cell. When she does this, guards including defendant DeYoung tear down the sheet and reprimand her.
75. Ms. Vos hung up sheets to protect her privacy while showering and using the toilet, but defendants David Gutowski and unknown correctional officers took them down.
76. Unknown correctional officers confiscated all bedding when Ms. Vos or other inmates sought to protect their privacy by hanging sheets.
10

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN Doc #1 Filed 12/04/14 Page 12 of 42 Page ID#12
77. When Ms. Vos was held in a cell off the dayroom, she tried to temporarily put up toilet paper on her cell door window in order to protect her privacy while using the toilet, but defendants David Gutowski and unknown correctional officers tore it down.
78. MCJ staff repeatedly tell women inmates that they have no privacy rights once they enter jail and that if they wanted privacy rights, they should not have gotten arrested.
79. MCJ does not have any penological justification for allowing male guards and male inmate trustees to routinely observe plaintiffs and other female inmates while they use the toilet, shower, or change clothes.
C. Denial of Exercise Opportunities 80. Plaintiffs and other women inmates at MCJ rarely if ever receive out-of-cell
exercise opportunities. They are essentially locked in their cells 24 hours per day, 7 days per week.
81. Upon information and belief, male inmates at MCJ receive out-of-cell exercise opportunities more regularly.
82. MCJ has an indoor gym with exercise equipment. 83. Plaintiffs and other women inmates could be and could have been, but are not and were not, brought to that gym for regular out-of-cell exercise. When they are brought to the gym, it is for very short periods, and they are not even allowed to use the exercise equipment. 84. MCJ’s “Rules and Regulations for Inmates” contains a list of “privileges,” which list exercise as a “privilege.” 85. Plaintiffs and other female inmates held in the 2-person cells adjoining the day room are routinely locked down in their tiny cells and cannot leave those cells for extended periods of time.
11

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN Doc #1 Filed 12/04/14 Page 13 of 42 Page ID#13
86. During the six-month period that Ms. Bosch was incarcerated at MCJ, she was allowed to go to the gym only twice.
87. During Ms. Vos’s 7 ½-month-long incarceration, she was allowed to go to the gym on only two brief occasions and only because her cell was being searched.
88. During the approximately 30 days Ms. Semelbauer was incarcerated, she was never allowed access to the gym.
89. During the approximately 89 days Ms. Brown was incarcerated, she was allowed to go to the gym only once for 30 minutes while corrections officers searched her cell.
90. During Ms. Kitchens’ approximately eight-month incarceration, she asked to use the gym repeatedly and was never allowed access. In order to exercise while at MCJ, Ms. Kitchens tried to walk laps around her cell because she was denied access to the gym or any outdoor recreational area.
91. During Ms. Speers’ six-month incarceration, she was allowed to go to the gym only three times.
92. During Ms. Baker’s month-long incarceration, she was never allowed access to the gym.
93. Since the beginning of Ms. Collins’s incarceration in August 2014, she has been given access to the gym only once, and during that visit the exercise equipment kept in the gym was locked away.
94. Plaintiffs have suffered physical injuries including muscle atrophy and weight gain due to lack of out-of-cell exercise.
95. For example, Ms. Collins has gained weight and lost muscle mass since becoming incarcerated. She fears further deterioration of her health.
12

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN Doc #1 Filed 12/04/14 Page 14 of 42 Page ID#14
D. Denial of Feminine Hygiene Products, Toilet Paper, and Adequate Clothing 96. Plaintiffs and other women inmates at MCJ are not provided with adequate
feminine hygiene products or toilet paper. 97. Female inmates who menstruate do not receive sanitary napkins in a timely
fashion and in some instances are not provided with sanitary napkins at all. 98. Plaintiffs and other female inmates who menstruate and are denied pads bleed into
their clothing and are often not provided with clean clothing until the next laundry day, which only occurs once per week.
99. Consequently, women may have to wear bloody clothing for as long as a week before a clean jumpsuit is provided.
100. When Ms. Vos got her menstrual period while incarcerated at MCJ, she pleaded again and again for several hours before she was finally provided with sanitary napkins.
101. When officers finally provided feminine hygiene products to Ms. Vos, they did not provide enough.
102. When Ms. Vos was held in the day room, unknown correctional officers provided only one pack of 12 pads for as many as 30 women, and told them to share.
103. Ms. Kitchens asked MCJ staff for pads on July 13, 2014. She did not receive any for hours, and was told by defendant Grieves that she was “shit out of luck” and “don’t bleed on the floor.”
104. Ms. Speers bled into her clothes when she had her period. Although she begged for sanitary products, Ms. Speers was not given pads for approximately two days.
105. Ms. Brown requested sanitary products during her period, but was not given any for approximately eight hours.
13

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN Doc #1 Filed 12/04/14 Page 15 of 42 Page ID#15
106. Ms. Collins requested sanitary products from defendant Morris and did not receive any for over ten hours. By the time she finally received sanitary products she had bled into her clothing. She was not able to obtain fresh clothing for several hours.
107. During her incarceration Ms. Baker was forced to wait hours in order to obtain toilet paper.
108. Women who enter MCJ while wearing a bra that is not approved, such as a colored bra, have their bras confiscated.
109. When the MCJ confiscates a bra, MCJ does not provide a replacement bra, forcing women to go without a bra.
110. When Ms. Bosch was taken to jail, unknown correctional officers confiscated her red sports bra and her boxer underwear.
111. MCJ did not provide Ms. Bosch with a replacement bra, and she did not get a bra until a family member put money in her commissary account and she was able to buy one.
112. MCJ does not provide underwear. 113. Ms. Speers wore the same single pair of underwear for most of her time at MCJ. 114. When Ms. Speers bled into that underwear and washed it, she had go without underwear while it dried. 115. Women inmates are given inadequate clean clothing, laundry and linens. 116. During wash day women are forced to wrap themselves in towels or sheets because they lack adequate clothing.
14

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN Doc #1 Filed 12/04/14 Page 16 of 42 Page ID#16
E. Extended Stays in the Overcrowded Holding Tank 117. Upon information and belief, the holding tanks at MCJ are the size of a large
closet. However, plaintiffs and other women have been held in these small cells with as many as 18 other women at one time.
118. At MCJ, women inmates are often held in a holding tanks for days at a time. 119. There are no beds in the holding tank. Women sleep on concrete benches or on the concrete floor without mats. When the holding tanks are overcrowded, there is not sufficient space for inmates to lie down. 120. The holding tanks in MCJ do not have showers. Women held in the holding tank do not have a way to clean themselves, even when they are there for several days and are ill or menstruating. 121. The holding tanks in MCJ have toilets that can be viewed by male guards. 122. Plaintiff Tammy Speers was held in the MCJ holding tank for approximately seven days. Ms. Speers experienced opiate withdrawal while in the holding tank. During these seven days, she was vomiting and had diarrhea. Although Ms. Speers was covered in vomit and feces, she was not allowed to shower. 123. MCJ housed up to 18 women in the holding tank while Ms. Speers was held there. During this time, there was insufficient space in the holding tank for the inmates to sit down. 124. During times when there were fewer inmates in the holding tank, Ms. Speers found a space on the floor where she could lie down. However, Ms. Speers was not given a mat or blanket, and she was forced to lie next to a leaking toilet with ants crawling over her and up her nose.
15

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN Doc #1 Filed 12/04/14 Page 17 of 42 Page ID#17
125. Ms. Bosch was held in the MCJ holding tank for approximately seven days with up to 15 other women.
126. Ms. Brown was placed in the holding tank for approximately two days. 127. Ms. Semelbauer was in the holding tank for three to four days with many other women. 128. While in the holding tank Ms. Semelbauer was punched in the face by another inmate and woke up to another inmate straddling her face—exposing her genitals to Ms. Semelbaurer. Ms. Semelbauer requested a complaint form so she could report this assault, but she was never given a form. 129. Ms. Collins was in the holding tank for four or five days with as many as 18 other women. 130. In November 2014, Ms. Baker was in the holding tank for approximately three days. Her hip still hurts from sleeping on the cement floor without a mat. During both her March and November 2014 incarcerations, the sink in the holding tank was broken, meaning nobody, including her, could wash their hands for sanitation or drink water except when provided with meals.
F. Other Abysmal Conditions of Confinement 131. The walls, floors, windows, showers, and shower curtains inside the MCJ are
covered in mold. 132. Due to unsanitary conditions, the MCJ is infested with sewer bugs, water bugs,
silver fish, spiders, ants, and other insects, as well as mice. 133. Ceiling tiles inside the MCJ are falling down.
16

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN Doc #1 Filed 12/04/14 Page 18 of 42 Page ID#18
134. Toilets routinely overflow or back up, spilling human waste into the cells. Inmates are regularly exposed to human feces, urine, blood, and vomit. In some cells there is standing liquid on the floors that contains human waste.
135. In the cells off the day room, when an inmate flushes the toilet, waste or menstrual blood comes back up into the toilet of the adjoining cell.
136. In some cases inmates work together in an attempt to cope with the plumbing problems: they count to three in their adjoining cells, and then flush simultaneously in an effort to make the waste from both cells go down the pipes.
137. In order to shower, some inmates, including plaintiffs, must stand in pools of water that failed to drain after other inmates, who have infections or who are menstruating, take their showers.
138. During Ms. Bosch’s incarceration, the shower in her cell stopped working, and was not repaired for three days, despite repeated written complaints by the twelve women in that cell who were unable to shower during that time.
139. Some showers have only burning hot water. Plaintiffs and other female inmates collect the scalding water in rubber or plastic totes, and wait for it to cool before using it to bathe. The guards who see this mock the women as taking “bird baths.”
140. On one occasion, the tote Ms. Bosch was using to collect hot water tore open, causing hot water to burn her skin. Jail guards refused to take Ms. Bosch to the medical unit after this incident.
141. Ms. Speers was burned on her scalp by scalding water from the shower. MCJ medical staff prescribed her medicinal shampoo and suggested that she move to a cell with a working shower.
17

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN Doc #1 Filed 12/04/14 Page 19 of 42 Page ID#19
142. Staff at MCJ have known about and acknowledged these conditions for years. 143. The Michigan Department of Corrections has inspected the MCJ, and has called for immediate improvements in conditions. 144. The most recent MDOC inspection report available to plaintiffs’ counsel noted, among other things, that leaking toilets created a “serious potential health hazard”; that flushing toilets cause sewage backups into toilets of other cells; that shower water is “extremely hot” in many cells, creating “a potential hazard to the user”; that water is leaking onto cell floors; that shower curtains are soiled and “contain a black substance suspected to be mold/mildew”; that air vents contain a black substance suspected to be mold/mildew; and that there were bugs in the sleeping areas.
G. Severe Overcrowding 145. The MCJ is routinely severely overcrowded, and constantly exceeds its rated
design capacity to house 370 inmates. 146. The Michigan County Jail Overcrowding State of Emergency Act (“JOA”),
M.C.L. § 801.51 et seq., provides standards on jail overcrowding that can inform the court in assessing plaintiffs’ claim that the level of overcrowding at MCJ is unconstitutional.
147. The JOA directs that if the general prisoner population of a county jail exceeds 100% of the rated design capacity of the jail for seven consecutive days, the county sheriff must declare a jail overcrowding state of emergency. M.C.L. §§ 801.52, 801.53.
148. The JOA provides a progressive series of steps designed to eliminate the overcrowding emergency by reducing the jail population to an acceptable level, defined in M.C.L. § 801.56(1) as the higher of (a) 90% of capacity or (b) at least ten empty beds for
18

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN Doc #1 Filed 12/04/14 Page 20 of 42 Page ID#20
facilities of less than 500 beds. For the MJC, the acceptable level is 360 inmates (ten empty beds).
149. For the first fourteen days of an overcrowding emergency, local officials, including the sheriff, should seek to reduce the prisoner population by existing legal means, such as pretrial diversion, reduction in bonds, use of community mental health resources, and use of community programs. M.C.L. § 801.55.
150. Where steps taken under M.C.L. § 801.55 fail to reduce the jail population sufficiently to eliminate jail overcrowding within 14 days, then the JOA directs that the sheriff supply the chief circuit judge with information about each prisoner. The chief judge is directed to classify prisoners into those whose release would present a high risk to public safety and those whose release would not present such a risk. The sheriff must then reduce the sentences of lowrisk prisoners by an equal percentage, set by the chief circuit judge, until the overcrowding is alleviated. The circuit judge may also modify bonds of pre-trial detainees. M.C.L. § 801.56(2)(4).
151. If the steps taken under M.C.L. §§ 801.55 and 801.56 fail to reduce the jail population sufficiently to eliminate jail overcrowding within 28 days, then under § 801.57, the sheriff must equally reduce prisoner sentences in order to reduce the jail population to an acceptable level, as defined in M.C.L. § 801.56(1).
152. If the steps taken under M.C.L. §§ 801.55, 801.56 and 801.57 fail to reduce the jail population sufficiently to eliminate jail overcrowding within 42 days, then the sheriff must defer acceptance for incarceration of persons committed to the jail (with exceptions for certain persons convicted or charged with certain specified offenses) until the overcrowding state of emergency is ended. M.C.L. § 801.58.
19

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN Doc #1 Filed 12/04/14 Page 21 of 42 Page ID#21
153. According to an August 22, 2012 written statement by defendants Roesler and/or Burns, the MCJ has been in a “persistent state of overcrowding since September 2008.”
154. Plaintiffs’ counsel and their assistants have reviewed inmate count data provided by MCJ from January 2011 to April 2014.
155. This data shows that the MCJ virtually always exceeds its rated design capacity of 370 inmates, and virtually never is below the level of 360 inmates which is acceptable under JOA.3
156. Specifically, the data shows that: a. There were only 9 days between January 1, 2014 and April 16, 2014, where the MJC was below the rated design capacity of 370 inmates. There were only 2 days where the MCJ was below the 360-inmate acceptable level. b. There was only one day in 2013 where the MCJ was below the rated design capacity. (This excludes the period from 8/29/2013-10/31/2013, for which the MCJ did not provide count data.) c. There was not a single day in 2012 where the MCJ was below the rated design capacity. d. There were only 5 days in 2011 where the MCJ was below the rated design capacity. On none of those 5 days was the count below the 360inmate acceptable level.
157. This data also shows that MCJ daily counts are routinely over 400 inmates. 158. Specifically, the data shows that: 3 Plaintiffs rely on the data as provided by MJC pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act request. However, this data appears to contain many errors, and plaintiffs therefore believe the data may actually understate the extent of the problem.
20

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN Doc #1 Filed 12/04/14 Page 22 of 42 Page ID#22
a. There were 65 days between January 1, 2014 and April 16, 2014, where the MCJ held over 400 inmates. On one date in February, 484 inmates – 114 inmates over the rated design capacity – were housed in the jail.
b. In 2013, there were 228 days where the MCJ held over 400 inmates. c. In 2012, there were 309 days where the MCJ held over 400 inmates. d. In 2011, there were 252 days where the MCJ held over 400 inmates. 159. Over the past five years, Defendant Roessler has repeatedly declared an overcrowding emergency under the JOA. 160. Defendant Roessler has released some inmates under the provisions of the JOA. 161. However, the steps taken by defendants have failed to lower the MCJ population to acceptable levels under M.C.L. § 801.56(1). 162. Upon information and belief, despite the fact that the MCJ has consistently failed to meet the standards set out in M.C.L. § 801.56(1), defendants have not continued to employ overcrowding reduction measures mandated by the JOA. 163. Due to overcrowding at the MCJ, defendants routinely require inmates to sleep: a. on cots in the common area of the day room; b. on the floors of cells that are designed with beds for 12 inmates; and c. in the holding tank for several days at a time with so many other inmates
that there is limited space to sit or lie down. 164. Due to the severe overcrowding, coupled with inadequate staffing, the MCJ is unable to maintain basic sanitation, provide basic medical care, or ensure the health and safety of inmates.
21

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN Doc #1 Filed 12/04/14 Page 23 of 42 Page ID#23
H. Non-Functional Complaint System 165. In order to seek medical attention, request assistance with basic needs (e.g., obtain
pads or toilet paper), or raise other issues, MCJ inmates are ostensibly allowed to submit “kites,” or written requests.
166. The MCJ ostensibly has a grievance policy, which provides that inmates may bring problems to the attention of MCJ staff through a written complaint.
167. The MCJ’s “Rules and Regulations for Inmates” contains a list of “privileges,” which lists as a “privilege” the ability “to file grievances.”
168. In practice, defendants routinely ignore both kites and grievances. 169. MCJ staff, including defendants Morris and Gutowski, repeatedly and routinely tell inmates that their grievances will simply be discarded, and sometimes even rip up or throw away the grievances in front of inmates. 170. Ms. Bosch wrote approximately 20 grievances while at the MCJ, which concerned the jail’s failure to treat a MRSA infection in her C-section, as well as access to jail programming. Ms. Bosch never received any response to her grievances. In desperation, Ms. Bosch began mailing her grievances through the U.S. Postal System to the jail, in the hopes that they would reach senior jail staff, but she did not receive a response. 171. Ms. Vos attempted to write kites requesting medical care for an abscessed tooth. The MCJ never allowed Ms. Vos to see a doctor for her tooth. After approximately three months, Ms. Vos was given Tylenol for pain. 172. Defendant Morris told Ms. Vos that when inmates write grievances, the grievances are given to the officer in question, who then puts them right into the garbage.
22

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN Doc #1 Filed 12/04/14 Page 24 of 42 Page ID#24
173. Ms. Brown wrote approximately eight grievances while incarcerated at MCJ. These grievances concerned issued such as the showers being so hot that she was burned, and the lack of feminine hygiene products. MCJ staff did not respond to any of them.
174. On one occasion, Ms. Brown was put in a restrictive and revealing anti-suicide smock in the holding tank for several hours in retaliation for writing a grievance.
175. Ms. Speers wrote multiple grievances on issues ranging from her excessive detention in the holding cell, to the overall abysmal conditions of the facility, to threats by other inmates, to mistreatment by guards, but she received only one response.
176. The one grievance for which Ms. Speers received a response was regarding guard misconduct.
177. The guard against whom Ms. Speers had filed the grievance personally brought Ms. Speers a copy of the supervisor’s response, which stated that Ms. Speers had submitted many grievances and her grievances were without merit.
178. Ms. Speers also wrote multiple kites, without response. 179. Ms. Speers tried writing directly to the sergeant and lieutenant, but received no response. 180. Ms. Speers was also put in an anti-suicide suit in retaliation for filing grievances. In addition, Ms. Speers was mocked by guards and told that her life would be much easier if she did not complain. 181. In Ms. Collins’ experience, guards ignore verbal requests and written kites. 182. Ms. Collins has filed grievances regarding mistreatment by guards, lack of toiletries, lack of cleaning supplies, cross-gender viewing, and other issues to no avail.
23

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN Doc #1 Filed 12/04/14 Page 25 of 42 Page ID#25
I. The Unlawful Incarceration of Michelle Semelbauer 183. Michelle Semelbauer was sentenced to MCJ on a “pay or stay” sentence on
September 10, 2012. 184. The “pay or stay” sentence required Ms. Semelbauer to serve 54 days in jail
unless she paid fines, costs, and other court-ordered assessments related to a conviction for driving on a suspended license.
185. On September 12, 2012, Ms. Semelbauer’s outstanding fees were paid at the clerk’s office. That same day, Ms. Semelbauer told various staff members at the MCJ that her fees had been paid and that she should be released.
186. Ms. Semelbauer was not released that day. 187. Ms. Semelbauer continued to tell jail staff, both orally and through the jail’s written “kite” system, that her fees had been paid in full and that her sentence was completed. 188. MCJ staff responded to Ms. Semelbauer’s pleas with indifference or outright scorn. 189. Some corrections officers told Ms. Semelbauer that she was lying, while others laughed in her face. 190. In one instance, Ms. Semelbauer was removed from her cell by defendants Morris and Gutowski, who asked her to explain why she kept complaining that she should be released. Ms. Semelbauer told them that she was serving a pay-or-stay sentence, and that her balance had been paid in full. Upon information and belief, Defendants Morris and Gutowski failed to take any action in response.
24

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN Doc #1 Filed 12/04/14 Page 26 of 42 Page ID#26
191. Ms. Semelbauer’s incarceration continued after she informed Defendants Morris and Gutowski of her unlawful incarceration. She continued to inform jail staff that she was being unlawfully held.
192. During Ms. Semelbauer’s incarceration, her friend called the jail, explained that her court-ordered fees had been paid, and asked why she had not been released. Again, defendants took no action to address Ms. Semelbauer’s situation.
193. During Ms. Semelbauer’s unlawful incarceration she was subjected to crossgender viewing, spent four consecutive days in the holding tank, and was never given access to the jail’s gym. She was also exposed to mold, broken plumbing, and the various unsanitary and abysmal conditions inside the MCJ identified in this Complaint.
194. Furthermore, during her unlawful incarceration, Ms. Semelbauer was assaulted by another inmate, who punched Ms. Semelbauer in the eye and shoved her genitals into Ms. Semelbauer’s face.
195. Finally, on November 7, 2012, Ms. Semelbauer was released due to overcrowding.
196. Ms. Semelbauer is not the only inmate that MCJ has held past her release date in recent years. In a similar incident in 2011, an inmate was held three days beyond her sentence.
J. Construction of New Jail 197. After years of housing inmates in intolerable conditions, Muskegon County
recently began construction of a new jail facility to replace the existing facility. 198. Inmates will continue to be housed in the existing facility until construction of the
new facility is completed.
25

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN Doc #1 Filed 12/04/14 Page 27 of 42 Page ID#27
199. It was recently reported that the new jail is scheduled to be completed in June 2015, although the completion date has been pushed back several times.
200. In bringing this action, plaintiffs seek to ensure that the new jail is constructed in a manner that remedies the constitutional violations outlined above. For example, plaintiffs seek to ensure that toilet and shower facilities are designed to provide privacy from cross-gender viewing.
201. Plaintiffs also seek to ensure that current and future inmates can obtain interim injunctive relief from unconstitutional conditions of confinement until such time as the new jail is completed.
202. For issues which are not directly related to facility design, the transition to the new jail provides an opportunity to ensure that defendants satisfy their constitutional obligations to plaintiffs and the class members they seek to represent.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 203. Plaintiffs seek to represent four overlapping classes as follows:
a. Class I, or the “Female Damages Class,” is a class of former female inmates seeking damages for harms specific to female inmates under Counts I through III of this Complaint.
b. Class II, or the “Overcrowding Damages Class,” is a class of former male and female inmates seeking damages for overcrowding and other abysmal conditions of confinement under Count IV of this Complaint.
c. Class III, or the “Female Injunctive Class,” is a class of current and future female inmates seeking declaratory and injunctive relief from ongoing
26

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN Doc #1 Filed 12/04/14 Page 28 of 42 Page ID#28
harms specific to female inmates under Counts I through III of this Complaint. d. Class IV, or the “Overcrowding Injunctive Class,” is a class of current and future male and female inmates seeking declaration and injunctive relief from overcrowding and other abysmal conditions under Count IV of this Complaint. 204. For each of the four classes identified above: a. the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; b. there are questions of law or fact common to the class; c. the claims of the plaintiffs seeking to represent the class are typical of the claims of the class; and d. the plaintiffs seeking to represent the class will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. 205. For Classes I and II (together, the “Damages Classes”), the common questions predominate over questions affecting only individual class members, and a class action is superior to other methods for adjudicating the class members’ claims. 206. For Classes III and IV (together, the “Injunctive Classes”), the municipal defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that declaratory and injunctive relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole.
Class I: Former Female Inmates (“Female Damages Class”)
207. Plaintiffs Semelbauer, Bosch, Vos, Brown, Baker, Speers, and Kitchens bring this action for damages on their own behalf, and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), on behalf of all others similarly situated.
27

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN Doc #1 Filed 12/04/14 Page 29 of 42 Page ID#29
208. These plaintiffs seek to represent a class (“Class I” or the “Female Damages Class”) consisting of all former female inmates who were incarcerated at the MCJ at any time within three years prior to the filing of this litigation.
209. All members of Class I were harmed by the municipal defendants’ policy, custom or practice of (a) regularly and routinely subjecting female inmates to viewing by male guards while the inmates are toileting, showering, or changing clothes; (b) denying female inmates exercise time outside of their cells; and (c) denying class members adequate access to feminine hygiene products, toilet paper, and undergarments and other clothing. These allegations encompass Counts I through III of this Complaint.
210. There are questions of law and fact common to the class, namely whether defendants engaged in the challenged policies/customs/practices, and whether those policies/customs/practices violated class members’ rights under the Fourth Amendment, Eighth Amendment, and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
211. The proposed class representatives’ claims are typical of the claims of Class I because all women inmates were subjected to the same unconstitutional conditions at the MCJ as challenged in Counts I through III of this Complaint.
Class II: Former Inmates (“Overcrowding Damages Class”) 212. Plaintiffs Semelbauer, Bosch, Vos, Brown, Baker, Speers, and Kitchens bring this action for damages on their own behalf, and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), on behalf of all others similarly situated.
28

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN Doc #1 Filed 12/04/14 Page 30 of 42 Page ID#30
213. These plaintiffs seek to represent a class (“Class II” or the “Overcrowding Damages Class”) consisting of all former inmates who were incarcerated at the MCJ at any time within three years prior to the filing of this litigation.
214. All members of Class II were harmed by the municipal defendants’ policy, custom or practice of failing to remedy the severe overcrowding and other abysmal conditions at the MCJ. These allegations encompass Count IV of this Complaint.
215. There are questions of law and fact common to the class, namely whether defendants engaged in the challenged policies/customs/practices, and whether those policies/customs/practices violated class members’ rights under the Eighth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
216. The proposed class representatives’ claims are typical of the claims of Class II because all inmates were subjected to the same unconstitutional conditions at the MCJ as challenged in Count IV of this Complaint.
Class III: Current and Future Female Inmates (“Female Injunctive Class”)
217. Plaintiff Collins brings this action for declaratory and injunctive relief on her own behalf, and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2), on behalf of all others similarly situated.
218. Plaintiff Collins seek to represent a class (“Class III” or the “Female Injunctive Class”) consisting of all current and future female inmates at the MCJ.
219. All members of Class III are being harmed, or absent injunctive relief will be harmed, by the municipal defendants’ policy, custom or practice of (a) regularly and routinely subjecting class members to viewing by male guards while the inmates are toileting, showering, or changing clothes; (b) denying class members exercise time outside of their cells; and (c)
29

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN Doc #1 Filed 12/04/14 Page 31 of 42 Page ID#31
denying class members adequate access to feminine hygiene products, toilet paper, and undergarments and other clothing. These allegations encompass Counts I through III of this Complaint.
220. There are questions of law and fact common to the class, namely whether defendants engage in the challenged policies/customs/practices, and whether those policies/customs/practices violate class members’ rights under the Fourth Amendment, Eighth Amendment, and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
221. The proposed class representative’s claims are typical of the claims of Class III because all women inmates are subjected to the same unconstitutional conditions at the MCJ as challenged in Counts I through III of this Complaint.
Class IV: Current and Future Inmates (“Overcrowding Injunctive Class”)
222. Plaintiff Collins brings this action for declaratory and injunctive relief on her own behalf, and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2), on behalf of all others similarly situated.
223. Plaintiff Collins seeks to represent a class (“Class IV” or the “Overcrowding Injunctive Class”) consisting of all current and future inmates at the MCJ.
224. All members of Class IV are being harmed, or absent injunctive relief will be harmed, by the municipal defendants’ policy, custom or practice of failing to remedy the severe overcrowding and other abysmal conditions at the MCJ. These allegations encompass Counts IV of this Complaint.
225. There are questions of law and fact common to the class, namely whether defendants engage in the challenged policies/customs/practices, and whether those
30

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN Doc #1 Filed 12/04/14 Page 32 of 42 Page ID#32
policies/customs/practices violate class members’ rights under the Eighth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
226. The proposed class representative’s claims are typical of the claims of Class IV because all inmates are subjected to the same unconstitutional conditions at the MCJ as challenged in Count IV of this Complaint.
MUNICIPAL LIABILITY 227. The municipal defendants maintained and continue to maintain a custom, policy or practice of (a) regularly and routinely subjecting female inmates to viewing by male guards while showering, changing clothes or using the toilet; (b) denying female inmates access to outof-cell exercise opportunities; (c) failing to provide adequate feminine hygiene products, toilet paper and undergarments and other clothing to female inmates; and (d) subjecting all inmates to severe overcrowding and other abysmal conditions of confinement. 228. This custom, policy or practice is evidenced by (1) defendants’ official policies and practices; (2) the actions and decisions of officials with final decision-making authority; (3) defendants’ failure to adequately train and supervise MCJ staff; and (4) a custom of tolerating or acquiescing to repeated violations of the constitutional rights of MCJ inmates. 229. Defendants have long had actual or constructive notice of the unconstitutional conditions at the MCJ. 230. Nevertheless, defendants have failed to take action to remedy the unconstitutional conditions. 231. Plaintiffs and other inmates have repeatedly submitted written grievances and kites and have repeatedly made verbal complaints regarding the challenged conditions.
31

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN Doc #1 Filed 12/04/14 Page 33 of 42 Page ID#33
232. The Michigan Department of Corrections’ inspection reports have identified serious deficiencies at the MCJ.
233. On August 8, 2013, plaintiffs’ counsel wrote to defendants’ counsel outlining the problems at the jail, and seeking to resolve the matter short of litigation.
234. After meeting with MCJ officials and their counsel, plaintiffs’ counsel commissioned an expert report from Peter Wilson, a corrections consultant and expert.
235. Mr. Wilson’s report and recommendations, which were based on an August 15, 2013 tour of the facility and review of numerous MCJ records, was provided to the MCJ on January 9, 2014.
236. Key findings of the expert report were that (a) the MCJ is chronically overpopulated and that the MCJ and Muskegon Circuit Court have failed to execute a population control plan; (b) the safety, security and sanitary conditions at the MCJ are below constitutional standards; (c) the MCJ is in a general state of disrepair; (d) female inmates are required to expose their breasts and genitals to male guards while showering or use the toilet; (d) medical assessments are not provided in a timely fashion; and (e) exercise opportunities for inmates are inadequate or entirely lacking.
237. In a March 22, 2014 letter, defendants’ counsel responded to the expert report by asserting either that the problems did not exist, had been addressed, or were not defendants’ responsibility.
238. In fact, the experiences of current inmates such as Ms. Collins, as well as other recent inmates such as Ms. Brown, Ms. Baker, Ms. Speers and Ms. Kitchens, reveal that that conditions raised in the August 8, 2013 letter and January 9, 2014 expert report have remained essentially unchanged.
32

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN Doc #1 Filed 12/04/14 Page 34 of 42 Page ID#34
239. Defendants have failed to meet their duty to adequately train and supervise MCJ staff in order to ensure that those staff act in accordance with well-established constitutional principles.
240. Defendants have also failed to meet their duty to appropriately discipline their staff for legitimate grievances filed by inmates.
241. This failure to train, supervise and discipline has had, and continues to have, the highly predictable consequence of allowing staff to overpopulate the holding tanks, ignore requests to fix basic plumbing and maintenance problems, ignore requests to provide sanitary items, verbally degrade female inmates and engage in the other unconstitutional action or inaction outlined above. It has also led to at least two instances of inmates being incarcerated beyond their proper release dates.
242. Defendants have failed to adequately train, supervise, and discipline MCJ staff despite the fact that the defendants had actual or constructive notice of the challenged conditions. The failure to train, supervise and discipline under these circumstances constitutes deliberate indifference to the rights of plaintiffs.
243. Despite a clear and persistent pattern of constitutional rights violations, and despite the fact that defendants had actual or constructive notice of this clear and persistent pattern, defendants either explicitly or tacitly approved of this unconstitutional conduct, such that their failure to act constitutes deliberate indifference to the rights of plaintiffs.
244. The custom, policy and practice of Defendants—including official policies, the actions of officials with final decision-making authority, the failure to adequately train, supervise, and discipline MCJ staff for the challenged conduct, and the tolerance of repeated
33

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN Doc #1 Filed 12/04/14 Page 35 of 42 Page ID#35
violations of individuals’ constitutional rights—are the moving force behind and the proximate cause of the challenged conduct.
CAUSES OF ACTION COUNT I
VIOLATION OF PRIVACY AND BODILY INTEGRITY 245. Jail inmates retain a constitutional right to bodily privacy during their incarceration. 246. Due to defendants’ policy, practice or custom, plaintiffs and class members have been, are being, and will be subjected, without any penological justification or other legitimate purpose, to routine and systematic viewing by members of the opposite sex while naked and partially naked, while showering, while toileting, and while attending to their menstrual periods. 247. Due to defendants’ policy, practice or custom, plaintiffs and class members have been, are being, and will be subjected to discipline, punishment and threats of discipline and punishment for trying to use reasonable means to protect their privacy and bodily integrity while they shower, dress, and use toilets at the MCJ. 248. With respect to convicted inmates incarcerated at the MCJ, the routine viewing by male guards and male trustees constitutes unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain and are maintained with deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs’ Eighth Amendment rights. 249. With respect to pretrial detainees incarcerated at the MCJ, the routine viewing by male guards and male trustees has caused such detainees who have not yet been convicted of any crime to suffer punishment without due process of law. 250. Routine viewing by male guards and trustees also constitutes an unjustified invasion of privacy and bodily integrity in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
34

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN Doc #1 Filed 12/04/14 Page 36 of 42 Page ID#36
251. Defendants, acting under color of state law, violated and are violating the prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution; the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution; and the prohibition against punishment of pretrial detainees under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by permitting male guards and male trustees to regularly, routinely and without penological justification view plaintiffs and class members while they shower, dress and use toilets at the MCJ, and by punishing or threatening to punish plaintiffs and class members when they try to protect their privacy.
252. Persons violating the Fourth, Eighth, or Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution under color of state law are liable at law and in equity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
253. Under Count I, the Female Damages Class seeks damages against the municipal defendants; the Female Injunctive Class seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against the municipal defendants; all plaintiffs individually seek damages against the municipal defendants and unknown correctional officers; plaintiff Collins seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against the municipal defendants; plaintiff Vos seeks damages against defendant Gutowski; and plaintiff Collins seeks damages against defendant DeYoung.
COUNT II DENIAL OF EXERCISE 254. Due to defendants’ policy, practice or custom, plaintiffs and class members have been, are being, and will be denied out-of-cell exercise. 255. With respect to convicted inmates incarcerated at the MCJ, the denial of exercise constitutes unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain evidencing deliberate indifference to
35

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN Doc #1 Filed 12/04/14 Page 37 of 42 Page ID#37
plaintiffs’ Eighth Amendment rights. The denial of exercise is not justified by any legitimate penological interest.
256. With respect to pretrial detainees incarcerated at the MCJ, the denial of exercise constitutes punishment without due process of law.
257. By denying, as a rule, out-of-cell exercise to female inmates at the MCJ, defendants have violated and are violating the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment and the prohibition against punishment of pre-trial detainees under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
258. Persons violating the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution under color of state law are liable at law and in equity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
259. Under Count II, the Female Damages Class seeks damages against the municipal defendants; the Female Injunctive Class seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against the municipal defendants; all plaintiffs individually seek damages against the municipal defendants and unknown correctional officers; and plaintiff Collins seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against the municipal defendants.
COUNT III DENIAL OF ACCESS TO FEMININE HYGIENE PRODUCTS, TOILET PAPER,
AND ADEQUATE UNDERWEAR AND OTHER CLOTHING 260. Due to defendants’ policy, practice or custom, plaintiffs and class members have been, are being, and will be denied feminine hygiene products, toilet paper, and adequate underwear and other clothing. 261. By denying these items to female inmates at the MCJ, defendants have violated and are violating the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth
36

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN Doc #1 Filed 12/04/14 Page 38 of 42 Page ID#38
Amendment and the prohibition against punishment of pre-trial detainees under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
262. Persons violating the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution under color of state law are liable at law and in equity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
263. Under Count III, the Female Damages Class seeks damages against the municipal defendants; the Female Injunctive Class seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against the municipal defendants; all plaintiffs individually seek damages against the municipal defendants and unknown correctional officers; plaintiff Collins seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against the municipal defendants; plaintiff Kitchens seeks damages against defendant Grieves; and plaintiff Collins seeks damages against defendant Morris.
COUNT IV SEVERE OVERCROWDING AND OTHER ABYSMAL CONDITIONS 264. Due to defendants’ policy, practice or custom, plaintiffs and class members have been, are being, and will be subjected, without any penological justification or other legitimate purpose, to severe overcrowding and other inadequate, unsanitary and dangerous conditions, and prolonged stays in the holding tank, as alleged above. 265. With respect to convicted inmates incarcerated at the MCJ, the conditions maintained by defendants constitute unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain and are maintained with deliberate indifference to plaintiffs’ Eighth Amendment rights. The conditions are not justified by any legitimate penological interest. 266. With respect to pretrial detainees incarcerated at the MCJ, the conditions maintained by the defendants have caused such detainees to suffer punishment without due process of law.
37

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN Doc #1 Filed 12/04/14 Page 39 of 42 Page ID#39
267. Defendants, through their policy, practice or custom of permitting such overcrowding and such abysmal conditions, have violated and are violating the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment and the prohibition against punishment of pretrial detainees under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
268. Persons violating the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution under color of state law are liable at law and in equity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
269. Under Count IV, the Overcrowding Damages Class seeks damages against the municipal defendants; the Overcrowding Injunctive Class seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against the municipal defendants; all plaintiffs individually seek damages against the municipal defendants and unknown correctional officers; and plaintiff Collins seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against the municipal defendants.
COUNT V Michelle Semelbauer Only 270. Defendants’ policy, practice, and custom, as well as the individual actions of the named and unnamed correctional officers, caused plaintiff Michelle Semelbauer to be unlawfully held in the MCJ for 28 days. 271. The Fourth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution prohibit the continued incarceration of an inmate beyond her legal sentence. 272. Persons violating the Fourth, Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution under color of state law are liable at law and in equity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 273. Under Count V, plaintiff Semelbauer seeks damages against the municipal defendants and defendants Morris and Gutowski.
38

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN Doc #1 Filed 12/04/14 Page 40 of 42 Page ID#40
REQUEST FOR RELIEF Based on the foregoing, plaintiffs request that the Court provide relief as follows: 1. Certify a Female Damages Class, an Overcrowding Damages Class, a Female Injunctive Class, and an Overcrowding Damages Class, as those classes have been defined above; 2. Declare that defendants are violating or have violated the constitutional rights of plaintiffs and the classes they represent by:
a. permitting male guards to regularly, routinely and without penological justification view plaintiffs and class members while they shower, dress, and use the toilets at the MCJ, and punishing or threatening to punish plaintiffs and class members when they try to protect their privacy;
b. denying plaintiffs and class members adequate out-of-cell exercise; c. denying plaintiffs and class members adequate feminine hygiene products,
toilet paper, and underwear and other clothing; d. permitting severe overcrowding; and e. maintaining otherwise abysmal conditions as outlined above; 3. Enjoin defendants from: a. permitting male guards to regularly, routinely and without penological
justification view plaintiff Collins and the class members she represents while they shower, dress, and use the toilets at the MCJ, and punishing or threatening to punish Collins and other class members when they try to protect their privacy;
39

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN Doc #1 Filed 12/04/14 Page 41 of 42 Page ID#41

b. denying Collins and the class members she represents adequate out-of-cell exercise;
c. denying Collins and the class members she represents adequate feminine hygiene products, toilet paper, and underwear and other clothing;
d. continuing to permit severe overcrowding; and e. continuing to maintain otherwise abysmal conditions as outlined above; 4. Award damages to all plaintiffs and members of the Damages Classes for the constitutional violations set forth in Counts I through V of this Complaint; 5. Award plaintiffs reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and 6. Grant any other relief the Court deems just and proper.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury as to all those issues so triable as of right.

Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Miriam J. Aukerman

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FUND OF MICHIGAN
Miriam J. Aukerman (P63165) Marc S. Allen (NY 5230008) 1514 Wealthy Street SE, Suite 242 Grand Rapids, MI 49506 (616) 301-0930 maukerman@aclumich.org mallen@aclumich.org
Sofia V. Nelson (P77960) Daniel S. Korobkin (P72842) Michael J. Steinberg (P43085) Kary L. Moss (P49759) 2966 Woodward Avenue Detroit, MI 48201 (313) 578-6800 snelson@aclumich.org

PITT, MCGEHEE, PALMER& RIVERS, P.C. Michael L. Pitt (P24429) Beth M. Rivers (P33614) Kevin M. Carlson (P67704) Andrea J. Johnson (P74596) Cooperating Attorneys, American Civil
Liberties Union Fund of Michigan 117 West Fourth Street, Suite 200 Royal Oak, MI 48067 (248) 398-9800 mpitt@pittlawpc.com brivers@pittlawpc.com kcarlson@pittlawpc.com ajohnson@pittlawpc.com

40

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN Doc #1 Filed 12/04/14 Page 42 of 42 Page ID#42 dkorobkin@aclumich.org msteinberg@aclumich.org Dated: December 4, 2014
41

 </s> Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN Doc #18 Filed 02/06/15 Page 1 of 45 Page ID#499

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

MICHELLE SEMELBAUER, PAULETTE BOSCH, DENISE VOS, CRISA BROWN, LATRECE BAKER, TAMMY SPEERS, LONDORA KITCHENS, STASHIA COLLINS, ANDREA DORN, JUDY PAULEY, and DELILAH WICKLIFFE, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons,

CASE NO: 1:14-cv-01245-JTN HON. JANET T. NEFF

Plaintiffs,

CLASS ACTION

vs.

MUSKEGON COUNTY, a municipal corporation; DEAN ROESLER, in his official capacity as Muskegon County Sheriff; LT. MARK BURNS, in his official capacity as Jail Administrator; CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS IVAN MORRIS, GRIEVES, DEYOUNG, and DAVID GUTOWSKI, in their individual capacities; and UNKNOWN CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS, in their individual capacities,

Defendants. /

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FUND OF MICHIGAN
Miriam J. Aukerman (P63165) Marc S. Allen (NY 5230008) 1514 Wealthy Street SE, Suite 242 Grand Rapids, MI 49506 (616) 301-0930 maukerman@aclumich.org
Daniel S. Korobkin (P72842) Michael J. Steinberg (P43085) Kary L. Moss (P49759) 2966 Woodward Avenue Detroit, MI 48201 (313) 578-6800 dkorobkin@aclumich.org

PITT, MCGEHEE, PALMER& RIVERS, P.C. Michael L. Pitt (P24429) Beth M. Rivers (P33614) Kevin M. Carlson (P67704) Andrea J. Johnson (P74596) Cooperating Attorneys, American Civil
Liberties Union Fund of Michigan 117 West Fourth Street, Suite 200 Royal Oak, MI 48067 (248) 398-9800 mpitt@pittlawpc.com brivers@pittlawpc.com kcarlson@pittlawpc.com ajohnson@pittlawpc.com
/

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN Doc #18 Filed 02/06/15 Page 2 of 45 Page ID#500
INTRODUCTION 1. This is a class action lawsuit challenging the unconstitutional and inhumane conditions of confinement at the Muskegon County Jail (“MCJ”). 2. The named plaintiffs are eleven women who are current and former inmates of MCJ. In this complaint they challenge severe overcrowding and other abysmal conditions that affect all MCJ inmates, as well as policies, practices and conditions at MCJ that uniquely harm women. 3. MCJ is severely overcrowded. Some plaintiffs were held for days with other women in a tiny holding cell without a shower or bed, and without even sufficient space for them to lie down. 4. In some cases, plaintiffs were confined in this tiny space with other women who were experiencing the symptoms of drug or alcohol withdrawal, including vomiting. 5. Other appalling conditions at MCJ include vermin, insects, mold, overflowing and constantly running toilets, broken sinks, scalding water, unchecked contagious diseases, and falling ceiling tiles. 6. In order to shower, some plaintiffs must stand in pools of water that fail to drain after other inmates, who have contagious infections or who are menstruating, have taken their showers. 7. Male MCJ guards routinely and regularly view women inmates while they are naked or partially naked, including while they are showering, changing clothes, or using the toilet. 8. Defendants fail to provide adequate feminine hygiene products to women detained at MCJ, causing them to bleed through their clothes.
1

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN Doc #18 Filed 02/06/15 Page 3 of 45 Page ID#501
9. Defendants also confiscated some women’s brassieres and fail to provide replacements.
10. With some limited exceptions, plaintiffs, like other men and women detained at MCJ, are essentially on lockdown 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
11. Female MCJ inmates are rarely or never permitted out-of-cell exercise. 12. Women detained at MCJ suffer from severe verbal abuse by guards, and are routinely called “bitches” and “whores” by defendant correctional officers. 13. African-American female inmates are called “niggers” by defendant correctional officers and are told they are “like animals in a zoo.” 14. Defendants fail to respond to inmates’ grievances about the severe conditions. 15. Women inmates are routinely told that grievances are ripped up and sometimes see guards throw them away. 16. In part because of the absence of a functioning grievance system, defendants utterly fail to respond to inmates’ urgent needs. 17. One of the plaintiffs, Michelle Semelbauer, was even forced to endure these conditions for several weeks after she should have been released from MCJ. 18. Ms. Semelbauer was incarcerated in MCJ on October 9, 2012, pursuant to a “pay or stay” order issued by a state court judge in a criminal case. A “pay or stay” order is a type of disposition that requires a defendant to either pay a fine or go to jail. 19. Ms. Semelbauer’s fines were paid soon after she arrived at MCJ, but she remained in custody for 28 more days. 20. Ms. Semelbauer continually notified jail staff, both verbally and in writing, that she should have been released because her fines had been paid.
2

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN Doc #18 Filed 02/06/15 Page 4 of 45 Page ID#502
21. Ms. Semelbauer’s friends repeatedly contacted the jail by phone to find out why she had not been released.
22. Despite these warnings, Ms. Semelbauer remained incarcerated at MCJ until November 7, 2012.
23. Plaintiffs now bring this action to vindicate their rights, and the rights of those similarly situated, under the Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
SUMMARY OF CLASS ACTION STRUCTURE AND INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS 24. Plaintiffs seek to represent four overlapping classes as follows: a. The first class (the “Female Damages Class”) consists of former female inmates of MCJ seeking damages for harms specific to female inmates. This class seeks damages against the municipal defendants1 under Count I of this Complaint (violation of privacy and bodily integrity); Count II (denial of exercise); and Count III (denial of access to feminine hygiene products and adequate clothing). b. The second class (the “Overcrowding Damages Class”) consists of former male and female inmates of MCJ seeking damages for overcrowding and other abysmal conditions of confinement that affect inmates of both genders at MCJ. This class seeks damages against the municipal defendants under Count IV of this Complaint (overcrowding and other abysmal conditions).
1 The “municipal defendants” are Muskegon County and the defendants sued in their official capacities.
3

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN Doc #18 Filed 02/06/15 Page 5 of 45 Page ID#503
c. The third class (the “Female Injunctive Class”) consists of current and future female inmates of MCJ seeking declaratory and injunctive relief from ongoing harms specific to female inmates. This class seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against the municipal defendants under Count I of this Complaint (violation of privacy and bodily integrity); Count II (denial of exercise); and Count III (denial of access to feminine hygiene products and adequate clothing).
d. The fourth class (the “Overcrowding Injunctive Class”) consists of current and future male and female inmates of MCJ seeking declaratory and injunctive relief from ongoing overcrowding and other abysmal conditions that affect inmates of both genders at MCJ. This class seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against the municipal defendants under Count IV of this Complaint (overcrowding and other abysmal conditions).
25. The following plaintiffs seek to serve as class representatives: a. The Female Damages Class and the Overcrowding Damages Class (together, the “Damages Classes”) will be represented by plaintiffs Michelle Semelbauer, Paulette Bosch, Denise Vos, Crisa Brown, Latrece Baker, Tammy Speers, and Londora Kitchens. b. The Female Injunctive Class and the Overcrowding Injunctive Class (together, the “Injunctive Classes”) will be represented by plaintiffs Stashia Collins, Andrea Dorn, Judy Pauley, and Delilah Wickliffe.
26. In addition to serving as class representatives, plaintiffs also seek damages individually (i.e., on their own behalf) as follows:
4

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN Doc #18 Filed 02/06/15 Page 6 of 45 Page ID#504
a. All plaintiffs seek damages against the municipal defendants and unknown correctional officers under Counts I through IV.
b. Plaintiff Michelle Semelbauer seeks damages against the municipal defendants, defendants Morris and Gutowski, and unknown correctional officers under Count V.
c. Plaintiff Denise Vos seeks damages against defendant Gutowski under Count I.
d. Plaintiff Londora Kitchens seeks damages against defendant Grieves under Count III.
e. Plaintiff Stashia Collins seeks damages against defendant DeYoung under Count I and against defendant Morris under Count III.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 27. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 because federal questions are presented in this action under the Fourth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 28. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)(1) and (2) because the defendants reside in this district and the events and omissions giving rise to the claims occurred and/or will occur in this district.
PARTIES 29. Plaintiff Michelle Semelbauer is a former MCJ inmate. She was incarcerated in MCJ from October 9, 2012 until November 7, 2012.
5

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN Doc #18 Filed 02/06/15 Page 7 of 45 Page ID#505
30. Plaintiff Paulette Bosch is a former MCJ inmate. She was incarcerated in MCJ on from approximately December 2012 until April 2013. At the time she was incarcerated, her name was Paulette Gauthier.
31. Plaintiff Denise Vos is a former MCJ inmate. She was incarcerated in MCJ from approximately June 2011 until February 2012.
32. Plaintiff Crisa Brown is a former MCJ inmate. She was incarcerated in MCJ from approximately February 2014 until April 2014.
33. Plaintiff Latrece Baker is a former MCJ inmate. She was incarcerated in MCJ on several occasions including from approximately March 2014 until April 2014 and again in November 2014.
34. Plaintiff Tammy Speers is a former MCJ inmate. She was incarcerated in MCJ from approximately March 2014 until August 2014.
35. Plaintiff Londora Kitchens is a former MCJ inmate. She was incarcerated in MCJ from approximately January 2014 until September 2014.
36. Plaintiff Stashia Collins was an MCJ inmate at the time this lawsuit and plaintiffs’ motion for class certification were filed. She was incarcerated in MCJ from August 2014 until January 2015.
37. Plaintiff Andrea Dorn is a current MCJ inmate. She has been incarcerated in MCJ since November 2014.
38. Plaintiff Judy Pauley is a current MCJ inmate. She has been incarcerated in MCJ since July 2014.
39. Plaintiff Delilah Wickliffe is a current MCJ inmate. She has been incarcerated in MCJ since December 2014.
6

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN Doc #18 Filed 02/06/15 Page 8 of 45 Page ID#506
40. All plaintiffs reside in the Western District of Michigan. 41. Defendant Muskegon County is a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of Michigan. Muskegon County operates MCJ. Muskegon County and MCJ are located in the Western District of Michigan. 42. Defendant Dean Roesler is sued in his official capacity as Muskegon County Sheriff. He is the chief law enforcement officer for Muskegon County. 43. Defendant Mark Burns is sued in his official capacity as Jail Administrator for MCJ. 44. Defendant Ivan Morris is a correctional officer at MCJ. Upon information and belief, he resides in the Western District of Michigan. He is being sued in his individual capacity. 45. Defendant David Gutowski was at all times relevant to this Complaint a correctional officer at MCJ. Upon information and belief, he resides in the Western District of Michigan. He is being sued in his individual capacity. 46. Defendant DeYoung is a correctional officer at MCJ. Upon information and belief, he resides in the Western District of Michigan. He is being sued in his individual capacity. 47. Defendant Grieves is a correctional officer at MCJ. Upon information and belief, she resides in the Western District of Michigan. She is being sued in her individual capacity. 48. Defendants unknown correctional officers are correctional officers who currently work at MCJ or, at any time relevant to this Complaint, previously worked at MCJ, and whose identities are not yet known. They are sued in their individual capacities.
7

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN Doc #18 Filed 02/06/15 Page 9 of 45 Page ID#507
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS A. General Allegations
49. MCJ holds male and female inmates, including both pre-trial detainees and sentenced individuals.
50. MCJ was built in 1959, with some additions since that time. 51. MCJ is designed to house 370 inmates. 52. MCJ routinely houses well over 400 inmates. 53. Between January 2011 and April 2014 there were between 41 and 121 women held at MCJ on any given day. 54. Women inmates are generally held either in 12-person cells along the “cat walk” (a corridor used by staff and inmate trustees), in other multi-person cells (e.g., 6 person cells), in 2-person cells attached to a “day room,” or in bunks in the common areas of the “day room.” 55. When inmates first arrive at MCJ they are processed through the booking area and “holding tanks,” which are designed to hold inmates for brief periods until they are transferred to their cells, or while they are being transferred to court or other outside locations.
B. Cross-Gender Viewing 56. Genitals, buttocks, and, for women, breasts are especially private parts of the
human body. 57. Involuntary exposure of these private body parts to members of the opposite sex
is uniquely demeaning and humiliating. 58. The act of using the toilet and, for women, of attending to the sanitary needs
related to menstrual periods, are especially private acts.
8

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN Doc #18 Filed 02/06/15 Page 10 of 45 Page ID#508
59. The toilets and showers used by plaintiffs and other female inmates are not shielded by privacy walls.
60. As a result, male guards and male inmate trustees repeatedly and routinely observe plaintiffs, and other female inmates, while they are using the toilet, including times when plaintiffs have had their menstrual period.
61. Furthermore, male guards repeatedly and routinely observe plaintiffs, and other female inmates, while they are showering or changing clothes, and are naked or partially naked.
62. Plaintiffs and other women inmates are subject to cross-gender viewing beginning when they first enter the jail and are held in the holding tank.
63. All plaintiffs and other women inmates have been held in the holding tank upon arrival at the jail. Male guards, as well as all inmates walking past the holding tank, can see the holding tank’s toilet and observe inmates while they use the toilet.
64. After leaving the holding tank, plaintiffs and other women inmates remain subject to cross-gender viewing, regardless of whether they are held in the 12-person cells near the cat walk, other multi-person cells, the 2-person cells around the day room, or the day room itself, as all these areas are constructed so that women inmates using the toilet, showering, or changing clothes can be viewed by male guards.
65. For the 12-person and 6-person cells, male guards and male inmate trustees have a clear and unobstructed view of the toilets and showers. There is also no location in these cells where plaintiffs and other women inmates can change clothes without being seen by male guards and male inmate trustees from the cat walk.
66. For women held in 2-person cells near the day room, male guards and male inmates can see women toileting, showering, and changing clothes. Male guards have a clear
9

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN Doc #18 Filed 02/06/15 Page 11 of 45 Page ID#509
and unobstructed view of the showers in the day room, and a clear and unobstructed view from the day room of the toilets in the 2-person cells surrounding the day room.
67. Women who sleep on bunks in the common area of the day room also have no privacy when changing or getting dressed after bathing and are routinely viewed by male guards while naked.
68. During their incarceration, plaintiffs Michelle Semelbauer, Paulette Bosch, Denise Vos, Latrece Baker, Judy Pauley and other women inmates had to wear one-piece jump suits.
69. Because they were required to wear one-piece jump suits, in order to use the toilet, plaintiffs had to disrobe and expose their bodies.2
70. MCJ confiscates and does not replace the bras of some women inmates. 71. Ms. Bosch and other female inmates whose bras were confiscated by MCJ officers were forced to expose their naked breasts when lowering their jumpsuits to use the toilet. 72. Male guards repeatedly and routinely enter cells and day room facilities without knocking or announcing themselves while female inmates are using the toilet, disrobing, or using the showers. 73. For example, while Ms. Vos was using the toilet, defendant Gutowski walked in and began talking with other inmates and passing out medication. 74. At the time of this encounter, Ms. Vos, who had been wearing a one-piece jumpsuit, was completely naked.
2 Recently, the MCJ began providing inmates with two-piece suits.
10

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN Doc #18 Filed 02/06/15 Page 12 of 45 Page ID#510
75. Plaintiffs and other women inmates have attempted to protect their bodily privacy by using their bodies, trash bags, towels or bed linens to prevent male guards and inmates from seeing women who are changing clothes, using the toilet or using the shower.
76. Plaintiffs and other women have attempted to protect their privacy by temporarily covering the windows on cell doors with plastic bags or other items while using the toilet.
77. Women inmates are either disciplined or threatened with discipline when they attempt to protect their own privacy and bodily integrity in this manner.
78. For example, Ms. Collins attempted to gain privacy while using the toilet by hanging a sheet over the window into her cell. When she did this, guards including defendant DeYoung tore down the sheet and reprimanded her.
79. Similarly, Ms. Dorn tries to protect her privacy when changing or using the toilet by placing sheets or paper on her cell window, but guards immediately rip them down.
80. Ms. Pauley likewise tries to put up magazine pages over parts of her cell window while using the toilet or changing. However guards tear these papers down or barge into her cell unannounced.
81. Ms. Vos hung up sheets to protect her privacy while showering and using the toilet, but defendants David Gutowski and unknown correctional officers took them down.
82. Unknown correctional officers confiscated all bedding when Ms. Vos or other inmates sought to protect their privacy by hanging sheets.
83. When Ms. Vos was held in a cell off the dayroom, she tried to temporarily put up toilet paper on her cell door window in order to protect her privacy while using the toilet, but defendants David Gutowski and unknown correctional officers tore it down.
11

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN Doc #18 Filed 02/06/15 Page 13 of 45 Page ID#511
84. MCJ staff repeatedly tell women inmates that they have no privacy rights once they enter jail and that if they wanted privacy rights, they should not have gotten arrested.
85. MCJ does not have any penological justification for allowing male guards and male inmate trustees to routinely observe plaintiffs and other female inmates while they use the toilet, shower, or change clothes.
86. Defendants’ practice of routinely allowing such cross-gender viewing has continued unabated since the initial filing of this lawsuit. Ms. Dorn, Ms. Pauley, and Ms. Wickliffe, all of whom are currently incarcerated at MCJ, are regularly observed by male guards while they change, shower, or use the toilet.
C. Denial of Exercise Opportunities 87. Plaintiffs and other women inmates at MCJ rarely if ever receive out-of-cell
exercise opportunities. They are essentially locked in their cells 24 hours per day, 7 days per week.
88. Upon information and belief, male inmates at MCJ receive out-of-cell exercise opportunities more regularly.
89. MCJ has an indoor gym with exercise equipment. 90. Plaintiffs and other women inmates could be and could have been, but are not and were not, brought to that gym for regular out-of-cell exercise. Until after this lawsuit was filed, women were rarely if ever allowed to access the exercise equipment in the gym. 91. MCJ’s “Rules and Regulations for Inmates” contains a list of “privileges,” which list exercise as a “privilege.”
12

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN Doc #18 Filed 02/06/15 Page 14 of 45 Page ID#512
92. Plaintiffs and other female inmates held in the 2-person cells adjoining the day room are routinely locked down in their tiny cells and cannot leave those cells for extended periods of time.
93. During the approximately five-month period that Ms. Bosch was incarcerated at MCJ, she was allowed to go to the gym only twice.
94. During Ms. Vos’s 7 ½-month-long incarceration, she was allowed to go to the gym on only two brief occasions and only because her cell was being searched.
95. During the approximately 30 days Ms. Semelbauer was incarcerated, she was never allowed access to the gym.
96. During the approximately three months Ms. Brown was incarcerated, she was allowed to go to the gym only once for 30 minutes while corrections officers searched her cell.
97. During Ms. Kitchens’ approximately eight-month incarceration, she asked to use the gym repeatedly and was never allowed access. In order to exercise while at MCJ, Ms. Kitchens tried to walk laps around her cell because she was denied access to the gym or any outdoor recreational area.
98. During the approximately five months that Ms. Brown was incarcerated, she was allowed to go to the gym only three times.
99. Ms. Baker was never allowed access to the gym during either her March/April 2014 incarceration or her November 2014 incarceration.
100. From the beginning of Ms. Collins’s incarceration in August 2014 until this lawsuit was filed, she was given access to the gym only once, and during that visit the exercise equipment kept in the gym was locked away.
101. Ms. Dorn has been to the gym only twice in her three-month incarceration.
13

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN Doc #18 Filed 02/06/15 Page 15 of 45 Page ID#513
102. Ms. Pauley has been to the gym only three times in her eight-month incarceration. 103. Ms. Wickliffe has been to the gym only twice during her two month incarceration. 104. Plaintiffs have suffered physical injuries including muscle atrophy and weight gain due to lack of out-of-cell exercise. 105. For example, Ms. Collins gained weight and lost muscle mass during her incarceration, and at the time this lawsuit was filed she feared further deterioration of her health due to lack of out-of-cell exercise. 106. Ms. Dorn, who recently gave birth, fears that the lack of exercise is taking a toll on her on her health. 107. Ms. Pauley is recovering from a severe injury and has nine screws in her left ankle. She needs regular exercise to keep her ankle from getting stiff and painful, and she fears her lack of exercise will impair her recovery and exacerbate her physical injury.
D. Denial of Feminine Hygiene Products, Toilet Paper, and Adequate Clothing 108. Plaintiffs and other women inmates at MCJ are not provided with adequate
feminine hygiene products or toilet paper. 109. Female inmates who menstruate do not receive sanitary napkins in a timely
fashion and in some instances are not provided with sanitary napkins at all. 110. Plaintiffs and other female inmates who menstruate and are denied pads bleed into
their clothing and are often not provided with clean clothing until the next laundry day, which only occurs once per week.
111. Consequently, women may have to wear bloody clothing for as long as a week before a clean jumpsuit is provided.
14

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN Doc #18 Filed 02/06/15 Page 16 of 45 Page ID#514
112. When Ms. Vos got her menstrual period while incarcerated at MCJ, she pleaded again and again for several hours before she was finally provided with sanitary napkins.
113. When officers finally provided feminine hygiene products to Ms. Vos, they did not provide enough.
114. When Ms. Vos was held in the day room, unknown correctional officers provided only one pack of 12 pads for as many as 30 women, and told them to share.
115. Ms. Kitchens asked MCJ staff for pads on or about July 13, 2014. She did not receive any for hours, and was told by defendant Grieves that she was “shit out of luck” and “don’t bleed on the floor.”
116. Ms. Speers bled into her clothes when she had her period. Although she begged for sanitary products, Ms. Speers was not given pads for approximately two days.
117. Ms. Brown requested sanitary products during her period, but was not given any for approximately eight hours.
118. Ms. Collins requested sanitary products from defendant Morris and did not receive any for over ten hours. By the time she finally received sanitary products she had bled into her clothing. She was not able to obtain fresh clothing for several hours.
119. On or about December 27, 2014, Ms. Wickliffe began menstruating and asked guards for pads. Guards ignored her requests for almost a day. Consequently, Ms. Wickliffe bled into her uniform. When she requested a new uniform, guards told her that “it was her own fault,” and did not provide a replacement uniform for another 24 hours.
120. Ms. Dorn and Ms. Baker have both been forced to wait hours in order to obtain toilet paper.
15

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN Doc #18 Filed 02/06/15 Page 17 of 45 Page ID#515
121. Women who enter MCJ while wearing a bra that is not approved, such as a colored bra, have their bras confiscated.
122. When the MCJ confiscates a bra, MCJ does not provide a replacement bra, forcing women to go without a bra.
123. When Ms. Bosch was taken to jail, unknown correctional officers confiscated her red sports bra and her boxer underwear.
124. MCJ did not provide Ms. Bosch with a replacement bra, and she did not get a bra until a family member put money in her commissary account and she was able to buy one.
125. MCJ does not provide underwear. 126. Ms. Speers wore the same single pair of underwear for most of her time at MCJ. 127. When Ms. Speers bled into that underwear and washed it, she had go without underwear while it dried. 128. Women inmates are given inadequate clean clothing, laundry and linens. 129. During wash day women are forced to wrap themselves in towels or sheets because they lack adequate clothing.
E. Extended Stays in the Overcrowded Holding Tank 130. Upon information and belief, the holding tanks at MCJ are the size of a large
closet. However, plaintiffs and other women have been held in these small cells with as many as 18 other women at one time.
131. At MCJ, women inmates are often held in a holding tank for days at a time. 132. There are no beds in the holding tank. Women sleep on concrete benches or on the concrete floor without mats. When the holding tanks are overcrowded, there is not sufficient space for inmates to lie down.
16

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN Doc #18 Filed 02/06/15 Page 18 of 45 Page ID#516
133. The holding tanks in MCJ do not have showers. Women held in the holding tank do not have a way to clean themselves, even when they are there for several days and are ill or menstruating.
134. The holding tanks in MCJ have toilets that can be viewed by male guards. 135. Plaintiff Tammy Speers was held in the MCJ holding tank for approximately seven days. Ms. Speers experienced opiate withdrawal while in the holding tank. During these seven days, she was vomiting and had diarrhea. Although Ms. Speers was covered in vomit and feces, she was not allowed to shower. 136. Upon information and belief, MCJ housed up to 18 women in the holding tank while Ms. Speers was held there. During this time, there was insufficient space in the holding tank for the inmates to sit down. 137. During times when there were fewer inmates in the holding tank, Ms. Speers found a space on the floor where she could lie down. However, Ms. Speers was not given a mat or blanket, and she was forced to lie next to a leaking toilet with ants crawling over her and up her nose. 138. Ms. Bosch was held in the MCJ holding tank for approximately seven days with up to 15 other women. 139. Ms. Brown was placed in the holding tank for approximately two days. 140. Ms. Semelbauer was in the holding tank for approximately three to four days with many other women. 141. While in the holding tank Ms. Semelbauer was punched in the face by another inmate and woke up to another inmate straddling her face—exposing her genitals to Ms.
17

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN Doc #18 Filed 02/06/15 Page 19 of 45 Page ID#517
Semelbauer. Ms. Semelbauer requested a complaint form so she could report this assault, but she was never given a form.
142. Ms. Collins was in the holding tank for approximately four or five days with as many as 18 other women.
143. Ms. Pauley was placed in the holding tank for approximately three days with as many as seventeen other women.
144. In November 2014, Ms. Baker was in the holding tank for approximately three days. Her hip still hurts from sleeping on the cement floor without a mat. During both her March and November 2014 incarcerations, the sink in the holding tank was broken, meaning nobody, including her, could wash their hands for sanitation or drink water except when provided with meals.
F. Other Abysmal Conditions of Confinement 145. The walls, floors, windows, showers, and shower curtains inside the MCJ are
covered in mold. 146. Due to unsanitary conditions, the MCJ is infested with sewer bugs, water bugs,
silver fish, spiders, ants, and other insects, as well as mice. 147. Ceiling tiles inside the MCJ are falling down. 148. Toilets routinely overflow or back up, spilling human waste into the cells.
Inmates are regularly exposed to human feces, urine, blood, and vomit. In some cells there is standing liquid on the floors that contains human waste.
149. In the cells off the day room, when an inmate flushes the toilet, waste or menstrual blood comes back up into the toilet of the adjoining cell.
18

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN Doc #18 Filed 02/06/15 Page 20 of 45 Page ID#518
150. In some cases inmates work together in an attempt to cope with the plumbing problems: they count to three in their adjoining cells, and then flush simultaneously in an effort to make the waste from both cells go down the pipes.
151. In order to shower, some inmates, including plaintiffs, must stand in pools of water that failed to drain after other inmates, who have infections or who are menstruating, take their showers.
152. During Ms. Bosch’s incarceration, the shower in her cell stopped working, and was not repaired for three days, despite repeated written complaints by the twelve women in that cell who were unable to shower during that time.
153. Some showers have only burning hot water. Plaintiffs and other female inmates collect the scalding water in rubber or plastic totes, and wait for it to cool before using it to bathe. The guards who see this mock the women as taking “bird baths.”
154. On one occasion, the tote Ms. Bosch was using to collect hot water tore open, causing hot water to burn her skin. Jail guards refused to take Ms. Bosch to the medical unit after this incident.
155. Ms. Speers was burned on her scalp by scalding water from the shower. MCJ medical staff prescribed her medicinal shampoo and suggested that she move to a cell with a working shower.
156. Staff at MCJ have known about and acknowledged these conditions for years. 157. The Michigan Department of Corrections has inspected the MCJ, and has called for immediate improvements in conditions. 158. The most recent MDOC inspection report available to plaintiffs’ counsel noted, among other things, that leaking toilets created a “serious potential health hazard”; that flushing
19

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN Doc #18 Filed 02/06/15 Page 21 of 45 Page ID#519
toilets cause sewage backups into toilets of other cells; that shower water is “extremely hot” in many cells, creating “a potential hazard to the user”; that water is leaking onto cell floors; that shower curtains are soiled and “contain a black substance suspected to be mold/mildew”; that air vents contain a black substance suspected to be mold/mildew; and that there were bugs in the sleeping areas.
G. Severe Overcrowding 159. The MCJ is routinely severely overcrowded, and constantly exceeds its rated
design capacity to house 370 inmates. 160. The Michigan County Jail Overcrowding State of Emergency Act (“JOA”),
M.C.L. § 801.51 et seq., provides standards on jail overcrowding that can inform the court in assessing plaintiffs’ claim that the level of overcrowding at MCJ is unconstitutional.
161. The JOA directs that if the general prisoner population of a county jail exceeds 100% of the rated design capacity of the jail for seven consecutive days, the county sheriff must declare a jail overcrowding state of emergency. M.C.L. §§ 801.52, 801.53.
162. The JOA provides a progressive series of steps designed to eliminate the overcrowding emergency by reducing the jail population to an acceptable level, defined in M.C.L. § 801.56(1) as the higher of (a) 90% of capacity or (b) at least ten empty beds for facilities of less than 500 beds. For the MJC, the acceptable level is 360 inmates (ten empty beds).
163. For the first fourteen days of an overcrowding emergency, local officials, including the sheriff, should seek to reduce the prisoner population by existing legal means, such as pretrial diversion, reduction in bonds, use of community mental health resources, and use of community programs. M.C.L. § 801.55.
20

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN Doc #18 Filed 02/06/15 Page 22 of 45 Page ID#520
164. Where steps taken under M.C.L. § 801.55 fail to reduce the jail population sufficiently to eliminate jail overcrowding within 14 days, then the JOA directs that the sheriff supply the chief circuit judge with information about each prisoner. The chief judge is directed to classify prisoners into those whose release would present a high risk to public safety and those whose release would not present such a risk. The sheriff must then reduce the sentences of lowrisk prisoners by an equal percentage, set by the chief circuit judge, until the overcrowding is alleviated. The circuit judge may also modify bonds of pre-trial detainees. M.C.L. § 801.56(2)(4).
165. If the steps taken under M.C.L. §§ 801.55 and 801.56 fail to reduce the jail population sufficiently to eliminate jail overcrowding within 28 days, then under § 801.57, the sheriff must equally reduce prisoner sentences in order to reduce the jail population to an acceptable level, as defined in M.C.L. § 801.56(1).
166. If the steps taken under M.C.L. §§ 801.55, 801.56 and 801.57 fail to reduce the jail population sufficiently to eliminate jail overcrowding within 42 days, then the sheriff must defer acceptance for incarceration of persons committed to the jail (with exceptions for certain persons convicted or charged with certain specified offenses) until the overcrowding state of emergency is ended. M.C.L. § 801.58.
167. According to an August 22, 2012 written statement by defendants Roesler and/or Burns, the MCJ has been in a “persistent state of overcrowding since September 2008.”
168. Plaintiffs’ counsel and their assistants have reviewed inmate count data provided by MCJ from January 2011 to April 2014.
21

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN Doc #18 Filed 02/06/15 Page 23 of 45 Page ID#521
169. This data shows that the MCJ virtually always exceeds its rated design capacity of 370 inmates, and virtually never is below the level of 360 inmates which is acceptable under JOA.3
170. Specifically, the data shows that: a. There were only 9 days between January 1, 2014 and April 16, 2014, where the MJC was below the rated design capacity of 370 inmates. There were only 2 days where the MCJ was below the 360-inmate acceptable level. b. There was only one day in 2013 where the MCJ was below the rated design capacity. (This excludes the period from 8/29/2013-10/31/2013, for which the MCJ did not provide count data.) c. There was not a single day in 2012 where the MCJ was below the rated design capacity. d. There were only 5 days in 2011 where the MCJ was below the rated design capacity. On none of those 5 days was the count below the 360inmate acceptable level.
171. This data also shows that MCJ daily counts are routinely over 400 inmates. 172. Specifically, the data shows that:
a. There were 65 days between January 1, 2014 and April 16, 2014, where the MCJ held over 400 inmates. On one date in February, 484 inmates – 114 inmates over the rated design capacity – were housed in the jail.
b. In 2013, there were 228 days where the MCJ held over 400 inmates. 3 Plaintiffs rely on the data as provided by MJC pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act request. However, this data appears to contain many errors, and plaintiffs therefore believe the data may actually understate the extent of the problem.
22

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN Doc #18 Filed 02/06/15 Page 24 of 45 Page ID#522
c. In 2012, there were 309 days where the MCJ held over 400 inmates. d. In 2011, there were 252 days where the MCJ held over 400 inmates. 173. Over the past five years, Defendant Roessler has repeatedly declared an overcrowding emergency under the JOA. 174. Defendant Roessler has released some inmates under the provisions of the JOA. 175. However, the steps taken by defendants have failed to lower the MCJ population to acceptable levels under M.C.L. § 801.56(1). 176. Upon information and belief, despite the fact that the MCJ has consistently failed to meet the standards set out in M.C.L. § 801.56(1), defendants have not continued to employ overcrowding reduction measures mandated by the JOA. 177. Due to overcrowding at the MCJ, defendants routinely require inmates to sleep: a. on cots in the common area of the day room; b. on the floors of cells that are designed with beds for 12 inmates; and c. in the holding tank for several days at a time with so many other inmates
that there is limited space to sit or lie down. 178. Due to the severe overcrowding, coupled with inadequate staffing, the MCJ is unable to maintain basic sanitation, provide basic medical care, or ensure the health and safety of inmates.
H. Non-Functional Complaint System 179. In order to seek medical attention, request assistance with basic needs (e.g., obtain
pads or toilet paper), or raise other issues, MCJ inmates are ostensibly allowed to submit “kites,” or written requests.
23

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN Doc #18 Filed 02/06/15 Page 25 of 45 Page ID#523
180. The MCJ ostensibly has a grievance policy, which provides that inmates may bring problems to the attention of MCJ staff through a written complaint.
181. The MCJ’s “Rules and Regulations for Inmates” contains a list of “privileges,” which lists as a “privilege” the ability “to file grievances.”
182. In practice, defendants routinely ignore both kites and grievances. 183. MCJ staff, including defendants Morris and Gutowski, repeatedly and routinely tell inmates that their grievances will simply be discarded, and sometimes even rip up or throw away the grievances in front of inmates. 184. Ms. Bosch wrote approximately 20 grievances while at the MCJ, which concerned the jail’s failure to treat a MRSA infection in her C-section, as well as access to jail programming. Ms. Bosch never received any response to her grievances. In desperation, Ms. Bosch began mailing her grievances through the U.S. Postal System to the jail, in the hopes that they would reach senior jail staff, but she did not receive a response. 185. Ms. Vos attempted to write kites requesting medical care for an abscessed tooth. The MCJ never allowed Ms. Vos to see a doctor for her tooth. After approximately three months, Ms. Vos was given Tylenol for pain. 186. Defendant Morris told Ms. Vos that when inmates write grievances, the grievances are given to the officer in question, who then puts them right into the garbage. 187. Ms. Brown wrote approximately eight grievances while incarcerated at MCJ. These grievances concerned issued such as the showers being so hot that she was burned, and the lack of feminine hygiene products. MCJ staff did not respond to any of them. 188. On one occasion, Ms. Brown was put in a restrictive and revealing anti-suicide smock in the holding tank for several hours in retaliation for writing a grievance.
24

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN Doc #18 Filed 02/06/15 Page 26 of 45 Page ID#524
189. Ms. Speers wrote multiple grievances on issues ranging from her excessive detention in the holding cell, to the overall abysmal conditions of the facility, to threats by other inmates, to mistreatment by guards, but she received only one response.
190. The one grievance for which Ms. Speers received a response was regarding guard misconduct.
191. The guard against whom Ms. Speers had filed the grievance personally brought Ms. Speers a copy of the supervisor’s response, which stated that Ms. Speers had submitted many grievances and her grievances were without merit.
192. Ms. Speers also wrote multiple kites, without response. 193. Ms. Speers tried writing directly to the sergeant and lieutenant, but received no response. 194. Ms. Speers was also put in an anti-suicide suit in retaliation for filing grievances. In addition, Ms. Speers was mocked by guards and told that her life would be much easier if she did not complain. 195. Ms. Collins filed grievances regarding mistreatment by guards, lack of toiletries, lack of cleaning supplies, cross-gender viewing, and other issues to no avail. Guards ignored both her verbal requests and written kites. 196. Ms. Wickliffe has filed approximately five grievances. She has not received any responses. Furthermore, Ms. Wickliffe has been denied grievance forms when she requests them. 197. Ms. Pauley similarly filed grievances, but received no response.
25

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN Doc #18 Filed 02/06/15 Page 27 of 45 Page ID#525
I. The Unlawful Incarceration of Michelle Semelbauer 198. Michelle Semelbauer was sentenced to MCJ on a “pay or stay” sentence on
September 10, 2012. 199. The “pay or stay” sentence required Ms. Semelbauer to serve 54 days in jail
unless she paid fines, costs, and other court-ordered assessments related to a conviction for driving on a suspended license.
200. On September 12, 2012, Ms. Semelbauer’s outstanding fees were paid at the clerk’s office. That same day, Ms. Semelbauer told various staff members at the MCJ that her fees had been paid and that she should be released.
201. Ms. Semelbauer was not released that day. 202. Ms. Semelbauer continued to tell jail staff, both orally and through the jail’s written “kite” system, that her fees had been paid in full and that her sentence was completed. 203. MCJ staff responded to Ms. Semelbauer’s pleas with indifference or outright scorn. 204. Some corrections officers told Ms. Semelbauer that she was lying, while others laughed in her face. 205. In one instance, Ms. Semelbauer was removed from her cell by defendants Morris and Gutowski, who asked her to explain why she kept complaining that she should be released. Ms. Semelbauer told them that she was serving a pay-or-stay sentence, and that her balance had been paid in full. Upon information and belief, Defendants Morris and Gutowski failed to take any action in response.
26

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN Doc #18 Filed 02/06/15 Page 28 of 45 Page ID#526
206. Ms. Semelbauer’s incarceration continued after she informed Defendants Morris and Gutowski of her unlawful incarceration. She continued to inform jail staff that she was being unlawfully held.
207. During Ms. Semelbauer’s incarceration, her friend called the jail, explained that her court-ordered fees had been paid, and asked why she had not been released. Again, defendants took no action to address Ms. Semelbauer’s situation.
208. During Ms. Semelbauer’s unlawful incarceration she was subjected to crossgender viewing, spent four consecutive days in the holding tank, and was never given access to the jail’s gym. She was also exposed to mold, broken plumbing, and the various unsanitary and abysmal conditions inside the MCJ identified in this Complaint.
209. Furthermore, during her unlawful incarceration, Ms. Semelbauer was assaulted by another inmate, who punched Ms. Semelbauer in the eye and shoved her genitals into Ms. Semelbauer’s face.
210. Finally, on November 7, 2012, Ms. Semelbauer was released due to overcrowding.
211. Ms. Semelbauer is not the only inmate that MCJ has held past her release date in recent years. In a similar incident in 2011, an inmate was held three days beyond her sentence.
J. Construction of New Jail 212. After years of housing inmates in intolerable conditions, Muskegon County
recently began construction of a new jail facility to replace the existing facility. 213. Inmates will continue to be housed in the existing facility until construction of the
new facility is completed.
27

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN Doc #18 Filed 02/06/15 Page 29 of 45 Page ID#527
214. It was recently reported that the new jail is scheduled to be completed in June 2015, although the completion date has been pushed back several times.
215. In bringing this action, plaintiffs seek to ensure that the new jail is constructed in a manner that remedies the constitutional violations outlined above. For example, plaintiffs seek to ensure that toilet and shower facilities are designed to provide privacy from cross-gender viewing.
216. Plaintiffs also seek to ensure that current and future inmates can obtain interim injunctive relief from unconstitutional conditions of confinement until such time as the new jail is completed.
217. For issues which are not directly related to facility design, the transition to the new jail provides an opportunity to ensure that defendants satisfy their constitutional obligations to plaintiffs and the class members they seek to represent.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 218. Plaintiffs seek to represent four overlapping classes as follows:
a. Class I, or the “Female Damages Class,” is a class of former female inmates seeking damages for harms specific to female inmates under Counts I through III of this Complaint.
b. Class II, or the “Overcrowding Damages Class,” is a class of former male and female inmates seeking damages for overcrowding and other abysmal conditions of confinement under Count IV of this Complaint.
c. Class III, or the “Female Injunctive Class,” is a class of current and future female inmates seeking declaratory and injunctive relief from ongoing
28

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN Doc #18 Filed 02/06/15 Page 30 of 45 Page ID#528
harms specific to female inmates under Counts I through III of this Complaint. d. Class IV, or the “Overcrowding Injunctive Class,” is a class of current and future male and female inmates seeking declaration and injunctive relief from overcrowding and other abysmal conditions under Count IV of this Complaint. 219. For each of the four classes identified above: a. the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; b. there are questions of law or fact common to the class; c. the claims of the plaintiffs seeking to represent the class are typical of the claims of the class; and d. the plaintiffs seeking to represent the class will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. 220. For Classes I and II (together, the “Damages Classes”), the common questions predominate over questions affecting only individual class members, and a class action is superior to other methods for adjudicating the class members’ claims. 221. For Classes III and IV (together, the “Injunctive Classes”), the municipal defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that declaratory and injunctive relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole.
Class I: Former Female Inmates (“Female Damages Class”)
222. Plaintiffs Semelbauer, Bosch, Vos, Brown, Baker, Speers, and Kitchens bring this action for damages on their own behalf, and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), on behalf of all others similarly situated.
29

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN Doc #18 Filed 02/06/15 Page 31 of 45 Page ID#529
223. These plaintiffs seek to represent a class (“Class I” or the “Female Damages Class”) consisting of all former female inmates who were incarcerated at the MCJ at any time within three years prior to the filing of this litigation.
224. All members of Class I were harmed by the municipal defendants’ policy, custom or practice of (a) regularly and routinely subjecting female inmates to viewing by male guards while the inmates are toileting, showering, or changing clothes; (b) denying female inmates exercise time outside of their cells; and (c) denying class members adequate access to feminine hygiene products, toilet paper, and undergarments and other clothing. These allegations encompass Counts I through III of this Complaint.
225. There are questions of law and fact common to the class, namely whether defendants engaged in the challenged policies/customs/practices, and whether those policies/customs/practices violated class members’ rights under the Fourth Amendment, Eighth Amendment, and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
226. The proposed class representatives’ claims are typical of the claims of Class I because all women inmates were subjected to the same unconstitutional conditions at the MCJ as challenged in Counts I through III of this Complaint.
Class II: Former Inmates (“Overcrowding Damages Class”) 227. Plaintiffs Semelbauer, Bosch, Vos, Brown, Baker, Speers, and Kitchens bring this action for damages on their own behalf, and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), on behalf of all others similarly situated.
30

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN Doc #18 Filed 02/06/15 Page 32 of 45 Page ID#530
228. These plaintiffs seek to represent a class (“Class II” or the “Overcrowding Damages Class”) consisting of all former inmates who were incarcerated at the MCJ at any time within three years prior to the filing of this litigation.
229. All members of Class II were harmed by the municipal defendants’ policy, custom or practice of failing to remedy the severe overcrowding and other abysmal conditions at the MCJ. These allegations encompass Count IV of this Complaint.
230. There are questions of law and fact common to the class, namely whether defendants engaged in the challenged policies/customs/practices, and whether those policies/customs/practices violated class members’ rights under the Eighth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
231. The proposed class representatives’ claims are typical of the claims of Class II because all inmates were subjected to the same unconstitutional conditions at the MCJ as challenged in Count IV of this Complaint.
Class III: Current and Future Female Inmates (“Female Injunctive Class”)
232. Plaintiffs Collins, Dorn, Pauley, and Wickliffe bring this action for declaratory and injunctive relief on their own behalf, and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2), on behalf of all others similarly situated.
233. Plaintiffs Collins, Dorn, Pauley, and Wickliffe seek to represent a class (“Class III” or the “Female Injunctive Class”) consisting of all current and future female inmates at the MCJ.
234. All members of Class III are being harmed, or absent injunctive relief will be harmed, by the municipal defendants’ policy, custom or practice of (a) regularly and routinely subjecting class members to viewing by male guards while the inmates are toileting, showering,
31

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN Doc #18 Filed 02/06/15 Page 33 of 45 Page ID#531
or changing clothes; (b) denying class members exercise time outside of their cells; and (c) denying class members adequate access to feminine hygiene products, toilet paper, and undergarments and other clothing. These allegations encompass Counts I through III of this Complaint.
235. There are questions of law and fact common to the class, namely whether defendants engage in the challenged policies/customs/practices, and whether those policies/customs/practices violate class members’ rights under the Fourth Amendment, Eighth Amendment, and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
236. The proposed class representatives’ claims are typical of the claims of Class III because all women inmates are subjected to the same unconstitutional conditions at the MCJ as challenged in Counts I through III of this Complaint.
Class IV: Current and Future Inmates (“Overcrowding Injunctive Class”)
237. Plaintiffs Collins, Dorn, Pauley, and Wickliffe bring this action for declaratory and injunctive relief on their own behalf, and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2), on behalf of all others similarly situated.
238. Plaintiffs Collins, Dorn, Pauley, and Wickliffe seek to represent a class (“Class IV” or the “Overcrowding Injunctive Class”) consisting of all current and future inmates at the MCJ.
239. All members of Class IV are being harmed, or absent injunctive relief will be harmed, by the municipal defendants’ policy, custom or practice of failing to remedy the severe overcrowding and other abysmal conditions at the MCJ. These allegations encompass Counts IV of this Complaint.
32

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN Doc #18 Filed 02/06/15 Page 34 of 45 Page ID#532
240. There are questions of law and fact common to the class, namely whether defendants engage in the challenged policies/customs/practices, and whether those policies/customs/practices violate class members’ rights under the Eighth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
241. The proposed class representatives’ claims are typical of the claims of Class IV because all inmates are subjected to the same unconstitutional conditions at the MCJ as challenged in Count IV of this Complaint.
MUNICIPAL LIABILITY 242. The municipal defendants maintained and continue to maintain a custom, policy or practice of (a) regularly and routinely subjecting female inmates to viewing by male guards while showering, changing clothes or using the toilet; (b) denying female inmates access to outof-cell exercise opportunities; (c) failing to provide adequate feminine hygiene products, toilet paper and undergarments and other clothing to female inmates; and (d) subjecting all inmates to severe overcrowding and other abysmal conditions of confinement. 243. This custom, policy or practice is evidenced by (1) defendants’ official policies and practices; (2) the actions and decisions of officials with final decision-making authority; (3) defendants’ failure to adequately train and supervise MCJ staff; and (4) a custom of tolerating or acquiescing to repeated violations of the constitutional rights of MCJ inmates. 244. Defendants have long had actual or constructive notice of the unconstitutional conditions at the MCJ. 245. Nevertheless, defendants have failed to take action to remedy the unconstitutional conditions.
33

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN Doc #18 Filed 02/06/15 Page 35 of 45 Page ID#533
246. Plaintiffs and other inmates have repeatedly submitted written grievances and kites and have repeatedly made verbal complaints regarding the challenged conditions.
247. The Michigan Department of Corrections’ inspection reports have identified serious deficiencies at the MCJ.
248. On August 8, 2013, plaintiffs’ counsel wrote to defendants’ counsel outlining the problems at the jail, and seeking to resolve the matter short of litigation.
249. After meeting with MCJ officials and their counsel, plaintiffs’ counsel commissioned an expert report from Peter Wilson, a corrections consultant and expert.
250. Mr. Wilson’s report and recommendations, which were based on an August 15, 2013 tour of the facility and review of numerous MCJ records, was provided to the MCJ on January 9, 2014.
251. Key findings of the expert report were that (a) the MCJ is chronically overpopulated and that the MCJ and Muskegon Circuit Court have failed to execute a population control plan; (b) the safety, security and sanitary conditions at the MCJ are below constitutional standards; (c) the MCJ is in a general state of disrepair; (d) female inmates are required to expose their breasts and genitals to male guards while showering or use the toilet; (d) medical assessments are not provided in a timely fashion; and (e) exercise opportunities for inmates are inadequate or entirely lacking.
252. In a March 22, 2014 letter, defendants’ counsel responded to the expert report by asserting either that the problems did not exist, had been addressed, or were not defendants’ responsibility.
253. In fact, the experiences of current inmates such as Ms. Dorn, Ms. Pauley and Ms. Wickliffe, as well as other recent inmates such as Ms. Collins, Ms. Brown, Ms. Baker, Ms.
34

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN Doc #18 Filed 02/06/15 Page 36 of 45 Page ID#534
Speers and Ms. Kitchens, reveal that that conditions raised in the August 8, 2013 letter and January 9, 2014 expert report have remained essentially unchanged.
254. Defendants have failed to meet their duty to adequately train and supervise MCJ staff in order to ensure that those staff act in accordance with well-established constitutional principles.
255. Defendants have also failed to meet their duty to appropriately discipline their staff for legitimate grievances filed by inmates.
256. This failure to train, supervise and discipline has had, and continues to have, the highly predictable consequence of allowing staff to overpopulate the holding tanks, ignore requests to fix basic plumbing and maintenance problems, ignore requests to provide sanitary items, verbally degrade female inmates and engage in the other unconstitutional action or inaction outlined above. It has also led to at least two instances of inmates being incarcerated beyond their proper release dates.
257. Defendants have failed to adequately train, supervise, and discipline MCJ staff despite the fact that the defendants had actual or constructive notice of the challenged conditions. The failure to train, supervise and discipline under these circumstances constitutes deliberate indifference to the rights of plaintiffs.
258. Despite a clear and persistent pattern of constitutional rights violations, and despite the fact that defendants had actual or constructive notice of this clear and persistent pattern, defendants either explicitly or tacitly approved of this unconstitutional conduct, such that their failure to act constitutes deliberate indifference to the rights of plaintiffs.
259. The custom, policy and practice of Defendants—including official policies, the actions of officials with final decision-making authority, the failure to adequately train,
35

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN Doc #18 Filed 02/06/15 Page 37 of 45 Page ID#535
supervise, and discipline MCJ staff for the challenged conduct, and the tolerance of repeated violations of individuals’ constitutional rights—are the moving force behind and the proximate cause of the challenged conduct.
CAUSES OF ACTION COUNT I
VIOLATION OF PRIVACY AND BODILY INTEGRITY 260. Jail inmates retain a constitutional right to bodily privacy during their incarceration. 261. Due to defendants’ policy, practice or custom, plaintiffs and class members have been, are being, and will be subjected, without any penological justification or other legitimate purpose, to routine and systematic viewing by members of the opposite sex while naked and partially naked, while showering, while toileting, and while attending to their menstrual periods. 262. Due to defendants’ policy, practice or custom, plaintiffs and class members have been, are being, and will be subjected to discipline, punishment and threats of discipline and punishment for trying to use reasonable means to protect their privacy and bodily integrity while they shower, dress, and use toilets at the MCJ. 263. With respect to convicted inmates incarcerated at the MCJ, the routine viewing by male guards and male trustees constitutes unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain and are maintained with deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs’ Eighth Amendment rights. 264. With respect to pretrial detainees incarcerated at the MCJ, the routine viewing by male guards and male trustees has caused such detainees who have not yet been convicted of any crime to suffer punishment without due process of law.
36

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN Doc #18 Filed 02/06/15 Page 38 of 45 Page ID#536
265. Routine viewing by male guards and trustees also constitutes an unjustified invasion of privacy and bodily integrity in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
266. Defendants, acting under color of state law, violated and are violating the prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution; the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution; and the prohibition against punishment of pretrial detainees under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by permitting male guards and male trustees to regularly, routinely and without penological justification view plaintiffs and class members while they shower, dress and use toilets at the MCJ, and by punishing or threatening to punish plaintiffs and class members when they try to protect their privacy.
267. Persons violating the Fourth, Eighth, or Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution under color of state law are liable at law and in equity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
268. Under Count I, the Female Damages Class seeks damages against the municipal defendants; the Female Injunctive Class seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against the municipal defendants; all plaintiffs individually seek damages against the municipal defendants and unknown correctional officers; plaintiffs Collins, Dorn, Pauley, and Wickliffe seek declaratory and injunctive relief against the municipal defendants; plaintiff Vos seeks damages against defendant Gutowski; and plaintiff Collins seeks damages against defendant DeYoung.
37

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN Doc #18 Filed 02/06/15 Page 39 of 45 Page ID#537
COUNT II DENIAL OF EXERCISE 269. Due to defendants’ policy, practice or custom, plaintiffs and class members have been, are being, and will be denied out-of-cell exercise. 270. With respect to convicted inmates incarcerated at the MCJ, the denial of exercise constitutes unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain evidencing deliberate indifference to plaintiffs’ Eighth Amendment rights. The denial of exercise is not justified by any legitimate penological interest. 271. With respect to pretrial detainees incarcerated at the MCJ, the denial of exercise constitutes punishment without due process of law. 272. By denying, as a rule, out-of-cell exercise to female inmates at the MCJ, defendants have violated and are violating the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment and the prohibition against punishment of pre-trial detainees under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 273. Persons violating the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution under color of state law are liable at law and in equity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 274. Under Count II, the Female Damages Class seeks damages against the municipal defendants; the Female Injunctive Class seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against the municipal defendants; all plaintiffs individually seek damages against the municipal defendants and unknown correctional officers; and plaintiffs Collins, Dorn, Pauley, and Wickliffe seek declaratory and injunctive relief against the municipal defendants.
38

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN Doc #18 Filed 02/06/15 Page 40 of 45 Page ID#538
COUNT III DENIAL OF ACCESS TO FEMININE HYGIENE PRODUCTS, TOILET PAPER,
AND ADEQUATE UNDERWEAR AND OTHER CLOTHING 275. Due to defendants’ policy, practice or custom, plaintiffs and class members have been, are being, and will be denied feminine hygiene products, toilet paper, and adequate underwear and other clothing. 276. By denying these items to female inmates at the MCJ, defendants have violated and are violating the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment and the prohibition against punishment of pre-trial detainees under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 277. Persons violating the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution under color of state law are liable at law and in equity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 278. Under Count III, the Female Damages Class seeks damages against the municipal defendants; the Female Injunctive Class seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against the municipal defendants; all plaintiffs individually seek damages against the municipal defendants and unknown correctional officers; plaintiffs Collins, Dorn, Pauley, and Wickliffe seek declaratory and injunctive relief against the municipal defendants; plaintiff Kitchens seeks damages against defendant Grieves; and plaintiff Collins seeks damages against defendant Morris.
COUNT IV SEVERE OVERCROWDING AND OTHER ABYSMAL CONDITIONS 279. Due to defendants’ policy, practice or custom, plaintiffs and class members have been, are being, and will be subjected, without any penological justification or other legitimate purpose, to severe overcrowding and other inadequate, unsanitary and dangerous conditions, and prolonged stays in the holding tank, as alleged above.
39

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN Doc #18 Filed 02/06/15 Page 41 of 45 Page ID#539
280. With respect to convicted inmates incarcerated at the MCJ, the conditions maintained by defendants constitute unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain and are maintained with deliberate indifference to plaintiffs’ Eighth Amendment rights. The conditions are not justified by any legitimate penological interest.
281. With respect to pretrial detainees incarcerated at the MCJ, the conditions maintained by the defendants have caused such detainees to suffer punishment without due process of law.
282. Defendants, through their policy, practice or custom of permitting such overcrowding and such abysmal conditions, have violated and are violating the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment and the prohibition against punishment of pretrial detainees under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
283. Persons violating the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution under color of state law are liable at law and in equity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
284. Under Count IV, the Overcrowding Damages Class seeks damages against the municipal defendants; the Overcrowding Injunctive Class seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against the municipal defendants; all plaintiffs individually seek damages against the municipal defendants and unknown correctional officers; and plaintiffs Collins, Dorn, Pauley, and Wickliffe seek declaratory and injunctive relief against the municipal defendants.
COUNT V Michelle Semelbauer Only 285. Defendants’ policy, practice, and custom, as well as the individual actions of the named and unnamed correctional officers, caused plaintiff Michelle Semelbauer to be unlawfully held in the MCJ for 28 days.
40

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN Doc #18 Filed 02/06/15 Page 42 of 45 Page ID#540
286. The Fourth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution prohibit the continued incarceration of an inmate beyond her legal sentence.
287. Persons violating the Fourth, Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution under color of state law are liable at law and in equity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
288. Under Count V, plaintiff Semelbauer seeks damages against the municipal defendants and defendants Morris and Gutowski.
REQUEST FOR RELIEF Based on the foregoing, plaintiffs request that the Court provide relief as follows: 1. Certify a Female Damages Class, an Overcrowding Damages Class, a Female Injunctive Class, and an Overcrowding Damages Class, as those classes have been defined above; 2. Declare that defendants are violating or have violated the constitutional rights of plaintiffs and the classes they represent by:
a. permitting male guards to regularly, routinely and without penological justification view plaintiffs and class members while they shower, dress, and use the toilets at the MCJ, and punishing or threatening to punish plaintiffs and class members when they try to protect their privacy;
b. denying plaintiffs and class members adequate out-of-cell exercise; c. denying plaintiffs and class members adequate feminine hygiene products,
toilet paper, and underwear and other clothing; d. permitting severe overcrowding; and e. maintaining otherwise abysmal conditions as outlined above;
41

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN Doc #18 Filed 02/06/15 Page 43 of 45 Page ID#541
3. Enjoin defendants from: a. permitting male guards to regularly, routinely and without penological justification view plaintiffs Dorn, Pauley, and Wickliffe and the class members they represent while they shower, dress, and use the toilets at the MCJ, and punishing or threatening to punish Dorn, Pauley, and Wickliffe and other class members when they try to protect their privacy; b. denying Dorn, Pauley, and Wickliffe and the class members they represent adequate out-of-cell exercise; c. denying Dorn, Pauley, and Wickliffe and the class members they represent adequate feminine hygiene products, toilet paper, and underwear and other clothing; d. continuing to permit severe overcrowding; and e. continuing to maintain otherwise abysmal conditions as outlined above;
4. Award damages to all plaintiffs and members of the Damages Classes for the constitutional violations set forth in Counts I through V of this Complaint;
5. Award plaintiffs reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and 6. Grant any other relief the Court deems just and proper.
JURY DEMAND Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury as to all those issues so triable as of right.
42

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN Doc #18 Filed 02/06/15 Page 44 of 45 Page ID#542

Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Miriam J. Aukerman

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FUND OF MICHIGAN
Miriam J. Aukerman (P63165) Marc S. Allen (NY 5230008) 1514 Wealthy Street SE, Suite 242 Grand Rapids, MI 49506 (616) 301-0930 maukerman@aclumich.org mallen@aclumich.org
Daniel S. Korobkin (P72842) Michael J. Steinberg (P43085) Kary L. Moss (P49759) 2966 Woodward Avenue Detroit, MI 48201 (313) 578-6800 snelson@aclumich.org dkorobkin@aclumich.org msteinberg@aclumich.org

PITT, MCGEHEE, PALMER& RIVERS, P.C. Michael L. Pitt (P24429) Beth M. Rivers (P33614) Kevin M. Carlson (P67704) Andrea J. Johnson (P74596) Cooperating Attorneys, American Civil
Liberties Union Fund of Michigan 117 West Fourth Street, Suite 200 Royal Oak, MI 48067 (248) 398-9800 mpitt@pittlawpc.com brivers@pittlawpc.com kcarlson@pittlawpc.com ajohnson@pittlawpc.com

Dated: February 6, 2015

43

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN Doc #18 Filed 02/06/15 Page 45 of 45 Page ID#543 Certificate of Service
I certify that on February 6, 2015 I filed the foregoing paper with the Clerk of Court using the ECF system which will send notice to all counsel of record. By: /s/ Miriam J. Aukerman
Miriam J. Aukerman (P63165)
44

 </s> Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN ECF No. 54 filed 09/11/15 Page 1 of 26 PageID.1397

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

MICHELLE SEMELBAUER, et al., Plaintiffs,
v MUSKEGON COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants. _______________________________/

Case No. 1:14-cv-1245 HON. JANET T. NEFF

OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiffs initiated this purported class action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, challenging as unconstitutional the conditions of their confinement at the Muskegon County Jail, specifically, the facility built in 1959. Now pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion for partial judgment on the pleadings (Dkt 47). For the reasons that follow, the Court determines that Defendants’ motion is properly denied in part and granted in part. Given the disposition of Defendants’ motion, the Court will also deny without prejudice Plaintiffs’ pending motions for class certification, a preliminary injunction, and expert testimony in support of a preliminary injunction (Dkts 2, 5 & 35). Plaintiffs may re-file these motions to conform to the Court’s rulings herein, giving due consideration to if and/or how the transition of inmates to the new jail facility has also rendered their requests moot, in whole or in part.
I. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs initiated this case on December 4, 2014, delineating their five counts topically, as follows:

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN ECF No. 54 filed 09/11/15 Page 2 of 26 PageID.1398
I. Violation of Privacy and Bodily Integrity II. Denial of Exercise III. Denial of Access to Feminine Hygiene Products, Toilet Paper and Adequate
Underwear and Other Clothing IV. Severe Overcrowding and Other Abysmal Conditions V. Michelle Semelbauer Only (Dkt 1). With their Complaint, Plaintiffs also moved for a preliminary injunction and for class certification (Dkts 2 & 5). As of December 4, 2014, all Plaintiffs except Plaintiff Stashia Collins were former inmates or pretrial detainees of the Muskegon County Jail (“MCJ”). Collins was then a current inmate, but she has since been released. On February 6, 2015, after Defendants filed responses to the pending motions raising issues of standing and mootness, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint, which did not alter their factual or legal allegations but added three additional Plaintiffs, who were then current inmates (Dkt 18, First Amend. Compl., ¶¶ 37-39). Defendants moved to strike the First Amended Complaint (Dkt 19), and Plaintiffs moved to compel certain discovery in support of their motion for a preliminary injunction (Dkt 35). Defendants, who had filed an Answer to Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint (Dkt 20), proposed to file a dispositive motion under FED. R. CIV. P. 12(c) (Dkt 28). Following a Pre-Motion Conference on April 22, 2015, the Court issued a briefing schedule, denying Defendants’ motion to strike Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint and instead permitting the parties to proceed with briefing Defendants’ proposed motion (Order, Dkt 42). Deciding Defendants’ dispositive motion before deciding Plaintiffs’ class certification motion is, in this Court’s opinion, in the interest of overall efficiency, as the Court’s assessment of the pleadings will dictate the character of the classes, if any. See FED. R. CIV. P. 23(c)(1) (requiring only that courts decide motions for class certification
2

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN ECF No. 54 filed 09/11/15 Page 3 of 26 PageID.1399
“at an early practicable time”); 7AA CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT & ARTHUR R. MILLER, FED. PRAC. & PROCED. § 1785.3 (3d ed. 2015) (“The time at which the court finds it appropriate to make its class-action determination may vary with the circumstances of the particular case.”).
The parties filed the instant motion papers in July 2015 (Dkts 47-51). In responding to Defendants’ motion, Plaintiffs agreed to stipulate to dismiss Defendants Dean Roesler and Mark Burns in their official capacities, a stipulation the Court entered July 6, 2015 (Pls.’ Resp., Dkt 49 at 31-32; Proposed Stip., Dkt 50; Stip., Dkt 52). Having conducted a Pre-Motion Conference in this matter and having fully considered the parties’ written briefs and accompanying exhibits, the Court finds that the relevant facts and arguments are adequately presented in these materials and that oral argument would not aid the decisional process. See W.D. Mich. LCivR 7.2(d).
II. ANALYSIS A. Motion Standard “After the pleadings are closed—but early enough not to delay trial—a party may move for judgment on the pleadings.” FED. R. CIV. P. 12(c). On a Rule 12(c) motion, the court must take “all well-pleaded material allegations of the pleadings of the opposing party ... as true, and the motion may be granted only if the moving party is nevertheless clearly entitled to judgment.” Wurzelbacher v. Jones-Kelley, 675 F.3d 580, 583 (6th Cir. 2012). A well-pleaded complaint contains “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007), such that the plaintiff pleaded sufficient “factual content [to allow] the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged,” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). This is “a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and
3

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN ECF No. 54 filed 09/11/15 Page 4 of 26 PageID.1400
common sense.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. “The plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
“[T]he tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions. Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Further, “the court need not accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation, or an unwarranted factual inference.” Handy-Clay v. City of Memphis, Tenn., 695 F.3d 531, 539 (6th Cir. 2012) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
B. Discussion Defendants’ motion at bar challenges Plaintiffs’ stated claims in Counts I, II, III and IV under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Section 1983 is a method for vindicating federal rights, not a source of substantive rights itself. Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 271 (1994). To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must (1) allege the violation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States and (2) show that the deprivation of that right was committed by a person acting under color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Harbin-Bey v. Rutter, 420 F.3d 571, 575 (6th Cir. 2005). Local governing bodies may be sued under § 1983 where, as Plaintiffs here allege (Dkt 18, First Amend. Compl. ¶¶ 242-59), “the action that is alleged to be unconstitutional implements or executes a policy statement, ordinance, regulation, or decision officially adopted and promulgated by that body’s officers.” Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978). The liability of a local governing body under § 1983 depends solely on whether a plaintiff’s constitutional rights have been violated as a result of a
4

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN ECF No. 54 filed 09/11/15 Page 5 of 26 PageID.1401
“policy” or “custom” attributable to the government. Holloway v. Brush, 220 F.3d 767, 772 (6th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Defendants challenge whether Plaintiffs have stated cognizable claims under the constitutional rights they identify: the Fourth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. 1. Count I: Claims of Violation of Privacy and Bodily Integrity
In Count I (Violation of Privacy and Bodily Integrity), Plaintiffs allege that due to Defendants’ policy, practice or custom, Plaintiffs “have been, are being, and will be subjected, without any penological justification or other legitimate purpose, to routine and systematic viewing by members of the opposite sex while naked and partially naked, while showering, while toileting, and while attending to their menstrual periods” (Dkt 18, First Amend. Compl. ¶ 261). Plaintiffs further allege that they “have been, are being, and will be subjected to discipline, punishment and threats of discipline and punishment for trying to use reasonable means to protect their privacy and bodily integrity while they shower, dress, and use toilets at the MCJ” (id. ¶ 262).
Plaintiffs cite the Fourth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution as supporting their cross-gender viewing claims under § 1983 in Count I. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that “[r]outine viewing by male guards and trustees ... constitutes an unjustified invasion of privacy and bodily integrity in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution” (Dkt 18, First Amend. Compl. ¶ 265). Second, Plaintiffs allege that “[w]th respect to convicted inmates incarcerated at the MCJ, the routine viewing by male guards and male trustees constitutes unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain and are maintained with deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs’ Eighth Amendment rights” (id. ¶ 263). Last, Plaintiffs allege that “[w]ith respect to pretrial detainees incarcerated at the MCJ, the routine viewing by male guards and male trustees has
5

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN ECF No. 54 filed 09/11/15 Page 6 of 26 PageID.1402
caused such detainees who have not yet been convicted of any crime to suffer punishment without due process of law” (id. ¶ 264).
a. Under the Eighth & Fourteenth Amendments Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ cross-gender viewing claims are based on alleged violations of their right to privacy and therefore should be reviewed only under the Fourth Amendment (Defs.’ Br., Dkt 48 at 29-30, citing Everson v. Mich. Dep’t of Corrs., 391 F.3d 737, 757 (6th Cir. 2004)). Defendants assert that to the extent Plaintiffs’ cross-gender viewing claims are brought under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, they must be dismissed (id. at 30). Defendants emphasize that when there is a specific textual source of constitutional protection, as here, the Court should follow it rather than apply the more generalized Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim (id., citing Walker v. Norris, 917 F.2d 1449 (6th Cir. 1990)). Plaintiffs respond that Count I should be permitted to proceed under not only the Fourth but also the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments (Pls.’ Resp., Dkt 49 at 25-26). According to Plaintiffs, the Sixth Circuit in Everson recognized that courts have found inmates’ rights against unnecessary cross-gender viewing to be a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and further, under certain circumstances, that the invasion of an inmate’s bodily privacy can also violate the inmate’s Eighth Amendment rights (id. at 25). Defendants’ argument lacks merit. Defendants are correct that the Sixth Circuit in Everson recognized a cross-gender viewing claim based on a right to privacy found in the Fourth Amendment. 391 F.3d at 756. The Sixth Circuit observed, in a footnote, that some circuits have found that that privacy right is instead located in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 391 F.3d at 757 n.26 (citing other
6

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN ECF No. 54 filed 09/11/15 Page 7 of 26 PageID.1403
circuits). However, the Sixth Circuit has instructed that “the Fourth Amendment approach is the precedent in this circuit.” Brannum v. Overton Cnty. Sch. Bd., 516 F.3d 489, 494 (6th Cir. 2008) (indicating that it was “aware” that “some circuits have found that the same privacy right is located in the Due Process Clause”).
Nonetheless, this Court does not find that Everson precludes the determination that the invasion of an inmate’s bodily privacy can also violate an inmate’s Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. Hence, in Kent, the Sixth Circuit analyzed the inmate’s cross-gender viewing claim under both the Fourth Amendment, 821 F.2d at 1226-27, and the Eighth Amendment, id. at 1227-28. The Sixth Circuit held that the inmate had stated a claim under the Eighth Amendment for purposes of Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by alleging that “female prison guards have allowed themselves unrestricted views of his naked body in the shower, at close range and for extended periods of time, to retaliate against, punish and harass him for asserting his right to privacy.” Id. And pretrial detainees, who are not technically within the protection of the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, receive protection under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment analogous to the protection of the Eighth Amendment. County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 849-50 (1998); Horn by Parks v. Madison Cnty. Fiscal Court, 22 F.3d 653, 660 (6th Cir. 1994); Wilson v. City of Kalamazoo, 127 F. Supp. 2d 855, 862 (W.D. Mich. 2000).
For these reasons, the Court will deny Defendants’ motion to dismiss in part Plaintiffs’ Count I. Plaintiffs’ Count I may proceed under the Fourth Amendment based on their claim that the cross-gender viewing violated their right to privacy, and Count I may proceed under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments based on Plaintiffs’ claim that the cross-gender viewing violated their right
7

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN ECF No. 54 filed 09/11/15 Page 8 of 26 PageID.1404
to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. Whether these claims have merit is, of course, not the question before the Court at this juncture, only whether they state cognizable § 1983 claims under these amendments.
b. Under the Fourth Amendment Defendants concede that “some” of Plaintiffs’ cross-gender viewing allegations sufficiently state a Fourth Amendment claim but assert that “certain parts of the claim are subject to dismissal” (Defs.’ Br., Dkt 48 at 31). Specifically, Defendants first argue that given Plaintiffs’ own admission that Defendants now supply a two-piece uniform to all inmates, their claim for prospective relief regarding the uniform must be dismissed, regardless whether Plaintiffs could establish standing (id.). Second, Defendants argue that Plaintiff Denise Vos’ allegation that correctional officer David Gutoswki may have observed her naked on the toilet while he was passing medication to occupants of her cell cannot support a valid Fourth Amendment invasion of privacy claim (id. at 32). In response, Plaintiffs assert that their First Amended Complaint “contains no request for prospective relief regarding uniforms,” so no such “dismissal” is warranted (Pls.’ Resp., Dkt 39 at 31 n.15). Second, regarding Plaintiff Vos’ claim against Defendant Gutowski, Plaintiffs assert that Defendants have not framed the relevant inquiry and that Defendants have overlooked that Vos’ claim against Gutowski is further supported by Plaintiffs’ allegations that “Gutowksi repeatedly tore down sheets and toilet paper that [Vos] had erected in an effort to protect her privacy while she was showering and using the toilet” (id. at 26-27, citing Dkt 18, First Am. Compl. ¶¶ 81, 83). The Court agrees with Plaintiffs. Defendants have not demonstrated that dismissal is warranted where Plaintiffs deny any claim for prospective relief regarding their uniforms. Further, contrary to Defendant’s argument, Vos’ claim is not based on a “single instance” and therefore her
8

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN ECF No. 54 filed 09/11/15 Page 9 of 26 PageID.1405
claim also does not warrant dismissal, even assuming, arguendo, that Defendants correctly analyzed the single instance. 2. Counts II, III & IV: Conditions-of-Confinement Claims
Plaintiffs cite the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution as supporting their conditions-of-confinement claims in Count II (Denial of Exercise), Count III (Denial of Access to Feminine Hygiene Products, Toilet Paper and Adequate Underwear and Other Clothing) and Count IV (Severe Overcrowding and Other Abysmal Conditions).
In its prohibition of “cruel and unusual punishments,” the Eighth Amendment imposes duties on prison officials, duties to provide “humane conditions of confinement.” Farmer, supra. “Prison officials must ensure that inmates receive adequate food, clothing, shelter, and medical care.” Id. (quoting Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 526-27 (1984)). However, “conditions that cannot be said to be cruel and unusual under contemporary standards are not unconstitutional. To the extent that such conditions are restrictive and even harsh, they are part of the penalty that criminal offenders pay for their offenses against society.” Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981). “The Constitution ‘does not mandate comfortable prisons,’ but neither does it permit inhumane ones, and it is now settled that ‘the treatment a prisoner receives in prison and the conditions under which he is confined are subject to scrutiny under the Eighth Amendment.’” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994) (citations omitted). Again, pretrial detainees receive protection under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment analogous to the protection of the Eighth Amendment. See Lewis, 523 U.S. at 849-50; Horn by Parks, 22 F.3d at 660; Wilson, 127 F. Supp. at 862.
An Eighth Amendment claim contains both an objective and a subjective component. Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991); Richmond v. Settles, 450 F. App’x 448, 453 (6th Cir. 2011).
9

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN ECF No. 54 filed 09/11/15 Page 10 of 26 PageID.1406
“[C]ourts considering a prisoner’s claim must ask both if ‘the officials act[ed] with a sufficiently culpable state of mind’ and if the alleged wrongdoing was objectively ‘harmful enough’ to establish a constitutional violation.” Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 8 (1992) (quoting Wilson, supra). “In prison-conditions cases that state of mind is one of ‘deliberate indifference’ to inmate health or safety.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834 (quoting Wilson, 501 U.S. at 302-03). Specifically, “the official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.” Id. at 837.
Last, and relevant to resolving the motion in this case, which contains multiple claims concerning the conditions of Plaintiffs’ confinement, the Supreme Court has instructed that “[s]ome conditions of confinement may establish an Eighth Amendment violation ‘in combination’ when each would not do so alone, but only when they have a mutually enforcing effect that produces the deprivation of a single, identifiable human need such as food, warmth, or exercise—for example, a low cell temperature at night combined with a failure to issue blankets.” Wilson, 501 U.S. at 304. The Supreme Court emphasized that “[t]o say that some prison conditions may interact in this fashion is a far cry from saying that all prison conditions are a seamless web for Eighth Amendment purposes.” Id. And the Court concluded that “[n]othing so amorphous as ‘overall conditions’ can rise to the level of cruel and unusual punishment when no specific deprivation of a single human need exists.” Id.
Similarly, the Sixth Circuit has instructed that in certain “extreme circumstances,” the totality of the circumstances may itself amount to an Eighth Amendment violation, “but there still must exist a specific condition on which to base the eighth amendment claim.” Walker v. Mintzes, 771 F.2d 920, 925 (6th Cir. 1985). “[S]uch conditions, ‘considered alone or in combination [with other
10

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN ECF No. 54 filed 09/11/15 Page 11 of 26 PageID.1407
conditions],’ Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 347, 101 S.Ct. at 2399, must amount to a deprivation of ‘life’s necessities,’ id., before a violation of the eighth amendment can be found.” Id. See also Thompson v. Cnty. of Medina, Oh., 29 F.3d 238, 242 (6th Cir. 1994) (observing that “[a] general allegation of indecent circumstances usually is not sufficient”).
a. Count II: Denial of Exercise In Count II, Plaintiffs allege that “[d]ue to defendants’ policy, practice or custom, plaintiffs and class members have been, are being, and will be denied out-of-cell exercise” (Dkt 18, First Amend. Compl. ¶ 269). According to Plaintiffs, Defendants “have violated and are violating the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment and the prohibition against punishment of pre-trial detainees under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution” (id. ¶ 272). In the factual section of their First Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that “[f]emale MCJ inmates are rarely or never permitted out-of-cell exercise” (Dkt 18, First Amend. Compl. ¶ 11). According to Plaintiffs, “[t]hey are essentially locked in their cells 24 hours per day, 7 days per week” (id. ¶ 87). More specifically, Plaintiffs allege that 93. During the approximately five-month period that Ms. Bosch was incarcerated
at MCJ, she was allowed to go to the gym only twice. 94. During Ms. Vos’s 7½-month-long incarceration, she was allowed to go to the
gym on only two brief occasions and only because her cell was being searched. 95. During the approximately 30 days Ms. Semelbauer was incarcerated, she was never allowed access to the gym. 96. During the approximately three months Ms. Brown was incarcerated, she was allowed to go to the gym only once for 30 minutes while corrections officers searched her cell.
11

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN ECF No. 54 filed 09/11/15 Page 12 of 26 PageID.1408
97. During Ms. Kitchens’ approximately eight-month incarceration, she asked to use the gym repeatedly and was never allowed access. In order to exercise while at MCJ, Ms. Kitchens tried to walk laps around her cell because she was denied access to the gym or any outdoor recreational area.
98. During the approximately five months that Ms. Brown was incarcerated, she was allowed to go to the gym only three times.
99. Ms. Baker was never allowed access to the gym during either her March/April 2014 incarceration or her November 2014 incarceration.
100. From the beginning of Ms. Collins’s incarceration in August 2014 until this lawsuit was filed, she was given access to the gym only once, and during that visit the exercise equipment kept in the gym was locked away.
101. Ms. Dorn has been to the gym only twice in her three-month incarceration. 102. Ms. Pauley has been to the gym only three times in her eight-month
incarceration. 103. Ms. Wickliffe has been to the gym only twice during her two month
incarceration. Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ denial-of-exercise allegations fail to state a valid claim (Defs.’ Br., Dkt 48 at 17). Defendants point out that Plaintiffs do not assert that they were completely denied all exercise opportunities or claim they were unable to engage in any form of exercise in their cells, such as “as ‘running in place, doing push-ups, setups, or other exercises” (id. at 18, quoting Grzelak v. Ballweg, No. 2:13-cv-31, 2014 WL 5101333 (W.D. Mich. 2014)). Defendants point out that Plaintiff Londora Kitchens, in fact, specifically claims she engaged in exercise within her cell (id.). According to Defendants, the inmates were averaging one to two trips to the MCJ’s gym every couple months, and the crux of Plaintiffs’ claim is instead an assertion of a constitutional right to “exercise of their choice” (id. at 18-19). Defendants assert that Plaintiffs’ allegations are consistent with the allegations in Grzelak and Rahman X, which this district and the Eighth Circuit found did not support an Eighth Amendment violation (id. at 19, citing Grzelkak,
12

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN ECF No. 54 filed 09/11/15 Page 13 of 26 PageID.1409
supra; Rahman X v. Morgan, 300 F.3d 970, 974 (8th Cir. 2002)). Defendants conclude that Plaintiffs here have similarly failed to state a colorable Eighth Amendment denial of exercise claim and that judgment on the pleadings is therefore appropriate (id. at 19).
Plaintiffs respond that the cases cited by Defendants are “largely irrelevant,” because they concern limitations on outdoor exercise, not denials of out-of-cell exercise (Pls.’ Resp., Dkt 49 at 21). Plaintiffs emphasize that they are requesting sufficient out-of-cell exercise to maintain reasonably good physical and psychological health (id.). Plaintiffs argue that because they properly state a claim that they are being deprived of that basic need, Defendants’ motion should be denied (id.).
In reply, Defendants point out that Plaintiffs have “not alleged facts which show the size of the cells they were in or the dayroom they had access to were insufficient to engage in other forms of exercise” (Defs.’ Reply, Dkt 51 at 7).
Defendants’ argument does not warrant dismissal under FED. R. CIV. P. 12(c). Again, the Court’s function is not to determine “how best to operate a detention facility.” See Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 351 (quoting Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 539 (1979)). Rather, the Court’s function at this juncture is to determine whether Plaintiffs have stated an Eighth Amendment claim concerning deprivation of the “minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities.” See id. at 347. Therefore, pivotal to the Court’s analysis of Plaintiffs’ allegations in Count II is the Supreme Court’s identification of exercise as “an identifiable human need” protected by the Eighth Amendment. Wilson, 501 U.S. at 304. In Patterson v. Mintzes, 717 F.2d 284, 289 (6th Cir. 1983), which was decided before the Supreme Court’s decision in Wilson, the Sixth Circuit recognized the possibility that denial of a right
13

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN ECF No. 54 filed 09/11/15 Page 14 of 26 PageID.1410
to exercise could rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation; in addition, the court outlined factors relevant to determining the constitutionality of exercise restrictions: the size of the cell, opportunity for contact with other inmates, time per day expended outside the cell, justifications for denial of the right to exercise, physical or psychological injuries resulting from a lack of exercise or a particularized need for exercise. Rodgers v. Jabe, 43 F.3d 1082, 1086 (6th Cir. 1995). In Walker v. Mintzes, 771 F.2d 920 (6th Cir. 1985), the Sixth Circuit again “implicitly recognized a prisoner’s general right to exercise where circumstances demand,” but “stopped far short of endorsing that amount, or indeed any amount, as a constitutional requirement.” Rodgers, 43 F.3d at 1087. This district has recognized that the constitutionality of prison exercise restrictions is generally best determined following presentation of evidence, either in trial or in support of a motion for summary judgment. Jones v. Stine, 843 F. Supp. 1186, 1192 (W.D. Mich. 1994); Pressley v. Brown, 754 F.Supp. 112, 116 (W.D. Mich. 1990) (citing cases therein).
Here, Plaintiffs have alleged facts from which a reasonable factfinder could plausibly infer that they have suffered a total or near-total deprivation of exercise and were not provided with sufficient exercise to maintain their physical and mental health, although prison officials knew of the continuing deprivation of out-of-cell exercise. As Plaintiffs recognize (Pls.’ Resp., Dkt 49 at 20), what constitutes adequate exercise will depend on the circumstances of each Plaintiff, including the physical characteristics of the cell and the length of stay. Cf. Spain v. Procunier, 600 F.2d 189, 199 (9th Cir. 1979) (outdoor exercise required when prisoners otherwise confined in small cells almost 24 hours per day); Clay v. Miller, 626 F.2d 345, 347 (4th Cir. 1980) (outdoor exercise not required when prisoners otherwise had access to dayroom 18 hours per day). However, their Eighth Amendment claim for out-of-cell exercise does not warrant dismissal at this time.
14

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN ECF No. 54 filed 09/11/15 Page 15 of 26 PageID.1411
b. Count III: For denial of feminine hygiene/toilet supplies and free extra clothing In Count III, Plaintiffs allege that “[d]ue to defendants’ policy, practice or custom, plaintiffs and class members have been, are being, and will be denied feminine hygiene products, toilet paper, and adequate underwear and other clothing” (Dkt 18, First Amend. Compl. ¶ 275). Plaintiffs allege that Defendants “have violated and are violating the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment and the prohibition against punishment of pre-trial detainees under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution” (id. ¶ 276). In the factual section of their First Amended Complaint, regarding the alleged “denial of feminine hygiene ... supplies,” Plaintiffs generally allege that “Plaintiffs and other women inmates at MCJ are not provided with adequate feminine hygiene products or toilet paper” (Dkt 18, First Amend. Compl. ¶ 108). “Female inmates who menstruate do not receive sanitary napkins in a timely fashion and in some instances are not provided with sanitary napkins at all” (id. ¶ 109). “Plaintiffs and other female inmates who menstruate and are denied pads bleed into their clothing and are often not provided with clean clothing until the next laundry day, which only occurs once per week” (id. ¶¶ 8, 110). Specifically, Plaintiffs allege the following: 112. When Ms. Vos got her menstrual period while incarcerated at MCJ, she
pleaded again and again for several hours before she was finally provided with sanitary napkins. 113. When officers finally provided feminine hygiene products to Ms. Vos, they did not provide enough. 114. When Ms. Vos was held in the day room, unknown correctional officers provided only one pack of 12 pads for as many as 30 women, and told them to share.
15

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN ECF No. 54 filed 09/11/15 Page 16 of 26 PageID.1412
115. Ms. Kitchens asked MCJ staff for pads on or about July 13, 2014. She did not receive any for hours . . . .
116. Ms. Speers bled into her clothes when she had her period. Although she begged for sanitary products, Ms. Speers was not given pads for approximately two days.
117. Ms. Brown requested sanitary products during her period, but was not given any for approximately eight hours.
118. Ms. Collins requested sanitary products from defendant Morris and did not receive any for over ten hours. By the time she finally received sanitary products she had bled into her clothing. She was not able to obtain fresh clothing for several hours.
119. On or about December 27, 2014, Ms. Wickliffe began menstruating and asked guards for pads. Guards ignored her requests for almost a day. Consequently, Ms. Wickliffe bled into her uniform. When she requested a new uniform, guards told her that “it was her own fault,” and did not provide a replacement uniform for another 24 hours.
(Dkt 18, First Amend. Compl.).
Regarding the alleged “denial of ... toilet supplies,” Plaintiffs allege only that “Ms. Dorn and
Ms. Baker have both been forced to wait hours in order to obtain toilet paper” (Dkt 18, First Amend.
Compl. ¶ 120).
Last, regarding the alleged “denial of ... free extra clothing,” Plaintiffs generally allege that
women who enter the MCJ wearing a bra that is not approved have their bras confiscated (Dkt 18,
First Amend. Compl. ¶¶ 9, 121). According to Plaintiffs, “[w]hen the MCJ confiscates a bra, MCJ
does not provide a replacement bra, forcing women to go without a bra” (id. ¶ 122). Specifically,
Plaintiffs allege that “[w]hen Ms. Bosch was taken to jail, unknown correctional officers confiscated
her red sports bra and her boxer underwear,” and that the “MCJ did not provide Ms. Bosch with a
replacement bra, and she did not get a bra until a family member put money in her commissary
account and she was able to buy one” (id. ¶¶ 123-24). Plaintiffs also generally allege that “MCJ
16

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN ECF No. 54 filed 09/11/15 Page 17 of 26 PageID.1413
does not provide underwear” and specifically alleges that “Ms. Speers wore the same single pair of underwear for most of her time at MCJ” (Dkt 18, First Amend. Compl. ¶¶ 125-26). Plaintiffs generally allege that “[w]omen inmates are given inadequate clean clothing, laundry and linens” and “[d]uring wash day women are forced to wrap themselves in towels or sheets because they lack adequate clothing” (id. ¶¶ 128-29).
In support of judgment in their favor on Count III, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ denial of feminine hygiene products fails to state a valid claim (Defs.’ Br., Dkt 48 at 19). Defendants point out that Plaintiffs do not actually claim they were denied sanitary products; rather, each Plaintiff alleges “a single, temporary delayed delivery of sanitary napkins” (id. at 20-21). According to Defendants, courts have consistently held that short-term deprivations of such items fail to raise a colorable constitutional claim (id. at 19). Defendants argue that courts have consistently held that allegations regarding the deprivation of toilet paper likewise fail to raise a colorable constitutional claim (id. at 21). Last, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ denial of clothing fails to state a valid claim, as this Court recently decided (id. at 21-22, citing Mitchell v. Kalamazoo Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, No. 1:14-cv-824, 2014 WL 7330974 (W.D. Mich. 2014) (Neff, J.)).
In their response to Defendants’ argument, Plaintiffs do not separately address the alleged deprivations of feminine hygiene products, toilet paper and extra clothing. Rather, Plaintiffs assert that Defendants’ failure to provide menstrual pads resulted in the women bleeding into their clothes, and Defendants’ failure to provide clean replacement clothing “exacerbat[ed] the humiliation and serious health risks Plaintiffs must endure” (Pls.’ Resp., Dkt 49 at 24). According to Plaintiffs, Defendants err in attempting to frame Plaintiffs’ claim as several individual and isolated instances of deprivation, rather than an overall policy and practice (id. at 23). Plaintiffs argue that they have
17

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN ECF No. 54 filed 09/11/15 Page 18 of 26 PageID.1414
alleged facts from which a reasonable factfinder could plausibly infer that Defendants have a custom, policy, or practice of failing to provide female inmates with basic hygiene items (id.).
Defendants’ argument for dismissal has merit. Even accepting Plaintiffs’ allegations as true, the allegations fail to state any plausible claim for relief under the Eighth Amendment. While clothing has been generally identified as a basic need deserving of Eighth Amendment protection, “‘[t]he circumstances, nature, and duration of a deprivation ... must be considered in determining whether a constitutional violation has occurred.’” Spencer v. Bouchard, 449 F.3d 721, 728 (6th Cir. 2006) (quoting Johnson v. Lewis, 217 F.3d 726, 731 (9th Cir. 2000)). Here, Plaintiffs’ allegation about “wash day” concerns a delay in delivery, not a deprivation, of clothing, and the Court therefore agrees with Defendants that the temporary inconvenience alleged does not rise to the level of a civil rights violation. As for the allegations that Defendants failed to provide Plaintiffs with bras or underwear, at county expense, Defendants are correct that this Court previously held that “[t]he jail’s failure to provide additional free items, such as ... underwear and socks does not constitute the denial of the ‘minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities.’” Mitchell, 2014 WL 7330974, at *6 (quoting Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 347). A similar conclusion is appropriate in this case. While “hygiene” has also been generally identified as a basic need deserving of Eighth Amendment protection, see Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976); Argue v. Hofmeyer, 80 F. App’x 427, 430 (6th Cir. 2003), the Court determines that the nature and duration of the alleged deprivations in this case similarly lead to the conclusion that Plaintiffs have not stated a plausible Eighth Amendment violation. Plaintiffs opine that “women at MCJ are, as a matter of policy or practice, regularly ignored when they request toiletries including menstrual pads,” (Pls.’ Resp., Dkt
18

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN ECF No. 54 filed 09/11/15 Page 19 of 26 PageID.1415
49 at 24), but Plaintiffs’ allegations indicate only that each Plaintiff alleges a single delay in receiving feminine hygiene products during their terms of incarceration. Plaintiff Vos, who alleges a single delay of “several hours” (and challenges the adequacy of the provision that was made), was incarcerated for approximately eight months (Dkt 18, First Amend. Compl. ¶ 31). Plaintiff Kitchens, who similarly alleges a single delay of “hours,” was incarcerated for approximately nine months (id. ¶ 31). Plaintiff Speers, who alleges a single delay of “approximately two days,” was incarcerated for approximately six months (id. ¶ 34). Plaintiff Brown, who alleges a single delay of “approximately eight hours,” was incarcerated for approximately three months (id. ¶ 32). And Plaintiff Collins, who alleges a single delay of “over ten hours,” was incarcerated for approximately six months (id. ¶ 36).1 Regarding the alleged denial of toilet paper, Plaintiffs in fact allege only a deprivation of toilet paper for “hours” by two Plaintiffs, Dorn and Baker (id. ¶ 120).
Defendants are correct that courts have routinely found that such allegations demonstrate only de minimis deprivations, which do not rise to the level of civil rights violations. See, e.g., Harris v. Fleming, 839 F.2d 1232, 1235-36 (7th Cir. 1988) (holding, where the inmate alleged he was not provided with toilet paper for five days, and that he lacked soap, toothbrush, and toothpaste for ten days and was kept in a filthy, roach-infested cell, “the defendants’ temporary neglect of Harris’s needs was not intentional, nor did it reach unconstitutional proportions”); Sublett v. White, No. 5:12CV-P180-R, 2013 WL 2303249, at *1 (W.D. Ky. May 24, 2013) (“Depriving an inmate of sheets, clothing and toilet paper for a forty-eight hour period does not rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation”); Argo v. Gobble, No. 1:10-CV-227, 2011 WL 2181956, at *6 (E.D. Tenn. June 3, 2011) (unspecified allegation regarding difficulty obtaining toilet paper does not state a
1Plaintiff Wickliffe, who alleges a delay of “almost a day,” was incarcerated shortly before Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint in December 2014.
19

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN ECF No. 54 filed 09/11/15 Page 20 of 26 PageID.1416
claim); Hunter v. Helton, No. 1:10-CV-00021, 2010 WL 2405092, at *8 (M.D. Tenn. June 10, 2010) (dismissing “plaintiff’s claim that one roll of toilet paper per inmate per week violates the Eighth Amendment”); Gilland v. Owens, 718 F. Supp. 665, 685 (W.D. Tenn. 1989) (“Short term deprivations of toilet paper, towels, sheets, blankets, mattresses, toothpaste, toothbrushes and the like do not rise to the level of a constitutional violation.”); Gilson v. Cox, 711 F. Supp. 354, 355 (E.D. Mich. 1989) (“the failure to provide a prisoner with an adequate supply of toilet paper does not create a violation of constitutional magnitude”).
Again, the Court’s function in resolving this motion is to determine whether the conditions of confinement, as alleged, amount to state a claim of cruel and unusual punishment under current case law. Plaintiffs’ allegations fail to state a plausible claim under the Eighth Amendment. Therefore, the Court grants Defendants’ motion as to Count III (Denial of Access to Feminine Hygiene Products, Toilet Paper and Adequate Underwear and Other Clothing).
c. Count IV: Severe Overcrowding & Other Abysmal Conditions In Count IV, Plaintiffs allege that “[d]ue to defendants’ policy, practice or custom, plaintiffs and class members have been, are being, and will be subjected, without any penological justification or other legitimate purpose, to severe overcrowding and other inadequate, unsanitary and dangerous conditions” (Dkt 18, First Amend. Compl. ¶ 279). Plaintiffs allege that Defendants “have violated and are violating the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment and the prohibition against punishment of pretrial detainees under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution” (id. ¶ 282). In the factual section of their First Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that the MCJ, built in 1959, is designed to house 370 inmates but “routinely houses well over 400 inmates” (Dkt 18, First Amend. Compl. ¶¶ 50-52, 159, 167-175). Plaintiffs delineate the standards in Michigan’s
20

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN ECF No. 54 filed 09/11/15 Page 21 of 26 PageID.1417
County Jail Overcrowding State of Emergency Act (“JOA”), MICH. COMP. LAWS § 801.51 et seq., and the steps provided in the Act to reduce the jail population (id. ¶¶ 160-66). Plaintiffs allege that “the MCJ has consistently failed to meet the standards” set out in the JOA and “defendants have not continued to employ overcrowding reduction measures mandated by the JOA” (id. ¶ 176).
According to Plaintiffs, “[o]ther appalling conditions at MCJ include vermin, insects, mold, overflowing and constantly running toilets, broken sinks, scalding water, unchecked contagious diseases, and falling ceiling tiles” (Dkt 18, First Amend. Compl. ¶¶ 5, 145-51). Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that “[d]uring Ms. Bosch’s incarceration, the shower in her cell stopped working, and was not repaired for three days” (id. ¶ 152). Further, according to Plaintiffs, “[s]ome showers have only burning hot water,” and “Ms. Speers was burned on her scalp by scalding water from the shower” (id. ¶¶ 153 & 155). Plaintiffs allege that “female inmates collect the scalding water in rubber or plastic totes, and wait for it to cool before using it to bathe” (id. ¶ 153). “On one occasion, the tote Ms. Bosch was using to collect hot water tore open, causing hot water to burn her skin” (id. ¶ 154).
As a threshold matter, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ general overcrowding allegations, in and of themselves, fail to state a valid claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Defs.’ Br., Dkt 48 at 22, citing Johnson v. Hefron, 88 F.3d 404, 407 (6th Cir. 1996) (citing Rhodes, supra)). Defendants assert that it is well established that violations of state statutes or administrative rules are not constitutional violations, as § 1983 is designed to remedy violations of federal law, only (id., citing. Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 924 (1982); Laney v. Farley, 501 F.3d 577, 581 n.2 (6th Cir. 2007); Smith v. Freland, 954 F.2d 343, 347-48 (6th Cir. 1992)). Therefore, Defendants argue that to the extent Plaintiffs’ complaint asserts a § 1983 claim based on the alleged violation of
21

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN ECF No. 54 filed 09/11/15 Page 22 of 26 PageID.1418
Michigan’s County Jail Overcrowding State of Emergency Act, MICH. COMP. LAWS § 801.51 et seq., it must be dismissed (id.). On the specific conditions alleged, Defendants argue that courts have found that allegations regarding sleeping on floors and/or cots fail to state valid claims (Defs.’ Br., Dkt 48 at 22). Similarly, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ allegations regarding the plumbing, other temporary water issues, and falling ceiling tiles fail to state a valid claim (id. at 24).
In response, Plaintiffs clarify that they are claiming no such rights or luxuries as “raised beds or perfect plumbing” (Pls.’ Resp., Dkt 49 at 17). Rather, they assert that they have alleged facts from which a reasonable factfinder “could plausibly infer that the abysmal conditions at MCJ jeopardize their health and safety, and deprive them of basic human needs” (id.). Specifically, Plaintiffs opine that the question is not, as Defendants suggest, “whether inmates have the right to water of a particular temperature, but instead whether non-functioning or scalding showers and exposure to raw sewage and other inmates’ bodily fluids combine to deprive Plaintiffs of their constitutional right to basic hygiene” (id. at 17-18). Similarly, Plaintiffs opine that rather than isolate the allegations that inmates must sleep on concrete floors, the Court must consider “whether (a) sleeping on the floor is safe, given the overflowing toilets, standing water, vermin, and insect infestations; and (b) denying inmates in overcrowded holding tanks a place to lie down for days at a time deprives them of their basic human need for adequate, safe sleep” (id. at 18). Last, Plaintiffs clarify that they included allegations about the MCJ’s “chronic failure to meet state-law requirements” and repeated declaration of overcrowding emergencies as “evidence of and a likely cause of unsafe, unsanitary, and inhumane conditions” (id. at 17).
Defendants’ argument has merit.
22

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN ECF No. 54 filed 09/11/15 Page 23 of 26 PageID.1419
“Courts certainly have a responsibility to scrutinize claims of cruel and unusual confinement, and conditions in a number of prisons, especially older ones, have justly been described as ‘deplorable’ and ‘sordid.’” Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 352 (quoting Bell, 441 U.S. at 562). “[H]owever, courts cannot assume that state legislatures and prison officials are insensitive to the requirements of the Constitution or to the perplexing sociological problems of how best to achieve the goals of the penal function in the criminal justice system: to punish justly, to deter future crime, and to return imprisoned persons to society with an improved change of being useful, law-abiding citizens.” Id. Particularly here, as Plaintiffs acknowledge (Dkt 18, First Amend. Compl. ¶¶ 212-14), the county was not unaware of needed improvements to its aging jail facility but authorized and oversaw the recent construction of a new jail to replace the facility that once housed Plaintiffs.
“[O]vercrowding is not, in itself, a constitutional violation.” Agramonte v. Shartle, 491 F. App’x 557, 560 (6th Cir. 2012). “Harsh and uncomfortable prison conditions do not automatically create an Eighth Amendment violation. . . . Rather, ‘extreme deprivations’ must be alleged in order to support a prison-overcrowding claim.” Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 9 (1992). And, “[n]othing so amorphous as ‘overall conditions’ can rise to the level of cruel and unusual punishment when no specific deprivation of a single human need exists.” Wilson, 501 U.S. at 304.
Plaintiffs’ specific allegations, even accepted as true, fail to state a plausible claim for relief. Plaintiffs’ allegations that inmates must eat and sleep on the floor do not demonstrate deprivations of the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities. See Preston v. Smith, 750 F.2d 530, 534 (6th Cir. 1984) (finding no constitutional violation for confinement in a segregation cell without mattress); Shelton v. Christian Cnty. Jail, No. 5:14-CV-P146-GNS, 2015 WL 236853, at *2 (W.D. Ky. 2015) (“Plaintiff’s allegations that inmates must eat and sleep on the floor are not deprivations
23

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN ECF No. 54 filed 09/11/15 Page 24 of 26 PageID.1420
of the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities.”). Defendants are correct that courts have also routinely held that allegations such as Plaintiffs’ allegations about the plumbing, other temporary water issues, and falling ceiling tiles similarly fail to state a valid claim. See Dellis v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 257 F.3d 508, 511 (6th Cir. 2001) (inmate’s allegations that he was subjected to flooded cell and deprived of working toilet failed to state claim upon which relief could be granted under § 1983); Dean v. Campbell, 156 F.3d 1229 (6th Cir. 1998) (lack of hot water does not constitute an extreme deprivation); Preston, 750 F.2d at 534 (finding no constitutional violation for confinement in a segregation cell without hot water); Anthony v. Bradley Cnty. Justice Ctr., No. 1:12-CV-303, 2015 WL 1206620, at *9 (E.D. Tenn. 2015) (finding that claims of frequent toilet backups failed to state a valid claim because “even in the free world, toilets back up and bad odors which cannot be eliminated must be endured” and “while Plaintiffs claim waste from other toilets collects in the toilet in their cell is an everyday occurrence, they have not specified the length of time to which they have been exposed to the sewer backup.”).
In sum, Plaintiffs have not alleged conditions that resulted in an unconstitutional denial of their basic needs. Therefore, the Court grants Defendants’ motion as to Count IV (Severe Overcrowding and Other Abysmal Conditions).
d. Other Last, Defendants identify allegations within Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint regarding “extended stays in the holding cell” (Defs.’ Br., Dkt 48 at 12; Dkt 18, First Amend. Compl. ¶¶ 3-4, 130-44, 177, 256, 279), “deliberate indifference to medical needs” (Defs.’ Br., Dkt 48 at 27; Dkt 18, First Amend. Compl. ¶¶ 178, 185), and a “non-functional complaint system” (Defs.’ Br., Dkt 48 at 26; Dkt 18, First Amend. Compl. ¶¶ 14-16, 179-97, 246, 255). Defendants seek dismissal of these three “claims” (Defs.’ Br., Dkt 48 at 32).
24

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN ECF No. 54 filed 09/11/15 Page 25 of 26 PageID.1421
In response, Plaintiffs clarify that they “discussed these issues in the factual allegations section of their complaint because they lend support to the legal claims asserted in Counts I through IV [b]ut these issues are not themselves independent legal claims asserted by Plaintiffs in their complaint” (Pls.’ Resp., Dkt 49 at 31). According to Plaintiffs, “[t]he court should deny Defendants’ request for a judgment as to supposed legal claims that Plaintiffs have not brought” (id.).
Given Plaintiffs’ clarification that they do not intend to pursue these three topics as claims, the Court finds dismissal unwarranted.
III. CONCLUSION In sum, Defendants have not demonstrated that dismissal of either Count I (Violation of Privacy and Bodily Integrity) or Count II (Denial of Exercise), in whole or in part, is warranted, and these two counts will therefore proceed. Defendants’ arguments challenging the allegations of Count III (Denial of Access to Feminine Hygiene Products, Toilet Paper and Adequate Underwear and Other Clothing) and Count IV (Severe Overcrowding and Other Abysmal Conditions) have merit, and Counts III and IV are dismissed. Defendants’ motion did not challenge Count V, and Count V will also proceed. Given the disposition of Defendants’ motion, the Court will also deny without prejudice Plaintiffs’ pending motions for a preliminary injunction and for class certification (Dkts 2 & 5). Plaintiffs may re-file these motions to conform to the Court’s rulings herein, giving due consideration to if and/or how the transition of inmates to the new jail facility has also rendered their requests moot, in whole or in part. Accordingly:
25

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN ECF No. 54 filed 09/11/15 Page 26 of 26 PageID.1422
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for partial judgment on the pleadings (Dkt 47) is DENIED IN PART as to Counts I and II, and GRANTED IN PART as to Counts III and IV.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Dkt 2) and Plaintiffs’ Motion to Certify Class (Dkt 5), and Plaintiffs’ “Motion to Compel Defendants to Permit Entry on Land and to Hear Expert’s Testimony in Support of Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Injunction Motion (Dkt 35) are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to re-filing, as noted herein.

DATED: September 11, 2015

/s/ Janet T. Neff JANET T. NEFF United States District Judge

26

 </s> Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN ECF No. 182 filed 06/05/17 PageID.2695 Page 1 of 18

1

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

2

SOUTHERN DIVISION

3 _______________________________________

4 MICHELLE SEMELBAUER, et al,

5 6 vs.

Plaintiffs,

DOCKET NO. 1:14-cv-1245

7 MUSKEGON COUNTY, et al.,
8 Defendants.
9 ________________________________________/

10

11

TRANSCRIPT OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

12

BEFORE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE ELLEN S. CARMODY

13

GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN

14

May 31, 2017

15

16 Court Reporter: 17 18 19

Glenda Trexler Official Court Reporter United States District Court 685 Federal Building 110 Michigan Street, N.W. Grand Rapids, Michigan 49503

20 Proceedings reported by audio recording, transcript produced by

21 computer-aided transcription.

22

23

24

25

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN ECF No. 182 filed 06/05/17 PageID.2696 Page 2 of 18

2

1 A P P E A R A N C E S:

2 FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:

3

MS. MIRIAM J. AUKERMAN

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FUND OF MICHIGAN

4

WEST MICHIGAN REGIONAL OFFICE

1514 Wealthy Street, S.E., Suite 242

5

Grand Rapids, Michigan 49506

Phone: (616) 301-0930

6

Email: Maukerman@aclumich.org

7

MR. STEPHEN R. DREW

DREW, COOPER & ANDING

8

80 Ottawa Avenue, N.W., Suite 200

Grand Rapids, MI 49503

9

Phone: (616) 454-8300

Email: sdrew@dcadvocate.com

10

FOR THE DEFENDANTS:

11

MR. JOHN M. KARAFA

12

WILLIAMS HUGHES, PLLC

120 West Apple Avenue

13

P.O. Box 599

Muskegon, Michigan 49443-0599

14

Phone: (231) 726-4857

Email: johnkarafa@williamshughes.com

15

MR. ALLAN C. VANDER LAAN

16

CUMMINGS, McCLOREY, DAVIS & ACHO, PLC

2851 Charlevoix Drive, S.E., Suite 327

17

Grand Rapids, Michigan 49546

Phone: (616) 975-7470

18

Email: Avanderlaan@cmda-law.com

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN ECF No. 182 filed 06/05/17 PageID.2697 Page 3 of 18

3

1

Grand Rapids, Michigan

2

May 31, 2017

3

5:44 p.m.

4

P R O C E E D I N G S

5

THE COURT: Good afternoon. The parties -- it's now

6 twenty to six. The parties have been working since two to try

7 to get the details of the settlement worked out. I believe we

8 have an agreement in principle. I think that's a fair way to

9 put it.

10

And if plaintiff's counsel would put your appearance

11 on the record and introduce your clients or client

12 representatives.

13

MS. AUKERMAN: Certainly. Miriam Aukerman, ACLU of

14 Michigan for the plaintiffs.

15

MR. DREW: Stephen Drew for the plaintiffs as well.

16

THE COURT: Good afternoon.

17

MS. AUKERMAN: And we have in the courtroom today

18 here Paulette Bosch, Denise Vos, Crisa Brown, Stashia Collins,

19 Judy Pauley, and Delilah Wickliffe. Did I miss -- I'm sorry.

20 Stashia is not here. Stashia is not here.

21

THE COURT: But it's my understanding you have

22 written authorization to settle on behalf of a plaintiff or

23 plaintiffs who are not here?

24

MS. AUKERMAN: Yes, we have written authorization to

25 settle on behalf of all of the plaintiffs and the joinder

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN ECF No. 182 filed 06/05/17 PageID.2698 Page 4 of 18

4

1 claimants.

2

THE COURT: All right. Now, Mr. Karafa, if you would

3 put your appearances on the record and introduce your client or

4 client representatives.

5

MR. KARAFA: Thank you, Your Honor. John Karafa

6 appearing on behalf of the County of Muskegon. If I may,

7 Allan Vander Laan as well.

8

Kristin Wade is here on behalf of the County of

9 Muskegon Human Resources Department and Lieutenant Mark Burns

10 from the county jail.

11

THE COURT: All right. Now, I don't know -- I think

12 I'm going to ask you first to put your understanding of the

13 agreement on the record. And, again, this is in principle. We

14 understand this requires -- would you go over for us what

15 additional approval you'll require to firm this up. Or would

16 you rather have Ms. Aukerman put it on the record?

17

MR. KARAFA: I can proceed to do that. This

18 agreement upon ultimate approval and authority from our

19 perspective from the County Board of Commissioners and from the

20 sheriff himself will include a mutual release and a full

21 settlement agreement. There will be preliminary recitals which

22 the parties have agreed to. There will be a financial

23 component to the agreement whereby each of the party

24 plaintiffs, being Paulette Bosch, Denise Vos, Crisa Brown,

25 Latrece Baker, Tammy Speers, Londora Kitchens, Stashia Collins,

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN ECF No. 182 filed 06/05/17 PageID.2699 Page 5 of 18

5

1 and Judy Pauley, and Delilah Wickliffe will be paid $20,000

2 each on behalf of the County of Muskegon to the order of each

3 of them and their attorneys American Civil Liberties Union Fund

4 of Michigan. As the parties have agreed as far as that

5 designation will be made.

6

There are three additional nonparties being

7 Sarah Swanson, Princess Warren, and Misty Ippen who each will

8 be paid $3,000 on behalf of the County of Muskegon as

9 consideration, part consideration for the terms and conditions

10 that will be set forth in the settlement agreement.

11

There are nonfinancial terms of the settlement which

12 will include as captioned here today out-of-cell rights

13 including exercise. That is something that has not yet been

14 fully agreed to in terms of the terms and conditions. And the

15 parties need to work on that further.

16

We've discussed the likelihood that it will be -- any

17 agreement reached as far as exercise is concerned, it will

18 involve some type of affirmative sign-up by the inmates with

19 the jail making accommodation wherever possible so long as it

20 fits within the jail schedule and subject to various logistical

21 concerns that we have.

22

With regard to cross-gender viewing claims, we have

23 mostly reached an accord in this regard: Jail staff will

24 announce their presence when entering housing units occupied by

25 inmates of the opposite sex. Male staff will not enter female

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN ECF No. 182 filed 06/05/17 PageID.2700 Page 6 of 18

6

1 housing cells during set shower times absent emergent or

2 exigent circumstances. There's a provision pertaining to

3 routine activities such as meal distribution which will take

4 place in the day rooms rather than the cells absent emergent or

5 exigent circumstances.

6

There is some discussion over medication also being

7 dispensed only in the housing units, not the cells. But we had

8 a discussion which has yet to be fine-tuned a bit in that

9 medication dispensation takes place in the housing units, but

10 when that happens, the other half of the population in the

11 housing unit is inside their cells, so the nurses must go to

12 the individual cells to dispense the medication, and when they

13 do that they are accompanied by a corrections officer. So that

14 is what might be considered a routine matter, that is

15 medication dispensation. Yet it's something that at times must

16 take place at the cell unit door.

17

There will be a provision where trusties shall not be

18 assigned duties involving opposite sex housing units unless

19 under the direct supervision of a corrections officer.

20

With regard to hygiene items. And I may say in

21 part -- I'll say also what this agreement is not in part, and

22 that is that there's a provision in one of the written

23 proposals over the obligation of male staff to log the date,

24 time, and place of occurrences of viewing breasts, buttocks, or

25 genitals of female inmates, and that is stricken. That will

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN ECF No. 182 filed 06/05/17 PageID.2701 Page 7 of 18

7

1 not be part of the agreement.

2

There's a reference to hygiene items. We have an

3 agreement in principle that the policy and practice of the jail

4 will be to make feminine hygiene products available to female

5 inmates on the medicine cart during medication distribution.

6

With regard to training the agreement is that

7 Muskegon County shall ensure that all corrections officers are

8 briefed on the provisions of the agreement, the written

9 agreement that is ultimately executed in this case and that the

10 staff shall receive orientation and training on the policies

11 and practices of the jail, including orientation and training

12 on the standards of the Prison Rape Elimination Act.

13

There's an agreement as to notice. That the county

14 shall cause to be posted in some fashion in the jail, including

15 perhaps by way of Power Point, so that the policies and

16 practices as set forth in this agreement will be available to

17 female inmates.

18

This agreement is going to be -- this agreement

19 contemplates a full, final, and complete resolution with

20 prejudice of the action that's pending. There will be

21 withdrawal of the motion for class certification. And the

22 agreement is going to include all the plaintiff parties that

23 were named including the so-called joinder claimants that were

24 named in the financial settlement component.

25

The parties have been represented at all relevant

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN ECF No. 182 filed 06/05/17 PageID.2702 Page 8 of 18

8

1 times by legal counsel.

2

There will be some typical provisions contained in

3 the release and settlement agreement such as a no-admission

4 clause on the part of the County of Muskegon.

5

There will be a mutual release of all claims that

6 will be made part of the agreement. In consideration of the

7 various considerations paid by the county of Muskegon, the

8 plaintiffs and the joinder claimants will forever release the

9 County of Muskegon and various other associated and affiliated

10 parties with the county with regard to all causes of action

11 that have been brought, all causes of action which could have

12 been brought as a result of the facts and circumstances set

13 forth in their Complaints and Amended Complaints filed in this

14 action. And there will be typical language, which the parties

15 have agreed to, regarding all damages, damages that are known,

16 damages that are perhaps latent or unknown that arise from the

17 facts and circumstances set forth in the plaintiffs' Complaint

18 and Amended Complaint.

19

There will be dismissal of the action with prejudice,

20 withdrawal of the motion for class certification, a withdrawal

21 and/or dismissal with prejudice of the matter on appeal before

22 the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

23

The no-admission provision which I made reference to

24 already is a fairly standard clause which will state that the

25 conditions and circumstances conveyed as part of the county's

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN ECF No. 182 filed 06/05/17 PageID.2703 Page 9 of 18

9

1 consideration in support of this agreement shall not be

2 construed in any way as an admission of liability or fault of

3 any kind on the part of Muskegon County as to any of the

4 complaints, allegations, claims, or causes of action stated

5 against the county by the plaintiffs and/or joinder claimants,

6 all of which have been and remain denied as untrue. The

7 purpose of the agreement being to by peace resolve differences

8 in a mutually acceptable manner and terminate the action fully

9 and finally and compromise all disputed claims.

10

The agreement that will be entered into will be

11 construed and interpreted in accordance with Michigan law.

12

The parties agree that venue and jurisdiction for

13 purposes of the agreement will be Michigan state or federal

14 court.

15

The plaintiffs and the joinder claimants, all of whom

16 are receiving financial compensation as part of this agreement,

17 will understand by execution of this agreement that they are

18 responsible entirely for their attorney fees and costs and

19 expenses incurred in connection with this action and hold the

20 county completely harmless from any such claims.

21

To the extent we went -- there's going to be a whole

22 Thomas provision in there in favor of the County of Muskegon to

23 the extent any third party claims any interest in the payment

24 made to any one of the plaintiffs or joinder claimants, and

25 they will warrant as part of the execution of this agreement

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN ECF No. 182 filed 06/05/17 PageID.2704 Page 10 of 18 10

1 that there are no third parties that they presently know to

2 assert any liens or claims against the anticipated proceeds

3 that are going to be subject to this agreement.

4

Once the agreement is executed, there will be no

5 verbal agreements that apply, and any amendments, if any, will

6 have to be in writing to be enforceable.

7

I may have already said so, but from our perspective

8 the agreement -- these are the statements of the general terms

9 and conditions in principle. We still need to see a final

10 version exchanged between the parties, between the attorneys

11 for the parties, and finally agreed to with the approval and

12 full authority of the respective camps. And, of course, I've

13 already mentioned a couple of those provisions that need to be

14 cleaned up with a fair degree of particularity such as the

15 exercise provision.

16

I think that essentially sets forth the terms and

17 conditions of the agreement --

18

THE COURT: All right.

19

MR. KARAFA: -- that we've agreed to in principle

20 today.

21

THE COURT: Thank you.

22

MR. KARAFA: But I would like to ask Ms. Wade and

23 Lieutenant Burns if --

24

THE COURT: Right. Do you want to ask them?

25

MR. KARAFA: Yes. You don't have the document in

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN ECF No. 182 filed 06/05/17 PageID.2705 Page 11 of 18 11

1 front of you, but in essence does that sound like the agreement

2 that we've reached today?

3

LIEUTENANT BURNS: It does.

4

MR. KARAFA: Thank you.

5

THE COURT: And, Ms. Wade, you too?

6

MS. WADE: It does. Thank you.

7

THE COURT: All right. Thank you.

8

And, Mr. Vander Laan, anything you want to add,

9 subtract, or disagree with?

10

MR. VANDER LAAN: Absolutely not, Your Honor. Thank

11 you.

12

THE COURT: All right. Ms. Aukerman, anything you

13 want to add, subtract, or disagree with?

14

MS. AUKERMAN: Just a couple of points of

15 clarification.

16

I think that Mr. Karafa very -- stated very well what

17 the general terms of the agreement are.

18

With respect to the issue of exercise, my

19 understanding is that the parties are still working to nail

20 that down in terms of the amount of gym time and that we're

21 looking for -- the sort of general terms -- the general scope

22 of the discussion is that there would be some kind of

23 affirmative request on the part of the inmate and that there

24 would be a specified amount of time as yet to be determined

25 that would be made available. That's my understanding of where

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN ECF No. 182 filed 06/05/17 PageID.2706 Page 12 of 18 12

1 we are on that.

2

The other point that I think is important with

3 respect to that issue, it's my understanding that we have

4 agreement with respect to a provision on out-of-cell time that

5 it's the policy and practice of the jail to maintain scheduled

6 out-of-cell time such that female inmates, unless subject to

7 discipline, are not locked down in their cells for longer than

8 15 consecutive hours and that the jail's schedule for

9 out-of-cell time will reflect that policy and practice.

10 However, there may be situations where that regular schedule

11 cannot be followed for reasons of institutional security. So

12 my understanding is that we have agreement on that provision as

13 well.

14

There was a comment about meal distribution in the

15 day rooms. I think that where we're at on that is that, again,

16 we're trying to negotiate the exact language of that, but we're

17 talking about that in terms of interfering with set shower

18 times.

19

A couple of other points just to clarify. That the

20 payments would be made to the individual -- so the payment

21 would be sent -- would be made out to the ACLU Fund of Michigan

22 and to the respective individual plaintiff or joinder claimant

23 but that upon execution of the release by the plaintiff or the

24 joinder claimant, that that payment would then be made. In

25 other words, they would be made on each individual rather than

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN ECF No. 182 filed 06/05/17 PageID.2707 Page 13 of 18 13

1 waiting for everyone to have signed the documents. Payments

2 will be made as releases are set.

3

THE COURT: All right.

4

MS. AUKERMAN: There's language that the plaintiffs

5 are not settling this on behalf of the class, that they are

6 settling only their individual claims.

7

And there's one thing I -- let's see. With respect

8 to the hygiene provision, my understanding is that we have

9 agreement on not only that the cart will be used to distribute

10 medication but that the cart will be brought to the female

11 inmates on the same regularity as medication is dispensed such

12 that inmates in need of feminine hygiene products may request

13 them as the cart enters their area. It's my understanding we

14 have agreement on that language as well.

15

And then finally, I did not catch this earlier,

16 Mr. Karafa pointed out language in the sort of general releases

17 regarding liens and warranting that there are no liens. We may

18 have to revisit that language. I think there may be a lien on

19 one of these, but we can -- I'm certain that we can work that

20 out in terms of drafting the final language.

21

THE COURT: All right. Anything further, Mr. Drew,

22 from your point of view?

23

MR. DREW: No, Your Honor.

24

THE COURT: Mr. Karafa.

25

MR. KARAFA: I would just respond to a couple of

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN ECF No. 182 filed 06/05/17 PageID.2708 Page 14 of 18 14

1 things. To the extent I did not mention -- and I was --

2 frankly, I may not have been tremendously prepared for that. I

3 was looking at three different documents and trying to put it

4 all together, so --

5

THE COURT: And I understand it was a difficult task.

6

MR. KARAFA: Yeah. So with regard to the jail

7 exercise issue, what Ms. Aukerman said was generally true, that

8 we're going to work off of a premise that there's going to be

9 an affirmative obligation on the part of the inmates to request

10 an opportunity to get to the jail.

11

THE COURT: Gym.

12

MR. KARAFA: To get to the gym. To the gym. But

13 it's her reference to a specified time, and that's the issue

14 we're having a bit of trouble with.

15

THE COURT: Okay.

16

MR. KARAFA: So I want to leave here today with some

17 implicit acknowledgment that we're going to work off of --

18 we're going to build in some specific time. If we can do that

19 and make it a happy world for everybody, we will. But that's

20 going to be the one sticky point.

21

If I didn't mention the agreement with regard to the

22 15 consecutive hours, that female inmates will not be in their

23 cells for longer than 15 consecutive hours, I agree to that,

24 that's true.

25

The stip and order will be submitted -- there will be

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN ECF No. 182 filed 06/05/17 PageID.2709 Page 15 of 18 15

1 a stip and order of dismissal with prejudice with regard to all

2 of these matters, and the rest of the terms and conditions will

3 be built into the mutual release and settlement agreement as

4 set forth.

5

The hygiene products that were mentioned, yes, that

6 will go with the medical cart. I thought I said that, but

7 maybe I did not.

8

And if there is a lien, that's okay, we can just --

9 they just have to be disclosed so we can build them into the

10 agreement. Thank you.

11

THE COURT: All right. Ms. Aukerman, would you

12 inquire of your clients who are present here today whether they

13 agree to settle their individual claims on those -- that basis.

14

MS. AUKERMAN: Certainly. Do you want me to do that

15 individually?

16

THE COURT: Yes, I would. Thank you.

17

MS. AUKERMAN: All right. So, Paulette Bosch, do you

18 agree to the terms of the settlement as it's been described to

19 settle your individual claims?

20

MS. BOSCH: Yes, I do.

21

MS. AUKERMAN: Denise Vos, do you agree to the terms

22 of this settlement and to settle your individual claims?

23

MS. VOS: Yes, I do.

24

MS. AUKERMAN: Delilah Wickliffe, do you agree to the

25 terms of the settlement to settle your individual claims?

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN ECF No. 182 filed 06/05/17 PageID.2710 Page 16 of 18 16

1

MS. WICKLIFFE: Yes, I do.

2

MS. AUKERMAN: Judy Pauley, do you agree to the terms

3 of the settlement and to settle your individual claims?

4

MS. PAULEY: Yes, I do.

5

MS. AUKERMAN: And Crisa Brown, do you agree --

6

MS. BROWN: No, I do not.

7

MS. AUKERMAN: You're not?

8

MS. BROWN: No.

9

MS. AUKERMAN: Agreeing to the terms of the

10 settlement?

11

MS. BROWN: I feel like --

12

(Unintelligible conversation in the background)

13

MS. BROWN: No, you said individual. You all are

14 gonna still -- they are still gonna to get theirs.

15

THE COURT: No. It's all or none.

16

(Unintelligible conversation in the background)

17

MS. BROWN: Well, yes, I agree.

18

MR. KARAFA: Your Honor, we're on the record. I

19 don't think there should be a group discussion back there.

20

THE COURT: No, I agree.

21

MR. KARAFA: Yeah.

22

MS. AUKERMAN: Okay. Ms. Brown, do you agree to the

23 terms of the settlement as with respect to settling your

24 individual claims?

25

MS. BROWN: Yes.

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN ECF No. 182 filed 06/05/17 PageID.2711 Page 17 of 18 17

1

THE COURT: All right. I want to thank each of you

2 for coming as well as the Muskegon County representatives. And

3 I will -- did I say two weeks to get your paperwork in?

4

MR. KARAFA: You did, Your Honor, yes.

5

THE COURT: I will expect -- Ms. Aukerman, let me ask

6 you one more question: As an officer of the court, do you

7 represent that any of the plaintiffs who were not here and

8 responded in open court have given you settlement authority in

9 writing?

10

MS. AUKERMAN: Yes. I have settlement -- written

11 settlement authority from all of the individuals who are not

12 present today.

13

THE COURT: Okay. All right. And it should be very

14 clear to all of you -- and this was very clear to me, and I

15 believe it was clear to your attorney -- that this is an entire

16 settlement. That it's all or none. You can't settle them

17 individually. Because that was part of the deal. And that was

18 the deal from the very beginning. I can say that on the record

19 because that's true.

20

All right?

21

So thank you all for coming. I wish you all a good

22 evening. It looks like a beautiful one, so enjoy.

23

MR. KARAFA: Your Honor, thank you very much.

24

MR. DREW: Thank you, Your Honor.

25

MS. AUKERMAN: Thank you, Your Honor, for your time.

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN ECF No. 182 filed 06/05/17 PageID.2712 Page 18 of 18 18

1

MR. VANDER LAAN: Thank you, Your Honor.

2

(Proceeding concluded at 6:10 p.m.)

3

CERTIFICATE

4

I certify that the foregoing is a transcript from the

5 Liberty Court Recording System digital recording of the

6 proceedings in the above-entitled matter, transcribed to the

7 best of my ability.

8

I further certify that the transcript fees and format

9 comply with those prescribed by the court and the Judicial

10 Conference of the United States.

11

12 June 5, 2017

13

14

/s/ Glenda Trexler

__________

Glenda Trexler, CSR-1436, RPR, CRR

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

 </s> Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN ECF No. 188 filed 07/24/17 PageID.2722 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

MICHELLE SEMELBAUER, et al.,

Plaintiffs, vs. MUSKEGON COUNTY, et al.,

Case No. 14-cv-1245 Hon. Janet T. Neff

Defendants. /

STIPULATION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

This matter has been settled. Therefore, pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties hereby stipulate to dismissal of this case with

prejudice and without costs or fees to any party.

This stipulation and order resolves all pending claims and closes the case.

Dated: July 24, 2017

/s/ Daniel S. Korobkin Daniel S. Korobkin (P72842) American Civil Liberties Union Fund
of Michigan Attorney for Plaintiffs

Dated: July 24, 2017 Dated: July 24, 2017

/s/ John M. Karafa (by consent) John M. Karafa (P36007) Williams Hughes PLLC Attorney for Defendants
/s/ Allan C. Vanderlaan (by consent) Allan V. Vanderlaan (P33893) Cummings, McClorey, Davis & Acho Attorney for Defendants

1

Case 1:14-cv-01245-JTN ECF No. 188 filed 07/24/17 PageID.2723 Page 2 of 2

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 24, 2017

/s/ Janet T. Neff
HON. JANET T. NEFF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

 </s> United States District Court Western District of Michigan (Southern Division (1)) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:14-cv-01245-JTN

Semelbauer et al v. Muskegon, County et al Assigned to: Judge Janet T. Neff Case in other court: the Sixth Circuit, 15-02214 Cause: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

Date Filed: 12/04/2014 Date Terminated: 07/24/2017 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

plaintiff
Michelle Semelbauer individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons

represented by Andrea Jean Johnson Pitt McGehee Palmer & Rivers PC 117 W Fourth St., Ste. 200 Royal Oak, MI 48067 (248) 398-9800 Email: ajohnson@pittlawpc.com TERMINATED: 03/14/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Adam Christopher Sturdivant Drew Cooper & Anding 80 Ottawa Ave., NW, Ste. 200 Grand Rapids, MI 49503 (616) 454-8300 Email: asturdivant@dca-lawyers.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Beth M. Rivers Pitt McGehee Palmer & Rivers PC 117 W Fourth St., Ste. 200 Royal Oak, MI 48067 (248) 398-9800 Email: brivers@pittlawpc.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel S. Korobkin ACLU Fund of Michigan (Detroit) 2966 Woodward Ave. Detroit, MI 48201-3035 (313) 578-6824 Fax: (313) 578-6811

plaintiff

Email: dkorobkin@aclumich.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kevin M. Carlson Pitt McGehee Palmer & Rivers PC 117 W Fourth St., Ste. 200 Royal Oak, MI 48067 (248) 398-9800 Email: kevin@kevincarlsonlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Sebastian Allen ACLU of Michigan 1514 Wealthy St., SE, Ste. 242 Grand Rapids, MI 49506 (616) 301-0930 Email: mallen@aclumich.org TERMINATED: 08/05/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael J. Steinberg ACLU Fund of Michigan (Detroit) 2966 Woodward Ave. Detroit, MI 48201-3035 (313) 578-6814 Email: msteinberg@aclumich.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen R. Drew Drew Cooper & Anding 80 Ottawa Ave., NW, Ste. 200 Grand Rapids, MI 49503 (616) 454-8300 Fax: (616) 454-0036 Email: sdrew@dca-lawyers.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Miriam J. Aukerman ACLU of Michigan 1514 Wealthy St., SE, Ste. 242 Grand Rapids, MI 49506 (616) 301-0930 Email: maukerman@aclumich.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paulette Bosch individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons
plaintiff Denise Vos individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons

represented by Andrea Jean Johnson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/14/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Adam Christopher Sturdivant (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel S. Korobkin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kevin M. Carlson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Sebastian Allen (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/05/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael J. Steinberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen R. Drew (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Miriam J. Aukerman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea Jean Johnson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/14/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Adam Christopher Sturdivant (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

plaintiff
Crisa Brown individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons

Daniel S. Korobkin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kevin M. Carlson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Sebastian Allen (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/05/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael J. Steinberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen R. Drew (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Miriam J. Aukerman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea Jean Johnson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/14/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Adam Christopher Sturdivant (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel S. Korobkin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kevin M. Carlson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Sebastian Allen (See above for address)

plaintiff
Latrece Baker individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons

TERMINATED: 08/05/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael J. Steinberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen R. Drew (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Miriam J. Aukerman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea Jean Johnson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/14/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Adam Christopher Sturdivant (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel S. Korobkin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kevin M. Carlson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Sebastian Allen (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/05/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael J. Steinberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen R. Drew (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

plaintiff Tammy Speers individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons
plaintiff Londora Kitchens individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons

Miriam J. Aukerman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea Jean Johnson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/14/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Adam Christopher Sturdivant (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel S. Korobkin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kevin M. Carlson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Sebastian Allen (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/05/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael J. Steinberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen R. Drew (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Miriam J. Aukerman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea Jean Johnson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/14/2016

plaintiff
Stashia Collins individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Adam Christopher Sturdivant (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel S. Korobkin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kevin M. Carlson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Sebastian Allen (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/05/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael J. Steinberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen R. Drew (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Miriam J. Aukerman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea Jean Johnson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/14/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Adam Christopher Sturdivant (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel S. Korobkin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

plaintiff
Andrea Dorn TERMINATED: 01/04/2017

Kevin M. Carlson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Sebastian Allen (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/05/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael J. Steinberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen R. Drew (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Miriam J. Aukerman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea Dorn 1715 W Lakewood Rd. Fruitland Township, MI 49461 (231) 726-0005 PRO SE
Andrea Jean Johnson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/14/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Miriam J. Aukerman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Adam Christopher Sturdivant (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

plaintiff Judy Pauley
plaintiff Delilah Wickliffe

Daniel S. Korobkin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kevin M. Carlson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen R. Drew (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea Jean Johnson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/14/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Adam Christopher Sturdivant (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel S. Korobkin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kevin M. Carlson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen R. Drew (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Miriam J. Aukerman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea Jean Johnson (See above for address)

V.
defendant
Muskegon, County of a municipal corporation

TERMINATED: 03/14/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Adam Christopher Sturdivant (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel S. Korobkin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kevin M. Carlson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen R. Drew (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Miriam J. Aukerman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Allan C. Vander Laan Cummings McClorey Davis & Acho PLC (Grand Rapids) 327 Centennial Plaza Bldg. 2851 Charlevoix Dr., SE Grand Rapids, MI 49546 (616) 975-7470 Email: avanderlaan@cmda-law.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew James Brege Cummings McClorey Davis & Acho PLC (Grand Rapids) 327 Centennial Plaza Bldg. 2851 Charlevoix Dr., SE Grand Rapids, MI 49546 (616) 975-7470 Email: abrege@cmda-law.com

TERMINATED: 07/15/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curt A. Benson Cummings McClorey Davis & Acho PLC (Grand Rapids) 327 Centennial Plaza Bldg. 2851 Charlevoix Dr., SE Grand Rapids, MI 49546 (616) 975-7470 Fax: (616) 975-7471 Email: cbenson@cmda-law.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Douglas M. Hughes Williams Hughes PLLC 120 W Apple Ave. P.O. Box 599 Muskegon, MI 49443-0599 (231) 726-4857 Email: doughughes@williamshugheslaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Horia Razvan Neagos Williams Hughes PLLC 120 W Apple Ave. P.O. Box 599 Muskegon, MI 49443-0599 (231) 728-1111 Email: hrn@williamshugheslaw.com TERMINATED: 07/27/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John M. Karafa Williams Hughes PLLC 120 W Apple Ave. P.O. Box 599 Muskegon, MI 49443-0599 (231) 726-4857 Email: johnkarafa@williamshugheslaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Patrick Fahlsing Cummings McClorey Davis & Acho

defendant Dean Roesler in his official capacity as Muskegon County Sheriff TERMINATED: 07/06/2015
defendant Mark Burns Lt., in his official capacity as Jail

PLC (Grand Rapids) 327 Centennial Plaza Bldg. 2851 Charlevoix Dr., SE Grand Rapids, MI 49546 (616) 975-7470 Fax: (161) 975-7471 Email: joshfahlsing@gmail.com TERMINATED: 01/24/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Allan C. Vander Laan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew James Brege (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/15/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curt A. Benson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Douglas M. Hughes (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Horia Razvan Neagos (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/27/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John M. Karafa (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Patrick Fahlsing (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/24/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Allan C. Vander Laan (See above for address)

Administrator TERMINATED: 07/06/2015
defendant Ivan Morris Correctional Officer, in his individual capacity

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew James Brege (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/15/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curt A. Benson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Douglas M. Hughes (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Horia Razvan Neagos (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/27/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John M. Karafa (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Patrick Fahlsing (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/24/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Allan C. Vander Laan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew James Brege (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/15/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curt A. Benson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Douglas M. Hughes (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

defendant
Unknown Grieves Correctional Officer, in his individual capacity

Horia Razvan Neagos (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/27/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John M. Karafa (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Patrick Fahlsing (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/24/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Allan C. Vander Laan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew James Brege (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/15/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curt A. Benson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Douglas M. Hughes (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Horia Razvan Neagos (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/27/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John M. Karafa (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Patrick Fahlsing (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/24/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

defendant Unknown DeYoung Correctional Officer, in his individual capacity
defendant David Gutowski Correctional Officer, in his individual capacity

represented by Allan C. Vander Laan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew James Brege (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/15/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curt A. Benson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Douglas M. Hughes (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Horia Razvan Neagos (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/27/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John M. Karafa (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Patrick Fahlsing (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/24/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Allan C. Vander Laan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew James Brege (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/15/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curt A. Benson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

defendant
Unknown Parties Correctional Officers, in their individual capacities

Douglas M. Hughes (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Horia Razvan Neagos (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/27/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John M. Karafa (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Patrick Fahlsing (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/24/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Douglas M. Hughes (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Horia Razvan Neagos (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/27/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John M. Karafa (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 12/04/2014
12/04/2014

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT with jury demand against All Defendants filed by Londora Kitchens, Paulette Bosch, Michelle Semelbauer, Tammy Speers, Denise Vos, Stashia Collins, Crisa Brown, Latrece Baker(Aukerman, Miriam) (Entered: 12/04/2014)
FILING FEE PAID re 1 by plaintiffs Latrece Baker, Paulette Bosch, Crisa Brown, Stashia Collins, Londora Kitchens, Michelle Semelbauer, Tammy Speers, Denise Vos in the amount of $400, receipt number 0646-3060608 (Aukerman, Miriam) (Entered: 12/04/2014)

12/04/2014 12/04/2014
12/04/2014
12/04/2014 12/04/2014 12/04/2014 12/04/2014 12/04/2014

2 MOTION for preliminary injunction by plaintiffs Latrece Baker, Paulette Bosch, Crisa Brown, Stashia Collins, Londora Kitchens, Michelle Semelbauer, Tammy Speers, Denise Vos; (Aukerman, Miriam) (Entered: 12/04/2014)
3 BRIEF in support of MOTION for preliminary injunction 2 filed by Latrece Baker, Paulette Bosch, Crisa Brown, Stashia Collins, Londora Kitchens, Michelle Semelbauer, Tammy Speers, Denise Vos (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit 1: Semelbauer Declaration, # 3 Exhibit 2: Bosch Declaration, # 4 Exhibit 3: Vos Declaration, # 5 Exhibit 4: Brown Declaration, # 6 Exhibit 5: Baker Declaration, # 7 Exhibit 6: Speers Declaration, # 8Exhibit 7: Kitchens Declaration, # 9 Exhibit 8: Collins Declaration)(Aukerman, Miriam) (Entered: 12/04/2014)
4 EXHIBIT re 2 9: Wilson Expert Report by plaintiffs Latrece Baker, Paulette Bosch, Crisa Brown, Stashia Collins, Londora Kitchens, Michelle Semelbauer, Tammy Speers, Denise Vos (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 10: MCJ Population Charts, # 2 Exhibit 11: MCJ Floor Plan, # 3 Exhibit 12: MCJ Inspection Report, # 4 Exhibit 13: Sheriff Memo 8.17.11, # 5 Exhibit 14: Sheriff Memo 8.22.12, # 6 Exhibit 15: Sheriff Memo 8.29.12, # 7 Exhibit 16: Chronicle Article 7.8.09, # 8 Exhibit 17: Chronicle Article 2.20.11, # 9 Exhibit 18: Chronicle Article 10.17.12, # 10 Exhibit 19: Chronicle Article 10.4.14, # 11 Exhibit 20: Letter to Hughes, # 12 Exhibit 21: Letter from Hughes, # 13 Exhibit 22: MCJ Rules and Regulations)(Aukerman, Miriam) (Entered: 12/04/2014)
5 MOTION to certify class by plaintiffs Latrece Baker, Paulette Bosch, Crisa Brown, Stashia Collins, Londora Kitchens, Michelle Semelbauer, Tammy Speers, Denise Vos; (Aukerman, Miriam) (Entered: 12/04/2014)
6 NOTICE that this case has been assigned to Judge Janet T. Neff (ns) (Entered: 12/04/2014)
7 BRIEF in support of MOTION to certify class 5 filed by Latrece Baker, Paulette Bosch, Crisa Brown, Stashia Collins, Londora Kitchens, Michelle Semelbauer, Tammy Speers, Denise Vos(Aukerman, Miriam) (Entered: 12/04/2014)
SUMMONS NOT ISSUED ; none provided (ns) (Entered: 12/04/2014)
(NON-DOCUMENT) ATTORNEY APPEARANCE of Daniel Stewart Korobkin on behalf of plaintiffs Latrece Baker, Paulette Bosch, Crisa Brown, Stashia Collins, Londora Kitchens, Michelle Semelbauer, Tammy Speers, Denise Vos (Korobkin, Daniel) (Entered: 12/04/2014)

12/05/2014 12/09/2014 12/09/2014 12/10/2014 12/11/2014 12/19/2014 01/07/2015 01/07/2015 01/08/2015
01/08/2015

(NON-DOCUMENT) ATTORNEY APPEARANCE of Marc Sebastian Allen on behalf of plaintiffs Latrece Baker, Paulette Bosch, Crisa Brown, Stashia Collins, Londora Kitchens, Michelle Semelbauer, Tammy Speers, Denise Vos (Allen, Marc) (Entered: 12/05/2014)
(NON-DOCUMENT) ATTORNEY APPEARANCE of Kevin M. Carlson on behalf of plaintiff Michelle Semelbauer and all Plaintiffs (Carlson, Kevin) (Entered: 12/09/2014)
(NON-DOCUMENT) ATTORNEY APPEARANCE of Beth M. Rivers on behalf of plaintiff Michelle Semelbauer and all Plaintiffs (Rivers, Beth) (Entered: 12/09/2014)
8 PROPOSED SUMMONS to be issued re 1 (Carlson, Kevin) (Entered: 12/10/2014)
9 SUMMONS ISSUED as to defendants Mark Burns, Unknown DeYoung, Unknown Grieves, David Gutowski, Ivan Morris, Muskegon, County of, Dean Roesler (ns) (Entered: 12/11/2014)
(NON-DOCUMENT) ATTORNEY APPEARANCE of Michael J. Steinberg on behalf of plaintiffs Latrece Baker, Paulette Bosch, Crisa Brown, Stashia Collins, Londora Kitchens, Michelle Semelbauer, Tammy Speers, Denise Vos (Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 12/19/2014)
(NON-DOCUMENT) ATTORNEY APPEARANCE of Allan C. Vander Laan on behalf of defendants Mark Burns, Unknown DeYoung, Unknown Grieves, David Gutowski, Ivan Morris, Muskegon, County of, Dean Roesler (Vander Laan, Allan) (Entered: 01/07/2015)
(NON-DOCUMENT) ATTORNEY APPEARANCE of Andrew James Brege on behalf of defendants Mark Burns, Unknown DeYoung, Unknown Grieves, David Gutowski, Ivan Morris, Muskegon, County of, Dean Roesler (Brege, Andrew) (Entered: 01/07/2015)
(NON-DOCUMENT) ATTORNEY APPEARANCE of Douglas M. Hughes on behalf of defendants Mark Burns, Unknown DeYoung, Unknown Grieves, David Gutowski, Ivan Morris, Muskegon, County of, Dean Roesler, Unknown Parties (Hughes, Douglas) (Entered: 01/08/2015)
(NON-DOCUMENT) ATTORNEY APPEARANCE of Horia Razvan Neagos on behalf of defendants Mark Burns, Unknown DeYoung, Unknown Grieves, David Gutowski, Ivan Morris, Muskegon, County of, Dean Roesler, Unknown Parties (Neagos, Horia) (Entered: 01/08/2015)

01/16/2015 01/16/2015 01/20/2015 01/20/2015 02/02/2015
02/02/2015 02/02/2015

10 MOTION for extension of time to respond to plaintiff's complaint and pending motions by defendants Mark Burns, Unknown DeYoung, Unknown Grieves, David Gutowski, Ivan Morris, Muskegon, County of, Dean Roesler; (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A E-mail, # 2 Exhibit B Email, # 3 Exhibit C 1/9/15 Letter, # 4 Exhibit D E-mail)(Vander Laan, Allan) (Entered: 01/16/2015)
11 BRIEF in support of MOTION for extension of time to respond to plaintiff's complaint and pending motions 10 filed by Mark Burns, Unknown DeYoung, Unknown Grieves, David Gutowski, Ivan Morris, Muskegon, County of, Dean Roesler(Vander Laan, Allan) (Entered: 01/16/2015)
12 PROPOSED STIPULATION and ORDER Extending Time to Respond to Plaintiffs' Complaint and Pending Motions by defendants Mark Burns, Unknown DeYoung, Unknown Grieves, David Gutowski, Muskegon, County of, Dean Roesler (Vander Laan, Allan) (Entered: 01/20/2015)
13 ORDER granting 10 motion for an extension of time; Defendants have until 2/2/2015 to respond to Plaintiffs' pending motions 2 , 5 , and until 2/11/2015 to file an answer or other responsive pleadings to Plaintiffs' complaint; signed by Judge Janet T. Neff (Judge Janet T. Neff, rmw) (Entered: 01/20/2015)
14 RESPONSE in opposition to MOTION for preliminary injunction 2 Defendants' Brief in Support of Denial of Preliminary Injunction - Oral Argument Requested filed by Mark Burns, Unknown DeYoung, Unknown Grieves, David Gutowski, Ivan Morris, Muskegon, County of, Dean Roesler, Unknown Parties (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Affidavit of Lt. Mark Burns)(Hughes, Douglas) (Entered: 02/02/2015)
15 RESPONSE TO MOTION to certify class 5 Oral Argument Requested filed by Mark Burns, Unknown DeYoung, Unknown Grieves, David Gutowski, Ivan Morris, Muskegon, County of, Dean Roesler (Vander Laan, Allan) (Entered: 02/02/2015)
16 BRIEF by defendants Mark Burns, Unknown DeYoung, Unknown Grieves, David Gutowski, Ivan Morris, Muskegon, County of, Dean Roesler re 15 in Support of Defendants Response to Motion for Class Certification (Attachments: # 1 Index List of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit 7, # 9 Exhibit 8, # 10 Exhibit 9, # 11 Exhibit 10, # 12 Exhibit 11, # 13 Exhibit 12, # 14 Exhibit 13, # 15 Exhibit 14, # 16 Exhibit 15, # 17 Exhibit 16, # 18 Exhibit 17, # 19 Exhibit 18, # 20 Exhibit 19, # 21 Exhibit 20, # 22 Exhibit 21, # 23 Exhibit 22,

02/02/2015 02/06/2015 02/11/2015 02/11/2015 02/17/2015
02/17/2015 02/20/2015

# 24Exhibit 23, # 25 Exhibit 24, # 26 Exhibit 25, # 27 Exhibit 26, # 28 Exhibit 27, # 29 Exhibit 28, # 30 Exhibit 29)(Vander Laan, Allan) (Entered: 02/02/2015)
17 SUPPLEMENT re Brief (Related Document), 16 Index of Unpublished Authorities by defendants Mark Burns, Unknown DeYoung, Unknown Grieves, David Gutowski, Ivan Morris, Muskegon, County of, Dean Roesler (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8)(Vander Laan, Allan) Modified text on 2/3/2015 (ald). (Entered: 02/02/2015)
18 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants filed by Londora Kitchens, Paulette Bosch, Michelle Semelbauer, Tammy Speers, Denise Vos, Stashia Collins, Crisa Brown, Latrece Baker, Delilah Wickliffe, Andrea Dorn, Judy Pauley(Aukerman, Miriam) (Entered: 02/06/2015)
19 MOTION to strike and Brief in Support of Motion by defendants Mark Burns, Unknown DeYoung, Unknown Grieves, David Gutowski, Ivan Morris, Muskegon, County of, Dean Roesler; (Brege, Andrew) (Entered: 02/11/2015)
20 ANSWER to complaint 1 with Affirmative Defenses by Mark Burns, Unknown DeYoung, Unknown Grieves, David Gutowski, Ivan Morris, Muskegon, County of, Dean Roesler(Vander Laan, Allan) Modified text on 2/18/2015 (ns). (Entered: 02/11/2015)
21 REPLY to response to motion 5 for class certification filed by Latrece Baker, Paulette Bosch, Crisa Brown, Stashia Collins, Andrea Dorn, Londora Kitchens, Judy Pauley, Michelle Semelbauer, Tammy Speers, Denise Vos, Delilah Wickliffe (Attachments: # 1 Index Updated Index of Exhibits, # 2Exhibit 23: Collins Inmate Profile, # 3 Exhibit 24: Allen Declaration, # 4 Exhibit 25: Dorn Declaration, # 5 Exhibit 26: Pauley Declaration, # 6 Exhibit 27: Wickliffe Declaration, # 7 Exhibit 28: Wickliffe Inmate Profile, # 8 Exhibit 29: Randle Declaration, # 9 Exhibit 30: Chart of Conditions in Men's Cells)(Aukerman, Miriam) (Entered: 02/17/2015)
22 REPLY to response to motion 2 for preliminary injunction filed by Latrece Baker, Paulette Bosch, Crisa Brown, Stashia Collins, Andrea Dorn, Londora Kitchens, Judy Pauley, Michelle Semelbauer, Tammy Speers, Denise Vos, Delilah Wickliffe (Aukerman, Miriam) (Entered: 02/17/2015)
23 MOTION for leave to file Sur-reply Briefs to Plaintiffs' Motions for Class Certification (Dkt. 5) and for Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. No.

02/20/2015 02/25/2015 02/25/2015 02/26/2015 03/02/2015 03/05/2015 03/05/2015

2) by defendants Mark Burns, Unknown DeYoung, Unknown Grieves, David Gutowski, Ivan Morris, Muskegon, County of, Dean Roesler; (Brege, Andrew) (Entered: 02/20/2015)
24 ANSWER to Amended Complaint, 18 with affirmative defenses and jury demand by Mark Burns, Unknown DeYoung, Unknown Grieves, David Gutowski, Ivan Morris, Muskegon, County of, Dean Roesler(Vander Laan, Allan) (Entered: 02/20/2015)
25 RESPONSE TO MOTION for leave to file Sur-reply Briefs to Plaintiffs' Motions for Class Certification (Dkt. 5) and for Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. No. 2) 23 filed by Latrece Baker, Paulette Bosch, Crisa Brown, Stashia Collins, Andrea Dorn, Londora Kitchens, Judy Pauley, Michelle Semelbauer, Tammy Speers, Denise Vos, Delilah Wickliffe (Aukerman, Miriam) (Entered: 02/25/2015)
26 RESPONSE in opposition to MOTION to strike and Brief in Support of Motion 19 filed by Latrece Baker, Paulette Bosch, Crisa Brown, Stashia Collins, Andrea Dorn, Londora Kitchens, Judy Pauley, Michelle Semelbauer, Tammy Speers, Denise Vos, Delilah Wickliffe (Aukerman, Miriam) (Entered: 02/25/2015)
27 ORDER granting 23 motion seeking leave to file sur-reply briefs; Defendants' sur-reply briefs, if any, shall be limited to 10 pages and filed no later than 3/5/2015; signed by Judge Janet T. Neff (Judge Janet T. Neff, rmw) (Entered: 02/26/2015)
28 REQUEST for pre-motion conference by defendants Mark Burns, Unknown DeYoung, Muskegon, County of, David Gutowski, Unknown Grieves, Ivan Morris, Dean Roesler by defendants Mark Burns, Unknown DeYoung, Muskegon, County of, David Gutowski, Unknown Grieves, Ivan Morris, Dean Roesler; (Vander Laan, Allan) (Entered: 03/02/2015)
29 SURREPLY TO MOTION to certify class 5 Oral Argument Requested filed by Mark Burns, Unknown DeYoung, Unknown Grieves, David Gutowski, Ivan Morris, Muskegon, County of, Dean Roesler (Attachments: # 1 Index List of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3)(Vander Laan, Allan) (Entered: 03/05/2015)
30 SURREPLY TO MOTION for Preliminary Injunction 2 Oral Argument Requested filed by Mark Burns, Unknown DeYoung, Unknown Grieves, David Gutowski, Ivan Morris, Muskegon, County of, Dean Roesler, Unknown Parties (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Hughes, Douglas) Modified docket relationship and text on 3/5/2015 (cep). (Entered: 03/05/2015)

03/05/2015 03/05/2015 03/09/2015 03/11/2015 04/08/2015
04/08/2015

31 SUPPLEMENT re Surreply to Motion, 29 for Class Certification by defendants Mark Burns, Unknown DeYoung, Unknown Grieves, David Gutowski, Ivan Morris, Muskegon, County of, Dean Roesler (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Vander Laan, Allan) (Entered: 03/05/2015)
32 SUPPLEMENT re Surreply to Motion, 30 Index of Unpublished Authorities by defendants Mark Burns, Unknown DeYoung, Unknown Grieves, David Gutowski, Ivan Morris, Muskegon, County of, Dean Roesler, Unknown Parties (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8)(Hughes, Douglas) (Entered: 03/05/2015)
33 RESPONSE TO REQUEST for pre-motion conference by defendants Mark Burns, Unknown DeYoung, Muskegon, County of, David Gutowski, Unknown Grieves, Ivan Morris, Dean Roesler 28 filed by Latrece Baker, Paulette Bosch, Crisa Brown, Stashia Collins, Andrea Dorn, Londora Kitchens, Judy Pauley, Michelle Semelbauer, Tammy Speers, Denise Vos, Delilah Wickliffe (Aukerman, Miriam) (Entered: 03/09/2015)
34 ORDER scheduling a pre-motion conference regarding document number 28 : pre-motion conference is set for 4/22/2015 at 10:00 AM at 401 Federal Building, Grand Rapids, MI before Judge Janet T. Neff; the attorneys handling the matter for trial are required to be present; counsel shall be prepared to discuss the motion to strike 19 ; signed by Judge Janet T. Neff (Judge Janet T. Neff, rmw) (Entered: 03/11/2015)
35 MOTION to compel Defendants to Permit Entry on Land and to Hear Expert's Testimony in Support of Plaintiffs' Preliminary Injunction Motion, Immediation Consideration and Expedited Briefing Requested by plaintiffs Latrece Baker, Paulette Bosch, Crisa Brown, Stashia Collins, Andrea Dorn, Londora Kitchens, Judy Pauley, Michelle Semelbauer, Tammy Speers, Denise Vos, Delilah Wickliffe; (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit 1: Declarations, # 3 Exhibit 2: Philip Stanley C.V., # 4 Exhibit 3: Carlson Email and Proposed Stipulation) (Aukerman, Miriam) (Entered: 04/08/2015)
36 BRIEF in support of MOTION to compel Defendants to Permit Entry on Land and to Hear Expert's Testimony in Support of Plaintiffs' Preliminary Injunction Motion, Immediation Consideration and Expedited Briefing Requested 35 filed by Latrece Baker, Paulette Bosch, Crisa Brown, Stashia Collins, Andrea Dorn, Londora Kitchens, Judy Pauley, Michelle Semelbauer, Tammy Speers, Denise Vos, Delilah Wickliffe (Aukerman, Miriam) (Entered: 04/08/2015)

04/08/2015 04/08/2015 04/15/2015
04/15/2015 04/22/2015 04/22/2015
04/22/2015 04/22/2015 05/20/2015

37 NOTICE to attorney Miriam J. Aukerman regarding recent filing 35 , 36 (ns) (Entered: 04/08/2015)
38 ORDER regarding response to motion to compel 35 ; Defendants' response due no later than 4/15/2015; signed by Judge Janet T. Neff (Judge Janet T. Neff, rmw) (Entered: 04/08/2015)
39 RESPONSE TO MOTION to compel Defendants to Permit Entry on Land and to Hear Expert's Testimony in Support of Plaintiffs' Preliminary Injunction Motion, Immediation Consideration and Expedited Briefing Requested 35 filed by Mark Burns, Unknown DeYoung, Unknown Grieves, David Gutowski, Ivan Morris, Muskegon, County of, Dean Roesler (Vander Laan, Allan) (Entered: 04/15/2015)
40 BRIEF by defendant Dean Roesler re 39 in Support of Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Defendants to Permit Entry on Land by Plaintiffs' Expert and to Hear Expert's Testimony in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Vander Laan, Allan) (Entered: 04/15/2015)
41 MINUTES of pre-motion conference re 28 held before Judge Janet T. Neff; Order to issue; (Court Reporter: Kathy Anderson) (Judge Janet T. Neff, rmw) (Entered: 04/22/2015)
42 ORDER regarding pre-motion conference: Defendants' Motion to strike Amended Complaint 19 is DENIED for the reasons stated on the record; anticipated motion to dismiss must be served and a proof of service filed not later than May 20, 2015, response must be served and a proof of service filed within 28 days of service of the motion and any reply must be served and a proof of service filed within 14 days of service of the Response; motion papers to be filed as soon as the motion is fully briefed; signed by Judge Janet T. Neff (Judge Janet T. Neff, clb) (Entered: 04/22/2015)
Copy of Pre-Motion Conference Order,, 42 sent via U.S. Mail to Andrea Jean Johnson (ald) (Entered: 04/22/2015)
43 LETTER from Clerk to attorney Andrea Jean Johnson regarding mandatory electronic filing (ald) (Entered: 04/22/2015)
44 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by defendants Mark Burns, Unknown DeYoung, Unknown Grieves, David Gutowski, Ivan Morris, Muskegon, County of, Dean Roesler of Motion for Summary Judgment and Brief in Support (Vander Laan, Allan) (Entered: 05/20/2015)

06/17/2015 07/01/2015 07/01/2015 07/01/2015
07/01/2015 07/01/2015 07/02/2015

45 PROOF OF SERVICE by plaintiffs Latrece Baker, Paulette Bosch, Crisa Brown, Stashia Collins, Andrea Dorn, Londora Kitchens, Judy Pauley, Michelle Semelbauer, Tammy Speers, Denise Vos, Delilah Wickliffe of Filing Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings (Aukerman, Miriam) (Entered: 06/17/2015)
46 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by defendants Mark Burns, Unknown DeYoung, Unknown Grieves, David Gutowski, Ivan Morris, Muskegon, County of, Dean Roesler, Unknown Parties Defendants' Reply to Plaintiffs' Brief in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings(Vander Laan, Allan) (Entered: 07/01/2015)
47 MOTION for summary judgment by defendants Mark Burns, Unknown DeYoung, Unknown Grieves, David Gutowski, Ivan Morris, Muskegon, County of, Dean Roesler; (Vander Laan, Allan) (Entered: 07/01/2015)
48 BRIEF in support of MOTION for summary judgment 47 filed by Mark Burns, Unknown DeYoung, Unknown Grieves, David Gutowski, Ivan Morris, Muskegon, County of, Dean Roesler (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit 14, # 15 Exhibit 15, # 16 Exhibit 16, # 17Exhibit 17, # 18 Exhibit 18, # 19 Exhibit 19) (Vander Laan, Allan) (Entered: 07/01/2015)
49 RESPONSE in opposition to MOTION for summary judgment 47 (Defendants' Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings) filed by Latrece Baker, Paulette Bosch, Crisa Brown, Stashia Collins, Andrea Dorn, Londora Kitchens, Judy Pauley, Michelle Semelbauer, Tammy Speers, Denise Vos, Delilah Wickliffe (Aukerman, Miriam) (Entered: 07/01/2015)
50 PROPOSED STIPULATION and ORDER Dismissing Dean Roesler and Lt. Mark Burns in Their Official Capacities by plaintiffs Latrece Baker, Paulette Bosch, Crisa Brown, Stashia Collins, Andrea Dorn, Londora Kitchens, Judy Pauley, Michelle Semelbauer, Tammy Speers, Denise Vos, Delilah Wickliffe (Aukerman, Miriam) (Entered: 07/01/2015)
51 REPLY to response to motion 47 filed by Mark Burns, Unknown DeYoung, Unknown Grieves, David Gutowski, Ivan Morris, Muskegon, County of, Dean Roesler (Vander Laan, Allan) (Entered: 07/02/2015)

07/06/2015 08/04/2015 09/11/2015
10/07/2015 10/07/2015 10/13/2015 10/16/2015 10/19/2015 10/20/2015

52 ORDER re: STIPULATION 50 dismissing Dean Roesler and Lt. Mark Burns in their official capacities; signed by Judge Janet T. Neff (Judge Janet T. Neff, clb) (Entered: 07/06/2015)
53 STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER to Allow Counsel Marc S. Allen to Withdraw by plaintiffs Latrece Baker, Paulette Bosch, Crisa Brown, Stashia Collins, Andrea Dorn, Londora Kitchens, Judy Pauley, Michelle Semelbauer, Tammy Speers, Denise Vos, Delilah Wickliffe (Aukerman, Miriam) (Entered: 08/04/2015)
54 OPINION AND ORDER denying in part Counts I and II and granting in part Counts III and IV 47 motion for partial judgment on the pleadings; dismissing without prejudice to re-filing 2 motion for preliminary injunction, 5 motion to certify class, and 35 motion to compel; signed by Judge Janet T. Neff (Judge Janet T. Neff, clb) (Entered: 09/11/2015)
55 NOTICE OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL re 54 by plaintiffs Stashia Collins, Andrea Dorn, Judy Pauley [Attorney Daniel S. Korobkin added to party Andrea Dorn(pty:pla), Attorney Daniel S. Korobkin added to party Judy Pauley(pty:pla)] (Korobkin, Daniel) (Entered: 10/07/2015)
APPEAL FEE PAID re 55 by plaintiffs Stashia Collins, Andrea Dorn, Judy Pauley in the amount of $505, receipt number 0646-3335072 (Korobkin, Daniel) (Entered: 10/07/2015)
56 ORDER setting Rule 16 scheduling conference: Rule 16 scheduling conference is set for 11/3/2015 at 11:00 AM at 401 Federal Building, Grand Rapids, MI before Judge Janet T. Neff; status report due by 10/27/2015; signed by Judge Janet T. Neff (Judge Janet T. Neff, rmw) (Entered: 10/13/2015)
CASE NUMBER 15-2214 assigned by the Sixth Circuit to appeal 55 (mkc) (Entered: 11/02/2015)
57 NOTICE rescheduling hearing: Rule 16 scheduling conference rescheduled to 10/28/2015 at 01:30 PM at 401 Federal Building, Grand Rapids, MI before Judge Janet T. Neff; status report due by 10/22/2015; (Judge Janet T. Neff, rmw) (Entered: 10/19/2015)
58 TRANSCRIPT of Premotion Conference Proceedings held April 22, 2015 before Honorable Janet T. Neff; NOTE: this transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the release of transcript restriction date; after that date it may be obtained through PACER; under the Policy Regarding Transcripts the parties have 14 days within which to file a Notice of Intent to redact, and 21 days within which to file a Redaction

10/20/2015
10/20/2015 10/21/2015 12/07/2015

Request; if no Transcript Redaction Request is filed, the court will assume redaction of personal identifiers is not necessary and this transcript will be made available via PACER after the release of transcript restriction set for 1/19/2016 ; redaction request due 11/10/2015 (Court Reporter-Transcriptionist: Anderson, Kathy (616) 914-2384) (Entered: 10/20/2015)
59 Modified as to "Appeal" APPEAL TRANSCRIPT of Premotion Conference Proceedings held April 22, 2015 before Honorable Janet T. Neff; re appeal 55 ; NOTE: this transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the release of transcript restriction date; after that date it may be obtained through PACER; under the Policy Regarding Transcripts the parties have 14 days within which to file a Notice of Intent to redact, and 21 days within which to file a Redaction Request; if no Transcript Redaction Request is filed, the court will assume redaction of personal identifiers is not necessary and this transcript will be made available via PACER after the release of transcript restriction set for 1/19/2016 ; redaction request due 11/10/2015 (Court Reporter-Transcriptionist: Anderson, Kathy (616) 914-2384) (Entered: 10/20/2015)
ACKNOWLEDGMENT of appeal transcript order from ACLU received October 9, 2015 re appeal 55 filed by Stashia Collins, Judy Pauley, Andrea Dorn ; transcript is estimated at 36 pages with an estimated completion date of October 20, 2015; arrangements for payment made on October 9, 2015 (Court Reporter-Transcriptionist: Anderson, Kathy (616) 914-2384) (Entered: 10/20/2015)
60 NOTICE rescheduling hearing: Rule 16 scheduling conference rescheduled to 12/14/2015 at 02:30 PM at 401 Federal Building, Grand Rapids, MI before Judge Janet T. Neff; status report due by 12/7/2015; additional requests to reschedule the conference will not be favored; (Judge Janet T. Neff, rmw) (Entered: 10/21/2015)
61 JOINT STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by plaintiffs Latrece Baker, Paulette Bosch, Crisa Brown, Stashia Collins, Andrea Dorn, Londora Kitchens, Judy Pauley, Michelle Semelbauer, Tammy Speers, Denise Vos, Delilah Wickliffe for Rule 16 Conference [Attorney Kevin M. Carlson added to party Latrece Baker(pty:pla), Attorney Kevin M. Carlson added to party Paulette Bosch(pty:pla), Attorney Kevin M. Carlson added to party Crisa Brown(pty:pla), Attorney Kevin M. Carlson added to party Stashia Collins(pty:pla), Attorney Kevin M. Carlson added to party Andrea Dorn(pty:pla), Attorney Kevin M. Carlson added to party Londora Kitchens(pty:pla), Attorney Kevin M. Carlson added to party Judy Pauley(pty:pla), Attorney Kevin M. Carlson added to party Tammy Speers(pty:pla), Attorney Kevin M.

12/14/2015 12/14/2015 12/15/2015
12/15/2015 12/15/2015 01/06/2016 01/12/2016 01/29/2016

Carlson added to party Denise Vos(pty:pla), Attorney Kevin M. Carlson added to party Delilah Wickliffe(pty:pla)] (Carlson, Kevin) (Entered: 12/07/2015)
62 MINUTES of scheduling conference held before Judge Janet T. Neff; Case Management Order to issue; (Court Reporter: not recorded) (Judge Janet T. Neff, rmw) (Entered: 12/15/2015)
64 AMENDED MINUTES of scheduling conference held before Judge Janet T. Neff; amending 62 as to Attorney Vander Naald; (Court Reporter: not recorded) (Judge Janet T. Neff, rmw) Modified date filed on 12/15/2015 (ns). (Entered: 12/15/2015)
63 CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER: counsel shall, no later than 12/29/2015, schedule an early settlement conference; settlement conference set for 5/9/2017 at 02:00 PM at 664 Federal Building, Grand Rapids, MI before Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody; final pretrial conference set for 7/10/2017 at 10:30 AM at 401 Federal Building, Grand Rapids, MI before Judge Janet T. Neff; jury trial set for 7/24/2017 at 09:00 AM at 401 Federal Building, Grand Rapids, MI before Judge Janet T. Neff; counsel shall be present for an in-chambers conference one-half hour prior to the start of the final pretrial conference and the trial; signed by Judge Janet T. Neff (Judge Janet T. Neff, rmw) (Entered: 12/15/2015)
Copy of Case Management Order,, 63 sent via U.S. Mail to Breanne Vander Naald (ns) (Entered: 12/15/2015)
65 (DISREGARD) ATTORNEY ADMISSION LETTER sent to attorney Breanne Vander Naald; attorney admission deadline set for 1/12/2016; (ns) Modified text on 1/7/2016 per Chambers (ns). (Entered: 12/15/2015)
66 NOTICE re 65 Clarifying Status of Breanne VanderNaald by plaintiffs Latrece Baker, Paulette Bosch, Crisa Brown, Stashia Collins, Andrea Dorn, Londora Kitchens, Judy Pauley, Michelle Semelbauer, Tammy Speers, Denise Vos, Delilah Wickliffe (Aukerman, Miriam) (Entered: 01/06/2016)
67 ORDER regarding settlement conference: early settlement conference set for 3/16/2016 at 02:00 PM at 664 Federal Building, Grand Rapids, MI before Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody; signed by Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody (Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody, cbh) (Entered: 01/12/2016)
68 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by defendants Unknown DeYoung, Unknown Grieves, David Gutowski, Ivan Morris, Muskegon, County

01/29/2016 01/29/2016 01/29/2016 02/24/2016 03/02/2016 03/14/2016 03/21/2016
03/30/2016

of Defendants' Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosures (Brege, Andrew) (Entered: 01/29/2016)
69 CORRECTED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by defendants Unknown DeYoung, Unknown Grieves, David Gutowski, Ivan Morris, Muskegon, County of re Defendants' Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosures (Brege, Andrew) Modified text on 1/29/2016 (ns). (Entered: 01/29/2016)
70 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by plaintiffs Latrece Baker, Paulette Bosch, Crisa Brown, Stashia Collins, Andrea Dorn, Londora Kitchens, Judy Pauley, Michelle Semelbauer, Tammy Speers, Denise Vos, Delilah Wickliffe as to Plaintiffs' Rule 26 Disclosures (Carlson, Kevin) (Entered: 01/29/2016)
71 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by defendants Unknown DeYoung, Unknown Grieves, David Gutowski, Ivan Morris, Muskegon, County of First Request for Production of Documents to Plaintiffs (Vander Laan, Allan) (Entered: 01/29/2016)
72 SUGGESTION OF DEATH upon the record as to Notice of Death of Michelle Semelbauer by plaintiffs Latrece Baker, Paulette Bosch, Crisa Brown, Stashia Collins, Andrea Dorn, Londora Kitchens, Judy Pauley, Tammy Speers (Aukerman, Miriam) (Entered: 02/24/2016)
73 ORDER regarding settlement conference: early settlement conference set previously for 3/16/2016 is rescheduled to 5/12/2016 at 02:00 PM at 664 Federal Building, Grand Rapids, MI before Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody; signed by Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody (Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody, cbh) (Entered: 03/02/2016)
74 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by plaintiffs Latrece Baker, Paulette Bosch, Crisa Brown, Stashia Collins, Andrea Dorn, Londora Kitchens, Judy Pauley, Michelle Semelbauer, Tammy Speers, Denise Vos, Delilah Wickliffe for Rule 34 Request for Entry (Aukerman, Miriam) (Entered: 03/14/2016)
75 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by defendants Unknown DeYoung, Unknown Grieves, David Gutowski, Ivan Morris, Muskegon, County of Response to Plaintiffs' Request for Entry to Muskegon County Jail for Purposes of Expert Witness Inspection of Jail Facilities and Jail Operations Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 (Brege, Andrew) (Entered: 03/21/2016)
76 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by plaintiffs Latrece Baker, Paulette Bosch, Crisa Brown, Stashia Collins, Andrea Dorn, Londora Kitchens, Judy Pauley, Michelle Semelbauer, Tammy Speers, Denise Vos,

03/31/2016 03/31/2016 03/31/2016 03/31/2016 03/31/2016

Delilah Wickliffe Re Disclosure of Experts (Aukerman, Miriam) (Entered: 03/30/2016)
77 (WITHDRAWN) MOTION to certify class (partial renewal) ( responses due 5/2/2016;, replies due by 5/19/2016;), MOTION for joinder by plaintiffs Latrece Baker, Paulette Bosch, Crisa Brown, Stashia Collins, Andrea Dorn, Londora Kitchens, Judy Pauley, Michelle Semelbauer, Tammy Speers, Denise Vos, Delilah Wickliffe; (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit) (Aukerman, Miriam) Modified text on 7/25/2017 per 186 (ns). (Entered: 03/31/2016)
78 BRIEF in support of MOTION to certify class (partial renewal) MOTION for joinder 77 filed by Latrece Baker, Paulette Bosch, Crisa Brown, Stashia Collins, Andrea Dorn, Londora Kitchens, Judy Pauley, Michelle Semelbauer, Tammy Speers, Denise Vos, Delilah Wickliffe (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit 1: Summary of Declarations Cross Gender Viewing, # 3 Exhibit 2: Summary of Declarations Denial of Exercise) (Aukerman, Miriam) (Entered: 03/31/2016)
79 EXHIBITS 4 through 8 re 77 by plaintiffs Latrece Baker, Paulette Bosch, Crisa Brown, Stashia Collins, Andrea Dorn, Londora Kitchens, Judy Pauley, Michelle Semelbauer, Tammy Speers, Denise Vos, Delilah Wickliffe (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 4: Swanson Declarations, # 2 Exhibit 5: Thornton Declaration, # 3 Exhibit 6: Warren Declaration, # 4 Exhibit 7: Baker Declaration, # 5 Exhibit 8: Bosch Declaration) (Aukerman, Miriam) Modified text on 3/31/2016 (ns). (Entered: 03/31/2016)
80 EXHIBITS 10 through 14 re 77 by plaintiffs Latrece Baker, Paulette Bosch, Crisa Brown, Stashia Collins, Andrea Dorn, Londora Kitchens, Judy Pauley, Michelle Semelbauer, Tammy Speers, Denise Vos, Delilah Wickliffe (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 10: Collins Declaration, # 2 Exhibit 11: Dorn Declaration, # 3 Exhibit 12: Kitchens Declaration, # 4 Exhibit 13: Pauley Declaration, # 5 Exhibit 14: Speers Declaration) (Aukerman, Miriam) Modified text on 3/31/2016 (ns). (Entered: 03/31/2016)
81 EXHIBITS 16 through 25 re 77 by plaintiffs Latrece Baker, Paulette Bosch, Crisa Brown, Stashia Collins, Andrea Dorn, Londora Kitchens, Judy Pauley, Michelle Semelbauer, Tammy Speers, Denise Vos, Delilah Wickliffe (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 16: Wickliffe Declaration, # 2 Exhibit 17: L. Allen Declaration, # 3 Exhibit 18: E. Bailey Declaration, # 4 Exhibit 19: L Bailey Declaration, # 5 Exhibit 20: Bates Declaration, # 6 Exhibit 21: Bigelow Declaration, # 7 Exhibit 22: Callison Declaration, # 8 Exhibit 23: Combs Declaration, # 9 Exhibit

03/31/2016
03/31/2016
04/29/2016 05/02/2016 05/03/2016

24: Copeland Declaration, # 10 Exhibit 25: Wright Declaration) (Aukerman, Miriam) Modified text on 3/31/2016 (ns). (Entered: 03/31/2016)
82 EXHIBITS 27 through 37 re 77 by plaintiffs Latrece Baker, Paulette Bosch, Crisa Brown, Stashia Collins, Andrea Dorn, Londora Kitchens, Judy Pauley, Michelle Semelbauer, Tammy Speers, Denise Vos, Delilah Wickliffe (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 27: Flaska Declaration, # 2 Exhibit 28: Ford Declaration, # 3 Exhibit 29: Haley Declaration, # 4 Exhibit 30: Holle Declaration, # 5 Exhibit 31: D. Jackson Declaration, # 6 Exhibit 32: M. Jackson Declaration, # 7Exhibit 33: Malone Declaration, # 8 Exhibit 34: Neuman Declaration, # 9 Exhibit 35: Owens Declaration, # 10 Exhibit 36: People Declaration, # 11Exhibit 37: Pittman Declaration) (Aukerman, Miriam) Modified text on 3/31/2016 (ns). (Entered: 03/31/2016)
83 EXHIBITS 39 through 49 re 77 by plaintiffs Latrece Baker, Paulette Bosch, Crisa Brown, Stashia Collins, Andrea Dorn, Londora Kitchens, Judy Pauley, Michelle Semelbauer, Tammy Speers, Denise Vos, Delilah Wickliffe (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 39: Robar Declaration, # 2 Exhibit 40: Salazar Declaration, # 3 Exhibit 41: Sanes Declaration, # 4 Exhibit 42: Short Declaration, # 5 Exhibit 43: Swiftney Declaration, # 6 Exhibit 44: Towers Declaration, # 7 Exhibit 45: Turner Declaration, # 8 Exhibit 46: Wallace Declaration, # 9 Exhibit 47: White Declaration, # 10 Exhibit 48: MCJ Population Chart, # 11 Exhibit 49: M. Allen Declaration) (Aukerman, Miriam) Modified text on 3/31/2016 (ns). (Entered: 03/31/2016)
84 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by defendants Unknown DeYoung, Unknown Grieves, David Gutowski, Ivan Morris, Muskegon, County of Defendants' Rule 26(a)(2) Disclosure (Brege, Andrew) (Entered: 04/29/2016)
85 RESPONSE in opposition to MOTION to certify class (partial renewal) MOTION for joinder 77 Oral Argument Requested filed by Mark Burns, Unknown DeYoung, Unknown Grieves, David Gutowski, Ivan Morris, Muskegon, County of, Dean Roesler (Attachments: # 1 Index List of Exhibits, # 2Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4) (Vander Laan, Allan) (Entered: 05/02/2016)
86 SUPPLEMENT to 85 by defendants Mark Burns, Unknown DeYoung, Unknown Grieves, David Gutowski, Ivan Morris, Muskegon, County of, Dean Roesler; (Attachments: # 1 Attachment 1 Gonzales v Comcast, # 2 Attachment 2 Harris v Caruso, # 3 Attachment 3 Smith v Isabella) (Vander Laan, Allan) Modified text on 5/3/2016 (kw). (Entered: 05/03/2016)

05/04/2016 05/12/2016 05/12/2016
05/12/2016 05/12/2016 05/13/2016 05/20/2016 05/23/2016 05/27/2016

87 NOTICE re 85 Errata Regarding Defendants' Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification (Dkt. 85) by defendants Mark Burns, Unknown DeYoung, Unknown Grieves, David Gutowski, Ivan Morris, Muskegon, County of, Dean Roesler (Vander Laan, Allan) (Entered: 05/04/2016)
88 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by defendants Unknown DeYoung, Unknown Grieves, David Gutowski, Ivan Morris, Muskegon, County of First Amended Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosures (Brege, Andrew) (Entered: 05/12/2016)
89 ORDER of USCA (certified copy) re appeal 55 ; the appeal is dismissed insofar as it is taken from the portion of the September 11, 2015 order that granted defendants' motion for partial judgment on the pleadings with respect to Count III and denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification with respect to Count III. The appeal may PROCEED as it applies to the portion of the September 11, 2015 order denying a preliminary injunction (ns) (Entered: 05/12/2016)
90 MINUTES of early settlement conference held before Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody; conference to be continued (Proceedings Not Recorded) (Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody, cbh) (Entered: 05/12/2016)
91 NOTICE of continued early settlement conference set for 6/8/2016 at 10:00 AM at 664 Federal Building, Grand Rapids, MI before Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody (Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody, cbh) (Entered: 05/12/2016)
92 ORDER cancelling motion deadlines; signed by Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody (Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody, jal) (Entered: 05/13/2016)
93 PROPOSED STIPULATION and ORDER to Stay Discovery by plaintiffs Latrece Baker, Paulette Bosch, Crisa Brown, Stashia Collins, Andrea Dorn, Londora Kitchens, Judy Pauley, Michelle Semelbauer, Tammy Speers, Denise Vos, Delilah Wickliffe (Aukerman, Miriam) (Entered: 05/20/2016)
94 ORDER granting STIPULATION 93 ; all pending discovery deadlines are stayed pending the outcome of the continued settlement conference; if this matter is not resolved, the parties shall propose a new order resetting the discovery deadlines; signed by Judge Janet T. Neff (Judge Janet T. Neff, rmw) (Entered: 05/23/2016)
95 (DISREGARD) NOTICE of continued early settlement conference rescheduled to 6/8/2016 at 02:00 PM at 664 Federal Building, Grand

Rapids, MI before Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody; please note change in start time (Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody, cbh) Modified text on 5/31/2016 (ns). (Entered: 05/27/2016)

05/31/2016

96 NOTICE of continued early settlement conference rescheduled to 6/8/2016 at 02:00 PM at 664 Federal Building, Grand Rapids, MI before Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody; please note change in start time (Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody, cbh) (Entered: 05/31/2016)

06/08/2016

97 MINUTES of continued early settlement conference held before Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody; case did not settle (Proceedings Not Recorded) (Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody, jal) Modified text on 6/9/2016 (jal). (Entered: 06/09/2016)

06/09/2016

98 ORDER: no later than 14 days from the date of this order the parties shall file a joint status report suggesting new deadlines for motion practice and discovery; signed by Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody (Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody, jal) (Entered: 06/09/2016)

06/22/2016

99 JOINT STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by plaintiffs Latrece Baker, Paulette Bosch, Crisa Brown, Stashia Collins, Andrea Dorn, Londora Kitchens, Judy Pauley, Michelle Semelbauer, Tammy Speers, Denise Vos, Delilah Wickliffe (Aukerman, Miriam) (Entered: 06/22/2016)

06/28/2016

100 NOTICE of Rule 16 status conference set for 7/18/2016 at 11:00 AM at 650 Federal Building, Grand Rapids, MI before Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody (Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody, jal) (Entered: 06/28/2016)

07/06/2016

101 NOTICE rescheduling hearing that was previously set for 7/18/2016 at 11:00 AM: Rule 16 status conference set for 7/19/2016 at 11:00 AM at 650 Federal Building, Grand Rapids, MI before Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody (Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody, jal) (Entered: 07/06/2016)

07/15/2016

102 NOTICE to Withdraw Attorney of Record by defendants Mark Burns, Unknown DeYoung, Unknown Grieves, David Gutowski, Ivan Morris, Muskegon, County of, Dean Roesler (Vander Laan, Allan) (Entered: 07/15/2016)

07/19/2016

103 MINUTES of scheduling conference held before Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody; amended case management order to issue (Proceedings Digitally Recorded) (Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody, jal) (Entered: 07/19/2016)

07/25/2016

104 AMENDED CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER: settlement conference set for 8/14/2017 at 02:00 PM at 664 Federal Building, Grand Rapids, MI before Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody; final pretrial conference set for 10/16/2017 at 11:30 AM at 401 Federal Building, Grand Rapids, MI before Judge Janet T. Neff; jury trial set for 10/30/2017 at 09:00 AM at 401 Federal Building, Grand Rapids, MI before Judge Janet T. Neff; signed by Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody (Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody, cbh) (Entered: 07/25/2016)

08/02/2016

105 REPLY to response to motion 77 for class certification (partial renewal) and joinder filed by Latrece Baker, Paulette Bosch, Crisa Brown, Stashia Collins, Andrea Dorn, Londora Kitchens, Judy Pauley, Michelle Semelbauer, Tammy Speers, Denise Vos, Delilah Wickliffe (Attachments: # 1 Index Updated Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit 25 Corrected, # 3 Exhibit 50 Gutowski Deposition, # 4 Exhibit 51 Greve Deposition, # 5 Exhibit 52 Burns Deposition, # 6 Exhibit 53 Morris Deposition, # 7 Exhibit 54 Speers Second Declaration, # 8 Exhibit 55 Photos of New Jail, # 9 Exhibit 56 MCJ Inmate Rules and Regulations) (Aukerman, Miriam) (Entered: 08/02/2016)

08/03/2016

106 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by plaintiffs Latrece Baker, Paulette Bosch, Crisa Brown, Stashia Collins, Andrea Dorn, Londora Kitchens, Judy Pauley, Michelle Semelbauer, Tammy Speers, Denise Vos, Delilah Wickliffe for Plaintiffs' Second Interrogatories and Request for Production (Aukerman, Miriam) (Entered: 08/03/2016)

08/04/2016

107 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by plaintiffs Latrece Baker, Paulette Bosch, Crisa Brown, Stashia Collins, Andrea Dorn, Londora Kitchens, Judy Pauley, Michelle Semelbauer, Tammy Speers, Denise Vos, Delilah Wickliffe for Plaintiffs' First Amended Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosures (Aukerman, Miriam) (Entered: 08/04/2016)

08/10/2016

108 NOTICE re 77 of partial withdrawal of motion for joinder as to Nicole Thornton only by plaintiffs Latrece Baker, Paulette Bosch, Crisa Brown, Stashia Collins, Andrea Dorn, Londora Kitchens, Judy Pauley, Michelle Semelbauer, Tammy Speers, Denise Vos, Delilah Wickliffe (Aukerman, Miriam) Modified text on 8/11/2016 (cep). (Entered: 08/10/2016)

08/31/2016

(NON-DOCUMENT) ATTORNEY APPEARANCE of Adam Christopher Sturdivant on behalf of plaintiffs Latrece Baker, Paulette Bosch, Crisa Brown, Stashia Collins, Andrea Dorn, Londora Kitchens, Judy Pauley, Michelle Semelbauer, Tammy Speers, Denise Vos, Delilah Wickliffe (Sturdivant, Adam) (Entered: 08/31/2016)

08/31/2016

(NON-DOCUMENT) ATTORNEY APPEARANCE of Stephen R. Drew on behalf of plaintiffs Latrece Baker, Paulette Bosch, Crisa

Brown, Stashia Collins, Andrea Dorn, Londora Kitchens, Judy Pauley, Michelle Semelbauer, Tammy Speers, Denise Vos, Delilah Wickliffe (Drew, Stephen) (Entered: 08/31/2016)

09/02/2016

109 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE re Plaintiffs' Expert Witness Reports by plaintiffs Latrece Baker, Paulette Bosch, Crisa Brown, Stashia Collins, Andrea Dorn, Londora Kitchens, Judy Pauley, Michelle Semelbauer, Tammy Speers, Denise Vos, Delilah Wickliffe [Attorney Daniel S. Korobkin added to party Delilah Wickliffe(pty:pla)] (Korobkin, Daniel) Modified text on 9/2/2016 (ns). (Entered: 09/02/2016)

09/08/2016 110 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Unknown DeYoung, Unknown Grieves, David Gutowski, Ivan Morris, Muskegon, County of Sarah Swanson with NOD (Vander Laan, Allan) (Entered: 09/08/2016)

09/09/2016

111 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE re First Amended Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosures and Second Interrogatories and Request for Productions by plaintiffs Latrece Baker, Paulette Bosch, Crisa Brown, Stashia Collins, Andrea Dorn, Londora Kitchens, Judy Pauley, Michelle Semelbauer, Tammy Speers, Denise Vos, Delilah Wickliffe (Aukerman, Miriam) Modified text on 9/9/2016 (ns). (Entered: 09/09/2016)

09/20/2016

112 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Unknown DeYoung, Unknown Grieves, David Gutowski, Ivan Morris, Muskegon, County of Sarah Swanson with NOD and Subpoena (Vander Laan, Allan) (Entered: 09/20/2016)

09/20/2016

113 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING by defendants Unknown DeYoung, Unknown Grieves, David Gutowski, Ivan Morris, Muskegon, County of Domestic Return Receipt of NOD and Subpoena of Misty Ippen (Vander Laan, Allan) (Entered: 09/20/2016)

09/27/2016

114 PROPOSED STIPULATION and ORDER Protective Order by defendants Unknown DeYoung, Unknown Grieves, David Gutowski, Ivan Morris, Muskegon, County of (Vander Laan, Allan) (Entered: 09/27/2016)

09/27/2016

(NON-DOCUMENT) ORDER REFERRING PROPOSED STIPULATION and PROTECTIVE ORDER 114 to Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(A); signed by Judge Janet T. Neff (Judge Janet T. Neff, rmw) (Entered: 09/27/2016)

09/29/2016 115 PROTECTIVE ORDER; signed by Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody (Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody, jal) (Entered: 09/29/2016)

10/03/2016

116 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by defendants Unknown DeYoung, Unknown Grieves, David Gutowski, Ivan Morris, Muskegon, County of Dr. Daniel B. Kennedy's Report (Vander Laan, Allan) (Entered: 10/03/2016)

10/03/2016 117 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by defendants Unknown DeYoung, Unknown Grieves, David Gutowski, Ivan Morris, Muskegon, County of Discovery Responses (Vander Laan, Allan) (Entered: 10/03/2016)

10/06/2016

118 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by plaintiffs Latrece Baker, Paulette Bosch, Crisa Brown, Stashia Collins, Andrea Dorn, Londora Kitchens, Judy Pauley, Michelle Semelbauer, Tammy Speers, Denise Vos, Delilah Wickliffe regarding Plaintiffs' Notice of Taking Depositions Duces Tecum of Defendant Mark Burns and Deputies Ahrens, Clark (with Subpoena), Heethius, and Port (with Subpoena) (Sturdivant, Adam) (Entered: 10/06/2016)

10/11/2016

119 PROOF OF SERVICE by plaintiffs Latrece Baker, Paulette Bosch, Crisa Brown, Stashia Collins, Andrea Dorn, Londora Kitchens, Judy Pauley, Michelle Semelbauer, Tammy Speers, Denise Vos, Delilah Wickliffe regarding Subpoena for Deposition of Witness Ruby Clark (Sturdivant, Adam) (Entered: 10/11/2016)

10/17/2016

120 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by plaintiffs Latrece Baker, Paulette Bosch, Crisa Brown, Stashia Collins, Andrea Dorn, Londora Kitchens, Judy Pauley, Michelle Semelbauer, Tammy Speers, Denise Vos, Delilah Wickliffe regarding Plaintiffs' First Request for Admissions to All Defendants (Drew, Stephen) (Entered: 10/17/2016)

10/19/2016

121 PROPOSED STIPULATION and ORDER of Dismissal with Prejudice by defendants Unknown DeYoung, Unknown Grieves, David Gutowski, Ivan Morris, Muskegon, County of (Vander Laan, Allan) Modified text on 10/19/2016 (ns). (Entered: 10/19/2016)

10/19/2016

122 ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL granting STIPULATION 121 ; Count V, only, is dismissed with prejudice and without costs, interest or attorney fees; signed by Judge Janet T. Neff (Judge Janet T. Neff, rmw) (Entered: 10/19/2016)

11/10/2016

123 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by defendants Unknown DeYoung, Unknown Grieves, David Gutowski, Ivan Morris, Muskegon, County of Response to Request to Admit (Vander Laan, Allan) (Entered: 11/10/2016)

11/11/2016 124 FIRST MOTION to compel Discovery by plaintiffs Latrece Baker, Paulette Bosch, Crisa Brown, Stashia Collins, Andrea Dorn, Londora

Kitchens, Judy Pauley, Michelle Semelbauer, Tammy Speers, Denise Vos, Delilah Wickliffe; (Drew, Stephen) (Entered: 11/11/2016)

11/11/2016

125 BRIEF in support of FIRST MOTION to compel Discovery 124 filed by Latrece Baker, Paulette Bosch, Crisa Brown, Stashia Collins, Andrea Dorn, Londora Kitchens, Judy Pauley, Michelle Semelbauer, Tammy Speers, Denise Vos, Delilah Wickliffe (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10) (Drew, Stephen) (Entered: 11/11/2016)

11/14/2016 126 ORDER regarding motion to compel discovery 124 and certificate of concurrence; the motion is denied without prejudice to refile; signed by Judge Janet T. Neff (Judge Janet T. Neff, rmw) (Entered: 11/14/2016)

11/14/2016

127 MOTION to compel Discovery by plaintiffs Latrece Baker, Paulette Bosch, Crisa Brown, Stashia Collins, Andrea Dorn, Londora Kitchens, Judy Pauley, Michelle Semelbauer, Tammy Speers, Denise Vos, Delilah Wickliffe; (Drew, Stephen) (Entered: 11/14/2016)

11/14/2016

128 CERTIFICATE regarding compliance with LCivR 7.1(d) re MOTION to compel Discovery 127 filed by Latrece Baker, Paulette Bosch, Crisa Brown, Stashia Collins, Andrea Dorn, Londora Kitchens, Judy Pauley, Michelle Semelbauer, Tammy Speers, Denise Vos, Delilah Wickliffe (Drew, Stephen) (Entered: 11/14/2016)

11/14/2016

129 BRIEF in support of MOTION to compel Discovery 127 filed by Latrece Baker, Paulette Bosch, Crisa Brown, Stashia Collins, Andrea Dorn, Londora Kitchens, Judy Pauley, Michelle Semelbauer, Tammy Speers, Denise Vos, Delilah Wickliffe (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10) (Drew, Stephen) (Entered: 11/14/2016)

11/15/2016

(NON-DOCUMENT) ORDER REFERRING MOTION to compel discovery 127 to Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(A); signed by Judge Janet T. Neff (Judge Janet T. Neff, rmw) (Entered: 11/15/2016)

11/15/2016

130 NOTICE OF MOTION HEARING regarding Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery 127 : motion hearing is set for 12/2/2016 at 11:00 AM at 650 Federal Building, Grand Rapids, MI before Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody (Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody, cbh) (Entered: 11/15/2016)

11/28/2016 131 RESPONSE in opposition to MOTION to compel Discovery 127 , FIRST MOTION to compel Discovery 124 filed by Unknown

DeYoung, Unknown Grieves, David Gutowski, Ivan Morris, Muskegon, County of (Attachments: # 1 Index List of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit 7, # 9 Exhibit 8) (Vander Laan, Allan) (Entered: 11/28/2016)

11/28/2016

132 MOTION to withdraw as attorney for Plaintiff Andrea Dorn Only by plaintiffs Latrece Baker, Paulette Bosch, Crisa Brown, Stashia Collins, Andrea Dorn, Londora Kitchens, Judy Pauley, Michelle Semelbauer, Tammy Speers, Denise Vos, Delilah Wickliffe; (Aukerman, Miriam) (Entered: 11/28/2016)

11/29/2016

133 ORDER regarding motion to withdraw as attorney 132 and certificate of concurrence; the motion is denied without prejudice to refile; signed by Judge Janet T. Neff (Judge Janet T. Neff, rmw) (Entered: 11/29/2016)

11/29/2016

134 MOTION to withdraw as attorney for Plaintiff Andrea Dorn Only by plaintiffs Latrece Baker, Paulette Bosch, Crisa Brown, Stashia Collins, Andrea Dorn, Londora Kitchens, Judy Pauley, Michelle Semelbauer, Tammy Speers, Denise Vos, Delilah Wickliffe; (Aukerman, Miriam) (Entered: 11/29/2016)

11/29/2016

135 CERTIFICATE regarding compliance with LCivR 7.1(d) re MOTION to withdraw as attorney for Plaintiff Andrea Dorn Only 134 filed by Latrece Baker, Paulette Bosch, Crisa Brown, Stashia Collins, Andrea Dorn, Londora Kitchens, Judy Pauley, Michelle Semelbauer, Tammy Speers, Denise Vos, Delilah Wickliffe (Aukerman, Miriam) (Entered: 11/29/2016)

12/02/2016

136 ORDER granting 134 motion to withdraw as counsel as to Plaintiff Andrea Dorn; withdrawing counsel shall immediately serve a copy of this Order on Plaintiff Andrea Dorn, and file proof of service and a notice; Plaintiff Andrea Dorn has 14 days from the date of service of this Order to file a notice; signed by Judge Janet T. Neff (Judge Janet T. Neff, rmw) (Entered: 12/02/2016)

12/02/2016

137 MINUTES of motion hearing re 127 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery held before Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody; motion taken under advisement; order to issue (Proceedings Digitally Recorded) (Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody, cbh) (Entered: 12/05/2016)

12/05/2016 138 ORDER taking under advisement 127 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery; the parties shall file a joint status report detailing the outstanding issues by 12/9/2016; signed by Magistrate Judge Ellen S.

Carmody (Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody, cbh) (Entered: 12/05/2016)

12/05/2016

139 PROOF OF SERVICE by plaintiffs Latrece Baker, Paulette Bosch, Crisa Brown, Stashia Collins, Andrea Dorn, Londora Kitchens, Judy Pauley, Michelle Semelbauer, Tammy Speers, Denise Vos, Delilah Wickliffe of serving order docket no. 136 on Andrea Dorn at last known address (Aukerman, Miriam) (Entered: 12/05/2016)

12/05/2016

140 NOTICE of Andrea Dorn's last known address in compliance with docket no. 136 by plaintiffs Latrece Baker, Paulette Bosch, Crisa Brown, Stashia Collins, Andrea Dorn, Londora Kitchens, Judy Pauley, Michelle Semelbauer, Tammy Speers, Denise Vos, Delilah Wickliffe (Aukerman, Miriam) (Entered: 12/05/2016)

12/09/2016

141 JOINT STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by plaintiffs Latrece Baker, Paulette Bosch, Crisa Brown, Stashia Collins, Andrea Dorn, Londora Kitchens, Judy Pauley, Michelle Semelbauer, Tammy Speers, Denise Vos, Delilah Wickliffe (Aukerman, Miriam) (Entered: 12/09/2016)

12/12/2016

142 REQUEST for pre-motion conference by defendants Unknown DeYoung, Unknown Grieves, David Gutowski, Ivan Morris, Muskegon, County of Regarding Summary Judgment (Vander Laan, Allan) (Entered: 12/12/2016)

12/12/2016

143 ORDER regarding 127 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery; agreed documents to be produced by 1/1/2017; denying the request to modify the Case Management Order; remaining issues set for hearing on 12/16/2016 at 11:00 AM; signed by Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody (Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody, jal) (Entered: 12/12/2016)

12/12/2016 144 ORDER of USCA (certified copy) re appeal 55 ; the motion for reconsideration is denied (ns) (Entered: 12/13/2016)

12/13/2016

Copy of Order, 143 sent via U.S. Mail to Andrea Dorn (ns) (Entered: 12/13/2016)

12/13/2016

(NON-DOCUMENT) ATTORNEY APPEARANCE of Joshua Patrick Fahlsing on behalf of defendants Mark Burns, Unknown DeYoung, Unknown Grieves, David Gutowski, Ivan Morris, Muskegon, County of, Dean Roesler (Fahlsing, Joshua) (Entered: 12/13/2016)

12/13/2016 145 NOTICE RESCHEDULING MOTION HEARING regarding Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery 127 : motion hearing is set for 12/12/2016 at 02:00 PM at 650 Federal Building, Grand Rapids, MI before

Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody (Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody, cbh) (Entered: 12/13/2016)

12/13/2016

146 NOTICE RESCHEDULING MOTION HEARING regarding Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery 127 that was previously set for 12/12/2016 (mistakenly); motion hearing is set for 12/16/2016 at 02:00 PM at 650 Federal Building, Grand Rapids, MI before Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody (Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody, cbh) (Entered: 12/13/2016)

12/13/2016

Copy of Notice Rescheduling Motion Hearing, 146 , Notice Rescheduling Motion Hearing, 145 sent via U.S. Mail to Andrea Dorn (ns) (Entered: 12/13/2016)

12/13/2016

147 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by defendants Unknown DeYoung, Unknown Grieves, David Gutowski, Ivan Morris, Muskegon, County of Defs' Request for a Pre-Motion Conference Regarding Summary Judgment (Vander Laan, Allan) (Entered: 12/13/2016)

12/16/2016

148 REQUEST for pre-motion conference by plaintiffs Latrece Baker, Paulette Bosch, Crisa Brown, Stashia Collins, Londora Kitchens, Judy Pauley, Tammy Speers, Denise Vos, Delilah Wickliffe (Aukerman, Miriam) (Entered: 12/16/2016)

12/16/2016

149 MINUTES of motion hearing re 127 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery held before Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody; motion granted in part and denied in part; parties to submit proposed order within seven days (Proceedings Digitally Recorded) (Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody, cbh) (Entered: 12/16/2016)

12/16/2016

150 RESPONSE TO REQUEST for pre-motion conference by defendants Unknown DeYoung, Unknown Grieves, David Gutowski, Ivan Morris, Muskegon, County of Regarding Summary Judgment 142 ; filed by Judy Pauley, Londora Kitchens, Paulette Bosch, Delilah Wickliffe, Tammy Speers, Denise Vos, Stashia Collins, Crisa Brown, Latrece Baker filed by Judy Pauley, Londora Kitchens, Paulette Bosch, Delilah Wickliffe, Tammy Speers, Denise Vos, Stashia Collins, Crisa Brown, Latrece Baker (Aukerman, Miriam) (Entered: 12/16/2016)

12/22/2016

151 RESPONSE TO REQUEST for pre-motion conference by plaintiffs Latrece Baker, Paulette Bosch, Crisa Brown, Stashia Collins, Londora Kitchens, Judy Pauley, Tammy Speers, Denise Vos, Delilah Wickliffe 148 ; filed by Unknown DeYoung, Muskegon, County of, David Gutowski, Unknown Grieves, Ivan Morris filed by Unknown DeYoung, Muskegon, County of, David Gutowski, Unknown Grieves, Ivan Morris (Vander Laan, Allan) (Entered: 12/22/2016)

12/22/2016

152 TRANSCRIPT of Continued Hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel held 12/16/2016 before Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody; NOTE: this transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the release of transcript restriction date; after that date it may be obtained through PACER; under the Policy Regarding Transcripts the parties have 14 days within which to file a Notice of Intent to redact, and 21 days within which to file a Redaction Request; if no Transcript Redaction Request is filed, the court will assume redaction of personal identifiers is not necessary and this transcript will be made available via PACER after the release of transcript restriction set for 3/22/2017 ; redaction request due 1/12/2017 (Court Reporter: Trexler, Glenda (517)819-0396) (Entered: 12/22/2016)

12/23/2016

153 PROPOSED ORDER regarding Motion to Compel by plaintiffs Latrece Baker, Paulette Bosch, Crisa Brown, Stashia Collins, Londora Kitchens, Judy Pauley, Tammy Speers, Denise Vos, Delilah Wickliffe (Aukerman, Miriam) (Entered: 12/23/2016)

12/23/2016

154 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING by plaintiffs Latrece Baker, Paulette Bosch, Crisa Brown, Stashia Collins, Andrea Dorn, Londora Kitchens, Judy Pauley, Michelle Semelbauer, Tammy Speers, Denise Vos, Delilah Wickliffe (Aukerman, Miriam) (Entered: 12/23/2016)

12/27/2016

(NON-DOCUMENT) ORDER REFERRING PROPOSED ORDER regarding Motion to Compel by plaintiffs Latrece Baker, Paulette Bosch, Crisa Brown, Stashia Collins, Londora Kitchens, Judy Pauley, Tammy Speers, Denise Vos, Delilah Wickliffe 153 to Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(A) (Judge Janet T. Neff, clb) (Entered: 12/27/2016)

12/27/2016

Copy of portion of docket sheet containing information regarding transcript (152) sent via U.S. Mail to Andrea Dorn (ns) (Entered: 12/27/2016)

12/27/2016 155 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 127 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery; signed by Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody (Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody, jal) (Entered: 12/27/2016)

12/27/2016

Copy of Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Proposed Order 155 sent via U.S. Mail to Andrea Dorn (ns) (Entered: 12/27/2016)

12/27/2016 156 RETURNED MAIL: Copy of Order, 143 , and Notices 145 and 146 that was sent via U.S. Mail to Andrea Dorn returned to the Court marked not deliverable as addressed, unable to

forward ; no action taken at this time; plaintiff did not provide new address to the Court (ns) (Entered: 12/29/2016)

01/04/2017

157 ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL dismissing Plaintiff Andrea Dorn only; signed by Judge Janet T. Neff (Judge Janet T. Neff, rmw) (Entered: 01/04/2017)

01/05/2017

158 ORDER scheduling a pre-motion conference regarding document numbers 142 , 148 : pre-motion conference is set for 1/23/2017 at 10:00 AM at 401 Federal Building, Grand Rapids, MI before Judge Janet T. Neff; signed by Judge Janet T. Neff (Judge Janet T. Neff, rmw) (Entered: 01/05/2017)

01/05/2017

159 NOTICE OF MOTION HEARING regarding document number 77 : motion hearing is set for 1/23/2017 at 10:00 AM at 401 Federal Building, Grand Rapids, MI before Judge Janet T. Neff; (Judge Janet T. Neff, rmw) (Entered: 01/05/2017)

01/06/2017

Copy of Notice of Motion Hearing 159 sent via U.S. Mail to Andrea Dorn (clw) (Entered: 01/06/2017)

01/06/2017

160 NOTICE rescheduling hearing: pre-motion conference regarding document numbers 142 , 148 is rescheduled to 2/7/2017 at 09:30 AM at 401 Federal Building, Grand Rapids, MI before Judge Janet T. Neff; (Judge Janet T. Neff, rmw) (Entered: 01/06/2017)

01/06/2017

161 NOTICE RESCHEDULING MOTION HEARING regarding document number 77 : motion hearing rescheduled to 2/7/2017 at 09:30 AM at 401 Federal Building, Grand Rapids, MI before Judge Janet T. Neff; (Judge Janet T. Neff, rmw) (Entered: 01/06/2017)

01/09/2017

Copy of Notice Rescheduling Motion Hearing 161 , Notice Rescheduling Hearing 160 sent via U.S. Mail to Andrea Dorn (ns) (Entered: 01/09/2017)

01/19/2017

162 RETURNED MAIL: Copy of Notice of Motion Hearing, 159 that was sent via U.S. Mail to Andrea Dorn returned to the Court marked not deliverable as addressed, unable to forward ; no action taken at this time; plaintiff did not provide new address to the Court (ns) (Entered: 01/20/2017)

01/24/2017

163 NOTICE to Withdraw Attorney of Record by defendants Unknown DeYoung, Unknown Grieves, David Gutowski, Ivan Morris, Muskegon, County of (Vander Laan, Allan) (Entered: 01/24/2017)

01/26/2017 164 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Unknown DeYoung, Unknown Grieves, David Gutowski, Ivan Morris, Muskegon, County of,

Unknown Parties regarding Defendants' Supplemental Answers to Plaintiffs' First and Second Interrogatories and Supplemental Responses to Plaintiffs' First and Second Requests to Produce with Exhibits (Karafa, John) (Entered: 01/26/2017)

01/27/2017

165 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendants Unknown DeYoung, Unknown Grieves, David Gutowski, Ivan Morris, Muskegon, County of, Unknown Parties regarding Exhibit 9 of Defendants Supplemental Answers (Karafa, John) (Entered: 01/27/2017)

01/30/2017

166 RETURNED MAIL: Copy of Notice Rescheduling Hearing 160 , 161 that was sent via U.S. Mail to Andrea Dorn returned to the Court marked not deliverable as addressed, unable to forward ; no action taken at this time; plaintiff did not provide new address to the Court (ns) (Entered: 01/31/2017)

02/07/2017

167 MINUTES of pre-motion conference re 142 , 148 and Plaintiffs' Motion for Joinder and Partial Renewal of Motion for Class Certification 77 held before Judge Janet T. Neff; Order to issue; (Court Reporter: Kathy Anderson) (Judge Janet T. Neff, clb) (Entered: 02/07/2017)

02/07/2017

168 ORDER; Plaintiffs' Motion for Joinder and Partial Renewal of Motion for Class Certification 77 is HELD IN ABEYANCE; Defendants shall produce discovery not later than March 23, 2017; Second Early Settlement Conference to be scheduled within 90 days; Joint Notice to be filed not later than May 8, 2017; Pre-motion Conference Requests 142 and 148 are DENIED without prejudice to re-filing fourteen days after the filing of the Joint Notice if the case does not settle; signed by Judge Janet T. Neff (Judge Janet T. Neff, clb) (Entered: 02/07/2017)

02/15/2017

169 ORDER regarding settlement conference: continued/additional early settlement conference set for 5/4/2017 at 10:00 AM at 664 Federal Building, Grand Rapids, MI before Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody; signed by Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody (Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody, cbh) (Entered: 02/15/2017)

02/16/2017

Copy of Order Regarding Settlement Conference, 169 sent via U.S. Mail to Andrea Dorn (ns) (Entered: 02/16/2017)

02/21/2017

(NON-DOCUMENT) ATTORNEY APPEARANCE of Curt A. Benson on behalf of defendants Mark Burns, Unknown DeYoung, Unknown Grieves, David Gutowski, Ivan Morris, Muskegon, County of, Dean Roesler (Benson, Curt) (Entered: 02/21/2017)

02/21/2017

170 CHANGE OF ADDRESS by Curt A. Benson counsel for defendants Mark Burns, Unknown DeYoung, Unknown Grieves, David Gutowski, Ivan Morris, Muskegon, County of, Dean Roesler (Benson, Curt) (Entered: 02/21/2017)

03/14/2017

171 RETURNED MAIL: Copy of Order Regarding Settlement Conference, 169 that was sent via U.S. Mail to Andrea Dorn returned to the Court marked not deliverable as addressed, unable to forward ; no action taken at this time; plaintiff did not provide new address to the Court (ns) (Entered: 03/15/2017)

05/04/2017

172 MINUTES of early settlement conference held before Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody; plaintiffs have until 5/11/2017 to accept or reject defendant's offer (Proceedings Not Recorded) (Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody, cbh) (Entered: 05/04/2017)

05/08/2017

173 NOTICE re 168 Re Status of Settlement Negotiations by plaintiffs Latrece Baker, Paulette Bosch, Crisa Brown, Stashia Collins, Andrea Dorn, Londora Kitchens, Judy Pauley, Michelle Semelbauer, Tammy Speers, Denise Vos, Delilah Wickliffe (Aukerman, Miriam) (Entered: 05/08/2017)

05/22/2017

174 NOTICE Re Request for Settlement Conference by plaintiffs Latrece Baker, Paulette Bosch, Crisa Brown, Stashia Collins, Andrea Dorn, Londora Kitchens, Judy Pauley, Michelle Semelbauer, Tammy Speers, Denise Vos, Delilah Wickliffe (Aukerman, Miriam) (Entered: 05/22/2017)

05/22/2017

MOTION for order for an additional settlement conference as taken from 174 by plaintiffs Latrece Baker, Paulette Bosch, Crisa Brown, Stashia Collins, Andrea Dorn, Londora Kitchens, Judy Pauley, Michelle Semelbauer, Tammy Speers, Denise Vos, Delilah Wickliffe; (ns) (Entered: 05/23/2017)

05/23/2017

175 NOTICE of continued early settlement conference set for 5/31/2017 at 02:00 PM at 650 Federal Building, Grand Rapids, MI before Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody (Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody, jal) (Entered: 05/23/2017)

05/23/2017

176 RESPONSE in opposition to MOTION for order for an additional settlement conference as taken from 174 filed by Mark Burns, Unknown DeYoung, Unknown Grieves, David Gutowski, Ivan Morris, Muskegon, County of, Dean Roesler, Unknown Parties (Karafa, John) (Entered: 05/23/2017)

05/23/2017 177 NOTICE cancelling continued early settlement conference set for 5/31/2017 (Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody, jal) (Entered: 05/23/2017)

05/23/2017

178 BRIEF in support of MOTION for order for an additional settlement conference as taken from 174 filed by Latrece Baker, Paulette Bosch, Crisa Brown, Stashia Collins, Londora Kitchens, Judy Pauley, Tammy Speers, Denise Vos, Delilah Wickliffe (Aukerman, Miriam) (Entered: 05/23/2017)

05/24/2017

179 BRIEF by defendants Unknown DeYoung, Unknown Grieves, David Gutowski, Ivan Morris, Muskegon, County of, Unknown Parties re 176 in Support of Defendant County of Muskegon's Statement in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Request for an Additional Settlement Conference (Karafa, John) (Entered: 05/24/2017)

05/24/2017

180 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 174 Plaintiffs' request for an additional settlement conference; continued early settlement conference is set for 5/31/2017 at 2:00 PM at 664 Federal Building, Grand Rapids, MI before Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody; Plaintiffs' attendance is required; Insurance representatives are excused from attendance; signed by Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody (Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody, jal) (Entered: 05/24/2017)

05/25/2017

Copy of Notice of Hearing 175 , Notice Cancelling Hearing 177 , Order on Motion for Order, 180 sent via U.S. Mail to Andrea Dorn (ns) (Entered: 05/25/2017)

05/31/2017

181 MINUTES of early settlement conference held before Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody; parties to submit joint status report within two weeks (Portions Digitally Recorded) (Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody, jal) (Entered: 06/01/2017)

06/05/2017

182 TRANSCRIPT of Settlement Agreement held 05/31/2017 before Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody; NOTE: this transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the release of transcript restriction date; after that date it may be obtained through PACER; under the Policy Regarding Transcripts the parties have 14 days within which to file a Notice of Intent to redact, and 21 days within which to file a Redaction Request; if no Transcript Redaction Request is filed, the court will assume redaction of personal identifiers is not necessary and this transcript will be made available via PACER after the release of transcript restriction set for 9/5/2017 ; redaction request due 6/26/2017 (Court Reporter: Trexler, Glenda (517)819-0396) (Entered: 06/05/2017)

06/14/2017

183 JOINT STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by plaintiffs Latrece Baker, Paulette Bosch, Crisa Brown, Stashia Collins, Londora Kitchens, Judy Pauley, Michelle Semelbauer, Tammy Speers, Denise Vos, Delilah Wickliffe (Aukerman, Miriam) (Entered: 06/14/2017)

06/15/2017 184 ORDER requiring dismissal papers to be submitted by 8/14/2017; signed by Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody (Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody, jal) (Entered: 06/15/2017)

06/16/2017

185 NOTICE cancelling settlement conference set for 8/14/2017 at 2:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Carmody (Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody, jal) (Entered: 06/16/2017)

07/24/2017

186 NOTICE re 77 of Withdrawal of Motion for Joinder and Partial Renewal of Motion for Class Certification by plaintiffs Latrece Baker, Paulette Bosch, Crisa Brown, Stashia Collins, Andrea Dorn, Londora Kitchens, Judy Pauley, Michelle Semelbauer, Tammy Speers, Denise Vos, Delilah Wickliffe (Korobkin, Daniel) (Entered: 07/24/2017)

07/24/2017

187 PROPOSED STIPULATION and ORDER of Dismissal With Prejudice by plaintiffs Latrece Baker, Paulette Bosch, Crisa Brown, Stashia Collins, Andrea Dorn, Londora Kitchens, Judy Pauley, Michelle Semelbauer, Tammy Speers, Denise Vos, Delilah Wickliffe (Korobkin, Daniel) (Entered: 07/24/2017)

07/24/2017

188 ORDER OF DISMISSAL granting STIPULATION 187 ; this case is dismissed with prejudice and without costs or fees; this Order resolves all pending claims and closes the case; signed by Judge Janet T. Neff (Judge Janet T. Neff, rmw) (Entered: 07/24/2017)

07/24/2017 189 ORDER of USCA (certified copy) re appeal 55 dismissing the appeal ; no mandate to issue (ns) (Entered: 07/25/2017)


[CONTENT] December 4, 2014 | eight | Muskegon County Jail | MCJ | the U.S. District Court | the Western District | Michigan | 1983 | Muskegon County | Michigan ||| ACLU | Michigan | MCJ ||| Janet T. Neff |||  |||  ||| the Fourth Amendment | the Eighth Amendment | the Due Process Clause | the Fourteenth Amendment ||| the same day |||  ||| at least one hour ||| four | 1 | Muskegon County Jail | Stashia Collins | 2 | MCJ | Collins | Female Injunctive Class | 3 | MCJ | three years | 4 | MCJ | three years ||| February 6, 2015 | three ||| July 1, 2015 | Eighth | Fourteenth Amendment ||| September 11, 2015 | Neff ||| 2015 WL 9906265 ||| Toilet Paper ||| Neff ||| the U.S. Court of Appeals ||| May 12, 2016 | the Sixth Circuit ||| December 12, 2016 ||| March 31, 2016 | four ||| Muskegon County Jail ||| February 7, 2017 ||| October 19, 2016 | Count V |||  ||| The following year ||| May 31, 2017 | Magistrate | Ellen S. Carmody |||  ||| 20,000 |||  ||| July 24, 2017 |||  ||| That same day | the Sixth Circuit ||| June 27, 2018 [SUMMARY] On December 4, 2014, eight female inmates of Muskegon County Jail (MCJ) filed this  lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Muskegon County, Michigan.  The plaintiffs, represented by the ACLU of Michigan and private counsel, sought declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and damages, claiming that the conditions of confinement at the MCJ were inhumane and unconstitutional. The plaintiffs brought the case as a class action; it was assigned to Judge Janet T. Neff.

Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that, in addition to being exposed to unsafe physical conditions, male guards at the prison are permitted to watch female inmates while they change clothes, shower, and use the bathroom. The plaintiff also alleged they were referred to by slurs and often denied clean underwear and basic sanitary items such as toilet paper and feminine hygiene products.  These conditions, the plaintiffs contended, violated the prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment, the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment, and the prohibition against punishment of pretrial detainees under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.  

On the same day the complaint was filed, the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction and to certify the class. The plaintiffs sought an order requiring the defendants to take immediate measures to repair broken and backed-up plumbing and other failures of basic infrastructure, treat and exterminate infestations of mold and vermin, and implement a regular system of inspection, maintenance and repair to prevent these and related conditions. The plaintiffs also sought for the defendants to provide female prisoners with privacy from being routinely viewed by male prison staff, to provide women with reasonable access to toilet paper, feminine hygiene products, clean undergarments, etc., and to provide these prisoners with out-of-cell exercise opportunities for at least one hour per day. 

The motion for class certification consisted of four classes: (1) all current and future inmates at the Muskegon County Jail (“MCJ”), represented by plaintiff Stashia Collins, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief from unconstitutional conditions of confinement that affect all inmates (Overcrowding Injunctive Class); (2) all current and future female inmates at MCJ, represented by Ms. Collins, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief from unconstitutional conditions of confinement specific to female inmates (Female Injunctive Class); (3) all inmates incarcerated at MCJ within three years prior to the filing of the complaint in this case, represented by the plaintiffs, seeking damages for harm suffered as a result of unconstitutional conditions of confinement that affect all inmates (Overcrowding Damages Class); and (4) all female inmates incarcerated at MCJ within three years prior to the filing of the complaint in this case, represented by the plaintiffs, seeking damages for harm suffered as a result of unconstitutional conditions of confinement specific to female inmates (Female Damages Class).

On February 6, 2015, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, adding three additional named plaintiffs. On July 1, 2015, the defendants moved for summary judgment on the amended complaint, arguing that it failed to state any plausible Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment conditions of confinement claims.

On September 11, 2015, Judge Neff granted in part and denied in part the defendant’s motion. 2015 WL 9906265. The court dismissed Count III (Denial of Access to Feminine Hygiene Products, Toilet Paper and Adequate Underwear and Other Clothing) and Count IV (Severe Overcrowding and Other Abysmal Conditions) but retained Count I (Violation of Privacy and Bodily Integrity) and Count II (Denial of Exercise). In the same order, Judge Neff denied without prejudice the plaintiffs’ pending motions for class certification, a preliminary injunction, and expert testimony in support of a preliminary injunction but left the plaintiffs opportunity to re-file to conform to the court’s standards. 

The plaintiffs appealed this order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit insofar as the district court’s order denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment with respect to Count III, and denied the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. On May 12, 2016, the Sixth Circuit dismissed the appeal as it pertained to the motion for summary judgment and the motion for class certification but the appeal was allowed to proceed as it related to the denial of preliminary injunction. The plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of this decision but the motion was denied on December 12, 2016.

On March 31, 2016, the plaintiffs moved for joinder of four new plaintiffs and partial renewal of class certification. Specifically, the plaintiffs requested certification of a class of all current and future female inmates at the Muskegon County Jail (MCJ) seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. On February 7, 2017, the court entered an order holding these motions in abeyance.

On October 19, 2016, the parties agreed to dismiss Count V of the complaint and filed an order of dismissal. The court granted this motion that same day. The following year, the parties were able to come to a settlement agreement. On May 31, 2017, the parties had a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody, where the parties reviewed their settlement. The agreement, consisted of monetary and injunctive relief. Each plaintiff was to be paid damages in the amount of $20,000 and the defendants were required to change policies regarding dispersal of medication, hygiene products, exercise, and cross-gender viewing. The agreement dictated that, pending final approval by the court, this case would be dismissed with prejudice and the appeal and the motion for class certification would be withdrawn.

Having settled, the parties filed a proposed stipulation and order of dismissal with prejudice which the court granted on July 24, 2017. The district court did not retain jurisdiction to enforce the agreement due to it being a private settlement agreement. That same day, the Sixth Circuit dismissed the appeal. There has been no other activity on the docket as of June 27, 2018.