Case 3:15-cv-07920-PGS-TJB Document 1 Filed 11/05/15 Page 1 of 13 PageID: 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

_______________________________________

:

C-POD INMATES OF MIDDLESEX

:

COUNTY ADULT CORRECTION CENTER, :

AZARIAH LAZAR, LUIS BORRERO,

:

HECTOR AMENGUAL, SEAN PERSHING, :

TYSON RATLIFF, JONATHAN

:

RODRIGUEZ, TERRENCE EDWARDS,

:

DAMANI HARRIS, and PATRICK

:

O’DWYER, on behalf of themselves and all :

others similarly situated,

H :

:

Plaintiffs,

:

v.

:

:

MIDDLESEX COUNTY,

:

:

Defendant.

:

:

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Hon.______________________________ Civil Action No._____________________

INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs are inmates housed at the Middlesex County Jail in “C-Pod,” a unit for solitary confinement. Whether they are there for their own protection, for disciplinary reasons, or to separate them from a codefendant while they await trial for years, the conditions are equally deplorable. Plaintiffs are locked in a small cell alone almost continuously, where they languish in a state of forced idleness. They cannot interact with other inmates. Family cannot visit them. They cannot participate in religious, educational or rehabilitative programs. They are never even allowed outdoors. Research shows that such social and environmental deprivations are toxic to the human brain. Instead of promoting public safety, these conditions cause inmates to spiral into mental illness before they are released to the community. Courts, advocates and prison administrators across the country are recognizing the costs of excessive isolation. The

Case 3:15-cv-07920-PGS-TJB Document 1 Filed 11/05/15 Page 2 of 13 PageID: 2
constitutional standards of decency are evolving. Plaintiffs bring this class action seeking to remedy the unconstitutional conditions in C-Pod, and say:
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(a)(3) and (4). Plaintiffs bring claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the deprivation of rights secured by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. 2. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in this judicial district and the parties reside in this district.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff Azariah Lazar is a pretrial detainee housed in “C-Pod” at the Middlesex County Adult Correction Center located at U.S. Route 130 and Apple Orchard Lane, North Brunswick, NJ 08902. Mr. Lazar has been in C-Pod since February 2015. 4. Plaintiff Luis Borrero is awaiting trial and housed in C-Pod. He is also serving a sentence in Pennsylvania. Mr. Borrero has been in C-Pod since June 2015. 5. Plaintiff Hector Amengual is a pretrial detainee housed in C-Pod since May 2014. 6. Plaintiff Sean Pershing is a pretrial detainee housed in C-Pod since September 2015. 7. Plaintiff Tyson Ratliff is a pretrial detainee housed in C-Pod since September 2015. 8. Plaintiff Jonathan Rodriguez is a pretrial detainee housed in C-Pod since September 2015.
2

Case 3:15-cv-07920-PGS-TJB Document 1 Filed 11/05/15 Page 3 of 13 PageID: 3
9. Plaintiff Terrence Edwards is a pretrial detainee housed in C-Pod since October 2015.
10. Plaintiff Damani Harris is a pretrial detainee housed in C-Pod since October 2014. 11. Plaintiff Patrick O’Dwyer is a pretrial detainee housed in C-Pod since November 2014. 12. Defendant Middlesex County is a body politic with a principal business address at the County Administration Building, 75 Bayard Street, New Brunswick, NJ 08901. The subdivision of the County responsible for the jail is the Office of Adult Corrections and Youth Services.
CLASS ALLEGATIONS 13. Plaintiffs bring this action individually and on behalf of all persons who are now or will be housed in C-Pod during the pendency of this lawsuit, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(2). 14. This is a fluid class of about 50 individuals at a given time and is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. 15. There are questions of law or fact common to the class. All individuals in C-Pod are subject to the same conditions, the constitutionality of which will be determined under either the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendments. 16. The claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class. 17. The representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. There are no conflicts between the Plaintiffs and other class members. No class member has an interest in maintaining the current inhumane conditions in C-Pod.
3

Case 3:15-cv-07920-PGS-TJB Document 1 Filed 11/05/15 Page 4 of 13 PageID: 4
18. The party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole.
19. Plaintiffs have retained competent and experienced counsel who will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class. The Public Defender has done substantial work in investigating and identifying potential claims in the action and has experience in handling class actions. This experience includes prosecuting class action claims on behalf of inmates in county jails and state prisons throughout New Jersey. Accordingly, the Public Defender has knowledge of the applicable law and procedures that relate to these claims. Finally, in what can be described as the largest public interest law firm in the State of New Jersey, the New Jersey Office of the Public Defender will commit substantial resources to representing the class.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 20. Plaintiffs are inmates housed in an area of the Correction Center known as C-Pod, a cluster of maximum-security cells spanning four levels of the jail. 21. There are about 50 inmates in C-Pod. 22. The cells in C-Pod are smaller than a parking space. They have narrow windows that are sealed shut, many of which are painted over, preventing the inmates from looking outside. Other windows are so dirty that only a faint glow of sunlight comes through. Aside from a small window and a slot for food, the doors are solid metal. 23. The cells are equipped with a combination toilet-sink, a bed with a thin foam mattress, and a small desk. There is no chair for the desk, so inmates must either sit on the concrete floor or the bed.
4

Case 3:15-cv-07920-PGS-TJB Document 1 Filed 11/05/15 Page 5 of 13 PageID: 5
24. In C-Pod, time passes in long silences broken by the sudden outbursts of the mentally ill, who scream, bang on the walls and toilets, and jump on the beds in their cells.
25. The air in C-Pod is dusty, tinged with sewage, and inadequately ventilated; it causes some Plaintiffs to have nosebleeds or asthma attacks.
26. The air in C-Pod is uncomfortably cold at all times. Inmates are provided with only one, thin blanket, which exacerbates the discomfort.
27. The cells are infested with flies, roaches, centipedes and other insects. 28. There is black mold in the shower facilities. 29. Many of the cells have leaky plumbing, causing rank water to pool on the floor. 30. The inmates are confined alone in their cells 5 days a week for 23 hours a day, and 2 days a week for 24 hours. 31. The inmates’ only form of stimuli comes in the form of an antiquated book delivered by library staff. 32. On days when an inmate can leave his cell for an hour, he may not interact with, or even speak to, any other inmates. He may only shower by himself or pace around in one of the small, 10x10 chain-link cages inside C-Pod. Some of the cages face a television controlled by the officer on duty, and some have a telephone that inmates can use if they have sufficient funds. 33. Officers are not always scrupulous in allowing an inmate his full hour. 34. The hourly schedule for when an inmate may leave his cell is not consistent. For example, an inmate may be permitted to leave for an hour at 6 a.m. on one day but 6 p.m. on the following day, meaning he will remain alone in his cell for much longer than 24 hours even during the 5 days he is permitted to leave his cell.
5

Case 3:15-cv-07920-PGS-TJB Document 1 Filed 11/05/15 Page 6 of 13 PageID: 6
35. Unlike inmates in the general population, inmates in C-Pod are never allowed to: A. Eat meals away from their toilets or with other inmates; B. Have in-person visits from family, friends or loved ones; C. Participate in religious groups or services; D. Participate in groups or programs designed to educate or rehabilitate them; E. Access the law library to research their cases; F. Access the computer laboratory; or G. Go outside for exercise, recreation, and their overall well-being, meaning Plaintiff Hector Amengual, for example, has not been exposed to fresh air and natural sunlight for over 1.5 years.
36. The inability to go outside or even walk in one direction for more than 10 feet causes inmates a number of physical maladies, such as stiffness of the joints and backaches.
37. Unlike inmates in the general population, inmates in C-Pod have restricted access to their attorneys.
A. If they do not have sufficient funds to use the telephone in one of the 10x10 cages, an inmate’s only way of contacting his attorney by phone is through a social worker who visits between once a week and once a month.
B. Attorneys wishing to meet with an inmate in C-Pod are routinely subject to long wait times and limited timeframes in which to conduct the meeting. For example, the afternoon visitation hours at the Correction Center are between 2-4 p.m., but attorneys wishing to visit with a C-Pod client must wait until 3:30 p.m. to accommodate “window checks” that are scheduled during attorney visitation hours. And when the meetings do occur, they are short and
6

Case 3:15-cv-07920-PGS-TJB Document 1 Filed 11/05/15 Page 7 of 13 PageID: 7
harried because of the time constraints and because there is only one meeting room in the pod. C. Additionally, the physical layout of the attorney-client meeting room impairs an inmate’s access to his attorney. There is no desk or table at which the attorney and client may sit. Instead, the room is divided in two by a chainmetal partition, with the inmate on one side and his attorney on the other. 38. These conditions, separately and in combination, deprive Plaintiffs of the minimal necessities of civilized life and cause them unnecessary pain and suffering. This is of grave constitutional concern. 39. Solitary confinement lasting more than 10 days results in a distinct set of emotional, cognitive, social, and physical pathologies. 40. Solitary confinement creates or exacerbates serious mental health problems and anti-social behavior, and leads to an increased rate of recidivism after release. 1 41. Because solitary confinement deprives the subject of social and environmental stimulation, it is “toxic to brain functioning and causes symptoms characteristic of stupor and delirium.”2 42. Neurological effects may include perceptual distortions, illusions, and hallucinations; panic attacks; difficulties with thinking, concentration, and memory; frightening and uncontrollable fantasies, such as those involving revenge, torture, or mutilation; paranoid and persecutory delusions; and problems with impulse control.
1 Vera Institute of Justice Safe Alternatives to Segregation Initiative, Request for Proposals for Technical Assistance Sites, http://www.vera.org/project/safe-alternatives-segregation-initiative. 2 Stuart Grassian, Psychiatric Effects of Solitary Confinement, 22 Wash. U. J. L. & Pol’y 325, 348 (2006).
7

Case 3:15-cv-07920-PGS-TJB Document 1 Filed 11/05/15 Page 8 of 13 PageID: 8
43. The motor effects of those subject to solitary confinement range from a state of restlessness, yelling, and banging at one end of the spectrum to a kind of regressed, dissociated, withdrawn, hypnoid state at the other.
44. Suicide rates and incidents of self-mutilation (such as banging one’s head against the cell wall) are much higher for people in segregation than those in the general prison population.
45. In C-Pod, inmates who exhibit some of these disturbed behaviors are stripped naked and put in a thin mesh gown known as “the chicken suit” and held for hours or days in a cold, empty observation cell without a bed or even a blanket.
46. These types of conditions may cause prolonged or permanent psychiatric disability, including impairments which destroy the inmate's capacity to reintegrate into the community upon release.
47. Plaintiffs are suffering from some or all of the foregoing effects. 48. The conditions in C-Pod violate the evolving standards of decency in the United States towards incarcerated people.
A. The Association of State Correctional Administrators has now recognized solitary confinement as “a grave problem.”3
B. Justice Kennedy of the United States Supreme Court recently called on the Judiciary to examine the practice of confining an inmate to near-total isolation for an extended period of time.4
3 George Camp et al., New Report on Prisoners in Administrative Segregation Prepared by the Association of State Correctional Administrators and the Arthur Liman Public Interest Program at Yale Law School, http://www.asca.net/system/assets/attachments/8895/ASCA%20LIMAN%20Press%20Release%208-2815.pdf?1441222595. 4 Davis v. Ayala, 135 S. Ct. 2187, 2210 (2015) (Kennedy, J., concurring).
8

Case 3:15-cv-07920-PGS-TJB Document 1 Filed 11/05/15 Page 9 of 13 PageID: 9
C. President Obama recently directed the Attorney General to review the overuse of solitary confinement across American prisons.5
D. The American Bar Association now recommends that “[s]egregated housing should be for the briefest term and under the least restrictive conditions practicable and consistent with the rationale for placement and with the progress achieved by the prisoner.”6
E. The Committee against Torture, the official body established under the United Nations’ Convention against Torture, advocates a “ban [on] solitary confinement regimes in prisons.”7
49. Whether solitary confinement should be abolished altogether is debatable. 50. But even if some inmates must be separated, that can be done without the extreme social isolation and sensory deprivations inflicted by the conditions in C-Pod. The conditions in C-Pod are excessive in relation to the purposes assigned to them. 51. There are a number of ways that Defendant can alleviate the harm to which Plaintiffs are subjected, even if they are still confined in C-Pod. Some of these include, but are not limited to: providing access to an outdoor exercise area; increasing the time out of cell; permitting in-person visits with family, friends and loved ones; providing in-cell programming via headphones or speakers in cells that play radio, television or educational information; permitting inmates in C-Pod to interact with one another, such as by eating together; or giving inmates opportunities to increase privileges through good behavior.
5 https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/07/14/remarks-president-naacp-conference. 6 ABA, Standards for Criminal Justice: Treatment of Prisoners 50, Standard 23-2.6 (Rationales for segregated housing) (3d. ed. 2011). 7 U.N. Comm. against Torture, Concluding Observations on the Combined Third to Fifth Periodic Reports of the United States of America ¶ 20, U.N. Doc. CAT/C/USA/CO/3-5 (Dec. 19, 2014).
9

Case 3:15-cv-07920-PGS-TJB Document 1 Filed 11/05/15 Page 10 of 13 PageID: 10
52. These changes are not impracticable. For example, New York offers prisoners incell programming via headphones and a jack in their cells that plays radio, television, and other programs. Colorado now requires that incarcerated people held in its Management Control Unit receive four hours of time outside their cell each day. Maine requires that incarcerated people in segregated housing receive group recreation, counseling sessions, and opportunities to increase privileges through good behavior, as well as greater access to radios, televisions, and reading materials. And in a national survey of administrative segregation practices, “44 of 46 responding jurisdictions had an outdoor exercise area.”8
53. These changes are also financially feasible. Defendant has sufficient resources to remedy its constitutional defects: in 2014, Middlesex County’s total appropriations were $454,043,454, with $12,761,636 in reserves at the end of the fiscal year.9
54. The Court should shepherd Defendants into compliance with the evolving standards of decency towards incarcerated people.
CAUSES OF ACTION Count I
Punishment in Violation of Due Process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution 55. The above facts are incorporated by reference here as if set forth at length. 56. In the context of prisons, the United States Constitution looks beyond historical conceptions to the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.
8 Time-In-Cell: The ASCA-Liman 2014 National Survey of Administrative Segregation in Prison 41 (Yale Law Sch. Liman Public Interest Program, August 2015), available at https://www.law.yale.edu/centers-workshops/arthurliman-public-interest-program/liman-publications. 9 Middlesex County 2015 Operating Budget, adopted January 15, 2015, http://www.co.middlesex.nj.us/Government/Departments/Finance/Documents/2015%20County%20Budget%20hand out.pdf.
10

Case 3:15-cv-07920-PGS-TJB Document 1 Filed 11/05/15 Page 11 of 13 PageID: 11
57. In light of the known effects of solitary confinement, the conditions in C-Pod are not reasonably related to legitimate purposes.
58. These conditions cause inmates deprivations and hardships over an extended period of time and are excessive in relation to the purposes assigned to them.
59. Therefore, the conditions in C-Pod constitute punishment of pretrial detainees in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Count II Cruel and Unusual Punishment in Violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution 60. The above facts are incorporated by reference here as if set forth at length. 61. The United States Constitution requires the government to respect the human attributes even of those who have committed serious crimes. 62. The Eighth Amendment’s scope must change as the basic mores of society change. 63. The conditions of C-Pod deprive inmates of the minimal necessities of civilized life and cause profound and obvious psychological pain and suffering. This suffering is unnecessary and wanton. 64. Under these circumstances, Defendant knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health. 65. Therefore, the conditions in C-Pod inflict cruel and unusual punishment on sentenced inmates, in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
Count III Restriction on the Right of Access to the Courts
in Violation of Due Process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution 66. The above facts are incorporated by reference here as if set forth at length.
11

Case 3:15-cv-07920-PGS-TJB Document 1 Filed 11/05/15 Page 12 of 13 PageID: 12
67. The Constitution guarantees inmates a right of access to the courts. This right applies to both criminal proceedings and civil proceedings in which an inmate is challenging the conditions of his confinement.
68. Inmates in C-Pod are completely deprived of access to the Correction Center’s law library.
69. The conditions in C-Pod restricting attorney visitation severely impair their access to counsel.
70. Therefore, detainees in C-Pod are subject to restrictions that impair their right of access to the courts, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of the class they represent, ask the Court to: A. Certify this case as a class action; B. Appoint Plaintiffs as class representatives; C. Appoint Plaintiffs’ counsel as class counsel; D. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, declare that the conditions of confinement in C-Pod are
unconstitutional; E. Permanently enjoin Defendants and all its officers, employees, and agents to transfer
inmates out of C-Pod or take all actions necessary to render the conditions of confinement in C-Pod constitutional; F. Retain jurisdiction of this case until Defendants have complied with the Court’s Orders; G. Award costs and reasonable attorney’s fees; and
12

Case 3:15-cv-07920-PGS-TJB Document 1 Filed 11/05/15 Page 13 of 13 PageID: 13

H. Award any other relief the Court deems necessary and just pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2202.

LOCAL CIVIL RULE 11.2 CERTIFICATION The matter in controversy is not the subject of any other action pending in any court, or of any pending arbitration or administrative proceeding. I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Joseph E. Krakora Public Defender of the State of New Jersey Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex 25 Market Street, 2nd Floor, North Wing P.O. Box 850 Trenton, NJ 08625 (609) 292-7087

By: s/ Jennifer Sellitti, Deputy Public Defender

By: s/ Fletcher C. Duddy, Deputy Public Defender

By: s/ Jesse M. DeBrosse, Asst. Deputy Public Defender

Dated: November 5, 2015

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

13

 </s> Case 3:15-cv-07920-PGS-TJB Document 42 Filed 07/31/18 Page 1 of 11 PageID: 150

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

C-POD INMATES OF MIDDLESEX COUNTY ADULT CORRECTION CENTER, et al.,

Civil Action No. 15-7920 (PGS)

Plaintiffs,

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

v.

MIDDLESEX COUNTY,

Defendant.

BONGIOVANNI, Magistrate Judge

This matter has been opened by the Court sua sponte based on Plaintiff Tyson Ratliff’s

(“Ratliff”) failure to comply with this Court’s Orders. For the reasons that follow, it is respectfully

recommended that Ratliff’s claims be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

Background and Procedural History

On November 5, 2015, Plaintiffs, who were inmates housed at the Middlesex County Adult

Correction Center in “C-Pod,” a unit for solitary confinement, initiated this litigation by filing their

Complaint against Middlesex County, challenging the social and environmental deprivations

experienced by inmates in C-Pod, alleging that said deprivations violated their constitutional

rights. (See generally, Pl. Cmplt.; Docket Entry No. 1). Specifically, Plaintiffs brought claims for

(1) unconstitutional punishment of pretrial detainees under the Fourteenth Amendment (Count I);

(2) cruel and unusual punishment under the Eight Amendment (Count II); and (3) unconstitutional

restrictions on the right of access to the courts under the Fourteenth Amendment. (Id). A week

after Plaintiffs filed their Complaint, they sought to certify a class. (Pl. Motion to Certify Class;

Docket Entry No. 3). This motion was ultimately withdrawn at Plaintiffs’ request in order to give

the American Civil Liberties Union (“ACLU”), which had decided to enter an appearance on

Case 3:15-cv-07920-PGS-TJB Document 42 Filed 07/31/18 Page 2 of 11 PageID: 151
behalf of Plaintiffs, an opportunity to become acclimated with the case. (See Letter Order of 1/4/2016; Docket Entry No. 14).
Middlesex County responded to Plaintiffs’ Complaint on December 17, 2015, denying that any constitutional violations had occurred. (See generally, Def. Answer; Docket Entry No. 11). After Defendant answered, the Court scheduled the Initial Conference in this matter. (Initial Scheduling Order of 1/5/2016; Docket Entry No. 15). During the Initial Conference, the Court set a schedule for certain discovery necessary to facilitate the parties’ settlement discussions. (See Scheduling Order of 3/1/2016; Docket Entry No. 21). Said discovery ensued and the parties’ settlement discussions progressed. (See Text Orders of 8/22/2016 & 10/6/2016; Docket Entry Nos. 25 & 26).
In light of the development of the parties’ discussions, the Court scheduled an in-person status conference for January 30, 2017 for the purpose of discussing settlement. (Text Order of 12/6/2016; Docket Entry No. 27).1 During the conference, it became apparent that the parties’ negotiations had progressed significantly, with substantial headway having been made. As a result, the Court arranged to follow up with the parties via telephone on May 24, 2017.
On May 24, 2017, the Court stayed discovery in order to further facilitate the parties’ settlement discussions. The Court also set a schedule for the parties’ exchanges of settlement proposals. (See Letter Order of 5/25/2017; Docket Entry No. 29). The parties continued to exchange settlement proposals and it appeared that a settlement had been reached with 8 of 9 of the named Plaintiffs having signed the settlement agreement by June 19, 2018. The only Plaintiff who had not signed the settlement agreement was Ratliff, though during a conference held on June 19, 2018, counsel indicated that Ratliff was not unhappy with the agreement, but nevertheless did
1 The conference was later moved to February 16, 2017. (Letter Order of 1/19/2017; Docket Entry No. 28).
2

Case 3:15-cv-07920-PGS-TJB Document 42 Filed 07/31/18 Page 3 of 11 PageID: 152
not want to sign same. Given Ratliff’s refusal to sign the settlement agreement, the Court scheduled a telephonic settlement conference exclusively for Ratliff and his attorney for July 10, 2018. (Text Minute Entry of 6/19/2018). As the Court explained:
So I scheduled a telephone conference for July 10th to, again, discuss the settlement with Mr. Duddy and Mr. Ratliff separate from the defendants. It was my intention to explore with him what Mr. Ratliff’s position was, if he had any concerns, if he wasn’t interested in the settlement, all of the concerns that a Court would address when we’re conducting an in-person settlement conference. . . . I thought I could at least tease-out and explore, again, with Mr. Ratliff informally what his concerns were, and perhaps address with Mr. Duddy any of the issues that he had, and maybe eliminate them, and move this along for a settlement. (Tr. of Proceedings of 7/26/2017 at 4:7-22; Docket Entry No.41). However, despite being aware of the scheduled telephonic settlement conference, Ratliff did not participate in same. As a result, on July 12, 2018, the Court entered a Letter Order to Show Cause in which Ratliff was ordered to appear in person before the undersigned on July 26, 2018 at 10:30 a.m. to show cause for his failure to participate in the scheduled July 10, 2018 conference. (Letter Order to Show Cause of 7/12/2018 at 1; Docket Entry No. 39). Ratliff was also directed to submit a written explanation regarding his failure to participate in the July 10, 2018 conference by July 24, 2018. (Id .at 2). Further, Ratliff was specifically warned that if he failed to comply with the Court’s Order to Show Cause, his claims could be dismissed from this matter: Should Plaintiff Ratliff fail to submit the written explanation or fail to appear in person on July 26, 2018 as ordered, both monetary and nonmonetary sanctions may be imposed, including the dismissal of his claims. (Id.) Despite the foregoing, Ratliff neither submitted a written explanation nor appeared in person at the show cause hearing.
3

Case 3:15-cv-07920-PGS-TJB Document 42 Filed 07/31/18 Page 4 of 11 PageID: 153
During the show cause hearing, the Court confirmed through his counsel that Ratliff was
aware of the Court’s Order to Show Cause, the requirement that he submit a written explanation,
the requirement that he appear in person, and the potential dispositive consequences failing to
comply with the Court’s Order could have for him:
THE COURT: I will now turn to, Mr. Duddy, and as I discussed off-the-record with you, I am not interested in encroaching upon your attorney-client communications. What you have a responsibility to do, however, is to report to the Court, did you, in fact, provide this letter order to Mr. Ratliff, as I had instructed? What’s your understanding of whether or not he received this letter; was aware of today’s appearance order to show cause hearing; whether he was aware of the July 24th submission date; and more importantly, if you have any indication of whether or not he intended to participate; and if he has any interest in proceeding with this litigation?
That last aspect, I will note that there have been times where parties have somewhat compelled the Court to move forward while they are not interested in pursuing the litigation, they can’t be bothered, mind you, of even withdrawing the complaint or officially indicating that they no longer want to participate, and then we have to go through these steps.
So, if I could -- that was very longwinded, but, Mr. Duddy, if you outline the steps that you have taken to communicate this letter with Mr. Ratliff, its import, and if you have any indication of whether or not he intended to continue with this litigation. You can remain seated, too.
MR. DUDDY: Thank you, Your Honor.
On Monday -- on the morning of Monday, July 16th, I texted Mr. Ratliff a picture of the Court’s order to show cause. And that’s been the way that I’ve been communicating with Mr. Ratliff for some time now, probably going on six months via text message, that is.
So I took a picture of the order to show cause, I text it to him.
Also in the body of my text message, I kind of pointed out or highlighted the substance of the order, which was that he was to provide either me or the Court with a written explanation by July
4

Case 3:15-cv-07920-PGS-TJB Document 42 Filed 07/31/18 Page 5 of 11 PageID: 154
24th as to why he did not participate in the telephone conference on July 10th. And also, that he is to report in person to the Court with me today, July 26th. So, again, that was in the body of my text, in addition to sending him a picture of the order to show cause.
The text message went through to Mr. Ratliff from my end. I then followed up my text message with a phone call to him later that day. He took my phone call, and I then reiterated, again, the body of my text to him verbally and the substance of the Court order, very slowly and clearly, so as to make sure that he understood. And I finished the phone call by asking that he text me back to confirm receipt of my earlier text messages. And he simply just responded “okay” or “fine,” something to that effect.
He did not text me back later that day, or the next day, despite my repeated text messages to him in those days asking for him to confirm receipt.
I then mailed -- I overnight via overnight mail a hard copy version of the order to show cause to his last known address in New York, New York. It’s my understanding that that package is being returned, as of yesterday, because the occupant of his last known address is something other than him, and that person would not accept receipt of the package.
So a couple days after that, after my initial text message to him on July 16th -- and I apologize if I’m jumping around -- but I would say July 18th and 19th, I called him two separate times to remind him of the text messages, and to remind him or ask him to confirm receipt of those text messages.
Each time I placed that call to him, he took my call. But midway through my explanation to him as to what I was asking him to do, he hung up on me both times.
And so those were my efforts to ensure that he received the Court’s order to show cause on July 12th.
I’m very confident that he did receive the order to show cause via text message. As I said, that has been our custom, that’s been our way of corresponding with one another, and the message did go through on my side.
And then, of course, in my conversation with him on July 16th, I repeated the substance and import of the order to show cause.
5

Case 3:15-cv-07920-PGS-TJB Document 42 Filed 07/31/18 Page 6 of 11 PageID: 155
So I am confident that he did receive it, that he did understand the main aspects of it. And he’s not here today, and so I’m also confident that he’s not going to be showing up today before the Court.
And similarly, it’s my belief that he no longer wants to take part in this litigation, or prosecute this lawsuit of which he is a part.
He did, I will add, finally, for the record, that about a week later -- a week after July 16th, thereabouts, and this would only be a couple days ago, he sent me a text message, seemingly out of the blue, more or less expressing his displeasure with the Middlesex County Jail. The text message neither answered the Court’s order to show cause, nor did it confirm receipt of my delivery of the order to show cause. It was something of an irrelevant non sequitur about some issue entirely different.
So, again, given all those circumstances, I do not believe that he wishes to prosecute this lawsuit.
THE COURT: One question. When you mentioned that you believe he understood the import of the order to show cause, did that include -- is it your impression that Mr. Ratliff realized that he could be dismissed as a complainant in this matter if he did not come forward today?
MR. DUDDY: It did include that, Your Honor, and I apologize for leaving that out of my summation here. When I spoke to him -- well, when I texted him the picture of the order to show cause, included in the body of my text was the information that if he did not comply with the order, he could be subject to sanctions/punishment, including his dismissal from the lawsuit, so that was in the body of my text. And I also repeated that to him in my phone conversation on the 16th. I repeated that to him slowly and clearly so as to make sure that he understood that.
So to answer Your Honor’s question, yes, I do believe that he understands that as a consequence of not following through with the order to show cause, he could be dismissed from the lawsuit.
(Tr. of Proceedings of 7/26/2017 at 6:1 – 10:13). After confirming the foregoing, the Court
indicated its intention to enter a Report and Recommendation, recommending that Ratliff’s claims
6

Case 3:15-cv-07920-PGS-TJB Document 42 Filed 07/31/18 Page 7 of 11 PageID: 156
be dismissed for “failure to comply with this Court’s orders and, equally as important, to prosecute his case.” (Id. at 11:10-11).
Analysis The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorize courts to impose sanctions for failure to provide discovery, obey court orders and/or prosecute a case. See FED.R.CIV.P. 37(b)(2), 41(b). Where such failures have occurred, dismissal may be an appropriate penalty. Id. Generally, in determining whether to impose an involuntary order of dismissal with prejudice, the Court considers the factors set forth in Poulis v. State Farm Casualty Co., 747 F.2d , 863, 868 (3d Cir. 1984). These factors include:
(1) The extent of the party’s personal responsibility; (2) the prejudice to the adversary caused by the plaintiff’s conduct; (3) the history of dilatoriness; (4) whether the conduct of the party or the attorney was willful or in bad faith; (5) the effectiveness of sanctions other than dismissal, which entails an analysis of alternative sanctions; and (6) the meritoriousness of the claim. Id. No single Poulis factor is determinative and dismissal may be appropriate even if some of the factors are not met. See Mindek v. Rigatti, 964 F.2d 1369, 1373 (3d Cir. 1992); Hicks v. Feeney, 850 F.2d 152, 156 (3d Cir. 1988). If a court finds dismissal appropriate under Poulis, it may dismiss an action sua sponte, pursuant to its inherent powers and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). See Iseley v. Bitner, 216 Fed App’x 252, 254-55 (3d Cir. 2007) (citing Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962)). The Court considers the Poulis factors in determining whether to recommend the dismissal of Ratliff’s claims with prejudice. For the reasons that follow, the Court finds that under the circumstances presented here, the Poulis factors support the dismissal of Ratliff’s claims with prejudice:
7

Case 3:15-cv-07920-PGS-TJB Document 42 Filed 07/31/18 Page 8 of 11 PageID: 157
1. Plaintiff’s Personal Responsibility: Ratliff is personally responsible for his failure to participate in the July 10, 2018 telephonic settlement conference, scheduled exclusively for his and his attorney’s participation. He is also personally responsible for failing to appear on July 26, 2018 as ordered by the Court. As outlined in the Court’s Letter Order to Show Cause of July 12, 2018 and on the record during the show cause hearing held on July 26, 2018, Ratliff was clearly aware of both conferences, the requirement that he participate in same and the consequences that could befall him if he failed to participate. Despite this knowledge, Ratliff elected to ignore the Court’s Orders and not participate. This decision was solely his own and he bears full responsibility for same. As such, the Court finds this factor to favor dismissal of Ratliff’s claims with prejudice.
2. Prejudice to Defendant: Middlesex County has been prejudiced by Ratliff’s failure to prosecute this matter. As described above, the parties have been negotiating the settlement of this matter for many months. Just when it appeared that a full resolution had been reached, Ratliff decided to no longer participate in this case. While Ratliff certainly could not be compelled to agree to settle his claims, he was obliged to continue to participate in this matter. By failing to participate in the telephonic settlement conference or appear at the scheduled show cause hearing, Ratliff abandoned his duty to prosecute his claims. Ratliff’s failure to participate in his own case leaves Middlesex County defending a matter against an absentee plaintiff who has made it clear that he is no longer interested in pursuing his own claims. This is unacceptable and prejudicial to Middlesex County. The Court finds that this prejudice, which was caused by Ratliff’s failure to do that which was required of him, supports the dismissal of Ratliff’s
8

Case 3:15-cv-07920-PGS-TJB Document 42 Filed 07/31/18 Page 9 of 11 PageID: 158
claims with prejudice. See, e.g., Scarborough v. Eubanks, 747 F.2d 871, 876 (3d Cir. 1984). 3. History of Dilatoriness: Ratliff’s failure to participate in the telephonic settlement conference scheduled exclusively for his benefit as well as his subsequent failure to appear, as ordered, at the July 26, 2018 show cause hearing establishes a recent history of dilatoriness on Ratliff’s part. The Court finds that this factor supports the dismissal of Ratliff’s claims with prejudice. 4. Willfulness or Bad Faith: While the circumstances surrounding Ratliff’s failure to participate as ordered by the Court could support a finding of bad faith, even if they did not, they certainly establish that Ratliff’s conduct has been willful. As a result, this factor further supports the dismissal of Ratliff’s claims with prejudice. 5. Effectiveness of Alternative Sanction: As already explained in detail, Ratliff was directed to participate in a telephonic settlement conference. When he refused to do so, the Court entered a Letter Order to Show Cause, requiring him to both appear in person to show cause for his failure to participate in the settlement conference and to submit a written explanation regarding this failure. Ratliff was explicitly warned that failing to comply with the Letter Order to Show Cause could result in the dismissal of his claims. Despite being on notice that his claims could be dismissed if he did not comply with the Letter Order to Show Cause, Ratliff failed to appear at the show cause hearing and failed to submit the required written explanation. Under these circumstances, the Court finds that no lesser sanction than dismissal of his claims with prejudice would be effective. See Joyce v. Continental Airlines, Inc., 09-2460 (WJM), 2011 WL 2610098, *2 (D.N.J. June 15, 2011).
9

Case 3:15-cv-07920-PGS-TJB Document 42 Filed 07/31/18 Page 10 of 11 PageID: 159
6. Meritoriousness of the Claims: In light of the proceedings to date, the Court finds it likely that there is some merit to Ratliff’s claims. As such, this particular factor militates against dismissing Ratliff’ claims with prejudice.
When the Court considers all of the Poulis factors set forth above, the Court finds that on balance they clearly support the dismissal of Ratliff’s claims with prejudice. Ratliff voluntarily filed this case. After doing so, he has failed to take the steps necessary to move this case forward. In fact, despite being given every opportunity to litigate his claims, Ratliff has elected to no longer participate in the case he initiated. As a result, this Court respectfully recommends that Ratliff’s claims be dismissed with prejudice.
Conclusion The Court having given consideration to the Poulis factors; IT IS on this 31st day of July, 2018, RECOMMENDED that Ratliff’s claims be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and it is ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court activate this Report and Recommendation; and it is further ORDERED that defense counsel send a copy of this Report & Recommendation to Ratliff via both text message to Ratliff’s known cell phone number and via regular mail to Ratliff’s last known mailing address immediately upon counsel’s receipt of same; and it is further ORDERED that pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 72(b)(2) any party, including Ratliff, who has an objection to the proposed findings and recommendations set forth herein has 14 days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation to file his specific written objections. For purposes of calculating the 14 days, Ratliff will be deemed served from the day defense counsel’s
10

Case 3:15-cv-07920-PGS-TJB Document 42 Filed 07/31/18 Page 11 of 11 PageID: 160 text message to Ratliff’s cell phone is delivered. Defense counsel is directed to inform the Court in writing once this text message has been sent. s/Tonianne J. Bongiovanni HONORABLE TONIANNE J. BONGIOVANNI UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
11

 </s> SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT and RELEASE
~is Senlemf?nt Agreement and Release hereinafter "Agreement") is made this
d.$ day of ~fe.-.rbe{ 2018 by and between the Plaintiffs in this Lawsuit Azariah
Lazar, Luis Borrero 1 ector Amengual, Sean Pershmg Jonathan Rodriguez, Terrence Edwards Damani Harris and Patrick O'Dwyer, their heirs, representatives, successors and assigns (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Plaintiffs" or "Releasors") and the Defendant in this Lawsuit, County of Middlesex, its present and former affiliates, elected and appointed officials, directors, officers, agents, attorneys, employees, former employees, volunteer employees, representatives, insurers and reinsurers and all their successors and assigns (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Defendant" or "Releasee").
Whereas Plaintiffs assert claims against Defendant as more fully set forth in a lawsuit entitled C-Pod Inmates of Middlesex County Adult Correction Center, Azariah Lazar, Luis Borrero. Hector Amengual Sean Pershing, Tyson Ratliff: Jonatban Rodriguez. Terrence Edwards, Damani Harris. and Patrick 0 Dwyer v. Middlesex County, in the United States District Court, District of New Jersey under Docket No. 3:15-cv-7920 (PGS)(TJB) (herein referred to as the "Lawsuit" or "Complaint"); and
Whereas PlaintiffTyson Ratliffs claims have been dismissed with prejudice by the Court (see Docket Entry No. 45); and
Whereas Defendant denies any liability with respect to all matters asserted by Plaintiffs; and
Whereas the Plaintiffs and Defendant now wish fully and finally to compromise and settle the Lawsuit to avoid further burden, expense, hardship, inconvenience and distraction of further litigation and/or appeal between them; and
Whereas the Plaintiffs and Defendant hereto have reached a settlement agreement to fully and finally resolve all claims Plaintiffs raised in the Lawsuit, including all claims for declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as attorney fees and costs, up to and including the date of the final execution ofthis Agreement and Release; and
Now, in consideration of the good and valuable terms provided for by this Agreement, and the promises and covenants contained herein, the receipt and sufficiency of which the parties acknowledge, the parties do hereby agree as follows:
Definitions:
a. The term "C-Pod Unit" refers to the location where Defendant houses its administrative segregation and disciplinary detention units. The term has been used as shorthand by the parties to refer to the administrative segregation and disciplinary detention units. The terms ofthis Settlement Agreement relate to all
1 ofl5

administrative segregation and disciplinary detention units, regardless of where they are located within Middlesex County Adult Correction Center ("MCACC"). b. The effective date of this settlement Agreement is the last date of a signatory of
this Agreement.

Precautionary Supervision Unit. For the duration of this Settlement Agreement and Release, the Defendant shall continue to operate the Precautionary Supervision Unit ("PSU") in a
manner that provides inmates with at least:

a.

28 hours per week out of lock time, security permitting. Out of lock time will not

be adjusted due to facility lockdown; the schedule will be followed. b. Inmates will be handcuffed and escorted at all times while outside the housing

unit (with the exception of recreation). c. Recreation time, according to a schedule set by the Operations Captain, Warden,
or other MCACC personnel. During recreation movement from PSU to either the
outside yard or the gymnasium, the following standards shall apply for movement

both to and from:

(I) All movement in the back hallway will be stopped between Lower C and

the recreation area being utilized;

(2) Radio transmissions will held for the duration of the move;

(3) No handcuffing will be necessary. d. Inmates will be grouped together by the classification committee and that will

dictate who comes out together during this initial period.

e.

Under normal daily operations, inmates will not be handcuffed during window

and wall inspections, but inmates will still need to be removed prior to an officer

entering a cell.

f.

Hatches will remain closed at all times except during meals.

Defendant will provide Plaintiffs' Counsel with copies of any revised PSU directives that have been instituted. Plaintiffs' Counsel thereafter will have 14 days to object or otherwise comment on the revised directive that has been instituted.

Access to Programmin g. Defendant shall permit in unit programming on an ad hoc basis. Law library services will continue to be provided out of unit, at the library, twice per month .

Disciplinary Detenti on. As required by NJAC 10A:31-17.2, Defendant will house inmates in disciplinary detention only for a period not to exceed 15 days as a result of a single disciplinary charge, and a period not to exceed 30 days as a result of multiple disciplinary charges.

Mental HeaJth Screening. Defendant has implemented a Mental Health Screening policy that gives the Director of Mental Health or his designee the authority to remove or prevent an inmate from being sent to disciplinary detention or administrative segregation if, in the discretion of the Director of Mental Health, such a placement is inappropriate. Inmates for whom such

2 of15

placement is inappropriate will remain on psych watch in medical or such location as designated by the Mental Health Professional.

Attorney Access. Plaintiffs ' counsel, and paralegals and law students working directly with them, shall have reasonable access to jail records and the jail facility, only as described
herein.

a. Twice per year, an "attorney visit" will be permitted which means an escorted walk-through of the MCACC that includes full access to: the administrative segregation and disciplinary detention units, PSU, areas used for programming and recreation, areas used for medical and mental health treatment (including suicide watch). The attorney visit will also include access to a conference room for at least three hours for Plaintiffs' counsel. Plaintiffs may bring experts at their
own expense on the attorney visits. b. Upon 14 days' notice, the MCACC will advise dates of availability for the
attorney visit.

Document Review. Two times per year, Defendant shall make the following information available upon request by Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs' requests for the following will be limited to a
period not to exceed six (6) months:

a.

All policies in effect at MCACC regarding Administrative Segregation, Protective

Custody, Disciplinary Detention and PS U and any attendant polices related to

such classification.

b.

With a properly executed Authorization by the subject inmate, Use of Force

Reports.

c.

Disciplinary Detention and Administrative Segregation counts by day.

d. With a properly executed HIPAA Authorization by the subject inmate, medical

and/or mental health records.

e.

With a properly executed HIPAA Authorization by the subject inmate, any report

associated with the in-house medical quality review conducted at MCACC related

to Disciplinary Detention and/or Administrative Segregation.

f.

MCACC's contracts with all medical providers.

g.

Concurrent with the anticipated deployment of a new jail management software

system, a look-up will be available by individual as to incarceration status. h. With a properly executed HIPAA and/or other necessary Authorization by the

subject inmate, all inmate grievances/grievance decisions related to C-Pod.

Review of these documents will be conducted according and subject to the Confidentiality and Protective Order that has been entered into by the parties (see Docket Entry No. 23), attached hereto as Ex hibit A . The parties understand and agree that said Order will remain in effect for the duration ofthe two-year term of agreement and any extension thereto.

At the conclusion of the two-year term of agreement, Plaintiffs shall give written notice

3 ofl5

to counsel for Defendant certifying that all Confidential Material and information has been destroyed, as set forth in Paragraph 12 ofthe Confidentiality and Protective Order.
Notice. The relevant terms of this agreement will be incorporated into the inmate handbook which is disseminated to all inmates upon admission.
Private ettlement Agreement. This Agreement is a private settlement agreement within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3626, the Prison Litigation Reform Act, and shall not be deemed to grant "prospective relief' within the meaning of said Act. Nor shall this Agreement be deemed to constitute a consent decree or an adjudication on the merits.
Sti pulation of Di mi ssal. The parties shall simultaneously herewith execute and deliver a Consent Stipulation of Dismissal of the Lawsuit with prejudice in the form attached hereto as E ·hibjt B, with respect to this action. The parties agree that after the Court orders said Stipulation of Dismissal, the Court shall have only the jurisdiction and authority specified in the following paragraph on Enforcement.
Enforcement. Any alleged non-compliance by Defendant that is claimed by Plaintiffs will be brought in writing by Plaintiffs' Counsel to Defendant's Counsel. In the event of any reported alleged non-compliance by Defendant with a material provision of this Agreement, counsel to the parties shall meet and confer in an effort to resolve the reported alleged noncompliance within 30 days of receipt of written notice of the reported alleged non-compliance. In the event of claimed non-compliance with a material provision of this Agreement and a failure to achieve a resolution of the issue within 60 days of the meet and confer, either side may seek mediation by the Court. If such mediation fails to achieve a resolution, Plaintiffs may move before the Court for reinstatement of the lawsuit or ask the Court to recommend a one-time oneyear extension of the duration of this Agreement. Should the Court recommend that this Agreement be extended for one additional year, the parties agree to be bound by that recommendation. In the event of alleged non-compliance, Plaintiffs may also elect to proceed in state court and seek specific performance of the terms ofthis Agreement. Defendant reserves the right to all defenses to such proceeding in state court.
Attorn ey Pees and Costs. Defendant agrees to pay the total sum of $11,123.00 (Eleven Thousand One Hundred and Twenty-Three dollars) as attorney fees and costs in full and final settlement thereof. It is specifically understood and agreed that the amount paid under this Settlement Agreement and Release specifically includes all attorneys' fees and costs to which Plaintiffs and/or their attorneys may be entitled to arising out of this matter and the sum is specifically intended to be inclusive of all attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiffs understand that by executing this Settlement Agreement and Release, they release and waive any additional claim and/or right to attorneys' fees and expenses in connection with the Complaint. Neither Plaintiffs, nor their attorneys, nor anyone acting on their behalf, shall make an application for additional monies in addition to the amount set forth in this paragraph.
4 ofl5

Term of Agreement. This agreement shall be in effect for two years from the date the agreement is executed by the parties and shall be enforceable during that period according to the above terms, notwithstanding the Stipulation of Dismissal executed herewith.
Release. Plaintiffs hereby release and forever discharge Defendant, its present and former affiliates, elected and appointed officials, directors, agents, attorneys, employees, former employees, volunteer employees, representatives, insurers and reinsurers, third-party administrators and all of their successors and assigns, from any and all actions for the legal claims at issue in the Lawsuit, up to the date of the signing of this Agreement. Plaintiffs acknowledge that this is a Release of all claims in the Lawsuit and all claims set forth in the Complaint, including claims for attorney's fees, expenses and costs. Plaintiffs further release any and all rights they may have to seek discovery on the claims in the Lawsuit. Plaintiffs hereby release and forever discharge Defendant from any and all claims for attorney's fees which they may have against Defendant, its heirs, executors, administrators, successors and/or assigns, arising out of this Lawsuit.
Plaintiffs further covenant and promise that they will not hereafter file or cause to be filed on their behalf any charge, complaint or legal or administrative action of any nature before any court or administrative agency to assert any claim against any of the persons or entities released herein, for the claims in the Lawsuit, except as may be necessary to enforce this Agreement.
This Agreement does not constitute and shall in no manner be construed as an admission of any wrongdoing or liability on the part of the County of Middlesex or as an admission by the County of Middlesex of th~ validity of any of the Plaintiffs' allegations as contained in their Complaint and/or as supplemented during the course of discovery. Defendant continues to maintain the validity of the denials and affirmative defenses set forth in its Answer to the Complaint.
Plaintiffs represent that they have not assigned to any third party any claim in the Lawsuit. Plaintiffs represent and warrant that no other person or entity has or has had any interest in the claims, demands, obligations or causes of action referred to in this Agreement and Release; and that Plaintiffs have not sold, assigned, transferred, and/or conveyed to any third party, and/or otherwise disposed of, any of the claims, demands, obligations, or causes of actions at issue in the Lawsuit. Plaintiffs further represent that they will not file or cause to be filed any charge, claim or complaint of any kind against the Defendant seeking recovery, sanctions, or injunctive relief, with respect to the claims in the Lawsuit.
Plaintiffs agree that they will not voluntarily assist in any claim or litigation which may be pending or filed in the future against Defendant concerning any claims in the Lawsuit. The parties hereto acknowledge that Plaintiffs may be compelled to testify in litigation by court order or process.
Plaintiffs' counsel have agreed that, at the time of the execution of this Release, there is no intention to initiate a new lawsuit related to, or to continue with the prosecution of, the claims
5 of15

in the Complaint against Defendant, their present and former affiliates, elected and appointed officials, directors, agents, attorneys, employees, former employees, volunteer employees, representatives, insurers and reinsurers, third-party administrators and all of their successors and assigns.
By executing this Agreement, Plaintiffs represent and acknowledge that they do not rely, and have not relied upon, any representation or statement not set forth in this Agreement made by Defendant, or its counsel with regard to the subject matter, basis, or effect of this Agreement or otherwise. This Agreement sets forth the entire agreement between the parties and supersedes any and all prior agreements or understandings between the parties.
This Settlement Agreement and Release shall be binding and inure to the benefit of the Plaintiffs, including successors, assigns, heirs, executors and personal and legal representatives, the County of Middlesex, as well as the successors and assigns of the County of Middlesex, its Departments, and its present and former elected and appointed officials, officers, directors, agents, administrators, attorneys, representatives and employees.
This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of New Jersey.
The parties agree that the language of this Agreement has been negotiated, is a product of the draftsmanship of all of the parties and that the usual rule that the provisions of a document are to be construed against the drafter shall not apply to the interpretation of any provisions hereof.
The signatures of the parties below indicate they have had an opportunity to review this Agreement with their attorneys, that they have read and understood the provisions and that they have executed it voluntarily with full knowledge of the significance of all its tenns and provisions.
Counsel of record, all of whose signatures appear below, represent and warrant that they have reviewed this Settlement Agreement and Release with their respective clients. The Plaintiffs have been advised by their counsel to execute the Agreement and Release.
This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which, when so executed and delivered, shall be deemed to be an original.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, and intending to be legally bound, the parties have executed this Agreement.
6 ofl5

STATEMENT BY PLAINTIFF, AZAIUAH LAZAR, WHO IS SIGNING BELOW: AKAHTAPHARTEHNHGENAGATHADITVIRORVSSSDOEEEWEOIDEREDTALNHMOMNIEOENNAACEEFEDDTLDUYELNNGENAMFTTNTEPSUDTAEDIUITLUAEXNNAFHLRON,TTNFYATRAOIDFCACTIUHNNITHKBENIAOHOAANENADLANSOI'MEElLLVC'WURXEAEEITWSNNIEAGDNITCDGALMAVAGDUEIEILEN,VAOSRTLEDTNINASIYANNDHTDNENTGGAEPBDHMLNOSSTAEEDVEOUUOHNGOPNFPIMYAIRLSFDPNAYLOUIAOCAFVNBNRWRATIGIETDYTEISDRRGNAURIVIAEOIHCRTNTIELNYYISTISMNCLTOSS, OYGMETRRSUONNECSIANFTGTRSTONOPDOUHM.TPNRELTHESEIICRTCS.EOROOAOHTORANRTNAIHWRGISSVTITOEIURSUCOETEXNLELLAHRETECATEMGCMWAXITRWUMSWREHEIETSTCIEONEIETETFHUITFMHUHFTMTTAUELIHMMNAHNNALLIYYGDYNYELST ATTORNEY(S).
. A Dated:~,2018( By; 'IJ·%;1;~i~/J1tL
STATE OF NEW .mRSEY:
COUNTY OF /~iJ.lf<.SC!Y
I CERTIFY that on~·----' 2018, AZARIAH LAZAR,
personally came before me and acknowledged under oath, to my satisfaction, that he: (a) is named in and personally signed this document; and (b) signed, sealed, and delivered this document as their act and deed.
I
7 of 16

STATEMENT BY PLAINTIFF, LUJS BORRERO, WHO IS SIGNING BELOW: RTTHAAPKAHAEHHENATGNAGRATIDIVVORRSSSODEEEEW.OIDREEDALTNHNOMMIENEONAAECFEEDDTLDYEULNNEGNFMATTTNPESUDTAERDULAITEXNNIAFLHNOR,TTFNYATRAOIFDCACTIUHNNTHIKBNEIAODAAHNENDALNSAOIETEMLLCVWRXUAEEITESWNEAINGDTINCDLMGVAAAGDUEIIELNESA,VORTLEDNTIAISNAYDNNDTHNENTGGAEDBHDMLNOSETSAEDVEOUOUHGNPONPFIMAIYRSLPNFDAOLYUOIAACFVNWBNRRAGTIIYTDETIDSRERGANUIRVIEAOIHRTCNTEILNISYTYISMNLCTOSS,GYEOMRTRSOUNNESCAIFNTTGTRSONOJOD.UTHM>PNEHRLTESIECRCITSE.OROOHOATROANR·ANTyHWRGSIVSTITEOUIRUSCEOTEXNLELLAHRECTETEAMGCMAXWTIWRUMWSREHEIETECISTNIOEETETFUHTIFMHUHFTTMATULEIIMMNANAHLLNDDYYYJNGYETSJ ATTORNEY(S).

Dated: {rr ;_~ - -

• 2018

By:--'L-U-I-S -BO-R-R-E--R-O--------------------

Pt.'-"Y\~iv\\ v('...,,·•I,
STAT.It OF NEW:JEfi&Fr¥t
COUNTY .OF b) ~~ ({' L
I CERTIFY that on _.:::...J'---'.-,v_l',_l,=·<-"----~!~5..·.-__ _ _ _, 2018, LUIS .BORRERO,
personally came before me and acknowledged under oath, to my satisfaction, that he:
(a) is named in and personally signed this document; and (b) signed, sealed, and delivered this document as their act and deed.

8 of 16

STATI~MENT BY PLAINTIFF, HECTOR AMI~NGUAL, WHO IS SIGNING BELOW:
AHAKATPHRATEHNGAHENGATRADITVRIORVSSSODEEEWEOIDEREDTLANHMOMNIEOENNAACEFEEDDTLDY.UELNNGENAFMTTTNEPSUDTAEDRUTILAEXNANIFHLRONT,NTFYAATROJDFCACTIUHNNTHKIDINEADHOAANEANDLASNOIMTEELLVCWRUXEEAEITWSNIAENGDNITCDLAMCAVAGDUEEILIEN,AVOSRTLTEDNIANSIAYNNDHDTNENTGGAEDBDHMLNOSSTAEEDVEOUUOHNGOPNFPMIYAIRLSFPNDAYLOUIAOCAFVNBNRWIATIGUIEYTDTEDSRRNGAURIVAIEIOCRHTNTIELNYYSITISMNLCTOSS, OYGMETRRSOUNNECSIANFTGTRSTONOPDOUHM.TPNRELTHESECIRITSC.EOROOAHOTORARNTANIHWRGISTVSITOEIUSRCUOETEXNLELLRHAETECAETMGCMWAXITRWUMSWRHEEIETTSICEONEIETEHTFUFITMHHUFTTMTAUELIHMMAHNNANLLIYYDGEYNYLST
A1TORNEY(S).

A Dated:

~

C)
112.

(Q

, 2018

STATE OF NEW .JERSEY :
COUNTY 01•' tv\·,~~l( \,\~.,e.
I CERTIFY that on ~A>-·~v:...:..('_,\_.-'bJt,LJ\t-----• 2018, HECTOR AMENGUAL,
personally came before me and acknowledged under oath, to my satisfaction, that he: (a) is named in and personally signed this document; and
(b) signed, sealed, and delivered this document as theh· act and deed.

9 of 16

STATEMENT BY I}LAINTIFF, SEAN PERSING, WHO IS SIGNING DELOW:
HKTARAHPAATEHNHANGEAGTRDITAIROVVRSSSODEEWEEO1EDREDALTNIHMNOI\EENNO1AAECFEEDDTLDYUELNNEGNFAMTTNTEPSUDTADEIULTIAUEXNNAFLHRNO,TTNFYATOARIFDCACTIUHNNTHIKBENIADOAHANENDALANSO1MTEELLVCWRUXEEAIETWSNAEGINDNITCDLAMAGVAGDUEJIEIENVJS,AORTLEDTNISNAIYNADNTHDNETNGGAEDBHDMLNOSTSEAEDVEOUUOHGNIOPNPIM~YIARSL'NPDAYLFOUOAIAFVNNBWCRRATGiIYTDTEISDlRRGAUlRIVIAEONIHRTNTCEILNYITSYSIMNLCT,OSSOGYMETRRSOUNNESCIAFNTGTRSTONOPODUHM.TPNIELHTUESEICRTCSE.OROOAHO'ROfANTRANlIWRUGJSVSTTOEIUSRUOCETEXNELLLHRAECETATEMGCMAWXITURWMSWREHEIETSETCINOEIETETFHUTlIMHiUHF'TTMATUELIHMMNANHNLALIDYYGYYNETLS ATTORNEY(S).

Dated: _!_i/.13._ _ ,20,18

STAJ'E OF NEW JERSEY :

MrddleseY c

ou

N

TY oF , I CERTIFY

that

on

:.
_~;:::.O,_,h=Vl_.___:_P.~)Jf=c,"-",;v_.1.1:!.J:.:.'~':.f:.~;1-'\l~L \- ~ -

·

2018,

SEAN

PERSING,

personally

came before me and acknowledged undet· oath, to my satisfaction, that he:

(a) is named in and pel'sonally signed this document; and

(b) signed, sealed, and delivered this document as their act and deed.

I
10 of 16

STATEMENT BY J>LAINTIFF,J ONATHAN RODlUGUEZ, WHO IS SIGNING DEL OW:
AHKAATPTRHAEHINGANGEAT-IRDAIRVTORVISSSODEEEWEOIDEREDLTANMMHONIEEONNAACEEEFDDTLDYUELNNGENAMFTTTNEPSUDTAEDRUITLEAXNANIFHLRNOT,TNFYAATORIDFCACTIUHNNKITHBINEADHOANAEANDLANSO1TMEELLVCWRUXEEAEITWSNANIEGDNITCDLGAMAVADGUEIELIENV,OASRTLTEDNINASIYANNDHTDNENTGGAEDBDHMLNOSSTEAEDVEOUUOHNGOPNFPMIYAIRLSFDPNAYLOUIAOCFANVNBRWRTAIGEYTIDTEIDSRRGANURIVAIEIORHCNTTIELNYYTSISIMCLNTOSS,OYGMTERRSUONENCSIANTGFTRSOTNODUPHOM.TINI,ELTHEUSERCITSC.EOROAOOHTORARNTNAIWHRIGSTVSTOIEIUSRCUOEETNXLELLRHAETCEAETMGCMWAXTIRMWUSWRHEEIETSTCIEONEIETEHTFUIFTMHUHFTMTTAUELIMHMANHNNLALIYYGDYEYLNTS . ATTORNEY(S). ·

Dated: r_/ · 1__,2Q18

By: ~~-~ .JONATHANR0DRIGUEZ

STATE OF NF.W ,JERSEY :
COUNTYOF ~ u~ .<(
I CERTIFY that on ~_c;_.;_;\i'--_c_:._)_ _ ___, 2018, JONATHAN
RODRIGUEZ, personally came before me and acknowl~dged under oath, to my satisfactioi1, that
he:
(a) is named in arid personally signed this document; and (b) sigi1ed, sealed, and delivered this document as theiL· act nnd deed.

12 of 16

~ 0 0
•• • ··•

0 0

:~ 0 0 .. , , ,

0 0

0

••

0

0

: a0;

J •o

..

.. .

I. _: . ....... .

. ··: \ •~ I · • :: ~: .:: ; .:. . ..

•• •••L . : · r.::: ·. ··.~:
: ~~

I

StATEMENT DY PLAINTIFF, TERRENCE EDWARDS, WHO IS SIGNING BELOW:

tj ~.

AHKATAPHTAREHNHAEGNGATRADTIVIORVRSSSDOEEEEWOIDREEDTNLAHMNMOIEOENNAAECFEEDDTLDYULENNGENAFMTTTNEPSUDTAERDUITLAJXNNAIFmHLNOT,TNFYATOARI~FCACTIUHNTNIHKDENIADOHAANENDALASNOITEMELLVCWRUXEAEEITWSNNEIGADINTCDGAMVAlAG.DlUEEIILNV~,SOARTLEDTINNASIYNADNHTDENNTGGAEDBDHMLNOSSTEAEDVEOUUOHGNOPNFPIMYARISLFDNP~LYOUAIOFCAVNNBWRRTAIGIETYDTIESDRRGNAUIRVAIEOIRHCTNTEILNYYSITSIMNLCTOSS, OYGMETRRSOUNNECSIAFNGTTRSTONOPUDOHM.TPNREITHE.S4EIICRCST.EOROOOAHTROARNTNAIHWRGSISVTIOTEUIRSUCOETEXNLELLRHAETECATEMCGMWAXITUMSWRWRHEEITETSNECIEOIETETHFUTlFHMHUFTTMTAULEIHMMNHANALLNIYYGDYYENLSJ

!
:.
i
I"
I
I
I.
I1:'
:.):

ATI'ORNEY(S).

<r-•.sL \) - - Dated:~ 2018 By: TERRENCEEbWARDS~

t;r;:J;:{ STATE OF NF.W

COUNTY 01~.11_
I CERTIFY

>
that

' Y{, tjj . j / A
rut --Jr~---'

2018,

TERRENCg

EDWARDS,

personally came before me and acknowledged under oath, to my satisfaction, that he:

(a) Is named in and persomlUy signed this document; and

. (I>) signed, senled, and delivered this document as theh· net nnd deed, .

• t ,.,
13 of 16

STATEMENT BY PLAINTIJi'Jl, DAMANI HARRIS, WHO IS SIGNING BELOW: AAKAHTHPARTEHNGANGHEATRADIRVTORIVSSSDOEEEWEOIDEERDLTANMMHONIEOENNAACEEEFDDTLDYUELNNGENAFMTTTNEPSUDTAEDRUITLEANXANIFLHRNOT,TNFYAATORDIFCACTIUHNNTKHIBINEADHOAANEANDLANSOIMETELLVCWRUXEEAEITWSNANIEGDNITCDLGAMAVAGDUEIELIEN,AVOSRTLTEDNINASIYANNDHDTNENTGAGEDBHDMLNOSSTEAEDVEOUUOING-OPNlFPMYlAIRLSFDPNAYLOUIOACAFVNNBRWRATIGIYETDTEIDSRRGNAURIVAIEIOCRHNTTIELNYYTSIISMCLNTOSS, OYMGTERSROUNENCSIANFGTTRSTONPODUHOM.TPNRELTHESEICRITSC.EOROOAOHTORARNTNAIHWRGISSTVTOIEIURSUCOEETXNLELLRHAETECATEMGCM·WAXITUMRWSWRHEEIETSTICEONEIETEHTFUITFMHUFHTTMTAUELIHMMAHNNNALLIYYDGEYYLNST ATTORNEY(S).
STATE OF NEW JERSEY :
COUNTY OF Lv~l.:.,.r\,:,\J
I CERTIFY that on 1\~r--'··_\;,_----=\.,==------' 2018, DAMANI HARRIS,
pet'sonally came before me and acknowledged under oath, to my satisfaction, that he: (a) is named in and personally signed this document; and (b) signed, sealed, and delivered this document as theit· act aud deed.
14 of 16

STATEMENT BY PLAINTIFF, PATRICJ( O'DWYEH, WHO IS SIGNING BELOW: 1THICPIDHARNNEHHHEAAOTTRAATIAVVCAESSODTLUEENORKLMIDDDANHNENAEOENANTAEOMFNNDLOYDGEWTEWNTEFBIPSSAAUDNAE1ROUNXALGIHLlFVD,LAON,EEFFIYlRTNIAGIIiSNCTNGUUAUTHEIADNENLOFRANANDLDFSNCVCYEITEECIYOORRXAABITNLSSEEADLOIUTMSTNCNVUAAUAN}DCUINN]NNLTS}YTDADETDADI,ANLDARBLSMTNLGTYEYCDlYMIRGOiOITlMITAElPRNGOiSA1ElLIHPl)WGITNSRAPNOTHEONIODSRATRTVERVWGHOMSTR1TIRISRSEMSUUUIOEWR.OCNNYTERMNILDIIIMSATNTAESSEHYTEGPXIROOMTRNETFOTTFTITSCOHHORO.TTUIRENIHHMTSICETCEEEFAOAYOOHUYTAAG(NNAESILGG-RSHSV)XLl.lURREUASEEELEEKVLCAETEMCTNEUGMMAEOTTWRWRENEIWOENIENNTIETLLTGFTTMHAEAHUTNDAAETLHMDNNGANELIDDYNYRETSI

STATE' OF N.l!:W JERSEY :
. COUNTY Oir V~ t,JQlua

I 2018, PATRICK O'DWYER,

personally came before me and acknowledged under onth, to my satisfaction, that he: (a) is nnrned Jn and personally signed this document; and (b) signed, sealed, and delivered this document ns their act and deed.

15 of 16 ·

New Jersey Offioe of the Public Defendel' Attomeysfol' Plalnl(/fo
D-. ~
Amedcn11 Civil Libet1ics Union ofNew Jersey A.ttomeysfor Plaintiffs
By:~LA~ cmme LoCicero, Esq. Amel'icnn Civil.Liberties Union of New Jersey Attomeys[or Plaintiffs
By:~ t7BOfdett;~
Dvomk and Associates; LLC . Attomeysfor • ndant
15 of 15

 </s> CLOSED,PLO,RULE16,SCHEDO
U.S. District Court District of New Jersey [LIVE] (Trenton) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:15-cv-07920-PGS-TJB

C-POD INMATES OF MIDDLESEX COUNTY ADULT CORRECTION CENTER et al v. MIDDLESEX COUNTY Assigned to: Judge Peter G. Sheridan Referred to: Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni Cause: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

Date Filed: 11/05/2015 Date Terminated: 10/24/2018 Jury Demand: Defendant Nature of Suit: 555 Prison Condition Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff
C-POD INMATES OF MIDDLESEX COUNTY ADULT CORRECTION CENTER
on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated

represented by ALEXANDER R. SHALOM AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF NEW JERSEY FOUNDATION 89 Market Street, 7th Floor P.O. BOX 32159 NEWARK, NJ 07102 973-854-1714 Email: ashalom@aclu-nj.org
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

FLETCHER C. DUDDY NEW JERSEY OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER HUGHES JUSTICE COMPLEX 25 MARKET STREET P.O. BOX 850 TRENTON, NJ 08625 609-292-7087 Email: ﬂetcher.duddy@opd.state.nj.us
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JEANNE LOCICERO AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF NEW JERSEY FOUNDATION 89 Market Street, 7th Floor P.O. BOX 32159 NEWARK, NJ 07102 973-854-1715 Fax: 973-642-6523 Email: jlocicero@aclu-nj.org
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JENNIFER N SELLITTI RICHARD J. HUGHES JUSTICE COMPLEX 25 MARKET STREET, 2ND FLOOR,

Plaintiff AZARIAH LAZAR on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated

NORTH WING, P.O. BOX 850 TRENTON, NJ 08625 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JESSE M. DEBROSSE RICHARD J. HUGHES JUSTICE COMPLEX 25 MARKET STREET, 2ND FLOOR, NORTH WING, P.O. BOX 850 TRENTON, NJ 08625 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
TESS MEILING BORDEN AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF NJ 89 MARKET ST PO BOX 32159 NEWARK, NJ 07102 973-854-1733 Email: tborden@aclu-nj.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ALEXANDER R. SHALOM (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
FLETCHER C. DUDDY (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JEANNE LOCICERO (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JENNIFER N SELLITTI (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JESSE M. DEBROSSE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
TESS MEILING BORDEN (See above for address)

Plaintiff LUIS BORRERO on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
Plaintiff HECTOR AMENGUAL on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ALEXANDER R. SHALOM (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
FLETCHER C. DUDDY (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JEANNE LOCICERO (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JENNIFER N SELLITTI (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JESSE M. DEBROSSE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
TESS MEILING BORDEN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ALEXANDER R. SHALOM (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
FLETCHER C. DUDDY (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JEANNE LOCICERO (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JENNIFER N SELLITTI (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff SEAN PERSHING on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
Plaintiff TYSON RATLIFF on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated TERMINATED: 08/22/2018

JESSE M. DEBROSSE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
TESS MEILING BORDEN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ALEXANDER R. SHALOM (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
FLETCHER C. DUDDY (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JEANNE LOCICERO (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JENNIFER N SELLITTI (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JESSE M. DEBROSSE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
TESS MEILING BORDEN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ALEXANDER R. SHALOM (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
FLETCHER C. DUDDY (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JEANNE LOCICERO

Plaintiff JONATHAN RODRIGUEZ on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
Plaintiff TERRENCE EDWARDS on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JENNIFER N SELLITTI (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JESSE M. DEBROSSE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
TESS MEILING BORDEN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ALEXANDER R. SHALOM (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
FLETCHER C. DUDDY (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JEANNE LOCICERO (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JENNIFER N SELLITTI (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JESSE M. DEBROSSE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
TESS MEILING BORDEN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ALEXANDER R. SHALOM (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Plaintiff DAMANI HARRIS on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
FLETCHER C. DUDDY (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JEANNE LOCICERO (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JENNIFER N SELLITTI (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JESSE M. DEBROSSE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
TESS MEILING BORDEN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ALEXANDER R. SHALOM (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
FLETCHER C. DUDDY (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JEANNE LOCICERO (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JENNIFER N SELLITTI (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JESSE M. DEBROSSE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
TESS MEILING BORDEN

Plaintiff PATRICK O'DWYER on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
V. Defendant MIDDLESEX COUNTY

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ALEXANDER R. SHALOM (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
FLETCHER C. DUDDY (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JEANNE LOCICERO (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JENNIFER N SELLITTI (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JESSE M. DEBROSSE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
TESS MEILING BORDEN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by LORI A. DVORAK DVORAK & ASSOCIATES, LLC 390 GEORGE STREET 8TH FLOOR NEW BRUNSWICK, NJ 08901 (732) 317-0130 Fax: (732) 317-0140 Email: ldvorak@dvorakandassociates.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
DANIELLE ABOUZEID DVORAK AND ASSOCIATES, LLC 390 GEORGE STREET, 8TH FLOOR NEW BRUNSWICK, NJ 08901

(732) 317-0130 Email: dabouzeid@dvorakandassociates.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 11/05/2015
11/06/2015 11/12/2015 11/13/2015 11/13/2015 11/19/2015 11/30/2015 12/02/2015 12/02/2015 12/02/2015 12/02/2015 12/03/2015 12/03/2015 12/17/2015

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against MIDDLESEX COUNTY ( Filing and Admin fee $ 400 receipt number 6742981), ﬁled by JONATHAN RODRIGUEZ, DAMANI HARRIS, TYSON RATLIFF, LUIS BORRERO, SEAN PERSHING, C-POD INMATES OF MIDDLESEX COUNTY ADULT CORRECTION CENTER, PATRICK O'DWYER, HECTOR AMENGUAL, TERRENCE EDWARDS, AZARIAH LAZAR. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(mps) (Entered: 11/06/2015)
2 SUMMONS ISSUED as to MIDDLESEX COUNTY Attached is the ofﬁcial court Summons, please ﬁll out Defendant and Plaintiffs attorney information and serve. Issued By *PATRICK SEILER* (mps) (Entered: 11/06/2015)
3 MOTION to Certify Class by C-POD INMATES OF MIDDLESEX COUNTY ADULT CORRECTION CENTER. Responses due by 11/23/2015 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Brief, # 3 Exhibit)(DUDDY, FLETCHER) (Entered: 11/12/2015)
Set Deadlines as to 3 MOTION to Certify Class . Motion set for 12/7/2015 before Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni. The motion will be decided on the papers. No appearances required unless notiﬁed by the court. (kas, ) (Entered: 11/13/2015)
4 ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SERVICE Executed by C-POD INMATES OF MIDDLESEX COUNTY ADULT CORRECTION CENTER. MIDDLESEX COUNTY served on 11/12/2015, answer due 12/3/2015. (DUDDY, FLETCHER) (Entered: 11/13/2015)
ORAL ARGUMENT REQUIRED for the 3 MOTION to Certify Class . Motion RESET for 12/7/2015 at 01:30 PM in Trenton - Courtroom 4E before Judge Peter G. Sheridan. (kas, ) (Entered: 11/19/2015)
5 Letter from Plaintiffs re 3 MOTION to Certify Class . (DUDDY, FLETCHER) (Entered: 11/30/2015)
6 NOTICE of Appearance by DANIELLE ABOUZEID on behalf of Defendant MIDDLESEX COUNTY (ABOUZEID, DANIELLE) Modiﬁed on 12/3/2015 (dm). (Entered: 12/02/2015)
7 Letter from Danielle Abouzeid. (ABOUZEID, DANIELLE) (Entered: 12/02/2015)
8 NOTICE of Appearance by LORI A. DVORAK on behalf of MIDDLESEX COUNTY (DVORAK, LORI) (Entered: 12/02/2015)
9 Letter from Danielle Abouzeid. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(ABOUZEID, DANIELLE) (Entered: 12/02/2015)
10 LETTER ORDER Granting Defense Counsel's request for a fourteen (14) day extension of the deadline to ﬁle Answer by 12/17/2015 and the motion is made returnable on 1/4/2016. Signed by Judge Peter G. Sheridan on 12/3/2015. (km) (Entered: 12/04/2015)
ORAL ARGUMENT REQUIRED for the 3 MOTION to Certify Class . Motion RESET for 1/4/2016 01:30 PM in Trenton - Courtroom 4E before Judge Peter G. Sheridan. (km) (Entered: 12/10/2015)
11 ANSWER to Complaint with JURY DEMAND by MIDDLESEX COUNTY.(DVORAK,

12/17/2015 12/18/2015 01/04/2016 01/05/2016 01/06/2016 01/06/2016
01/06/2016 02/18/2016 02/22/2016 02/29/2016 03/01/2016
04/28/2016 05/20/2016 06/03/2016 08/12/2016 08/22/2016 08/22/2016

LORI) (Entered: 12/17/2015)
12 Corporate Disclosure Statement by MIDDLESEX COUNTY. (DVORAK, LORI) (Entered: 12/17/2015)
13 Letter re 3 MOTION to Certify Class . (DUDDY, FLETCHER) (Entered: 12/18/2015)
14 Letter ORDER granting Plaintiff's request to withdraw their pending motion for class certiﬁcation. Signed by Judge Peter G. Sheridan on 12/21/2015. (kas, ) (Entered: 01/04/2016)
15 INITIAL SCHEDULING ORDER: Scheduling Conference set for 2/22/2016 03:00 PM in Trenton - Courtroom 6E before Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni on 1/5/2016. (km) (Entered: 01/05/2016)
16 NOTICE of Appearance by JEANNE LOCICERO on behalf of All Plaintiffs (LOCICERO, JEANNE) (Entered: 01/06/2016)
17 AMENDED DOCUMENT by HECTOR AMENGUAL, LUIS BORRERO, C-POD INMATES OF MIDDLESEX COUNTY ADULT CORRECTION CENTER, TERRENCE EDWARDS, DAMANI HARRIS, AZARIAH LAZAR, PATRICK O'DWYER, SEAN PERSHING, TYSON RATLIFF, JONATHAN RODRIGUEZ, neﬂk. Amendment to 16 Notice of Appearance . (LOCICERO, JEANNE) (Entered: 01/06/2016)
18 NOTICE of Appearance by ALEXANDER R. SHALOM on behalf of All Plaintiffs (SHALOM, ALEXANDER) (Entered: 01/06/2016)
19 Letter from Plaintiffs. (DUDDY, FLETCHER) (Entered: 02/18/2016)
20 TEXT ORDER: Initial Pretrial Conference set for 2/29/2016 at 11:00 AM in Trenton Courtroom 6E before Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni on 2/22/2016. (eaj) (Entered: 02/22/2016)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni: Initial Pretrial Conference held on 2/29/2016. (mm) (Entered: 02/29/2016)
21 SCHEDULING ORDER: Telephone Conference set for 4/29/2016 10:00 AM and 8/16/2016 at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni. Plaintiffs shall initiate the call; Amended Pleadings and Joinder of Parties due by 8/26/2016; Fact Discovery due by 2/28/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni on 3/1/2016. (kas, ) (Entered: 03/01/2016)
22 LETTER ORDER Rescheduling the Telephone Conference to 5/20/2016 at 10:30AM. Plaintiff to initiate the call. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni on 4/28/2016. (km) (Entered: 04/28/2016)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni: Telephone Conference held on 5/20/2016. Plaintiff is to produce its preliminary expert report no later than 8/1/2016. (mm) (Entered: 05/20/2016)
23 Discovery Conﬁdentiality Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni on 6/2/2016. (eaj) (Main Document 23 replaced on 6/3/2016) (eaj, ). (Entered: 06/03/2016)
24 LETTER ORDER Adjourning the 8/16/2016 Telephone Conference to 8/22/2016 at 11:30AM. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni on 8/11/2016. (km) (Entered: 08/12/2016)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni: Telephone Conference held on 8/22/2016. (NR) (Entered: 08/22/2016)
25 TEXT ORDER: No later than October 5, 2016, the parties shall provide the Court with a

10/06/2016 12/06/2016 01/19/2017 02/16/2017 05/24/2017 05/25/2017
06/16/2017
07/21/2017 08/08/2017
09/13/2017
10/11/2017

joint status update regarding settlement. In the interim, the parties shall proceed with discovery necessary to facilitate settlement. If the matter does not resolve, the schedule, including the deadline to amend the pleadings, shall be reset. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni on 8/22/16. (NR) (Entered: 08/22/2016)
26 TEXT ORDER- The parties are to report back to the Court no later than 12/6/2016, with a written status update regarding settlement discussions. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni. (mm) (Entered: 10/06/2016)
27 TEXT ORDER - This shall conﬁrm that an In-Person Status Conference is set for January 30, 2017 at 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni. Kindly mark your calendars accordingly. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni. (mm) (Entered: 12/06/2016)
28 LETTER ORDER conﬁrming that the In-Person Status Conference that was scheduled for 1/30/2017 is rescheduled to 2/16/2017 at 1:00 PM. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni on 1/19/2017. (km) (Entered: 01/19/2017)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni: InPerson Status Conference held on 2/16/2017. Status Telephone Conference set for 5/24/2017 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni. Plaintiff is to initiate the call. (mm) (Entered: 02/16/2017)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni: Telephone Conference held on 5/24/2017. (mm) (Entered: 05/25/2017)
29 LETTER ORDER Staying Discovery. Defendant to provide Plaintiff and the Court with its preliminary response to Plaintiff's settlement proposal by 6/9/2017. A more detailed response and/or counterproposal due 7/21/2017. Telephone Conference set for 8/3/2017 at 3:00PM. Plaintiff, ACLU, to initiate the call. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni on 5/24/2017. (km) Modiﬁed on 5/30/2017 (eaj, ). (Entered: 05/25/2017)
30 TEXT ORDER Please be advised that due to a court conﬂict, the telephone conference currently scheduled to take place on August 3, 2017 at 3:00 p.m. shall now take place on the same day, but at 1:00 p.m. It shall be plaintiffs' responsibility to contact all counsel to set up the conference as, well as, to initiate the call. Kindly mark your calendars accordingly. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni.(mm) (Entered: 06/16/2017)
31 LETTER ORDER rescheduling the 8/3/2017 Telephone Conference to 8/8/2017 at 3:30PM. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni on 7/21/2017. (km) (Entered: 07/24/2017)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni: Telephone Conference held on 8/8/2017. The exchange of settlement proposals shall continue; Status Telephone Conference to discuss the status of settlement shall be conducted on 10/10/2017 10:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni. Plaintiff is to initiate the call. (mm) (Entered: 08/09/2017)
32 TEXT ORDER - Telephone Conference set for October 10, 2017, is hereby RESCHEDULED to October 11, 2017 at 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni. It shall be plaintiffs' responsibility to contact all counsel to set up the conference, as well as, to initiate the call. Kindly mark your calendars accordingly. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni. (mm) (Entered: 09/13/2017)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni: Telephone Conference held on 10/11/2017. The parties are to report back to the Court

11/21/2017 01/18/2018 01/24/2018 02/13/2018 05/03/2018 06/15/2018 06/19/2018 06/28/2018 07/10/2018 07/12/2018 07/26/2018 07/30/2018

electronically to tjb_orders@njd.uscourts.gov no later than 11/17/2017, with a written status update regarding settlement discussions. (mm) (Entered: 10/11/2017)
33 LETTER ORDER that a Telephone Conference is set for 1/24/2018 at 10:00AM. Plaintiff to initiate the call. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni on 11/21/2017. (km) (Entered: 11/21/2017)
34 TEXT ORDER: Due to a court conﬂict, the telephone conference set for January 24, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. is reset for January 24, 2018 at 1:00 p.m. Plaintiff remains responsible for initiating the conference. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni.(mm) (Entered: 01/18/2018)
Text Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni: Telephone Conference held on 1/24/2018. The parties are to report back to the Court electronically to tjb_orders@njd.uscourts.gov no later than 2/9/2018, with a written status update regarding settlement discussions. (mm) (Entered: 01/24/2018)
35 TEXT ORDER: The parties are to report back to the Court electronically to tjb_orders@njd.uscourts.gov no later than 3/23/2018 with a written status update regarding settlement discussions. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni.(mm) (Entered: 02/13/2018)
36 TEXT ORDER: The parties are to report back to the Court electronically to tjb_orders@njd.uscourts.gov no later than 6/6/2018 with a written status update regarding settlement discussions. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni. (mm) (Entered: 05/03/2018)
37 LETTER ORDER Scheduling a telephone conference for 6/19/2018 at 3:00PM. Plaintiff to initiate the call. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni on 6/14/2018. (km) (Entered: 06/15/2018)
Text Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni: Telephone Conference held on 6/19/2018. Settlement Conference via telephone with only Plaintiff Tyson Ratliff, and his attorney set for 7/10/2018 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni. (mm) (Entered: 06/20/2018)
38 NOTICE of Appearance by TESS MEILING BORDEN on behalf of All Plaintiffs (BORDEN, TESS) (Entered: 06/28/2018)
Text Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni: Telephone Conference held on 7/10/2018. (mm) (Entered: 07/10/2018)
39 LETTER ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Show Cause Hearing set for 7/26/2018 10:30 AM in Trenton - Courtroom 6E before Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni. Show Cause Response due by 7/24/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni on 7/12/2018. (km) (Entered: 07/13/2018)
40 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni: Show Cause Hearing held on 7/26/2018. Tyson Ratliff, plaintiff failed to appear. Report and Recommendation to be entered. (Digitally Recorded) (mm) (Entered: 07/27/2018)
41 Transcript of HEARING held on 7/26/2018, before Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni. Transcriber- Transcripts Plus, Inc. (215-862-1115). NOTICE REGARDING (1) REDACTION OF PERSONAL IDENTIFIERS IN TRANSCRIPTS AND (2) MOTION TO REDACT AND SEAL: The parties have seven (7) calendar days to ﬁle with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this Transcript to comply with Fed.R.Civ.P.5.2(a) (personal identiﬁers). Parties seeking to redact and seal this Transcript, or portions thereof, pursuant to L.Civ.R. 5.3(g) must e-ﬁle a Motion to Redact and Seal utilizing the event `Redact and Seal Transcript/Digital Recording`. Redaction Request to

07/31/2018
08/01/2018 08/06/2018 08/22/2018 10/24/2018 10/25/2018

Transcription Agency due, but not ﬁled, by 8/20/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/30/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/29/2018. (kas, ) (Entered: 07/30/2018)
42 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. It is RECOMMENDED that Ratliff's claims be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; that defense counsel send a copy of this Report & Recommendation to Ratliff via both text message to Ratliff's known cell phone number and via regular mail to Ratliffs last known mailing address immediately upon counsels receipt of same. Objections, if any, to R&R due 14 days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni on 7/31/2018. (mmh) (Entered: 07/31/2018)
43 LETTER ORDER amending the 42 Report and Recommendation instructing Plaintiffs' counsel to send a copy of the Report and Recommendation to Plaintiff. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni on 8/1/2018. (mmh) (Entered: 08/01/2018)
44 Letter from Plaintiffs' Counsel re 43 Order. (DUDDY, FLETCHER) (Entered: 08/06/2018)
45 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 42 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Judge Peter G. Sheridan on 8/22/2018. (km) (Entered: 08/22/2018)
46 Order Administratively Terminating Action - 60 Day, Pending Consummation of Settlement. Administrative Termination deadline set for 12/24/2018. Signed by Judge Peter G. Sheridan on 10/24/2018. (dh, ) (Entered: 10/24/2018)
47 STIPULATION of Dismissal with Prejudice as to Defendant, Middlesex County by MIDDLESEX COUNTY. (ABOUZEID, DANIELLE) (Entered: 10/25/2018)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

03/24/2019 21:03:37

PACER Login:

CRClearinghouse:2563377:0

Client Code:

riesterer

Description: Docket Report

3:15-cv-07920Search PGS-TJB Start Criteria: date: 1/1/1970 End
date: 3/25/2019

Billable Pages:

13

Cost: 1.30


[CONTENT] November 5, 2015 | nine | the United States | District Court | New Jersey ||| Middlesex County | under 42 | Eighth | the United States Constitution ||| ACLU | the New Jersey Office of | Middlesex County ||| C-Pod | Middlesex County Jail |||  |||  ||| January 4, 2016 | Peter G. Sheridan | ACLU |||  ||| May 24, 2017 | Court ||| eight | nine | June 19, 2018 ||| ninth ||| Magistrate | Tonianne J. Bongiovanni ||| 2018 | 4006809 ||| Peter G. Sheridan | August 22, 2018 ||| 2018 | 4005749 ||| eight | September 25, 2018 ||| 28 hours |||  ||| 15 days | 30 days |||  |||  ||| 11,123 ||| first ||| two years ||| Court | one | one-year ||| two-year ||| Peter G. Sheridan | October 25, 2018 ||| March 21, 2019 [SUMMARY] On November 5, 2015, the plaintiffs, nine pretrial detainees, filed this class action in the United States District Court of New Jersey. The plaintiffs sued Middlesex County under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the deprivation of rights secured by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The plaintiffs, represented by the ACLU and the New Jersey Office of the Public Defender, asked the court to declare that the conditions in solitary confinement were unconstitutional, to enjoin Middlesex County to take all of its inmates out of solitary confinement, and to award costs and reasonable attorneys' fees. The plaintiffs claimed that the conditions in C-Pod, the solitary confinement unit in Middlesex County Jail, were unconstitutional. Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed that they were locked in a small cell alone almost continuously; could not interact with other inmates; could not be visited by family; could not participate in religious, educational or rehabilitative programs; and were never allowed outdoors. 

The plaintiffs sought class action status. However, on January 4, 2016, Judge Peter G. Sheridan granted the plaintiffs' request to withdraw their pending motion for class certification without prejudice so that the ACLU attorneys could get acclimated to the case before proceeding with a dispositive motion. 

The parties then began settlement conversations. On May 24, 2017, the Court stayed discovery in order to further facilitate the parties’ settlement discussions. The parties reached a settlement with eight of the nine plaintiffs signing the agreement by June 19, 2018. The ninth plaintiff indicated he was not unhappy with the agreement, but did not want to sign. After failing to show and respond to requests to explaining absence from a scheduled conference, Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni recommended this plaintiff’s claims be dismissed with prejudice. 2018 WL 4006809. Judge Peter G. Sheridan adopted the recommendation and dismissed this plaintiff’s claims with prejudice on August 22, 2018. 2018 WL 4005749.

The eight remaining plaintiffs entered a private settlement agreement with the defendants on September 25, 2018. Under the settlement agreement, the county would continue to operate a precautionary supervision unit, but also provide 28 hours per week out of cells, access to recreation time, in-unit programming, and law library services. Protections used would involve less restrictive security measures. Disciplinary detention could no longer exceed 15 days for a single disciplinary charge and 30 days for multiple disciplinary charges. The county also implemented a mental health screening policy that allowed the director of mental health to stop inappropriate placements in solitary confinement. The settlement agreement permitted the plaintiffs’ counsel access to people detained in the jail, jail records, and the facility itself to ensure full compliance with the settlement. The defendants agreed to pay $11,123 in attorneys’ fees and cost. Under the agreement, any alleged non-compliance would first be brought to the defendant’s counsel, with the opportunity for mediation. The settlement agreement was enforceable for two years. If the mediation failed to resolve the issue, plaintiffs were permitted to move the Court for reinstatement or ask for a one-time one-year extension of the agreement. The two-year enforcement period began on the date the parties executed the agreement.

Judge Peter G. Sheridan entered a stipulated of dismissal on October 25, 2018. As of March 21, 2019, the settlement is still in force.