In Re: Southern Ohio Correctional Facility

PC-OH-010-001
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

IN RE: SOUTHERN OHIO CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

Civil Action No. C-1-93-436 (Spiegel, J.) (Sherman, M.JL)
CLASS ACTION MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

The Plaintiffs (as hereinafter defined), by and through their counsel, and the Defendants

(as hereinafter defined), hereby enter into this Memorandum of Understanding dated as of

/ / 2- "2-/ / /

(the "Memorandum"), providing for settlement of the claims herein

described against the Defendants pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth below, and

subject to the approval of the Court.

I. INTRODUCTION 1. WHEREAS, this civil rights class action for injunctive relief and damages for alleged deprivations of rights is based on events and conditions of confinement related to the April, 1993 disturbance at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility (SOCF) in Lucasville, Ohio; 2. WHEREAS, the Defendants deny that they or any of their agents or employees have engaged in or permitted any unconstitutional, illegal or otherwise wrongful activity as alleged in this action; 3. WHEREAS, the parties agree that a settlement of these claims would benefit all parties by avoiding further delay and the time and expense of protracted litigation, and would put these disputed issues to rest; 4. THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises of the parties set forth below which are the result of arms-length negotiations of the parties, the undersigned parties agree for the complete and final settlement and release of all claims, differences and causes of action related to the above litigation as follows, subject to the approval of the Court.

n. EFFECTIVE DATE 5. The "Effective Date" of this Memorandum of Understanding shall be the day on which the Final Order and Judgment approving the settlement becomes final. For purposes of this Memorandum of Understanding, the Final Order and Judgment approving the settlement shall be deemed to become final on the later of (i) the thirty-first day after it is entered if no notice of appeal is filed or (ii) if a notice of appeal is filed, on the day following the date on which the Final Order and Judgment approving the settlement is not subject to further judicial review or appeal, either by reason of affirmance by a court of last resort or by reason of lapse of time or otherwise, provided that the Final Order and Judgment approving the settlement is not reversed or substantially modified by this Court or an appellate court, in which case this Memorandum of Understanding shall be null and void.
III. PARTIES 6. The named plaintiffs in this class action are Damn Morns and Eugene Adams (hereinafter "Plaintiffs"). The members of the class are fully described below. 7. The named defendants are George Voinovich, Governor of the State of Ohio, Reginald Wilkinson, Director of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction ("Department"), Arthur Tate Jr., former warden at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility ("SOCF"), Terry Collins, present warden at SOCF, Eric Dahlberg, Ben Bower, Roger Roddy, David See, Roger Crabtree, John Newsome, Oscar McGraw, Jerry Williams, James Swann, Larry Neff, Charles Bell, Richard Brown, Ronald Bailey, Michael Turner, Patrick Burnett, Gerald E. Webb, Robert Finley, David Earl Bradley, Randy L. Stout, Wilbur K. Harris, E. Benner, K. Clarkson, and J. Lewis (hereinafter "Defendants").
IV. CLASS CERTIFICATION 8. On December 2, 1994, the Court issued an order (Doc. 65) certifying a class of
inmates pursuant to Rule 23 (b)(2) as follows:
All inmates, living or deceased, who meet all of the following criteria: (1) the inmate has been incarcerated at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility (SOCF) on or since April 11, 1993; (2) the inmate has been classified as a general population inmate during some or all of that time period. This class definition includes two subclasses:

SUBCLASS 1 All members of the class who were housed or present in K-8 on or about April 13, 1993
SUBCLASS 2 All members of the class who have been, or subsequently are, indicted for an alleged felony committed during and as part of the April 11-22, 1993 disturbance at SOCF. Any member of this Subclass who ultimately is not convicted of a felony committed during and as part of the April 11-22, 1993 disturbance at SOCF shall cease to be a member of this Subclass and shall be included in the Class Any member of this Subclass who ultimately is convicted of a felony committed during and as part of the April 11-22, 1993 disturbance at SOCF shall cease to be a member of this Subclass and shall be excluded from the Class.
V. PERFORMANCE OF THE MEMORANDUM 9. The Defendants, their agents and employees, successors and all persons in active concert or participation with any of them shall abide by the terms of this Memorandum in accordance with the schedule set out in this Memorandum. 10. The Defendants will authorize and execute the obligations set forth in this Memorandum, as appropriate for each according to the position and professional responsibility held by that person in his position The obligations assumed by the Department in this Memorandum constitute obligations of the Director in his official capacity. 11. The exclusive remedy for any alleged breach of the obligations set forth in Section VI. of this Memorandum (the Operational Provisions) shall be through an action for specific performance filed in State court. As a condition precedent to the filing of any such action, the parties shall exercise best efforts to resolve any dispute, including exhaustion of the grievance procedure established pursuant to Ohio Administrative Code Section 5120-9-31 by the inmate(s) affected by the alleged breach.
VI. OPERATIONAL PROVISIONS A. SINGLE CELLING.
12. The Department will continue to single-cell inmates classified as maximum security at SOCF as the exclusive celling practice.

B. CLASSIFICATION. 13. There will be only one general population maximum security classification at
SOCF. The security classification of each inmate shall be established and reviewed as provided in Section 5120-9-53 of the Ohio Administrative Code.
14. In the event that the warden at SOCF recommends that an inmate's security classification be reduced and the Bureau of Classification orders the inmate retained at maximum security, that decision shall be reviewed by the Southern Regional Director of Prisons and the Assistant Director of the Department.
15. The classification of every inmate at SOCF shall be reviewed every six months, unless and until a committee established through paragraph 20 of this Memorandum recommends and the Department agrees that more or less frequent review is appropriate.
16. Upon request, an inmate shall be given a copy of a supervision review form with his scores or a summary of his scores and rating. Confidential comments on the form may be redacted if the release of such comments to the inmate would jeopardize the security of the staff or inmates. Every inmate will have the opportunity to review his score with his case manager, and to discuss the reasons for the rating and the decision, and any actions the inmate can take to improve his chances for a lower security rating.
17. If the case manager or the warden recommends a reduction in security and that reduction is denied at any level, there will be a meeting with the inmate to review the decision and provide any non-confidential information.
18. The Department will retain discretion to be exercised based on sound correctional judgment, to override the security rating recommended for the numerical score indicated.
19. The Defendants will provide a Security Instrument Overview Program in order to teach small groups of inmates about the security instrument.
20. The Department will create one or more committee(s) to review the security classification process, to evaluate the effectiveness and validity of the current classification instrument and to review transfer and assignment policies and the utilization of inmate housing space throughout the department. The committee(s) shall include an official or consultant with expertise in the field of corrections security classifications. The Department will consider the recommendations of this committee for implementation in the classification process. The

names of the persons under consideration as members of the committee shall be shared with counsel for the plaintiffs, who may comment or offer additional names for consideration.
21. The Department's consultant for this committee shall be permitted to share information and discuss his work in progress with the expert for the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs' expert shall also be permitted to accompany the Department's consultant on site visits up to four times per year. The expenses for those visits by plaintiffs' expert will be paid by the plaintiff class from the settlement fund created in this Memorandum.
22. The practices described in this section of the Memorandum (section B., Classification) are subject to modification if the Security Classification Review Committee or the Department's consultant recommend a different procedure to be used throughout the system so long as the revisions protect the access of inmates to their security instruments, their opportunity to discuss their scores with their case manager, and the opportunity for review of a decision by the Bureau of Classification not to follow a recommended security reduction. C. TRANSFER OF CLOSE SECURITY INMATES.
23. Within forty-five days of the reclassification of any inmate to close security, the defendants will utilize their best efforts to achieve the transfer of such inmate out of SOCF to a lower security facility. The parties recognize that the ability of the Defendants to move inmates state-wide is affected by the number of beds, the security level of those beds, and special circumstances including the designation of inmates for particular special management statuses, such as residential treatment units for the mentally ill, protective control, security control, local control, administrative control, and so forth.
24. Absent special circumstances, the SOCF inmates reduced from maximum to close security shall be given priority for transfer over other inmates eligible for transfer to the close security facilities.
25. The names and numbers of each close security inmate detained beyond forty-five days at SOCF shall be reported to the Department's Bureau of Classification. This information shall be made available to counsel for the Plaintiffs upon written request.
26. A committee established under paragraph 20 of this Memorandum shall be consulted for a recommendation on ways to comply with the requirements of this section.

D. CHANGE OF SOCF MISSION 27. At present, SOCF is a maximum security prison. Nothing in this Memorandum
shall operate or be construed to limit the Department from changing or redesignating the mission at SOCF, in whole or in any discreet part (no less than a cellblock). If the mission at SOCF changes, the Department shall provide programming to that portion of the prison with the redesignated mission at a level commensurate with the programming at other facilities in the state where inmates of that security classification are locked. Nothing in this Memorandum shall operate or be construed to limit the Department's right to create subclassifications, as appropriate, particularly with respect to close security inmates pursuant to a recommendation of a committee established through paragraph 20 of this Memorandum. The Department will, where feasible, provide advance notice to class counsel of proposed SOCF mission changes, but in no event provide notice later than the time of the implementation of such changes. E. PAROLE POLICY/ ELIGIBILITY
28. Class Counsel will be afforded a single opportunity to appear before the parole board to present their issues and concerns concerning parole eligibility for inmates who were at SOCF during the 1993 not. F. RIB PILOT PROJECT
29. At SOCF the Department will implement the following standard of proof at the Rules Infraction Board hearings that do not result in the imposition of bad time: "It is the duty of the RIB based upon the evidence presented to decide whether or not the inmate has committed the infraction set forth in the charge." This standard will be implemented at the RIB as a pilot program for one year. The standard for review shall continue to be governed by the appropriate provision(s) of the Ohio Administrative Code. Afterwards the defendants shall elect whether or not to continue using this standard of evidence, and shall not be bound to continue to do so.
30. At SOCF the Department will select a staff member, with input from Class Counsel, who will provide staff assistance to any inmate charged with an act that is a criminal offense under the law of Ohio or the United States, OAC § 5120-9-06 (E) (19). The Department will also provide such staff assistance as a pilot project for a period of one year to any inmate charged with unauthorized group activity, OAC § 5120-9-06 (E) (31).

31. RIB members shall be trained in the use of confidential evidence and on all aspects of RIB duties and make full use of the experience gained through the special RIB proceedings that followed the 1993 disturbance G. MENTAL HEALTH
32. Any class member who requests a mental health assessment and who was at SOCF between April 11, 1993, and April 22, 1993, will be assessed for mental / emotional health problems, including but not limited to post traumatic stress disorder.
33. Assessment and any treatment deemed necessary will be provided by Departments' mental health staff.
34 None of the services provided under this Memorandum shall cause any reduction in services to the inmate class in Dunn v. Voinovich. H. CULTURAL DIVERSITY
35. The Department will continue to seek ways to improve racial and cultural relations within the Ohio Prisons.
36. The Department will continue to provide cultural diversity training to every institution employee, either through in-service training or pre-service training.
37. Class counsel may submit to the Department proposals for inmate programming designed to improve multi-cultural relations, for possible implementation on a one-year pilot basis. Nothing in this Memorandum obligates the Department to adopt or implement such proposals. L OUT-OF-CELL TIME
38. General Population inmates at SOCF shall continue to average at least 40 hours per week out-of-cell time except in cases of utility failures, fog, senous incidents or other occurrences which affect institutional security. I RELIGION
39. The Department will draft and promulgate state-wide policy directives for the conduct of religious matters in its institutions. These policies shall be available to inmates, who shall have the opportunity to grieve any issue addressed by the policies. The Department will continue to employ qualified people with theological training at SOCF and at depanmental administrative offices.

K. ADJUSTMENT RESEARCH 40. The Department will conduct a research study of the institutional adjustment of
inmates sentenced to definite sentences or serving definite terms of incarceration and of inmates whose parole eligibility has been continued by the parole board for a period exceeding five years.
Vn. SETTLEMENT FUND 41. Within 30 days of the entry of the order granting preliminary approval of the Settlement by the Court, Defendants shall deposit with the Court Four Million One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($4,100,000.00) in satisfaction of all damage claims by plaintiff class members, including all of the claims in the consolidated cases attached as Appendix A. 42. The Settlement Fund shall be invested by the Court in an interest-bearing account or invested in an interest-bearing instrument approved by the Court. Interest earned by the Settlement Fund shall become part of the Settlement Fund. 43. With the Court's permission, the services of the United States Magistrate Judge shall be utilized to establish-praiacQls, to be agreed to by the parties, by which class members may file claims for damages from the Settlement Fund and to make the necessary determinations thereunder. A class member, or an administrator or executor on behalf of a deceased class member's estate, shall be permitted to present claims and receive compensation from the Fund only if the class member making the claim, or on whose behalf the claim is being made, was (1) murdered during the not; (2) physically injured during the not; or (3) lost property during or as a consequence of the not. In the event that money has already been paid to a class member for property lost due to the not, said payment shall be deemed a credit towards any monies determined to be owing a class member for his claim for lost property. The Magistrate may award compensation to a class member outside of the three categories listed in this paragraph only upon a showing by the class member that he has suffered any other serious not-related injury and that the relief available under the Operational Provisions of this Memorandum are seriously inadequate for that class member given his personal situation and that the denial of compensation to him would impose an injustice.-

44. The Defendants shall be afforded notice of the nature of the claims and the amounts awarded.
45. The administrative expenses of the Settlement Fund shall be paid from the Settlement Fund.
46. In the event the Settlement Fund is not exhausted following the distribution of the amounts awarded and the payment of any fees and expenses provided for in this Memorandum, any remainder shall be expended on inmate programming to be mutually agreed to by the parties.
ATTORNEYS FEES AND EXPENSES 47. Subject to the approval of the Court after submission of an application(s) for payment of attorneys fees and expenses by Class Counsel, attorneys fees and expenses shall be paid to Class Counsel to reimburse Counsel for the fees and expenses incurred in the prosecution of this action, any appeal of this settlement, and the administration of this settlement. 48. Any attorneys fees and expenses approved by the Court shall be paid and satisfied exclusively from the Settlement Fund created in section VII. of this Memorandum. 49. Defendants shall not oppose attorneys fees and expenses applications made by Class Counsel to the Court.
DC. STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL 50. The parties hereby stipulate to the dismissal with prejudice of all claims and causes of action, as set out in paragraph 53, asserted against any and all of the defendants, including: George Voinovich, Reginald Wilkinson, Arthur Tate, Jr., Terry Collins, Ronald W. Bailey, Oscar McGraw, Charles F. Bell, Larry E. Neff, Benjamin G. Bower, John H. Newsome, David E. Bradley, Rodger E. Roddy, Richard D. Brown, II, David N. See, Patrick R. Burnett, Randy L. Stout, Roger D. Crabtree, James R. Swann, Eric Dahlberg, Michael Turner, Robert Finley, Gerald E. Webb, Wilbur K. Harris, Jack G. Williams, Jr., Edwin H. Benner, Jeff R. Lewis, and Kevin Clarkson.

51. Upon the final distribution of all funds, the parties agree to sign and present to the Court the Stipulation of Dismissal attached hereto as Appendix B and incorporated herein by reference. The Final Order and Judgment approving the settlement shall be considered final judgment and an adjudication on the merits with full res judicata and collateral estoppel effect on the claims asserted by the Plaintiff class.
52. Upon the entry of the order granting preliminary approval of the settlement by the Court, the parties stipulate to the entry attached as Appendix C, a conditional dismissal without prejudice of the following defendants: Ronald W. Bailey, Oscar McGraw, Charles F. Bell, Larry E. Neff, Benjamin G. Bower, John H. Newsome, David E. Bradley, Rodger E. Roddy, Richard D. Brown, II, David N. See, Patrick F. Burnett, Randy L. Stout, Roger D. Crabtree, James R. Swann, Michael E. Turner, Robert Finley, Gerald E. Webb, Wilbur K. Harris, Jack G. Williams, Jr, Edwin H. Benner, Jeff R. Lewis, and Kevin Clarkson Said dismissal is conditioned upon the consummation and completion of the entire Memorandum of Understanding, and in the event the Memorandum of Understanding is not completed and consummated, the conditional dismissal shall be null and void ab initio and have no force or effect. Said dismissal shall not effect the rights of plaintiffs with respect to defendants Voinovich, Wilkinson, Tate, Collins and Dahlberg.
X. RELEASE OF CLAIMS 53. Upon the effective date, the Plaintiff class and the Plaintiffs, shall by operation of this paragraph individually and jointly, for their heirs, executors, assigns, agents, attorneys, successors and assigns release the following named defendants: George Voinovich, Reginald Wilkinson, Arthur Tate, Jr., Terry Collins, Ronald W. Bailey, Oscar McGraw, Charles F. Bell, Larry E. Neff, Benjamin G. Bower, John H. Newsome, David E. Bradley, Rodger E. Roddy, Richard D. Brown, II, David N. See, Patrick F. Burnett, Randy L. Stout, Roger D. Crabtree, James R. Swann, Eric Dahlberg, Michael E. Turner, Robert Finley, Gerald E. Webb, Wilbur K. Harris, Jack G. Williams, Jr., Edwin H. Benner, Jeff R. Lewis, and Kevin Clarkson of and from any and all claims, demands, causes of action, rights, property damages, costs, and expenses of every kind, nature and description, whether in law or at equity, whether based on state or federal law, whether known or unknown, and whether accrued or to accrue, which the parties
10

may now or hereafter have against the other arising from, in connection with, as a result of, or pertaining in any way to the claims alleged in, or which could have been raised in, this action, including any and all claims based on events and conditions of confinement related to the April, 1993 disturbance at SOCF, and including those claims dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the stipulation of dismissal attached as Appendix B. This release applies to all defendants named in the consolidated cases and to the Department and any of its past or present employees. This release is without prejudice to any past, present or future claims that are not based on the 1993 not or post-not lockdown, including but not limited to habeas claims and other civil claims unrelated to the not or subsequent lockdown.
XI. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 54. All parties hereto agree to exercise their best efforts and to take all reasonable steps necessary to effectuate the settlement set forth in this Memorandum. The Department will make reasonable effons to provide Class Counsel with any information in its possession that Class Counsel requests in order to facilitate giving individual notice to Class members. 55. This Memorandum shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective estates, heirs, successors and assigns. 56. This Memorandum may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. 57. Except as otherwise specifically provided for in this Memorandum, no party shall be liable for any costs or expenses incurred by or on behalf of any other party in connection with this Memorandum. 58. Any notice, request, instruction or other document to be given hereunder by any party hereto to any other party (other than class notification) shall be in writing and delivered personally or sent registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, if to Defendants to: Gerald A. Messerman Messerman & Messerman 4100 Key Tower 127 Public Square Cleveland, Ohio 44114
11

John F. Berry Berry, Shoemaker & Clark 42 East Gay Street Suite 1515 Columbus, Ohio 43215
Chief, Corrections Litigation Section Ohio Attorney General's Office 140 East Town Street, 9th Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215
General Counsel Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction 1050 Freeway Drive North Columbus, Ohio 43229 If to Class Counsel, and Plaintiffs or Class members to: Alphonse A. Gerhardstein 1409 Enquirer Building 617 Vine Street Cincinnati, OH 45202 59. This Memorandum shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Ohio applicable to agreements made and performed in such jurisdiction. 60. The Plaintiffs' Class Counsel shall have access to those records that are reasonably necessary to monitor compliance with this Memorandum. Access shall also be permitted to SOCF, and upon a showing of necessity to Close security prisons, for the same purpose so long as the visit is prearranged with counsel for the Defendants, will not interfere with security at the prison, and is at a time and date agreed to by the Department.
61. Unless otherwise specifically provided, the term of the Operational Provisions in this Memorandum shall be three years from the effective date of this Memorandum.
62. If the Memorandum is challenged and held not to be fair to the Class or is otherwise not approved, then, at the conclusion of the appellate process when all appeals have been exhausted and no further appeal may be taken, if a final order or final judgment approving this settlement does not issue, this Memorandum shall immediately terminate and shall have no further force or effect. Any monies deposited by Defendants will be returned to the Department with all interest earned thereon, and all parties herein shall be restored to their respective positions immediately prior to execution of this Memorandum.
12

AGREED this Agreed and Stipulated to:

Alphonse A. Gerhardstein 1409 Enquirer Building 617 Vine Street Cincinnati, OH 45202 (513) 621-9100
D
Marc D. Mezibov Sirkin, Pinales, Mezibov & Schwartz 105 W. Fourth Street Suite 920 Cincinnati, OH 45202 (513) 721-4876

ley ivf. Chesley

\

Waite, Schneider, Bayless &

Chesley

1513 Central Trust Tower

Cincinnati, OH 45202

(513) 621-0267

VZ-D ay of

1997.

Betty D. Montgomery Attorney General

Gerald A. Messerman , Messerman & Messerman 4100 Key Tower 127 Public Square Cleveland, OH 44114 (216) 574-9990
Special Counsel for Defendants Voinovich. Wilkinson, Tate and Collins
Joshua T. Cox Assistant Attorney General Corrections Litigation Section 140 E. Town Street, 9th Floor Columbus, OH 43215 (614) 644-7233
Attorney for Defendants Voinovich, Wilkinson, Tate and Collins

Neal D. Baker Dinsmore & Shohl 1900 Chemed Center 255 E. 5th Street Cincinnati, OH 45202 (513) 977-8185
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

John F. Beny

71

Berry, Shoemaker & Clark

42 E. Gay Street, Suite 1515

Columbus, OH 43215

(614) 464-0100

Special Counsel for all Defendants other than Voinovich, Wilkinson, Tate and Collins

13

APPENDIX A
ADAMS V. TATE, C-l-93-556 ALEXANDER V. WILKINSON, ET AL, C-l-93-695 BRAZZILE, ET AL. V. TATE. ET AL., C-l-93-769 CHAMBERS V. SOCF. ET AL., C-l-93-691 CHRISTMAN V. RATCLIFF, C-l-93-531 COLON V. TURNER, ET AL., C-1-93-840 DAVIS V. WILKINSON. ET AL., C-l-93-692 DAWSON V. TATE, C-l-93-529 DONNELLY V. WILKINSON. ET AL., C-l-93-499 FAISON V. TATE. ET AL., C-1-93-647 FIELDS V. TATE, C-l-93-399 FIELD V. MASON, C-1-93-628 HARRIS V. WILKINSON, ET AL., C-l-93-881 HARRIS V. TATE. ET AL., C-1-93-545 HICKMAN V. TATE, ET AL., C-1-93-752 HILL V. TATE. ET AL., C-1-94-049 HILL V. BURNETT, C-l-93-764 HINES V. TATE, ET AL., C-1-93-661 HOPKINS V. VOINOVICH. ET AL., C-l-94-052 HOUSTON V. TATE, C-l-93-719 HUGHES V. COLLINS, C-1-96-036 (not-related claims only) JEFFERSON V. TATE, C-l-93-455 JOHNSON V. TATE, C-l-93-633 JOHNSON V. OHIO, STATE OF, ET AL., C-l-94-592 KEYS V. TATE, ET AL., C-l-93-632 KUHR V. UNKNOWN, MS-1-95-40 LATTIMER V. WILKINSON, ET A L, C-l-93-631 LOWE V. TATE, ET AL., C-l-93-625 MASON V. TATE. ET AL., C-l-93-630 MCINTYRE V. WILKINSON. ET AL., C-l-93-726 MILLER V. TATE, C-l-93-576 MILLS V. BAILEY. ET AL, C-l-93-689 NEWELL V. TATE, ET AL., C-1-94-3 88 NOLAN V. TATE, C-l-93-461 NORMAN V. TATE, ET AL., C-1-93-823 SALES V. TATE, C-l-93-498 SIMMONS V. TATE, ET AL., C-l-93-533 SIMMONS V. COLLINS, ET AL, C-l-94-531 SOMMERS, ET AL. V. VOINOVICH, ET AL., C-l-95-290 SWEARINGEN V. TATE, C-l-94-759 (not-related claims only)
TURNER V. TATE. ET AL, C-l-93-762 WARREN V. TATE. ET AL., C-l-94-54

APPENDIX B
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

IN RE: SOUTHERN OHIO CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

Civil Action No. C-l-93-436 (Spiegel, JL) (Sherman, M.J.)
STIPULATED DISMISSAL ENTRY

The Court has been advised by the parties that the above-captioned matter has been
settled, and that the settlement includes the following cases previously consolidated with this
action by order of the Court:
ADAMS V. TATE, C-l-93-556 ALEXANDER V. WILKINSON, ET AL, C-l-93-695 BRAZZILE, ET AL. V. TATE, ET AL., C-1-93-769 CHAMBERS V. SOCF, ET AL., C-1-93-691 CHRISTMAN V. RATCLIFF, C-1-93-531 COLON V. TURNER, ET AL., C-1-93-840 DAVIS V. WILKINSON, ET AL., C-l-93-692 DAWSON V. TATE, C-l-93-529 DONNELLY V. WILKINSON, ET AL., C-l-93-499 FAISON V. TATE, ET AL., C-1-93-647 FIELDS V. TATE, C-l-93-399 HELD V. MASON, C-1-93-628 HARRIS V. WILKINSON, ET AL., C-l-93-881 HARRIS V. TATE, ET AL., C-l-93-545 HICKMAN V. TATE, ET AL., C-l-93-752 HILL V. TATE, ET AL., C-l-94-049 HILL V. BURNETT, C-1-93-764 HINES V. TATE, ET AL., C-l-93-661 HOPKINS V. VOINOVICH, ET AL., C-l-94-052 HOUSTON V. TATE, C-l-93-719 HUGHES V. COLLINS, C-1-96-036 (not-related claims only) JEFFERSON V. TATE, C-1-93-455 JOHNSON V. TATE, C-1-93-633 JOHNSON V. OHIO, STATE OF, ET AL., C-1-94-592

KEYS V. TATE. ET AL., C-l-93-632 KUHR V. UNKNOWN, MS-1-95-40 LATTIMER V. WILKINSON, ET AL, C-1-93-631 LOWE V. TATE,ETAL, C-l-93-625 MASON V. TATE, ET AL., C-1-93-630 MCINTYRE V. WILKINSON, ET AL., C-l-93-726 MILLER V. TATE, C-l-93-576 MILLS V. BAILEY, ET AL., C-l-93-689 NEWELL V. TATE, ET AL., C-l-94-388 NOLAN V. TATE, C-l-93-461 NORMAN V. TATE, ET AL., C-1-93-823 SALES V. TATE, C-1-93-498 SIMMONS V. TATE, ET AL., C-l-93-533 SIMMONS V. COLLINS, ET AL, C-1-94-531 SOMMERS, ET AL. V. VOINOVICH, ET AL., C-1-95-290 SWEARINGEN V. TATE, C-l-94-759 (not-related claims only) TURNER V. TATE, ET AL., C-1-93-762 WARREN V. TATE, ET AL., C-1-94-54
The settlement having been approved by the Court pursuant Rule 23(e) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, it is ORDERED that this case and the above-listed consolidated
i
cases are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
SO ORDERED

Dated:

S. Arthur Spiegel United States Senior Distnct Judge

Agreed and Stipulated to:
Alphonse A. Gerhardstein 1409 Enquirer Building 617 Vine Street Cincinnati, OH 45202 (513) 621-9100
Marc D. Mezibov Sirkin, Pinales, Mezibov &
Schwartz 105 W. Fourth Street Suite 920 Cincinnati, OH 45202 (513) 721-4876
Stanley M. Chesley Waite, Schneider, Bayless &
Chesley 1513 Central Trust Tower Cincinnati, OH 45202 (513) 621-0267
Neal D. Baker Dinsmore & Shohl 1900 Chemed Center 255 E. 5th Street Cincinnati, OH 45202 (513) 977-8185
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Betty D. Montgomery Attorney General
Gerald A. Messerman Messerman & Messerman 4100 Key Tower 127 Public Square Cleveland, OH 44114 (216) 574-9990
Special Counsel for Defendants Voinovich, Wilkinson, Tate and Collins
Joshua T. Cox Assistant Attorney General Corrections Litigation Section 140 E. Town Street, 9th Floor Columbus, OH 43215 (614) 644-7233
Attorney for Defendants Voinovich, Wilkinson, Tate and Collins
John F. Berry Berry, Shoemaker & Clark 42 E. Gay Street, Suite 1515 Columbus, OH 43215 (614) 464-0100
Special Counsel for all Defendants other than Voinovich, Wilkinson, Tate and Collins

APPENDIX C
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

IN RE: SOUTHERN OHIO CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

Civil Action No. C-1-93-436 (Spiegel, 1) (Sherman, M.J.)
STIPULATED CONDmONAL DISMISSAL

The parties stipulate and agree to the conditional dismissal without prejudice of the following defendants: Ronald W Bailey, Oscar McGraw, Charles F. Bell, Larry E. Neff, Benjamin G. Bower, John H. Newsome, David E. Bradley, Rodger E. Roddy, Richard D. Brown, II, David N. See, Patrick F. Burnett, Randy L. Stout, Roger D. Crabtree, James R. Swann, Michael E. Turner, Robert Finley, Gerald E. Webb, Wilbur K. Harris, Jack G. Williams, Jr., Edwin H. Benner, Jeff R. Lewis, and Kevin Clarkson. Said dismissal is conditioned upon the consummation and completion of the entire Memorandum of Understanding in the abovecaptioned action, and in the event the Memorandum of Understanding is not completed and consummated, the conditional dismissal shall be null and void ab initio and have no force or effect. Said dismissal shall not effect the rights of plaintiffs with respect to defendants George Voinovich, Reginald Wilkinson, Arthur Tate, Jr., Terry Collins and Eric G. Dahlberg.
SO ORDERED.

Dated:

S. Arthur Spiegel United States Senior District Judge

Agreed and Stipulated to:
d a
Alphonse A. Gerhardstein 1409 Enquirer Building 617 Vine Street Cincinnati, OH 45202 (513) 621-9100
Marc D. Mezibov Sirkin, Pinales, Mezibov &
Schwartz 105 W. Fourth Street Suite 920 Cincinnati, OH 45202 (513) 721-4876
/ s W e y M. Chesley Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley 1513 Central Trust Tower Cincinnati, OH 45202 (513) 621-0267
Neal D. Baker Dinsmore & Shohl 1900 Chemed Center 255 E. 5th Street Cincinnati, OH 45202 (513) 977-8185
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Betty D. Montgomery Attorney General
Gerald A. Messerman / Messerman & Messerman 4100 Key Tower 127 Public Square Cleveland, OH 44114 (216) 574-9990
Special Counsel for Defendants Voinovich, Wilkinson, Tate and Collins
Joshua T. Cox Assistant Attorney General Corrections Litigation Section 140 E. Town Street, 9th Floor Columbus, OH 43215 (614) 644-7233
Attorney for Defendants Voinovich, Wilkinson, Tate and Collins
John F. Berry Berry, Shoemaker & Clark 42 E. Gay Street, Suite 1515 Columbus, OH 43215 (614) 464-0100
Special Counsel for all Defendants other than Voinovich, Wilkinson, Tate and Collins

JUL-02-37 14=05 FROM:A/G CORRECTIONS LIT ON

I D -. B 14+729 + 9 3 2 7

SUBJECT:

Inmate Property Limits - • SECTION-

-05

Sundry Packages

NUMBER!

01

DEPARTM^T OP REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION

ftULE/CODE REFERENCE:
5120-9-33
RELATED ACA STANDARDS:
RELATED AUDIT STANDARDS: 205

; SUPERCEDES:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
September 1, 1991

I. PURPOSE

•

To set forth consistent and reasonable possession and value limitations for inmate personal property allowed within the institutions and to set forth consistent guidelines for determining items permitted to be received as inmate personal property.

.II. APPLICABILITY
This policy applies to all persons employed by or under contract to the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. It specifically applies to all persons who process and account for inmate personal property within the institutions.

III. DEFINITIONS
Inmate Personal Property: Articles for which the inmate has received permission to possess. This includes both state-issue clothing and items, legally owned by the inmate.
Sundry Package: Any box/package received by an inmate containing non-edible personal property. "

IV. POLICY It is the policy of the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction to allow for a reasonable amount of personal property to be in the possession of the inmates under its jurisdiction. It is further the policy of the Department to set dollar limitations on the value of such inmate personal property and to set forth procedures for total accountability of such inmate personal property. •

PROCEDURE A. Each inmate is permitted the amount of personal property that will fit
into a 2.4 cubic foot storage locker.

npr

a U L - 0 2 - 3 7 1 4 : 0 5 FROM=A/G CORRECTIONS LIT ON

ID=B14+728+3327

SUBJECT i N M A T E PROPERTY LIMITS - SUNDRY PACKAGES

PAGE

B. Each inmate is required to verify the dollar values of the personal property in his/her possession to ensure adherence to the value limits set by the approved property list (attached as Appendix A).
1. Verification can he made through the showing of a receipt for the property or through a package list sent in with the property, listing the dollar values for the property.
2. Verification can also be made through receipts from commissary purchases of personal property.
C. Each inmate is allowed a sundry package from an approved source as set forth-in Administrative Rule 5120-9-33 (one package per quarter).
1. The sender of the sundry package must be on the inmate's approved visiting list, pursuant to Administrative Rule 5120-9-33.
2. The package must have a complete listing of all items contained within and the dollar values of all items. This list must be signed by the sending party, complete with return address. This list must be attached to the outside of the package.
3. The package must meet all the restrictions for sundry packages listed in Administrative Rule 5120-9-33.
D. Each institution will maintain accurate and updated records of inmate personal property to ensure that no inmate exceeds the maximum possession limits set forth in the approved property list (attached as Appendix A).
E. Excess property shall be processed in accordance with Administrative Regulation 5120-9-55, "Contraband.B

ORC 1362CH

JUL-02-37 14=05 FROM:A/G CORRECTIONS LIT ON

ID=G14+728+9327

PAGE

4/7

APPROVED ITEMS FOR SUNDRY PACKAGES (MALE)
(does not apply for reception inmates)

APPENDIX A

The following property may be possessed by inmates and may be received in sundry packages. Where not indicated, possession limits on individual types or items of property shall be set by individual institutional policy. Additionally institutional policy shall set possession limits on commissary items and other special items allowed by the institution.

Inmates are not permitted to receive packages while at Frazier Health Center the Correctional Medical Center, or other outside hospitals. Inmates assigned to reception, disciplinary control, local control, administrative control, or the shock incarceration program are not permitted to receive packages.

All packages received must pass through the institution's fluoroscope and are

limited to 25 pounds gross. See the appropriate institutional manual for specific

sizes of the institution's fluoroscope.

• •

*

CLOTHING

Personal Clothing Items: (no red items permitted)

Belt (solid color, \\n maximum width; no laminated or elastic)
Belt buckle (plain, 2" x 2n, no design or emblem)

Caps:

Baseball (no emblem)

Stocking (no ski mask)

Tarboosh (permission of Chaplain)

Yarmulka (permission of Chaplain)

, Fez (permission of Chaplain)

Dashiki, hip length (per

institutional policy)

.

Gloves (per institutional policy) (length not above wrist; no gauntlet, or rubber)
Baseball glove (standard color, Pre-arranged by recreation)

Value .

Package Limit .

Possession limit

$12.00

1

1

7QQ ^

^

10.00

1

1

loloo

1

1

10*00

1

\

10 00

i

l

10*00

1

1

15.00

1

i

10.00

1

30.QO

1

JUL-02-97 14=06 FROM=A/G CORRECTIONS LIT ON

I D.-B 1 4 + 7 2 8 + 3 3 2 7

PAGE 5 / 7

Package Possession

Value limit

limit

H15anndxke1r5c"himefasxim(wumhite only)
Pajamas (no hood, design, or emblem, no white or gray)

1,00

8

12

20,00

1

Robes: Solid color, no white or gray

Bath (nc-hood, design or emblem)

25.00

1

1

Prayer (permission of Chaplain)

25.00

1

1

Shirts (per institution policy) (solid color, button only, no white or gray, no design or emblem, with collar, no shirt jackets, no turtlenecks)

15.00

Shoes:

' ...

Baseball (permission of recreation '

department)(rubber or plastic cleats

only, outside activity only)

50.00

Dress (black or brown only, 2"

maximum heel, no platforms, suede,

or patent leather)

75.00

1

1

Tennis shoes

75.00

1

1

Hiking or work shoes

75.00

1

1

House slippers

15.00

1

1

Shower (plastic or rubber only, no

laminated types)

5.00

1

1

Socks

5.00

4

7

Sweatsuits (per institution policy, recreation only)
Shirt (solid color, no hood, no design or emblem, no turtleneck)

30.00

Pants (solid color, no rubber or

plastic)

15.00

1

2

Gym shorts (solid color)

10.00

1

2

JUL-02-3? 14=06 FROM=A/G CORRECTIONS LIT ON

ID=B14+72a+B32 7

PAGE 6/7

Sweaters: (per institution policy) (solid color, ho turtlenecK, no collar)
Underclothing: Long johns (no padded /quilted) Shorts (solid color only) Strap shirts (solid color only) T-shirts (solid color only, no emblem or design)
GENERAL ITEMS
Blanket, twin size, solid color (no red, no white, no electric, no long nap, no thermal)
Cassette player (per institution policy) (no recording, microphone, or P.A. capabilities. Earphone jack required, no detached speakers, no transformer adapters, 12n x 12n x 20" maximum size.)
Cassette tapes (commercially recorded, new, in original wrapper)
Cassette cleaning cartridges (mail order only)
Clock, small electric or hand-wind
Earphones or earplugs, mail order only (no transistor radio type)
Harmonica
Mugs and glasses (plastic only, not insulated)
Publications (per Administrative Rules)
Radio (per institutional policy)(no recording or P.A. capabilities, 12" x 12n x 20rt maximum size, no shortwave, no detached speakers, no transformer adapters, earphone jack required, AM-FM only)

Package Possession

Value limit

limit

30.00

20.00

1

3

5.00

3

6

5.00

3

6

5.00

35.00

90.00 15.00
8.00 15.00 35.00 25.00 3.00 25.00

I
5 I 1
1 1
1 ea. 3

1 15
1 1 1 1
1 ea 10

90.00

JUL-02-37 14 = 06 FROM

CORRECTIONS LIT ON

ID.-B 14+728 + 3327

PAGE 7/7

Religious items (approved by Chaplain)

Beads

Chains

Medals

.

Rugs (maximum 27M x 54n)

Ring (other than wedding ring)

Wedding; band

Stationery supplies, pens k pencils (no indelible or printers ink)
Embossed envelopes Pens (no pull-aparts or felt tips) Pencils Stationery supplies
Stringed instruments (no electric)

Sunglasses (per institution policy) (no wrap-around or reflective, no excessive size)

Television (per institution policy) (must have jack for earphones, 15" diagonal maximum size)

Towels, bath size only (no beach, no white, no design or emblem) Washcloths, solid color only (no design or emblem) Typewriter (per institution policy) (manual or electric, no double walled cases)
Typewriter ribbons ' Wrist watch

Package Possession

Value Limit

Limit

20.00

1

1

20.00

1

1

20.00

1

1

20.00

1

1

70.00

1

1

100.00

1

1

2.00 .50
170.00

10

25

2

5

5

10

Reasonable Amount

20.00

150.00(B/W) 1 250.00(Color)l or

1 1

15,00

8.00

175.00

1

1

10.00

1

1

75.00

1

1

••»*'"'
t'

IN RE SOCF

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION
: Civil Action No. C-l-93-436 (Spiegel/ J.)
: (Shennan, M.)

GENERAL PROTOCOL FOR CLAIMS BY CLASS MEMBERS AGAINST SETTLEMENT FUND
I. GENERAL 1. This general protocol is an integral pa Memorandum of Understanding between plaintiffs anc The parties recognize that other protocols will be v which shall be consistent with this general protocol. 2. To administer the settlement fund provided at VII, paragraphs 41 through 46 of the Memorandum of Understanding, a Claims Administrator selected by agreement of Class Counsel, the Department and the Attorney General shall be appointed by the Court. The Claims Administrator shall retain such professional and support staff as is necessary to efficiently and competently complete the task of distributing the settlement fund. 3. Consistent with paragraph 45 of the Memorandum of Understanding, any and all costs and expenses of the Claims Administrator incurred in the administration and distribution of the settlement fund shall be paid from the settlement fund.

II. CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION A. Procedures for Claims
4. Upon the effective date of the Memorandum of Understanding, the Claims Administrator will send a claim form to all known class members at their last known address. Notice shall also be posted in a conspicuous place in each facility operated by the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (the "Department") which houses male offenders. Said notice shall advise class members that they may obtain a claim form by writing to the Claims Administrator in writing.
5. Claim forms shall be printed upon a two level carbonless copy form so that class members may retain a copy of their completed claim forms. Each class member making a claim for compensation shall return, via first class mail, the original of the completed form with all supporting documentation to the Claims Administrator. To be considered timely, the completed claim form must be postmarked by the due date set forth on the claim form. The due date shall be determined, subject to the approval of the District Judge, subsequent to the effective date of the Memorandum of Understanding.
6. Claims made on behalf of deceased class members may only be made by the administrator/administratrix of an established probate estate.
7. No claims shall be paid until all of the claims received in a timely manner have been processed and verified.
8. The Department, Class Counsel and the Attorney General shall be notified of all claims within seven days after receipt of each claim form by the Claims Administrator by forwarding to

them copies of said forms and any supporting documentation. 9. Each class member approved for payments shall be
identified only by his claims number created for this litigation. No inmate receiving funds from the settlement fund shall be identified by name in any public filing with the Court. A key to the claim numbers assigned will be filed with the Court in camera.
10. Claims shall be paid only upon approval of the Magistrate.
11. All class members who are authorized to receive a payment from the settlement fund will be presented with a release on the back of the check sent by the Claims Administrator. The release becomes effective upon the endorsement and negotiation of the check.
12. Each class member who is in custody, will be informed of the date when his check is sent to his facility.
B. Claims Awards and Appeals 13. Within 21 days of the Department's receipt of a claim
form from the Claims Administrator as provided in paragraph 8 above, the Department may, but is not obligated to provide information to the Claims Administrator relevant to:
a. Whether the claimant is a member of the class; b. Whether the claimant is eligible for compensation under paragraph 43 of the Memorandum of Understanding. c. Whether the claimant has been administratively convicted of riot-related misconduct. d. The extent of the injury to the claimant or the property loss (subject to the provisions of paragraph '18) suffered by the claimant.

e. Riot-related misconduct not resulting in an administrative conviction pursuant to the last paragraph of this section 13.
Any information provided under this paragraph to the Claims
Administrator by the Department shall be served on the claimant
and Class Counsel at the same time it is filed with the Claims
Administrator. The claimant and Class Counsel shall be permitted
a period of 14 days to file with the Claims Administrator any
response to such information. The record of any administrative
conviction for riot-related misconduct or other evidence of
riot-related misconduct pursuant to the last paragraph of this
section 13, shall be considered by the Claims Administrator and
may be construed as a factor to diminish the size of or
entitlement for the property damage, injury, or death claimed.
The Claims Administrator shall not be permitted to consider
alleged riot-related misconduct of a class member unless that
same act(s) of misconduct has resulted in an administrative
conviction, or unless permitted pursuant to the last paragraph of
this section 13.
If the Department wants to provide information of riot-
related misconduct to the Claims Administrator other than
administrative convictions, the Claims Administrator shall only
consider such information if:
1. After hearing the response (if any) of class counsel and the claimant, the Claims Administrator finds that the information is as reliable as the information that can be presented by claimants pursuant to paragraph 16 hereof; and
2. After hearing the response (if any) of class counsel and the claimant, the Claims Administrator finds that not considering the information would impose an injustice.

14. Each claimant, Class Counsel, the Department and the Attorney General will be notified of the.approval or disapproval of a claim, and the amount to be paid the claimant in the event the claim is approved, prior to the distribution to the claimant of an award. If the claimant elects to appeal the disapproval of his claim or the amount to be paid him for his claim, the claimant must send his written appeal to the Claims Administrator within thirty days of the date he receives the decision regarding his claim. To be considered timely, the notice of appeal must be postmarked by the date it is due. Appeals must be in writing and state the basis for the appeal.
Within the same time frame granted to a claimant for appeal, the Department can institute an appeal as to any award to any claimant based upon the following:
a. The Claimant is not a class member. b. The claimant is not eligible for compensation pursuant
to paragraph 4 3 of the Memorandum of Understanding c. The amount of the award to the claimant. The Claims Administrator must, within seven days of receipt, serve the Department, the Attorney General, the claimant and Class Counsel with copies of any appeals filed with respect to any award. If no timely notice of appeal is received by the Claims Administrator, the claimant's check will be mailed by the Claims Administrator within seven business days of the expiration of the appeals period.

15. The claimant, Class Counsel and the Department shall
have ten days after their receipt of a notice of appeal, to
respond to the appeal in writing to the Claims Administrator.
Upon receipt of a timely notice of appeal, the Claims
Administrator will study the arguments and any additional
documentation supplied by the Department, Class Counsel, or the
claimant, make a determination on the appeal, and inform the
claimant, the Department and the Class Counsel of the decision.
If dissatisfied with the decision of the Claims Administrator,
the claimant, the Department or the Class Counsel may then
request review by the Magistrate. If dissatisfied with the
decision of the Magistrate, the claimant, the Department, or
Class Counsel may then seek review by the District Judge. The
decision of the District Judge shall be final.
C. Claims Evidence and Standards
16. Claims by class members must be verified by one or more
of the following sources or by other equally reliable sourcesj:
staff reports incident reports inmate medical records independent medical records infirmary logs disturbance logs hospital records photos videotapes inmate title records property room records Court of Claims case records and related documents grievances/kites with itemization contemporaneous
with the alleged loss
17. Physical contact in the absence of physical injury
shall not, by itself, constitute a basis for an award against the
settlement fund.

18. Class members who have already received compensation
for property losses associated with the riot shall have their
claim reduced by the amount previously received. The Department
should provide the Claims Administrator a list of all inmates who
have received payment for property loss and the amount received
by each inmate. As to any property loss award that exceeds the
amount of $2 2 5.00, the Claims Administrator shall state the basis
for the award. In property loss awards that exceed $225.00, the
Claims Administrator should not award sums in excess of the
values contained in DRC Rule 5120-9-33 Appendix A (attached) as
to the value of property that a class member could lawfully
possess, unless an award limited to the values set out in
Appendix A would impose an injustice.
19. Claims for monetary compensation by class members based
other than on death, physical injury or property loss may be
submitted, but will only be considered upon the following
showing:
(a) The class member has suffered any other serious riot related injury, (b) the relief available under the Operational Provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding are seriously inadequate for that class member given his personal situation, and (c) the denial of compensation to the class member would impose an injustice.
The Claims Administrator must find competent, credible evidence
of:
1. The seriousness of the alleged injury and the extent of the impact of the injury on the claimant;
2. Its origin in the circumstances of the riot;
3. The claimant's demonstrated efforts or lack thereof to document his injury or obtain services to address his injury;

4. The extent of services provided or made available to the claimant for his injury;
5. The reason that the relief available under the Operational Provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding is seriously inadequate to remedy his loss given his personal situation;
6. How a denial of compensation would impose an injustice. 20. The Claims Administrator shall state the basis for all death, physical injury and other serious injury awards on a form to be developed for that purpose by the Claims Administrator. The Claims Administrator shall give enough explanation that the claimant, the Department, and Class Counsel understand the factors that were considered in the award.
D. Miscellaneous 21. In cooperation with Class Counsel, the Department shall
establish a document depository in Cincinnati, Ohio and the contents shall be available to the Claims Administrator, the Department, and Class Counsel. The Department shall respond to reasonable requests for information from the Claims Administrator concerning claims if the information sought is not available by examining the contents of the depository. Inmates seeking information related to their claim must direct their inquiries to the Claims Administrator who shall be required to make reasonable efforts to secure information from the depository or, if unavailable there, from the Department. The Department has no obligation to affirmatively assist inmates or class members in completing claim forms. The Claims Administrator shall provide class members with printed, postage prepaid envelopes for correspondence with the Claims Administrator.
8

22. The Claims Administrator may retain any expert or
professional consultant necessary to evaluate a claim.
23. Any notification to be made to the Department, the
Attorney General and to the Class Counsel shall be accomplished
by mailing by first class mail as below:
To the Department:
Gregory C. Trout, Esq. OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION 1050 Freeway Drive North Columbus, OH 4 3229 614-752-1034 (Fax)
To the Attorney General:
Joshua T. Cox, Esq. Assistant Attorney General Corrections Litigation Section 140 E. Town Street 9th Floor Columbus, OH 4 3215 614-728-9327 (Fax)
To Class Counsel:
Alphonse A. Gerhardstein, Esq. 1409 Enquirer Building 617 Vine Street Cincinnati, OH 45202 513-345-5543 (Fax)

 </s> In re Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, 166 F.R.D. 391 (1996)

166 F.R.D. 391 United States District Court,
S.D. Ohio, Western Division.
In re SOUTHERN OHIO CORRECTIONAL FACILITY.
No. C–1–93–436. | April 24, 1996.
Attorneys and Law Firms
*391 Neal David Baker, Dinsmore & Shohl, Cincinnati, OH, Marc David Mezibov, Sirkin, Pinales, Mezibov & Schwartz, Cincinnati, *392 OH, Alphonse Adam Gerhardstein, Cincinnati, OH, Fay Elizabeth Stilz, Stanley Morris Chesley, Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley, Cincinnati, OH, for Darrin E. Morris.
Neal David Baker, Dinsmore & Shohl, Cincinnati, OH, Marc David Mezibov, Sirkin, Pinales, Mezibov & Schwartz, Cincinnati, OH, Paul M. De Marco, Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley Co–1, Cincinnati, OH, Alphonse Adam Gerhardstein, Cincinnati, OH, Stanley Morris Chesley, Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley, Cincinnati, OH, for Eugene K. Adams.
Joseph Matthew Mancini, Joshua T. Cox, Robert Warren Myers, Ohio Attorney General, Columbus, OH, Robert Philip Duvin, Duvin, Cahn & Barnhard, Cleveland, OH, Kevin Michael Norchi, Jacobson, Maynard, Tuschman & Kalur, Co. L.P.A., Cincinnati, OH, Gerald Arthur Messerman, Messerman & Messerman, Co. L.P.A., Cleveland, OH, Robert M. Wolff, Duvin, Cahn, Barnard & Messerman, Cleveland, OH, for Arthur Tate, Jr., Reginald A. Wilkinson.
Joseph Matthew Mancini, Joshua T. Cox, Robert Warren Myers, Ohio Attorney General, Columbus, OH, Kevin Michael Norchi, Jacobson, Maynard, Tuschman & Kalur, Co. L.P.A., Cincinnati, OH, Gerald Arthur Messerman, Messerman & Messerman, Co. L.P.A., Cleveland, OH, for George V. Voinovich.
Joseph Matthew Mancini, Joshua T. Cox, Robert Warren Myers, Ohio Attorney General, Columbus, OH, Gerald Arthur Messerman, Messerman & Messerman, Co. L.P.A., Cleveland, OH, for Terry Collins.
Opinion
ORDER

SPIEGEL, Senior District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on the Defendants’ motion to vacate the summary jury trial (doc. 118), which the Plaintiffs opposed (doc. 123).
BACKGROUND
On April 11, 1993, several prisoners at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility in Lucasville, Ohio (“SOCF”) began an eleven-day siege of Ohio’s maximum security prison. One prison guard and nine inmates were murdered during the riot. The riot itself was the longest and third-mostlethal disorder in recent history, behind Attica and Santa Fe.
Plaintiff Darrin E. Morris was an inmate at SOCF during the riot. He claims that the prison officials, specifically Warden Arthur Tate, Jr., were aware of the riot-type conditions before the riot but did nothing to prevent the riot. Mr. Morris first filed his complaint against Warden Tate and various other officials on June 28, 1993. Mr. Morris sought compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief.
On December 17, 1993, the Magistrate Judge appointed counsel for the Plaintiff. On March 17, 1994, the Magistrate Judge consolidated all of the cases relating to the SOCF riot. Document 25. Finally, on December 2, 1994, the Magistrate Judge certified the following class:
All inmates, living or deceased, who meet the following criteria: (1) the inmate has been incarcerated at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility (SOCF) on or since April 11, 1993; and (2) the inmate has been classified as a general population inmate during some or all of that time period. This class definition includes two subclasses:
SUBCLASS 1
All members of the class who were housed or present in K–8 on or about April 13, 1993.
SUBCLASS 2
All members of the class who have been, or
1

In re Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, 166 F.R.D. 391 (1996)

subsequently are, indicted for an alleged felony committed during and as part of the April 11–22, 1993, disturbance at SOCF. Any member of this Subclass who ultimately is not convicted of a felony committed during and as part of the April 11–22, 1993, disturbance at SOCF shall cease to be a member of this Subclass and shall be included in the Class. Any member of this Subclass who ultimately is convicted of a felony committed during and as part of the *393 April 11–22, 1993, disturbance at SOCF shall cease to be a member of this subclass and shall be excluded from the class.
Defendants may request exclusion of any individual from the Class for “good cause,” meaning serious wrongdoing committed during and as part of the disturbance. Class counsel or the individual involved may contest such exclusion. The Court would resolve any disputes as to whether or not such an individual should be excluded from the class.
Document 65. The Magistrate Judge was careful to exclude from the class anyone who was responsible for perpetrating any portion of the riot. The class members include inmates that were housed in K block. During the riot, a large number of inmates were locked down in K Block. Allegedly, prison officials locked as many as ten inmates in a cell. Amended Complaint, Document 24, at 8, ¶ 24. The Plaintiffs further claim that the Defendants failed to protect them from violence, did not provide them with drinking water or working toilets for three days, used excessive force upon these inmates, destroyed the inmates’ personal property, and denied them medical care. Id. at ¶ 25. Finally, the Plaintiffs claim that many of them were charged and convicted of rules infractions based upon false and inaccurate evidence. Id. The Defendants deny most of these allegations, but admit that they emptied several cells of personal property. Answer, Document 29, at 3, ¶ 25.
HISTORY AND PURPOSE OF SUMMARY JURY TRIALS
In the past fifteen to twenty years, alternative dispute resolution techniques have become more prevalent in the federal courts. In 1980, The Honorable Thomas D. Lambros of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio created the summary jury trial as a method to resolve disputes. Summary Jury Trial, 103 F.R.D. 461, 463 (1984). Often parties hesitate to settle prior to trial because they want to have the opportunity to present their respective cases to a jury. Judge Lambros found that a summary jury trial would allow parties to have their day in court without costing them an exorbitant amount of money. As Judge Lambros stated,

It occurred to me that if only the parties could gaze into a crystal ball and be able to predict, with a reasonable amount of certainty, what a jury would do in their respective cases, the parties and counsel would be more willing to reach a settlement rather than going through the expense and aggravation of a full jury trial.

Id. at 463.

The summary jury trial is an abbreviated jury trial without the presentation of live evidence. The attorneys present the evidentiary portion of the case, rather than presenting live testimony. The Court requires that the clients or the officers of the clients, who have authority to negotiate a settlement, attend the summary jury trial. Additionally, the Court holds normal voir dire, allows the attorneys to choose a jury of six people, gives introductory and closing jury instructions, and allows the parties to give both opening statements and closing arguments. Throughout the summary jury trial, the Court follows the formalities of a normal trial to impress upon the jury the importance of the proceedings.1 At the conclusion of the summary jury trial, the Court then releases the jury to deliberate as a normal jury would. In deliberation the jury has two objectives: 1) to determine liability; and 2) to determine the amount of damages, irrespective of whether it found liability. Usually, the entire proceeding does not last more than two days. Thus, the summary jury trial accurately reflects a jury trial but is more efficient and provides a settlement barometer for the parties.

1

The Court, however, does not mislead the jury into

believing the proceedings are an actual trial. From the

beginning, we emphasize that the proceedings are a

device to assist the parties in resolving complicated and

time consuming litigation. Furthermore, throughout the

proceedings the Court stresses to the jurors the import

of their duty.

In September 1984, the United States Judicial Conference recognized the value of a summary jury trial as a means of resolving *394 potentially lengthy civil jury cases, and thus, passed a resolution encouraging their use. Reports of the Proceedings of the United States Judicial Conference 88 (September 1984). In 1990, Congress enacted The Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990 (“the Act”), whereby it created an experimental period for courts to attempt and reduce cost and delay in the federal judicial system. In the Act, Congress emphasized the importance of courts utilizing methods of alternative dispute resolution. In fact, the Act states at 28 U.S.C. § 473(a)(6):
(a) In formulating the provisions of its civil justice
2

In re Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, 166 F.R.D. 391 (1996)

expense and delay reduction plan, each United States district court, in consultation with an advisory group appointed under section 478 of this title, shall consider and may include the following principles and guidelines of litigation management and cost and delay reduction:
(6) authorization to refer appropriate cases to alternative dispute resolution programs that—
(B) the court may make available, including mediation, minitrial, and summary jury trial.
(emphasis added).
This Court has conducted a number of summary jury trials since the early 1980’s and has found them to be highly successful in resolving complex litigation. Between July 26, 1983, and March 19, 1996, this Court scheduled 131 summary jury trials. Of those, 106 settled prior to the summary jury trial, and 16 settled after the summary jury trial. Six cases settled in the middle of the actual trial, and three were tried to completion. This Court tried two of the three cases that went to completion, and both of those cases had the same result as the summary jury trial. The 16 summary jury trials that resulted in settlement took 49 days to try. The parties estimated that if those 16 cases were tried on the merits it would have taken a total of 450 days. Therefore, in addition to the savings recognized by the individual litigants, the use of the summary jury trial has significantly reduced administrative, jury and other related costs.2

2

For example, in 1995, the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division in

Cincinnati, had 224 trial days at a total cost of

$211,449.62. Kimberly A. Schulte, Jury Deputy, Jury

Statistics for the Southern District of Ohio, Western

Division, Cincinnati (1995). The average cost per jury

trial day in 1995 was $943.97. Id. As noted previously,

summary jury trials have saved this Court over 400 trial

days. Thus, the savings in jury costs alone are

significant.

Other courts have had similar experiences. For example, in the Western District of Oklahoma, the courts held 187 summary jury trials between 1983 and 1989. Of those, 70 settled prior to the summary jury trial and 79 settled after the summary jury trial. Donovan Leisure Newton & Irvine, ADR Practice Book 40 (John H. Wilkinson, Esq. ed., Cum.Supp.1992). Additionally, Judge Lambros found that of the 150 cases he assigned to a summary jury trial, over ninety percent of them settled. Thomas D. Lambros, The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: A New Adversarial Model For A New Era, 50 U.PITT.L.REV. 789, 800 (1989). Finally, studies have found that approximately sixty-four percent of state lawyers and fifty-three percent

of federal lawyers consider the summary jury trial verdict to reflect true trial results. James J. Alfini, Summary Jury Trials in State and Federal Courts: A Comparative Analysis of the Perceptions of Participating Lawyers, 4 OHIO ST.J. ON DISP.RESOL. 213, 228 (1989).
The summary jury trial is an innovative settlement mechanism with a high success rate. The procedure conserves judicial resources3, promotes efficiency, saves time and money for the parties, and most importantly provides an accurate reading of what will actually happen at trial. In complex trials, such as this one, the Court encourages the parties to set aside two to three days for a summary jury trial. As discussed below, this case is highly unusual, and a summary jury trial will not only aid the parties but will alleviate various other concerns the Court has with this trial.

3

Judge Lambros found that in the Northern District of

Ohio taxpayers saved in excess of $90,000.00 in juror

cost alone between 1980 and 1986. Thomas D.

Lambros, The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, A New

Adversarial Model for a New Era, 50 U.PITT.L.REV.

789, 801 (1989).

*395 DISCUSSION

I. Court’s Authority to Mandate Summary Jury Trials. [1] On February 1, 1996, the Court scheduled a summary jury trial in this case for June 6, 1996. The Defendants have now moved for an order vacating the summary jury trial.4 The Defendants rely on a recent decision of the Sixth Circuit, which held that “the provisions of Rule 16, as amplified by the Commentary Committee, do not permit compulsory participation in settlement proceedings such as summary jury trials.” In re NLO, Inc., 5 F.3d 154, 157 (6th Cir.1993). For the following reasons, we conclude that Day has been effectively overruled by Rule 16 as amended December 1, 1993.5 First, the Sixth Circuit analyzed the district court’s power to order a summary jury trial under Rule 16 as it appeared prior to the December 1, 1993, amendment. The Sixth Circuit did not address the district court’s authority to order summary jury trials under Rule 16 as amended. Rule 16, as amended December 1, 1993, contains some significant, if not somewhat subtle, changes relevant to the district court’s authority in this area.

4

The Court finds it curious that just a few months ago

the Attorney General for the State of Ohio argued the

exact opposite position from which she is now

advocating. In State of Ohio v. Louis Trauth Dairy,

3

In re Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, 166 F.R.D. 391 (1996)

Inc., et al., Case No. C–1–93–533, the Attorney General argued that this Court could mandate the parties to participate in a summary jury trial. See id., Document 493 at 4 (“Clearly, under the amended Rule 16(c) and Local Rule 53.1, the Court is free to choose whichever method of alternative dispute resolution procedures it deems appropriate, including compulsory summary jury trials.”) (emphasis in original). Therefore, the Attorney General’s current position is completely and diametrically opposed to the position she took in Trauth Dairy. The Attorney General fails to explain her new found position.

5

The Sixth Circuit also addressed whether under the

court’s inherent power it could order a summary jury

trial notwithstanding a party’s objection. See NLO, 5

F.3d at 158. The court held that “[r]eliance on the pure

inherent authority of the court [to justify mandatory

summary jury trials] is ... misplaced.” Id. Our decision,

however, is based solely on the authority expressly

provided by congress under Rule 16 as amended, and

thus NLO continues to be binding precedent with

respect to its analysis of the district court’s inherent

authority. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 16, Advisory Committee

notes (amended December 1, 1993) (“rule [16] does not

attempt to resolve the questions as to the extent a court

would be authorized to require such proceedings [i.e.,

summary jury trials] as an exercise of its inherent

powers.”).

Rule 16, as amended, states in pertinent part,
(c) Subjects for Consideration at Pretrial Conferences. At any conference under this rule consideration may be given, and the court may take appropriate action, with respect to
* * * * * *
(9) settlement and the use of special procedures to assist in resolving the dispute when authorized by statute or local rule [.]
Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(c)(9) (as amended December 1, 1993). The old Rule 16 did not contain the reference to local rule authorization, nor did it contain the reference to “appropriate” action.6 Furthermore, the advisory committee’s note states in unambiguous terms that

6

Rule 16, provided in pertinent part,

(c) Subjects to be Discussed at Pretrial

Conferences. The Participants at any conference

under this rule may consider and take action with

respect to

* * * * * *

(7) the possibility of settlement or the use of

extrajudicial procedures to resolve the dispute;

* * * * * * (10) the need for adopting special procedures of managing potentially difficult or protracted actions that may involve complex issues, multiple parties, difficult legal questions, or unusual proof problems; and (11) such other matters as may aid in disposition of the action.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 16.

[t]he primary purpose of the changes in subdivision (c) are to ... eliminate questions that have occasionally been raised regarding the authority of the court to make appropriate orders designed either to facilitate settlement or to provide for an efficient and economical trial. The prefatory language of this subdivision is revised to clarify the court’s power to enter appropriate orders at a conference notwithstanding the objection of a party. * * * * * *
*396 The Rule acknowledges the presence of statutes and local rules or plans that may authorize use of some of these procedures [mini-trials, summary jury trials, mediation, etc.] even when not agreed to by the parties.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(c), advisory committee’s note (emphasis added) (internal citations omitted).7 As the Sixth Circuit observed, the “Supreme Court has established that ‘in ascertaining [the] meaning [of the Rules] the construction given to them by the Committee is of weight.’ ” NLO, 5 F.3d at 157 (quoting Mississippi Pub. Corp. v. Murphree, 326 U.S. 438, 444, 66 S.Ct. 242, 246, 90 L.Ed. 185 (1946) (alterations added by the Sixth Circuit)). Thus, under the plain meaning of Rule 16 as amended, this Court has the authority to “take appropriate action” with respect to “special procedures [i.e. summary juries trials] to assist in resolving [a] dispute [,]” Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(c), (c)(9), “notwithstanding the objection of a party [ ],” Id. at advisory committee’s note, “when authorized by ... local rule.” Id. at subdivision (c)(9). See also, Colgrove v. Battin, 413 U.S. 149, 157–62, 93 S.Ct. 2448, 2453–53, 37 L.Ed.2d 522 (1973) (holding that the Constitution does not deny courts the authority to utilize reasonable procedural flexibility and innovation under the Rules; “[n]ew devices may be used to adapt the ancient institution to present needs and to make of it an efficient administration of justice.”) (citations omitted).

7

We note that the Advisory Committee also cautioned

that “[o]f course settlement is dependant upon

agreement of the parties and, indeed, a conference is

most effective and productive when the parties

participate in a spirit of cooperation....” Fed.R.Civ.P.

16(c), Advisory Committee notes (emphasis added).

4

In re Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, 166 F.R.D. 391 (1996)

Southern District of Ohio Local Rule 53.1 states in full,
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION The Court may, in its discretion, assign any civil case for a summary jury trial, mandatory, non-binding arbitration hearing, settlement week conference, or other alternative method of dispute resolution.8

8

Local Rule 53.1’s approach is not unique. First, 28

U.S.C. § 471 provides in relevant part,

Requirement for a district court civil justice

expense and delay reduction plan

There shall be implemented by each United States

district court, in accordance with this chapter, a

civil justice expense and delay reduction plan. The

plan may be developed by such district court or a

model plan developed by the Judicial Conference

of the United States.

Additionally, 28 U.S.C. § 473 provides in pertinent

part,

(a) In formulating the provisions of its civil

expense and delay reduction plan, each United

States district court, in consultation with an

advisory group appointed under section 478 of this

title, shall consider and may include the following

principles and guidelines of litigation management

and cost and delay reduction:

* * * * * *

(6) authorization to refer appropriate cases to

alternative dispute resolution programs that—

(A) have been designated for use in a district

court; or

(B) the court may make available, including

mediation, mini-trial, and summary jury trial.

In its Model Civil Justice Expense and Delay

Reduction Plan, dated October 1992, the Judicial

Conference of the United States provided the

following model approaches regarding the

assignment of cases for summary jury trial:

Alternative # 1—Massachusetts

A. The Judicial Officer may convene a

summary jury trial:

1. With the agreement of all parties, either by

written motion or their oral motion in court

entered upon the record, or

2. Upon the judicial officer’s determination that

a summary jury trial would be appropriate, even

in the absence of the agreement of all the

parties.

* * * * * *

Alternative # 2—Ohio Northern

A. Eligible Cases. Any civil case triable to a

jury may be assigned for a summary jury trial.

B. Selection of Cases. A case may be selected

for summary jury trial:

1. By the Court at the Case Management

Conference; or

2. At any time

a. By the Court on its own motion;

b. By the Court on the motion of one of the

parties; or

c. By stipulation of all parties. * * * * * *
Model Civil Justice Expense and Delay Reduction Plan, at 74–75 (1992) (emphasis added).
It is readily apparent, therefore, that under Rule 16 as amended, considered in conjunction with Local Rule 53.1, it is within this Court’s authority to order the parties in a civil action to participate in a summary jury *397 trial, notwithstanding the objection of a party. See also, Lucille M. Ponte, Putting Mandatory Summary Jury Trial Back on the Docket: Recommendations on the Exercise of Judicial Authority, 63 FORDHAM L.REV. 1069, 1093– 94 (1995) (“More importantly, the December 1993 amendments have diminished confusion over the meaning of Rule 16. These changes have put much of the court debate over mandatory [summary jury trials] and other forms of mandatory [alternative dispute resolution] to rest.... Not only may courts consider [summary jury trials], but courts may compel participation under statute, local rules or local plans.”). We conclude that this holding does not run afoul of NLO because that holding addressed exclusively the pre–1993 amendment to Rule 16 and not Rule 16 as amended.
II. Both Parties Will Benefit from a Summary Jury Trial. [2] While the Court has the power to order a summary jury trial, an issue remains whether the Court should order a summary jury trial in this case. The Defendants argue that a summary jury trial will not accurately reflect the trial in this instance because the summary jury trial will not have the “integral” human element in this case. We disagree.
The Plaintiffs claim that they suffered various constitutional violations before, during and after the SOCF riot in April 1993. Specifically, the class alleges that the Defendants acted with deliberate indifference to their constitutional rights. In Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994), the Supreme Court held that “a prison official cannot be found liable under the Eighth Amendment for denying inmate humane conditions of confinement unless the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety; the official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw from that inference.” Id. at ––––, 114 S.Ct. at 1979. In this case, the question is whether the prison officials knew of the risks and disregarded them. See id. at ––––, 114 S.Ct. at 1981 (“Whether a prison official had the requisite knowledge of a substantial risk [is] a question of fact subject to a demonstration in the usual ways, including inference from circumstantial evidence, and a
5

In re Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, 166 F.R.D. 391 (1996)

fact finder may conclude that a prison official knew of a substantial risk from the very fact that the risk was obvious.”). While prisons are dangerous places, this does not absolve prison officials from their duties. “[T]he Eighth Amendment to the Constitution mandates that prison officials maintain humane conditions of confinement and take reasonable measures to guarantee the safety of inmates. Their duty includes protecting prisoners from violence at the hands of other prisoners: ‘[H]aving stripped [prisoners] of virtually every means of self-protection and foreclosed their access to outside aid, the government and its officials are not free to let the state of nature take its course.’ ” Taylor v. Michigan Dep’t of Corrections, 69 F.3d 76, 85 (6th Cir.1995) (emphasis added) (quoting in part Farmer, 511 U.S. at ––––, 114 S.Ct. at 1977).
The Defendants argue that a summary jury trial will not allow the jury to understand that the Defendants took the actions they did because the Plaintiffs are allegedly “violent, predatory men.” Document 118 at 4. We disagree. First, the Court will preserve the human element by requiring the class representatives and the individual Defendants to attend the trial. Second, the Defendants will be allowed to explain the atmosphere at the prison before, during and after the prison riot. Third, the Defendants can present any evidence they have obtained about the difficulties of managing a maximum security prison. Finally, a summary jury trial is ideal for this type of situation because it will allow both the Plaintiffs and the Defendants to accurately portray the situation at SOCF without being responsible for transferring every prisoner witness to the trial. This will substantially cut costs and preserve the requisite safety in the courtroom.

After reviewing the State’s document, the Court believes the State misunderstands the nature of the summary jury trial. The summary jury trial is not binding upon the parties. Rather, as explained above, the summary jury trial is a settlement technique that *398 will help the parties better understand how a jury will evaluate the case, and hopefully will lead to a settlement of this class action.
Furthermore, the Court finds that even if the summary jury trial did not result in a settlement, it would force the parties to timely prepare for trial. As noted in our companion order, the Court is concerned about the delays in this case. The Court must take account of the public’s interest in litigation of this kind. The citizens of Ohio remain very concerned about the situation at SOCF. Therefore, it is important that the citizens of Ohio see some progress in this case. A summary jury trial will benefit everyone.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court DENIES the Defendants’ motion to vacate the summary jury trial.
SO ORDERED.
Parallel Citations
34 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1445
	
  

6

 </s> In re Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, 173 F.R.D. 205 (1997)

173 F.R.D. 205 United States District Court,
S.D. Ohio, Western Division.
In re SOUTHERN OHIO CORRECTIONAL FACILITY.
No. C–1–93–436. | April 22, 1997.
*208 ORDER
SPIEGEL, Senior District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on the parties’ “Joint Motion to Approve Class Action Resolution,” (doc. 269), and Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Support of Class Action Settlement (doc. 323) Also before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses (doc. 285). Defendants objected to the inclusion of a request for incentive awards in Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses (doc. 314).
BACKGROUND
This is a prisoner civil rights class action relating to the April 1993 riot at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility (“SOCF”), a maximum security prison in Lucasville, Ohio. Plaintiffs challenge the conditions of confinement at SOCF following the riot and seek damages based on Defendants’ alleged failure to protect the inmate class members from death, injury, and property loss during the riot.
Following the riot, more than forty (40) inmates filed pro se cases based upon the SOCF riot and subsequent lockdown. (doc. 285, Gerhardstein Aff. at ¶ 2). On December 2, 1994, the Court certified this case as a class action under Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and subsequently consolidated all the individual lawsuits with the class action case. (doc. 65). The action was brought by, and on behalf of, those inmates present at SOCF on or since the riot who did not commit, and thus were not subject to criminal prosecution for, any illegal acts during the riot.
The named Plaintiffs in this action are Darrin Morris and Eugene Adams, who were at SOCF during the riot and have remained in the custody of Ohio prisons during this lawsuit. The named Defendants are George Voinovich, Governor of the State of Ohio, Reginald Wilkinson,

Director of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (“ODRC”), Arthur Tate, Jr., former warden of SOCF, Terry Collins, present warden of SOCF, and twenty-three other persons employed by ODRC.1

1

Plaintiffs named the twenty-three new Defendants in

their Amended and Second Amended Complaints in

May and July of 1996 (docs. 139 & 187). The Court

affirmed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation granting the motion to amend the

Complaint in October 1996 (doc. 212).

The members of the class are:
All inmates, living and deceased, who meet all of the following criteria: (1) the inmate has been incarcerated at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility (SOCF) on or since April 11, 1993; (2) the inmate has been classified as a general population inmate during some or all of that time period.
Id. The class includes two subclasses: (1) those inmates present in K–8 block on or about April 13, 1993, and (2) those inmates indicted for crimes based on the riot. The class includes the nine (9) inmates who were murdered during the riot, the approximately 670 inmates in L and K blocks during the riot, and the thousands of general population inmates who have been incarcerated at SOCF since April 11, 1993. (doc. 323).
Plaintiffs state four damage claims against Defendants. They allege that (1) Defendants failed to protect the class members from the April 11, 1993, prison riot; (2) Defendants failed to protect the class members from violence in the K–2 block during the riot; (3) Defendants denied housing necessities, used excessive force and destroyed the property of those inmates locked in K–8 during the riot; and (4) Defendants imposed a retaliatory lockdown on the inmates of the institution for more than a year after the riot. (doc. 187). Plaintiffs claim these actions violated their right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment *209 under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, violated their rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and violated their rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb–2000bb4. Id.

I. HISTORY OF THE LITIGATION On December 17, 1993, the United States Magistrate
1

In re Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, 173 F.R.D. 205 (1997)

Judge asked the following law firms and individual attorneys to act as counsel for Plaintiffs: Dinsmore & Shohl; Alphonse A. Gerhardstein; Sirkin, Pinales, Mezibov & Schwartz, and Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley.2 (doc. 20). They agreed to explore the possibility of a class action litigation in the matter involving the SOCF riot. Id. Almost a year later, in the same Order which certified the case as a class action, the Magistrate Judge appointed the above counsel, law firms and individual attorneys to be Class Counsel. (doc. 65).

2

The principle attorneys who represented Plaintiffs

include: Alphonse A. Gerhardstein; Stanley Chesley,

Fay Stilz, and Paul DeMarco, of Waite, Schneider,

Bayless & Chesley; Marc D. Mezibov of Sirkin,

Pinales, Mezibov & Schwartz; Neal D. Baker of

Dinsmore & Shohl; and Sylvia Paxton, staff counsel.

Class Counsel devised a case plan which prioritized the work to be done. After the initial investigation, Class Counsel drafted the class action Complaint and determined the class members. (doc. 285; Gerhardstein Aff. at ¶ 3). Then Class Counsel worked on ending the lockdown of general population inmates, ending the lockdown of inmates held in security control investigation, discovery on the damage claims, and trial on the damage claims. Id. The work involved in achieving each of these goals is detailed below.

A. ENDING THE POST–RIOT LOCKDOWN OF GENERAL POPULATION INMATES In the Spring of 1994, almost a year after the riot, Class Counsel, along with their hired expert Steve Martin, negotiated with Defendants to lift the lockdown of the general population inmates at SOCF. Id. at ¶ 12. Between April 15, 1994, and the Summer of 1994, Class Counsel and Mr. Martin negotiated the resolution of the inmate visitation issue and the reopening of the yard, chapel and law library. Id. at ¶¶ 12, 13. Further, at the urging of Class Counsel and Mr. Martin, Defendants accepted the proposal that the Max III and Max IV classifications be abolished, and Defendants undertook a review of the security classification system. Id. at ¶ 13.

B. ENDING LOCKDOWN OF INMATES HELD IN SECURITY CONTROL After the riot, approximately 150 inmates were “detained on lockdown status (security control) at SOCF and Mansfield Correctional Facility as suspects in the criminal investigation of the riot.” Id. at ¶ 15. On August 18, 1994, the special prosecutor of those inmates who had been indicted for riot-related crimes informed Class Counsel which of the inmates held in security control were

indicted, “cleared,” or recommended for administrative charges. Id. at ¶ 16. Immediately thereafter, Class Counsel pursued the release from lockdown of those inmates not indicted. Id. Class Counsel filed a preliminary injunction motion on January 23, 1995, to accomplish this result. Id.
Class Counsel also negotiated with Defendants for a special Rules Infraction Board (“RIB”) procedure to handle the cases of inmates against whom administrative charges for riot-related, violent misconduct were filed. Id. at ¶ 17. This special procedure included a provision for an inmate advocate and an outside screening panel. Id. at ¶ 18.
On February 16, 1995, the Parties agreed that the Plaintiff Class would withdraw their motion for a preliminary injunction in exchange for the Defendants’ agreement to commence the processing of each rule infraction by those inmates subject to the motion using the administrative procedures negotiated by the Parties and set out in an exhibit to the agreed entry. (doc. 75).
A neutral observer of the process, attorney Vincent Nathan who is an expert in prison *210 litigation, issued a report summarizing the RIB procedure. Id. at ¶ 19. He stated that “RIB panels and their chairmen have afforded the benefits of procedural due process and substantive due process to prisoners charged with offense that evoke strong emotional responses in DR & C staff. Outcomes, ..., not only have been procedurally correct, they have been fair.” Id.
C. DISCOVERY AND TRIAL PREPARATION FOR DAMAGE CLAIMS Since the Spring of 1995, Class Counsel have concentrated their efforts on document production, depositions and review of the claims for damages based on Defendants’ alleged failure to protect the members of the class. Id. at ¶ 21.
The Summary Jury Trial took place in the Summer § of 1996. Thereafter, the Parties engaged in extensive negotiations, some of which the Court facilitated, which took place over several months and involved Class Counsel as well as numerous attorneys for Defendants. Id. at ¶ 23.
Plaintiffs prepared for trial, the presentation of the issues and evidence to the Summary Jury, and the postSummary Jury Trial negotiations. Id. at ¶¶ 22, 23. Plaintiffs were ready to proceed to trial on the merits at the time the case was resolved. Id.
On January 22, 1997, the Parties signed the Class Action Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”), which memorialized the resolution of this case, and the Court
2

In re Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, 173 F.R.D. 205 (1997)

preliminarily approved the Settlement on January 30, 1997. (docs. 269 & 273).

Settlement Fund. (doc. 273).

II. SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT The resolution of this case is memorialized in the Parties’ Memorandum of Understanding and the General Protocol for Claims by Class Members Against the Settlement Fund (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Settlement”). (docs. 269 & 273). The Parties stipulated to the dismissal with prejudice of all claims and causes of action against all Defendants, and Plaintiffs agreed to release all Defendants from all claims in connection with the SOCF riot. (doc. 269; MOU at ¶ 50–53).
The Settlement has two major components. First, it provides for an agreement on eleven (11) issues that serve to “maintain or improve the quality of inmate life.” (doc. 285; Gerhardstein Aff. at ¶ 24). Second, the Settlement establishes a $4.1 million Fund, from which inmate damage claims, attorneys’ fees and expenses will be paid. (doc. 269; MOU at ¶ 41).
The terms of the Settlement affecting the “quality of life” issues include: (1) single-celling maximum security inmates; (2) modifying the inmate classification system; (3) transferring lower security inmates out of SOCF; (4) upgrading programming at SOCF if the prison begins to serve lower security classification inmates; (5) addressing parole problems for inmates who were at SOCF during the riot; (6) piloting a program for hearing alleged rule violations; (7) ensuring mental health care for inmates present at SOCF during the riot; (8) improving racial and cultural relations; (9) securing at least forty (40) hours of out-of-cell time per week for SOCF inmates; (10) instituting new state-wide directives on religious practices; and (11) studying the institutional adjustment of inmates with long sentences. (doc. 285; Gerhardstein Aff. at ¶ 24); (doc. 269; MOU at ¶¶ 12–40).
The Settlement provides that a class member or an administrator or executor on behalf of a deceased class member’s estate shall be permitted to receive compensation from the Fund only if the class member was (1) murdered during the riot; (2) physically injured during the riot; (3) lost property during or as a consequence of the riot; or (4) if the claim falls outside the first three categories, and the class member can demonstrate that he has “suffered any other serious riotrelated injury and that the relief available under the Operational Provisions of this Memorandum are seriously inadequate for that class member given his personal situation and that the denial of compensation to him would impose an injustice.” (doc. 269; MOU at ¶ 43). Further, the General Protocol establishes the procedure for the administration *211 and distribution of the

III. NOTICE OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT Notice of the proposed Settlement was accomplished pursuant to our Order of January 30, 1997. (doc. 273). In that Order, we approved the class notice to be sent to the class members. Id. Class Counsel mailed approximately 2,201 notices to the inmates who were present at SOCF at any time between April 11, 1993, and June 20, 1994. (doc. 279; Stilz Aff. at ¶¶ 1, 2; doc. 289; Hillman Aff. at ¶ 1). In addition, prior to the Fairness Hearing, Mr. Gerhardstein, visited class members incarcerated at seven correctional institutions across the state to inform them of the proposed Settlement. (doc. 285; Gerhardstein Aff. at ¶ 10). Further, Defendants have posted a copy of the notice in a conspicuous place in the cellblocks of all the Ohio adult male prisons, and have placed in every prison library copies of (1) the Order preliminarily approving the Settlement, (2) the class notice, (3) the MOU, (4) the resumes of the Claims Administrator/Trustee Mr. Barrett and assistant Mr. Benjamin, and (5) the General Protocol for Claims by Class Members against the Settlement Fund. (doc. 323, Ex. A–1).

IV. FAIRNESS HEARING The Court held a hearing to determine the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the Settlement on April 15, 1997. No objections were voiced at the hearing.3 Twenty-five (25) notices of objections were filed with the Court before the hearing, which the Court will consider below. (doc. 323, Ex. A–2).

3

Counsel for four of the estates of the decedent class

members spoke briefly in support of the Settlement.

DISCUSSION
I. JOINT MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT The first issue before the Court is to decide whether the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate.
A. LEGAL STANDARD [1] According to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, court approval is required to settle a class action. Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(e).
3

In re Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, 173 F.R.D. 205 (1997)

A class action shall not be dismissed or compromised without the approval of the court, and notice of the proposed dismissal or compromise shall be given to all members of the class in such a manner as the court directs.
Id. The law generally favors the settlement of complex class actions. Enterprise Energy Corp. v. Columbia Gas Transmission Corp., 137 F.R.D. 240, 246 (S.D.Ohio 1991); see also 2 Herbert Newberg & Alba Conte, Newberg on Class Actions, § 11.41 (3d ed.1992).
[2] There are three steps which must be taken by the court in order to approve a settlement: (1) the court must preliminarily approve the proposed settlement, (2) members of the class must be given notice of the proposed settlement, and (3) after holding a hearing, the court must give its final approval of the settlement based on a finding that the settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate. Williams v. Vukovich, 720 F.2d 909, 921 (6th Cir.1983); Enterprise Energy Corp., 137 F.R.D. at 245; In re Dun & Bradstreet Credit Services Customer Litigation, 130 F.R.D. 366, 369 (S.D.Ohio 1990).
[3] [4] The district court bases its preliminary approval of a proposed settlement upon its familiarity with the issues and evidence of the case as well as the arms-length nature of the negotiations prior to the settlement. In re Dun, 130 F.R.D. at 369. The court should also determine that the settlement is neither illegal nor collusive. Vukovich, 720 F.2d at 921; In re Dun, 130 F.R.D. at 369. With such preliminary approval, the settlement is presumptively reasonable, and an individual who objects has a heavy burden of proving the settlement is unreasonable. Vukovich, 720 F.2d at 921 (citing Stotts v. Memphis Fire Dep’t, 679 F.2d 541, 551, (6th Cir.1982), rev. on other grounds, *212 467 U.S. 561, 104 S.Ct. 2576, 81 L.Ed.2d 483 (1984)); Enterprise Energy Corp., 137 F.R.D. at 246.
[5] Notice of the proposed settlement should be given to all those affected by it. Vukovich, 720 F.2d at 921; In re Dun, 130 F.R.D. at 370. All parties should be given the opportunity to consider the settlement and respond to it. Id.
[6] The district court may give its final approval of a class action settlement if it determines that the settlement is “fair, adequate, and reasonable, as well as consistent with the public interest.” Bailey v. Great Lakes Canning, Inc., 908 F.2d 38, 42 (6th Cir.1990); see also Vukovich, 720 F.2d at 921; Enterprise Energy Corp., 137 F.R.D. at 245; In re Dun, 130 F.R.D. at 369. This is determined by examining the settlement “in its entirety and not as isolated components.” Enterprise Energy Corp., 137 F.R.D. at 245. The court is not “to determine the merits of

the controversy or the factual underpinning of the legal authorities advanced by the parties.” Vukovich, 720 F.2d at 921.
[7] There are several factors considered in deciding whether to approve the settlement: (1) the plaintiffs’ likelihood of ultimate success on the merits balanced against the amount and form of relief offered in the settlement; (2) the complexity, expense, and likely duration of the litigation; (3) the stage of the proceedings and the amount of discovery completed; (4) the judgment of experienced trial counsel; (5) the nature of the negotiations; (6) the objections raised by the class members; and (7) the public interest. In re Dun, 130 F.R.D. at 371 (citing Vukovich, 720 F.2d at 922); Enterprise Energy Corp., 137 F.R.D. at 245; Thompson v. Midwest Foundation Independent Physicians Association, 124 F.R.D. 154, 157 (S.D.Ohio 1988).
B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS CONCERNING THE SETTLEMENT The Court preliminarily approved the Settlement on January 30, 1997, based upon its familiarity with the problems and issues in the case as well as the character of the Settlement negotiations. (doc. 273). The Court facilitated and supervised Settlement negotiations between the Parties during the Fall of 1996, some of which were attended personally by the Ohio Attorney General, Betty Montgomery, and the Director of the ODRC, Reginald Wilkinson. The Court agrees with the Parties’ representation that the negotiations were hotly contested, conducted at arms-length, involved difficult issues, and resulted in a Settlement that is neither illegal nor collusive.
Notice of the proposed Settlement and the Fairness Hearing were completed in compliance with Rule 23, and the Court finds that the notice provided the class members a full and fair opportunity to consider the proposed Settlement and to respond to it.
This Judge volunteered to obtain another judge to conduct the Fairness Hearing. However, all counsel requested that this Judge remain in the case. See Honorable S. Arthur Spiegel, Settling Class Actions, 62 U. Cin. L.Rev. 1565 (1994).
[8] After considering the relevant factors discussed below, the Court concludes that the proposed Settlement agreement is fair, reasonable and adequate.
1. Plaintiffs’ Likelihood Of Ultimate Success On The Merits Balanced Against The Amount And Form Of Relief Offered In The Settlement
4

In re Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, 173 F.R.D. 205 (1997)

The Settlement provides the class members significant economic and non-economic benefits. It sets forth comprehensive relief with respect to the inmate “quality of life” issues as well establishes a substantial monetary fund for the class members. Comparing this relief to that which could be achieved through continued litigation weighs in favor of approval of the Settlement.
The current state of the law regarding prison conditions and inmate rights would make it difficult to achieve the same results provided by the Settlement through continued litigation. For example, the United States Supreme Court has held that double-celling inmates at SOCF is not a violation of the Eighth Amendment, see Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 348–49, 101 S.Ct. 2392, 2400–01, 69 L.Ed.2d 59 (1981), but significantly, *213 the Settlement calls for single-celling at SOCF.
[9] Also, there is no constitutional right to a particular security classification or to be incarcerated at a particular institution. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 483–84, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 2300, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995); Beard v. Livesay, 798 F.2d 874, 876 (6th Cir.1986). Yet, the Settlement gives inmates access to their security rating instruments and the decisions underlying those classifications, which allows the inmates to know how to improve their security rating. Then, once they achieve a reduction in their security rating, pursuant to the Settlement, they are entitled to be transferred out of SOCF to an institution of an appropriate security level.
[10] Also it would be difficult to achieve the terms dealing with conditions of confinement, such as the agreement for an average of 40 hours a week out-of cell-time for general population inmates at SOCF, and to prevail on the failure to protect claims, because in order to prove an Eighth Amendment violation regarding inmate conditions of confinement, the inmate must demonstrate “deliberate indifference” on the part of the prison officials. See Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 303, 111 S.Ct. 2321, 2326–27, 115 L.Ed.2d 271 (1991).
Moreover, the Supreme Court has limited the Due Process rights of inmates facing lockdown status. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 483–84, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 2300, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995) (the liberty interest “will be generally limited to freedom from restraint which, while not exceeding the sentence in such an unexpected manner as to give rise to protection by the Due Process Clause of its own force, ... nonetheless imposes atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.”). Thus, for example, the special RIB program which became the basis of the RIB Pilot Project set out in the Settlement provides more relief than litigation would likely produce.
Moreover, the Settlement confers a greater monetary benefit upon more inmates than a trial would probably

accomplish. According to Class Counsel, the $4.1 million represents the largest settlement fund established through litigation following a prison riot. (doc. 285; Gerhardstein Aff. at ¶ 24); cf. In re Jackson Lockdown, 107 F.R.D. 703, 705 (E.D.Mich.1985) (awarding close to $200,000 for all damages, fees and expenses arising from riot and lockdown). The results of the Summary Jury Trial on the damage claims were a “mixed-bag” and indicated that Plaintiffs would have a formidable task of meeting the burden of proving, for example, deliberate indifference or excessive force, at trial.
Therefore, we are convinced that the Settlement provides an immediate benefit to the class members. These benefits, balanced against the potential costs and risks associated with continued litigation of this case, support a finding that the Settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate.
2. The Complexity, Expense, and Likely Duration Of The Litigation This case presents very complex legal and factual issues. Despite the fact that the Parties have worked diligently and vigorously for the past four years, it is likely that the matter would not be concluded for many more years. At the time of the Settlement, Defendants sought a ruling on the issue of qualified immunity; there was a very real possibility of a pretrial appeal on that issue. Then, there would be a multi-week trial on liability for the bellwether damage Plaintiffs; then mini-trials of the other class members’ claims would follow; and then there is still the possibility of more appeals. Given the delay which would result from the continued litigation, this Settlement expedites the awarding of the class members with economic and non-economic benefits.
3. The Stage Of The Proceedings And The Amount Of Discovery Completed At the time of the Settlement, the Parties had completed discovery and prepared the case for trial. As a result of the Summary Jury Trial and their vigorous preparation, the Parties are aware of the strengths and weaknesses of their respective positions. Thus, the Settlement is achieved as a result of the Parties’ thorough investigation and *214 analysis of the facts and legal issues implicated in this case.
4. The Judgment Of Experienced Trial Counsel The Court appointed Class Counsel in December of 1993. The group of litigators comprising the Class Counsel team are extremely well-qualified and experienced in prisoner civil rights litigation and complex class action litigation.
5

In re Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, 173 F.R.D. 205 (1997)

Clearly, Class Counsel’s recommendation to approve the Settlement is well-informed. The Court heeds the recommendation of such experienced counsel.
5. The Nature Of The Negotiations The Settlement was reached as a result of hard-fought and intense, arms-length negotiations, some of which the Court supervised. The negotiations did not reflect or suggest any collusion or illegality.
6. The Objections Raised By The Class Members Of the approximately three thousand class members, only twenty-five filed written objections to the Settlement. (doc. 323, Ex.A–2). At least 17 of the class members were represented by counsel independent of Class Counsel; none of them filed an objection. (doc. 323).
[11] The fact that some class members object to the Settlement does not by itself prevent the court from approving the agreement. Enterprise Energy Corp., 137 F.R.D. at 246 (citing Thompson, 124 F.R.D. at 159). In considering the extent and significance of the objections, “the Court must view the agreement in its entirety, rather than isolating individual components of the agreement for analysis.” Bronson v. Bd. of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of Cincinnati, 604 F.Supp. 68, 78 (S.D.Ohio 1984) (quoting Liddell v. Bd. of Educ. of City of St. Louis, 567 F.Supp. 1037 (E.D.Mo.1983)). Also, a relatively small number of class members who object is an indication of a settlement’s fairness. Newberg on Class Actions, supra, at § 11.48.
The Court has carefully reviewed all the objections noted below. Viewing the Settlement in its entirety, we find that the Settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate.
The objections fall into four basic categories: (1) objections to monetary terms, (2) objections to quality of life terms, (3) objections to the representation by Class Counsel and Class Representatives, and (4) objections regarding the Ohio Attorney General’s efforts to divert the money damages away from the inmates in the class to their creditors.

of the murdered inmates with the other damage claims. The discretion left to the Claims Administrator will ensure there is sufficient money for payment of other damage claims after the deceased inmate claims’ are satisfied.
Some class members object because they fear that inmates who committed misconduct during the riot might be compensated. The Settlement provides for this situation: those convicted of the misconduct cannot be compensated, and if the inmate was administratively charged for riot-related misconduct, the misconduct can be factored in to the claim decision process.
Other class members are upset that their claims, such as for emotional distress or related to their being trapped in K–8 or K–2, will go uncompensated. Again, the Claims Administrator can best determine whether those claims and the inmates’ individual circumstances meet the criteria established by the MOU.
Finally, some objectors are concerned about the amount of attorneys’ fees and expenses. In light of the fact that a reasonable amount will be determined by the Court, we do not think that this is a basis for rejecting the Settlement.
*215 b. Quality of Life Objections The class members who object to the quality of life terms essentially contend that the terms do not provide enough relief. As addressed earlier in this Order, we believe that the non-economic relief afforded to the class members is more than what could be achieved through litigation and is therefore more than adequate. The Parties’ agreement to use best efforts to effectuate the Settlement sufficiently addresses other inmates’ concerns that Defendants will ignore the quality of life terms. (doc. 269; MOU at ¶ 54).
c. Representation Objections Some class members object to the representation by Class Counsel and the Class Representatives. As these issues were already decided pursuant to Court Order prior to the Settlement, the objections are not timely and are not a basis for disturbing the Settlement.

a. Monetary Objections Some objectors contend that the amount of money is inadequate. We find that the amount is fair and adequate in light of the defenses raised, the amount of noneconomic relief awarded, and the possibility that a sum considerably less could be awarded at trial.
Other class member object to the inclusion of the estates

d. Objections Regarding the Ohio Attorney General’s Efforts Finally, some class members, as well as Class Counsel, are concerned about the Ohio Attorney General’s efforts to take the money damages away from the inmates in the class. We find that this objection relates to the enforcement of the Settlement and administration of the
6

In re Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, 173 F.R.D. 205 (1997)

Settlement Fund. We will address this concern at a later time and do not believe it is a sufficient basis for rejecting the Settlement.
7. The Public Interest The public is certainly served by the resolution of this matter. The SOCF riot, the third-deadliest prison riot in recent United States history, during which nine inmates and one guard were slain, is indeed a tragic and unfortunate incident in Ohio prison history. (Fairness Hearing Pl.’s Ex. 8; Prison Business: Does Riot’s Price Cover Lessons Learned?, The Columbus Dispatch, April 10, 1997, at 14A). The public has an interest in seeing that the causes of the riot are addressed so that this tragedy will not be repeated. The Settlement addresses some of the issues related to the administration of the Ohio prison system that may have contributed to the SOCF riot. Moreover, the Settlement ends the contentious riot-related battle between prison officials and the inmates at SOCF. This will, in turn, help alleviate the tension at SOCF and thereby minimize the possibility of future disturbances. The public also benefits because the cost and time consumed by protracted litigation outweigh the costs associated with settling now and moving forward.4

Based upon the foregoing, we find the Settlement to be fair, reasonable and adequate in all respects, and we APPROVE the Settlement. Accordingly, we GRANT the Joint Motion by the Parties for Order Approving Class Action Resolution.

*216 II. MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES TO CLASS COUNSEL The second issue before the Court is whether to approve Class Counsel’s application for attorneys’ fees and expenses. The Settlement provides that, “[s]ubject to the approval of the Court after the submission of an application(s) for payment of attorneys fees and expenses by Class Counsel, attorneys fees and expenses shall be paid to Class Counsel ...” and that such fees and expenses shall be paid from the Settlement Fund. (doc. 269; MOU at ¶¶ 47 & 48). Further, Defendants agreed not to oppose Class Counsel’s fee and expense application.5 Id. at ¶ 49.

5

Defendants, however, have objected to the inclusion of

a request for incentive awards for the two named

Plaintiffs as an expense listed in their application for

attorneys’ fees and expenses.

4

Compare, for example, the litigation surrounding the

1971 Attica prison uprising in New York. According to

Defendants’ Counsel, the first liability trial occurred in

1992 and took 71 days to complete, costing the state $5

million in fees. And, although twenty-six (26) years

later, there are still two more liability trials which have

yet to occur.

Finally, we note that Defendants have objected to Plaintiffs’ inclusion in Class Counsel’s fee and expense application of a request for incentive awards to be given to the named Plaintiffs. Defendants made it clear at the Fairness Hearing that they object to the compensation of inmates beyond that which the Settlement provides for in paragraph 43 of the MOU.
This Court strongly believes that the issue of incentive awards should not be “the tail that wags the dog” in this Settlement. The Settlement is in the best interests of the people of Ohio, the state government, and the inmates involved. Whether the class representatives ultimately receive compensation for their valuable assistance to Class Counsel in prosecuting this case should not and will not jeopardize the consummation of this Settlement. The incentive awards are an administrative detail concerning the enforcement of the Settlement. As is further discussed below, the Court will take the matter under advisement after the Parties submit further briefing, and we will decide the issue at the appropriate time.

The resolution of this case resulted in a fund, comprised of $4.1 million, for the common benefit of the settlement class. Class Counsel are not seeking a fee award pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, which authorizes the court to grant a fee award to a prevailing party in an action to enforce a provision of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. They have, in essence, waived their right to seek attorneys’ fees pursuant to § 1988 by settling all Plaintiffs’ claims with Defendants.
[12] Rather, the source of the fee award more closely resembles the award of fees in “common fund” cases.6 The “common fund doctrine” provides that “a litigant or lawyer who recovers a common fund for the benefit of persons other than himself or his client is entitled to a reasonable attorney’s fee from the fund as a whole.” Boeing Co. v. Van Gemert, 444 U.S. 472, 478, 100 S.Ct. 745, 749, 62 L.Ed.2d 676 (1980). It is premised upon the principle “that persons who obtain the benefit of a lawsuit without contributing to its costs are unjustly enriched at the successful litigant’s expense.” Id. Thus, the issue before the Court is to decide the amount of the reasonable fee to which Class Counsel are entitled.

6

The “common fund” doctrine often comes into play

where there has not been a previous agreement that the

attorneys’ fees will come from the common settlement

fund. See e.g., Enterprise Energy Corp., 137 F.R.D. at

248; In re Dun, 130 F.R.D. at 372. The slight difference

in this case is that the Parties already agreed that Class

Counsel are entitled to a fee award coming from the

7

In re Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, 173 F.R.D. 205 (1997)

“common fund.” Because the interests of the class members with respect to the amount of the attorneys’ fees are the same here as in these other common fund cases, we analyze the fee award here under that doctrine.

A. FEE AWARDS IN A COMMON FUND CASE [13] Determining an award of attorneys’ fees in a common fund case requires that the court consider factors which are not present in statutory fee shifting cases, such as under § 1988.7 Rawlings v. Prudential–Bache Properties, Inc., 9 F.3d 513, 516 (6th Cir.1993). The Sixth Circuit explained why this is so:

7

Section § 1988 provides that “the court, in its

discretion, may allow the prevailing party, ..., a

reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs.” 42

U.S.C. § 1988(b). Section 1988 utilizes the “lodestar”

method in arriving at a reasonable fee; a reasonable fee

is calculated by multiplying the number of hours

reasonably worked by a reasonable hourly rate. Hensley

v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 1939,

76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983).

The interest of class counsel in obtaining fees is adverse to the interest of the class in obtaining recovery because the fees come out of the common fund set up for the benefit of the class. In addition there is often no one to argue for the interests of the class (that their recovery should not be unfairly reduced), since it is to be expected that class members with small individual stakes in the outcome will not file objections, and the defendant who contributed to the fund will usually have scant interest in how the fund is divided between the plaintiffs and class counsel. Id. In order to deal with these concerns, some courts have adopted the percentage of the fund method in such common fund case, and others have recognized that under some circumstances the lodestar method is appropriate. Id. at 515–16 (citations omitted). The lodestar method involves a calculation of “the *217 number of hours worked, multiplied by a certain hourly rate, and typically further multiplied by a ‘multiplier’ to account for the cost and risk inherent in advancing fees, the complexity of the case, and the size of the recovery.” Newberg on Class Actions, supra, at § 12.55; see also Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 1939, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983). The preferred method in common fund cases has been to award a reasonable percentage of the fund. Bowling v. Pfizer, 922 F.Supp. 1261, 1278–79 (S.D.Ohio 1996), aff’d, 102 F.3d 777 (6th Cir.1996) (citations omitted) (citing a report by the Task Force appointed by

the Third Circuit to evaluate the effectiveness of the lodestar method in making fee awards and summarizing the report’s stated deficiencies of the lodestar method); cf. Newberg on Class Actions, supra, at § 12.55 (stating lodestar is the prevailing method of determining attorney’s fees in common fund class actions over the past twenty years but also noting the recent criticism of the method). Typically, the percentage awarded ranges from 20 to 50 percent of the common fund created. In re Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co. Securities Litigation, 643 F.Supp. 148, 150 (S.D.Ohio 1986). Each method has its respective advantages and disadvantages. See Bowling, 922 F.Supp. at 1278–79. “The lodestar method better accounts for the amount of work done, while the percentage of the fund method more accurately reflects the results achieved.” Rawlings, 9 F.3d at 516.
[14] All the Sixth Circuit requires is that the award of attorneys’ fees in common fund cases must be reasonable under the circumstances. Rawlings, 9 F.3d at 516; Smillie v. Park Chemical Co., 710 F.2d 271, 275 (6th Cir.1983). Thus, district courts have the discretion “to select the more appropriate method for calculating attorney’s fees in light of the unique characteristics of class actions in general, and of the unique circumstances of the actual cases before them.” Rawlings, 9 F.3d at 516 (affirming district court’s use of the lodestar method); cf. Bowling, 102 F.3d 777, 780 (6th Cir.1996) (affirming district court’s methodology which based the fee award on a percentage of the fund and then cross-checked the fee against class counsel’s lodestar). At bottom, the court must ensure that class counsel are fairly compensated for the amount of work done as well as the results achieved. Rawlings, 9 F.3d at 516. Moreover, the court must provide a concise, clear explanation of the reasoning for adopting a particular methodology and the factors considered at arriving at the fee. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 437, 103 S.Ct. at 1941; Rawlings, 9 F.3d. at 516.
[15] The Court recognizes that it has a choice in which of the two methods it adopts to determine the reasonable fee award. For the following reasons, we deem it reasonable to use the lodestar method for determining the fee award here. This case did not settle early on in the proceedings but rather after four years of extensive work by Class Counsel. Although the case had not yet proceeded to trial at the time of settlement, Class Counsel’s participation in the Summary Jury Trial required almost as much preparation as the actual trial would have. Also, the monetary benefit to the class is relatively low compared to the total benefits, both non-economic and economic, the class received. Class Counsel has already reasonably discounted the “lodestar” to account for any duplication of work by the numerous attorneys working on this case, which in turn conserves judicial resources in scrutinizing the application. Finally, in civil rights actions under § 1983, such as this one, the court usually utilizes the lodestar method for determining a fee award under §
8

In re Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, 173 F.R.D. 205 (1997)

1988.
B. CALCULATING CLASS COUNSEL’S FEE AWARD Class Counsel request an award of attorneys’ fees in the amount of $1.4 million and an award of expenses in the amount of $308,613.41. (doc. 285).
[16] The Sixth Circuit has clearly delineated the factors relevant to an award of attorneys’ fees from a common fund established for the benefit of a class. Smillie, 710 F.2d at 275; see also Enterprise Energy Corp., 137 F.R.D. at 248–249. Those considerations include:
(1) the value of the benefit rendered to the class; (2) society’s stake in rewarding the *218 attorneys who produce such benefits in order to maintain an incentive to others; (3) whether the services were undertaken on a contingent fee basis; (4) the value of the services on an hourly basis; (5) the complexity of the litigation; and (6) the professional skill and standing of all counsel.
Enterprise Energy Corp., 137 F.R.D. at 248–249.
[17] As we have already discussed in connection with approving the Settlement, Class Counsel have rendered a significant benefit to the members of the class. Indeed, the Settlement offers substantial benefits beyond the $4.1 million common fund. Class Counsel has obtained an agreement on eleven separate issues which serve to maintain or improve the quality of inmate life.
Defending the rights of inmates and keeping in check the state’s use of control over the prison system are often unpopular positions to take. The Court suspects that the opinions of inmates typically hold little weight by those making decisions affecting their confinement, and there are few groups who advocate on behalf of the incarcerated. Thus, attorneys are to be encouraged to prosecute cases such as this one. Indeed, one of the purposes of § 1988 was to allow private individuals an opportunity to vindicate civil rights violations. See e.g., Ortiz v. Regan, 980 F.2d 138, 140 (2d Cir.1992). Moreover, Class Counsel were appointed to handle this litigation. They accepted this representation upon a fully contingent basis and should be adequately compensated for accepting that risk.
The value of the services rendered by Class Counsel, or the “lodestar figure,” amounts to $1,734,572.70. Class Counsel have summarized the basic lodestar for each of

the attorneys, paralegals and law clerks who have worked on this case. (doc. 285; Table # 1). Each of the attorneys for the class has attested to their qualifications and experience litigating civil rights and class action cases. (doc. 285). Also, each attorney has supported their requested hourly rate with a statement that the rate is based on examination of similar awards to comparable attorneys. Id. Billing judgment was exercised at the time the work was performed and entered onto the time sheets, so the time sheets do not reflect all the time expended for a particular service. Id. Class Counsel have reduced the basic lodestar by 20% to account for any duplication of work or any inefficiency due to the numerous attorneys who worked on this case. The discounted lodestar amounts to $1,400,000.00.

The Court has carefully reviewed the hourly rates and the total number of hours billed by Class Counsel and their law firms. We find that the hourly rates are reasonable given the expertise of Class Counsel in this type of litigation. Moreover, the 20% reduction is more than fair to account for duplication of effort or any inefficiency.

The time sheets submitted and the record in this case amply demonstrate that this litigation involved complex factual and legal issues, which were vigorously defended by all counsel.

We also note that the requested amount represents approximately 34% of the total amount of the common fund. Even if one analyzed the fee award in terms of a percentage of the common fund, the requested award of $1.4 million is still within the range of reasonableness, which has been designated as between twenty to fifty percent of the common fund. See In re Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co. Securities Litigation, 643 F.Supp. at 150.
Finally, although we have stated this earlier, it bears repeating: Class Counsel, Special Counsel for Defendants8, and the office of the Ohio Attorney General have exercised the highest degree of skill, dedication, and professionalism in this matter. Indeed, both the class members as well as Defendants were well-served by the representation of their counsel.

8

Gerald Messerman, along with the Office of the Ohio

Attorney General, represented Arthur Tate, Jr.,

Governor George Voinovich, Reginald Wilkinson, and

Terry Collins. John Berry represented the twenty-three

other Defendants.

The Court has reviewed all the submissions in connection with this fee application. The Court heard from both Class Counsel *219 and counsel for Defendants and afforded any objector to the fee application an opportunity to be heard at the hearing on April 15, 1997. In light of our
9

In re Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, 173 F.R.D. 205 (1997)

consideration of the above factors, we find that the requested fee award of $1.4 million is reasonable and appropriate.

C. EXPENSES [18] Class Counsel have also requested $308,613.41 in expenses. Of the total expenses requested, the amount earmarked for incentive awards for the named Plaintiffs equals $50,000. With the exception of the incentive awards, which will be dealt with at a later date, we find the expenses requested reasonable given the duration of the litigation.
Accordingly, we AWARD Class Counsel $1.4 million in attorneys’ fees and $258,613.419 for expenses. We GRANT Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses, with the exception of the request for incentive awards.

9

The total expenses of Class Counsel are $308,613.41.

Class Counsel request $50,000 in incentive awards.

Therefore, the total expense, minus the amount

designated for incentive awards, equals $258,613.41.

CONCLUSION
Accordingly, we GRANT the Joint Motion to Approve the Class Action Resolution (doc. 269) and we GRANT IN PART Class Counsel’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses (doc. 285). We ORDER the Parties to submit further briefing on the issue of incentive awards within ten (10) days of the date of this Order.
Finally, with respect to Plaintiffs’ motion for an order directing Attorney General Betty Montgomery and all counsel for Defendants to cease and desist from conduct in violation of the MOU and General Protocol (doc. 328), we ORDER the Parties to brief the issues raised by the Court at the Fairness Hearing. We note that Defendants have not responded to Plaintiffs’ motion as of this date. The Parties’ briefs on this issue are also due within ten (10) days of the date of this Order.
SO ORDERED.
	
  

10

 </s> In re Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, 175 F.R.D. 270 (1997)

175 F.R.D. 270 United States District Court,
S.D. Ohio, Western Division.
In re SOUTHERN OHIO CORRECTIONAL FACILITY.
No. C–1–93–436. | July 24, 1997.

Order approving the Settlement, we awarded Class Counsel $1,658,613.41 for their fees and expenses, and we reserved decision on this issue.

2

In the Order certifying this action as a class action, the

Court ordered the two named Plaintiffs, Mr. Morris and

Mr. Adams, to be the class representatives. Thus,

throughout this Order, Mr. Morris and Mr. Adams are

referred to as either the “named Plaintiffs” or the “class

representatives.”

*272 ORDER
SPIEGEL, Senior District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (doc. 285), Defendants’ Response (doc. 314), Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Request for Incentive Awards (doc. 338), Defendants’ Memorandum in Opposition to Incentive Awards (doc. 337), and Defendants’ Motion to Supplement the Record regarding the Request for Incentive Awards (doc. 356).

BACKGROUND
The Court recently approved the Settlement1 of this prisoner civil rights class action relating to the April, 1993 riot at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility (“SOCF”), a maximum security prison located in Lucasville, Ohio. (doc. 332). Essentially, the Settlement provides for an agreement on eleven (11) issues that serve to “maintain or improve the quality of inmate life” and establishes a $4.1 million common fund, from which inmate damage claims and attorneys’ fees and expenses will be paid. This Court approved the Settlement upon a finding that it was fair, reasonable, and adequate in all respects. (doc. 332).

1

The resolution of this case is memorialized in the

Parties’ Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) and

the General Protocol for Claims by Class Members

Against the Settlement Fund (hereinafter collectively

referred to as the “Settlement.”) (docs. 269 & 273).

The issue presently before the Court concerns the portion of Class Counsel’s application for attorneys’ fees and expenses in which Class Counsel requests an award of $25,000 to each of the named Plaintiffs, Darrin Morris and Eugene Adams, as an “incentive award.”2 “Incentive awards” are allotments awarded to class representatives in class action litigation which are over and above the amount they would be entitled to as class members. In our

Class Counsel has requested that the class representatives, Mr. Morris and Mr. Adams, each be awarded $25,000 for their assistance during the course of the litigation. In support of this request, Class Counsel points out that the named Plaintiffs served as leaders of the class action since the appointment of Class Counsel by keeping other inmates informed of the progress of the case, studying the developments of the case, conferring with counsel as to strategy, and enduring inmate and guard harassment.
Defendants vehemently object to the granting of incentive awards to the two named Plaintiffs. They argue that such an award would violate the Settlement agreement. They also contend that incentive awards are not recoverable as a litigation “expense” and are inappropriate in this case.
DISCUSSION
I. INCENTIVE AWARDS GENERALLY We begin our analysis by noting that incentive awards are not uncommon in class action litigation and particularly where, as here, a common fund has been created for the benefit of the entire class. Courts routinely approve incentive awards to compensate named plaintiffs for the services they provided and the risks they incurred during the course of the class action litigation. Thornton v. East Texas Motor Freight, 497 F.2d 416, 420 (6th Cir.1974) (approving theory behind incentive awards in Title VII class action); Day v. NLO, Inc. (“Fernald II”) No. C–1–90–067 (doc. 580, at 4–5) (S.D.Ohio 1995) (granting incentive awards from a settlement *273 fund); In re: Fernald Litig. (“Fernald I”), No. C–1–85–149 (doc. 1396, at 3–4) (S.D.Ohio 1994); Enterprise Energy Corp. v. Columbia Gas Transmission Corp., 137 F.R.D. 240, 250–51 (S.D.Ohio 1991) (approving $50,000 to each of the six class representatives from a common fund); In re Dun & Bradstreet Credit Serv. Customer Litig., 130 F.R.D. 366, 373–74 (S.D.Ohio 1990) (approving incentive awards in the amounts of $35,000 and $55,000 to five class representatives from a common fund).3
1

In re Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, 175 F.R.D. 270 (1997)

3

See also, White v. National Football League, 822

F.Supp. 1389, 1406–07 (D.Minn.1993), aff’d 41 F.3d

402, 408 (8th Cir.1994); In re Catfish Antitrust Litig.,

939 F.Supp. 493, 503–504 (N.D.Miss.1996) (approving

incentive awards from a common fund because of the

sacrifices of the named plaintiffs in pursuit of litigation

on behalf of the class); Van Vranken v. Atlantic

Richfield Co., 901 F.Supp. 294, 299–300

(N.D.Cal.1995) (citing with approval Enterprise

Energy Corp. v. Columbia Gas Transmission Corp.,

137 F.R.D. 240 (S.D.Ohio 1991) and approving

incentive award in common fund case); In re Chambers

Dev. Sec. Litig., 912 F.Supp. 852, 863 (W.D.Pa.1995)

(approving incentive award in common fund case); In

re Immunex Sec. Litig., 864 F.Supp. 142, 145

(W.D.Wash.1994) (citing with approval Enterprise

Energy Corp. and approving incentive award from

common fund to class representatives who obtained

benefits for their fellow shareholders); In re Domestic

Air Transp. Antitrust Litig., 148 F.R.D. 297, 357–58

(N.D.Ga.1993); Spicer v. Chicago Bd. Options

Exchange, Inc., 844 F.Supp. 1226, 1266–68

(N.D.Ill.1993) (citing 17 other courts where incentive

awards approved); Bogosian v. Gulf Oil Corp., 621

F.Supp. 27, 32 (E.D.Pa.1985); see also Sherrie R.

Savett, et al., “Consumer Class Actions: Class

Certification Issues, Including Ethical Considerations

and Counsel Fees and Incentive Payments to Named

Plaintiffs,” 936 PLI/Corp. 321 at 340 (1996) (citing 52

representative cases where incentive awards have been

granted to named class representatives); Sofia C.

Hubscher, “Making It Worth Plaintiff’s While: Extra

Incentive Awards To Named Plaintiffs In Class Action

Employment Discrimination Lawsuits,” 23 Colum.

Hum. Rts. L.Rev. 463, 477–486 (1992) (approving

incentive awards on the grounds that named plaintiffs

have “spent sufficient time preparing for and

participating in litigation, taken risks benefitting a large

class of people, and sacrificed their own employment

relationship in order to rectify a discriminatory

situation.”).

Bogosian, 621 F.Supp. at 32 (approving compensation to named class representatives for their “valuable consultative assistance to plaintiffs’ counsel”); White, 822 F.Supp. at 1406–07 (approving awards to class representatives in part because they “took substantial risks to step forward” given the defendants’ history of retaliation against the class members); 1 Alba Conte, Attorney Fee Awards, § 2.25 at 94 (2d ed.1993) (stating that “[s]everal courts have now recognized that representatives who do in fact perform these valuable services [e.g., as experts or consultants] are entitled to receive appropriate reimbursement for their efforts.”); Manual for Complex Litigation, § 30.41 at 236, n. 86 (2d ed. 1985) (“Modest compensation may sometimes be merited for extra time spent by the class representatives in meeting with class members, gathering discovery materials on behalf of the class, and similar efforts.”).
[2] Defendants argue that incentive awards are inappropriate because the named plaintiffs in a class action are not entitled to preferential allocation from a common settlement fund. It is not always improper, however, for the class representatives to receive an award of a different amount as compared to the other class members. Thornton, 497 F.2d at 420 (recognizing propriety of rewarding class members who actively protested discrimination); *274 In re Jackson Lockdown/MCO Cases, 107 F.R.D. 703, 710 (E.D.Mich.1985) (approving preferential treatment to named plaintiffs over the other class members in part because they stepped forward to bring lawsuit and faced fear of retaliatory practices); Manual for Complex Litigation, § 30.41 at 236. In fact, compensation for class representatives for their services provided over and above those of a regular class member is not improper preferential treatment which would preclude a finding that a class action settlement is fair. Id., § 30.41 at 236.

[1] Such compensation to the named plaintiffs is typically justified where the named plaintiffs expend time and effort beyond that of the other class members in assisting class counsel with the litigation, such as by actively reviewing the case and advising counsel in the prosecution of the case, or where the named plaintiffs faced the risk of retaliation or threats as a result of their participation as class representatives. See, e.g., In re Dun & Bradstreet Credit Serv. Customer Litig., 130 F.R.D. at 374 (granting incentive award in part because class representatives “spent a great deal of time and were very active in reviewing the case and acting as advisors to Class counsel in the prosecution and settlement of this case”); Genden v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, 700 F.Supp. 208, 210 (S.D.N.Y.1988) (approving compensation to named plaintiff who also happened to be an attorney for his consultative services as a client during both the investigative and litigation phases of the action);

II. INCENTIVE AWARDS AS REIMBURSABLE LITIGATION EXPENSES [3] [4] Prior to the Fairness Hearing, Defendants filed an Emergency Motion for Expedited Disposition asking the Court to rule on their objection to the inclusion of the request for incentive awards in Class Counsel’s fee application. In our Order denying Defendants’ Motion, we stated that incentive awards can properly be characterized as a litigation expense. Defendants have challenged our reasoning. Thus, before reaching the question whether incentive awards to the class representatives in this case are appropriate, we must first determine the source of our authority to earmark a portion of the Settlement in this case for such compensation. The Settlement agreement does not specifically provide that incentive awards are to be made to the named Plaintiffs. However, the Settlement agreement does state that the attorneys’ fees and expenses shall be deducted from the
2

In re Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, 175 F.R.D. 270 (1997)

Settlement Fund. (doc. 269; MOU at ¶ 48).
[5] Where, as here, a litigant has created a common fund by settlement for the benefit of a class, he or she is entitled to reimbursement for reasonable fees and expenses necessary for the successful prosecution of the litigation. Boeing Co. v. Van Gemert, 444 U.S. 472, 478–79, 100 S.Ct. 745, 749–50, 62 L.Ed.2d 676 (1980); Smillie v. Park Chemical Co., 710 F.2d 271, 275 (6th Cir.1983) (“A litigant who creates a ‘common fund’ or ‘substantial benefit’ allocable with some exactitude to a definite group of persons may acquire an equitable claim against that group for the costs incurred in creating the fund or benefit.”); Conte, supra, § 2.19 at 73. The common fund doctrine “operates when a plaintiff in an individual or representative capacity creates, increases, or preserves a fund whose monetary benefits extend to an ascertainable class of persons similarly situated.” Conte, supra, § 2.01 at 23. “The common-fund doctrine reflects the traditional practice in courts of equity ... [and] rests on the perception that persons who obtain the benefit of a lawsuit without contributing to its costs are unjustly enriched at the successful litigant’s expense.” Boeing Co., 444 U.S. at 478, 100 S.Ct. at 749. Thus, under principles of equity, the court can designate a portion of the common fund to be set aside to cover the reasonable fees and expenses incurred in the creation of the common fund.
[6] [7] Examples of reimbursable expenses in common fund cases include witness fees, transcripts of hearings and depositions, telephone and copying charges, and settlement administration costs. Conte, supra, § 2.19 at 77; cf. Northcross v. Board of Ed. of Memphis City Schools, 611 F.2d 624, 639–40 (6th Cir.1979) (stating that expenses included in the concept of attorney’s fees and thus authorized under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 include “ ‘incidental and necessary expenses incurred in furnishing effective and competent representation.’ ”) (citation omitted).4 In addition, subject to reasonableness and relevance in amount, expert, specialist or consultant fees are reimbursable expenses in common fund cases. Conte, supra, § 2.19 at 77; see also, In re Media Vision Tech. Sec. Litig., 913 F.Supp. 1362, 1366–67 (N.D.Cal.1996) (awarding expenses for experts, consultant and investigator fees from a common fund); In re Chambers Dev. Sec. Litig., 912 F.Supp. at 863 (stating that “expert and consultant *275 fees may be entirely reasonable, necessary, and therefore reimbursable” from a common fund); Spicer, 844 F.Supp. at 1259, 1264 (approving reimbursement of consultant and expert witness fees).

4

The common fund doctrine is one exception to the

American rule that fees are usually not recoverable

absent statutory or contractual authority. Wilson v.

Intern. Broth. of Teamsters, 83 F.3d 747, 753 (6th

Cir.1996) (citing Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co. v. Wilderness Soc’y, 421 U.S. 240, 257, 95 S.Ct. 1612, 1621, 44 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975)). Thus, as a common fund was created in this case as a part of the Settlement, we are not bound by only those examples of expenses which are authorized by 42 U.S.C. § 1988 as within the concept of attorney’s fees.
For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that a reimbursable litigation expense may, in some cases, also include incentive awards. As we have stated earlier, many of the reasons given for approving incentive awards relate to the services rendered and the risks incurred by the class representatives on behalf of the class during the course of the litigation and settlement. As long as the services rendered are reasonable and relevant to the furtherance of the class’ interests in the litigation, such compensation given to named plaintiffs is not unlike the fee awards given to experts, consultants or investigators which are reimbursable as a litigation expense from common funds; both compensate non-lawyers for services rendered in aid of the litigation.
Moreover, the nature of the services performed by many class representatives who have received “incentive awards” is similar to the nature of the services provided by experts, consultants, and investigators who assist with litigation. See Conte, supra, § 2.25 at 94 (“Class representatives often provide extensive benefits to the class similar to accountants, economists, and other litigation consultants and experts, over and above their normal role as a formally named adversary party in the litigation.”). For example, a class representative may have specialized knowledge of the subject, of the particular facts or of the background of the litigation which is beneficial to the class counsel in pursuing the litigation.
Finally, a few courts have held that incentive awards can be characterized as a litigation expense. See Matter of Continental Illinois Sec. Litig., 962 F.2d 566, 571 (7th Cir.1992) (although denying the incentive awards in that case, the court did conclude that “[s]ince without a named plaintiff there can be no class action, such compensation as may be necessary to induce him to participate in the suit could be thought the equivalent of the lawyers’ nonlegal but essential case-specific expenses, such as long-distance phone calls, which are reimbursable.”); “Fernald I.”, No. C–1–85–149 (doc. 1396, at 3–4) (holding that the appropriate category for the class representatives’ compensation would be under “expenses”); Spicer, 844 F.Supp. at 1267 (relying in part on reasoning of Seventh Circuit in Matter of Continental Illinois Sec. Litig. in approving incentive awards).
Therefore, we conclude that compensation to a class representative over and above what he may be entitled to as a class member can fairly be characterized as a
3

In re Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, 175 F.R.D. 270 (1997)

litigation expense which is recoverable from a common fund created for the benefit of the entire class.
In this case, as Class Counsel have created a common fund for the benefit of a class, they are entitled to reimbursement of reasonable fees and expenses necessary for the successful prosecution of this litigation. The Settlement agreement provides that, “[s]ubject to the approval of the Court after the submission of an application(s) for payment of attorneys fees and expenses by Class Counsel, attorneys fees and expenses shall be paid to Class Counsel” and that such fees and expenses shall be paid from the Settlement Fund. (doc. 269; MOU at ¶¶ 47 & 48). Thus, incentive awards, which as we have held can be characterized as a litigation expense, can be awarded from the Settlement Fund subject to the approval of the Court.
III. WHETHER INCENTIVE AWARDS ARE APPROPRIATE IN THIS CASE [8] [9] The next issue we must decide is whether approving incentive awards to the named Plaintiffs here is appropriate given the circumstances of this case. Courts look to a number of factors in deciding whether to grant named plaintiffs incentive awards. Courts in this circuit assess the following factors: (1) whether the actions of the named plaintiffs protected the interests of the class members and have inured to the substantial benefit of the class members; (2) whether the named plaintiffs have assumed substantial indirect or direct financial risk; and (3) the amount of time and effort expended by the named plaintiffs in pursuing the class action litigation. Enterprise Energy Corp., 137 F.R.D. at 250; In re Dun & Bradstreet *276 Credit Serv. Customer Litig., 130 F.R.D. at 374.
[10] [11] Additional criteria courts may consider in determining whether to approve an incentive award include: (1) the risk to the class representative in commencing the suit; (2) the notoriety and personal difficulties encountered by the class representative; (3) the duration of the litigation; (4) the extent of class representative’s personal involvement in discovery; (5) the class representative’s personal benefit (or lack thereof) purely in his capacity as a member of the class; and (6) the social benefit derived from the suit. Van Vranken, 901 F.Supp. at 299 (citing Richard D. Greenfield, “Rewarding the Class Representative: An Idea Whose Time Has Come,” 9 Class Action Rep. 4, 6 (1986)); Jerold S. Solovy, et al., “Class Action Controversies,” 499 PLI/Lit. 7, at 447–48 (1994). It is within the court’s discretion whether to approve an incentive award to a named plaintiff. Van Vranken, 901 F.Supp. at 299.
As we have demonstrated before, incentive awards are also justified upon the grounds that the class representatives have assisted class counsel by acting as

consultants and advisors and have assumed the risk of retaliation and/or threats by acting as leaders in an unpopular lawsuit. See supra at 323.
We acknowledge that some of the criteria generally used to determine whether to approve incentive awards are not applicable to this case; for example, the class representatives did not incur any financial risk in lending their names to the class action litigation. Also, it is not clear from the record before us whether the class representatives had significant personal involvement in the discovery in this case beyond that conducted by the other class members. We also acknowledge that the propriety of approving incentive awards generally is the subject of vigorous debate by courts and commentators. See, e.g., In Re U.S. Bioscience Securities Litig., 155 F.R.D. 116, 120–21 (E.D.Pa.1994); 2 Herbert Newberg and Alba Conte, Newberg on Class Actions, § 11.38 at 11–80 (3d ed.1992); Jerold S. Solovy, et al., “The Head of the Class,” The National Law Journal, Aug. 27, 1990, at 13. Nonetheless, having considered the relevant factors as well as the interests of the other class members, we find that the named Plaintiffs in this action are entitled to some compensation over and above what they are entitled to as class members for the services they provided and the risks they incurred in furtherance of the lawsuit and settlement.
The named Plaintiffs in this action endeavored to protect the interests of the class members and to bring about a substantial benefit to the class members in a number of ways. (doc. 285; Application of Fees and Expense of Class Counsel at 15–16). The named Plaintiffs have acted as class leaders since the appointment of Class Counsel, a fact even Reginald Wilkinson, Director of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections, verified at the Fairness Hearing April 15, 1997. (doc. 340; Fairness Hearing Tr. at 26). The named Plaintiffs have kept other inmates informed of the developments of the case and have consulted with Class Counsel as to proper course of conduct. See id. (Director Wilkinson testified that he understood from the reports from his staff that the named Plaintiffs have kept the other inmates informed of the progress of the case and conferred with Class Counsel about the proper course of action). This communication between the named Plaintiffs and the class members is crucial because it is difficult for the inmates to have direct, on-going contact with counsel given the class members’ incarceration. See id. at 17–18. Moreover, as a class action requires the existence of class representatives and Defendants supported the class certification, the class representatives’ work to communicate and advocate the Settlement agreement to the other class members worked to the advantage of Defendants as well as the class. See id. at 27 (Director Wilkinson agreed that it was to the advantage of the institution to have all the cases consolidated and brought as a class action); doc. 38 (Defendants did not object to class certification).
4

In re Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, 175 F.R.D. 270 (1997)

Significantly, the named Plaintiffs have also exposed themselves to person risk because of their role as class representatives. See id. (Director Wilkinson agreed that the named Plaintiffs are at some personal risk because of their *277 role as class representatives). Finally, the named Plaintiffs have pursued this class action litigation for a substantial amount of time; it has been almost three years since Class Counsel were appointed.
[12] Although we find that the circumstances here warrant an incentive award, we, however, decline to award the full amount requested by Class Counsel—$25,000 for each named Plaintiff. Instead, we ORDER the Settlement Master/Trustee to determine the appropriate amount of the incentive awards, upon application of Class Counsel.
The Court reaches this decision based upon the following considerations. First, the requested $25,000 is extremely disproportionate to the amount an inmate can earn otherwise. An inmate can earn only a nominal sum as compensation for his work performed while incarcerated in one of the State’s penal institutions. (doc. 340; Tr. at 8). Specifically, an inmate is compensated at a rate of $14–$18 per month, or $216.00 per year. Id. at 8–10.
Secondly, although we realize it may be difficult to quantify the risks incurred by the named Plaintiffs, Class Counsel had not even attempted to document any of the work performed by the named Plaintiffs.
Finally, the Court is concerned with the way in which the issue of incentive awards was brought to the attention of the Court and the class members. The request for incentive awards was not the subject of a separate motion by Class Counsel but instead was included in the application for fees and expenses. Apparently, Class Counsel did not make this request known to the class members before the Fairness Hearing. Two class members have filed objections to the incentive awards in part on the grounds that they were unaware of the request for incentive awards and did not have the opportunity to object before or during the Fairness Hearing. (doc. 356; filed under seal). We have reviewed the class member’s objections. In consideration of the interests of the class members, the Settlement Fund from which they may be compensated will not be reduced further by the amount of the incentive awards; rather, the incentive awards will be deducted from the amount already set aside for fees and expenses.
Therefore, the Settlement Master/Trustee will determine the appropriate amount of the incentive award. Class Counsel’s application should include affidavits from the class representatives which detail, to the best of their ability, the time and efforts expended in this case over the course of the litigation as well as any other documentation demonstrating their involvement in the case. The amount of the incentive awards shall come from the amount

already set aside for attorneys’ fees and expenses by our previous Order. In determining the amount of the incentive award, the Settlement Master/Trustee shall take into account the class members’ objections as well any other consideration addressed in this Order.

IV. DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS Defendants object to the inclusion of incentive awards in Class Counsel’s fee and expense application.5 As is demonstrated below, we reject each of Defendants’ objections.

5

The Court notes that Defendants may not have standing

to challenge the incentive awards on the grounds that

they agreed not to object to Class Counsel’s fees and

expenses application. (doc. 269; MOU at ¶ 49).

Nonetheless, we will address their objections for the

sake of completeness.

[13] First, Defendants argue that to award inmates under circumstances beyond those contemplated or implied by the Settlement agreement is inimical to the purpose of the Settlement agreement. The purpose of the Settlement, according to Defendants, is to compensate inmates only for their verifiable injuries resulting from the riot. The MOU sets forth the circumstances under which class members may receive compensation from the Settlement Fund in satisfaction of their damage claims.6 (doc. 269; MOU at *278 ¶ 43). Defendants argue that the limitations in this paragraph, which are also reflected in Paragraph 19 of the General Protocol, are the sole means by which a class member can receive compensation from the Settlement Fund. Thus, to allow the named Plaintiffs to receive money in the form of an incentive award would vitiate the purpose of the Settlement.

6

Specifically, Paragraph 43 of the MOU provides:

43. With the Court’s permission, the services of the

United States Magistrate Judge shall be utilized to

establish protocols, to be agreed to by the parties, by

which class members may file claims for damages

from the Settlement Fund and to make the necessary

determinations thereunder. A class member, or an

administrator or executor on behalf of a deceased

class member’s estate, shall be permitted to present

claims and receive compensation from the Fund only

if the class member making the claim, or on whose

behalf the claim is being made, was (1) murdered

during the riot; (2) physically injured during the riot;

or (3) lost property during or as a consequence of the

riot. In the event that money has already been paid to

a class member for property lost due to the riot, said

payment shall be deemed a credit towards any

monies determined to be owing a class member for

his claim for lost property. The Magistrate may

award compensation to a class member outside the

5

In re Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, 175 F.R.D. 270 (1997)

three categories listed in this paragraph only upon a showing by the class member that he has suffered any other serious riot-related injury and that the relief available under the Operational Provisions of this Memorandum are seriously inadequate for that class member given his personal situation and the denial of compensation to him would impose an injustice.
However, the paragraph referred to by Defendants describes the circumstances under which the inmates will be compensated for their damage claims arising from the riot; neither that paragraph nor any other part of the Settlement agreement specifically excludes all other reasons for compensation. More importantly, the Settlement agreement does provide for attorneys’ fees and expenses approved by the Court to be paid from the Settlement Fund and thus, per this Order, provides for the payment of incentive awards as an expense. (doc. 269; MOU at ¶¶ 47–48); see Fernald I, No. C–1–85–149 (doc. 1396, at 3–4) (holding that incentive awards are appropriate even though not specifically provided for in the settlement agreement but where the settlement agreement provides that fees and expenses are to be allocated by the Court). As the Settlement agreement covers incentive awards through its provision for attorneys’ fees and expenses, we need not look to the Parties’ unwritten intentions or underlying negotiations. See Kelly v. Medical Life Ins. Co., 31 Ohio St.3d 130, 132, 509 N.E.2d 411 (1987) (stating the general rule of contract construction that the intent of the parties is presumed to reside in the language they choose in their agreement).
[14] Secondly, Defendants argue that granting incentive awards to the named Plaintiffs here is inappropriate and against public policy. The Court acknowledges that the prospect of granting two inmates incentive awards has generated a lot of controversy within the community and for that reason takes this opportunity to explain further why we have approved the incentive awards.
Much of the controversy, we suspect, arises from the use of the phrase “incentive award.” We approve the incentive awards here as compensation for the services rendered and the risks incurred by the named Plaintiffs in pursuit of the class action litigation, not as an incentive for the class members to sue in the future. It is critical to separate the facts as to this particular case from the “message” to future inmate litigants allegedly made by the approving of incentive awards in this case.
There were approximately thirty-seven (37) individual cases already filed by the time that the United States Magistrate Judge ordered them to be consolidated in light of the class action Complaint. The named Plaintiffs had already filed their individual cases before class certification was considered; in fact, one of the named

Plaintiffs, Darrin Morris, filed the first individual case resulting from the 1993 riot. There is no evidence in the record that, at the time those cases were filed, or the time Mr. Morris and Mr. Adams were chosen to be class representatives, incentive awards were ever discussed. Thus, these class representatives, and all the other class members for that matter, were not promised compensation in exchange for filing a lawsuit arising from the 1993 riot.
Moreover, class representatives who will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class are required in a class action such as this. In certifying the class, the Court found that the named Plaintiffs would do just that, and their efforts to represent the interests of the class have proven worthy of extra *279 compensation. It should also be pointed out that Defendants have benefitted from the resolution of all riot-related claims by way of a class action. This class was certified under Rule 23(b)(2) as a mandatory non-opt out class, that is, class members do not have a right to opt out of the class action prior to judgment on the merits. The Settlement of this class action resolves forty-two (42) individual cases which had been consolidated with the class action, as well as releases Defendants from any and all present and future claims against them which arise from the events and conditions of confinement related to the April, 1993, disturbance at SOCF. Defendants were in favor of the class certification, and it is the Court’s impression that Defendants sought the class action to achieve closure to the continual bringing of riot-related lawsuits against them. Given the named Plaintiffs’ role in pursuing this class action and in communicating the Settlement negotiations and developments to the class, Defendants as well as the class were well-served by the efforts of the named Plaintiffs. (doc. 340; Tr. at 27).
Defendants are concerned with the message that approving incentive awards will allegedly send to an already litigious inmate population; they worry that it will give inmates an incentive to sue more frequently.
We disagree with Defendants’ position for a number of reasons. The only “message” sent by our approving the incentive awards here is that if class representatives provide services and incur risks in pursuit of class action litigation which benefit the class, they can be reasonably compensated for their time and effort. There are factors that militate against the assumption that approval of incentive awards under those circumstances will automatically cause more inmates to sue. Namely, approval of an incentive award is not guaranteed; it is contingent upon the class securing a settlement or judgment for the benefit of the class and upon the nature and extent of the services provided by the class representatives which are judicially reviewed. Also, an incentive award is only applicable in class action litigations; the majority of the lawsuits filed by inmates are individual actions.
6

In re Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, 175 F.R.D. 270 (1997)

Furthermore, we emphatically disagree with Defendants’ unfair assumption that all inmate lawsuits are frivolous and thus ought to be discouraged. Inmates have a constitutional right to access to the courts to redress their grievances regarding the conditions of their confinement, and they cannot be penalized for exercising this right. We realize that the thrust of current state and federal legislation is to reduce the number of inmate lawsuits; yet, we should not chill the bringing of legitimate, non-frivolous class actions for violation of federal constitutional rights such as this one.
Finally, as this Court has stated on a number of occasions, we strongly believe that it is better for the inmate population and the state penal institutions as a whole that an inmate bring his grievance with the institution by way of a lawsuit rather than let his anger simmer and build with no other outlet until it erupts into violence within the institution.

CONCLUSION
Accordingly, we GRANT Class Counsel’s request for “incentive awards” to be paid to the two named Plaintiffs, Darrin Morris and Eugene Adams. The amount of the award shall be determined by the Settlement Master/Trustee upon application of Class Counsel in accordance with this Order. The amount of the award shall be deducted from the $1,658,613.41 already awarded Class Counsel for their fees and expenses incurred in this litigation.
SO ORDERED.
	
  

7

 </s> UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

DARRIN E. MORRIS, -j P.O. Box 45699 Lucasville, OH 45669
and

EUGENE ADAMS

./

P.O. BOX 45699

Lucasville, OH 45699

On behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated,

Plaintiffs, vs.

GEORGE VOINOVICH 77 S. High Street Columbus, OH 43266
Individually and in his official capacity as the Governor of the State of Ohio
and

REGINALD WILKINSON / 1050 Freeway Drive, North suite 403 Columbus, OH 43229

Individually and in his

:

official capacity as an

employee of the State of Ohio,:

Department of Rehabilitation

and Correction

:

and

Civil Action No. (Spiegel, O.) (Steinberg, ..)
SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Jod,;e .. Journal _ Issue Oocketed ’J’~ --,

ARTHUR TATE, JR. ERIC Go DAHLBERG BEN BOWER

1050 Freeway Drive, North

Suite 403

:

Columbus, OH 43229

:

Individually and in their official capacity as employees of the State of Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction

and

:

TERRY COLLINS

j

P.O. BOX 45699

Luoasville, OH 45699

Individually and in his

:

official capacity as an

employee of State of Ohio,

:

Department of Rehabilitation

and Correction,

:

and

ROGER RODDY .~/ DAVID SEE J~
ROGER CRABTREE
JOHN NEWSOME ~/
oscAR MCGRAW
JE~Y WILLIES J~S SW~ ~

C~LES BELL RIC~ BRO~ RONALD BAILEY MIC~L TU~R PATRICK BU~TT GERALD E. ROBERT FINLEY~ DAVID EARL BRADLEY~/ RANDY L. STOUTs/ WILBUR Ko HARRIS,/~ E. BENNER/ / KEVIN CLARKSON JEFFERSON ROY LEWIS./’

P.O. Box 45699 Lucasville, OH 45699

Defendants.

2

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. This is a civil rights class action for injunctive relief and damages for deprivations of rights based on events related to the April, 1993 disturbance at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility (SOCF) in Lucasville, Ohio. This lawsuit is brought by, and on behalf of, only those SOCF inmates who did not commit, and are thus not subject to criminal prosecution for, any illegal acts during the April, 1993 disturbance. The plaintiffs’ class claims include, but are not limited to, a challenge to the extended lock down of the inmate population which has resulted in the denial of out-of-cell time, access to education and job programs, access to medical care, access to courts and the law library and denial of First Amendment rights to Free Exercise of religion. Plaintiffs further challenge the vague and arbitrary application of an administrative rule prohibiting "gang or disruptive group activity" which has been applied to punish peaceful communications and religious activity. Finally, plaintiffs seek damages for injuries suffered due to defendants’ failure to protect the inmates and defendants’ use of excessive force against members of the plaintiffs’ class during and after the disturbance. Plaintiffs seek to certify this action as a class action and seek relief including a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting continued unconstitutional practices and conditions of confinement, as well as damages for injuries sustained through the deliberate and reckless actions and inactions of the defendants, attorney fees and costs.
3

II. JURISDICTION 2. Jurisdiction over claims brought under the Civil Rights Act of 1871 is conferred on this Court by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343 (3) and (4).
III. PARTIES 3. Plaintiff Darrin Morris is a citizen of the United States who at all times relevant to this action has been a resident at SOCF. 4. Plaintiff Eugene Adams is a citizen of the United States who at all times relevant to this action has been a resident at SOCF. 5. Defendant George Voinovich has at ali times been Governor of the State of Ohio. He is sued for injunctive relief in his official capacity and damages in his individual capacity. 6. Defendant Reginald Wilkinson has at all times relevant to this action been the Director of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. He is sued for injunctive relief in his official capacity and damages in his individual capacity. 7. Defendant Arthur Tate was the warden at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility from 1990 until December, 1993. Upon information and belief he continues to have authority with respect to some matters at SOCF. He is sued for injunctive relief in his official capacity and damages in his individual capacity. 8. Defendant Terry Collins has been the warden at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility since January, 1994. He is sued for injunctive relief in his official capacity and damages

in his individual capacity. 9. Defendant Eric Dahlberg was at all times relevant to
this action, a supervisor of the warden at SOCF, responsible for approving policies and actions that affect the safety and security of the inmates and staff. He is sued in his individual capacity.
i0. Defendant Ben Bower was, during a substantial portion of the 1993 disturbance at SOCF, the acting warden responsible for management of those portions of the facility that were not under the control of the inmates. He is sued in his individual capacity.
ii. Defendants, Roger Roddy, David See, Roger Crabtree, John Newsome, Oscar McGraw, Jerry Williams, James Swann, Larry Neff, Charles Bell, Richard Brown, Ronald Bailey, Michael Turner, Patrick Burnett, Gerald E. Webb, Robert Finley, David Earl Bradley, Randy L. Stout, Wilbur K. Harris, E. Benner, Kevin Clarkson, Jefferson Roy Lewis, were employees of the state of Ohio assigned to SOCF during the period relevant to the allegations in this case. They are sued in their individual capacity.
IV. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 12. This action is brought, and may be properly maintained, as a class action under the provisions of Rules 23(a) and 23 (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs bring this class action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated. The members of the class as certified by the Court (Doc. 65) are as follows:
5

All inmates, living or deceased, who meet the following criteria: (i) the inmate has been incarcerated at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility (SOCF) on or since April ii, 1993; and (2) the inmate has been classified as a general population inmate during some or all of that time period. This class definition includes two subclasses:
SUBCLASS1
All members of the class who were housed or present in K-8 on or about April 13, 1993.
SUBCLASS 2
All members of the class who have been, or subsequently are, indicted for an alleged felony committed during and as part of the April 11-22, 1993 disturbance at SOCF. Any member of this Subclass who ultimately is not convicted of a felony committed during and as part of the April 11-22, 1993 disturbance at SOCF shall cease to be a member of this Subclass and shall be included in the Class. Any member of this Subclass who ultimately is convicted of a felony committed during and as part of the April 11-22, 1993 disturbance at SOCF shall cease to be a member of this Subclass and shall be excluded from the Class.
Defendants may request exclusion of any individual from the Class for "good cause," meaning serious wrongdoing committed during and as part of the disturbance. Class counsel or the individual involved may contest such exclusion. The Court would resolve any disputes as to whether or not such an individual should be excluded from the class.
13. The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable. While the exact number of class members is
unknown at this time, plaintiff believes that the class consists
of in excess of one thousand (I,000) persons.
14. The claims of the named individual and representative
plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the class, for plaintiffs
and all class members sustained and continue to suffer injury
arising from defendants’ wrongful conduct as alleged herein.
15. The named individuals and representative plaintiffs
will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the members

of the class. Proposed class counsel are experienced in the prosecution of class actions, including cases arising from the deprivation of civil rights and complex litigation.
16. Defendants have acted, or refused to act, on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making final injunctive and corresponding declaratory relief appropriate with respect to the class.
17. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this litigation since individual joinder of all members of the class is impracticable. Even if any group of class members themselves could afford individual litigation, it would be unduly burdensome to the courts in which the individual litigation would proceed. Individual litigation magnifies the delay and expense to all parties and the court systems of resolving controversies surrounding defendants’ acts. By contrast, the class action device presents far fewer management difficulties and provides the benefits of unitary adjudication, economies of scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single court.
V. FACTS A. History of Overcrowding and Violence at SOCF
18. The Southern Ohio Correctional Facility is a maximum security prison located in Lucasville, Ohio.
19. Inmate-on-inmate violence has been a recurring problem at SOCF since it opened in 1972.
20. In 1990, following an investigation at SOCF, a State Senate Select Committee determined that the security policy and
7

procedures at the institution were "woefully inadequate," and recommended various reforms, including reform of the system of for placing inmates in positions of trust. A similar recommendation was included in a 1990 Highway Patrol report regarding SOCF.
21. Also in 1990, in order to rectify overcrowded conditions and to maintain proper security within SOCF, defendants Tate and Wilkinson announced the implementation of ,’Operation Shakedown" pursuant to which the entire population of the prison was to be single-celled.
B. Security Problems Known But Ignored in April, 1993 22. As of April ii, 1993, single celling had not yet been
instituted at SOCF; one thousand eight hundred twenty (1,820) inmates were still housed in the prison (a number far in excess of the institution’s design capacity), and inmates were still assigned to jobs where they had access to confidential information.
23. In early April, 1993, defendant Tate was attempting to complete tuberculosis (TB) testing of the entire prison population. Approximately one hundred sixty inmates had refused to submit to tests, many citing religious objections.
24. On or about April 8 and 9, 1993, defendant Tate announced to his staff an intention to lock down the entire prison effective April 12, 1993, in order to force untested inmates to submit to TB testing, which information was in turn discussed in the presence of inmate clerks. Additional measures taken on or about April 8, 1993, included ordering a large amount of lunch
8

bags and condiments from the warehouse. Inmate clerks who processed that order and inmate kitchen workers thereby became aware of the plans for the lockdown.
25. After announcing the lockdown, and despite the obvious risk of known security problems at SOCF, no precautionary or additional security measures were undertaken to assure a lockdown without incident or threat to the safety of the inmates. Defendants, including See, McGraw, Crabtree, Tate, Dahlberg and Roddy, knew of but were recklessly indifferent to the obvious risk of violence by inmates who were scheduled to be locked down.
26. Defendant Webb worked as a security officer for the chapel on April i0, 1993. At that time several inmates engaged in threatening, dangerous conduct toward the chaplain. Rather than report the misconduct, defendant Webb deliberately ignored it, demonstrating complete indifference to the known security risks of permitting these inmates to go unpunished.
27. On April ii, 1993, a small number of inmates attacked correction officers in the L Block corridor and caused a major disturbance in which the gained control of L Block itself and control of inmate class members within that block.
C. Violence Against Inmates in K-2 28. Inmates present in the L Block recreation yard at the
commencement of the riot were cleared from the area on the evening of April 11, 1993 and a large number were locked in cells in K Block.
29. Defendants including but not limited to defendants John Newsome, Roger Roddy, Arthur Tate, James Swann, Robert Finley,

David Earl Bradley, Randy L. Stout, E Benner, Kevin Clarkson, Jefferson Roy Lewis and Wilbur K. Harris assigned, placed and maintained as many as ten inmates to a cell in K Block. During that period of severe overcrowding in K Block, defendants failed to protect the class members from violence who were locked in these cells.
30. Inmate class member Dennis Weaver was murdered in K-236 while locked in an overcrowded cell. Inmate Dye was severely beaten while similarly locked in K-2-35 with nine other inmates. Other class members were also injured and suffered emotional distress during this period in K-2.
31. Many inmates in K-Block lost their personal property as a result of the actions of the defendants.
D. Violence Against Inmates in K-8 32. On or about April ii, 1993, defendant See ordered the
supervisor of maintenance, Norman McGinnis, to shut the water supply off to all cells in K-8. See gave this order with the approval of Tate. Shortly thereafter, McGinnis shut the water supply off to all cells in K-8.
33. From April ii to approximately 11:00 p.m. on April 13, 1993, the inmates in K-8 went without water. For two days, inmates in K-8 were locked in their cells and were not able to flush their toilets. For two days, inmates in K-8 were forced to live in cells with exposed urine and feces. Some inmates defecated in cups or bags and threw their waste out of windows. For two days, inmates in K-8 were unable to brush their teeth, wash or perform basic hygienic functions.
i0

34. Despite repeated pleas and requests from the inmates, Bailey, Swann and Williams refused to turn the water back on in K-8 or transfer inmates to cells with water.
35. At approximately 4:00 p.m. on the afternoon of April 13, 1993, inmates in no more than 12 cells in K-8 began breaking their sinks and/or toilets. These inmates hoped that by engaging in this activity, SOCF personnel would transfer them to cells with water.
36. Shortly thereafter, Swann and Turner ordered Brown to shoot tear gas into K-8. Swann, Turner and Brown caused the gassing of the entire K-8 cell block consisting of 80 cells and approximately 150 men, despite the fact that, at most, only 24 men in 12 cells had broken their toilets and/or sinks.
37. When the tear gas dissipated, Turner, with the approval of Swann, Bell and Neff, ordered Disturbance Control Team (DCT) and Tactical Response Team (TRT) personnel to force the inmates to strip naked and submit to being handcuffed through the bars of each cell. Then, each inmate was forced to kneel, while naked and handcuffed, on the floor of his cell for approximately 30 minutes.
38. When all inmates in K-8 had been handcuffed, Bell and Neff, on the order of Crabtree, directed DCT and TRT members to remove the inmates from their cells and make them kneel downon the floor outside their cells ("the range"). The inmates were still naked at this time. As the inmates were removed from their cells, DCT and TRT members kicked, pushed, struck and assaulted the inmates. DCT and TRT members pointed guns at the inmates,
II

shouted obscenities and racial slurs and threatened their lives. 39. Defendants Crabtree, Bell and Neff directed DCT and TRT
members to remove all property from the cells, including personal effects, legal papers, family photographs, personal correspondence, TVs, radios, soap, toothbrushes, blankets, pillow~, medication and clothing. The DCT and TRT members carried out these orders.
40. Once all personal property was removed from each cell, the DCT and TRT members ordered the inmates back into their cells. The inmates were still naked. The water supply to K-8 was still shut off at this time.
41. The inmates remained naked in their cells for at least a day. The inmates were forced to sleep naked without any covering. Neither Crabtree, Williams, Bell, Turner, Swann, Neff nor Bailey made arrangements to procure clothing for the inmates before the gassing or within 24 hours after the gassing.
42. Since the water supply in K-8 was not immediately restored, the inmates in K-8 were unable to flush their eyes with water or wash their faces in the aftermath of the gassing.
43. Despite repeated requests, several inmates were denied medical attention after the gassing. Bailey, Swann, Williams, Bell, Neff and Turner denied medical care to the inmates in K-8 after the gassing.
44. With approval from Crabtree, Bell and Neff, the DCT and TRT members threw the inmates’ property onto the range and collected it in piles. The DCT and TRT members removed the property of the inmates from K-8. The inmates in K-8 never saw their property again.
12

45. As a result of the actions of Crabtree, Bailey, Swann, Williams, Bell, Neff, Turner and Brown, the inmates in K-8 sustained temporary and permanent physical injuries and emotional distress.
46. As a result of the actions of Crabtree, Bailey, Swann, Williams, Bell, Neff, Turner and Brown, the inmates were deprived of their personal property without due process of law.
E. Retaliatory Lockdown 47. For many months after the riot, defendants, including
Voinovich, Wilkinson, Dahlberg, Tate and Collins, locked down all of the general population prisoners at SOCF including many, such as plaintiffs Eugene Adams and Darrin Morris, who were not present in L Block during the April, 1993 disturbance and others included in this class who were present in L Block but who were not involved in instigating or maintaining the disturbance. The wholesale nature of the lockdown has deprived inmates, at the direction of defendants, including Patrick Burnett, Art Tate and Terry Collins, of access to the law library and courts, all educational programming, all employment opportunities, weekend visiting, chapel and other means to observe their religions, meaningful recreation, and adequate medical care, all in retaliation for the April disturbance, ali in violation of state administrative regulations and a11 without a legitimate penological purpose.
48. During the lockdown following the disturbance, inmates assigned to general population status at SOCF have had dramatically fewer rights and privileges than inmates assigned to
13

general population status at other institutions for maximum and close security inmates within Ohio. Defendants had no rational basis or compelling state interest in continuing this difference in treatment.
49. At all times relevant to this action defendants have failed to establish and maintain a classification system that protects inmates from violence by other inmates.
50. At all times relevant to this action defendants have failed to implement a grievance system that ensures that inmate complaints will be fairly, timely and thoroughly reviewed.
51. At all times relevant to this action, defendants have delayed medical care and exhibited deliberate indifference to the serious medical needs of the plaintiff class.
52. For many months following the disturbance many class members were locked down in security control investigation status at SOCF and at Mansfield Correctional Institution without charges being pressed and without a hearing to determine the validity of their detention. Their lockdown constituted a grievous loss of personal liberty.
53. Many class members lost personal property due to the retaliatory and arbitrary conduct of the defendants.
F. Arbitrary Enforcement of Gang Activity Regulation 54. At a11 times relevant to this action, defendants have
punished inmates for violating Ohio Administrative Code § 5120-9-31(E) (31) which proscribes "gang or disruptive group activity" but have failed to inform inmates at SOCF or staff as to what constitutes such gang activity. As a consequence,
14

members of the plaintiff class continue to face a very real threat of prosecution and punishment for behavior that is peaceful and not otherwise unlawful.
55. At all times relevant to this action the law was clearly established that if the conduct of an inmate is not inherently unlawful, and if the inmate has not received fair warning that the conduct is illegal, punishment violates an inmates’ due process rights because he could not have anticipated that his action was against prison regulations.
G. Harm to Members of the Class 56. At all times relevant to this action, defendants have
acted with deliberate indifference to the known and recognized constitutional and legal rights of the members of the plaintiff class. Defendants have permitted the deprivations to continue, participated in said deprivations, or knowingly acquiesced in said deprivations of rights.
57. As a result of defendants’ actions and inactions described above, members of the plaintiff class have suffered and continue to suffer deprivations of basic constitutional rights.
58. Members of the plaintiff class have suffered and are suffering irreparable harm for which they have no adequate remedy at law.
59. Members of the plaintiff class have suffered physical and emotional injury, property loss, pain and suffering, lost pay, lost good time, lost opportunities to work on personal rehabilitation in a way recognizable by the Ohio Parole Board, lost opportunities for parole, and other injuries and damages.
15

VI. FIRST CLAIM - 42 U.S.C.§ 1983 60. Defendants have, under color of state law, deprived plaintiffs of rights, privileges and immunities secured by the First, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution including but not limited to the right to be free of deprivations of liberty without due process, the right to equal protection under the law, the right to be free of cruel and unusual punishment and the right to free exercise of religion.
VII. SECOND CLAIM - RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACT 61. Defendants have acted in violation of rights secured by the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
VIII. PRAYER WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray that this Court: A. Certify this action as a class action; B. Preliminarily and permanently enjoin defendants
from continuing the abuses described above and order that defendants;
1. Immediately provide for access by class members to the law library and to legal materials or to adequately trained legal assistants;
2. Immediately restore to plaintiffs basic rights to free exercise of religion;
3. Immediately cease enforcement of OAC § 5120-9-06(E) (31) against class members who engage in conduct which has not been fairly described to inmates as violations of said rule and immediately train the staff in the proper enforcement of said rule;
16

4. Expunge from class members’ records all

references to improper discipline;

5. Provide plaintiffs with programming that will

enable them to make up the months of lost work,

social and educational programs that have not been

available at SOCF since the April, 1993 disturbance;

6. Restore to class members weekend visits, out

of cell time, recreation, chapel, and all levels of

programming to a level equal to that provided other

general population Close, Max IV and Max III inmates at

other facilities in the State of Ohio;

7. Develop and establish appropriate policies and

programs and appropriate staff training and supervision

of staff to avoid continued deprivations of any

constitutional rights;

8. Establish an effective inmate grievance

system;

Co

Award members of the plaintiff class compensatory and

punitive damages in an amount to be shown at trial;

Do

Award members of the plaintiff class reasonable

attorneys fees;

Go

Order such further relief as this Court may deem

just and proper.

MARC D. MEZIBOV, #~019316 Attorney for Plaintiffs 105 W. Fourth Street Suite 920 Cincinnati, OH 45202 (513) 721-4876

ALPHONSE A. GERHARDSTEIN, #0032053 Attorney for Plaintiffs 1409 Enquirer Building 617 Vine Street Cincinnati, OH 45202 (513) 621-9100
17

~ CHESLEY #0030753.’ FAY STILZ #0004972 PAUL De MARCO #0041153 White, Schneider, Bayless
& Chesley Attorneys for Plaintiffs 1513 Central Trust Tower 5 W. Fourth Street Cincinnati, OH 45202 (513) 621-0267

NEAL BAKER #0012722 DINSMORE & SHOHL Attorneys for Plaintiffs 1900 Chemed Center 255 E. Fifth Street "
Cincinnati, OH 45202 (513) 977-8185

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was mailed to

all counsel of record this

day of

, 1996.

18

 </s> Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB Doc #: 1171 Filed: 01/20/05 Page: 1 of 5 PAGEID #: 202

INRESOCF

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION
Civil Action No. C-1-93-436 (Spiegel, J.)
ORDER

This matter is before the court on the joint motion of the parties for disposition of the Riot Settlement Fund. Doc. 1169. At issue is a fund reminder estimated by the parties to total approximately $250,000 after final fees and expenses are paid. This matter was remanded to the court following from the Sixth Circuit on August 20, 2004. In the latest decision on appeal from this class action settlement the appellate court declined to affirm the decision to distribute the remainder of the settlement funds pro rata. See Doc. 1138. See also Morris et al v. Voinovich et al, Case No. 03-3051, Decision dated July 29, 2004. Since the remand, the parties met with the court on September 30, 2004 and presented a plan for distribution of the settlement funds to the court at a hearing on December 15, 2004.
The Memorandum of Understanding provides as follows: ~46. In the event the Settlement Fund is not exhausted following the distribution of the amounts awarded and the payment of any fees and expenses provided for in this Memorandum, any remainder shall be expended on inmate programming to be mutually agreed by the parties. In 2002 it became apparent that there would be a settlement fund residual. At that time class counsel polled the class regarding its preferences for disposition of the fund. The vast majority of the respondents wanted a pro rata distribution. That is no longer feasible

r - - - - - - - - - ------------
Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB Doc #: 1171 Filed: 01/20/05 Page: 2 of 5 PAGEID #: 203
given the Sixth Circuit ruling. A large percentage of the respondents also favored programming to assist class members on release from prison, or reentry services. The parties have reviewed the status ofthe class and determined that approximately 252 inmate class members have parole hearing dates through December 31, 2007. These individuals have served more than fifteen years each in custody and face numerous obstacles for successful reentry to society. The parties propose that the residual funds be used to support two reentry caseworkers who will work with the class members to help them succeed on release. If the needs of the class members are fully met, the caseworkers will also be available to other inmates who also have served fifteen years in custody for violent crimes. The existence of the program can also be used by the class when applying for parole as an added argument about why they are better parole risks.
At the hearing on December 15, 2004, the court reviewed the affidavit of Ed Rhine of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC) and heard testimony from Debra Shirley (Offender Job Linkage Administrator, ODRC) regarding the program. Mr. Rhine stated in his affidavit that:
It is the goal of this program to establish two new contractual positions that will serve as coordinators for the program. These positions will be referred to as Community Liaison Resource Coordinators (CLRC's). The programmatic goal will be to assist the previously described category of offender to alleviate the barriers to successful reentry. The coordinators will be located geographically: North and South. The primary responsibilities of the CLRC's will be to assist the offender with successful transition from the institutions and into the community through a series of partnerships and linkages with employers, social agencies, and mentors in specified geographic areas. These coordinators will have an established base of practice in which to perform clerical and organizational duties as well as conduct group meetings. This base of operations (APA Offices) shall be centrally located in areas convenient to the population(s) being served.
2

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB Doc #: 1171 Filed: 01/20/05 Page: 3 of 5 PAGEID #: 204
The CLRC's will begin their interaction with the identified offenders at least six (6) months prior to the offender's expected release. The institution will provide this list to the appropriate regional CLRC. The CLRC will then make arrangements with the institution to provide group facilitation to inmates returning to the same geographic area. Based on the Reentry Accountability Plan (RAP) and self-reporting tools, CLRC's will provide individuals with referrals and linkages to the appropriate departments and agencies within their community prior to their release. The coordinators will network with Case Managers, Parole Officers, and Regional Service Coordinators and access established social programs. These may include, but are not limited to: the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, Bureau of Vocational and Rehabilitation Services, Adult Parole Authority, Citizen Circles, transitional housing personnel, local Urban Leagues, and faith- based programs.
The C LRC's will provide quality Iinkages and referrals in the following areas: housing, employment, transportation, education, substance abuse program groups, domestic/family relations, job coaching and job retention skills, financial aid and planning, community service/volunteerism, and mentorships.
The CLRC's will utilize the Department's videoconferencing capabilities to make the aforementioned referrals and linkages when an interview with outside agencies and staff may be appropriate. It is strongly recommended that the offenders in this program prepare for and participate in the established employment videoconference process. The CLRC's will attend all employment videoconferences scheduled for his or her assigned area.
Additionally, the CLRC's will be responsible for facilitating support groups for the formerly incarcerated in their assigned regions. Upon release, the inmates will report to the CLRC in their area for follow up and assistance. The offender will be made aware and recognize that this assistance is an opportunity for successful transition into the community and not an imposed sanction.
Topics for the support groups may include, but are not limited to:
)> Basic and Advanced Life Skills: Budgeting, grocery shopping, establishing bank accounts, utilities management, financial aid, general education requirements, college or advanced degree enrollment, time management, purchasing a vehicle, and other consumer science skills.
)> Job coaching: T hrough one-on-one counseling and peers upport, employment searches, job retention, interpersonal communication skills, intrapersonal communication skills, conflict management and resolution.
3

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB Doc #: 1171 Filed: 01/20/05 Page: 4 of 5 PAGEID #: 205
:» Domestic/Family Relations: Parenting skills, school rules and regulations,
parental involvement in schools, childcare issues, child-support issues, domestic violence awareness, social skills, and adolescent discipline.
:» Community Interaction: Community service, volunteerism, community
activism, and voting rights. Dec!. Rhine. Doc. 1169, Attachment #3. Ms. Shirley explained that upon approval of this plan the ODRC will create job descriptions and a detailed workplan for implementing the program. Class counsel will be informed of the plans as they are developed, copied on relevant documents and have an opportunity to meet with the CLRCs when they are selected. Further class counsel will be copied on reports and documents reflecting the disbursement of the settlement fund as well as documents reflecting the actual work of the CLRCs in order to verify that the funds are used for their intended purposes.
All of the parties and the Special Master support this proposal. The Court finds that it is consistent with the Memorandum of Agreement. The Court therefore GRANTS the joint motion ofthe parties. The Special Master is directed to disburse the residue of the settlement fund to a restricted account to be established by the ODRC which shall only be used for the implementation of the reentry initiative proposed by the parties in their joint motion. Doc. 1169. This disbursement may be effected in two or more payments in order to expedite the start up of the program.
The Court further directs the Special Master to add to the settlement fund all monies previously segregated for those class members who caunot be located. The Court is satisfied that the repeated mailings, the use of a skip trace firm and other means employed by the Special Master constitute a sufficient effort to reach these class members and now determines that these monies should no longer be earmarked and returned to the general settlement fund. The Court further directs the Special Master to
4

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB Doc #: 1171 Filed: 01/20/05 Page: 5 of 5 PAGEID #: 206 assist class counsel in sending a final notice to the class explaining the disposition ofthis matter including a special notice to those class members likely to be able to take advantage of the reentry program approved in this Order. Finally, The Court further directs the Special Master to make arrangements for the storage of his records in this matter for a period of no less than five years from the date of the final disbursement of funds to the restricted account at the ODRC with the material to be shredded after that period has passed. SO ORDERED. Dated:
5

 </s> Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 1 of 97
CLOSED,CONSOL,SuppressAnsRpt
U.S. District Court Southern District of Ohio (Cincinnati) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:93−cv−00436−SAS−TSB

Morris, et al v. Voinovich, et al Assigned to: Judge S Arthur Spiegel Referred to: Judge Timothy S. Black Demand: $0 Cause: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights Special Master Michael R Barrett TERMINATED: 01/27/2005
Special Master Michael R Barrett
Plaintiff Darrin E Morris

Date Filed: 06/28/1993 Date Terminated: 01/27/2005 Jury Demand: Defendant Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner: Civil Rights Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Michael Ryan Barrett Barrett &Weber 500 Fourth &Walnut Centre 105 East 4th Street Cincinnati, OH 45202−3114 513−721−2120 Fax: 513−721−2120 Email: mrbarrett@barrettweber.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Michael Ryan Barrett (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Darrin E Morris PRO SE
Alphonse Adam Gerhardstein Gerhardstein &Branch Co. LPA 432 Walnut Street, Suite 400 Cincinnati, OH 45202 513−621−9100 Fax: 513−345−5543 Email: agerhardstein@gbfirm.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Fay Elizabeth Stilz Waite Schneider Bayless &Chesley Co LPA 1513 Fourth &Vine Tower One West Fourth Street Cincinnati, OH 45202 513−621−0267 Email: faystilz@wsbclaw.cc LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc David Mezibov Law Office of Marc Mezibov 401 East Court Street Suite 600 Cincinnati, OH 45202 513/621−8800 Fax: 513/621−8833 Email: mmezibov@mezibov.com

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 2 of 97

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael Wolpert Jerome Silver &Associates 3421 Prospect Avenue Cleveland, OH 44115 216/391−7111 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Neal David Baker Dinsmore &Shohl − 1 1900 Chemed Center 255 E 5th Street Cincinnati, OH 45202 513−977−8200 Fax: 513−977−8200 Email: neal.baker@dinslaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stanley Morris Chesley Waite Schneider Bayless &Chesley Co LPA 1513 Fourth &Vine Tower One West Fourth Street Cincinnati, OH 45202 513−621−0267 Email: stanchesley@wsbclaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Eugene K Adams On behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated

represented by Alphonse Adam Gerhardstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc David Mezibov (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Neal David Baker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul M De Marco Markovits, Stock &DeMarco, LLC 119 East Court Street Suite 530 Cincinnati, OH 45202 513−651−3700 Email: pdemarco@msdlegal.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stanley Morris Chesley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 3 of 97

V.
Defendant
Arthur Jr Tate Warden

represented by Gerald Arthur Messerman Messerman &Messerman Co LPA 4100 Society Center 127 Public Square Cleveland, OH 44114−1886 216−574−9990 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffery William Clark Ohio Attorney General Constitutional Offices Section 30 East Broad Street, 16th Floor Columbus, OH 43215 (614) 466−2872 Fax: (614) 728−7592 Email: jeff.clark@ohioattorneygeneral.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph M. Mancini Ohio Attorney General − 2 Corrections Litigation 150 East Gay Street 16th Floor Columbus, OH 43215−6001 614−644−7233 Fax: 614−728−9327 Email: jmancini@ag.state.oh.us TERMINATED: 03/29/1996 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua T Cox Columbus City Attorney's Office − 2 77 North Front Street 4th Floor Columbus, OH 43215 614−645−7385 Email: JTCox@columbus.gov TERMINATED: 09/15/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kevin Michael Norchi 4100 Society Center 127 Public Square Cleveland, OH 44114−1216 216−574−9990 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
M Scott Criss Ohio Attorney General − 2 Corrections Litigation 150 E. Gay Street 16th Floor Columbus, OH 43215 614−644−7233 Email: scott.criss@ohioattorneygeneral.gov LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 4 of 97

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Philip Duvin Duvin, Cahn &Barnhard 1301 East Ninth Street Cleveland, OH 44114 216/696−7600 Fax: 216−696−7600 TERMINATED: 05/03/1995 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Warren Myers Thompson Hine LLP − 2 One Columbus 10 W Broad Street 7th Floor Columbus, OH 43215−3435 614−469−3200 TERMINATED: 03/29/1996 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert M Wolff Littler Mendelson, P.C. 1100 Superior Avenue 20th Floor Cleveland, OH 44114 216−696−7600 Fax: 216−696−2038 Email: rwolff@littler.com TERMINATED: 05/03/1995 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sean O'Reilly Boyle 336 S. High Street Columbus, OH 43215 614−255−3070 Fax: 614−224−3804 Email: seanboyleesq@yahoo.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Governor George V Voinovich Individually and in his official capacity as the Governor of the State of Ohio

represented by Gerald Arthur Messerman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeffery William Clark (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph M. Mancini (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joshua T Cox (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/15/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 5 of 97

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kevin Michael Norchi (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

M Scott Criss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Warren Myers (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Reginald A Wilkinson Individually and in his official capacity as an employee of the State of Ohio, Department of Rehabilitation and Correction

represented by Gerald Arthur Messerman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffery William Clark (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph M. Mancini (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/1996 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joshua T Cox (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/15/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kevin Michael Norchi (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

M Scott Criss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Philip Duvin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/03/1995 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Warren Myers (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/1996 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert M Wolff (See above for address)

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 6 of 97

TERMINATED: 05/03/1995 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Terry Collins Individually and in his official capacity as an employee of State of Ohio, Dept of Rehabilitation and Correction

represented by Gerald Arthur Messerman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeffery William Clark (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph M. Mancini (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/1996 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joshua T Cox (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/15/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

M Scott Criss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Warren Myers (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/29/1996 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Eric G Dahlberg

represented by Jeffery William Clark (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Franklin Berry PO Box 950 707 Sixth Street Portsmouth, OH 45662 740−353−4191 Email: jberry@adsglobal.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

M Scott Criss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Ben Bower

represented by Jeffery William Clark (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 7 of 97

Defendant Roger Roddy
Defendant David See
Defendant Roger Crabtree
Defendant John H Newsome

John Franklin Berry (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
M Scott Criss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jeffery William Clark (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Franklin Berry (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
M Scott Criss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jeffery William Clark (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Franklin Berry (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
M Scott Criss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jeffery William Clark (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Franklin Berry (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
M Scott Criss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jeffery William Clark (See above for address)

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 8 of 97

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Franklin Berry (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

M Scott Criss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Oscar McGraw

represented by Jeffery William Clark (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Franklin Berry (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

M Scott Criss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Jerry Williams

represented by Jeffery William Clark (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Franklin Berry (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

M Scott Criss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant James R Swann

represented by Jeffery William Clark (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Franklin Berry (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

M Scott Criss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 9 of 97

Larry Neff

represented by Jeffery William Clark (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Franklin Berry (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

M Scott Criss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Charles Bell

represented by Jeffery William Clark (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Franklin Berry (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

M Scott Criss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Richard A Brown

represented by Jeffery William Clark (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Franklin Berry (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

M Scott Criss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Ronald Bailey

represented by Jeffery William Clark (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Franklin Berry (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

M Scott Criss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 10 of 97

Defendant Michael E Turner
Defendant Patrick Burnett
Defendant Gerald E Webb
Defendant Robert Finley
Defendant David Earl Bradley

represented by Jeffery William Clark (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Franklin Berry (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
M Scott Criss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jeffery William Clark (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Franklin Berry (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jeffery William Clark (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Franklin Berry (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
M Scott Criss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jeffery William Clark (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Franklin Berry (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
M Scott Criss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 11 of 97

Jeffery William Clark (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Franklin Berry (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

M Scott Criss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Randy L Stout

represented by Jeffery William Clark (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Franklin Berry (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

M Scott Criss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Wilbur K Harris

represented by Jeffery William Clark (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Franklin Berry (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

M Scott Criss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
John Doe 1−9 Officers working in K−2 on 4/13/93

represented by Jeffery William Clark (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

M Scott Criss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant David See

represented by M Scott Criss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 12 of 97

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeffery William Clark (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant E Benner

represented by Jeffery William Clark (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Franklin Berry (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

M Scott Criss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Kevin Clarkson

represented by Jeffery William Clark (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Franklin Berry (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

M Scott Criss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Jefferson Roy Lewis

represented by Jeffery William Clark (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Franklin Berry (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

M Scott Criss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Paul R. Rodgers

represented by M Scott Criss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Edwards Whiteley , Jr. 602 Main Street

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 13 of 97

Suite 1309 Cincinnati, OH 45202 513−721−6151 Email: dewlaw@fuse.net ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor
Hamilton County Child Support Enforcement Agency

represented by Christian Joseph Schaefer Hamilton County Prosecutor Civil Division 230 E Ninth Street Suite 4000 Cincinnati, OH 45202−2151 513−946−3041 Fax: 513−946−3044 Email: chris.schaefer@hcpros.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Philip Lewis Zorn , Jr. Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 230 East 9th Street Suite 7000 Cincinnati, OH 45202 513/946−3164 Fax: 513/946−3059 Email: pzorn@prosecutor.hamilton−co.org TERMINATED: 03/31/1998 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 06/28/1993 06/28/1993
06/28/1993 06/28/1993 08/02/1993 08/12/1993
08/31/1993 09/02/1993 09/02/1993 09/17/1993

# Docket Text
1 MOTION by plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis ( no pgs: 1) (mb) Modified on 11/28/1994 (Entered: 11/28/1994)
2 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman granting motion to proceed in forma pauperis [1−1] and STAYING service of complaint. Pltf. is ordered to amend his complaint within 20 days (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (mb) (Entered: 11/28/1994)
3 COMPLAINT (Summonses NOT issued) (Referred to MJ Sherman) ( no. pgs: 3) (mb) (Entered: 11/28/1994)
4 NOTICE to pro se litigants on court procedures ( no pgs: 2) (mb) (Entered: 11/28/1994)
5 RETURN OF SERVICE executed upon defendant Arthur Tate Jr; and, Paul Thompson on 7/19/93 ( no pgs: 2) (wy) (Entered: 08/03/1993)
6 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman: pltf to SHOW CAUSE within 10 days why the Court should not dismiss this action for lack of prosecution. (cc: Ptnr via cert. mail/ counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (wy) (Entered: 08/12/1993)
7 ANSWER by defendant Arthur Tate Jr and Thompson ( no pgs: 3) (wy) (Entered: 09/01/1993)
8 MOTION by plaintiff to amend complaint to add party ( no pgs: 4) (wy) (Entered: 09/02/1993)
9 RESPONSE by plaintiff Darrin E Morris to [6−1] ( no pgs: 10) (wy) (Entered: 09/02/1993)
10 CALENDAR ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman ; Discovery ddl set for: 2/7/94 ; Mtn filing ddl set for: 4/7/94 (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (wy) (Entered: 09/17/1993)

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 14 of 97

09/17/1993 09/23/1993 09/23/1993 09/27/1993 09/27/1993 10/06/1993 10/18/1993 10/18/1993 10/28/1993 12/06/1993 12/14/1993 12/17/1993
01/05/1994
02/18/1994 02/28/1994 03/01/1994 03/01/1994 03/17/1994

11 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman that pltf file a PRETRIAL NARRATIVE STATEMENT. (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (wy) (Entered: 09/17/1993)
12 ATTORNEY SUBSTITUTION: terminating attorney Suzanne Ellen Mohr for Arthur Tate Jr and substituting attorney Robert Warren Myers ( no pgs: 2) (wy) (Entered: 09/23/1993)
13 MOTION by defendant for leave to depose plaintiff ( no pgs: 2) (wy) (Entered: 09/23/1993)
14 MOTION by plaintiff Darrin E Morris to extend time to prepare Narrative Stmt ( no pgs: 2) (dm) (Entered: 09/28/1993)
15 MOTION by plaintiff Darrin E Morris for appointment of counsel ( no pgs: 2) (dm) (Entered: 09/28/1993)
16 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman granting motion for leave to depose plaintiff [13−1] (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (wy) (Entered: 10/06/1993)
17 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman granting motion to extend time for 90 days to file a Narrative Stmt [14−1] (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (wy) (Entered: 10/18/1993)
18 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman denying motion for appointment of counsel [15−1] (cc: Ptnr via cert. mail/ counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (wy) (Entered: 10/18/1993)
19 MOTION by plaintiff to extend time for deposition ( no pgs: 2) (wy) (Entered: 10/29/1993)
NOTATION ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman granting motion to extend time [19−1] (cc: all counsel) (wy) (Entered: 12/07/1993)
Deposition of Darrin Morris (wy) (Entered: 12/14/1993)
20 ORDER by Mag. Judge Robert A. Steinberg granting motion for appointment of counsel [15−1] and appointing the following law firms &individual attys. to act as counsel for pltf.: Dinsmore &Shohl; Al Gerhardstein; Sirkin, Pinales, Mezibov &Schwartz; and Waite, Schneider, Bayless &Chesley. They have agreed to explore the possibility of class action litigation in this case, which arises from the SOCF prison riot. (cc: all counsel) (no 2) (wy) Modified on 01/03/1994 (Entered: 12/17/1993)
21 ORDER by Mag. Judge Robert A. Steinberg ddl for amending complaint: 2/17/94; ddl for filing motion for class certification: 4/18/94 ; Trial set for 9:30 3/7/95 ; Discovery ddl set for 10/17/94 ; pretrial conf set for 2:30 2/3/95 ; Mtn filing ddl set for 12/1/94 (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (wy) (Entered: 01/05/1994)
22 AGREED ORDER by Mag. Judge Robert A. Steinberg extending time to answer until 2/28/94 (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (wy) (Entered: 02/18/1994)
23 MOTION by plaintiff to amend complaint ( no pgs: 2) (wy) (Entered: 02/28/1994)
NOTATION ORDER by Mag. Judge Robert A. Steinberg granting motion to amend complaint [23−1] (cc: all counsel) (wy) (Entered: 03/01/1994)
24 AMENDED COMPLAINT; (PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION requested); jury demand; and, adding pltf, Eugene K Adams; and, defts: George Voinovich, Reginald Wilkinson; and, Terry Collins ( no pgs: 13) (wy) (Entered: 03/01/1994)
25 ORDER by Mag. Judge Robert A. Steinberg consolidating cases. Case consolidated 1:93−cv−436 with member cases 1:93−cv−399, 1:93−cv−436, 1:93−cv−455, 1:93−cv−461, 1:93−cv−498, 1:93−cv−499, 1:93−cv−529 (consolidated on 3/31/94), 1:93−cv−531, 1:93−cv−533, 1:93−cv−545, 1:93−cv−556, 1:93−cv−576, 1:93−cv−625, 1:93−cv−628, 1:93−cv−630, 1:93−cv−631, 1:93−cv−632, 1:93−cv−633, 1:93−cv−647, 1:93−cv−661, 1:93−cv−689, 1:93−cv−692 (consolidated on 4/1/94), 1:93−cv−695, 1:93−cv−719, 1:93−cv−726, 1:93−cv−752, 1:93−cv−762, 1:93−cv−764 (consolidated on 7/3/94), 1:93−cv−769, 1:93−cv−823, 1:93−cv−840, 1:93−cv−881, 1:94−cv−49, 1:94−cv−52, 1:94−cv−54, 1:94−cv−388 (consolidated on 7/14/94), 1:94−cv−592 (consolidated on 9/29/94) (cc: all counsel) (no pgs: 2) (wy) Modified on

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 15 of 97

03/28/1994
03/31/1994 04/01/1994 04/14/1994 04/18/1994 04/19/1994 05/23/1994 05/26/1994
06/03/1994 06/08/1994 06/08/1994 06/10/1994 06/21/1994
06/27/1994 06/27/1994 07/05/1994 07/11/1994 07/14/1994 07/29/1994

11/28/1994 (Entered: 03/17/1994)
26 STIPULATION extending time until 4/15/94 within which defts. are given to respond to the amended complaint AND Defts. waiver of formal service and acknowledgement of service (no pgs: 2) (wy) Modified on 04/11/1994 (Entered: 03/29/1994)
27 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman: Including case no. C−1−93−529 for consolidation under this case no. (cc: all counsel) (mb) (Entered: 04/04/1994)
28 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman: Including case no. C−1−93−692 for consolidation under this case no. (cc: all counsel) (mb) (Entered: 04/04/1994)
29 ANSWER by Arthur Tate Jr, George V Voinovich, Reginald A Wilkinson, Terry Collins,; jury demand ( no pgs: 6) (wy) (Entered: 04/18/1994)
30 MOTION by plaintiff Darrin E Morris, plaintiff Eugene K Adams to certify class action; that pltfs be appt'd class representatives , and for appointment of counsel for the class ( no pgs: 18) (wy) (Entered: 04/19/1994)
31 ANSWER by Arthur Tate Jr, George V Voinovich, Reginald A Wilkinson, Terry Collins,; jury demand ( no pgs: 6) (wy) (Entered: 04/19/1994)
32 MOTION by defendant to extend until 6/13/94 to respond to motion for class certification , and to continue hearing on that motion to 5/27/94 ( no pgs: 3) (wy) (Entered: 05/24/1994)
33 AGREED ORDER by Mag. Judge Robert A. Steinberg: The class certification hearing set for 5/27/94 is RESCHEDULED to 6/13/94. Defts. shall file any response to the class cert. motion by 6/8/94. (cc: all counsel) (no pgs: 1) (mb) (Entered: 05/26/1994)
34 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman consolidating case C−1−93−764 with all other riot cases (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (mb) (Entered: 11/28/1994)
35 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE of Gerald Messerman, Robert Duvin &Robert Wolff for defendants ( no pgs: 2) (mb) (Entered: 11/28/1994)
36 MOTION by defendants to continue hearing on motion for class certification ( no pgs: 3) (mb) (Entered: 11/28/1994)
NOTATION ORDER by Mag. Judge Robert A. Steinberg granting motion to continue hearing on motion for class certification [36−1] (cc: all counsel) (mb) (Entered: 11/28/1994)
37 ORDER GRANTING PROVISIONAL CLASS CERTIFICATION by Mag. Judge Robert A. Steinberg. It is further ordered that Pltfs. Darrin Morris &Eugene Adams be appointed as class reps. and that counsel for the named pltfs. be appt'd class counsel. Schedule set for responding to the class cert. motion (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 5) (mb) (Entered: 11/28/1994)
38 RESPONSE by defendants to motion for class certification [30−1] ( no pgs: 6) (mb) (Entered: 11/28/1994)
39 MOTION by defendants for admission of attorney Gerald A. Messerman, pro hac vice ( no pgs: 7) (mb) (Entered: 11/28/1994)
40 REPORT to the Court on completion of notice to the class by plaintiffs ( no pgs: 68) (mb) (Entered: 11/28/1994)
41 NOTICE of hearing on motion for class cert. set for 8/30/94 at 10:00 a.m., before MJ Steinberg ( no pgs: 1) (mb) (Entered: 11/28/1994)
42 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman consolidating case C−1−94−388 with the other riot cases (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (mb) (Entered: 11/28/1994)
43 REPLY IN SUPPORT of the motion for class cert. by plaintiffs ( no pgs: 5) (mb) (Entered: 11/28/1994)

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 16 of 97

08/04/1994 08/05/1994 08/22/1994 08/29/1994 08/29/1994 08/30/1994
08/30/1994 09/09/1994 09/09/1994
09/21/1994 09/27/1994 09/29/1994 10/05/1994 10/12/1994 10/14/1994
10/17/1994 10/18/1994
10/26/1994

44 MOTION by defendants for leave to depose pltf. class members and potential witnesses ( no pgs: 3) (mb) (Entered: 11/28/1994)
NOTATION ORDER by Mag. Judge Robert A. Steinberg granting motion for leave to depose pltf. class members and potential witnesses [44−1] (cc: all counsel) (mb) (Entered: 11/28/1994)
45 RESPONSES from various inmates (and former inmates) to the order granting provisional class cert., doc. 37). (Approx. 190 responses contained in a separate folder a placed in the vault) (mb) (Entered: 11/28/1994)
46 REPORT (Second) to the Court on completion of notice to the class by plaintiffs ( no pgs: 62) (mb) (Entered: 11/28/1994)
47 MEMORANDUM by plaintiffs addressing comments by class members filed in response to the notification of class action (Doc. 45) ( no pgs: 8) (mb) (Entered: 11/28/1994)
48 CIVIL MINUTES: Hearing held on motion for class certification (doc. 30) before Mag. Judge Robert A. Steinberg. Oral arguments held. Robert Newman, Esq. argued on behalf of his clients re: severing unrelated issues (93−633 &94−388). Matter taken under submission. Robert Newman, Esq. to file a post−hearing brief within 10 days. Pltfs. &defts. are given 5 days to respond. Angie Portune (Merit), Ct. Reporter. (no pgs: 1) (mb) (Entered: 11/28/1994)
49 CONSENT by the parties to MJ Steinberg issuing a final order regarding the class certification motion (no pgs: 1) (mb) (Entered: 11/29/1994)
50 MOTION of maintaining separate cause of actions or, in the alternative, that pltfs. Johnson &Newell be allowed to have separate trials, by Pltfs. Johnson (C−1−93−633) and Newell (C−1−94−388) (no pgs: 2) (mb) (Entered: 11/29/1994)
51 MEMORANDUM in support of motion of maintaining separate cause of actions or, in the alternative, that pltfs. Johnson &Newell be allowed to have separate trials, by Pltfs. Johnson (C−1−93−633) and Newell (C−1−94−388) [50−1] ( no pgs: 11) (mb) (Entered: 11/29/1994)
52 MEMORANDUM by plaintiffs in opposition to pltfs' Johnson &Newell's motion to maintain separate actions, etc. [51−1] (no pgs: 8) (mb) (Entered: 11/29/1994)
53 MEMORANDUM by defendants in opposition to pltfs' Johnson &Newell's motion to maintain separate actions, etc. [51−1] (no pgs: 2) (mb) (Entered: 11/29/1994)
54 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman consolidating case C−1−94−592 with other riot cases (cc: all counsel) (no pgs: 1) (mb) (Entered: 11/29/1994)
55 AGREED ORDER by Mag. Judge Robert A. Steinberg Pltfs. Johnson &Newell's reply to the motion to maintain separate actions, etc. is due by 10/14/94 (cc: all counsel) (no pgs: 2) (mb) (Entered: 11/29/1994)
56 Supplemental memorandum by plaintiffs in response to comments by class members [45−1] ( no pgs: 10) (mb) (Entered: 11/29/1994)
57 REPLY IN SUPPORT of motion to maintain separate cause of actions or, in the alternative, that pltfs. Johnson &Newell be allowed to have separate trials, by Pltfs. Johnson (C−1−93−633) and Newell (C−1−94−388) [50−1], filed by Atty. Robert Newman (no pgs: 4) (mb) (Entered: 11/29/1994)
58 JOINT MOTION to modify case schedule (no pgs: 3) (mb) (Entered: 11/29/1994)
59 ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel granting motion to modify case schedule [58−1]. All dates previously set are vacated and the case will proceed as follows: Any motions will be filed by 9/1/95. DDL is 6/1/95. The deadline for filing the amended complaint is 7/1/95. FPTC is set for 11/1/95 at 9:00 a.m. Trial is tentatively set for 11/13/95 (on an on−deck basis). (cc: all counsel) (no pgs: 2) (mb) (Entered: 11/29/1994)
60 MOTION for a hearing on pltfs. Johnson &Newell's motion to maintain separate causes of actions, filed by Robert Newman (no pgs: 5) (mb) (Entered: 11/29/1994)

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 17 of 97

11/02/1994 11/09/1994 11/10/1994 11/30/1994
12/02/1994
12/12/1994 01/03/1995 01/23/1995 01/23/1995 01/26/1995 02/02/1995 02/09/1995 02/09/1995 02/10/1995 02/16/1995
03/28/1995
04/27/1995

61 NOTICE of filing declarations of Daniel Johnson (#228−593) &Emanuel B. Newell (#206−453) filed by Atty. Robert Newman (no pgs: 6) (mb) (Entered: 11/29/1994)
62 NOTICE of filing declarations of Daniel Johnson (#228−593) and Emanuel B. Newell (#206−453), filed by Atty. Robert Newman (no pgs: 6) (mb) (Entered: 11/29/1994)
63 ORDER by Mag. Judge Robert A. Steinberg denying motion for a hearing on pltfs. Johnson &Newell's motion to maintain separate causes of actions, filed by Robert Newman [60−1] (cc: all counsel) (no pgs: 2) (mb) (Entered: 11/29/1994)
64 AGREED PROTECTIVE ORDER by Mag. Judge Robert A. Steinberg re: confidential documents produced (Post Orders designated as SEC. 000370−001192; Warden's Kite Log Sheet designated as 110746−110815; and Security Manual designated as SEC. 000001−000369), produced to pltfs' counsel this date. (cc: all counsel) (no pgs: 1) (mb) (Entered: 11/30/1994)
65 ORDER by Mag. Judge Robert A. Steinberg denying motion of maintaining separate cause of actions or, in the alternative, that pltfs. Johnson &Newell be allowed to have separate trials, by Pltfs. Johnson (C−1−93−633) and Newell (C−1−94−388) [50−1], AND granting motion to certify class action; that pltfs be appt'd class representatives [30−1] (cc: all counsel) (no pgs: 12) (mb) (Entered: 12/05/1994)
66 MOTION by plaintiffs Johnson and Newell in 1:93−cv−00436 to amend Order Granting Class Certification of 12/2/94 ( no pgs: 5) (wy) (Entered: 12/13/1994)
67 MEMORANDUM by plaintiffs in opposition to pltfs' Johnson &Newell's motion to amend class cert. order [66−1] (no pgs: 6) (mb) (Entered: 01/05/1995)
68 ORDER by Mag. Judge Robert A. Steinberg denying motion to amend Order Granting Class Certification of 12/2/94 [66−1]. (cc: all counsel) (no pgs: 5) (mb) (Entered: 01/23/1995)
69 MOTION by plaintiffs for preliminary injunction (no pgs: 17) (mb) (Entered: 01/24/1995)
70 NOTICE of hearing setting motion for preliminary injunction [69−1] at 9:30 2/16/95, before MJ Steinberg (cc: all counsel) (mb) (Entered: 01/26/1995)
71 Supplemental MOTION by plaintiffs for preliminary injunction to enjoin R.I.B. proceedings (no pgs: 9) (mb) (Entered: 02/02/1995)
72 MOTION for writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum by plaintiffs (no pgs: 6) (mb) (Entered: 02/10/1995)
74 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman Case consolidated 1:93−cv−436 with member cases 1:93−cv−691 (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (ph) (Entered: 02/13/1995)
73 ORDER by Mag. Judge Robert A. Steinberg denying motion for writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum [72−1] (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (mb) (Entered: 02/10/1995)
75 ORDER by Mag. Judge Robert A. Steinberg withdrawing motion for preliminary injunction [69−1]. The defts. shall report to class counsel every month beginning 2/28/95 as to the status of claims, etc. (cc: all counsel) (no pgs: 6) (mb) (Entered: 02/16/1995)
76 ORDER by Mag. Judge Robert A. Steinberg upon agreement of the parties, the answers of pltfs. to interrogs. and any schedules that list the specific sphysical and mental injuries suffered, etc. shall be held strictly confidential (cc: all counsel) (no pgs: 1) (mb) (Entered: 03/28/1995)
77 MOTION by defendants to withdraw attorneys Robert P Duvin and Robert M Wolff ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 04/27/1995)

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 18 of 97

05/03/1995
05/23/1995 05/25/1995 06/16/1995 06/29/1995 07/14/1995 07/20/1995 07/25/1995
08/03/1995
08/07/1995
08/10/1995 08/11/1995 08/11/1995 08/17/1995 08/22/1995 08/28/1995 09/13/1995

NOTATION ORDER by Mag. Judge Robert A. Steinberg granting motion to withdraw attorneys Robert P Duvin and Robert M Wolff [77−1] for Reginald A Wilkinson, George V Voinovich and Arthur Tate Jr (cc: all counsel) (vp) (Entered: 05/03/1995)
78 AGREED ORDER by Mag. Judge Robert A. Steinberg ; extending the discovery ddl to 8/1/95. No other deadlines will be affected by this order (cc: all counsel) (no pgs: 1) (mb) (Entered: 05/23/1995)
79 ORDER by Mag. Judge Robert A. Steinberg Case consolidated 1:93−cv−436 with member cases 1:95−mc−40 (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (ph) Modified on 06/12/1995 (Entered: 05/25/1995)
80 PROTECTIVE ORDER by Mag. Judge Robert A. Steinberg (also signed by the parties) regarding the confidentiality of certain training files (cc: all counsel) (no pgs: 1) (mb) (Entered: 06/16/1995)
81 STIPULATION extending deadline for amending the complaint to 8/4/95. Status conference is set for 7/10/95 at 9:15 a.m. ( no pgs: 1) (mb) (Entered: 06/30/1995)
82 NOTICE of hearing on limited intervention of Special Prosecutor, Mark Piepmeier, Esq. is set for 8/3/95 at 2:30 p.m. before MJ Steinberg (no motion filed) (cc: all counsel) (mb) (Entered: 07/14/1995)
83 PROTECTIVE ORDER by Mag. Judge Robert A. Steinberg : designating certain training and personnel files confidential (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (mb) (Entered: 07/20/1995)
84 PROTECTIVE ORDER by Mag. Judge Robert A. Steinberg: Regarding confidential material outlined in paragraph two of the subpoena attached which the Ohio Highway Patrol is to produce (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (mb) (Entered: 07/25/1995)
85 CIVIL MINUTES: Proceeding before Mag. Judge Robert A. Steinberg. Case called for hearing on intervention of Mr. Piepmeier, Special Prosecutor. Pltfs object; dfts do not. Court finds that intervention is not necessary. Joint proposed discovery schedule due w/i 2 wks. Trial date will be vacated. Pltfs will submit a proposed Trial Plan. Court reporter: Angie Portune. ( no pgs: 1) (ls) (Entered: 08/03/1995)
86 ORDER by Mag. Judge Robert A. Steinberg The current discovery deadline, FPTC and trial dates are CANCELED. The parties are to submit a joint discovery plan no later than 8/17/95 indicating new dates (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (mb) (Entered: 08/07/1995)
87 MOTION by plaintiffs for protective order ( no pgs: 6) (mb) (Entered: 08/10/1995)
88 AMENDED PROTECTIVE ORDER (re: Ohio State Highway Patrol) by Mag. Judge Robert A. Steinberg : granting motion for protective order [87−1] (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (mb) (Entered: 08/11/1995)
89 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held 8/3/95 before MJ Steinberg filed by Angie Portune Court Reporter (Merit) (vp) (Entered: 08/14/1995)
90 JOINT PLAN for discovery, FPTC and suggested trial dates ( no pgs: 3) (mb) (Entered: 08/18/1995)
91 ADDITIONAL PROPOSED trial plan and discovery plan filed by class counsel ( no pgs: 12) (mb) (Entered: 08/23/1995)
92 AGREED PROTECTIVE ORDER signed by Mag. Judge Robert A. Steinberg re: confidentiality of training files and personnel files. (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (mb) (Entered: 08/28/1995)
93 ORDER by Mag. Judge Robert A. Steinberg this matter will proceed as follows: response to interr by parties due by 11/1/95; doc production by parties 11/1/95; pltfs lay wit depos 11/17/95; defts lay wit depos 11/17/95; ID and prod of rep by pltfs experts 11/30/95; ID and prod of rep by defts experts 12/30/95; depos of pltfs experts 1/15/96; depos of defts experts 2/15/96; final amd cmp 10/6/95 ; substantive Mtns ddl set for 3/1/96; mot in lim set for 4/19/96; joint juror question

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 19 of 97

09/14/1995 09/20/1995 09/29/1995 10/04/1995 10/20/1995 10/31/1995 11/13/1995
11/13/1995 11/27/1995 11/29/1995 12/05/1995 12/06/1995 12/06/1995 12/15/1995 12/28/1995 01/09/1996 01/12/1996 01/12/1996 01/22/1996

4/19/96; proposed sec plan 4/19/96; joint FPTO 4/23/96 at 2:30 Final pretrial conf scheduled for 2:30 4/26/96 ; Trial scheduled for 9:30 6/10/96 (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 09/13/1995)
94 PROTECTIVE ORDER by Mag. Judge Robert A. Steinberg : listing riot timeline, emergency situation, document inventory, etc. as confidential (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (mb) (Entered: 09/14/1995)
95 MEMORANDUM by defendants in opposition to pltf's motion for intervention and consolidation of claims for personal damages ( no pgs: 29) (mb) (Entered: 09/21/1995)
96 JOINT MOTION to extend the filing of the final amended complaint to 10/20/95 ( no pgs: 4) (mb) (Entered: 10/04/1995)
NOTATION ORDER by Mag. Judge Robert A. Steinberg granting motion to extend the filing of the final amended complaint to 10/20/95 [96−1] (cc: all counsel) (mb) (Entered: 10/04/1995)
97 MOTION by plaintiffs to amend complaint ( no pgs: 3+) (vp) Modified on 10/23/1995 (Entered: 10/23/1995)
98 ORDER by Mag. Judge Robert A. Steinberg Case referred to Mag. Judge Jack Sherman (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 10/31/1995)
99 PROTECTIVE ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman upon agreement of parties the listed files and or docs are designated confidential and shall be strictly confidential and may only be disclosed to associates paralegals law clerks staff and expert witnesses retaind by counsel (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 11/13/1995)
100 MEMORANDUM by defendants in opposition to [97−1] pltfs motion to amend complaint ( no pgs: 16) (vp) (Entered: 11/14/1995)
101 MOTION by plaintiffs to extend time to reply to the memopp opposing the motion to amd the complaint until 12/15/95 ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 11/27/1995)
102 JOINT MOTION by parties to amend scheduling order ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 11/30/1995)
NOTATION ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel granting motion to amend scheduling order [102−1] (cc: all counsel) (vp) (Entered: 12/05/1995)
NOTATION ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman granting motion to amend scheduling order [102−1] (cc: all counsel) (vp) (Entered: 12/06/1995)
NOTATION ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman granting motion to extend time to reply to the memopp opposing the motion to amd the complaint until 12/15/95 [101−1] (cc: all counsel) (vp) (Entered: 12/06/1995)
103 REPLY by plaintiff to response to motion to amend complaint [97−1] ( no pgs: 8) (vp) (Entered: 12/19/1995)
104 MOTION by defendants to file reply brief instanter ( no pgs: 9) (ph) (Entered: 12/28/1995)
105 NOTICE of hearing on motion to amend complaint [97−1] at 9:00 1/30/96 (cc: all counsel) (vp) (Entered: 01/09/1996)
106 PROTECTIVE ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman: upon agreement of parties the files and docs listed are designated confidential (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 7) (vp) (Entered: 01/12/1996)
107 APPLICATION by plaintiffs for status conference ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 01/12/1996)
108 NOTICE of hearing setting motion to amend complaint [97−1] at 2:00 1/30/96 (cc: all counsel) (vp) (Entered: 01/22/1996)

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 20 of 97

01/29/1996 01/29/1996 01/30/1996
01/30/1996
02/01/1996
02/02/1996 02/21/1996 02/27/1996
03/02/1996 03/18/1996 03/19/1996 03/29/1996
04/01/1996 04/04/1996 04/04/1996 04/10/1996 04/15/1996 04/19/1996 04/22/1996 04/24/1996

109 PROPOSED NOTICE/AGENDA by Class Counsel for status conf o n 1/30/96 ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 01/30/1996)
110 Class Counsels amended proposed trial plan; proposed trial plan filed 8/22/95 [91−1] ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 01/30/1996)
111 CIVIL MINUTES: Proceeding before Mag. Judge Jack Sherman on pltfs motion to amend complaint [97−1]; counsel for pltf and deft present; arguments heard; matter taken under submission; order of the Court to follow; Mary Ann Ranz Official Court Reporter (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 01/31/1996)
112 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman denying orally pltfs motion to strike; Since the Court will consider defts bench memo class counsel may file response to memo within five days of date of Order (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 01/31/1996)
113 ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel ; Summary Jury Trial set for 9:30 6/6/96 ; Jury trial set for 9:30 8/5/96 ; Final pretrial conf set for 2:00 5/17/96 ; conference to review jury instructions and to resolve evidentiary matters set for 9:00 6/5/96 ; parties must comply with the conditions set forth in order as they apply (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/01/1996)
114 REPLY by plaintiffs to courts order of 1/30/96 [112−1] ( no pgs: 5+) (vp) (Entered: 02/05/1996)
115 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings filed by Mary Ann Ranz Official Court Reporter on status conference held before J Spiegel on 1/30/96 (vp) (Entered: 02/21/1996)
116 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman on pltfs motion to amend complaint [97−1]; pltfs ordered w/in 20 days to file a brief that includes the terms set forth in order ddl set for 3/17/96 ; defts response within 10 days; pltf reply w/in 5 days (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 6) (vp) (Entered: 02/27/1996)
119 MEMORANDUM by plaintiffs in opposition to motions to intervene by Hurst and Donaldson (vp) (Entered: 03/29/1996)
117 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to [116−2] MJs order of 2/27/96 ( no pgs: 10+) (vp) (Entered: 03/19/1996)
118 MOTION by defendants to vacate order for SJ Trial entered 2/1/96 ( no pgs: 13) (vp) (Entered: 03/19/1996)
120 ATTORNEY SUBSTITUTION: terminating attorney Joseph Matthew Mancini for Arthur Jr Tate and Robert Warren Myers for Arthur Jr Tate, Terry Collins, Terry Collins, Reginald A Wilkinson, and substituting attorney Kevin Michael Norchi ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 03/29/1996)
121 RESPONSE by defendants to [116−2] MJs order of 2/27/96 ( no pgs: 19) (vp) (Entered: 04/02/1996)
122 MOTION by plaintiffs for order to the Clerk of Courts to file certain complaints () (ph) (Entered: 04/05/1996)
123 MEMORANDUM by plaintiffs in opposition to [118−1] () (ph) (Entered: 04/05/1996)
124 MOTION by defendants to dismiss class members property loss claims ( no pgs: 8) (vp) (Entered: 04/10/1996)
125 MOTION by defendants to continue discovery ddl; dispositive motion ddl; and trial date ( no pgs: 14) (vp) (Entered: 04/15/1996)
126 MOTION by plaintiffs in limine to limit admissibility of prior criminal convictions of pltfs( no pgs: 10+) (vp) (Entered: 04/22/1996)
127 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff in opposition to [124−1] defts motion to dismiss property loss ( no pgs: 5) (vp) (Entered: 04/23/1996)
128 PROTECTIVE ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman that the parties agree that the docs listed where applicable designated by BAtes Number produced on 1/19/96

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 21 of 97

04/24/1996 04/25/1996
04/30/1996 04/30/1996 04/30/1996 05/01/1996 05/01/1996 05/01/1996 05/03/1996 05/07/1996 05/07/1996
05/07/1996
05/07/1996
05/08/1996 05/08/1996 05/10/1996 05/15/1996 05/16/1996

shall be so designated as confidential (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 6) (vp) (Entered: 04/24/1996)
129 ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel denying motion to vacate order for SJ Trial entered 2/1/96 [118−1] (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 14) (vp) (Entered: 04/25/1996)
130 ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel granting in part and denying in part motion to continue discovery ddl; dispositive motion ddl; and trial date [125−1] ; Discovery ddl set 6/6/96; defts mut file expert report by 5/15/9; all other dates remains same (cc: all counsel) ( pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 04/25/1996)
131 MOTION by prisoner Daniel Hurst propria persona to intervene ( no pgs: 5) (art) (Entered: 04/30/1996)
132 MOTION by prisoner Geraldo Donaldson propria persona to intervene ( no pgs: 15) (art) (Entered: 04/30/1996)
133 MOTION by plaintiff Wayne Bell for leave to amend ( no pgs: 5) (vp) (Entered: 05/01/1996)
134 Joint Proposed Jury instructions submitted by plaintiff ( no pgs: 2+) (vp) (Entered: 05/02/1996)
135 NOTICE of hearing ; Final pretrial conf set 2:00 5/17/96 ; Jury trial set 9:30 8/5/96 on an on deck basis before J Spiegel (cc: all counsel) (vp) (Entered: 05/02/1996)
136 NOTICE of hearing ; charging conference set 9:00 6/5/96 ; Summary Jury Trial set 9:30 6/6/96 before J Spiegel (cc: all counsel) (vp) (Entered: 05/02/1996)
137 REPLY by defendant to response to motion to dismiss class members property loss claims [124−1] ( no pgs: 7) (vp) (Entered: 05/06/1996)
NOTATION ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman granting motion to file reply brief instanter [104−1] (cc: all counsel) (vp) (Entered: 05/07/1996)
138 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman granting motion to amend complaint [97−1] adding 20 new defts and nine John Does who officers on 4/13/93 in K−2; when pltfs have identified the John Does by name pltfs will be required to justify and provide authority for any further amendment of the complaint naming these officers (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 7) (vp) (Entered: 05/07/1996)
139 AMENDED COMPLAINT by plaintiffs; jury demand adding Eric G Dahlberg, Ben Bower, Roger Roddy, David See, Roger Crabtree, John H Newsome, Oscar McGraw, Jerry Williams, James R Swann, Larry Neff, Charles Bell, Richard A Brown, Ronald Bailey, Michael E Turner, Patrick Burnett, Gerald E Webb, Robert Finley, David Earl Bradley, Randy L Stout, Wilbur K Harris, John Doe 1−9 ( no pgs: 18) (vp) (Entered: 05/07/1996)
140 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman that motion to dismiss class members property loss claims [124−1] be denied NOTICE: Parties have 10 days to file objections (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 6) (vp) (Entered: 05/08/1996)
141 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman granting motion for order to the Clerk of Courts to file certain complaints [122−1]; pltf Copeland motion to proceed IFP is granted (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 05/08/1996)
142 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman denying motion to intervene [132−1], denying motion to intervene [131−1] (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 05/08/1996)
143 MEMORANDUM by defendants in opposition to [126−1] pltfs motion in limine ( no pgs: 6) (vp) (Entered: 05/10/1996)
144 AMENDMENT by plaintiffs to proposed jury questionnaire [134−1] ( no pgs: 20) (vp) (Entered: 05/16/1996)
145 MOTION by plaintiffs for order requiring defts to file w/in 7 days a complete list of past or current SOCF inmates defts wish to exclude ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered:

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 22 of 97

05/17/1996 05/17/1996 05/17/1996 05/17/1996
05/17/1996 05/17/1996 05/17/1996 05/17/1996 05/17/1996
05/24/1996 05/24/1996 05/28/1996
05/28/1996
05/30/1996 05/30/1996 06/03/1996 06/04/1996
06/04/1996
06/04/1996 06/04/1996

05/17/1996)
146 MOTION by defendants in limine to exclude committee reports ( no pgs: 6) (vp) (Entered: 05/17/1996)
147 Proposed Jury instructions submitted by defendants ( no pgs: 28) (vp) (Entered: 05/17/1996)
148 Proposed Jury instructions/interrogatories submitted by defendant ( no pgs: 8) (vp) (Entered: 05/17/1996)
149 RESPONSE by defendants George V Voinovich, Reginald A Wilkinson, Terry Collins, and Arthur Jr Tate concerning qualified immunity ( no pgs: 16) (vp) (Entered: 05/17/1996)
150 MOTION by defendants for review of MJ reports and recommendations issued 5/7/96 ( no pgs: 5) (vp) (Entered: 05/17/1996)
151 BRIEF FILED by defendants on legal issues ( no pgs: 9) (vp) (Entered: 05/17/1996)
152 MOTION by defendants to dismiss claims asserted by pltfs in paragraphs 29 and 30 of amended class action complaint ( no pgs: 5+) (vp) (Entered: 05/17/1996)
153 Proposed Jury instructions submitted by plaintiff and verdict form ( no pgs: 6+) (vp) (Entered: 05/17/1996)
154 NOTICE by plaintiffs of joint proposed juror questionnaire for mailing questionnaire to prospective jurors for the 6/6/96 Summary Jury Trial ( no pgs: 17) (vp) (Entered: 05/20/1996)
155 AMENDMENT by plaintiffs to jury [153−1] ( no pgs: 2+) (vp) (Entered: 05/28/1996)
156 OBJECTIONS by plaintiff to [148−1] and [147−1] defts proposed jury instructions ( no pgs: 5) (vp) (Entered: 05/28/1996)
157 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff in opposition to [152−1] defts motion to dismiss paragraphs 29 and 30 of the amended complaint ( no pgs: 21) (vp) (Entered: 05/28/1996)
158 RESPONSE by defendants to motion for order requiring defts to file w/in 7 days a complete list of past or current SOCF inmates defts wish to exclude [145−1] ( no pgs: 60) (vp) (Entered: 05/29/1996)
159 MOTION by Ratcliff and Kemper to quash subpoenas for deposition ( no pgs: 8) (vp) (Entered: 05/30/1996)
160 Second Designation of evidence by plaintiffs for Summary Jury Trial ( no pgs: 11) (vp) (Entered: 05/30/1996)
161 MEMORANDUM by plaintiffs in opposition to [150−1] defts motion to review report and recommendation ( no pgs: 5) (vp) (Entered: 06/04/1996)
162 WRIT of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum issued by J Spiegel to Warden at LCI to have prisoner Darris E Morris appear before the Court in Rm 842 at 9:30 on 6/6/96; at the conclusion of all proceedings pltf is to be returned to LCI ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 06/04/1996)
163 WRIT of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum issued by J Spiegel to Warden LCI that prisoner Eugene K Adams appear before this Court in Rm 842 at 9:30 on 6/6/96; after conclusion of all proceedings pltf shall be returned to LCI ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 06/04/1996)
164 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to [149−1] defts Bench Memorandum concerning immunity ( no pgs: 8) (vp) (Entered: 06/05/1996)
165 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff in support of statement [160−1] ( no pgs: 8) (vp) (Entered: 06/05/1996)

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 23 of 97

06/05/1996 06/06/1996 06/06/1996 06/06/1996
06/07/1996
06/07/1996
06/07/1996
06/07/1996
06/07/1996
06/07/1996 06/10/1996
06/10/1996 06/10/1996
06/11/1996 06/18/1996 06/27/1996 07/17/1996
07/18/1996 07/19/1996
07/19/1996 07/19/1996

166 Third Designation of Evidence by plaintiff for SJT ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 06/05/1996)
167 MOTION by defendants for order to address the failure and refusal of pltfs counsel to produce 24 class members for deposition ( no pgs: 5) (vp) (Entered: 06/06/1996)
168 MOTION by movant Cincinnati Enquirer to intervene and be heard immediately on the issue of Public Access ( no pgs: 6) (vp) (Entered: 06/06/1996)
169 CIVIL MINUTES: First day of Summary Jury Trial before Judge S. A. Spiegel; trial continued to 9:00 am on 6/7/96 (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 06/07/1996)
170 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings filed by Mary Ann Ranz Court Reporter on Motion by Cincinnati Enquire to Intervene on the Issue of Public Access held on 6/6/96 in a conference before Judge Spiegel (vp) (Entered: 06/07/1996)
171 CIVIL MINUTES:case called before J Spiegel for SJT SECOND DAY; trial continued to 9:00 am on 6/10/96 (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 06/10/1996)
172 ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel granting motion [168−1]; it is ordered that the proceedings be made public for the remainder of the Summary Jury Trial (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 06/10/1996)
173 INFORMATION COPY of USCA 6th: that the District Court shall not conduct further proceedings in this case while denying public access to the SJT proceeding (vp) (Entered: 06/10/1996)
174 ORDER OF USCA 6th Cofa number 06−3627 that case in question will not proceed while denying access to the SJ Trial proceedings ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 06/10/1996)
175 PETITION for a Writ of Mandamus ( no pgs: 13+) (vp) (Entered: 06/10/1996)
176 CIVIL MINUTES: case called before Judge S. A. Spiegel for continuation of Summary Jury Trial; THIRD DAY; jury trial continued until Cofa rules on mandamus (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 06/10/1996)
177 MEMORANDUM by plaintiffs in opposition to [150−1] defts motion to review reports and recommendations of the MJ ( no pgs: 6+) (vp) (Entered: 06/11/1996)
178 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to motion for order to address the failure and refusal of pltfs counsel to produce 24 class members for deposition [167−1] ( no pgs: 4+) (vp) (Entered: 06/11/1996)
179 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings filed by Mary Ann Ranz Court Reporter on Final Pretrial Conference held before J Spiegel on 5/17/96 (vp) (Entered: 06/11/1996)
180 REPLY by plaintiff to response to motion in limine [126−1] ( no pgs: 13) (vp) (Entered: 06/18/1996)
181 Interim MOTION by plaintiffs for attorney fees () (vp) (Entered: 06/27/1996)
182 REQUEST by plaintiffs for orders from Court requiring defts to produce bellwether pltfs listed in doc at commencement of trial 8/5/96 ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 07/18/1996)
183 MOTION by plaintiffs for order regarding the use if inmate depos taken by deft ( no pgs: 64) (vp) (Entered: 07/19/1996)
184 PROTECTIVE ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman upon agreement of parties docs designated by Bates Number produced on 5/30/96 are designated as confidential (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 07/19/1996)
185 Addendum/Supplement by plaintiff re request [182−1] ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 07/22/1996)
186 MOTION by plaintiffs to bifurcate trial ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 07/22/1996)

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 24 of 97

07/19/1996 07/22/1996 07/29/1996 07/30/1996
08/01/1996 08/01/1996 08/13/1996 08/13/1996
08/13/1996
08/14/1996 08/15/1996 08/15/1996 08/16/1996 08/20/1996 08/21/1996 08/29/1996
08/29/1996
09/03/1996

187 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT by plaintiff; jury demand adding David See, E Benner, Kevin Clarkson, Jefferson Roy Lewis ( no 18) (vp) (Entered: 07/23/1996)
188 MEMORANDUM by defendant in opposition to [181−1] ( no pgs: 19) (vp) (Entered: 07/23/1996)
189 REPLY by plaintiff to response to motion for attorney fees [181−1] ( no pgs: 35) (vp) (Entered: 07/30/1996)
190 ORDER from Cofa that District Court shall not conduct further proceedings until Cofa has had an opportunity to adjudicate the Petition for a Writ of Mandamus on the merits (order was originally filed in Cofa on 6/10/96) (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 07/30/1996)
191 ORDER OF USCA 6th: petitioners writ of mandamus is dismissed as moot ( no pgs: 3) (ah) (Entered: 08/02/1996)
192 ORDER entered by COFA− Mandamus denied (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (ah) (Entered: 08/05/1996)
193 MOTION by intervenor Cincinnati Enquirer to intervene and to stay summary jury trial pending petition of Cincinnati Enquirer for Sixth Circuit rehearing and suggestion for rehearing en banc ( no pgs: 3+) (vp) (Entered: 08/13/1996)
194 WRIT of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum issued to Warden Lucasville Correctional Instit from J Spiegel ordering Eugene K Adams currently restrained in custody to be appear before this Court 8/14/96 at 9:00; after conclusion of proceedings pltf is to be returned to LCI ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 08/13/1996)
195 WRIT of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum issued to Warden Lebanon Correctional Instit by J Spiegel to have Darrin E Morris to appear before this Court on 8/14/96 at 9:00; upon conclusion of proceedings prisoner will be returned to Lebanon Correctional Instit ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 08/13/1996)
196 CIVIL MINUTES: Proceeding before Judge S. A. Spiegel for continuation of SJT; FOURTH DAY; SJT cont to 9:00 8/15/96 (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 08/15/1996)
197 ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel that USM is to provide lunch and or refreshments for the jury (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 08/15/1996)
198 CIVIL MINUTES: Proceeding before Judge S. A. Spiegel; SJ trial continued Fifth Day; trial concluded (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 08/16/1996)
199 ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel denying motion to intervene [193−1], denying motion to stay summary jury trial pending petition of Cincinnati Enquirer [193−2] (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 08/16/1996)
200 INFORMATION COPY of USCA 6th: Petition for mandamus is denied. (ah) (Entered: 08/21/1996)
201 ORDER OF USCA 6th: ( no pgs: 2) mot. for a stay of the summary jury trial is denied. (ah) (Entered: 08/21/1996)
202 MOTION by defendants George V Voinovich, Reginald Wilkinson, Terry Collins, and Arthur Jr Tate for sanctions in favor of defts and against pltfs in connection with pltfs continued prosecution of claims agaisnt George Voinovich ( no pgs: 9) (vp) (Entered: 08/29/1996)
203 MOTION by defendants George V Voinovich, Reginald Wilkinson, Terry Collins, and Arthur Jr Tate for sanctions in favor of defts and agaisnt pltfs in connection with pltfs continued prosecution of claims against Terry Collins ( no pgs: 9) (vp) (Entered: 08/29/1996)
204 MOTION by defendants in limine to exclude evidence relating to ny claim for Hedonic damages on behalf of deceased class members ( no pgs: 6+) (vp) (Entered: 09/03/1996)

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 25 of 97

09/10/1996 09/19/1996 09/19/1996 10/09/1996 10/11/1996 10/23/1996 10/25/1996
10/25/1996 10/25/1996
10/30/1996 10/30/1996 10/30/1996 10/30/1996 10/30/1996 10/30/1996 10/30/1996 10/30/1996 10/30/1996 10/30/1996 10/30/1996

205 NOTICE of hearing ; Settlement conference set for 2:00 9/19/96 before J Spiegel in Rm 838 (cc: all counsel) (vp) (Entered: 09/11/1996)
206 MEMORANDUM by plaintiffs in opposition to [204−1] defts motion in limine to exclude evidence relating to any claim for Hedonic damages on behalf of deceased class members ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 09/19/1996)
207 MEMORANDUM by plaintiffs in opposition to [203−1] and [202−1] motions for sanctions ( no pgs: 10) (vp) (Entered: 09/19/1996)
208 ORDER OF USCA 6th: ( no pgs: l) MANDATE ISSUES pursuant to 8/1/96 order (ah) (Entered: 10/11/1996)
209 Proposed Trial Plan/BRIEF FILED by plaintiff ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 10/11/1996)
210 Proposed trial case Plan/BRIEF FILED by defendant ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 10/23/1996)
211 ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel having affirmed the MJs order granting pltfs motion to amend complaint the case will proceed to trial as follows: ; Mtn filing ddl filed by 1/1/97 ; Discovery ddl completed by 1/1/97 ; Final pretrial conf tentatively scheduled for 2:00 1/27/97 ; Jury trial tentatively scheduled for 2/17/97 (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 10/25/1996)
212 ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel denying motion to dismiss class members property loss claims [124−1], adopting motion REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [140−1] (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 10/25/1996)
213 STATEMENT/MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING by parties that counsel has agreed as follows: defts agree to amd Ohio Administrative Code; pltfs agree to dismiss w/prejudice gang activity claims; agreement contingent upon execution of valid settlement in C−1−94−583; preview of agreement is expressly ltd to reference of gang activity claims; this agreement shall not in any way be construed as an admission of liability against defts ( no pgs: 10) (vp) (Entered: 10/28/1996)
214 WAVIER OF SERVICE mailed to defendant Ronald Bailey on 9/10/96 Answer due on 11/9/96 for Ronald Bailey ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
215 WAVIER OF SERVICE mailed to defendant Charles Bell on 9/10/96 Answer due on 11/9/96 for Charles Bell ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
216 WAVIER OF SERVICE mailed to defendant E Benner on 9/10/96 Answer due on 11/9/96 for E Benner ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
217 WAVIER OF SERVICE mailed to defendant Ben Bower on 9/10/96 Answer due on 11/9/96 for Ben Bower ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
218 WAVIER OF SERVICE mailed to defendant David Earl Bradley on 9/10/96 Answer due on 11/9/96 for David Earl Bradley ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
219 WAVIER OF SERVICE mailed to defendant Patrick Burnett on 9/10/96 Answer due on 11/9/96 for Patrick Burnett ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
220 WAVIER OF SERVICE mailed to defendant Kevin Clarkson on 9/10/96 Answer due on 11/9/96 for Kevin Clarkson ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
221 WAVIER OF SERVICE mailed to defendant Roger Crabtree on 9/10/96 Answer due on 11/9/96 for Roger Crabtree ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
222 WAVIER OF SERVICE mailed to defendant Jefferson Roy Lewis on 9/10/96 Answer due on 11/9/96 for Jefferson Roy Lewis ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
223 WAVIER OF SERVICE mailed to defendant Oscar McGraw on 9/10/96 Answer due on 11/9/96 for Oscar McGraw ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
224 WAVIER OF SERVICE mailed to defendant Larry Neff on 9/10/96 Answer due on 11/9/96 for Larry Neff ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 10/31/1996)

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 26 of 97

10/30/1996 10/30/1996 10/30/1996 10/30/1996 10/30/1996 10/30/1996 10/30/1996 11/01/1996
11/07/1996 11/08/1996 11/08/1996
11/08/1996 11/08/1996 11/08/1996 11/08/1996 11/08/1996 11/08/1996 11/08/1996 11/08/1996 11/08/1996 11/08/1996

225 WAVIER OF SERVICE mailed to defendant John H Newsome on 9/10/96 Answer due on 11/9/96 for John H Newsome ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
226 WAVIER OF SERVICE mailed to defendant Roger Roddy on 9/10/96 Answer due on 11/9/96 for Roger Roddy ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
227 WAVIER OF SERVICE mailed to defendant David See on 9/10/96 Answer due on 11/9/96 for David See ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
228 WAVIER OF SERVICE mailed to defendant Randy L Stout on 9/10/96 Answer due on 11/9/96 for Randy L Stout ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
229 WAVIER OF SERVICE mailed to defendant Michael E Turner on 9/10/96 Answer due on 11/9/96 for Michael E Turner ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
230 WAVIER OF SERVICE mailed to defendant Gerald E Webb on 9/10/96 Answer due on 11/9/96 for Gerald E Webb ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
231 WAVIER OF SERVICE mailed to defendant Jack G Williams on 9/10/96 Answer due on 11/9/96 for Jack G Williams ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 10/31/1996)
232 ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel ; Settlement conference scheduled for 2:00 on 11/6/96 in Rm 838; Atty General And Wilkinson to appear at conf to effect settlement of case or to arrange to proceed to trial (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 11/01/1996)
233 WAVIER OF SERVICE mailed to defendant Eric G Dahlberg on 9/10/96 Answer due on 11/9/96 for Eric G Dahlberg ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 11/07/1996)
234 ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel denying motion to bifurcate trial [186−1] (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 11/08/1996)
235 ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel granting motion for order regarding the use if inmate depos taken by deft [183−1]; all inmate depos shall be sealed and shall remain sealed until further order of Court; be used for pupose of this litigation; not be shared with ODRC staff except when depos are permitted by Court to be used in open court; inmates who express fear for safety shall not be requried to ID other inmates if safety is at risk; defts shall not take depo of any inmate promised anonymity; if deft wishes to use depo in Court deft must first file motion; defts must ID pages of depo used; state reason for use and show use is necessary (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 11/08/1996)
236 ANSWER by defendant Gerald E Webb ( no pgs: 5) (vp) (Entered: 11/12/1996)
237 ANSWER by defendant Randy L Stout ( no pgs: 5) (vp) (Entered: 11/12/1996)
238 ANSWER by defendant John H Newsome; jury demand ( no pgs: 5) (vp) (Entered: 11/12/1996)
239 ANSWER by defendant David Earl Bradley; jury demand ( no pgs: 5) (vp) (Entered: 11/12/1996)
240 ANSWER by defendant E Benner; jury demand ( no pgs: 5) (vp) (Entered: 11/12/1996)
241 ANSWER by defendant Wilbur K Harris; jury demand ( no pgs: 5) (vp) (Entered: 11/12/1996)
242 ANSWER by defendant Jefferson Roy Lewis; jury demand ( no pgs: 5) (vp) (Entered: 11/12/1996)
243 ANSWER by defendant Kevin Clarkson; jury demand ( no pgs: 5) (vp) (Entered: 11/12/1996)
244 ANSWER by defendant Michael E Turner; jury demand ( no pgs: 6) (vp) (Entered: 11/12/1996)
245 ANSWER by defendant Patrick Burnett; jury demand ( no pgs: 5) (vp) (Entered: 11/12/1996)

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 27 of 97

11/08/1996 11/08/1996 11/08/1996 11/08/1996 11/08/1996 11/08/1996 11/08/1996 11/08/1996 11/08/1996 11/08/1996 11/18/1996
11/18/1996
11/18/1996 11/18/1996 11/19/1996 11/20/1996
11/25/1996 11/29/1996 11/29/1996 11/29/1996 01/03/1997
01/10/1997

246 ANSWER by defendant Charles Bell; jury demand ( no pgs: 6) (vp) (Entered: 11/12/1996)
247 ANSWER by defendant Jerry Williams; jury demand ( no pgs: 6) (vp) (Entered: 11/12/1996)
248 ANSWER by defendant Ronald Bailey; jury demand ( no pgs: 7) (vp) (Entered: 11/12/1996)
249 ANSWER by defendant Larry Neff; jury demand ( no pgs: 5) (vp) (Entered: 11/12/1996)
250 ANSWER by defendant Oscar McGraw; jury demand ( no pgs: 6) (vp) (Entered: 11/12/1996)
251 ANSWER by defendant Roger Crabtree; jury demand ( no pgs: 6) (vp) (Entered: 11/12/1996)
252 ANSWER by defendant Eric G Dahlberg; jury demand ( no pgs: 6) (vp) (Entered: 11/12/1996)
253 ANSWER by defendant Ben Bower; jury demand ( no pgs: 6) (vp) (Entered: 11/12/1996)
254 ANSWER by defendant David See; jury demand ( no pgs: 6) (vp) (Entered: 11/12/1996)
255 ANSWER by defendant Roger Roddy; jury demand ( no pgs: 6) (vp) (Entered: 11/12/1996)
256 ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel denying motion for sanctions in favor of defts and against pltfs in connection with pltfs continued prosecution of claims agaisnt George Voinovich [202−1], denying motion for sanctions in favor of defts and agaisnt pltfs in connection with pltfs continued prosecution of claims against Terry Collins [203−1] (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 11/18/1996)
257 ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel denying motion to dismiss claims asserted by pltfs in paragraphs 29 and 30 of amended class action complaint [152−1] (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 5) (vp) (Entered: 11/18/1996)
258 ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel denying motion in limine to exclude committee reports [146−1] (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 11/18/1996)
259 ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel denying motion for leave to amend complaint [133−1] (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 11/18/1996)
260 ANSWER by defendants George V Voinovich, Reginald Wilkinson, Terry Collins, and Arthur Jr Tate; jury demand ( no pgs: 9) (vp) (Entered: 11/20/1996)
261 ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel denying motion in limine to exclude evidence relating to any claim for Hedonic damages on behalf of deceased class members [204−1] (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 9) (vp) (Entered: 11/20/1996)
262 MOTION by defendant Eric G Dahlberg to dismiss ( no pgs: 8) (vp) (Entered: 11/26/1996)
263 ANSWER by defendant Richard A Brown ( no pgs: 5) (vp) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
264 ANSWER by defendant James R Swann; jury demand ( no pgs: 6) (vp) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
265 ANSWER by defendant Robert Finley; jury demand ( no pgs: 5) (vp) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
266 NOTICE by Clerk of Supreme Court that petitin for writ of certiorar was filed 12/27/96 and placed on docket 12/27/96 as case number 96−1032 ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 01/06/1997)
267 NOTICE of hearing ; Final pretrial conf set for 2:00 on 1/27/97 ; Jury trial set for 9:30 on 2/18/97 on an on deck basis before J Spiegel (cc: all counsel) (vp) (Entered: 01/14/1997)

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 28 of 97

01/22/1997 01/22/1997 01/24/1997 01/27/1997 01/29/1997 01/30/1997
01/31/1997 02/10/1997 02/18/1997 02/19/1997
02/24/1997 02/25/1997 02/25/1997 02/26/1997 02/27/1997 03/03/1997

268 MOTION by Glen W Haynie for order to transfer court of claims case 93−9593 over at part of case ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 01/24/1997)
269 JOINT MOTION by parties for order approving class action resolution ; proposed class ntc attached ( no pgs: 30) (vp) (Entered: 01/24/1997)
270 ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel ; Status conference set for 2:00 1/27/97 to review settlement agreement (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 01/24/1997)
271 LETTER to court from Cleo Vernon Keaton prisoner at LCI regarding legal questions wishing to be addressed ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 01/27/1997)
272 LETTER to court from State Senator Gary C Suhadolnik regarding settlement of inmates; wants to make sure victims have been properly compensated first( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 01/29/1997)
273 ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel pursuant to doc 269; proposed settlement between parties shall be submitted to class members for consideration; class counsel shall submit their request for fees and expenses no later than 3/3/97 ; In−court hearing set for 10:00 on 4/15/97 to consider final approval of settlement and appl for fees and expenses; objs to settlement due 3/21/97 by 5:00; pltfs directed to mail to class members who were present at SOCF between 4/11/93 and 6/20/94; defts to place in library of prison copies of order; class ntc; memo of understanding; resumes of proposed Claims Administrator and any proposed assisstants; General Protocol for Clms by Class Members against Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2+) (vp) (Entered: 01/31/1997)
274 ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel ; Status conference set 3:00 3/25/97 ; parties and Court will finalize the procedures for fairness hrg (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 01/31/1997)
275 MOTION by plaintiff Wayne Bell to compel with FCRP ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 02/11/1997)
276 OBJECTIONS by plaintiff Wayne Bell to settlement agreement ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/19/1997)
277 ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel appointing Michael Barrett as Special Master/Trustee; the Special Master/Trustee shall receive settlement proceeds and propose to Court a program for initial investment of said funds; subj to aproval of Court the Special Master shall take steps necessary to implement General protocol; prior to approval of settlement Special Master/Trustee shall be compensated out of income from settlement fund in an appropriate amount; if settlement is approved Special master shall be compensated from settlement fund in an amount deemed appropriate by Court pursuant to interim appl of Special Master/Trustee to be filed on quarterly basis with Court (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 5) (vp) (Entered: 02/19/1997)
278 MOTION by Marlowe Malone for order to include records on file pertaining to individual claims and liabilities ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/24/1997)
279 AFFIDAVIT of Fay E Stilz of that ntc of proposed class action settlement was mailed to class members by Waite Schneider Bayless &Chesley via first class mail ( no pgs: 1+) (vp) (Entered: 02/27/1997)
280 AFFIDAVIT of Jim Hillmann (President of Copyplex) that services of Copyplex were retained by Class Counsel to assist with preparation and mailing of class members () (vp) (Entered: 02/27/1997)
281 OBJECTIONS by plaintiff William Thomas Dawson Jr to class ntc settlement ( no pgs: 15) (vp) (Entered: 02/27/1997)
282 AFFIDAVIT of Michael R Barrett Special Master pursuant to order [277−1] ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 02/27/1997)
283 OBJECTIONS by plaintiff Ben Anderson to settlement agreement ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 03/04/1997)

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 29 of 97

03/03/1997 03/03/1997 03/04/1997 03/04/1997
03/06/1997 03/07/1997 03/07/1997 03/12/1997 03/12/1997 03/12/1997 03/13/1997 03/13/1997 03/13/1997 03/17/1997 03/17/1997 03/17/1997 03/17/1997 03/18/1997 03/19/1997 03/19/1997 03/19/1997 03/20/1997 03/20/1997

284 OBJECTIONS by plaintiff Paul Mulryan to settlement agreement ( no pgs: 5) (vp) (Entered: 03/04/1997)
285 MOTION by plaintiffs for attorney fees pursuant to J Spiegels order 273 ( no pgs: 17+) (vp) (Entered: 03/04/1997)
286 NOTICE of hearing ; Status conference set for 3:00 3/25/97 before J Spiegel (cc: all counsel) (vp) (Entered: 03/06/1997)
287 NOTICE of hearing setting motion for order approving class action resolution [269−1] at 10:00 4/15/97 before J Spiegel (cc: all counsel) (vp) (Entered: 03/06/1997)
288 MOTION by plaintiff Charles Nolan for order to transfer out of Ohio prison system ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/07/1997)
289 OBJECTIONS by plaintiff Johnny Howell to [273−2] ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 03/10/1997)
290 LETTER to court from US Supreme Court that petition for writ of certiorar is denied ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 03/10/1997)
291 OBJECTIONS by plaintiff Andrew E Miller to settlement agreement [277−1] ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/12/1997)
292 ORDER OF USCA 6th: petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed as moot ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 03/13/1997)
293 MOTION by plaintiff Wayne Bell for leave to supplement objections re: proposed settlement (no pgs: 10) (mb) (Entered: 03/13/1997)
294 OBJECTIONS by plaintiff Charles Nolan to settlment agreement [277−1] ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/13/1997)
295 OBJECTIONS by plaintiff Chryztof Knecht to [277−1] ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 03/13/1997)
296 OBJECTIONS by plaintiff Kenneth J Wilson to [277−1] ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/13/1997)
297 OBJECTIONS by plaintiff James Mays to settlement agreement pursuant to order [273−2] ( no pgs: 5) (vp) (Entered: 03/18/1997)
298 OBJECTIONS by plaintiff Joseph R Fears Jr to [273−2] ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 03/18/1997)
299 OBJECTIONS by plaintiff Thomas E Simmons to [273−2] ( no pgs: 6) (vp) (Entered: 03/18/1997)
300 MOTION by plaintiff Darrin E Morris for admission of attorney Michale L Wolpert to appear pro hac vice ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 03/18/1997)
301 OBJECTIONS by plaintiff Gregory Curry to [273−2] ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 03/19/1997)
302 OBJECTIONS by plaintiff Isaac Hughes to [273−2] ( no pgs: 20) (vp) (Entered: 03/19/1997)
303 OBJECTIONS by plaintiff Miles Hogan to [273−2] ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 03/19/1997)
304 OBJECTIONS by plaintiff Johnny K Lattimer to [273−2] ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 03/20/1997)
305 OBJECTIONS by plaintiff Robert L Creager to [273−2] ( no pgs: 7) (vp) (Entered: 03/21/1997)
306 OBJECTIONS by plaintiff Andre Stockton to [273−2] ( no pgs: 2+) (vp) (Entered: 03/21/1997)

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 30 of 97

03/20/1997 03/21/1997
03/21/1997 03/21/1997 03/21/1997 03/21/1997 03/21/1997 03/21/1997 03/24/1997 03/24/1997 03/26/1997 03/27/1997 03/27/1997 03/28/1997 03/31/1997
03/31/1997 04/02/1997 04/07/1997
04/08/1997
04/11/1997
04/11/1997

307 OBJECTIONS by plaintiff Victor Gomez Jr to [273−2] ( no pgs: 5) (vp) (Entered: 03/21/1997)
NOTATION ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel granting motion for admission of attorney Michale L Wolpert to appear pro hac vice [300−1] (cc: all counsel) (vp) (Entered: 03/21/1997)
308 OBJECTIONS by plaintiff Marlowe Malone to [273−2] ( no pgs: 10) (vp) (Entered: 03/24/1997)
309 OBJECTIONS by plaintiff James Mays to [273−2] ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 03/24/1997)
310 OBJECTIONS by plaintiff Joseph Ronald Fears to [273−2] ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 03/24/1997)
311 OBJECTIONS by plaintiff Irvin F Kramer Jr to [273−2] ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 03/24/1997)
312 OBJECTIONS by plaintiff Gary L Faulkner to [273−2] ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 03/24/1997)
313 OBJECTIONS by plaintiff Anthony Copeland to [273−2] ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/24/1997)
314 MEMORANDUM by defendant in opposition to pltfs motion for atty fee [285−1] ( no pgs: 7) (vp) (Entered: 03/24/1997)
315 OBJECTIONS by plaintiff Andrew E Miller to [273−2] ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 03/25/1997)
316 MOTION by plaintiff Dean Duncan for leave to file objections to ntc of class settlement 273 ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 03/27/1997)
317 OBJECTIONS by plaintiff Henry Jackson Jr to [273−2] ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/28/1997)
318 MOTION by plaintiff Charles Nolan for order to attend hrg on 4/15/97 ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 03/28/1997)
319 OBJECTIONS by plaintiff Henry Jackson Jr to [273−2] ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/28/1997)
320 EMERGENCY MOTION by defendants to expedite disposition of pltfs motion for atty fees [285−1] and defts objections to inclusion of a request for incentive awards in pltfs motion for atty fees ( no pgs: 5) (tt) (Entered: 04/01/1997)
322 MOTION by plaintiff Charles Nolan for order to transfer pltf to Federal Prison system ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 04/07/1997)
321 MEMORANDUM by the plaintiffs class in opposition to defts emergency motion for expedited disposition [320−1] ( no pgs: 18) (tt) (Entered: 04/03/1997)
323 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff in support of motion for order approving class action resolution [269−1] and response to objections ( no pgs: 22) (vp) (Entered: 04/08/1997)
324 ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel denying motion to expedite disposition of pltfs motion for atty fees [285−1] and defts objections to inclusion of a request for incentive awards in pltfs motion for atty fees [320−1] (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 04/08/1997)
325 ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel that Clerk of court is instructed to issue writ of HC ad testificandum to Harry Russell and Terry Collins for hrg to be held 4/15/97 at 8:00 (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 04/11/1997)
326 WRIT of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum issued to Warden of LCI as to plaintiff Darrin E Morris to be present on 4/15/97 before J Spiegel ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 04/11/1997)

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 31 of 97

04/11/1997 04/14/1997 04/15/1997
04/15/1997 04/17/1997 04/22/1997
04/28/1997 04/28/1997 04/30/1997 04/30/1997 04/30/1997 05/01/1997 05/01/1997 05/05/1997 05/06/1997 05/06/1997

327 WRIT of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum issued to Warden of Lebanon Correction Inst as to plaintiff Eugene K Adams to be present on 4/15/97 before J Spiegel ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 04/11/1997)
328 MOTION by plaintiffs for order directing Betty Montgomery and all counsel for defts to cease and desist from conduct in violation of memo of understanding and General Protocol for Clms ( no pgs: 7+) (vp) (Entered: 04/15/1997)
329 CIVIL MINUTES: Proceeding before Judge S. A. Spiegel on motions to expedite disposition of pltfs motion for atty fees [285−1] defts objections to inclusion of a request for incentive awards in pltfs motion for atty fees [320−1] that the motion for attorney fees [285−1]; motion for order approving class action resolution taken under advisement; motoins for atty fees and incentive award taken under advisement; order of court to follow; Mary Ann Ranz Court Reporter for order approving class action resolution [269−1] (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 04/22/1997)
330 NOTICE/EXHIBIT WITNESS LIST ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 04/22/1997)
331 NOTICE of Retained rights by ptlfs Vidal Castillp; Ben Adnerson and all similarly situated pltfs ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 04/22/1997)
332 ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel granting motion for order approving class action resolution [269−1] granting in part class counsel motion for attorney fees [285−1]; the Court orders the parties to submit further briefing on the issue of incentive awards w/in 10 days of date of order; ordering parties to brief the issues raised by the Court at the Fairness Hrg on motion for order directing Betty Montgomery and all counsel for defts to cease and desist from conduct in violation of memo of understanding and General Protocol for Clms [328−1]; parties briefs on this issue are also due w/in 10 days of date of order ; briefs ddl 5/2/97 (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 30) (vp) (Entered: 04/22/1997)
333 MOTION by plaintiff Paul Mulryan for order of court granting petitioners motion to convey ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 04/29/1997)
334 MOTION by plaintiff Paul Mulryan for hearing/oral argument ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 04/29/1997)
NOTATION ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel denying motion for order of court granting petitioners motion to convey [333−1] (cc: all counsel) (vp) (Entered: 04/30/1997)
NOTATION ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel denying motion for hearing/oral argument [334−1] (cc: all counsel) (vp) (Entered: 04/30/1997)
335 MOTION by Wayne Bell for appointment of counsel for ntc of intent to appeal order entered 4/15/97 and for copy of courts written opinion of jgm entered on 4/15/97 ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 05/01/1997)
336 MEMORANDUM by defendants in opposition to pltfs motion to cease and desist [328−1]; oral argument reqeusted ( no pgs: 13+) (vp) (Entered: 05/02/1997)
337 MEMORANDUM by defendants in opposition to proposed incentive awards; oral argument requested ( no pgs: 12+) (vp) (Entered: 05/02/1997)
338 Supplemental memorandum by plaintiff to motion for order directing Betty Montgomery and all counsel for defts to cease and desist from conduct in violation of memo of understanding and General Protocol for Clms [328−1] ( no pgs: 5+) (vp) (Entered: 05/06/1997)
339 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings filed by Mary Ann Ranz Court Reporter on atty Gerhardsteins comments regarding Ms Paxton during hrg held before J Spiegel on 4/15/97 (vp) (Entered: 05/06/1997)
340 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings filed by Mary Ann Ranz Court Reporter on testimony of Director Reginald Wilkinson held before J Spiegel on 4/15/97 (vp) (Entered: 05/06/1997)

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 32 of 97

05/07/1997
05/07/1997 05/09/1997 05/12/1997 05/14/1997 05/14/1997
05/15/1997 05/19/1997 05/29/1997 05/30/1997 06/02/1997 06/02/1997 06/04/1997
06/05/1997
06/10/1997 06/13/1997 06/13/1997 06/16/1997
06/18/1997 06/19/1997 06/19/1997 06/26/1997

341 RESPONSE by plaintiff to motions for order to transfer out of Ohio prison system [288−1], for order to attend hrg on 4/15/97 [318−1], and for order to transfer pltf to Federal Prison system [322−1] ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 05/08/1997)
342 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff in opposition to [333−1] ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 05/08/1997)
343 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Kenneth Wilson from Dist. Court decision [332−2] of 4/22/97 ( no pgs: 2) (vp) Modified on 06/06/1997 (Entered: 05/12/1997)
344 MOTION by plaintiff Gary L Faulkner for temporary restraining order , for preliminary injunction , to compel ( no pgs: 6) (vp) (Entered: 05/13/1997)
APPEAL NOTIFICATION issued CA. (vp) (Entered: 05/14/1997)
345 DEFICIENCY ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman pltf to submit application and afdt to prpoceed w/out prepayment of fees w/in 30 days of date of order ; Show cause ddl 6/14/97 copy of order sent to Clerk in Cofa (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 05/15/1997)
346 MOTION by Craig Breeze for order to issue contempt and for sanctions for violations to settlment agreement ( no pgs: 5+) (vp) (Entered: 05/16/1997)
347 OBJECTIONS by plaintiff Paul Mulryan to issues raised at fairness hrg [329−1] ( no pgs: 6) (vp) (Entered: 05/20/1997)
348 APPLICATION and afdt by plaintiff Kenneth Wilson to proceed IFP ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 05/30/1997)
349 STATEMENT/INTERIM REPORT by special master Michael R Barrett ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 05/30/1997)
350 REPLY by plaintiffs re motion to cease and desist [328−1] ( no pgs: 10) (vp) (Entered: 06/03/1997)
350 RESPONSE by plaintiff to motion for order to issue contempt [346−1] ( no pgs: 10) (vp) (Entered: 06/03/1997)
351 MOTION by defendants to strike motion for order to issue contempt [346−1], motion for sanctions for violations to settlment agreement [346−2] ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 06/05/1997)
352 ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel denying plaintiff/appellant Kenneth Jay Wilson in forma pauperis status on appeal and ordering assessment of the full filing fee for notice of appeal of $105.00. (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (km) Modified on 06/06/1997 (Entered: 06/05/1997)
353 MOTION by plaintiff Ben Anderson for order to enforce jgm ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 06/11/1997)
354 MOTION by plaintiff Charles Nolan for appointment of counsel ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 06/16/1997)
355 RECEIPT OF USCA APPEAL NUMBER − Number Assigned: 97−3591 (vp) (Entered: 06/16/1997)
356 MOTION by defendants to supplement record relating to ptlfs incentive awards request and to file supplement to record under seal ; attached docs under seal ( no pgs: 3+) (vp) (Entered: 06/17/1997)
357 RESPONSE by plaintiff to motion for order to enforce jgm [353−1] ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 06/19/1997)
358 ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel denying motion for appointment of counsel [354−1] (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 06/19/1997)
359 MOTION by plaintiff Charles Nolan for order of trancription copy of SJT proceeding ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 06/19/1997)
362 Supplemental memorandum by plaintiff to motion for order to enforce jgm [353−1] ( no pgs: 2) (tt) (Entered: 06/27/1997)

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 33 of 97

06/27/1997
06/27/1997 06/27/1997 06/30/1997 06/30/1997 07/07/1997 07/07/1997 07/07/1997 07/09/1997 07/10/1997 07/10/1997 07/11/1997 07/16/1997 07/17/1997 07/17/1997 07/17/1997 07/24/1997
07/24/1997
07/24/1997 07/24/1997

360 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman denying motion for order to transfer out of Ohio prison system [288−1], denying objection [294−1], denying motion for order to attend hrg on 4/15/97 [318−1], denying motion for order to transfer pltf to Federal Prison system [322−1] (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (ph) (Entered: 06/27/1997)
361 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman denying motion for temporary restraining order [344−1], denying motion for preliminary injunction [344−2], denying motion to compel [344−3] (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (ph) (Entered: 06/27/1997)
363 MOTION by plaintiff Charles Nolan for order to be transferred to federal juris ( no pgs: 5) (vp) (Entered: 06/30/1997)
364 ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel denying motion for order of trancription copy of SJT proceeding [359−1] (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 06/30/1997)
365 MOTION by plaintiff Ben Anderson for order to disjoin and refile ; conference requested ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 07/01/1997)
366 MEMORANDUM by plaintiffs in opposition to pltf Ben Anderson motion to disjoin [365−1] ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 07/08/1997)
367 REQUEST by plaintiff Johnny K Lattimer for monetary sanctions ( no pgs: 3+) (vp) (Entered: 07/08/1997)
368 MOTION by plaintiffs for leave to file supplementall memo re: motion to cease and desist ( no pgs: 3+) (vp) (Entered: 07/08/1997)
369 RESPONSE by plaintiff to motion for order to be transferred to federal juris [363−1] ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 07/10/1997)
370 REPLY by class members in support of motion to cease and desiste [328−1] ( no pgs: 2+) (vp) (Entered: 07/10/1997)
371 RESPONSE by plaintiff to motion for sanctions for violations to settlment agreement [346−2] ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 07/10/1997)
372 MOTION by defendant to strike motion for order to disjoin and refile [365−1] ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 07/15/1997)
373 ORDER OF USCA 6th: since the $105 filing fee was not timely paid in accordance with the district courts directions this appeal is ordered dismissed for want of prosecution ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 07/16/1997)
374 MOTION by plaintiff Ben Anderson for order for change of cousnel ; oral argument requested ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 07/18/1997)
375 MOTION by plaintiff Ben Anderson for order for Court to investigate Unit Mgrs at SOCF ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 07/18/1997)
376 NOTICE OF APPEAL by plaintiff Charles Nolan from Dist. Court decision [360−1] of 6/27/97 ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 07/22/1997)
377 ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel granting motion to supplement record relating to ptlfs incentive awards request [356−1]; pltfs Morris and Adams shall be awarded incentive awards with the amount of the award to be determined by the Settlement Master/Trustee upon applicatin of Class Counsel the amount of the award shall be deducted from the $1,658,613.41 already awarded class counsel for their fees and expenses incurred (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 21) (vp) (Entered: 07/24/1997)
378 ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel parties to show cause why we should not grant pltfs motions for injunctive relief at hrg ; Show cause hrg set for 9:00 9/5/97 ; paraties to submit Proposed findings and should comply with terms as set forth in order; pltfs file briefs by 8/15/97; defts briefs filed by 8/29/97 and pltf reply by 9/5/97 (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 5) (vp) (Entered: 07/24/1997)
APPEAL NOTIFICATION issued CA. (vp) (Entered: 07/25/1997)
379 MEMORANDUM by defendants in opposition to pltfs motion for leave to file supplemental memo re: motion to cease and desist [368−1] ( no pgs: 2) (vp)

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 34 of 97

07/24/1997 07/30/1997 08/05/1997 08/07/1997
08/08/1997 08/12/1997 08/15/1997 08/18/1997
08/18/1997 08/18/1997
08/20/1997 08/20/1997 08/20/1997 08/21/1997 08/22/1997 08/25/1997 08/28/1997 09/02/1997 09/02/1997 09/05/1997 09/08/1997

(Entered: 07/25/1997)
380 MOTION by defendant to strike Class Member Lattimers request for monetaryt sanctions [367−1] ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 07/25/1997)
381 APPLICATION by special master Michael R Barrett for disbursements of expenses and atty fees ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 07/31/1997)
382 NOTICE by Jeffrey T Balder of assignment ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 08/06/1997)
383 ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel granting application [381−1] the Court authorizes the Settlement Master/Trustee to disburse to Class Counsel the amount of $1,608,613.41 as fees and expenses (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 08/07/1997)
384 MOTION by plaintiff Johnny K Lattimer for order to cease and desist ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 08/08/1997)
385 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman denying motion for order for change of cousnel [374−1] (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 08/12/1997)
386 MOTION by plaintiff Dean Duncan for order declaratory jgm ( no pgs: 2) (vp) Modified on 08/19/1997 (Entered: 08/18/1997)
387 NOTICE OF APPEAL by defendants George V Voinovich, Reginald A Wilkinson, Terry Collins, Arthur Jr Tate, and Eric G Dahlberg from Dist. Court decision [377−1] of 7/24/97 ( no pgs: 4) (vp) Modified on 08/19/1997 (Entered: 08/19/1997)
APPEAL FEE pd. in amount of $ 105.00 ( Receipt # 100103711)(vp) Modified on 08/19/1997 (Entered: 08/19/1997)
388 MOTION by defendants George V Voinovich, Reginald Wilkinson, Terry Collins, Arthur Jr Tate, Eric G Dahlberg to stay upon appeal ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 08/19/1997)
389 MOTION by plaintiff Wayne C Bell for order to cease and desist ( no pgs: 4) (km) (Entered: 08/20/1997)
NOTATION ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel denying motion for order declaratory jgm [386−1] (cc: all counsel) (vp) (Entered: 08/20/1997)
APPEAL NOTIFICATION issued CA. (vp) (Entered: 08/21/1997)
390 NOTICE of hearing ; Show cause hrg rescheduled for 2:00 9/11/97 before J Spiegel (cc: all counsel) (vp) (Entered: 08/21/1997)
391 Proposed Findings of Fact by plaintiffs pursuant to order of court of 7/24/97 (vp) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
392 Addendum/Supplement by plaintiff re miscellaneous [391−1] ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
393 LETTER to court from Cofa showing filing fee for appeal has not been paid ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 08/29/1997)
394 MOTION by plaintiff Wayne Bell to compel atty erhardstein to inact paragraph e parole policy ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 09/03/1997)
395 RECEIPT OF USCA APPEAL NUMBER − Number Assigned: 97−3982 (vp) (Entered: 09/03/1997)
396 Proposed Findings of Fact by defendants pursuant to court order of 7/24/97 (vp) (Entered: 09/08/1997)
397 ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel that Clerk is to forward to class counsel pltfs motion and copy of order; class counsel to determine whether inmate is a member of class; class counsel to inform court in writing if it concludes that pltf is a member of class (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 09/08/1997)

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 35 of 97

09/08/1997 09/09/1997 09/11/1997 09/12/1997 09/15/1997 09/15/1997 09/16/1997
09/16/1997
09/17/1997 09/19/1997 09/23/1997
09/23/1997
10/03/1997 10/10/1997 10/15/1997 10/27/1997 11/03/1997

398 MOTION by plaintiff Wayne C Bell for appt of fdrl arbitrator/master to mediate parole hrg ( no pgs: 2) (km) (Entered: 09/08/1997)
399 NOTICE of hearing ; In−court/show cause hearing set for 9:00 9/19/97 before J Spiegel (cc: all counsel) (vp) (Entered: 09/10/1997)
400 Addendum/Supplement by defendant re miscellaneous [396−1] ( no pgs: 2+) (vp) (Entered: 09/12/1997)
401 REPLY by plaintiffs to defts findings of fact [396−1] ( no pgs: 9) (vp) (Entered: 09/12/1997)
402 MOTION by plaintiff Anthony Copeland to compel discovery ( no pgs: 2+) (km) (Entered: 09/15/1997)
403 PETITION by plaintiffs class members for writ of HC ad testificandum ( no pgs: 1+) (vp) (Entered: 09/16/1997)
404 WRIT of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum to Harry Russel issued as to plaintiff Darrin E Morris; pltf to be in Court on 9/19/97 at 8:00 and each day thereafter until proceedings are completed; pltf to be returned to custody of ODRC at conclusion of each day ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 09/16/1997)
405 WRIT of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum to Terry Collins issued as to plaintiff Eugene K Adams; pltf to be presnet in Court on 9/19/97 at 8:00 and each day until proceedings are completed; pltf shall be returned to custody of ODRC at conclusion of hrg ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 09/16/1997)
TRANSCRIPT ORDER FORM (vp) (Entered: 09/17/1997)
406 CIVIL MINUTES: Proceeding before Judge S. A. Spiegel for show cause hrg; arguments of counsel; taken under advisement; Mary Ann Ranz Court Reporter (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 09/19/1997)
407 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman that Wayce Bells motion to compel and copy of this order be sent to Class counsel for determination whether inmate is a member of the class; whether relief and or information sought falls w/in paramenters of settlement agreement and the approporate method for seeking relief w/in 20 days; if class counsel determines the request falls w/in the paramenters of the settlement agreement Class Counsel should inform the Court of this in writing; if class counsel determins Mr Bell is not a class member Class Counsel shall inform the USMJ and inmate will be sent instructions for filing a pro se complaint (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 09/23/1997)
408 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman regarding doc 384 inmates motion for cease and desist; copy of order and inmates motion to be sent to class counsel for determinatin whether inamte is a member of the class and whether relief falls w/in parameters of the settlement agreement and appropriate method of seeking relief w/in 20 days; if class counsel determins inmate is a member of the class Class Consel is to inform the court in writing; if class counsel determines inmate is not a class member Class counsel is to inform USMJ and inmate will be sent instructions for filing a pro se complaint (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 09/23/1997)
409 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings filed by Mary Ann Ranz Court Reporter on hrg on motions held before J Spiegel on 9/19/97 (vp) (Entered: 10/03/1997)
410 NOTICE by plaintiff Charles Nolan to inform court that dfts and pltfs counsel have violated class action settlement (no pgs: 2+) (km) (Entered: 10/10/1997)
411 MOTION by plaintiff Wayne C Bell for order to compel Class Counsel to send copy of written response as ordered by the Court (doc. 397) ( no pgs: 1) (km) Modified on 10/16/1997 (Entered: 10/16/1997)
412 NOTICE of hearing ; Status conference set for 3:00 11/10/97 before J Spiegel (cc: all counsel) (vp) (Entered: 10/28/1997)
413 OBJECTIONS by movant Charles Nolan to dfts illegally violating pltfs right to privacy ( no pgs: 2+) (km) (Entered: 11/03/1997)

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 36 of 97

11/10/1997 11/10/1997 11/12/1997
11/13/1997 11/13/1997 11/24/1997
11/24/1997 11/25/1997 11/25/1997 11/25/1997 12/04/1997 12/05/1997 12/08/1997 12/08/1997 12/08/1997 12/09/1997 12/09/1997 12/12/1997
12/12/1997 12/22/1997

414 STATEMENT/INTERIM REPORT by special master Michael R Barrett ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 11/10/1997)
415 MOTION by movant HCCSEA to intervene to collect child support ; oral argument requested ( no pgs: 11+) (vp) (Entered: 11/12/1997)
416 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman class counsel to determine whehter inmate is member of the class; whether relief and or info falls w/in parameters of settlement agreement; class counsel to inform court of status of Mr Nolan (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 11/12/1997)
417 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman denying motion to compel discovery [402−1] as moot (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 11/13/1997)
418 AMENDMENT by movant HCCSEA to motion to intervene to collect child support [415−1] ( no pgs: 11+) (vp) (Entered: 11/14/1997)
419 ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel actions of Atty eneral do not constitute breach of settlement agreement; have jurisdiction over administration of settlement fund; pursuant to our equity powers to administer fairly the settlement fund the court orders that the class members may assign their award from settlement fund to third party; assignment shall be made public; the court denies all other relief reqeusted by pltfs in their motin to cease and desist [328−1] (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 19) (vp) (Entered: 11/24/1997)
420 RESPONSE to order by MJ Sherman re: Charles Nolan [416−1] ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 11/25/1997)
421 RESPONSE of class counsel to petition by class member Arga Buckhalter ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 11/26/1997)
422 RESPONSE of Class Counsel to order by MJ Sherman re Wayne Bell and ntc of class member Nolan [410−1][407−1] ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 11/26/1997)
423 RESPONSE of Class Counsel to MJ Sherman order re Johnny Latimer [408−1] ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 11/26/1997)
424 MEMORANDUM by plaintiffs in opposition to HCCSEA motion to intervene [415−1] ( no pgs: 7) (vp) (Entered: 12/05/1997)
425 MOTION by defendant Betty D Montgomery to clarify order of 11/24/97 ( no pgs: 6+) (vp) (Entered: 12/08/1997)
426 NOTICE by plaintiff Charles Nolan of defendants violation of paragraph (g) of class action settlement ( no pgs: 2+) (km) (Entered: 12/09/1997)
427 MOTION by plaintiff Charles Nolan for relief for invasion and violation by defendant of plaintiffs right to privacy ( no pgs: 2+) (km) (Entered: 12/09/1997)
428 MOTION by plaintiff Wayne Bell for sanctions ( no pgs: 7+) (km) (Entered: 12/09/1997)
429 MOTION by Betty D Montgomery to supplement motion to clarify order of 11/24/97 [425−1] ( no pgs: 3+) (vp) (Entered: 12/10/1997)
430 RESPONSE by defendants to response of class counsel [420−1] to order by MJ Sherman re: Charles Nolan ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 12/10/1997)
431 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT by plaintiff Thomas E Simmons for third party to receive payment from settlement fund pursuant to order of 11/24/97 ( no pgs: 3) (km) (Entered: 12/12/1997)
432 REPLY by intervenor HCCSEA to response to motion to intervene to collect child support [415−1] ( no pgs: 5) (vp) (Entered: 12/16/1997)
433 NOTICE OF APPEAL by defts George V Voinovich, Reginald A Wilkinson, Arthur Jr Tate, Terry Collins, Eric G Dahlberg from Dist. Court decision [419−1] of 11/24/97 () (ph) (Entered: 12/22/1997)

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 37 of 97

12/22/1997 12/22/1997 12/23/1997 12/23/1997 12/24/1997 12/29/1997 12/30/1997 12/31/1997 12/31/1997 01/05/1998 01/06/1998 01/07/1998 01/15/1998 01/21/1998 02/03/1998 02/04/1998
02/05/1998
02/05/1998 02/05/1998 02/05/1998

434 MOTION by defts George V Voinovich, Reginald A Wilkinson, Arthur Jr Tate, Terry Collins, Eric G Dahlberg to stay pending appeal ( no pgs: ) (ph) (Entered: 12/22/1997)
APPEAL FEE pd in amount of $ 105.00 ( Receipt # 100 104666) (ph) (Entered: 12/24/1997)
APPEAL NOTIFICATION issued CA. in re: 433 (ph) (Entered: 12/23/1997)
435 APPLICATION FOR DISBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES AND ATTORNEY FEES by special master Michael R Barrett () (ph) (Entered: 12/24/1997)
436 NOTICE by Judge Spiegel of hearing on motion to intervene to collect child support [415−1] at 9:00 1/8/98 (cc: all counsel) (ph) (Entered: 12/29/1997)
437 MOTION by movant HCCSEA to continue hearing on amended motion to intervene ( no pgs: 4) (km) (Entered: 12/30/1997)
438 MOTION by plaintiff Charles Nolan for order directing the Ohio Parole Board to grant pltf another parole board hrg to comply with class settlement agreement ( no pgs: 2) (km) (Entered: 12/30/1997)
439 ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel and authorization disbursement to Settlement Master/Trustee in the amount of $9,000 as fees and expenses (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 01/05/1998)
440 ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel setting motion to intervene to collect child support [415−1] at 2:00 3/31/98 (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 01/05/1998)
441 RECEIPT OF USCA APPEAL NUMBER − Number Assigned: 97−4991 (vp) (Entered: 01/06/1998)
442 NOTICE of hearing on motion to intervene to collect child support [415−1] set for 2:00 3/31/98 before J Spiegel (cc: all counsel) (vp) (Entered: 01/06/1998)
443 MOTION by plaintiff Charles Nolan for monetary relief in the amount of $100,000 , and for jurisdictional transfer within federal prison system ( no pgs: 2+) (km) (Entered: 01/07/1998)
444 MOTION by plaintiff Charles Nolan for order directing court to pay filing fee for appeal by pltf ( no pgs: 2) (km) (Entered: 01/15/1998)
445 ORDER OF USCA 6th: remanding the matter back to District Court for purpose of assessing the filing fee of $105 [Appeal [376−1] ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 01/23/1998)
447 STATUS REPORT by defendants ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 02/04/1998)
446 DEFICIENCY ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman; pltf/appellant Charles Nolan ordered to submit an appl and afdt to proceed IFP and a cert copy of trust fund acct stmt for the six month period immediately preceding filing ntc of appeal or pay the full filing fee of $105.00 within 30 days of the date of this order ; Return file ddl set for 3/6/98 ; the Clerk is directed to submit to pltf/appellant an appl and afdt to proceed IFP form (cc: all counsel/cashier/COFA) ( no pgs: 2) (km) (Entered: 02/04/1998)
448 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman on inmate Nolan status as class member; class counsel to determine whether inmate is member of class w/in 20 days of receipt of order ; Show cause ddl set 2/25/98 (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (ss) (Entered: 02/05/1998)
449 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman denying motion for monetary relief in the amount of $100,000 [443−1] (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (ss) (Entered: 02/05/1998)
450 MEMORANDUM by plaintiffs in opposition to defts motion to stay and to clarify order of 11/24/97 [434−1] [425−1] ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/06/1998)
451 MOTION by plaintiff Charles Nolan for order directing class counsel to provide pltf with copy of dfts response filed 12/9/97 ( no pgs: 2) (km) (Entered:

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 38 of 97

02/11/1998 02/11/1998 02/11/1998 02/11/1998 02/12/1998 02/20/1998 02/20/1998 02/23/1998 02/23/1998 02/24/1998
03/03/1998 03/04/1998 03/04/1998 03/24/1998 03/24/1998
03/30/1998 03/31/1998 04/01/1998

02/06/1998)
452 REPLY by defendants to pro se response to motion to clarify order of 11/24/97 [425−1] ( no pgs: 9) (km) (Entered: 02/11/1998)
453 RESPONSE by class counsel to motion of Frank McMillan ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 02/13/1998)
454 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff in opposition to [419−1] ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 02/13/1998)
455 RESPONSE by plaintiff Darrin E Morris to [448−2] ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 02/13/1998)
456 REPLY by defendants to response to motion to stay pending appeal [434−1], motion to clarify order of 11/24/97 [425−1] ( no pgs: 5+) (vp) (Entered: 02/13/1998)
457 MOTION by plaintiff Charles Nolan for review of MJ Shermans order of 2/5/98 denying monetary relief [449−1] ( no pgs: 2) (km) (Entered: 02/20/1998)
APPEAL FEE paid re Charles Nolan in amount of $ 105.00 ( Receipt # 400150) for Notice of Appeal [376−1] (km) (Entered: 02/20/1998)
458 APPLICATION/AFFIDAVIT by plaintiff Charles Nolan to proceed in forma pauperis ( no pgs: 7+) (km) (Entered: 02/23/1998)
459 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman denying motion for order directing class counsel to provide pltf with copy of dfts response filed 12/9/97 [451−1] (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 02/23/1998)
460 ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel denying motion to stay pending appeal [434−1], granting motion to supplement motion to clarify order of 11/24/97 [425−1] [429−1], denying motion to clarify order of 11/24/97 [425−1] (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 6) (vp) (Entered: 02/24/1998)
461 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings filed by Mary Ann Ranz Court Reporter on conference held in chambers on 11/10/97 before J Spiegel (vp) (Entered: 03/03/1998)
462 OBJECTIONS by plaintiff Charles Nolan to defendants reply to response of class counsel to court order re Charles Nolan [430−1] ( no pgs: 2) (km) (Entered: 03/04/1998)
463 MOTION by plaintiff Charles Nolan for order directing confidential medical records fm 1989 to be removed fm the claims administrators files ( no pgs: 2+) (km) (Entered: 03/04/1998)
464 INFORMATION COPY of USCA 6th: appeal [387−1]; dfts motion to stay appeal is denied as moot and appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction (km) (Entered: 03/24/1998)
465 ORDER OF USCA 6th: pltfs motion to dismiss appeal for lack of standing is DENIED; dfts motion for a stay pending appeal is GRANTED IN PART and the payment of any settlement funds pursuant to a third−party assignment is stayed pending further order of the court ( no pgs: 2) (km) (Entered: 03/24/1998)
466 ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel denying motion for review of MJ Shermans order of 2/5/98 denying monetary relief [449−1] [457−1] (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 03/30/1998)
467 ATTORNEY SUBSTITUTION: terminating attorney Philip Lewis Zorn Jr. for HCCSEA and substituting attorney Christian Joseph Schaefer ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 04/01/1998)
468 CIVIL MINUTES: Proceeding before Judge S. A. Spiegel on motion to intervene to collect child support [415−1]; arguments of counsel; Mary Ann Ranz Court Reporter (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 04/01/1998)

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 39 of 97

04/03/1998 04/03/1998 04/15/1998 04/15/1998 04/22/1998 04/22/1998 04/22/1998 04/22/1998 04/22/1998
04/22/1998 04/22/1998 04/22/1998
04/22/1998
04/29/1998 04/29/1998 05/22/1998 06/04/1998

469 MOTION by plaintiff Johnny K Lattimer for temporary restraining order , or for preliminary injunction against Warden Michael A Leonard of Allen Corr Inst ( no pgs: 4+) (km) (Entered: 04/03/1998)
470 MOTION by plaintiff Johnny K Lattimer to waive requirement of posting security in connection with filing motion for tro/prelinj ( no pgs: 1) (km) (Entered: 04/03/1998)
471 ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel denyig the motion to stay upon appeal [388−1] moot (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 04/15/1998)
472 ORDER OF USCA 6th pursuant to courts disposiiton that was filed 3/23/98 the mandate for case hereby issues today ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 04/15/1998)
473 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman denying motion for order to be transferred to federal juris [363−1] (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 04/22/1998)
474 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman denying motion for order to enforce jgm [353−1] (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 04/22/1998)
475 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman denying motion for order to disjoin and refile [365−1] granting motion to strike motion for order to disjoin and refile [365−1] [372−1] (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 04/22/1998)
476 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman denying request [367−1] granting motion to strike Class Member Lattimers request for monetaryt sanctions [367−1] [380−1] (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 04/22/1998)
477 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman denying motion for order to issue contempt [346−1], denying motion for sanctions for violations to settlment agreement [346−2] granting motion to strike motion for order to issue contempt [346−1], motion for sanctions for violations to settlment agreement [346−2] [351−1] (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 04/22/1998)
478 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman denying motion for order to cease and desist [389−1] (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 04/22/1998)
479 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman denying motion for order directing court to pay filing fee for appeal by pltf [444−1] (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 04/22/1998)
480 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman denying objection [413−1], denying motion for relief for invasion and violation by defendant of plaintiffs right to privacy [427−1], denying motion for order directing confidential medical records fm 1989 to be removed fm the claims administrators files [463−1] (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 04/22/1998)
481 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman denying motion to compel atty erhardstein to inact paragraph e parole policy [394−1] denying motion for order to compel Class Counsel to send copy of written response as ordered by the Court (doc. 397) [411−1] denying motion for order directing the Ohio Parole Board to grant pltf another parole board hrg to comply with class settlement agreement [438−1] (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 04/22/1998)
482 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman denying motion for order for Court to investigate Unit Mgrs at SOCF [375−1] (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 04/29/1998)
483 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman denying motion for order to cease and desist [384−1] (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 04/29/1998)
484 MOTION by plaintiff Charles Nolan for review of order by MJ Sherman denying removal of confidential medical records fm claim administrators files [480−1] ( no pgs: 2) (km) (Entered: 05/22/1998)
485 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings filed by Mary Ann Ranz Court Reporter on hrg on motion of excerpts of proceedings held before J Spiegel on 3/31/988 (vp) (Entered: 06/04/1998)

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 40 of 97

07/07/1998 07/08/1998 07/09/1998 07/09/1998 07/09/1998 07/27/1998 07/30/1998 08/11/1998 08/13/1998 08/14/1998 09/03/1998
11/12/1998 11/16/1998 11/17/1998 11/19/1998 12/24/1998
02/18/1999 03/09/1999
03/09/1999
03/09/1999
03/09/1999
03/09/1999

486 MOTION by defendants for reconsideration of order [377−1] and to vacate incentive aards () (vp) (Entered: 07/07/1998)
487 MOTION by plaintiff John Perotti for temporary restraining order , and for preliminary injunction ( no pgs: 4+) (km) (Entered: 07/08/1998)
488 LETTER of inquiry and intent to court from plaintiff Marlowe Malone ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 07/09/1998)
489 MOTION by plaintiff Donald L Swearingen for an order directing case to proceed to trial ( no pgs: 8+) (km) (Entered: 07/09/1998)
489 OBJECTIONS by plaintiff Donald L Swearingen to out of court class settlement ( no pgs: 8+) (km) (Entered: 07/09/1998)
490 MOTION by plaintiff for temporary restraining order () (vp) (Entered: 07/27/1998)
491 MEMORANDUM by plaintiffs in opposition to defts motion to reconsider and vacate incentive awards [486−1] ( no pgs: 25+) (vp) (Entered: 07/31/1998)
492 INFORMATION COPY of USCA 6th: appeal [433−1]; affirming district courts jgm (vp) (Entered: 08/11/1998)
493 REPLY by defendant to response to motion for reconsideration of order [377−1] and to vacate incentive aards [486−1] ( no pgs: 12) (vp) (Entered: 08/13/1998)
494 INFORMATION COPY of USCA 6th: dismissing appeal [433−1] (vp) (Entered: 08/14/1998)
495 ORDER/MANDATE OF USCA 6th Circuit: pursuant to COFA disposition of appeal filed 8/10/98 the mandate hereby issues ( no pgs: 1) (km) (Entered: 09/03/1998)
496 MOTION by plaintiff Abdul−Muqsit Ahmad for temporary restraining order , and for preliminary injunction ( no pgs: 4+) (km) (Entered: 11/12/1998)
MOTION by defendants to consolidate case 97−81 with 93−436 ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 03/09/2000)
497 RULE 11(e) FILED: File to be retained by District Court during appeal. (km) (Entered: 11/17/1998)
498 MOTION by plaintiff Charles Nolan for declaratory judgment; oral argument requested ( no pgs: 3) (km) (Entered: 11/19/1998)
499 MOTION by class plaintiff Keith Cardell Sr for an order directing Clerk to provide pltf with a complete docket to allow pltf to obtain a current status of the case ( no pgs: 1) (km) (Entered: 12/28/1998)
500 MOTION by plaintiff John Perotti for temporary restraining order , and for preliminary injunction ( no pgs: 5+) (km) (Entered: 02/18/1999)
501 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman denying motion for an order directing case to proceed to trial [489−1]; clerk directed to send Mr Swearingen instructions on filing pro se complaint (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 03/09/1999)
502 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman denying motion for declaratory judgment; oral argument requested [498−1]; clerk to send Mr Nolan instructions for filing pro se complaint (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 03/09/1999)
503 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman granting motion for an order directing Clerk to provide pltf with a complete docket to allow pltf to obtain a current status of the case [499−1] clerk directed to forward to Mr Cardell copy of docket sheet in action (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 03/09/1999)
504 ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel denying motion for reconsideration of order [377−1] and to vacate incentive aards [486−1] (cc: all counsel) () (vp) (Entered: 03/09/1999)
505 ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel denying motion for review of order by MJ Sherman denying removal of confidential medical records fm claim administrators

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 41 of 97

03/10/1999
03/10/1999
03/12/1999 08/09/1999 08/25/1999 08/25/1999 09/02/1999 09/08/1999 09/17/1999 09/24/1999 10/27/1999
10/27/1999 10/27/1999 10/29/1999 11/08/1999 12/16/1999 12/16/1999 12/16/1999

files [480−1] [484−1]; the court affirms the Magistrate Judge's order (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 03/09/1999)
506 ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel denying motion to waive requirement of posting security in connection with filing motion for tro/prelinj [470−1], denying motion for temporary restraining order [469−1], denying motion for preliminary injunction against Warden Michael A Leonard of Allen Corr Inst [469−2]; clerk of court directed to send deft Lattimer instructions for filing pro se complaint (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 03/10/1999)
507 ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel denying motion for temporary restraining order [490−1], denying motion for temporary restraining order [487−1], denying motion for preliminary injunction [487−2]; clerk of court directed to send to deft Perotti instructions for filing pro se complaint (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 03/10/1999)
508 NOTICE of change of address of John Berry ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 03/25/1999)
509 RECORD CERTIFIED to USCA 6th: (Only the following documents sent: 328, 336, 338, 350, 368 and 370) (kfj) (Entered: 08/09/1999)
510 ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel denying motion for temporary restraining order [496−1], denying motion for preliminary injunction [496−2] (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 08/25/1999)
511 ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel denying motion for temporary restraining order [500−1], denying motion for preliminary injunction [500−2] (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 08/25/1999)
512 MOTION by claimant Earl Elder to compel claims Administrator appointed ; afdt of Michael J Boylan attached ( no pgs: 7+) (vp) (Entered: 09/03/1999)
513 RESPONSE to motion to compel claims Administrator appointed [512−1] and MOTION by plaintiffs for order directing parties to honor of paragraph nine (vp) (Entered: 09/09/1999)
514 RESPONSE by special master Michael R Barrett to motion to compel claims Administrator appointed [512−1] ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 09/20/1999)
515 INFORMATION COPY of USCA 6th: dessenting from courts decision to reverse jgm of district court re appeal [433−1] (vp) (Entered: 09/27/1999)
516 ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel denying motion to compel claims Administrator appointed [512−1] granting motion [513−2]; parties are to adhere to the mandate of paragraph nine of general protocol by keeping confiential the names of the individual class member claimants (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 10/27/1999)
517 NOTICE of hearing ; Status conference set 10:00 12/21/99 before J Spiegel (cc: all counsel) (vp) (Entered: 10/27/1999)
518 ORDER OF USCA 6th: pursuant to courts disposition that was filed 9/24/99 the mandate for case hereby isssues ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 10/28/1999)
APPEAL Record Returned from USCA 6th consisting of doc.# 328, 336, 338, 350, 368, &370. (wam) (Entered: 11/08/1999)
Mail Returned [517−2] to Gary Benjamin (vp) (Entered: 11/08/1999)
519 STATEMENT/REPORT ON DETERMINATION of claims by Michael R Barrett ( no pgs: 5) (vp) (Entered: 12/22/1999)
520 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman FILED UNDER SEAL (vp) (Entered: 12/22/1999)
521 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman FILED UNDER SEAL (cc: all counsel) () (vp) (Entered: 12/22/1999)

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 42 of 97

12/21/1999 12/22/1999 12/22/1999 12/23/1999 12/23/1999
12/27/1999 12/29/1999
12/29/1999
12/29/1999
01/10/2000
01/10/2000 01/12/2000 01/12/2000 01/12/2000 01/12/2000 01/14/2000
01/18/2000 01/19/2000 01/19/2000 01/19/2000 01/20/2000

522 SECOND APPLICATION by special master for disbursemtn of interim expense and atty fees ( no pgs: 2+) (vp) (Entered: 12/22/1999)
523 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendants by Jeffery William Clark no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 12/23/1999)
524 MOTION by defendants to vacate 12/16/99 order ( no pgs: 13) (vp) (Entered: 12/23/1999)
525 MEMORANDUM by plaintiffs in opposition to motion to vacate protective order [524−1] ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 12/23/1999)
526 CIVIL MINUTES: Proceeding before Judge S. A. Spiegel for trustee report/status conference; attys present; testimony presented by Michael Barrett Special Master; parties to file responses in January re settlement agreement; Betty Schwab Official Court Reporter (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 12/29/1999)
527 NOTICE by plaintiffs of filing afdts of Eugene Adams and Darin Morris ( no pgs: 2+) (vp) (Entered: 12/29/1999)
528 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings filed by Betty Schwab Official Court Reporter on status conference held before J Spiegel on 12/23/99; 60 pages (vp) (Entered: 12/29/1999)
529 ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel granting second application for interim expenses and atty fees in the amount of $54,829.17 [522−1] (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 12/29/1999)
530 ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel granting Special Master/Trustee claim against administrators incentive awards for class representative (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 12/29/1999)
531 ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel granting in part and denying in part motion to vacate 12/16/99 order [524−1]; the court recommends doc 521 be lifted however doc 520 shall remain under seal (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 01/10/2000)
532 MOTION by defendants to supplement the record instanter ( no pgs: 3+) (vp) (Entered: 01/10/2000)
533 MEMORANDUM by plaintiffs in opposition to defts motion to supplement [532−1] ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 01/12/2000)
534 MOTION by defendants to stay enforcement of courts order granting incentive awards pending appeal ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 01/13/2000)
535 NOTICE OF APPEAL by defendant from Dist. Court decision [530−1] of 12/29/99 ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 01/13/2000)
APPEAL FEE pd in amount of $ 105. ( Receipt # 100406058) (vp) (Entered: 01/13/2000)
536 MOTION by Cuyahoga Cty Commissioners; Cuyahoga Cty Child Support Enforcement Agency and Cuyahoga Clerk of Courts to intervene ( no pgs: 8+) (vp) (Entered: 01/14/2000)
APPEAL NOTIFICATION issued CA for doc.#535 (wam) (Entered: 01/18/2000)
537 RECEIPT OF USCA APPEAL NUMBER − Number Assigned: 00−3090 (vp) (Entered: 01/19/2000)
538 APPLICATION by intervenor HCCSEA to sel records provided in 1/10/00 order ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 01/19/2000)
539 MOTION by defendant for reconsideration of order [531−1] ( no pgs: 9+) (vp) (Entered: 01/20/2000)
540 MEMORANDUM by plaintiffs in opposition to defts motion for stay pending appeal [534−1] ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 01/20/2000)

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 43 of 97

01/24/2000 01/24/2000 01/27/2000 02/03/2000
02/04/2000 02/04/2000 02/04/2000 02/07/2000 02/09/2000 02/22/2000 02/22/2000 02/23/2000 02/25/2000 02/25/2000
02/28/2000 02/28/2000
02/28/2000
02/28/2000
03/13/2000 03/13/2000 03/14/2000

541 MEMORANDUM by plaintiffs in opposition to motion for Cuyahoga Cty to interven [536−1] ( no pgs: 6+) (vp) (Entered: 01/25/2000)
542 MEMORANDUM by plaintiffs in opposition to Hamilton Cty motion/applicatin for limited access [538−1] ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 01/25/2000)
543 Addendum/Supplement by defendant re motion for reconsideration of order [531−1] [539−1] ( no pgs: 2+) (vp) (Entered: 01/27/2000)
544 REPLY by defendant to response to motion to stay enforcement of courts order granting incentive awards pending appeal [534−1] ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 02/04/2000)
545 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff in opposition to motion to intervene by Cuyahoga Cty Commissioner [536−1] ( no pgs: 6) (vp) (Entered: 02/04/2000)
546 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff in opposition to [538−1] ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 02/04/2000)
TRANSCRIPT ORDER FORM necesary (vp) (Entered: 02/07/2000)
547 MOTION by class plaintiff Marlowe Malone for review of decision of Claims Administrator regarding settlement award ( no pgs: 9) (km) (Entered: 02/07/2000)
548 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff in opposition to motion to reconsider order of 1/10/00 [539−1] ( no pgs: 3+) (vp) (Entered: 02/10/2000)
549 MOTION by Montgomery County Clerk to intervene ( no pgs: 8+) (vp) (Entered: 02/22/2000)
550 MEMORANDUM by plaintiffs in opposition to motion by Montgomery Cty to intervene [549−1] ( no pgs: 6) (vp) (Entered: 02/22/2000)
551 REPLY by defendant to response to motion for reconsideration of order [531−1] [539−1] ( no pgs: 8) (vp) (Entered: 02/23/2000)
552 PETITION by Charles Nolan for declaratory jgm ( no pgs: 2+) (vp) (Entered: 02/28/2000)
556 ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel and MJ Sherman approving release of funds determined appropriate by Claims Administrator for claim numbers (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 02/29/2000)
NOTATION ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel granting motion to supplement the record instanter [532−1] (cc: all counsel) (vp) (Entered: 02/28/2000)
553 ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel denying motion to intervene to collect child support [415−1] denying amend [418−1] denying motion to intervene [536−1] denying motion to intervene [549−1] (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 9) (vp) (Entered: 02/28/2000)
554 ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel granting motion to stay enforcement of courts order granting incentive awards pending appeal [534−1] (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 02/28/2000)
555 ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel granting motion for reconsideration of order [531−1] [539−1] and clarifying order; the order applies to the key to claim determinations pursuant to paragraphe 9 of general protocol; the court reverse the ruling allowing institutions or organizations to apply to court for access to sealed records and denying the application [538−1] as moot (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 9+) (vp) (Entered: 02/28/2000)
Mail Returned [556−1] addressed to Kevin Michael Norchi for defendant Arthur Jr Tate (vp) (Entered: 03/13/2000)
557 MOTION by plaintiff Clarence Nolan for order to vacate collection of jgm ( no pgs: 6) (vp) (Entered: 03/13/2000)
Mail Returned addressed to Kevin Michael Norchi for defendant Arthur Jr Tate (vp) (Entered: 03/15/2000)

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 44 of 97

03/21/2000
03/24/2000
03/24/2000 03/24/2000 03/24/2000 03/27/2000 03/27/2000 03/28/2000 03/29/2000 03/29/2000 03/30/2000
03/30/2000 03/31/2000 04/12/2000 04/12/2000 04/17/2000 04/17/2000 05/02/2000
05/03/2000
05/11/2000 05/12/2000 05/15/2000

558 Stipulation and ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel supplementing paragraph 15 of the General Protocol re status conference held 12/23/99 before J Spiegel (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 03/21/2000)
559 MOTION by proposed intervenors Cuyahoga Cty Commissioners; Cuyahoga Cty Child Support Enforcement Agency and Cuyahoga Cty Clerk of Court to stay distribution of funds to class members and for order waiving supersedeas bond requirement ( no pgs: 7+) (vp) (Entered: 03/24/2000)
560 NOTICE OF APPEAL by intervenor from Dist. Court decision [553−1] of 2/28/00 ( no pgs: 3+) (vp) (Entered: 03/24/2000)
APPEAL FEE pd in amount of $ 105.00 ( Receipt # 100406758) (vp) (Entered: 03/24/2000)
561 REQUEST by plaintiff for review of claims administrator Michael Barrett ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/24/2000)
562 NOTICE OF APPEAL by defendant from Dist. Court decision [555−1] of 2/28/00 ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 03/28/2000)
APPEAL FEE pd in amount of $ 105.00 ( Receipt # 100406770) (vp) (Entered: 03/28/2000)
563 MOTION by Clerk of Montgomery Cty Court of Common Pleas to intervene ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/28/2000)
APPEAL NOTIFICATION issued CA for notice of appeal(doc.560) (wam) (Entered: 03/29/2000)
APPEAL NOTIFICATION issued CA for notice of appeal(doc.562) (wam) (Entered: 03/29/2000)
564 MEMORANDUM by plaintiffs in opposition to motion by proposed intervenors Cuyahoga Cty Child Support to stay distribution of funds pending appeal [559−1] ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 03/30/2000)
565 MOTION by plaintiffs for attorney fees and expenses () (vp) (Entered: 03/30/2000)
566 MOTION by plaintiff Darrin E Morris for temporary restraining order and for preliminary injunction ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 04/03/2000)
567 MOTION by plaintiff Charles Nolan for order for right of recovery of funds ( no pgs: 16) (vp) (Entered: 04/13/2000)
568 MOTION by plaintiff Charles Nolan for order for prtection in the institution () (vp) (Entered: 04/13/2000)
569 RECEIPT OF USCA APPEAL NUMBER for (doc.#562) − Number Assigned: 00−3455 (wam) (Entered: 04/17/2000)
570 RECEIPT OF USCA APPEAL NUMBER for (doc.#560) − Number Assigned: 00−3454 (wam) (Entered: 04/17/2000)
571 ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel denying motion for temporary restraining order [566−1], denying motion for preliminary injunction [566−2] (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 05/02/2000)
572 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman denying motion for order for prtection in the institution [568−1], denying motion for order for right of recovery of funds [567−1], denying motion for order to vacate collection of jgm [557−1], denying petition [552−1] (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 05/03/2000)
573 MOTION by plaintiff Charles Nolan, plaintiff Charles − Nolan for summary judgment re FR 56 ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 05/12/2000)
574 OBJECTIONS by plaintiff Charles Nolan to MJ Shermans order [572−1] ( no pgs: 2+) (vp) (Entered: 05/12/2000)
Mail Returned [572−1] addressed to Kevin Michael Norchi for defendant Arthur Jr Tate − returned "moved left no address" (km) (Entered: 05/15/2000)

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 45 of 97

05/30/2000 06/28/2000
07/25/2000 09/13/2000 09/14/2000 09/14/2000 09/15/2000 09/15/2000 09/20/2000 10/02/2000 10/02/2000 10/02/2000
10/03/2000 10/06/2000
10/11/2000 10/11/2000 10/13/2000 10/13/2000 10/13/2000

575 RULE 11(e) FILED:, File to be retained by District Court during appeal. (scot) (Entered: 05/30/2000)
576 ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel denying motion to stay distribution of funds to class members [559−1], denying motion for order waiving supersedeas bond requirement [559−2] denying motion to intervene [563−1] denying motion for attorney fees and expenses [565−1] (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 6) (vp) (Entered: 06/28/2000)
577 MOTION by plaintiff for summary judgment ( no pgs: ) (vp) Modified on 07/26/2000 (Entered: 07/26/2000)
578 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman denying motion for review of decision of Claims Administrator regarding settlement award [547−1] (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 09/13/2000)
579 APPLICATION by plaintiff Robert Laws to dismiss respondents appeal w/prejudice ( no pgs: 2+) (vp) (Entered: 09/14/2000)
NOTICE by plaintiff Robert Laws of change of address ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 09/14/2000)
580 ATTORNEY SUBSTITUTION: terminating attorney Joshua T Cox for Arthur Jr Tate, Terry Collins, Reginald A Wilkinson, George V Voinovich and substituting attorney M Scott Criss ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 09/15/2000)
581 OBJECTIONS/APPEAL by class counsel to magistrate of claims determinations ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 09/18/2000)
582 RENEWED MOTION by Alonzo Dean Shephead to expedite (vp) (Entered: 09/21/2000)
583 NOTICE OF APPEAL by defendants to the MJ from claims administrators recommended awards ( no pgs: 29+) (vp) (Entered: 10/04/2000)
584 MEMORANDUM by plaintiffs in opposition to defts appeal to Magistrate from determination of claims administrator [583−1] ( no pgs: 12) (vp) (Entered: 10/04/2000)
585 APPEAL by claimants 1120, 1278, 1549, 1807, 1897, 2296, 2734, 2913, 2914, 3023, 1120, 1183, 1320, 1359, 1565, 1626, 1662, 1718, 2066, 2086, 2140, 2380, 2434, 2566, 2616, 2638, 2672, 2730, 2789, 2790, 2872, 1636, 1135, 1243, 1518, 1626, 1914, 1918, 2086, 2132, 2637, 3080, 3012, 3075 from of MJ's order re claims andministrator [578−1] of () (vp) (Entered: 10/11/2000)
586 MEMORANDUM by defendants in opposition to pltfs appeals/objections to MJ's claims determinations [581−1] ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 10/11/2000)
587 RESPONSE by defendants to claimants appeal to the magistrate [585−1] relating to claimants 1120, 1183, 1320, 1359, 1565, 1626, 1662, 1718, 2066, 2086, 2140, 2380, 2434, 2566, 2616, 2638, 2672, 2730, 2789, 2790, 2872, and 1636 ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 10/11/2000)
588 RESPONSE by plaintiff Robert Lee Peters to defts appeal to the MJ [584−1] ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 10/12/2000)
589 ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel supplementing general protocol for clms by class members against the settlement fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 10/12/2000)
590 RESPONSE by defendants to claimants appeals to the magistrate judge [585−1] for claimants 1135 and 1243 ( no pgs: 2) (km) (Entered: 10/13/2000)
591 RESPONSE by defendants to claimants appeals to the magistrate judge [585−1] for claimants 1518 1626 1914 1918 2086 2132 2637 3080 3012 and 3075 ( no pgs: 2) (km) (Entered: 10/13/2000)
592 MOTION by plaintiff Angelo Vaughn to dismiss defendants appeal with regards to K8 Class Inmates ( no pgs: 6) (km) (Entered: 10/16/2000)

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 46 of 97

10/19/2000 10/24/2000 10/30/2000
11/03/2000
11/03/2000
11/03/2000 11/03/2000 11/03/2000 11/03/2000 11/03/2000 11/03/2000 11/13/2000 12/14/2000 12/14/2000 12/19/2000 12/20/2000 12/21/2000

Mail Returned [589−1] addressed to attorney for defendant (vp) (Entered: 10/19/2000)
593 MOTION by Curtis Brown to dismiss appeal as to K8 class inmates ( no pgs: ) (vp) Modified on 10/30/2000 (Entered: 10/30/2000)
594 NOTICE OF FILING CLAIMANTS APPEAL by Special Master/claims administrator for claimants 1240; 1375; 1407; 1494; 1538; 1547; 163; 1626; 1678; 1948; 2066; 2086; 2196; 2927 and 3012 of MJ's order [578−1] of () (vp) (Entered: 10/31/2000)
595 APPEAL by claimants 1073; 1115; 1152; 1188; 1243; 1284; 1391 1460; 1461; 1503; 1519; 1571; 1703; 1719; 1739; 1756; 1793; 1777; 1807; 1810; 2049; 2069; 2112; 2128; 2156; 2202; 2207; 2234; 2296; 2469; 2543; 2602; 2605; 2638; 2672; 2686; 2815; 2816; 2819; 2820; 2854; 2913; 2926 and 2973 from MJs order [578−1] () (vp) Modified on 01/30/2001 (Entered: 11/06/2000)
596 APPEAL by claimants 1012; 1018; 1020; 1034; 1146; 1167; 1217 1255; 1359; 1396; 1494; 1518; 1521; 1646; 1662; 1673; 1678; 1704; 1718; 1719; 1881; 1918; 1944; 2094; 2099; 2148; 2182; 2213; 2246; 2364; 2380; 2403; 2425; 2429; 2426; 2447; 2598; 2616; 2631; 2730; 2802; 2851; 2871; 2872; 2883; 2886; 2994 and 3066 from MJs order [578−1] () (vp) Modified on 02/06/2001 (Entered: 11/06/2000)
597 RESPONSE by defendants to claimants appeals to the Magistrate for claimant 2914 [585−1] ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 11/06/2000)
598 RESPONSE by defendants to claimants appeal to the Magistrate for claimants 1120; 1278; 1549; 1807; 2296; 2734; 2913 and 3023 [585−1] ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 11/06/2000)
599 RESPONSE by defendants to clainants appeals to the Magistrate for claimants 1073; 1115; 1243; 1739; 1756; 1793; 2069; 2112; 2638; 2820 and 2913 [595−1] ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 11/06/2000)
600 RESPONSE by defendants to claimants appeals to Magistrate for claimants 1018; 1217; 1678; 1944; 2148; 2213; 2380; 2426; 2429; 2447; 2598; 2616; 2802 and 2851 [596−1] () (vp) (Entered: 11/06/2000)
601 RESPONSE by defendants to claimants appeals to the Magistrate for claimants 1538; 1547; 1678; 2196 and 2927 [594−1] ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 11/06/2000)
602 APPEAL by claimants 1231; 1626; 2358; 2472 and 3012 from MJ's order [578−1] of () (vp) (Entered: 11/06/2000)
603 RESPONSE by defendants to claimants appeals to Magistrate for claimant numbers 1626; 2358; 2472 and 3012 [594−1] ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 11/14/2000)
604 ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel denying deft Charles Nolan Jrs motion for summary judgment [573−1] (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 12/14/2000)
605 ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel denying deft Curtis Lee Browns motion for summary judgment [577−1] (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 12/14/2000)
606 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman on appeals from claim administrators determinations re doc 581 and 583 (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 37) (vp) (Entered: 12/19/2000)
607 THIRD APPLICATION by Michael R Barrett for disbursement of interim expenses and atty fees from 2/18/00−11/30/00 ( no pgs: 2+) (vp) (Entered: 12/21/2000)
608 ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel granting application [607−1] for interim expesnes and atty fees (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 12/21/2000)

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 47 of 97

12/21/2000 12/21/2000 12/21/2000 12/21/2000 12/21/2000 12/21/2000 12/21/2000 12/21/2000 12/21/2000 12/21/2000 12/21/2000 12/21/2000

609 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1359; claimant awarded $1128.29; defts appeal of physical injury award is denied re (doc 606); party may appeal Magistrate's decision to District Judge w/in 14 days of receipt of order; mail appeal to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 12/21/2000)
610 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1183; claimant awarded $1037.73; appeals may be made to District Judge w/in 14 days of receipt of this order; mail appeal to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 12/21/2000)
611 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2914; claimant awared $465.74; claimant awarded $465.74; defts appeal is denied (Doc 583); claimants appeal is denied; claimant has 14 days from receipt of order to appeal decision to district judge; mail appeal to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 5) (vp) (Entered: 12/21/2000)
612 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2913; claimants appeal for going home fund is denied; defts category IV award appeal is sustained and Category IV award is denied; claimant receives zero moneytary awards claimant file appeal w/in 14 days of receipt of order to District Judge; appeals mailed to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) Modified on 04/02/2001 (Entered: 12/21/2000)
613 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2734; claimants appeal is granted; claims administrator award of compensation for physical injury and property loss clm is reversed and defts appeal is dened as moot; claimant receivies zero moneytary award; money is going to State of Ohio; appeals may be made w/in 14 days of receipt of order to District Judge; mail to SOCF Settlment Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (vp) Modified on 04/02/2001 (Entered: 12/21/2000)
614 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1897; court remands clm back to claims administrator for reevaluation of the evidence of value of guitar and for explanation describing amount determined; parties may appeal w/in 14 days of receipt of order to district judge; appeals mailed to SOCFF Settlement Fund all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (vp) Modified on 04/02/2001 (Entered: 12/21/2000)
615 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2296; denying claimants appeal for physical injury; defts catergoryIV award appeal is sustained and Category IV award is denied; claimant awarded zero moneytary award; claimant may file an apeal w/in 14 days of receipt of letter to district judge; appeal addressed to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) Modified on 04/02/2001 (Entered: 12/21/2000)
616 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1626; claimant is awarded $626; claims appeal is denied with regard to parole violation; defts appeal of physical injury award is denied; parties may appeal w/in 14 days of receipt of order to district judge; appeals to be sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 12/21/2000)
617 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2086; claimants appeal for physical injury is denied; defts appeal is denied with regard to property award; parties may appeal this order w/in 14 days of receipt of order to district judge; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 12/21/2000)
618 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2140; claimant awarded $725; claimants appeal is denied with regard to physical injury; any appeal may be filed w/in 14 days of receipt of order to district judge; appeals to be sent to SOCF settlement fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 5) (vp) (Entered: 12/21/2000)
619 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1718; claimant awarded $1345; claimants Category IV award is denied; claimants appeal is denied re transcript therefore claimant is awarded $1145; any party may appeal this order w/in 14 days of receipt of order to district judge; all appeals mailed to SOCF Settlement F und (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 5) (vp) (Entered: 12/21/2000)
620 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1549; claimant awarded $310 denying claims administrators decision; any party may appeal order w/in 14 days of receipt of order to district judge; appeals to be sent SOCF Settlement Fund (cc:

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 48 of 97

12/21/2000 12/21/2000 12/21/2000 12/21/2000 12/21/2000 01/03/2001
01/03/2001 01/03/2001 01/03/2001
01/03/2001

all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 12/21/2000)
621 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1278; denying claimants appeal; claimant is awarded nothing; appeal by any party may be made w/in 14 days of receipt of order to district judge; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (vp) Modified on 04/02/2001 (Entered: 12/21/2000)
622 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1120; denying claimants appeal claimant awarded nothing; any appeal may be filed w/in 14 days of receipt of order to district judge; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (vp) Modified on 04/02/2001 (Entered: 12/21/2000)
623 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1807; claimant claimants appeal is denied for serious riot related injury; claimant awarded $225 for determined property value; any party may appeal w/in 14 days of receipt of order to district judge; appeals to be sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (vp) Modified on 04/02/2001 (Entered: 12/21/2000)
624 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1662; claimants appeal is denied re property value exceeding $500 claimant awarded $692.31 for property determination; any appeal may be made w/in 14 days of receipt of order to district judge; appeals to be sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 6) (vp) Modified on 04/02/2001 (Entered: 12/21/2000)
625 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman approving the release of funds determined to be appropriate by Claims Administrator for class members 1219; 1469; 1614; 1741; 1789; 1801; 1802; 1852; 1885; 2045; 2130; 2269; 2274; 2457; 2465; 2483; 2679; 2708; 2763; 2785; 2806; 3063; said determinations having not appealed on the second determination by parties (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 12/21/2000)
626 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re Claim 2616: claimant's request set forth in second appeal is granted; the claims administrator's award of compensation for physical injury and property loss claims is reversed and defts appeal is denied appeal is denied as moot; claimants first appeal is denied as moot; award determination in this claim is nothing ; any appeal of this decision must be made to the district judge within 14 days of receipt of this order; appeals should be sent to the SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (km) Modified on 01/03/2001 (Entered: 01/03/2001)
627 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re Claim 2730: the claimants appeal re denial of award for other serious riot related injuries is DENIED; award determination for claimant is $3,750.00 for physical injury and $1,182.00 for determined property value for a total of $4,932.00; any appeal of this decision must be made to the district judge within 14 days of receipt of this order; appeal should be sent to the SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (km) (Entered: 01/03/2001)
628 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re Claim 2566: defendants appeal of physical injury award is DENIED; claimants appeal re property award is DENIED; the award determination in this claim is $500.00 for physical injury; and $922.00 for determined property value for a total of $1,422.00; any appeal of this decision must be made to the district judge within 14 days of receipt of this order; appeals should be sent to the SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (km) Modified on 01/03/2001 (Entered: 01/03/2001)
629 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re Claim 2638: defendants Category IV award appeal re other serious riot related injuries is DENIED; the court finds the $200.00 award for other serious riot related injuries is insufficient and increases award to $500.00; the award determination for this claim is $400.00 for physical injury; $500.00 for other serious riot related injuries and $290.33 for property value for a total of $1,190.33; any appeal of this decision must be made to the district judge within 14 days of receipt of this order; appeal should be sent to the SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (km) (Entered: 01/03/2001)
630 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2434: defts Catagory IV appeal re other serious riot related injuries is sustained and claimants appeal is DENIED; the

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 49 of 97

01/04/2001 01/04/2001 01/04/2001 01/04/2001 01/05/2001 01/05/2001 01/05/2001 01/05/2001

award determination for this claim is $736.00 for determined property value; any appeals to this decision must be made to the district judge within 14 days of receipt of this order; appeals should be sent to the SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (km) (Entered: 01/03/2001)
631 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re Claim 1565: claimants appeal re Catagory IV award for other serious riot related injuries is DENIED; defts appl of the physical injury award is DENIED; the award determination for this claim is $300.00 for physical injury and $490.00 for determined property value for a total of $790.00; any appeal of this decision must be made to the district judge within 14 days of receipt of this order; appeal should be sent to the SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 5) (km) (Entered: 01/04/2001)
632 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re Claim 2380: defts Catagory IV appeal is sustained and claimants appeal re addtl compensation for other serious riot related injuries is DENIED; claimants appeal re compensation for placement in segregation is DENIED; claimants appeal re property value award is DENIED; the award determination in this claim is $1,061.00 for determinated property value; any appeal of this order must be made to the district judge within 14 days of receipt of this order; appeals should be sent to the SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 5) (km) (Entered: 01/04/2001)
633 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re Claim 2789: defts appeal of physical injury award is DENIED; defts appeal re Catagory IV award for other serious riot related injuries is DENIED; claimants appeal re property loss award is DENIED; the award determination in this claim is $1,000.00 for physical injury; $200.00 for other serious riot related injuries; and $305.33 for property loss for a total of $1,505.33; any appeal of this decision must be made to the district judge within 14 days of receipt of order; appeals should be sent to the SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 6) (km) (Entered: 01/04/2001)
634 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re Claim 3023: defts appeal re physical injury award is DENIED; defts appeal re Catagory IV award for other serious riot related injuries is DENIED; the award determination in this claim is $300.00 for physical injury; $100.00 for other serious riot related injuries; and $425.00 for determined property value loss for a total of $825.00; any appeal of this decision must be made to the district judge within 14 days of receipt of order; appeals should be sent to the SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (km) (Entered: 01/04/2001)
635 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re Claim 3080: claimants injuries are not riot−related and therefore appeal is DENIED; award determination in this claim is zero; any appeal to this decision must be made to the district judge within 14 days of receipt of this order; appeals should be mailed to the SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (km) (Entered: 01/05/2001)
636 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re Claim 1918: the Court remands this claim to the Claims Administrator for a reevaluation of the evidence concerning the trial transcript and for an explanation describing his decision; any appeal of this decision must be postmarked within 14 days of receipt of this order; appeals should be sent to the SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (km) (Entered: 01/05/2001)
637 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re Claim 1914: claimants appeal re denial of physical injury and other serious riot related injuries claims is DENIED; claimants appeal re property loss award is DENIED; award determination in this claim is $782.67 for property value; any appeal of this decision must be postmarked within 14 days of receipt of this order; appeals should be sent to the SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (km) (Entered: 01/05/2001)
638 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re Claim 2872: the court determines the amount awarded by Claims Administrator for physical injury award is not clearly erroneous and will not be disturbed by the court; defts appeal of physical injury award is DENIED; award determination for this claim is $200.00 for physical injury; any appeal of this decision must be made to the district judge and be postmarked within 14 days of receipt of order; appeals should be sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (km) (Entered: 01/05/2001)

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 50 of 97

01/05/2001 01/05/2001
01/05/2001 01/09/2001 01/11/2001 01/11/2001 01/11/2001
01/11/2001 01/11/2001 01/11/2001 01/11/2001 01/11/2001

639 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re Claim 2790: claimants appeal is DENIED; award determination for this claim is zero; any appeals to this decision must be made to the district judge and be postmarked within 14 days of receipt of order; appeals should be sent to the SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (km) (Entered: 01/05/2001)
640 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re Claim 2132: claimants appeal re other serious riot related injuries award is DENIED; defts appeal re physical injury award is DENIED; award determination for this claim is $900.00 for physical injury and $490.00 for property loss for a total of $1,390.00; any appeals of this decision must be made to the district judge and be postmarked within 14 days after receipt of order; appeals should be sent to the SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (km) (Entered: 01/05/2001)
641 OBJECTIONS by plaintiff to MJ's order [606−1] ( no pgs: 7) (vp) (Entered: 01/08/2001)
642 RULE 11(e) FILED: File to be retained by District Court during appeal. (scot) (Entered: 01/09/2001)
643 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman Re claim 1003; defts appeal of physical injury award is denied; claimant awarded $150 for physical injury and $310 for determined property value; any appeal must be reviewed by District Judge; appeals to be post marked w/in 14 days of receipt of determination and should be mailed to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 01/11/2001)
644 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman Re claim 1187; defts appeal of physical injury award is denied; $300 for physical injury; $415 for determined property value; appeal to District Judge; any appeal must be post marked w/in 14 days of receipt of determination and should be mailed to SOCF settlement fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 01/11/2001)
645 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1084; defts appeal of physical injury award is denied; defts Category IV award appeal is denied; claimant to recieve $300 physical injury; $150 for other serious riot related and $300 for determined property value; appeal must be reviewed by District Judge; any appeal must be postmarked w/in 14 days of receipt of determination and sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 01/11/2001)
646 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re clain 1264; defts appeal of physical injury award is denied; claimant to receive $50 for physical injury and $250 for determined property value; appeal must be made to District Judge w/in 14 days of receipt of determination; all appeals must be mailed to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 01/11/2001)
647 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re clain 1301; defts appeal of physical injury award is denied; claimant to receive $150 in physical injury and $872 for determined property value; appeals made only to District Judge and must be made w/in 14 days of receipt of determination; appeals must be sent to SOCF settlement fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 01/11/2001)
648 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1391; defts appeal o f physical injury award is denied; claimant to receive $1000 for physical injury and $687.74 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 01/11/2001)
649 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1243; claimants appeal is denied; claimant receives no dollar amount; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 01/11/2001)
650 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1135; claimants appeal is denied; claimant receives zero; appeal must be made with district judge w/in 14 days of reciept of claim; claims mailed to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 01/11/2001)

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 51 of 97

01/11/2001 01/17/2001 01/17/2001 01/17/2001 01/17/2001 01/17/2001
01/17/2001 01/17/2001
01/17/2001 01/17/2001

651 ORDER/NTC OF ERRATA by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman correcting the last page in doc 606 (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 01/11/2001)
652 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 3012; defts appeal of physical injury award is denied; claims administrators propety determinations exceeded $500 but will not be reduced; claimant will receive $300 for physical injury and $550 for determined property value; appeal must be made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of determination; appeal must be sent to SOCF Settlement fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 01/17/2001)
653 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2637 claims administrator denied this claim in entirety; claimant receives nothing; any appeal must be made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of determination; all appeals to be mailed to SOCF Settlement fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 01/17/2001)
654 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2229; denying defts appeal of physical injury award; claimant awarded $300 for physical injury; any appeal must be made with the district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of determination; all appeals to be sent to SOCF settlement fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 01/17/2001)
655 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2353; defts appeal of physical injury award is denied; property determinations will not be reduced; claimant to receive $300 in physical injury and $859 in determined property value; any appeal must be made to the district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of determination; appeals to be sent to SOCF settlement fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 01/17/2001)
656 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 3075; defts appeal of physical injury award is denied; claimants appeal denied re property value; claims administrator failed to explain basis for and evidence relied on in determing amount of compensation for loss of trial transcript the court remands this claim to claims administrator for photocopying; for reevaluation of evidence concering trial transcript and for explanation describing decision; any appeal to be made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of appeal; all appeals to be made to SOCF settlement fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 01/17/2001)
657 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2544; defts appeal on physical injury claim is sustained and physical injury claim is reduced to zero; defts Category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant to receive nothing; any party may appeal to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of determination; appeals to be sent to SOCF Settlement fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 01/17/2001)
658 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1518; amount awarded by claims administrator for physical injury claim is not clearly erroneous and will not be disturbed by court; claim administrators category IV award is clearly erroneous; claimants appeal seeking additional compensation is denied; defts catergory IV award appeall is sustained; claimant to be awarded $5,000 for physical injury and $866 in determined property value; any appeal must be made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of determination; all appeals to be filed with SOCF settlement fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 01/17/2001)
659 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2066; claim administrators decision awarding $1,259.34 for property loss is not clearly erroneous therefor claimants appeal is denied; defts Category IV award appeal is sustained; claimnt is awarded $1,259.34 for determined property value; any appeal must be made with the district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of determination; appeals to be sent to SOCF settlement fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 01/17/2001)
660 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2672; money awarded for physical injury by claims administrator is not clearly erroneous and will not be disturbed by court; claimants appeal for award of $50 for family photos is denied; claims administrators property determinations which exceeded $500 are not clearly erroneou and will not be reduced because they exceeded the amount of $500; claimant is awarded $1000 for physical injury and $531.75 for determined property value; any appeal must be made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of determination; appeals to be sent to SOCF settlement fund (cc: all counsel) ( no

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 52 of 97

01/23/2001 01/23/2001 01/23/2001 01/23/2001 01/23/2001 01/23/2001 01/23/2001 01/23/2001

pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 01/17/2001)
661 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re Claim 2622: defts appeal of physical injury award is DENIED; therefore the award determination for this claim is $400.00 for physical injury and $418.00 for property loss for a total of $818.00; any appeal of this decision must be made to the district judge and must be postmarked within 14 days of receipt of this decision; all appeals should be sent to the SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (km) (Entered: 01/23/2001)
662 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re Claim 2664: defts appeal of the physical injury award is DENIED; defts object to all property awards greater than $500.00 but the awarded amount will not be reduced for this claim; the award determination in this claim is $750.00 for physical injury and $745.00 for property loss for a total of $1,495.00; any appeal of this decision must be made to the district judge and shall be postmarked within 14 days after receipt of decision; all appeals should be sent to the SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (km) (Entered: 01/23/2001)
663 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re Claim 2775: defts appeal for physical injury award is DENIED; defts object to all property awards greater than $500.00 however the court will not reduce the amount on this claim; the award determination for this claim is $200.00 for physical injury and $588.00 for property loss for a total of $788.00; any appeal of this decision shall be to the district judge and must be postmarked within 14 days of receipt of this decision; appeals should be sent to the SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (km) (Entered: 01/23/2001)
664 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re Claim 2787: defendants appeal re physical injury award is DENIED: the award determination for this claim is $400.00 for physical injury and $200.00 for property loss for a total of $600.00; any appeal of this decision should be made to the district judge and must be postmarked within 14 days of receipt of this decision; appeals should be sent to the SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (km) (Entered: 01/23/2001)
665 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re Claim 2237: defendants appeal of the physical injury award is DENIED; defts object to property award as excessive, however the court will not reduce the amount of this claim; the award determination for this claim is $100.00 for physical injury and $723.00 for property loss for a total of $823.00; appeals to this decision shall be made to the district judge and must be postmarked within 14 days of receipt of this decision; appeals should be sent to the SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (km) (Entered: 01/23/2001)
666 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re Claim 2802: defts appeal of the physical injury award is DENIED; defts Catagory IV appeal of award for other serious riot related injuries is SUSTAINED and the claimants Catagory IV award is DENIED; the award determination for this claim is $400.00 for physical injury and $363.12 for property loss for a total of $763.12; appeals to this decision shall be to the district judge and must be postmarked within 14 days of receipt of this decision; appeals should be sent to the SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 5) (km) (Entered: 01/23/2001)
667 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re Claim 1951: the Court REMANDS the physical injury claim to the Claims Administrator for reconsideration and clarification of the claim, if any; defts appeal of property loss award is DENIED; any appeal of this decision should be made to the district judge and be postmarked within 14 days of receipt of this decision; appeals should be sent to the SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (km) (Entered: 01/23/2001)
668 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re Claim 2148: defts appeal of physical injury award is DENIED; the court determines the Claims Administrators Catagory IV award for other serious riot related injuries is clearly erroneous and accordingly, defts appeal of the Catagory IV award is SUSTAINED; the award determination for this claim is $300.00 for physical injury and $455.96 for property loss for a total of $755.96; any appeals of this decision shall be to the district judge and must be postmarked within 14 days of receipt of this decision; appeals should be sent to

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 53 of 97

01/24/2001 01/24/2001 01/24/2001
01/24/2001 01/24/2001 01/24/2001 01/24/2001 01/24/2001

the SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (km) (Entered: 01/23/2001)
669 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re Claim 2207: defts appeal of the physical injury award is DENIED; defts object to the property award as excessive however the court will not reduce the amount awarded in this claim; the award determination for this claim is $300.00 for physical injury and $2,717.00 for property loss for a total of $3,017.00; any appeal of this decision must be made to the district judge and be postmarked within 14 days of receipt of this decision; appeals should be sent to the SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (km) (Entered: 01/24/2001)
670 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re Claim 2885: defts appeal of physical injury award on the basis of claimant not filing for physical injury award and physicial injury award not being verified is DENIED; the award determination for this claim is $200.00 for physical injury and $282.00 for property loss for a total of $482.00; any appeal of this decision must be made to the district judge and be postmarked within 14 days of receipt of this decision; appeals should be sent to the SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (km) (Entered: 01/24/2001)
671 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re Claim 2886: defts appeal of physical injury award is DENIED; the court determines that the Claims Administrator's Catagory IV award for other serious riot related injuries is erroneous and defts appeal is SUSTAINED; defts object to the property award as excessive however the court will not reduce the amount awarded in this claim; the award determination for this claim is $500.00 for physical injury and $642.20 for property loss for a total of $1,142.20; any appeal of this decision must be made to the district judge and be postmarked within 14 days of receipt of this decision; appeals should be sent to the SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 5) (km) (Entered: 01/24/2001)
672 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re Claim 2909: the Claims Administrator's finding of a compensable riot−related physical injury is erroneous and defts appeal of the physical injury claim is SUSTAINED; the award determination in this claim is $225.00 for property loss for a total of $225.00; any appeal of this decision must be made to the district judge and be postmarked within 14 days of receipt of this order; appeals should be sent to the SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (km) (Entered: 01/24/2001)
673 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re Claim 1124: defts appeal of the property loss award is DENIED; deft objects to property loss award as excessive however the court will not reduce the amount of award in this claim; the award determination is $549.45 for property loss for a total of $549.45; any appeals to this decision must be to the district judge and be postmarked within 14 days of receipt of this decision; appeals should be sent to the SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (km) (Entered: 01/24/2001)
674 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1548: defts appeal of the property loss award is DENIED; defts object to the property award as excessive however the court will not reduce the amount awarded in this claim; the award determination in this claim is $791.50 for property loss for a total of $791.50; any appeals to this decision must be made to the district judge and be postmarked within 14 days of receipt of this decision; appeals should be sent to the SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (km) (Entered: 01/24/2001)
675 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re Claim 2596: defts appeal of the physical injury award is DENIED; the award determination for this claim is $150.00 for physical injury and $225.00 property loss for a total of $375.00; any appeals to this decision must be made to the district judge and be postmarked within 14 days of receipt of this order; appeals should be sent to the SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (km) (Entered: 01/24/2001)
676 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re Claim 2994: defts appeal of the award for physical injury is DENIED; because the court cannot determine fm records whether in fact mental health svcs have been provided to this claimant this matter is REMANDED to the Claims Administrator for reconsideration of the Catagory IV award claim for other serious riot related injuries and for specific findings of

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 54 of 97

01/24/2001
01/24/2001 01/24/2001
01/25/2001 01/25/2001 01/25/2001 01/25/2001 01/25/2001 01/25/2001

fact on whether mental health svcs have been provided to claimant; any appeal of this decision must be made to the district judge and be postmarked within 14 days of receipt of this order; appeals should be sent to the SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (km) Modified on 04/06/2001 (Entered: 01/24/2001)
677 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re Claim 2603: defts appeal of the physical injury award is DENIED; defts object to property loss award as excessive however the court will not reduce the amount awarded in this claim; the award determination for this claim is $300.00 for physical and $775.00 for property loss for a total $1,075.00; any appeals of this decision must be made to the district judge and be postmarked within 14 days of receipt of this order; appeals should be sent to the SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (km) (Entered: 01/24/2001)
678 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re Claim 2605: this claims is REMANDED to the Claims Administrator for reconsideration and clarification of the impact of the evidence of riot participation on this claim; any appeals to this decision must be made to the district judge and be postmarked within 14 days of receipt of this decision; appeals should be sent to the SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (km) (Entered: 01/24/2001)
679 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re Claim 2926: defts and claimants appeals of the physical injury award are DENIED; defts appeal of Catagory IV award for other serious riot related injuries is DENIED; claimants appeal contending that the defts initial appeal to the Claims Administrators determination was untimely and thus bars any subsequent appeals is DENIED; the award determination in this claim is $350.00 for physical injury; $100.00 for other serious riot related injuries; and $209.32 for property loss for a total of $659.32; any appeals to this decision must be made to the district judge and be postmarked within 14 days of receipt of this decision; appeals should be sent to the SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 5) (km) (Entered: 01/24/2001)
680 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1752; defts appeal for property loss is denied; award determination is $550 for determined property value; appeals must be made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of dermination; appeals should be mailed to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 01/25/2001)
681 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2182; defts appeal of property loss is denied; claimant to receive $674 for determined property value; appeals must be to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of determination; all appeals to be sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 01/25/2001)
682 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2365; denying defts appeal re property loss; claimant to receive $422.10 for determined property value; appeals must be made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of determination; appeals to be sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 01/25/2001)
683 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman ree claim 2816; defts appeal regarding compensation for property loss is denied; claimant to receive $285 for determined property value; appeals to be made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of determination; appeals to be sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 01/25/2001)
684 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2895; defts appeal re property loss is denied; claimant awarded $545 for determined property value; appeals to be made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of determination; appeals to be sent to SOCF Settlement fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 01/25/2001)
685 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1240; basis for claimants appeal is unknown therefore claimants appeal to MJ is denied and claimant receives no monetary award; appeals to made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of determination; appeals to be sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 01/25/2001)

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 55 of 97

01/25/2001 01/25/2001 01/25/2001 01/25/2001 01/25/2001 01/26/2001 01/26/2001 01/26/2001 01/26/2001

686 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1375; claimant objects to property award as inadequate and deft appeals the award for property loss as excessive; claims adminstrator decision to award $520 is not clearly erroneous and claimants appeal is denied; defts appeal of property awards greater than $500 is denied; c;ao,amt os awarded $7500 for physical injury and $520 for determined property value for a total of $8020; any appeal must be made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of determination; appeals to be sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 01/25/2001)
687 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1494; claimants appeal regarding property loss being adjusted from $585 to $911 is denied however defts appeal regarding property loss only being $500 is denied; deftsss Category IV award appeal is denied; claimant is awarded $600 for other serious riot related and $585 for determined property value; appeals to be made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of determination; appeals to be sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 01/25/2001)
688 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1538; claimants appeal that property award be adjusted from $804 to $1104 is denied; however, defts appeal regarding property loss only being $500 is denied; defts Category IV award appeal is sustained and Category IV award is denied; claimant is awarded $804 in determined property value; appeals to be made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of determination; all appeals to be sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 01/25/2001)
689 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1563; defts appeal of physical injury award is denied; defts Category IV award appeal is denied; defts appeal regarding property loss is denied; claimant to receive $400 physical injury; $100 other serious riot related and $730 determined property value; appeals to be made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of determination; all appeals to be sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 01/25/2001)
690 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2214; defts appeal of physical injury award is denied; defts object to propert awards being greater than $500 however the money will not be reduced simply because they exceed $500; claimant to receive $400 physical injury and $588 in proeprty value; appeals to be made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of determination; appeals to be sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 01/25/2001)
691 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re Claim 1152: the Court determines that the Claims Administrators Catagory IV award for other serious riot related injuries is clearly erroneous and therefore defts Catagory IV award appeal is SUSTAINED and the award is DENIED; the award determination in the claim is zero; any appeals of this decision must be made to the district court and be postmarked within 14 days of receipt of this decision; appeals should be sent to the SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (km) (Entered: 01/26/2001)
692 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re Claim 1739: defts Catagory IV award appeal for other serious riot related injuries is DENIED; the award determination in this claim is $2,000.00 for physical injury and $500.00 for other serious riot related injuries for a total of $2,500.00; any appeals to this decision must be made to the district judge and be postmarked within 14 days of receipt of this decision; appeals should be sent to the SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (km) (Entered: 01/26/2001)
693 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re Claim 1793: defts appeal re award of Court of Claims fees to the claimant is DENIED; to the extent claimant appeals the denial of compensation for lost legal documents this claim is REMANDED to the Claims Administrator for clarification as to the reasons why such claim was denied; any appeals to this decision must be made to the district judge and be postmarked within 14 days of receipt of this decision; appeals should be sent to the SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (km) (Entered: 01/26/2001)
694 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re Claim 1756: defts appeal re property loss award is DENIED; claimants appeal re insufficient property loss award is DENIED; the award determination in this claim is $939.00 for property loss; any appeals to this decision must be made to the district judge and be postmarked

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 56 of 97

01/26/2001 01/26/2001 01/29/2001
01/29/2001 01/29/2001 01/29/2001 01/29/2001

within 14 days of receipt of this decision; appeals should be sent to the SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (km) (Entered: 01/26/2001)
695 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re Claim 1777: defts appeal of property loss award as excessive is DENIED; claimants appeal asserting that defts appeal is untimely is without merit and found moot by the court; claimants appeal to the Mag Judge requesting the state be prohibited fm attaching his prison acct to recoup past court costs and child support is not before the Mag Judge and is DENIED; the claim determination in this claim is $700.00 for property loss; any appeals to this order must be made to the district judge and be postmarked within 14 days of receipt of this decision; appeals should be sent to the SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (km) (Entered: 01/26/2001)
696 SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re Claim 1807: pursuant to the order denying claimants appeal of the Claims Administrator's denial of physical injury claim [585−1] [623−1] the court finds the claimants instant appeal [595−1] repeats the same allegations and arguments as set forth in the original appeal and is DENIED; appeals to this decision must be made to the district judge and be postmarked within 14 days of receipt of this decision; appeals should be sent to the SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) (no. pgs: 1) (km) (Entered: 01/26/2001)
697 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re Claim 1407: this claim is REMANDED to the Claims Administrator for reconsideration and clarification of the impact of the evidence of riot participation by claimant on this claim; defts appeal re reimbursement of Court of Claims fees by Claims Administrator is not clearly erroneous subject to the courts final decision following remand; defts objections re property awards greater than $500.00; amount is not clearly erroneous and will not be reduced subject to final decision following remand; defts and claimants appeals re physical injury award amount by Claims Administrator; award is not clearly erroneous subject to the courts final decision following remand; any appeal of this decision must be made to the district judge and be postmarked within 14 days of the date of receipt of this decision; appeals should be sent to the SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 5) (km) (Entered: 01/29/2001)
698 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re Claim 1678: defts appeal of the physical injury award is DENIED; with regards to defts appeal of Catagory IV award for other serious riot related injuries this matter is REMANDED to the Claims Administrator for reconsideration of the Catagory IV claim and for specific findings of fact on whether mental health svcs have been provided to claimant; any appeals of this decision must be made to the district judge and be postmarked within 14 days of receipt of this decision; appeals should be sent to the SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (km) (Entered: 01/29/2001)
699 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re Claim 1130: defts appeal re physical injury award is DENIED; defts appeal re Catagory IV award for other serious riot related injuries is SUSTAINED; the Claims Administrator's Catagory IV award is clearly erroneous; the award determination for this claim is $400.00 for physical injury and $482.05 for property loss for a total of $882.05; any appeal of this decision must be made to the district judge and be postmarked within 14 days of receipt of this decision; appeals should be sent to the SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 5) (km) (Entered: 01/29/2001)
700 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re Claim 1564: defts appeal of physical injury award is DENIED; defts object to property loss award as excessive however the court will not reduce the amount awarded in this claim; defts appeal of Catagory IV award for other serious riot related injuries is SUSTAINED; the Claims Administrator's Catagory IV award is clearly erroneous; the award determination in this claim is $650.00 for physical injury and $718.00 for property loss for a total of $1,368.00; any appeals of this decision shall be made to the district judge and be postmarked within 14 days of receipt of this decision; appeals should be sent to the SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 5) (km) (Entered: 01/29/2001)
701 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1547; claimants appeal regarding monies to be prohibited from attaching prison acct to recoup past court costs is

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 57 of 97

01/29/2001
01/29/2001 01/29/2001 01/29/2001
01/29/2001 01/29/2001 01/29/2001 01/29/2001 01/29/2001

denied; defts appeal is denied regarding property claim being in excess of $500; defts appeal of physical injury is denied; claimant to receive $150 in physical injury and $861 for determined property value; appeals to be made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of determination; appeals to be sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 01/29/2001)
702 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1703; claimant objects to amount of property loss awarded; claimants appeal re property award is denied; claimant also asserts that defts appeal to claims administrator is untimely and should bar any appeal; claimants assertion is w/out merit and in any event moot given courts rejection of defts appeal; claimant awarded $915 for determined property value; appeals to be made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of determination; appeals to me sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 01/29/2001)
703 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1571; defts appeal regarding property value is denied; claimant awarded $200 for determined property value; appeals to be made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of determination; appeals to be sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 01/29/2001)
704 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1719; defts appeal regarding property value exceeding $500 is denied; defts Category IV award appeal is sustained; claimants appeal re Category IV is denied and Category IV award is denied; claimant awarded $674 for determined property value; appeals must be made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of determination; appeals to be sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 01/29/2001)
705 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re Claim 1115: defts Catagory IV appeal of other serious riot related injuries award is DENIED; claimants appeal of Catagory IV award as insufficient is DENIED; the amt awarded by the Claims Administrator for the Catagory IV claim is not clearly erroneous and will not be disturbed by the Court; the award determination for this claim is $150.00 for other serious riot related injuries and $386.00 for property loss for a total of $536.00; appeals of this decision must be made to the district judge within 14 days of receipt of this decision; appeals should be sent to the SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (km) (Entered: 01/29/2001)
706 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re Claim 1948: defts appeal of the physical injury award is DENIED; defts appeal of property loss award as excessive is DENIED; the award determination in this claim is $200.00 for physical injury and $979.00 for property loss for a total of $1,179.00; any appeals of this decision must be made to the district judge and be postmarked within 14 days of receipt of this decision; appeals should be sent to the SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (km) (Entered: 01/29/2001)
707 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1519; defts appeal re reimbursement of court of claims fees are denied; claimant awarded $389 in determined property value; appeals to made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 01/29/2001)
708 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1503; defts object to all property claims that exceed $500 however the amount will not be reduced automatically w/out merit therefore defts appeal is denied; claimant also appeals the property value award and claimants appeal is denied; claimant is awarded $704.45 for determined property value; appeals must be made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of determination; appeals to be sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 01/29/2001)
709 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2927; defts Categpru OV award appeal is denied; claimant awarded $400 for other serious riot related; appeals must be made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of appeal; all appeals to be sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 01/29/2001)
710 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1073; defts Category IV award appeal is denied; claimant awarded $400 for physical injury; $250 for other serious

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 58 of 97

01/29/2001 01/29/2001 01/29/2001 01/29/2001 01/30/2001
01/31/2001 01/31/2001 01/31/2001 01/31/2001

riot related; $38.70 for determined property value; appeals to be made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of determination; all appeals to be sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 01/29/2001)
711 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1188; defts appeal re property value exceeding $500 is denied; claimant awared $715 for determined property value; appeals to be made w/in 14 days of receipt of determination; appeals to be sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 01/29/2001)
712 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1284; defts Category IV award appeal is sustained and Category IV award is denied; claimant awarded $480 for determined property value; appeals to be made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of determination; appeals to be sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 01/29/2001)
713 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re appeal 1461; defts appeal of physical injury award is denied; defts Category IV award appeal is sustained and Category IV award is denied; claimant awarded $750 for physical injury and $674 for determined property value; appeals to be made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of determination; appeals to be sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 01/29/2001)
714 NOTICE by special master Michael R Barrett of filing defts appeal to MJ recommended awards; defts appeal attached ( no pgs: 2+) (vp) (Entered: 01/30/2001)
715 ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel amending supplement to general protocol for claims by class members against settlement fund (SECOND AMENDMENT); since orders are being submitted at different times appeals of determinations shall be submitted w/in 14 days of last decision; MJ shall notify parties with issuance of last decision; claims administrator must w/in 7 days of receipt serve Judge; Dept; Atty General; claimant and class counse with copies of any appeals; all other provisions of memo of understanding and general protocol for claims by class members against settlement fund shall remain in full force and effect and are not altered by second amended supplemental protocol (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 01/30/2001)
716 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1460; claimants appeal is denied due to failure to show his claim had its origin and circumstances in riot; claimant is awared $108 in determined prperty value; appeals to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 01/31/2001)
717 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2196; defts appeal is denied re excess of $500 for determined property value; court is unable to determine from records whether mmmantal health services had been provided to claim this matter is remmanded to claims administrator for reconsideration of Category IV; decsion of district judge is final appeal may be sent w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 01/31/2001)
718 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2069; claimants appeal are denied with regard to increase monies for physical injury award; claimants appeal for determined property value is denied; claimants appeal under Category IV is denied; claimant awarded $750 for physical injury and $200 for determined property value; appeals to be snet to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals to be sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 01/31/2001)
719 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2112; claimants appeals re property loss award is denied; defts Caategory IV award appeal is denied; amount awareded by claims administrator for Category IV claim will not be distrubed by court; claimants awarded $300 for other serious riot related and $543 for determined property value; appeals must be made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 5) (vp) (Entered: 01/31/2001)

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 59 of 97

01/31/2001
01/31/2001 01/31/2001 01/31/2001 01/31/2001 01/31/2001 01/31/2001 01/31/2001 01/31/2001 01/31/2001 01/31/2001 01/31/2001

720 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2156; defts object to property awared being greater than $500 however property award will not be reduced if they exceed $500 therefore defts appeal on property awards is denied; deftss Caategory IV award appeal re physical injury is denied; claimant awarded $300 for other serious riot related and $911.46 for determined property value; appeals must be directed to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals to be sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 01/31/2001)
721 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re 2202; defts appeal for property award is denied; claimant awarded $400 for physical injury and $665.50 for determined property value; appeals to be sent to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals to be sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 01/31/2001)
722 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2235; defts appeal the award of court of claims fees to class members including claimant and defts appeals are denied; claimant awarded $375.67 for determined property value; appeals to be made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals to be sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 01/31/2001)
723 SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2296; claimants appeal [595−1] is denied (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 01/31/2001)
724 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2469; defts appeal regarding property value exceeding $500 is denied; claimant awarded $515 in determined property value; appeals sent to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 01/31/2001)
725 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2543; defts appeal regarding property value being in excess of $500 is denied; claimant to receive $581 for determined property vlaue; appeals to be made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 01/31/2001)
726 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2686; defts appels of property values that exceed $500 are denied; %548.50 for determined property value; appeals sent to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 01/31/2001)
727 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2815; defts appeal of physical injury award is denied; defts appeal regarding property value exceeding $500 is denied; claimant awarded $150 for physical injury and $1080 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 01/31/2001)
728 SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2816 denying claimants appeal (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 01/31/2001)
729 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2819; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimants appeal denied and Category IV award is denied; claimant awarded $259.50 for determined property value; appeals to be decided by district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 01/31/2001)
730 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2820; defts category IV award appeal is denied; claimant awarded $300 for other serious riot related and $352 for determined property value; appeals to be reviewed by district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 01/31/2001)
731 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2049; defts appeal property award in excess of $500; defts appeal is denied; claimant is appealing property award as

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 60 of 97

01/31/2001 02/02/2001 02/02/2001 02/02/2001
02/02/2001 02/02/2001 02/02/2001 02/02/2001 02/02/2001 02/02/2001

inadequate; claimants appeal is denied; claimant awarded $850 for determined property value; appeals reviewed by district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 01/31/2001)
732 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1810; defts appeal of physical injury award is denied; claimant awarded $400 for physical injury and $300 in determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals to be sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 01/31/2001)
733 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1012; defts appeal re property award exceeding $500 is denied; claimant awarded $687.55 for determined property value; appeal to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 02/02/2001)
734 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1020; defts appeal regarding excess of $500 for property is denied; claimants appeal regarding property is denied; claimants appeal regarding award for serious riot injuries is denied; claimant awarded $300 for physical injury and $512.68 for determined property value; appeals to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 02/02/2001)
735 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2128; claimants appeal regarding property loss is denied; defts appeal re property award denied; claimants appeal requesting state be prohibited from recouping past court costs is denied; claimants appeal re MOU is denied; claimant awarded $188 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 02/02/2001)
736 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1255; claimants appeal re property awards is denied; Category IV award is denied and defts Category IV award appeal is sustained; claimants appeal re defts appeal to claims administrator is denied; claimant awarded $190 for determined property value; appeals to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/02/2001)
737 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1018; defts appeal re property value in excess of $500 is denied; claimant to receive $506 for determined property value; appeals must be made to district judge w/in 14 days of reciept of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 02/02/2001)
738 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1167; defts appeal re property value in excess is denied; claimant awarded $845 for determined property value; appeals sent to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 02/02/2001)
739 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1034; defts appeal re property determination is denied; claims administrators decision denying Category IV award is not clearly erroneous therefore claimants appeal is denied; claimant awarded $160 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/02/2001)
740 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1217; defts appeal of physical injury award is denied; claimant awarded $200 for physical injury award and $500 for determined property value; appeals to be made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/02/2001)
741 SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER re claim 1494 by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman the instant appeal repeats allegations and arguments set forth in claimants original appeal and there is no basis for reconsideration of courts order of 1/25/01 the

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 61 of 97

02/02/2001 02/02/2001 02/02/2001 02/02/2001 02/02/2001 02/02/2001 02/02/2001 02/02/2001 02/02/2001 02/02/2001

claims appeal is denied as moot; appeals to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 02/02/2001)
742 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1521; defts appeal re excess of property award is denied; claimants request for funds to be issued to third pty is not before the MJ therefore claimants appeal is denied; claimant awarded $826 in determined property value; appeals to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last appeal; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 02/02/2001)
743 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1646; defts appeal re physical injury award is denied; claimant awarded $200 for physical injury award and $500 for determined property value; appeals to be sent to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 02/02/2001)
744 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1673; defts appeal re property award value is denied; claimant awarded $1362 for determined property value; appeals to be sent to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 02/02/2001)
745 SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1678; claimants appeal is denied since the appeal repeats allegations and arguments in previous appeal; appeals sent to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 02/02/2001)
746 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1704; defts appeal re physical award is denied; defts appeal re property award exceeding $500 is denied; claimants appeal re property claim is denied; claimant awarded $300 for physical injury award; $1,117 for determined property value; appeals sent to district judge w/in 14 of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 02/02/2001)
747 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1881; defts appeals re property award exceeding $500 is denied; claimant awarded $653.33 in determined property value; appeals sent to district judge w/in 14 days of reciept of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 02/02/2001)
748 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1944; defts appeals is denied re physical injury award; claims administrators decision denying Category IV award is not clearly erroneous therefore claimants appeal is denied; claimant awarded $180 in determined property value; appeals sent to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 02/02/2001)
749 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2094; defts appeal regarding property value exceeding $500 is denied; claimants appeal re property loss is denied; claimant awarded $400 for physical injury award; $766 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement F und (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/02/2001)
750 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2099; defts appeal of physical injury award is denied; defts appeal denied regarding property value being in excess of $500; claimant awarded $200 for physical injury award and $728 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlment fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 02/02/2001)
751 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2973; defts appeal of physical injury award is denied; defts appeal is denied re property value exceeding $500; claimants appeal is denied re amount of property loss; claimant awarded $200 for physical injury and $1761 for determined property value; appeals sent to district

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 62 of 97

02/02/2001 02/02/2001 02/06/2001 02/06/2001 02/06/2001 02/06/2001 02/06/2001 02/06/2001 02/06/2001 02/06/2001

judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 02/02/2001)
752 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2602; claimants appeal re physical injury is denied; defts appeal re property value exceeding $500 is denied; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $633.75 in determined property value; appeals sent to district judge w/in 14 days of reciept of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 02/02/2001)
753 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1847; defts appeal of physical injury is denied; claimant awarded $200 for physical injury and 4175 for determined property value; appeals sent to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 02/02/2001)
754 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2213; defts Category IV award appeal is denied; court remands claim to claims administrator for a reevaluation of evidence re legal docs and for explanation of decision; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of appeal of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/06/2001)
755 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2854; defts appeal re property value exceeding $500 is denied; claimant awarded $792.50 for determined property value; appeals must be made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 02/06/2001)
756 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 3066; defts appeal is denied re property value exceeding $500; claim is remanded to claims administrator for reconsideration of Category IV claim and for specific findings of fact on Category IV requirements; appeals must be made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 02/06/2001)
757 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2871; defts appeals denied re property value exceeding $500; defts Category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $617 for determined property value; appeals must be made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 02/06/2001)
758 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re cliam 2883 denying the motion to dismiss defendants appeal with regards to K8 Class Inmates [592−1] as moot; defts Category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $200 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) Modified on 02/06/2001 (Entered: 02/06/2001)
759 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2851; defts appeal for physical injury award is denied; defts appeal re property value exceeding $500 is denied; claimant awarded $100 for physical injury and $1710 for determined property value; appeals to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 02/06/2001)
760 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2631; defts appeal is denied re property value exceeding $500; claimant awarded $555 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 02/06/2001)
761 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2447; defts appeal is denied re inmates listed in Appendix F; claimants appeal is denied re property value; claimant awarded $430 in determined property value; appeals must be sent to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) Modified on 02/06/2001 (Entered: 02/06/2001)

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 63 of 97

02/06/2001 02/06/2001 02/06/2001 02/06/2001 02/06/2001 02/06/2001 02/06/2001
02/06/2001 02/07/2001 02/09/2001 02/09/2001 02/09/2001

762 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2426; defts appeal re property value exceeding $500 is denied; claimants appeal re property value is denied; claimant awarded $991 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 02/06/2001)
763 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2429; defts appeal re property value exceeding $500 is denied; claimant awarded $898.57 for determined property value; appeals sent to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 02/06/2001)
764 AMENDED ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2820; award should read $300 for other serious riot related and $352 for determined property value; appeals sent to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlment fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 02/06/2001)
765 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2425; defts Category IV award appeal is sustanied; claimant awarded $360.95 for determined property value; appeals sent to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determinatin; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 02/06/2001)
766 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2403; defts appeal re property award exceeding $500 is denied; claimants appeal re lost legal papers is denied; claimant awarded $711.20 in determined property value; appeals sent to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 02/06/2001)
767 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2364; defts appeals of physical injury award is denied; defts appeal re property award exceeding $500 is denied; claimant awarded $200 for physical injury award; $813.50 for determined propert value; appeals sent to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 02/06/2001)
768 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2246; defts appeal re property awards exceeding $500 is denied; defts appeal award of court of claims to class members listed in Appendix are denied; defts category IV award appeal is sustanined; claimant awarded $1245.10 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) Modified on 02/06/2001 (Entered: 02/06/2001)
769 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Special Master of filing claim 2132 to MJ recommended award ( no pgs: 4+) (vp) (Entered: 02/07/2001)
770 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1100; defts appeal re poperty award to inmates in Appendix F are denied; defts Caategory IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $101.40 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 02/07/2001)
771 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1016 defts Category IV Award appeal is sustanined; defts appeal re property value exceeding $500 is denied; claimant awarded $842 in determined property value; appeals to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) Modified on 02/09/2001 (Entered: 02/09/2001)
772 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1033; deftss Category IV award appeal is sustanined; claimant awarded nothing; appeals to be made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) Modified on 02/09/2001 (Entered: 02/09/2001)
773 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1031; defts appeal for physical injury award is denied; defts appeal re property award exceeding $500; defts Category IV award appeal is sustained; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 64 of 97

02/09/2001 02/09/2001 02/09/2001 02/09/2001 02/09/2001 02/09/2001 02/09/2001 02/09/2001 02/09/2001 02/09/2001 02/09/2001 02/09/2001

of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/09/2001)
774 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2193; Category IV award appeal is denied; claimant awarded $400 other serious riot related; $171 determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/09/2001)
775 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1277; defts Category IV award appeal is denied; claimant awarded $300 for physical injury; $200 other serious riot related; $264 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/09/2001)
776 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherma re claim 1285; defts Category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $398 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days from receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/09/2001)
777 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1052; defts Category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $50 for determined property value; appeals to district judge must be postmarked w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/09/2001)
778 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1035; defts Category IV award appeal is denied; claimant awarded $323.47 for determined property value; appeals to district judge postmarked w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/09/2001)
779 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1037; defts Category IV award appeal is denied; $300 other serious riot related; $390 determined property value; appeals sent to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlment Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/09/2001)
780 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1046; defts Category IV award appeal is denied; claimant awarded $300 other serious riot related; $225 determined property value; appeals sent to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 02/09/2001)
781 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1059; defts Category IV award appeal is denied; claimant awarded $300 other serious riot related; $157 for determined property value; appeals sent to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 02/09/2001)
782 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1089; defts Category IV award appeal is sustained; $442 for determined property value; appeals sent to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 02/09/2001)
783 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1091; defts appeal of phsycial injury award is denied; defts Category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $300 for physical injury; appeals sent to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/09/2001)
784 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1099; defts Category IV award appeall is sustained; claimant awarded $500 for determined property value; appeals sent to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/09/2001)
785 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1104; defts appeal for physical injury award is denied; court amends physical injury award to reflect an increase of

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 65 of 97

02/09/2001
02/09/2001 02/09/2001 02/09/2001
02/09/2001 02/09/2001 02/09/2001 02/09/2001 02/14/2001 02/14/2001 02/14/2001

$150 to compensatee for injury; claimant awarded $300 for physical injury and $338 for determined property value; appeals sent to district judge w/in 14 days from receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 02/09/2001)
786 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1107; defts appeal re property award exceeding $500 is denied; defts Category IV award appeal is denied; claimant awarded $100 for other serious riot related; $841.98 for determined property value; appeals sent to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/09/2001)
787 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1110; defts Category IV award appeal is denied; claimant awarded $150 for other serious riot related; $318 for determined property value; appeals sent to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 02/09/2001)
788 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2472; claimants appeal is denied; appeals sent to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/09/2001)
789 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2358; defts Category Award appeal is denied; claimants appeal re lockdown is denied; defts appeal re property value exceeding $500 is denied; claimant awarded $200 for other serious riot related; $636.85 for determined property value; appeals sent to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 02/09/2001)
790 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1231; defts Category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $495.60 determined property value; appeals sent to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 02/09/2001)
791 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1146; defts appeal re property value exceeding $500; $946 for determined property value; appeals sent to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 02/09/2001)
792 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2598; defts appeal re property value exceeding $500 is denied; claimant awarded $610 for determined property value; appeals sent to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 02/09/2001)
793 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1105; this matter remanded for claims administrator for reconsideration of property loss claim and for specific findings of fact when claimant was transferred; appeals sent to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 02/09/2001)
794 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1230; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $439 fpr determined property value; appeals to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 02/14/2001)
795 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1237; defts appeal re property award exceeding $500 is denied; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $900 for determined property value; appeals sent to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 02/14/2001)
796 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1247; defts appeal re property award exceeding $500 is denied; defts Category IV award appeal is denied; claimant awarded $150 for other serious riot related and $537 for determined property value; appeals sent to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 66 of 97

02/14/2001 02/14/2001 02/14/2001 02/14/2001 02/14/2001 02/15/2001 02/15/2001
02/15/2001 02/15/2001 02/15/2001 02/15/2001 02/15/2001 02/15/2001

determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 02/14/2001)
797 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1253; court grants physical injury claim of $150 to compensate claimant; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 02/14/2001)
798 NOTICE OF APPEAL by defendants and filed by special master to decision [654−1] of MJ Sherman re claim 2229; defts appeal proposed award for physical injury awarded to claimant ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/15/2001)
799 NOTICE OF APPEAL by defendants and filed by special master on decision of MJ Sherman [668−1] re claim 2148; defts appeal prposed physical injury award ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/15/2001)
800 NOTICE OF APPEAL by defendants from MJ Shermans order [663−1] re claim 2775; defts appealing proposed physical injury claim ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/15/2001)
801 NOTICE OF APPEAL by defendants from MJ Shermans order [665−1] re claim 2237; defts appeal proposed physical injury award ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/15/2001)
802 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1424; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $375 for deterimined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/15/2001)
803 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1450; defts appeall is denied regarding property award exceeding $500; defts Category IV award appeal is denied; claimant awarded $300 for other serious riot related; $652 for determined property damage; appeals sent to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/15/2001)
804 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1501; deftsss category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $395 in determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/15/2001)
805 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1517; defts appeal re physical injury award is denied; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $300 for physical injury and $225 for determined property value; appeals sent to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/15/2001)
806 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1520; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $364 for determined property value; appeals sent to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/15/2001)
807 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1357; defts category IV award appeal is denied; claimant awarded $200 for other serious riot related; $195 for determined property value; appeals sent to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/15/2001)
808 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1502; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant is awarded no monetary awards; appeals sent to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/15/2001)
809 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1425;; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $354.94 for determined property value; appeals sent to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered:

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 67 of 97

02/15/2001 02/15/2001
02/15/2001 02/15/2001 02/15/2001 02/15/2001 02/15/2001 02/16/2001
02/16/2001 02/16/2001
02/16/2001 02/16/2001

02/15/2001)
810 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1421; deftss category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $312.90 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/15/2001)
811 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1293; defts appeal of physical injury award is denied; defts category IV award appeal is denied; claimant awarded $100 for physical injury; $100 for other serious riot related and $272 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/15/2001)
812 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1337; deftsss category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $433.20 for determined property value; appeals sent to district judge w/in 14 days of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/15/2001)
813 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherma re claim 1340; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; court amends physical injury award; claimant awarded $150 for physical injury; $433 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days from last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 02/15/2001)
814 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1341; defts appeal re property value exceeding $500 is denied; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $300 for physical injury and $780 for determined property value; appeals sent to district judge w/in 14 days of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/15/2001)
815 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for Ellis Walker by Sean O'Reilly Boyle ( no pgs: ) (vp) (Entered: 02/15/2001)
816 NOTICE OF APPEAL by defendants and filed by special master to Magistrate Judge's recommended award with respect to claimants 1124; 1130; 1548; 1564; 1752; 2182; 2207; 2214; 2365; 2596; 2603; 2816; and 2895 [680−1] of ( no pgs: 2+) (vp) (Entered: 02/16/2001)
817 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1138; defts appeal re physical injury award is denied; defts appeal re property determination exceeding $500 is denied; defts Category IV award appeal is denied; claimant awarded $150 for physical injury; $150 for other serious riot related and $579 for determined property value; appeals sent to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/16/2001)
818 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1112; defts appeal of physical injury award is denied; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $150 for physical injury and $380 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 43) (vp) (Entered: 02/16/2001)
819 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1118; defts appeal for physical injury award is denied; defts appeal re property award exceeding $500 is denied; defts Category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $150 for physical injury and $935.55 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 02/16/2001)
820 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1119; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded nothing; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of reciept of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlemeent Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/16/2001)
821 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1121; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $205 for determined property value; apepals

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 68 of 97

02/16/2001 02/16/2001 02/16/2001 02/16/2001 02/16/2001 02/16/2001 02/16/2001 02/16/2001
02/16/2001
02/16/2001 02/16/2001

made to district judge w/in 14 days of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/16/2001)
822 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1134; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded nothing; appeals sent to district judge w/in 14 days from date of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/16/2001)
823 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1162; defts appeal re property clm exceeding $500 is denied; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $1270 for determined property value; appeals sent to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/16/2001)
824 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1163; defts category IV award appeal is denied; claimant awarded $200 for other serious riot related; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/16/2001)
825 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1207; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; court amends physical injury award to reflect award of $150 to compensate claimant for injury; claimant awarded $150 for physical injury; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/16/2001)
826 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1220; defts appeal of physical injury award is denied; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $200 for physical injury and $100 for determined property value; appeals sent to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 02/16/2001)
827 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1222; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; appeals sent to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/16/2001)
828 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1409; defts category IV award appeal is denied; claimant awarded $200 for other serious riot related; appeals sent to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 02/16/2001)
829 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1386; defts appeal of physical injury award is denied; defts appeal re property value exceeding $500 is denied; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $150 for physical injury and $1071.30 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/16/2001)
830 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1383; defts appeal re property award exceeding $500 is denied; defts category IV award appeal is denied; claimant awarded $300 for other serious riot related and $600 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/16/2001)
831 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1373; defts appeal re property award exceeding $500 is denied; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $695 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 02/16/2001)
832 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1363; defts category IV award appeal is denied; claimant awarded $300 for other serious reiot related and $219 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/16/2001)

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 69 of 97

02/16/2001 02/16/2001 02/16/2001 02/16/2001 02/16/2001 02/16/2001 02/16/2001 02/16/2001 02/16/2001 02/16/2001 02/20/2001 02/20/2001

833 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1361; defts appeal re property value exceeding $500 is denied; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $595.45 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/16/2001)
834 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1339; defts category IV award appeal is denied; claimant awarded $300 for other serious riot related and $60 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/16/2001)
835 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1305; defts appeal is denied re property value exceeding $500; defts Category IV award appeal is denied; claimant awarded $300 for other serious riot related and 4835 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/16/2001)
836 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1330; defts appeal re property value exceeding $500 is denied; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $585 for determined property value; appeals sent to district judge w/in 14 days from date of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 02/16/2001)
837 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1325; defts appeal of physical injury award is denied; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $100 for physical injury award and $225 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/16/2001)
838 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1315; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $225 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/16/2001)
839 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1286; defts category IV award appeal is denied; claimant awarded $300 for other serious riot related; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/16/2001)
840 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1274; defts category award appeal is sustained; court amends physical injury award in case to reflect award of $160 to compensate claimant for injury; claimant awarded $160 for physical injury award; $140 for other serious riot related and $212 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/16/2001)
841 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1267; defts appeal re property award exceeding $500 is denied; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $575 for determined property value; appeals sent to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 02/16/2001)
842 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1265; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $234.70 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 02/16/2001)
843 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1242; defts Category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $494 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/20/2001)
844 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1212; defts appeal re property value exceeding $500 is denied; defts category IV appeal is denied; claimant

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 70 of 97

02/21/2001 02/21/2001 02/21/2001 02/21/2001 02/21/2001 02/21/2001 02/21/2001 02/21/2001 02/21/2001
02/22/2001

awarded $200 for other serious riot related and $825 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/20/2001)
845 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1583; defts category IV award appeal is denied; claimant awarded $300 for physical injury and $200 for other serious riot related; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 02/21/2001)
846 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1594; defts appeal re property value exceeding $500 is denied; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $300 for physical injury and $885 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/21/2001)
847 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1554; defts appeal of physical injury award is denied; court amends physical injury award to reflect an award of $100 to compensate claimant for injury and reverses the Category IV award; claimant awarded $400 for physical injury; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/21/2001)
848 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1553; defts appeal of physical injury award is denied; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $100 for physical injury; $354 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fudn (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/21/2001)
849 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1559; defts appeal of physical injury award is denied; defts category IV award appeal is denied; claimant awarded $300 for physical injury and $267.80 for determined property value; appeals sent to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 02/21/2001)
850 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1659; defts appeal re property value exceeding $500 is denied; defts Category IV award appeal is denied; claimant awarded $150 for physical injury; $300 for other serious riot related and $1178 for determined property value; appeals made to district judg w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/21/2001)
851 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1566; defts Category IV award appeal is denied; claimant awarded $100 for other serious riot related and $43 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/21/2001)
852 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1574; defts appeal re property value exceeding $500 is denied; defts Category IV award appeal is denied; claimant awarded $400 for other serious riot related and $564.28; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/21/2001)
853 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1580; defts appeal re property value exceeding $500 is denied; court amends physical injury award to reflect award of $200 to compensate claimant for injury and reverses Category IV award; claimant awarded $650 for physical injury and $573 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) Modified on 02/21/2001 (Entered: 02/21/2001)
854 NOTICE OF APPEAL of defts appeal to court of MJ recommended award with respect to claimant 1847 [753−1] () (vp) (Entered: 02/22/2001)

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 71 of 97

02/23/2001 02/23/2001 02/23/2001 02/23/2001 02/23/2001 02/23/2001 02/23/2001 02/23/2001 02/23/2001 02/27/2001

855 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1608; defts category IV award appeal is denied; claimant awarded $200 for other serious riot related and $324.50 for deterimined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/23/2001)
856 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1611; defts appeal re phisical injury award is denied; defts Category IV award appeal is denied; claimant awarded $300 for physical injury award; $200 for other serious riot related and $294 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/23/2001)
857 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1724; defts category IV award appeal is denied; claimant awarded $200 for other serious riot related and $381 for determined property value; appeals to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/23/2001)
858 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1730; defts category IV award appeal is denied; claimant awarded $300 for other serious riot related and $492.02 for detrmined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/23/2001)
859 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1560; defts appeal of physical injury award is denied; defts category IV award appeal is denied; claimant awarded $200 for physical injury; $100 for other serious riot related and $451 for determined property value; appeals sent to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement fund(cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/23/2001)
860 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1568; defts appeal of physical injury award is denied; defts appeal re property value exceeding $500 is denied; deftss category IV award appeal is denied; claimant awarded $600 for physical injury; $200 for other serious riot related and $583 for determined property value; appeals sent to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/23/2001)
861 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1836; this claim is remanded to claims administrator for clarification of issue; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days from receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 02/23/2001)
862 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1676; defts appeal of physical injury award is denied; defts appeal re property value exceeding $500 is denied; defts Category IV award appeal is denied; claimant awarded $400 for physical injury; $100 for other serious riot related and $731 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/23/2001)
863 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1689; defts appeal re property value exceeding $500 is denied; defts category IV award appeal is denied; claimant awarded $300 for other serious riot related and $561.87 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/23/2001)
864 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1971; defts appeal re property value exceeding $500 is denied; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $829 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/27/2001)

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 72 of 97

02/27/2001 02/27/2001 02/27/2001
02/27/2001
02/27/2001 02/27/2001 02/27/2001 02/27/2001 02/27/2001 02/27/2001 02/27/2001 02/27/2001

865 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1960; defts Category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $275 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/27/2001)
866 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1936; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $350 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/27/2001)
867 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1935; defts appeal of physical injury award is denied; defts category IV award appeal is denied; claimant awarded $100 for physical injury; $600 for other serious riot related and $329 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/27/2001)
868 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1919; defts appeal re property value exceeding $500 is denied; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $500 for physical injury and $505 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination and appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 02/27/2001)
869 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1915; defts appeal re property award exceeding $500 is denied; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $503.96 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/27/2001)
870 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1907; defts Category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $270 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/27/2001)
871 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1875; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded no monetary awards; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/27/2001)
872 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1868; defts appeal re property award exceeding $500 is denied; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $650 for detrmined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/27/2001)
873 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1862; defts category IV award appeal is denied; claimant awarded $100 for other serious riot related and $336.71 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/27/2001)
874 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1838; defts appeal of physial injury award is denied; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $150 for physical injury and $244 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination and appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/27/2001)
875 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1858; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded zero monetary awards; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/27/2001)
876 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1845; defts appeal of physical injury award is denied; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $100 for physical injury award and $225 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered:

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 73 of 97

02/27/2001 02/27/2001 02/27/2001 02/27/2001 02/27/2001 02/27/2001 02/27/2001 02/27/2001 02/27/2001
02/27/2001

02/27/2001)
877 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1876; defts category IV award appeal is denied; claimant awarded $200 for other serious riot related; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals made to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/27/2001)
878 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1877; defts category IV award appeal is denied; claimant awarded $300 for other serious riot related and $226.50 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/27/2001)
879 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1891; defts appeal re property award exceeding $500 is denied; defts category IV award appeal is dneied; claimant awarded $100 for other serious riot related incidents and $865.90 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/27/2001)
880 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1939; defts category IV award appeal is denied; claimant awarded $100 for other serious riot related incidents; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/27/2001)
881 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1942; defts appeal re physical injury award is denied; defts appeal re property value exceeding $500 is denied; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $100 for physical injury and $744.99 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/27/2001)
882 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1947; defts appeal of physical injury award is denied; defts category IV award appeal is denied; claimant awarded $300 for physical injury; $200 for other serious riot related incidents; $218 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/27/2001)
883 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1967; defts appeal re property value exceeding $500 is denied; defts Category award appeal is denied; claimant awarded $200 fr other serious riot related incidents and $605 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/27/2001)
884 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1973; defts appeal re property value exceeding $500 is denied; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals mailed to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/27/2001)
885 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1800; defts appeal of physical injury award is denied; defts appeal re property value exceeding $500 is denied;; defts category IV award appeal is denied; claimant awarded $300 for physical injury; $100 for other serious riot related incidents; $710 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals made to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/27/2001)
886 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1797; defts appeal re property value exceeding $500 is denied; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $534 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/27/2001)

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 74 of 97

02/27/2001 02/27/2001 02/27/2001 02/27/2001 02/27/2001 02/27/2001 02/27/2001
02/27/2001 02/27/2001 02/27/2001 02/27/2001 02/27/2001

887 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1785; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant award zero monetary awards; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/27/2001)
888 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1780; defts appeal re property award exceeding $500 is denied; defts category IV award appeal is denied; claimant awarded $300 for other serious riot related incidents and $658 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals made to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/27/2001)
889 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1738; defts appeal re property award exceeding $500 is denied; defts Category IV award appeal is denied; claimant awarded $400 for other serious riot related incidents and $551.50 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals made to SOCF Settlement fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/27/2001)
890 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1723; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $282 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/27/2001)
891 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1613; defts appeal re property award exceeding $500 is denied; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $1009.76 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals made to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/27/2001)
892 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1768; court amends physical injury award to reflect $200 to compensate claimant for injury and reverses category IV award; claimant awarded $200 for physical injury and $273 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/27/2001)
893 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1765; defts appeal of physical injury award is denied; defts appeal re property award exceeding $500 is denied; court amends physical injury award to reflect an additional award of $100 to compensate claimant for injury and reverses category IV award; claimant awarded $400 for physcial injury award and $698.90 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/27/2001)
894 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1712; defts appeal of physical injury award is denied; defts Category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $100 for physical injury; ;appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/27/2001)
895 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1819; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded zero monetary awards; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals made to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/27/2001)
896 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1656; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded zero monetary awards; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlment Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/27/2001)
897 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1639; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded zero monetary awards; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/27/2001)
898 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1543; defts appeal re property value award exceeding $500 is denied; defts category IV award appeal is denied;

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 75 of 97

02/27/2001 02/28/2001 02/28/2001
02/28/2001 02/28/2001 02/28/2001 02/28/2001 02/28/2001 02/28/2001 02/28/2001

claimant awarded $200 for other serious riot related incidents and $1125 for other determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/27/2001)
899 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman denying the motion to dismiss appeal as to K8 class inmates [593−1] as moot (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 02/27/2001)
900 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1979; defts appeal of physical injury award is denied; defts appeal re property value exceeding $500 is denied; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $400 for physical injury and $597.45 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/28/2001)
901 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1986; defts appeal of physical injury award is denied; defts appeal re property award exceeding $500 is denied; defts category IV award appeal is denied; claimant awarded $100 for physical injury; $200 for other serious riot related and $630 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals made to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/28/2001)
902 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1990; defts appeal of physical injury award is denied; defts appeal re property award exceeding $500 is denied; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $300 for physical injury award and $787.80 for determined property value; appals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/28/2001)
903 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1992; defts appeal re property value award exceeding $500 is denied; defts Category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded 4891.20 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/28/2001)
904 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1995; defts Category IV award appeal is sustained; Claimant awarded $348.80 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/28/2001)
905 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2006; defts appeal re property value exceeding $500 is denied; defts Category IV award appeal is denied; claimant awarded $200 for other serious riot related incidents and $881.50 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals made to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/28/2001)
906 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2055; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded zero monetary awards; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals made to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/28/2001)
907 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2077; defts appeal re property value award exceeding $500 is denied; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $559.72 for deterimined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals made to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/28/2001)
908 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2076; defts category IV award appeal is denied; claimant awarded $750 for physical injury and $150 for other serious riot related incidents; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals made to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/28/2001)

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 76 of 97

02/28/2001 02/28/2001
02/28/2001 02/28/2001 02/28/2001 02/28/2001 03/07/2001
03/07/2001 03/07/2001 03/07/2001 03/07/2001 03/07/2001

909 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1998; defts category IV award appeal is denied; claimant awarded $300 for other serious riot related incidents and $287.80 for determined property value; appeals made to district court w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals made to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/28/2001)
910 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2023; defts appeal re property award exceeding $500 is denied; defts category IV award appeal is denied; claimant awarded $100 for other serious riot related and $677 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals made to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/28/2001)
911 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2025; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $225 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/28/2001)
912 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2059; defts caategory IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $750 for physical injury award and $500 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/28/2001)
913 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2070; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded zero monetary awards; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of last receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/28/2001)
914 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1997; defts category IV awaard appeal is denied; claimanat awarded $150 for other serious riot related incidents and $390 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 02/28/2001)
915 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2366; defts appeal of physical injury award is denied; defts appeal re property value exceeding $500 is denied; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimat awarded $100 physical injury and $525 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals made to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/07/2001)
916 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2362; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $389 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/07/2001)
917 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2357; defts appeal re property value exceeding $500 is denied; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $965 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/07/2001)
918 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2355; defts appeal re property value exceeding $500 is denied; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $574.99 in determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals made to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/07/2001)
919 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2302; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $364 in determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/07/2001)
920 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2292; defts category IV award appeal is denied; claimant awarded $200 for other serious riot related incidents and $397.54 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals made to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 77 of 97

03/07/2001 03/07/2001 03/07/2001
03/07/2001 03/07/2001 03/08/2001 03/08/2001 03/08/2001 03/08/2001 03/08/2001 03/12/2001 03/12/2001

counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/07/2001)
921 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2279; defts appeal of property award exceeding $500 is denied; defts Category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $700.90 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals made to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/07/2001)
922 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2272; defts appeal re property award exceeding $500 is denied; defts Category IV award appeal is sustained; claimanat awarded $543 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals made to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 03/07/2001)
923 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2266; defts appeal re physical injury award is denied; defts appeal re property value exceeding $500 is denied; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $200 for physical injury award and $550.90 for determined proeprty value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/07/2001)
924 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2265; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $430 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/07/2001)
925 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2034; defts appeal re property value exceeding $500 is denied; defts Category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $756 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/07/2001)
926 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2400; defts appeal re property value exceeding $500 is denied; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $968.75 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/08/2001)
927 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2386; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded zero monetary awards; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/08/2001)
928 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2375; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $400 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/08/2001)
929 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2367; defts category IV award appeal is denied; claimant awarded $200 for other serious riot related incidents and $100 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/08/2001)
930 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2343; defts category IV award appeal is denied; claimant awarded $100 for other serious riot related incidents; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/08/2001)
931 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2238; defts appeal re property value exceeding $500 is denied; defts Category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $760 for determined property value; appealsl made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/12/2001)
932 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2245; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $100 for determined property value; appeals

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 78 of 97

03/12/2001 03/12/2001 03/12/2001 03/12/2001 03/12/2001 03/12/2001 03/12/2001 03/12/2001 03/12/2001 03/12/2001 03/12/2001

made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/12/2001)
933 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2097; defts appeal re property value exceeding $500 is denied; defts category IV award appeal is denied; claimant awarded $100 for other serious riot related incidents and $795 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last appeal; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/12/2001)
934 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2107; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $100 for phsycial injury award and $217.50 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/12/2001)
935 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2110; defts appeal re claim administrators determination for reimbursement of court of claims fees is denied; defts category IV award appeal is denied; claimant awarded $200 for other serious riot related incidents and $274.75 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/12/2001)
936 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2113; defts appeal re property value exceeding $500 is denied; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $1101.50 for determined property value; appeals sent to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/12/2001)
937 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2230; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded zero monetary awards; appeals mdade to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/12/2001)
938 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2078; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded zero monetary awards; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/12/2001)
939 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re appeal 1636; this cases is remanded to claims administrator for reconsideratin of appeal decision in accordance w/order; appeals sent to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/12/2001)
940 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2186; defts appeal re property value exceeding $500 is denied; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $300 for physical injury and $634 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/12/2001)
941 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2122; defts appeal re property value exceeding $500 is denied; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $547 for determined property alue; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/12/2001)
942 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2123; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded zero monetary awards; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/12/2001)
943 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2149; defts category IV award appeal is denied; claimant awarded $300 for other serious riot related incidents and $420 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 79 of 97

03/12/2001 03/12/2001 03/12/2001 03/16/2001 03/16/2001 03/16/2001 03/16/2001 03/16/2001 03/16/2001 03/16/2001 03/16/2001

counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/12/2001)
944 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2158; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $410 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: ) (vp) (Entered: 03/12/2001)
945 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2191; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $262.75 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/12/2001)
946 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2205; defts appeal re property value exceeding $500 is denied; defts category IV award appeal is denied; claimant awarded $300 for other serious riot related incidents and $675 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/12/2001)
947 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2916; defts Category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $428 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 03/16/2001)
948 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2192; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; court amends physical injury awad in case to reflect an award of $400 to compensate claimant for injury; claimant awarded $400 for physical injury award and $262 for determined property value; appels made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/16/2001)
949 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2166; defts appeal re property value exceeding $500 is denied; defts Category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $654 for determined property value; appeals made to district court w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/16/2001)
950 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1853; defts appeal re property value exceeding $500 is denied; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $1049.65 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlment Fund(cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/16/2001)
951 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1489; defts property claims will not be reduced because amount exceeds $500; defts Category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $150 for physical injury award and $676.25 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/16/2001)
952 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1116; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $275 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/16/2001)
953 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 3064; deftrs appeal re property value exceeding $500 is denied; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $899 for determined property value; appeals sent to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/16/2001)
954 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 3047; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $176.50 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/16/2001)

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 80 of 97

03/16/2001 03/16/2001 03/16/2001 03/16/2001 03/16/2001 03/16/2001 03/16/2001
03/16/2001 03/16/2001 03/16/2001 03/16/2001 03/16/2001

955 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 3046; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $400 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determinaiton; appeals sent to SOCF Settlment Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/16/2001)
956 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 3043; defts appeal re property value exceeding $500 is denied; defts Category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $520 for determined property value; appeals made to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/16/2001)
957 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 3039; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $391.94 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals made to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/16/2001)
958 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 3032; defts category award appeal is denied; claimant awarded $300 for other serious riot related incidents and $376.20 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/16/2001)
959 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2689; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $299.98 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals made to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/16/2001)
960 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2718; defts category IV award appeal is denied; claimant awarded $2000 for physical injury award; $250 for other serious riot related incidents and $208 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/16/2001)
961 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2735; defts appeal re property value exceeding $500 is denied; defts appeal re court of claims fees by claims administrator is not clearly erroneous therefore defts appeal is denied; court amends physical injury award to reflect $300 to compensate claimant for injury and reverses Category IV award; claimant awarded $300 for physical injury award and $633.37 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/16/2001)
962 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2751; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $36 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receiept of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/16/2001)
963 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2765; defts appeal re property value exceeding $500 is denied; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $575.65 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/16/2001)
964 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2795; defts category IV award appeal is denied; claimant awarded $300 for other serious riot related incidents; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/16/2001)
965 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2808; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $139 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 03/16/2001)
966 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2813; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant receives no monery award; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 81 of 97

03/16/2001 03/16/2001 03/16/2001 03/16/2001
03/16/2001 03/16/2001 03/16/2001 03/16/2001
03/16/2001 03/16/2001 03/16/2001 03/16/2001

Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/16/2001)
967 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2833; defts Category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awared zero monetary awards; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/16/2001)
968 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2834; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded zero monetary awards; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals made to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 03/16/2001)
969 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2855; defts appeal re property value exceeding $500 is denied; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $842.50 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/16/2001)
970 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2860; defts appeal re property value exceeding $500 is denied; defts Category IV award appeal is denied; claimant awarded $200 for other serious riot related incidents and $752 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/16/2001)
971 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2867; defts appeal re property value exceeding $500 is denied; defts Category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $807.50 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/16/2001)
972 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2873; defts category IV award appeal is denied; claimant awarded $400 for physical injury; $200 for other serious riot related incidents and $398 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/16/2001)
973 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2901; defts appeal re property value exceeding $500 is denied; defts Category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $1087 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/16/2001)
974 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2903; defts appeal re property value exceeding $500 is denied; defts category IV award appeal is denied; claimant awarded $200 for other serious riot related incidents and $795.19 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/16/2001)
975 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2951; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $304 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/16/2001)
976 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2954; defts Category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $240.75 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/16/2001)
977 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2959; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $100 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 03/16/2001)
978 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2963; defts category IV award appeal is sstained; claimant awarded $100 for physical injury award and $30 for

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 82 of 97

03/16/2001 03/16/2001 03/16/2001 03/16/2001 03/16/2001 03/16/2001 03/16/2001 03/20/2001 03/20/2001 03/20/2001 03/20/2001

determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/16/2001)
979 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2967; defts category IV award appeal is denied; claimant awarded $300 for other serious riot related incidents; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 03/16/2001)
980 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman rre claim 2977; defts appeal re property award exceeding $500 is denied; defts Category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $769.29 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/16/2001)
981 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 3004; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded zero monetary award; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/16/2001)
982 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 3008; defts appeal re property value exceeding $500 is denied; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $727 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/16/2001)
983 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 3009; defts appeal re property award exceeding $500 is denied; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $675 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/16/2001)
984 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 3016; defts appeal for phsyical injury award is denied; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $100 for physical injury award; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/16/2001)
985 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 3027; defts appeal for physical injury awarad is denied; defts category IV award appeal is denied; claimant awarded $100 for physical injury award; $100 for other serious riot related incidents and $185 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/16/2001)
986 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2477; defts category IV award appeal is sustained therefore claimant awarded zero monetary awards; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days from receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/20/2001)
987 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2507; defts appeal re property award exceeding $500 is denied; defts category IV award appeal is denied; claimant awarded $200 for other serious riot related incidents and $537 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/20/2001)
988 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2369; defts category IV award appeal is sustaiend; claimant awarded $316 for determined property award; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/20/2001)
989 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2356; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; court amends the physical injury award to reflect an award of $200 to compensate claimant for injury; claimant awarded $200 for physical injury award and $482.08 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 83 of 97

03/20/2001
03/20/2001 03/20/2001 03/20/2001 03/20/2001 03/20/2001 03/20/2001 03/20/2001 03/20/2001 03/20/2001 03/20/2001

w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlemeent Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/20/2001)
990 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2508; defts appeal of physical injury award is denied; defts appeal re property value exceeding $500 is denied; defts Category IV award appeal is denied; claimant awarded $300 for physical injury; $100 for other serious riot related incidents and $848.50 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/20/2001)
991 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2509; defts appeal re property value exceeding $500 is denied; defts category IV award appeal is denied; claimant awarded $200 for other serious riot related incidents and $622.95 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlemment Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/20/2001)
992 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2510; defts category IV award appeal is denied; claimant awarded $200 for other serious riot related incidents and $145 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/20/2001)
993 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2517; defts Category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $225 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/20/2001)
994 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2525; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $474 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) Modified on 03/20/2001 (Entered: 03/20/2001)
995 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2547; defts appeal re property value exceeding $500 is denied; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $520.50 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/20/2001)
996 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2560; defts category IV award appeal is denied; claimant awarded $405 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/20/2001)
997 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2574; defts appeal of physical injury award is denied; defts appeal re property award exceeding $500 is denied; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $500 for physical injury and $645 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeal sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/20/2001)
998 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2617; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $396 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/20/2001)
999 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2621; defts Category IV award appeal is denied; claimant awarded $200 for other serious riot related incidents and $460 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/20/2001)
1000 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2630; defts appeal re property value exceeding $500 is denied; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $558 for determined property value; appeals made to district

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 84 of 97

03/20/2001 03/20/2001 03/20/2001 03/20/2001 03/20/2001 03/20/2001 03/20/2001 03/20/2001 03/20/2001 03/20/2001 03/21/2001

judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/20/2001)

1001 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2684; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $143 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/20/2001)

1002

ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2406; defts appeal re property value exceeding $500 is denied; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $300 for physical injury and $1270 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/20/2001)

1003

ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2411; defts appeal re physical injury award is denied; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $100 for physical injury award and $340 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last payment; appeals sent to SOCF Settlment Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/20/2001)

1004

ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2920; defts appeal re property value exceeding $500 is denied; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $640 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/20/2001)

1005

ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2948; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $63.90 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/20/2001)

1006

ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2415; defts appeal of physical injury award is denied; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $300 for physical injury award and $223.75 for determined property value; appeals sent to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/20/2001)

1007

ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2446; defts category IV award appeal is denied; claimant awarded $200 for other serious riot related incidents and $225 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/20/2001)

1008 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2455; defts Category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $317 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/20/2001)

1009

ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2475; defts appeal re property value exceeding $500 is denied; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $1056.99 for determined property value; appeals sent to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/20/2001)

1010

ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2749; defts appeal re property award exceeding $500 is denied; defts category IV award appeal is denied; claimant awarded $300 for other serious riot related incidents and $592 for determined property; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/20/2001)

1011 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2335; defts category IV award appeal is denied; claimant awarded $200 for other serious riot related incidents and $234.60 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 85 of 97

03/21/2001
03/21/2001 03/21/2001
03/21/2001 03/21/2001
03/30/2001 04/02/2001 04/04/2001 04/05/2001 04/05/2001 04/05/2001 04/10/2001 04/11/2001
04/11/2001

of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Setttlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/21/2001)

1012

ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1523; claim is remanded to claims administrator for clarificatiaon and explanation of basis for category IV award; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/21/2001)

1013 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2526; case is remanded to claims administrator for findings of fact on whether claimant speaks english; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/21/2001)

1014

ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 3044; defts appeal re property value exceeding $500 is denied; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $628 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/21/2001)

1015 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2189; defts appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $120 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals made to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/21/2001)

1016

ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2521; defts appea re property value exceeding $500 is denied; defts category IV award appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $567 for deteremined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 03/21/2001)

1017 NOTICE by Michael R Barrett of determination of awards upon remand of claim numbers 1407 (doc 697); 1523 (doc 1012)1636 (doc 939) 1678 (doc 698 and 745) 1897 (doc 614); 1951 (doc 667); 2196 (doc 717); 2526(doc 1013); 2605 (doc 678) ( no pgs: 19) (vp) Modified on 04/02/2001 (Entered: 04/02/2001)

1018 MEMORANDUM by defendant in opposition to pltfs appeal to district court of magistrate order on claim determinations ( no pgs: 4+) (vp) (Entered: 04/02/2001)

1019 NOTICE by Michael R Barrett of filing clms administrators amended certificate of svc ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 04/04/2001)

1020 LETTER from Wendell Drake to court regarding claim ( no pgs: 1) (wam) (Entered: 04/05/2001)

1021 LETTER from Curtis Lee Brown to court regarding claim ( no pgs: 1) (wam) (Entered: 04/05/2001)

1022 NOTICE by Michael R Barrett of filing claimants (1660 and 2436) appeal from determinations of claims administrator ( no pgs: 7) (vp) (Entered: 04/06/2001)

1023 NOTICE by special master of filing claims administrator's determination of awards upon remand of claims nos. 1105, 1793, 1836, 1918, 2213 and 3075 ( no pgs: 1+) (km) (Entered: 04/10/2001)

1024

ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re Claim 1660: claimant's appeal re inadequate property loss award is DENIED; the award determination in this claim is $0.00 physical injury; $0.00 other serious riot related injuries; and $1,525.00 for property loss for a total of $1,525.00; any appeal to this decision must be made to the district judge and be postmarked w/i 14 days of receipt of this order; appeals should be sent to the SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (km) (Entered: 04/11/2001)

1025

ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re Claim 2436; claimant's appeal re inadequate award for physical injury is DENIED; defts appeal of physical injury award is DENIED; the award determination in this claim is $300.00 for physical injury; $0.00 for other serious riot related injuries; and $135.55 for property loss for a total of $435.55; any appeal of this order must be made to the district judge

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 86 of 97

04/11/2001 04/11/2001 04/11/2001 04/11/2001 04/11/2001 04/11/2001 04/11/2001

and be postmarked w/i 14 days of receipt of this order; appeals should be sent to the SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (km) (Entered: 04/11/2001)

1026

ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re Claim 2196 on remand; claimant is not entitled to a Catagory IV award for other serious riot related injuries; defts appeal of the Catagory IV award is sustained; the award determination for this claim is $300.00 for physical injury, $0.00 for other serious riot related injuries and $560.00 for property loss for a total of $860.00; any appeals to this order must be made to the district judge and be postmarked within 14 days of receipt of this order; appeals should be sent to the SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (km) (Entered: 04/11/2001)

1027

ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re Claim 1523 ON REMAND; the Court amends the physical injury award in this case to reflect an award of $400.00 to compensate this claimant for injuries and reverses the Catagory IV award for other serios riot related injuries; the award determination for this claim is $400.00 for physical injury, $0.00 for other serious riot related injuries and $0.00 for property loss for a total of $400.00; any appeals of this decision must be made to the district judge and be postmarked w/i 14 days of receipt of this order; appeals should be sent to the SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (km) (Entered: 04/11/2001)

1028

ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re Claim 2526 ON REMAND; defts Catagory IV award appeal for other serious riot related injuries is DENIED; the award determination in this claim is $0.00 for physical injury, $200.00 for other serious riot related injuries and $284.00 for property for a total of $484.00; any appeals to this decision must be made to the district judge and be postmarked w/i 14 days of receipt of this order; appeals should be sent to the SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (km) (Entered: 04/11/2001)

1029

ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re Claim 1678 ON REMAND; the court determines that the Claims Administrator's Catagory IV award for other serious riot related injuries is not clearly erroneous and the defts Catagory IV award appeal is DENIED; the award determination for this claim is $300.00 for physical injury, $200.00 for other serious riot related injuries and $417.12 for property loss for a total of $917.12; any appeals of this decision must be made to the district judge and be postmarked w/i 14 days of receipt of this order; appeals should be sent to the SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (km) (Entered: 04/11/2001)

1030

ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re Claim 2605 ON REMAND; the defts request for a reduction of the physical injury award is DENIED and court finds that the Claims Administrator's physical injury award is not clearly erroneous; the award determination for this claim is $400.00 for physical injury, $0.00 for other serious riot related injuries and $0.00 for property loss for a total of $400.00; any appeals of this decision must be made to the district judge and must be postmarked w/i 14 days of receipt of this order; appeals should be sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (km) (Entered: 04/11/2001)

1031

ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re Claim 1951 ON REMAND; the Court determines that the Claims Administrator's physical injury claim award is not clearly erroneous and defts appeal is DENIED; the award determination for this claim is $200.00 for physical injury, $0.00 for other serious riot related injuries and $450.00 for property loss for a total of $650.00; any appeals to this decision must be made to the district judge and be postmarked w/i 14 days of receipt of this order; appeals should be sent to the SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (km) (Entered: 04/11/2001)

1032

ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re Claim 1407 ON REMAND; defts request that claimants awards be vacated or reducted is DENIED and for the reasons stated in the court's 1/29/01 order the Claims Administrator's physical injury and property awards are not clearly erroneous; the award determination for this claim is $1,000.00 for physical injury, $0.00 for other serious riot related injuries and $898.00 for property loss for a total of $1,898.00; any appeals to this decision must be made to the district judge and be postmarked w/i 14 days of receipt of this order; appeals should be sent to the SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3)

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 87 of 97

04/11/2001
04/12/2001 04/12/2001 04/16/2001 04/16/2001 04/16/2001 04/16/2001 04/16/2001 04/16/2001 04/17/2001 04/20/2001

(km) (Entered: 04/11/2001)

1033

ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re Claim 1636 ON REMAND; the claimant's appeal of the physical injury claim award is DENIED; claimant's appeal re property loss award is DENIED; defts appeal re property loss award as excessive is DENIED; defts appeal re the award of Court of Claims fees to claimant is DENIED; defts appeal re Catagory IV award for other serious riot related injuries is DENIED; claimant's appeal of award for other serious riot related injuries as inadequate is DENIED; the claim determination in this claim is $75,000.00 for physical injury, $2,500.00 for other serious riot related injuries and $946.00 for property loss for a total of $78,446.00; any appeals of this decision must be made to the district judge and be postmarked w/i 14 days of receipt of this order; appeals should be sent to the SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 5) (km) (Entered: 04/11/2001)

1034 NOTICE OF APPEAL BY CLAIMANTS 1078, 1414 AND 1662 from the determinations of the Magistrate Judge; filed by special master ( no pgs: 1) (km) (Entered: 04/12/2001)

1035 MEMORANDUM RESPONSE by Claimants 1320, 1397, 2099, 2447 and 2973 to defendant's appeal (km) (Entered: 04/12/2001)

1036 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1793 on reamdn; claims administrators decision awarding $200 for legal docs and $320.05 for other property loss is not erroneous; claimants appeal is denied (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 04/16/2001)

1037

ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1836 on remand; claims administrators decision re decision based on deceased class members is affirmed; Categorys IV award appeal is denied; claimant awarded $150 for other serious riot related incidents; appeeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 04/16/2001)

1038 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1918 on remand; claimants appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $1200.65 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 04/16/2001)

1039

ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 3075 on remand; claimants appeal is sustained and revised property award is amended; claimant awarded $400 for physical injury and $486.40 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of determination; appeals made to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 04/16/2001)

1040 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1897 on remand; pltfs appeal is denied; claimant awarded $1064 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 04/16/2001)

1041

ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2213 on remand; claimants appeal is sustained; claimant awarded $300 for other serious riot related incidents and $2408.33 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 04/16/2001)

1042

ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1105 on remand; defts appeal is sustained an property loss award of $182 is vacated; claimant awarded zero money; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 04/17/2001)

1043 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re completion of category IV award appeals by MJ; appals from final decision of MJ in claims 2994 and 3066 must be post marked w/in 14 days of receipt of individual determinations (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 04/20/2001)

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 88 of 97

04/23/2001 04/23/2001 04/23/2001 04/23/2001 05/03/2001 05/03/2001 05/11/2001 05/11/2001 05/11/2001 05/11/2001 05/11/2001 05/14/2001 05/17/2001
05/17/2001
05/17/2001
05/17/2001

1044 NOTICE by Michael R Barrett of filing claimants memo in resonse to defts appeal re claimant 1517 ( no pgs: 1+) (vp) (Entered: 04/30/2001)

1045 NOTICE by Michael R Barrett of filing claimants appeal from determinations of MJ; re claimants 2066; 2789 and 2872 ( no pgs: 1+) (vp) (Entered: 04/30/2001)

1046 NOTICE by Michael R Barrett of filing claimants obj to defts apeal and claimants appeal to court of MJ recommended awards; re claim 2566 ( no pgs: 1+) (vp) (Entered: 04/30/2001)

1047 NOTICE by Michael R Barrett of filing defts response to claim administrtors reconsideration upon remand; re claims 1407; 1678; 1951; 2526 and 2605 ( no pgs: 1+) (vp) (Entered: 04/30/2001)

1048 RESPONSE by defendants to appeal to court re [1034−1] and [1035−1] filed by Michael Barrett Special Master ( no pgs: 3+) (vp) (Entered: 05/07/2001)

1049 RESPONSE by defendants to claim administrators reconsideration upon remand [1039−1] filed by Special Master Michael Barrett ( no pgs: 2+) (vp) (Entered: 05/07/2001)

1050 RESPONSE/NTC of filing defts response to claims administrators reconsider upon demand by special master to [1023−1] ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 05/14/2001)

1051 RESPONSE/NTC by Michael R Barrett to appeal by claimants 2066; 2566 and 2789 [1045−1] ( no pgs: 7) (vp) (Entered: 05/14/2001)

1052 RESPONSE/NTC by Michael R Barrett of filing claimants memo in response to defts appeal re claimants 1276; 1571; 1915; 1995 and 2851 ( no pgs: 10) (vp) (Entered: 05/14/2001)

1053 NOTICE/RESPONSE by Michael R Barrett of filing of claimants appeal from determinations of MJ re claimants 1120; 1220; 1407; 1662; 1807; 2132; 2596; 2637; 2855; 2883; 2913; and 2994 ( no pgs: 1+) (vp) (Entered: 05/14/2001)

1054 NOTICE by special master of filing claimansts appeals from determinatiaons of MJ re claimants 1278; 1756; 1793; 2086; 2386 ( no pgs: 1+) (vp) (Entered: 05/14/2001)

1055 NOTICE by Michael R Barrett of filing claimants supplement to claims administrator on claimants appeal to magistrate judge ( no pgs: 1+) (vp) (Entered: 05/15/2001)

1056

SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2526 on remand; court grants defts motion for reconsideration and reversed the category IV award; claimant awarded $284 for determined propety value; appeal to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 05/17/2001)

1057

SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1678 on remand; deft motion for reconsideration is denied; claimant awarded $300 for physical injury; $200 for other serious riot related and $417.12 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 05/17/2001)

1058

SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1951 on remand; defts motion for reconsideration is denied; claimant awarded $200 for physical injury and $450 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of order; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 05/17/2001)

1059

SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 1407 on remand; defts motion for reconsideratiaon is denied; claimant awarded $1000 for physical injury and $898 for determined property value; appeals sent to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of last determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 05/17/2001)

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 89 of 97

05/17/2001
05/17/2001 05/21/2001 05/21/2001 05/21/2001 05/21/2001 05/21/2001 05/23/2001
05/25/2001 06/04/2001
06/04/2001
06/04/2001 06/04/2001 06/08/2001 06/08/2001 06/08/2001 06/08/2001

1060

SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2605 on remand; defts motion for reconsideration is denied; claimant awarded $400 for physical injury; appeals sent to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 05/17/2001)

1061 LETTER to court from Alonzo Dean Shephard requesting forms ( no pgs: 1+) (vp) (Entered: 05/17/2001)

1062 NOTICE by Michael R Barrett of filing of claimans appals from determination os MJ re claims 1135; 1243; 1518; 1626; 1718; 2086; 2672; 2730; 2789; 2802; 2813; 2872; and 2913 ( no pgs: 1+) (vp) (Entered: 05/21/2001)

1063 NOTICE by special master of filing defts response to appeal to court by claimants 1278; 1756; 1793; 1915 and 2086 ( no pgs: 1+) (vp) (Entered: 05/21/2001)

1064 NOTICE by special master of reconsideration upon remand of initial determination of appels re claim 2994 ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 05/21/2001)

1065 NOTICE by special master of filing claimants memo in response to defts appeal re claims 1371; 1678 and 2122 ( no pgs: 2+) (vp) (Entered: 05/21/2001)

1066 NOTICE/RECONSIDERATION by Michael R Barrett upon remand of initial determination of appeal by special master/trustee re claim 3066 ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 05/22/2001)

1067

SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claimant 3075; defts motions for reconsideration are denied; claimant awarded $400 for physical injury and $486.40 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 05/23/2001)

1068 MOTION by inmate Marcello Hyrayt for temporary restraining order or injuntive relief ( no pgs: 5) (vp) (Entered: 05/29/2001)

1069

ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 2994 on remand; claims administrators decision is affirmed; claimant awarded $100 for physical injury; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 06/04/2001)

1070

ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re claim 3066 o n remand; defts category IV award appeal is denied and claimants appeal to MJ (Doc 596) is sustained; claimant awarded $3000 for other serious riot related and $795.60 for determined property value; appeals made to district judge w/in 14 days of receipt of determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 06/04/2001)

1071 NOTICE by special master of filing defts response to appeal to court by claimants 1120; 1220; 1407; 1662; 1807; 2132; 2637; 2855; 2813 and 2994 ( no pgs: 1+) (vp) (Entered: 06/04/2001)

1072 NOTICE by special master of filing defts response to appeal to court by claimants 1135; 1243; 1373; 1518; 1626; 1678; 1718; 2086; 2122; 2672; 2730; 2789; 2802; 2813; 2872 and 2913 ( no pgs: 1+) (vp) (Entered: 06/04/2001)

1073 NOTICE by special master of filing claimant's response to defendant's appeal re claimant 1807 ( no pgs: 6) (km) (Entered: 06/08/2001)

1074 NOTICE by special master of filing supplement to claims administrator on claimant's appeal to the Magistrate Judge for Claim No 1626 ( no pgs: 6) (km) (Entered: 06/08/2001)

1075 NOTICE OF FILING DEFENDANT'S APPEAL by special master from the Magistrate Judge's orders with respect to claimants 1407, 1678, 1951 and 2605 ( no pgs: 7) (km) (Entered: 06/08/2001)

1076 NOTICE OF FILING CLAIMANTS' APPEALS by special master from the determinations of the Magistrate Judge for Claimants Nos. 1020, 1460, 1903, 2069,

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 90 of 97

06/12/2001 06/12/2001 06/15/2001 06/28/2001 07/18/2001 08/17/2001
08/21/2001 09/05/2001 09/17/2001 09/19/2001 09/21/2001 09/26/2001 09/26/2001 09/26/2001 09/26/2001 09/26/2001 09/27/2001 09/28/2001 10/01/2001 10/03/2001

2084, 2173 and 2909 ( no pgs: 17) (km) (Entered: 06/08/2001)
1077 MOTION by Robert Laws for order for disbursement of funds ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 06/13/2001)
1078 MEMORANDUM by defendant in opposition to [1068−1] ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 06/13/2001)
1079 NOTICE by Michael R Barrett of filing defts response to appeal to court by claimants 1020; 1626; 1903; 2069; and 2173 ( no pgs: 2+) (vp) (Entered: 06/18/2001)
1080 NOTICE by special master of filing defts request for reconsideration of claimant 3066 () (vp) (Entered: 06/29/2001)
1081 LETTER to court from William Allen re settlement agreement ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 07/23/2001)
1082 SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER re claim 3066 by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman denying defts motion for reconsideration (doc. 1080); party may appeal decision to District Judge w/in 14 days of receipt of determination; appeals sent to SOCF Settlement Fund (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 08/17/2001)
1083 STATUS REPORT and Summary of claims on appeal by Michael R Barrett ( no pgs: 3+) (vp) (Entered: 08/22/2001)
1084 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to Special Masters status report and summary of claims appeal [1083−1] ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 09/06/2001)
1085 MOTION by class members for temporary restraining order , for hearing ( no pgs: 2+) (vp) (Entered: 09/18/2001)
1086 ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel affirming Magistrate Judge's order [606−1] regarding class action settlement (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 18) (vp) (Entered: 09/19/2001)
1087 AMENDMENT by Michael R Barrett to report/summary of claims on appeal [1083−1] ( no pgs: 2+) (vp) (Entered: 09/21/2001)
1088 ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel that claims administrator's award was reasonable for claimant re appeal [800−1] hereby affirming Magistrate Judge's order [663−1] (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 09/26/2001)
1089 ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel concluding the claims administrators award was reasonable re appeal [798−1] and affirming the Magistrate Judges order [654−1] (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 09/26/2001)
1090 ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel concluding claims administrators award was reasonable for claimant re [801−1] hereby affirming Magistrate Judge's order [665−1] (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 09/26/2001)
1091 ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel concluding claims administrators award was reasonable for claimant re [799−1] and affirming Magistrate Judge's order [668−1] (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 09/26/2001)
1092 ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel concluding claims administrators award was reasonable for claimant re apeal [769−1] and affirming Magistrate Judge's order [640−1] (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 09/26/2001)
1093 NOTICE by L Christopher Frey re preparaation of testimony ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 09/27/2001)
1094 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman denying motion to expedite [582−1] (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 09/28/2001)
1095 MOTION by Joseph Zuranski to supplement record ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 10/02/2001)
1096 MEMORANDUM by defendants in opposition to pltfs Zuranskis motion for tro and inj [1085−1] [1085−2] ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 10/04/2001)

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 91 of 97

10/04/2001
10/04/2001
10/09/2001 10/09/2001 10/09/2001 10/15/2001 10/17/2001 10/17/2001 10/18/2001 10/18/2001 10/31/2001 10/31/2001 10/31/2001
10/31/2001 10/31/2001 11/05/2001

1097

ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel concluding the claims administrator performed his duty pursuant to General Protocol by considering such evidence and determination was not clearly erroneous re appeal [854−1] therefore the court affirms the Magistrate Judge's order [753−1] (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 10/04/2001)

1098

ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel concluding the Magistrate Judge's analysis of this matter is correct; the claims administrator took all of the factal allegations into acct in determining the appropriate award therefore claimants appeal is denied [1073−1] and the Magistrate Judge's order is affirmed [696−1] (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 10/04/2001)

1099 ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel denying notice of claimants appeal [1046−1] and affirming the decision of the District Court [628−1] (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 10/09/2001)

1100 ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel denying notice of claimants appeal [1022−1] affirming the decision of the District Court [1025−1], affirming the decision of the District Court [1024−1] (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 10/09/2001)

1101 ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel denying claimants notice of appeal [1044−1] affirming the decision of the District Court [805−1] (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 10/09/2001)

1102 REPLY by Joseph Zuranski to response to motion for temporary restraining order [1085−1] and for hearing [1085−2] ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 10/16/2001)

1103 ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel concluding the MJ's analysis is correct; denying claimants appeal [1045−1] (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 10/17/2001)

1104 ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel concluding the MJ's analysis is correct; claimants appeals are denied [1034−1] (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 10/17/2001)

1105 ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel concluding MJ"s analysis of this matter is correct therefore denying claimants appeals [1065−1] (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 10/18/2001)

1106 ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel concluding the Magistrate judge's analysis of these matters are correct therefore claimants appeals are denied [1052−1] (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 10/18/2001)

1107 ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel concluding the MJ's analysis of this matter is correct; the claims administrator took all of factual allegations into acct and determined an approirate award therefore claimansts appeal are denied [1076−1] (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 10/31/2001)

1108 ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel concluding MJ"s analysis of matters is correct; claims administrator took all factual allegations into acct and determined an appropriate award therefore claimants appeals are denied re [1035−1] (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 10/31/2001)

1109

ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel denying motion to supplement record [1095−1], denying motion for temporary restraining order [1085−1], denying motion for hearing [1085−2]; clerk of court directed to send Mr Zuranski instructions for filing a pro se complaint and application and afdt by incarcerated person to proceed w/out prepayment of fees (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 10/31/2001)

1110 ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel denying motion for temporary restraining order or injuntive relief [1068−1]; clerk of court directed to send Mr Hurayt instructions for filing pro se complaint and application and afdt by incarcerated person to proceed w/out prepayment of fees (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 10/31/2001)

1111 LETTER to court from Bud Wolf re status of case ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 10/31/2001)

1112 LETTER to court from James Leon Truitt re status of monetary award ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 11/05/2001)

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 92 of 97

11/07/2001
11/07/2001
11/15/2001 11/20/2001 11/29/2001 11/29/2001
11/29/2001
12/20/2001 12/27/2001 12/27/2001
01/03/2002 01/03/2002 01/11/2002 01/16/2002 01/18/2002 01/28/2002 01/31/2002
03/13/2002

1113 ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel concluding the MJ's analysis of these matters is correct and the claims administrator took al of the factual allegatiaons into acct and determined an appropriate award therefore claimants appeals are denied [1053−1] (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 11/07/2001)
1114 ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel concluding the MJ's analysis of these matters are correct and the claims administrator took all the factual allegations into acct and determined an appropriate award therefore claimants appeals are denied [1054−1] (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 11/07/2001)
1115 MOTION by plaintiff to order compliance with order 2/6/01 ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 11/15/2001)
1116 MOTION by Hassen Habibi I Juju for order for claims administrator to comply ( no pgs: 4) (vp) (Entered: 11/21/2001)
1117 ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel concluding the MJ's analysis of matters to be correct therefore claimants appeals are denied [1062−1] (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 11/29/2001)
1118 ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel concluding the Claims Administrator performed his duty pursuant to the General Protocol by considering the evidene therefore the court denies defts appeal [816−1] (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 11/29/2001)
1119 ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel concluding the Claims Administrator performed his duty pursuant to the General Protocol by considering the evidence therfore the court denies defts appeal [1075−1] (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 11/29/2001)
1120 Supplemental memorandum by plaintiff in support of appeal/ objections to MJ's order [606−1] [641−1] ( no pgs: 2) (km) (Entered: 12/21/2001)
1121 FOURTH APPLICATION by special master Michael R Barrett for disbursement of interim expenses and attorneys fees ( no pgs: 2+) (km) (Entered: 12/28/2001)
1122 ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel granting fourth application by special master Michael R Barrett for disbursement of interim expenses and attorneys fees [1121−1] in the amount of $13,917.98 (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (km) (Entered: 12/28/2001)
1123 ORDER OF USCA 6th: remanding the matter back to District Court [Appeal [562−1], affirming the decision of the District Court [560−1], reversing decision of the District Court [Appeal [535−1] ( no pgs: 24) (vp) (Entered: 01/03/2002)
1124 AFFIDAVIT of William Fate Allen Jr seeking writ of execution ( no pgs: 3+) (vp) (Entered: 01/03/2002)
1125 LETTER to court from Maumer Selim re claim ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 01/14/2002)
1126 NOTICE of appeal on remand by Hassen Habibi I'Juju ( no pgs: 2+) (vp) (Entered: 01/18/2002)
1127 ORDER OF USCA 6th: pursuant to courts disposition that was filed 12/26/01 the mandate for case hereby issues today; re 00−3454 ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 01/22/2002)
1128 LETTER to court from claimant 3066 re status of claim ( no pgs: 2) (vp) Modified on 01/30/2002 (Entered: 01/30/2002)
1129 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman re (Doc 1128); claims administrator recommended an increase in Category IV award (Doc 1066); MJ affirmed decision (Doc 1070); defts request for reconsideration was denied (Doc 1082) (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 01/31/2002)
1130 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Sherman denying motion for order for disbursement of funds [1077−1], denying application [579−1] (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) Modified on 03/13/2002 (Entered: 03/13/2002)

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 93 of 97

03/13/2002 03/13/2002 04/08/2002 04/11/2002 04/12/2002
05/08/2002 05/16/2002 06/03/2002 11/14/2002
12/13/2002 12/13/2002 12/16/2002 12/23/2002 12/26/2002 01/13/2003 02/04/2003 03/04/2003
06/19/2003

1131 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman denying the motion for order for claims administrator to comply [1116−1] as moot; copies 1023 and 1038 sent to claims administrator (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 03/13/2002)

1132 ORDER by Mag. Judge Jack Sherman denying motion to order compliance with order 2/6/01 [1115−1] (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 03/13/2002)

1133 MOTION by plaintiff Robert Laws to extend time due to being transferred to respond to doc 1077 (no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 04/09/2002)

NOTATION ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel granting motion to extend time [1133−1] (cc: all counsel) (vp) (Entered: 04/11/2002)

1134 ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel concluding that the MJ analysis of matters is correct; the claims administrator took all of the factual allegations into acct in these matters and determined an appropiate award therefore the claims appeals is denied (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 04/12/2002)

1135 LETTER to court from plaintiff Charles Todd Sells regarding settlement ( no pgs: 1) (vp) (Entered: 05/09/2002)

1136 LETTER to court from Andrew Miller ( no pgs: 2) (vp) (Entered: 05/16/2002)

1137 LETTER to court from plaintiff re status of settlement ( no pgs: 3) (vp) (Entered: 06/04/2002)

1138

ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel sustaining pltfs objection to the MJ's order on claim determinations; grants class counsels request for an order increasing the awards to class members pro rata and orders the settlement master/trustee to distribute $500,000 to be awarded on a pro rata basis on each claimants previous award totals; balance of funds after deduction for remaining fees and expenses including those awards that have been refused are undeliverable or that are designated for deceased beneficiaries shall be expended on inmate programming in accordance with paragraph 46 of the MOU (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 13) (vp) (Entered: 11/14/2002)

1139 NOTICE OF APPEAL by defendants from Dist. Court decision [1138−1] of 11/14/02 ( no pgs: 2+) (sv) (Entered: 12/13/2002)

APPEAL FEE pd in amount of $ 105.00 ( Receipt # 417303) (sv) (Entered: 12/13/2002)

1140 MOTION by defendants to stay the order of 11/14/02 [1138−1] re pro rata distribution of addtl funds to claimants pending outcome of appeal ( no pgs: 8) (km) (Entered: 12/17/2002)

1141 RENEWED SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION by plaintiffs for attorney fees and expense reimbursement ( no pgs: 6+) (km) (Entered: 12/26/2002)

1142 MEMORANDUM by plaintiffs in opposition to motion to stay the order of 11/14/02 [1138−1] re pro rata distribution of addtl funds to claimants pending outcome of appeal [1140−1] ( no pgs: 3) (km) (Entered: 12/27/2002)

1143 RECEIPT OF USCA APPEAL NUMBER − Number Assigned: 03−3051 (sv) (Entered: 01/15/2003)

1144 RULE 11(e) FILED: File to be retained by District Court during appeal. (sv) (Entered: 02/04/2003)

1145

ORDER by Judge S. A. Spiegel granting motion for attorney fees and expense reimbursement [1141−1] to the degree that it awards class counsel and staff counsel $100,000 in fees and $5,499.30 in expenses and directs the settlement master to disburse such amount from the settlement fund; the court further grants motion to stay the order of 11/14/02 [1138−1] re pro rata of addtl funds to claimants pending outcome of appeal [1140−1] consonant with Section I of this opinion (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 7) (km) (Entered: 03/04/2003)

1146 MOTION by claimant Hassen Habibi I'Juju for an order compelling the SOCF Claims Administrator to comply with the court's determination re claimant's appeal ( no pgs: 4) (km) (Entered: 06/19/2003)

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 94 of 97

09/24/2003 12/09/2003 12/09/2003 12/10/2003
12/10/2003 03/09/2004
04/09/2004 04/19/2004 05/03/2004
05/11/2004 05/13/2004 05/13/2004 05/17/2004

1147 ORDER In Court Trustees' Hearing set for 12/10/2003 02:00 PM in Courtroom 842 before S Arthur Spiegel.. Signed by Judge S Arthur Spiegel on 9/23/2003. (km, ) (Entered: 09/24/2003)

1148 STATUS REPORT and SUMMARY by Special Master Michael R Barrett. (Barrett, Michael) (Entered: 12/09/2003)

1149 FIFTH MOTION/APPLICATION for Disbursement of Interim Expenses and Attorneys' Fees for the period 12/1/2001 through 12/10/2003 by Special Master Michael R Barrett. (km, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 12/10/2003 (km, ). (Entered: 12/10/2003)

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge S Arthur Spiegel : In−Court Trustee's Hearing held 12/10/2003. Report of Trustee heard. Statements from Class Counsel and Defendants' counsel heard. The Court grants Fifth Application for Disbursement of Interim Expenses and Attys' Fees. (Court Reporter Betty Schwab (Official).) (km, ) (Entered: 12/10/2003)

1150 ORDER granting 1149 FIFTH MOTION/APPLICATION for Disbursement of Interim Expenses and Attorneys' Fees for the period 12/1/2001 through 12/10/2003 in the amount of $12,694.58. Signed by Judge S Arthur Spiegel on 12/10/2003. (km, ) (Entered: 12/10/2003)

1151

ORDER denying 1146 MOTION by claimant Hassen Habibi I'Juju for an order compelling the SOCF Claims Administrator to comply with the court's determination re claimant's appeal. Signed by Judge S Arthur Spiegel on 3/7/2004. (km, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 3/9/2004 (km, ). Additional attachment(s) added on 3/18/2004 (wam, ). (Entered: 03/09/2004)

1152 MOTION to Intervene as a party plaintiff by paul r. rodgers. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of paul r. rodgers)(Whiteley, Daniel) (Entered: 04/09/2004)

1153 RESPONSE to Motion re 1152 MOTION to Intervene as a party plaintiff by paul r. rodgers filed by Special Master Michael R Barrett. (Barrett, Michael) (Entered: 04/19/2004)

1154

RESPONSE in Opposition re 1152 MOTION to Intervene as a party plaintiff by paul r. rodgers filed by Defendants Ronald Bailey, Charles Bell, E Benner, Ben Bower, David Earl Bradley, Richard A Brown, Patrick Burnett, Kevin Clarkson, Terry Collins, Roger Crabtree, Eric G Dahlberg, John Doe 1−9, Robert Finley, Wilbur K Harris, Jefferson Roy Lewis, Oscar McGraw, Larry Neff, John H Newsome, Roger Roddy, David See, David See, Randy L Stout, James R Swann, Arthur Jr Tate, Michael E Turner, George V Voinovich, Gerald E Webb, Reginald A Wilkinson, Jerry Williams. (Criss, M) Additional attachment(s) added on 5/4/2004 (wam, ). (Entered: 05/03/2004)

Judge Timothy S. Black added. Judge Jack Sherman no longer assigned to case. (jl, ) (Entered: 05/11/2004)

1155 REPLY to Response to Motion re 1152 MOTION to Intervene as a party plaintiff by paul r. rodgers and Motion to Strike filed by Defendant Paul R. Rodgers. (Whiteley, Daniel) (Entered: 05/13/2004)

1156 MOTION to Strike 1154 Response in Opposition to Motion to intervene by Defendant Paul R. Rodgers. (wam, ) (Entered: 05/17/2004)

1157

Supplemental Memorandum Opposing 1152 Motion to Intervene as a party plaintiff by Paul R. Rodgers and 1156 MOTION to Strike 1154 Response in Opposition to Motion to Intervene, filed by Defendants Arthur Jr Tate, George V Voinovich, Reginald A Wilkinson, Terry Collins, Eric G Dahlberg, Ben Bower, Roger Roddy, David See, Roger Crabtree, John H Newsome, Oscar McGraw, Jerry Williams, James R Swann, Larry Neff, Charles Bell, Richard A Brown, Ronald Bailey, Michael E Turner, Patrick Burnett, Gerald E Webb, Robert Finley, David Earl Bradley, Randy L Stout, Wilbur K Harris, John Doe 1−9, David See, E Benner, Kevin Clarkson, Jefferson Roy Lewis, Paul R. Rodgers, Arthur Jr Tate, George V Voinovich, Reginald A Wilkinson, Terry Collins, Eric G Dahlberg, Ben Bower, Roger Roddy, David See, Roger Crabtree, John H Newsome, Oscar McGraw, Jerry Williams, James R Swann, Larry Neff, Charles Bell, Richard A

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 95 of 97

05/24/2004 07/30/2004 08/03/2004 08/12/2004 08/24/2004
09/10/2004
09/29/2004 09/29/2004 09/29/2004 10/05/2004 10/05/2004 10/06/2004
10/15/2004 12/13/2004

Brown, Ronald Bailey, Michael E Turner, Patrick Burnett, Gerald E Webb, Robert Finley, David Earl Bradley, Randy L Stout, Wilbur K Harris, John Doe 1−9, David See, E Benner, Kevin Clarkson, Jefferson Roy Lewis, Paul R. Rodgers. (Criss, M) Modified on 5/18/2004 (km, ). (Entered: 05/17/2004)

1158 NOTICE by Special Master Michael R Barrett Proffer of Claims (Attachments: # 1 Claim Administrator's Determination)(Barrett, Michael) (Entered: 05/24/2004)

1160 USCA INFORMATION COPY re 1139 Notice of Appeal: (wam, ) (Entered: 08/03/2004)

1159 NOTICE of Hearing: Status Conference set for 9/30/2004 09:00 AM in chambers before S Arthur Spiegel. (km, ) (Entered: 08/03/2004)

Mail Returned as Undeliverable (not deliverable as addressed−unable to forward) as to Kevin Michael Norchi re notice of hearing on status conf for 9/30/04 (wam, ) (Entered: 08/13/2004)

1161 ORDER denying 1152 Motion to Intervene filed by movant Paul R Rodgers, denying 1156 Motion to Strike Defendants Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Intervene. Signed by Judge S Arthur Spiegel on 8/24/2004. (km, ) (Entered: 08/24/2004)

1162

MANDATE of USCA as to 1139 Notice of Appeal filed by Arthur Jr Tate, Michael E Turner, Oscar McGraw, Roger Crabtree, David See, Ben Bower, Terry Collins, John H Newsome, Larry Neff, Reginald A Wilkinson, James R Swann, Jerry Williams, Richard A Brown, Ronald Bailey, Roger Roddy, Charles Bell, George V Voinovich, Eric G Dahlberg, Patrick Burnett, Gerald E Webb, Robert Finley, David Earl Bradley, Randy L Stout, Wilbur K Harris, John Doe 1−9, E Benner, Kevin Clarkson, Jefferson Roy Lewis (wam, ) (Entered: 09/13/2004)

1163 STATUS REPORT by Special Master Michael R Barrett. (Barrett, Michael) (Entered: 09/29/2004)

1164 Sixth MOTION for Attorney Fees Disbursement of Interim Expenses by Special Master Michael R Barrett. (Barrett, Michael) (Entered: 09/29/2004)

1165 AMENDED DOCUMENT by Special Master Michael R Barrett. Amendment to 1163 Status Report. (Barrett, Michael) (Entered: 09/29/2004)

1166 ORDER Pursuant to the Status Conference held 9/30/2004, a Final In−Court Hearing is set for 12/15/2004 03:00 PM before S Arthur Spiegel. Signed by Judge S Arthur Spiegel on 10/4/2004. (km, ) (Entered: 10/05/2004)

1167 NOTICE of Hearing: Final Hearing set for 12/15/2004 3:00 PM Courtroom 842 before Judge S Arthur Spiegel. (km, ) (Entered: 10/05/2004)

1168

ORDER granting 1164 Sixth Motion of the Special Master for Disbursement of Interim Expenses and Attorneys' Fees in the amount of 2,814.44. Payments should be made from the settlement fund in accordance with the invoice attached to the application. Signed by Judge S Arthur Spiegel on 10/5/2004. (km, ) (Entered: 10/06/2004)

Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Kevin Michael Norchi &Sean O'Reilly Boyle (Doc.#1166 &1167) (wam, ) (Entered: 10/18/2004)

1169

Joint MOTION for disposition of riot settlement funds by Defendants David See, Roger Crabtree, John H Newsome, Oscar McGraw, Jerry Williams, James R Swann, Larry Neff, Charles Bell, Richard A Brown, Ronald Bailey, Michael E Turner, Patrick Burnett, Gerald E Webb, Robert Finley, Paul R. Rodgers, David Earl Bradley, Randy L Stout, Wilbur K Harris, John Doe 1−9, David See, E Benner, Arthur Jr Tate, Kevin Clarkson, Jefferson Roy Lewis, George V Voinovich, Reginald A Wilkinson, Terry Collins, Eric G Dahlberg, Ben Bower, Roger Roddy, Plaintiffs Darrin E Morris, Eugene K Adams, Special Masters Michael R Barrett, Michael R Barrett, Intervenor Hamilton County Child Support Enforcement Agency. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Alphonse A. Gerhardstein# 2 Declaration of Jennifer Thompson# 3 Declaration of Edward Rhine# 4 Attachment #1 to Edward Rhine# 5 Attachment #2 to Edward Rhine

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 96 of 97

12/13/2004 12/14/2004 12/15/2004
01/20/2005
01/20/2005 01/27/2005 10/31/2006

declaration)(Gerhardstein, Alphonse) Additional attachment(s) added on 12/14/2004 (km, ). (Entered: 12/13/2004)

1170 Supplemental MOTION for Attorney Fees and expense reimbursement by Plaintiffs Darrin E Morris, Eugene K Adams. (Attachments: # 1 Alphonse A. Gerhardstein Declaration# 2 Statement of hours &expenses# 3 Order granting fees)(Gerhardstein, Alphonse) (Entered: 12/13/2004)

Notice of Correction re: the docket entry for 1170 Supplemental Memorandum (Attachment #3 to Edward Rhine Declaration has been deleted; the document was saved and attached to 1169 Joint MOTION for disposition of riot settlement funds as "Attachment #3 to Edward Rhine Declaration"; 1171 Supplemental MOTION for Attorney Fees and expense reimbursement was re−numbered to 1170 to maintain sequential numbering of the docket entries. (km, ) (Entered: 12/14/2004)

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge S Arthur Spiegel : Motion Hearing held on 12/15/2004 re 1169 Joint MOTION for disposition of riot settlement and 1170 Supplemental MOTION for Attorney Fees and expense reimbursement. Statements of counsel heard. Testimony/Presentation provided by Debra Shirley (Offender Job Linkage Administrator, ODRC) heard. Report of Special Master heard. Special Master requests assistance of Court re 54 class members which cannot be located, even after use of a skiptrace service. The Court directs Special Master to return the undelivarable funds back into the settlement fund to be used in the final distribution of funds. The records of the Special Master will be turned over to the Ohio Atty General for storage. The Motion for Attorneys Fees 1170 is discussed. The State of Ohio and Special Master have no opposition. The Court determines plaintiffs' counsel fee request to be fair and adequate, and grants the motion. The Court approves the final plan for distribution. The parties shall submit a proposed order for the final distribution of funds and approval of attorneys' fees, after all figures have been determined and verified by counsel and the Special Master. (Court Reporter Betty Schwab (Official).) (km, ) (Entered: 12/15/2004)

1171

ORDER granting 1169 Joint Motion for Disposition of Riot Settlement Funds. The Special Master is directed to disburse the residue of the settlement fund to a restricted account to be established by the ODRC which shall only be used for the implementation of the reentry initiative proposed by the parties in their joint motion. This disbursement may be effected in two or more payments in order to expedite the start up of the program. The Court further directs the Special Master to add to the settlement fund all monies previously segregated for those class members who cannot be located. The Court is satisfied that the repeated mailings, the use of a skip trace firm and other means employed by the Special Master constitute a sufficient effort to reach these class members and now determines that these monies should no longer be earmarked and returned to the general settlement fund. The Court further directs the Special Master to assist class counsel in sending a final notice to the class explaining the disposition of this matter including a special notice to those class members likely to be able to take advantage of the reentry program approved by this Order. Finally, the Court further directs the Special Master to make arrangements for the storage of his records in this matter for a period of no less than five from the date of the final disbursement of funds to the restricted account at the ODRC with the material to be shredded after that period has passed. Signed by Judge S Arthur Spiegel on 1/18/2005. (km, ) (Entered: 01/20/2005)

1172

ORDER granting 1170 Second Supplemental Motion for Attorney Fees in the amount of $141,508.50 to be paid to Alphonse A. Gerhardstein for class counsel for distribution pursuant to the fee application 1170 . The Settlement Master is directed to disburse such amount from the settlement fund. Signed by Judge S Arthur Spiegel on 1/18/2005. (km, ) (Entered: 01/20/2005)

1173 CLERK'S JUDGMENT entered affirming Court Orders 1171 1172 (km, ) Modified on 1/27/2005 (km, ). (Entered: 01/27/2005)

1174 NOTICE from inmate Irvin F. Kramer to class counsel Alphonse Gerhardstein Esq. in Distribution of Remaining Settlement Funds. (km1, ) (Entered: 10/31/2006)

Case: 1:93-cv-00436-SAS-TSB As of: 02/02/2015 12:55 AM EST 97 of 97

11/29/2006 12/01/2006 12/20/2006 12/20/2006
06/01/2007
06/07/2007 06/27/2007
06/29/2007 07/30/2007
01/11/2011 01/12/2011

1175 Joint Report of Parties on Preserving Liberty Program and Recommendation for Disbursement of Fund Balance (Attachments: # 1 Class Notice# 2 Program Status Report)(Gerhardstein, Alphonse) Modified docket text on 11/30/2006 (scot1, ). (Entered: 11/29/2006)

1176 NOTATION ORDER entered re 1175 Joint Report of Parties on Preserving Liberty Program and Recommendation for Disbursement of Fund Balance. Signed by Judge S Arthur Spiegel on 11/30/2006. (km, ) (Entered: 12/01/2006)

1177 MOTION for Disbursement of Expenses and Final Distribution to State of Ohio by Assistant Claims Administrator Gary Benjamin. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(km, ) (Entered: 12/20/2006)

1178

ORDER granting 1177 Motion for Disbursement of Expenses and Final Distribution to State of Ohio. The Court grants the Application of the Assistant Claims Administrator, Gary Benjamin for reimbursement of expenses in the approximate amount of $2,200.00 and final distribution to the State of Ohio in the amount of $22,031.00. Signed by Judge S Arthur Spiegel on 12/20/2006. (km, ) (Entered: 12/20/2006)

1179

ORDER signed by Judge S Arthur Spiegel on 5/31/07 that Marc Dann, Attorney General, and Terry J. Collins, Director of the Ohio Department of Correctins ensure that Wayne Bell is provided services by the Preserving Liberty Program. Further, the Court orders that these parties furnish the Court with an accounting of the Riot Settlement Fund no later than July 1, 2007, and every six months thereafter. (eh1, ) (Entered: 06/01/2007)

1180 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Doc. 1179 sent to Gerald Messerman and Kevin Norchi. (eh1, ) (Entered: 06/07/2007)

1181

MOTION for Extension of Time New date requested 7/31/2007. by Defendants David See, Roger Crabtree, John H Newsome, Oscar McGraw, Jerry Williams, James R Swann, Larry Neff, Charles Bell, Richard A Brown, Ronald Bailey, Michael E Turner, Patrick Burnett, Gerald E Webb, Robert Finley, Paul R. Rodgers, David Earl Bradley, Randy L Stout, Wilbur K Harris, John Doe 1−9, David See, E Benner, Arthur Jr Tate, Kevin Clarkson, Jefferson Roy Lewis, George V Voinovich, Reginald A Wilkinson, Terry Collins, Eric G Dahlberg, Ben Bower, Roger Roddy. (Criss, M) (Entered: 06/27/2007)

1182

NOTATION ORDER granting 1181 Motion for Extension of Time to Respond re 1179 ORDER that Marc Dann, Attorney General, and Terry J. Collins, Director of the Ohio Department of Correctins ensure that Wayne Bell is provided services by the Preserving Liberty Program. Signed by Judge S Arthur Spiegel on 6/28/07. (eh1, ) (Entered: 06/29/2007)

1183

STATUS REPORT Regarding the Preserving Liberty Program by Defendant Terry Collins. Parties have agreed to meet in 8/2007 to discuss the future of the program including expansion to provide more services to more class members. Defendant will continue to update the Court (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Preserving Liberty FY 2007 Report# 2 Exhibit Preserving Liberty 2006 Overview) (Criss, M) Modified on 7/31/2007 − To modify docket text (tt1, ). (Entered: 07/30/2007)

1184 MOTION to Destroy Retained Files filed by Gary Benjamin, Assistant Claims Administrator. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (lk1) (Entered: 01/11/2011)

1185 ORDER granting 1184 Motion to Destroy Retained Files filed by Gary Benjamin, Assistant Claims Administrator. In accordance with this Court's Order of 1/20/2005 1171 , the Court Orders that these documents should be disposed of and shredded. Signed by Judge S Arthur Spiegel on 1/12/2011. (km1) (Entered: 01/12/2011)

 </s> Morris v. Voinovich, 106 Fed.Appx. 962 (2004)

106 Fed.Appx. 962 This case was not selected for publication in the
Federal Reporter. Not for Publication in West’s Federal Reporter See
Fed. Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 generally governing citation of judicial decisions issued on or
after Jan. 1, 2007. See also Sixth Circuit Rule 28. (Find CTA6 Rule 28)
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Darrin E. MORRIS; Eugene K. Adams, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated;
Plaintiffs-Appellees, v.
George VOINOVICH, et al., DefendantsAppellants.
No. 03-3051. | July 29, 2004.
*963 On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Fay E. Stilz, Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley, Cincinnati, OH, Alphonse A. Gerhardstein, Laufman & Gerhardstein, Cincinnati, OH, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.
Stephen P. Carney, Office of the Attorney General of Ohio, Todd R. Marti, Asst. Atty. General, Office of the Attorney General, Corrections Litigation Section, Columbus, OH, Defendants-Appellants.
Before: SUHRHEINRICH, BATCHELDER, and COLE, Circuit Judges.
Opinion
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Defendant-Appellant State of Ohio appeals the district court’s order disbursing to certain Ohio prisoner-class members the remaining unassigned funds in a settlement fund. The settlement fund is governed by a settlement agreement in the litigation arising out of the April 1993 riot at Ohio’s Southern Correctional Facility. The district court ordered these funds to be distributed on a pro rata basis based upon the size of the awards the prisoners had

previously received from the fund. Because such distribution was beyond the district court’s authority under the settlement agreement, we REVERSE the decision of the district court.
I. BACKGROUND
The extensive background of this case has been described in full by previous panels of this court. See In re Southern Ohio Correctional Facility (“SOCF I”), 191 F.3d 453, 1999 WL 775830 (6th Cir. Sept.24, 1999) (unpublished); In re Southern Ohio Correctional Facility (“SOCF II”), 24 Fed.Appx. 520 (6th Cir.2001) (unpublished). In short, the state of Ohio and two classes of Ohio prisoners settled a class action relating to Ohio’s handling of the April 1993 riot and subsequent lockdown at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility (“SOCF”), a maximum security prison in Lucasville, Ohio. On January 22, 1997, the parties signed the “Class Action Memorandum of Understanding” (“Memorandum of Understanding”). The Memorandum of Understanding mandated various improvements and the creation of a $4.1 million settlement fund. It also provided procedures for administering and disbursing the fund, and the parties agreed to further procedures in a “General Protocol for Claims by Class Members Against Settlement Fund” (“General Protocol”). Together, these documents form the settlement agreement. SOCF I, 1999 WL 775830, at *1. Ohio law governs the settlement *964 agreement by express provision in the Memorandum of Understanding. Id. at *5.
Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, a claims administrator processed the claims of the various inmates, which totaled over a thousand in number. Various of these claims were appealed first to the claims administrator himself, then to the magistrate judge, and thereafter to the district court following the procedures specified in the General Protocol. When the claim resolution process came to a close, $665,000 remained in the fund, of which $165,000 represented awards that had been refused, awards that were undeliverable, and awards to deceased beneficiaries. Plaintiffs requested that the magistrate judge order that the remaining unassigned funds in the settlement fund-$500,000-be distributed on a pro rata basis to the prisoners who had already received awards. Plaintiffs styled this request as an appeal of claims determinations. The magistrate judge denied plaintiffs’ request, concluding that such a distribution was outside the settlement agreement. Plaintiffs appealed this decision to the district court, which ordered distribution of the funds on a pro rata basis. Defendants appeal that
1

Morris v. Voinovich, 106 Fed.Appx. 962 (2004)
order.
II. DISCUSSION
In SOCF I, this Court determined that the district court could only take action to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement because it no longer has jurisdiction to alter the settlement agreement because the agreement was not entered as a consent decree. Id. at *5 (“[U]nless the parties’ compromise is entered as a consent decree, a district court cannot modify the terms of a proposed settlement without the consent of the parties.”). Therefore the district court has authority only to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement over which it has retained jurisdiction. Id. at **6-7. The parties do not dispute that holding. Instead they disagree regarding whether the pro rata awards are a reasonable interpretation of the settlement agreement.
[1] Plaintiffs first argue that the parties waived their right to appeal award decisions to this Court as part of the General Protocol. It is true that the General Protocol sets up an appeals process for individual awards of damages under which the district court is the final authority. ¶¶ 1415. That is, an individual claimant or the Department of Corrections could pursue an appeal of an individual award decision by the claims administrator. Such an appeal would first be to the claims administrator himself. If unhappy with that decision, the claimant, class counsel, or the Department of Corrections could further appeal to the magistrate judge, and finally to the district court, whose decision would be final. Id. These provisions, by their terms, apply to appeals of individual claims adjudicationswhether appealed by the claimant or the State. The order at issue in this appeal does not arise out of an individual claim adjudication, nor were the procedures contained in paragraphs 14-15 followed. Therefore, the current appeal is not an appeal of an individual award pursuant to paragraphs 14-15, and the district court’s decision is not the final word under the terms of the settlement agreement.

[2] The district court did not have authority to make a pro rata distribution of the remaining funds. The district court claimed to derive authority from two places in the settlement agreement. The first is its appellate role, authorized by paragraphs 14-15 of the General Protocol. The district court asserted that this section of the agreement gives the district court “ultimate authority to enforce the *965 settlement agreement.” (Order at 7). However, paragraphs 14-15 describe the procedure for appealing individual award determinations. They do not provide any authority for making global adjustments to awards, and, in any case, the procedures of that appeals process have not been followed here. The district court did not have authority to make the pro rata distribution pursuant to paragraphs 14-15 of the General Protocol, nor was it acting pursuant to those provisions.
Second, the district court based its authority on the fact that it “granted permission to the Magistrate Judge to establish protocols by which claimants could submit claims for compensation” and the “[u]ltimate authority to administer the settlement fund ... has always remained with [the district court].” (Order at 8). No provision of the Memorandum of Understanding gives the district court any authority in administering the settlement funds, and the General Protocol only provided appellate authority over individual claims. It is irrelevant at this point that the district court gave permission to the parties to utilize a magistrate judge: the Memorandum of Understanding-as written-gives authority to the magistrate judge alone to supervise the establishment of protocols for processing individual claims. The district court retained no such authority.
Because the settlement agreement does not give the district court authority to adjust the awards, except as part of the appeals process described in the General Protocol, the district court cannot make a blanket adjustment of the awards. The order of the district court is therefore REVERSED.

2

 </s> In re Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, 24 Fed.Appx. 520 (2001)

24 Fed.Appx. 520 This case was not selected for publication in the
Federal Reporter. Not for Publication in West’s Federal Reporter See
Fed. Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 generally governing citation of judicial decisions issued on or
after Jan. 1, 2007. See also Sixth Circuit Rule 28. (Find CTA6 Rule 28)
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
In re: SOUTHERN OHIO CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
Darrin E. Morris and Eugene K. Adams, PlaintiffsAppellees, v.
Arthur Tate, Jr., Warden; George V. Voinovich, Governor; Reginald Wilkinson; Terry Collins; Eric
Dahlberg; and Ben Bower, Defendants Cuyahoga County Commissioners; Cuyahoga County Child Support Enforcement Agency; Cuyahoga County Clerk of Courts, Proposed
Intervenors-Appellants.
No. 00-3454, 00-3455, 00-3090. | Dec. 26, 2001.
*522 On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
Before MERRITT, NELSON, and SUHRHEINRICH, Circuit Judges.
Opinion
DAVID A. NELSON, Circuit Judge.
These are appeals from district court orders entered in the wake of the $4.1 million settlement of a prisoner class action arising from the riot that occurred at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility at Lucasville, Ohio, in 1993. For background on the settlement, see In re Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, 173 F.R.D. 205 (S.D.Ohio 1997).
The order at issue in Case No. 00-3090 granted “incentive awards” of $7,500 to each of the two named plaintiffs, Darren Morris and Eugene Adams. The orders at issue in Case No. 00-3455 are protective orders that barred public disclosure of documents consisting of (1) completed claim forms and related evidentiary materials filed with a court-appointed special master/claims administrator by individual members of the plaintiff class, (2) responsive materials filed by the state, (3) claim determinations by the administrator, and (4) claimant appeals from such

determinations. The order at issue in Case No. 00-3454 denied an intervention request filed by various local agencies in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, in an effort to facilitate the collection of debts owed by certain class members.
Upon review, we conclude that the settlement agreement did not provide for a grant of incentive awards and that the district court exceeded its authority in approving such awards. We further conclude that the breadth of the challenged protective orders is not supported by the record. Finally, we conclude that the Cuyahoga County entities failed to satisfy the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a) for intervention as of right; the denial of such intervention will be affirmed.
I
A
The 1993 riot at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility was the longest and third deadliest prison uprising in United States history. It prompted the filing of the present class action, in which damages and injunctive relief were sought on behalf of inmates who had not committed illegal acts in the disturbance and whose constitutional rights had allegedly been violated by the state.
On December 2, 1994, the district court certified the case as a class action under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2). After more than two years of negotiations and a summary jury trial, the parties agreed to settle the dispute. On January 22, 1997, the parties signed an agreement styled “Class Action Memorandum of Understanding.” Among other things, the Memorandum of Understanding mandated the creation of a $4.1 million settlement fund from which claims of individual class members were to be paid on the recommendation of the claims administrator. Any residual amount left in the settlement fund after payment of all *523 valid claims was to be used for “inmate programming.”
The parties also negotiated general procedures for the administration and distribution of the settlement fund. The agreement as to procedure was memorialized in a separate document entitled “General Protocol for Claims by Class Members Against Settlement Fund.” The Memorandum of Understanding and the General Protocol (collectively, the “settlement agreement”) embodied the complete understanding between the parties. On January 30, 1997, the district court preliminarily approved the settlement and ordered that notice of the proposed agreement be sent
1

In re Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, 24 Fed.Appx. 520 (2001)

to the class members.
On March 3, 1997, counsel for the class submitted a request for fees and expenses. The list of claimed expenses included “incentive awards” in the amount of $25,000 apiece for the two named plaintiffs. The state objected to the payment of such awards, as did two class members. The district court deferred ruling on the question of incentive awards until completion of a fairness hearing that had been scheduled for April 15, 1997.
The fairness hearing was duly held, after which, on April 22, 1997, the district court granted final approval to the settlement. See In re Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, 173 F.R.D. at 212-215. Although the court approved the recovery of $1.4 million in attorney fees and $258,613.41 in expenses, the issue of incentive awards was left unresolved as an “administrative detail concerning the enforcement of the Settlement.” Id. at 215.
In July of 1997 the district court held in principle that the two named plaintiffs should receive incentive awards. See In re Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, 175 F.R.D. 270 (S.D.Ohio 1997) (order). The court did not set the amount of the awards, but asked for a recommendation on this subject from the claims administrator. See id. at 276. In the same order, the district court expressed reservations about the manner in which the request for incentive awards had been made and the fact that members of the class had not been apprised of the request before the fairness hearing. See id. at 277. Accordingly, the court decided that the incentive awards would not be deducted from the amount remaining to be divided but would instead be taken from the funds already set aside for attorney fees and expenses. See id.
The defendants appealed the grant of incentive awards, but this court dismissed the appeal as premature because the amount had not yet been determined. See In re Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, No. 97-3982 (6th Cir. March 23, 1998) (unpublished order).
In an order dated December 29, 1999, the district court approved a recommendation by the claims administrator that the two class representatives be paid $7,500 apiece. See In re Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, No. C-193-436 (S.D.Ohio Dec. 29, 1999) (order). The stated basis for these awards was that “the class representatives performed important work on behalf of the other members of class and class counsel,” serving as a “crucial link for class members and counsel throughout the proceedings” and keeping the “class members generally informed in the progress of the case and relay[ing] information back to class counsel.” In re Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, No. C-1-93-436 (S.D.Ohio Dec. 16, 1999) (recommendation of special master to grant incentive

awards). In a subsequent order, the district court stayed its grant of incentive awards pending appeal. See In re Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, No. C-1-93-436 (S.D.Ohio Feb. 28, 2000) (order).
*524 B
While the issue of incentive awards was being considered, the process of adjudicating individual claims against the settlement fund was set in motion. Under this process the claims administrator was to distribute claim forms for completion by members of the class. Claimants were required to detail the nature and amount of their claims and provide supporting documentation from such records as prison staff reports, incident reports, inmate medical records, independent medical records, infirmary logs, disturbance logs, hospital records, photos, videotapes, inmate title records, property room records, court of claims case records, and prison grievance forms. The state was to be provided with a complete copy of each claim submission and was to be given an opportunity to file a response that might also include relevant documentation. Each claimant was to receive a copy of the response, as was class counsel, and an opportunity to reply was provided. The claims administrator was then to adjudicate the claims on the basis of the materials in the claim files. After the administrator issued a determination, both the claimant and the state had a right to appeal to a magistrate judge, in the first instance, and then to the district court.
The parties were concerned that if the identity of successful claimants became known, the claimants might be subject to extortion by fellow inmates. This problem was addressed as follows in ¶ 9 of the General Protocol:
“Each class member approved for payments shall be identified only by his claim number created for this litigation. No inmate receiving funds from the settlement fund shall be identified by name in any public filing with the Court. A key to the claim numbers assigned will be filed with the Court in camera.”
Paragraph 9 is the only provision in either the General Protocol or the Memorandum of Understanding that specifically dealt with confidentiality.
In the summer of 1998 the administrator sent out 1,069 claim forms. A total of 1,055 class members submitted individual claims. The state responded to many of the claims, the responses often incorporating materials such as excerpts from testimony in criminal trials and
2

In re Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, 24 Fed.Appx. 520 (2001)

documents generated in connection with internal prison disciplinary proceedings.
The claims administrator issued his determinations of the individual claims on December 16, 1999. At that time he filed three sets of documents with the district court: (1) a key to the identity of the claimants pursuant to ¶ 9 of the General Protocol; (2) sample forms and a report on the claims process as a whole; and (3) a recommendation for incentive fee awards for the two class representatives. Individual claim determinations were sent to the inmates and to the Attorney General’s Office, but were not yet presented to the district court.
When the claims key and incentive award recommendation were given to the clerk of the district court for filing, they were enclosed in sealed envelopes bearing protective orders issued by the magistrate judge. The state promptly moved to vacate the protective orders. Plaintiffs’ counsel filed a response agreeing that no protective order should have been issued for the incentive awards recommendation but defending the propriety of the protective order covering the claims key. In addition, plaintiffs’ counsel argued that the claim determinations and related evidentiary material should be kept confidential. These matters were discussed with the court at a status conference held on December 23, 1999, at which time the claims administrator explained the process that *525 had been followed and cleared up some misunderstandings as to what had actually been filed under seal.
On January 10, 2000, the district court lifted the protective order on the incentive award recommendation. See In re Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, No. C-193-436 (S.D.Ohio Jan. 10, 2000) (order). The individual claim determinations were ordered to be sealed in the interest of inmate safety, however, and, without objection from the state, the protective order was maintained on the claims key. Id. It was further provided that any person or organization seeking to review the sealed records (as at least one news organization had asked to do) should first attempt to obtain permission from the parties; if permission were not forthcoming, the organization could apply to the court for permission to release the disputed information. See id.
The parties were unable to agree on how media requests should be handled, and the state sought reconsideration of the January 10 order. The plaintiffs opposed reconsideration, filing a brief accompanied by the claim determinations for five inmates and identical affidavits from these inmates. Each of the duplicate affidavits said that the affiant opposed public release of his claim determination out of fear for his safety and personal well being; asserted that the determination contained information from which other inmates could identify him;

and concluded that “[t]hose inmates pose a threat to my safety if they learn the amount of my award.”
In response to these filings the district court issued an order broadening the scope of the previous orders. Stating that the “safety interests of the inmates, witnesses, and prison personnel outweigh[ed] the public’s right to know,” the district court both declined to lift the protective order on the claim determinations and, for the first time, placed under seal the inmates’ claim forms, the attachments to the claim forms, the state’s responses to the claim forms, and the claimants’ appeal letters. See In re Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, No. C-1-93-436 (S.D.Ohio Feb. 28, 2000) (order). All individual claim material was thus shielded from public scrutiny. The court did allow any organization seeking access to the claim determinations to obtain redacted copies of the claims administrator’s determinations, at the organization’s expense, if approved by both plaintiffs’ counsel and the state. See id.

C
On January 24, 2000, various Cuyahoga County officials and agencies-including the Cuyahoga County Commissioners, the Cuyahoga County Child Support Enforcement Agency, and the Cuyahoga County Clerk of Courts (collectively referred to as Cuyahoga County)filed a motion for intervention as of right or, in the alternative, for permissive intervention. The county wished to have class members’ forthcoming settlement awards applied against unsatisfied judgments that had been rendered for court costs and child support.
The district court denied both branches of the motion to intervene. See In re Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, No. C-1-93-436 (S.D.Ohio Feb. 28, 2000) (order).1 Cuyahoga County filed a notice of appeal on March 24, 2000, limiting its challenge to the denial of intervention as of right. On the same day, the county filed a motion to stay distribution of the settlement *526 funds pending appeal. The motion was denied. See In re Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, Case No. 00-3454 (6th Cir. Sep. 20, 2000) (unpublished order).

1

The same order denied several other counties’ motions

to intervene as well. Only Cuyahoga County has

appealed.

D 3

In re Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, 24 Fed.Appx. 520 (2001)

The state raises two issues for our review: (1) whether the district court erred in granting incentive awards to the two named plaintiffs, and (2) whether the district court erred in placing the claim documents under seal. Cuyahoga County raises a single issue: whether the district court erred in finding that the requirements for intervention as of right under Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a) had not been met. We shall address the issues in the sequence indicated.

This court has not previously been called upon to approve a grant of incentive awards,3 and we intimate no view as to the propriety of such awards in general. The *527 only question before us here is whether incentive awards are permissible under the particular settlement agreement entered into between the state and the plaintiffs in this case. We conclude that this question must be answered in the negative.

II

A
Incentive awards are relatively recent but increasingly popular phenomena that have been justified by some courts as a means of compensating named plaintiffs for the services they provide and the risks they incur in leading class action litigation.2 Several district courts within this circuit have approved such awards, see, e.g., Enterprise Energy Corp. v. Columbia Gas Transmission Corp., 137 F.R.D. 240, 250-51 (S.D.Ohio 1991), and In re Dun & Bradstreet Credit Serv. Customer Litigation, 130 F.R.D. 366, 373-374 (S.D.Ohio 1990), as have the Seventh and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals. See In re Mego Financial Corp. Securities Litigation, 213 F.3d 454, 463 (9th Cir.2000) (affirming grant of incentive awards in securities class action), and Cook v. Niedert, 142 F.3d 1004, 1016 (7th Cir.1998) (approving incentive award in an ERISA class action).

2

An analysis of all class actions terminated between July

1, 1992, and June 30, 1994, in four districts, the Eastern

District of Pennsylvania, the Southern District of

Florida, the Northern District of Illinois, and the

Northern District of California, found that incentive

awards were granted in 26 %, 46 %, 40 %, and 37 % of

the cases, respectively. The median amounts of all

awards to class representatives in the four districts were

$7,500 in E.D. Pa. and N.D. Ill., $12,000 in S.D. Fla.,

and $17,000 in N.D. Cal. See Thomas E. Willging,

Laural L. Hooper, Robert J. Niemic, An Empirical

Analysis of Rule 23 to Address the Rulemaking

Challenges, 71 N.Y.U.L.Rev. 74, 101 (1996).

Incentive awards have sometimes been criticized as

creating a potential for collusion; if named plaintiffs

stand to receive special awards, it has been

suggested, they may be more amenable to settling an

action to the detriment of the class as a whole. Some

courts have denied incentive awards out of a fear that

a slippery slope will result where incentive awards,

or “bounties,” become the norm rather than the

exception. See, e.g., In re Gould Sec. Litig., 727

F.Supp. 1201, 1209 (N.D.Ill.1989); Weseley v. Spear,

Leeds & Kellogg, 711 F.Supp. 713 (E.D.N.Y.1989).

3

Class counsel contend, and the district court seemed to

agree, that the “theory” behind incentive awards was

approved by this circuit in Thornton v. East Texas

Motor Freight, 497 F.2d 416, 420 (6th Cir.1974).

Thornton was a class action filed by employees of the

East Texas Freight Company under Title VII of the

Civil Rights Act of 1964. The district court in that case

found that the company’s policy of not permitting “city

drivers” to transfer to the position of “road drivers” was

racially motivated. In granting injunctive relief, the

district court decided that black city drivers who had

specifically requested a transfer or who had filed a

charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission were entitled, upon transfer to a road

position, to have their seniority commence six months

after the date of the request but not earlier than January

2, 1966. Other black city drivers were held, upon later

transfer, to be entitled to less favorable seniority rights.

We affirmed, stating, in dicta, that “[w]e also think

there is something to be said for rewarding those

drivers who protest and help to bring rights to a group

of employees who have been the victims of

discrimination.” Id.

A fair reading of Thornton does not compel the

conclusion that named class action plaintiffs, who are

presumed to work harder and incur more risk than

other class members, deserve a financial reward. In

the incentive award context, all class members are

similarly situated before the filing of the action.

Named plaintiffs are rewarded for filing the lawsuit

and for what they do during the course of the

litigation. The same cannot be said of the drivers in

Thornton-one group of drivers had pursued a transfer

before the litigation began, while a second group had

not done so. The order rewarding the first group by

granting them more seniority simply recognized that

but for the company’s discriminatory conduct, those

drivers would have received their requested transfers

and have attained a higher level of seniority in the

road position than those who had not requested a

transfer. For those who had never requested a

transfer, moreover, the date from which their

seniority should run could not be ascertained with

certainty. The district court’s disparate treatment of

the two groups was not based on one group having

been the named plaintiffs in the class action; it

simply recognized the differences between the

groups and ordered relief accordingly. Our opinion in

Thornton, except perhaps in a strained reading of its

4

In re Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, 24 Fed.Appx. 520 (2001)

dicta, did no more than approve the district court’s fair-minded resolution.
Four paragraphs in the Memorandum of Understanding spell out the circumstances under which disbursements may be made from the settlement fund. First, the pertinent part of ¶ 43 provides as follows:
“A class member, or an administrator or executor on behalf of a deceased class member’s estate, shall be permitted to present claims and receive compensation from the Fund only if the class member making the claim, or on whose behalf the claim is being made, was (1) murdered during the riot; (2) physically injured during the riot; or (3) lost property during or as a consequence of the riot.... The Magistrate may award compensation to a class member outside of the three categories listed in this paragraph only upon a showing by the class member that he has suffered any other serious riot-related injury ....”
Second, ¶ 57 of the Memorandum of Understanding limits the payment of costs from the fund. Paragraph 57 states: “Except as otherwise specifically provided for in this Memorandum, no party shall be liable for any costs or expenses incurred by or on behalf of any other party in connection with this Memorandum.” Third, ¶ 47 provides:
“Subject to the approval of the Court after submission of an application(s) for payment of attorneys fees and expenses by Class Counsel, attorneys fees and expenses shall be paid to Class Counsel to reimburse Counsel for the fees and expenses incurred in the prosecution of this action, any appeal of this settlement, and the administration of this settlement.”
Finally, ¶ 46 provides that if the settlement fund is not exhausted following the payment of claim awards, fees, and expenses, any remainder shall be spent on inmate programming agreed upon by the parties.
In a previous appeal herein, In re Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, No. 97-4491, 191 F.3d 453, 1999 WL 775830 (6th Cir. Sept.24, 1999) (unpublished), we

reversed a district court order that would have permitted class members to assign their awards to third parties. “Although neither the Memorandum of Understanding nor the General Protocol specifically prohibit such designations,” we observed, *528 “they do not authorize them either.” Id. at 6. Accordingly, we concluded, “by authorizing designation of third parties as recipients of the awards, the district court added a term to the compromise struck by the parties” and “impermissibly altered the terms of the settlement, acting beyond the scope of its authority.” Id. See also Evans v. Jeff D., 475 U.S. 717, 726-27, 106 S.Ct. 1531, 89 L.Ed.2d 747 (“Rule 23(e) wisely requires court approval of the terms of any settlement of a class action, but the power to approve or reject a settlement negotiated by the parties before trial does not authorize the court to require the parties to accept a settlement to which they have not agreed”); Brown v. County of Genesee, 872 F.2d 169, 173 (6th Cir.1989) (“It is well established that a ‘court must enforce the settlement as agreed to by the parties and is not permitted to alter the terms of the agreement’ ” (quoting Brock v. Scheuner Corp., 841 F.2d 151, 154 (6th Cir.1988))); Walitalo v. Iacocca, 968 F.2d 741, 750 (8th Cir.1992) (“By imposing liability on [the defendant] for expenses not within the definition of ‘costs,’ the court impermissibly altered the parties’ settlement agreements”).
As the district court recognized in the order now before us, the payment provisions of the settlement agreement “[do] not specifically provide that incentive awards are to be made to the named Plaintiffs.” In re Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, 175 F.R.D. 270 (S.D.Ohio 1997) (order). Invoking ¶ 47, however, the district court concluded that “compensation to a class representative over and above what he may be entitled to as a class member can fairly be characterized as a litigation expense which is recoverable from a common fund created for the benefit of the entire class.” Id.
[1] We respectfully disagree. Paragraph 47 provides that “expenses shall be paid to Class Counsel to reimburse Counsel for the ... expenses incurred in the prosecution of this action ....” This provision contemplates the making of payments (1) to class counsel, (2) to reimburse counsel, (3) for expenses incurred by counsel. The incentives do not fit the agreed template; they are to be paid (1) to class representatives, (2) to reward the representatives, (3) for the representatives’ participation in the lawsuit and for non-pecuniary risks they incurred.
Incentive awards, moreover, do not fit comfortably within the commonly accepted meaning of “expenses.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (1981) defines an expense as, alternatively, “something that is expended in order to secure a benefit or bring about a result;” “the financial burden involved typically in a
5

In re Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, 24 Fed.Appx. 520 (2001)

course of action or manner of living;” “the charges that are incurred by an employee in connection with the performance of his duties and that typically include transportation, meals, and lodging while traveling;” “an item of outlay incurred in the operation of a business enterprise allocable to and chargeable against revenue for a specific period;” and “loss, injury, or detriment as the necessary price of something gained or as the inevitable result or penalty of an action.” The idea common to these definitions is that of a pecuniary cost or necessary price.
Under the facts of this case, at least, incentive awards bestowed on class representatives as a matter of grace after the completion of the representatives’ services do not constitute the “necessary price” of such services. Neither do the awards cover pecuniary costs. The district court justified the awards not on the basis of any monetary expenditures made by the named plaintiffs, but on the basis of these plaintiffs’ non-pecuniary risks and their long-time leadership roles and communication *529 functions. See In re Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, 175 F.R.D. 270 (S.D.Ohio 1997) (order). At oral argument, similarly, plaintiffs’ counsel pointed to the valuable public service these men were said to have provided in lowering the risk of a recurrence of rioting at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility. It does not seem to us that rewarding such a service with a cash payment can properly be equated with the reimbursement of “expenses” in any traditional sense of the word.
The plaintiffs argue that it had become settled practice in the Southern District of Ohio for incentive awards to be treated as expenses. The support offered for this assertion consists of unpublished orders in two cases: (1) In re Fernald Litigation, No. C-1-85-149 (S.D.Ohio, Dec. 12, 1994), and (2) Day v. NLO, Inc., No. C-1-90-67 (S.D.Ohio, May 19, 1995). These orders are found in no electronic data base, as far as we are aware, and we have no reason to suppose that the state knew of the existence of the orders when the settlement agreement was negotiated in the case at bar. The defendants in the NLO case did not oppose the request for the awards, moreover, and neither order persuades us that the settlement agreement in the instant case should be given a meaning broader than that suggested by its plain language.
The plaintiffs also argue that we should be guided by In re Continental Illinois Sec. Litig., 962 F.2d 566 (7th Cir.1992), a securities class action where the named plaintiff challenged a district court’s refusal to grant an incentive award. In affirming the denial of the award, the Seventh Circuit analyzed the threshold question of whether a named plaintiff can ever recover a fee. The court answered in the affirmative, concluding that “[s]ince without a named plaintiff there can be no class action, such compensation as may be necessary to induce him to participate in the suit could be thought the equivalent of

the lawyers’ nonlegal but essential case-specific expenses, such as long-distance phone calls, which are reimbursable [under the common fund doctrine].” Id. at 571. But however incentive awards may be conceptualized in the absence of a settlement agreement, payment of the awards at issue here can only be sustained if authorized by the parties’ contract. For the reasons already given, we do not believe that payment of incentive awards was so authorized.4

4

Our conclusion is in no way affected by the district

court’s stipulation that the incentive awards were to be

deducted from the approximately $ 1.659 million

already set aside for attorney fees and expenses.

Although payment of the awards would have no impact

on the amount remaining for the payment of claims

from the settlement fund and for residual programming

for the class members, the state is entitled to have “the

agreement enforced according to its original terms

without the imposition of conditions not bargained for

by the parties.” In re Southern Ohio Correctional

Facility, No. 97-4491, 191 F.3d 453, 1999 WL 775830

at 4.

B
As to the disputed protective orders, the state argues that the orders improperly expanded the limited confidentiality provision that was part of the settlement agreement. Invoking the First Amendment and our long tradition of public access to judicial records, the state further argues that the orders are defective as lacking adequate evidentiary support, as having been issued without appropriate factual findings, and as reversing the usual presumption in favor of disclosure.
Without responding directly to the state’s argument that the orders undercut *530 the terms of the settlement agreement, the plaintiffs counter that issuance of the orders was within the court’s discretion because allocation of the settlement proceeds was part of an ongoing settlement process of a sort for which there is no tradition of public accessibility. In general, it seems to us, the state has the better of this argument.
It is true that there is no tradition of public access to settlement negotiations and other proceedings directly aimed at achieving settlements. See In re Cincinnati Enquirer, 94 F.3d 198, 199 (6th Cir.1996), where we declined to issue a writ of mandamus that would have permitted public access to the summary jury trial that preceded the settlement in the case at bar. But there is an important distinction, in our view, between negotiating a settlement in the first instance and using court resources
6

In re Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, 24 Fed.Appx. 520 (2001)

to implement a settlement that has already been agreed to. See Newman v. Graddick, 696 F.2d 796 (11th Cir.1983), where the presumption in favor of access to judicial records was held applicable to prisoner lists filed during implementation of a consent decree that required state officials to reduce the numbers of prisoners housed in county jails. See also Bank of America Nat’l Trust v. Rittenhouse, 800 F.2d 339 (3d Cir.1986) (presumption of access applied to documents filed under seal in connection with motions to enforce settlement agreement in debt collection case).
[2] The settlement approved by the district court in the case at bar was funded with taxpayer dollars, and the public has a legitimate interest in knowing how this money is being spent. The court-appointed administrator’s adjudication of claims against the settlement fund was subject to review by the district court at the instance of either side, and it seems to us that the function of deciding the merits of the individual claims is sufficiently judicial in character to bring the relevant records within the tradition of accessibility.5

5

We note, in this connection, that at the status

conference held on December 23, 1999, the district

court said that it did not understand the materials

submitted to the claims administrator to be confidential.

The court was correct, we believe.

This is not to say that the identities of inmates receiving funds should be subject to disclosure. No one has made such a claim, and ¶ 9 of the General Protocol expressly provides that no inmate receiving funds shall be identified by name in any public filing. As the district court properly recognized, the settlement agreement should not be implemented in such a way as to render ¶ 9 a nullity. It would thus be well within the district court’s discretion to order that names, cell numbers, and other information that could be used for identifying successful claimants be redacted from the claims documents prior to their release.
We are not persuaded, moreover, that ¶ 9 would preclude the district court from taking similar measures to protect the privacy of persons other than successful claimants (informants or guards, e.g.), if it should be shown that identification of such persons would subject them to an appreciable risk of harm. “Every court has supervisory power over its own records and files, and access has been denied where court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes.” Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598, 98 S.Ct. 1306, 55 L.Ed.2d 570 (1978).
The orders at issue here, however, bar public access to every claim document in its entirety, regardless of its

apparent potential for misuse. The orders were entered without an evidentiary hearing and without “findings specific enough that a *531 reviewing court can determine whether the closure order was properly entered.” Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1, 9-10, 106 S.Ct. 2735, 92 L.Ed.2d 1 (1986). It is important that the reviewing court be given a basis for determining whether the closure order is essential to preservation of the interest articulated by the district court (inmate safety, e.g.) and is “narrowly tailored to serve that interest.” Id. at 9, 106 S.Ct. 2735.
Accordingly, we shall remand this case to the district court for reconsideration of the challenged portions of the protective orders. The plaintiffs should be accorded an opportunity to present competent evidence of the extent to which unsealing of the claim documents would jeopardize the safety of inmates or others. Insofar as the district court may find that some or all of the claim documents contain data as to which the presumption in favor of public access has been overcome, the court should categorize with specificity the data that are to be protected and should enter detailed findings justifying nondisclosure of such data.
C
We turn now to the denial of Cuyahoga County’s motion to intervene as of right.
Rule 24(a), Fed.R.Civ.P., provides as follows:
“Intervention of Right. Upon timely application anyone shall be permitted to intervene in an action: (1) when a statute of the United States confers an unconditional right to intervene; or (2) when the applicant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action and the applicant is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the applicant’s ability to protect that interest, unless the applicant’s interest is adequately represented by existing parties.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a).
[3] [4] Focusing on (2), we have said that this rule requires consideration of four elements: “ ‘(1) timeliness of the application to intervene, (2) the applicant’s substantial legal interest in the case, (3) impairment of the applicant’s ability to protect that interest in the absence of intervention, and (4) inadequate representation of that interest by parties already before the court.’ ” StupakThrall v. Glickman, 226 F.3d 467, 471 (6th Cir.2000), quoting Michigan State AFL-CIO v. Miller, 103 F.3d 1240, 1245 (6th Cir.1997). Any one of these elements
7

In re Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, 24 Fed.Appx. 520 (2001)

may provide a basis for denying intervention. StupakThrall, 226 F.3d at 471.
[5] Here the district court found it necessary to examine only the first and third elements. The first-timeliness of the application to intervene-is normally analyzed in the context of the following factors:
“(1) the point to which the suit has progressed; (2) the purpose for which intervention is sought; (3) the length of time preceding the application during which the proposed intervenors knew or should have known of their interest in the case; (4) the prejudice to the original parties due to the proposed intervenors’ failure to promptly intervene after they knew or reasonably should have known of their interest in the case; and (5) the existence of unusual circumstances militating against or in favor of intervention.” Id. at 473.
Against this background, the district court found it significant that the county’s motion *532 to intervene had not been filed until settlement had already been reached; that the procedures provided for in O.R.C. § 5120.133 could accomplish the intervenors’ objectives without burdening the court;6 and that intervention would prejudice the original parties because the presence of the county would impose additional burdens upon the administrator. See In re Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, No. C-1-93-436 (S.D.Ohio Feb. 28, 2000) (order).

6

O.R.C. 5120.133 provides a summary collection

procedure under which a certified copy of a judgment

against an inmate is submitted to the Ohio Department

of Rehabilitation and Corrections. Funds may then be

deducted directly from the inmate’s account without the

need for further judicial intervention. The county

suggests that this device would be ineffective because

the identities of successful claimants are secret and

because some successful claimants are likely to have

been released prior to receipt of the judgments against

them.

As to the third element-impairment of the applicant’s ability to protect its interest in the absence of

intervention-the district court found that the county would not be impaired because O.R.C. § 5120.133 affords an alternative process for collecting outstanding debts. See id. The district court refuted the county’s argument that the identities of successful claimants were to be kept secret by pointing out that the Ohio Attorney General had long since provided all Ohio counties a list of inmates who could be successful in the awards process. See id.
[6] In our view, the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding Cuyahoga County’s application for intervention untimely. The application came almost three years after the fairness hearing that led to approval of the settlement and more than five years after the district court certified the case as a class action. Although determining timeliness is not merely a matter of “counting days,” see United States v. Alcan Aluminum, Inc., 25 F.3d 1174, 1181 (3d Cir.1994), this is a case where the motion to intervene was not filed until after the parties had agreed upon a settlement, had created a complicated administrative scheme through which to carry it out, and either had reached the payment phase or were about to do so. The county, aware that prisoners had outstanding obligations, knew or should have known of its interest years before it moved to intervene. Rather than working with the state in crafting a settlement that would accommodate the county’s interest, the county did nothing until the eleventh hour.
Our conclusion that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding Cuyahoga County’s application untimely renders it unnecessary for us to decide whether the other requirements of Rule 24(a) were satisfied.
The order denying intervention (Case No. 00-3454) is AFFIRMED. The order granting incentive awards (Case No. 00-3090) is REVERSED. Case No. 00-3455 is REMANDED for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Parallel Citations
2001 WL 1667267 (C.A.6 (Ohio))

8

 </s> In re Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, 191 F.3d 453 (1999)
191 F.3d 453 Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION. (The Court’s decision is referenced in a “Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions” appearing in the Federal Reporter. Use FI CTA6 Rule 28 and FI CTA6 IOP 206 for rules regarding the citation of unpublished opinions.) United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
In re: SOUTHERN OHIO CORRECTIONAL FACILITY Darrin E. MORRIS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, et al.,; Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v. Arthur TATE, Warden, et al., Defendants-Appellants.
No. 97-4491. | Sept. 24, 1999.
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
Before SUHRHEINRICH and CLAY, Circuit Judges; and CARR,* District Judge.
Opinion
PER CURIAM.
*1 In this class action, the parties entered into a settlement agreement that established a $4.1 million settlement fund from which class members would be compensated. We must decide whether the district court exceeded its authority when it issued an order permitting class members to assign or designate third parties as recipients of their settlement awards. Because the district court effectively altered the settlement without the consent of the parties, we VACATE the order to the extent it permits such designations.
I. BACKGROUND
The present controversy arises out of a prison riot that occurred in April of 1993 at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility (“SOCF”), a maximum security prison located in Lucasville, Ohio. Two inmates initiated a class action lawsuit in federal court on behalf of all inmates at the SOCF who were not indicted with committing crimes during the riot.1 The inmates alleged that, during the rebellion, the prison staff failed to protect them from death, injury, and property loss.2 The inmates also complained that the conditions of confinement at the SOCF following the uprising were unconstitutional.
On December 2, 1994, the district court certified the case as a class action under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2). The district court certified the class as including any living or deceased inmate who had been incarcerated at the SOCF on or since April 11, 1993, or had been classified as a general population inmate during any portion of that time period. The district court also certified the following two subclasses: (1) those inmates present in K-8 block on or about April 13, 1993; and (2) those inmates indicted for crimes committed during the riot.
On January 22, 1997, the parties signed an agreement styled as the “Class Action Memorandum of Understanding” (hereinafter “Memorandum of Understanding”). The Memorandum of Understanding mandated various improvements in the conditions of confinement at the SOCF and contemplated a $4.1 million settlement fund to compensate class members for damages incurred during the rebellion. The parties also negotiated general procedures for the administration and distribution of the settlement fund, which the parties memorialized in a separate document entitled “General Protocol for Claims by Class Members Against Settlement Fund” (hereinafter “General Protocol”). The Memorandum of Understanding and the General Protocol (collectively, the “Settlement Agreement”) embodied the complete agreement negotiated by the parties.
On January 30, 1997, the district court preliminarily approved the Settlement Agreement, ordering that notice of the proposed agreement be sent to the class members. As class members were notified of the proposed settlement, Betty D. Montgomery,
1

In re Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, 191 F.3d 453 (1999)
Attorney General of Ohio and counsel for Defendants-Appellants, contacted county prosecutors throughout the state and provided them with a list of inmates likely to receive a settlement award. The Ohio Attorney General also provided the inmate list to clerks of court across Ohio, the Crime Victim Section of the Attorney General’s Office, and the Ohio Department of Human Services. The purpose of informing the county prosecutors was to facilitate the collection of judgments against the inmates pursuant to Ohio Rev.Code § 5120.133.3
*2 On April 14, 1997, Plaintiffs-Appellees filed a motion in the district court alleging that the actions of the Ohio Attorney General violated the Settlement Agreement. Specifically, Appellees claimed that the challenged actions violated paragraph Nine of the General Protocol, which provides, in pertinent part, that “[e]ach class member approved for payments shall be identified only by his claims number created for this litigation. No inmate receiving funds from the settlement fund shall be identified by name in any public filing with the Court.” J.A. at 113. Appellees moved the court to order the Ohio Attorney General and counsel for Appellants to cease and desist from engaging in conduct in violation of the settlement; to declare that the compensation awarded to the class members may not be alienable; to authorize additional measures to protect the confidentiality of the awards; and to require Appellants and the Ohio Attorney General to reimburse the trustee of the settlement fund for all expenses incurred in connection with efforts made by creditors to seek payment from the fund. In subsequent filings with the court, Appellees challenged the constitutionality of Ohio Rev.Code §§ 2329.66(A)(12)(c),4 5120.133 and Ohio Admin. Code § 5120-5-03,5 and requested the court to enjoin recoupment under Ohio Rev.Code § 5120.133.
After conducting a fairness hearing, the district court approved the Settlement Agreement on April 22, 1997. See In re Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, 173 F.R.D. 205 (S.D.Ohio 1997). The district court evaluated the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the proposed settlement in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(e).6 However, the court did not rule on Appellees’ cease and desist motion, stating that the complained-of conduct related to the enforcement of the settlement and administration of the settlement fund and did not constitute a sufficient basis to reject the settlement. Instead, the court stated that it would address Appellees’ motion at a later date and ordered the parties to brief issues relating to the motion raised by the court at the fairness hearing.
On May 1, 1997, the Ohio Attorney General initiated an action against eighteen class members in the Court of Common Pleas, Franklin County, Ohio. The attorney general sought enforcement of the State of Ohio’s statutory right of subrogation under Ohio Rev.Code § 2743.72 7 for payments it made to victims of crime by way of various crime victim compensation programs. Appellees moved the district court to enjoin the state court proceeding.
On July 7, 1997, Appellees moved for leave to file a supplemental memorandum in support of their cease and desist motion in the federal court. The district court granted the motion and scheduled a show cause hearing, directing the parties to address why the court should not grant the requested relief.
On November 7, 1997, the Ohio Attorney General moved the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas to enjoin the class member-defendants from assigning to third parties any award they might receive from the settlement in the federal class action. Ruling that the State of Ohio was subject to immediate and irreparable harm, the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas granted the attorney general’s motion on November 21, 1997. The state court also stated that any assignment executed by any of the class member-defendants would constitute a fraudulent conveyance under Ohio law because such a transfer would occur after they had been sued and were aware of the State of Ohio’s status as a creditor.
*3 On November 24, 1997, after a show cause hearing, the district court ruled on Appellees’ cease and desist motion. The court first held that the actions of the Ohio Attorney General did not violate the Settlement Agreement. However, the court expressed its concern over the validity of the judgments used to withdraw funds from the inmates’ accounts and whether appropriate steps had been taken to ensure the validity of the judgments.8 The court noted that many of the inmates appeared to have potentially meritorious defenses against the judgments, but were neither informed of the possible defenses nor given a hearing to challenge the validity of the judgments. The court also cited the unwillingness of the Attorney General’s Office to undertake the responsibility of ensuring that the judgments are in fact valid.
Unaware of the state court injunction, the district court then ordered that class members be permitted to assign or designate third parties as recipients of their awards, and that the designations be made public. The court remarked:
If the State wishes to collect on the outstanding judgment owed by a class member, this assignment will enable an independent judicial officer to review the underlying judgment to ensure its validity and correctness before being used as the basis for taking away an inmate’s funds. Such assignment does
2

In re Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, 191 F.3d 453 (1999)
not prevent the State from collecting its debts, and as the assignment shall be public, there is no concern of defrauding creditors.
J.A. at 84-85. However, the district court declined to grant the relief requested by Appellees or rule on the constitutionality of the challenged Ohio statutes because the Ohio Attorney General had not breached the Settlement Agreement and the granted relief addressed most of Appellees’ concerns.
In making its ruling, the district court stated that it had jurisdiction over the settlement fund, explaining, inter alia, that the Settlement Agreement provided that the settlement fund be disbursed in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding, the General Protocol, and “as directed by the Court.”9 The court also stated that it had broad equitable supervisory power to ensure the fair administration of the fund and to protect the interests of the class members.
On December 5, 1997, Appellants moved the district court to clarify its November 24, 1997 order permitting class members to designate third parties as recipients of their awards. Specifically, Appellants asked the court to clarify whether its order is limited to equitable amendment of the settlement agreement for purposes of the class action or also intended to serve as an injunction against state court proceedings prohibiting assignment of funds as a means to defraud creditors. Appellants noted that a preliminary injunction was granted by the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas prohibiting the assignment to third parties of any award received from the settlement in the federal class action. Appellants also noted that, in another state court action initiated by the Ohio Attorney General, a temporary restraining order was issued prohibiting the assignment of the settlement awards and that a hearing addressing the possibility of a preliminary injunction was scheduled for a future date.
*4 On December 22, 1997, Appellants filed a notice of appeal to this Court and also moved the district court to stay the distribution of awards from the settlement fund to class members seeking to assign their awards pursuant to the November 24, 1997 order. On February 2, 1998, Appellants also filed a motion with this Court to stay the payment of settlement funds to the designees of inmate class members. On February 24, 1998, the district court denied Appellants’ motion to clarify and motion to stay. On March 3, 1998, a panel of this Court granted Appellants’ motion for a stay pending the appeal.
II. DISCUSSION
We must first address Appellees’ argument that Appellants lack standing to maintain this appeal. Appellees argue that Appellants do not have standing because they have not suffered an injury resulting from the district court’s order. Appellees claim that Appellants are only protecting the rights of third-party creditors and have nothing at stake. We disagree.
To establish standing to maintain an action in federal court, a party must demonstrate that he has suffered an “injury in fact.” See Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417, 118 S.Ct. 2091, 2101-02 (1998); American Federation of Gov’t Employees v. Clinton, 180 F.3d 727, 729 (6th Cir.1999). Taking as true their assertion that the district court improperly altered the Settlement Agreement, the Appellants have suffered an “injury in fact” because they lost the benefit of having the agreement enforced according to its original terms without the imposition of conditions not bargained for by the parties.
Having disposed of Appellees’ standing challenge, we now turn to Appellants’ claims. Appellants argue that the district court exceeded its authority when it ordered that class members be permitted to designate third parties as recipients of their awards. Appellants also argue that the practical effect of the district court’s ruling was to enjoin Appellants from using state collection procedures without determining whether the requirements for issuing an injunction were met; that the district court’s order violated the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995; and that the district court improperly decided a matter of state law, i.e., whether the designation of a third party as a recipient of the settlement awards would constitute a fraudulent conveyance under Ohio law. Because we find that the district court exceeded its authority in permitting designation of third parties as recipients of the awards, we do not address Appellants’ other arguments.
In Evans v. Jeff D., 475 U.S. 717 (1986), the Supreme Court described the scope of a district court’s power to approve a proposed class action settlement:
Rule 23(e) wisely requires court approval of the terms of any settlement of a class action, but the power to approve or reject a settlement negotiated by the parties before trial does not authorize the court to require the parties to accept a settlement to which they have not agreed. Although changed circumstances may justify a court-ordered modification of a consent decree over the objections of a
3

In re Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, 191 F.3d 453 (1999)
party after the decree has been entered, and the District Court might have advised petitioners and respondents that it would not approve their proposal unless one or more of its provisions was deleted or modified, Rule 23(e) does not give the court the power, in advance of trial, to modify a proposed consent decree and order its acceptance over either party’s objection. The options available to the District Court were essentially the same as those available to respondents: it could have accepted the proposed settlement; it could have rejected the proposal and postponed the trial to see if a different settlement could be achieved; or it could have decided to try the case.
*5 Id. at 726-27 (footnotes omitted); accord Mallory v. Eyrich, 922 F.2d 1273, 1279 (6th Cir.1991) (explaining that a district court possesses no discretion to alter the terms of a settlement agreement); Brown v. County of Genesee, 872 F.2d 169, 173 (6th Cir.1989) (per curiam) (“It is well established that a ‘court must enforce the settlement as agreed to by the parties and is not permitted to alter the terms of the agreement.” ’ (quoting Brock v. Scheuner Corp., 841 F.2d 151, 154 (6th Cir.1988))); see also Walitalo v. Iacocca, 968 F.2d 741, 750 (8th Cir.1992) (“By imposing liability on [the defendant] for expenses not within the definition of “costs,” the court impermissibly altered the parties’ settlement agreements.”); Jeff D. v. Andrus, 899 F.2d 753, 758 (9th Cir.1989) (“The court’s power to approve or reject settlements does not permit it to modify the terms of a negotiated settlement.”); Freeman v. B & B Assocs., 790 F.2d 145, 151 (D.C.Cir.1986) ( “According to the Supreme Court, Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure does not permit a court to materially modify a proposed settlement and order its acceptance over either party’s objection.”); In re Air Crash Disaster at John F. Kennedy Int’l Airport on June 24, 1975, 687 F.2d 626, 629 (2d Cir.1982) (“It is beyond a district judge’s discretion to alter the terms of or refuse to enforce a settlement agreement, absent special circumstances, such as a material breach of the agreement, ... or duress ....“ (citations omitted)); Kohr v. Allegheny Airlines, Inc., 504 F.2d 400, 405 (7th Cir.1974) (“[I]t was an abuse of discretion for the district court to effectively change the settlement from one providing for dismissal of plaintiffs’ complaints with prejudice to one providing for the dismissal without prejudice.”). As the Court in Evans made clear, unless the parties’ compromise is entered as a consent decree, a district court cannot modify the terms of a proposed settlement without the consent of the parties.
Settlement agreements are a type of contract subject to principles of state contract law. See Bamerilease Capital Corp. v. Nearburg, 958 F.2d 150, 152 (6th Cir.1992). Here, the Memorandum of Understanding specified that the terms of the settlement would be governed by Ohio law. Under Ohio law, “[t]he purpose of contract construction is to effectuate the intent of the parties.” Skivolocki v. East Ohio Gas. Co., 313 N.E.2d 374 (Ohio 1974). “The intent of the parties to a contract is presumed to reside in the language they chose to employ in the agreement.” Kelly v. Medical Life Ins. Co., 509 N.E.2d 411, 413 (Ohio 1987). “[C]ommon words appearing in a written instrument are to be given their plain and ordinary meaning unless manifest absurdity results or unless some other meaning is clearly intended from the face or overall contents of the instrument.” Alexander v. Buckeye Pipe Line Co., 374 N.E.2d 146, 150 (Ohio 1978). “[A] writing, or writings executed as part of the same transaction, will be read as a whole, and the intent of each part will be gathered from a consideration of the whole.” Foster Wheeler Enviresponse, Inc. v. Franklin County Convention Facilities Auth., 678 N.E.2d 519, 526 (Ohio 1997).
*6 Nowhere in the Settlement Agreement do the parties evince an intent to allow class members to designate third parties as the recipients of their awards. Although neither the Memorandum of Understanding nor the General Protocol specifically prohibit such designations, they do not authorize them either. To begin with, paragraph Eleven of the General Protocol provides that “[a]ll class members who are authorized to receive a payment from the settlement fund will be presented with a release on the back of the check sent by the Claims Administrator. The release becomes effective upon the endorsement and negotiation of the check.” J.A. at 113. Furthermore, paragraph Twelve of the General Protocol states that “[e]ach class member who is in custody, will be informed of the date when his check is sent to his facility.” J.A. at 113. Finally, paragraph Fourteen of the General Protocol requires that each claimant be informed of “the amount to be paid the claimant in the event the claim is approved, prior to the distribution to the claimant of an award.” J.A. at 115. These provisions clearly show that the parties’ agreed only that the awards be sent to the claimant. Thus, by authorizing designation of third parties as recipients of the awards, the district court added a term to the compromise struck by the parties. Accordingly, we find that the district court impermissibly altered the terms of the settlement, acting beyond the scope of its authority.10
Appellees advance various arguments claiming that the district court, even if it altered the terms of the settlement, had the authority to permit designation of third parties as recipients of the settlement awards. We conclude that Appellees’ contentions lack merit for the reasons discussed below.
Appellees assert that the parties granted the district court jurisdiction over the disbursement of the settlement fund. Appellees cite an agreed order dated February 19, 1997, which requires the settlement fund to be disbursed in accordance with “the Memorandum of Understanding, the General Protocol, and as directed by the Court.” J.A. at 130 (emphasis added)
4

In re Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, 191 F.3d 453 (1999)
Additionally, Appellees claim that the district court had the discretion to devise a procedure used to disburse the funds because the Settlement Agreement primarily addresses the manner in which the amount of the class members’ awards are to be determined and not the procedures used to disburse the awards. Appellees’ argument is not well taken. We interpret the agreed order as requiring disbursements to be made by the direction of the district court as long as its ruling is consistent with the Memorandum of Understanding and the General Protocol And as we have already noted above, the district court’s order altered the Settlement Agreement by authorizing class member to designate third parties as recipients of their awards.
Relying on Waste Management of Ohio, Inc. v. City of Dayton, 132 F.3d 1142 (6th Cir.1997), Appellees also claim that the district court had inherent jurisdiction to alter the Settlement Agreement. In Waste Management, our court held that a district court has inherent subject matter jurisdiction to address state law issues in determining whether the terms of a previously entered consent decree were violated.11 We explained “that a consent decree has ‘attributes of both a contract and of a judicial act’ and is ‘essentially a settlement agreement subject to continued judicial policing.” ’ Id. at 1145 (quoting Williams v. Vukovich, 720 F.2d 909, 920 (6th Cir.1983)). Noting that the prospective provisions of a consent decree operate as an injunction, we recognized that courts are required to “1) retain jurisdiction over the decree during the term of its existence; 2) protect the integrity of the decree with its contempt powers; and 3) modify the decree should ‘changed circumstances’ subvert its intended purpose.” Id. at 1145-46 (quoting Williams, 720 F.2d at 920) (internal citations omitted).
*7 Unlike in Waste Management, the Settlement Agreement in the instant case was not entered by the court as a consent decree. Nothing in the Memorandum of Understanding or the General Protocol suggests that the parties even submitted a proposed consent decree. Moreover, neither the order granting final approval of the settlement nor the order permitting designation of third parties as recipients of the awards indicate that the agreement was entered as a consent decree.12
Finally, Appellees assert that Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(d) empowered the district court to issue the November 24, 1997 order. Rule 23(d) grants district courts broad authority to manage class actions and to enter appropriate orders to control the actions of counsel and parties.13 See, e.g., Gulf Oil Co. v. Bernard, 452 U.S. 89, 100 (1981); Shelton v. Pargo, Inc., 582 F.2d 1298, 1306 (4th Cir.1978); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(d), Advisory Committee Notes. However, we do not believe that a district court, under the guise of controlling a class action under Rule 23(d), can alter the terms of a settlement agreement without the consent of the parties.14 See Evans, 475 U.S. at 726-27.
In addition to modifying the Settlement Agreement, the district court’s order also implicated principles of comity inasmuch as the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas enjoined eighteen class members from assigning to third parties any award they might receive from the settlement. However, because we have concluded that the district court acted beyond the scope of its powers in authorizing the designation of third parties as recipients of the settlement awards, the propriety of the district court’s act of authorizing such designations in contravention of the state court injunction is no longer at issue.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we VACATE the district court’s order of November 24, 1997, to the extent it permits class members to designate third parties as recipients of their awards.
CLAY, Circuit Judge, dissenting.
CLAY, Circuit Judge.
Because I believe that the district court retained jurisdiction over this case, and did not abuse its discretion in modifying the settlement agreement between the parties, I respectfully dissent from the opinion of the Court.
I.
5

In re Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, 191 F.3d 453 (1999)
As a preliminary matter, I disagree with the majority in its summary conclusion that Appellants have standing to maintain this appeal because “they lost the benefit of having the agreement enforced according to its original terms without the imposition of conditions not bargained for by the parties.” A lack of standing may bar an appeal even where a litigant had standing before the district court. See Associated Builders & Contractors v. Perry, 16 F.3d 388, 390 (6 th Cir.1994). To establish the “injury in fact” element of standing, a plaintiff must show that he has sustained or is immediately in danger of sustaining some direct injury as a result of the challenged conduct, and must show that the injury or threat of injury is “real and immediate” or “concrete and particularized,” not “conjectural” or “hypothetical.” Kardules v. City of Columbus, 95 F.3d 1335, 1347 (6 th Cir.1996) (internal citations omitted). While Appellants charge that they were injured because the order of the district court altered terms of their agreement, they can point to no terms in that agreement that prevents class members from designating third parties to receive their awards. Even if they could, their injury is hardly “real and immediate,” as they have already paid their settlement award into the district court. Nor is their alleged injury particularized, because to the extent that the order of the district court leads to a particular result, that result may adversely impact creditors but not the Ohio Attorney General. Given the absence of a concrete injury-in-fact to Appellants, Appellants have no standing to maintain this appeal, and this Court should dismiss this case.
II.
*8 A district court does not possess an “inherent power” to vindicate its own authority where parties enter into a voluntary agreement resolving their federal lawsuit. See Kokkonen, 511 U.S. 375, at 376-77 (1994). However, a district court does, as did the district court in this case, possess that power where the parties provide for such enforcement power in their settlement agreement. See id. at 381.
In Kokkonen, the Court applied the principles limiting federal jurisdiction to the attempt by a federal court to enforce a settlement agreement between parties to a suit in diversity who had ultimately settled and filed a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice.1 See id. at 376-77. In concluding that the lower court did not have jurisdiction to enter an order enforcing that settlement agreement, the Court noted that ancillary jurisdiction would have existed if the parties had provided for “the court’s enforcement of a dismissal-producing settlement agreement,” id. at 381, recognizing that:
The situation would be quite different if the parties’ obligation to comply with the terms of the settlement agreement had been made part of the order of dismissal-either by separate provision (such as a provision “retaining jurisdiction” over the settlement agreement) or by incorporating the terms of the settlement agreement in the order. In that event, a breach of the agreement would be a breach of the order, and ancillary jurisdiction to enforce the agreement would therefore exist. Id. Accordingly, the Court suggested that a district court could retain jurisdiction of a matter after settlement by (1) conditioning dismissal, when it is pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), on the parties’ compliance with terms of the settlement agreement; or (2) incorporating the settlement agreement in the dismissal order or retaining jurisdiction over the settlement agreement, when it is pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(ii). See id. at 381-82. Under Kokkonen, this Court has joined a number of other circuits in recognizing that a federal court does not have jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement reached in a dismissed action unless the order of dismissal incorporated the settlement agreement. See Futernick v. Sumpter Twp., 78 F.3d 1051, 1055 n. 4 (6 th Cir.1996); see also Scelsa v. City Univ. of N.Y., 76 F.3d 37, 41 (2d Cir.1996); Baer v. First Options of Chicago, 72 F.3d 1294, 1301 n. 7 (7 th Cir.1995). Significantly, however, this Court has also observed that where a district court retains jurisdiction after settlement, it may exercise ancillary jurisdiction under Kokkonen. See Waste Mgmt. of Ohio v. City of Dayton, 132 F.3d 1142, 1144-45 (6 th Cir.1997).
Here, the district court retained jurisdiction over the litigation, and thus properly assumed jurisdiction over the Appellees’ motion in this case. At the outset, it is worth noting that the Settlement itself provided that the district court should not enter an order of dismissal until a final distribution of settlement funds. Thus, the parties expressly agreed, in the Settlement, that the district court would maintain jurisdiction until administration of the Fund was complete. Moreover, in its order approving the Settlement, the district court retained jurisdiction over the specific issues raised in Plaintiffs’ motion for its future “enforcement of the Settlement and administration of the Settlement Fund.” See In re Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, 173 F.R.D. 205, 215 (S.D.Ohio 1997). Indeed, the district court “did not need to use any ‘magic form of words’ to retain jurisdiction-‘[a]ll that is necessary is that it be possible to infer that [the court] did intend to retain jurisdiction.” ’ In the Matter of VMS Secs. Litig., 103 F.3d 1317, 1321-22 (7 th Cir.1996) (quoting McCall-Bey v. Franzen, 777 F.2d 1178, 1187-90 (7 th Cir.1985)). Here, the order makes clear that the district court intended to retain jurisdiction over the Appellees’
6

In re Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, 191 F.3d 453 (1999)
complaints about Appellants’ potential abuse of the distribution of Fund assets.
*9 Further, the district court’s order regarding administration of the Settlement Fund expressly reserves its power to instruct the Special Master/Trustee to perform certain functions in making payments out of the Fund. Such “affirmative control over the manner in which the dispute would be resolved and the funds distributed” brought the matters complained of in Plaintiffs’ motion within the district court’s jurisdiction. See Baer, 72 F.3d at 1294 n. 7. More generally, the “Stipulated Conditional Dismissal” in this case, which sets forth Plaintiffs’ dismissal of a number of Defendants, expressly conditions dismissal on “consummation and completion of the entire” MOU. (J.A. at 109.) The “Stipulated Dismissal Entry” in this case expressly references the settlement in dismissing with prejudice cases consolidated with the present one. Given these facts, even if the district court cannot be said to have acted under authority granted it by a “consent decree,” the district court properly reserved jurisdiction, in accordance with Kokkonen, over the specific issues raised in Appellees’ motion. Thus, I must disagree with the conclusion of the majority that the district court lacked the authority to modify the agreement between the parties in this case.
III.
I further depart from the majority in that having concluded that the district court retained jurisdiction in this matter, I believe the district court did not alter the terms of the Settlement by ordering that it permit inmate class members to designate third parties to receive their settlement awards. Indeed, the present conflict arose because Appellees complained that Appellants had breached the letter and the spirit of the Settlement by violating their agreement to keep confidential the identities of inmates “approved for payments” and “receiving funds from the settlement fund,” and by impairing the rights of inmate claimants to actually claim their awards.
Rather than altering the Settlement, the district court endeavored to preserve the Settlement as it was meant to operate under the applicable state law. Under Ohio law, the law governing the Settlement, disbursement of inmate funds is impermissible “if those funds are exempt from execution, garnishment, attachment, or sale to satisfy a judgment or order pursuant to section 2329.66 of the Revised Code or to any other provision of law.” Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § 5120.133 (Banks-Baldwin 1998). The district court learned that collection efforts had begun against inmate class claimants, and that, as of August 10, 1997, class counsel had received complaints from forty-five class members regarding seventy-two separate collection proceedings. The district court further found that Appellants failed to advise prisoners or prison staff as to which debts could properly be collected, citing numerous instances of erroneous debt collection,2 and that the Ohio Attorney General had taken the position that it was not the responsibility of the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction to verify the validity and accuracy of judgments underlying claims against inmate accounts. Finally, the district court correctly found that nothing in the Settlement prohibits the assignment of inmate awards from the settlement fund.
*10 In response to these findings, the district court adopted a remedy that would still allow inmate creditors to pursue claims against inmates but that would require creditors to submit their claims to independent judicial officers for review. While the majority asserts that the district court altered the terms of the settlement by changing the location to which payments must be sent, nothing in the Settlement requires the district court to send checks to the facility, since it is only an option and not a requirement that inmates deposit the monies into their prison inmate accounts. See Ohio Admin. Code § 5120-5-02(C) (1998) (“Funds in approved form in any reasonable amount may be accepted for an inmate from an approved source for deposit to the account of an inmate.”). While some provisions of the Settlement might suggest that checks are to be sent to the prison facility, nothing in the district court’s order requires that they be sent anywhere else. Rather, the order permits some inmates to designate third parties as recipients of their awards. Finally, the order does not prevent creditors, including the state of Ohio, from collecting its debts. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering that the Settlement permit inmate class claimants to assign their awards to third parties.
IV.
The district court properly retained jurisdiction over this matter and possessed the authority to enter an order granting limited equitable relief tailored to protect and effectuate the terms of the Settlement. I therefore respectfully dissent from this Court’s decision to reverse the judgment of the district court.
7

In re Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, 191 F.3d 453 (1999)

Parallel Citations

1999 WL 775830 (C.A.6 (Ohio))

Footnotes

*

The Honorable James G. Carr, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.

1

The named plaintiffs in the lawsuit are Darrin Morris and Eugene Adams, both of whom were inmates at the SOCF during the time

of the riot.

2

The named defendants in the suit, both in their individual and official capacities, are George Voinovich, Governor of the State of

Ohio, Reginald Wilkinson, Director of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (“ODRC”), Arthur Tate, Jr., former

warden of the SOCF; Terry Collins, present warden of the SOCF, and twenty-three other persons employed by ODRC. The

employees of the ODRC named as defendants include: Eric G. Dahlberg; Ben Bower; Roger Roddy; David See; Roger Crabtree,

John Newsome; Oscar McGraw; Jerry Williams; James Swann; Larry Neff; Charles Bell; Richard Brown, Ronald Bailey; Michael

Turner; Patrick Burnett; Gerald E. Webb; Robert Finley; David Earl Bradley; Randy L. Stout; Wilbur K. Harris; E. Benner; Kevin

Clarkson; and Jefferson Roy Lewis.

3

The statute provides:

(A) The department of rehabilitation and correction, upon receipt of a certified copy of the judgment of a court of record in an

action in which a prisoner was a party that orders a prisoner to pay a stated obligation, may apply toward payment of the

obligation money that belongs to a prisoner and that is in the account kept for the prisoner by the department.... Except as

provided in rules adopted under this section, when an amount is received for the prisoner’s account, the department shall use it

for the payment of the obligation and shall continue using amounts received for the account until the full amount of the

obligation has been paid. No proceedings in aid of execution are necessary for the department to take the action required by

this section.

(B) ... The rules shall not permit the application or disbursement of funds belonging to an inmate if those funds are exempt

from execution, garnishment, attachment, or sale to satisfy a judgment or order pursuant to section 2329.66 of the Revised

Code or to any other provision of law.

Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § 5120.133 (Anderson 1998).

4

Section 2329.66(A)(12)(c) provides that, except in cases in which the person is an inmate and the payment resulted from a civil

action against a government entity or employee, any person domiciled in Ohio may exempt from collection his right to receive a

payment on account of personal bodily injury not exceeding five thousand dollars. See Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § 2329.66(A)(12)(c)

(Anderson 1998).

5

The administrative rule provides guidelines and procedures for withdrawing money from inmate accounts kept by the Ohio

Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections.

6

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) provides, in relevant part, that “[a] class action shall not be dismissed or compromised

without the approval of the court.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(e).

7

Section 2743.72 provides that the State of Ohio, upon the payment of an award of reparations, “is subrogated to all of the

claimant’s rights to receive or recover benefits or advantages for economic loss for which an award of reparations was made from a

source that is a collateral source or would be a collateral source if it were readily available to the victim or claimant.” Ohio

Rev.Code Ann. § 2743.72(A) (Anderson Supp.1998)

8

The district court noted that the actions of the Ohio Attorney General resulted in an Ohio state court amending the judgment of a

class member fourteen years after his sentencing, without a hearing, to include $16,047.08 in court costs and appointed counsel

fees.

9

The district court erred in stating that the Settlement Agreement provided that the settlement fund be disbursed “as directed by the

Court.” Rather, an agreed order dated February 19, 1997, required the settlement fund to be disbursed in accordance with “the

Memorandum of Understanding, the General Protocol, and as directed by the Court.” J.A. at 130.

10

Appellees maintain that the district court’s order is consistent with the decision in Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S.

375 (1994). In Kokkonen, the Court indicated that, if the parties consent, a district court can retain jurisdiction to enforce a

settlement agreement by embodying the settlement in its dismissal order or by expressly retaining jurisdiction over the agreement.

In the present case, however, the district court did not enforce the settlement agreement. Rather, the court altered the terms of the

8

In re Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, 191 F.3d 453 (1999)

compromise without the consent of both parties. Appellees also assert that permitting class members to designate third parties to receive their awards is consistent with the ability of persons under Ohio law to authorize agents to perform acts on their behalf. See, e.g., Ohio Rev.Code §§ 1337.01-.17, State ex rel. Steckman v. Jackson, 639 N.E.2d 83 (Ohio 1994) (permitting inmates to use designees to secure public records). Although persons may permit agents to act on their behalf under Ohio law, the terms of the Settlement Agreement indicate that the parties intended that class members not be permitted to designate third parties as recipients of their awards.

11

In Waste Management, we also found that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction to address the state law issues presented

because the consent decree specifically conferred such jurisdiction to the district court. See Waste Management, 132 F.3d at

1144-45.

12

As authority to permit the designation of third parties as recipients of the awards, the district court cited In re Corrugated

Container Antitrust Litigation, 752 F.2d 137 (5th Cir.1985), in which the court stated that a district court in a class action has a

duty to act as the guardian of the class members and assure that any approved settlement is completed. The district court also cited

Zients v. LaMorte, 459 F.2d 628 (2d Cir.1972), in which the court, pursuant to its equity powers, ordered the consideration of five

untimely claims in contravention of the terms of the class action settlement agreement. Although In re Corrugated Container and

Zients seem to support the district court’s authority to alter the terms of the Settlement Agreement, we believe that the court cannot

make such a modification in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Evans. See Evans v. Jeff D., 475 U.S. 717 (1986).

13

Rule 23(d) states, in relevant part, that in class actions,

the court may make appropriate orders: (1) determining the course of proceedings or prescribing measures to prevent undue

repetition or complication in the presentation of evidence or argument; (2) requiring, for the protection of the members of the

class or otherwise for the fair conduct of the action, that notice be given in such manner as the court may direct to some or all

of the members of any step in the action, or of the proposed extent of the judgment, or of the opportunity of members to

signify whether they consider the representation fair and adequate, to intervene and present claims or defenses, or otherwise to

come into the action; (3) imposing conditions on the representative parties or on intervenors; (4) requiring that the pleadings

be amended to eliminate therefrom allegations as to representation of absent persons, and that the action proceed accordingly;

(5) dealing with similar procedural matters.

Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(d).

14

The Rule 23(d) cases cited by Appellees do not support the proposition that a district court has authority under the rule to amend a

negotiated settlement. See, e.g., United States Trust Co. of New York v. Alpert, 163 F.R.D. 409, 423 (S.D.N.Y.1995) (appointing

class counsel); Miller v. Mackey Int’l, Inc., 70 F.R .D. 533, 535 (S.D.Fla.1976) (appointing guardian ad litem to act on behalf of

class members); Peoples v. Wainwright, 325 F.Supp. 402, 403 (M.D.Fla.1971) (enjoining prison officials from censoring

prisoner-counsel correspondence during the class action).

1

I question the applicability of Kokkonen to the instant case. Kokkonen involved a suit for damages and not for equitable relief. See

Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 376-77. It is unclear whether and to what extent the analysis of Kokkonen should apply to cases involving a

district court’s approval of settlement agreements that include provisions of prospective operation, or a district court’s approval of

settlements of 23(b)(2) class actions.

2

The district court identified thirteen dormant judgments improperly used to seize inmate funds, as well as two inmates who were

subjected to collection for incorrect amounts. The district court also cited an instance where a state court amended a fourteen

year-old judgment to add costs that did not previously exist and then ordered an inmate to pay $16,047.08. The district court noted

that cost orders older than ten years may be “dormant” and thus no longer subject to collection under Ohio law.

9


[CONTENT] 06/28/1993 | the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility | Section 1983 | the Southern District | Ohio | Youngstown | Ohio | the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction ||| April 1993 ||| as many as ten ||| December 1993 | Magistrate | Robert A. Steinberg ||| the summer of 1994 | Steven Martin ||| February 1995 ||| January 1997 ||| two ||| First | at least forty hours ||| Second | $4.1 million |||  ||| the District Court | S. Arthur Spiegel | April 1997 ||| Michael R. Barrett | Special Master |||  ||| December 12, 1999 | the District Court | Spiegel | two | 7,500 |||  |||  ||| 2001 | the Sixth Circuit | David A. Nelson | two ||| Southern Ohio Correctional Facility | 2001 | 6th Cir. 2001 ||| November 4, 2002 | Spiegel | 500,000 ||| 2004 | the Sixth Circuit |||  ||| Morris | Voinovich | 2004 WL 1745781 | 6th Cir. 2004 ||| January 20, 2005 | Spiegel ||| two |||  ||| second | the same day ||| between 2005 and 2007 |||  [SUMMARY] On 06/28/1993, inmates at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility filed a Section 1983 class action suit, pro se, in the Southern District of Ohio against officials in Youngstown, Ohio of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction.  Plaintiffs' claims were related to the treatment of prisoners during the prison riot that occurred in April 1993.  Plaintiffs alleged that defendants locked as many as ten inmates in a cell, failed to protect them from violence, did not provide them with water or working toilets, used excessive force, destroyed personal property, and denied medical care.  

In December 1993, Magistrate Judge Robert A. Steinberg appointed several private lawyers and certified the class.  By the summer of 1994, counsel, along with their expert Steven Martin, negotiated an end to the post-riot lockdown of general population inmates.  By February 1995, counsel negotiated with Defendants for a special Rules Infraction Board to handle the cases of inmates against whom administrative charges for riot-related, violent misconduct were filed.

Following extensive discovery, the parties reached an agreement and signed the Class Action Memorandum of Understanding in January 1997. The settlement included two major parts.  First, the settlement established terms to improve the ""quality of life"" including: single-celling maximum security inmates; modifying the inmate classification system; improving racial and cultural relations; securing at least forty hours of out-of-cell time per week;  and instituting new state-wide directives on religious practices.  Second, the settlement established a $4.1 million fund, from which inmate damage claims, attorneys' fees and expenses would be paid.  The  case was dismissed conditional on completion of the reforms specified in the settlement agreement.  Following a fairness hearing, the District Court (Judge S. Arthur Spiegel) approved the settlement in April 1997.  

Michael R. Barrett was named Special Master and has filed several status reports regarding the distribution of the fund.  However, extensive litigation  continued regarding the distribution of the fund and attorneys' fees.  

On December 12, 1999, the District Court (Judge Spiegel) approved a recommendation by the claims administrator that the two class representatives be paid $7,500 apiece.
The stated basis for these awards was that "the class representatives performed important work on behalf of the other members of class and class counsel," serving as a "crucial link for class members and counsel throughout the proceedings" and keeping the "class members generally informed in the progress of the case and relay[ing] information back to
class counsel." In a subsequent order, the district court stayed its grant of incentive awards pending appeal. 

In 2001, the Sixth Circuit (Judge David A. Nelson) reversed the district court's decision to grant incentive awards to the two named plaintiffs and place all inmates' claim determinations under protective order.  In re Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, 2001 WL 1667267 (6th Cir. 2001).  

On November 4, 2002, Judge Spiegel entered an order granting class counsel's request for an order increasing the awards to class members pro rata and ordering the settlement master/trustee to distribute $500,000 to be awarded on a pro rata basis on each claimant's previous award totals.  In 2004, the Sixth Circuit reversed the district court's disbursement of unassigned funds to certain prisoner-class members.  The court held that the settlement agreement did not authorize the district court to make a pro rata distribution of the remaining settlement funds.  Morris v. Voinovich, 2004 WL 1745781 (6th Cir. 2004).  

On January 20, 2005, Judge Spiegel approved the joint motion of the parties to distribute the remainder of the settlement fund.  The remaining funds are to be used to support two re-entry caseworkers who will work with the class members to help them succeed on release. The court also acknowledged that sufficient effort had been made to attempt to track down all members of the class, and that the funds allocated to the former inmates who could not be traced were returned to the general pool. A second order on the same day awarded attorney’s fees to counsel representing the class. Funds were distributed between 2005 and 2007. The case is now closed.  